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

Throughout the entire second half of game 4 during the '67 EDF with Russell facing elimination, he guarded peak Wilt 1 on 1.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=0m44s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=0m44s[/URL]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=7m35s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=7m35s[/URL]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiVAFBZzTac&feature=related#t=3m22s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiVAFBZzTac&feature=related#t=3m22s[/URL]

Look at how much time he had to put the ball on the floor and dribble.

Havlicek sort of comes over here, but doesn't full commit to the double team. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHXG3koetzA&feature=related#t=9m16s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHXG3koetzA&feature=related#t=9m16s[/URL]

The only time he was really doubled in that second half was when Sam Jones was guarding him on a switch.

[B]Compare this to Shaq in the 2000 WCF[/B], on Shaq's first touch of the series, he gets doubled before he even puts the ball on the floor. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=3m28s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=3m28s[/URL]


His only chance was getting good position before the pass because they sure as hell weren't go to let him dribble for 3 seconds. Here he gets good position and makes a quick move, but the double team still comes, though he makes the shot anyway. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=4m30s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=4m30s[/URL]

Once again, the double team immediately comes as soon as he catches the ball, before he can put the ball on the floor. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=5m44s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=5m44s[/URL]

And sometimes he didn't even have a chance to catch the ball as you can see here with Pippen over doubling him without the ball. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=8m23s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=8m23s[/URL]

Once again, as soon as Shaq catches the ball, Pippen immediately starts running over to double him. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyt48XFslGA&feature=related#t=9m09s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyt48XFslGA&feature=related#t=9m09s[/URL]

And that's just the 1st quarter, this type of defense continued and as you can see one of the only ways to score vs this strategy is to repost. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw&feature=related#t=1m24s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw&feature=related#t=1m24s[/URL] The other being quick moves before the double team can arrive. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw&feature=related#t=4m20s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw&feature=related#t=4m20s[/URL]

By the time he makes the catch he is doubled. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw&feature=related#t=4m53s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw&feature=related#t=4m53s[/URL]

Now look at the defensive attention given to him here. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt1QE2Yk&feature=related#t=1m16s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt1QE2Yk&feature=related#t=1m16s[/URL] Doubled before he can put the ball on the floor again, making the only possibility a repost and Portland still trys to come over twice, but it's too late because of the quick move.

Even in transition, Portland quickly triple teams him. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt1QE2Yk&feature=related#t=1m43s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt1QE2Yk&feature=related#t=1m43s[/URL]

Once again, every time he catches the ball in the post, he's quickly doubled. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt1QE2Yk&feature=related#t=6m35s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt1QE2Yk&feature=related#t=6m35s[/URL]

And here, he catches the ball, but there's nowhere to go with Portland defenders waiting, so he gets the ball back with not much on the shot clock far away from the basket and this is one of the rare times he was able to put the ball on the floor and then he was to back down a 7'3", 330 pound wall 15 feet from the basket [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt1QE2Yk&feature=related#t=7m11s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt1QE2Yk&feature=related#t=7m11s[/URL]

Once again, he catches the ball and Pippen is immediately there to double him before he can put the ball on the floor. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ljRdUBGAk&feature=related#t=1m33s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ljRdUBGAk&feature=related#t=1m33s[/URL]

Vs this type of defense you had to be quick with your moves and decisions, here he catches the ball on the move and goes up quickly for a successful jump hook on one of the rare occasions that the help couldn't get there. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ljRdUBGAk&feature=related#t=3m58s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ljRdUBGAk&feature=related#t=3m58s[/URL]

And this is just how O'Neal was guarded in the first half of the first game, compare that to how Boston guarded Wilt in the second half when they were facing elimination. Portland's defensive strategy was clear. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izs53PMDE8s#t=1m20s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izs53PMDE8s#t=1m20s[/URL]

Portland tried the hack-a-Shaq strategy out of desparation in the second half, but the result was a 41 points, 11 rebound, 7 assist and 5 block game from Shaq and a 15 point victory. And the defense sure didn't back off as the series went on, particularly with LA shooting so much better than usual from the perimeter in game one, which was usually a weakness for them. And in many of these clips you can see Shaq making great passes and setting up his teammates, so when the role players made their shots, there was really no way to stop him. And they did a better job at limiting him throughout the rest of the series in large part to a lack of support as you can see here from the "two deep vs too deep" references throughout the series. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw[/URL] [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izs53PMDE8s#t=2m24s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izs53PMDE8s#t=2m24s[/URL]


I've said a million times in response to those that talk about the centers Wilt faced compared to Shaq that the team defenses Shaq faced were 100 times tougher. No doubt in my mind that Shaq was harder to stop. As you can see, Wilt could let you off the hook in single coverage because he wouldn't use his size to his advantage as much as Shaq, which by Wilt's admission was a mistake, nor did he have the footwork or ball handling skills to make the same quick moves.

Credit goes to Russell for being an excellent defensive player, but anyone who thinks Shaq isn't scoring easily with single coverage, the luxury of being able to put the ball on the floor several times and a 4 inch, 100 pound size advantage is crazy. The difference between the 2 is that Shaq didn't apologize for his size and used it to make him great. He didn't really care if his ame was pretty or people thought he was skilled, though the other difference was his vastly superior low post game.

Great post, but you are basing the defensive tactics against Wilt, in ONE game, and in one of his WORST post-season games of that time?

Up until a couple of weeks ago, there was the second half of the game four of the '64 Finals available on YouTube. Now there are only briefs parts of it. But even in this one...in the few minutes that is displayed...when Wilt gets the ball (which was rare for some reason), Boston collapses on him at the 3 minute mark of the video...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pdi4jhvUAQ&feature=related[/url]

I actually view the entire second half of that game a couple of months ago, and Wilt went 7-11 in the second half. On almost every pass to Wilt, the defender guarding the passer dropped off to cover Wilt. And, if Wilt put the ball on the floor, he was swarmed. Not always of course, but quite often. You have to remember, though, that doubling off the ball was not allowed. Only with the ball...so team's had to wait until Chamberlain got the ball.

Once again, you basing your take on Wilt on ONE game...

[IMG]http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/50567578.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A143917923364F7ADC6BCD4D02596FBF5981987C780A03F10B9B01E70F2B3269972[/IMG]

Furthermore, and as you well know...

[url]http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html[/url]

[QUOTE]In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. [B]Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain[/B]. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."

[/QUOTE]

Great job wasting time creating a post on a totally irrelevant premise.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Great post, but you are basing the defensive tactics against Wilt, in ONE game, and in one of his WORST post-season games of that time?

