A Prime Shaq vs. Hakeem

[jlauber]

As for the '86 playoffs the Lakers put all their bigs on Olajuwon and changed alot, no one could really contain Olajuwon so they had Jabbar, Lucas, Kupchak etc. on him.

And no, Jabbar didn't really torch Olajuwon after '86. He had good games but also bad and having Magic raises anyone's FG%. But his longetivity was beyond amazing and I rank Jabbar over Olajuwon of course.

But not only that, he only judges Olajuwon's defense based on him guarding Jabbar as a rookie and 2nd year pro and guarding Shaq as a 36 year old. It takes an idiot to judge a player based on his 2 first years in the league and then when he's 36 years old..

Yet you constantly bring up a 25 year old Kareem, scoring 40 ppg on .500 shooting, in five H2H games against a 35 year old Wilt, (and his 50 point game came on 39 FGAs in a blowout loss, and in which Chamberlain outrebounded him by a 25-8 margin) and yet you NEVER bring up the fact that in their LAST TEN H2H games, a 35 and 36 year old Wilt held Kareem to .434 shooting! Or that in that same season, Wilt held Kareem to .457 in the WCF's, and a horrible .414 in the last FOUR games of that series.

Of course, we will never know what a PRIME Chamberlain would have carpet-bombed Kareem with. However, we do KNOW that he was FAR more dominant against MANY of the SAME centers that a PRIME Kareem would face.

[millwad]

CHERRY PICKED????!!!!

You're all about cherry picking, now please all Wilt's scoring averages in the finals and don't forget his FT'S.

And finally, why the hell are you always talking about Wilt outscoring his fellow centers? What great scoring centers did Wilt even face early on in his career?

Sure, some of the guys could score, like Bellamy but most where "stiffs" like you used to say when it came to scoring and FG%..

[millwad]

Yet you constantly bring up a 25 year old Kareem, scoring 40 ppg on .500 shooting, in five H2H games against a 35 year old Wilt, (and his 50 point game came on 39 FGAs in a blowout loss, and in which Chamberlain outrebounded him by a 25-8 margin) and yet you NEVER bring up the fact that in their LAST TEN H2H games, a 35 and 36 year old Wilt held Kareem to .434 shooting! Or that in that same season, Wilt held Kareem to .457 in the WCF's, and a horrible .414 in the last FOUR games of that series.

Yet he outshot Wilt and outscored Wilt with 23 points per game in the playoffs while also outassisting him..

And I mention it because it's something you NEVER mention, you'll just cherry picking stats and writing stuff like "yeah, Kareem got murdered by Wilt in the '72 playoffs".

Suddenly your walls of stats completely fades away and you're happy with just writing that Wilt won the series and that the newspapers crowned him as the champ...

The first time I actually saw you mention the fact that Wilt got outscored with 23 points per game on better FG% by Kareem while also getting his ass busted in the regular season a la allowing Kareem to average 40 points on 50% shooting was when Fatal9 absolutely demolished you. How come that is the only time you don't mention stats?

You only mention the stuff that makes Wilt look great, you're cherry picking like crazy.

[jlauber]

Yet he outshot Wilt and outscored Wilt with 23 points per game in the playoffs while also outassisting him..

And I mention it because it's something you NEVER mention, you'll just cherry picking stats and writing stuff like "yeah, Kareem got murdered by Wilt in the '72 playoffs".

Suddenly your walls of stats completely fades away and you're happy with just writing that Wilt won the series and that the newspapers crowned him as the champ...

The first time I actually saw you mention the fact that Wilt got outscored with 23 points per game on better FG% by Kareem while also getting his ass busted in the regular season a la allowing Kareem to average 40 points on 50% shooting was when Fatal9 absolutely demolished you. How come that is the only time you don't mention stats?

You only mention the stuff that makes Wilt look great, you're cherry picking like crazy.

Chamberlain was UNIVERSALLY acclaimed as having outplayed Kareem in that series. Even the MILWAUKEE PRESS claimed as much. And as you KNOW, TIME MAGAZINE hailed his play in that SERIES, as "DECISIVELY OUTPLAYING a Kareem, who was ten years younger."

