Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968

[QUOTE=trueDS][B]Yes, I have seen it and it's perfect example of Wilt's skills:[/B] great athlete, rebounder, shot blocker, pretty good passer, nice movement off the ball, limited as scorer - no postup game, mostly finished in transition, after ORB or after quick catch and shot fadeaway. And keep in mind he played vs weak competition here, If I'm not mistaken he made 53 shots on that video and only 3 of them were against black defenders (but still weaker and shorter than Chamberlain).[/quote]
As a 1st year player in college, yes... that's about it :oldlol:

[QUOTE]Well, I as well might share more info from that video. He made 53 shots (so 19.3% of his all made shots during that season! That's pretty significant sample) - 50.9% of them were transition, cuts and after offensive rebounds; postups (most of them vs short North Carolina defenders), fadeaways and other plays (3 total): 49.1%[/QUOTE]
That's great, we know how he scored in the NCAA tournament his first year playing in the NCAA, and if that NCAA tournament is any sort of coming together of how he played in pior games we probably get a somewhat decent picture how he scored throughout the rest of that season too. The problem here is, we (well... I guess I need to exclude you from this group) know that isn't how he played the game in the NBA. The low block was his bread and butter in the NBA, he was still learning how to play the game in the NCAA. Many of his trademark finishing moves aren't even in place yet in that NCAA footage (a-la his fingerrolls, or reverse layups) let alone the work he put in to get into position to release those shots (types of spins, fakes, drop steps). Wilt was primarily known for his defensive abilities in the NCAA, he wasn't realized as a truly dominant scorer until he hit the NBA. He was energetic and athletic, did in fact have a nice shooting touch unlike what you assert, but regardless was still raw as a sophomore in the NCAA knowing how he eventually played in the NBA. I pointed this out to people I shared the video with the day I uploaded that video because it is very obvious he still wasn't capable of doing the things he eventually did in the NBA.

[quote][B]I don't know[/B] how many he missed, but we know what his totals were during that season and we could [B]assume[/B] he made around 75% of his attempts around the basket (so transition, cut and ORB plays) - in fact it was probably even higher (for example in Dippers/Phila sample he made 82.4% of his at rim shots).

So [B]assuming[/B] 50.9% of his attempts during season in NCAA were transition, cut and orb plays and he made 75% of them, that means he was 140/408 on postups and fadeaways, so only 34.3%... yeah, very bad, but that's what we would expect from so weak shooter (look at his FT%) and postup player. (and BTW, in Dippers/Phila sample he was 30% from midrange.) And probably in reality he was even worse from postups and fadeaways, because I think he was better at rim finisher than 75%, especially in NCAA, where back then almost no one could compete with him.[/QUOTE]
Stop assuming, the time you spent wasting characters for you're worthless assumptions could have been spent looking up the actual data in the games and counting actual stats you lazy agenda driven f*ck.

And once more lettuce all remind ourselves: Footage of Wilt's first year in college is just that... footage of Wilts first year in college. It is not nor should ever be used as an umbrella of his scoring abilities several years later in the NBA. Unless of course, you've got an agenda on trying to diminish Wilt's offensive repertoire. Then by all means, try and use any handicap against him you can. First year NCAA footage, 2 minutes of less than a dozen post up clips where half the shots are comprised of rushed shots or injured legs, and so on. Use poor examples like these to draw conclusions about how Wilt scored 50 points per game in the NBA and became the most dominant scorer of all time. Write off everything else that might indicate he was a dominant scorer as 'edited' or w/e. :lol

[QUOTE=TheGreatRaptor]Weak era. [B]Stop promoting your channel here.[/B][/QUOTE]
OH NO a realgm mod! :lol

[QUOTE=trueDS]1. No need to bring rebounds (Wilt was arguably GOAT rebounder and no one is arguing with that) or assists, because we discuss only about SCORING ABILITIES.

2. I'm talking about his drop off in scoring efficiency in playoffs, so it really doesn't matter how many players averaged as much points as Wilt (besides his numbers are inflated by crazy 60s pace), but how different were his playoffs averages in comparison to his regular season PPG, FG% and TS%.

During, as you called is "his scoring prime", his playoffs and regular season scoring stats are:

[code]
60-66 PPG MPG FG% TS%
PO 32,8 47,5 50,5 52,0
RS 39,6 47,0 51,1 52,9
[/code]

So he was slightly worse efficiency wise, but much worse volume wise.
BTW, not only pace affectes his numbers, but also minutes - he would not have played so many minutes in any other era, so if we want to compare him with stars from different eras, good thing to do is give per 36 numbers. And in this case his PPG in playoffs per 36 was 24.9 with around +2/+3 TS% above league average. Very good results, but definitely not "unstoppable scorer".[/QUOTE]

Again, Chamberlain's post-season scoring and FG%'s declined SLIGHTLY, from his regular season numbers (and keep in mind, his horrid roster, which Hannum found out couldn't beat a team of scrubs in a pre-season scrimmage the very next year without Wilt, didn't make the playoffs in the 62-63 season, and in a season in which Chamberlain did EVERYTHING for that team, and scored 45 ppg that season.) BUT, he was facing the Celtic Dynasty in either his first round, or second round of the playoffs every season until Russell's final season in 68-69 (when it was his third round.)

So, yes, Wilt's stats declined. But, take a look at MJ's post-season numbers against the Pistons in his four post-season H2H's. His scoring and efficiency declined across the board. In a couple, it was dramatic. Same with a prime Shaq, and his five post-season series against the Spurs. Dramatic declines. And how about a peak KAJ, going up against a declining Thurmond in his three playoff H2H series? WAY below his season norms (same with Chamberlain in their two BTW.) Why?

But, no, you won't cut Chamberlain any slack, despite the fact that his post-season numbers against Russell, were generally very close (and in two cases, even higher)...and he faced him and his swarming Celtics, EIGHT times. Wilt seldom had the luxury of facing patsies, and when he did, like Beaty in '64, and Dierking in '67, (both decent to good centers BTW), he just annihilated them. Had he had Hakeem's "good fortune" to have been blown out in the first round as many times as Hakeem did, Wilt' scoring and especially his efficiencies, would have been considerably higher.

Yep. ONLY Chamberlain gets ripped...

[QUOTE=trueDS]Yes, I have seen it and it's perfect example of Wilt's skills: great athlete, rebounder, shot blocker, pretty good passer, nice movement off the ball, limited as scorer - no postup game, mostly finished in transition, after ORB or after quick catch and shot fadeaway. And keep in mind he played vs weak competition here, If I'm not mistaken he made 53 shots on that video and only 3 of them were against black defenders (but still weaker and shorter than Chamberlain).

Well, I as well might share more info from that video. He made 53 shots (so 19.3% of his all made shots during that season! That's pretty significant sample) - 50.9% of them were transition, cuts and after offensive rebounds; postups (most of them vs short North Carolina defenders), fadeaways and other plays (3 total): 49.1%

I don't know how many he missed, but we know what his totals were during that season and we could assume he made around 75% of his attempts around the basket (so transition, cut and ORB plays) - in fact it was probably even higher (for example in Dippers/Phila sample he made 82.4% of his at rim shots).

So assuming 50.9% of his attempts during season in NCAA were transition, cut and orb plays and he made 75% of them, that means he was 140/408 on postups and fadeaways, so only 34.3%... yeah, very bad, but that's what we would expect from so weak shooter (look at his FT%) and postup player. (and BTW, in Dippers/Phila sample he was 30% from midrange.) And probably in reality he was even worse from postups and fadeaways, because I think he was better at rim finisher than 75%, especially in NCAA, where back then almost no one could compete with him.[/QUOTE]


Again....fascinating, and likely a MYTH.

In the very limited footage that exists of a college Chamberlain, he is consistently nailing 10-12 turn-around shots, and even TWO STRAIGHT jump shots from beyond the FT line.

Oh, and how about this comment...

[url]http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html[/url]

[QUOTE]

Carl Braun said "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."

--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70
[/QUOTE]

Hmmm, so who do we believe? Someone who actually SAW Chamberlain play, or someone who didn't?

BTW, Wilt's play in the '62 ASG was most certainly more indicative of his overall skills than a highly edited (and with an obvious agenda) two minute video from a known Wilt-basher (and in which half of his scoring was deleted, and in another a Wilt is seen throwing up a horrible shot,.,,but no mention of that fact that it as the shot-clock expiring...)

And a prime Chamberlain just shelled players like Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Dierking, and Imhoff, to a FAR greater extent than peak KAJ did. My god, Wilt had games in which he outscored Thurmond by 38-15 and even 45-13 margins, while KAJ never topped 34 against him in some 40 H2H's. And how about Wilt's 66-67 season against a PEAK Thurmond? 20.8 ppg on a now KNOWN .633 FG% (and a post-season of 17.5 ppg on a .560 FG%). KAJ never approached those FG%'s against Nate in his entire career (and only in 73-74, when Nate was injured and on his last legs, did he finally get over 50% against him.)

Reed? Chamberlain had an entire SEASON, covering 11 games, in which he just castrated Willis. 39 ppg and on a known .531 FG% (in a league that shot .426 overall), including games in which he outscore Reed by margins of 41-8, 46-25, 52-23, and 58-28. You won't find KAJ with anyhwere near those numbers against Reed.

