The Five Centers --- Russell, Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, Shaq

[JMT]

Fact still remains that Wilt would have won more rings if he wouldn't have been so crappy from the FT-line so the nonsense about him and FT's is something you need to stop with.

Shaq fan?

[millwad]

Shaq fan?

Not really.

[Vien]

Haha, how cute to use an alternative-account, what is your real account?
It's no hate and no one forces you to read anything at all.

And yes, per 36 is a good way to see how productive players are compared to each other, especially when comparing one era to another. In the modern era no player would play the amount of minutes some of the guy's in the 60's and it's not because the old school players are better trained..

It's not only Wilt who played extreme minutes (even during blow-out's he stayed on the court), a guy like Thurmond had 8 seasons where he played more than 40 minutes per game, Russell had 10 seasons with more than 40 minutes per game average, West had 7 seasons with more than 40 minutes per game average etc.Of course they deserve credit for being to able to play the minutes they played but it doesn't matter even how trained you are, in the modern era of basketball those kind of minutes is not a possibility. Comparing players to players with PER 36 is a good way to determine productivity and skillset.

Again, it's not only Wilt among the stars of the 60's who played more minutes than today's stars, so by your logic the stars of the 60's had greater fatigue than the players today...

Err. This is my real account. I only post in Kobe/Laker threads, as I am a fan of them. I will not attempt to argue anymore since you do not seem the type of poster who has a lot of knowledge of the game basketball (no offense man, just for me). Of course props to the stat geekery knowledge, I definitely am not the type who searches for stats just to prove a point.

I just want to point out that yes, there are players who play multiple 40+ MPG seasons, but Wilt's was just out of this world: 48.5 MPG in a game that is standardly played in 48 minutes. And I believe that even he plays in blowouts, it's still a testament to the guy's stamina and durability on court; you definitely won't see that today as most stars are "saving up for the postseason".

[millwad]

Err. This is my real account. I only post in Kobe/Laker threads, as I am a fan of them. I will not attempt to argue anymore since you do not seem the type of poster who has a lot of knowledge of the game basketball (no offense man, just for me). Of course props to the stat geekery knowledge, I definitely won't attempt to search for stats just to prove a point.

I just want to point out that yes, there are players who play multiple 40+ MPG seasons, but Wilt's was just out of this world: 48.5 MPG in a game that is standardly played as a 48 minute game. And I believe that even he plays even in blowouts, it's still a testament to the guy's stamina and durability on court, you definitely won't see that today as most stars are "saving up for the postseason".

Kid, it's obvious you have this ain't your only account, you've posted 8 times on this site since you joined and you seem to be way too aware of my posts for someone who barely posts. Confess, troll. And knowledge, what kind of knowledge do a troll like you have? What you just posted is equal to obvious garbage.

And you just pointed out an obvious fact, but still, comparing era's and PT a la the 60's and the modern era will give less than you think. 48.5 minutes per games shows great stamina, no doubt, can someone have that average in the modern era? No, not possible and it doesn't matter if your name is Wilt, Russell or Thurmond. In the modern era players don't play in blow-outs and if a star player would have done so people would label him as a statpadding fool.

Comparing star players to star players from later era's the PER 36 works just fine, it shows how effective a player is compared to another in the same amount of playing time. Per 36 is garbage when you compare players who played way less than those minutes but when a guy already is up there compared to a player over it, it will mostly show how effective they are.

[Vien]

Kid, it's obvious you have this ain't your only account, you've posted 8 times on this site since you joined and you seem to be way too aware of my posts for someone who barely posts. Confess, troll. And knowledge, what kind of knowledge do a troll like you have? What you just posted is equal to obvious garbage.

And you just pointed out an obvious fact, but still, comparing era's and PT a la the 60's and the modern era will give less than you think. 48.5 minutes per games shows great stamina, no doubt, can someone have that average in the modern era? No, not possible and it doesn't matter if your name is Wilt, Russell or Thurmond. In the modern era players don't play in blow-outs and if a star player would have done so people would label him as a statpadding fool.

Comparing star players to star players from later era's the PER 36 works just fine, it shows how effective a player is compared to another in the same amount of playing time. Per 36 is garbage when you compare players who played way less than those minutes but when a guy already is up there compared to a player over it, it will mostly show how effective they are.

I an active lurker, no more, no less. Everyday I log in for at least 15 minutes or so. I would say I am a basketball geek, which is why I read forums such as these actively (even though there are a shitload of trolls here). I am not exactly familiar on this site, so I really don't know how to prove/show to you my post history, etc. Maybe an admin could trace my IP, to prove that I am not affiliated with the common trolls here. Your call, man.

[jlauber]

Shaq fan?

Both Shaq and Russell had their shares of poor shooting from the line. I won't waste my time looking up a handful of games as Millwad did. And, according to him, Wilt should have made EVERY FT too. He found a game where Wilt's team's lost by six points, and in which Chamberlain shot 2-9. Or lost by eight points, and Wilt went 2-12. And yet another where they lost by six points, and Wilt shot 4-11.

So, ONCE AGAIN, Wilt was held to a higher standard. He was not even supposed to miss a FT. Using that logic, Jordan should have been chastised in his 63 point playoff game, in which he missed two FTs in regulation. Had he just made even one of those (he would finish 19-21 from the line), his Bulls would have won that game, and would have not been swept.

Jesus man, please stop the hate. You are one of the most annoying posters in this forum, with all these hate posts and shit. Comparing you with all the trolls make them seem bearable.

Really man, PER/36 for Wilt? If ever he should be applauded for actually being able to play 48.5 MPG. Superstars today would definitely complain about fatigue for that sort of thing. Jeezus. These are the times in which people actually get to side with jlauber. Just.. stop.

Just another attempt to disparage Wilt. And even then, a PRIME Wilt BLOWS away the likes of Hakeem in EVERY facet. Scoring, rebounding, FG%, and passing. But, the "Chamberlain-bashers" never acknowledge that had Wilt played the minutes that Hakeem did in his career, that there is no question that Wilt's PER/36 numbers would have been far better than in his actual 45.2 mpg (and and even more astonishing 47.2 mpg in his post-season career!) Why? How could they not be? He would have been rested considerably more in EACH game. And can you imagine how much more energy he would have had in his 40th, 50th, and 80th games? And then, SEASON-by-SEASON?

And the flip side would hold true, as well. Everyone should know by now that Shaq played much better in the playoffs on two days rest instead of just one. Hell, Wilt ROUTINELY played B2B's, and as many as FIVE games in FIVE nights (and none of them home B2B's.) And he was playing EVERY minute of EVERY game when he did so. AND, Wilt's teams ROUTINELY played B2B's in the PLAYOFFS, too. There is simply NO WAY that the modern players like Hakeem could have played at the same levels that they did in their careers, had they had to face the same BRUTAL scheduling.

Wilt was counting his own points, rebounds, assists, and block shots .

And verify with Pollack to verify his numbers.

True definition of a STAT PADDER.

Wilt must have had an IQ that rivaled Christopher Langan's. Can you imagine playing 48 mpg, in an era of a slightly higher pace, and running up-and-down the floor, dominating at BOTH ends...and being able to keep track of every point, shot, rebound, block, and assist?

Just ANOTHER area where Wilt was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his peers.

[millwad]

Both Shaq and Russell had their shares of poor shooting from the line. I won't waste my time looking up a handful of games as Millwad did. And, according to him, Wilt should have made EVERY FT too. He found a game where Wilt's team's lost by six points, and in which Chamberlain shot 2-9. Or lost by eight points, and Wilt went 2-12. And yet another where they lost by six points, and Wilt shot 4-11. .

