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

[QUOTE=Rooster]What about taking only one shot in the 2nd half. What about taking himself out of the game. What about not taking advantage of Reed not playing. Well Wilt all that too. Wilt won
all the matchup. Numbers favor him but the luck favor more of the courageous ones, great players with heart which can
never be measured but you can count them on their fingers.[/QUOTE]


First of all...did you actually RESEARCH those games you brought up?

In game seven of the '68 ECF's, Wilt, who normally TOUCHED the ball on the offensive end, around 15 times per quarter in that season, had NINE TOUCHES in the ENTIRE second half, and only TWO in the last quarter (and both of those came on offensive rebounds.) And, while he was NOT getting the ball, his teammates collective shot 33% in that game...a 100-96 loss. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain played the last FIVE games of that series with an ASSORTMENT of injuries, including a tear in his calf...and was NOTICEABLY limping throughout those games. Even Russell acknowledged that a "lessor man would not have played." AND, as we KNOW, neither Reed, nor Kareem, would have played under those same circumstances.

Taking himself out of a game? The man INJURED his leg. The SAME leg that would require major surgery early on in the very next season. Furthermore, he ASKED to go back in within a couple of minutes...and his COACH REFUSED.

Not taking advantage of Reed? He battled the MVP Reed to a draw in the first four games...and before Reed came up with his injury in game five. And, in that game seven, despite what you may have read (and you can watch that game on YouTube BTW), Chamberlain was SWARMED by the Knicks. Not to mention that even West went to hell in that game. In fact, Wilt was the ONLY Laker who played decent. And a 21 point game, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds, and with Reed putting up a 4 point game, on 2-5 shooting, with 3 rebounds? Of course, you fail to mention one key FACT. Wilt was playing only FOUR MONTHS removed from MAJOR KNEE SURGERY. The SAME surgery that took Baylor over a YEAR to semi-completely recover from.

Speaking of courageous..., Wilt came back WAY AHEAD of even the most optomistic medical opinion in that season, so that he could HELP his TEAMMATES in the playoffs.

Yep...that was Wilt the "choker", the "loser", and the "failure."

[QUOTE=jlauber]BTW, in Wilt's 11 post-season games in that 64-65 season, he averaged 29.3 ppg on .530 shooting, in a league that shot .426. And, in his seven games against Russell, he averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg. I have never seen his FG% in that series against Russell, but in the game seven, one point loss, Chamberlain put up a 30 point game, on 12-15 shooting from the floor, with 32 rebounds. Of course, the "anti-Wilt clan" will point to Wilt's 6-13 from the line and blame WILT for that loss. [B]Oh, and BTW, in the last 36 secs, Wilt went 2-2 from the line, as well as a thunderous dunk over Russell with five seconds left.[/B][/QUOTE]
Understatement. If only Havlicek didn't stole the ball.

[QUOTE=jlauber]First of all...did you actually RESEARCH those games you brought up?

In game seven of the '68 ECF's, Wilt, who normally TOUCHED the ball on the offensive end, around 15 times per quarter in that season, had NINE TOUCHES in the ENTIRE second half, and only TWO in the last quarter (and both of those came on offensive rebounds.) And, while he was NOT getting the ball, his teammates collective shot 33% in that game...a 100-96 loss. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain played the last FIVE games of that series with an ASSORTMENT of injuries, including a tear in his calf...and was NOTICEABLY limping throughout those games. Even Russell acknowledged that a "lessor man would not have played." AND, as we KNOW, neither Reed, nor Kareem, would have played under those same circumstances.

Taking himself out of a game? The man INJURED his leg. The SAME leg that
would require major surgery early on in the very next season. Furthermore, he ASKED to go back in within a couple of minutes...and his COACH REFUSED.

Not taking advantage of Reed? He battled the MVP Reed to a draw in the first four games...and before Reed came up with his injury in game five. And, in that game seven, despite what you may have read (and you can watch that
game on YouTube BTW), Chamberlain was SWARMED by the Knicks. Not to mention that even West went to hell in that game. In fact, Wilt was the ONLY Laker who played decent. And a 21 point game, on 10-16 shooting, with 24
rebounds, and with Reed putting up a 4 point game, on 2-5 shooting, with 3 rebounds? Of course, you fail to mention one key FACT. Wilt was playing only FOUR MONTHS removed from MAJOR KNEE SURGERY. The SAME surgery that
took Baylor over a YEAR to semi-completely recover from.