Bellamy? This is really laughable. In some 25 H2H's with Bellamy, KAJ had a high game of 41 (and again, Bellamy was on the decline.) A prime Chamberlain was routinely putting up 30-40-50 SEASONS against Bellamy (hell, he had two seasons, covering 10 games each, in which he averaged 43.7 ppg and 52.7 against him), with THREE games of 60+, and a high of 73.

And how about this? Just the year before KAJ joined the NBA, in 68-69, Wilt hung a 60 point game on Dierking, and a 66 point game (on 29-35 shooting BTW) on Fox. Kareem played against those two on numerous occasions, and...not even close. My god, in Wilt's 69-70 season, in his first nine games he was averaging 32.2 ppg on a .579 FG% (including a shelling of KAJ in every facet of the game in their only H2H before Wilt blew out his knee.) Kareem would average 28.8 ppg that season, and only had one season, in his 20 year career, which exceeded it (and just barely.)

A prime Chamberlain was a FAR greater offensive force than KAJ ever was.

A highlight video is not a very good representation of a player's ability because it compiles the best plays. I could probably make a 10-15 min footage of Javale McGee that makes him look like a GOAT center.

On the other hand, two halves of two random games are even a worse representation of a player IMO. With the highlights at least you know you're getting Wilt's best. With the latter you don't know what you're getting since these two games comprise the only unedited footage of a prime Chamberlain. And since we can't watch the other games we have little or no context to go by.

[QUOTE=dankok8]A highlight video is not a very good representation of a player's ability because it compiles the best plays. I could probably make a 10-15 min footage of Javale McGee that makes him look like a GOAT center.

On the other hand, two halves of two random games are even a worse representation of a player IMO. With the highlights at least you know you're getting Wilt's best. With the latter you don't know what you're getting since these two games comprise the only unedited footage of a prime Chamberlain. And since we can't watch the other games we have little or no context to go by.[/QUOTE]
No you couldn't. You don't understand basketball if you think you could. Clearly you're not aware of what kind of plays you are witnessing on the floor at any given moment if you think Javale has 15 minutes of plays that would make him look like the GOAT center. And his entire career exists on film. Only a random 2-4% of Wilt's career exists on film by my estimation. And besides you're missing the point. A scouting report video of his abilities is not the same as a highlight film to begin with. Career highlights are like Kobe's lob to Shaq, you know, pivotal career moments. Practically none of Wilt's career pivotal moments exist, most of his footage is just a random assortment of games he's played, and random clips of plays he's made. I can only think of one or two pivotal plays of his career lucky enough to exist on film and only 1 incomplete game (his 72 Lakers finals clinching game). A scouting video just covers his repertoire. Similar to what you see from draftexpress, though I intend to be more thorough than they are. It isn't an "OOHHHH MY" video that will just highlight the finish - it will try to highlight the entire play that unfolded. His resume speaks for itself.

[QUOTE=dankok8]A highlight video is not a very good representation of a player's ability because it compiles the best plays. I could probably make a 10-15 min footage of Javale McGee that makes him look like a GOAT center.

On the other hand, two halves of two random games are even a worse representation of a player IMO. With the highlights at least you know you're getting Wilt's best. With the latter you don't know what you're getting since these two games comprise the only unedited footage of a prime Chamberlain. And since we can't watch the other games we have little or no context to go by.[/QUOTE]

Except that, by those who watched Chamberlain, he came into the league with decent range. And we simply don't have any footage, other than a near full ASG, and in which Chamberlain was spectacular (42 points on 17-23 shooting), of a an early NBA Wilt. In seasons in which he averaged over 40 ppg. You simply can't tell me that a 40 ppg scorer over the course of 3-4 seasons, is not going to have been an unstoppable force.

As for McGee. Maybe five minutes.

And again, in Fatal's blatant and disgraceful footage...two halves, of two games, and in one, he was suffering from severe leg problems...and on top of that, he EDITED out half of Wilt's other scoring...

Again...a true POS.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]
A prime Chamberlain was a FAR greater offensive force than KAJ ever was.[/QUOTE]

Sure if you ignore the following. You have the numbers vs. rookie Reed, very young Thurmond who played less than 100 games as a starter, and you're ignoring the vast inflation of Wilt's numbers due to pace and minutes played.

I've always said Wilt's high scoring was a testament to his stamina more than to his dominance.

Who has a higher career FG%? Kareem.

Who has a higher career FT%? Kareem by a mile.

Who has a higher playoff ppg, FG%, and FT%. Kareem

I'm not really sure Wilt is a way better scorer. :no:

[QUOTE=dankok8]Sure if you ignore the following. You have the numbers vs. rookie Reed, very young Thurmond who played less than 100 games as a starter, and you're ignoring the vast inflation of Wilt's numbers due to pace and minutes played.

I've always said Wilt's high scoring was a testament to his stamina more than to his dominance.

Who has a higher career FG%? Kareem.

Who has a higher career FT%? Kareem by a mile.

Who has a higher playoff ppg, FG%, and FT%. Kareem

I'm not really sure Wilt is a way better scorer. :no:[/QUOTE]

Again, a PRIME "scoring" Chamberlain was FAR more dominant, and SKILLED, than KAJ ever hoped to be. Even his post-season scoring was higher. And please, don't compare eFG%'s, when Wilt's were attained in an era of much lower league averages. Oh, and completely ignore a 66-67 Wilt, who slaughtered a PEAK Thurmond, Russell, and Bellamy, as well as putting up a 24-24-8 .683 season. KAJ couldn't come within the other side of the Grand canyon of that efficiency.

Oh, and KAJ couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat against an aging Thurmond, either, while Chamberlain was trashing a PEAK Nate.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Again, a PRIME "scoring" Chamberlain was FAR more dominant, and SKILLED, than KAJ ever hoped to be. Even his post-season scoring was higher. And please, don't compare eFG%'s, when Wilt's were attained in an era of much lower league averages. Oh, and completely ignore a 66-67 Wilt, who slaughtered a PEAK Thurmond, Russell, and Bellamy, as well as putting up a 24-24-8 .683 season. KAJ couldn't come within the other side of the Grand canyon of that efficiency.

Oh, and KAJ couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat against an aging Thurmond, either, while Chamberlain was trashing a PEAK Nate.[/QUOTE]

Kareem had a 35/17/5 .574 season against Wilt, Thurmond, Cowens, Lanier, Hayes, Unseld, Haywood, Bellamy, Wicks, Lucas etc. In years Wilt scored 33-37 ppg he was never near Kareem's efficiency in 71-72 especially when we take free throws into account.

Again I would definitely argue that '71 to '73 Thurmond was better than '65 to '67 Thurmond. Better statistically, looks stronger, and more experienced.

Anyways believe what you want but no informed mind will say Wilt is FAR BETTER than Kareem or vice versa. It's very close.

[QUOTE=dankok8]Kareem had a 35/17/5 .574 season against Wilt, Thurmond, Cowens, Lanier, Hayes, Unseld, Haywood, Bellamy, Wicks, Lucas etc. In years Wilt scored 33-37 ppg he was never near Kareem's efficiency in 71-72 especially when we take free throws into account.

Again I would definitely argue that '71 to '73 Thurmond was better than '65 to '67 Thurmond. Better statistically, looks stronger, and more experienced.

Anyways believe what you want but [B]no informed mind will say Wilt is FAR BETTER than Kareem or vice versa. It's very close.[/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://youtu.be/MSTt_TxoFVo?t=3m18s[/url]

Rick Barry disagrees with you. Is Rick Barry not an informed mind?

[I]"[B]Wilt Chamberlain was the most dominant and the greatest center to ever play the game bar none[/B], I mean I love ya know... you can talk about [B]Kareem[/B], and you can talk about Shaq, and you can talk about Hakeem Olajuwon and... [B]there is no one, no one, that is [SIZE="3"]close[/SIZE] to what Wilt Chamberlain did in his career.[/B]"[/I]

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW][url]http://youtu.be/MSTt_TxoFVo?t=3m18s[/url]

Rick Barry disagrees with you. Is Rick Barry not an informed mind?

[I]"[B]Wilt Chamberlain was the most dominant and the greatest center to ever play the game bar none[/B], I mean I love ya know... you can talk about [B]Kareem[/B], and you can talk about Shaq, and you can talk about Hakeem Olajuwon and... [B]there is no one, no one, that is close to what Wilt Chamberlain did in his career.[/B]"[/I][/QUOTE]

The only time the Wilt-bashers quoted Barry, was when an early career Rick slammed Wilt. And, of course, Barry apologized many times over. But have you ever read Bill Simmons using your above quote?

Here is Dr J saying Kareem is the GOAT...

[url]http://youtu.be/oQ3nJ7ZfiF8[/url]

Then the Mountain Man, Bill Walton, offers his opinion.

[QUOTE]"I lived to play against Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. He was the greatest player I ever played against, by far. Better than Jordan. Better than Magic. better than Bird. Better than Dr. J. Better than the best of the best that I played against. Better than Rick Barry. He was my source of motivation for everything I ever did. Everything I did was to try to beat this guy. I lived to play against him, and I played my best ball against him. No matter what I threw at him, though, it seemed like he'd score 50 against me. His left leg belongs in the Smithsonian. And it wasn't just offense. He was a great defender and rebounder, a great passer, a wonderful leader. He was phenomenal. "----Bill Walton[/QUOTE]


Honestly player opinions are always inherently biased and bit worthless. They seldom care to intellectually compare eras.

