A Prime Shaq vs. Hakeem

[millwad]

In a first round series in which Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, handed out 11 apg, and shot .612. Which included games of 41 points on 19-30 shooting; 37 points on 16-24 shooting; and a 16-30-19 game.

Of course, as I pointed out in another thread, I could find a game in which Wilt outscored Dierking, 59-4, too. And an OLD Chamberlain poured in a 60 point game against him in the 68-69 season.

Don't be mad, I just found it hilarious how you bragged about how Wilt held him down in the first round and then you posted his FG%. And then it backlashed right back at you considering that he had a higher FG%, higher scoring average, higher rebounding average and higher assist average in the series against Wilt by far compared to his other trips to the playoffs and compared to his season average that season.

[DatAsh]

He makes a good point though. I mean we know Wilt's not GOAT since he couldn't even win the title when he was added for a full season to a that won 52 games the year before. And this was coming off of an MVP season, not 18 months off like MJ who hadn't been league MVP for almost three years.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your point here. Coming off an 18 month break is not a good thing for a player's game. I'd even argue that it's not only not a good thing, but it's a very bad thing in almost any sport.

Basketball, and most sports for that matter(especially at that high of a level) is not something you can just take an 18 month break from and expect to return as the same player you were before. It's just not gonna happen.

[KG215]

In a first round series in which Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, handed out 11 apg, and shot .612. Which included games of 41 points on 19-30 shooting; 37 points on 16-24 shooting; and a 16-30-19 game.

Of course, as I pointed out in another thread, I could find a game in which Wilt outscored Dierking, 59-4, too. And an OLD Chamberlain poured in a 60 point game against him in the 68-69 season.

Again, not his point. How hard is that to understand? He's not trying to argue that Dierking outplayed Wilt or played him kinda sorta even.

He's pointing out that, against Chamberlain in the first round Dierking's averages were better than they were in the regular season (by quite a bit if they're correct #'s) and had the best playoff series of his career.

I don't care about other seasons, games, series, etc. I'm strictly talking about that first round series in 1967 where Dierking raised his numbers from teh regular season. That's it, that's my ONLY point.

[jlauber]

Again, not his point. How hard is that to understand? He's not trying to argue that Dierking outplayed Wilt or played him kinda sorta even.

He's pointing out that, against Chamberlain in the first round Dierking's averages were better than they were in the regular season (by quite a bit if they're correct #'s) and had the best playoff series of his career.

I don't care about other seasons, games, series, etc. I'm strictly talking about that first round series in 1967 where Dierking raised his numbers from teh regular season. That's it, that's my ONLY point.

And these are typical "anti-Wilt" trash posts. Here we have someone TRYING to disparage Wilt in a series in which Chamberlain just MURDERED him. ONLY Wilt would take a hit in a playoff series in which he outscored his opposing center by a 28 ppg to 17 ppg; outrebound him, 27 rpg to 14 rpg; outassist him, 11 apg to 4 apg; and outshoot him, .612 to .427.

I have seen some here claim Wilt "choked" in his '65 ECF's against Russell, too. Here was Wilt, taking a 40-40 team, to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team. And all he did in that series was to outscore Russell, per game, 30 ppg to 16 ppg; outrebound Russell, per game, 31 rpg to 25 rpg; and outshoot Russell from the field, .555 to .447. Oh, and BTW, he also outshot Russell from the line, as well, .583 to .472 (and outscored him from the line by a 49-18 margin.)

In fact, you can go right down the line with Wilt's post-seasons. Even in his worst post-season, in '69, he was still outplaying his opposing centers.

And in his best post-seasons, he was destroying his opposing centers, just like he did to Dierking.

[KG215]

And these are typical "anti-Wilt" trash posts. Here we have someone TRYING to disparage Wilt in a series in which Chamberlain just MURDERED him. ONLY Wilt would take a hit in a playoff series in which he outscored his opposing center by a 28 ppg to 17 ppg; outrebound him, 27 rpg to 14 rpg; outassist him, 11 apg to 4 apg; and outshoot him, .612 to .427.

I have seen some here claim Wilt "choked" in his '65 ECF's against Russell, too. Here was Wilt, taking a 40-40 team, to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team. And all he did in that series was to outscore Russell, per game, 30 ppg to 16 ppg; outrebound Russell, per game, 31 rpg to 25 rpg; and outshoot Russell from the field, .555 to .447. Oh, and BTW, he also outshot Russell from the line, as well, .583 to .472 (and outscored him from the line by a 49-18 margin.)

In fact, you can go right down the line with Wilt's post-seasons. Even in his worst post-season, in '69, he was still outplaying his opposing centers.

And in his best post-seasons, he was destroying his opposing centers, just like he did to Dierking.