Speaking of courageous..., Wilt came back WAY AHEAD of even the most optomistic medical opinion in that season, so that he could HELP his TEAMMATES in the playoffs.

Yep...that was Wilt the "choker", the "loser", and the "failure."[/QUOTE]

You forgot to mention Wilt took down 34 rebounds with his assortment of injuries and after his team leading the series 3-1 You forgot also that his coach refused because they were playing better and they don't miss an open
man. You forgot to say Wilt was guarded by smaller forwards like Dave DeBusschere and Stallworth and missing 10-11 free throws. All in all his team was leading 3-1, 3-2 and 2-2 with other team MVP not playing. I dunno if you call that choking or lack of killer instinct. You know, just a couple of Wilt shortcomings compare to thousands of his amazing numbers.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Look, I consider you one of the most knowledgeable posters on this site (if not THE most.) But, you get almost as defensive with Russell, as I do with Wilt.[/QUOTE]

[I]Tu quoque[/I]?

Categorically false.

#1) I do not post in every single thread in which Russell's name is mentioned. In fact, I don't post as much as most of the regular posters here, and I hadn't posted much of anything until recently, which is usually several posts during whenever it is I happen to come here, then it'll be a while before I appear again. I've been a member of this site twice as long as you have, yet you have seven times the number of posts.

#2) Russell is not the only player I talk about. I have discussed others at length, and have presented information on other players. My knowledge is not limited to one player. I am capable of discussing many other players, able to intelligently discuss players from the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, and those in the 21st century, though I find it less interesting to discuss the same people everyone else talks about all the time. I have a database which I've spent over three decades (longer than the majority of the posters on this site have even been alive, let alone following basketball) compiling everything I know into a definitive reference, putting anything I might want at any particular time right at my fingertips, which is why I'm able to continually produce information no one else is aware of, and know things no one else knows (such as the quote I referenced).

#3) I do not go round and round and round and round and round (etc.) with people about the same thing, posting the exact same response repeatedly. I do not spend a prolonged amount of time on the ignorant or uninformed. It is not true of me that people will say things solely to bait me, knowing that as sure as the sun rises and falls, that I will come on, see it, take the bait and respond in an utterly predictable manner.

#4) I have never once displaced some battle I've had with people over the decades onto innocent people who have nothing to do with it. Seeking to continue my battle with people who couldn't care less.

#5) I have never in my life stated one thing that I didn't have proof of. I have never uttered anything I wasn't sure of, just because I would [I]like[/I] it to be true. I never go off of what anyone else says, because other people are not as reliable as myself, nor are they as stringent about ensuring any claims are factually accurate. I go solely off information I myself have gathered and know to be true.

#6) I don't insult the intelligence of someone who clearly demonstrates that he knows what he is talking about, or treat them like some other ignorant poster who doesn't know what he's talking about, has never seen the players he's talking about or bothered to do the research.

#7) I do not feel the need to tear down another player in order to make my favorite player look good. I have no interest in tearing down other players. The only thing I tear down is falsehoods and inaccuracies, and I do so very thoroughly. Though after having done this since the advent of the internet and seeing the general audience get no more knowledgeable as a whole, I've begun to question just how much good I've actually done and whether it's worth continuing. I know what I know, and there's not much point in engaging in debate with anonymous strangers.

I think that's enough for now, but, with all due respect, as far as how we are concerning the players in question, we are nothing alike.

[QUOTE=jlauber](rest snipped.)

So, if you want an apology, I will be more than glad to give you one. You are one of the few posters here that I truly respect. And I also appreciate the information that you bring to us, as well.[/QUOTE]

To be frank, since I'm not one for BS'ing, I find it rather tiring, honestly.

Here's what the pattern's always been since my first encounter with you:

You'll praise me for being knowledgeable, you'll especially give me kudos if I've posted something favorable about Wilt you didn't know, which you'll save and cite later; then later at some point you'll get heated and rip me/jump on me with the same copy-and-pasted response you give "Wilt haters"/insult my intelligence by pasting something as if you're somehow telling me something I don't already know, or as if I'm some guy who never saw any of the players in question and thus needs you to present me with "the facts," because then in your eyes I've become one of "[B]THEM[/B]" who you've been waging war against for so long; then you'll apologize, after which point we're back at square one.