[QUOTE=dankok8]Here is Dr J saying Kareem is the GOAT...

[url]http://youtu.be/oQ3nJ7ZfiF8[/url]

Then the Mountain Man, Bill Walton, offers his opinion.




Honestly player opinions are always inherently biased and bit worthless. They seldom care to intellectually compare eras.[/QUOTE]

Neither played against Wilt, either, much less a PRIME Chamberlain who dominated the NBA like no one since. Including KAJ, who played FOUR years IN the WILT-era, and never approached ANY of his scoring, rebounding, or efficiency records, was nowhere as close as dominant against the same centers, and in fact, struggled far more against an aging Nate, and in his biggest post-season games of that period.

And of course, KAJ, himself, has already conceded that fact...

[QUOTE=dankok8]Here is Dr J saying Kareem is the GOAT...

[url]http://youtu.be/oQ3nJ7ZfiF8[/url]

Then the Mountain Man, Bill Walton, offers his opinion.




Honestly player opinions are always inherently biased and bit worthless. They seldom care to intellectually compare eras.[/QUOTE]
Walton never played against Wilt. Dr. J never played against Wilt aside from an all star game. (Btw Dr. J still has Wilt as his starting center on his all-time starting 5 anyways).

Barry played against both Jabbar and Wilt. He's had more experience not only watching Wilt, but playing against him than either Walton or Dr. J had.

Here's also some words out of Kareem's own mouth:

[QUOTE=Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]“Dear Scottie, I have nothing but respect for you my friend as an athlete and knowledgeable basketball mind. But you are way off in your assessment of who is the greatest player of all time and the greatest scorer of all time. Your comments are off because of your limited perspective.

[B]You obviously never saw Wilt Chamberlain play who undoubtedly was the greatest scorer this game has ever known. When did MJ ever average 50.4 points per game plus 25.7 rebounds? (Wilt in the 1962 season when blocked shot statistics were not kept). We will never accurately know how many shots Wilt blocked.

Oh by the way in 1967 and 68, Wilt was a league leader in assists. Did MJ ever score 100 points in a game? How many times did MJ score more than 60 points in a game? MJ led the league in scoring in consecutive seasons for 10 years but he did this in an NBA that eventually expanded into 30 teams vs. when Wilt played and there were only 8 teams. Every team had the opportunity to amass a solid nucleus. Only the cream of the basketball world got to play then. So MJ has to be appraised in perspective. His incredible athletic ability, charisma and leadership on the court helped to make basketball popular around the world — no question about that. But in terms of greatness MJ has to take a backseat to The Stilt.[/B]

In terms of winning, Michael excelled as both an emotional and scoring leader but Bill Russell’s Celtics won 8 consecutive NBA Championships. Bills rebounding average per game is over 22.5 lifetime, MJs best rebounding years was 8 per game (1989). But we will never know exactly how many shots Bill Russell blocked because again, they never kept that statistic while he played. However, if you ask anybody that played against Russell they will just roll their eyes and say he blocked all the shots he wanted to block in the crucial moments of a game.

Bill played on a total of 11 Championship teams and as you very well know, Scottie, the ring is the thing, and everything else is just statistics. So I would advise you to do a little homework before crowning Michael or Lebron with the title of best ever. As dominant as he is, Lebron has yet to win a championship. I must say that it looks like Miami has finally put the team together that will change that circumstance. Its my hope that today’s players get a better perspective on exactly what has been done in this league in the days of yore.

The change in style to the game is not any indication as to how many really talented players there are in the game. So the fact that skilled players come from all over the world does not change the quantity of outstanding talent. [B]Simply put the number of players that could have stopped Wilt Chamberlain in his prime has not increased.[/B] Affectionately, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, NBA’s All-Time Leading Scorer.[/QUOTE]

Seems even Kareem hold's Wilt's scoring records and dominance in high esteem, no? :confusedshrug:

Player opinions aren't "worthless" that's a nice easy way out. Player opinions vary, and if you understand how much thought players have put into their lists (some have put much more thought into it that others), or how much certain players are students of the game/games history, and also very importantly, what criteria they are basing their opinions on, than their opinions are indeed quite valuable.

Doctor J's opinion is one that I respect a great deal. He put a lot of thought into his lists, and explains why he chooses who he chooses (his 'GOAT' is Kareem, due to his blend of career accomplishments HS to Pro), his all time starting 5 is Oscar, West, Baylor, Russell, and Chamberlain because they were his all time starting 5 growing up and I'm sure those guys are his basketball hero's. Rick Barry has thought about his opinion too for quite some time, as he once thought of Wilt as a loser, but then did a complete 180 and has called him the greatest of all time since the early 70's. Kareem also, is somebody who does not just mention great players on a whim, he is one of the most intellectual basketball historians of all the retired players. His opinion means a lot. As does Sonny Hill, who echo's Kareem's exact thoughts on who the 'greatest of all time is' (if by individual dominance, it's Wilt, if by winning, it's Russell, period - IE he also thinks it's not Jordan).

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Walton never played against Wilt. Dr. J never played against Wilt aside from an all star game. (Btw Dr. J still has Wilt as his starting center on his all-time starting 5 anyways).

Barry played against both Jabbar and Wilt. He's had more experience not only watching Wilt, but playing against him than either Walton or Dr. J had.

Here's also some words out of Kareem's own mouth:



Seems even Kareem hold's Wilt's scoring records and dominance in high esteem, no? :confusedshrug:

Player opinions aren't "worthless" that's a nice easy way out. Player opinions vary, and if you understand how much thought players have put into their lists (some have put much more thought into it that others), or how much certain players are students of the game/games history, and also very importantly, what criteria they are basing their opinions on, than their opinions are indeed quite valuable.

Doctor J's opinion is one that I respect a great deal. He put a lot of thought into his lists, and explains why he chooses who he chooses (his 'GOAT' is Kareem, due to his blend of career accomplishments HS to Pro), his all time starting 5 is Oscar, West, Baylor, Russell, and Chamberlain because they were his all time starting 5 growing up and I'm sure those guys are his basketball hero's. Rick Barry has thought about his opinion too for quite some time, as he once thought of Wilt as a loser, but then did a complete 180 and has called him the greatest of all time since the early 70's. Kareem also, is somebody who does not just mention great players on a whim, he is one of the most intellectual basketball historians of all the retired players. His opinion means a lot. As does Sonny Hill, who echo's Kareem's exact thoughts on who the 'greatest of all time is' (if by individual dominance, it's Wilt, if by winning, it's Russell, period - IE he also thinks it's not Jordan).[/QUOTE]

Case closed.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Walton never played against Wilt. Dr. J never played against Wilt aside from an all star game. (Btw Dr. J still has Wilt as his starting center on his all-time starting 5 anyways).

Barry played against both Jabbar and Wilt. He's had more experience not only watching Wilt, but playing against him than either Walton or Dr. J had.

Here's also some words out of Kareem's own mouth:



Seems even Kareem hold's Wilt's scoring records and dominance in high esteem, no? :confusedshrug:

Player opinions aren't "worthless" that's a nice easy way out. Player opinions vary, and if you understand how much thought players have put into their lists (some have put much more thought into it that others), or how much certain players are students of the game/games history, and also very importantly, what criteria they are basing their opinions on, than their opinions are indeed quite valuable.

Doctor J's opinion is one that I respect a great deal. He put a lot of thought into his lists, and explains why he chooses who he chooses (his 'GOAT' is Kareem, due to his blend of career accomplishments HS to Pro), his all time starting 5 is Oscar, West, Baylor, Russell, and Chamberlain because they were his all time starting 5 growing up and I'm sure those guys are his basketball hero's. Rick Barry has thought about his opinion too for quite some time, as he once thought of Wilt as a loser, but then did a complete 180 and has called him the greatest of all time since the early 70's. Kareem also, is somebody who does not just mention great players on a whim, he is one of the most intellectual basketball historians of all the retired players. His opinion means a lot. As does Sonny Hill, who echo's Kareem's exact thoughts on who the 'greatest of all time is' (if by individual dominance, it's Wilt, if by winning, it's Russell, period - IE he also thinks it's not Jordan).[/QUOTE]
Well, anything the Doc says is gospel truth to me:bowdown: Sonny Hill has been telling stories about Wilt since I was a young boy worshiping the early 80s Sixer teams. As a big Moses Malone fan back then, I could not believe Sonny Hill had the gall to say that Wilt from the 60s was better than Moses. WTF? Of course over time as I got to know more of the Sixers history, this became apparent.

I do know that while Doc was instrumental in convincing the Sixers franchise to finally retire Wilt's number, Doc holds Bill Russel, perhaps the biggest winner ever in pro sports, in the highest regard of all of them.

[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]Well, anything the Doc says is gospel truth to me:bowdown: Sonny Hill has been telling stories about Wilt since I was a young boy worshiping the early 80s Sixer teams. As a big Moses Malone fan back then, I could not believe Sonny Hill had the gall to say that Wilt from the 60s was better than Moses. WTF? Of course over time as I got to know more of the Sixers history, this became apparent.