I'm not trying to disparage Wilt or make an anti-Wilt post. I will admit, though, I just wanted to see what other wall of excuses and numbers you'd come up with to defend him. Obviously Wilt outplayed him. It was freaking Connie Dierking vs. Wilt Chamberlain.

My next question would be, do you think it was ever Wilt's fault when his team lost a playoff series, but I already know your answer.

[jlauber]

I'm not trying to disparage Wilt or make an anti-Wilt post. I will admit, though, I just wanted to see what other wall of excuses and numbers you'd come up with to defend him. Obviously Wilt outplayed him. It was freaking Connie Dierking vs. Wilt Chamberlain.

My next question would be, do you think it was ever Wilt's fault when his team lost a playoff series, but I already know your answer.

Did Wilt have some poor post-season games? Yes, but not many...and he played in 160 of them. His worst post-season was in '69, and even then he outplayed his opposing center in every series. And the reality was, it was BAYLOR who lost that series.

How about '68? Well, given the fact that Chamberlain's TEAM was devastated by injuries, and Wilt himself was nursing SEVERAL injuries (including a tear in his quad)...and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game two, on...it was a miracle that they managed to get to a game seven, where they lost by a 100-96 margin. And an injured Wilt still had a 22-25 .487 series.

Those are the ONLY two in which you could question Wilt AT ALL.

Some idiots have pointed out Wilt's 46-36 Lakers losing a game seven to the 60-22 Knicks in the '70 Finals. Except that Wilt was only four months removed from major knee surgery, and he STILL had a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 Finals (the ONLY 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history), and in a must-win game six, he hung a 45-27 game (on 20-27 shooting), and in the game seven loss, he had a 21 point, game on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds.

Aside from those, go ahead and give me YOUR list in which Wilt was responsible for "losing" in the playoffs.

[jlauber]

I'm not trying to disparage Wilt or make an anti-Wilt post. I will admit, though, I just wanted to see what other wall of excuses and numbers you'd come up with to defend him. Obviously Wilt outplayed him. It was freaking Connie Dierking vs. Wilt Chamberlain.

My next question would be, do you think it was ever Wilt's fault when his team lost a playoff series, but I already know your answer.

BTW, yes, it was "freaking" Connie Dierking against Wilt. And guess what? Wilt just ANNIHILATED him. BUT, how often did Chamberlain battle a less than multiple All-Star opposing center in the playoffs? 29 games total. Out of 160. He went H2H with a HOF starting center in 105 of those 160 games, and then a multiple all-star starting center in 26 more playoff games. Think about that...he was facing a very good, to great, opposing center in 131 of his 160 post-season games.

[KG215]

Did Wilt have some poor post-season games? Yes, but not many...and he played in 160 of them. His worst post-season was in '69, and even then he outplayed his opposing center in every series. And the reality was, it was BAYLOR who lost that series.

How about '68? Well, given the fact that Chamberlain's TEAM was devastated by injuries, and Wilt himself was nursing SEVERAL injuries (including a tear in his quad)...and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game two, on...it was a miracle that they managed to get to a game seven, where they lost by a 100-96 margin. And an injured Wilt still had a 22-25 .487 series.

Those are the ONLY two in which you could question Wilt AT ALL.

Some idiots have pointed out Wilt's 46-36 Lakers losing a game seven to the 60-22 Knicks in the '70 Finals. Except that Wilt was only four months removed from major knee surgery, and he STILL had a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 Finals (the ONLY 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history), and in a must-win game six, he hung a 45-27 game (on 20-27 shooting), and in the game seven loss, he had a 21 point, game on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds.

Aside from those, go ahead and give me YOUR list in which Wilt was responsible for "losing" in the playoffs.

I don't know know enough about Wilt and that era to say with any kind of authority in which series or games he was responsible for losing. It just seems like every time someone like G.O.A.T comes back with viable reasons as to why Wilt could've been responsible for a series loss, you respond with the same type of excuse filled stat riddled posts. I also think you tend overplay the gap between Wilt's teammates and Russell's teammates. And please, I don't need to see your post comparing the supporting casts for each player. I've seen it before and I've read rebuttals from other knowledgeable posters. I'm not counting Bill Simmons either.

For all I know you could be completely and 100% correct about everything. I'm 25 and just haven't done enough research on that era and the Chamberlain/Russell debate. However, I do believe there are two somewhat distinct groups of basketball fans when it comes to debating which player is/was better: those who put more emphasis on individual play and numbers, and those who put more emphasis on team play and team success. There's sub-categories for each like valuing things like peak play over longevity, but I think those two categories encompass nearly everyone that likes to debate historical rankings.

