Kareem & Wilt- Unstoppable

[Deuce Bigalow]

Wilt the GOAT Center

1. Russell
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Hakeem
5. Wilt

[G.O.A.T]

It doesnt matter how much you want your team to win, if their team>your team it isnt going to happen. (I'm not choosing sides just saying this is a bad argument)

It's not as simple as wanting it, but if winning is most important and you consistently identify the correct way to play to win, that is far more significant than any statistical edge.

[jlauber]

Goes to show you that the game is more than stats. Russell cared about making his teammates better and winning. Wilt cared about his stats and himself. One guy won 11 rings and was the big reason that his teams won big games, one guy won 2 didn't make his teammates better and choked multiple big games.

Here is a stat for you. In all game 5's, game 7's, NCAA elimination games and Olympic elimination games that Russell played in, he was 21-0. I know you will say "He played on great teams." Yes he did, but it's not an accident that Russell's teams won all those games. He was the only constant. So you can go on about Wilt having better stats, but basketball is about more than stats.

Shareef Abdur-Rahim was a 20-10 guy for years. So was Elton Brand. So was Tim Duncan. I know if I want to win I'd choose Duncan, and the reason isn't stats. It's leadership, it's wanting your team to win. It's WILLING your team to win. Russell did that. A lot. Wilt didn't do that. A lot.

So you can keep your stats. Stats are meaningless in the context of the game. You can use them as a barometer. But it will never beat watching games and seeing how a certain player or team do in a pressure situation.

TEAM game. FIVE vs FIVE. Best TEAM wins.

Answer me this...

How come Jordan played on NINE teams that did NOT win a title (and FIVE that were losers)...andwas 1-9 in his first three playoff series?

How come the "clutch" Kareem played on 14 that did NOT win a title?

Or Bird on TEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Shaq on FIFTEEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Duncan on ELEVEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or the saint Hakeem, who not only played on SIXTEEN teams that did NOT win a title, but EIGHT that couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND?

Furthermore, IF Russell were indeed the better player, how come Chamberlain and his Sixers just trashed Russell and his eight-time defending 60-21 Celtics in '67? And in the clinching game five loss, Russell went like a meek lamb to the slaughterhouse with a simply pathetic performance?

And to EXPECT Chamberlain's '62 and '65 teams to even get to a game seven against the HOF-laden Celtics was a miracle unto itself, but Chamberlain took them within a total of THREE points of beating those heavily-favored teams, and in series in which he outplayed Russell in every category. Oh and BTW, his cast of clowns teammates, most of which would play worse withOUT Wilt in their careers, played even more horribly than they did in the regular season. How? How could Chamberlain take a 49-31 team, that had been a LAST PLACE team when he arrived, to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers...and all the while his surrounding cast of stooges shot .354 in that post-season?

Or a Chamberlain taking a 40-40 team, that had been 34-46 the year before he arrived, to a game seven, one point loss, against a Celtic team with a Russell-led record of 62-18, and in a series in which Chamberlain just blasted Russell in EVERY facet of the game (including FT%)?

Explain all that to me...

I'll go with John Wooden's opinion. He claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, that it very likely would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Furthermore, IF Russell were indeed the better player, how come Chamberlain and his Sixers just trashed Russell and his eight-time defending 60-21 Celtics in '67? And in the clinching game five loss, Russell went like a meek lamb to the slaughterhouse with a simply pathetic performance?

Wow, can you believe this guy?
You cherry pick one year ignoring every other matchup where Bill's team sent Wilt fishing.

[jlauber]

WOW, can you believe this guy?

Go ahead an argue your point then? Tell us all why Russell and his 60-21 Celtics were blown to shreds in the '67 ECF's.

[jlauber]

Wow, can you believe this guy?
You cherry pick one year ignoring every other matchup where Bill's team sent Wilt fishing.

TEAM game. FIVE vs FIVE. Best TEAM wins.

Answer me this...

How come Jordan played on NINE teams that did NOT win a title (and FIVE that were losers)...andwas 1-9 in his first three playoff series?

How come the "clutch" Kareem played on 14 that did NOT win a title?

Or Bird on TEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Shaq on FIFTEEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Duncan on ELEVEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or the saint Hakeem, who not only played on SIXTEEN teams that did NOT win a title, but EIGHT that couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND?

Furthermore, IF Russell were indeed the better player, how come Chamberlain and his Sixers just trashed Russell and his eight-time defending 60-21 Celtics in '67? And in the clinching game five loss, Russell went like a meek lamb to the slaughterhouse with a simply pathetic performance?

