Wilt the Stiff.... played in a neanderthal era of basketball.
Printable View
Wilt the Stiff.... played in a neanderthal era of basketball.
No, Wilt never played in a bad era. His numbers are impressive considering that he faced a HOF center like 60% of the time he played. Even though that i don't agree with Jlauber on everything, i have to say that he's right on this one.
Wilt had competition and that competition was good.
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]so hes 2-3 in the Finals.....[/QUOTE]
His TEAM's were 2-4 in the Finals. SIX Finals in 14 seasons. And he played brilliantly in all of them.
Of course, he came to a LAST PLACE team, and immediately led them to their best-ever record, at the time. He was traded to the Sixers, a team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and in his three-and-half seasons there, he led them to the best record in the league in THREE of them (and a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics in the other), including a 68-13 record in '67, which is STILL a team record. He was "traded" to the Lakers, where he took them to four Finals in five seasons, and their first ever title in LA, as well as a 69-13 record in '72, which is STILL a team record.
He dramatically improved every team he joined, and the team's he left became much worse...especially if you consider post-season play.
And where do rank Bird? In his career, he took LOADED roster to five Finals. Kareem? Take Magic away, and he would likely have finished with ONE ring. He could only get ONE ring in the decade of the 70's, and to only two Finals. West was 1-7 in his Finals, and he can thank Wilt for that one ring (West shot .376 in that post-season, including .325 in the Finals.) Oscar went to two Finals, and one won ring.
Of course, Wilt was nine points away from winning four more rings, as well as one game in the '70 Finals in which the officiating cost his team a ring.
In any case, basketball is a TEAM game. You would be hard-pressed to find very single games in Wilt's 160 post-season games, in which he was not the best player on the floor.
[QUOTE=zay_24]I would rep you if i could.[/QUOTE]
There is a reason dumbasses like you have negative reps
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Teams from the sixties are obviously much better. They had three and four ll-stars and Hall of Famers on the best of them. Their were only 9 teams for most of the decade. It stands to reason that you'd have more talent per team.
If you actually take the time to learn something about the era, you'd understand what these people are saying. All eras of basketball are comparable if you know enough about both to compare.
The competition was stronger (why do think it wasn't) obviously because only the best 90 players in the world (more accurately North America at that point) were on a team, not 450 like today.
You probably think players were shorter or the league was 90% white in the 60's or something. Just read one book about the 1960's era NBA and you'll have a lot greater understanding as to why some people feel this way. The people's whose opinions your challenging know WAY more about the topic than you, have you considered that?[/QUOTE]
Somebody has some sense here...To everyone who says the 60s suck........Can you read? Does this not make sense to you???
[QUOTE=jlauber]He dramatically improved every team he joined, and the team's he left became much worse...especially if you consider post-season play.[/QUOTE]
Is this a fukking joke? Especially when compared to most of the other greats?
[B][U]Wilt gets drafted:
[/U][/B]
Warriors improve by 17 games over the previous season. It should be mentioned that Gola/Arizin/Rodgers (all-stars who were on Wilt's team) missed 37 games in '59 and only 10 games in '60, and they also got a new coach.
[B][U]Wilt gets traded from Warriors to the Sixers in 1965:
[/U][/B]
Wilt was leading the Warriors to a 10-27 record in games he played. With virtually the same core and the same coach, but with rookie Rick Barry leading the team instead of Wilt, the Warriors double their wins the next year. His Warrior teammates make comments about how Wilt was hard to play with.
Wilt joins Sixers who were 21-20 before the trade was made, and they finish the year with a 40-40 record. He actually had a net negative impact of -0.8 on the SRS of the Sixers over that season.
[B][U]Wilt gets traded from the Sixers to the Lakers:
[/U][/B]
Lakers win only 3 more games despite Jerry West playing 10 more games in the '69 season. Their SRS actually drops (!) after Wilt joins the team. They end up losing to the same team they lost to a year before in the playoffs, and in fact almost got bounced out in the first round but were helped by the fact the leading scorer of the Warriors was injured.
Sixers win 55 games (second most in the league) without Wilt and this is with Luke Jackson (starting PF) missing most of the season. They end up losing to the same team they lost to the year before in the playoffs (Celtics).
[B][U]Wilt out most of the season with Lakers:
[/U][/B]
Lakers still win 46 games (7-5 with Wilt, 38-31 without him). And the next year with Wilt playing all 82 games, they win 48. It should be noted that without West, Wilt leads the Lakers to an awful 3-10 record (the SRS of the Lakers over this stretch? -10.9).
[B][U]Wilt leaves the Lakers:
[/U][/B]
Lakers still win 47 games, which undoubtedly would have been even more had Jerry West not missed 51 games that season. All in all if West was as healthy as previous season, we're looking at another 55+ win team without Wilt.
This is the one thing you DON'T want to bring attention to.
Wilt joins a LAST PLACE team in his rookie year, and IMMEDIATELY takes them to their best-ever record (at the time), 49-26. A DRAMATIC improvement 17 game improvement over their 32-40 team in '59, and even a HUGE increase over their 37-35 team in '58, which was OBVIOUSLY in a state of decline.
He takes that roster, which has gotten worse simply by age and lack of quality replacements to a near title in his monumental 61-62 season, when he SINGLE-HANDEDLY carries them thru Syracuse in the first round, and then takes them to within an eyelash of beating the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers in the ECF's. All, while his teammates collectively shot .354 in the post-season.
In the playoffs in that rookie season, Wilt carries them to a game six against the 59-16 Celtics, including a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting...in a league that shot .410) in a must-win game five. And had Wilt not injured his hand in retaliation for Boston's BRUTAL tactics, and played poorly in games three and four, they might very well have beaten Boston. Of course, with a injured Wilt, they had no chance (even though he always PLAYED with his injuries...unlike Reed and Kareem.)
Of course, Wilt would endure his teammates shooting the likes of .382, .380, .354, .352, .352, and .332 in his first six post-seasons.
He SINGLE-HANDEDLY keeps his 62-63 roster, arguably the worst in NBA history, in virtually every game. His SECOND best player is "all-star" Tom Meschery (the ONLY time in his career BTW), who averaged 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and shot .425, and in only 64 games. His other "all-star" teammate is Guy Rodgers, who is arguably the WORST shooter in NBA history. Rodgers shoots .387 in '63, which was among his BEST seasons. The FACT was, Meschery would have been Boston's TENTH best player in '62-63 (the Celtics had NINE HOFers.)
Wilt then takes that SAME basic horrid roster, with only the addition of rookie Nate Thurmond, who plays 26 mpg, out of position (a natural center playing forward), and who shoots .395...to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals.
In his 64-65 season, Wilt came up with a mysterious illness, and was noticeably sick. Once again, he STILL plays in the majority of the games, and his horrible roster, which has been among the worst for three straight seasons, can't do ANYTHING to help. His team goes 10-27 despite his illness. Without him, they go 7-36.
He is traded at mid-season, and to a team that had been a bottom-feeding 34-46 the year before. He then takes them past Oscar's loaded Royals, 3-1, in the first round of the playoffs. THEN, he takes that same below average roster that he joined, to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics.
Yep, no improvement there.
Oh, and BTW, Wilt's Warriors, whom he had single-handedly carried to the Finals in the 63-64 season with a 48-32 record, dropped to 17-63. The next year the Warriors, added HOFer Rick Barry, and the result... 35-45.
AND, think about this... the Warriors essentially replaced Wilt with BOTH Thurmond AND Barry, and not only couldn't they EVER duplicate Wilt's 63-64 Warrior's record of 48-32 (their BEST record together came in 72-73 when they went 47-35), they FELL to 35-45. Even when they added players like Mullins and Lee in '67 (along with Hetzel, Meschery, and Attles), they could only go 44-37.
Ok, so Wilt plays three more years with Philly, and they have the BEST record in the league in EVERY year there (55-25, 68-13, and 62-20.) Meanwhile, the Warriors go 35-45, 44-37, and 43-39 in those three years. Philly runs away with the NBA title in '67, and oh, BTW, they pounded the Warriors in the Finals that season, 4-2. In fact, Wilt would face the Warrior franchise three times in the post-season after that trade, and he swept them 3-0, with a 12-5 overall record. Even in his LAST season, he dominated Thurmond (the same Thurmond who led his 47-35 over Kareem's 60-22 Bucks in the previous round), en route to takinh HIS 60-22 Lakers to a 4-1 romp over the Warriors.
Yep, no difference there.
Ok, Wilt was then "traded" by the Sixers after his 67-68 season. In 67-68, he led them to a 62-20 record, and only a TON of injuries, including SEVERAL to himself, kept them from repeating against Boston. As it was, they wiped out the Knicks in the first round. But, without HOFer Cunningham for the entire ECF's, and with Jones and Jackson going down with injuries in game five (in a series in which Philly led 3-1), and with Wilt battling an assortment of injuries...they lose a game seven, by four points. Remember that.
Once again, Wilt was "traded" for THREE players, two of whom, all-star guard Archie Clark and Darrell Imhoff, who combined for 29.2 ppg and 15.1 rpg in '68. BUT, that was not all. The Lakers also lost HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft. SO, the REALITY was, Chamberlain had to replace 42 ppg and 17.6 rpg.
