Printable View
[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW][IMG]http://i.minus.com/iHXWVpqaZYXb2.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
[B]Wilt's [/B]playoff scoring average: [U]22.5 points
[/U]
[B]Jordan's [/B]playoff scoring average: [U]33.4 points[/U]
[B]Kobe's [/B]playoff scoring average: [U]25.6 points[/U]
[B]Baylor's [/B]playoff scoring average: [U]27 points[/U]
[B]And it's really hilarious, Wilt scored 60 points or more 32 times in his career but he never did it in the playoffs.. [/B]
Sure, it's possible. There's nobody out there now, but it could happen.
When I say there's nobody out there - - - [B]if there was, we would know it.
[/B]
Look at Kobe when he was a kid. Everybody [I]knew[/I] when he was in high school that something amazing was going on. Same exact thing happened when LeBron showed up. The whole sports world got wound clear up like a top because something amazing was brewing in that high school.
Well in the '50s that was happening too. The entire country knew about the amazingly tall kid from Philly [B]who was absolutely destroying NBA players during his summer vacations[/B].
The guy scored 90 points in a high school game.... that had 8 minute quarters. I mean regardless of competition just the stamina to throw the darn ball in that many times in that amount of time is mind boggling!! To do that you'd have to be moving at a constant, non-stop sprint.
But yeah, sure it could happen one day.
Wilt himself is on record saying that man who could be better than Wilt Chamberlain [B]could be Shaq[/B].... but then after 3 or 4 years he came back and called Shaq out because he didn't bother much with rebounds, didn't play great defense. Which was all true - Shaq played high quality defense all right, good solid NBA level D. But not at a Walton level, not at a Russell level.... not at a Wilt level. Never did. Shaq was elite only within very narrow parameters when using the most elite measuring sticks.
Thus Wilt on Shaq (and I paraphrase... all those interviews are available on youtube).
But those who say that a guy with those kinds of skills and that kind of athletic ability couldn't throw down enormously on today's NBA just have the wrong image of 60s hoops.
Those dudes were big, they were fast, they were strong, and they had very high skills. [I]Same size and speed as today's players.[/I] 6'10 245 lbs is the same size today as it was then. And that was the size of the league's starting centers back then... just like it is today. Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Russell, Chamberlain, Connie Dierking... just a lot of big trees in the paint.
Those guys were the same size as Tim Duncan, Omar Asik, KG, and all the rest, and just like today, they were the most skilled players in the world. 20-10 centers were as valuable back then as they are today.... but #13 was a 30-23 center.... and he [I]stopped shooting midway through his career[/I].
Chamberlain was just like Jordan - he was that much better than anything else out there. The whole arena changes when guys like that walk in.
But Wilt did show up, Mike did show up, Kobe, LeBron..... yes I think there will be another guy like Chamberlain, or like Mighty Bill Russell.... I've been waiting 40 years to see him, and I still get excited at the prospect!!
[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Wilt hating 101: Flip/spin Wilt's amazing records into something negative. Your doing good so far :applause:[/QUOTE]
Wil ****-sucking 101: everything you post
I don't understand why Wilt's numbers dipped in the playoffs. Almost every superstar increased their production in the playoffs. Why not Wilt? Even during his 50+ ppg season, his playoff averages decreased dramatically. If he's so good, why did that happen? Normally, you start beasting during the playoffs to prove a point.
[QUOTE=deja vu]I don't understand why Wilt's numbers dipped in the playoffs. Almost every superstar increased their production in the playoffs. Why not Wilt? Even during his 50+ ppg season, his playoff averages decreased dramatically. If he's so good, why did that happen? Normally, you start beasting during the playoffs to prove a point.[/QUOTE]
It's a good question. Too bad those games aren't all available in decent quality for us to watch. I don't know how much playoff footage Cavs has of Wilt.
Possibilities:
1. Better defense in the playoffs, particularly the defensive attention paid to Wilt. Also that Wilt played against Russell for a lot of those games. One poster pointed out that it would be like Jordan playing against Payton each year in the ECF.