And to EXPECT Chamberlain's '62 and '65 teams to even get to a game seven against the HOF-laden Celtics was a miracle unto itself, but Chamberlain took them within a total of THREE points of beating those heavily-favored teams, and in series in which he outplayed Russell in every category. Oh and BTW, his cast of clowns teammates, most of which would play worse withOUT Wilt in their careers, played even more horribly than they did in the regular season. How? How could Chamberlain take a 49-31 team, that had been a LAST PLACE team when he arrived, to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers...and all the while his surrounding cast of stooges shot .354 in that post-season?

Or a Chamberlain taking a 40-40 team, that had been 34-46 the year before he arrived, to a game seven, one point loss, against a Celtic team with a Russell-led record of 62-18, and in a series in which Chamberlain just blasted Russell in EVERY facet of the game (including FT%)?

Explain all that to me...

I'll go with John Wooden's opinion. He claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, that it very likely would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

[millwad]

Haha, Jlauber bashes Olajuwon constantly over the fact that he didn't win rings in 16 of his 18 years.

But as soon as it fits his agenda it's a "team game"..

Jlauber, you're like an open book, your crappy posts are so biased and silly that I just would like to vomit all over my laptop..

[Horatio33]

TEAM game. FIVE vs FIVE. Best TEAM wins.

Answer me this...

How come Jordan played on NINE teams that did NOT win a title (and FIVE that were losers)...andwas 1-9 in his first three playoff series?

How come the "clutch" Kareem played on 14 that did NOT win a title?

Or Bird on TEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Shaq on FIFTEEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Duncan on ELEVEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or the saint Hakeem, who not only played on SIXTEEN teams that did NOT win a title, but EIGHT that couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND?

Furthermore, IF Russell were indeed the better player, how come Chamberlain and his Sixers just trashed Russell and his eight-time defending 60-21 Celtics in '67? And in the clinching game five loss, Russell went like a meek lamb to the slaughterhouse with a simply pathetic performance?

And to EXPECT Chamberlain's '62 and '65 teams to even get to a game seven against the HOF-laden Celtics was a miracle unto itself, but Chamberlain took them within a total of THREE points of beating those heavily-favored teams, and in series in which he outplayed Russell in every category. Oh and BTW, his cast of clowns teammates, most of which would play worse withOUT Wilt in their careers, played even more horribly than they did in the regular season. How? How could Chamberlain take a 49-31 team, that had been a LAST PLACE team when he arrived, to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers...and all the while his surrounding cast of stooges shot .354 in that post-season?

Or a Chamberlain taking a 40-40 team, that had been 34-46 the year before he arrived, to a game seven, one point loss, against a Celtic team with a Russell-led record of 62-18, and in a series in which Chamberlain just blasted Russell in EVERY facet of the game (including FT%)?

Explain all that to me...

I'll go with John Wooden's opinion. He claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, that it very likely would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

I'll go with Bob Cousy who said the Celtics wouldn't have won 11 titles with Wilt in place of Russell. He only played on 6 of those title teams.

[jlauber]

Haha, Jlauber bashes Olajuwon constantly over the fact that he didn't win rings in 16 of his 18 years.

But as soon as it fits his agenda it's a "team game"..

Jlauber, you're like an open book, your crappy posts are so biased and silly that I just would like to vomit all over my laptop..

Hakeem is the most over-rated player on this forum.

Not only did he not win rings in 16 of his 18 seasons, he couldn't even get past the first round in EIGHT of his 15 post-seasons. And most of those series weren't close, either.

Had Chamberlain had the "good fortune" to have been blown away in the first round...

BTW, I will be posting some new info regarding his "decline" in the post-season, as well. It is amazing, but given the actual scoring and especially shooting percentages in the Wilt-era POST-SEASONS, he was consistently at or near his regular season numbers.

And, had he had the good "fortune" to have been eliminated in the first round of the playoffs, EIGHT times, as was the case with Hakeem, his first round numbers were often HIGHER. And, I have read an idiot post claiming that Hakeem outshot Wilt from the field in the post-season (by a .528 to .522 margin), BUT, I will be comparing their post-season LEAGUE AVERAGES, (and even including eFG%'s), which CLEARLY gives Chamberlain a HUGE edge.

As examples, in Wilt's fist eight post-seasons, and in his first round, he averaged

38.7 ppg

37.0 ppg

37.0 ppg

38.6 ppg and on .559 shooting (in a post-season NBA of 105.8 ppg on .420 shooting)

27.8 ppg (and then 30.1 ppg, on .555 shooting, and against Russell)

28.0 ppg

28.0 ppg (and a great example of FG% at .612 in a post-season at .424)

25.5 ppg (and on .584 shooting, while his opposing center, Bellamy was at 20.0 on .421 shooting.)

Even in his 11th season, and only four months removed from major knee surgery, Chamberlain put up a first round of 23.7 ppg., 20.3 rpg, and .549.

And, in his 71-72 post-season, he had a 14.5 ppg, 20.8 rpg, .629 first round series (and in an NBA post-season of .446.)

So while Chamberlain was shooting .522 in his post-season career, it came in post-seasons of between .402 to .455.) Meanwhile Hakeem's .528 came in post-seasons of as high as .492, and an efg% as high as .500. MANY in the .485+ range, as well.

And, keep in mind two more interesting points. One, in Wilt's second greatest scoring season (44.8 ppg on .528 shooting) his all-time worst roster kept him from playing in the post-season (which probably cost him another 2-3+ ppg in his post-seasob career average.) And two, he faced a starting HOF center in 105 of his 160 post-season games, including Russell in 49, Thurmond in 17, and a PRIME Kareem in 11.

Oh, and BTW, Hakeem won ONE MVP, came in second ONE time, was voted in the Top-FOUR...FOUR times in his ERIGHTEEN seasons. And in fact, wasn't even in the Top-10 in EIGHT of them.

The man seldom led his team's to even 50 wins (with a HIGH of 58.) Couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND in over HALF of them. Won a title in the year in which MJ took off (and in which his Rockets edged the Knicks in the seventh game of the Finals...the same Knicks team that barely beat the Jordan-less Rockets in a seventh game earlier in the playoffs.) In fact, his 58-24 Rockets beat a 56-26 Knick team with less talent than what he had.

And even in '95, and playing with Drexler...how many HOF-laden rosters did he have to go thru to win a ring? Shaq's Magic were no more talented, and in fact, were wiped out by Hakeem's teammates in the Finals.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Hakeem is the most over-rated player on this forum.

Not only did he not win rings in 16 of his 18 seasons, he couldn't even get past the first round in EIGHT of his 15 post-seasons. And most of those series weren't close, either.

Had Chamberlain had the "good fortune" to have been blown away in the first round...



Oh, and BTW, Hakeem won ONE MVP, came in second ONE time, was voted in the Top-FOUR...FOUR times in his ERIGHTEEN seasons. And in fact, wasn't even in the Top-10 in EIGHT of them.

The man seldom led his team's to even 50 wins (with a HIGH of 58.) Couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND in over HALF of them. Won a title in the year in which MJ took off (and in which his Rockets edged the Knicks in the seventh game of the Finals...the same Knicks team that barely beat the Jordan-less Rockets in a seventh game earlier in the playoffs.) In fact, his 58-24 Rockets beat a 56-26 Knick team with less talent than what he had.

And even in '95, and playing with Drexler...how many HOF-laden rosters did he have to go thru to win a ring? Shaq's Magic were no more talented, and in fact, were wiped out by Hakeem's teammates in the Finals.

Are you mentally retarded?

WILT ONLY WON 2 NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS, as much as Hakeem did. And Hakeem did it with worse teammates and with one of the smallest championship contending "windows" for an all-time great.

[Deuce Bigalow]

TEAM game. FIVE vs FIVE. Best TEAM wins.

Answer me this...

How come Jordan played on NINE teams that did NOT win a title (and FIVE that were losers)...andwas 1-9 in his first three playoff series?

How come the "clutch" Kareem played on 14 that did NOT win a title?

Or Bird on TEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Shaq on FIFTEEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Duncan on ELEVEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or the saint Hakeem, who not only played on SIXTEEN teams that did NOT win a title, but EIGHT that couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND?

Furthermore, IF Russell were indeed the better player, how come Chamberlain and his Sixers just trashed Russell and his eight-time defending 60-21 Celtics in '67? And in the clinching game five loss, Russell went like a meek lamb to the slaughterhouse with a simply pathetic performance?

And to EXPECT Chamberlain's '62 and '65 teams to even get to a game seven against the HOF-laden Celtics was a miracle unto itself, but Chamberlain took them within a total of THREE points of beating those heavily-favored teams, and in series in which he outplayed Russell in every category. Oh and BTW, his cast of clowns teammates, most of which would play worse withOUT Wilt in their careers, played even more horribly than they did in the regular season. How? How could Chamberlain take a 49-31 team, that had been a LAST PLACE team when he arrived, to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers...and all the while his surrounding cast of stooges shot .354 in that post-season?

Or a Chamberlain taking a 40-40 team, that had been 34-46 the year before he arrived, to a game seven, one point loss, against a Celtic team with a Russell-led record of 62-18, and in a series in which Chamberlain just blasted Russell in EVERY facet of the game (including FT%)?

Explain all that to me...

I'll go with John Wooden's opinion. He claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, that it very likely would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

Very simple. Every player only gets a limited championship contending window of opportunity. Not every year does a an all-time great have a championship caliber team, so they are obviously not going to win every single year and even if they had a championship contending team every year they wouldn't win everytime unless you are Michael ****ing Jordan.

Wilt had a large amount of time on championship contending teams and only came out with 2 rings. Wilt had THE BEST PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE as his teammate in '69 and '70 along with other hall of famers Baylor and Goodrich, and STILL LOST, even with HCA.

[jlauber]

Are you mentally retarded?

WILT ONLY WON 2 NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS, as much as Hakeem did. And Hakeem did it with worse teammates and with one of the smallest championship contending "windows" for an all-time great.

Chamberlain played with as bad, iof not worse rosters, for nearly HALF of his career. And, BTW, he had SIXC post-seasons in which his teammates collectively shot .383, .380, .354, .352, .352 (on a 55-25 team), and even .332. Give me a list of rosters that Hakeem had that shot that poorly in the post-season.

And, of course, Chamberlain LED his teams to TWELVE conference Finals, SIX Finals, played on SIX division winners, played on FOUR 60+ win teams, and anchored two of the most dominant title teams in NBA history (that went 68-13 and 69-13.)

And how did each of Wilt's team's do before he arrived, when he arrived, and how did each do after he left?

[jlauber]

Very simple. Every player only gets a limited championship contending window of opportunity. Not every year does a an all-time great have a championship caliber team, so they are obviously not going to win every single year and even if they had a championship contending team every year they wouldn't win everytime unless you are Michael ****ing Jordan.

Wilt had a large amount of time on championship contending teams and only came out with 2 rings. Wilt had THE BEST PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE as his teammate in '69 and '70 along with other hall of famers Baylor and Goodrich, and STILL LOST, even with HCA.

Hmmm, you obviously didn't read my post above then...

Jordan played on NINE teams, in his 15 seasons, that did NOT win a ring. Hell, he couldn't beat Bird in the post-season, going 0-6 against his team's. And Bird was one of the biggest playoff choke performers of the all-time greats (losing with HCA in SEVEN of his post-seasons, and shooting like crap in SEVERAL.) Hell, MJ played on FIVE teams that had losing records.

Wilt played with atrocious rosters for nearly HALF of his career, and not only that, he went up against the Celtic Dynasty, and their FIVE to NINE HOFers, in EIGHT of his ten seasons in the league with Russell. Then he battled the Knicks in FOUR post-seasons with rosters that had been FOUR to SIX HOFers. As well as the Kareem-Oscar-Dandridge Bucks of 70-71 and 71-72 (66-16 and 63-19 records.)

It wasn't just a case of having a talented supporting cast, it was also the fact that his team's were usually heavily outgunned in the post-season.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Chamberlain played with as bad, iof not worse rosters, for nearly HALF of his career. And, BTW, he had SIXC post-seasons in which his teammates collectively shot .383, .380, .354, .352, .352 (on a 55-25 team), and even .332. Give me a list of rosters that Hakeem had that shot that poorly in the post-season.

And, of course, Chamberlain LED his teams to TWELVE conference Finals, SIX Finals, played on SIX division winners, played on FOUR 60+ win teams, and anchored two of the most dominant title teams in NBA history (that went 68-13 and 69-13.)

And how did each of Wilt's team's do before he arrived, when he arrived, and how did each do after he left?

Wilt had Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich with the Lakers
Wilt had Hal Greer who was the leading scorer on the '67 team on the Sixers

That is 4 HOFers

Let me tell you about '69 and '70 again since you can't get it in your head.

Jerry West - best player in the league in '69 and '70
'69 Playoffs: 31-4-8 46%, Finals: 37.9 PPG (2nd highest EVER), 42-13-12 in Game 7
'70 Playoffs: 31-4-8 47%, Finals: 31-3-8 45%

The Lakers did NOT win the championship both those years

Gail Goodrich - leading scorer on the '72 team
'72 Playoffs: 24-3-3 45%



Now tell me who Hakeem's teammates are, and tell me why Hakeem has as much rings as Wilt

[Deuce Bigalow]

Hmmm, you obviously didn't read my post above then...

Jordan played on NINE teams, in his 15 seasons, that did NOT win a ring. Hell, he couldn't beat Bird in the post-season, going 0-6 against his team's. And Bird was one of the biggest playoff choke performers of the all-time greats (losing with HCA in SEVEN of his post-seasons, and shooting like crap in SEVERAL.) Hell, MJ played on FIVE teams that had losing records.

Wilt played with atrocious rosters for nearly HALF of his career, and not only that, he went up against the Celtic Dynasty, and their FIVE to NINE HOFers, in EIGHT of his ten seasons in the league with Russell. Then he battled the Knicks in FOUR post-seasons with rosters that had been FOUR to SIX HOFers. As well as the Kareem-Oscar-Dandridge Bucks of 70-71 and 71-72 (66-16 and 63-19 records.)

It wasn't just a case of having a talented supporting cast, it was also the fact that his team's were usually heavily outgunned in the post-season.

Jordan's team barely even won 30 games that season you moron. His team was the 8th seed. How are you so ****ing stupid?
Jordan did not have a championship caliber team until 1991, and we all know what happened from there on.