Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > NBA Forum

NBA Forum NBA Message Board - NBA Fan Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-27-2012, 04:34 AM   #31
ThaRegul8r
National High School Star
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,142
ThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation here
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

I was puzzled when I received notification that there was a new reply in a thread I created over a year and a half ago. I don't know how old threads get new replies from people who weren't even around when it was originally going on and thus shouldn't even know of its existence.

Then I read the responses and see that not only has the thread been resurrected after a year and a half has passed since the last response, but people couldn't even be bothered to follow instructions that I, the OP, clearly laid out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
G Sam Jones - most clutch player in NBA history, great defense, high bbiq
G is Kobe DQ because he is in the GOAT argument? I say no, so here he is
F same question about Larry Bird
F Dan Issel - terrific power, fast, great rebounder and scorer
Bench: Logo, LeBron James, Magic Johnson, Havlicek
P.S. I don't know that my starters are necessarily better than my bench guys

First of all, let's take a look at the OP. One should never make a post in a topic without having first read the OP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Choose no more than two other players who have been MVP at some point in their careers. Since "Big Threes" are all the vogue, the maximum is three players (including Wilt) who have ever been MVP at any point in their careers. (If someone said the optimal lineup is one where every other starter has been an MVP before, then that's ridiculous. Who couldn't win with that?)

Yet I count two players in the starting lineup and two more off the bench.

For some inexplicable reason, there's a two-time MVP and a three-time MVP coming off the bench.

Yet the Celtics were "stacked"?



And this is disrespect to Wilt if you're saying he needs nothing less than MVPs off the bench for his optimal team.

All one had to do was take a look at some of the responses for some examples of right ways to answer:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toizumi
PG: Jason Kidd
SG: Rip Hamilton
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Shawn Marion
C: Wilt Chamberlain

6. Charles Oakley
7. Manu Ginobili
8. Mark Price

Quote:
Originally Posted by PHILA
C: '67 Wilt Chamberlain
F: Horace Grant/Maurice Lucas
F: Paul Pierce
G: Ray Allen (Bucks)
G: Chauncey Billups

Quote:
Originally Posted by hayden695
C-Wilt
PF-Marion
SF-Pippen
SG-West
PG-Fisher

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.O.A.T.
F: Dave DeBusschere - (1969-1973 version)
F: Dennis Rodman (1988-1991 version)
G: Reggie Miller (1997-2000 version)
G: Oscar Robertson (1968-1971 version)

Bench

Sixth Man: Kevin McHale (1983-1986 version)
7th Man: Vinnie Johnson (1988-1991 version)

Reserve Guard: K.C Jones (1963-1966 version)
Reserve Wing: Michael Cooper (1986-1989 version)
Reserve Post: Paul Silas (1976-1979 version)

Quote:
Originally Posted by glidedrxlr22
C. Wilt Chamberlain
PG John Stockton
PF Larry Nance
SF Scottie Pippen
SG Darrell Griffith

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3lademaster
pg Mark Price
sg Michael Cooper
sf Bruce Bowen
pf Robert Horry
c Wilt Chamberlain

bench Dennis Rodman, Theo Ratliff, Steve Kerr, Dell Curry

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaqAttack3234
C- Wilt Chamberlain('67)
F- Charles Oakley
F- Bruce Bowen
G- Reggie Miller
G- Mike Bibby ('02)

6th man- Manu Ginobili
Backup center- '86 Bill Walton
Robert Horry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointguard
Mark Price
Micheal Cooper
Terry Cummings
Danny Manning

Bench
John Starks
Nene
Robert Horry

The people who participated in this thread while it was going on got it.

Second of all:

Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
is Kobe DQ because he is in the GOAT argument? I say no, so here he is

You say no?

Funny, I could've sworn this was my thread, and that I clearly outlined the rules at the beginning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
F same question about Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
1) Do not add another fellow competitor for the title of G.O.A.T.

It was the very first rule I laid out. I remember the "Larry Bird is the GOAT" talk in the '80s, so there should have been no need to ask the question if one had read the OP. The very fact this question was asked shows that one didn't read the OP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
I don't know that my starters are necessarily better than my bench guys

If this is true, you're doing it wrong. See above for acceptable responses from people who were here when this thread was originally posted. Note the difference between their teams and the one you listed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CavaliersFTW
Wilt played 3 incredibly distinct roles under the only 3 coaches that had ever managed to earn his respect and each coach who got his respect and convinced him to change his game reinvented Wilt with staggering results. Each role he was coached to play he did superlatively well so IMO there can't just be 1 cast to create the perfect fit. I'll make 3 teams, with the 3 coaches that Wilt listened too with devastating effectiveness

Good idea, and good way to start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CavaliersFTW
25 year old volume scorer Wilt coached by Frank McGuire

PG: John Stockton
SG: Ray Allen
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Dennis Rodman
6th: Michael Cooper

This team is acceptable, unlike the other one

Quote:
Originally Posted by CavaliersFTW
35 year old low-post defender Wilt coached by Bill Sharman:

PG: K.C. Jones
SG: Michael Jordan
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Bill Russell
6th: John Havlicek

This is unacceptable. I refer back to the OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CavaliersFTW
1) Do not add another fellow competitor for the title of G.O.A.T. The point is to give Wilt the best team for him in which he is the best player. So no Wilt/MJ combinations.

The very first rule I gave was no fellow competitors for G.O.A.T., and yet I see two rival G.O.A.T. candidates. And not only that, I explicitly said "no Wilt/MJ combinations."

Then I look again at the OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
2) Do not add another player who is among his historical competition for G.O.A.T. center. Lots of people try to sneak in another top five center at PF. Don't. The point is to give Wilt a team that would enable him to compete against a Russell-led team, a Kareem-led team, a Shaq-led team, and Hakeem-led team with everyone on equal footing, each with teammates that complement their unique games chosen from everyone ever.

Not only did I say "no Wilt/MJ combination," I also said "Don't try to sneak in another top five center at PF." I already anticipated people would attempt this, and forbid it.

And I find it odd that Wilt fans would put Russell on "the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain." So, despite being compared to Russell for most of his career, despite experiencing frustration at the hands of Russell and the Celtics again and time again, these so-called would then proceed to give Wilt the final insult by saying that what he needs to compete is his arch-rival.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
Larry is part of the undisputed 6 so he cannot be on this team.

It's good to see that someone actually bothered to read the OP. It's rude to resurrect someone's thread and not even be bothered to read the rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
Bill Russell is in the great 6 and he's not a PF and there's no reason to think (other than him being great) that he could really play PF. That's completely against the rules. Reread the OP.

Correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
This Wilt is not a contender for GOAT, so I guess you could pick Jordan

Incorrect. I explicitly said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
1) Do not add another fellow competitor for the title of G.O.A.T. The point is to give Wilt the best team for him in which he is the best player. So no Wilt/MJ combinations.

You don't get to try an circumvent the rules by saying "this Wilt is not a contender for GOAT." Wilt Chamberlain is Wilt Chamberlain, a GOAT candidate. The whole point of this (this was actually part of a series), was to have a concentrated league of teams captained by GOATs who would compete against each other:

Team Wilt
Team Jordan
Team Russell
Team Kareem
Team Magic
Team Bird
Etc.

Wilt will be leading his team against Jordan, who will have his own team. There'll be no "taking one's talents to South Beach" here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
tho I don't know if you could pick him and Magic

No, you can't. Magic is a GOAT candidate who will be leading his own team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
If no GOAT candidates are allowed..

They aren't, as I specifically said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
Michael Jordan...nuff said.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
Only issue is can you have two (or even one)GOAT candidates on one team.

There is no issue:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Do not add another fellow competitor for the title of G.O.A.T.

I don't know how this is ambiguous.

It's annoying to me that this was brought back after a year and a half since the last response, and people are asking questions that were specifically addressed in the OP or clearly violating rules, when the people who posted in this thread in September of 2010 when this was actually current didn't have any problem following rules. Since they didn't have any problem following the rules, I'm not bothering to hide my annoyance with the people who for some reason couldn't. If people take offense, I don't really know what to tell you. I don't apologize, because everything was covered in the rules, and simply reading it, and following it would have avoided any problems, and there were acceptable examples to look at if one was still unsure.
ThaRegul8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2012, 08:44 AM   #32
Owl
Local High School Star
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,503
Owl is popular on this boardOwl is popular on this boardOwl is popular on this boardOwl is popular on this board
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
I was puzzled when I received notification that there was a new reply in a thread I created over a year and a half ago. I don't know how old threads get new replies from people who weren't even around when it was originally going on and thus shouldn't even know of its existence.

Then I read the responses and see that not only has the thread been resurrected after a year and a half has passed since the last response, but people couldn't even be bothered to follow instructions that I, the OP, clearly laid out.



First of all, let's take a look at the OP. One should never make a post in a topic without having first read the OP.



Yet I count two players in the starting lineup and two more off the bench.

For some inexplicable reason, there's a two-time MVP and a three-time MVP coming off the bench.

Yet the Celtics were "stacked"?



And this is disrespect to Wilt if you're saying he needs nothing less than MVPs off the bench for his optimal team.

All one had to do was take a look at some of the responses for some examples of right ways to answer:

















The people who participated in this thread while it was going on got it.

Second of all:



You say no?

Funny, I could've sworn this was my thread, and that I clearly outlined the rules at the beginning.





It was the very first rule I laid out. I remember the "Larry Bird is the GOAT" talk in the '80s, so there should have been no need to ask the question if one had read the OP. The very fact this question was asked shows that one didn't read the OP.



If this is true, you're doing it wrong. See above for acceptable responses from people who were here when this thread was originally posted. Note the difference between their teams and the one you listed.



Good idea, and good way to start.



This team is acceptable, unlike the other one



This is unacceptable. I refer back to the OP:



The very first rule I gave was no fellow competitors for G.O.A.T., and yet I see two rival G.O.A.T. candidates. And not only that, I explicitly said "no Wilt/MJ combinations."

Then I look again at the OP:



Not only did I say "no Wilt/MJ combination," I also said "Don't try to sneak in another top five center at PF." I already anticipated people would attempt this, and forbid it.

And I find it odd that Wilt fans would put Russell on "the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain." So, despite being compared to Russell for most of his career, despite experiencing frustration at the hands of Russell and the Celtics again and time again, these so-called would then proceed to give Wilt the final insult by saying that what he needs to compete is his arch-rival.



It's good to see that someone actually bothered to read the OP. It's rude to resurrect someone's thread and not even be bothered to read the rules.



Correct.



Incorrect. I explicitly said:



You don't get to try an circumvent the rules by saying "this Wilt is not a contender for GOAT." Wilt Chamberlain is Wilt Chamberlain, a GOAT candidate. The whole point of this (this was actually part of a series), was to have a concentrated league of teams captained by GOATs who would compete against each other:

Team Wilt
Team Jordan
Team Russell
Team Kareem
Team Magic
Team Bird
Etc.

Wilt will be leading his team against Jordan, who will have his own team. There'll be no "taking one's talents to South Beach" here.



No, you can't. Magic is a GOAT candidate who will be leading his own team.



They aren't, as I specifically said.







There is no issue:



I don't know how this is ambiguous.

It's annoying to me that this was brought back after a year and a half since the last response, and people are asking questions that were specifically addressed in the OP or clearly violating rules, when the people who posted in this thread in September of 2010 when this was actually current didn't have any problem following rules. Since they didn't have any problem following the rules, I'm not bothering to hide my annoyance with the people who for some reason couldn't. If people take offense, I don't really know what to tell you. I don't apologize, because everything was covered in the rules, and simply reading it, and following it would have avoided any problems, and there were acceptable examples to look at if one was still unsure.

I think the Kobe, Bird thing was not arguing with the rules it was enquiring whether Bird or Kobe were or could be considered GOAT candidates. Bird perhaps was (or people put forward that argument) during his MVP runs, still I'm a collecter of GOAT rankings and not one of them (first one made in the late 80s has called Bird or indeed Kobe GOAT) and I don't know that I've ever conversed with someone who considered either the greatest (though of course there are some Kobe boosters on this forum but not one that doesn't seem to do so from the point of being a huge fan, rather than based on rational analysis).

They aren't deliberately (or out of ignorance) breaking the rules, they are testing the borders of the rules.

Its the equivalent of putting Cowens or Robinson as the PF. What is specifically stated is don't put a top 5 all time center at power forward. These 2 are just outside that group and they were centers, but would technically be allowed.

It is not entirely clear whether the team should be a "plausible" one or not. Very few of the teams could be constructed except in a dream league, insofar as that most have all starters being all-stars. In this context lesser players seem to be guys like Nance, Price, Marion who aren't going to be fifth option on an actually constructed team.

Additionally you seem very sensitive about the revival of a thread. Why is it better that the thread gathers metaphorical dust, than getting revisited outside its original context. That the topic is considered worth considertation is a compliment.

Threads go off topic all the time, typically rather rapidly and the OP doesn't get to control it.

Still it would be easy to create a team that skirts the edges of the rules and give him

Stockton
West
Baylor/Havlicek/Erving
Duncan

And stack the team with top 25 all time players.