I've never been big on praise, because if there's anything I've learned during my time on this planet, it's that the people who praise you one minute, will rip you the next. It doesn't matter whether it's someone close to you, or some guy on the internet. I've never been big on words period, because while I've come to the conclusion that it might be possible one might genuinely be sincere at the moment, once the moment passes, what they said at another time no longer applies once they're in a different moment. So, no, you don't need to apologize (again).

Wilt's your idol, you've been fighting a battle for Wilt against the world for decades. It's a touchy subject with you. I simply will not reply in a topic in which you're discussing Wilt. I can't control you, but I can control me. Those who know better have a greater responsibility.

And with that, I take my leave from this subject.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r][I]Tu quoque[/I]?

Categorically false.

#1) I do not post in every single thread in which Russell's name is mentioned. In fact, I don't post as much as most of the regular posters here, and I hadn't posted much of anything until recently, which is usually several posts during whenever it is I happen to come here, then it'll be a while before I appear again. I've been a member of this site twice as long as you have, yet you have seven times the number of posts.

#2) Russell is not the only player I talk about. I have discussed others at length, and have presented information on other players. My knowledge is not limited to one player. I am capable of discussing many other players, able to intelligently discuss players from the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, and those in the 21st century, though I find it less interesting to discuss the same people everyone else talks about all the time. I have a database which I've spent over three decades (longer than the majority of the posters on this site have even been alive, let alone following basketball) compiling everything I know into a definitive reference, putting anything I might want at any particular time right at my fingertips, which is why I'm able to continually produce information no one else is aware of, and know things no one else knows (such as the quote I referenced).

#3) I do not go round and round and round and round and round (etc.) with people about the same thing, posting the exact same response repeatedly. I do not spend a prolonged amount of time on the ignorant or uninformed. It is not true of me that people will say things solely to bait me, knowing that as sure as the sun rises and falls, that I will come on, see it, take the bait and respond in an utterly predictable manner.

#4) I have never once displaced some battle I've had with people over the decades onto innocent people who have nothing to do with it. Seeking to continue my battle with people who couldn't care less.

#5) I have never in my life stated one thing that I didn't have proof of. I have never uttered anything I wasn't sure of, just because I would [I]like[/I] it to be true. I never go off of what anyone else says, because other people are not as reliable as myself, nor are they as stringent about ensuring any claims are factually accurate. I go solely off information I myself have gathered and know to be true.

#6) I don't insult the intelligence of someone who clearly demonstrates that he knows what he is talking about, or treat them like some other ignorant poster who doesn't know what he's talking about, has never seen the players he's talking about or bothered to do the research.

#7) I do not feel the need to tear down another player in order to make my favorite player look good. I have no interest in tearing down other players. The only thing I tear down is falsehoods and inaccuracies, and I do so very thoroughly. Though after having done this since the advent of the internet and seeing the general audience get no more knowledgeable as a whole, I've begun to question just how much good I've actually done and whether it's worth continuing. I know what I know, and there's not much point in engaging in debate with anonymous strangers.

I think that's enough for now, but, with all due respect, as far as how we are concerning the players in question, we are nothing alike.



To be frank, since I'm not one for BS'ing, I find it rather tiring, honestly.

Here's what the pattern's always been since my first encounter with you:

You'll praise me for being knowledgeable, you'll especially give me kudos if I've posted something favorable about Wilt you didn't know, which you'll save and cite later; then later at some point you'll get heated and rip me/jump on me with the same copy-and-pasted response you give "Wilt haters"/insult my intelligence by pasting something as if you're somehow telling me something I don't already know, or as if I'm some guy who never saw any of the players in question and thus needs you to present me with "the facts," because then in your eyes I've become one of "[B]THEM[/B]" who you've been waging war against for so long; then you'll apologize, after which point we're back at square one.

I've never been big on praise, because if there's anything I've learned during my time on this planet, it's that the people who praise you one minute, will rip you the next. It doesn't matter whether it's someone close to you, or some guy on the internet. I've never been big on words period, because while I've come to the conclusion that it might be possible one might genuinely be sincere at the moment, once the moment passes, what they said at another time no longer applies once they're in a different moment. So, no, you don't need to apologize (again).

Wilt's your idol, you've been fighting a battle for Wilt against the world for decades. It's a touchy subject with you. I simply will not reply in a topic in which you're discussing Wilt. I can't control you, but I can control me. Those who know better have a greater responsibility.