Neither of them missed the amount of important FT's Wilt did. And I wrote "could have changed the outcome", not would. And of course I didn't mean that he should have made every FT but you've been trolling and spamming about how amazing Wilt was as a shooter and how the guy made more FT's than Larry Bird etc. when in fact Wilt is the greatest FT-choker in the NBA finals of all-time.

And if Wilt only would have been a decent FT-shooter the outcome of at least 5 games in the finals he played in wouldn't have been losses. Wilt's horrible FT-shooting was a major problem and he wasn't a player you could trust at all from the FT-line. And the other games I mentioned, decent FT-shooting from Wilt could have lead to a completely different game situations a la his 1-11 FT-shooting in game 7 in the '70's finals.

In the '69 finals Wilt showcased the greatest choke-job from the line in league history. In game 2 his team lost with 1 point while Wilt went 2-11 from the FT-line. In the SAME series, in game 7 the Lakers lost with 2 points and Wilt in that game only made 4 out of 13 FT's. Very "clutch" performance..

So yes, it's safe to say that Wilt's FT-shooting costed him rings.

[jlauber]

Neither of them missed the amount of important FT's Wilt did. And I wrote "could have changed the outcome", not would. And of course I didn't mean that he should have made every FT but you've been trolling and spamming about how amazing Wilt was as a shooter and how the guy made more FT's than Larry Bird etc. when in fact Wilt is the greatest FT-choker in the NBA finals of all-time.

And if Wilt only would have been a decent FT-shooter the outcome of at least 5 games in the finals he played in wouldn't have been losses. Wilt's horrible FT-shooting was a major problem and he wasn't a player you could trust at all from the FT-line. And the other games I mentioned, decent FT-shooting from Wilt could have lead to a completely different game situations a la his 1-11 FT-shooting in game 7 in the '70's finals.

In the '69 finals Wilt showcased the greatest choke-job from the line in league history. In game 2 his team lost with 1 point while Wilt went 2-11 from the FT-line. In the SAME series, in game 7 the Lakers lost with 2 points and Wilt in that game only made 4 out of 13 FT's.

So yes, it's safe to say that Wilt's FT-shooting costed him rings.

You and your brother duecebigalow keep harping about game seven of the '70 Finals. Obviously, neither of you EVER watched that game. Wilt was 1-8 from the line in the first half. So, had he simply made every FT, going 8-8 in that half, his Lakers would have only trailed 69-49 at the half, instead of 69-42. His 1-11 did NOT cost the Lakers that series.

Of course, Wilt was playing that series only four months removed from major knee surgery. It is a pretty safe bet to assume that virtually NO ONE else would have been playing under the same circumstances. Baylor suffered that same injury in the '65 playoffs. He had several months to recuperate, and then he could only play 65 games the entire next season, and averaged 16.6 ppg on .401 shooting. It took him well over a year before he even remotely approached his former greatness, and in fact, he was never the same player again.

You could argue that had Wilt shot better from the line in '69, that his Lakers might very well have won that series. BUT, the REALITY was, there were SEVERAL other reasons why his Lakers lost that series. Baylor went AWOL in games three thru five (two of them losses.) Or Egan's gaffe, which single-handedly cost LA game four (and he not lost the ball, and with LA's romp in game five, the Lakers would have easily won that series, 4-1.) And of course the REAL reason why LA lost that series? Their incompetent COACH. Had they just had an ordinary coach, they probably would have won going away. Only a complete IDIOT would have left Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven. Especially when his replacement, Mel f*****g Counts, shot 4-13 from the FLOOR. Ultimately, that HORRIBLE decision cost not only Van Breda Kolf's career, it also robbed the Lakers of their first title in Los Angeles.


And, as ALWAYS, you ignore the FACT that Wilt's IMPACT at the line gave his TEAM's a HUGE edge in FT disparity in his ENTIRE post-season career. One only need look at the '70 Finals (the SAME series in which you blame WILT.) BECAUSE of Chamberlain, LA outscored the Knicks by 50 points from the LINE in that series (and nearly 100 more FTAs)...in a season in which the Lakers finished ELEVENTH in FTAs, BECAUSE Wilt missed 70 games.

