-
Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
As I promised:
[U]Game 1 17.04.1973 - Lakers win 101-99 [/U]
Wilt 44 min 4 pts (2-5 FG, 0-0 FT), 25 rebs, 2 asts, 8 blks
Nate 48 min 22 pts (8-21 FG, 6-7 FT), 26 rebs, 5 asts
[U]Game 2 19.04.1973 - Lakers win 104-93 [/U]
Wilt 48 min 5 pts (1-3 FG, 3-4 FT), 30 rebs, 4 asts, 7* blks
Nate 47 min 16 pts (8-20 FG, 0-0 FT), 14 rebs, 6 asts
[U]Game 3 21.04.1973 - Lakers win 126-70 [/U]
Wilt 39 min 12 pts (2-2 FG, 8-10 FT), 23 rebs, 3 asts, 8 blks
Nate 37 min 9 pts (3-13 FG, 3-4 FT), 13 rebs, 2 asts
[U]Game 4 23.04.1973 - Warriors win 117-109 [/U]
Wilt 48 min 9 pts (4-6 FG, 1-1 FT), 16 rebs, 3 asts
Nate 47 min 23 pts (10-20 FG, 3-3 FT), 18 rebs, 3 asts
[U]Game 5 25.04.1973 - Lakers win 128-118 [/U]
Wilt 46 min 5 pts (2-2 FG, 1-3 FT), 22 rebs, 7 asts, 6 blks
Nate 32 min 9 pts (2-9 FG, 5-7 FT), 15 rebs, 5 asts
*Estimation based on known information about Wilt blocked 23 shots in first 3 meetings with Warriors.
Series averages:
Wilt 45.0 mpg 7 ppg (on 0.611 FG, 0.722 FT), 23.6 rpg, 3.8 apg
Nate 42.2 mpg 15.8 ppg (on 0.373 FG, 0.810 FT), 17.2 rpg, 4.2 apg
Unofficial stats:
Wilt with 29 blocked shots in 4 known games.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=julizaver]As I promised:
[U]Game 1 17.04.1973 - Lakers win 101-99 [/U]
Wilt 44 min 4 pts (2-5 FG, 0-0 FT), 25 rebs, 2 asts, 8 blks
Nate 48 min 22 pts (8-21 FG, 6-7 FT), 26 rebs, 5 asts
[U]Game 2 19.04.1973 - Lakers win 104-93 [/U]
Wilt 48 min 5 pts (1-3 FG, 3-4 FT), 30 rebs, 4 asts, 5* blks
Nate 47 min 16 pts (8-20 FG, 0-0 FT), 14 rebs, 6 asts
[U]Game 3 21.04.1973 - Lakers win 126-70 [/U]
Wilt 39 min 12 pts (2-2 FG, 8-10 FT), 23 rebs, 3 asts, 8 blks
Nate 37 min 9 pts (3-13 FG, 3-4 FT), 13 rebs, 2 asts
[U]Game 4 23.04.1973 - Warriors win 117-109 [/U]
Wilt 48 min 9 pts (4-6 FG, 1-1 FT), 16 rebs, 3 asts
Nate 47 min 23 pts (10-20 FG, 3-3 FT), 18 rebs, 3 asts
[U]Game 5 25.04.1973 - Lakers win 128-118 [/U]
Wilt 46 min 5 pts (2-2 FG, 1-3 FT), 22 rebs, 7 asts, 6 blks
Nate 32 min 9 pts (2-9 FG, 5-7 FT), 15 rebs, 5 asts
*My estimation based on komwn information about Wilt blocked 70 shots in first 10 games (49 against Bulls and 21 in first 3 meetings with Warriors)
Series averages:
Wilt 45.0 mpg 7 ppg (on 0.611 FG, 0.722 FT), 23.6 rpg, 3.8 apg
Nate 42.2 mpg 15.8 ppg (on 0.373 FG, 0.810 FT), 17.2 rpg, 4.2 apg
Unofficial stats:
Wilt with 27 blocked shots in 4 known games.[/QUOTE]
Of course it is not "official" but I was actually at game three in that series, and I had Wilt with 11 blocks.
I will never forget...at halftime they had dogs catching frisbees (pretty amazing stuff), and then at the start of the second half, the Lakers went on a tear in the first couple of minutes, and essentailly blew the game wide open. After a quick timeout, a Warrior fan sitting behind me stood up, and yelled, "Bring back the frisbee show!"
As for the series...Wilt outshot Nate from the floor, .611 to .373. And during the regular season, and in their six H2H's, Chamberlain outshot Kareem, .737 to .450. Granted, Chamberlain was not taking many shots, but still, in one H2H game with Kareem that season, he outscored him, 24-21, while outshooting him, 10-14 to 10-27. Oh, and in the first round of the playoffs, Nate and the Warriors shocked the 60-22 Bucks, 4-2, in a series in which Thurmond held KAJ to .428 shooting.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Of course it is not "official" but I was actually at game three in that series, and I had Wilt with 11 blocks.
I will never forget...at halftime they had dogs catching frisbees (pretty amazing stuff), and then at the start of the second half, the Lakers went on a tear in the first couple of minutes, and essentailly blew the game wide open. After a quick timeout, a Warrior fan sitting behind me stood up, and yelled, "Bring back the frisbee show!"
As for the series...Wilt outshot Nate from the floor, .611 to .373. And during the regular season, and in their six H2H's, Chamberlain outshot Kareem, .737 to .450. Granted, Chamberlain was not taking many shots, but still, in one H2H game with Kareem that season, he outscored him, 24-21, while outshooting him, 10-14 to 10-27. Oh, and in the first round of the playoffs, Nate and the Warriors shocked the 60-22 Bucks, 4-2, in a series in which Thurmond held KAJ to .428 shooting.[/QUOTE]
:roll:
Wilt average 7ppg playing 45 minutes, who cares what % he shot? That's Kendrick Perkins type production, but against shorter, less athletic competition and with LA market hype making the refs gift him FTs and foul benefits
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE]*My estimation based on komwn information about Wilt blocked 70 shots in first 10 games (49 against Bulls and 21 in first 3 meetings with Warriors)[/QUOTE]
I didn't keep sources, but I had Wilt at 23 blocked shots in these 3 games (8+7+8). Also, I have noted that he had "many" blocks in game 4 and 6 in game 5.
To go one step beyond, I have also seen at least one sourse credit him with 7 blocks in Game 1 of the 1973 Finals, 7 in Game 3 and he had 1 or 2 in Game 5. So, this would give him 92-95 blocked shots in 14 out of his 17 playoff games that postseason.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=Psileas]I didn't keep sources, but I had Wilt at 23 blocked shots in these 3 games (8+7+8). Also, I have noted that he had "many" blocks in game 4 and 6 in game 5.