2. The pace was different? Maybe less shots available. I'm not sure that's the case, though.
3. It was a better playoff strategy to distribute the ball more on offense to other players.
4. Wilt didn't put up the same kind of effort for whatever reason.
I'm looking at his playoff FG%. It was down a bit his second and third playoffs, but up for his fourth. His PER that playoffs was 31.3, when he he went 34.7/25.2/3.3 on 54.3%. His big scoring came against St Louis. In the finals against Boston he only averaged 29 a game.
Interesting, the 1963-64 Wariors with Wilt and Thurmond only allowed 102.6 ppg in that high paced era.
[QUOTE=Marchesk]It's a good question. Too bad those games aren't all available in decent quality for us to watch. I don't know how much playoff footage Cavs has of Wilt.
Possibilities:
1. Better defense in the playoffs, particularly the defensive attention paid to Wilt. Also that Wilt played against Russell for a lot of those games. One poster pointed out that it would be like Jordan playing against Payton each year in the ECF.
2. The pace was different? Maybe less shots available. I'm not sure that's the case, though.
3. It was a better playoff strategy to distribute the ball more on offense to other players.
4. Wilt didn't put up the same kind of effort for whatever reason.
I'm looking at his playoff FG%. It was down a bit his second and third playoffs, but up for his fourth. His PER that playoffs was 31.3, when he he went 34.7/25.2/3.3 on 54.3%. His big scoring came against St Louis. In the finals against Boston he only averaged 29 a game.[/QUOTE]
I think it comes down to:
1) Russell factor (see this thread: [url]http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1270141[/url])
2) The FT thing really matters in close games. Seriously, Wilt lost more than a couple of Game 7's, so why not foul him? He's almost certainly going to miss one, and often enough he'll miss both (or three, since they had three-to-make-two situations back then), so you'll take your chances there rather than leave him at the line.
3) Slower playoff pace/more gimmick defenses.
There were some freak occurrences, but he lost a bunch of games at the line. He was really, really, bad there (probably the worst ever, taking into account volume and the three-to-make-two thing, worse than your Ben Wallaces, Shaqs, Reggie Evanses, and Bill Russells), and if he was even marginally better, his team's chances would've drastically improved.
I mean 1968 (Wilt stopped shooting, and supposedly had mailed it in since he'd decided already that he wanted to play for LA) and 1969 were also weird (his and van Breda Kolff's mutual resentment led to the latter not putting him back in, late in G7), but seriously, the FT shooting was truly awful.
It sounds kinda silly (especially since you'd think any random person could master shooting free throws), and since it doesn't even occur during the course of actual play so it should be mechanical, but literally this one negative caused Wilt tons and tons of problems. There are tons of theories/explanations as to why he had the deficiency, but the bottom line is that he did, and it likely cost him multiple championships.
I'm not a Wilt guy personally, but I don't actively dislike him or have anything against him. I'm just calling it how I see it.
[QUOTE=Marchesk]Interesting, the 1963-64 Wariors with Wilt and Thurmond only allowed 102.6 ppg in that high paced era.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that was one of (arguably) Wilt's best defensive seasons. Looking at relative DRtg compared to the rest of the league:
[url]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?pli=1&key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dF80TGxJQXliY0RlcXlxSHJXdGhjV3c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=2&filterstr0=NBA&sortcolid=16&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=25[/url]
That Warriors Squad was 14th ever, in the same season as the GOAT defense (though it works both ways; replace the Warriors with an average defense and the Celtics are miles ahead). FWIW the 04 Pistons after acquiring Sheed are 3rd, prorated at -9.4% (including the postseason! 92.0 DRtg for the regular season and playoffs after trading for him).
[QUOTE=deja vu]I don't understand why Wilt's numbers dipped in the playoffs. Almost every superstar increased their production in the playoffs. Why not Wilt? Even during his 50+ ppg season, his playoff averages decreased dramatically. If he's so good, why did that happen? Normally, you start beasting during the playoffs to prove a point.[/QUOTE]
You know, things like 41 rebounds in a playoff game, and getting multiple quadruple doubles in the playoffs is throwing down something fierce...... especially when he did those kinds of things against the Celtics.
