Printable View
[QUOTE=dankok8]We agree on Game 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.
In Game 1 though, Russell got the better of Chamberlain at least according to recaps.
[/QUOTE]
I am not agree - find this article in which West crediting Wilt with "frezeing Russell":
[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19690425&id=VktSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yXsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7208,2742452"]http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19690425&id=VktSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yXsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7208,2742452[/URL]
And Lakers coach after the game:
[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]
[QUOTE=dankok8][B]My point exactly... Using cumulative stats is misleading[/B]. 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]
I don't think this is the point being made though. It's more, you can't pick and choose your evidence.
Can I decide that Walt Wesley, Tony Delk, Willie Burton and Tracy Murray had career 50ppg averages once I remove games that I deem irrelevent. Is there any justification for saying, "Well that game isn't significant, I'll ignore it"?
[QUOTE=dankok8]Outplaying someone in the first half when the game is decided means a lot. [B] 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[/B]... when the moment was big Russell usually got the better of Wilt. Looking at boxscores you wouldn't know that.[/QUOTE]
So lets get this straight, your contention is that Russell consistently allowed Chamberlain get bring dead games back into contention because he knew "he could stop him when he NEEDED TO"?
Is there any contemporary evidence to suggest anything like this ever happened?
[QUOTE=julizaver]I am not agree - find this article in which West crediting Wilt with "frezeing Russell":
[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19690425&id=VktSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yXsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7208,2742452"]http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19690425&id=VktSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yXsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7208,2742452[/URL]
And Lakers coach after the game:
“I’m sure Wilt must have intimidated some of their shooters,” commented Laker Coach Bill Van Breda Kolff of the 7-foot-2 Chamberlain, who’s playing his first season in Los Angeles.[/QUOTE]
Here's yet another newspaper recap and it calls the Wilt-Russell battle in Game 1 a "stand-off". Honestly it seems pretty close either way.
After Game 4, this was posted:
[QUOTE][B]As expected, the two giants, player-coach Bill Russell of Boston and Wilt Chamberlain, have nullified each other.[/B] Statistics for four games show Chamberlain with a slight edge. The 7-foot-2 veteran has 43 points and 99 rebounds to 42 points and 95 rebounds for his 35-year-old arch rival.
The big men as far as scoring is concerned have been West, the talented 6-foot-3 guard, and the Celtics John Havlicek, the tireless forward-guard. West is averaging 39.5 points in the four encounters including a career playoff high of 53 points while Havlicek has a 33.7 averaged with 43 points in one game for a personal playoff best. [/QUOTE]
Anyways I think I would say:
Game 1 - Draw
Game 2 - Russell
Game 3 - Wilt
Game 4 - Draw
Game 5 - Wilt
Game 6 - Russell
Game 7 - Wilt
[QUOTE=Owl]
So lets get this straight, your contention is that Russell consistently allowed Chamberlain get bring dead games back into contention because he knew "he could stop him when he NEEDED TO"?
Is there any contemporary evidence to suggest anything like this ever happened?[/QUOTE]
No, my contention is that Wilt often put up meaningless stats in garbage time. That kind of comes with playing every minute of every game as well and we have strong indication of stat-padding in the game recaps.
[QUOTE=dankok8]No, my contention is that Wilt often put up meaningless stats in garbage time. That kind of comes with playing every minute of every game as well and we have strong indication of stat-padding in the game recaps.[/QUOTE]
Whilst Russell (and Robertson other 60s stars) always kept a tight limit on his minutes?
And feel free to post those recaps.
[QUOTE=dankok8]Here's yet another newspaper recap and it calls the Wilt-Russell battle in Game 1 a "stand-off". Honestly it seems pretty close either way.
After Game 4, this was posted:
Anyways I think I would say:
Game 1 - Draw
Game 2 - Russell
Game 3 - Wilt
Game 4 - Draw
Game 5 - Wilt
Game 6 - Russell
Game 7 - Wilt[/QUOTE]
I could agree with that - so [B]we have 3:2 edge for Wilt in '69 series[/B].
Unfortunately we could have created another thread and discussed it there.
But that's the way with Thurmond - to be overshadowed by Russell, Wilt and Kareem, even W.Reed received more recognition than him (due to two NBA titles).