I do know that while Doc was instrumental in convincing the Sixers franchise to finally retire Wilt's number, Doc holds Bill Russel, perhaps the biggest winner ever in pro sports, in the highest regard of all of them.[/QUOTE]
I should point out his 6th man - which I found to be brilliant - is Connie Hawkins who as the Doc puts it "can come off the bench and play at guard, forward, or center"

Being that I am also a fan of the 60's crop of players I think Dr. J picked one of the sickest lineups, def the 6 most talented players of the 60's decade IMO. Oscar Robertson's starting 5 is identical, but his 6th that he picked was Bob Pettit. Doctor J is a true student of the game though, if you ever hear him in interviews often times the interviewer be it some journalist or host from NBAtv or someone from ESPN asks a question pertaining to the Doc and his many fantastic moves, often the question is a leading question "how did it feel to be the first to _____" or something along those lines. He's one of the only players I know that will cordially correct the interviewer and mention the name of the guy who deserves to be mentioned that came before him and did the move. There's a couple players I've heard in interviews that do that, you can tell right away they have a lot more knowledge about the game's history than the average player. Sonny Hill is another guy that will often politely correct interviewers leading questions to give credit where credit is due to players of the past, his knowledge goes back even further to to the 40's, 50's, etc. He'll cite obscure Jewish players from the 40's and 50's as being innovative great basketball players and point to guys from the Harlem Rens. Have nothing but respect for people who can trace basketball knowledge back that far.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Walton never played against Wilt. Dr. J never played against Wilt aside from an all star game. (Btw Dr. J still has Wilt as his starting center on his all-time starting 5 anyways).

Barry played against both Jabbar and Wilt. He's had more experience not only watching Wilt, but playing against him than either Walton or Dr. J had.

Here's also some words out of Kareem's own mouth:



Seems even Kareem hold's Wilt's scoring records and dominance in high esteem, no? :confusedshrug:

Player opinions aren't "worthless" that's a nice easy way out. Player opinions vary, and if you understand how much thought players have put into their lists (some have put much more thought into it that others), or how much certain players are students of the game/games history, and also very importantly, what criteria they are basing their opinions on, than their opinions are indeed quite valuable.

Doctor J's opinion is one that I respect a great deal. He put a lot of thought into his lists, and explains why he chooses who he chooses (his 'GOAT' is Kareem, due to his blend of career accomplishments HS to Pro), his all time starting 5 is Oscar, West, Baylor, Russell, and Chamberlain because they were his all time starting 5 growing up and I'm sure those guys are his basketball hero's. Rick Barry has thought about his opinion too for quite some time, as he once thought of Wilt as a loser, but then did a complete 180 and has called him the greatest of all time since the early 70's. Kareem also, is somebody who does not just mention great players on a whim, he is one of the most intellectual basketball historians of all the retired players. His opinion means a lot. As does Sonny Hill, who echo's Kareem's exact thoughts on who the 'greatest of all time is' (if by individual dominance, it's Wilt, if by winning, it's Russell, period - IE he also thinks it's not Jordan).[/QUOTE]

It's true Walton and Dr J never played against Wilt but they clearly think Kareem > Jordan. Honestly player opinions shift all the time... see like Rick Barry who used to shit on Wilt and how he was terrible in the clutch. And they always have an inherent bias. Most players praise their own eras in one way or another. I personally don't put much (didn't say none...) credibility into what those guys say.

And it's funny how in Kareem's letter to Pippen he spends the 1st part hyping up Wilt's statistical records and then in the 5th paragraph he says rings are what matters and everything else is just stats. He kind of contradicts himself. What is his criteria for greatness?

Wilt has the GOAT stats. Russell is the GOAT winner. Kareem has the GOAT career resume. Jordan has the GOAT impact on the game. Maybe if even NBA players can't agree on a GOAT maybe there isn't one? And I don't think there is a consensus GOAT player.

[QUOTE=dankok8]It's true Walton and Dr J never played against Wilt but they clearly think Kareem > Jordan. Honestly player opinions shift all the time... see like Rick Barry who used to shit on Wilt and how he was terrible in the clutch. And they always have an inherent bias. Most players praise their own eras in one way or another. I personally don't put much (didn't say none...) credibility into what those guys say.

And it's funny how in Kareem's letter to Pippen he spends the 1st part hyping up Wilt's statistical records and then in the 5th paragraph he says rings are what matters and everything else is just stats. He kind of contradicts himself. What is his criteria for greatness?

Wilt has the GOAT stats. Russell is the GOAT winner. Kareem has the GOAT career resume. Jordan has the GOAT impact on the game. Maybe if even NBA players can't agree on a GOAT maybe there isn't one? And I don't think there is a consensus GOAT player.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect, Rick Barry's opinion shifted once, he apologized for negative things he said, and proceeded to call Wilt the greatest of all time for the past 35+ years. Tell me a player who isn't paid to be on tv that has an opinion that 'shifts all the time'?. Quit trying to dismiss such quotes, you said nobody in their right mind would think Wilt was better than Kareem and that it wasn't close and I provided an example of a former player who DID think just that and you're just trying to write it off so you aren't 'proven wrong' as it were. I provided examples of other players who also think very highly of Wilt including none other than Kareem himself. Stop trying to write these off as low value shifty opinions that mean little to nothing. The people I provided examples of I deliberately picked because they represent the antithesis of what you tried to write them off as, shifty and cheap. I didn't cite Magic ESPN Johnson did I? Those individuals I quoted are true students of the sport, who understand not only the game but also the game's history at a high level.

As for you not understanding Kareem's letter?
[url]http://youtu.be/LfHI8BBIWTk?t=20m40s[/url]

Listen to it from the words of another man and maybe you'll 'get it'. Sonny Hill echo's Kareem's 'contradiction' almost exactly. It isn't a contradiction at all. Who's the greatest winner of all time? Why it's Bill Russell. Who's the most dominant of all time? Why that would be Wilt Chamberlain. You can talk about anyone else you want, but nobody dominated the sport so completely and emphatically as Wilt, and nobody won the game so consistently and for so many years as Bill Russell. As such, to both Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Sonny Hill, those two names appear to represent the pinnacle of basketball in their eyes. It just depends on what you favor on a given day. Make sense? As Sonny Hill puts it "I'm tellin you the story (about the greatest) the way it needs to be told".

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Again, Chamberlain's post-season scoring and FG%'s declined SLIGHTLY, from his regular season numbers[/quote]
Slightly? Again:
[code]
60-66 PPG MPG FG% TS%
PO 32,8 47,5 50,5 52,0
RS 39,6 47,0 51,1 52,9
[/code]
Drop off in scoring efficiency is in fact marginal (especially if we adjust for competition

Good footage.

I had heard about his fadeaway and seen a clip or 2 of it, but this one has a lot more.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Incorrect, Rick Barry's opinion shifted once, he apologized for negative things he said, and proceeded to call Wilt the greatest of all time for the past 35+ years. Tell me a player who isn't paid to be on tv that has an opinion that 'shifts all the time'?. Quit trying to dismiss such quotes, [B]you said nobody in their right mind would think Wilt was better than Kareem and that it wasn't close[/B] and I provided an example of a former player who DID think just that and you're just trying to write it off so you aren't 'proven wrong' as it were. I provided examples of other players who also think very highly of Wilt including none other than Kareem himself. Stop trying to write these off as low value shifty opinions that mean little to nothing. The people I provided examples of I deliberately picked because they represent the antithesis of what you tried to write them off as, shifty and cheap. I didn't cite Magic ESPN Johnson did I? Those individuals I quoted are true students of the sport, who understand not only the game but also the game's history at a high level.

As for you not understanding Kareem's letter?
[url]http://youtu.be/LfHI8BBIWTk?t=20m40s[/url]

Listen to it from the words of another man and maybe you'll 'get it'. Sonny Hill echo's Kareem's 'contradiction' almost exactly. It isn't a contradiction at all. Who's the greatest winner of all time? Why it's Bill Russell. Who's the most dominant of all time? Why that would be Wilt Chamberlain. You can talk about anyone else you want, but nobody dominated the sport so completely and emphatically as Wilt, and nobody won the game so consistently and for so many years as Bill Russell. As such, to both Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Sonny Hill, those two names appear to represent the pinnacle of basketball in their eyes. It just depends on what you favor on a given day. Make sense? As Sonny Hill puts it "I'm tellin you the story (about the greatest) the way it needs to be told".[/QUOTE]

Please don't misquote me because that's not what I said. What I said is that whether you argue for Wilt and Kareem as the better player it's crazy to say it isn't close either way. It is very close and debatable and nobody in their right mind should say "Wilt easily" or "Kareem easily".

Jordan/Kareem aren't as statistically dominant as Wilt or as great winners as Russell. BUT they are greater winners than Wilt and more statistically dominant than Russell. Ultimately how you rank players depends on how you weigh the different categories. Wilt and Russell are the two extremes while Jordan and Kareem are high on both the winning and dominance scales but not at the top of either.

I personally weigh winning more than sheer numbers. I hugely believe in intangibles and it's a fact that stats can be greatly inflated and correlate poorly with impact. Thus I would have Jordan, Kareem and Russell over Wilt. Again that's just me.

[QUOTE=dankok8]Please don't misquote me because that's not what I said. What I said is that whether you argue for Wilt and Kareem as the better player it's crazy to say it isn't close either way. [B]It is very close and debatable and nobody in their right mind should say "Wilt easily" or "Kareem easily"[/B].