But those earlier, Warrior days...... well, this is true of all centers. [B][B][I][COLOR="Red"]Centers do not get the ball unless someone passes it to them. And Chamberlain did not get the ball as often in the playoffs.[/COLOR][/I][/B][/B]
There's very very little footage of that early '60s NBA, when Chamberlain was the scoring force. There's part of a '64 Celtics-Warriors Finals game, and that's about all there is on Youtube.
But what there is available, shows a whole lot of insane shot-jacking from out in the parking lot. And the stats prove that exactly.
The '62 Warriors had guys like Tom Gola and Paul Arizin - relics of the '50s and from what tiny amount I have seen they WERE relics. Very old legs. Al Attles was real fast, a real solid player all through his career, and always exciting because there was likely to be a fight for any reason, or none. But not the guy to take over games against an Oscar Robertson, or a Bob Cousy or KC Jones. Tom Meschery was brutality unleashed, but he could play some hoops.
But anyhow... the Warriors totally abandoned the strategy the team had used all season long which was - [I]Duh! Get the ball in down low to Chamberlain[/I].
During the regular season, Wilt shot [B]39.5[/B] FGA per game (!!!)
But look at the playoffs: [B]28.9 [/B]FGA
[B]11 fewer shots per game!!!!![/B]
Remember, we are talking about a center, now, not a guard. He didn't bring the ball down the court. It had to be passed in to him. Think about KG in the paint for the Celtics. If they don't pass it in to him... he's not going to be shooting. Very simple.
Over and over in the little video clips, you can see Chamberlain in position down on the block, with Russell so pinned behind Wilt he looks invisible, with a clear passing lane.... and a freaking buzz bomb goes sailing over from 25 or 28 feet out.
If you look at the Warrior playoff averages, it is truly disgusting.
Arizin 21 FGA on .375 FG%
Rogers 12 FGA on .359 FG%
Gola 8 FGA on .271 FG%
Al Attles shot 47% during the season.... and 36% in the playoffs.
These are playoff shooting numbers.
So the guards stepped up their shooting pace from regular season - they took Chamberlain's extra 10 shots themselves, you see? They averaged around 41, to 45% FG% in the regular season (43% as a team).
[I]Not 1 single Warrior (except Chamberlain) shot even 40% from the field in the '62 playoffs.
[/I]It doesn't matter who the player is, if they get ELEVEN fewer touches in the playoffs than they do in the regular season, their average is going down. No way around it.
People bash Chamberlain because his numbers went down, but they don't bother - or don't know how - to look at the whole picture and find out why it happened.
Sure, he was playing against the greatest defensive player of the '60s - his numbers often went down against Russell as opposed to what he did against other centers. So did everybody. Russell was amazing. But there's a whole lot more to it than just Bill Russell.
Russell himself is on record as saying Chamberlain was [I]going[/I] to score a hundred, and he was just thankful it wasn't against Bill Russell, because Wilt could have done it.
[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]If you look at the Warrior playoff averages, it is truly disgusting.
Arizin 21 FGA on .375 FG%
Rogers 12 FGA on .359 FG%
Gola 8 FGA on .271 FG%
Al Attles shot 47% during the season.... and 36% in the playoffs.
These are playoff shooting numbers.[/QUOTE]
That's bad. Really bad. We get on Kobe and Melo, but those dudes would put Iverson to shame. What were they thinking? Was their dissension in the locker room? Did they get tired of Wilt getting so many shots? It would be one thing if they were shooting well. But those percentages are brutal.
[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]You know, things like 41 rebounds in a playoff game, and getting multiple quadruple doubles in the playoffs is throwing down something fierce...... especially when he did those kinds of things against the Celtics.
But those earlier, Warrior days...... well, this is true of all centers. [B][B][I][COLOR="Red"]Centers do not get the ball unless someone passes it to them. And Chamberlain did not get the ball as often in the playoffs.[/COLOR][/I][/B][/B]
There's very very little footage of that early '60s NBA, when Chamberlain was the scoring force. There's part of a '64 Celtics-Warriors Finals game, and that's about all there is on Youtube.
But what there is available, shows a whole lot of insane shot-jacking from out in the parking lot. And the stats prove that exactly.
The '62 Warriors had guys like Tom Gola and Paul Arizin - relics of the '50s and from what tiny amount I have seen they WERE relics. Very old legs. Al Attles was real fast, a real solid player all through his career, and always exciting because there was likely to be a fight for any reason, or none. But not the guy to take over games against an Oscar Robertson, or a Bob Cousy or KC Jones. Tom Meschery was brutality unleashed, but he could play some hoops.