And with that, I take my leave from this subject.[/QUOTE]
If you could, please send me a zipped folder of your compiled references/data. Would greatly appreciate that. Send it through my email.

[QUOTE]You'll praise me for being knowledgeable, you'll especially give me kudos if I've posted something favorable about Wilt you didn't know, which you'll save and cite later; then later at some point you'll get heated and rip me/jump on me with the same copy-and-pasted response you give "Wilt haters"/insult my intelligence by pasting something as if you're somehow telling me something I don't already know[/QUOTE]

Pretty Much. He(as are quite a few fans who take their support of individual players to a laughable extreme) decides how intelligent you are from one moment to the next based on little but if your current words can be taken to support his guy or not. Hes quoted things I said with the little cheers emoticons and props and all....and some other time im a Wilt hater. Despite the fact ive been here for 10 years mostly defending Wilt when hes hated on.

Not that such things are limited to him.

While back I came up on a list of the worst Lebron haters...the same day some other guy said I was the biggest Lebron fan here.

ISH can be funny in that way....

[QUOTE=jlauber]

The widening of the lane had NO affect on Wilt.[/QUOTE]

Check his pre and post lane extension playoff numbers and get back to me on that.

[QUOTE=Rooster]You forgot to mention Wilt took down 34 rebounds with his assortment of injuries and after his team leading the series 3-1 You forgot also that his coach refused because they were playing better and they don't miss an open
man. You forgot to say Wilt was guarded by smaller forwards like Dave DeBusschere and Stallworth and missing 10-11 free throws. All in all his team was leading 3-1, 3-2 and 2-2 with other team MVP not playing. I dunno if you call that choking or lack of killer instinct. You know, just a couple of Wilt shortcomings compare to thousands of his amazing numbers.[/QUOTE]

And you forgot to mention that Wilt's TEAM was DECIMATED by injuries, including Wilt himself, who PLAYED with his. And, yes, 34 rebounds (to Russell's 26), all while battling an assortment of injuries. Instead of getting some kind of praise for a pretty amazing accomplishment, you rip him for supposedly losing the game.

In '69 they were playing better without Wilt? From about the ten minute mark, when LA trailed by 17 points, to the around the six minute mark, when Wilt left the floor, LA had cut the margin down to seven points. That was 10 points in about 3-4 minutes. Boston was clearly out of gas by that point, too. BTW, watch footage of that game...early in the 4th quarter, and after Russell had picked up his 5th foul, the Lakers go into Wilt, who goes right around Russell for an easy basket. That would be about the last time he would get the ball.

Of course, PHILA found a classic quote from coach Van Breda Kolf, "When we pass the ball into Wilt, he will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch." And the brilliant Van Breda Kolf kept Wilt on the bench, and rode the great Mel Counts down the stretch. No wonder then, that after LA lost that game, he was promptly fired, and his career was basically over.

In the '70 Finals, it was tied 2-2, and LA was BEATING NY by TEN points, when Reed went down with his injury. However, helped by questionable officiating in that second half (and none other than NY Times writer Leonard Koppett made that comment), the Knicks came back from 13 down at the half to win the game. How suspect was that officiating? Wilt took three shots, and West, two shots, in that second half. Koppett claimed that both were allowed to be mauled in that second half. So, had there been a semblance of balanced officiating, Wilt's 45-27 (on 20-27 shooting) game six might have been the series winner.

But once again, this was a Wilt who was nowhere near 100%. I invite you to watch game seven of the '70 Finals on YouTube, and then the clinching game five of the '72 Finals, and compare the two Wilt's.

Of course, there was that Wilt DOUBLE STANDARD, in which he was EXPECTED to do much more. He couldn't use injuries, or poor play by teammates, or horrible coaching, or poor officiating, or miraculous shots and plays by opposing players, as excuses. He was expected to beat teams by himself (even at less than 100%.)

[QUOTE=eliteballer]Check his pre and post lane extension playoff numbers and get back to me on that.[/QUOTE]

In 63-64, Wilt averaged 36.9 ppg on .524 shooting. In the playoffs, he averaged 34.7 ppg on .543 shooting. and he faced Russell in five of his 12 playoff games, and averaged 29 ppg on .517 shooting.

In the 64-65 season, he averaged 34.7 ppg on .510 on .510 shooting. In the playoffs, he averaged 29.3 ppg on .530 shooting, with seven of his 11 playoff games against Russell (and he hung a 30-31 series on Russell.)