Jordan/Kareem aren't as statistically dominant as Wilt or as great winners as Russell. BUT they are greater winners than Wilt and more statistically dominant than Russell. Ultimately how you rank players depends on how you weigh the different categories. Wilt and Russell are the two extremes while Jordan and Kareem are high on both the winning and dominance scales but not at the top of either.

I personally weigh winning more than sheer numbers. I hugely believe in intangibles and it's a fact that stats can be greatly inflated and correlate poorly with impact. Thus I would have Jordan, Kareem and Russell over Wilt. Again that's just me.[/QUOTE]
Once again:

[url]http://youtu.be/MSTt_TxoFVo?t=3m18s[/url]

Rick Barry thinks Wilt, and no one (including Kareem, who's name he mentions) is close. Therefore you're wrong. Say "okay, I was wrong", go ahead do it :cheers:

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Once again:

[url]http://youtu.be/MSTt_TxoFVo?t=3m18s[/url]

Rick Barry thinks Wilt, and no one (including Kareem, who's name he mentions) is close. Therefore you're wrong. Say "okay, I was wrong", go ahead do it :cheers:[/QUOTE]

Again I give little credibility to Barry's quote:

1) He changed his mind and used to trash Wilt. How do you make such a radical 180 degree turn?

2) He wasn't exactly a well-liked player and used to piss off his teammates. The words intangibles and leadership have always eluded him.

3) He was never known as a particularly cerebral player or student of the game.

4) He played in the same era and actually lost a finals series to Wilt's Sixers. It's easy to see how it benefits his own legacy to prop up Wilt.

[B]Basically Barry's opinion is likely to be biased and how informed he is... also very open to debate. [/B]


What do you think of Oscar's quote on YT when he says Lebron is better than Jordan and in a class of his own? And mind you this was before LBJ even won a title.

[QUOTE=dankok8]Again I give little credibility to Barry's quote:

1) he changed his mind and used to trash Wilt. How do you make such a radical 180 degree turn?

2) He wasn't exactly a well-liked player and used to piss off his teammates. The words intangibles and leadership have always eluded him.

3) He was never known as a particularly cerebral player or student of the game.

4) He played in the same era and actually lost a finals series to Wilt's Sixers. It's easy to see how it benefits his own legacy to prop up Wilt.

[B]Basically Barry's opinion is likely to be biased. [/B]


What do you think of Oscar's quote on YT when he says Lebron is better than Jordan and in a class of his own? And mind you this was before LBJ even won a title.[/QUOTE]
Incapable of admitting when you're wrong. You're not going to be taken very seriously when you can't admit you're wrong about something so abruptly and specifically countered.

Let's get some other peoples input on this, who here subscribed to this thread thinks dankok was just proven wrong about his statement of (paraphrasing) 'nobody in their right mind would think Wilt > Jabbar by significant or wide margin'?

Rick Barry thinks that. There is no other way to interpret it. You need to learn to own up to when somebody provides a very solid counter. Learn from it, adjust your thought process and move on. Yes, people in their right mind can and do think Wilt was significantly better than Jabbar. Not everyone will, but the simple fact that Rick Barry thinks exactly what you stated nobody in their right mind would, renders your statement to be proven wrong.

Also look up some examples of logical fallacies. You're leaning on them right now by resorting to attempting to slander his character in an effort to reduce value in his opinion.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Incapable of admitting when you're wrong. You're not going to be taken very seriously when you can't admit you're wrong about something so abruptly and specifically countered.

Let's get some other peoples input on this, who here subscribed to this thread thinks dankok was just proven wrong about his statement of (paraphrasing) 'nobody in their right mind would think Wilt > Jabbar by significant or wide margin'?

Rick Barry thinks that. There is no other way to interpret it. You need to learn to own up to when somebody provides a very solid counter. Learn from it, adjust your thought process and move on. Yes, people in their right mind can and do think Wilt was significantly better than Jabbar. Not everyone will, but the simple fact that Rick Barry thinks exactly what you stated nobody in their right mind would, renders your statement to be proven wrong.

Also look up some examples of logical fallacies. You're leaning on them right now by resorting to attempting to slander his character in an effort to reduce value in his opinion.[/QUOTE]

One opinion by a very likely biased player is a solid counter? Please. We have no idea if Barry is informed either or just talking out of his ass. I mean when he ripped Wilt he was talking out of his ass right? And then we had Big O talking about of his ass about Lebron? Gary Payton, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley... all very recently saying complete utter BS. I don't consider them informed or "right" minds sorry.

I've admitted I was wrong before but the "evidence" you've given I don't deem sufficient or anywhere close.

[QUOTE=dankok8]One opinion by a very likely biased player is a solid counter? Please. We have no idea if Barry is informed either or just talking out of his ass. I mean when he ripped Wilt he was talking out of his ass right? And then we had Big O talking about of his ass about Lebron? Gary Payton, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley... all very recently saying complete utter BS. I don't consider them informed or "right" minds sorry.

I've admitted I was wrong before but the "evidence" you've given I don't deem sufficient or anywhere close.[/QUOTE]
You spoke in absolutes, you said 'nobody' believes _____. Rick Barry believes _____ and he is somebody. This is an very straightforward example of someone (in this case you) being wrong.

You dug your own grave with this one. I'm sorry, but this is pretty cut and dry. Maybe try to not speak in absolutes next time.

How about Nate Thurmond in his interview with SI?

[QUOTE]SLAM: Who was the toughest center for you to guard?

NT: Kareem had more of a repertoire and was harder to stop. He had a little more versatility when he set up on the floor. Wilt liked the left side, but Jabbar set up on either side. Wilt would rely on the fade-away 70 percent of time; Kareem’s hook was in the same range. I couldn’t stop him from shooting the hook; I could make him take awkward hooks or baseline jumpers. You really couldn’t keep Wilt from taking the fade-away, but you could try to him shoot it a step further out. He was a great fade-away shooter. If you got in close, and he had you out of position, then you could foul him and save yourself one point.

SLAM: Can you rate Chamberlain, Russell and Abdul-Jabbar?

NT: I’m going to say that Kareem was the best all-around, and with Wilt and Russell, it depended on what team you needed them for. I just happen to think that all the way around, Kareem was the best. His height, his versatility, his desire and gracefulness. Those three were so close— how they dominated, how they won, how they scored. With Russell, throw in the defense. You could put them all in a bag and take your pick. Wilt was the best scorer ever and Russell the best defensive center. What made Russ the best was that he never blocked the ball out of bounds. I liked to block it in the third row to let the guy know that I didn’t just tip it! I was making a statement.[/QUOTE]

Even though I didn't say what you think I said CavsFTW I will admit fault k. I don't wanna argue with you. I just don't consider Barry an informed and unbiased source or in the "right mind". So I still stand by what I said.

[QUOTE=dankok8]How about Nate Thurmond in his interview with SI?



Even though I didn't say what you think I said CavsFTW I will admit fault k. I don't wanna argue with you. I just don't consider Barry an informed and unbiased source or in the "right mind". So I still stand by what I said.[/QUOTE]
I know exactly what you said dankok. And hey, that's great, I've already read every quote under the sun about these past greats including that one. I respect Nate's opinion too FWIW (btw he thinks MJ is the GOAT and Oscar is #2, he values all around skill/abilities, he put Oscar at #2 because Jordan could shoot the 3 and with Oscar due to his era he 'never saw it') As long as you understand where every player is coming from and when they said what they said and why they said what they said (if such context is available), these player opinions can offer great insight.

Heck, Oscar Robertson doesn't think Russell, Wilt OR Jabbar are the greatest, let alone MJ. He states big men can't do all the things an all around player can do thus they aren't the greatest players, he thinks Elgin Baylor is the greatest player of all time because Elgin COULD do everything on the floor. He's in his right mind too, and I respect his opinion. You asked me what I thought of his opinion on Lebron, well, I respect that too. Understanding who someone's 'greatest' is is all about understanding their perspective. What you should learn here is that just because someone doesn't think like you doesn't mean they are wrong, or as you like to put it not 'in their right mind'... You basically thought 'nobody' could have a perspective that would put Wilt at the top with no one close, because that's not how you think. But that wasn't true, somebody (Rick Barry) does think that way. You can't just right them off as not being in their 'right mind' just because they don't form the same conclusion as you. Maybe they know things you don't. And for what it's worth, I've come accross quite a few others from my Youtube channel that have echoed such opinions. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant, the fact is, there are examples of people that can conclude what you asserted nobody could conclude.

I didn't follow multiple pages in the end of this thread, but:

[QUOTE]Again I give little credibility to Barry's quote:

1) He changed his mind and used to trash Wilt. How do you make such a radical 180 degree turn? [/QUOTE]

On the contrary, I would give [B]more[/B] credibility to opinions of people who are willing to admit they were mistaken or at least taken out of context. Not ever being willing to change your opinion, even by 180 degrees, is not indicative of a correct opinion. Not to mention, the time during which Barry believed he's he GOAT has been significantly more than the time during which he'd been "trashing" him (probably an exaggerated word), and the first phase came after the second.

[QUOTE]2) He wasn't exactly a well-liked player and used to piss off his teammates. The words intangibles and leadership have always eluded him. [/QUOTE]

Barry was the unquestioned leader of his team, even if he wasn't liked. Plus, it's irrelevant to his opinion. Whether he ignores intangibles, I've not seen serious evidence. What exactly did he criticize Wilt about?