To go one step beyond, I have also seen at least one sourse credit him with 7 blocks in Game 1 of the 1973 Finals, 7 in Game 3 and he had 1 or 2 in Game 5. So, this would give him 92-95 blocked shots in 14 out of his 17 playoff games that postseason.[/QUOTE]
I checked again for these 3 games and you are right about 23 blocked shots after first three games. I have such info also in my notes. Also found another source about Wilt blocking nearly "two dozen shots" in those 3 games.
My initial estimation was based on article about Wilt averaging 7 bpg in first 10 games (calculate it at 70) so I will correct accordingly.
I also have Wilt with 7+7 games in the Finals.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
Wilt was a good player, very good. Just wasn't the great player Mikan once was.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Of course it is not "official" but I was actually at game three in that series, and I had Wilt with 11 blocks.
I will never forget...at halftime they had dogs catching frisbees (pretty amazing stuff), and then at the start of the second half, the Lakers went on a tear in the first couple of minutes, and essentailly blew the game wide open. After a quick timeout, a Warrior fan sitting behind me stood up, and yelled, "Bring back the frisbee show!"
As for the series...Wilt outshot Nate from the floor, .611 to .373. And during the regular season, and in their six H2H's, Chamberlain outshot Kareem, .737 to .450. Granted, Chamberlain was not taking many shots, but still, in one H2H game with Kareem that season, he outscored him, 24-21, while outshooting him, 10-14 to 10-27. Oh, and in the first round of the playoffs, Nate and the Warriors shocked the 60-22 Bucks, 4-2, in a series in which Thurmond held KAJ to .428 shooting.[/QUOTE]
There is a correlation between number of shots taken and FG% you know. Wilt took 18 shots in the series while Nate took 83. It's foolish to take the FG% difference at face value when one guy took over 4 times as many shots.
In the 72-73 season series against Kareem (where he outshot him .737 to .450) Wilt took a total of 38 shots compared to 180 for Kareem. Anyways why don't you also post what happened in the other 5 games they played that season?
In the '72 WCF (where Kareem outshot Wilt 45.7% to 45.2% BTW) Wilt took a total of 42 shots while Kareem took 197.
It's ridiculously stupid to compare FG% of players taking vastly different numbers of shots.
Congrats to the OP for another informative thread! :bowdown:
From the stats and the recaps I've read it seems Nate definitely got the better of Wilt in Game 1 and 4. Chamberlain did outplay him in the other 3 games though which is quite impressive considering his age.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=dankok8]There is a correlation between number of shots taken and FG% you know. Wilt took 18 shots in the series while Nate took 83. It's foolish to take the FG% difference at face value when one guy took over 4 times as many shots.
In the 72-73 season series against Kareem (where he outshot him .737 to .450) Wilt took a total of 38 shots compared to 180 for Kareem. Anyways why don't you also post what happened in the other 5 games they played that season?
In the '72 WCF (where Kareem outshot Wilt 45.7% to 45.2% BTW) Wilt took a total of 42 shots while Kareem took 197.
It's ridiculously stupid to compare FG% of players taking vastly different numbers of shots.
Congrats to the OP for another informative thread! :bowdown:
From the stats and the recaps I've read it seems Nate definitely got the better of Wilt in Game 1 and 4. Chamberlain did outplay him in the other 3 games though which is quite impressive considering his age.[/QUOTE]
I agree with some of this...but your point about KAJ outshooting Chamberlain in the '72 WCF's is also mis-leading. Kareem shot .457 in that series, which was not much more than the regular season NBA at .455 (and way below Kareem's .574 regular season FG%.) Furthermore, he couldn't hit a shot for his life in the last four games of that series, only going .414...and was HURTING his team. Wilt missed a total of 20 shots in that series, so his .452 was basically meaningless.
At a certain point, it all boils down to this...who is the worse shooter, the guy who shoots 1-4, or the guy who shoots 10-30?
As for the rest of the Wilt-Nate and Wilt-KAJ post-season H2H's, Chamberlain was considerably more efficient from the field, a much better rebounder, a much better shot-blocker, and a better team defender, as well. And once again, he reduced KAJ and Nate to just horrible shooting.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=Miller for 3]:roll:
Wilt average 7ppg playing 45 minutes, who cares what % he shot? That's Kendrick Perkins type production, but against shorter, less athletic competition and with LA market hype making the refs gift him FTs and foul benefits[/QUOTE]
lulz
Chamberlain seldom took any shots at all by that time, virtually all of his scoring was putbacks. He was a purely defensive C by then, not even 4th option. You'd know that if you knew anything about '70s NBA.
Competition? This exact thread is talking about his competition, 6'11 Nate Thurmond & 7'3 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - both supremely better players than any and every center in today's NBA.
:lol
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]lulz
Chamberlain seldom took any shots at all by that time, virtually all of his scoring was putbacks. He was a purely defensive C by then, not even 4th option. You'd know that if you knew anything about '70s NBA.
Competition? This exact thread is talking about his competition, 6'11 Nate Thurmond & 7'3 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - both supremely better players than any and every center in today's NBA.
:lol[/QUOTE]
And a prime Chamberlain dominated Thurmond FAR more than a prime KAJ did, too.
How about this...(and thanks to Julizaver BTW)...
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=291462[/url]
And I have read others who used KAJ and Nate H2H's after that '73 season. But Thurmond was already in a rapid state of decline in that 73-74 season (a huge dropoff from 72-73), and was basically on the bench after that.
Meanwhile, a "scoring" Wilt just pummelled Thurmond at BOTH ends of the floor in their H2H's, and even into Wilt's 66-67 season (in which he dramatically cut back his scoring)...and in which Wilt had as many 30+ games in their first 12, as KAJ did against Nate in some 40-50 H2Hs. And, Chamberlain was waxing Nate by margins of 38-15 and 45-13 in two of those games. A prime KAJ never approached those numbers, nor that domination.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
@La Frescobaldi
Why did you waste time responding to that troll? That's just what they want, so that they can derail quality historical threads such as this with their puerile agendas. Just ignore them as the previous posters did.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=jlip]@La Frescobaldi
Why did you waste time responding to that troll? That's just what they want, so that they can derail quality historical threads such as this with their puerile agendas. Just ignore them as the previous posters did.[/QUOTE]
A lot of people actually believe that tripe.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]I agree with some of this...but your point about KAJ outshooting Chamberlain in the '72 WCF's is also mis-leading. Kareem shot .457 in that series, which was not much more than the regular season NBA at .455 (and way below Kareem's .574 regular season FG%.) Furthermore, he couldn't hit a shot for his life in the last four games of that series, only going .414...and was HURTING his team. Wilt missed a total of 20 shots in that series, so his .452 was basically meaningless.
At a certain point, it all boils down to this...who is the worse shooter, the guy who shoots 1-4, or the guy who shoots 10-30?
As for the rest of the Wilt-Nate and Wilt-KAJ post-season H2H's, Chamberlain was considerably more efficient from the field, a much better rebounder, a much better shot-blocker, and a better team defender, as well. And once again, he reduced KAJ and Nate to just horrible shooting.[/QUOTE]
They guy with 1-4 (25%) is worse... imagine what he would shoot if he took 30 shots?
Truth is both teams in the '72 WCF shot an atrocious % that Kareem's 45.7% mark was actually pretty good. See below.
Anyways here is what Wilt himself said on the outcome of the series... [B]"We weren't out there to beat Kareem (Jabbar). He had a fantastic series, but we just did things as a team." [/B]
And it's true... McMillian scored a career-high 42 points to save Game 2 which LA won by 1 point. If Bucks went up 2-0 it would probably be over and yet Jim is never praised for one of the greatest performances by a role player ever!
Then West who struggled all series long took over the 4th quarter of Game 6 alongside Wilt.
Here are the overall stats for the '72 WCF series:
Bucks - 43.8% shooting, 59.7 rebounds per game, 22.0 FTA's per game
Lakers - 40.5% shooting, 55.7 rebounds per game, 36.5 FTA's per game
The free throw disparity seems enormous and in fact articles mention that Bucks coach Larry Costello was complaining about the officiating a lot.
Notice the low shooting % also...
I'm willing to bet that the Bucks also lost this series because with Oscar injured and back-up guards as well (McGlocklin and Jones) their ball-handling was horrific. Their turnovers were probably through the roof.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=dankok8]They guy with 1-4 (25%) is worse... imagine what he would shoot if he took 30 shots?
Truth is both teams in the '72 WCF shot an atrocious % that Kareem's 45.7% mark was actually pretty good. See below.
Anyways here is what Wilt himself said on the outcome of the series... [B]"We weren't out there to beat Kareem (Jabbar). He had a fantastic series, but we just did things as a team." [/B]
And it's true... McMillian scored a career-high 42 points to save Game 2 which LA won by 1 point. If Bucks went up 2-0 it would probably be over and yet Jim is never praised for one of the greatest performances by a role player ever!
Then West who struggled all series long took over the 4th quarter of Game 6 alongside Wilt.
Here are the overall stats for the '72 WCF series:
Bucks - 43.8% shooting, 59.7 rebounds per game, 22.0 FTA's per game
Lakers - 40.5% shooting, 55.7 rebounds per game, 36.5 FTA's per game
The free throw disparity seems enormous and in fact articles mention that Bucks coach Larry Costello was complaining about the officiating a lot.
Notice the low shooting % also...
I'm willing to bet that the Bucks also lost this series because with Oscar injured and back-up guards as well (McGlocklin and Jones) their ball-handling was horrific. Their turnovers were probably through the roof.[/QUOTE]
KAJ shot .414 in the last four games of that series, three of them Laker wins, including two in Milwaukee (and a blowout win in LA in game five.)
If KAJ outplayed Wilt in that series, it was by a small margin. And once again, this was a PEAK Kareem, and an old Wilt (playing on a surgically repaired knee.)
It's too bad we didn't get to see a PEAK Chamberlain going H2H with a peak Kareem.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Of course it is not "official" but I was actually at game three in that series, and I had Wilt with 11 blocks.
[/QUOTE]
Haha, this shit is hilarious!
You're the same guy who couldn't even "remember" how good Wilt was until it popped up videos of him on Youtube.
It's laughable that you 41 years after the game was played claim that you remember that you counted Wilt with 11 blocks.
By that time you where like 15 years old, don't talk out of your ass.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE]They guy with 1-4 (25%) is worse... imagine what he would shoot if he took 30 shots? [/QUOTE]
Eh, I'd be willing to bet, quite a bit better than 25%, but yes, a guy who shots 10-30 obviously hurts his team offensively a lot more than someone who shoots 1-4. The first number looks a bad night of Kobe, the second, a Bruce Bowen night. Put these two lines in the same game, whose team is more likely to have suffered offensively?
Not to mention that his not very physical style of offensive play against a player who rarely fouled anyway must have played some role in the FT differential. How do you average like 33 FGA's and only 5 FTA's per game, with a high of 7?
[QUOTE]Truth is both teams in the '72 WCF shot an atrocious % that Kareem's 45.7% mark was actually pretty good. See below. [/QUOTE]
Kareem shot (I guess) around 4 ptc points above his teammates. Obviously it wouldn't be fair to expect him to shoot at the 57% clip he shot in the r.season. But it's still not a good shooting display, the disparity between him and his teammates should have been bigger.
[QUOTE]And it's true... McMillian scored a career-high 42 points to save Game 2 which LA won by 1 point. If Bucks went up 2-0 it would probably be over and yet Jim is never praised for one of the greatest performances by a role player ever! [/QUOTE]
I agree here, but unfortunately role players are never praised anyway. I can't remember a single game of a role player which is considered legendary and is widely remembered. Sleepy Floyd scored 51 on one of the GOAT teams ('87 Lakers) and nobody remembers it. Don Nelson, John Paxson, Steve Kerr, Vinnie Johnson have made title-clinching shots and only Kerr's shot is somewhat widely remembered, because the assist belonged to Jordan.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=Psileas]Eh, I'd be willing to bet, quite a bit better than 25%, but yes, a guy who shots 10-30 obviously hurts his team offensively a lot more than someone who shoots 1-4. The first number looks a bad night of Kobe, the second, a Bruce Bowen night. Put these two lines in the same game, whose team is more likely to have suffered offensively?
Not to mention that his not very physical style of offensive play against a player who rarely fouled anyway must have played some role in the FT differential. How do you average like 33 FGA's and only 5 FTA's per game, with a high of 7?
Kareem shot (I guess) around 4 ptc points above his teammates. Obviously it wouldn't be fair to expect him to shoot at the 57% clip he shot in the r.season. But it's still not a good shooting display, the disparity between him and his teammates should have been bigger.
I agree here, but unfortunately role players are never praised anyway. I can't remember a single game of a role player which is considered legendary and is widely remembered. Sleepy Floyd scored 51 on one of the GOAT teams ('87 Lakers) and nobody remembers it. Don Nelson, John Paxson, Steve Kerr, Vinnie Johnson have made title-clinching shots and only Kerr's shot is somewhat widely remembered, because the assist belonged to Jordan.[/QUOTE]
Of course 20 missed shots hurts a team more than 3 missed shots... What I'm trying to say is if a player is shooting 25% on 4 shots I can't even imagine how terrible that same player would shoot on 30 shots. The more you shoot the worse you shoot. A guy who shoots 1-4 is a [U]worse offensive player[/U] than a guy who shoots 10-30.
