Prime Walton vs Prime Duncan

[jlauber]

The biggest reason i consider him to be the greatest passing big man ever was beacuse of his outlet passing (probably the greatest outlet passer the league has ever seen. Wes Unseld was supposedly great as well though). You very rarely get an assist for an outlet pass but a great one can lead to a 2on2 or 2on1 fastbreak. It is one of the most underrated aspects of a big mans game and something i havn't seen Wilt do much of in all the videos ive seen of him.

You better research the 71-72 Lakers. They started FOUR players over the age of 30...and they just obliterated the league with a devastating fast-break that was usually ignited by Chamberlain's defense, rebounding, and then OUTLETs.

That team was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the rest of the NBA in scoring (121.0 ppg.) They had a TON of 130+ point games, and even several of 150+ (including a 162-99 blowout of the 51-31 Warriors.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzNMq...eature=related

[oolalaa]

I have addressed this many times, but here goes again...

In the '66 regular season, Chamberlain averaged 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, 5.2 apg, and shot .540, BUT, against Russell in the regular season, he averaged 28.3 ppg and 30.6 rpg. (I couldn't find his regular season FG% against Russell, though.) And, Wilt and his Sixers had the best record in the league. Having said that, though, they had to win their last 11 games to edge out the seven-time defending Celtics by one game. IMHO, Boston was coasting down the stretch, too. Keep in mind that the Celtics had gone 62-18 the season before, and there roster was essentially the same.

In any case, and one more time, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg and 30.6 rpg against Boston in the regular season. In the ECF's Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg and 30.2 rpg, and on .509 shooting. How about his teammates? They collectively shot .352. What changed?


Next, you say that you don't care about HIS injuries, ... which indeed were significant. He was HOBBLED by SEVERAL of them, including a tear in his calf. Once again, Reed had a similar injury in the '70 Finals, and he was basically worthless after it. He missed a half of one game, three-quarters of another, and an entire game in the '70 Finals. It is well documented that Wilt PLAYED the last FIVE games of the '68 ECF's with an assortment of injuries, and was NOTICEABLY limping.

But, it was not just Wilt injuries, BUT those that affected his teammates. Here again, during the regular season, the 76ers just blew thru the NBA en route to a 62-20 record, and an eight game spread over the Celtics. HOWEVER, in the post-season, they lost HOFer Billy Cunningham before the ECF's to a broken wrist. And even without him, they still forged a 3-1 series lead. Even Red Auerbach all but gave up after that 4th game. Then, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones sustained leg injuries in game five, and were worthless the rest of the series. And this was a team that basically only went eight deep during the regular season.

On top of that, in game seven, Chamberlain's teammates did not PASS him the ball. He TOUCHED the ball on the offensive end NINE times in the second half, and only TWICE in the 4th quarter (and both were on offensive rebounds.) The result? His Sixers, with all of the above (no Cunningham, injuries to Jackson and Jones, a hobbled Wilt, and forgetting about Chamberlain in the seventh game),...lost a game seven by a 100-96 score. Now, how do you think that series would have played out had the Sixers been healthy for it? IMHO, it would have been a repeat of the '67 ECF's, when they came within four points, in game four, of SWEEPING Boston (and annihilating the Celtics in game five, en route to a 4-1 series win.) As for Wilt's numbers,...a hobbled Chamberlain averaged 22.1 ppg and 25.1 rpg in that series. AND, even Russell commented that "a lessor player would not have played." (Or basically stating that virtually NO other player would have played under the same conditions.)


I will be the first to agree that Wilt's '69 playoffs were probably his worst. Of course, he had an incompetent coach, who shackled him for much of the regular season, and virtually all of the playoffs. All anyone needs to know about the idiotic Van Breda Kolf was put forth by this comment during the season, "When we pass the ball into Wilt, he will score. But, it is an ugly offense to watch." And there was never a better exmaple of that, than early in the 4th quarter of game seven of the Finals (which is on YouTube BTW.) Russell picked up his 5th foul at the start of the period, and on the next play, the Lakers went into Wilt, who went right around Russell for an easy basket. It would be about the last time Chamberlain would touch the ball.