CavsFTW had a team with MJ and Russell along with late model Chamberlain. Which irritated OP no end.
Quote:
The very first rule I gave was no fellow competitors for G.O.A.T., and yet I see two rival G.O.A.T. candidates. And not only that, I explicitly said "no Wilt/MJ combinations."
Quote:
give Wilt the final insult by saying that what he needs to compete is his arch-rival

Now in another poster does justify this by saying, it's not prime Chamberlain, and not a player who would be a GOAT candidate (which sort of makes sense but even then it contains 2 GOAT candidates, against OPs suggestions). However, I don't greatly like the team. At first I wondered why Wilt (playing the Russell role) would be teamed with Russell, and I think its because its a team built around MJ.
I don't think its a slap in the face to Wilt because of course all of these teams (except JLauber's choice of the 67 76ers) couldn't actually be constructed and would easily walk away with titles, he didn't NEED teams this strong to win titles. But building a team around MJ and then duplicating Wilt's role with Russell (whilst an entertaining thought) doesn't seem within the spirit of the thread.
Owl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2012, 10:40 AM   #33
Pointguard
NBA sixth man of the year
 
Pointguard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 7,202
Pointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

Wow, what was I thinking... I had the worse team by a mile. A lot of good responses throughout.
Pointguard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2012, 11:47 AM   #34
CavaliersFTW
3-time NBA All-Star
 
CavaliersFTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,755
CavaliersFTW is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterCavaliersFTW is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterCavaliersFTW is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterCavaliersFTW is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterCavaliersFTW is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterCavaliersFTW is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterCavaliersFTW is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterCavaliersFTW is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterCavaliersFTW is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterCavaliersFTW is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterCavaliersFTW is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
Based on your logic, I think you have your team completely wrong. Dennis Rodman is an ugly fit next to Wilt, in any case. This is a perfect situation for a guy like Ryan Anderson. Wilt wants all the space for himself and therefore the floor should be stretched, with Anderson doing what he did this year with Dwight (and he could be an all-star if he continues playing like this and Dwight actually plays hard). The other guy is Charles Oakley, as he wouldn't let Wilt slack with attitude. And they would own every rebound. Plus, Oakley's outlet passing is elite and he was such a smart player. Also, one of the best defenders of all-time. He's my ideal guy, with Anderson off the bench.


Scottie, I like...Ray Allen...I would rather a true catch and shoot guy and so I would take Reggie Miller. And he spreads the floor.



At PG, this is Jason Kidd's, all the way. If this Wilt needs a leader, then who else? Other than Magic Johnson and Bill Russell (followed by Steve Nash and Kevin Garnett), who is a better leader than Kidd? This is a guy who would love never shooting and racking up 19APG. He'd run the floor and he'd make Wilt run his ass off. Definitely the correct choice.







Duncan is a terrific choice. Larry Bird...Larry is part of the undisputed 6 so he cannot be on this team.


Jerry West is a terrific choice. And keeping with him and Duncan, I would recommend either your 6th Man (I really don't think you can have Havlicek as a 6th man on a team as already stacked as this) or Scottie Pippen. The only issue with Pippen is that he is not a good shooter. But I actually really like Havlicek here. I thought of him before even looking at your list.

At first, I thought twice about Parker. But Parker and West would thrive playing with each other. The other option at PF is Charles Oakley, again. He's a good passer out of the post and able to find cutters and excels in any PF/C partnership. He's a good answer for any player.








You have to change that. Bill Russell is in the great 6 and he's not a PF and there's no reason to think (other than him being great) that he could really play PF. That's completely against the rules. Reread the OP.



This Wilt is not a contender for GOAT, so I guess you could pick Jordan...tho I don't know if you could pick him and Magic (I realize you didn't pick Magic).



If this Wilt, who doesn't care if he touches the ball and is all about defense...then how can the answer be anyone but the greatest PG who has ever played? The fact that Wilt is a monster on defense, able to cover all switches and gaps...perfect for Magic, as his best defense was him being free to reach and jump into passing lanes. Wilt's got him covered.


If no GOAT candidates are allowed...John Stockton. Easy



Michael Jordan...nuff said. It would be a backcourt dominant team. Only issue is can you have two (or even one)GOAT candidates on one team. If not, I would consider Manu. Or maybe Ray Allen.



Scottie Pippen...All-around and versatile defender...so I like that. If I have Magic and Michael then maybe not. I could consider Chet Walker here, or Paul Pierce (who I would also consider at SG), or Elgin Baylor (his teammate during the era, so maybe that's not allowed?).



At PF...With Wilt not being interested in touches...I would look at Karl Malone. Able to stretch the floor, able to run the floor, the pick n' roll, and either post or elbow. Can do everything. Very good defender with great hands under the basket, great rebounder, great passer, unselfish, and could take the scoring reigns.


If not him, then Charles Oakley. Because Charles works all the time.

My bad on not reading the rules lol - i'll read it over and rebuild
CavaliersFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2012, 02:09 PM   #35
Whoah10115
Linja Status
 
Whoah10115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,968
Whoah10115 is starting to rub some people the wrong way
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r


It's good to see that someone actually bothered to read the OP. It's rude to resurrect someone's thread and not even be bothered to read the rules.



Correct.



Incorrect. I explicitly said:



You don't get to try an circumvent the rules by saying "this Wilt is not a contender for GOAT." Wilt Chamberlain is Wilt Chamberlain, a GOAT candidate. The whole point of this (this was actually part of a series), was to have a concentrated league of teams captained by GOATs who would compete against each other:





To be fair, I only asked those questions because he offered a different view of it, and I got caught up in it. But I did replace Magic and Michael with Stockton and Manu in that post...so I only mentioned cheating to try something new, but decided to go the right way





BTW, on the Bird thing...I understand most people don't think Bird is the best all-time, but then again few people think Jordan isn't the best all-time. And the guy who seems to be coming in 2nd right now is Kareem. Either way, there's a list of 6 that clearly stand out above. Personally, I don't rank Wilt as high as Michael, Magic, or Larry. So I think that answers whether or not they should be in it.




Tho I would re-ask the question about Kobe...I would never pick Kobe to play with Wilt. That seems like the worst idea possible. But is there really an argument for Kobe being in the discussion with those 6 guys? Again, I would not pick Kobe, but I have a hard time accepting him being in the GOAT discussion.

Last edited by Whoah10115 : 04-27-2012 at 02:14 PM.
Whoah10115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2012, 02:39 PM   #36
Vertical-24
Hollywood
 
Vertical-24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 692
Vertical-24 has decent reputation
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

PG - Jason Kidd
SG - Jerry West
SF - Scottie Pippen
PF - Pau Gasol
C - Wilt Chamberlain

Sixth Man - Michael Cooper

Bench:
Marcin Gortat
Ray Allen
Clyde Frazier
Steve Francis
Willie Cracken
Vertical-24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2012, 03:48 PM   #37
jlauber
3-time NBA All-Star
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,831
jlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

Let's not act like Wilt would need a lot of talent to win titles.

