[QUOTE=Yung D-Will][IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/25q8wnp.png[/IMG]
One of these two.
7-8 respectively[/QUOTE]
you got to pick one of them
Printable View
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will][IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/25q8wnp.png[/IMG]
One of these two.
7-8 respectively[/QUOTE]
you got to pick one of them
[QUOTE=aau]deuce
this one's a rap
let's get into #8 while we chillin
on a sunday watchin football[/QUOTE]
idk maybe its too early
[QUOTE=Inception28]Update for the vote so far
17 - Shaquille O'Neal
10 - Tim Duncan
6 - Hakeem Olajuwon
3 - Oscar Robertson
Duncan was a better and a more willing passer than Hakeem. Duncan also made his teammates better than both Hakeem and Shaq did. That being said, I don't think Duncan had a better peak than Hakeem did. If we were just talking about peaks, Hakeem would be top 3 or 5 on my list and he would have a case for #1.[/QUOTE]
so duncan being a more willing passer and making his teammates better is enough to rank him higher?
hakeem is better at offence and defense in almost every aspect of the game. what more does he need?
[QUOTE=Fazotronic]so duncan being a more willing passer and making his teammates better is enough to rank him higher?
hakeem is better at offence and defense in almost every aspect of the game. what more does he need?[/QUOTE]
Are we comparing their peaks here or what? I said Hakeem was better during their peaks. But Duncan accomplished and did more than Hakeem did, that makes him above Hakeem in my opinion. It's not like Hakeem blows Duncan away in prime/peak play either. Duncan on the other hand does blow Hakeem away in longevity and accomplishments.
[QUOTE=Inception28]Are we comparing their peaks here or what? I said Hakeem was better during their peaks. But Duncan accomplished and did more than Hakeem did, that makes him above Hakeem in my opinion. It's not like Hakeem blows Duncan away in prime/peak play either. Duncan on the other hand does blow Hakeem away in longevity and accomplishments.[/QUOTE]
Duncan does not blow Hakeem away in longevity, not even close. And accomplishments based on winning, yes, based on personal accolades no. I can barely see Duncan winning 1 MVP in Hakeem's era, absolutely not 2..
Back to longevity, just look at Duncan now, he is 34 and a corpse compared to the younger version of himself. 2010-2011 season he averaged [B] 13.4 points (50% shooting), 8.9 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.9 blocks per game.[/B]
Hakeem at the same age, 34, was still balling and he averaged [B]23.2 points (51% shooting), 9.2 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2.5 blocks per game.
[/B]
And I'd take prime Hakeem over prime Duncan without no doubt and especially considering the guy's Hakeem outplayed compared to the guy's Duncan outplayed during their runs.
[QUOTE=Inception28]If I could re-arrange the top 7 it would probably be this
1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
Wilt shouldn't be on here yet, but I assume a lot of people are naive about him and just look at his numbers.[/QUOTE]
Why would Bird, Magic, Kareem, Duncan or Shaq be clearly ahead of Wilt?
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Why would Bird, Magic, Kareem, Duncan or Shaq be clearly ahead of Wilt?[/QUOTE]
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-bu-bu-bu-but Wilt was a choking statpadder!!!!!!!!
Shaq :pimp:
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Why would Bird, Magic, Kareem, Duncan or Shaq be clearly ahead of Wilt?[/QUOTE]
They are all better playoff performers and every bit as accomplished, if not more accomplished than Wilt was. Wilt is more talented sure, he is more talented than anyone who has ever played but that isn't enough.
[QUOTE=millwad]Duncan does not blow Hakeem away in longevity, not even close. And accomplishments based on winning, yes, based on personal accolades no. I can barely see Duncan winning 1 MVP in Hakeem's era, absolutely not 2..
Back to longevity, just look at Duncan now, he is 34 and a corpse compared to the younger version of himself. 2010-2011 season he averaged [B] 13.4 points (50% shooting), 8.9 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.9 blocks per game.[/B]
Hakeem at the same age, 34, was still balling and he averaged [B]23.2 points (51% shooting), 9.2 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2.5 blocks per game.
[/B]
And I'd take prime Hakeem over prime Duncan without no doubt and especially considering the guy's Hakeem outplayed compared to the guy's Duncan outplayed during their runs.[/QUOTE]
Even a 36 year old Hakeem was better than a 34 year old Duncan
18.9 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.5 bpg on .519 FG%
[QUOTE=Inception28]They are all better playoff performers and every bit as accomplished, if not more accomplished than Wilt was. Wilt is more talented sure, he is more talented than anyone who has ever played but that isn't enough.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you can say they are better playoff performers. Certainly you can't just say it and assume people will accept it as fact.
Wilt's teams went to more conference finals and NBA finals than Bird, Shaq or Duncan and Kareem and Magic did 80% of their prime damage together.