[QUOTE]3) He was never known as a particularly cerebral player or student of the game.[/QUOTE]

Someone who figured out an out-of-fashion method to shoot over 75-80% from the line was not a student of the game? Would someone who was not cerebral enough be willing to accept a new, passing-first, role in the end of his career? Non-cerebral players are not particularly fond of learning new tricks.

[QUOTE]4) He played in the same era and actually lost a finals series to Wilt's Sixers. It's easy to see how it benefits his own legacy to prop up Wilt. [/QUOTE]

He's also played in the same era with Kareem, he's lost a series to peak playoff Kareem, he's also [B]beaten[/B] Kareem (that's a reason to prop [B]Kareem[/B]), plus, the same excuse could be used for pretty much any player who compliments some legend of his era.

[QUOTE]Basically Barry's opinion is likely to be biased and how informed he is... also very open to debate.[/QUOTE]

What's wrong with this? Most good minds are open to debate. And, yes, most opinions are biased, including opinions of people who meet your own standards of "knowing basketball", most of whom would be very unwilling to accept they are wrong in something.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]I know exactly what you said dankok. And hey, that's great, I've already read every quote under the sun about these past greats including that one. I respect Nate's opinion too FWIW (btw he thinks MJ is the GOAT and Oscar is #2, he values all around skill/abilities, he put Oscar at #2 because Jordan could shoot the 3 and with Oscar due to his era he 'never saw it') As long as you understand where every player is coming from and when they said what they said and why they said what they said (if such context is available), these player opinions can offer great insight.

Heck, Oscar Robertson doesn't think Russell, Wilt OR Jabbar are the greatest, let alone MJ. He states big men can't do all the things an all around player can do thus they aren't the greatest players, he thinks Elgin Baylor is the greatest player of all time because Elgin COULD do everything on the floor. He's in his right mind too, and I respect his opinion. You asked me what I thought of his opinion on Lebron, well, I respect that too. Understanding who someone's 'greatest' is is all about understanding their perspective. What you should learn here is that just because someone doesn't think like you doesn't mean they are wrong, or as you like to put it not 'in their right mind'... You basically thought 'nobody' could have a perspective that would put Wilt at the top with no one close, because that's not how you think. But that wasn't true, somebody (Rick Barry) does think that way.[B] You can't just right them off as not being in their 'right mind' just because they don't form the same conclusion as you.[/B] Maybe they know things you don't. And for what it's worth, I've come accross quite a few others from my Youtube channel that have echoed such opinions. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant, the fact is, there are examples of people that can conclude what you asserted nobody could conclude.[/QUOTE]

How am I doing that? I've been exactly arguing this entire time that the GOAT debate is in fact a debate and that there is no correct answer. Scroll up and read my previous posts. I value every opinion but do I consider it an end all be all that settles the debate? Of course not. I would also lie if I said I consider every player's opinion equally. I don't.

[QUOTE=Psileas]I didn't follow multiple pages in the end of this thread, but:

Quote:
Again I give little credibility to Barry's quote:

1) He changed his mind and used to trash Wilt. How do you make such a radical 180 degree turn?

On the contrary, I would give more credibility to opinions of people who are willing to admit they were mistaken or at least taken out of context. Not ever being willing to change your opinion, even by 180 degrees, is not indicative of a correct opinion. Not to mention, the time during which Barry believed he's he GOAT has been significantly more than the time during which he'd been "trashing" him (probably an exaggerated word), and the first phase came after the second.

Quote:
2) He wasn't exactly a well-liked player and used to piss off his teammates. The words intangibles and leadership have always eluded him.

Barry was the unquestioned leader of his team, even if he wasn't liked. Plus, it's irrelevant to his opinion. Whether he ignores intangibles, I've not seen serious evidence. What exactly did he criticize Wilt about?

Quote:
3) He was never known as a particularly cerebral player or student of the game.

Someone who figured out an out-of-fashion method to shoot over 75-80% from the line was not a student of the game? Would someone who was not cerebral enough be willing to accept a new, passing-first, role in the end of his career? Non-cerebral players are not particularly fond of learning new tricks.

Quote:
4) He played in the same era and actually lost a finals series to Wilt's Sixers. It's easy to see how it benefits his own legacy to prop up Wilt.

He's also played in the same era with Kareem, he's lost a series to peak playoff Kareem, he's also beaten Kareem (that's a reason to prop Kareem), plus, the same excuse could be used for pretty much any player who compliments some legend of his era.

Quote:
Basically Barry's opinion is likely to be biased and how informed he is... also very open to debate.


What's wrong with this? Most good minds are open to debate. And, yes, most opinions are biased, including opinions of people who meet your own standards of "knowing basketball", most of whom would be very unwilling to accept they are wrong in something.
[/QUOTE]

My post wasn't meant to insult Barry. You make some solid points as always.

Of course most opinions are biased and whether someone is informed and to what degree is subject to debate. That's why I don't think that highly of any one player's opinion.

When opinions are more entrenched among the public then they are to be more respected. Of course media and popularity plays a big role in that (Hello Jordan!) but at least a large volume of people is more likely to think from all angles than a single inherently biased individual.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdmYTdjCXpU[/url]

I should note, these come from such a small sample pool that even if he only shows a move once here, he repeats and/or displays several more moves or variations of the move in Lakers footage despite him scoring less during those years. Because those later Laker years have more coverage. There are several moves of his repertoire that he shows in Laker footage missing from this reel because of the window of time I used and the limited footage from that time. So this isn't 'everything' we are missing some of his less often used moves. But it is a great compilation no doubt of his core/primary moves. (fade aways, turnaround Js, bank shots, finger rolls, reverse Layups, spin moves, transition baskets, tip ins, alley oops etc). Hope you guys enjoy. :cheers:[/QUOTE]


Wilt > Russell.

[QUOTE=dankok8]Please don't misquote me because that's not what I said. What I said is that whether you argue for Wilt and Kareem as the better player it's crazy to say it isn't close either way. It is very close and debatable and nobody in their right mind should say "Wilt easily" or "Kareem easily".

Jordan/Kareem aren't as statistically dominant as Wilt or as great winners as Russell. BUT they are greater winners than Wilt and more statistically dominant than Russell. Ultimately how you rank players depends on how you weigh the different categories. Wilt and Russell are the two extremes while Jordan and Kareem are high on both the winning and dominance scales but not at the top of either.

I personally weigh winning more than sheer numbers. I hugely believe in intangibles and it's a fact that stats can be greatly inflated and correlate poorly with impact. Thus I would have Jordan, Kareem and Russell over Wilt. Again that's just me.[/QUOTE]
Solid post.. I agree 100%..

[QUOTE=trueDS]Slightly? Again:
[code]
60-66 PPG MPG FG% TS%
PO 32,8 47,5 50,5 52,0
RS 39,6 47,0 51,1 52,9
[/code]
Drop off in scoring efficiency is in fact marginal (especially if we adjust for competition – he played a lot of games vs Bill Russell), but in scoring volume is huge (and with lower volume we should expect better efficiency!). From 39.6 PPG to 32.8 PPG – it’s 17% drop off!




How overrated Jordan is – that’s different story, but we are talking about Wilt here, so don’t change the topic.

BTW, Jordan in playoffs and regular season from 1988 to 1991:
[code]
MPG PPG TS%
PO 41,8 34,5 59,8
RS 39,1 33,1 60,7
[/CODE]

So in fact Jordan slightly increased his volume in playoffs and slightly decreased efficiency. Completely different story than Wilt (and MJ vs Bad Boys was still much better scorer than Wilt vs Russell).





Not true. During “Bill Russell era” (60-69) Wilt in first rounds averaged 30.8 PPG on 53.0 TS% in 47.9 MPG. Or 34.6 PPG, 51.5 TS% in 47.8 MPG during his “scoring prime” (60-66). On the other hand Olajuwon in his “scoring prime” (87-95) in first rounds: 29 PPG, 59.1 TS% in 41.1 MPG. So Hakeem was MUCH more efficient and scored on similar volume considering differences in pace and minutes (per 36 “scoring prime” Wilt 26.0 PPG, “scoring prime” Hakeem 25.4 PPG and of course Chamberlain played in much higher pace, so basically their volume is the same, but Olajuwon much more efficient).



And Antoine Walker was consistently making three pointers – but it doesn’t mean he was good three point shooter.

Really, I posted actual numbers – with which you disagree?
On that NCAA footage from 1957 Wilt made 53 shots (so 19.3% of his total FGM during that season)?
Postups, fadeaways and 3 other plays (non transition, cuts or ORB) were 50.9% of his all made shots on that footage?
You disagree with assumption that he made around 75% around the rim (so in transition, cuts or after ORB)? If so, then how efficient around the rim he was in your opinion? In Dippers/Phila NBA sample he made 83% of shots at rim! And in NCAA his competition was much worse (all but 3 of these 53 shots are against white short defenders).

So if he was making around 75% of his attempts at rim, and these attempts were around 50% of his all attempts, that means from postups and fadeaways he was around 34%. That’s in best case scenario, because only insane person would say that he was worse than around 75% at rim. (and in reality he was probably more close to 80% at rime, so around 30% from fadeaways and postups.)