Up until a couple of weeks ago, there was the second half of the game four of the '64 Finals available on YouTube. Now there are only briefs parts of it. But even in this one...in the few minutes that is displayed...when Wilt gets the ball (which was rare for some reason), Boston collapses on him at the 3 minute mark of the video...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pdi4jhvUAQ&feature=related[/url][/QUOTE]

I looked for that game before I made the post too so I could break down each post up in a similar way.

I wasn't even analyzing the performance though as much as I analyzing the defensive strategy

[QUOTE=Showtime]Great job wasting time creating a post on a totally irrelevant premise.[/QUOTE]

Great job wasting time with a post that did nothing more than show what a d[SIZE="2"]o[/SIZE]uchebag you are.

And how exactly is this irrelevant when I've discussed this many times with posters, particularly JLauber?

A couple of plays in the '67 ECF's...and Wilt is immediately doubled.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVg8uZ5Wn38&feature=related[/url]


Also, Wilt played from the 10-15 ft. area much more in the early to mid-60's. He was actually a very good outside shooter.

[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]

In any case, I can only hope that someday we are able to watch much more of Wilt's career, instead of a few highlights or partial games (and none anywhere near his best games BTW.)

I won't dispute Shaq's inside dominance, though. Having said that, however, I just don't believe the NBA would have allowed Wilt to just physically overpower the league.

BTW, ShaqAttack,

I do enjoy these discussions. We will probably never agree 100% on anything, but I have always respected your opinions.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Great job wasting time with a post that did nothing more than show what a d[SIZE="2"]o[/SIZE]uchebag you are.[/quote]

No, it also pointed out how useless this premise of discussion really is.

[quote]And how exactly is this irrelevant when I've discussed this many times with posters, particularly JLauber?[/QUOTE]
lmfao if you honestly can't see how this premise is irrelevant, then there's nothing I can do for you.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I won't dispute Shaq's inside dominance, though. Having said that, however, I just don't believe the NBA would have allowed Wilt to just physically overpower the league.[/QUOTE]

There's no way of knowing that, however what many don't mention is things like this. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MYTeBGFql8&feature=related#t=0m23s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MYTeBGFql8&feature=related#t=0m23s[/URL] In many cases defenders got away with blatant fouls against him because they didn't affect Shaq as much as other players, but they're just as much fouls by the rule book. Of course Shaq got away with offensive fouls himself, but also some of the moves looked more like fouls than they would've had it been a smaller player using them.

That's why I've always maintained that it evens out and he was probably the toughest player to ref.

[QUOTE=Showtime]No, it also pointed out how useless this premise of discussion really is.


lmfao if you honestly can't see how this premise is irrelevant, then there's nothing I can do for you.[/QUOTE]

No, you have yet to point out why it's irrelevant. I've debated 60's defense vs 00's defense many times and stated my opinion that it's much harder to go against a great team defense and constant doubles/triples than a 1 on 1 vs one great defender. And I made the thread to give examples.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]There's no way of knowing that, however what many don't mention is things like this. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MYTeBGFql8&feature=related#t=0m23s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MYTeBGFql8&feature=related#t=0m23s[/URL] In many cases defenders got away with blatant fouls against him because they didn't affect Shaq as much as other players, but they're just as much fouls by the rule book. Of course Shaq got away with offensive fouls himself, but also some of the moves looked more like fouls than they would've had it been a smaller player using them.

That's why I've always maintained that it evens out and he was probably the toughest player to ref.



No, you have yet to point out why it's irrelevant. I've debated 60's defense vs 00's defense many times and stated my opinion that it's much harder to go against a great team defense and constant doubles/triples than a 1 on 1 vs one great defender. And I made the thread to give examples.[/QUOTE]

Shaq was fouled FAR more than what he dished out. For those that point out game six of the 2002 Sac-LA series, just take a look at game five. Shaq was pounded all game long. On one play he dunks the ball, and his elbowed in the head. In another play going for a loose ball, he is hit in the back of the head. No call on either play...and for the game...ONE FTA.

I also remember a play in a game in which Stevie Francis drove the lane and charged right into a stationary Shaq. He bounced off of Shaq...and slid some 10 feet backwards. Not only was it not called charging...Shaq was assessed with a flagrant foul.

Much like Wilt, there was a double-standard with officiating Shaq. The officials probably could have called a foul on nearly touch, but the game would have deteriorated to a parade at the FT line.

I won't dispute Shaq's low-post dominance. Wilt seldom played like that in his entire career. There were glimpses of what he could have done. I have mentioned an angry Wilt, following Kareem's sucker-punch of Hairston, just bullying his past a helpless Kareem, and in for an easy basket. Or a game I watched in '72, and against Thurmond, when the Lakers fed Wilt point-blank passes at the rim on four straight possessions, and Wilt just pushed Nate out of the way and dunked them all.

IMHO, had Jackson utilized Shaq's power, withOUT the ball (just moving into the lane like Wilt did against Nate), and waiting for passes at the rim...Shaq would have been damn near unstoppable. As it was, Shaq would get about five baskets per game, or more, doing exactly that. There was simply no one, or two players, who could keep him out of the lane.

Having said, that, though,...while I would give an inside edge to Shaq, Wilt had a better and more diverse game from 10+ ft, especially early in his career.

IMHO, Shaq, Kareem, and Wilt were BY FAR, the most dominant offensive big men in NBA history. Shaq was the most powerful inside player; Kareem was the most skilled; and Wilt combined both.

[QUOTE=jlauber]IMHO, Shaq, Kareem, and Wilt were BY FAR, the most dominant offensive big men in NBA history. Shaq was the most powerful inside player; Kareem was the most skilled; and Wilt combined both.[/QUOTE]
:cheers: :cheers:

I can agree with that

[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bLocAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JGUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4547,1599737&dq"]Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Jan 8, 1960[/URL]
[I]

'"I was disgusted in college with the slow offenses and stall tactics. College basketball needs some version of the the pro's 24 second rule."

The native Philadelphian observed that one thing he learned quickly in the NBA was that although zone defenses are illegal, he is faced with modified zones every time he plays.

"I was looking forward to the pro style of man-to-man defense, but in my case it's men on man. They sandwich me and drop other defenders off to try and steal the ball. I asked one official why he didn't invoke the no zone ruling and he replied:
[B]
"Too Much Else"[/B]

'"I haven't called a zone in this league in 11 years, and I'm not going to start to do it now. There is too much else going on that bears watching to bother looking for so-called zones."'

Chamberlain, who some feel may become the greatest basketball player of all time, says the theory that two or three good outside shots can break up [/I] [I]a zone doesn't work in his case.[/I]
[I]
"You wouldn't want a better outside shot that our Paul Arizin, but they drop off Paul to hamper me. It adds up to the fact they would rather take a chance on an outside shot than allow me to work inside."

Chamberlain, who relaxes by singing, dancing and playing the bongo drums, refuses to complain about the terrific physical beating he takes. He describes it as a hazard of the game.

"I feel," says Wilt, "that the roughhouse tactics started when some players found out that I was much better than they expected. I get it from all angles. Some grab my shorts and hold me down. Others latch onto an arm, while their teammates go up for a rebound."

[B]
"Paid To Score"[/B]

Retorts Wilt:

"People just don't understand the problems of players like Jack Twyman Cincinnati's league leading scorer and myself. We have to let down on some phases of the game in order to score. We are paid to score. If we don't get out 30-35 points a game there is a good chance our team will lose."

"Take Russell for example. He's a great defensive player because he doesn't have to worry about scoring. His assignment is to get the rebound and block as many shots as he can. Boston has plenty of scorers. If Russell had to score he could average 25 points or more a game easy."'
[/I]

One other point, which I have brought up in other threads...

While I believe that if you could magically transport a 2000 Shaq to 1962, that with the shorter lane, smaller players, and faster pace, that he would have been a 40+ ppg scorer, or perhaps even a 50 ppg scorer...

I just don't believe that Shaq, born some 40 years earlier, and playing in 1962, would have been nearly the same Shaq. Even genetically, he probably would not have been as tall. And with the much more limited knowledge of the overall game, the nutrition of that era, the medical knowledge of that era, and the different physical training of that era (Wilt was among the first great athletes, involved in a major team sport, to lift weights), IMHO, Shaq would probably have been 6-11 300 lb, overweight, and less skilled player.

And, on the flip side...take a Wilt, born in say 1972...and given all the benefits of modern technology, including weight training, medicine, coaches with much more knowledge of the game, better nutrition, and better training...and how much better would he have been? And, if you factor in genetics...perhaps a 7-4, 325-350 lb. athlete beast.

We will never know, of course, but a Wilt, in 1962, would probably have not been nearly the same Chamberlain, had he been playing at his peak in 2002.

[QUOTE]No doubt in my mind that Shaq was harder to stop. As you can see, Wilt could let you off the hook in single coverage because he wouldn't use his size to his advantage as much as Shaq, which by Wilt's admission was a mistake, nor did he have the footwork or ball handling skills to make the same quick moves. [/QUOTE]

'67 was his year in the pivot primarily as a play maker. Double Wilt he'd find the open teammate, all of whom were in constant motion. This game is a bad example, as Wayne Lynch noted in Season of the 76ers: the story of Wilt Chamberlain and the 1967 NBA champions, the team came out lethargic in the 2nd half of game 4.


Below we can see two fake passes at 4:30 mark followed by a power move to the basket, drawing 4 defenders and finding an open Billy C. We can also see the defensive players with their hands up denying the active cutters.

[URL="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5[/URL]




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

[IMG]http://i56.tinypic.com/2qs9ifp.jpg[/IMG]

One would think double teams were less predictable as well due to the motion. Below we can see Russell quickly recover fronting the pivot as well as K.C. coming hard from the baseline. His man, rookie guard Matt Guokas cuts to the front of the rim and Wilt hits him for an easy layup.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpiRo8-aKJc#t=01m20s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpiRo8-aKJc#t=01m20s[/URL]

[QUOTE]"We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."[/QUOTE]

Below at the 0:57 mark we can see Wilt circa '65 spin baseline from Russell [B]immediately[/B] off the catch ala Hakeem Olajuwon, before K.C. takes the intentional foul and a frustrated Wilt hits the stanchion.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xp2slHI9sI[/url]

[QUOTE=jlauber]IMHO, had Jackson utilized Shaq's power, withOUT the ball (just moving into the lane like Wilt did against Nate), and waiting for passes at the rim...Shaq would have been damn near unstoppable. As it was, Shaq would get about five baskets per game, or more, doing exactly that. There was simply no one, or two players, who could keep him out of the lane.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but would his teammates have been involved as much? I'm not sure Shaq scoring more would have helped the team more, as it is, he was one of only 3 players to lead the league in scoring and win a championship in the same season during the shot clock era. By drawing all of those double and triple teams he got his teammates a lot of easier shots as you can see in those clips.

Actually, though it's off topic, this is a perfect example of why his 1995 Magic cast was a lot better than his 2000. They complemented him better due to their 3 point shooting and had more scoring options. The 2000 Lakers on the other hand weren't as deep and talented and they were a weak outside shooting team. They shot 32.9% on 3s which was significantly below the league average of 35.3% and the 5th worst percentage in the league, plus they only ranked 18th in a 29 team league in 3s made.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Yeah, but would his teammates have been involved as much? I'm not sure Shaq scoring more would have helped the team more, as it is, he was one of only 3 players to lead the league in scoring and win a championship in the same season during the shot clock era. By drawing all of those double and triple teams he got his teammates a lot of easier shots as you can see in those clips.

Actually, though it's off topic, this is a perfect example of why his 1995 Magic cast was a lot better than his 2000. They complemented him better due to their 3 point shooting and had more scoring options. The 2000 Lakers on the other hand weren't as deep and talented and they were a weak outside shooting team. They shot 32.9% on 3s which was significantly below the league average of 35.3% and the 5th worst percentage in the league, plus they only ranked 18th in a 29 team league in 3s made.[/QUOTE]

Damn! He was just a beast!

Shaq, at his peak, at least offensively, was a great as anyone who has ever played the game. And, IMHO, his defense and rebounding were very under-rated, as well. He easily outrebounded Motumbo in '01, as well as pounding the DPOY. He even outblocked "Mt. Motumbo."

Great clips BTW.

I just wish we had much more of Wilt's career to compare them to. I will agree, though, that I seldom saw Chamberlain play as powerfully. Maybe had Shaq played in the Chamberlain era, we might have seen Wilt go all-out. However, in Wilt's era, there was just no one that could come close to his amazing size, athleticism, and power. He was so much stronger than anyone else he ever faced, that he developed his "goliath complex." Of course, Shaq has also been overwhelming in his career, as well, but at least he relished it. Chamberlain reluctantly used his massive edge in power.

BTW, I will rep you when I can. This was an outstanding post.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Damn! He was just a beast!

Shaq, at his peak, at least offensively, was a great as anyone who has ever played the game. And, IMHO, his defense and rebounding were very under-rated, as well. He easily outrebounded Motumbo in '01, as well as pounding the DPOY. He even outblocked "Mt. Motumbo."

Great clips BTW.

I just wish we had much more of Wilt's career to compare them to. I will agree, though, that I seldom saw Chamberlain play as powerfully. Maybe had Shaq played in the Chamberlain era, we might have seen Wilt go all-out. However, in Wilt's era, there was just no one that could come close to his amazing size, athleticism, and power. He was so much stronger than anyone else he ever faced, that he developed his "goliath complex." Of course, Shaq has also been overwhelming in his career, as well, but at least he relished it. Chamberlain reluctantly used his massive edge in power.

BTW, I will rep you when I can. This was an outstanding post.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, I actually love watching clips from the era where there isn't much footage(60's and early 70's), I am watching the second half of game 4 of the '71 finals again at the moment.

The player I am appreciating more and more is Bill Russell, I just watched part of the '62 all-star game recently and his quickness and overall defense impress me in just about every game I see, whether it's that, the '66 EDF game vs the Royals, the '67 EDF ect.

Compared to his peers, I'd definitely call Russell the greatest overall defensive player ever in terms of impact, and due to his quickness, athleticism, IQ and shot blocking ability, I'd bet he could anchor a great defense in any game. I'm still not that impressed with his offense game, but I reserve the right to change my mind on that one.

I think that Thurmond was a better 1 on 1 post defender than Russell, but as far as anchoring a defense and changing shots around the rim(and keep the ball in play) I doubt anyone did more to help their team win at that end.

In fact, that's a lot more important than 1 on 1 post defense. Look at Dwight Howard now, he's not a great post defender, but his overall defensive impact has been huge for the last few years.

When I have time, I want to go through all of the actual game footage of Bill Russell available and point out the things that I was alluding to about his defense.

Speaking of defense, check out Scottie Pippen's help defense throughout those clips. His defensive impact in that series was huge and that was Pippen at 34/35 years old after a good amount of injuries.

Back to Wilt, while I prefer the later version of who was more of a defensive player and facilitator in the post, his offensive game looks better in the earlier footage. His fadeaway looked better and judging by his FT% it seems like his shooting touch was in general. In some of the early footage, you can see his speed running the court as well, so while I think the '67 version was the best, I suspect there may have been things that he did better when he was younger such as scoring.

And to give some credit where credit is due, there is a monster defensive sequence at one point in this '67 game where Russell and Wilt completely shut off the paint. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9RJXAdZYw&NR=1#t=5m24s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9RJXAdZYw&NR=1#t=5m24s[/URL]

Great block by Russell, but check out the 2 blocks in a row by Wilt at the other end.

You should cue up tape of Wilt's Kansas days, where he practically faced triple and quadruple teams everytime he touched the ball, even if he was in the backcourt. They both got doubled and tripled a lot, but Wilt forced opposing coaches to come up with that tactic.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Thanks, I actually love watching clips from the era where there isn't much footage(60's and early 70's), I am watching the second half of game 4 of the '71 finals again at the moment.

The player I am appreciating more and more is Bill Russell, I just watched part of the '62 all-star game recently and his quickness and overall defense impress me in just about every game I see, whether it's that, the '66 EDF game vs the Royals, the '67 EDF ect.

Compared to his peers, I'd definitely call Russell the greatest overall defensive player ever in terms of impact, and due to his quickness, athleticism, IQ and shot blocking ability, I'd bet he could anchor a great defense in any game. I'm still not that impressed with his offense game, but I reserve the right to change my mind on that one.

I think that Thurmond was a better 1 on 1 post defender than Russell, but as far as anchoring a defense and changing shots around the rim(and keep the ball in play) I doubt anyone did more to help their team win at that end.

In fact, that's a lot more important than 1 on 1 post defense. Look at Dwight Howard now, he's not a great post defender, but his overall defensive impact has been huge for the last few years.

When I have time, I want to go through all of the actual game footage of Bill Russell available and point out the things that I was alluding to about his defense.

Speaking of defense, check out Scottie Pippen's help defense throughout those clips. His defensive impact in that series was huge and that was Pippen at 34/35 years old after a good amount of injuries.

Back to Wilt, while I prefer the later version of who was more of a defensive player and facilitator in the post, his offensive game looks better in the earlier footage. His fadeaway looked better and judging by his FT% it seems like his shooting touch was in general. In some of the early footage, you can see his speed running the court as well, so while I think the '67 version was the best, I suspect there may have been things that he did better when he was younger such as scoring.

And to give some credit where credit is due, there is a monster defensive sequence at one point in this '67 game where Russell and Wilt completely shut off the paint. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9RJXAdZYw&NR=1#t=5m24s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9RJXAdZYw&NR=1#t=5m24s[/URL]

[B]Great block by Russell, but check out the 2 blocks in a row by Wilt at the other end[/B].[/QUOTE]

I think counted four blocks by Wilt in about a quarter in that game. And, as great as Russell was defensively, you will notice that Wilt "cheats" off of Russell in quite a few instances. In the second half of game four of the '64 Finals, Wilt is often jumping out at the Boston shooter. In fact, Russell tips in the game winner primarily because Wilt had to go at the shooter. And, in game seven of the '62 Finals, Sam Jones just gets off the game winner against Wilt.

And, to be honest, I think Wilt's early career defense is very under-rated. Walt Bellamy tells the story of facing Wilt the very first time. He came into the game scoring 30 ppg, and at the center tip, Chamberlain told him that he would not score a point against him. Unbelieveably, Wilt held him without a FG in the first half, and blocked several of his shots. However, the "gentle giant" came out in the second half, and told Bellamy that he had proven his point, and played normally the rest of the game.

NYCelt84 also posted the H2H games between Russell and Wilt in Chamberlain's rookie season. They met 11 times, and the info did not include the 11th game, but in those first ten games that year, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 38-20, but even more importantly, Wilt outshot Russell, .465 to .398. Furthermore, Wilt actually scored higher and shot better against Russell, than the rest of the league (37.6 ppg on .461 shooting against the entire NBA), while Russell shot a career high .467 that season, but, as noted, far worse against Wilt.

Of course, in the mod-60's, Wilt really elevated his defense. Almost everyone here knows by now how Wilt completely shut down both Russell and Thurmond in the '67 post-season (.358 and .343 shooting respectively...both nearly 100 points less than their regular season average.) Not only that, but in the '68 playoffs against the Knicks, Wilt held Bellamy, who had shot .541 during the regular season, to .421 shooting. In the '69 playoffs, he once again held Thurmond to under 40% shooting. And we can probably safely assume that he held Russell to less than 40% shooting in '64 (Russell shot .356 in his 10 post-season games...five of which were against Wilt.) In '65, Russell shot an astonishing .702 against the Lakers in the Finals, but only .451 against Wilt in the ECF's. And, in the '69 Finals, the only known game with their FG%, was game seven, and Wilt outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7.

There is also a recorded game in the '65 season, in which Wilt held Russell to an 0-14 game.

[url]http://www.brainyhistory.com/topics/c/chamberlain.html[/url]

Then, there was the post-surgery Wilt, who battled Kareem to a statistical draw in the '71 playoffs, (Kareem outscored him 25-22 per game, while Wilt outshot Kareem, .489 to .481, and outrebounded Kareem, 18.8 to 17.2.) In any case, Kareem scored and shot considerably less than he did in the regular season (31.7 ppg and .577 shooting.) And, then, in the '72 WCF's, Kareem heavily outscored Wilt, 33-12 per game, but Wilt held him to .457 shooting, outrebounded him by out 2 per game, and blocked some 15 skyhooks, with several more blocks, as well. And in their final six regular season games in the 72-73 season, Wilt outshot Kareem, .637 to .450.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I think counted four blocks by Wilt in about a quarter in that game. And, as great as Russell was defensively, you will notice that Wilt "cheats" off of Russell in quite a few instances. In the second half of game four of the '64 Finals, Wilt is often jumping out at the Boston shooter. In fact, Russell tips in the game winner primarily because Wilt had to go at the shooter. And, in game seven of the '62 Finals, Sam Jones just gets off the game winner against Wilt.

And, to be honest, I think Wilt's early career defense is very under-rated. Walt Bellamy tells the story of facing Wilt the very first time. He came into the game scoring 30 ppg, and at the center tip, Chamberlain told him that he would not score a point against him. Unbelieveably, Wilt held him without a FG in the first half, and blocked several of his shots. However, the "gentle giant" came out in the second half, and told Bellamy that he had proven his point, and played normally the rest of the game.

NYCelt84 also posted the H2H games between Russell and Wilt in Chamberlain's rookie season. They met 11 times, and the info did not include the 11th game, but in those first ten games that year, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 38-20, but even more importantly, Wilt outshot Russell, .465 to .398. Furthermore, Wilt actually scored higher and shot better against Russell, than the rest of the league (37.6 ppg on .461 shooting against the entire NBA), while Russell shot a career high .467 that season, but, as noted, far worse against Wilt.

Of course, in the mod-60's, Wilt really elevated his defense. Almost everyone here knows by now how Wilt completely shut down both Russell and Thurmond in the '67 post-season (.358 and .343 shooting respectively...both nearly 100 points less than their regular season average.) Not only that, but in the '68 playoffs against the Knicks, Wilt held Bellamy, who had shot .541 during the regular season, to .421 shooting. In the '69 playoffs, he once again held Thurmond to under 40% shooting. And we can probably safely assume that he held Russell to less than 40% shooting in '64 (Russell shot .356 in his 10 post-season games...five of which were against Wilt.) In '65, Russell shot an astonishing .702 against the Lakers in the Finals, but only .451 against Wilt in the ECF's. And, in the '69 Finals, the only known game with their FG%, was game seven, and Wilt outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7.

There is also a recorded game in the '65 season, in which Wilt held Russell to an 0-14 game.

[url]http://www.brainyhistory.com/topics/c/chamberlain.html[/url]

Then, there was the post-surgery Wilt, who battled Kareem to a statistical draw in the '71 playoffs, (Kareem outscored him 25-22 per game, while Wilt outshot Kareem, .489 to .481, and outrebounded Kareem, 18.8 to 17.2.) In any case, Kareem scored and shot considerably less than he did in the regular season (31.7 ppg and .577 shooting.) And, then, in the '72 WCF's, Kareem heavily outscored Wilt, 33-12 per game, but Wilt held him to .457 shooting, outrebounded him by out 2 per game, and blocked some 15 skyhooks, with several more blocks, as well. And in their final six regular season games in the 72-73 season, Wilt outshot Kareem, .637 to .450.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm not sure about Wilt's defense early.

Lets take 1962 for example, we know that in the recap of game 7, Wilt's defense was praised, but that Russell's offense numbers rose past his season averages from 18.9 ppg to 22 ppg in the series. Then there's the Bellamy game you mentioned, but Tom Meschery said Wilt was a poor defender when he first got to Philadelphia(1961-1962).

[QUOTE]Well, he could have played better in defence. When I got in the

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]

Actually, though it's off topic, this is a perfect example of why his 1995 Magic cast was a lot better than his 2000. They complemented him better due to their 3 point shooting and had more scoring options. The 2000 Lakers on the other hand weren't as deep and talented and they were a weak outside shooting team. They shot 32.9% on 3s which was significantly below the league average of 35.3% and the 5th worst percentage in the league, plus they only ranked 18th in a 29 team league in 3s made.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but the Magic shooters choked in the Finals... sometimes it's better to have broke shooters with experience than good shooters without experience. Glen and Fish were WET for the Finals. And really I remember them being wet all playoffs.

-Smak

[QUOTE=ILLsmak]Yeah, but the Magic shooters choked in the Finals... sometimes it's better to have broke shooters with experience than good shooters without experience. Glen and Fish were WET for the Finals. And really I remember them being wet all playoffs.

-Smak[/QUOTE]

Glen was wet in the finals? He shot 40% in the series and got benched in crunch time due to his horrible defense and his unwillingness to move without the ball. Glen played pretty poorly in the playoffs, particularly after the first round. Fish on the other hand shot the ball pretty well, but he wasn't a big factor in the playoffs. He ended up the Lakers 4th guard in the playoffs after a a horrible regular season in which he shot under 35% from the field.

Glen could've been so much more of an asset had he accepted his role as a spot much shooter more.

And yeah, Orlando's shooters choked in the finals, but you have to wonder how well that team would've played with Phil Jackson coaching them instead of Brian Hill, or if you threw in a more mature 28 year old Shaq instead of 23 year old Shaq.

That 1995 Magic team also had a legit power forward, and a good one in Grant while that position was weakness on the 2000 Lakers.

OP, Give me your top 10 players of all-time. You seem to know a thing or two about the history of hoops.

[QUOTE=EleganceD]OP, Give me your top 10 players of all-time. You seem to know a thing or two about the history of hoops.[/QUOTE]

Right now I can't really decide on an all-time list because I haven't decided the best criteria. For example, how much to value peak play vs longevity and how much to factor in how timeless your game is and how well it'd factor into other eras vs how good you were vs your peers.

In no order, my top 10 is Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan and Kobe and I don't see anyone with a valid case over any of those players currently. The active player who I think could push one of them out and make my list is Lebron, but not anyone else that I see in the NBA at the moment. And I don't see any past player with a good enough case over any of those players to push one of them out of my top 10.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Right now I can't really decide on an all-time list because I haven't decided the best criteria. For example, how much to value peak play vs longevity and how much to factor in how timeless your game is and how well it'd factor into other eras vs how good you were vs your peers.

In no order, my top 10 is Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan and Kobe and I don't see anyone with a valid case over any of those players currently. The active player who I think could push one of them out and make my list is Lebron, but not anyone else that I see in the NBA at the moment. And I don't see any past player with a good enough case over any of those players to push one of them out of my top 10.[/QUOTE]

If you take Mikan out of the equation due to the pre-integration/pre-shot clock era then you have the indisputable top ten. The only ten players in NBA history to win multiple titles as the best player on their team and multiple Finals MVP's (or would have in the case of Wilt/Russell).

You're on to something in the OP as well. But it is a two-sided story...

[U]Advantages beyond Shaq's Control[/U]
Physicality of Era - Wilt took way more abuse than Shaq, and Shaq took more abuse than any player of his era by far.

Quality of opposing centers - Shaq faced far more below average centers than Wilt who played over half his games the likes of Russell, Thurmond, Reed, Lovellette, Cowens, Unseld, Kareem etc. all Hall of Famers.

Weight/dietary/nutrition training - Shaq could recover from injuries and play through them with much better care than Wilt and the players of his era.

The three-point line - It forced players to be more cautious in their double teaming of O'Neal as the risk was greater with the 50% more valuable basket an option.

[U]Advantages beyond Wilt's Control[/U]
Defensive sophistication of Era - Teams had no idea how to handle Wilt, he was the first of his kind. By the time Shaq got there teams could say, here's what worked vs. Wilt, vs. Kareem, vs. Moses, vs. Hakeem etc.

Athletic depth of league - Even with 37-30 teams, the NBA Shaq played in was far more athletic than the one Wilt played in.

Rules early in his career - The lane was not as wide, that's a big advantage, the changed it because of Wilt primarily.

Pace of the game - Wilt played in an era with 30 more possessions per game, his remarkable endurance allowed him to play every minute, but still he could not have created that pace on his own.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]If you take Mikan out of the equation due to the pre-integration/pre-shot clock era then you have the indisputable top ten. The only ten players in NBA history to win multiple titles as the best player on their team and multiple Finals MVP's (or would have in the case of Wilt/Russell).[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Mikan is hard for me to rank, and I'd probably have to leave him out of the top 10 due to the fact that unlike the players I listed in the top 10, I don't think he could have competed in other eras, but because he was so essential to the development of the sport and because of his dominance vs his peers and combination of team success/individual success, I could rank him 11th.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]
I've said a million times in response to those that talk about the centers Wilt faced compared to Shaq that the team defenses Shaq faced were 100 times tougher. No doubt in my mind that Shaq was harder to stop. As you can see, Wilt could let you off the hook in single coverage because he wouldn't use his size to his advantage as much as Shaq, which by Wilt's admission was a mistake, nor did he have the footwork or ball handling skills to make the same quick moves.

Credit goes to Russell for being an excellent defensive player, but anyone who thinks Shaq isn't scoring easily with single coverage, the luxury of being able to put the ball on the floor several times and a 4 inch, 100 pound size advantage is crazy. The difference between the 2 is that Shaq didn't apologize for his size and used it to make him great. He didn't really care if his ame was pretty or people thought he was skilled, though the other difference was his vastly superior low post game.[/QUOTE]

Great post Shaqattack and thanks for the work as it is of the highest level you can catch on the internet. Its outstanding scholarship. You and Jlauder are like the beginning of multi-media education on the net. Humorous tho, is the hate that some people have for the simple mention of the 60's is amusing - like a 60's monster or Hippies consistently ruined their Christmas or something.

I do think that defenses have progressively gotten better over the years. A couple of messed up things make it hard to really assess Wilt's impact. One is the blackout on his mega years and two being that nobody has really assessed the coaches of that time in handling mega talent at that time. I think it gets overlooked a lot but I think you are familiar with my stands about coaching and great big men. Shaq is crazy dominant and with more energy before Phil Jackson but it all comes together under Jackson. Kareem and Riley, Duncan and Pop. I really believe each of these players has a maximum of half of the championships they have without those coaches and then we look at them all very differently. What is Wilt maximized???

Doing criss crosses over generations is always going to be very hard and futile in the end. The biggest differences between big men of different eras is the league response to their dominance as an organization. They made rules to stop Wilt. Not once do you see a rule to help Wilt out, its an definitive trend with Wilt. So I don't agree with your assessment that they would have allowed him to go crazy and barrell over people like they allowed Shaq to do. And I don't agree with the idea that Wilt shyed from being big. Shaq wasn't really close to playing an all around big man game to Wilt. Wilt protected the rim far better and Shaq could have lead the league in rebounding more than once. I do think Wilt had some Goliath issues and a gentle heart. While the league has adopted Shaq as a giant teddy bear there was a whole different reality that Wilt faced. If Shaq played in the 60's they would have slowed him down as well and it would have easier because he wasn't as versatile or skilled. But that is a criss cross thing I don't want to get into.

The great things about Wilt are timeless and lend to his greatness in all the succeeding generations. He was active as any big man since. He took on all of the center responsibilities at a level which would be on par with anybody since. He went at rebounds, blocks and manning the paint unlike any other center. His timing seems would be elite today. His reach, speed, strength and jumping would be elite today. His skill level would be elite among centers. He naturally had a knack for scoring with a touch that would still be a joy to watch now. The guy was versatile and covered everything a person could do from that position at extremely high levels. In his physical prime with the right coach he could have been a 45ppg 25rebounds, 5 assist, 10 block guy over the course of 7 years. Just crazy prolific and super active numbers. And his superior motor is rarely talked about. Cause I think the biggest thing against players today averaging that against lesser players that had integrity is the activity level, endurance, and desire to maintain that level for 650 games.

Wilt seemingly was a stronger Daivd Robinson in his prime with a stronger post presence. Your criticism of Wilt not being crazy aggressive at the rim is legit because he didn't try to push that issue. But in the same breath you are conceding Wilt's superioty in rebounding and blocking shots to everybody since he played. Wilt wins out because he still was a greatly skilled scorer which is more adaptable to rule changes and diffrent defenses. If Wilt had Aurabach as his coach, Red compliments Wilt's psychological battles, and the GOAT question is a joke.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]If you take Mikan out of the equation due to the pre-integration/pre-shot clock era then you have the indisputable top ten. The only ten players in NBA history to win multiple titles as the best player on their team and multiple Finals MVP's (or would have in the case of Wilt/Russell).

You're on to something in the OP as well. But it is a two-sided story...

[U]Advantages beyond Shaq's Control[/U]
Physicality of Era - Wilt took way more abuse than Shaq, and Shaq took more abuse than any player of his era by far.

Quality of opposing centers - Shaq faced far more below average centers than Wilt who played over half his games the likes of Russell, Thurmond, Reed, Lovellette, Cowens, Unseld, Kareem etc. all Hall of Famers.

Weight/dietary/nutrition training - Shaq could recover from injuries and play through them with much better care than Wilt and the players of his era.

The three-point line - It forced players to be more cautious in their double teaming of O'Neal as the risk was greater with the 50% more valuable basket an option.

[U]Advantages beyond Wilt's Control[/U]
Defensive sophistication of Era - Teams had no idea how to handle Wilt, he was the first of his kind. By the time Shaq got there teams could say, here's what worked vs. Wilt, vs. Kareem, vs. Moses, vs. Hakeem etc.

Athletic depth of league - Even with 37-30 teams, the NBA Shaq played in was far more athletic than the one Wilt played in.

Rules early in his career - The lane was not as wide, that's a big advantage, the changed it because of Wilt primarily.

Pace of the game - Wilt played in an era with 30 more possessions per game, his remarkable endurance allowed him to play every minute, but still he could not have created that pace on his own.[/QUOTE]
Excuse my delinquency, GOAT in omtting your scholarship as well. Shout out to Phila, Psilas and a guy I rarely see much Gottenberg?

[quote=ILLsmak]Yeah, but the Magic shooters choked in the Finals... sometimes it's better to have broke shooters with experience than good shooters without experience. Glen and Fish were WET for the Finals. And really I remember them being wet all playoffs.

-Smak[/quote]

A fine post on this in response to the Chamberlain Theory:

[URL="http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1085655#p26487345"]http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1085655#p26487345[/URL]


[I]The problem for coaches is figuring out how to best manipulate a defense with his five pieces.

Now, it's great when we all say to pound the ball into Shaq and space the floor or let Lebron create or let Jordan iso or put the ball in Wilt's hands. Yeah, that's fine. They are talented offensive players. We get it. If we get it, so will the defense. Cleveland fans have realized this the past two years. You can't just space the floor and let one guy do all the work, regardless of how efficient he is and how he creates for others. Ironically, Orlando found this out in the 09 Finals, right after they took Lebron's team out. Orlando's plan is to spread the floor with 3 point shooters and let them play a nice give-and-take game with their dominant C. I don't think Orlando lost because Dwight had limited post moves at the time. I think they lost because they couldn't manipulate the opposing defense enough with the strategy of spacing the floor with jump shooters. When LA took those 3's away, Orlando's perimeter offensive players seemed to have no idea what to do. Pietrus and Lewis looked clueless as they put the ball on the floor and took awkward looking floaters.

[B]This strategy of spacing the floor with a bunch of spot-up shooters is a dangerous trend[/B] in the modern NBA imo, because it ignores the other facets of playing off the ball that are actually more effective in the long run at manipulating a defense. Cutting, offensive rebounding, slashing off of the cross-court pass/inside-out pass, simply moving without the ball to manipulate the guy guarding you- i.e. a piece of the defense. Moving the ball unselfishly, a la Pierce, Ray, and KG in 08. Those are just as effective.

A superstar making swing passes makes an effective offense.

Look at Jordan and Pippen in the Triangle. They were wing players who weren't elite outside shooters and handled the ball. They were great off-ball players, great offensive rebounders for their position. MJ moved without the ball well. The triangle made it harder than ever to guard Jordan because instead of MJ creating with a defense able to focus on him and his effect on teammates, he was attacking at points in time when the defense had no clue it was coming. The triangle is a great offensive system imo because it rewards player movement and ball movement, instead of just standing there and watching your superstar go to work and simply playing off of him.

[B]Look at Shaq.[/B] Hill in Orlando was a horrible coach because his strategy when Shaq had the ball was simply to space the floor. You can do so many more effective things with a dominant offensive player like Shaq. The triangle took advantage of that, and Shaq had his greatest team and individual success because of that. [/I]

Sorry, but its a terrible thread. Anachronism at its worst, judgind a player from the 60's with the today standards.

Let me be anachronic too.. I'll compare myself with Galileo now. I know the tides are caused by the gravitational forces of the moon (and sun, rotation of the eath, etc). Galileo didn't think so. He disagreed with that, threfore I'm smarter than Galileo. :oldlol:

See how it is dumb? You should judge Wilt for what he did in his own era, compared with other players from those days.

I can watch a 80's game and notice a less athletic game with palyers rarely shooting 3's. Just a different game. But does that make Larry Bird any less of the great player he was? No. He was basketball genius. Even today (let alone in the future), kids like to dismiss Bird saying he could not play against current Nba players (because he is slow and whatever). Anachronism again. But guess what, the genius adapt to its time. That's why Kareem started to dominate in the early 70's and still was a great player up to the second half of the 80's.

You put any legend of the game as a young boy today with all the modern trainning and evolution of the game of basketball, and they would be great too, because the genius will always be a genius, different from common people.

what are you trying to proove based on one single footage is quite not enough, anyone can choose a specific footage in which that Shaq played poorly with much less double team and finger-pointing

without watching massive footages of that eras and then claiming Wilt was much easier to stop in the paint than Shaq is really less-wise

Chamberlain & the Sixers played the Warriors three consecutive games in late December of the '65-66 season, and he did have a 33/17/8/16 blk game against Thurmond in the 3rd game.

[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tR8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5384,5507613&dq"]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tR8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5384,5507613&dq[/URL]



He also had a 45 point effort during the 2nd game, though I am not 100% sure Nate played. Rookie Rick Barry led the Warriors to victory with 37 points & 25 rebounds.

1st game he had 23 points, again not sure if Nate played.

I've said 1000 times that people need to compare players within their era. That doesn't mean that if they played shitty teams when winning they should get off the hook, but there are so many factors that changed from 60-now that discounting a player because of the era he played in is completely unfair. Just judge players based off their era, there is no way to know how good they'd be.
Also, the limited footage used to prove the point is pretty unfair. You could make a tape of footage of Jordan getting clobbered (which people have done plenty of) and say that is proof that he played in a tougher era. It doesn't prove anything.

[QUOTE=PHILA]Chamberlain & the Sixers played the Warriors three consecutive games in late December of the '65-66 season, and he did have a 33/17/8/16 blk game against Thurmond in the 3rd game.

[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tR8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5384,5507613&dq"]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tR8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5384,5507613&dq[/URL]



He also had a 45 point effort during the 2nd game, though I am not 100% sure Nate played. Rookie Rick Barry led the Warriors to victory with 37 points & 25 rebounds.

1st game he had 23 points, again not sure if Nate played.[/QUOTE]

I've checked most of the H2H stats between Wilt and Thurmond, will post it up when finish it.

regarding to the 45 point game that Wilt poured to Thurmond, here's something interesting to read:

Mon, Dec 20, 1965 Philadelphia 76ers @ San Francisco Warriors L 118 124
Wilt: 45pts Thurmond: 26rbs

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=a9UzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MOsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=851,2186566&dq=nate+thurmond&hl=en[/url]

that's the game that Barry scored 37 pts(14-31) and took 25 rbs(yes, he did grabbed 25rbs which's just one less than Thurmond ...) when he was a rookie, even though Wilt scored 45pts, Phila lost due to Greer was held by Attles to 3 field goals which all in the first quarter... Nate Thurmond collected 26 rebounds and was fouled out.

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rx8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4332,3076260&dq=nate+thurmond&hl=en[/url]



the first matchup between Wilt and Thurmond was after Wilt landed to Phila, Wilt scored 22pts 29rbs and 11blk:

Thu, Jan 21, 1965 Philadelphia 76ers - San Francisco Warriors W 111 102
Wilt: 22pts, 29rbs, 11blk Thurmond: 12pts
Chamberlain's debut as a Phila @ Convention Hall against Warriors: Nate Thurmond scored 12 points and held Wilt to only 22 points, but Wilt grabbed 29 rebounds and 11 block shots. In the previous game, Nate Thurmond scored 21 points against NYK, the next two games, Nate Thurmond scored 22 points against Celtics; and poured a game hich 31 points including 15pts in the last quarter against Cincinnati Royals.


I just took another look at my excel file, Wilt did have some really poor games against Thurmond, pity we will never know what a peak scoring season 1962 Wilt Chamberlain could do against Thurmond...

but look at the H2H between Kareem and Thurmond, I really do believe a peak Chamberlain is MUCH better than a peak Kareem..

I watched a bit of the video, it was like a pickup game. Guys just running and gunning. Taking pull-up jumpers within two seconds of the ball being inbounded. Guys throwing behind the back passes on an inbound had me rollin'. Guards didn't have much of a handle, but that's expected. Amazing how much the game has advanced in a few decades...

The one thing I loved was the use of the backboard. Absolutely amazing to watch. Guys need to get back to that. It's an easier shot. That, and going straight up and straight down. Too many unnecessary fadeaways and guys not being balanced on their shot.

- sorry for being completely off-thread...

[QUOTE=alexandreben]I've checked most of the H2H stats between Wilt and Thurmond, will post it up when finish it.

regarding to the 45 point game that Wilt poured to Thurmond, here's something interesting to read:

Mon, Dec 20, 1965 Philadelphia 76ers @ San Francisco Warriors L 118 124
Wilt: 45pts Thurmond: 26rbs

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=a9UzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MOsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=851,2186566&dq=nate+thurmond&hl=en[/url]

that's the game that Barry scored 37 pts(14-31) and took 25 rbs(yes, he did grabbed 25rbs which's just one less than Thurmond ...) when he was a rookie, even though Wilt scored 45pts, Phila lost due to Greer was held by Attles to 3 field goals which all in the first quarter... Nate Thurmond collected 26 rebounds and was fouled out.

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rx8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4332,3076260&dq=nate+thurmond&hl=en[/url]



the first matchup between Wilt and Thurmond was after Wilt landed to Phila, Wilt scored 22pts 29rbs and 11blk:

Thu, Jan 21, 1965 Philadelphia 76ers - San Francisco Warriors W 111 102
Wilt: 22pts, 29rbs, 11blk Thurmond: 12pts
Chamberlain's debut as a Phila @ Convention Hall against Warriors: Nate Thurmond scored 12 points and held Wilt to only 22 points, but Wilt grabbed 29 rebounds and 11 block shots. In the previous game, Nate Thurmond scored 21 points against NYK, the next two games, Nate Thurmond scored 22 points against Celtics; and poured a game hich 31 points including 15pts in the last quarter against Cincinnati Royals.


I just took another look at my excel file, Wilt did have some really poor games against Thurmond, pity we will never know what a peak scoring season 1962 Wilt Chamberlain could do against Thurmond...

but look at the H2H between Kareem and Thurmond, I really do believe a peak Chamberlain is MUCH better than a peak Kareem..[/QUOTE]

Excellent post. Wilt really only played against Thurmond, in his peak offensive seasons, from mid-way in the 64-65 season, thur the 65-66 season, and Nate missed some of those games. I have mentioned this before, though, that in their first meeting in the 66-67 season, Wilt had been facilitating the entire first half (as had been the new coaching philosophy of Hannum.) However, it had not been very successful in that game, so Hannum directed his team to start feeding Chamberlain, and Wilt scored 24 of his 30 points in the second half (to go along with 26 rebounds and 12 blocks.)

But, aside from a few 20+ point games, Wilt seldom shot the ball against Thurmond after that. He had many games under 10 points against Thurmond from the 68-69 season until he retired. But, his team's usually pummeled Thurmond's teams, and Chamberlain outshot Thurmond by HUGE margins in their playoff battles (as well as outrebounding him in every one...including a 23.6 to 17.2 margin in the '73 WCF's.) Wilt shot over 50% in all three of their H2H playoff series, while Nate never even shot 40% against him in any. In the '67 Finals, Wilt not only outscored Thurmond per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg...he outshot him by an eye-popping .560 to .343 margin.

So, aside from a handful of games, we never really got to see a PRIME scoring Wilt against Thurmond. But, judging by the few that we do have, Wilt could have put up 40+ on him, as well.

[quote]I just took another look at my excel file, Wilt did have some really poor games against Thurmond[/quote]Indeed, early in the '67-68 season he didn't attempt a FG in a win over the Warriors, as he dished out 13 assists while [SIZE=-1]Greer,[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Jones, & Jackson combined for 83 points.[/SIZE]

Great analysts.