Wilt the Stiff.... played in a neanderthal era of basketball.
Printable View
Wilt the Stiff.... played in a neanderthal era of basketball.
No, Wilt never played in a bad era. His numbers are impressive considering that he faced a HOF center like 60% of the time he played. Even though that i don't agree with Jlauber on everything, i have to say that he's right on this one.
Wilt had competition and that competition was good.
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]so hes 2-3 in the Finals.....[/QUOTE]
His TEAM's were 2-4 in the Finals. SIX Finals in 14 seasons. And he played brilliantly in all of them.
Of course, he came to a LAST PLACE team, and immediately led them to their best-ever record, at the time. He was traded to the Sixers, a team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and in his three-and-half seasons there, he led them to the best record in the league in THREE of them (and a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics in the other), including a 68-13 record in '67, which is STILL a team record. He was "traded" to the Lakers, where he took them to four Finals in five seasons, and their first ever title in LA, as well as a 69-13 record in '72, which is STILL a team record.
He dramatically improved every team he joined, and the team's he left became much worse...especially if you consider post-season play.
And where do rank Bird? In his career, he took LOADED roster to five Finals. Kareem? Take Magic away, and he would likely have finished with ONE ring. He could only get ONE ring in the decade of the 70's, and to only two Finals. West was 1-7 in his Finals, and he can thank Wilt for that one ring (West shot .376 in that post-season, including .325 in the Finals.) Oscar went to two Finals, and one won ring.
Of course, Wilt was nine points away from winning four more rings, as well as one game in the '70 Finals in which the officiating cost his team a ring.
In any case, basketball is a TEAM game. You would be hard-pressed to find very single games in Wilt's 160 post-season games, in which he was not the best player on the floor.
[QUOTE=zay_24]I would rep you if i could.[/QUOTE]
There is a reason dumbasses like you have negative reps
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Teams from the sixties are obviously much better. They had three and four ll-stars and Hall of Famers on the best of them. Their were only 9 teams for most of the decade. It stands to reason that you'd have more talent per team.
If you actually take the time to learn something about the era, you'd understand what these people are saying. All eras of basketball are comparable if you know enough about both to compare.
The competition was stronger (why do think it wasn't) obviously because only the best 90 players in the world (more accurately North America at that point) were on a team, not 450 like today.
You probably think players were shorter or the league was 90% white in the 60's or something. Just read one book about the 1960's era NBA and you'll have a lot greater understanding as to why some people feel this way. The people's whose opinions your challenging know WAY more about the topic than you, have you considered that?[/QUOTE]
Somebody has some sense here...To everyone who says the 60s suck........Can you read? Does this not make sense to you???
[QUOTE=jlauber]He dramatically improved every team he joined, and the team's he left became much worse...especially if you consider post-season play.[/QUOTE]
Is this a fukking joke? Especially when compared to most of the other greats?
[B][U]Wilt gets drafted:
[/U][/B]
Warriors improve by 17 games over the previous season. It should be mentioned that Gola/Arizin/Rodgers (all-stars who were on Wilt's team) missed 37 games in '59 and only 10 games in '60, and they also got a new coach.
[B][U]Wilt gets traded from Warriors to the Sixers in 1965:
[/U][/B]
Wilt was leading the Warriors to a 10-27 record in games he played. With virtually the same core and the same coach, but with rookie Rick Barry leading the team instead of Wilt, the Warriors double their wins the next year. His Warrior teammates make comments about how Wilt was hard to play with.
Wilt joins Sixers who were 21-20 before the trade was made, and they finish the year with a 40-40 record. He actually had a net negative impact of -0.8 on the SRS of the Sixers over that season.
[B][U]Wilt gets traded from the Sixers to the Lakers:
[/U][/B]
Lakers win only 3 more games despite Jerry West playing 10 more games in the '69 season. Their SRS actually drops (!) after Wilt joins the team. They end up losing to the same team they lost to a year before in the playoffs, and in fact almost got bounced out in the first round but were helped by the fact the leading scorer of the Warriors was injured.