And how about Philly? They dropped to a 55-27 record, which was already seven worse than the year before, and 13 games below their '67 mark of 68-13. On top of that, they were then wiped out in the FIRST round by the aging Celtics, 4-1. And, think about this...Wilt's "replacements", Clark and Imhoff, averaged 36 ppg and 20 rpg, on .510 shooting in that series against Boston...and they were STILL buried. Just a year before, a DECIMATED Philly roster lost a game seven by four points in the ECF's to Boston.
Meanwhile, Wilt leads the Lakers to a then LA-franchise best ever record of 55-27...all while replacing THREE quality players. And West STILL missed 20 games that season, too.
Of course, they blew a 2-0 series lead, and a 3-2 series lead against the Celtics, but ONE blown PLAY, Johnny Egan's gaffe (the same Egan who was a shell of a replacement for Goodrich) allowed Boston to eke out an 89-88 win in game four. Had Egan not lost the ball on that ONE PLAY (which led to Sam Jones hitting a buzzer beater, all while falling down), the Lakers, with their 117-104 romp over Boston in game five, would have easily won that series, 4-1. THAT is just how close Wilt took that Laker team to a title in his FIRST year there. Of course, Baylor's .385 playoff shooting, and horrible games three thru five were another major reason, as well.
But, that was just the start. Wilt would take the Lakers to a total of FOUR Finals in his FIVE years in LA. And, they would run away with the title in '72, and with a record of 69-13, which is STILL a franchise record (as is the 68-13 mark with his Sixers in '67.) How about his former Philly team? They would quickly disintegrate, and by Wilt's last season, in 72-73, they posted the WORST record in NBA HISTORY, of 9-73.
Yep...no difference there.
Wilt retired after the '73 season (after leading the Lakers to a 60-22 record, and yet another trip to the Finals.) What ensued in LA? They iummediately plunged to a 47-35 record, and a first round 4-1 blowout loss to the Bucks.
The next year... 30-52. In fact, even with the acquisition of Kareem, LA could only go 40-42. And the Lakers did not return to a the Finals again until MAGIC arrived in '79-80. In fact, even with Kareem, they seldom even made it past the first round. And in the weakest period in NBA history for NBA champions (from '74 thur '79.)
Yep. No difference there.
Wilt made absolutely no difference to his teams.
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
[QUOTE=Fatal9]Is this a fukking joke? Especially when compared to most of the other greats?
[B][U]Wilt gets drafted:
[/U][/B]
Warriors improve by 17 games over the previous season. It should be mentioned that Gola/Arizin/Rodgers (all-stars who were on Wilt's team) missed 37 games in '59 and only 10 games in '60, and they also got a new coach.
[B][U]Wilt gets traded from Warriors to the Sixers in 1965:
[/U][/B]
Wilt was leading the Warriors to a 10-27 record in games he played. With virtually the same core and the same coach, but with rookie Rick Barry leading the team instead of Wilt, the Warriors double their wins the next year. His Warrior teammates make comments about how Wilt was hard to play with.
Wilt joins Sixers who were 21-20 before the trade was made, and they finish the year with a 40-40 record. He actually had a net negative impact of -0.8 on the SRS of the Sixers over that season.
[B][U]Wilt gets traded from the Sixers to the Lakers:
[/U][/B]
Lakers win only 3 more games despite Jerry West playing 10 more games in the '69 season. Their SRS actually drops (!) after Wilt joins the team. They end up losing to the same team they lost to a year before in the playoffs, and in fact almost got bounced out in the first round but were helped by the fact the leading scorer of the Warriors was injured.
Sixers win 55 games (second most in the league) without Wilt and this is with Luke Jackson (starting PF) missing most of the season. They end up losing to the same team they lost to the year before in the playoffs (Celtics).
[B][U]Wilt out most of the season with Lakers:
[/U][/B]
Lakers still win 46 games (7-5 with Wilt, 38-31 without him). And the next year with Wilt playing all 82 games, they win 48. It should be noted that without West, Wilt leads the Lakers to an awful 3-10 record (the SRS of the Lakers over this stretch? -10.9).
[B][U]Wilt leaves the Lakers:
[/U][/B]
Lakers still win 47 games, which undoubtedly would have been even more had Jerry West not missed 51 games that season. All in all if West was as healthy as previous season, we're looking at another 55+ win team without Wilt.
This is the one thing you DON'T want to bring attention to.[/QUOTE]
This. :cheers:
Wilt is great.
I think he is one of the hardest players to rate ever.
The more I watch and read about him the more I think he was very good. Definitily a top class rebounder and probably shot blocker.
Do I think he was better then Kareem or Shaq when you look at how they performed in the playoffs especially over time spans greater then 5-7 years I'd have to say no.
I cannot even rank him yet at this point but I have put him at #4 on my GOAT List.
Like him or hate him but his Production in the playoffs is insane. He is in the 3-5 Range All-Time in Playoff Production only behind Jordan and Shaq by a significant amount.
Hey JLauber can you repost how Wilt performed in some of the games his teams were eliminated in throughout his best years.
I remember some people saying he really struggled especially at the line in playoff elimination games (the ones he lost) but you'd probably know better then anyone.
[QUOTE=32Dayz]Wilt is great.
I think he is one of the hardest players to rate ever.
The more I watch and read about him the more I think he was very good. Definitily a top class rebounder and probably shot blocker.
Do I think he was better then Kareem or Shaq when you look at how they performed in the playoffs especially over time spans greater then 5-7 years I'd have to say no.
I cannot even rank him yet at this point but I have put him at #4 on my GOAT List.
Like him or hate him but his Production in the playoffs is insane. He is in the 3-5 Range All-Time in Playoff Production only behind Jordan and Shaq by a significant amount.
Hey JLauber can you repost how Wilt performed in some of the games his teams were eliminated in throughout his best years.
I remember some people saying he really struggled especially at the line in playoff elimination games (the ones he lost) but you'd probably know better then anyone.[/QUOTE]
Key games in the FINALS where the outcome could have been different if Wilt wasn't so bad from the FT-line:
[B]
[U]GAME 4, 1964 Finals.
[/U]
Celtics 98 - Warriors 95 (Wilt only made 3-8 FT's)
[U]Game 3, 1967 Finals
[/U]
Warriors 130 - 76ers 124 (Wilt only made 2-9 FT's)
[U]Game 5, 1967 Finals
[/U]
Warriors 117 - 76ers 109 (Wilt only made 2-12 FT's)
[U]Game 3, 1969 Finals
[/U]
Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)
[U]Game 4, 1969 Finals
[/U]
Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.
[U]Game 7, 1969 Finals
[/U]
Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)
[U]Game 3, 1970 Finals
[/U]
Knicks 111 - Lakers 108 (Wilt only made 7-13 FT's)
[U]Game 7, 1970 Finals
[/U]
Knicks 113 - Lakers 99 (Wilt only made 1-11 FT's)
[U]Game 2, 1973 Finals
[/U]
Knicks 99 - Lakers 95 (Wilt only made 1-9 FT's)
[/B]
[U]And notice that Wilt during the '67 finals ONLY made 22 out of 72 FT's
In the '70 finals Wilt ONLY made 23 out of 67 FT's
In the '69 finals Wilt ONLY made 24 out of 66 FT's
In the '64 finals Wilt ONLY made 22 out of 48 FT's..[/U]
And of course I don't mean he should have made all the FT's he ever attempted. In some of the games above his FT-shooting was a direct reason to why his teams lost but in some of the games a better FT-shooter would have made the games closer.
How about this...
[QUOTE]GAME 4, 1964 Finals.
Celtics 98 - Warriors 95 (Wilt only made 3-8 FT's)
[B]Wilt 27 points and 38 rebounds
Russell 8 points[/B]
Game 3, 1967 Finals
Warriors 130 - 76ers 124 (Wilt only made 2-9 FT's)
[B]Wilt 26 points on 12-23 shooting with 26 rebounds.
Thurmond 17 points on 6-13 shooting with 25 rebounds[/B]
[B]Oh and BTW, your high-scoring boy Hal Greer... 6-19 from the floor[/B]
Game 5, 1967 Finals
Warriors 117 - 76ers 109 (Wilt only made 2-12 FT's)
[B]Wilt 20 points on 9-15 shooting with 24 rebounds
Thurmond 17 points on 7-21 shooting with 28 rebounds (the only game in which he outrebounded Wilt in that six game series.[/B]
[B]BTW, take Wilt's 9-15 from the floor away, and his teammates shot 38-104, or .365[/B]
Game 3, 1969 Finals
Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)
[B]L.A. fails to rally in the 4th in large part due to Jerry West & Elgin Baylor shooting a combined 1-14 from the floor in the period.[/B] [B]Oh, and Baylor goes 1-6 from the line.[/B]
Game 4, 1969 Finals
Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.
[B]L.A. had the ball leading 88-87 with 15 seconds left. John Egan had the ball stolen by Em Bryant[/B].