But anyhow... the Warriors totally abandoned the strategy the team had used all season long which was - [I]Duh! Get the ball in down low to Chamberlain[/I].
During the regular season, Wilt shot [B]39.5[/B] FGA per game (!!!)
But look at the playoffs: [B]28.9 [/B]FGA
[B]11 fewer shots per game!!!!![/B]
Remember, we are talking about a center, now, not a guard. He didn't bring the ball down the court. It had to be passed in to him. Think about KG in the paint for the Celtics. If they don't pass it in to him... he's not going to be shooting. Very simple.
Over and over in the little video clips, you can see Chamberlain in position down on the block, with Russell so pinned behind Wilt he looks invisible, with a clear passing lane.... and a freaking buzz bomb goes sailing over from 25 or 28 feet out.
If you look at the Warrior playoff averages, it is truly disgusting.
Arizin 21 FGA on .375 FG%
Rogers 12 FGA on .359 FG%
Gola 8 FGA on .271 FG%
Al Attles shot 47% during the season.... and 36% in the playoffs.
These are playoff shooting numbers.
So the guards stepped up their shooting pace from regular season - they took Chamberlain's extra 10 shots themselves, you see? They averaged around 41, to 45% FG% in the regular season (43% as a team).
[I]Not 1 single Warrior (except Chamberlain) shot even 40% from the field in the '62 playoffs.
[/I]It doesn't matter who the player is, if they get ELEVEN fewer touches in the playoffs than they do in the regular season, their average is going down. No way around it.
People bash Chamberlain because his numbers went down, but they don't bother - or don't know how - to look at the whole picture and find out why it happened.
Sure, he was playing against the greatest defensive player of the '60s - his numbers often went down against Russell as opposed to what he did against other centers. So did everybody. Russell was amazing. But there's a whole lot more to it than just Bill Russell.
Russell himself is on record as saying Chamberlain was [I]going[/I] to score a hundred, and he was just thankful it wasn't against Bill Russell, because Wilt could have done it.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the very detailed post. This is what makes ISH the best basketball forum - people like you who are very knowledgeable. I hope your post will shut up some of the haters here.
Maybe you and Lazeruss can start a website where you debunk all those so-called Wilt failures. :lol
[QUOTE=millwad]Pretty hilarious how some of you assume that Wilt would have massive scoring seasons.
Wilt's scoring average looks impressive because of two things;
1. [B]The pace, the pace was crazy fast back then[/B] and playing for mediocre teams allowed Wilt to statpad like there was no tomorrow. He averaged 40 shots per game during a whole season for god sake. The pace led to alot more FGA which also lead to more points obviously. It should also be noted that his crazy rebounding numbers was also due playing in that particular era, they shot with way worse FG% while taking more shots which led to way more available rebounds.
2. [B]Wilt's playing time, by normal standards no one would play the amount of minutes that WIlt did.[/B] Neither guards or big guys, no one. If you'd look at his [B]PER 36 minute average [/B]he suddenly looks way more human.[/QUOTE]
Sigh. I know you're an anti-Wilt troll of sorts, but I can't help but respond this time..
Bold 1)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Basketball_Association_top_individual_scoring_season_averages[/url]
...Pretty sure the "pace" was similar for Baylor, Baylor again, Barry, Baylor again... yet they could only total about 70% of Wilt's scoring average. I guess only Wilt played in the a faster pace league, in some alternate universe, while everyone else slogged through the "normal pace" league?
Bold 2)
No one plays that many minutes any more because they can't. You really think Spo doesn't want a non-fatigued Lebron out there over Mike Miller or something? Spo worries about fatigue (I don't think Wilt ever heard that word) and injuries. Wilt was so spectacular (and lucky) that he didn't have to worry about either. Again, if the era played an effect for Wilt, why did it not have an effect on the others?
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_per_g_career.html[/url]
I see a "mixed bag" in terms of era. If, as already stated, MPG had anything to do with the era (instead of with Wilt) then there would be more 60's players than anything. Instead it's mixed.