In his 61-62 season (50-25 season) he carried what had basically been a last place roster when he arrived, thru the first round of the playoffs, and then to a game seven, two-point loss, against a 60-20 Celtic team that had SEVEN HOFers.

That roster had an Arizin in his last year (and who played poorly in the post-season), an over-rated Gola (who was probably the WORST HOF post-season player of all-time...just look up his playoff numbers), and a Rodgers who was arguably the WORST shooting PG of all-time.

In that 61-62 post-season, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354. Now, you tell me how they came within an eyelash of beating a GREAT Celtic team that had them beat, man-for-man, right down the roster?

And, as bad as that roster was, Chamberlain then took his 63-64 Warriors to a 48-32 record, and past the Hawks in the WCF's, and then a 4-1 loss against the Celtics, and their NINE HOFers. And, two of those losses came within the waning seconds.

THAT roster was pretty much the same roster that had gone 31-49 the year before, and really only added Nate Thurmond...who played part-time (26 mpg), out of position, and shot .395 from the field. How bad was that roster. In a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, they LOST to a bunch of scrubs that coach Hannum put together in an attempt to see what kind of talent he was going to be working with.

Then, in the very next season, and following a trade a mid-season to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before, Chamberlain put up a supreme effort in the post-season. He took a team that finished 40-40, to a first round romp over the 48-32 Royals, 3-1. Then, with a 30-31 series, he single-handedly carried that team to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team that was at it's peak in it's dynasty years.

Of course, when he did have a talented supporting roster, as in the 66-67 76ers, he led them to a 68-13 record, and a dominating world title, which included a near sweep of the eight-time defending (and 60-21) Celtics. And he followed that up with a pounding of Thurmond in the Finals, in a 4-2 series win.

And that roster would have easily repeated in 67-68 had they not been DECIMATED by injuries (including an ASSORTMENT of injuries to Wilt himself.) As it was, playing the entire series without HOFer Billy Cunningham, and with injuries sustained in game five to BOTH starters, Luke Jackson and Wali Jones, and with Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game three on...they lost a game seven to Boston, by FOUR points.

And for those that claim that Wilt only won one ring with West and Baylor...

West only played well in the post-season in 68-69 and 69-70 (and he was awful in game seven of the Finals that season.) In his last three years with Chamberlain, he missed the entire 70-71 playoffs, was absolutely AWFUL in the '72 post-season (and Wilt STILL led that 69-13 Laker team to a title), and was injured and played poorly in the 72-73 playoffs.

As for Baylor...his 68-69 playoff run has to rank among the WORST EVER by a supposed "great." He shot .385 in the post-season, and had games of 4-14, 2-14, and 8-22 (in game seven) in the seven game Finals. He was somewhat better in the 69-70 playoffs, but he was just a shell by then. He then missed the entire 70-71 playoffs, and "retired" after the ninth game of the 71-72 season.


So, the reality was, Wilt very nearly won SEVERAL more rings, on top of the two that he did win, with poor rosters, or injured rosters, or washed up "great" teammates, and most of all of whom played poorly in their post-seasons with Chamberlain.

I have long maintained that ANY version of Chamberlain, and paired with MAGIC for ten seasons would easily have won as many rings as Kareem did, and probably more. Magic ELEVATED his play in the post-season, unlike the majority of Chamberlain's teammates, and Wilt would have been able to adapt to those rosters just as easily as he did to his 76er and Laker rosters.
jlauber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2012, 04:20 PM   #38
ThaRegul8r
National High School Star
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,142
ThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation here
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
I think the Kobe, Bird thing was not arguing with the rules it was enquiring whether Bird or Kobe were or could be considered GOAT candidates. Bird perhaps was (or people put forward that argument) during his MVP runs, still I'm a collecter of GOAT rankings and not one of them (first one made in the late 80s has called Bird or indeed Kobe GOAT) and I don't know that I've ever conversed with someone who considered either the greatest (though of course there are some Kobe boosters on this forum but not one that doesn't seem to do so from the point of being a huge fan, rather than based on rational analysis).

They aren't deliberately (or out of ignorance) breaking the rules, they are testing the borders of the rules.

I set rules which weren't followed. People who responded to this thread when I originally made it didn't "test the borders of the rules," but followed the ground rules I set.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
Its the equivalent of putting Cowens or Robinson as the PF. What is specifically stated is don't put a top 5 all time center at power forward. These 2 are just outside that group and they were centers, but would technically be allowed.

It is not entirely clear whether the team should be a "plausible" one or not. Very few of the teams could be constructed except in a dream league, insofar as that most have all starters being all-stars. In this context lesser players seem to be guys like Nance, Price, Marion who aren't going to be fifth option on an actually constructed team.

If you're going to go like that, none of these teams could be constructed at all due to the simple fact that they did not all play basketball at the same time, and thus none of them are "plausible."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
Additionally you seem very sensitive about the revival of a thread. Why is it better that the thread gathers metaphorical dust, than getting revisited outside its original context. That the topic is considered worth considertation is a compliment.

It's not a compliment to me when people revive the thread without bothering to read and follow the rules. I'm not interested in the quantity of responses, I'm interested in the quality of responses. Responses which don't go by the rules aren't quality.

And regarding revival of old threads, on some forums this practice (which is called "gravedigging"), will result in the immediate locking of a thread. If a thread hasn't been replied to after a certain period of time, it's because everyone has said all they wanted to say. People have revived threads on this board that were over four years ago. It's ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
Threads go off topic all the time, typically rather rapidly and the OP doesn't get to control it.

I couldn't care less about other threads. If I create a thread, you either follow the rules or don't post. It's that simple. There are no end of threads made here people could post on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
Still it would be easy to create a team that skirts the edges of the rules and give him

Stockton
West
Baylor/Havlicek/Erving
Duncan

And stack the team with top 25 all time players.