I happen to fall into the team success category. I grew up in a very basketball oriented household in which my dad was (and still is) a high school coach, and I played year round (little league/school ball from winter to spring, and traveling teams in the spring and summer) starting in the 3rd grade through high school. I was taught from a young age that, above all else, winning matters most. And I learned over the years, mostly from my father who as a coach, obviously, was always trying to find any kind of advantage that would help his team win. Points, rebounds, assists, blocks, etc. were always secondary. If I scored 25 points, had 5-7 rebounds, and 4 or 5 assists in a game, and my team lost, those numbers were meaningless. As I got older I also started to gain the understanding that there's a very distinct mental aspect to basketball. That, when playing a team or player with more talent than you, you had to find any mental edge you could; whether it was playing your opponent to his/their weaknesses, or slowing your game down and being more intentional in your decisions; and, sometimes, even if at the end of the game your match-up has better numbers than you, it doesn't necessarily mean he or his team were better if you beat them. Not saying that's always the case but I personally believe there's a lot of truth to that.

Now, what I have read on Russell and Chamberlain, it has led me to believe Russell had a better understanding of the team aspect of basketball, and had a better understanding of what it took to win. It very well could have been as simple as Russell had a vastly superior supporting cast most years in his 11 championship seasons. But i do think there is something to the "it's about more than just the numbers" argument when it comes to Russell vs. Wilt.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to what you personally believe as a basketball fan. If, in your mind, the player who had the better stats in H2H match-ups against a specific player, is the better player, that's fine; it doesn't mean you're wrong. And if you believe the player whose team won more games and championships is the better player, it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, either. I think at its very core the "Russell vs. Chamberlain" debate is a perfect example of this. One player has the superior numbers, to the point where you might be considered a fool for thinking his main rival was better; and the other player has more wins and championships. It just comes down to what you value more in these type of debates.

[G.O.A.T]

I'm not entirely sure I understand your point here. Coming off an 18 month break is not a good thing for a player's game. I'd even argue that it's not only not a good thing, but it's a very bad thing in almost any sport.

Basketball, and most sports for that matter(especially at that high of a level) is not something you can just take an 18 month break from and expect to return as the same player you were before. It's just not gonna happen.

The post was completely satirical and tongue-in-cheek.

[jlauber]

I don't know know enough about Wilt and that era to say with any kind of authority in which series or games he was responsible for losing. It just seems like every time someone like G.O.A.T comes back with viable reasons as to why Wilt could've been responsible for a series loss, you respond with the same type of excuse filled stat riddled posts. I also think you tend overplay the gap between Wilt's teammates and Russell's teammates. And please, I don't need to see your post comparing the supporting casts for each player. I've seen it before and I've read rebuttals from other knowledgeable posters. I'm not counting Bill Simmons either.

For all I know you could be completely and 100% correct about everything. I'm 25 and just haven't done enough research on that era and the Chamberlain/Russell debate. However, I do believe there are two somewhat distinct groups of basketball fans when it comes to debating which player is/was better: those who put more emphasis on individual play and numbers, and those who put more emphasis on team play and team success. There's sub-categories for each like valuing things like peak play over longevity, but I think those two categories encompass nearly everyone that likes to debate historical rankings.

I happen to fall into the team success category. I grew up in a very basketball oriented household in which my dad was (and still is) a high school coach, and I played year round (little league/school ball from winter to spring, and traveling teams in the spring and summer) starting in the 3rd grade through high school. I was taught from a young age that, above all else, winning matters most. And I learned over the years, mostly from my father who as a coach, obviously, was always trying to find any kind of advantage that would help his team win. Points, rebounds, assists, blocks, etc. were always secondary. If I scored 25 points, had 5-7 rebounds, and 4 or 5 assists in a game, and my team lost, those numbers were meaningless. As I got older I also started to gain the understanding that there's a very distinct mental aspect to basketball. That, when playing a team or player with more talent than you, you had to find any mental edge you could; whether it was playing your opponent to his/their weaknesses, or slowing your game down and being more intentional in your decisions; and, sometimes, even if at the end of the game your match-up has better numbers than you, it doesn't necessarily mean he or his team were better if you beat them. Not saying that's always the case but I personally believe there's a lot of truth to that.

Now, what I have read on Russell and Chamberlain, it has led me to believe Russell had a better understanding of the team aspect of basketball, and had a better understanding of what it took to win. It very well could have been as simple as Russell had a vastly superior supporting cast most years in his 11 championship seasons. But i do think there is something to the "it's about more than just the numbers" argument when it comes to Russell vs. Wilt.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to what you personally believe as a basketball fan. If, in your mind, the player who had the better stats in H2H match-ups against a specific player, is the better player, that's fine; it doesn't mean you're wrong. And if you believe the player whose team won more games and championships is the better player, it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, either. I think at its very core the "Russell vs. Chamberlain" debate is a perfect example of this. One player has the superior numbers, to the point where you might be considered a fool for thinking his main rival was better; and the other player has more wins and championships. It just comes down to what you value more in these type of debates.

Russell having better teammates the vast majority of his career is indisputable. For those that haven't seen the numbers, Wilt played 24 FULL seasons (or mostly full seasons) with HOF teammates. Russell played with 71! Granted, not all of Russell's teammates were true HOFers. KC Jones, Frank Ramsey, Bailey Howell, and Satch Sanders were not legitimate HOFers (although Sanders and Jones were considered the best defenders at their positions, and Howell was a 20 ppg scorer on 50% shooting with Boston.)

But the same applies to Wilt's "HOF" teammates. No one is ever going to convince me that Gola was a legitimate HOF player. He put up average stats, and was awful in his post-seasons, even those in which he did not play with Wilt.

Now, you MIGHT be able to argue that Russell elevated the play of his teammates, while Chamberlain MAY have diminished the play of his. However, Russell was the beneficiary of CLUTCH performances by players like Sam Jones and John Havlicek. Not only that, but Russell's teams were ALWAYS much deeper than Wilt's.

Meanwhile, Wilt's best teammates usually puked all over themselves in their biggest games. West had ONE truly great series, and another outstanding one, in which he completely blew chunks in a game seven.

And I really couldn't find post-season series in which Wilt's better teammates shot considerably less than they did in the regular season, either. A great example of that was in Wilt's 65-66 season. In that regular season, he led his team to the best record in the league (55-25 to Boston's 54-26), and in doing so he averaged 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, handed out 5.2 apg, and shot .540 from the floor.

Now, as Owl pointed out, Boston's regular season record was very deceptive. They had a number of players who missed games, and ultimately it cost them that one game. Still, they were the seven-time defending champs, and were healthy in the post-season.

Furthermore, during the regular season, Wilt's Sixers went 6-3 against Russell's Celtics. And in their regular season H2H's, Chamberlain averaged 28.3 ppg, and .30.7 rpg (I don't know what he shot, however.)

Then, in the post-season, Chamberlain averaged 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 from the field against Russell and the Celtics. Which was nearly IDENTICAL to his regular season numbers. Granted, his apg dropped from 5.2 to 3.2, but you will see why in a moment.

Boston blew out Wilt's 76ers in that series, 4-1. And here again, while Wilt's numbers were nearly identical to his regular season numbers against Russell, his teammates suddenly shot .352 in that series. Now, whose fault was it for losing that series?

On top of all of that, while Russell's HOF-laden rosters went 7-1 against Wilt's teams in post-season series H2H play, it is worth noting that Boston won FOUR game seven's by a COMBINED NINE points (margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.) So, the REALITY was, Chamberlain was only a few points away from owning a 5-3 H2H advantage over Russell. It was not like Russell was dominating Wilt, and his team's were just routing Wilt's.

And yes, the stats were one-sided. Wilt not only heavily outscored Russell, he massively outshot Russell from the floor, as well. And on top of that, he outrebounded him in EVERY series...some by HUGE margins.

And, when Chambelain's roster was equal to Russell's, and when they neutralized Russell's usual advantage, Wilt's individual dominance over Russell resulted in a 4-1 blowout of the eight time defending Celtics.

I tend to agree with none other than John Wooden on this...had Wilt had Russell's rosters his entire career, he likely would have won 11 rings, too. In any case, he would have won considerably more than two.

[DatAsh]

The post was completely satirical and tongue-in-cheek.

I can see that now after having re-read it. I've never had the greatest eye for those kinds of things, though I probably would have caught on had a read your posts immediately following that one.

[DatAsh]

Russell was the beneficiary of CLUTCH performances by players like Sam Jones

How many playoff game winners did Sam Jones hit?

[jlauber]

How many playoff game winners did Sam Jones hit?

I see where this is going...yes, I didn't cross check Fpliii's claim that Jones hit some enormous some of game-winners. My fault, but he did have access to may google archives, and to be honest, I never paid attention to what Jones clinching performances were. I will say this, Jones had some OUTSTANDING post-seasons, including one of 28.6 ppg.

As for game-winners...why not ask RUSSELL?

http://celticspride.pixnet.net/blog/...ch---sam-jones

[QUOTE]

[Asukal]

Everybody.... its not Wilt's fault. Its.. its... all due to his god damned team mates... his horrible coaches.... heck its the mountain lion's fault! Wilt didn't do anything wrong! Stop picking on Wilt!