Continued...

1. The regular season and playoffs cannot and should not be compared. The intensity & standard of play (especially defence) increases and strategies change. I do not know this for sure but, to me, it's entirely plausible and likely that the Celtics strategy against Philly in the '66 playoffs (and every other playoff series against Wilt for that matter) was to let Wilt get his points and shut down his teammates. They did this knowing that it's incredibly hard for one player to single handily win a playoff series, let alone a championship.


2. You say Wilt's teammates didn't pass him the ball and that he touched the ball only twice in the 4th quarter. WHY WAS THIS?

You tell me, knowing that his teammates were injured and struggling offensively, why the hell didn't Wilt demand the ball?? Why didn't he say - "Cmon guys. I'm the best player on the court and the most unstoppable scorer in NBA history. Get on my back. I'll lead you to a victory"??

He didn't do this for 2 reasons. Firstly, he wasn't a leader. Secondly, he wanted no part of crunch time in big games. He was happy just to sit back and hope for the best.

Who knows if they would have beaten Boston if everyone was healthy. Wilt and Russell aside, Philly were superior to Boston imo and, yeh i agree, they probably would have prevailed BUT THEY DIDN'T!!
I care about performances and results, not excuses and certainly not ifs, buts and maybes.


3. With regards to this shackling business: I personally think Wilt was indifferent to Van Breda 'making' him take less shots. My guess is that he was secretly very comfortable taking a back seat to West and Baylor. I mean, if he if really wasn't happy with the situation, and he believed that taking less shots was hurting the team, then he could have done something about it, right? He was Wilton Norman Chamberlain!! If it was a choice between him and his coach, who would the Lakers front office choose?


I'll reply to your continuation when i have time...

[jlauber]

1. The regular season and playoffs cannot and should not be compared. The intensity & standard of play (especially defence) increases and strategies change. I do not know this for sure but, to me, it's entirely plausible and likely that the Celtics strategy against Philly in the '66 playoffs (and every other playoff series against Wilt for that matter) was to let Wilt get his points and shut down his teammates. They did this knowing that it's incredibly hard for one player to single handily win a playoff series, let alone a championship.


2. You say Wilt's teammates didn't pass him the ball and that he touched the ball only twice in the 4th quarter. WHY WAS THIS?

You tell me, knowing that his teammates were injured and struggling offensively, why the hell didn't Wilt demand the ball?? Why didn't he say - "Cmon guys. I'm the best player on the court and the most unstoppable scorer in NBA history. Get on my back. I'll lead you to a victory"??

He didn't do this for 2 reasons. Firstly, he wasn't a leader. Secondly, he wanted no part of crunch time in big games. He was happy just to sit back and hope for the best.

Who knows if they would have beaten Boston if everyone was healthy. Wilt and Russell aside, Philly were superior to Boston imo and, yeh i agree, they probably would have prevailed BUT THEY DIDN'T!!
I care about performances and results, not excuses and certainly not ifs, buts and maybes.


3. With regards to this shackling business: I personally think Wilt was indifferent to Van Breda 'making' him take less shots. My guess is that he was secretly very comfortable taking a back seat to West and Baylor. I mean, if he if really wasn't happy with the situation, and he believed that taking less shots was hurting the team, then he could have done something about it, right? He was Wilton Norman Chamberlain!! If it was a choice between him and his coach, who would the Lakers front office choose?


I'll reply to your continuation when i have time...

I'll agree that Wilt's TEAMMATES shrunk dramatically in most of his post-seasons. Perhaps Wilt was partially to blame, but the fact remains that Russell's teammates generally played considerably better, and were much more "clutch."

But, if you are going to blame Wilt for his TEAM's post-season failures, than you can also blame MJ for losing in his first six seasons (and not winning a title in nine seasons.) You can blame Bird for "losing" in ten of his thirteen seasons. West and Oscar were "losers" in 12 of their 13 seasons. Kareem, despite winning six rings, lost in 14 seasons. Shaq was a loser in 15 seasons. And Hakeem, who some here rank in their top-5's, was a loser in 16 of his 18 seasons.


As for the '68 ECF's, only a complete idiot would ignore all of the injuries that the Sixers dealt with in that series. Including the SEVERAL that Wilt was hobbled with. Once again, the man put up a 22-25 playoff series, despite PLAYING the last five games of that series with multiple injuries, including a torn calf muscle. Why is Reed's performance in the '70's Finals considered heroic, despite missing the better portions of three games, and yet Wilt, who put up better numbers, with more injured teammates, and injured considerably worse than Reed was, is somehow considered a "choker" for his efforts in the '68 ECF's.

And regarding Chamberlain's lack of touches in that game seven...why do you blame Wilt? The man was constantly ripped for being "selfish", and a "ball-hog", despite doing whatever his COACH's asked. Can you imagine the uproar that he would have created had he stopped the game and started barking at his teammates? If anything, Hannum should have been blamed. Still, I recall Shaq being ignored in the '04 Finals, despite his just overwhelming the Pistons, while Kobe was shot-jacking. Where was Phil Jackson in similar circumstances?

He didn't do this for 2 reasons. Firstly, he wasn't a leader. Secondly, he wanted no part of crunch time in big games. He was happy just to sit back and hope for the best.

Chamberlain not a leader? Not big in crunch time?

1960 Game 3 vs. Nationals (best of 3 series at the time): 53 points in a 20 point win.

1962 Game 5 vs. Nationals: 56 points, 35 rebounds in a 17 point win.

1962 Game 6 vs Celtics: 32 points in a 10 point win

1962 Game 7 vs Celtics: 22 points, 21 rebounds in a 2 point loss

1964 Game 5 vs. Hawks: 50 points in a 24 point win.

1964 Game 7 vs. Hawks: 39 points, 26 rebounds, 12 blocks in a 10 point win.

1965 Game 6 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 26 rebounds in a 6 point win

1965 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 32 rebounds in a 1 point loss

1966 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 46 points, 34 rebounds in an 8 point loss

1967 Game 2 vs. Royals: 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists in a 21 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Royals: 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 1 vs. Celtics: 24 points, 32 rebounds, 13 assists, 12 blocks in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Celtics: 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists in an 11 point win.

1967 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists in a 24 point win.

1968 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 25 points, 27 rebounds in an 18 point win. Little known fact is that Chamberlain led BOTH TEAMS in points, rebounds, and assists for the entire series, whilst nursing an assortment of injuries, including his annual shin splints. This against two Hall Of Fame centers Walt Bellamy & Willis Reed. Apparently Willis used to tremble at the mere sight of Luke Jackson in the MSG tunnel pre-game.

1968 Game 7 vs Celtics: 14 points, 34 rebounds in a 4 point loss (This despite two touches in the entire 4th quarter, the smartest move Russell has ever made in his career switching himself over to guard Chet).

1969 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 18 points, 27 rebounds in a 2 point loss (Head coach leaves him on the bench due to a personal grudge.)

1970 Game 5 vs. Suns: 36 points, 14 rebounds in a 17 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Suns: 30 points, 27 rebounds, 11 blocks in a 35 point win (helped lead Lakers back from 1-3 deficit)

1970 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 45 points, 27 rebounds in a 22 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Knicks: 21 points, 24 rebounds in a 14 point loss

(Understand that he should have not even been playing in the 1969-70 season after his injury, but was able to rehab his knee in time with his workouts in volleyball, a sport he would later become a Hall Of Famer in as well.)

1971 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 25 points, 18 rebounds in an 11 point win

1971 Game 5 vs. Bucks: 23 points, 12 rebounds, 6 blocks in an 18 point loss without Elgin Baylor or Jerry West. (Alcindor in this game had 20 points, 15 rebounds, and 3 blocks).

1973 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 21 points, 28 rebounds in a 3 point win (Bulls had the ball and a one point lead with 30 or so seconds left in the 4th. Norm Van Lier goes up for the shot only to have it rejected by the "big choker" Wilt Chamberlain. Chamberlain blocked Van Lier's shot right to Gail Goodrich down court for the go ahead basket. Is there any mention of this clutch defensive play from Chamberlain in Bill Simmons "Book Of Basketball"?

1973 Game 5 vs. Knicks: 23 points, 21 rebounds in a 9 point loss (a hobbled Jerry West finished with 12 points)


Yep...Wilt was a "choker" and a "failure."

Incidently, you can add game five of the '60 ECF's (Philadelphia was down 3-1, so it was a must-win game), and he responded with a 50-35 game against Russell in a 128-107 win. Keep in mind that game was in his rookie season, and he faced a Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers.

And, IMHO, his greatest effort came against Kareem in game six of the WCF's. He held Kareem to 16-37 shooting, while going 8-12 himself, and scoring 22 points with 24 rebounds. And, he absolutely took over the game in the 4th quarter, and led LA back from a 10 point deficit to a clinching four point win. He also blocked 11 shots in that game, and five of them were Kareem's sky-hooks.

Or Wilt, with two badly injured wrists dominating the clinching game five win the Finals, with a 24 point, 10-14 shooting, 29 rebound (the ENTIRE Knick team had 39 BTW), and 9 block game.

Continued...

[jlauber]

Continued...

The fact was, Chamberlain was DOMINANT in big games, and in clutch moments. Even in the last seconds of "big" games. In game seven of the '62 ECF's, Wilt dunked a shot and made the FT to tie the game with seconds left (but, Sam Jones hit the game winner over...guess who...and Jones wasn't even Wilt's man.)

In game seven of the '65 ECF's, Wilt put up a 30 point game, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds, including scoring eight of Philly's last ten points, (including 2-2 from the line with 36 secs left), bringing his team back from a 110-101 defict to within 110-109. And, after the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire on the inbounds pass, the 40-40 Sixers had a chance to pull off one of the greatest upsets in NBA history against the 62-18 Celtics...but alas, "Havlicek stole the ball."

I listed the MANY big games that Chamberlain had, especially in "must win" games, but he was unstoppable in the clinching game five of the '67 ECF's; dominated a prime Kareem down the stretch in the clinching road win in the '72 WCF's; and, despite BOTH hands badly injured and heavily-wrapped, he shredded the Knicks in the clinching game five win in the '72 Finals.

And a couple of points regarding the above. First, in the clinching game five loss of the '66 ECF's, Chamberlain hung a 46-34 game on Russell. Now, how did Russell perform against Wilt the very next year when he was faced with the same circumstances in the '67 ECF's. I have said it many times, but he went quietly, like a lamb being led to slaughter. He put up a FOUR point game, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Meanwhile, Wilt hung a 29 point, 10-16 shooting, 36 rebound, 13 assist game on him...including 22 first half points when the game was still close.

And I have already mentioned the "heroic" Reed in the '70 Finals. Reed missed one half of one game, three-fourths of another, and then missed another complete game, in the last three pivotal games of that series. And, in game seven, he was essentially a statue who pretty much just fouled Wilt. He put up a meager 4-3 game (on 2-5 shooting), while Wilt, only a few months removed from major knee surgery, put up a 21-24 game. For the series, Chamberlain, at way less than 100%, still put up a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 Finals. Yet, Reed was the "hero", and Wilt was the "choker."

Which was interesting. Most NBA fans know about the "heroic" Reed's performance. I believe it was ranked #1 in Knick basketball history. Yet, how many fans remember anything about Wilt's performance in the '72 Finals? Unlike Reed, who did virtually nothing in that game seven, except to watch his teammates hit shots from all over the floor, Wilt not only played with his injuries (including a broken wrist), he DOMINATED in that clinching win.

Once again, it is the Wilt DOUBLE STANDARD. No matter what he did, it was never enough.