Unfortunately you're right about role players. They are unappreciated.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=dankok8][B]Of course 20 missed shots hurts a team more than 3 missed shots... What I'm trying to say is if a player is shooting 25% on 4 shots I can't even imagine how terrible that same player would shoot on 30 shots. The more you shoot the worse you shoot. A guy who shoots 1-4 is a [U]worse offensive player[/U] than a guy who shoots 10-30.[/B]
Unfortunately you're right about role players. They are unappreciated.[/QUOTE]
I'd never claim that a 1972 Wilt was a better offensive player than '72 Kareem.
Having said that, although you're generally correct about FG%'s falling when your FGA's rise, these trends apply better over the course of a whole season and for players who already take a decent number of shots, i.e, not for players who don't get enough chances to get hotter. A player who normally takes 15 FG's is more likely to shoot worse if he gets to 30 FGA's than a player who shoots 5 FG's if he gets to 10 FG's. In other words, I don't think Wilt taking [B]per average some [/B]shots more would necessarily shoot worse.
30 is extreme, 1972 Wilt against young, healthy Kareem wouldn't attempt 30 shots, especially when he's playing for a title contender. But 4 FGA's in 40+ minutes already indicate no intentions to shoot, we don't know under what conditions he took each one and only made 1. They are simply too few to judge, it's like taking a 4-4 FG perfromance and estimate that even at 30 FGA's, he would still be at 60+%.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=dankok8]Of course 20 missed shots hurts a team more than 3 missed shots... What I'm trying to say is if a player is shooting 25% on 4 shots I can't even imagine how terrible that same player would shoot on 30 shots. The more you shoot the worse you shoot. A guy who shoots 1-4 is a [U]worse offensive player[/U] than a guy who shoots 10-30.
Unfortunately you're right about role players. They are unappreciated.[/QUOTE]
That was my point. The player shooting 10-30 IS worse than the player who shoots 1-4. Why? Because the average NBA team shoots between 45-50%. A player missing 20 shots is doing far worse than the player who misses three.
KAJ was HURTING his team in the last four games of the '72 WCF's...plain-and-simple. And to use Wilt's .452 against him was ridiculous. He missed 20 shots in that series, and came up huge in the clinching game six with 20 points on 8-12 shooting. Meanwhile, Kareem missed 107 overall, and again, shot .414 in the last four pivotal games of that series.
Incidently, over the course of their ten H2H's in the 70-71 season (five regular season, and five post-season), a 34 year old Chamberlain, who was a year removed from a major knee injury and major knee surgery, outplayed a PEAK Kareem. And it gets even worse if you include their one H2H meeting before Chamberlain's injury...
In those 11 games...
KAJ averaged 26.1 ppg, 15.6 rpg, 2.5 apg, and shot .450 from the field.
Chamberlain averaged 22.8 ppg, 17.5 rpg, 2.7 apg, and shot .497 from the field. And in the known blocks, Chamberlain held a whopping 51-18 edge.
Again, this from a nowhere near his prime Chamberlain (probably 63-64 thru 66-67) against a near peak/peak KAJ.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=Miller for 3]:roll:
Wilt average 7ppg playing 45 minutes, who cares what % he shot? That's Kendrick Perkins type production, but against shorter, less athletic competition and with LA market hype making the refs gift him FTs and foul benefits[/QUOTE]
Thats when Wilt was obsessed with FG%. He made it his goal to set records in that category. he would rarely ever shoot unless it was a great percentage shot. It was typical Wilt.
Does anyone remember the 2nd to last regular season game in 1973 when the Lakers played the Bucks and home court for the playoffs was on the line? Wilt didn't even take one shot and scored zero points and the Bucks won by one point, which almost cost the Lakers home court advantage. I remember Wilt taking heat about it at the time, and he deserved it. More worried about not missing shots then winning a huge game. Right up there with being obsessed with winning assists title and not fouling out of games. Wilt while being very dominating had many flaws.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=stanlove1111]Thats when Wilt was obsessed with FG%. He made it his goal to set records in that category. he would rarely ever shoot unless it was a great percentage shot. It was typical Wilt.
Does anyone remember the 2nd to last regular season game in 1973 when the Lakers played the Bucks and home court for the playoffs was on the line? Wilt didn't even take one shot and scored zero points and the Bucks won by one point, which almost cost the Lakers home court advantage. I remember Wilt taking heat about it at the time, and he deserved it. More worried about not missing shots then winning a huge game. Right up there with being obsessed with winning assists title and not fouling out of games. Wilt while being very dominating had many flaws.[/QUOTE]
Actually in that Bucks game in which he didn't attempt a shot, while Wilt didn't intentionally try to lose that game, his reasoning was pretty simple. He knew that if his Lakers did win that game, that they would have the best record in the Western Conference, but a loss would put Milwaukee in that spot. Which would mean that whoever won that game, would likely get the Warriors and Thurmond in round one. Which is exactly what happened. And, as he reasoned, Thurmond held KAJ to yet another horrible shooting series (.428), and the 47-35 Warriors stunned the heavily-favored 60-22 Bucks, 4-2. Oh, and then in the WCF's, as evident in the OP, Chamberlain just trashed Thurmond, and he guided his 60-22 Lakers to a blowout series win against the Warriors, 4-1.
As a sidenote...in that game in which Chamberlain did not take a shot against KAJ, he held Kareem to 12-31 shooting (.387).
Nice try Stan...
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Actually in that Bucks game in which he didn't attempt a shot, while Wilt didn't intentionally try to lose that game, his reasoning was pretty simple. He knew that if his Lakers did win that game, that they would have the best record in the Western Conference, but a loss would put Milwaukee in that spot. Which would mean that whoever won that game, would likely get the Warriors and Thurmond in round one. Which is exactly what happened. And, as he reasoned, Thurmond held KAJ to yet another horrible shooting series (.428), and the 47-35 Warriors stunned the heavily-favored 60-22 Bucks, 4-2. Oh, and then in the WCF's, as evident in the OP, Chamberlain just trashed Thurmond, and he guided his 60-22 Lakers to a blowout series win against the Warriors, 4-1.
As a sidenote...in that game in which Chamberlain did not take a shot against KAJ, he held Kareem to 12-31 shooting (.387).
Nice try Stan...[/QUOTE]
Are you joking with this garbage? Chicago had a better record then Warriors and LA barely got by the Bulls. They had to come back late in the 4th quarter, Its not like the Bulls were any safer then the Warriors. And the fact that you ignoring that Wilt might very well be giving away home court to the Bucks if they net makes you post desperate.
Unless you are actually trying to say that Wilt knew the Warriors were going to beat the Bucks..That would be a good one.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=stanlove1111]Are you joking with this garbage? Chicago had a better record then Warriors and LA barely got by the Bulls. They had to come back late in the 4th quarter, Its not like the Bulls were any safer then the Warriors. And the fact that you ignoring that Wilt might very well be giving away home court to the Bucks if they net makes you post desperate.
