Better Case For GOAT? Wilt Chamberlain or KAJ

[scandisk_]

KAJ, better all around. Statistically dominant plus the hardware.

[julizaver]

I don't see how that diminishes what Kareem did? Wilt was an elite defender even before he decided to save energy on offense and focus on defense. Kareem still had to play both ways and face a defensive juggernaut focused on stopping him on offense yet a young Kareem put up great numbers in RS and the playoffs against Wilt.

I could argue (using "Russell's standard" vs Wilt during the 60s) that in '72 regular season, where Kareem averaged 40 ppg in 5 games vs Wilt (his best stretch) Bucks lost 4 of the games. Oscar Robertson missed few games and Kareem needed to score more. In the game in which he scored 50 pts, Lakers were leading from the start and were in control most of the game, when Bucks closed the gap to two points (in the 4th I think), Kareem missed 6 consecutive shots (Wilt put the clamps on him when it matters most). Not to mentioned that Kareem was outrebounded badly 24 to ...8 . To summarize it - Wilt stopped Kareem in the deciding moments and dominated under the boards, conclusion using "Russell standard" Wilt outplayed Kareem - and Kareem 50 pts game "empty stats".

In the game in which Kareem scored 40 pts, again Wilt dominated under the boards and again Lakers won.
In the first game from that season Kareem scored 39 points on 17 from 33 shooting, but made 13 TOs was outrebounded again badly 26 to 17, Bucks losed again.
The only game where Kareem outplayed Wilt was the only game where Bucks won and it was the famous game, that ended Lakers 33 winning streak.
To summarize it - during his best 5 games stretch vs Wilt using ISH logic Kareem was "empty stats" loser.
Now let's see the playoffs - under ISH logic aplied for Wilt vs Russell, Kareem choked badly as he avaraged 33 pts on 0.456 shooting, a HUUUUGE drop from his reg.season averages vs Wilt (almost 7 ppg) and his Bucks team lost 2 to 4. Not to mentioned that Wilt outplayed Kareem in the decisive moments or Kareem shooting 0.400 in the last 4 games (56/140).

This is how it will looks like if we used Russell criteria vs Wilt. Kareem at his best vs old man Wilt was an "empty stats loser". And his teams losed 8 of the 11 games.

Anyway I am not arguing that Kareem put up great numbers against Wilt. Both players were All-time greats and do what they were supposed to do at that stage of their careers.

[dunksby]

I could argue (using "Russell's standard" vs Wilt during the 60s) that in '72 regular season, where Kareem averaged 40 ppg in 5 games vs Wilt (his best stretch) Bucks lost 4 of the games. Oscar Robertson missed few games and Kareem needed to score more. In the game in which he scored 50 pts, Lakers were leading from the start and were in control most of the game, when Bucks closed the gap to two points (in the 4th I think), Kareem missed 6 consecutive shots (Wilt put the clamps on him when it matters most). Not to mentioned that Kareem was outrebounded badly 24 to ...8 . To summarize it - Wilt stopped Kareem in the deciding moments and dominated under the boards, conclusion using "Russell standard" Wilt outplayed Kareem - and Kareem 50 pts game "empty stats".

In the game in which Kareem scored 40 pts, again Wilt dominated under the boards and again Lakers won.
In the first game from that season Kareem scored 39 points on 17 from 33 shooting, but made 13 TOs was outrebounded again badly 26 to 17, Bucks losed again.
The only game where Kareem outplayed Wilt was the only game where Bucks won and it was the famous game, that ended Lakers 33 winning streak.
To summarize it - during his best 5 games stretch vs Wilt using ISH logic Kareem was "empty stats" loser.
Now let's see the playoffs - under ISH logic aplied for Wilt vs Russell, Kareem choked badly as he avaraged 33 pts on 0.456 shooting, a HUUUUGE drop from his reg.season averages vs Wilt (almost 7 ppg) and his Bucks team lost 2 to 4. Not to mentioned that Wilt outplayed Kareem in the decisive moments.

This is how it will looks like if we used Russell criteria vs Wilt. Kareem at his best vs old man Wilt was an "empty stats loser".

Anyway I am not arguing that Kareem put up great numbers against Wilt. Both players were All-time greats and do what they were supposed to do at that stage of their careers.

Russell and Wilt spent most of their career battling each other out, so I don't see why are you comparing the matchups?

[julizaver]

Russell and Wilt spent most of their career battling each other out, so I don't see why are you comparing the matchups?

Because a lot of people here claimed that Russell "kicked" Wit's ass and that Wilt was choker and statspadder using the same criteria/standard I mentioned in the previous post, although the truth is that Wilt outplayed Russell in the majority of the games, just his rosters were weaker for most of their 10 years H2H rivalry, esspecially in the first 5 years. As awesome and great player Russell was he was outplayed by Wilt to a far higher extent than Kareem ever outplayed Wilt (if we asume that Wilt was outplayed by Kareem in their H2H).

[dunksby]

Because a lot of people here claimed that Russell "kicked" Wit's ass and that Wilt was choker and statspadder using the same criteria/standard I mentioned in the previous post, although the truth is that Wilt outplayed Russell in the majority of the games, just his rosters were weaker for most of their 10 years H2H rivalry, esspecially in the first 5 years. As awesome and great player Russell was he was outplayed by Wilt to a far higher extent than Kareem ever outplayed Wilt (if we asume that Wilt was outplayed by Kareem in their H2H).