So bottom line is – Wilt often used his fadeaway in earlier years (both NCAA and NBA) and that’s why his efficiency was worse than later, when he focused on at rim shots. But using something often doesn’t mean you are good at that (Antoine Walker’s case). Wilt simply was bad shooter. Even FT% confirms that (there’s high correlation between quality of FT shot and jump shot), as in NCAA he was bad, but not awfully bad shooter (like at the end of his career). Had even some around 60% years in the NBA at the beginning, but with time he was worse and worse, probably because of his mentality and weight training. Anyway, he never, even at his best as a shooter in NCAA, was ok shooter. He shot a lot of fadeaways, but made them at bad rate (around 34% in best case scenario), just like Antoine Walker and his three pointers.

If you disagree, please tell me which numbers are wrong.[/QUOTE]

I was going to go into an in-depth reply to this with all kinds of stats, but let's do this...

First of all, your college breakdown is pure speculation. It reminds me of Dankok8 claiming that Wilt only shot .518 against Thurmond in the '66-67 regular season, even though three of their H2H's were missing. Well, after I uncovered the fact that all three of the games in which Thurmond missed against Wilt that season (I call them..."Wilt-itis, since he played in games before and after)...had Wilt's totals. Using Lynch's book on the '76ers, which broke down Wilt's FG/FGA against every team in the league that season...we now KNOW that Chamberlain averaged 20.8 ppg, on get this, ...a .633 FG% against Thurmond!

So much for speculation.

Now, here is THE most important fact regarding your FG%'s (actually eFG%'s) and TS%'s: They do NOT account for ERA-adjustments.

Here is a brief breakdown...

Let's use Wilt's 63-64 Finals, and Hakeem's 94-95 Finals, as examples.

Now, before I begin, I don't have the time, nor the patience, to use the typical TS% method, which involves some ridiculous formula, which ultimately weights FTs at .44. Instead, MY TS% formula is simpler, (although it HURTS poorer FT shooters like Wilt somewhat.)

Every FGA, including 3PT FGA is worth 2 pts. Every FTA is worth 1 pt. And every 3PT FGM is worth 1.5 (x2).

Example:

Player A shoots 10-20 in TOTAL FG/FGA, but out of those 20 FGA, he goes 2-5 from the 3pt arc. And he also shoots 7-10 from the FT line.

Here we go:

10-20 FG/FGA, minus 3pt FG/FGA = 8-15 FG/FGA.
2-5 3PT FG/FGA = 6-10 in FGA/FGA
7-10 FT/FTA = 7-10 FT/FTA

His eFG% (which is completely accurate) would be 8-15 x2 , or 16-30, + 6-10, or 22-40 for a .550 eFG%.

His TS% (which varies slightly from the actual formula most often used)

16-30 + 6-10, + 7-10 = 29-50 or .580.


Wilt in the 63-64 Finals, averaged 29.2 ppg on 24 FGAs per game, and 10.6 FTAs per game.

[B]Wilt shot an eFG% of .517, in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .420[/B].

Using MY TS% formula (which, again, hurts players like Wilt)

62-120 FG/FGA and 22-53 FT/FTA
124-240 + 22-53 or 146/293, or .498

'64 Post-season NBA averaged 361-860 FG/FGA and 230-322 FT/FTA

361-860 x2 = 722-1720 or that actual .420 eFG%.

722-1720 + 230-322 = 952-2042 of a TS% of .466.

[B]So Wilt shot a Finals TS% of .498, in a post-season NBA that had a TS% of .466.[/B]

Chamberlain's eFG% was 9% higher than the post-season league average. And his TS% was 3% higher than the post-season league average. (Incidently, Wilt actually had a career post-season TS% of a 4+% higher TS% than the post-season league league in that period.)

But, even that number is deceptive. In Wilt's era, the FT shooting rules were considerably different. The NBA had single shot fouls, 2-2, 2 to make 1, and 3 to make 2. While we know Wilt's ACTUAL FT% (every FTA was counted), we simply don't know what his EFFECTIVE FT% was. In any case, and using SPECULATION, it was probably higher, and using THAT percentage, and compiling it with his FG%, I suspect that his overall TS% was probably at least 1% higher, if not more.


Now, how about Hakeem's supposed great Finals in '95?

He averaged 32.8 ppg on, get this, 29 FGAs per game. BTW, the entire Rockets team averaged 86 FGAs per game in that series. So Hakeem was essentially taking an 30% of his team's shots. (I don't have the '64 Finals break downs, but I KNOW that there was just no way Wilt's 24 FGAs was anywhere near the huge shot-jacking numbers that Hakeem put up.)

In that series, Hakeem made a total of 56-116 FG/FGAs, and 18-26 FT/FTAs. Included was a 1-1 3pt FG/FGA.

Now, here were the entire Rockets team totals, including Hakeem's:

162-343 FG/FGA, 37-92 3PT FG/FGA, 95-123 FT/FTA

Subtract Hakeem's numbers and you get:

106-227 FG/FGA, 36-91 3PT FG/FGA, and 77-96 FTA


Hakeem's percentages:

55-115 FG/FGA, 1-1 3PT FG/FGA, and 18-26 FT/FTA

110/230 + 3/2 = 113/232 or a .487 eFG%
110/230 + 3/2 + 18/26 = 131/258 or a .508 TS%

Hakeem's teammates:

106/36 and 227-91 = 70/136 FG/FGA
36/91 3PT FG/FGA
78/96 FT/FTA

140/272 + 108/182 = 248/454 or an eFG% of .546
140/272 + 108/182 + 77/96 = 325/550 or an TS% of .591

Post-season NBA league cumulative league averages:

9 games : 324/704 FG/FGA, 61/162 3PT FG/FGA, 197/268 FT/FTA

324/704 - 61/162 = 263/542 FG/FGA, 61-162 3PT FG/FGA, 197/268 FT/FTA

526/1084 + 183/324 = 709/1408 or eFG% of .504 (which was dead on.)

526/1084 + 183/324 + 197/268 = 906/1676 or a TS% of .541.

[B]So, in the '95 Finals, Hakeem had an eFG% of .487, his team had an eFG% of .546, and the post-season league average was .504[/B]

[B]And in the '95 Finals, Hakeem had a TS% of .508, his team had an eFG% of .591, and the post-season league average was .541.[/B]

Hakeem shot nearly 2% WORSE than the post-season eFG%, and over 3% WORSE than the post-season TS%. And his teammates just wiped the floor's with Shaq's in that Finals, BTW.


[B]As for Hakeem's '95 entire post-season: He had an eFG% of .533 and MY TS% of .544 (and an official .560), again, in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .504, and a TS% (MY TS%) of .541. So, he was BARELY above the league averages.

Chamberlain's numbers in his entire '64 post-season? A .543 eFG% in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .420, and a TS% of .529 (again MINE...his actual was .543) in a post-season NBA that shot .466.[/B] [B]So Wilt was 12% (!) higher against eFG%, and over 6% higher against league TS%.[/B]


You simply HAVE to account for LEAGUE AVERAGES.

And I won't get into "pace" in those series, since Hakeem shot-jacked at a FAR greater frequency than Wilt did.

Chamberlain's post-season eFG% of .522, came in post-season's that shot an eFG% of about .430 to .435, on average, in his 13 post-seasons...or probably about 9% HIGHER.

And his post-season TS%'s were about 4% HIGHER, on average, than the post-season league TS"s in that same span.

Furthermore, his teammates almost always shot worse, to considerably worse in those areas, than the league averages. AND, in the meantime, Chamberlain was DRAMATICALLY reducing the eFG%'s and TS%'s of his OPPOSING centers. And in the majority of his playoff series, he was facing a HOF center. In fact, he faced a HOF starting center in 105 of his 160 post-season games, and then a multiple All-star in 26 more of them. So he was either facing a good, to very great, center, in 131 of his 160 post-season games, and just SLAUGHTERING them in terms of scoring and efficiency.

And again, Chamberlain faced the Celtics EIGHT times in his 13 post-seasons. Yes, his numbers declined, just as MJ's did against the Bad Boys, and Shaq's did against the Spurs.

How about Wilt's numbers against the Celtics in his "scoring" seasons.

1960: 30.5 ppg on a .500 eFG% (BTW, the post-season NBA shot .402 that season.) During the regular season, Wilt averaged 39 ppg on a .463 FG% against Russell. Incidently, NYCelts84 posted an article in which those two were going H2H for the 11th time, and in it, it mentioned that Russell had shot .399 against Wilt in their first 10 H2H's, in a season in which Russell shot .467. Wilt actually shot higher against Russell in the regular season, than he did against the rest of the league, and then was much higher against him in the post-season.

1962: 33.6 ppg on a .468 eFG%. (BTW, during Wilt's 10 regular season H2H's with Russell, he averaged 39.7 ppg on a .471 FG%.) Oh, and the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg on a .426 eFG% in the regular season, and 112.6 ppg on a .411 eFG% in the playoffs. Russell? He had shot .457 against the NBA in the regular season. Against Wilt in the EDF's... .399.

1964: 29.2 ppg on a .517 eFG%. The NBA averaged 105.8 ppg on a .420 eFG% in that post-season. Oh, and Chamberlain held Russell, who had shot .433 during the regular season, to a .386 eFG% in that series.

1965: 30.1 ppg on a .555 eFG%, in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .429. Oh, and during their regular season H2H's, Wilt "only" averaged 25.3 ppg on a .473 eFG%. So, he was WAY ahead of his regular season numbers against Russell, and was considerably more efficient against him in the '65 EDF's, than he was against the entire league during the regular season.