Unless you are actually trying to say that Wilt knew the Warriors were going to beat the Bucks..That would be a good one.[/QUOTE]
Directly from Wilt himself...
"Wilt: Just Like Any Other Black Millionaire Who Lives Next Door"
Page 292...
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Directly from Wilt himself...
"Wilt: Just Like Any Other Black Millionaire Who Lives Next Door"
Page 292...[/QUOTE]
Wilt said a lot of things. This doesn't even make sense and that should be obvious to you.
Funny in a game 2 days earlier with the Bucks and Lakers fighting for the best record, Wilt scored 20 points. Huh.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=stanlove1111]Wilt said a lot of things. This doesn't even make sense and that should be obvious to you.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Chamberlain did not fear either Milwaukee or the Warriors. But he preferred to not have to battle both Nate and KAJ in the post-season.
And yes, it made perfect sense...and in fact, it worked out perfectly.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
Wasn't Wilt like 38 years old in 1973? their nutrition and training was shit back then. If Wilt could play that long in that era I bet he would have played into his 40's in this era.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=buddha]Wasn't Wilt like 38 years old in 1973? their nutrition and training was shit back then. If Wilt could play that long in that era I bet he would have played into his 40's in this era.[/QUOTE]
Larry Brown recalled a Chamberlain in his mid-40's dominating summer leagues in which Magic Johnson was playing in.
And Wilt was receiving legitimate offers to return to the NBA in his 40's, and even at age 50.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
Interesting thing is in the 72-73 regular season Nate Thurmond met Wilt Chamberlain in 7 games and outrebounded him in all of them!
[QUOTE]Incidently, over the course of their ten H2H's in the 70-71 season (five regular season, and five post-season), a 34 year old Chamberlain, who was a year removed from a major knee injury and major knee surgery, outplayed a PEAK Kareem. And it gets even worse if you include their one H2H meeting before Chamberlain's injury...
In those 11 games...
KAJ averaged 26.1 ppg, 15.6 rpg, 2.5 apg, and shot .450 from the field.
Chamberlain averaged 22.8 ppg, 17.5 rpg, 2.7 apg, and shot .497 from the field. And in the known blocks, Chamberlain held a whopping 51-18 edge. [/QUOTE]
Those numbers are heavily skewed by a single game on 03/03/71 where Kareem played very few minutes and had 15 points and 6 rebounds. Without that game Kareem is at 27.1/16.6/2.6 on 48% shooting.
Anyways you give H2H's too much weight... Kareem played everyone else better than Wilt played them. In 1971, Kareem was a much better player than Wilt.
Bottom line is we'll never know who's better peak vs peak. We can just guess.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=dankok8]Interesting thing is in the 72-73 regular season Nate Thurmond met Wilt Chamberlain in 7 games and outrebounded him in all of them!
Those numbers are heavily skewed by a single game on 03/03/71 where Kareem played very few minutes and had 15 points and 6 rebounds. Without that game Kareem is at 27.1/16.6/2.6 on 48% shooting.
Anyways you give H2H's too much weight... Kareem played everyone else better than Wilt played them. In 1971, Kareem was a much better player than Wilt.
Bottom line is we'll never know who's better peak vs peak. We can just guess.[/QUOTE]
Kareem was never as dominant against his best peers in any of seasons, as a mid-60's Chamberlain was against his. Here again, a peak KAJ was being outplayed by both Wilt and Nate in his 70-71 and 71-72 post-seasons. And McAdoo was outplaying him in many of their H2H's after that, as was Gilmore and Lanier. And, of course, from 78-79 on, Moses just shelled Kareem.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE]Those numbers are heavily skewed by a single game on 03/03/71 where Kareem played very few minutes and had 15 points and 6 rebounds. Without that game Kareem is at 27.1/16.6/2.6 on 48% shooting. [/QUOTE]
So few minutes that he "only" found the time to jack 21 shots (and only make 7 of them)?
Hey, if so, then also remove Wilt's Game 4 of the series vs Kareem, he also played few minutes for his standards. Without that game, Wilt averages 23.8/19.5/2.0 and Kareem 23.5/16.5/4.0.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=Psileas]So few minutes that he "only" found the time to jack 21 shots (and only make 7 of them)?
Hey, if so, then also remove Wilt's Game 4 of the series vs Kareem, he also played few minutes for his standards. Without that game, Wilt averages 23.8/19.5/2.0 and Kareem 23.5/16.5/4.0.[/QUOTE]
KAJ never came close to the FGAs per game, that he put up against Chamberlain in those 28 H2H's against anyone else in his career, either. And, he seldom even shot 50% against Wilt in them either (10 games out of 28, with six below .399.) And while Chamberlain has been accused of being a selfish "shot-jacker", I find it fascinating that in KAJ's biggest scoring games against Chamberlain, his team almost always lost, and the more he scored, the worse his team lost.
But here again, 27 of those 28 H2H games came against a 34-36 year old Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee. Here was a prime/peak Kareem struggling against a well-past his peak Chamberlain. We saw what a peak Kareem could do, but we never witnessed what a peak Chamberlain would have dropped on Kareem.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Kareem was never as dominant against his best peers in any of seasons, as a mid-60's Chamberlain was against his. Here again, a peak KAJ was being outplayed by both Wilt and Nate in his 70-71 and 71-72 post-seasons. And McAdoo was outplaying him in many of their H2H's after that, as was Gilmore and Lanier. And, of course, from 78-79 on, Moses just shelled Kareem.[/QUOTE]
In the '71 postseason Kareem outplayed Nate badly and let's be fair and say his battle against Wilt was a draw.
In the '72 postseason it was pretty much the reverse. It was a draw with Nate and Kareem outplayed Wilt (or at least had a much larger role :cheers: ).
Mid-60's Wilt really didn't kill his competition that much. In 65-66, 28.6 ppg against Thurmond, 28.3 ppg on 52.1 %FG against Russell, and 33.0 ppg against Bellamy/Reed.
Kareem in 71-72... averaged:
44.8/18.0/4.4 on 57.1% against Cowens
40.2/15.0/5.0 on 50.0% against Wilt
35.4/20.0 against Hayes
34.7/16.4 against Lanier
34.2/18.8 against Unseld
32.0/16.2/4.5 on 61.5% against Haywood
31.3/15.3 against Wicks
29.8/17.8 against Bellamy
24.0/16.3/5.3 on 44.1% against Thurmond
We are missing FG% for some games vs. Hayes, Lanier, Unseld, Wicks, and Bellamy but Kareem seems to have shot at around 60% against these guys.