Game 7, 1969 Finals
Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)
[B]Wilt, on the bench in the last five minutes of game seven because of his idiotic COACH...outscores Russell, 18-6, outshoots Russell from the floor, 7-8 to 2-7, outscores Russell from the line, 4-2, and outrebounds Russell, 27-21. BTW, Wilt's "replacement" in those last five minutes, Mel Counts, shot 4-13 from the FLOOR.[/B]
Game 3, 1970 Finals
Knicks 111 - Lakers 108 (Wilt only made 7-13 FT's)
[B]Wilt with 21 points on 7-10 shooting with 26 rebounds. Baylor with 13 points on 4-13 shooting[/B].
Game 7, 1970 Finals
Knicks 113 - Lakers 99 (Wilt only made 1-11 FT's)
[B]Wilt with 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, and 24 rebounds. The rest of the Lakers collectively shoot 28-67 or .418 from the floor. BTW, the game was over at halftime when NY led 69-42. Wilt was the ONLY Laker to play well in that game.[/B]
Game 2, 1973 Finals
Knicks 99 - Lakers 95 (Wilt only made 1-9 FT's)
[B]Chamberlain scores 5 points, on 2-4 shooting, with 20 rebounds. Goodrich shoots 5-15 and McMillian shoots 7-24 from the floor.[/B]
(And notice that Wilt during the '67 finals ONLY made 22 out 72 FT's..)
[B]And he OVERWHELMED Thurmond in the process, outscoring him per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounding him per game, 28.5 rpg to 26.6 rpg; and outshooting him from the field by an eye-popping .560 to .343 margin. BTW, give me a list of opposing centers who shot .560 against Thurmond in the playoffs. We KNOW that Kareem faced Nate in three straight playoff series and shot .486, .405, and .428 against him.
Oh, and Philly wiped out the Warriors to WIN the NBA title. And all Wilt did in that post-season was average 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and shoot .579 from the floor. And blowing up Russell and Thurmond along the way[/B].[/QUOTE]
Regarding the '69 Finals...
[QUOTE]Not sure if LA would have won in '69 without Baylor, because that team just did not have much depth, BUT, he was a major reason why they didn't in the Finals. He went completely AWOL in games three thru five in the Finals, scoring a TOTAL of 24 points.
BTW, in the game three 111-105 loss, BOTH Baylor and West combined for 1-14 shooting in the 4th quarter. Wilt gets ripped by the uneducated here for his 2-11 FT shooting in game four, BUT, Baylor went 1-6 from the line, and scored a TOTAL of FIVE points. All in an 89-88 loss. Of course, Johnny Egan's gaffe, losing the ball when his team had the lead AND the ball, and with only seconds remaining was also a HUGE factor.
And while Wilt dominated Russell in a game five, 117-104 blowout of Boston, Baylor still mis-fired, scoring eight points, AND, going 0-4 from the line.
Furthermore, in that game seven, two-point loss, Baylor shot 8-22 from the floor.
And yet, it was WILT who would get the bulk of the blame.[/QUOTE]
So from what your saying it seems that only in that 1973 Game where he scored 5 points did his FT Shooting really cost them the win or might have been a factor in the loss.
Wilt's IMPACT at the line?
[QUOTE]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]
Furthermore...
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
Yadi yadi yadi, to this date Wilt is the player who choked the most from the FT-line in NBA HISTORY... PERIOD.
[IMG]http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/594/717/wilt-chamberlain_display_image.jpg?1293478598[/IMG]
[QUOTE=jlauber]
Furthermore...
[QUOTE]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.) [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
This kick of tearing down other players is ridiculous and has to stop. It goes for everybody. But Wilt shot over 60% from the line in the postseason [B]once[/B] in his playoff career, while Russell did it seven times. Russell maxed out at [B]72.6%[/B] in 1962, and shot 70.7% from the line in 1960. So attempting to use Russell shooting <60% from the line is absurd, seeing as how Wilt shot <60% from the line in 12 of his 13 postseasons, <50% from the line eight times and <40% from the line three times. It fails to make any kind of point whatsoever, and sets you up to look stupid should someone who knows something happen to come along (though since I don't post much on basketball message boards anymore, this is less likely to happen), which will only hurt your case and damage your credibility.
[B]Fred Schaus:[/B] [I]What told me so much about Russell was his foul shooting. For most of the game you wanted him at the line. He was lucky to hit 60 percent. He had terrible form, sort of flinging the ball instead of shooting it. But down the stretch, he never missed a clutch free throw. ... Foul shooting was the weakest part of his game, yet it wasn’t something he’d let defeat him.[/I]
Evidence?
In the '62 Finals, Russell shot [B]14 of 17[/B] from the line in a three-point win in the deciding Game 7, to go with his 30 points on 58.9% TS and 40 rebounds. He shot 74.2% from the line that Finals. Shot 74% from the line in the '66 Finals. Went perfect from the line in the deciding Game 7, a two-point win. Shot 8 of 10 from the line in the deciding Game 7 of the 1960 Finals. (But of course, you can't find this stuff on basketball-reference) People talk about players "making them when they count," but with Russell the evidence is there.
smh when people instead of talking positively about whomever their favorite is, rip other players.
:facepalm
This place is hopeless. Incessant pointless back-and-forth, the same old crap over and over again, rarely any constructive dialogue or genuine knowledge being displayed. Hopefully with the loss of a season, there will be less posting.
[QUOTE=PTB Fan]No, Wilt never played in a bad era. His numbers are impressive considering that he faced a HOF center like 60% of the time he played. Even though that i don't agree with Jlauber on everything, i have to say that he's right on this one.
Wilt had competition and that competition was good.[/QUOTE]
I've posted about this before several years ago, but I've been trying to increase historical awareness since the advent of the internet, and all these years later, people are no more knowledgeable as a whole, so I'm going to stop wasting my time. People are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless to how many facts you present. I've got better things to do with my time.
FT% is flat out the weakest argument there is for a center. If you go there its because your argument is desperate. It
Agreed.
The difference between shooting 50 or 70% from the line only averages out to 2-3 lost PPG. Considering that most of these GOAT Centers were highly efficient from the field (55%+) that more then makes up for the small amount of points they lost from the line.
[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.
Those that ripped him for his "drop" in the post-season, now know that he faced a HOF center in two-thirds of ALL of his 160 post-season games. His scoring dropped SLIGHTLY, (especially of you factor in that he only played 52 of his 160 post-season games in his "scoring" seasons...and in one of those, his 44.8 season, he did not get an opportunity.) He also ELEVATED his rebounding, significantly at times (a 32 rpg series against RUSSELL for cryingoutloud.) And we know that his DEFENSE was brilliant. In virtually EVERY case, his opposing center shot either worse, or MUCH worse against him. The fact was, not only did Wilt outplay his opposing centers in all 29 of his post-season series, he was seldom outplayed in very many games!
Clutch? We now know that Wilt has the HIGHEST FG% of any "great" in game seven's. He shot .626 in his nine game sevens. And, while he is "only" second in rebounding among the greats in game seven's, to Russell, we also KNOW that Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, in their four H2H game seven's by a 28.5 to 24.5 margin. In fact, Wilt's game seven's are probably the greatest in NBA history. 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and .626 from the field. Furthermore, against Russell, Wilt outscored him, in their four H2H's, 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg. He outrebounded him, 28.5 to 24.5. And while we only have two of Russell's game seven FG% numbers, out of those four games, Russell only shot .391 in those two. How about Wilt against Russell? A staggering .652! My god, Wilt had a game seven against Russell in which he scored 30 points, with 32 rebounds, and shot 80% (yes 80%.) He had another game seven against Russell, in which he outscored him, 18-6, outrebounded him, 27-21, and outshot him by an 88% to 29% margin!
We also know that Wilt never had some of the MISERABLE game sevens that Kareem had. Nor was Wilt ever held to well below the league average in FG% in ANY of his post-seasons, while Kareem, had FOUR post-seasons with those numbers, including three in his PRIME. We also know that Wilt seldom got to play a center of less than HOF quality in his post-seasons, but when he did, he CRUSHED them. A 37-23 series against Kerr (an all-star BTW.) A 38-23 series against Beatty (an all-star BTW), and a 28-26-11 .612 series against Dierking. Nor was Wilt ever held WAY below his seasonal numbers by a center of Ostertag's quailty. And while Russell held Wilt below his seasonal averages, he was better against Russell, than Shaq was against Robinson. Or when he faced a crappy center, like Shaq so often in his career, like he did in game six of the '70 Finals, all he did was put up a 45 point, 20-27 shooting from the field, and 27 rebounds...all only four months remolved from major knee surgery. As for Kareem, he was outplayed SEVERAL times by HOF centers (Thurmond, Wilt, and Moses), and some were downright embarrasing (.405, .428, .462, .457 FG% in eras of much higher league averages.) Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series. Kareem was not only routinely outrebounded, there were several in which he was just KILLED. Wilt never had to have a GUARD lead his team in rebounding.