[305Baller]

I would take Duncan. I barely know anything about Walton other than him being good and then getting injured.

Getting injured sucks but for the sake of argument I will take the longevity and consistency of Duncan.

Especially if you use a car metaphor.

Would you prefer a Sports car that had problems and may be a little faster at it's peak or a car that was fast and it lasted?

You know what I'm saying?

[305Baller]

Oh this is a prime argument.

Forget everything I just posted.

[La Frescobaldi]

1. The regular season and playoffs cannot and should not be compared. The intensity & standard of play (especially defence) increases and strategies change. I do not know this for sure but, to me, it's entirely plausible and likely that the Celtics strategy against Philly in the '66 playoffs (and every other playoff series against Wilt for that matter) was to let Wilt get his points and shut down his teammates. They did this knowing that it's incredibly hard for one player to single handily win a playoff series, let alone a championship.


2. You say Wilt's teammates didn't pass him the ball and that he touched the ball only twice in the 4th quarter. WHY WAS THIS?

You tell me, knowing that his teammates were injured and struggling offensively, why the hell didn't Wilt demand the ball?? Why didn't he say - "Cmon guys. I'm the best player on the court and the most unstoppable scorer in NBA history. Get on my back. I'll lead you to a victory"??

He didn't do this for 2 reasons. Firstly, he wasn't a leader. Secondly, he wanted no part of crunch time in big games. He was happy just to sit back and hope for the best.

Who knows if they would have beaten Boston if everyone was healthy. Wilt and Russell aside, Philly were superior to Boston imo and, yeh i agree, they probably would have prevailed BUT THEY DIDN'T!!
I care about performances and results, not excuses and certainly not ifs, buts and maybes.


3. With regards to this shackling business: I personally think Wilt was indifferent to Van Breda 'making' him take less shots. My guess is that he was secretly very comfortable taking a back seat to West and Baylor. I mean, if he if really wasn't happy with the situation, and he believed that taking less shots was hurting the team, then he could have done something about it, right? He was Wilton Norman Chamberlain!! If it was a choice between him and his coach, who would the Lakers front office choose?


I'll reply to your continuation when i have time...

******************************

My friend I applaud your heart, but you're wildly overmatched here.

I may do some tongue-in-cheek bashing of jlauber for his WRITING style, and his sentence structure can be pretty crude at times but let me tell you plainly - you have been warned!!

Jlauber is one of the very finest basketball writers I have seen anywhere (and believe me I was devouring articles by Frank DeFord & Bob Ottum when they were puppy reporters at Sports Illustrated back in the '60s).

His outpouring of facts on ISH have helped me remember games from 40 years ago and more & I'm just gonna take a sec and tip the hat his way.

He's armed with knowledge that is vast & deep, and you are attempting to debate him with "I do not know this for sure but, to me.... " "I personally think...." " My guess is....." Well, that ain't gonna get it.

By all means, take on jlauber in a debate about Wilt. But do it with facts, not speculations about players & coaches motives or emotions. That is in my opinion the greatest failure of most guys who talk about Wilt - they read some Boston sports writer and think they know Chamberlain. But on this thread right now yer lookin all played out like Sonny Liston when the pepper spray he put on his gloves didn't stop Cassius Clay

It's fatal to your chances to guess about those kinds of things. My advice is to spend the time and watch as much footage as you can find.... not just of Chamberlain, but of 60s hoops. It was in many real respects a different game from today's. Those guys ran. My guess is, if you watch it with an open mind, you'll come away with an entirely different point of view.

I gotta warn you again though brother.... I'll be coming after ya too.

Chamberlain had a completely rounded skillset at his position, fearsome defense, blazing footwork (which he trailblazed) immensely tall and powerful, overwhelming rebounder...... I watched 13 from the bleachers, and there has never been a better player, not just at his position, but in basketball.
lol I personally think!!

Kudos and I'll be reading the debate for sure!

[oolalaa]

******************************

My friend I applaud your heart, but you're wildly overmatched here.

I may do some tongue-in-cheek bashing of jlauber for his WRITING style, and his sentence structure can be pretty crude at times but let me tell you plainly - you have been warned!!

Jlauber is one of the very finest basketball writers I have seen anywhere (and believe me I was devouring articles by Frank DeFord & Bob Ottum when they were puppy reporters at Sports Illustrated back in the '60s).

His outpouring of facts on ISH have helped me remember games from 40 years ago and more & I'm just gonna take a sec and tip the hat his way.

He's armed with knowledge that is vast & deep, and you are attempting to debate him with "I do not know this for sure but, to me.... " "I personally think...." " My guess is....." Well, that ain't gonna get it.

By all means, take on jlauber in a debate about Wilt. But do it with facts, not speculations about players & coaches motives or emotions. That is in my opinion the greatest failure of most guys who talk about Wilt - they read some Boston sports writer and think they know Chamberlain. But on this thread right now yer lookin all played out like Sonny Liston when the pepper spray he put on his gloves didn't stop Cassius Clay

It's fatal to your chances to guess about those kinds of things. My advice is to spend the time and watch as much footage as you can find.... not just of Chamberlain, but of 60s hoops. It was in many real respects a different game from today's. Those guys ran. My guess is, if you watch it with an open mind, you'll come away with an entirely different point of view.

I gotta warn you again though brother.... I'll be coming after ya too.

Chamberlain had a completely rounded skillset at his position, fearsome defense, blazing footwork (which he trailblazed) immensely tall and powerful, overwhelming rebounder...... I watched 13 from the bleachers, and there has never been a better player, not just at his position, but in basketball.
lol I personally think!!

Kudos and I'll be reading the debate for sure!

This is directed at jlauber as well as you:

"He's armed with knowledge vast and deep" - I agree. jlauber is incredibly knowledable about Wilt. He seemingly knows every available stat. But i am not questioning Wilt's abilities as a basketball player or the stats he put up.

I have said this on more than one occasion - Wilt is the most talented player the league has ever seen. More talented than Jordan. More talented than Kareem. More talented than Kobe. More talented than Hakeem. And yes, even more talented than Lebron. He was an unbelievable all round player but, I hate to keep repeating this over and over again, INTANGIBLES PLAY A HUGE ROLE IN BASKETBALL. They just do, and this is what jlauber doesn't seem to grasp. He is STAT OBSESSED. Players such as Russell, Magic, Bird, Duncan and Isiah Thomas prove that leadership, clutchness and competitiveness make up for deficiences in talent and ability.

Look at Lebron James, the most gifted player all round of the last 35 years. The similarities with Wilt are striking. He carried a bad team to the finals in '07 but LOST to the spurs. He LOST against Boston in '08 despite putting up 45 points in game 7. He LOST against the Orlando Magic in '09 despite a monster, Chamberlain esque statistical series. He LOST against Boston in '10 thanks to floating through games 5 & 6. He LOST against the Mavericks in '11 thanks to his disappearing act in the 4th quarters.

Lebron is the most talented player in the league right now by MILES but how can anyone say he's the best? (not until he proves us that he can get over the hump at least). He isn't even the best player on the Heat, Dwyane Wade is. Wade isn't as good a scorer as Lebron. Wade isn't as good a playmaker as Lebron. Wade isn't as good a rebounder as Lebron. Wade doesn't put up the stats that Lebron does. But Wade is the leader of that team and the better crunch time scorer. These two things offset Lebron's superior basketball playing ability.