Sadly he had a hell lot of injuries - it seems that they robbed him a bit of his prime. Just by memory (reading articles) - even in his first two seasons after Wilt departure from Warriors he had issues with his back, he started 66-67 relatively healthy but again he was injured, and again in the next three years when he was supposed to hit his prime he suffered multiple injuries (knees, wrist, muscle injuries and so on). He missed 90 games (roughly estimated) between 1966 and 1970. Also missed the '68 playoffs. Maybe some injuries could be due to his style of play, always giving all - chasing everything.
He was highly appreciated by his colleagues, earning respect from all of them, but was quickly forgotten by the public.
He really beat Kareem in the 3 meetings during Kareem's rookie season - and the Warriors won 2 of them. In their first meeting Kareem was 42 min (7-20 FGs, 2-3 FTs), for [B]16 pts., 5 rebs and 2 asts[/B].
[QUOTE=dankok8]
[QUOTE]Game 4
In Game 4, Russell had 18 points and 30 rebounds to Chamberlain’s 15 points and 33 rebounds in “a virtual standoff,” and Boston won 114-108 in overtime to take a 3-1 lead. Boston led 28-26 after one, but Philadelphia scored 13 straight points early in the second quarter to take a 54-49 lead at the half. They led 76-70 in the third quarter. Trailing 96-89, Havlicek scored, and Sam Jones was credited with a basket after a goaltend by Chamberlain. Luke Jackson hit a pair of free throws, and Satch Sanders scored from eight feet for Boston. Bill Russell scored on an offensive rebound, and Sam Jones hit a jumper to put Boston up for the first time in the second half, 99-98. Hal Greer gave the 76ers the lead with a breakaway basket, but K.C. Jones tied the score at 100 on a pair of free throws with 39 seconds left. “With the score deadlocked 100-100, Boston’s Bill Russell and Philadelphia’s Wilt Chamberlain matched brilliant defensive plays” (Gettysburg Times, Apr. 11, 1966). Russell blocked a layup by Luke Jackson with 12 seconds left, then on the other end, Chamberlain blocked a dunk by Russell with one second left to send the game into overtime. In overtime, the Celtics controlled the tip, Russell slapping it to Havlicek, who scored on an eight-footer and put Boston up to stay. Russell scored on another offensive rebound, then Dave Gambee made a free throw. Sam Jones hit a 10-footer and Larry Siegfried hit a free throw to give Boston a decisive lead. Russell out-rebounded Chamberlain 19-13 in the second half. John Havlicek led Boston with 27 points, Sam Jones had 22, Larry Siegfried had 18, and K.C. Jones, “a surprise starter after having an ailing knee heavily taped,” had 19 (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Apr. 11, 1966).
Wilt: 15/33/3 (7/14, 1/4)
Russell: 18/30/7 (7/15, 4/10)[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Interesting....this is the ONE game in that series in which Russell wasn't badly outplayed ...and YOUR recap gives them a "virtual standoff"...
And then PHILA's newpaper recap of the SAME game declares that Wilt nearly beat Boston by himself.
The ONE game in that series that Russell wasn't just abused by Chamberlain.
[QUOTE=dankok8]No, my contention is that Wilt often put up meaningless stats in garbage time. That kind of comes with playing every minute of every game as well and we have strong indication of stat-padding in the game recaps.[/QUOTE]
How about Chamberlain's 62-63 season then?
And yes, I know what you are going to say..."Wilt was definitely a "stats-padder" that season, his team only went 31-49."
BUT, Chamberlain played 47.6 mpg that season, and with perhaps the worst roster ever assembled (Hannum was horrified when these veterans, sans Wilt, couldn't even beat some rookies and retreads in a scrimmage the very next season)...
They lost 35 games by single digits. They only had eight games in which the margin was 20+ (and they went 4-4 in those.) And they only had a -2.1 scoring differential.
And how about their H2H's with Boston that season? Here again, a Wilt-basher would say, "look, Russell led Boston to an 8-1 record against Wilt's team." All but three of those nine games were decided by single digits, one of which was won by San Francisco, and none of them involved substantial leads going into the 4th quarter.
Here was Russell and his EIGHT other HOFers, struggling to beat a Chamberlain who had NO HOF help. In fact, take Wilt and Russell out of the equation, and man-for-man Boston was not only better...but MUCH better. And all Chamberlain did in those nine H2H's was outscore Russell by a 38-14 ppg margin, and, as always, he outrebounded him.
THAT Chamberlain would LEAD the league in 15 of their 22 statistical categories, including PER (and all-time record), and Win Shares (by a country mile at 20.9, and on a team that won 31 games.) And had the league recorded TRB%, offensive and defensive rebounds; and blocked shots, and there was a good chance that Wilt would have led in those, as well.