Wilt outplayed Russell greatly, that's a valid point and I have him above Russell in my rankings (3rd) but he doesn't have a better case for GOAT than Kareem. Kareem is the GOAT basketball player.

[Psileas]

In the first game from that season Kareem scored 39 points on 17 from 33 shooting, but made 13 TOs was outrebounded again badly 26 to 17, Bucks losed again.

Wow, I wonder what type of TO's these were. Seems like another testament of Wilt's defense. There are multiple clips of him forcefully knocking the ball out of Kareem's hands, so I wonder how many of these TO's were steals by Wilt.
In 3ball style, I'd contend that Wilt was a great "TO enforcer".

[insidious301]

Because a lot of people here claimed that Russell "kicked" Wit's ass and that Wilt was choker and statspadder using the same criteria/standard I mentioned in the previous post, although the truth is that Wilt outplayed Russell in the majority of the games, just his rosters were weaker for most of their 10 years H2H rivalry, esspecially in the first 5 years. As awesome and great player Russell was he was outplayed by Wilt to a far higher extent than Kareem ever outplayed Wilt (if we asume that Wilt was outplayed by Kareem in their H2H).

Statistically, there really was never a comparison. Russell could take Wilt down a notch or two, but those games were few and far between. Truthfully, though, we would be better off not comparing the 2 of them H2H, because it sort of limits and belittles their legacies. They were both unique individuals, who had amazing careers in their own right. If Chamberlain had the offensive edge, Russel ruled on the defenside side. Rebounding, assisting, and most importantly, being THE MAN of their teams -- they filled in all the holes.

I believe CavsFTW said it best. If you value championships and winning, you go with Russell. You value dominance and talent, it's Wilt.

[GimmeThat]

I agree with much of the other stuff you wrote. Kareem was a better team player, but I also feel that's more circumstance than it is personality. Neither guy was an all time great leader. And Wilt was a better passer.

what you are REALLY trying to say.

Is that yuppies ruined basketball in terms of its team concept.

[Helix]

Statistically, there really was never a comparison. Russell could take Wilt down a notch or two, but those games were few and far between. Truthfully, though, we would be better off not comparing the 2 of them H2H, because it sort of limits and belittles their legacies. They were both unique individuals, who had amazing careers in their own right. If Chamberlain had the offensive edge, Russel ruled on the defenside side. Rebounding, assisting, and most importantly, being THE MAN of their teams -- they filled in all the holes.

I believe CavsFTW said it best. If you value championships and winning, you go with Russell. You value dominance and talent, it's Wilt.

IF that's the case, then it's a silly argument, isn't it? Who doesn't value championships and winning more?

[stanlove1111]

Statistically, there really was never a comparison. Russell could take Wilt down a notch or two, but those games were few and far between. Truthfully, though, we would be better off not comparing the 2 of them H2H, because it sort of limits and belittles their legacies. They were both unique individuals, who had amazing careers in their own right. If Chamberlain had the offensive edge, Russel ruled on the defenside side. Rebounding, assisting, and most importantly, being THE MAN of their teams -- they filled in all the holes.

I believe CavsFTW said it best. If you value championships and winning, you go with Russell. You value dominance and talent, it's Wilt.

I will always take the player who's game adds more value to a basketball team. I don't care about his stats. Russell's game added more to a basketball teams then Wilt's. Wilt took a bigger piece of his teams Pie then Russell did, but Russell's game as a whole added more value.

. Russell was a much better defender then Wilt, and his blocked shots were more valuable then Wilt's because he kept them inbounds and Wilt often did not. His game didn't require that he stand right outside the paint on offense clogging things up for his teammates. Russell didn't care about his personal stats and was fine leaving a bigger piece of the pie for his teammates. Wilt not so much.

As for Jabbar and Wilt I always have them tied. Can never choice..I want Jabbar on offense with the sky hook and I want Wilt on the boards and probably defense..Can never decide who added more value to a team.

[DatAsh]

his blocked shots were more valuable then Wilt's because he kept them inbounds and Wilt often did not.

What evidence do you have to support this?

[stanlove1111]

What evidence do you have to support this?

I watched them at the time, it was well known at the time, you can see video of it yourself if you look, and I believe but could be wrong that Wilt himself admitted this..

Your are not going to be one of those guys that asks for proof of something that has been well known for decades are you?

[DatAsh]

I watched them at the time, it was well known at the time, you can see video of it yourself if you look, and I believe but could be wrong that Wilt himself admitted this..

Your are not going to be one of those guys that asks for proof of something that has been well known for decades are you?

I mean, it seems more like a myth that's been well known for decades. Video I've seen of Wilt never supports this.

[BigBoss]

[julizaver]

Wow, I wonder what type of TO's these were. Seems like another testament of Wilt's defense. There are multiple clips of him forcefully knocking the ball out of Kareem's hands, so I wonder how many of these TO's were steals by Wilt.
In 3ball style, I'd contend that Wilt was a great "TO enforcer".

Yes, you are right - you can check the resume of the game plus the boxscore here (page 198 from 223 and it is rotated right unfortunately so you need to scroll down as it is the second page):
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...rontpage&hl=en

Although it is Milwaukee Journal they credited Wilt with "forced the big Buck into a flock of mistakes with his constant harasmant on defense".