When i read quotes form Wilt like - "To Russell, every game - every championship game - was a challenge, a test to his manhood. He took the game so seriously that he threw up in the locker room before almost every game. But i tend to look at basketball as a game, not a life or death struggle. I don't need scoring titles or championships to prove that i'm a man. There are too many other beautiful things in life - food, cars, girls, friends, the beach, freedom - to get that emotionally wrapped up in basketball. I think he (Russell) may have felt that with my natural ability and willingness to work hard, my teams could have won an NBA championship every year if i was totally committed to victory as he was."

and

"I get constant reminders from fans who equate 'that game' and my career as one of the same."

and

"I guarentee you, if you could give me 10 points in all those 7th games against the Boston Celtics, instead of Bill Russell having 11 rings, i could've had at least 9 or 8."

and the definitive

"In a way, I like it better when we lose. It's over and i can look forward to the next game. If we win, it bulids up the tension and i start worrying about the next game."

it shows me that Wilt didn't care whether he won or lost. It shows me that Wilt wasn't very competitive. It shows me that Wilt wasn't consumed with winning. It shows me that all those game 7 losses against Boston and the Knicks were no accident.

Regarding that '70 finals - Willis Reed was playing on 1 leg for nearly half the series! (and was demolishing Wilt in the other half ). Why didn't Wilt pound Reed into the ground? Why didn't he exploit his injured opponent? I know he had a great game 6 but what happened in games 5 and 7? Let me guess, it was the coaches fault or his teammates fault or Jerry Wests fault or his injured knees fault. Am I right? There's always some excuse.



I've read that Wilt almost retired in 1960, after just one season in the league (HE ALMOST RETIRED!! Did he even like basketball? ). He was supposedly upset with the pounding and rough treatment he received during his rookie season as well as the refereeing injustices against him. He was eventually persuaded to change his mind by his teams owner, Ed Gottlieb....

Thoma Whalen (author) - "Gottlieb (warriors owner) told his young superstar that if he continued playing, he stood an excellent chance of breaking every major record in the book. The challenge was one Chamberlain could not easily ignore. The subject of greatness was constantly on his mind. His burning ambition was to become the greatest basketball player in history.
The only problem was that in his efforts to be the best, Chamberlain more times than not sacrificed the good of the team for individual statistical glory. Indeed, winning never seemed to be high on his list of priorities. Breaking records and grabbing headlines were. And therin lay the paradox of Chamberlain. He was an individualist in a game that demanded teamwork and personal sacrifice."

Then, Wilt went from a player obsessed with scoring to one obsessed with distributing. Great....but the problem was that he couldn't/didn't vacillate in between. He could have played unselfishly for 3 quarters - passed the ball, made his teammates better, rebounded, played great defence - and then taken over in the 4th with his unbelievable scoring ability. He would have been unstoppable. He just didn't get it.

Oh and did you know, in 1965 when the Warriors wanted to trade Wilt (they wanted to trade Wilt Chamberllain! ), Lakers owner Bob Short submitted a vote to his players on whether or not they should acquire him. The players voted against it! 9-2 against it! What?! Why?!

Wilt was eventually traded to the 76ers mid-way through the season, but do you know who he was traded for? Paul Neumann (who?), Connie Dierking (who?) and Lee Shaffer (who?). WOW.



When i read even more quotes, this time from his peers such as Jerry West - "I don't want to rap Wilt because i believe only Russell was better, and i really respect what Wilt did. But i have to say he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him."

and

Rick Barry - "I'll say what most people feel, Wilt is a loser. He has a complex about this. He thinks the world is picking on him. He resents criticism...When it comes to the closing moments of a tough game, an important game, he doesn't want the ball, he doesn't want any part of the pressure. It is at these times that greatness is determined, and Wilt doesn't have it. There is no way you can compare him as a pro to a Bill Russell ot Jerry West. If Jerry West had been a centre, his team would have won as many championships as Russell's. These are clutch performers."

and

Bill Bradley (SF for the Knicks in the early 70s) - "Wilt played the game as if he had to prove his worth to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed out his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant, certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how well the individual does, but whether the team wins. This is the beautiful heart of the game, the blending of personalities, the mutual sacrifices for group success....I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to his accomplishments, he could be magnanimous....Wilt's emphasis on individual accomplishments failed to gain him the public affection and made him the favourite to win the game. And simultaneously, it assured him of losing."

and


Continuing.....

[rugrats]

obviously its timmy doe like

[oolalaa]

Continued.....