Of course, the Wilt-detractors will never mention that in his 65-66 season, Chamberlain again led in 13 of 23 categories, and was top-5 in four more. And, he also led them to the BEST RECORD in the league, as well. In fact, he is the only player in NBA history to lead the NBA in scoring, rebounding, and FG% in the same season (which he did three times BTW) as well as taking that team to the best record in the league.
What changed? Wilt played exactly the same way...ALL OUT...but far different results. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, his TEAMMATES had something to with that.
And HONESTLY ask yourself this...swap Wilt with Russell in '63, and who wins a ring? In fact, HONESTLY ask this...swap Wilt with Russell from '60 thru '66, and how many rings do they each win?
Had Wilt not been injured in retaliation to the brutality he was receiving in the '60 EDF's, which clearly cost his team two games, and in a series in which Boston won 4-2, with a two point game six win...and how does that series go? Even with his outmatched roster.
In '62, again, with a roster, the core of which was the same last place team that Wilt inherited in his rookie season, only older and worse...and collectively shooting .354 in that post-season...Chamberlain single-handedly carried them to a game seven, two point loss against a HOF-laden Celtic team that went 60-20.
In '64, and outgunned 8-2 in HOFers (and BTW, Wilt's lone HOF teammate was a rookie, playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395), he still pummelled Russell in the Finals. And while Boston won that series, 4-1, the last two games were decided in the waning seconds.
In '65, Chamberlain was traded at mid-season to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before (for THREE players BTW), and led them to a 40-40 record. In the first round of the playoffs, Wilt guided his team to a 3-1 series romp over a STACKED 48-32 Royals team. Then, in the EDF's, and against a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty, he nearly pulled off perhaps the greatest upset in NBA history, when he single-handedly carried that team to a game seven, one point loss....in a series in which just destroyed Russell with a 30 ppg, 31 rpg, .555 FG% performance.
Tell me again...who wins those rings?
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]How about Chamberlain's 62-63 season then?
And yes, I know what you are going to say..."Wilt was definitely a "stats-padder" that season, his team only went 31-49."
BUT, Chamberlain played 47.6 mpg that season, and with perhaps the worst roster ever assembled (Hannum was horrified when these veterans, sans Wilt, couldn't even beat some rookies and retreads in a scrimmage the very next season)...
They lost 35 games by single digits. They only had eight games in which the margin was 20+ (and they went 4-4 in those.) And they only had a -2.1 scoring differential.
And how about their H2H's with Boston that season? Here again, a Wilt-basher would say, "look, Russell led Boston to an 8-1 record against Wilt's team." All but three of those nine games were decided by single digits, one of which was won by San Francisco, and none of them involved substantial leads going into the 4th quarter.
Here was Russell and his EIGHT other HOFers, struggling to beat a Chamberlain who had NO HOF help. In fact, take Wilt and Russell out of the equation, and man-for-man Boston was not only better...but MUCH better. And all Chamberlain did in those nine H2H's was outscore Russell by a 38-14 ppg margin, and, as always, he outrebounded him.
THAT Chamberlain would LEAD the league in 15 of their 22 statistical categories, including PER (and all-time record), and Win Shares (by a country mile at 20.9, and on a team that won 31 games.) And had the league recorded TRB%, offensive and defensive rebounds; and blocked shots, and there was a good chance that Wilt would have led in those, as well.
Of course, the Wilt-detractors will never mention that in his 65-66 season, Chamberlain again led in 13 of 23 categories, and was top-5 in four more. And, he also led them to the BEST RECORD in the league, as well. In fact, he is the only player in NBA history to lead the NBA in scoring, rebounding, and FG% in the same season (which he did three times BTW) as well as taking that team to the best record in the league.
What changed? Wilt played exactly the same way...ALL OUT...but far different results. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, his TEAMMATES had something to with that.
And HONESTLY ask yourself this...swap Wilt with Russell in '63, and who wins a ring? In fact, HONESTLY ask this...swap Wilt with Russell from '60 thru '66, and how many rings do they each win?
Had Wilt not been injured in retaliation to the brutality he was receiving in the '60 EDF's, which clearly cost his team two games, and in a series in which Boston won 4-2, with a two point game six win...and how does that series go? Even with his outmatched roster.
In '62, again, with a roster, the core of which was the same last place team that Wilt inherited in his rookie season, only older and worse...and collectively shooting .354 in that post-season...Chamberlain single-handedly carried them to a game seven, two point loss against a HOF-laden Celtic team that went 60-20.