And Fecal9 has never come close to "demolishing me" in any of his "anti-Chamberlain" trash. Hell, he hightailed it outta here as more footage of Wilt has surfaced. BTW, why do you still hang around?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Chamberlain was UNIVERSALLY acclaimed as having outplayed Kareem in that series. Even the MILWAUKEE PRESS claimed as much. And as you KNOW, TIME MAGAZINE hailed his play in that SERIES, as "DECISIVELY OUTPLAYING a Kareem, who was ten years younger."

And Fecal9 has never come close to "demolishing me" in any of his "anti-Chamberlain" trash. Hell, he hightailed it outta here as more footage of Wilt has surfaced. BTW, why do you still hang around?

Then what about Bill Russell? Didn't he win against Wilt? Didn't he also have less points?
But you only use the stats when it's in favor of Wilt, right?

[millwad]

Chamberlain was UNIVERSALLY acclaimed as having outplayed Kareem in that series. Even the MILWAUKEE PRESS claimed as much. And as you KNOW, TIME MAGAZINE hailed his play in that SERIES, as "DECISIVELY OUTPLAYING a Kareem, who was ten years younger."

And Fecal9 has never come close to "demolishing me" in any of his "anti-Chamberlain" trash. Hell, he hightailed it outta here as more footage of Wilt has surfaced. BTW, why do you still hang around?

Fatal9 has demolished you plenty of times.
And he left because the guy had better things to do, not like you, a lonely 57 year old man who later in life got a man crush on basketball player who retired like 40 years ago..

Oh, "universally" but still you only spam about like 2 articles and still you're the first one to spam about how the media are wrong when they UNIVERSALLY (not two papers like your case) claimed that Olajuwon outplayed Shaq in '95..

Such a hypocrite..

[jlauber]

Then what about Bill Russell? Didn't he win against Wilt? Didn't he also have less points?
But you only use the stats when it's in favor of Wilt, right?

Russell was playing with teams that routinely had far more talent, and won considerably more games.

Chamberlain's '72 Lakers, albeit at 69-13, beat a Bucks team that not only went 63-19 in '72, they were the defending champions, coming off of a 66-16 season (while Wilt's OLD Lakers had gone 48-34.)

A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE don't you think?

Not only that, but Chamberlain not only outscored Russell in every series, he outshot and outrebounded him in ALL of them, as well. And his FG% margins against Russell were staggering, too.

Regarding that FG% comment. Chamberlain's LOWEST FG% against Russell came in the '62 ECF's, when he shot .468 (while holding Russell to .399.) That came in a post-season NBA that shot .411. Chamberlain also had a 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .555 seven game series against Russell, in an NBA post-season that averaged 113.7 ppg on .429 shooting.

Chamberlain was taking pure trash rosters, and single-handedly carrying them to within an eyelash of beating Russell's HOF-laden rosters, in series in which Wilt was demolishing Russell in scoring, rebounding, and FG% shooting.

[Djahjaga]

Russell was playing with teams that routinely had far more talent, and won considerably more games.


Chamberlain was taking pure trash rosters, and single-handedly carrying them to within an eyelash of beating Russell's HOF-laden rosters, in series in which Wilt was demolishing Russell in scoring, rebounding, and FG% shooting.

What do you have to say about the argument Simmons makes in his book (which I know you hate because he trashes Wilt every chance he gets) regarding the talent level on Wilt's and Russell's respective teams? The argument seems sound, even if Simmons had an agenda.

1957. Russell joins Boston mid-January after banging out military duty, then the Celts squeak by Philly (featuring Hall of Famers Paul Arizin and Neil Johnston) in the Playoffs and meet St. Louis in the Finals. Boston has two stud guards in their prime (Bill Sharman and ’57 MVP Bob Cousy) and three terrific rookies (Russell, Heinsohn, and Frank Ramsey), while St. Louis has Bob Pettit (two-time MVP), Macauley (Hall of Famer) and Slater Martin (Hall of Famer, second-team All NBA that season), as well as Charlie Share, Jack Coleman and Jack McMahon (three highly regarded role players). Since Boston won Game 7 in double OT, it’s safe to say these two teams were equally talented. 1958. The Hawks exact revenge thanks to up-and-comer Cliff Hagan (second-team All-NBA, Hall of Famer) and Russell’s badly sprained ankle. Again, even talent on both sides.