Playing hurt? Thanks to news articles of the day, we now KNOW that Wilt played the last four games of the '68 ECF's with THREE different leg injuries, and that he was noticeably limping throughout those four games. So, those that love to rip Wilt's game six in that series (when he shot 8-23 from the floor, albeit, with 27 rebounds), need to put it in a proper perspective. Here was Wilt, PLAYING with SEVERAL leg injuries...and yet, we witnessed Kareem sitting out a game six in a Finals with an ankle sprain. We also witnessed Reed missing the better part of three Finals' games with a thigh injury (while Chamberlain was PLAYING on a knee that had just had major surgery four months prior)...and when Reed played in those last three games, he did NOTHING. We also KNOW that Wilt not only PLAYED with TWO severely injured wrists in game five of the '72 Finals (one was badly sprained, and the other was FRACTURED), he DOMINATED that game (24 points, 29 rebounds to the ENTIRE Knick's team of 39, 10-14 shooting, and 10 blocks.) Meanwhile, when Kareem broke his wrist, he missed 16 games. Or that HOF teammate Billy Cunningham missed that ENTIRE '68 ECF series with a broken wrist.
Big games? How about a 56-35 game in game five of a best-of-five series???? How about taking a 40-40 team to a game seven, one-point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team that had a 5-2 edge in HOFers,...and scoring eight of his team's last ten points, and bringing his team back from a 110-101 deficit to 110-109? Oh, and outscoring Russell, 30-15, outrebounding him, 32-29, and outshooting him, 12-15 to 7-16? How about a 50-35 game against Russell, in an elimination game in the '60 ECF's? Or crushing Russell in a clinching game five of the '67 ECF's, when he outscored him, 29-4, outrebounded him, 36-21, outassisted him, 13-7, and outshot him, 10-16 to 2-5? Wilt had numerous 40-30 games in the post-season, and several of them came against Russell. He had four 50+ point games in his post-season, including one against Russell. He had a TON of 30+ rebound games in his post-seasons, including an NBA record of 41...against Russell. He also outrebounded and vastly outshot the great Thurmond in their three H2H post-seasons, including one in which he outrebounded him by a 23.6 to 17.2 margin, as well as outshooting him in another by an astonsihing .560 to .343 margin.
Furthermore, has ANY other great player taken a 40-40 team, up against the best team in the league, by far, the 62-18 Celtics, who had a 5-2 edge in HOFers,...to a game seven, one point loss. All he did in that series was outscore Russell by 211-109, and outrebounded him by a 221-177 margin. He also took a badly undermanned 49-31 Warrior team to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their 6-3 edge in HOFers. Give me an example of Kareem or Shaq carrying teams of that level, that far.
A "loser?" In fact, he played on only one losing team, and all he did that season was LEAD the NBA in 15 of the 22 statistical categories, including winning the scoring title by 10.8 ppg (44.8 to 34.0), as well as leading the league in rebounding at 24.6, and setting a then record of .528 from the field. He also LED that NBA that season in Win Shares, by a HUGE margin...AND he had the HIGHEST PER in NBA HISTORY. How about the rest of his career? 13 playoff series in 14 seasons (in an era when it was much tougher to make the playoffs.) 12 Conference Finals. Six conference regular season titles. Best record in the league four times. Four 60+ win seasons. Two seasons in which his team set an all-time W-L record (sinced broken by the '96 Bulls), and two DOMINATING title teams.
Of course, no one claimed MJ as a "loser" despite FIVE losing seasons. Or an MJ who played spectacularly in the '86 playoffs, but his TEAM was swept by the 67-15 Celtics, and their FIVE HOFers. No, when Jordan gets swept under those circumstances, he was "heroic." When Wilt takes his 49-31 Warriors up against a 60-20 Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and gets that team to a game seven, two-point loss, despite CLEARLY being the Warriors BEST player in that series....well, he was outplayed by Russell.
So, let's finally put all of these RIDICULOUS myths to rest. Wilt was NOT a "loser", nor was he a "failure", nor was he a "choker." In fact, he was among the greatest winners of all-time; he DOMINATED not only the regular season, but in his post-seasons: and he was arguably, the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.[/QUOTE]
Tyson TKO5
[QUOTE=Pointguard]FT% is flat out the weakest argument there is for a center. If you go there its because your argument is desperate. It
[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I've posted about this before several years ago, but I've been trying to increase historical awareness since the advent of the internet, and all these years later, people are no more knowledgeable as a whole, so I'm going to stop wasting my time. People are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless to how many facts you present. I've got better things to do with my time.[/QUOTE]
Good and fair point.
[QUOTE=Pointguard]FT% is flat out the weakest argument there is for a center. If you go there its because your argument is desperate. It’s a total garbage argument. Its like comparing Reggie Miller, Steve Nash and Stockton's points in the paint. Its a fail.
What top center was killing it at the line? What center was very good at the line? Its tantamount to watching basketball for the ref’s whistles. Centers rebound, block shots, man the paint, post, score on the blocks, play defense, pass out the post, anchor the offense and defense. You have to be skurred of where the real game is being played. And brining it up every other day is pathetic.
If you made a team up of every center that shot below 75% and played them against every center that shot above it, the good free throw shooters would look as trashed as this argument is. Why? Well part of it is because it’s a worthless stupid argument on a good day.[/QUOTE]
We all know you're a big time Wilt fan so your comment doesn't come as a surprise.
And it's one thing to be mediocre from the FT-line and it's a whole other thing if you're horrible from the FT-line like Wilt. If your horrible FT-shooting costs your team games in the finals, then it's a very valid point to make about Wilt and especially when people (Jlauber) spams about Wilt being the greatest winner, super-clutch and a great FT-shooter..:facepalm
His FT-shooting even costed him a ring when he choked big time in the finals of 1969 a la:
[B][U]Game 3, 1969 Finals
Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)
Game 4, 1969 Finals
Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.
Game 7, 1969 Finals
Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)[/U][/B]
Yeah, sure, such a weak argument..
[QUOTE=millwad]We all know you're a big time Wilt fan so your comment doesn't come as a surprise.
And it's one thing to be mediocre from the FT-line and it's a whole other thing if you're horrible from the FT-line like Wilt. If your horrible FT-shooting costs your team games in the finals, then it's a very valid point to make about Wilt and especially when people (Jlauber) spams about Wilt being the greatest winner, super-clutch and a great FT-shooter..:facepalm
His FT-shooting even costed him a ring when he choked big time in the finals of 1969 a la:
[B][U]Game 3, 1969 Finals
Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)
Game 4, 1969 Finals
Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.
Game 7, 1969 Finals
Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)[/U][/B]
Yeah, sure, such a weak argument..[/QUOTE]
I hear what you are saying Milwad but you can't isolate free throw shooting from his other play. Wilt had a 56 and 35 game in an elimintion game... But why not make a big deal about his free throws? Wilt could have blocked 12 shots in the game you mentioned. Wilt could have gotten 10 offensive rebounds. I don't care if he missed 15 freethrows... I would have preferred Wilt on my team doing what he does best, above all other centers at that time. Every soul on this planet has a weakness in something they are great at - no exceptions. Nobody had Wilt's burden at that time.
As far as his FT shooting costing them the game... they have no chance of winning without Wilt and his strengths. We seen Shaq play and would you rather have had a better free throw shooting center on any of those teams? How many articles have you ever read where they were saying we should reevaluate Shaq because of his FT%. This wasn't a big deal then, and Wilt was hated on with avengence, so I don't see how you are going to override the times just because you are the hater of all haters. It doesn't work like that. And you do this a whole lot.
When talking about a guy that has distanced himself further than any other player in the sport in scoring than any other sport ever. Was the greatest rebounder. Likely the greatest blocker and one of the greatest defenders. One of the best passers out of his position as well, and you repetively bring up something that the whole position, at least the great ones, were bad at.
It's funny how many lengths Jlauber goes to to defend Wilt the Stilt. If Wilt needs defending that much, he must have been shaky in the clutch.
Also the the free throw shooting is interesting. If Wilt was missing 8 freebies in a game and his team lost by 4 points, what does that say? But we will blame his teammates when he was the number one option shooting the ball 30+ times a game.
Plus Jlauber goes on and on about Wilt's 'superhuman' physical skills. If he was so much more physicaly dominant than the other players why do you defend him. why could he not win every year? If no one could stop him why did he only win two rings?
[QUOTE=Horatio33]It's funny how many lengths Jlauber goes to to defend Wilt the Stilt. If Wilt needs defending that much, he must have been shaky in the clutch.
Also the the free throw shooting is interesting. If Wilt was missing 8 freebies in a game and his team lost by 4 points, what does that say? But we will blame his teammates when he was the number one option shooting the ball 30+ times a game.
Plus Jlauber goes on and on about Wilt's 'superhuman' physical skills. If he was so much more physicaly dominant than the other players why do you defend him. why could he not win every year? If no one could stop him why did he only win two rings?[/QUOTE]
Did you see Shaq in his prime? And Shaq is one of the few people inside his career where he practically had anothe top ten player in the league on his team a great majority of his career - and this rarely existed for other players during the same time. And the opposing center in his second decade was usually horrible. Its a team game. Jordan too, won with one of the better all around players accompanying him as well. But you really should know this.
I posted in another thread.