In '64, and outgunned 8-2 in HOFers (and BTW, Wilt's lone HOF teammate was a rookie, playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395), he still pummelled Russell in the Finals. And while Boston won that series, 4-1, the last two games were decided in the waning seconds.
In '65, Chamberlain was traded at mid-season to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before (for THREE players BTW), and led them to a 40-40 record. In the first round of the playoffs, Wilt guided his team to a 3-1 series romp over a STACKED 48-32 Royals team. Then, in the EDF's, and against a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty, he nearly pulled off perhaps the greatest upset in NBA history, when he single-handedly carried that team to a game seven, one point loss....in a series in which just destroyed Russell with a 30 ppg, 31 rpg, .555 FG% performance.
Tell me again...who wins those rings?[/QUOTE]
In '61 playoffs Wilt's 46-win Warriors were swept by a 38-win Nats team in the first round.
According to papers Wilt played "uninspired basketball" in the 62-63 season. I'm not gonna say those were empty stats but he wasn't particularly impactful. That much is clear when your team wins just 31 games.
In 64-65 the poor guy had heart problems so I'll cut him some slack but his Warrior team was still a woeful 10-28 before he got traded.
[QUOTE=dankok8]In '61 playoffs Wilt's 46-win Warriors were swept by a 38-win Nats team in the first round.
According to papers Wilt played "uninspired basketball" in the 62-63 season. I'm not gonna say those were empty stats but he wasn't particularly impactful. That much is clear when your team wins just 31 games.
In 64-65 the poor guy had heart problems so I'll cut him some slack but his Warrior team was still a woeful 10-28 before he got traded.[/QUOTE]
In the '61 playoffs, Chamberlain averaged 37 ppg, 23 rpg, and shot .467 in a post-season NBA that shot .403. BTW, how did Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shoot in that series? Yep... .332.
Uninspired basketball is what Kareem brought to the 75-76 Lakers. His numbers declined dramatically from his "front-running" days with the early 70's Bucks. If Chamberlain could only finish seventh in the MVP voting in '63, how in the hell did KAJ win the award in '76 (and McAdoo was clearly more deserving)? In any case, when a lowly Laker team needed Kareem to put up "Wilt-type" numbers, he folded his tent.
In the 64-65 season, Wilt was traded mid-season to a 34-46 Sixer team that had not made the playoffs the year before. He SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried that 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss to a HOF-laden 62-18 Celtic team at their apex...and blew Russell away in the process.
Interesting too, that Chamberlain's second best player on his 63-64 Warrior team was Tom Meschery, who averaged 13 ppg. And that 64-65 Warrior team went 7-36 without Wilt (and with Nate filling in.) In any case, in 65-66 they essentially moved Thurmond to Wilt's slot, where he would become a HOFer, and added rookie Rick Barry. The result... 35-45. Here were TWO HOFers essentially replacing one, and still not equalling Wilt's dominance in '64.
But it gets even better. The Warriors then add Jeff Mullins, Fred Hetzel, Jim King, and Clyde Lee to their 66-67 roster. Meschery would go on to average 11 ppg in that '67 season, too...and was SF's SEVENTH best player. Hell, Thurmond had an 18-20 season, and Rick Barry put up the highest fulltime "non-Wilt" scoring season in the Chamberlain era, with a 35.6 ppg season. With that LOADED roster, and in an expansion season... a 44-37! With all of the talent that 66-67 Warrior roster had, they could not even equal Chamberlain's one-man wrecking crew season of 48-32 in 63-64.
Of course, Chamberlain would lead the Sixers to the best record in the NBA in his three full seasons there, and a dominating world title. Oh, and they easily dispatched the Warriors in the Finals, too.
[QUOTE=julizaver]I could agree with that - so [B]we have 3:2 edge for Wilt in '69 series[/B].
Unfortunately we could have created another thread and discussed it there.
But that's the way with Thurmond - to be overshadowed by Russell, Wilt and Kareem, even W.Reed received more recognition than him (due to two NBA titles).
Sadly he had a hell lot of injuries - it seems that they robbed him a bit of his prime. Just by memory (reading articles) - even in his first two seasons after Wilt departure from Warriors he had issues with his back, he started 66-67 relatively healthy but again he was injured, and again in the next three years when he was supposed to hit his prime he suffered multiple injuries (knees, wrist, muscle injuries and so on). He missed 90 games (roughly estimated) between 1966 and 1970. Also missed the '68 playoffs. Maybe some injuries could be due to his style of play, always giving all - chasing everything.