1966. 28.0 ppg on a .509 eFG%, in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .441. In his nine regular season H2H's with Russell, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg on an estimated .525 eFG%.

In those five post-seasons, covering 30 H2H games, Chamberlain collectively averaged 30.5 ppg on a .508 eFG% (in league's that averaged about a .421 eFG% in that span.



How about MJ in his four post-seasons against the Pistons?

1988: 27.4 ppg on an eFG% of .495. During the regular season against the NBA Jordan averaged 35.0 ppg on a .533 eFG%.

1989: 29.7 ppg on an eFG% of .476. During the regular season against the NBA, he averaged 32.5 ppg on a .546 eFG%.

1990: 32.1 ppg on a .485 eFG%. Regular season: 33.6 ppg on a .550 eFG%.

1991: 29.8 ppg on a .556 eFG%. Regular season: 31.5 ppg on a .547 eFG%.


Shaq against the Spurs in the post-season:

1999: 23.8 ppg on a .493 eFG%. Against the NBA during the regular season: 26.3 ppg on a .576 eFG%.

2001: 27.0 ppg on a .541 eFG%. Regular season: 28.7 ppg on a .572 eFG%.

2002: 21.4 ppg on a .447 eFG%. Regular season: 27.2 ppg on a .579 eFG%.

2003: 25.3 ppg on a .559 eFG%. Regular season: 27.5 ppg on a .574 eFG%.

2004: 22.5 ppg on a .635 eFG%. Regular season: 21.5 ppg on a .584 eFG%.

Both players generally declined across the board.



Oh, and how about a PEAK Kareem against Nate Thurmond in his three straight post-season H2H series from '71 thru '73?

In his 70-71 post-season against Thurmond, he averaged 27.8 ppg on an eFG% of .486. BTW, against an old Chamberlain... 25.0 ppg on a .481 eFG%. And in that regular season, KAJ averaged 31.7 ppg on an eFG% of .577. A HORRIBLE drop.

But it would get worse.

In his 71-72 playoff series against Thurmond, he averaged 22.8 ppg on, get this... an eFG% of .405!. BTW, Thurmond averaged 25.4 ppg on a .438 eFG% against Kareem in that series. Incidently, against an old Chamberlain...33.7 ppg on a .457 eFG% (and olnly .414 over the course of his last four games.) During the regular season: 34.8 ppg on an eFG% of .574.

And in his 72-73 playoff series against Thurmond... 22.8 ppg on an eFG% of .428. In a season in which he averaged 30.2 ppg on a .554 eFG%.

Hell, if Kareem would have had to battle Nate and Wilt for EIGHT post-seasons, his post-season numbers likely would have been just dreadful.


Yet Chamberlain was ripped for his "declines"?

I have mentioned this before, but will do again...

You simply HAVE to make adjustments for ERAs in these discussions.

I have never had anyone explain to me how players whose careers spanned the early to late 60's (and into the 70's)...generally shot better, to MUCH better in the late 60's. Or player-after-player whose career spanned the 60's and 70's...better, to much better in the 70's. Same with those that spanned the 70'as and 80's. BUT, then, even the CENTERS of the 80's, had their FG% efficiencies just plummet in the 90's.

Darrall Imhoff...three seasons in the early 60's of eFG%'s of .394, .386, and even .314. And by 69-70... a .540 FG%.

Johnny Green. Seasons of .430 and .436 in the early 60's. By the 70's, he was leading the league at .587 (BTW, that was the highest non-Wilt FG% of the Chamberlain-era), and .570.

John Havlicek. He played eight seasons in the 60's, and eight seasons in the 70's. Guess what? He shot better EVERY season in the 70's, than he did in his best season of the 60's. Hell, in the mid-60's he had a season of .399.

Rick Barry. Averaged 35.6 ppg on a .451 FG% in '67. In '75 he averaged 30.6 ppg on a .464 eFG%.

Elgin Baylor. Seasons as low as .401 in the early 60's, and as high as .486 in the late 60's.

Jerry West. Interesting. Watch footage of his shooting form in the '62 all-star game. EXACTLY the same form he would have his entire career. In that '62 season he shot .445, and the year before, he shot .419. By the late 60's he was shooting as high as .514.

Chamberlain. How do you explain Wilt shooting .461 in a season? You can't. By the mid-60's he was averaging 34 ppg on a .540 eFG% and in leagues that were shooting .433. The next year he averaged 24 ppg on a .683 eFG% and in a league that shot an eFG% of .441.


Kareem. In the 70's he had seasons of .539, .529, .518, and even .513 (in the middle of the decade.) In the first eight seasons of the 80's, he never shot lower than .564, and had his highest seasons of .604 and .599. BUT, a peak Kareem couldn't hit the Grand Canyon from the ledge against Thurmond in 40 H2H games (he shot .440 in those career H2H's.) And yet a 38-39 year old KAJ was scoring 33 pgg on a .621 FG% in the span of ten straight games against Hakeem. In fact, a 37-41 year old KAJ outscored Hakeem in their 23 H2H's, and outshot him by a .607 to .512 margin.

Gilmore. A prime 27 year old Gilmore averaged 18.6 ppg on a .522 FG% in the 70's. A 35 year old Gilmore averaged 19.1 ppg on a .623 FG%. And Gilmore's high FG% season in the 70's was .575. In the 80's he had seasons of .618, .623, .626, .631, .652, and .670.

Dantley. He shot .510, .512, and .520 in his three seasons in the 70's. In the 80's he put up four straight seasons of 30 ppg and on eFG%'s of .558, .559, .570, and .580.

Gervin. In the early 70's he was a 23 ppg scorer on about 50%. By the late 70's and into the 80's, he was scoring 30 ppg and shooting .540.

Did all these guys learn to shoot later in their careers?


And conversely, how about the best CENTERS of the 80's and 90's.

Hakeem. Highest FG% season came in his ROOKIE season, at .538. He followed that up with a .526 his very next season. He finally topped that .526 with seasons of .528 and .529 in the mid-90's, and then slowly declined.

Ewing. In the 80's, and in his 3rd, 4th, and fifth seasons, he shot .555, .567, and .551. He theen just crumbled and would be shooting as poorly as .496 at age 31, and then even worse after that.

Robinson. He didn't join the NBA until the 89-90 season, but in that rookie season he shot .531. In his next two years he would shoot .552 and .551. From that point on, a solid decline. A prime Admiral was only shooting .507 in his highest scoring season.

And keep in mind that the league eFG%'s of the 80's and 90's were generally in the .490 to even .500 range (94-95.)


And how about this... in the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756 from the FT line. After Wilt retired in the 73-74 season, the NBA shot .771 from the line. Last year the NBA shot .753 from the line, and guess what, that is what the current NBA is shooting this year, as well.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]I was going to go into an in-depth reply to this with all kinds of stats, but let's do this...

First of all, your college breakdown is pure speculation. It reminds me of Dankok8 claiming that Wilt only shot .518 against Thurmond in the '66-67 regular season, even though three of their H2H's were missing. Well, after I uncovered the fact that all three of the games in which Thurmond missed against Wilt that season (I call them..."Wilt-itis, since he played in games before and after)...had Wilt's totals. Using Lynch's book on the '76ers, which broke down Wilt's FG/FGA against every team in the league that season...we now KNOW that Chamberlain averaged 20.8 ppg, on get this, ...a .633 FG% against Thurmond!

So much for speculation.[/QUOTE]

You still didn't answer to the point!
Which of my Wilt's NCAA numbers aren't true? Could you be specific and don't change topic to other things?

I will bold them to you:

[quote]
Really, I posted actual numbers

[QUOTE=trueDS]You still didn't answer to the point!
Which of my Wilt's NCAA numbers aren't true? Could you be specific and don't change topic to other things?

I will bold them to you:[/QUOTE]
None of your numbers are anything beyond imaginary. Do actual research, you bring literally nothing to the table by speculating. Quit being such a lazy **** and watch those games and count his field goals and attempts. Get this speculative bullshit out of here there is no place for it when the actual games exist, you're just being incredibly lazy and unhelpful otherwise.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]

You simply HAVE to account for LEAGUE AVERAGES.
[/QUOTE]

So stop using some strange modifications and simply do it.

I will show several players in their all playoffs runs, when they averaged at least 20ppg and how their PPG and TS% relatively league average are:

[code]
MPG PPG TS% player
46,3 28,6 8,0 Oscar Robertson*
37,6 25,4 6,7 Adrian Dantley*
40,1 27,3 5,4 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*
41,8 29,5 4,9 Jerry West*
40,7 27,3 3,8 Hakeem Olajuwon*
47,6 28,0 3,6 Wilt Chamberlain*
[/code]

So Wilt is slightly worse than Hakeem, significantly worse than KAJ and much, much worse than Oscar.

Besides keep in mind you Wilt's lovers don't use his playoffs numbers to show his greatness. You use mostly regular season numbers, 50 ppg, 100 pts and so on. That's why it's important to look at Wilt's drop off from regular season to playoffs. Because no doubt he was good player in playoffs, but simply not dominant as his regular season numbers suggest.

In other words - please, show that Wilt was unstoppable scorer, but use only playoffs. Forget about regular season, it's really not that much important.