[QUOTE]Wilt's scoring from regular season to playoffs went down every single year of his career (sometimes by a lot) on lower efficiency (.547 to .523). Obviously facing better teams and facing Russell (who held Wilt to 5.7 ppg under his career average in their 147 meetings) had something to do with it, but Wilt failed to step up his game and it didn't help his teams in the playoffs.
In the regular season , Wilt was on some of the best teams in his era. Most seem to assume that Wilt just didn't have the supporting cast to contend with the greatest dynasty ever. This is not the case. His 1967 Sixers were named the best team ever in 1980, and he had that team's core (Wilt, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Jackson) for 3 years straight, and also had the best SG in West and best SF in Baylor (up to that point) for a couple years after, forming a trio that Wilt himself said he thought could go down as the greatest team of all time. Talented rosters that won a lot in the regular season and had high expectations in the playoffs.
When the playoffs arrived, however, it was a different story. Wilt's failures:
1961: Wilt's 46-33 Warriors are swept by the 38-41 Nationals
1962: Wilt, at the height of his scoring prowess having averaged 50.4 ppg in the regular season, is held to a season-low 22 points in the 7th and deciding game by Bill Russell
1966: Wilt's 55-25 Sixers lose 4-1 to the 54-26 Celtics
1967: Wilt's single impressive playoff run, nearly averaging a triple double. The 68-13 Sixers soundly beat the Celtics 4-1, proving that this was a championship caliber core
1968: The same Sixers (with Wilt winning season MVP) go 62-20 and lose to the 54-28 Celtics in 7 games [b]after being up 3-1. In Game 7 Wilt did not attempt a field goal in the 2nd half [/b]
1969: One of the most talented trios ever in Wilt, West, and Baylor go 55-25 and win the regular season series 4-2 against the 48-34 Celtics, proving again Wilt had the talent to beat them. The Lakers were heavily favored against the Celtics in the Finals. But again, [b]Wilt laid another 7th game egg against the Celtics when he "hurt his leg" with 6 minutes to go and did not play the rest of the game[/b]
1970: Wilt's Lakers return to the Finals, this time against the Knicks. Reed missed game 6 due to injury and Wilt demolished the Knicks to send it to a 7th game. So what happened in Game 7? You guessed it: another stinker by [b]Wilt's 21 points (1-11 from the line) against a hobbling, injured Reed and his backups.[/b]
[quote]And let's be real about something: In the 1970 Finals, the Lakers were up 20 points in Game 5 and Willis Reed was hurt and the Knicks still won that game. Game 6, Willis Reed missed that game and the Lakers won and in game 7 Willis Reed was still hurt and he came in to play in the game. He only scored like 4 points in it and thus that is why his stats were down. So don't give me this mess about how good Wilt was when he couldn't dominate a player that was injured.
Frazier took over Game 7 and that's why the Knicks won. Thus what was Wilt doing in Game 7 in the Finals? He couldn't even dominate a hubbled Willis Reed.
[/quote]
1973: Wilt's 60-22 Lakers lose 4-1 to the 57-25 Knicks
[b]Wilt lost 5 series when his teams were the higher seed. He failed to step up in 4 Game 7s[/b]. By what standards was Wilt an excellent playoff performer if he couldn't lead his teams to victory when he had great opportunities to do so? Certainly not GOAT standards. Jordan never lost a series in which the Bulls were the higher seed.
Wilt, despite all his individual brilliance in the regular season, was a chronic underachiever in the playoffs. To paraphrase Barry, Wilt was simply a loser.
Now tell me, how do you average 50 ppg for a season but in game 7 of the playoffs you score 22? How could anyone be considered the best when in the most important games they show up like that?
Also what about this what Bill Russell even noticed.
[url]http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1969.htm[/url]
[b]The Lakers were heavily favored to win the 1969 NBA Finals against the old, battered Celtics[/b], but then Chamberlain became the victim of one of the most controversial coaching decisions in NBA history. [b]In Game 7, Wilt hurt his leg with six minutes left to play, with the Lakers trailing by nine points[/b]. The Celtics won, 108-106. [b]When Chamberlain had asked out of the game, the Lakers had been trailing by nine points, but then mounted a comeback to pull within one by the time he asked back in[/b]; this caused some to assume that Chamberlain had not really been injured, but instead [b][u]had given up and "copped out" of the game when it looked as though the Lakers would lose. Because of this, some branded him a scapegoat and a quitter. Even Bill Russell ridiculed him, which almost caused Chamberlain to end their friendship.[/b][/u].
[url]http://www.barrystickets.com/lakers/lakers-players/wilt-chamberlain.php[/url]
In 1970, the acquisition of the sharpshooting guard Gail Goodrich helped with the Lakers' offensive firepower with the loss of Baylor. In the NBA Finals, the Lakers were matched up against the New York Knicks, one of the best defensive teams of the post-Russell-Celtics era. Both teams fought a hard, grueling series, but in Game 5, Chamberlain's opposing center Willis Reed suffered a serious thigh injury. The Knicks won that game, but they were demolished in Game 6 with Chamberlain's strong offense, and they looked doomed in Game 7 without their starting center. However, Reed limped onto the court, won the opening tip-off against Chamberlain, and scored the first four points, inspiring his team to one of the most famous playoff upsets of all time. Although Reed was able to play only a fraction of the game, and could hardly move when he did play, Chamberlain still scored only 21 points (his season average had been 27.3) on only 16 shots, quite few in a Game 7. Further, [b]he shot an abysmal 1-of-11 from the foul line, making the game perhaps his greatest on-court failure.[/b]
1-11 from the foul in Game 7 of the NBA Finals and this is supposed to be the GOAT?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DaPerceive]This is why you should use TS%. Free throws play a part of that but they also take into consideration the field goals made, FG%, etc. Centers are not suppose to be elite free throw shooters like you said, but they are suppose to play inside and score inside right? So they should shoot a higher FG% than perimeter players. TS% is used to determine scoring efficiency within not just one position, but all the positions. The strong FG% is evened out by its weak FT% and for perimeter players its the total opposite. It is one reason why TS% is a good stat to use. It's comparable within all positions and it determines every facet of scoring, FG, FT, etc.[/QUOTE]
This.
[QUOTE=D-Wade316]This.[/QUOTE]
Do you know anything else than "this"?
Seriously, you join discussions only to hang on to peoples nuts..
[QUOTE=millwad]Do you know anything else than "this"?
Seriously, you join discussions only to hang on to peoples nuts..[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Pointguard]I hear what you are saying Milwad but you can't isolate free throw shooting from his other play. Wilt had a 56 and 35 game in an elimintion game... But why not make a big deal about his free throws? Wilt could have blocked 12 shots in the game you mentioned. Wilt could have gotten 10 offensive rebounds. I don't care if he missed 15 freethrows... I would have preferred Wilt on my team doing what he does best, above all other centers at that time. Every soul on this planet has a weakness in something they are great at - no exceptions. Nobody had Wilt's burden at that time.
As far as his FT shooting costing them the game... they have no chance of winning without Wilt and his strengths. We seen Shaq play and would you rather have had a better free throw shooting center on any of those teams? How many articles have you ever read where they were saying we should reevaluate Shaq because of his FT%. This wasn't a big deal then, and Wilt was hated on with avengence, so I don't see how you are going to override the times just because you are the hater of all haters. It doesn't work like that. And you do this a whole lot.
When talking about a guy that has distanced himself further than any other player in the sport in scoring than any other sport ever. Was the greatest rebounder. Likely the greatest blocker and one of the greatest defenders. One of the best passers out of his position as well, and you repetively bring up something that the whole position, at least the great ones, were bad at.[/QUOTE]
Not at all, I don't question his whole game just because his worthless FT%! I thought I made that clear earlier but I mixed this thread up with another thread.
Still, FT's is a huge part of the game when you are a starplayer who gets fouled constantly and when you continue to miss them, it's a big issue.
And we are not talking about minor problems from the FT-line, we are talking about a guy who choked from the FT-line in the finals constantly.
We've seen all this nonsense from Wilt-fans on this site about how Wilt was the greatest winner of all-time, what a great shooter he was and that his FT's never were an issue but fact still remains that the guy to this date choked the most from the FT-line in the NBA finals history..
And I never claimed his teams could win without his strengths and regarding Shaq, the guy is constantly labeled as one of the worst FT-shooters of all-time, I don't really see why Wilt should get a pass just because he excelled in other parts of the game. The guy freaking cost his team a title due his horrible FT-shooting, it doesn't matter how much you'll try to deny that, it's still a fact.
[QUOTE]Wilt's scoring from regular season to playoffs went down every single year of his career (sometimes by a lot) on lower efficiency (.547 to .523). Obviously facing better teams and facing Russell (who held Wilt to 5.7 ppg under his career average in their 147 meetings) had something to do with it, but Wilt failed to step up his game and it didn't help his teams in the playoffs.
[/QUOTE]
Wilt's scoring dropped SLIGHTLY from his regular seasons into his post-seasons. Most uneducated posters forget that Wilt's "scoring prime", when he could dump 40-50 point games on Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, and Reed, came in his first seven years. He played in 52 of his 160 post-season games in that period, and averaged 32 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .510 (in league's that shot about .430.)