1959. Boston starts to pull away: three All-NBA First-teamers (Russell, Cousy, and Sharman), two promising guards (Sam and KC Jones), the best sixth man (Ramsey) and one of the best scoring forwards (Heinsohn). Even then, they needed seven games to get past Syracuse (led by NBA Top 50 members Dolph Schayes and Hal Greer) before easily sweeping Elgin and the Lakers. Through three years and two titles, Russell and the Celtics had the most talent exactly once.

1960. Boston handles Philly in six and needs seven to defeat a Hawks team with four Hall of Famers (including newcomer Lenny Wilkens). Meanwhile, Wilt wins the MVP as a rookie playing with Arizin (ten straight All-Stars), Tom Gola (Five straight All-Stars, Hall of Famer), Guy Rodgers (four All-Stars) and Woody Sauldsberry (’58 Rookie of the Year, ’59 All-Star). Boston had more firepower, but not by much. Wilt wasn’t exactly stuck playing with Eric Snow, Drew Gooden, Sasha Pavlovic, Larry Hughes, and Turdo Sandowich like 2007 LeBron.

1961. We’re kicking off a two-year stretch for the most loaded NBA team ever: Boston easily handles Syracuse and St. Louis for title number four. Meanwhile, Philly gets swept by a weaker Nats team in the first round, leading to Wilt throwing his first coach under the bus after the season (a recurring theme).

1962. Still loaded to the gills, Boston needs seven games to defeat Wilt’s Sixers and an OT Game 7 in the Finals to defeat Baylor, Jerry West and the Lakers. I’m telling you, everyone had a good team back then.

1963. The first sign of trouble: Sharman retires, Cousy and Ramsey are slipping, and rookie John Havlicek isn’t Hondo yet. Boston needs seven games to hold off Cincy (led by Hall of Famers Oscar Robertson, Jack Twyman, and Wayne Embry) and another six to beat the Lakers. Meanwhile, Philly moves to San Fran, finishes 31–49 and misses the playoffs with Wilt, Rodgers, Tom Meschery (an All-Star), Al Attles (KC Jones’ equal as a defensive stopper) and Willie Naulls (four-time All-Star). But hey, if they’d won more games, maybe Wilt wouldn’t have averaged 44.8 points that season.

1964. Cousy retires and no Celtic makes first-team All-NBA, but that doesn’t stop Boston from beating a stacked Cincy team (led by Oscar and rookie of the year Jerry Lucas) and easily handling Wilt’s Warriors in the Finals (the same group as the ’63 Sixers, only with future Hall of
Famer Nate Thurmond aboard). Boston won without a point guard or power forward this season—other than Russell, they didn’t have a top twenty rebounder or anyone average more than 5 assists—but we’ll give them a check mark in the “most talent” department for the last time in the Russell era.

1965. Ramsey retires and Heinsohn fades noticeably in his final season. Undaunted, the Celts finish with their best record of the Russell era (62–18) and smoke L.A. in the Finals thanks to their Big Three (Russell, Havlicek, and Sam Jones) and a bunch of role players (including a monster year from Satch Sanders). As for the Warriors, they self-destruct and lose seventeen in a row, eventually trading Wilt for 30 cents on the dollar to Philly midway through the season. For the first time, Wilt’s team matches Boston’s talent with shooting guard Hal Greer (ten straight All-Star games), Lucious Jackson (an All-Star power forward who finished eighth in rebounding that season), swingman Chet Walker (seven-time All-Star), point guard Larry Costello (six-time All-Star) and two quality role players (Dave Gambee and Johnny Kerr). That’s why the Sixers-Celtics series comes down to the final play of Game 7 at the Garden, with Havlicek stealing the inbounds pass as Johnny Most screams, “Havlicek stole the ball! Havlicek stole the ball!”