Bill Russell - "It did seem to me that Wilt was often ambivalent about what he wanted to get out of basketball. Anyone who changes the character and style of play several times over a career is bound to be uncertain about which of many potential accomplishments he wants to pursue. It's perfectly possible for a player not to make victory his first priority against all others - money, records, personal fame - and i often felt Wilt made some deliberate choices in his ambitions."

it merely strengthens the notion that he was Stat obsessed, anti clutch & had screwed up priorities.



Now, I wouldn't go as far as calling Wilt a "loser". His '67 and '72 seasons were 2 of the greatest the league has ever seen, all things considered. But i will say that he was certainly not a "winner".

He lost because of injuries. He lost because of bad teammates. He lost because of incompetent coaches. According to jlauber, it was never, ever his fault that he lost.

Maybe jlauber thinks Wilt is the unluckiest player of all time and perhaps he's right. But, if that is the case, I certainly wouldn't want him on my team. Would you?

[La Frescobaldi]

Sorry but yer excellent thread about Timmy Dunkin & Bill Walton has been hijacked.

We oughta throw this onto its own thread. I'm new to this stuff, don't even know how to start one. Maybe you or jlauber could point out an older post, or a new one is fine.... can you invite guys?

I'd wanna see Pointguard & Shaqattack, GOAT & Sarcastic, Oolalaa, roundmound all those more or less Old School guys on there but minus the personal attack guys that lurk like vultures on these boards if you know what I mean. Is that all just wishful thinking?

If I knew how to start a thread I'd call it

Oolalaa picks up the Gauntlet!!

[oolalaa]

Sorry but yer excellent thread about Timmy Dunkin & Bill Walton has been hijacked.

We oughta throw this onto its own thread. I'm new to this stuff, don't even know how to start one. Maybe you or jlauber could point out an older post, or a new one is fine.... can you invite guys?

I'd wanna see Pointguard & Shaqattack, GOAT & Sarcastic, Oolalaa, roundmound all those more or less Old School guys on there but minus the personal attack guys that lurk like vultures on these boards if you know what I mean. Is that all just wishful thinking?

If I knew how to start a thread I'd call it

Oolalaa picks up the Gauntlet!!

hmmmm i'm not sure. I'm relatively new to this forum myself. If you wanted to start a Wilt Chamberlain thread (i can tell you how. It's incredibly easy), I would certainly contribute to it but i know that there's been a lot of Wilt threads in the past, even in my short time on this forum. I'm not sure there will be the required appetite for it and i have no idea if those posters you mentioned (shaqattack, GOAT, pointguard etc or even jlauber) would be interested in debating, although you could message them to find out. It's entirely up to you.

[jlauber]

Continued.....


Bill Russell - "It did seem to me that Wilt was often ambivalent about what he wanted to get out of basketball. Anyone who changes the character and style of play several times over a career is bound to be uncertain about which of many potential accomplishments he wants to pursue. It's perfectly possible for a player not to make victory his first priority against all others - money, records, personal fame - and i often felt Wilt made some deliberate choices in his ambitions."

it merely strengthens the notion that he was Stat obsessed, anti clutch & had screwed up priorities.



Now, I wouldn't go as far as calling Wilt a "loser". His '67 and '72 seasons were 2 of the greatest the league has ever seen, all things considered. But i will say that he was certainly not a "winner".

He lost because of injuries. He lost because of bad teammates. He lost because of incompetent coaches. According to jlauber, it was never, ever his fault that he lost.

Maybe jlauber thinks Wilt is the unluckiest player of all time and perhaps he's right. But, if that is the case, I certainly wouldn't want him on my team. Would you?

Oolalaa...most all of your arguments come from the book by the legendary LIAR, Bill Simmons.

I have shredded that idiots's claims here many times.

I reopened the threads to avoid making any more of a mess on this topic...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=160893

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=223621

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=194899

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=191969

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=222675

[miggyme1]

bill walton never reached his prime so therefore its timmy

[La Frescobaldi]

I moved it to new thread, intangibles vs. facts, myth vs. reality.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=245643