You mentioned Russell. Excellent point...a player regarded by MANY as the greatest defensive player in NBA HISTORY. And yet, Chamberlain averaged 28.7 ppg against him in their 142 H2H meetings, and probably at close to 50% shooting in those games. He had three full SEASONS against Russell, in which he averaged 38 ppg. And, while his scoring dropped somewhat against Russell in the post-season, he STILL had FOUR post-season series against him in which he averaged 30+ ppg, including one in which he averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg, in a seven game series. He also had a 29-27 .517 Finals against Russell; a 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, .509 ECF's against Russell; and how about his '67 ECF', when he hung a 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, .558 series against him. Wilt also shot .549 against Russell in their nine H2H games in the regular season that year, as well.
BTW, Russell's numbers generally declined considerably against Wilt, as well. Even in the 61-62 ECF's, when he upped his scoring against Wilt to 22 ppg, he shot at around .420 against Wilt, in a season in which he shot .457 overall. How about the '64 Finals? Russell averaged 11 ppg, and while I have yet to see his FG% against Wilt in their five H2H games, in his 10 playoff games that year, he shot .356, and half of those games were against Wilt.
In fact, in Russell's highest FG% season, 59-60, in which he shot .467 overall, in 10 of his 11 H2H games (I have yet to find the FG% in that 11th game), Russell shot .398 against Wilt.
In the '67 ECF's, Wilt held Russell to .358 shooting.
And Russell shot .702 in the '65 Finals against the Lakers, but in the previous round against Wilt, he shot .451 (which may very well have been his HIGHEST playoff series against Chamberlain.)
And, in Wilt's first eight post-seasons, covering his first nine seasons, he averaged 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and shot .518 (in league's that averaged about .435.) Included in those years were FOUR 50+ point playoff games, with a 53-22 game, on 24-42 shooting, against Syracuse in the '60 playoffs; a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting) against Russell in a "must-win" game five of the '60 ECF's; a 56-35 game five, in a best-of-five playoff series, against Syracuse in the '62 playoffs; and a 50 point game, on 22-32 shooting, against the Hawks in the '64 WCF's. He also had THREE other 40-30 games against Russell in the post-season. He also had THREE playoff series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, and 38.6 ppg (on .559 shooting.) And, he had FOUR entire playoffs of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg (on .543 shooting), 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg.
So, if that is a "declining" Wilt, please feel free to give me a list of other players who even had ONE 28+-23+ post-season. BTW, Chamberlain had SIX of them!
[QUOTE]In the regular season , Wilt was on some of the best teams in his era. Most seem to assume that Wilt just didn't have the supporting cast to contend with the greatest dynasty ever. This is not the case. His 1967 Sixers were named the best team ever in 1980, and he had that team's core (Wilt, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Jackson) for 3 years straight, and also had the best SG in West and best SF in Baylor (up to that point) for a couple years after, forming a trio that Wilt himself said he thought could go down as the greatest team of all time. Talented rosters that won a lot in the regular season and had high expectations in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
Wilt came to a LAST PLACE team, that, in his rookie season, he carried to a 49-26 record, which was a team record at the time. His rosters got WORSE each year until mid-way thru the 64-65 season, when he was traded to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before. He IMMEDIATELY took that team to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals in the first round. And THEN, he took that same roster, which had gone 34-46 the year before, to a game seven, one point loss against Russell's 62-18 Celtics.
Wilt had a very good Arizin in Arizin's last three years. He had "HOFer" Tom Gola, for three seasons, who was among the worst HOFers ever, AND, who was AWFUL in the post-season. The man had a career .336 post-season FG% (and yes, he was just as bad with, and without Wilt.) And Chamberlain had Nate Thurmond for one season, in Nate's rookie year, and playing part-time, and out of position, and shooting .395 in the process. That was basically IT. Players like Meschery and Rogers were decent, but hardly among the better players. In fact, Meschery would have been Boston's TENTH best player in the 62-63 season.
How bad were those rosters? Before the start of the '63-64 season, the Warriors newest head coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, and against draftees and scrubs who would never make an NBA roster. Guess which team won? Furthermore, Wilt somehow got that cast of misfits to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they lost to a Celtic team that had an 8-2 edge in HOFers.
Speaking of an edge in HOFers...Russell's Celtics enjoyed an edge of 7-3, 8-3, 7-3, 9-1, 8-2, and 6-2 in HOFers in Wilt's first six seasons. And yet, Wilt took two of his putrid rosters to game seven's against those Celtic teams, and losses by 2 and 1 point. And he also took one team to the Finals, where they fell, 4-1 (but two losses were in the waning seconds.)
Not only that, but how much help did Wilt receive from those teammates in those five post-seasons (his team was so awful in 62-63, that they didn't even make the playoffs...despite a season in which Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg, led the NBA in rebounding at 24.3 rpg, and shot a then-record, .528...and oh BTW, his teammates collectively shot .412)? Those teammates shot .382, .380, .354, .352, and even .332 in those five post-seasons. Now, you tell me how Wilt got those crappy rosters, and all of whom played WORSE in the post-season, to two game seven's against the vaunted Celtic Dynasty?
Continued...
[QUOTE]When the playoffs arrived, however, it was a different story. Wilt's failures:
1961: Wilt's 46-33 Warriors are swept by the 38-41 Nationals
1962: Wilt, at the height of his scoring prowess having averaged 50.4 ppg in the regular season, is held to a season-low 22 points in the 7th and deciding game by Bill Russell
1966: Wilt's 55-25 Sixers lose 4-1 to the 54-26 Celtics
1967: Wilt's single impressive playoff run, nearly averaging a triple double. The 68-13 Sixers soundly beat the Celtics 4-1, proving that this was a championship caliber core
1968: The same Sixers (with Wilt winning season MVP) go 62-20 and lose to the 54-28 Celtics in 7 games after being up 3-1. In Game 7 Wilt did not attempt a field goal in the 2nd half
1969: One of the most talented trios ever in Wilt, West, and Baylor go 55-25 and win the regular season series 4-2 against the 48-34 Celtics, proving again Wilt had the talent to beat them. The Lakers were heavily favored against the Celtics in the Finals. But again, Wilt laid another 7th game egg against the Celtics when he "hurt his leg" with 6 minutes to go and did not play the rest of the game
1970: Wilt's Lakers return to the Finals, this time against the Knicks. Reed missed game 6 due to injury and Wilt demolished the Knicks to send it to a 7th game. So what happened in Game 7? You guessed it: another stinker by Wilt's 21 points (1-11 from the line) against a hobbling, injured Reed and his backups[/QUOTE]
Let's actually start with Wilt's ROOKIE season, when completely turned around a LAST-PLACE franchise. In the playoffs, he SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried that inept cast of clowns thru Syracuse, in a series in which he averaged 37 ppg, and 24 rpg...while holding his opposing center, multiple all-star, Red Kerr, to 14 ppg, 8 rpg, and get this... .294 shooting. THEN, Chamberlain put up a 30+ ppg series against Russell, despite injuring his hand in game three (and having one of his worst playoff games in game four), and which included a 50-35 game five, in a must-win WIN.
True, Wilt's 60-61 Warriors were swept by Syracuse, 3-0. The ONLY time in Wilt's 14 season career in which he didn't make it past the first round. But let's take a closer look, shall we? All Wilt did was average 37 ppg, 23 rpg, and shoot .467 (which was low for Wilt, but it came in a league that shot .415.) He faced Kerr again, and while I don't have Kerr's numbers against Wilt in that series, in his entire playoffs, he averaged 9.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, and shot .341. And, how about Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot .332. But, yes, let's blame WILT for that sweeping loss.
Wilt SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried his 61-62 Warriors past Syracuse in the the '62 playoffs. Once again, in game five, of a best-of-five series, all Wilt did was hang a 56-35 game on the Nationals. Then, he put up a 34-26 .468 series against Russell in the ECF's. And before someone mentions that that was well below Wilt's 50.4 .506 regular season, in their H2H regular season games, Chamberlain averaged 38 ppg on .471 shooting against Russell. So, no, it was NOT a dramatic drop.
And, only an uneducated poster would bring up Wilt's game seven of 22 points, on 7-15 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Actual game recaps credited Wilt with playing GREAT defense. Furthermore, Wilt was called for a very questionable goal tend late in the game. And, he also contributed a three-point play in the waning seconds to tie the game. Then, he nearly blocked Sam Jones game-winner. Oh, and BTW, he had two 40-30 games against Russell, including a 42-37 game in which he held Russell to a 9-20 game...and the result? A seven point win. Which clearly illustrated what Wilt faced. He had to have monumental games for his team to win. In any case, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season. Maybe someone can explain to me just how Wilt got them as far as he did.
You mention '66. Wilt LED his Sixers to the BEST RECORD in the league, at 55-25. And all he did along the way was lead the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; lead the league in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; and set a then-record FG% mark of .540. He even found time to hand out 5.2 apg. Still, Philly had to win their last 11 games to overtake Boston, and the reality was, the Celtics were the seven-time defending champs. Ok, so what happened. Boston routed Philly, 4-1. How did Wilt fare in that series? He averaged 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509. Included in that series, was a clinching game five loss performance of 46 points, and 34 rebounds, and on 19-34 shooting. Now, how did Wilt's teammates respond? They collectively shot .352 from the field. Yep...WILT's fault.