Take away the Lakers' HUGE edge in FT scoring in that series, and they likely would have been SWEPT.

[millwad]

You and your brother duecebigalow keep harping about game seven of the '70 Finals. Obviously, neither of you EVER watched that game. Wilt was 1-8 from the line in the first half. So, had he simply made every FT, going 8-8 in that half, his Lakers would have only trailed 69-49 at the half, instead of 69-42. His 1-11 did NOT cost the Lakers that series.

Sure, Jlauber, you "watched" the series and you remember this 41 year old series.. Just like you "remember" all his other games too.. And my brother? Haha, you are funny, I am not on his side regarding anything but Wilt's FT's..

And it wasn't just that series he choked from the FT-line and you know that.

Of course, Wilt was playing that series only four months removed from major knee surgery. It is a pretty safe bet to assume that virtually NO ONE else would have been playing under the same circumstances. Baylor suffered that same injury in the '65 playoffs. He had several months to recuperate, and then he could only play 65 games the entire next season, and averaged 16.6 ppg on .401 shooting. It took him well over a year before he even remotely approached his former greatness, and in fact, he was never the same player again.

Sure, blame his misses on his knee injury. Too bad that he was even worse from the line in the '67 season when he missed amazing 50 FT's out of 72 tries. And he was horrible from the line in the '64 finals, '69 finals as well, what injury caused his FT% during those series? And if he would have been paralegic-like during that series he wouldn't have played the 2nd highest minute per game during that finals.

You could argue that had Wilt shot better from the line in '69, that his Lakers might very well have won that series. BUT, the REALITY was, there were SEVERAL other reasons why his Lakers lost that series. Baylor went AWOL in games three thru five (two of them losses.) Or Egan's gaffe, which single-handedly cost LA game four (and he not lost the ball, and with LA's romp in game five, the Lakers would have easily won that series, 4-1.) And of course the REAL reason why LA lost that series? Their incompetent COACH. Had they just had an ordinary coach, they probably would have won going away. Only a complete IDIOT would have left Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven. Especially when his replacement, Mel f*****g Counts, shot 4-13 from the FLOOR. Ultimately, that HORRIBLE decision cost not only Van Breda Kolf's career, it also robbed the Lakers of their first title in Los Angeles.

Sure, blame it on Baylor, blame it on Egan, blame it on his coach, blame it on Mel Counts and blame it on Van Breda Kolf but it's still a fact that if Wilt would have been even a mediocre FT-shooter they would have won that year. There's no excuse and no one Wilt could hide behind when his team first lost with 1 point while Wilt only made 2-11 FT's and then in a freaking game 7 when his team lost with 2 points he went 4-13 from the FT-line. That is the greatest choking FT-performance in league history by one single player.

And, as ALWAYS, you ignore the FACT that Wilt's IMPACT at the line gave his TEAM's a HUGE edge in FT disparity in his ENTIRE post-season career. One only need look at the '70 Finals (the SAME series in which you blame WILT.) BECAUSE of Chamberlain, LA outscored the Knicks by 50 points from the LINE in that series (and nearly 100 more FTAs)...in a season in which the Lakers finished ELEVENTH in FTAs, BECAUSE Wilt missed 70 games.

Take away the Lakers' HUGE edge in FT scoring in that series, and they likely would have been SWEPT.

It wasn't because of Chamberlain that LA outscored the Knicks by 50 points from the line, it was because of Jerry West. Wilt made 23 FT's out of 67 tries during that series. Jerry West 75 FT's (52 more than WILT) on 90 tries. In fact, in that series Wilt only made the 4th most FT's, nice try.. Giving Wilt the credit in that series for the differences in FTA and FT's made when he wasn't even the reason behind it..

Wilt made 3.2 FT's per game in that series on horrible FG%, he wasn't the reason behind the HUGE edge in FT-scoring..

[Fazotronic]

how the **** did jlauber get such a good reputation?