I would like to add one "theoretical" point for the third bold. The above points are pretty stat/fact-based.
Anyway, if Wilt were to play lesser minutes, say in the modern league, one would assume that his efficiency, great as it was anyway, would only go up. Logically, his per36 would go up. So we can't take his 46mpg averages and translate them to 36. Anyone played that much fewer minutes will be that much more fresh, that much more efficient, etc.
I have posted much of this before, but it certainly applies to this topic...
Kareem played four years in the Wilt-era, and in fact,played against several of the same centers that a PRIME "scoring" Chamberlain had also battled. What do I mean by a "scorig" Chamberlain? From his rookie season in '59-60, thru his 65-66 season, Wilt was at his "scoring" peak. In those first seven seasons, he averaged nearly 40 ppg (oh, and btw, he averaged 33 ppg in the post-season in that same span, albeitwith missing the playoffs in his 45 ppg season, and also facing Russell in over half of his playoff games to that point.) And, as I have also pointed out before, Kareem's greatest statistical seasons took place in his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th seasons...all in the Chamberlain-era.
Furthermore, Chamberlain still put up some unfathomable games, even beyond his "scoring" prime. In fact, few here are probaby aware that before the start of the '69-70 season, Wilt's new coach at the time, Joe Mullaney, who had replaced the incompetent Butch Van Breda Kolf, had asked Wilt to become the focal point of the Laker offense that season. Chamberlain, whose last great scoring season (65-66) had come over three years before, relished the request, and responded by leading the league in scoring over the course of the first nine NBA games that season, at 32.2 ppg (and on a .579 FG%.) Oh, and btw, Kareem was rookie that season. Included in those nine games were games of 33, 35, 37 (against 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle), 38 (against reigning MVP Wes Unseld), 42, and 43 points. Oh, and in his only h2h with Kareem before blowing out his knee, Chamberlain outplayed he young Kareem in every aspect of the game, whil scoring 25 points on 9-14 shooting. Unfortunately, Chamberlain shredded his knee in that ninth game (33 points on 13-14 shooting BTW), and was never the same offensive force again.
Anyway, here are some fascinating H2H facts. And before I even get to a "scoring" Wilt's dominance, how about some H2H's well after Wilt's last great scoring season?
Kareem went H2H with Wes Unseld in 45 career games. In those 45 h2h's, KAJ posted high games of 39, 39, and 39 points.
Wilt never faced Unseld, who was a rookie in the 68-69 season, in his "scoring" prime, but even well after it, he hung a 38 point game on him.
Kareem's high games against Elvin Hayes were 42 and 41 points (BTW, Hayes had a 41 point game against him.)
Here again, Wilt did not go h2h with Hayes at his scoring peak, but in their 22 career H2H's, and even well after his last "scoring" season, he still had games of 36 and 35 against Hayes. (And yes, Hayes recorded two 40 point games against Wilt.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
KAJ and the 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier went at in 52 career H2H games. In Kareem's 72-73 season, he plastered Lanier with games of 44 and 43 points, and his other high game against Lanier was 39 points. (Lanier's high game against KAJ was 41 btw.)
Meanwhile, Chamberlain battled Lanier in 16 career h2h's, (and all came after his major knee surgery.) Let's give Lanier his due, ...he hung a 42 point on Wilt. Still, a post-operation Chamberlain had games of 30 and 31 points (to go along with 32 rebounds.) Furthermore, in their last 11 straight games, covering their 71-72 and 72-73 h2h's, Wilt not only averaged 23.9 ppg against Lanier...he did so on...get this... a .786 FG%!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most fans here have probably never heard of Bob Rule. His NBA was very brief, and ended with a torn achilles tendon. In between, he had seasons of 24.0 ppg and 24.6 ppg, and just before he tore his achilles in the70-71 season, he was averaging 29.8 ppg.
KAJ had games of 53, 51 and 36 points against Rule in their 16 h2h's.
Chamberlain and Rule played in 22 career games, and while Wilt was not in his "scoring" prime in his 67-68 season, he was still capable of 50+ point games (he had games of 52, 5, 53, and 68 points that season)...and his high games against Rule in that 67-68 season were 53, 52, and 47 points.
