Wilt the "Choker"

[QUOTE=jlauber]I already provided you with an example when Wilt had a COMPARABLE supporting cast, and he and his team, kicked Russell, and his team's, ass.

As for being a "loser", once again, Hakeem played in 18 seasons, and won two rings. And, oh, BTW, he played on EIGHT playoff teams that were eliminated in the first round. Wilt played in 14 seasons, against the greatest Dynasty in NBA history for TEN of them, and won two rings. Who was the bigger "loser?"[/QUOTE]

how can you say wilt's cast wasn't comparable when
they took the celtics to 7 games with the series
being decided oftentimes at the buzzer

yeah , wilt got his ONE . . . but only a handful , if that
have ever repeated as fmvp , hakeem is one of them
just winning ONE has some kinda fluke-like feel to it

besides
hakeem faced competition that was actually comparable to him
kareem dropped back-to-back 40s on him and ralph
wilt never faced anything like that

shaq . . . who was the shaq of the 60s , , , nate thurmond?

robinson and duncan ... parish and mchale . . . ewing

please . . . .

there's a reason the celtics were the greatest dynasty in L history

they got to play against wilt-led teams

[QUOTE=aau]how can you say wilt's cast wasn't comparable when
they took the celtics to 7 games with the series
being decided oftentimes at the buzzer

yeah , wilt got his ONE . . . but only a handful , if that
have ever repeated as fmvp , hakeem is one of them
just winning ONE has some kinda fluke-like feel to it

[B]besides
hakeem faced competition that was actually comparable to him
kareem dropped back-to-back 40s on him and ralph
wilt never faced anything like that[/B]
shaq . . . who was the shaq of the 60s , , , nate thurmond?

robinson and duncan ... parish and mchale . . . ewing

please . . . .

there's a reason the celtics were the greatest dynasty in L history

they got to play against wilt-led teams[/QUOTE]

Wilt faced Kareem in 28 games. He held him to .464 shooting in those 28 games (Kareem was a career .559 shooter.) He outrebounded Kareem in the majority of them. In their only H2H game before Wilt's injury in the 69-70 season, Wilt outscored Kareem, 25-23; outrebounded Kareem, 25-20; outassisted Kareem, 5-2; outblocked Kareem, 3-2; and outshot Kareem, 9-14 to 9-21. In their last ten H2H games, Wilt held Kareem to .434 shooting (including .414 in the last four games of the '72 WCF's.) In their last season in the league, they faced each other in six regular season games. Kareem easily outscored Wilt, who was hardly shooting at that juncture of his career, BUT, Chamberlain outshot him from the floor, .637 to ,450, and in fact, he outscored Kareem in one game that season, in which he also outshot Kareem, 10-14 to 10-27.

They met in the '72 WCF's, and here were some interesting articles...

[QUOTE]Kareem’s Image as Best Suffered in Buck Defeat
Bob Wolf
The Milwaukee Journal, April 24, 1972

When the Milwaukee Bucks won the National Basketball Association championship a year ago, there was talk that they had a dynasty in the making.

But their dynasty ended before it really began, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar’s reputation as the greatest center of all time was tarnished in the process.

[B]Abdul-Jabbar failed to outplay either Nate Thurmond of the Golden State Warriors or Wilt Chamberlain of the Los Angeles Lakers in the playoffs, and his inability to contain Chamberlain finally made the difference in the Laker series that ended in disaster at the Arena Saturday[/B]
Matter of Muscle

In the first round series with the Warriors, Abdul-Jabbar outrebounded Thurmond 95-89, but was outscored, 127-114. The Bucks won the series, four games to one.

In the semifinal series with the Lakers, Abdul-Jabbar had a tremendous edge in scoring, 202-67, but was outrebounded, 116-105, and was outmuscled by a greater margin than that. [B]He actually reached the point on occasion where he was intimidated by Chamberlain as he headed toward the basket, and who ever heard of the big Buck being intimidated[/B]?

The Lakers eliminated the Bucks in six games, [B]and the turning point occurred, with the series tied 2-2, when Chamberlain took advantage of his tremendous advantage in weight and strength and began pushing Abdul-Jabbar around. Wilt is listed at 275 pounds but probably weighs 290, to Abdul-Jabbar’s 230[/B].