Kareem from 70-71 to 72-73 just shelled Lanier.
Kareem killed McAdoo on the glass and everywhere other than raw scoring volume in their H2H's. In their 10 encounters from 73-74 to 75-76 where we have rebounds Kareem won 10-0. He also outassisted and outshot Bob in pretty much every game we have the numbers as well!
* - indicates one game missing data
73-74 (3 games)
Kareem: 35.0/16.0/4.0 on 58.0 %FG
McAdoo: 30.3/9.3
74-75 (4 games)
Kareem: 32.0/16.5/6.0* on 57.3 %FG*
McAdoo: 34.3/10.0
75-76 (4 games)
Kareem: 25.8/18.5/7.5 on 57.6 %FG
McAdoo: 32.0/12.3
Against Gilmore he sometimes had problems with foul trouble plus many games were blowouts. When he was on the floor though Kareem dominated Artis too. Easily scored 25+ ppg and on 60%+ shooting.
[QUOTE]So few minutes that he "only" found the time to jack 21 shots (and only make 7 of them)?
Hey, if so, then also remove Wilt's Game 4 of the series vs Kareem, he also played few minutes for his standards. Without that game, Wilt averages 23.8/19.5/2.0 and Kareem 23.5/16.5/4.0.[/QUOTE]
My point exactly... Using cumulative stats is misleading. A player with the better line may have just killed the other player in one game and gotten slightly outplayed in all the others.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=dankok8]In the '71 postseason Kareem outplayed Nate badly and let's be fair and say his battle against Wilt was a draw.
In the '72 postseason it was pretty much the reverse. It was a draw with Nate and Kareem outplayed Wilt (or at least had a much larger role :cheers: ).
Mid-60's Wilt really didn't kill his competition that much. In 65-66, 28.6 ppg against Thurmond, 28.3 ppg on 52.1 %FG against Russell, and 33.0 ppg against Bellamy/Reed.
Kareem in 71-72... averaged:
44.8/18.0/4.4 on 57.1% against Cowens
[B]40.2/15.0/5.0 on 50.0% against Wilt[/B]
35.4/20.0 against Hayes
34.7/16.4 against Lanier
34.2/18.8 against Unseld
32.0/16.2/4.5 on 61.5% against Haywood
31.3/15.3 against Wicks
29.8/17.8 against Bellamy
[B]24.0/16.3/5.3 on 44.1% against Thurmond[/B]
We are missing FG% for some games vs. Hayes, Lanier, Unseld, Wicks, and Bellamy but Kareem seems to have shot at around 60% against these guys.
Kareem from 70-71 to 72-73 just shelled Lanier.
Kareem killed McAdoo on the glass and everywhere other than raw scoring volume in their H2H's. In their 10 encounters from 73-74 to 75-76 where we have rebounds Kareem won 10-0. He also outassisted and outshot Bob in pretty much every game we have the numbers as well!
* - indicates one game missing data
73-74 (3 games)
Kareem: 35.0/16.0/4.0 on 58.0 %FG
McAdoo: 30.3/9.3
74-75 (4 games)
Kareem: 32.0/16.5/6.0* on 57.3 %FG*
McAdoo: 34.3/10.0
75-76 (4 games)
Kareem: 25.8/18.5/7.5 on 57.6 %FG
McAdoo: 32.0/12.3
Against Gilmore he sometimes had problems with foul trouble plus many games were blowouts. When he was on the floor though Kareem dominated Artis too. Easily scored 25+ ppg and on 60%+ shooting.
My point exactly... Using cumulative stats is misleading. A player with the better line may have just killed the other player in one game and gotten slightly outplayed in all the others.[/QUOTE]
Chamberlain destroyed Russell in the '66 (and '67) post-season (as well as Thurmond in '67...he outscored him in five of the six games; he outrebounded him in five of the six games; he outassisted him in five of the six games; and he outshot him from the field in all six..and overall, by a staggering .560 to .343 margin.). KAJ was outplayed by Wilt in '71, and outplayed by Thurmond in the '72 post-season.
BTW, you love to point out Kareem's edge in rebounding over McAdoo, but you ignore the fact that Moses probably outrebounded KAJ in about 80% of their H2H's, and in many by just unfathomable margins...as well as outscoring him in the vast majority of their H2Hs (especially in their seven post-season H2H's.)
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
In fact, Chamberlain destroyed his ALL of his peers from '60 thru '67, and was easily more dominant in both '68 and '69 than Russell, Nate, Reed, and Bellamy were in his H2H's with them...including the post-season.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Chamberlain destroyed Russell in the '66 (and '67) post-season (as well as Thurmond in '67...he outscored him in five of the six games; he outrebounded him in five of the six games; he outassisted him in five of the six games; and he outshot him from the field in all six..and overall, by a staggering .560 to .343 margin.). KAJ was outplayed by Wilt in '71, and outplayed by Thurmond in the '72 post-season.
BTW, you love to point out Kareem's edge in rebounding over McAdoo, but you ignore the fact that Moses probably outrebounded KAJ in about 80% of their H2H's, and in many by just unfathomable margins...as well as outscoring him in the vast majority of their H2Hs (especially in their seven post-season H2H's.)[/QUOTE]
Wilt actually had a pretty terrible series against Russell in '66. Averaged a paltry 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting through the first 4 games... Even in his dominant Game 5 he missed 17 free throws in a close game. His Sixers had a better record than the Celtics in the regular season and got killed 4-1.
In Game 2 and Game 4 Russell definitely outplayed him even statistically. Here are the recaps for those two games.
[QUOTE]
[U]1966 EDF[/U]
[B]Game 2[/B]
Boston won Game 2 114-93 “to take an unexpected 2-0 lead in the series.” “Big Bill Russell, John Havlicek and Sam Jones set the early pace before the Celtics began taking turns at heroics in the romp before a sellout crowd of 13,909 at Boston Garden” (Herald Journal, Apr. 7, 1966). Red Auerbach called it “the best game we played all season.” Auerbach said, “it’s nice to look down the bench and see 11 guys. We haven’t had 11 guys all year. But with everyone healthy, the guys know they don’t have to pace themselves. At times this year the guys had to loaf to pace their game” (Lewington Evening Journal, April 7, 1966). Bill Russell had 10 points, a game-high 29 rebounds, and nine assists to Chamberlain’s 23 points and 25 rebounds. “Chamberlain, just Wednesday voted the NBA’s Most Valuable Player by the U.S. Basketball Writers Association, was overshadowed by the play of Boston’s Bill Russell. Chamberlain outscored Russell 23-10 but the Boston captain had 29 rebounds and nine assists,” in addition to “many steals and blocked shots.” The Celtics lead 58-44 at halftime, and Russell left the game with 2
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=dankok8]Wilt actually had a pretty terrible series against Russell in '66. Averaged a paltry 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting through the first 4 games... Even in his dominant Game 5 he missed 17 free throws in a close game. His Sixers had a better record than the Celtics in the regular season and got killed 4-1.