He was highly appreciated by his colleagues, earning respect from all of them, but was quickly forgotten by the public.
[B]He really beat Kareem in the 3 meetings during Kareem's rookie season - and the Warriors won 2 of them. In their first meeting Kareem was 42 min (7-20 FGs, 2-3 FTs), for [B]16 pts., 5 rebs and 2 asts[/B][/B].[/QUOTE]
From 69-70 thru his last good season, 72-73, Thurmond DRAMATICALLY reduced KAJ's scoring and efficiency.
Think about this.. from the 69-70 season, thru the 72-73 season, KAJ averaged 31.4 ppg on .556 against the entire NBA. In the span of 34 total H2H's (regular season and playoffs) with Nate, he averaged about 24 ppg on .440 shooting...with a high game of 34 points (and only five of 30+.)
And in those 16 playoff H2H games... 24.3 ppg on .442 shooting, with only TWO 30+ point games, and a high of 33 points. A PEAK KAJ against an aging Nate.
Actually Kareem from 69-70 to 73-74 averaged 24.9 ppg, 13.9 rpg, and 3.8 apg on 47.8% shooting against Nate in the regular season. In the playoffs 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8% shooting. He struggled offensively but he also held Nate to 18.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.8 apg on 40.4% shooting in the postseason.
Starting from 67-68 season Wilt was almost always either outplayed by Nate or at least played to a draw. From 64-65 to 66-67 he had some good games (and also many games where he struggled... we have the full numbers) but Nate was young then and not nearly at his best as you claim. Thurmond's peak was from '69 to '73 both offensively and defensively.
[QUOTE]1964-1965 (3 games)
Wilt averaged 26.7 ppg on exactly 50% shooting. He had individual games of 34 points on 63% shooting, 24 points on 33% shooting, and 22 points on 53% shooting. Wilt won 1-0 in the rebounding battle where we have the numbers.
1965-1966 (9 games)
Wilt averaged 28.6 ppg in his H2H's against Nate. He had a game of 45 points on 53% shooting and another of 38, 33 and 30 points but he also had games of 26, 25 (on 36% shooting), 23, 22, and even 15 points. It's likely he shot below 50%.
In 6 games where we have Nate's rebounds, the battle on the boards was 4-2 Wilt.
1966-1967 (6 games)
Wilt averaged 20.8 ppg with just one game of 30 points (albeit a triple double with 26 rebounds and 13 assists!). In 3 games that we have FG% Wilt shot a cumulative 51.1%. He shot 68.3% for the season.
In 5 games where we Nate's rebounds, 2-2 and the the fifth game was tied.
1967 Finals (6 games)
Wilt averaged 17.7 ppg on 56.0% shooting but just 30.6% from the line. Nate outrebounded Wilt in just one game but he was close throughout. Wilt took it by a paper-thin 28.5 to 26.6 rpg margin over the whole series.
1967-1968 (4 games)
Nate completely outplayed Chamberlain in what was Wilt's MVP season.
In four games Wilt averaged 13.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, and 7.0 apg on 37.9% shooting. A far cry from his season average of 24.3 ppg on 59.5% shooting. Nate averaged 15.0 ppg and 26.8 rpg as the Warriors won the season series 3-1. The rebounding battle was 2-2 but Nate won one game by a 33-17 margin!
1968-1969 (6 games)
Wilt averaged 13.7 ppg and 23.7 rpg on 54.7% shooting. The rebounding battle was 3-3. Nate averaged 17.3 ppg and 23.8 rpg.
1969 WD Round 1 (6 games)
Wilt averaged 12.0 ppg and 23.5 rpg on 50.0% shooting. The rebounding battle was 4-2 for Wilt. Nate averaged 16.7 ppg and 19.5 rpg.
1970-1971 (6 games)
Wilt averaged 10.2 ppg and 18.0 rpg on 55.3% shooting. The rebounding battle was 3-2 Thurmond with one tie. Thurmond averaged 22.7 ppg and 17.3 rpg against Chamberlain as well.
1971-1972 (6 games)
Wilt averaged 6.8 ppg and 18.0 rpg on 67.8% shooting. The rebounding battle was 3-2 Wilt with one tie. Nate averaged 18.3 ppg and 16.7 rpg.
1972-1973 (7 games)
Wilt averaged 5.3 ppg and 16.6 rpg on 68.4% shooting. Thurmond won the rebounding battles 7-0 and averaged 12.6 ppg and 21.6 rpg.