Oh, and just before he shredded his knee in his 69-70 season, a 33 year old Wilt shelled Rule with a 42 point game (on 19-31 shooting, with 23 rebounds, and 6 asisists.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kareem faced 6-10 Jim Fox in 37 career h2h matchups. His high games against Fox were 40, 40, and 39 points.
Chamberlain and Fox played in 25 career H2H's, ...all past Wilt's "scoring" peak. Still, Wilt had games of 31, 33, and 34 against Fox Oh, and in his 68-69 season, and just the year before KAJ entered the NBA, Wilt registered his last 60+ game...which came against Fox...of 66 points, and on an eyepopping 29-35 shooting performance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continued...
Continuing...
Ok, that takes care of the comparisons between some of the centers that both Kareem, and a Wilt, who was past his "scoring" peak, each faced. Now, on to centers that both a prime Kareem, and a prime "scoring" Wilt each faced.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about HOFer Willis Reed?
Kareem and Reed went at it in 21 career h2h's.
Kareem's high games against Reed... 41, 40, and 38 points.
Wilt and Reed battled in 72 career h2h's, but only 22 of them came in Wilt's "scoring" prime. And, you can remove 10 games in those 22 h2h's, because Reed was a PF playing alongside Walt Bellamy in the 65-66 season. So, the reality was, a "scoring" Wilt only bumped heads with Reed in a dozen games. But in those 12 games, Chamberlain had games of 41, 41 (outscoring Reed 41-9), 46, 52 (outscoring Reed 52-23), and 58 (ouscoring Reed by a 58-28 margin) against Reed And even as late as his 68-69 season, Wilt outscored Reed in a game by a 31-15 margin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
KAJ and Connie Dierking played in 10 career h2h's.
Kareem's high games against Dierking were 41 and 35 points.
Wilt and Dierking played in 61 h2h's, 28 of which occurred in Wilt's "scoring" prime. Wilt's high games against Dierking in those "scoring years" were 58, 59 (outscoring Dierking 59-4), and 63 points...and a 60 point game against him in the 68-69 season (just the year before KAJ arrived.) Overall, Wilt had 14 games of 40+ against Dierking...including a 43 point game on Connie as late as his 69-70 season (which was KAJ's first year in the league.) So, Wilt had a higher scoring game against Dierking, even when Kareem was in the league, than what KAJ had against Dierking in his entire career.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about Darrell Imhoff?
KAJ and Imhoff played in 11 career h2h's, and Kareem's high games against Darrall were 36, 36, and 35 points.
Wilt and Imhoff squared off in 56 career h2h's from their 63-64 season on, 27 of those of which came in Wilt's "scoring" prime. From that 63-64 season, on, Wilt had 10 games of 40+, including games of 49, 49, 53, and 65 points.
Now, basketball-reference only uses h2h's from the 63-64 season on, so I had to do some quick research on h2h's before those years. Just in the 61-62 season alone, Wilt hung games on Imhoff of...55, 58, 59, 67, and another game of... 100 points (of course, Imhoff was not the only center Wilt abused in that game.)
That 58 point game was interesting too. It came a couple of days after his 100 point game, and in it, Imhoff recalled battling Wilt all game long with everything he had, before finally fouling out. And, as he left the court following his 6th foul...he received the only standing ovation of his career.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about the 6-11 HOFer Nate Thurmond?
Kareem and Thurmond went at it in some 50 career games in which both players started.
KAJ's high game against Nate was 34 points. In fact, he only had seven games of 30+ in those 50 h2h's. Furthermore, his career FG% against Thurmond was .440 (yes, .440, in 50 h2h games.) Included were three straight playoff series in which KAJ shot .486, .428, and an unfathomable .405 against Nate.
Chamberlain and Thurmond faced off in 64 career H2H's, BUT, only 12 of them came in Wilt's "scoring" prime. And in that period, Chamberlain had six gmes of 30+ against Nate. And, if you include their first h2h game in the 66-67 season (when Wilt dramatically cut backhis shooting), Wilt had a total of seven 30+ against Nate, in 13 games overall. So, a prime (and "near-prime")Chamberlain had as many 30+ point games against Nate, in a period of 13 games, that KAJ had against Thurmond in 50 h2h's.