In Game 2 and Game 4 Russell definitely outplayed him even statistically. Here are the recaps for those two games.
His games against Thurmond that year also brought mixed results. He had some strong outings but also some rather weak ones. Even in 64-65 Wilt didn't put up great numbers on Nate.
As for Kareem's series against Wilt and Thurmond, we've beaten it to death in previous threads. I don't want to repeat myself. After all this is a Wilt vs Thurmond topic let's keep the discussion relevant![/QUOTE]
This exactly what irritates me from the Russell-apologists and those that disparage Chamberlain.
Here are a couple of examples of games in which Russell did NOT outplay Chamberlain, but rather, contained him. At best, Russell battled Chamberlain to a draw.
BUT, I can give you game-after-game in their 49 playoff H2H's in which Wilt CRUSHED Russell in every aspect of the game.
And it is not the same as the Wilt-Kareem '72 series, either. When Wilt played well, he WIPED the floor with Russell. Kareem couldn't hit the Grand Canyon from the ledge against Wilt in the last FOUR games of the '72 WCF's. An old Wilt held a PRIME Kareem to .457 in the entire series, in an NBA that shot .455 during the season (and to be fair to Kareem... .439 in the post-season.) Russell never came CLOSE to that kind of a series. He "held" Chamberlain to a .468 series in '62...in a regular season NBA that shot .426...and a post-season NBA that shot .411. My god, Wilt, in his ROOKIE season, had a 30 ppg .500 series against Russell, in a post-season NBA that shot .402 (and was only .395 during the regular season.)
And I would really love to have seen all the players numbers from that '62 series, as well. We do KNOW that Chamberlain's collectively shot .354 in that post-season, while Russell's shot .396. And Russell had THREE player shooting over the league average, while Wilt's best teammate shot .397.
Here again, using the ridiculous recaps from the '62 EDF's, I would read nonsense like Russell shut Wilt down in the first half, and then Wilt put up meaningless stats in the second half. OR, Chamberlain had a huge first half, but when the game was on the line, Russell shut him down. So, in other words, Russell didn't HAVE to play a full game against Chamberlain, for his TEAM to win.
Of course, the best example of that series that I can give was in game two, when Chamberlain outscored Russell 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...in a SEVEN point win. Wilt HAD to produce HUGE numbers for his teams to have a CHANCE at winning.
You want the REAL facts from the 65-66 EDF's, and not some Celtic-homer blathering? Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot...get this... .352 from the field in that series. The reality was, Wilt's Sixers went 6-3 against the Celtics in the regular season, and Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and shot .525 against them in those nine games. In the 65-66 EDF's, Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509. So, what does THAT tell you?
As always, Chamberlain EASILY outplayed Russell in the 65-66 EDF's, just as he did in the regular season. In their 14 H2H games that season, Wilt outscored Russell in 13 of them, many by 20+ points; outrebounded him in 10 of them, some by 20+ rebounds; and outshot him from the field in every known H2H game we have...again, usually by a solid margin.
Incidently, the Sixers were NOT the better team that season. Yes, they edged Boston by one game in the regular season, BUT, take a look at the game's MISSED by Boston's key players that season. The Celtics were CLEARLY a better team. And to be honest, Chamberlain's 66-67 supporting cast was probably not much better, if at all, than Russell's (and Russell's was MUCH deeper.) BUT, at least they finally neutralized Russell's usual HUGE advantage...and the result? A 4-1 blowout epitomized by the clinching game five win, when the Sixers overcame an early 17 point deficit, and by mid-way in the 4th quarter, had built a 27 point lead. And, as ALWAYS, Chamberlain just carpet-bombed Russell in every aspect of the game in that series.
Can you imagine how many more rings Chamberlain would have won had his teammates even played SLIGHTLY better in his post-seasons? At least FOUR!
And with equal talent, playing equally well, and it would have been Wilt with 7 more rings.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE]His games against Thurmond that year also brought mixed results. He had some strong outings but also some rather weak ones. Even in 64-65 Wilt didn't put up great numbers on Nate.
As for Kareem's series against Wilt and Thurmond, we've beaten it to death in previous threads. I don't want to repeat myself. After all this is a Wilt vs Thurmond topic let's keep the discussion relevant![/QUOTE]
Nate outplayed Wilt in ONE game out of their NINE in that 65-66 season. Wilt either easily outplayed him, or downright demolished him in EVERY other H2H that season. He was outscoring him 33-10, 38-15, and 45-13. And it's too bad we only have a couple of their FG% games, because I relatively certain that Nate probably didn't shoot anywhere near 40% against Chamberlain (he almost NEVER did.)
Once again, a mid-60's Wilt (actually a 60-67 Wilt, and evn into 67-68 and 68-69) just slaughtered his peers.
BTW, of the many horrible MVP voting contests that were held in the 60's, just how in the hell did Russell (and even Reed and Unseld) finish ahead of Wilt? I won't go into the Reed or Unseld plasterings that Wilt administered now, but how about this...
Wilt's Lakers had a MUCH better record than Russell's Celtics, 55-27 to 48-34. In their seasonal H2H's, Chamberlain's Lakers held a 4-2 edge, which even included a nationally televised obliteration, in BOSTON, in which LA overwhelmed the Celtics, 108-73. In those six H2H's, Chamberlain outscored Russell in EVERY one of them, including one game by a 35-5 margin. Wilt also held a 5-0-1 margin their rebounding H2H's, which also included one game by a 42-18 margin. And he outshot Russell, from the field, by a .493 to .340 margin. Then there were their seasonal stats. Russell averaged 9.9 ppg, 19.3 rpg, 4.9 apg, and shot .433 from the field. Chamberlain averaged 20.5 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, and shot .583 from the field. Oh, and Jerry West missed 21 games that season, too. So, maybe a Russell apostle can explain that voting to me...
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]This exactly what irritates me from the Russell-apologists and those that disparage Chamberlain.
Here are a couple of examples of games in which Russell did NOT outplay Chamberlain, but rather, contained him. At best, Russell battled Chamberlain to a draw.
BUT, I can give you game-after-game in their 49 playoff H2H's in which Wilt CRUSHED Russell in every aspect of the game.
And it is not the same as the Wilt-Kareem '72 series, either. When Wilt played well, he WIPED the floor with Russell. Kareem couldn't hit the Grand Canyon from the ledge against Wilt in the last FOUR games of the '72 WCF's. An old Wilt held a PRIME Kareem to .457 in the entire series, in an NBA that shot .455 during the season (and to be fair to Kareem... .439 in the post-season.) Russell never came CLOSE to that kind of a series. He "held" Chamberlain to a .468 series in '62...in a regular season NBA that shot .426...and a post-season NBA that shot .411. My god, Wilt, in his ROOKIE season, had a 30 ppg .500 series against Russell, in a post-season NBA that shot .402 (and was only .395 during the regular season.)