1973 WCF (5 games)
Wilt averaged 7.0 ppg and 23.6 rpg on 61.1% shooting. Wilt won the rebounding battle 3-2. Nate averaged 15.8 ppg and 17.2 rpg.
Overall out of their 47 regular season H2H's:
- Nate outscored Wilt 26 times, Wilt outscored Nate 20 times, and one game was a tie
- for the 41 games we have Nate's rebounds he won the battle 21 times, lost 17 times, and three games were a tie :bow:
- Nate held Wilt far below his averages; you can look up every single season and in most cases he was 6-7 ppg and 5+% below his averages
Overall out of their 17 playoff H2H's:
- each man outscored the other 8 times and one game was a tie
- Wilt won the rebounding battle 12 times and Nate won 5 times but the margins were thin
- Wilt's scoring volume and efficiency were drastically reduced
- Nate shot a very poor FG% against Wilt around 37% overall in their H2H's [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=dankok8]Actually Kareem from 69-70 to 73-74 averaged 24.9 ppg, 13.9 rpg, and 3.8 apg on 47.8% shooting against Nate in the regular season. In the playoffs 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8% shooting. He struggled offensively but he also held Nate to 18.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.8 apg on 40.4% shooting in the postseason.
Starting from 67-68 season Wilt was almost always either outplayed by Nate or at least played to a draw. From 64-65 to 66-67 he had some good games (and also many games where he struggled... we have the full numbers) but Nate was young then and not nearly at his best as you claim. Thurmond's peak was from '69 to '73 both offensively and defensively.[/QUOTE]
Nate peak was from 1966-67 season, he finished second behind Wilt for MVP race.
[QUOTE=julizaver]Nate peak was from 1966-67 season, he finished second behind Wilt for MVP race.[/QUOTE]
66-67 was his first prime season but his MVP finish has more to do with a down year from the Celtics and Lakers. In subsequent years Nate became a better player. He had more defensive impact (DWS and team defense) as well as significantly better scoring with superior efficiency and improved passing. In '67 Nate was just 25 years old playing his 2nd year as a full-time center. I bet his jumper improved and he got a lot of invaluable experience under his belt as well.
[QUOTE=julizaver]I could agree with that - so [B]we have 3:2 edge for Wilt in '69 series[/B].
Unfortunately we could have created another thread and discussed it there.
But [B]that's the way with Thurmond - to be overshadowed by Russell, Wilt and Kareem, even W.Reed received more recognition than him (due to two NBA titles). [/B]
Sadly he had a hell lot of injuries - it seems that they robbed him a bit of his prime. Just by memory (reading articles) - even in his first two seasons after Wilt departure from Warriors he had issues with his back, he started 66-67 relatively healthy but again he was injured, and again in the next three years when he was supposed to hit his prime he suffered multiple injuries (knees, wrist, muscle injuries and so on). He missed 90 games (roughly estimated) between 1966 and 1970. Also missed the '68 playoffs. Maybe some injuries could be due to his style of play, always giving all - chasing everything.
He was highly appreciated by his colleagues, earning respect from all of them, but was quickly forgotten by the public.
He really beat Kareem in the 3 meetings during Kareem's rookie season - and the Warriors won 2 of them. In their first meeting Kareem was 42 min (7-20 FGs, 2-3 FTs), for [B]16 pts., 5 rebs and 2 asts[/B].[/QUOTE]
Not just the two rings about Willis Reed though.
[img]http://www.joelkimmel.com/uploaded_images/1970-761951.jpg[/img]
Dude played in a huge media bubble, especially in the 1960s. Unlike today... when anybody with cable tv can watch just about any game they want, and even more with league pass, internet, etc..... back then even local tv might not cover games. National tv wasn't going to be happening at all except for the Sunday afternoon Celtics - Sixers matchups. San Francisco was remote, isolated from the East Coast by an entire continent in days when 2 lane interstate highways were not just a novelty, they were [I]amazing[/I] feats of engineering. It was [I][B]the Jet Age[/B][/I], you follow?
Still, Reed was an incredible presence on the court, with a game style for a center that was almost unique in history. He was incredibly strong with a powerful core that couldn't be moved at all. It was like trying to move an oak tree. His passing was better than Nate's and that's saying a lot. When Reed was on fire he could just ignite the entire arena with excitement.
Of course too, his teammates were immeasurably better than Frisco, which only made Captain Reed shine all the brighter.