Take a look at other responses a year and a half ago:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toizumi
PG: Jason Kidd
SG: Rip Hamilton
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Shawn Marion
C: Wilt Chamberlain

6. Charles Oakley
7. Manu Ginobili
8. Mark Price

Quote:
Originally Posted by PHILA
C: '67 Wilt Chamberlain
F: Horace Grant/Maurice Lucas
F: Paul Pierce
G: Ray Allen (Bucks)
G: Chauncey Billups

Quote:
Originally Posted by hayden695
C-Wilt
PF-Marion
SF-Pippen
SG-West
PG-Fisher

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.O.A.T.
F: Dave DeBusschere - (1969-1973 version)
F: Dennis Rodman (1988-1991 version)
G: Reggie Miller (1997-2000 version)
G: Oscar Robertson (1968-1971 version)

Bench

Sixth Man: Kevin McHale (1983-1986 version)
7th Man: Vinnie Johnson (1988-1991 version)

Reserve Guard: K.C Jones (1963-1966 version)
Reserve Wing: Michael Cooper (1986-1989 version)
Reserve Post: Paul Silas (1976-1979 version)

Quote:
Originally Posted by glidedrxlr22
C. Wilt Chamberlain
PG John Stockton
PF Larry Nance
SF Scottie Pippen
SG Darrell Griffith

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3lademaster
pg Mark Price
sg Michael Cooper
sf Bruce Bowen
pf Robert Horry
c Wilt Chamberlain

bench Dennis Rodman, Theo Ratliff, Steve Kerr, Dell Curry

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaqAttack3234
C- Wilt Chamberlain('67)
F- Charles Oakley
F- Bruce Bowen
G- Reggie Miller
G- Mike Bibby ('02)

6th man- Manu Ginobili
Backup center- '86 Bill Walton
Robert Horry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointguard
Mark Price
Micheal Cooper
Terry Cummings
Danny Manning

Bench
John Starks
Nene
Robert Horry

They all had no problem reading the rules and abiding by them, and intuitively knew what kind of team would be acceptable. You don't see any of these teams stacked with all 25 players, do you?

Stacking a team with all top-25 players requires no thought. I do not advocate not thinking. The point was to specifically tailor a team to complement Chamberlain's strengths, which he could go to war against any other similarly-composed team led by other all-time greats. This was not the only "Design the optimum team around..." thread that I created. But only people who were actually here at the time would know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
CavsFTW had a team with MJ and Russell along with late model Chamberlain. Which irritated OP no end.

It irritated me to no end because I explicitly forbid using MJ or Russell. Which means one of four things: 1) illiteracy, 2) a problem with reading comprehension, 3) the rules were ignored, or 4) the rules weren't read in the first place. People who replied a year and a half ago didn't have this problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
Now in another poster does justify this by saying, it's not prime Chamberlain, and not a player who would be a GOAT candidate (which sort of makes sense but even then it contains 2 GOAT candidates, against OPs suggestions).


No it doesn't make sense, because it goes against the rules. If one can't follow the rules, don't post. That's the problem when Johnny-come-latelys bring back a long done thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
However, I don't greatly like the team. At first I wondered why Wilt (playing the Russell role) would be teamed with Russell, and I think its because its a team built around MJ.

And the topic is "Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain." I specifically said, "The point is to give Wilt the best team for him in which he is the best player." Building the team around MJ goes against the entire point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
I don't think its a slap in the face to Wilt because of course all of these teams (except JLauber's choice of the 67 76ers) couldn't actually be constructed and would easily walk away with titles, he didn't NEED teams this strong to win titles.

Which is a slap in his face. If he didn't NEED teams with all top-25 players, then why on earth would that be the ideal team?



I don't have patience for stupidity or ignorance. Simply reading and following the rules would have avoided the problems the people who resurrected this thread have had. I reiterate, the people who originally posted in this thread didn't have any problem. Which means the problem lies with the people who brought this thread back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
I would never pick Kobe to play with Wilt. That seems like the worst idea possible.

Neither would I. I said to give him optimum teammates who complement his game. Picking Kobe is showing a lack of thought. They would never get along together. Kobe wants to be The Man on his own team, so he gets his own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
I have long maintained that ANY version of Chamberlain, and paired with MAGIC for ten seasons would easily have won as many rings as Kareem did, and probably more.

Neither Wilt NOR Kareem will play with Magic under this scenario. All three will be on separate teams. The whole point of these threads was to level the playing field by putting everyone on equal footing, everyone with a custom-tailored team of players who specifically complement whatever it is they bring to the basketball court.
ThaRegul8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2012, 05:04 PM   #39
Owl
Local High School Star
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,503
Owl is popular on this boardOwl is popular on this boardOwl is popular on this boardOwl is popular on this board
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
I set rules which weren't followed. People who responded to this thread when I originally made it didn't "test the borders of the rules," but followed the ground rules I set.



If you're going to go like that, none of these teams could be constructed at all due to the simple fact that they did not all play basketball at the same time, and thus none of them are "plausible."



It's not a compliment to me when people revive the thread without bothering to read and follow the rules. I'm not interested in the quantity of responses, I'm interested in the quality of responses. Responses which don't go by the rules aren't quality.

And regarding revival of old threads, on some forums this practice (which is called "gravedigging"), will result in the immediate locking of a thread. If a thread hasn't been replied to after a certain period of time, it's because everyone has said all they wanted to say. People have revived threads on this board that were over four years ago. It's ridiculous.



I couldn't care less about other threads. If I create a thread, you either follow the rules or don't post. It's that simple. There are no end of threads made here people could post on.



Take a look at other responses a year and a half ago:

















They all had no problem reading the rules and abiding by them, and intuitively knew what kind of team would be acceptable. You don't see any of these teams stacked with all 25 players, do you?

Stacking a team with all top-25 players requires no thought. I do not advocate not thinking. The point was to specifically tailor a team to complement Chamberlain's strengths, which he could go to war against any other similarly-composed team led by other all-time greats. This was not the only "Design the optimum team around..." thread that I created. But only people who were actually here at the time would know that.



It irritated me to no end because I explicitly forbid using MJ or Russell. Which means one of four things: 1) illiteracy, 2) a problem with reading comprehension, 3) the rules were ignored, or 4) the rules weren't read in the first place. People who replied a year and a half ago didn't have this problem.



No it doesn't make sense, because it goes against the rules. If one can't follow the rules, don't post. That's the problem when Johnny-come-latelys bring back a long done thread.



And the topic is "Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain." I specifically said, "The point is to give Wilt the best team for him in which he is the best player." Building the team around MJ goes against the entire point.



Which is a slap in his face. If he didn't NEED teams with all top-25 players, then why on earth would that be the ideal team?



I don't have patience for stupidity or ignorance. Simply reading and following the rules would have avoided the problems the people who resurrected this thread have had. I reiterate, the people who originally posted in this thread didn't have any problem. Which means the problem lies with the people who brought this thread back.



Neither would I. I said to give him optimum teammates who complement his game. Picking Kobe is showing a lack of thought. They would never get along together. Kobe wants to be The Man on his own team, so he gets his own.