No reason to cover Wilt's '67 run, which many observers claim as the greatest season, and greatest post-season ever. One quick point, though. Remember how Wilt hung that 46-34 game five on Russell the year before, in a clinching loss? Well, Russell was faced with the exact same circumstances in game five of the '67 ECF's. He quietly put up a four point, 2-5 FG shooting, 21 rebound game...while all Chamberlain did was score 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 13 assists, and 36 rebounds. Where was Russell when he was so desperately needed?
Continued...
Only a complete idiot would look at Wilt's 67-68 playoffs, and say that he choked. His team, which ran away with the best record in the league, was DECIMATED by injuries. HOFer Billy Cunningham didn't play a game in the ECF's. And even then, the Sixers were good enough to go up 3-1. BUT, in game five, BOTH Philly starters, Luke Jackson and Wali Jones suffered leg injuries, and were worthless the rest of the series. Then, in game seven, Wilt only TOUCHED the ball NINE times in the entire second half at the offensive end, and only TWICE in the 4th quarter (and both were offensive rebounds.) And while he was NOT getting the ball, his teammates collectively shot .333 from the floor in that game. The result? A 100-96 loss. And even then Wilt still outscored Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded Russell, 34-26.
Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain PLAYED the last FIVE games of that series with SEVERAL foot and leg injuries, including a tear of his quad muscle. Even Russell commented that "a lessor man would not have played." In any case, we KNOW that neither Kareem, nor Reed, would have played under those circumstances. So, once again who got the blame? Of course, it was WILT.
As for Wilt "laying an egg" in game seven of the '69 Finals? Let's REALLY take a closer look, shall we? The Lakers were down by 17 points with about 10 minutes left in the game. They started a furious rally, and with a little over six minutes left, Wilt grabbed a defensive rebound, and his outlet led to a basket that cut the margin to nine. However, he injured his knee on that play (the VERY SAME KNEE that he would reinjure early in the '70 season, and which would require major surgery.) Still, he limped around for one more sequence, and grabbed yet another defensive rebound, which led to two more FTs, and now a seven point deficit. So, in the matter of about three minutes, LA had chopped TEN points off that 17 point deficit. HOWEVER, Wilt HAD to come out. Even his incompetent coach would later claim that Wilt's injury was legitimate. After a couple of minutes went by, Wilt asked to go back in. Van Breda Kolf refused, and instead went with the great Mel Counts, who missed a couple of shots down the stretch (en route to a 4-13 game), and the Lakers lost that game by two points. In that game seven, and playing in only 43 minutes to Russell's 48, all Wilt did was outscore Russell, 18-6; outshoot Russell from the field, 7-8 to 2-7; even outscored Russell from the line, 4-13 to 2-4; and outrebounded Russell, 27-21. And yet, who was blamed for the series loss? Of course, it was WILT.
BTW, in game four of that series, in which LA was leading 2-1, the Lakers led 88-87 with only a few seconds left... and they had the ball. But, Johnny Egan lost the ball, and Sam Jones hit the game-winner, at the buzzer, while falling down. Given the fact that the Lakers romped over Boston in game five, 117-104 (and in a game in which Wilt pounded Russell), that ONE PLAY cost the Lakers a 4-1 series win. And, while Wilt got the brunt of the blame, where was Baylor in games three thru five, (two of the losses), when he scored a TOTAL of 24 points (and even a 1-5 performance from the line in that game four, one point loss)? And, he flopped badly in game seven, too, shooting 8-22 (.363) from the floor. In fact, he was the Lakers WORST shooter in the entire post-season.
And, while Duncan4MVP brings up Wilt's "stinking" performance in game seven of the '70 Finals...all Wilt did in that game was score 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds...while the "heroic" Reed put up a 4 point, 3 rebound, 2-5 game. Oh, and how about the rest of Wilt's teammates in that game seven? They collectively shot .418...and were at 33% in the first half, when NY ran away with the game.
[QUOTE]1-11 from the foul in Game 7 of the NBA Finals and this is supposed to be the GOAT?
[/QUOTE]
Once again, a truly unresearched statement. Wilt shot 1-11 from the line in that game. However, he was 1-8 in the first half...and when the Knicks had blown open the game, 69-42. To say that Wilt's FT shooting cost them that was completely ridiculous.
BUT, Duncan forgot to point out two things. Wilt STILL had a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 FG% series, which is the ONLY 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA HISTORY. And, while he was quick to point out the fact that Reed was hobbled in the last three games...he somehow forgot to bring up the fact that Wilt, himself, was only FOUR MONTHS removed from MAJOR KNEE surgery. The SAME surgery that Baylor took over a YEAR to recover from (and in fact, he was never the same.)
BTW, the Knicks had FOUR HOFers that season (going 60-22), along with a deep bench, and a HOF coach.
Duncan then brings up the '73 Finals. A Finals in which West was nursing TWO injured knees, and Happy Hairston was nowhere near 100%. And, BTW, the Knicks roster had SIX HOFers on it. Still, all four of LA's losses were in the final minute (by scores of 4, 4, 5, and 9 points.) And, in the LAST game (and Wilt's LAST game), Chamberlain put a 23 point, 21 rebound, 9-16 game.
Oh, and Duncan4MVP forgot to bring up a 34 year-old Wilt, only a year removed from major knee surgery, battling a statistically prime Kareem to a statistical draw in the '71 WCF's (and playing without BOTH West and Baylor.) BTW, in the last game of that series, and when Wilt came out late, he received a STANDING OVATION...and the game was played in MILWAUKEE.
Nor did Duncan4MVP bring up Wilt's 71-72 post-season, when he was hailed by ALL as outplaying a Kareem in Kareem's finest season, in leading the Lakers past the defending champion Bucks. Then, Wilt dominated the Knicks, and their FIVE HOFers, including a clinching game five performance of 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds (the entire NY team had 39 BTW), and 9 blocks. Oh, and Wilt was PLAYING in that game with one badly sprained wrist, and the other FRACTURED. Here again, you would never have caught Kareem playing under those circumstances.
Chamberlain played in 160 post-season games. You would be hard-pressed to find very many, if any, in which he was "average." He was seldom outscored )and he overwhelmed his opposing centers in his "scoring" years.) I could only find one series, in his 29, in which he was outshot from the field (and that by a .457 to .452 margin, in a series in which he missed 20 shots, and Kareem missed 107.) And, he was NEVER outrebounded in any of those 29 post-season series. And in many of those, he CRUSHED his opposing centers.
And, BTW, how come Duncan4MVP didn't bring up Wilt's OPPOSING center's numbers in his post?
In the '60 playoffs, Wilt held Kerr to .296 shooting (while just murdering him in EVERY facet of the game.)
In the '62 ECF's, Wilt held Russell, who had shot .457 over the course of the regular season, to around .420 shooting.
In the '64 Finals, we can only make an educated guess that Wilt must have held Russell to considerably below his regular season FG% of .433. Russell shot .356 in his ten post-season games, and half of those were against Wilt.
In the '67 ECF's, Wilt held Russell, who had shot .454 during the regular season, to .358 shooting.
In the '67 Finals, Wilt not only shot .560 against Thurmond, he held Nate to .343 shooting (in a year in which Thurmond shot .437.)
In the '68 playoffs, Wilt held Bellamy, who had shot .541 during the regular season, to .421 shooting.
In the '69 playoffs, Wilt outshot Thurmond, .500 to .392.
In the '71 WCF's, Wilt outshot Kareem, who had shot .577 during the regular season, .489 to .481.
And in the '72 WCF's, Wilt held Kareem, who had shot .574 in the regular season, to .457 shooting (including .414 over the course of the last four pivotal games of that series.)
Hopefully we have a little better understanding of what REALLY transpired in Wilt's post-season career.
[QUOTE=Horatio33]It's funny how many lengths Jlauber goes to to defend Wilt the Stilt. If Wilt needs defending that much, he must have been shaky in the clutch.
[B]Also the the free throw shooting is interesting. If Wilt was missing 8 freebies in a game and his team lost by 4 points, what does that say? But we will blame his teammates when he was the number one option shooting the ball 30+ times a game[/B].
Plus Jlauber goes on and on about Wilt's 'superhuman' physical skills. If he was so much more physicaly dominant than the other players why do you defend him. why could he not win every year? If no one could stop him why did he only win two rings?[/QUOTE]
My god, what is wrong with you people?
So, if Wilt goes 4-11 from the line, and his team loses by six points...BUT, he scores 30 points on 13-20 shooting, grabs 25 rebounds, blocks 10 shots, gets 6 assists, and holds his opposing center to 10 points on 4-13 shooting, with 15 rebounds,...AND, Wilt's teammates collectively shoot .360 from the field...it is WILT's fault that his team loses?????!!!!!