Perhaps the best illustration of Abdul-Jabbar’s difficulties lay in his shooting averages. He shot .574 in the regular season but only .437 in the playoffs ― .405 against Thurmond and .457 against Chamberlain.

Because of the strong defensive work of his two veteran rivals, Abdul-Jabbar often was forced away from his favorite shooting positions. He took hook shots from 12 to 15 feet away instead of from 8 to 10, and sometimes he even resorted to 15 foot jump shots.

Keep It Up

As Chamberlain put it after the fifth game in Los Angeles, which the Lakers won, 115-90, “Tonight Kareem was taking jump shots. That’s something he doesn’t usually do, but I hope he keeps on doing it.”

Abdul-Jabbar took more jump shots Saturday as the Lakers ended the series with a 104-100 victory, and Bucks Coach Larry Costello said, “I don’t want Kareem taking 15 footers. You do that and you’re just not playing your game.”

[B]But Chamberlain’s dominating presence obviously had much to do with Abdul-Jabbar’s change in tactics, and Wilt’s performance against the man who supposedly had usurped his title as king of the giants must have been one of the most satisfying of his long career[/B]. [/QUOTE]

How about this one...

[url]http://www.amazon.com/Wilt-Larger-Robert-Allen-Cherry/dp/1572436727[/url]

[QUOTE]Thirty years after he retired from basketball, Wilt still owns more NBA records then any player in history. Bill Russell may have won all those championships, but not even Russell was a match for Wilt statisically. Chamberlain almost always outscored and out rebounded Russell in every encounter. Russell no doubt almost always had the better teams. Abdul Jabbar played 20 seasons to Wilts 13, and yet Chamberlain has several thousand more lifetime rebounds. [B]In the twilight of his career, a 35 year old Wilt led the Lakers to victory over the Bucks and a 25 year old Jabbar during the 1972 playoffs. Even more astounding, was wilt blocked 20 shots in two consecutive games in that series, and 11 of those blocked shots were on Kareem. Who the heck ever did that to Jabbar. Makes you wonder what Wilt would have done in his prime. As great as Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson were, none of them had the impact or dominance of Wilt Chamberlain.[/B] The rules of the game were altered upon Wilts arrival into the league. Modern day fans talk of Shaq being the greatest center of all-time. Does anyone out there think Shaq could have blocked 11 Kareem shots in two games? Shaq wouldn't have been able to leap high enough to block a skyhook. That statistic alone, should be enough to convince anyone of Wilts athleticism.[/QUOTE]

Or this one...

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain[/url]

[QUOTE]In the post-season, the Lakers defeated the Chicago Bulls in a sweep,[85] then went on to face the Milwaukee Bucks of young superstar center and regular-season MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar again. [B]The matchup between Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar was hailed by LIFE magazine as the greatest matchup in all of sports. Chamberlain would help lead the Lakers past Jabbar and the Bucks in 6 games.[85] Particularly, Chamberlain was lauded for his final Game 6 performance, which the Lakers won 106–100 after trailing by 10 points in the fourth quarter: he scored 24 points and 22 rebounds, played a complete 48 minutes and outsprinted the younger Bucks center on several late Lakers fast breaks[/B].[86] Jerry West called it "the greatest ball-busting performance I have ever seen."[86] Chamberlain performed so well in the series that [COLOR="DarkRed"]TIME magazine stated, "In the N.B.A.'s western division title series with Milwaukee, he (Chamberlain) decisively outplayed basketball's newest giant superstar, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, eleven years his junior.[/COLOR]"[87[QUOTE]

Even if Wilt's stat's did have a pretty large drop off, he still had some of the best stats ever. He definitely didn't have the right attitude, but I don't think he's a choker, especially considering the majority of his teams weren't championship caliber with almost every player in NBA history. I'm not sure any other player is taking the 62 Celtics to 7 games with the 62 Warriors roster.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Yes, Jordan played on FIVE losing team's in his career, too. And, yes, Hakeem was able to win one ring in a year in which Jordan did not play. Did Hakeem ever face a "Dynasty" team, and lead his team to a title? So, if you consider Wilt a "loser" then you must also believe that Jordan was a "LOSER" in over half of his career. That Kareem was a "loser" in 14 seasons, or MORE than Wilt. Or that Shaq was a "loser" in 14 seasons, or MORE than Wilt. Or that players like Oscar, West, Robinson, Lebron, Howard, Barkley, Moses, Dr. J, Barry, and many other "greats" who either only won as many titles as Wilt, or less, were "losers."[/QUOTE]

this is what i'm talking about

jordan won 6 titles 6 fmvp and he's a loser?

shaq won 4 titles 3 fmvp and he's a loser?

hakeem led his team to the finals against bird and his celtics
in just his 2nd season . . . he didn't win it but he knocked
off a kareem-led laker team to get there . . that's
more impressive than finally beating the celts
without red auerbach and a warrior team
with nate thurmond and clyde lee at C

dr j a loser with 3 titles and 2 fmvp . . . . lmao
criticize the aba all you want , doc would've
dominated the nba much the same way
they had nobody like him either . . . .

that's why they had to have him and decided to take
on the other teams just to get him for without him
there would have been no merger and the nba
would have remained lifeless and boring

the difference is these other guys may not have won
a lot , , , but they actually cared about winning

wilt himself would tell you that wasn't
the reason he played the game

[QUOTE=aau]this is what i'm talking about

jordan won 6 titles 6 fmvp and he's a loser?

shaq won 4 titles 3 fmvp and he's a loser?

[B]hakeem led his team to the finals against bird and his celtics
in just his 2nd season . . . he didn't win it but he knocked
off a kareem-led laker team to get there . . that's
more impressive than finally beating the celts
without red auerbach and a warrior team
with nate thurmond and clyde lee at C[/B]

dr j a loser with 3 titles and 2 fmvp . . . . lmao
criticize the aba all you want , doc would've
dominated the nba much the same way
they had nobody like him either . . . .

that's why they had to have him and decided to take
on the other teams just to get him for without him
there would have been no merger and the nba
would have remained lifeless and boring

the difference is these other guys may not have won
a lot , , , but they actually cared about winning

wilt himself would tell you that wasn't
the reason he played the game[/QUOTE]

I could shoot holes in almost this entire post. I only claimed that those guys were "losers" based on what YOU posted. Hakeem won as many rings as Wilt, and played four more seasons.

I also bolded your comment that Hakeem's losing to Bird's Celtics was more impressive than Wilt beating a team that had won EIGHT straight NBA titles, and in that 66-67 season, Chamberlain's Sixers slaughtered that 60-21 Celtic team. BTW, how about Wilt taking a 40-40 Sixer team, that was outgunned in HOFers by a 5-2 margin, to a game seven, one-point loss against Russell's 62-18 Celtics in '65? In a series in which Wilt outscored Russell, 211-109, and outrebounded him, 221-177?

[QUOTE=magnax1]Even if Wilt's stat's did have a pretty large drop off, he still had some of the best stats ever. He definitely didn't have the right attitude, but I don't think he's a choker, especially considering the majority of his teams weren't championship caliber with almost every player in NBA history. I'm not sure any other player is taking the 62 Celtics to 7 games with the 62 Warriors roster.[/QUOTE]

Chamberlain's post-season scoring is somewhat deceptive. I have said it before, but you can basically break down Chamberlain's career into three sections. The first one, which I consider his "scoring" seasons, was from 59-60 thur 65-66. The second one, which I consider his "balanced" seasons (mainly because he finally had some quality teammates) was from the 66-67 thru the 68-69 seasons. And then, his last one, is what I consider his post-injury seasons (he was injured early on in the 69-70 season), which ran from 69-70 thru his last season, in 72-73.

But for the sake of this argument, we'll just go with two sections, or halves. The first half of Wilt's career was still those "scoring" seasons, from 59-60 thru 65-66, and then the last half would obviously be from 66-67 thru 72-73. In the first half of his regular season career, he averaged 39.4 ppg, and in the last half he averaged about 20 ppg.

However, in his post-season career, he only played 52 of his 160 total post-season games, in his "scoring" seasons. In fact, he only played in the post-season, in the first half of his career, in six of his "scoring" seasons, because his horrible 62-63 team did not make the playoffs. And that is significant, because during that season, he had his second highest scoring season, at 44.8 ppg. In any case, as you can see, he only played about one-third of his post-season games, in his "scoring" seasons. He averaged 33 ppg in those six post-seasons, which was down somewhat from 39.4 ppg, but remember, he missed one entire "scoring" season, and that was his second highest scoring season.

And not only did he only play one-third of his post-season games in the first half of his career, he was facing a HOF center in the vast majority of them. In fact, he faced Russell in 30 of those 52 games. And, for those that like to point out that Chamberlain's scoring dropped significantly in the 61-62 post-season (from 50 ppg down to 35 ppg), his COACH had him PASSING the ball inthe first four games of the five game series with Syracuse (in game five of that best-of-five series, Wilt got the green light, and he responded with a 56-35 game BTW.) Furthermore, and this is important,...during the regular season that year, and against Russell, he "only" averaged 38 ppg on about .470 shooting. In that seven game series in the ECF's, Wilt averaged 33 ppg on about 46%. So, his numbers did not drop as dramatically as they first appeared that post-season.

Chamberlain had his share of great post-seasons, and even some against Russell. He averaged a 30-31 game against Russell in the '65 ECF's (and Russell was at 15-25 BTW.) In the '64 Finals he averaged a 29-27 series (and Russell was at 11-25.) In the '66 ECF's Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 28-14, and outrebound him, per game, 30-26. So, in his "scoring" seasons, he faced Russell in four series, and averaged an almost even 30 ppg and 28 rpg against him combined.

And, the fact was, Chamberlain faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of his entire 160 post-season games, AND, his team's were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season in his entire career.

Furthemore, while Wilt's scoring dropped slightly, as did his FG% (from .540 down to .522...of course, almost EVERY great player had a decline in post-season FG% BTW)...his rebounding INCREASED. And, he outrebounded his opposing center in EVERY ONE of his 29 post-season series, including Russell in all EIGHT of their H2H post-season series. And, in the series and games that we have recorded FG% in in the post-season, Wilt also held his opposing center to lower FG percentages, as well...and in many of them, by HUGE margins.

[QUOTE=Yung D-Will][QUOTE=Horatio33]

Why people do it to Lebron every year.


Lol sry had too.[/QUOTE]

It's a fair point you make. Wilt Chamberlain lacked the mental toughness to win consistantly. even said himself, that he prefered losing big games to winning them, because it builds up pressure to continue winning. Doesn't sound like a leader to me. Shaq is the same. Not a big leader, even in the 3 peat, thought the leader was Derek Fisher with Phil Jax pulling the strings to give him the neccessary motivation. Shaq always wanted things his way, like Wilt did. Wilt wanted to prove he could pass as well as he could score. So he led the league in assists, but to the detriment of his team.

[QUOTE=Horatio33][QUOTE=Yung D-Will]

It's a fair point you make. Wilt Chamberlain lacked the mental toughness to win consistantly. even said himself, that he prefered losing big games to winning them, because it builds up pressure to continue winning. Doesn't sound like a leader to me. Shaq is the same. Not a big leader, even in the 3 peat, thought the leader was Derek Fisher with Phil Jax pulling the strings to give him the neccessary motivation. Shaq always wanted things his way, like Wilt did. Wilt wanted to prove he could pass as well as he could score. So he led the league in assists, but to the detriment of his team.[/QUOTE]

First of all, it would be interesting to find out just WHEN Wilt made that comment about preferring to lose games. Why? Because it would be important to look at the context. Chamberlain was labeled a "loser" in College, for cryingoutloud, even though, in his soph year, he took a team, on his back to to the NCAA Finals, where he was tripled-teamed the entire game, and his TEAM lost in OT. And, in his junior year, his team went 18-5...but, he missed three games to an illness, and his TEAM went 0-3, which eliminated them from the tourney.

Wilt was EXPECTED to carry his TEAM's to championships...and as the frustrations mounted, year-after-year, I'm sure he became very defensive on the topic of "winning-and-losing."

Of course, Wilt "the loser" played on team's that won somewhere around 67% of their games; went to the playoffs in 13 of his 14 seasons (and in the year they didn't, all he did was lead the NBA in scoring by a HUGE margin; lead the league in rebounding; set a then record of a .528 FG%; had the highest Win Share in the league by a HUGE margin; and set a PER mark that is STILL an All-Time RECORD. In those 13 playoff seasons, he took his team to the conference Finals in TWELVE of them. His team's won their division or conference regular season crowns in SEVEN times. His team's went to SIX Finals. His team's had the best record in the league in FOUR seasons. He played on FOUR 60+ win team's. And he anchored two of the greatest team's in NBA history that won titles in dominating fashion.

As for Wilt leading the league in assists, "to the detriment of the team", Chamberlain's 67-68 Sixers RAN AWAY with the BEST record in the league that season, going 62-20, to Boston's 54-28.

[IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/2zszme1.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/2qd0v3a.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/20psvsz.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/6r1s1z.jpg[/IMG]

I wish the admins would make this a sticky...

[QUOTE=jlauber]Was Wilt a "failure", a "loser", and a "choker?"

Here is my response taken from another thread...

The more and more research that has become available, the more we see just how horribly misguided was the PERCEPTION of Chamberlain's career...even at the time in which he played.

I wish the admins would make this a sticky...[/QUOTE]

The notion of Wilt not coming through in big games..or being a "choker"..perhaps had to do with his FT shooting. Wilt's teams lost four Game 7s to Bill's Celtics by a total of 9 points. He must have missed many more free throws than that in those games. I presume that it made Wilt not want to ask for the ball (making his team not dump the ball down low to him, a la Shaquille).

The thing is..by all accounts, Chamberlain worked extensively on his FT shooting trying a variety of techniques (even under-handed-style). From an outsider looking in, it seems that all of that may have messed up his mental approach, quite possibly costing his teams. Even if Wilt was marginally better from the charity-stripe...his teams would have had a couple more postseason wins over Russell’s Celtics (possibly a few more titles as well), in which case the perception of Wilt's career would be quite different from what it largely is today.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]The notion of Wilt not coming through in big games..or being a "choker"..perhaps had to do with his FT shooting. Wilt's teams lost four Game 7s to Bill's Celtics by a total of 9 points. He must have missed many more free throws than that in those games. I presume that it made Wilt not want to ask for the ball (making his team not dump the ball down low to him, a la Shaquille).

The thing is..by all accounts, Chamberlain worked extensively on his FT shooting trying a variety of techniques (even under-handed-style). From an outsider looking in, it seems that all of that may have messed up his mental approach, quite possibly costing his teams. Even if Wilt was marginally better from the charity-stripe...his teams would have had a couple more postseason wins over Russell

[QUOTE=jlauber]It just amazes me how some posters here continually rip Wilt for his poor FT shooting, but NEVER bring up the fact that he ROUTINELY reduced his OPPOSING centers to WAY BELOW their normal numbers in the post-season.

Furthermore, these "anti-Chamberlain" posters NEVER bring up the FACT that Wilt's TEAMs BENEFITTED from Wilt's IMPACT at the FT line. For instance, Wilt played in 35 Finals games...and his TEAM's outshot their opponents from the line by a 26-6-3 margin. And in MANY cases they were shooting SIGNIFICANTLY more FTs.

Once again, the best example of this...

In Wilt's 68-69 season with LA, the Lakers LED the NBA in FTAs. And in the post-season, they shot 109 MORE FTs than the next best team (Boston.)

Wilt was injured early on in the 69-70 season, and missed 70 games. The result? The Lakers dropped from FIRST down to TWELVETH (in a 14 team league.) BUT, Wilt returned for the playoffs, and the Lakers were MILES ahead of the next best team, taking 655 FTAs to the Knicks 455. And, H2H against the Knicks, the Lakers had a 256-160 advantage in FTAs, AND, a 176-122 differential in FTs MADE.

BTW, Russell and Shaq were only marginally better FT shooters in their careers, and yet they still won 15 rings between them.[/QUOTE]

If you cannot admit his troubles from the line played an integral part of the outcome those games, you simply aren't worthy of an honest discussion. Maybe if you stopped living vicariously through his corpse you would be taken a little more seriously.

Just some food for thought...

[B]Russell Rules: 11 Lessons on Leadership From the Twentieth Century's Greatest Winner[/B] - Bill Russell

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TeHIN.png[/IMG]

[quote]if you stopped living vicariously through his corpse [/quote]

[url]http://www.thefreelibrary.com/2+MEMORIAL+SERVICES+SET+FOR+CHAMBERLAIN.-a083624199[/url]


[I]``It was Wilt's wish to be cremated, and I guess this is part of it, too,'' said former Frankford High basketball coach Vince Miller, Chamberlain's best friend since third grade.

``They're going to leave some of the ashes in L.A. after the funeral, and then bring some of them here next week.

``It's not a bad idea. It's a good idea, actually. Let's face it. He spent about half his life in each place.'' [/I]