Neither Wilt NOR Kareem will play with Magic under this scenario. All three will be on separate teams. The whole point of these threads was to level the playing field by putting everyone on equal footing, everyone with a custom-tailored team of players who specifically complement whatever it is they bring to the basketball court.
Not every post which quotes you is a personal attack against you.
Of course none of the teams are plausible any sense. That was one of my points. Posters should have known the explicit rules, but not necessarily imlicit ones which would have been clear in the context of the time.

Another specific point of my post was that whilst it doesn't take skill and nuance to stack a team with top 25 guys (hence the team I listed) the opening post doesn't forbid it.

Does it really matter to you that the post was made in a old thread rather than posting a new one with an identical title and near identical content but just different rules. If so might I ask why? No offense intended just curious as to why? Many posters who weren't around at the time who might find it insightful.

I agree with all you said the Jordan-centric team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Which is a slap in his face. If he didn't NEED teams with all top-25 players, then why on earth would that be the ideal team?
Depends on how one defines ideal (or in thread title optimum). The Miami Heat are one of the best teams in the league despite being poorly constructed in terms of complementing one another.

For what its worth if the focus is purely to maximise Chamberlain's potential I'd fill my team with shooters. If it was competing in a normal NBA season I'd do pretty much the same. If it was for competing versus hypothetical "other elite guy" centered teams, then I'd (a) want to know who the other teams had and (b) take the most talented team allowed that fits reasonably well, a la the "top 25 team".

Strategy would change if I picked late (LA) model Chamberlain, but I wouldn't pick him so I won't get into that.
Owl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2012, 05:49 PM   #40
ThaRegul8r
National High School Star
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,142
ThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation here
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
Not every post which quotes you is a personal attack against you.

I'm not personally attacking you, either. You weren't guilty of not following the rules, so nothing that I've said even applies to you. I'm merely addressing the points brought up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
Of course none of the teams are plausible any sense. That was one of my points. Posters should have known the explicit rules, but not necessarily imlicit ones which would have been clear in the context of the time.

Which is actually part of the point. Those who participated in the thread at the time that I made it, clearly understood the rules and followed them. Yet it's the people who brought this thread back after a year and a half who do not. So there was no point in bringing it back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
Another specific point of my post was that whilst it doesn't take skill and nuance to stack a team with top 25 guys (hence the team I listed) the opening post doesn't forbid it.

When I make topics such as these, I'm looking for skill and nuance, something which is lacking in the majority of threads on this board. In fact, the last time I created a thread requiring skill and nuance, only one poster (ShaqAttack3234) was even capable of responding and answering according to the rules that were laid out. No one else had enough basketball knowledge to be able to do so. Which confirmed what I already knew about most of the posters on these boards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
Does it really matter to you that the post was made in a old thread rather than posting a new one with an identical title and near identical content but just different rules.

Yes, it does. This is my thread. If one is not willing to follow the rules I laid out, then one is free to make one's own thread and make the rules whatever one wishes them to be. I will not go into someone else's topic and dictate to them what their rules should be. If you're the thread starter, then the rules are what you make them. If I am incapable of or unwilling to follow them, I will simply exercise my right not to post in it. Likewise, I do not expect people to come into my thread and dictate to me what my rules should be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
If so might I ask why? No offense intended just curious as to why? Many posters who weren't around at the time who might find it insightful.

See above. It's common courtesy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
Depends on how one defines ideal (or in thread title optimum). The Miami Heat are one of the best teams in the league despite being poorly constructed in terms of complementing one another.

"Ideal" was already defined:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Much has been said about Wilt's teammates, so the point of this exercise is to give Wilt Chamberlain the optimum teammates who will complement his game and give him absolutely everything he needs to compete with the greats.

I specifically said the point was to give him teammates who would complement his game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Think about how these players' games will complement Wilt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
The point is to give Wilt a team that would enable him to compete against a Russell-led team, a Kareem-led team, a Shaq-led team, and Hakeem-led team with everyone on equal footing, each with teammates that complement their unique games chosen from everyone ever.

I'm failing to see how there's any ambiguity when I spelled it out. You can't create a poorly constructed team in terms of complementing Wilt and be following the point. So, yes, it would be best for one to create one's own thread and leave mine alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
For what its worth if the focus is purely to maximise Chamberlain's potential I'd fill my team with shooters. If it was competing in a normal NBA season I'd do pretty much the same. If it was for competing versus hypothetical "other elite guy" centered teams, then I'd (a) want to know who the other teams had and (b) take the most talented team allowed that fits reasonably well, a la the "top 25 team".

Strategy would change if I picked late (LA) model Chamberlain, but I wouldn't pick him so I won't get into that.

Which Chamberlain one picks is completely up to each poster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Since there have been several different versions of Wilt, specify which period of time you're choosing for Wilt

I said in the OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
The point is to give Wilt a team that would enable him to compete against a Russell-led team, a Kareem-led team, a Shaq-led team, and Hakeem-led team with everyone on equal footing, each with teammates that complement their unique games chosen from everyone ever.

If one knows the strengths of the player who is the subject of the particular "Design the optimum team around...," I don't see why it would be difficult to do so. And as I said, this was not the only "Design the optimum team around..." thread that I created. The original intent was to make a thread for everyone, then come up when a team for everyone and then pit them against each other to see which one comes out on top. Since everyone would have a team custom-built to their individual strengths, it would eliminate excuses about teammates. Hence what I said about "giving him absolutely everything he needs to compete." Everyone would be on equal footing, since everyone would have the ideal team for them. But people lost interest before it could be completed.
ThaRegul8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2012, 05:55 PM   #41
28renyoy
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,824
28renyoy has one of the lowest reputations on this board28renyoy has one of the lowest reputations on this board28renyoy has one of the lowest reputations on this board28renyoy has one of the lowest reputations on this board28renyoy has one of the lowest reputations on this board28renyoy has one of the lowest reputations on this board28renyoy has one of the lowest reputations on this board
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

PG-Magic
SG-West
SF-Durant
PF-Duncan
C-Chamberlain

I don't think you can do much better than this.
28renyoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 10:37 AM   #42
La Frescobaldi
I brick nerf balls
 
La Frescobaldi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,809
La Frescobaldi has a terrific reputationLa Frescobaldi has a terrific reputationLa Frescobaldi has a terrific reputationLa Frescobaldi has a terrific reputationLa Frescobaldi has a terrific reputationLa Frescobaldi has a terrific reputation
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
I was puzzled when I received notification that there was a new reply in a thread I created over a year and a half ago. I don't know how old threads get new replies from people who weren't even around when it was originally going on and thus shouldn't even know of its existence.

Then I read the responses and see that not only has the thread been resurrected after a year and a half has passed since the last response, but people couldn't even be bothered to follow instructions that I, the OP, clearly laid out.

LMAO sorry I really did resurrect this thread because I thought it was an original, witty idea...... but this response is truly funny.