How about all the MANY horrible post-season games that Bird had from the field? The man had HORRIBLE post-seasons? He was part of SEVEN teams that lost with HCA, including a sweeping loss in '83. Or in arguably his greatest regular season, in 87-88, shooting .351 against the Pistons (and the same Piston team that Magic would just torch in the Finals with a 22 ppg .550 series?) Or Bird having as many games in the Finals, in which he shot under 40%, 11, as he did in shooting over 50% (including THREE of under 30%)? The man shot .455 in his five Finals, ...and yet, how come no one brings up the fact that his awful shooting probably cost Boston MANY games in the post-season?
How about Kareem shooting .428, .457, and .405 from the field in three successive post-season playoff series? How about Kareem being outplayed in a game seven of the Finals, at home, in a blowout loss, by Dave Cowens? How about Kareem shooting .462 from the field, and being outplayed by Moses and his 40-42 Rockets in '81? How about Kareem being unable to grab a rebound against Moses in '83, in a sweeping loss? How about Kareem going 7-25 from the field in a pivotal game five of the '84 Finals, and only shooting .481 from the floor in that series? How about Kareem's game seven in the '88 Finals, which is arguably the WORST game seven ever played by an all-time great?
How about Russell meekly going like a lamb to slaughter in the clinching game five blowout loss against Wilt and his Sixers in the '67 ECF's?
I could go right down the line with EVERY "great" player. Yet, we have idiotic posters here who rip Wilt for his poor FT shooting, even when he just overwhelmed opposing teams, and often with his teammates just blowing chunks all over the floor.
Once again... the famous "Wilt Double Standard."
I continue to read posters here who claim that Wilt "wilted" in the post-season.
One more time children...
Here are Chamberlain's post-season numbers:
Thru Chamberlain's "scoring" seasons, 1959-60 thru 1965-66, Wilt averaged 32.8 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 3.2 apg, and on a .505 FG%, in league's that averaged .426 shooting in that span...or WAY over the league average. And, keep in mind that Wilt's roster was so horrible in his 62-63 season, that his team failed to make the playoffs...in a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting.
32.8 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 3.2 apg, .505 (in league's that shot .426)
Thru Wilt's absolute prime, 1959-60 to 1966-67, when Chamberlain led the Sixers to a 68-13 record, and a world title.
30.4 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 4.5 apg, .515 FG% (in league's that shot .428 in that span)
Thru Wilt's 11th season, and in the year in which he was injured...
25.8 ppg, 25.6 rpg, 4.4 apg, .524 FG% ( in league's that shot .433 over that span.)
Think about that...in Wilt's first 11 seasons, covering 10 post-seasons, he averaged a 26-26-4 .520 (in league's that shot .430)
And once again, in his NINE game seven's in his post-season career, Chamberlain averaged 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and shot .626... which is not only the highest FG% ever in game seven's by an all-time "great"...it was achieved in league's that shot about .435 on average.
And again, Wilt DRAMATICALLY affected the numbers of his opposing centers in the playoffs. In fact, on average, his opposing centers shot between 5-10% lower than their regular season numbers (e.g., Russell shooting .358 in a year in which he shot .454; Thurmond shooting .343 in a year in which he shot .437; Bellamy shooting .421 in a year in which he shot .541; Kareem shooting .481 in a year in which he shot .577; and Kareem again, shooting .457 in a year in which he shot .574.)
How much help did Wilt receive from his teammates in the post-season?
In his first seven seasons, covering six post-seasons, Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .352, .352, and even .332. In that span, Wilt STILL carried FOUR teams to the ECF's, and a fifth team to a FINALS. Included in those post-seasons, were two game seven losses to the great Celtic Dynasty, by margins of 2 and 1 point.
In the 67-68 playoffs, a VERY hobbled Wilt, nursing SEVERAL injuries, still got his team, which was DECIMATED by injuries, to a game seven, where they not only forgot to pass the ball to Chamberlain, they also collectively shot .333.
In the 68-69 game seven of the Finals, Chamberlain shot .875 from the field (and was on the BENCH in the last five minutes of the game...thanks to his COACH), while his teammates collectively shot .360 (including Baylor going 8-22 from the field.)
In game seven of the 69-70 Finals, and in a first half in which Wilt's team was blown off the court, Chamberlain scored 11 points on 5-10 shooting, with 12 rebounds...while his teammates collectively shot .333.
In the 70-71 playoffs, Wilt was without BOTH West and Baylor (and Erickson went down early in the post-season, as well.)
And in Wilt's LAST post-season, and in the Finals, and in a series in which all four Laker losses were decided in the last minute (losses by 4, 4, 5, and 9 points), Wilt shot .524 in the series...while his teammates collectively shot .426.
BTW, Chamberlain shot .560 over the course of his SIX Finals, with a LOW of .517 (on a 29 ppg average and against Russell in '64), and with a HIGH of .625 (in a seven game series in '70.) He also shot .600 in the '72 Finals, when he led LA to a title, and in which he won the FMVP. And he outshot the great Thurmond in the '67 Finals, .560 to .343, in leading the Sixers to an overwhelming title.
Hopefully the posters here will read this before they blindly throw out this nonsense that Wilt "wilted" in the post-season.
What the hell, Jlauber, you need to get a life and stop wasting your time on nonsense. First of all, NO ONE reads those garbage essays you put up, they are too long and things you could write in 3 lines takes 2 pages for you, you retard.
And now if anyone would have the time to read something that long basketball-related they would google it to find the source you got it from. Instead of reading your extremely biased essays we all can go to google and find the source you got it from. It's already confirmed that you didn't see the games you spam about so why the hell would anyone read your extremely biased posts when we all can do what you did... GOOGLE IT.:facepalm
You have no credibility, why don't you get that?
[QUOTE=millwad]What the hell, Jlauber, you need to get a life and stop wasting your time on nonsense. First of all, NO ONE reads those garbage essays you put up, they are too long and things you could write in 3 lines takes 2 pages for you, you retard.
And now if anyone would have the time to read something that long basketball-related they would google it to find the source you got it from. Instead of reading your extremely biased essays we all can go to google and find the source you got it from. It's already confirmed that you didn't see the games you spam about so why the hell would anyone read your extremely biased posts when we all can do what you did... GOOGLE IT.:facepalm
[B]You have no credibility, why don't you get that[/B]?[/QUOTE]
This coming from the liar that stated that Hakeem was not outrebounded by Barkley until the 99-00 season (when in fact Barkley outrebounded him in all of the seasons they played together); and who claimed that Wilt was seldom double-teamed. And that Wilt did not block 15 of Kareem's sky-hooks in the 71-72 playoffs (which I proved you right...it was probably more like 20+.) And who claimed that Hakeem did NOT guard Kareem in Abdul Jabbar's 40 point explosions against him.
As for GOOGLE, you might want to try using it yourself, since you continually make an ass of yourself with non-factual posts.
I read these essays... I appreciate the research.
[QUOTE=jlauber]This coming from the liar that stated that Hakeem was not outrebounded by Barkley until the 99-00 season (when in fact Barkley outrebounded him in all of the seasons they played together); and who claimed that Wilt was seldom double-teamed. And that Wilt did not block 15 of Kareem's sky-hooks in the 71-72 playoffs (which I proved you right...it was probably more like 20+.) And who claimed that Hakeem did NOT guard Kareem in Abdul Jabbar's 40 point explosions against him.[/QUOTE]
Dude, me "lying" was me not being aware of the situation a la Hakeem not guarding Kareem during in his rookie season. It wasn't even important to me to start with, I don't judge players based on how they perform in their rookie year, you clown. And yes, Wilt was double-teamed way less than later all-time great center.
And you never proved Wilt blocking 15 of Kareem's skyhooks.
And haha, you dirty ass old fart, I never wrote that Barkley didn't outrebound him 'til the '00 season, I recalled it incorrectly when you wrote about the year Hakeem got outrebounded by 4 a game by Barkley. I did NEVER write that it was first in the '99 season that Barkley outrebounded Hakeem.
And it's funny, me "lying" or you lying. You claimed that Hakeem got crushed by Shaq in the '95 finals, that Hakeem was a worse player then Thurmond. That Kareem got "crushed" by Wilt in the '72 playoffs while he outscored Wilt with the 23 points per game on better FG% and outassisting Wilt and also shooting FT's twice as good as Wilt, haha. Sure, he "CRUSHED" Kareem.
In fact, you're so dumb that when you tried to defend Wilt regarding him having to face way shorter players in his statprime you brought up players who never even played in the league at the same time as Wilt and players who never even played in the NBA.. Great knowledge, idiot.
And still, we all know you have no credibility, but read what I wrote above it. No one reads your essays, they are garbage and you are spending scary much time on defending Wilt on the internet. You are 56 years old, I doubt that you have any family but if you do, do they consider you to be a normal person? Your obsession with a basketball player who retired almost 40 years ago and who you barely saw play is just scary. I honestly believe that you have some kind of mental disorder, I honestly do and you should probably get a time at some psychiatrist or doctor, your behaviour and obsession really reminds me of people with Aspergers syndrome.
[QUOTE=RobertdeMeijer]I read these essays... I appreciate the research.[/QUOTE]
Don't waste your time, they are no researchs, you can easily check up the truth by googling what he is googling and then you'll get the true story. Not his extremely biased version.