Sixers win 55 games (second most in the league) without Wilt and this is with Luke Jackson (starting PF) missing most of the season. They end up losing to the same team they lost to the year before in the playoffs (Celtics).
[B][U]Wilt out most of the season with Lakers:
[/U][/B]
Lakers still win 46 games (7-5 with Wilt, 38-31 without him). And the next year with Wilt playing all 82 games, they win 48. It should be noted that without West, Wilt leads the Lakers to an awful 3-10 record (the SRS of the Lakers over this stretch? -10.9).
[B][U]Wilt leaves the Lakers:
[/U][/B]
Lakers still win 47 games, which undoubtedly would have been even more had Jerry West not missed 51 games that season. All in all if West was as healthy as previous season, we're looking at another 55+ win team without Wilt.
This is the one thing you DON'T want to bring attention to.
Wilt joins a LAST PLACE team in his rookie year, and IMMEDIATELY takes them to their best-ever record (at the time), 49-26. A DRAMATIC improvement 17 game improvement over their 32-40 team in '59, and even a HUGE increase over their 37-35 team in '58, which was OBVIOUSLY in a state of decline.
He takes that roster, which has gotten worse simply by age and lack of quality replacements to a near title in his monumental 61-62 season, when he SINGLE-HANDEDLY carries them thru Syracuse in the first round, and then takes them to within an eyelash of beating the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers in the ECF's. All, while his teammates collectively shot .354 in the post-season.
In the playoffs in that rookie season, Wilt carries them to a game six against the 59-16 Celtics, including a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting...in a league that shot .410) in a must-win game five. And had Wilt not injured his hand in retaliation for Boston's BRUTAL tactics, and played poorly in games three and four, they might very well have beaten Boston. Of course, with a injured Wilt, they had no chance (even though he always PLAYED with his injuries...unlike Reed and Kareem.)
Of course, Wilt would endure his teammates shooting the likes of .382, .380, .354, .352, .352, and .332 in his first six post-seasons.
He SINGLE-HANDEDLY keeps his 62-63 roster, arguably the worst in NBA history, in virtually every game. His SECOND best player is "all-star" Tom Meschery (the ONLY time in his career BTW), who averaged 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and shot .425, and in only 64 games. His other "all-star" teammate is Guy Rodgers, who is arguably the WORST shooter in NBA history. Rodgers shoots .387 in '63, which was among his BEST seasons. The FACT was, Meschery would have been Boston's TENTH best player in '62-63 (the Celtics had NINE HOFers.)
Wilt then takes that SAME basic horrid roster, with only the addition of rookie Nate Thurmond, who plays 26 mpg, out of position (a natural center playing forward), and who shoots .395...to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals.
In his 64-65 season, Wilt came up with a mysterious illness, and was noticeably sick. Once again, he STILL plays in the majority of the games, and his horrible roster, which has been among the worst for three straight seasons, can't do ANYTHING to help. His team goes 10-27 despite his illness. Without him, they go 7-36.
He is traded at mid-season, and to a team that had been a bottom-feeding 34-46 the year before. He then takes them past Oscar's loaded Royals, 3-1, in the first round of the playoffs. THEN, he takes that same below average roster that he joined, to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics.
Yep, no improvement there.
Oh, and BTW, Wilt's Warriors, whom he had single-handedly carried to the Finals in the 63-64 season with a 48-32 record, dropped to 17-63. The next year the Warriors, added HOFer Rick Barry, and the result... 35-45.
AND, think about this... the Warriors essentially replaced Wilt with BOTH Thurmond AND Barry, and not only couldn't they EVER duplicate Wilt's 63-64 Warrior's record of 48-32 (their BEST record together came in 72-73 when they went 47-35), they FELL to 35-45. Even when they added players like Mullins and Lee in '67 (along with Hetzel, Meschery, and Attles), they could only go 44-37.