**********************************************
1. So ok, I understand now.... build an optimal team, but don't make it optimal......
*******************************

2. You say we can't use a GOAT contender but then you don't give out a list of GOAT contenders. Then you bash my team because I don't think Kobe Bryant is a GOAT contender - which I don't think he is - but apparently you think he is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
1) Do not add another fellow competitor for the title of G.O.A.T.

It was the very first rule I laid out. I remember the "Larry Bird is the GOAT" talk in the '80s, so there should have been no need to ask the question if one had read the OP. The very fact this question was asked shows that one didn't read the OP.

I remember what Larry Bird said about that, too:

"When the topic of all-time greatest player was once raised, a fellow named Larry Bird didn't hesitate. "Let me tell you something," Bird said. "For a while, they were saying that I was the greatest. And before me, it was Magic who was the greatest. And then it's Michael's turn. But open up the record book and it will be obvious who the greatest is." "


But - who gets to decide? Apparently you get to decide.... ok, I would be good with that idea too... but then you don't post a list or bother to tell anyone........ it's starting to feel like a Kafka novel or an Alexander Solzhenitsyn tale of the Gulag.

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

3. You say I can't use MVP winners but the very first team on the thread has Steve Nash & Tim Duncan on it and you didn't mind at all

So I figure that MVP rule can get bent, since you let that guy's team in........ but NOPE!! mine can't!!

I gotta tell you, I got a real belly laugh from that

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

I really did mean this "resurrection" as a compliment to you, OP, hoping that some of the newer posters on ISH would catch the spirit of the thread because it really is an interesting idea.

Oh well it's all good brother

Last edited by La Frescobaldi : 04-28-2012 at 10:40 AM.
La Frescobaldi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 03:34 PM   #43
ThaRegul8r
National High School Star
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,142
ThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation hereThaRegul8r has a near all-star reputation here
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
I was puzzled when I received notification that there was a new reply in a thread I created over a year and a half ago. I don't know how old threads get new replies from people who weren't even around when it was originally going on and thus shouldn't even know of its existence.

Then I read the responses and see that not only has the thread been resurrected after a year and a half has passed since the last response, but people couldn't even be bothered to follow instructions that I, the OP, clearly laid out.

LMAO sorry I really did resurrect this thread because I thought it was an original, witty idea...... but this response is truly funny.

Likewise, your failure to comprehend simple English is equally funny. Since you got a "belly laugh," I will now mock your comprehension failure as examples present themselves. And you brought this on yourself, so I don't want to hear about any hurt feelings afterwards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
**********************************************
1. So ok, I understand now.... build an optimal team, but don't make it optimal......
*******************************

2. You say we can't use a GOAT contender but then you don't give out a list of GOAT contenders.

If people are too stupid or utterly lacking in historical basketball knowledge that they don't know who the contenders for GOAT have been, then they're people I don't want participating in my thread. Plain and simple. I only want intelligent posters making intelligent responses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
Then you bash my team because I don't think Kobe Bryant is a GOAT contender - which I don't think he is - but apparently you think he is?

Reading comprehension failure example #1:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
is Kobe DQ because he is in the GOAT argument? I say no, so here he is

You say no?

Funny, I could've sworn this was my thread, and that I clearly outlined the rules at the beginning.

My response was to your attempting to dictate what the rules were ("I say no"). I didn't mention Kobe at all in that reply. I was prefacing my next comment, which was about Bird:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
F same question about Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
1) Do not add another fellow competitor for the title of G.O.A.T.

In case you still don't get it, after you said, "I say no," I said, "Funny, I could've sworn this was my thread, and that I clearly outlined the rules at the beginning," and then quoted your selection of Larry Bird and then gave one of the rules I outlined at the beginning, which I referred to above in prefacing what I was going to say next.

So...




Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
I remember what Larry Bird said about that, too:

"When the topic of all-time greatest player was once raised, a fellow named Larry Bird didn't hesitate. "Let me tell you something," Bird said. "For a while, they were saying that I was the greatest. And before me, it was Magic who was the greatest. And then it's Michael's turn. But open up the record book and it will be obvious who the greatest is." "

I know what Bird said. There is no information you have that I don't. Nothing you can "school" me on. Bird himself never said he was GOAT. Even when all the "Bird is GOAT" talk was going on, he said Wilt and Russell were better than he was. That doesn't change the fact that Bird is one of the players in NBA history who was a candidate for GOAT and thus ineligible. Matt Guokas, who played with the Philadelphia 76ers from 1966-67 to 1967-68, was one of the people who voted Bird the best ever in February of 1986:

Quote:
“ ‘His approach to the game is almost unparalleled,’ said Guokas, who voted for Bird. ‘He will cut your heart out to win. He has the ability to handle the ball, shoot and rebound. He can pass and make everybody on the floor better’ ”

Whether I agree or not is irrelevant, but the fact remains that he was a GOAT candidate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
But - who gets to decide? Apparently you get to decide.... ok, I would be good with that idea too... but then you don't post a list or bother to tell anyone........ it's starting to feel like a Kafka novel or an Alexander Solzhenitsyn tale of the Gulag.

I didn't decide the GOAT candidates. They are who they are. My lone voice had nothing to do with it. If you know anything about basketball, you know who they are and shouldn't need a list. If you don't and do, then you're not my target audience.

(According to you, people are largely unintelligent and thus need to be guided by those who know more than they do, because they're incapable of using their own brains.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
3. You say I can't use MVP winners but the very first team on the thread has Steve Nash & Tim Duncan on it and you didn't mind at all

So I figure that MVP rule can get bent, since you let that guy's team in........ but NOPE!! mine can't!!

Reading comprehension failure #2:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
G Sam Jones - most clutch player in NBA history, great defense, high bbiq
G is Kobe DQ because he is in the GOAT argument? I say no, so here he is
F same question about Larry Bird
F Dan Issel - terrific power, fast, great rebounder and scorer
Bench: Logo, LeBron James, Magic Johnson, Havlicek
P.S. I don't know that my starters are necessarily better than my bench guys

First of all, let's take a look at the OP. One should never make a post in a topic without having first read the OP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Choose no more than two other players who have been MVP at some point in their careers. Since "Big Threes" are all the vogue, the maximum is three players (including Wilt) who have ever been MVP at any point in their careers. (If someone said the optimal lineup is one where every other starter has been an MVP before, then that's ridiculous. Who couldn't win with that?)

Yet I count two players in the starting lineup and two more off the bench.

I said this in the original reply, but you missed it with the regrettable comprehension problem. So let me spell it out.