1966. Heinsohn coughs up a fifteen-pound oyster and retires, KC Jones is fading fast, and the Celts are forced to rely on aging veterans (Naulls and Mel Counts) and castoffs from other teams (Don Nelson and Larry Siegfried) to help the Big Three in Auerbach’s final season. For the first time with Russell, they don’t finish with the league’s best record as Philly edges them (55 wins to 54). As usual, it doesn’t matter—Boston beats Philly in five and wins Game 7 of the Finals against L.A. by two points. Philly had more talent this season. On paper, anyway.

1967. KC retires, another veteran castoff comes aboard (future Hall of Famer Bailey Howell), and Russell struggles mightily to handle the first year of his player-coach duties. From day one, it’s Philly’s year: given an extra boost by rookie Billy Cunningham and Wilt’s sudden revelation that he doesn’t need to score to help his team win (more on this in a second), the Sixers roll to their famous 68-win season, topple the Celtics in five, and beat the Warriors in six for Wilt’s first title. This was the perfect storm for Wilt—his strongest possible team against Boston’s weakest possible team.

1968. Wilt leads the league in assists. And Philly finishes eight games better than the Celtics. The aging Celts rally from a 3–1 deficit in the Eastern Finals to advance, then beat a really good Lakers team for Russell’s tenth title. After the season, Philly trades Wilt to L.A. for 40 cents on the dollar.

1969. With Russell and Jones running on fumes, everyone writes the Celtics off after they finish fourth in the East. In the first round, they beat a favored Sixers team in five. In the second round, they beat a favored Knicks team in six—the same group that wins the 1970 title and gets blown for the next twenty-five years by the New York media as the Greatest Team Ever. In the Finals, as 9-to-5 underdogs to Baylor, West, Wilt, and the Lakers, they rally back from a 3–1 deficit and win Game 7 in Los Angeles.

So here’s the final tally: Over a ten-year span, Russell’s teams clearly had more talent than Wilt’s teams for four seasons (’61, ’62, ’63, and ’64) and a slight edge in Wilt’s first season (1960). In ’65, Philly and Boston were a wash. From ’66 through ’69, Wilt played for stronger teams, making the final record 5–4–1, Russell. For six of those ten seasons, you could have described the talent disparity as “equal” or “relatively equal.” After Russell retired that summer, the ’70 Lakers lost the famous Willis Reed game in Game 7 of the Finals; the ’71 Lakers suffered a season-ending injury to Jerry West and lost to the eventual champions, the Bucks; the ’72 Lakers won 69 games and cruised to Wilt’s second title; and the ’73 Lakers lost a Finals rematch to the Knicks. Wilt retired after a ten-year stretch in which he played in the 1964 Finals and lost, then played for teams talented enough to win a championship every single year for the next nine. So much for Russell being blessed with a better supporting cast than Chamberlain. If there’s a legitimate gripe on Wilt’s behalf, it’s that Russell was lucky enough to have Auerbach coaching him for ten years. Then again, Red is on record saying he never could have coached a prima donna like Wilt. Also, if you’re scoring at home: Russell played with four members of the NBA’s Top 50 at 50 (Havlicek, Cousy, Sharman and Sam Jones); Wilt played with six members (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin, and Thurmond). And Russell’s teammates from 1957 to 1969 were selected to twenty-six All-Star games, while Wilt’s teammates from 1960 to 1973 were selected to twenty-four. Let’s never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain. Thank you.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Chamberlain was taking pure trash rosters, and single-handedly carrying them to within an eyelash of beating Russell's HOF-laden rosters, in series in which Wilt was demolishing Russell in scoring, rebounding, and FG% shooting.

6 Hall of Fame teammates
5 of them in the Top 50 greatest OF AllTime

Talk about garbage.

[Yung D-Will]

Two of the greatest centers to ever play the game, not really understading the point of this thread.

[Owl]

What do you have to say about the argument Simmons makes in his book (which I know you hate because he trashes Wilt every chance he gets) regarding the talent level on Wilt's and Russell's respective teams? The argument seems sound, even if Simmons had an agenda.

I would go through the quality of those arguments, perhaps looking at the win shares provided by Wilts teammates and those of Russell and suggest, approximate as those ratings may be to actual level of contribution towards wins, that Russell's teammates were clearly significantly better, especially up to the mid-sixties.

But google Chamberlain Russell Simmons the first three results come from billsimmonsbogusbook.blogspot.com/ which looks at the talent systematically year by year (rather than chucking out total number of HOFers played with regardless of the point in their career they were at and how long they played together). Another attempt at a more systematic comparison of teammates comes from the basketball-reference blog http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229

There are arguments for both sides as to who was better (I myself am firmly in the Chamberlain camp), but I have yet to see a compelling argument that Wilt had superior supporting casts. The only time they were remotely comparable is once Wilt joined the '76ers. This happened in the middle of the '65 season on a team which didn't yet have Billy Cunningham and had a major roster adjustment mid-season. There can be reasonable discussions of the relative merits for the 66-69 period (though if we're comparing playoff series then injuries should be accounted for). TBOB doesn't have them.

Just from the section posted, logic such as "Since Boston won Game 7 in double OT, it

[Psileas]

[QUOTE]1960. Boston handles Philly in six and needs seven to defeat a Hawks team with four Hall of Famers (including newcomer Lenny Wilkens). Meanwhile, Wilt wins the MVP as a rookie playing with Arizin (ten straight All-Stars), Tom Gola (Five straight All-Stars, Hall of Famer), Guy Rodgers (four All-Stars) and Woody Sauldsberry (

[jlauber]

I have covered the Simmons' NONSENSE many times here before. And as always, the quality posters here, like Owl and Psileas, two posters who have actually RESEARCHED their opinions have addressed the idiot, as well.

In their TEN seasons in the league together, Russell played with more HOF teammates EVERY season. Most by considerable margins. And, in their first SIX straight seasons together, those margins were the size of the Grand Canyon. And even in their last four seasons, in which their quality supporting casts were nearly equal, Russell's Celtics not only had more HOF teammates, he had DEEPER rosters, too. I have said it before, but his 66-67 Celtics, which went 60-21 were probably the deepest team in NBA history. And the only other team that could challenge them, was Russell's '63 Celts team, which boasted NINE HOFers (and in a season in which Chamberlain had ZERO HOF teammates...and perhaps the WORST roster in NBA history.)

Let's begin with Russell's rookie season. He was essentially traded to Boston, in deal for their center, Ed McCauley. He came to a Celtic team that had gone 39-33 and already had players like Cousy, Risen, and Sharman. Not only that, but the Celtics also drafted Tom Heinsohn, who would go on to win ROY, and become a solid HOFer himself. THEN, in the next season, the Celtics snatched Sam Jones, who would go on to become one of the most clutch playoff performers of all-time, and a KEY component to the Celtic Dynasty.

And, as each season went by, Boston got BETTER. When Cousy finally hung it up, they had already had the foresight to have drafted HOFer John Havlicek. Later in the Celtic run, they added players like Bailey Howell, who may not have been a legitimate HOFer (more on that later), but was not only a 20 ppg scorer, he was doing it on over 50% shooting in a league that shot way below that.

And the pieces they added were carefully planned to form pieces to a perfect puzzle. Satch Sanders and KC Jones were considered among the best defensive players at their respective positions. They also filled in with players like Wayne Embry (another HOFer) who was a beast and could play both the PF and Center position (in the few minutes in which Russell was resting.) Players like Em Bryant and later Don Chaney were excellent bench players, who could give quality minutes.

How about Chamberlain's rookie season? Keep in mind that he was drafted while in HIGH SCHOOL by the Warriors. By the time he arrived, he had come to a LAST PLACE team that was in a severe decline. And, as bad as that was, the core of that putrid group would get older, and WORSE.

The Warrior organization did NOTHING to help Chamberlain in his 5 1/2 years there. His two HOF teammates, Paul Arizin and Tom Gola were on the decline, and in fact, Arizin would retire after playing alongside Wilt for three seasons. Gola? He was no more of a HOF NBA player than myself. Yes, he is in the HOF, but it is based SOLELY on his college career. He was a good, but certainly far from a great NBA player. His career averages were 11 ppg 8 rpg, and on .431 shooting. AND, Gola was perhaps the WORST post-season shooting "HOF" player of all-time, as well. And before someone jumps in and claims that it was because of Chamberlain, be advised that he was every bit as awful BEFORE Wilt. In his three post-seasons with Wilt, he shot .412, .271, and .206 (yes, that is not a misprint... .206.) And even Arizin, who was the ONE teammate in Wilt's Warrior years that was a great player, shot poorly in his two post-seasons with Chamberlain, with marks of .375 and .325.

Continued...

[jayfan]

This thread is just silly. Anyone who says something like this....

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

...is just flaming.

But I'll take a couple of moments to humor the "flamer." I'm not much of a stat guy. Stats often don't tell the whole story, and sometimes skew it. They don't account for intangibles and time of game situations that can only be absorbed by watching the game and the flow of the game.

To me, the issue of who was better can often be reduced to one simple question: Game 7, nba Finals, who would you rather have playing on your team? For me, the answer is unquestionably Hakeem. He's more versatile, more clutch, can do more things on the floor to help the team, is better defensively, and of course, isn't a liability at the free throw line.

In spite of my disdain for stats, I'll throw out a couple of playoff stats which seem to reflect my position. Why playoffs, by the way? Because playoffs separate men form boys. The pressure's on, the opponents are better, and the stakes are raised. So lets compare the career playoff per game averages of Shaq and Hakeem, shall we?

POINTS Hakeem-25.9 Shaq-24.3

ASSISTS Hakeem-3.2 Shaq-2.7

BLOCKS Hakeem-3.3 Shaq-2.1

STEALS Hakeem-1.7 Shaq-0.5

REBOUNDS Hakeem-11.2 Shaq-11.6

Sense the point?

Let's move on. Our thread author criticizes Hakeem for winning only 1 league mvp... which is exactly the same number that Shaq won. Huh.

Conversely, Hakeem was 2x nba defensive POY, and 5x first-team all-defense. Shaq was never either.

To summarize, this thread is nonsense. Peace.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

How good were Russell's teammates? I won't bother looking up their individual seasons, but players like Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, Havlicek, and Sam Jones ALL put up MULTIPLE 20+ ppg seasons. Sam Jones had seasons as high as 26 ppg and post-seasons as high as 29 ppg. Havlicek had multiple 20 ppg seasons with Russell, and then REALLY exploded AFTER Russell. He would have two straight seasons, AFTER Russell, in which he averaged 28 and 29 ppg.

In Chamberlain's 5 1/2 seasons with the Warriors, he had ONE teammate who EVER averaged 20+ ppg...and that was an aging Arizin. That was IT. (Granted, I am not counting Willie Naulls, who was a shell when he played with Wilt, and who played WORSE with Russell afterwards, or Thurmond, who basically was a part-timer playing out of position in his 1 1/2 years with Chamberlain.)

And here again, before some uneducated idiot (like Simmons) jumps up and claims that, "see, Wilt made his teammates worse,", the fact was, MOST of them had their best seasons WITH Chamberlain. Meschery, Gola, Greer, West, Goodrich, et.al. And, one more time, Wilt's teammates in his Warrior seasons, aside from Arizin, not only didn't have 20 ppg seasons with Wilt, NONE of them EVER had 20+ ppg seasons, even in their years on other teams.

Meanwhile, Russell's rosters were LOADED with FIREPOWER. And, as great as Russell was, players like Cousy, Sharman, and Havlicek had 20 ppg seasons on teams without Russell. Furthermore, as evidenced by Hondo, those players, and players like Sam Jones and Heinsohn, would probably have had HIGHER scoring seasons elsewhere. The fact was, those Celtic rosters were so loaded, that they had to share the scoring.

Comtinued...