And I would really love to have seen all the players numbers from that '62 series, as well. We do KNOW that Chamberlain's collectively shot .354 in that post-season, while Russell's shot .396. And Russell had THREE player shooting over the league average, while Wilt's best teammate shot .397.
Here again, using the ridiculous recaps from the '62 EDF's, I would read nonsense like Russell shut Wilt down in the first half, and then Wilt put up meaningless stats in the second half. OR, Chamberlain had a huge first half, but when the game was on the line, Russell shut him down. So, in other words, Russell didn't HAVE to play a full game against Chamberlain, for his TEAM to win.
Of course, the best example of that series that I can give was in game two, when Chamberlain outscored Russell 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...in a SEVEN point win. Wilt HAD to produce HUGE numbers for his teams to have a CHANCE at winning.
You want the REAL facts from the 65-66 EDF's, and not some Celtic-homer blathering? Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot...get this... .352 from the field in that series. The reality was, Wilt's Sixers went 6-3 against the Celtics in the regular season, and Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and shot .525 against them in those nine games. In the 65-66 EDF's, Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509. So, what does THAT tell you?
As always, Chamberlain EASILY outplayed Russell in the 65-66 EDF's, just as he did in the regular season. In their 14 H2H games that season, Wilt outscored Russell in 13 of them, many by 20+ points; outrebounded him in 10 of them, some by 20+ rebounds; and outshot him from the field in every known H2H game we have...again, usually by a solid margin.
Incidently, the Sixers were NOT the better team that season. Yes, they edged Boston by one game in the regular season, BUT, take a look at the game's MISSED by Boston's key players that season. The Celtics were CLEARLY a better team. And to be honest, Chamberlain's 66-67 supporting cast was probably not much better, if at all, than Russell's (and Russell's was MUCH deeper.) BUT, at least they finally neutralized Russell's usual HUGE advantage...and the result? A 4-1 blowout epitomized by the clinching game five win, when the Sixers overcame an early 17 point deficit, and by mid-way in the 4th quarter, had built a 27 point lead. And, as ALWAYS, Chamberlain just carpet-bombed Russell in every aspect of the game in that series.
Can you imagine how many more rings Chamberlain would have won had his teammates even played SLIGHTLY better in his post-seasons? At least FOUR!
And with equal talent, playing equally well, and it would have been Wilt with 7 more rings.[/QUOTE]
Russell OUTPLAYED Chamberlain in those games... the newspaper recaps say so. Impact goes beyond stats. And don't talk about dominance. Wilt averaged 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting in the first four games in the '66 EDF. That's 10 points and 5% below his season averages.
Sure his teammates dropped the ball but WILT ALSO DROPPED THE BALL. If he didn't have a 46-point Game 5 (where he missed 17 free throws in a close game by the way) to boost his stats that series would be a catastrophic failure for Chamberlain.
AND...
Outplaying someone in the first half when the game is decided means a lot. If Wilt's Warriors are down 25 points and then he scores 20 meaningless points when Russell doesn't defend him who cares? Russell could stop Wilt when he NEEDED TO... when the moment was big Russell usually got the better of Wilt. Looking at boxscores you wouldn't know that.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Nate outplayed Wilt in ONE game out of their NINE in that 65-66 season. Wilt either easily outplayed him, or downright demolished him in EVERY other H2H that season. He was outscoring him 33-10, 38-15, and 45-13. And it's too bad we only have a couple of their FG% games, because I relatively certain that Nate probably didn't shoot anywhere near 40% against Chamberlain (he almost NEVER did.)
Once again, a mid-60's Wilt (actually a 60-67 Wilt, and evn into 67-68 and 68-69) just slaughtered his peers.
BTW, of the many horrible MVP voting contests that were held in the 60's, just how in the hell did Russell (and even Reed and Unseld) finish ahead of Wilt? I won't go into the Reed or Unseld plasterings that Wilt administered now, but how about this...
Wilt's Lakers had a MUCH better record than Russell's Celtics, 55-27 to 48-34. In their seasonal H2H's, Chamberlain's Lakers held a 4-2 edge, which even included a nationally televised obliteration, in BOSTON, in which LA overwhelmed the Celtics, 108-73. In those six H2H's, Chamberlain outscored Russell in EVERY one of them, including one game by a 35-5 margin. Wilt also held a 5-0-1 margin their rebounding H2H's, which also included one game by a 42-18 margin. And he outshot Russell, from the field, by a .493 to .340 margin. Then there were their seasonal stats. Russell averaged 9.9 ppg, 19.3 rpg, 4.9 apg, and shot .433 from the field. Chamberlain averaged 20.5 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, and shot .583 from the field. Oh, and Jerry West missed 21 games that season, too. So, maybe a Russell apostle can explain that voting to me...[/QUOTE]
Thurmond was never a big time scorer. Who cares is Wilt outscores him? Point is Wilt never got near his season averages vs. Nate. 28.6 ppg is nice but it's NOT domination.
Russell outplayed Wilt in the '69 Finals. Game 1, 2, 4, and 6 at least.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF
[QUOTE=dankok8]Thurmond was never a big time scorer. Who cares is Wilt outscores him? Point is Wilt never got near his season averages vs. Nate. 28.6 ppg is nice but it's NOT domination.
Russell outplayed Wilt in the '69 Finals. Game 1, 2, 4, and 6 at least.[/QUOTE]
Thurmond had FIVE seasons of 20+ ppg in his career, and he outplayed Russell in his H2H's (although not even remotely close to what Chamberlain trashed Russell with in his.)
But here again, the Wilt-bashers EXPECTED Chamberlain to dominate at BOTH ends of the floor, and yet give Russell (and Nate) a free pass at their offensive ends, when Chamberlain was routinely holding them to 5-10% under their career FG%'s....all while crushing them offensively, and dominating them on the glass.
As for the PRIME Wilt-Nate H2H's, which included Thurmonds '67 season (by far his greatest)...over the course of 11 straight games, from their last meeting in '65 thru their first meeting in '67 (when Hannum asked his team to get the ball to Wilt in the second half, and Chamberlain overpowered a helpless Nate for 24 second half points)...Wilt averaged 30 ppg. He had more 30+ point games, in those 11, than KAJ did against Thurmond up thru Nate's last decent season (72-73) and in 34 H2H games. And again, KAJ never came close to Wilt's 38 and 45 point plasterings against Nate, nor anyhwere near his efficiency, either. And please don't give me anything after 72-73, when Thurmond declined DRAMATICALLY (and was injured.)