Ok, so Wilt plays three more years with Philly, and they have the BEST record in the league in EVERY year there (55-25, 68-13, and 62-20.) Meanwhile, the Warriors go 35-45, 44-37, and 43-39 in those three years. Philly runs away with the NBA title in '67, and oh, BTW, they pounded the Warriors in the Finals that season, 4-2. In fact, Wilt would face the Warrior franchise three times in the post-season after that trade, and he swept them 3-0, with a 12-5 overall record. Even in his LAST season, he dominated Thurmond (the same Thurmond who led his 47-35 over Kareem's 60-22 Bucks in the previous round), en route to takinh HIS 60-22 Lakers to a 4-1 romp over the Warriors.
Yep, no difference there.
Ok, Wilt was then "traded" by the Sixers after his 67-68 season. In 67-68, he led them to a 62-20 record, and only a TON of injuries, including SEVERAL to himself, kept them from repeating against Boston. As it was, they wiped out the Knicks in the first round. But, without HOFer Cunningham for the entire ECF's, and with Jones and Jackson going down with injuries in game five (in a series in which Philly led 3-1), and with Wilt battling an assortment of injuries...they lose a game seven, by four points. Remember that.
Once again, Wilt was "traded" for THREE players, two of whom, all-star guard Archie Clark and Darrell Imhoff, who combined for 29.2 ppg and 15.1 rpg in '68. BUT, that was not all. The Lakers also lost HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft. SO, the REALITY was, Chamberlain had to replace 42 ppg and 17.6 rpg.
And how about Philly? They dropped to a 55-27 record, which was already seven worse than the year before, and 13 games below their '67 mark of 68-13. On top of that, they were then wiped out in the FIRST round by the aging Celtics, 4-1. And, think about this...Wilt's "replacements", Clark and Imhoff, averaged 36 ppg and 20 rpg, on .510 shooting in that series against Boston...and they were STILL buried. Just a year before, a DECIMATED Philly roster lost a game seven by four points in the ECF's to Boston.
Meanwhile, Wilt leads the Lakers to a then LA-franchise best ever record of 55-27...all while replacing THREE quality players. And West STILL missed 20 games that season, too.
Of course, they blew a 2-0 series lead, and a 3-2 series lead against the Celtics, but ONE blown PLAY, Johnny Egan's gaffe (the same Egan who was a shell of a replacement for Goodrich) allowed Boston to eke out an 89-88 win in game four. Had Egan not lost the ball on that ONE PLAY (which led to Sam Jones hitting a buzzer beater, all while falling down), the Lakers, with their 117-104 romp over Boston in game five, would have easily won that series, 4-1. THAT is just how close Wilt took that Laker team to a title in his FIRST year there. Of course, Baylor's .385 playoff shooting, and horrible games three thru five were another major reason, as well.
But, that was just the start. Wilt would take the Lakers to a total of FOUR Finals in his FIVE years in LA. And, they would run away with the title in '72, and with a record of 69-13, which is STILL a franchise record (as is the 68-13 mark with his Sixers in '67.) How about his former Philly team? They would quickly disintegrate, and by Wilt's last season, in 72-73, they posted the WORST record in NBA HISTORY, of 9-73.
Yep...no difference there.
Wilt retired after the '73 season (after leading the Lakers to a 60-22 record, and yet another trip to the Finals.) What ensued in LA? They iummediately plunged to a 47-35 record, and a first round 4-1 blowout loss to the Bucks.
The next year... 30-52. In fact, even with the acquisition of Kareem, LA could only go 40-42. And the Lakers did not return to a the Finals again until MAGIC arrived in '79-80. In fact, even with Kareem, they seldom even made it past the first round. And in the weakest period in NBA history for NBA champions (from '74 thur '79.)
Yep. No difference there.
Wilt made absolutely no difference to his teams.
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
[QUOTE=Fatal9]Is this a fukking joke? Especially when compared to most of the other greats?
[B][U]Wilt gets drafted:
[/U][/B]
Warriors improve by 17 games over the previous season. It should be mentioned that Gola/Arizin/Rodgers (all-stars who were on Wilt's team) missed 37 games in '59 and only 10 games in '60, and they also got a new coach.
[B][U]Wilt gets traded from Warriors to the Sixers in 1965:
[/U][/B]
Wilt was leading the Warriors to a 10-27 record in games he played. With virtually the same core and the same coach, but with rookie Rick Barry leading the team instead of Wilt, the Warriors double their wins the next year. His Warrior teammates make comments about how Wilt was hard to play with.
Wilt joins Sixers who were 21-20 before the trade was made, and they finish the year with a 40-40 record. He actually had a net negative impact of -0.8 on the SRS of the Sixers over that season.
[B][U]Wilt gets traded from the Sixers to the Lakers:
[/U][/B]
Lakers win only 3 more games despite Jerry West playing 10 more games in the '69 season. Their SRS actually drops (!) after Wilt joins the team. They end up losing to the same team they lost to a year before in the playoffs, and in fact almost got bounced out in the first round but were helped by the fact the leading scorer of the Warriors was injured.
Sixers win 55 games (second most in the league) without Wilt and this is with Luke Jackson (starting PF) missing most of the season. They end up losing to the same team they lost to the year before in the playoffs (Celtics).
[B][U]Wilt out most of the season with Lakers:
[/U][/B]
Lakers still win 46 games (7-5 with Wilt, 38-31 without him). And the next year with Wilt playing all 82 games, they win 48. It should be noted that without West, Wilt leads the Lakers to an awful 3-10 record (the SRS of the Lakers over this stretch? -10.9).
[B][U]Wilt leaves the Lakers:
[/U][/B]
Lakers still win 47 games, which undoubtedly would have been even more had Jerry West not missed 51 games that season. All in all if West was as healthy as previous season, we're looking at another 55+ win team without Wilt.
This is the one thing you DON'T want to bring attention to.[/QUOTE]
This. :cheers:
Wilt is great.
I think he is one of the hardest players to rate ever.
The more I watch and read about him the more I think he was very good. Definitily a top class rebounder and probably shot blocker.
Do I think he was better then Kareem or Shaq when you look at how they performed in the playoffs especially over time spans greater then 5-7 years I'd have to say no.
I cannot even rank him yet at this point but I have put him at #4 on my GOAT List.
Like him or hate him but his Production in the playoffs is insane. He is in the 3-5 Range All-Time in Playoff Production only behind Jordan and Shaq by a significant amount.
Hey JLauber can you repost how Wilt performed in some of the games his teams were eliminated in throughout his best years.
I remember some people saying he really struggled especially at the line in playoff elimination games (the ones he lost) but you'd probably know better then anyone.
[QUOTE=32Dayz]Wilt is great.
I think he is one of the hardest players to rate ever.
The more I watch and read about him the more I think he was very good. Definitily a top class rebounder and probably shot blocker.
Do I think he was better then Kareem or Shaq when you look at how they performed in the playoffs especially over time spans greater then 5-7 years I'd have to say no.
I cannot even rank him yet at this point but I have put him at #4 on my GOAT List.
Like him or hate him but his Production in the playoffs is insane. He is in the 3-5 Range All-Time in Playoff Production only behind Jordan and Shaq by a significant amount.
Hey JLauber can you repost how Wilt performed in some of the games his teams were eliminated in throughout his best years.
I remember some people saying he really struggled especially at the line in playoff elimination games (the ones he lost) but you'd probably know better then anyone.[/QUOTE]
Key games in the FINALS where the outcome could have been different if Wilt wasn't so bad from the FT-line:
[B]
[U]GAME 4, 1964 Finals.
[/U]
Celtics 98 - Warriors 95 (Wilt only made 3-8 FT's)
[U]Game 3, 1967 Finals
[/U]
Warriors 130 - 76ers 124 (Wilt only made 2-9 FT's)
[U]Game 5, 1967 Finals
[/U]
Warriors 117 - 76ers 109 (Wilt only made 2-12 FT's)
[U]Game 3, 1969 Finals
[/U]
Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)
[U]Game 4, 1969 Finals
[/U]
Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.
[U]Game 7, 1969 Finals
[/U]
Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)
[U]Game 3, 1970 Finals
[/U]
Knicks 111 - Lakers 108 (Wilt only made 7-13 FT's)
[U]Game 7, 1970 Finals
[/U]
Knicks 113 - Lakers 99 (Wilt only made 1-11 FT's)
[U]Game 2, 1973 Finals
[/U]
Knicks 99 - Lakers 95 (Wilt only made 1-9 FT's)
[/B]
[U]And notice that Wilt during the '67 finals ONLY made 22 out of 72 FT's
In the '70 finals Wilt ONLY made 23 out of 67 FT's
In the '69 finals Wilt ONLY made 24 out of 66 FT's
In the '64 finals Wilt ONLY made 22 out of 48 FT's..[/U]
And of course I don't mean he should have made all the FT's he ever attempted. In some of the games above his FT-shooting was a direct reason to why his teams lost but in some of the games a better FT-shooter would have made the games closer.
How about this...
[QUOTE]GAME 4, 1964 Finals.
Celtics 98 - Warriors 95 (Wilt only made 3-8 FT's)
[B]Wilt 27 points and 38 rebounds
Russell 8 points[/B]
Game 3, 1967 Finals
Warriors 130 - 76ers 124 (Wilt only made 2-9 FT's)
[B]Wilt 26 points on 12-23 shooting with 26 rebounds.
Thurmond 17 points on 6-13 shooting with 25 rebounds[/B]
[B]Oh and BTW, your high-scoring boy Hal Greer... 6-19 from the floor[/B]
Game 5, 1967 Finals
Warriors 117 - 76ers 109 (Wilt only made 2-12 FT's)
[B]Wilt 20 points on 9-15 shooting with 24 rebounds
Thurmond 17 points on 7-21 shooting with 28 rebounds (the only game in which he outrebounded Wilt in that six game series.[/B]
[B]BTW, take Wilt's 9-15 from the floor away, and his teammates shot 38-104, or .365[/B]
Game 3, 1969 Finals
Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)
[B]L.A. fails to rally in the 4th in large part due to Jerry West & Elgin Baylor shooting a combined 1-14 from the floor in the period.[/B] [B]Oh, and Baylor goes 1-6 from the line.[/B]
Game 4, 1969 Finals
Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.
[B]L.A. had the ball leading 88-87 with 15 seconds left. John Egan had the ball stolen by Em Bryant[/B].
Game 7, 1969 Finals
Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)
[B]Wilt, on the bench in the last five minutes of game seven because of his idiotic COACH...outscores Russell, 18-6, outshoots Russell from the floor, 7-8 to 2-7, outscores Russell from the line, 4-2, and outrebounds Russell, 27-21. BTW, Wilt's "replacement" in those last five minutes, Mel Counts, shot 4-13 from the FLOOR.[/B]
Game 3, 1970 Finals
Knicks 111 - Lakers 108 (Wilt only made 7-13 FT's)
[B]Wilt with 21 points on 7-10 shooting with 26 rebounds. Baylor with 13 points on 4-13 shooting[/B].
Game 7, 1970 Finals
Knicks 113 - Lakers 99 (Wilt only made 1-11 FT's)
[B]Wilt with 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, and 24 rebounds. The rest of the Lakers collectively shoot 28-67 or .418 from the floor. BTW, the game was over at halftime when NY led 69-42. Wilt was the ONLY Laker to play well in that game.[/B]
Game 2, 1973 Finals
Knicks 99 - Lakers 95 (Wilt only made 1-9 FT's)
[B]Chamberlain scores 5 points, on 2-4 shooting, with 20 rebounds. Goodrich shoots 5-15 and McMillian shoots 7-24 from the floor.[/B]
(And notice that Wilt during the '67 finals ONLY made 22 out 72 FT's..)
[B]And he OVERWHELMED Thurmond in the process, outscoring him per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounding him per game, 28.5 rpg to 26.6 rpg; and outshooting him from the field by an eye-popping .560 to .343 margin. BTW, give me a list of opposing centers who shot .560 against Thurmond in the playoffs. We KNOW that Kareem faced Nate in three straight playoff series and shot .486, .405, and .428 against him.
Oh, and Philly wiped out the Warriors to WIN the NBA title. And all Wilt did in that post-season was average 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and shoot .579 from the floor. And blowing up Russell and Thurmond along the way[/B].[/QUOTE]
Regarding the '69 Finals...
[QUOTE]Not sure if LA would have won in '69 without Baylor, because that team just did not have much depth, BUT, he was a major reason why they didn't in the Finals. He went completely AWOL in games three thru five in the Finals, scoring a TOTAL of 24 points.
BTW, in the game three 111-105 loss, BOTH Baylor and West combined for 1-14 shooting in the 4th quarter. Wilt gets ripped by the uneducated here for his 2-11 FT shooting in game four, BUT, Baylor went 1-6 from the line, and scored a TOTAL of FIVE points. All in an 89-88 loss. Of course, Johnny Egan's gaffe, losing the ball when his team had the lead AND the ball, and with only seconds remaining was also a HUGE factor.
And while Wilt dominated Russell in a game five, 117-104 blowout of Boston, Baylor still mis-fired, scoring eight points, AND, going 0-4 from the line.
Furthermore, in that game seven, two-point loss, Baylor shot 8-22 from the floor.
And yet, it was WILT who would get the bulk of the blame.[/QUOTE]
So from what your saying it seems that only in that 1973 Game where he scored 5 points did his FT Shooting really cost them the win or might have been a factor in the loss.
Wilt's IMPACT at the line?
[QUOTE]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]
Furthermore...
[QUOTE]And this FT shooting crap has to stop, as well. Russell had the good fortune to win SIX titles in post-seasons in which he shot less than 60% from the line(.585, .552, .526, .523, .508, and .506.) AND, he also won SIX rings while shooting .427, .423, .409, .409, .365, and .356 from the FLOOR (as well as two other post-seasons of .365 and .360 shooting.) Shaq won two of his our rings with post-season's of .456 and .374 shooting, and he had other post-seasons of .471, .466, .429, .393, and .333.[/QUOTE]
Yadi yadi yadi, to this date Wilt is the player who choked the most from the FT-line in NBA HISTORY... PERIOD.
[IMG]http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/594/717/wilt-chamberlain_display_image.jpg?1293478598[/IMG]
[QUOTE=jlauber]
Furthermore...
[QUOTE]And this FT shooting crap has to stop, as well. Russell had the good fortune to win SIX titles in post-seasons in which he shot less than 60% from the line(.585, .552, .526, .523, .508, and .506.) [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
This kick of tearing down other players is ridiculous and has to stop. It goes for everybody. But Wilt shot over 60% from the line in the postseason [B]once[/B] in his playoff career, while Russell did it seven times. Russell maxed out at [B]72.6%[/B] in 1962, and shot 70.7% from the line in 1960. So attempting to use Russell shooting <60% from the line is absurd, seeing as how Wilt shot <60% from the line in 12 of his 13 postseasons, <50% from the line eight times and <40% from the line three times. It fails to make any kind of point whatsoever, and sets you up to look stupid should someone who knows something happen to come along (though since I don't post much on basketball message boards anymore, this is less likely to happen), which will only hurt your case and damage your credibility.
[B]Fred Schaus:[/B] [I]What told me so much about Russell was his foul shooting. For most of the game you wanted him at the line. He was lucky to hit 60 percent. He had terrible form, sort of flinging the ball instead of shooting it. But down the stretch, he never missed a clutch free throw. ... Foul shooting was the weakest part of his game, yet it wasn’t something he’d let defeat him.[/I]
Evidence?
In the '62 Finals, Russell shot [B]14 of 17[/B] from the line in a three-point win in the deciding Game 7, to go with his 30 points on 58.9% TS and 40 rebounds. He shot 74.2% from the line that Finals. Shot 74% from the line in the '66 Finals. Went perfect from the line in the deciding Game 7, a two-point win. Shot 8 of 10 from the line in the deciding Game 7 of the 1960 Finals. (But of course, you can't find this stuff on basketball-reference) People talk about players "making them when they count," but with Russell the evidence is there.
smh when people instead of talking positively about whomever their favorite is, rip other players.
:facepalm
This place is hopeless. Incessant pointless back-and-forth, the same old crap over and over again, rarely any constructive dialogue or genuine knowledge being displayed. Hopefully with the loss of a season, there will be less posting.