None of them ever had a playoffs that rivals Wilt's '67 campaign. And really you can barely find a bad game Wilt had in a pressure spot ('68 game seven is the only one I really hold against him).
Wilt won more MVP's than anyone besides Kareem, his Prime averages of 35-24-4 are other worldly.
Yes his numbers dipped in the playoffs, and that is a good reason to suggest maybe he was lacking a quality that guys like MJ, Russ, Bird, Duncan and Magic had, but Kareem didn't have it either so that can't be it.
Wilt scored just as much in the playoffs as Kareem, averaged twice as many rebounds, more assists and if they kept the numbers probably at least twice as many blocks. His teams were also upset less often and certainly he didn't have the amount of Sweeps against him that Shaq's teams did.
I just don't see how those guys have a stronger case, let alone an obvious one.
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Even a 36 year old Hakeem was better than a 34 year old Duncan
18.9 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.5 bpg on .519 FG%[/QUOTE]
He definitely was, many seem to think that Hakeem just came from no where and played GOAT-like for 2 years when he lead the Rockets to them back-to-backs and then he just disappeared.
Very few ever give him cred for how good he was in the 80's or how he lead his team to the finals in his 2nd pro season while outplaying players like Abdul-Jabbar and Parish or that he still played basketball at a very high level even after the back to backs.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I don't think you can say they are better playoff performers. Certainly you can't just say it and assume people will accept it as fact. [/quote]
Sure if you are completely naive about Wilt and his failures.
[quote]
Wilt's teams went to more conference finals and NBA finals than Bird, Shaq or Duncan and Kareem and Magic did 80% of their prime damage together.[/quote]
And how many times did he win the championship? The argument that I got further than someone else but I still failed to win it all doesn't hold much weight to me. Cause it is not like we are comparing Wilt to Tmac here, we are comparing Wilt to other all-time greats like Magic, Shaq, Duncan, and Bird.
[quote]
None of them ever had a playoffs that rivals Wilt's '67 campaign. And really you can barely find a bad game Wilt had in a pressure spot ('68 game seven is the only one I really hold against him).[/quote]
So one dominant post-season makes up for all the other shortcomings he had?
[quote]
Wilt won more MVP's than anyone besides Kareem, his Prime averages of 35-24-4 are other worldly. [/quote]
I already talked about how MVPs don't mean that much to me. Wilt won less MVPs than Russell and MJ by the way.
Here is what I said earlier about the MVPs when I was talking to ShaqAttack
[url]http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6444159#post6444159[/url]
[QUOTE]I agree with accomplishments not being the best way to determine much which is why I never believe that one having more MVPs than the other makes that player better than another.
It's the same reason why I believe Shaq should be above Wilt. Yeah Wilt has better stats and yeah Wilt has more RS MVPs, but that doesn't mean he was better than him or should be ranked above him. I have always valued playoff dominance over regular season dominance.
If MVPs determined rankings then we would be saying how Nash is greater than Shaq, or how Derrick Rose is greater than Wade. The Bird-Moses comparison would be legit too since they both have 3 MVPs, yet about 99% of the world would tell you that Bird was easily the greater player of the two and that it is a laughable comparison.
Championship rings and finals MVP mean a hell lot more than MVPs. Although we have to look into the context. Wade's finals MVP and championship means more to me than Lebron's MVP, but Tony Parker's finals MVP and championship does not. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Wilt scored just as much in the playoffs as Kareem, averaged twice as many rebounds, more assists and if they kept the numbers probably at least twice as many blocks. His teams were also upset less often and certainly he didn't have the amount of Sweeps against him that Shaq's teams did. [/QUOTE]
A loss is a loss, why am I suppose to care if he got swept or not. Why should something hold more weight just because you win 1, 2, or 3 more games but you still lose the series? If you lose the series you lose the series.
[quote]
I just don't see how those guys have a stronger case, let alone an obvious one.[/QUOTE]
Sure, they were better playoff performers.
[QUOTE=Inception28]Sure, they were better playoff performers.[/QUOTE]
Let me offer a counterpoint that is the equivalent to what you presented:
No they're not!
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Let me offer a counterpoint that is the equivalent to what you presented:
No they're not![/QUOTE]
Well is it not true that Wilt Chamberlain won the least championships and least finals MVP out of the group?
[QUOTE=Inception28]Well is it not true that Wilt Chamberlain won the least championships and least finals MVP out of the group?[/QUOTE]
Now we're getting somewhere, discussion, yes!
Same number of Finals MVP's as Kareem and Bird if you give him '67 (anyone would)
Same number of titles as an alpha as Kareem and Magic, only one fewer than Shaq and Bird and for nearly Wilt's entire career he had Russell ad the Celtics in his way. Shaq only had MJ to worry about for three prime seasons, same with Bird and Magic, Kareem played in the weakest era on NBA hoops post-shot clock.
If you take Russell out of the Picture Wilt gets at least three more rings ('68, '69, '64) And probably five or six ('65, '62, '66).
There is no one else who was so consistently foiled by such a nemesis. Certainly there is no shame in being second best to Russell.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Now we're getting somewhere, discussion, yes!
Same number of Finals MVP's as Kareem and Bird if you give him '67 (anyone would)[/quote]
True, but lets face it. Kareem and Bird were the best player's on a championship team more than twice.
[quote]
Same number of titles as an alpha as Kareem and Magic, only one fewer than Shaq and Bird [/quote]
How many times were Magic and Kareem the alphas on their respective team? That being said I actually hold account into winning as a 2nd option. It's not worth a grain of salt to me like most people treat it.
[quote]
and for nearly Wilt's entire career he had Russell ad the Celtics in his way. Shaq only had MJ to worry about for three prime seasons, same with Bird and Magic, Kareem played in the weakest era on NBA hoops post-shot clock.
If you take Russell out of the Picture Wilt gets at least three more rings ('68, '69, '64) And probably five or six ('65, '62, '66).
There is no one else who was so consistently foiled by such a nemesis. Certainly there is no shame in being second best to Russell.[/QUOTE]
What is the point of this hypothetical? I don't live on what ifs, I live on what actually happened. That being said, it's nice to see for a change that Russell is being put on a high standard and I don't see the same excuses such as Wilt's teammates were a bunch of D-Leaguers and what not.
Wilt's stats did not help his team as much as one would think it would.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
If you take Russell out of the Picture Wilt gets at least three more rings ('68, '69, '64) And probably five or six ('65, '62, '66).
There is no one else who was so consistently foiled by such a nemesis. Certainly there is no shame in being second best to Russell.
[/QUOTE]
What a terrible argument..:facepalm
Fvck it, I'll be the lone wolf here and throw in my vote for Kobe at #7.
[QUOTE=Inception28]True, but lets face it. Kareem and Bird were the best player's on a championship team more than twice.[/quote]
Kareem wasn't '71 and '80 are the only seasons he was the highest MVP vote getter on his team during title years. Magic also received higher all-NBA recognition during the other 4 title runs.
[QUOTE=Inception28]How many times were Magic and Kareem the alphas on their respective team?[/quote]
Kareem 1971, 1980
Magic 1987, 1988
You can go either way in '82 and '85. I give Magic's performance a slight edge in the former and Kareem's in the later.
[QUOTE=Inception28]That being said I actually hold account into winning as a 2nd option. It's not worth a grain of salt to me like most people treat it.[/quote]
I am with you, but I don't think it's usually anymore a sign of greatness than being the best player on a runner-up or a team that losses a competitive series to the eventual Champs. Look at the following seasons and tell me which players you think proved more and whose season meant more.
2009 -Dwight Howard (best player on runner-up or Pau Gasol (second best on Champs)
2008 - Kobe Bryant (best player on runner-up) or Paul Pierce (second best on Champs)
2001 - Allen Iverson (best player on runner-up) or Kobe Bryant (second best on Champs)
1995 - Shaq (best player on runner-up) or Clyde Drexler (second best on Champs)
1993 - Charles Barkley (best player on runner-up) or Scottie Pippen (second best on Champs)
1986 - Hakeem Olajuwon (best player on runner-up) or Kevin McHale (second best on Champs)
[QUOTE=Inception28]What is the point of this hypothetical? I don't live on what ifs, I live on what actually happened. That being said, it's nice to see for a change that Russell is being put on a high standard and I don't see the same excuses such as Wilt's teammates were a bunch of D-Leaguers and what not.
Wilt's stats did not help his team as much as one would think it would.[/QUOTE]
We're on the same page here. I don't think the 50-27 Wilt was the best version of him or even a good version relative to his potential. And I do think he lacked the mental strength to fulfill his potential, but all that said, what he did achieve is in my opinion arguably greater than all but two players. Like Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Duncan and Shaq all struggled to stay atop once they made it. Distractions, injuries or competition exceeding them eventually made all of them come up short in seasons where they had a legit chance to win.
Wilt had 38-35 (or something close) in a game seven, he has nine playoff quadruple doubles I am aware of, he is the only made to lead his team past a healthy Russell and the Celtics. Wilt's teammates were very good, but not greater and usually not as great as the other guys in this discussion had. Wilt rarely played poorly when his team lost. When Havlicek stole the ball, it was Hal Greer's pass to Chet Walker. In '62 Wilt scored the final five points to tie i and just missed swatting Sam Jones game winner away. In '64 he took a team without any legit stars in their prime to the Finals. In '72 Russell himself said Wilt was playing how Russell would have played in Wilt's body.
I understand your and anyone's frustration dealing with Wilt fans. They often miss the greater point and focus on the numbers. Russell played to win and still accumulated all-time great numbers, Wilt played to post amazing numbers and still accumulated an all-time great winning record.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Kareem wasn't '71 and '80 are the only seasons he was the highest MVP vote getter on his team during title years. Magic also received higher all-NBA recognition during the other 4 title runs.
[/QUOTE]
[B]In that case, '67 was the only season Wilt was the highest MVP vote getter on his teams during title years. [/B]
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I don't think you can say they are better playoff performers. Certainly you can't just say it and assume people will accept it as fact.
Wilt's teams went to more conference finals and NBA finals than Bird, Shaq or Duncan and Kareem and Magic did 80% of their prime damage together.
None of them ever had a playoffs that rivals Wilt's '67 campaign. [B]And really you can barely find a bad game Wilt had in a pressure spot ('68 game seven is the only one I really hold against him).[/B]
Wilt won more MVP's than anyone besides Kareem, his Prime averages of 35-24-4 are other worldly.
Yes his numbers dipped in the playoffs, and that is a good reason to suggest maybe he was lacking a quality that guys like MJ, Russ, Bird, Duncan and Magic had, but Kareem didn't have it either so that can't be it.
Wilt scored just as much in the playoffs as Kareem, averaged twice as many rebounds, more assists and if they kept the numbers probably at least twice as many blocks. His teams were also upset less often and certainly he didn't have the amount of Sweeps against him that Shaq's teams did.
I just don't see how those guys have a stronger case, let alone an obvious one.[/QUOTE]
Here is his free-throw shooting in the 1970 Finals
gm 1: [B]1-10[/B]
gm 2: [B]1-3[/B]
gm 3: 7-13
gm 4: 4-7
gm 5: 4-9
gm 6: [B]5-14[/B]
gm 7: [B]1-11[/B]
[url]http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1970.htm[/url]
and Wilt also shot [B]4-13[/B] at the free-throw line in Game 7 of the 1969 Finals
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Here is his free-throw shooting in the 1970 Finals
gm 1: [B]1-10[/B]
gm 2: [B]1-3[/B]
gm 3: 7-13
gm 4: 4-7
gm 5: 4-9
gm 6: [B]5-14[/B]
gm 7: [B]1-11[/B][/QUOTE]
27% yuck!
And here it is in '67 when his team won the title.
gm 1: 4-9
gm 2: 2-17
gm 3: 2-9
gm 4: 4-9
gm 5: 2-12
gm 6: 8-16
27% and the sweet taste of victory.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
Kareem 1971, 1980
Magic 1987, 1988
You can go either way in '82 and '85. I give Magic's performance a slight edge in the former and Kareem's in the later.[/QUOTE]
Giving one each would mean that both would have 3 which would mean that both of them would have more than Wilt.
[QUOTE]
I am with you, but I don't think it's usually anymore a sign of greatness than being the best player on a runner-up or a team that losses a competitive series to the eventual Champs. Look at the following seasons and tell me which players you think proved more and whose season meant more.[/QUOTE]
Sure but it does mean something and that was the point I was trying to make. It's better to win one as a 2nd option to never win it all. It's like choosing paths between Scottie Pippen's career and Dominique Wilkins's. Pippen was clearly the superior of the two.
[QUOTE]Like Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Duncan and Shaq all struggled to stay atop once they made it. Distractions, injuries or competition exceeding them eventually made all of them come up short in seasons where they had a legit chance to win.[/QUOTE]
I don't think winning 3 championships in a row (Shaq) is struggling to stay atop.
Magic and Kareem had seasons where he won back to back, at least Magic as the alpha in 87 and 88.
[QUOTE]We're on the same page here. I don't think the 50-27 Wilt was the best version of him or even a good version relative to his potential. And I do think he lacked the mental strength to fulfill his potential, but all that said, what he did achieve is in my opinion arguably greater than all but two players.
I understand your and anyone's frustration dealing with Wilt fans. They often miss the greater point and focus on the numbers. Russell played to win and still accumulated all-time great numbers, Wilt played to post amazing numbers and still accumulated an all-time great winning record.[/QUOTE]
So it sounds like you would understand why I would take those 4-5 over Wilt then.
kobe
[quote=Inception28]Sure, they were better playoff performers.[/quote]
How can RG say this and then have the nerve to rank Jabbar ahead of Russell?
[QUOTE=Inception28]Giving one each would mean that both would have 3 which would mean that both of them would have more than Wilt. [/quote]
Considering that they played a decade (7 mutual prime seasons) together and that Wilt spent less than half that much time with a prime West, I'd say not to bad. The point is it's very close in terms of which of these guys was better suited to guide your team to a title.
[QUOTE=Inception28]Sure but it does mean something and that was the point I was trying to make. It's better to win one as a 2nd option to never win it all. It's like choosing paths between Scottie Pippen's career and Dominique Wilkins's. Pippen was clearly the superior of the two.[/quote]
I don't follow you here. Nique never came close to a title or Scottie's overall accolades. Wilt was always close to the title and was the second most decorated player of his era. Nique is not on Pips level, Wilt is right there with Magic/Kareem/Bird/Duncan/Shaq.
[QUOTE=Inception28]I don't think winning 3 championships in a row (Shaq) is struggling to stay atop.[/quote]
I would say his inability to stay healthy throughout his prime and stop feuding with Kobe certainly lead to a premature break-up and fewer titles than they could/should have won.
[QUOTE=Inception28]Magic and Kareem had seasons where he won back to back, at least Magic as the alpha in 87 and 88.[/quote]
Indeed Magic did, but it took a blown call and a perfectly timed injury for that to happen. In Wilt's case, only the same type of perfectly timed injury stopped him from repeating. Magic deserves the credit, but it's not some great chasm between he and Wilt.
[QUOTE=Inception28]So it sounds like you would understand why I would take those 4-5 over Wilt then.[/QUOTE]
I can see the argument, but I can't see it as a clear cut thing and I certainly don't agree with the conclusion.
To me Wilt achieved nearly as much on a team level and far more on an individual level just based on what happened. No hypotheticals, what-if's etc, just reality, as we both prefer. I am surprised if you can't see how I would feel that way even if you don't agree.
[QUOTE=Inception28]Giving one each would mean that both would have 3 which would mean that both of them would have more than Wilt.
[/quote]
If you are counting like this, making a great distinction out of one are you really looking at the player? the performer? or are you just justifying your preconceived notions? Russell was the greatest team sport winners ever - he was a great obstacle for anybody. If you are going by Playoff play why isn't Russell ahead of Kareem on your list? Kareem, without Magic, is just like Wilt in your accomplishment category, except Kareem pulled it off without a great winner opposite him, nevermind the greatest winner in all sports. If you are not measuring the team accomplishment above the individual what are you measuring?
Russell is the only one that has great separation in the winning department so he is the exception and should be acknowledged as such. Magic, Jordan and Duncan are the only others that should be getting points for exceptional winning ways, everybody else in the top ten its too minimal to call. Everybody else (Shaq, Kobe, Bird, Hakeem,Kareem, Wilt, Oscar, West) it seems to be a calculation of your own bias, as they were all in the right situation (coaches, teammates) at the right time they proved they could win it, but they didn't have championship on speed dial and aren't a guarantee trip to the finals or more magical in winning. This group only differs in team support and coaching.
If Jordan plays those two years and Hakeem comes away with nothing he is no less of a player. Some guys just ran up against great dynasties. So do we add more value to them because of this? Outside of the big four winners, everybody else seems to get five or six rings in a very good situation, four in a good situations and two on average. Really, that seems consistent (Hakeem would be the exception).
[QUOTE=Inception28] Wilt shouldn't be on here yet, but I assume a lot of people are naive about him and just look at his numbers... They are all better playoff performers and every bit as accomplished, if not more accomplished than Wilt was. Wilt is more talented sure, he is more talented than anyone who has ever played but that isn't enough.[/QUOTE]
Naive??? And then you said they were better playoff performers? Do you know of Wilt's performances? Serious question.
Shaq. :cheers:
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Here is his free-throw shooting in the 1970 Finals
gm 1: [B]1-10[/B]
gm 2: [B]1-3[/B]
gm 3: 7-13
gm 4: 4-7
gm 5: 4-9
gm 6: [B]5-14[/B]
gm 7: [B]1-11[/B]
[url]http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1970.htm[/url]
and Wilt also shot [B]4-13[/B] at the free-throw line in Game 7 of the 1969 Finals[/QUOTE]
One of the WORST arguments I have EVER read.
So, players like Shaq and Russell, who won 15 rings among them, and who were only MARGINALLY better FT shooters in BOTH the regular season, AND the post-season, are considered "winners", while Wilt is considered a "choker?"
So, let's conveniently overlook these facts. That a PRIME "scoring" Wilt averaged 32 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .510 (in league's that averaged about .430 shooting) in his first six post-seasons (his first seven seasons) ...COMBINED! Or that in his first eight straight post-seasons (covering his first nine seasons), all he did was average 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg (yes, 4.8 apg) and on .518 shooting (in league's that averaged about .435 shooting)...COMBINED!
I tell you what...you find me ONE player, who EVER had even ONE post-season of 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and on .518 shooting. And yet, here was Wilt, who supposedly "declined" in his post-seasons, who AVERAGED that over the course of EIGHT straight post-seasons...COMBINED!
How about Wilt with entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg (on .543 shooting), 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg? Or how about Wilt with post-season series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, and a staggering seven game series of 38.6 ppg, on .559 shooting, and with 23.0 rpg.Or how about Wilt with FOUR post-season series, just against Russell, of 30+ ppg...including a seven game series in the '65 ECF's in which he averaged 30 ppg AND 31 rpg? Or how about Wilt with FOUR post-season games of 50+ points (which is second to MJ's eight...all-time...in the post-season?) And one of them was a 56-35 game five in a best-of-series, and the other was a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting) against Russell in a "must-win" game five of the '60 ECF's.
Oh, and BTW, Wilt had FOUR 40-30 games, just against Russell, in his post-season career, including a 46-34 game in a "must-win" game five in the '66 ECF's. AND, in the '70 Finals, and on ONE leg, and in a "must-win" game, he hung a 45 point, on 20-27 shooting, 27 rebound game.
How about Wilt with TWO complete playoff series in which he AVERAGED a TRIPLE-DOUBLE? And in that post-season, all he did was average 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and on .579 shooting.
Defense? Of course the "anti-Wilt" clan with bring up Wilt's "decline" in the post-season...but how about these facts? In the '62 Finals, Russell shot 50% against the Lakers. However, in the '62 ECF's, and against Wilt, he was at about .420 shooting. In the '64 Finals, Wilt averaged 29 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .517 against Russell. Meanwhile, Russell averaged 11 ppg and 25 rpg against Wilt. And while we don't have Russell's H2H FG% against Wilt, we do know that Russell shot .356 in his entire post-season...and half of those ten game came against Wilt.
In the '65 Finals, Russell hung an 18 ppg .702 FG% on the Lakers. However, in the previous round against Wilt...15 ppg on .475 shooting (while Wilt averaged a 30-31 series against Russell.) In the '66 Finals, Russell LED Boston in scoring with a 23.6 ppg average against the Lakers. BUT, against Wilt in the ECF's that season? 14 ppg (while Wilt hung a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 series on Russell.)
In the '67 ECF's, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 10.2 ppg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 32.0 rpg to 23.0 rpg; outassisted Russell, per game, 10 apg to 6 apg; and outshot Russell in that series, .556 to .358 (and Russell had shot .454 during the regular season.) Then, in the Finals, and against Thurmond, Wilt outscored Nate, per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounded Nate, per game, 28.5 rpg to 26.7 rpg; and outshot Nate by a mind-boggling, .560 to .343 margin. BTW, Wilt squared of against Thurmond in three playoff series, and he outrebounded Nate in all three, as well as outshot Nate in all three by margins of .500 to .398, .550 to .392, and .560 to .343.
In the '68 regular season, Walt Bellamy shot .541. Against Wilt in the playoffs? How about .421???
In the '71 regular season, Kareem averaged 31.7 ppg on .577 shooting. Against a 34 year-old Wilt, who was a year removed from major surgery? 25 ppg on .481 shooting!
In the '72 regular season, Kareem averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting. In the WCF's, Wilt held Kareem to 33 ppg on .457 shooting, which included holding him to .414 over the course of the last four pivotal games of that series. And, BTW, Wilt also blocked some 15+ "unblockable" sky-hooks in that series.
Rebounding in the post-season? Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 playoff series. Included in those 29 series were eight against Russell, and in some of those, he just crushed Russell. He also outrebounded the likes of Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Thurmond, and Kareem...in EVERY H2H series...some by massive margins.
But, yes, he should only be judged by his FT shooting in a few of those contests...
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
[quote=G.O.A.T]27% and the sweet taste of victory.[/quote]
[B]Russell Rules: 11 Lessons on Leadership From the Twentieth Century's Greatest Winner[/B] - Bill Russell
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ShnzQ.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=jlauber]One of the WORST arguments I have EVER read.
So, players like Shaq and Russell, who won 15 rings among them, and who were only MARGINALLY better FT shooters in BOTH the regular season, AND the post-season, are considered "winners", while Wilt is considered a "choker?"
So, let's conveniently overlook these facts. That a PRIME "scoring" Wilt averaged 32 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .510 (in league's that averaged about .430 shooting) in his first six post-seasons (his first seven seasons) ...COMBINED! Or that in his first eight straight post-seasons (covering his first nine seasons), all he did was average 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg (yes, 4.8 apg) and on .518 shooting (in league's that averaged about .435 shooting)...COMBINED!
I tell you what...you find me ONE player, who EVER had even ONE post-season of 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and on .518 shooting. And yet, here was Wilt, who supposedly "declined" in his post-seasons, who AVERAGED that over the course of EIGHT straight post-seasons...COMBINED!
How about Wilt with entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg (on .543 shooting), 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg? Or how about Wilt with post-season series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, and a staggering seven game series of 38.6 ppg, on .559 shooting, and with 23.0 rpg.Or how about Wilt with FOUR post-season series, just against Russell, of 30+ ppg...including a seven game series in the '65 ECF's in which he averaged 30 ppg AND 31 rpg? Or how about Wilt with FOUR post-season games of 50+ points (which is second to MJ's eight...all-time...in the post-season?) And one of them was a 56-35 game five in a best-of-series, and the other was a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting) against Russell in a "must-win" game five of the '60 ECF's.
Oh, and BTW, Wilt had FOUR 40-30 games, just against Russell, in his post-season career, including a 46-34 game in a "must-win" game five in the '66 ECF's. AND, in the '70 Finals, and on ONE leg, and in a "must-win" game, he hung a 45 point, on 20-27 shooting, 27 rebound game.
How about Wilt with TWO complete playoff series in which he AVERAGED a TRIPLE-DOUBLE? And in that post-season, all he did was average 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and on .579 shooting.
Defense? Of course the "anti-Wilt" clan with bring up Wilt's "decline" in the post-season...but how about these facts? In the '62 Finals, Russell shot 50% against the Lakers. However, in the '62 ECF's, and against Wilt, he was at about .420 shooting. In the '64 Finals, Wilt averaged 29 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .517 against Russell. Meanwhile, Russell averaged 11 ppg and 25 rpg against Wilt. And while we don't have Russell's H2H FG% against Wilt, we do know that Russell shot .356 in his entire post-season...and half of those ten game came against Wilt.
In the '65 Finals, Russell hung an 18 ppg .702 FG% on the Lakers. However, in the previous round against Wilt...15 ppg on .475 shooting (while Wilt averaged a 30-31 series against Russell.) In the '66 Finals, Russell LED Boston in scoring with a 23.6 ppg average against the Lakers. BUT, against Wilt in the ECF's that season? 14 ppg (while Wilt hung a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 series on Russell.)
In the '67 ECF's, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 10.2 ppg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 32.0 rpg to 23.0 rpg; outassisted Russell, per game, 10 apg to 6 apg; and outshot Russell in that series, .556 to .358 (and Russell had shot .454 during the regular season.) Then, in the Finals, and against Thurmond, Wilt outscored Nate, per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounded Nate, per game, 28.5 rpg to 26.7 rpg; and outshot Nate by a mind-boggling, .560 to .343 margin. BTW, Wilt squared of against Thurmond in three playoff series, and he outrebounded Nate in all three, as well as outshot Nate in all three by margins of .500 to .398, .550 to .392, and .560 to .343.
In the '68 regular season, Walt Bellamy shot .541. Against Wilt in the playoffs? How about .421???
In the '71 regular season, Kareem averaged 31.7 ppg on .577 shooting. Against a 34 year-old Wilt, who was a year removed from major surgery? 25 ppg on .481 shooting!
In the '72 regular season, Kareem averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting. In the WCF's, Wilt held Kareem to 33 ppg on .457 shooting, which included holding him to .414 over the course of the last four pivotal games of that series. And, BTW, Wilt also blocked some 15+ "unblockable" sky-hooks in that series.
Rebounding in the post-season? Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 playoff series. Included in those 29 series were eight against Russell, and in some of those, he just crushed Russell. He also outrebounded the likes of Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Thurmond, and Kareem...in EVERY H2H series...some by massive margins.
But, yes, he should only be judged by his FT shooting in a few of those contests...
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm[/QUOTE]
1-11 from the freethrow line in game 7 of the nba finals, and they lose
that is terrible, no matter how you look at it
and about the numbers you posted, of course nobody ever did post those kind of numbers like Wilt did, or never will because players like Shaq and Hakeem played in the 90s and 00s not the 60s
All I am saying is that he didnt play that good in game 7 of the '69 and '70 finals, thats all
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]1-11 from the freethrow line in game 7 of the nba finals, and they lose
that is terrible, no matter how you look at it
and about the numbers you posted, of course nobody ever did post those kind of numbers like Wilt did, or never will because players like Shaq and Hakeem played in the 90s and 00s not the 60s
All I am saying is that he didnt play that good in game 7 of the '69 and '70 finals, thats all[/QUOTE]
Did you watch that game seven in the '70 Finals? Wilt was the ONLY Laker player who played a decent game. BTW, he was 1-8 from the line in the first half...and while he shot 5-10 from the field, his teammates collectively shot 33%...en route to a 69-42 halftime deficit. As it was, he scored 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, and with 24 rebounds (BTW, the "hero" Reed scored 4 points with 3 rebounds.)
BTW, Wilt averaged 22.5 rpg in 17 post-season games in his LAST year. That was the LAST time any other player ever averaged over 20 rpg in the playoffs. In fact, Kareem's 76-77 post-season, covering 11 games, is the next highest, at 17.7 rpg.
A couple of other points about Wilt's "inflated" stats in the 60's. In his 68-69 season, his new coach (the incompetent Butch Van Breda Kolf) didn't have a clue on how to use Wilt. He had him playing the high post, and even BENCHED him at times. PHILA posted one of the most comical quotes that I have ever read. "When we pass the ball to Wilt, he will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch." So, Van Breda Kolf preferred the shot-jacking of Elgin Baylor, who shot .447 in the regular season, and then an awful .385 in the playoffs (while Wilt shot .583 in the regular season, and .545 in the playoffs.)
In any case, it got so bad that SI ran an article claiming that Wilt could no longer score. Wilt then went out and put up a 60 point game, and followed that up a few days later with a 66 point game (on a staggering 29-35 shooting...which is, by far-and-away, the highest FG% for a 60+ point game in NBA history.) In fact, over the course of 17 straight games, Wilt averaged 31.1 ppg...including a 35 point game on Russell, which was his highest against Russell since his 46 point game in game five of the '66 ECF's, a 30 point game on ROY nd HOFer Elvin Hayes, and a 33 point game on Bob Rule (look him up...he was another "McAdoo.")
Unfortunately, Van Breda Kolf once again put the shackles on Wilt in the post-season. If there was ever a better example of his horrible coaching, it came in game seven of the Finals. Russell picked up his 5th foul early in the 4th quarter. In the next possession, LA went to Wilt, who went around Russell for an uncontested basket. That was about the last time Wilt touched the ball on the offensive end. And, of course, we know that Van Breda Kolf left Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of that game...while Chamberlain's replacement, Mel Counts, missed a couple of shots down the stretch...en route to a 4-13 game (while Wilt had scored 18 points on 7-8 shooting in his 43 minutes...along with 27 rebounds)...in a two point loss.
Keep in mind, however, that the NBA averaged 112.3 in that 68-69 season. And yet, Wilt clearly proved that he could have scored 30+ ppg had he been allowed to do so. And, BTW, those two 60+ point games came against the same centers that Kareem would face the very next season. And Kareem never approached those numbers in his entire 20 year career. And, yet, those two games were just two of Wilt's 32 60+ point games.
Then, in the 69-70 season, Wilt's next new coach, Joe Mullaney, asked that Wilt become the focal point of the offense. In his first nine games, Wilt averaged a league-leading 32.2 ppg, and on 60% shooting (along with 20 rpg.) Included in those nine games were games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 points. That 38 point game was against reigning MVP Wes Unseld, and his 42 point game came against Bob Rule (once again, look him up), and his 37 point game was against 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle. He also had a 25 point game, on 9-14 shooting, with 25 rebounds, against rookie Lew Alcindor (Kareem)...in a game in which he decisively outplayed Kareem in EVERY facet of the game. Unfortunately, Wilt shredded his knee in that ninth game (in a game in which he had scored 33 points on 13-13 shooting), and was never the same again.
Here again, Wilt was on pace for a 30+ point season, in a league that Kareem averaged 28.8 ppg in. Furthermore, Kareem's high season was 34.8 ppg just a couple of years later.
Then, think about this...Kareem faced a way-past his prime Wilt in 27 of their 29 H2H games. And, Wilt was playing on a surgically repaired knee in those 27 games. And over the course of their 28 H2H games, Wilt held Kareem to an overall .464 FG%. This, from a Kareem who would average .559 over his entire career. AND, then, a 38 year old Kareem would dump 33 ppg on an eye-popping .634 FG%, over the course of FIVE H2H games against a 23 year old Hakeem. Included in those five games, were games of 42 and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting and in only 37 minutes.) Even in the playoffs, Kareem averaged 27 ppg against Sampson and Hakeem. In fact, Kareem, from ages 38 thru 41 shot .599 against Hakeem-led teams, covering 22 games. And we know that Kareem also hung a 40 point game on rookie Hakeem in the 84-85 season, too. Not only that, but within a few games of that 46 point explosion against Hakeem, Kareem also murdered Ewing in a game in which he outscored Patrick, 40-9 (and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.)
Then, think about this... A PRIME "scoring" Wilt had THREE games of 50+ points on Willis Reed (and several more of 40+), with a HIGH of 58 points. And Chamberlain also had THREE games of 60+ points against 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy (and a season of 55 ppg), with a HIGH of 73 points! And Wilt also had several 30+ games, in a limited number of games in his "scoring seasons" against 6-11 HOFer Nate Thurmond, including one game in which he outscored Nate, 45-13.
Now, Kareem faced all of those guys many times in his career, and he never came close to games like that against them. In fact, he faced Thurmond in 50+ H2H games, and his high game was only 34 points. In fact, he probably shot well under 45% against Nate in those 50+ H2H games (and in three straight playoff series, he shot .486, .405, and .428 against Thurmond.)
How come a 38 year old Kareem could just devour players like Hakeem (with THREE games of 40+), and on staggering FG%'s...and yet, he struggled mightily against a way-past his prime Wilt, and an aging Thurmond? And how come Kareem, who faced many of the same centers that Wilt faced, could not come close to the domination that a PRIME Wilt bombed those centers with?