In 65-66, he averaged 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting. In the five game playoff series against RUSSELL, he averaged 28 ppg on .509 shooting.

Oh, and BTW, and as always, he ELEVATED his rebounding.

Of course, he faced a HOF starting center in 99 of his 160 playoff games. And because he played with mostly inept rosters, he only played 52 games in his "scoring" prime, including not even making the playoffs in the season in which he averaged 44.8 on .528 shooting. Incidently, in those 52 games in his "scoring" seasons, he faced Russell in 30 of them. Is it any wonder then, why Wilt's offensive production declined somewhat?

So, if you are somehow suggesting that Wilt declined SIGNIFICANTLY, I sure don't see it. Especially when you factor in his playoff opposing centers.

[QUOTE=-23-]Think is Chamberlain is very disproportional (stilt nickname), his legs are long and lean, and his torso is not as balanced as the rest of his body. He tooks "tall" but not proportional. Shaq on the otherhand looked proportional and hence why he was able to staff of injuries for much of his career. Shaq has a lower center of gravity, and could easily overpower any center in any era, regardless of when he was born. No doubt, if he played in the 60's he'd still retain much of his athleticism since the nature of his body would allow him to.[/QUOTE]

The speed of the game, the lack of rest, the four back to backs, the cramped hotel rooms, six hours in airports, cold arenas, hot arenas, freezing locker-rooms, stretching not being a science, stress of getting hit, and off court stresses would have broke Shaq down. He wasn't that durable with all of the pampering now and averaged about 65 games a year without a complete year and 12 years where he missed more than 10 games. Wilt was an iron man when stretching wasn't a science - I would have him as the greatest iron man in the sport. Shaq's weight, without stretching is a 10 game disaster.

Wilt's long legs would be a disadvantage in boxing out for rebounding. Charles Barkley always said his butt against somebody's legs would win everytime. He definitely was special for his size but he definitely wasn't Chamberlain on the boards either. KG has a high center of gravity and he lead the league in rebounding while sometimes guarding small forwards and being very good on help defense (he wasn't in the best position to get rebounds -but he wanted it more than the next guy). Rebounding is more about who wants to go get it.

With today's rules, Wilt would have the most devasting first and last steps the game every had cause his leg length was crazy (stretching also increases explosion considerably). Back then they didn't allow hops, baby steps, Shaq shuffles, and called the game very tight on Wilt. Of 7 footers, the ironmen are Gilmore, Kareem, KG, Wilt and Parrish all of which had longer legs than torso (maybe not Parrish), sobeit, not to the extent of Wilt. Of the Shaq types: Oliver Miller :lol They would suffer in bad conditions.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]And...then I have reality. which can be proven....showing Russell one on one with wilt many many many many many many many times. So...what now?

You gonna pretend to not have seen what im talking about? There are many famous individual clips of them one on one. The team flat out does NOT collapse on him on the catch and double him. this isnt my opinion.

Its...in virtually every piece of footage availiable.[/QUOTE]

In fairness to a level of sophistication, you know there are no absolutes. all statements made are general in context. Let's not get crazy.

[QUOTE=jlauber]And, Mantle probably hit the longest HRs EVER. Multiple times!

Nolan Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH, on a SLOW gun in a game in the eighth inning, and after throwing 162 pitches, in 1973. On his LAST pitch, at age 46, and on an injured arm, he was clocked at 98 MPH.

These "bridges" fill in the gaps quite well. You could make an argument that a prime Ruth would probably be among the best players in TODAY's era.[/QUOTE]

I notice that a couple of posters say no way could a player average 42 minutes per game because today's players can't do it. Lebron definitely can but... . I just watched the Ali/Frazier trilogy and no way can heavyweights do that today in a 12 round fight much less the 15 rounds they fought then - note I saw that Jack Johnson had several 30 plus round fights in the 1920's. Holyfield who is known for his wars couldn't do it. And boxing is by far the most taxing of energy of all the sports. I think the foods of today have too much preservatives and slows people down.

How many players have you ever heard of that ran 26 mile marathons much less the 50 mile ones Wilt ran when he was 60 years old. He had a freak heart, cause it has to beat a lot and strong to get blood to his long extremities. He was indeed a freak in this regards. He wasn't like other 7 footers. I really think that Shaq or Hakeem have no chance of doing a regular marathon at 50 years old. Probably now.