Oh, and Wilt's high games against Thurmond were 34, 38, and 45 points (and Wilt was outscoring Nate by margins of 33-17, 33-10, 38-15, and 45-13.)
And Wilt and Thurmond also battled in three playoff series, and Chamberlain outshot Nate by margins of .500 - .392; .550 to .398; and .560 to .343 (in Nate's greatest season.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
That brings us to the 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy.
KAJ and Bellamy played in 24 career h2h's. And while Bellamy was no longer the scoring force that he had been in the 60's, he was still hanging a 19 ppg season (on .545 shooting) as late as his 71-72 season.
KAJ's high games against Bellamy were 40, 39, and 35 points. (Incidently, Bellamy outscored KAJ several times, including their very last matchup.)
How about Wilt against Bellamy?
It all started in their very first encounter. Bellamy was averaging 30 ppg when the two went at it. And Wilt shut Belalamy out in the first half, en route to outscoring him by a 52-14 margin.
Once again, basketball-reference only goes back to the 63-64 season for their h2h's (although the actual boxscores go all the way back to the beginning of the NBA.)
From the 63-64 season, on, Bellamy and Wilt played in a total of 80 h2h games, 30 of which came in Wilt's "scoring" prime. And in those 30 games alone (and not counting their 61-62 and 62-63 h2h's...more on those in a moment)...Wilt held a 25-4-1 scoring edge.
Just in their 63-64, 64-65, and 65-66 seasons, alone, Wilt had nine games of 40+ against Bellamy, with high games of 50, 51, and 56 points.
And while Wilt was asked to cut back his shooting in his 66-67 season, and he "only" averaged 22.7 ppg against Bellamy in their nine h2h's that year...it came on a staggering .709 FG%.
Chamberlain had a playoff high game against Bellamy of 37 points in their 67-68 playoff series (in a series in which Wilt oustcored Bellamy, per game, 25-20, and outshot Bellamy from the field by a 584 to .421 margin...in a season in which Bellamy shot .541 against the NBA.) And as late as Wilt's 68-69 season, he had a game of 34 points against Bellamy.
Back to their 61-62 and 62-63 seasonal h2h's:
In the 62-63 season, the two went at it 10 h2h's, and Wilt averaged...yes averaged... 43.7 ppg against Bellamy.
In their 61-62 seasonal h2h's, covering another 10 games, Wilt averaged...yes averaged... an unfathomable 52.7 ppg against Bellamy. Included were three games of 60+ (including a 73 point, 29-48 shooting, 36 rebound game.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, a 38-39 year old Kareem, who could barely get 6 rpg, battled a young Hakeem in 10 straight h2h games. Over the course of those ten straight games, KAJ averaged 33.0 ppg...on, get this... a .630 FG% (and yes, Hakeem was the primary defender on KAJ in those games.) Included were games of 40, 43, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)
BTW, a 39 year old KAJ also slaughtered Patrick Ewing in a game a few days within his 46 point explosion against Hakeem. In that game, KAJ outscored Patrick, 40-9, and outshot Ewing, 15-22 to 3-17.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tying it together...how come a Kareem, in his greatest statistical seasons, couldn't approach a PRIME Wilt's numbers, despite playing four years IN the Wilt-era? And how come a Kareem, at his peak, was nowhere near as dominant against many of the same centers that a PRIME Chamberlain just destroyed? And yet a 39 year old Kareem, and just a shell of what he had been in his prime...could just wax two HOF centers who would go on to be among the top-4 centers of the 90's?
Hell, a prime Shaq, and going against a haggard Hakeem, could "only" hang a career high (against Hakeem) of 37 points on Olajuwon. And yet a carcass of Kareem could shell Hakeem with three games of 40+?
Kind of puts a PRIME Chamberlain into a better perspective, doesn't it?
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]
Hell, a prime Shaq, and going against a haggard Hakeem, could "only" hang a career high (against Hakeem) of 37 points on Olajuwon. And yet a carcass of Kareem could shell Hakeem with three games of 40+?
Kind of puts a PRIME Chamberlain into a better perspective, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]
Kareem averaged 40 points on 50% shooting against prime defensive Wilt as an average in the '72 season... :oldlol: