Kareem A. Jabbar vs Nate Thurmond 1969-73

I am posting the aggregated stats of Kareem against Nate Thurmond during the period 1969 - 1973 season by season, as in that period both players met 3 times in the playoffs and in total of 34 times (including the regular season meetings):

[U]1969 - 1970 (Kareem's rookie season)[/U] 3 games - reg.season

Kareem - 42.0 mpg 21.67 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 4.0 apg, 0.348 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 46.7 mpg 20.67 ppg, 17.0 rpg, 3.3 apg, 0.490 FG/FGA

[U]1970 - 1971[/U] 6 games - reg.season

Kareem - 26.67 ppg, 14.7 rpg, 0.484 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 23.83 ppg, 11.0 rpg, 0.477 FG/FGA

[U]1970 - 1971[/U] 5 games - playoffs

Kareem - 39.2 mpg 27.8 ppg, 15.6 rpg, 0.6 apg, 0.486 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 38.4 mpg 17.60 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 3.0 apg, 0.371 FG/FGA

[U]1971 - 1972[/U] 3 games - reg.season

Kareem - 24.00 ppg, 16.3 rpg, 0.441 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 16.33 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 0.260 FG/FGA

[U]1972 - 1973[/U] 5 games - playoffs

Kareem - 47.0 mpg 22.8 ppg, 19.0 rpg, 5.4 apg, 0.405 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 46.0 mpg 25.40 ppg, 17.8 rpg, 5.2 apg, 0.434 FG/FGA

[U]1972 - 1973[/U] 6 games - reg.season

Kareem - 25.83 ppg, 13.7 rpg, 0.488 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 13.67 ppg, 15.0 rpg, 0.367 FG/FGA

[U]1972 - 1973[/U] 6 games - playoffs

Kareem - 46.0 mpg 22.83 ppg, 16.2 rpg, 2.8 apg, 0.428 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 42.5 mpg 13.5 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 3.2 apg, 0.423 FG/FGA

:applause:

Thanks. I consider Nate to be one of the best defenders of all time, and he seemed to have an impact on Kareem.

I would love to see Kareem vs. Wilt stats.

[QUOTE=RobertdeMeijer]Thanks. I consider Nate to be one of the best defenders of all time, and he seemed to have an impact on Kareem.

I would love to see Kareem vs. Wilt stats.[/QUOTE]

You can find it here - game by game:

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=170340[/url]

Repped. Great stuff as always. Nate was really on the job defensively, it was more than science and grit with him. The shooting percentages and the consistency of Kareem down is amazing.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Repped. Great stuff as always. Nate was really on the job defensively, it was more than science and grit with him. The shooting percentages and the consistency of Kareem down is amazing.[/QUOTE]

Even in his first season with Bulls (1974-75) Thurmond already in decline was used solely against Jabbar and held him to 0.431 shooting in six regular season games. The best game of Jabbar was the last when he shot 14 from 21, but Thurmond was injured and played only 24 minutes.

The previous year Jabbar scored 121 points (58 FGs from 98 FGAs for 0.571 %) in 5 games for 24.2 ppg and 12.8 rpg. But the Bucks lost 3 of the games.

To be objective in the games between 1969 and 1975 Kareem's Bucks won 30 of the 45 games played against Thurmond's Warriors and Bulls.

Just amazing research...

:applause:

Wow.. He made Kareem shoot less than 50%, this guy is goood.

[QUOTE=jcsrplumply]Wow.. He made Kareem shoot less than 50%, this guy is goood.[/QUOTE]

Without having all of the actual FG-FGM's, all I could do was a rough estimate, but it appears that in those 34 games, Kareem shot around .440-.450.

In any case, not one regular season, or playoff series, in which Kareem even shot 50%, and in several, well below.

To be fair, KAJ was still the better player in nearly every series. But, at his absolute peak, in 71-72, Nate outscored and outshot him in the '72 playoffs.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Without having all of the actual FG-FGM's, all I could do was a rough estimate, but it appears that in those 34 games, Kareem shot around .440-.450.

In any case, not one regular season, or playoff series, in which Kareem even shot 50%, and in several, well below.

To be fair, KAJ was still the better player in nearly every series. But, [B]at his absolute peak, in 71-72[/B], Nate outscored and outshot him in the '72 playoffs.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[QUOTE=Odinn]:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm[/QUOTE]

Did you know that's jlauber's new account ?

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Did you know that's jlauber's new account ?[/QUOTE]
No. Nothing to surprise then.:oldlol:

[QUOTE=jcsrplumply]Wow.. He made Kareem shoot less than 50%, this guy is goood.[/QUOTE]

Yet, as I've said in the past before, sadly underrated. He's unfortunately slipped through the cracks during the onward march of time.

[QUOTE=Odinn]:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm[/QUOTE]

If nothing else, Kareem's 71-72 was his finest statistical season, at least with regards to the regular season. 44.2 mpg, 34.8 ppg, 16.6 rpg, 4.6 apg, and on .574 shooting. And his Bucks were second in ppg allowed, and first, by a considerable margin, in FG% against.

Personally, I regard Kareem's second year, in 70-71, as his greatest season. 40.3 mpg, 31.7 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 3.3 apg, and on .577 shooting (which, btw, was his largest differential FG% season against the league average, of his career.) And, his Bucks were third in ppg allowed, and a solid first in FG% against. Then, he took his 66-16 Bucks to a 12-2 playoff record (and a record post-season differential of +14.5 ppg) to a dominating title. And considering his play against Thurmond, Wilt, and Unseld in his three playoff series, it might have been his best post-season, as well.

While 1970-71 was KAJ's most productive season, statistically, it wasn't his best year because he became a better player down the road as he build his stamina and gained a few more moves, and became more of a leader. :no:

[QUOTE=Odinn]:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm[/QUOTE]
You don't think that was Nate's best year? He did struggle with injuries but he was amazing.
Nate had an enormous hand and his standing reach was higher than Wilt's. He had a great jumper to twelve feet, and if he had a "sweet spot" I don't think anybody knew where it was. He really was a powerful offensive force and to me a lot of times his coaches didn't go to him enough.
He learned how to play in the NBA right beside #13 and IMO just like Jabbar, he learned how to play on a much higher plane because of it

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]While 1970-71 was KAJ's most productive season, statistically, it wasn't his best year because he became a better player down the road as he build his stamina and gained a few more moves, and became more of a leader. :no:[/QUOTE]

While I certainly respect your opinions, I would strongly disagree with much of the above. First of all, while he inevitably gained more skills, his athleticism declined from his 3rd season on. Don't get me wrong, he was still a great athlete, but his post-moves, and his shot lacked the quickness he had earlier in his career. And I believe his leaping ability declined, albeit slowly, as well.

Secondly, his stamina declined slowlyn after his 71-72 season, as well, at least in terms of mpg.

And I have mentioned it before, but I always found it fascinating that Kareem could play 44.2 mpg in 71-72, and average 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting...playing for a Bucks team that went 63-19, and had a +11.1 ppg differential. And yet, when he was traded to a mediocre Laker team in the 75-76 season, instead of elevating his production, it dropped considerably. His mpg declined to 41.2 mpg, while his scoring dropped to 27.7 and on only a .529 FG%. And keep in mind that in that 75-76 season, McAdoo ran away with the scoting title, at 31.1 ppg (just as he did the season before when he averaged 34.5 ppg.)

I honestly believe that, overall, Kareem's play became more lethargic. Here again, he could still hang a 40-50 point game on almost anyone, but they became fewer and farther between.

And he not only played in a realtive weak era, at least in terms of title teams, (and from the 73-74 season thru the 78-79 season), he played on some pretty stacked teams, as well. His 77-78 and 78-79 Laker teams had Wilkes, Nixon, Hudson, and Dantley, and both were prompty wiped out by a Sonics team with one borderline HOF player in those two playoffs.

As for "leadership", you must be kidding. Kareem was never a leader. In fact he distanced himself from his teammates.

IMHO, the real leader of the Laker dynasty of the 80's was Magic. Johnson elevated the play of all of his teammates, generally played huge in their biggest games, and later in the decade, carried a near worthless Kareem to his last title, and then another Finals a year later, but, after he was injured, Kareem's Lakers were swept by the Pistons. And the year after Kareem retired, Johnson led LA to a 63-19 record, which was their second best record in the decade of the 80's, and year after that, he took an injured, and over-the-hill roster, to their last Finals in his incredible career. Oh, and after Magic retired, the Lakers fell to 43-39 and then to 39-43.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]You don't think that was Nate's best year? He did struggle with injuries but he was amazing.
Nate had an enormous hand and his standing reach was higher than Wilt's. He had a great jumper to twelve feet, and if he had a "sweet spot" I don't think anybody knew where it was. He really was a powerful offensive force and to me a lot of times his coaches didn't go to him enough.
He learned how to play in the NBA right beside #13 and IMO just like Jabbar, he learned how to play on a much higher plane because of it[/QUOTE]

Based on his h2h's with both Kareem and Wilt, you could make an argument that Thurmond was the greatest one-on-one defender in NBA history. As the numbers indicate, Kareem shot well below his career FG% against Nate, and at times, was just awful against him.

And while a prime "scoring" Wilt could still routinely score 30+ against Thurmond, the Chamberlain who cut-back his shooting after his 65-66 season, seldom even tried to shoot against Thurmond (albeit he had some exceptional all-around games against Nate in the '67 Finals...including a dominating clincher.)

And in the early 70's, my research shows that Nate just owned 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier in their h2h's.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Based on his h2h's with both Kareem and Wilt, you could make an argument that Thurmond was the greatest one-on-one defender in NBA history.[/QUOTE]

I'll come out and actually say it: Thurmond was the greatest one-on-one defender at the center position in NBA history.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]You don't think that was Nate's best year? He did struggle with injuries but he was amazing.
Nate had an enormous hand and his standing reach was higher than Wilt's. He had a great jumper to twelve feet, and if he had a "sweet spot" I don't think anybody knew where it was. He really was a powerful offensive force and to me a lot of times his coaches didn't go to him enough.
He learned how to play in the NBA right beside #13 and IMO just like Jabbar, he learned how to play on a much higher plane because of it[/QUOTE]
His claim was KAJ' absolute best was 1971-72 season which is completely wrong. The bolded part wasn't about Nate. It was about KAJ.

Listen, we can argue Kareem and his prime some other time. My main point was that here was KAJ, in a season in which he had averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting, including 40 ppg on .500 against Wilt (and without looking it up, I believe he was around 40 ppg against Cowens...who would win the MVP the very next year)...

but against Thurmond, in his three regular season h2h's, he was at 24.0 ppg, and on .441 shooting, and then in the first round of the playoffs, and in five more games, KAJ averaged 22.8 ppg on .405 shooting (and was outscored and outshot by Nate.)

Now we could argue how a so-called "prime" KAJ would have fared against this Nate, or perhaps how a more athletic Nate, circa '67, or so, would have fared against any KAJ, but those are hypotheticals.

But the real story is above. Thurmond dramatically reduced the effectiveness of Kareem, in his finest statistical season. And he did so over the course of their entire 40 some career h2h meetings.

And just so you know, he did the same to Wilt, as well.

Let's focus on that.

[QUOTE]
I'll come out and actually say it: Thurmond was the greatest one-on-one defender at the center position in NBA history.
[/QUOTE]

I agree.

I recall there was a KAJ interview where he said the toughest defender he faced was Nate Thurmond. :applause:

Insanity

Thurmond is probably the most under-rated center in NBA history. And what he accomplished defensively, against one of the greatest offensive forces that the game has ever known, was just amazing.

Kudos to Julizaver BTW. Brilliant research.

In terms of overall defensive impact, a case could be made that Thurmond was perhaps the third greatest defensive player of all-time (behind Russell and Wilt.)

What was Thurmond better at defensively than Wilt and Russell and Vice versa?

[QUOTE=jongib369]What was Thurmond better at defensively than Wilt and Russell and Vice versa?[/QUOTE]

One-on-one, Thumond was very likely the greatest defender in NBA history. I'm sure that both Wilt and Kareem would attest to that.

But in terms of defensive impact...he was not on the level of Russell or Chamberlain.

You can question defensive win shares if you want, but those have come up with these "formulas", have Russell and Wilt as one-two. And even as late as his last two seasons in the NBA, Wilt was regarded as the best defensive center in the league (and would have won a DPOY in '72 had it existed.)

You need to remember that Russell and Wilt were not only great individual defenders, they were also protecting the paint. And Thurmond was not on their level in that regard.

A great example of Wilt's one-on-one defense was evidenced in his first encounter with rookie Walt Bellamy. Bellamy came into that game averaging 30 ppg. At the opening center jump, Wilt told Bellamy that he would not score a point in that game. And Chamberlain shadowed Bellamy all over the court in that first half. At halftime...Bellamy had not scored a point. And in fact, at least according to Bellamy, himself, Wilt had blocked something like nine of his shots. Wilt eased up in the second half, and allowed Bellamy "to play", and Bells wound up with 14 points (BTW...Chamberlain had 51.)

But, that was not Wilt's role on the defensive end. Watch the limited footage of the Kareem-Wilt encounters, and in them, you will see Chamberlain blocking driving shots by Oscar and jump shots by Dandridge. Sharman's entire defensive strategy on those '72 and '73 Laker teams was to funnel everything into Wilt.

And most evidence supports the fact that Chamberlain was probably the game's greatest shot-blocker, and by a solid margin. Only Russell might have a case, but even in their known h2h's, Wilt was blocking considerably more shots in those games.

ThaRegul8r's research shows that Chamberlain was blocking 5.4 shots per game in his last season. The very next year the NBA began officially tracking blocked shots, and Kareem was at 3.5 bpg, while Nate was at 2.9 bpg. And I honestly believe that Wilt was well over six bpg in the '72 season (I believe he was over 7 in that entire post-season.) And there are educated estimates which have Wilt with entire seasons of 10+ bpg.

And given the fact that Wilt was blocking so many shots, you simply have to wonder how many other shots were altered, or not even taken because of his presence.

Thanks for your posts, they're always appreciated. But to be honest something seems fishy about the Walt Bellamy story. If he can shut down his man to that extent Bellamy should of never been able to score as much as he did on Wilt. Of course you can't play that level of D all the time and its easier said than done stopping a scorrer who is hot...but still when you can talk trash to someone like that and completely shut them down...do it more often lol. So I'm not saying that I don't believe it, just sounds funny.

Would love to see what Chamberlains FG% was against Thurmond. Along with Rebounds and points to compair it to how Kareem did.

Btw you never hear anyone mention how Russell did against Thurmond or how Willis Reed faired against Russell etc etc.

[QUOTE=jongib369]Thanks for your posts, they're always appreciated. But to be honest something seems fishy about the Walt Bellamy story. If he can shut down his man to that extent Bellamy should of never been able to score as much as he did on Wilt. Of course you can't play that level of D all the time and its easier said than done stopping a scorrer who is hot...but still when you can talk trash to someone like that and completely shut them down...do it more often lol. So I'm not saying that I don't believe it, just sounds funny.

Would love to see what Chamberlains FG% was against Thurmond. Along with Rebounds and points to compair it to how Kareem did.

Btw you never hear anyone mention how Russell did against Thurmond or how Willis Reed faired against Russell etc etc.[/QUOTE]

The Bellamy story has been quoted by other's, but here is a quick wiki link:

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

[QUOTE]"When challenged, Wilt could do almost anything he wanted. In 1961 a new star named Walt Bellamy came into the league. Bellamy was 6-foot-11, and was scoring 30 points a game. First time they played against each other, they met at half court. Bellamy said, 'Hello, Mr. Chamberlain. I'm Walter Bellamy.' Chamberlain reached for Bellamy's hand and said, 'Hello, Walter. You won't get a shot off in the first half.' Wilt then blocked Bellamy's first nine shots. At the start of the second half Wilt said to Bellamy, 'Okay, Walter. Now you can play.'"
[1]
[/QUOTE]

We do have a partial box score of their first encounter, and in it Wilt outscored Bellamy, 51-14.

And here is another more detailed version of their first encounter:

[url]http://books.google.com/books?id=-Y7inUoP0NkC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=walt+bellamy+speaks+about+wilt&source=bl&ots=Elv7NtDMc6&sig=Dyxg_xALvabeerchnf7vB71klbU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=90x9UaX6B4idiAKQ0IG4Dw&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=walt%20bellamy%20speaks%20about%20wilt&f=false[/url]

[QUOTE]Bellamy's first NBA meeting with Chamberlain was greatly anticipated. The Dipper elevated his intensity when playing Bill Russell or Elgin Baylor; to that short list he added the name of Walt Bellamy.

He reached for Bellamy's hand at center court. "Hello Walter," the Dipper said, "You won't get a shot off in the first half."

What followed was Goliath's wrath. The first nine shots Bellamy took from inside the free-throw line, Chamberlain blocked. Big Bells couldn't score. He couldn't breathe. Everywhere the rookie turned...Chamberlain. The Dipper didn't often play defense so fervantly. When he did, the results could be terrifying. One NBA assistant coached watched as Chamberlain sent shots flying back past Bellamy's ear that night and said, "It was sad man." On offense Chamberlain scored over Bellamy on an array of fall-away bank shots, put backs, and dunks.

When the two centers met for the second half tip, Chamberlain looked at the shell-shocked rookie. "Okay Walter," Chamberlain said as if to a child, "now you can play." When it was done he had outscored Bellamy, fifty-one to fourteen. The Warriors had won going away. Sweetness and deference proved no better than elbows and scowls.[/QUOTE]


Speaking of Bellamy, has there ever been another all-time "great" who was so thoroughly dominated by another throughout their respective careers? 50+ point games by Chamberlain were commonplace. And has been pointed out before, over the course of their first 20 straight gamees, covering two seasons, Chamberlain averaged 48.2 ppg against Bellamy, which included four 60+ point games, and even a 73-36 game (on 29-48 shooting.) Even as late as Wilt's 65-66 season (his last true scoring season), Wilt outscored Bellamy in their ten h2h games, 8-1-1, and averaged 33 ppg against him (including a 50 point game.)

Regarding Thurmond and Wilt, I wish we had more of their full box scores. It has been posted before, but a prime scoring Wilt, from their last h2h in the 64-65 season, thru their first h2h in the 66-67 season, and covering 11 straight games, averaged 30 ppg against Nate, which included games of 30, 33, 34, 34, 38, and 45. And Wilt was generally just wiping the floor with Thurmond in those games, as well (he was outscoring him by margins of 33-17, 33-10, 38-15, and 45-13.) And in their nine h2h games in the 65-66 season, Chamberlain outscored Nate in eight of them.

As for FG%'s, in their three h2h playoff series, Wilt outshot Thurmond by margins of .500-.392; .550-.398; and in the '67 Finals, it was by a margin of .560-.343. Keep in mind that Nate's '66-67 season was probably the finest of his career (he finished second to Wilt in the MVP balloting), and yet Wilt not only hung that 30 point game on him (with 24 second half points), but in the clinching game six of the '67 Finals, Wilt outscored Nate, 24-12; outshot him, 8-13 to 4-13; and outrebounded him, 23-22.

However, after the 66-67 season, Wilt seldom even shot the ball against Thurmond.