The issue wasn't having MVPs on the team. The issue was that I clearly stated to include no more than two other players who have ever won MVP in their career, which comes to three total including Wilt, yet you added four other players who have won MVP in their career not including Wilt (twice the allowable limit), which comes to five total.

Let's take a look at that very first post you mentioned;

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRoseOwnsACamry
PG: Steve Nash
SG: Reggie Miller
SF: Ron Artest
PF: Tim Duncan
C: Wilt Chamberlain

Bench:
Tony Parker
Shawn Kemp
Carlos Boozer
Steve Francis

Looks like two other MVP winners aside from Wilt, which falls within the guidelines I specified. How many do you count? So once again...



Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
I gotta tell you, I got a real belly laugh from that

And I got a laugh from someone who's clearly in the wrong and tries to rationalize his failure to abide by the rules, yet utterly fails when the post he referenced followed the rules and so ends up making himself look completely stupid.



And one final laugh:

There were ten responses listing teams before yours, and not a single one had a problem following the rules. YOU were the only one who had a problem following instructions at the time you posted. THE ONLY ONE.



Quote:
Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
I really did mean this "resurrection" as a compliment to you, OP, hoping that some of the newer posters on ISH would catch the spirit of the thread because it really is an interesting idea.

My life is not so empty and meaningless that I need to come to internet message boards to receive compliments from random, anonymous people. My life isn't changed whether people compliment me or not. That's not what I post for. But if you truly meant to "compliment" me, then you should have read the OP and followed my rules instead of disregarding them ("I say no," "I figure that MVP rule can get bent"), and then attempting to argue with me when I'm the guy who started the thread in the first place.



This was "an interesting idea" because normally people don't exercise any thought when making teams, they just assemble as many great players as they can, even making relegating superstars and all-time greats to the bench, without any regard to how they fit together or complement each other. In which case you could substitute any one player for another and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

People were supposed to exercise their brains and think about who to choose and how they would best complement the centerpiece player and explain how they saw the team working, to show that they actually gave some thought to it. Making a team of, for instance, Wilt, Malone, Bird, Jordan, Magic, as people typically do, requires zero thought whatsoever, and takes about three seconds to come up with. And in that case, Wilt wouldn't even matter, because you could substitute him with any one of his historical rivals and the team isn't going to suffer any.

But in the future, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from replying to any topic that I create. If you see any old topics of mine which haven't had a new reply in over six months, let it be. Thank you.
ThaRegul8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 06:27 PM   #44
La Frescobaldi
I brick nerf balls
 
La Frescobaldi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,809
La Frescobaldi has a terrific reputationLa Frescobaldi has a terrific reputationLa Frescobaldi has a terrific reputationLa Frescobaldi has a terrific reputationLa Frescobaldi has a terrific reputationLa Frescobaldi has a terrific reputation
Default Re: Design the optimum team around Wilt Chamberlain

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Likewise, your failure to comprehend simple English is equally funny. Since you got a "belly laugh," I will now mock your comprehension failure as examples present themselves. And you brought this on yourself, so I don't want to hear about any hurt feelings afterwards.



If people are too stupid or utterly lacking in historical basketball knowledge that they don't know who the contenders for GOAT have been, then they're people I don't want participating in my thread. Plain and simple. I only want intelligent posters making intelligent responses.



Reading comprehension failure example #1:



My response was to your attempting to dictate what the rules were ("I say no"). I didn't mention Kobe at all in that reply. I was prefacing my next comment, which was about Bird:



In case you still don't get it, after you said, "I say no," I said, "Funny, I could've sworn this was my thread, and that I clearly outlined the rules at the beginning," and then quoted your selection of Larry Bird and then gave one of the rules I outlined at the beginning, which I referred to above in prefacing what I was going to say next.

So...






I know what Bird said. There is no information you have that I don't. Nothing you can "school" me on. Bird himself never said he was GOAT. Even when all the "Bird is GOAT" talk was going on, he said Wilt and Russell were better than he was. That doesn't change the fact that Bird is one of the players in NBA history who was a candidate for GOAT and thus ineligible. Matt Guokas, who played with the Philadelphia 76ers from 1966-67 to 1967-68, was one of the people who voted Bird the best ever in February of 1986:



Whether I agree or not is irrelevant, but the fact remains that he was a GOAT candidate.



I didn't decide the GOAT candidates. They are who they are. My lone voice had nothing to do with it. If you know anything about basketball, you know who they are and shouldn't need a list. If you don't and do, then you're not my target audience.

(According to you, people are largely unintelligent and thus need to be guided by those who know more than they do, because they're incapable of using their own brains.)



Reading comprehension failure #2:



I said this in the original reply, but you missed it with the regrettable comprehension problem. So let me spell it out.

The issue wasn't having MVPs on the team. The issue was that I clearly stated to include no more than two other players who have ever won MVP in their career, which comes to three total including Wilt, yet you added four other players who have won MVP in their career not including Wilt (twice the allowable limit), which comes to five total.

Let's take a look at that very first post you mentioned;



Looks like two other MVP winners aside from Wilt, which falls within the guidelines I specified. How many do you count? So once again...





And I got a laugh from someone who's clearly in the wrong and tries to rationalize his failure to abide by the rules, yet utterly fails when the post he referenced followed the rules and so ends up making himself look completely stupid.



And one final laugh:

There were ten responses listing teams before yours, and not a single one had a problem following the rules. YOU were the only one who had a problem following instructions at the time you posted. THE ONLY ONE.





My life is not so empty and meaningless that I need to come to internet message boards to receive compliments from random, anonymous people. My life isn't changed whether people compliment me or not. That's not what I post for. But if you truly meant to "compliment" me, then you should have read the OP and followed my rules instead of disregarding them ("I say no," "I figure that MVP rule can get bent"), and then attempting to argue with me when I'm the guy who started the thread in the first place.



This was "an interesting idea" because normally people don't exercise any thought when making teams, they just assemble as many great players as they can, even making relegating superstars and all-time greats to the bench, without any regard to how they fit together or complement each other. In which case you could substitute any one player for another and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

People were supposed to exercise their brains and think about who to choose and how they would best complement the centerpiece player and explain how they saw the team working, to show that they actually gave some thought to it. Making a team of, for instance, Wilt, Malone, Bird, Jordan, Magic, as people typically do, requires zero thought whatsoever, and takes about three seconds to come up with. And in that case, Wilt wouldn't even matter, because you could substitute him with any one of his historical rivals and the team isn't going to suffer any.

But in the future, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from replying to any topic that I create. If you see any old topics of mine which haven't had a new reply in over six months, let it be. Thank you.

My, you are an arrogant one aren't you; you claim to know everything I do!!

Best of luck in all your endeavours, whatever they may be; and may your shadow never wither.
La Frescobaldi is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:26 AM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy