Kareem & Wilt- Unstoppable

[Deuce Bigalow]

Well, to his credit, he is on record as claiming that Wilt shooting 1-11 from the line in game seven of the '70 Finals (in a blowout loss), cost him 3-4 rings.

Amazing how ONE game could cost him so much. Had he just hit a few more FTs in a couple of other game seven's, and Chamberlain likely would have won 10+ rings.

link? Never said one game cost him 2 games

[KOBE143]

Kareem was unstoppable

Wilt was statppable

[jlauber]

link? Never said one game cost him 2 games

Actually you made the claim that his 4-13 shooting in game seven of the '69 Finals cost him 3-4 rings.

I won't take the time to look up the actual quote right now, but you didn't deny making that claim when I posted it here...

http://207.58.151.151/forum/showthre...=239468&page=6

[TheBigVeto]

Kareem was unstoppable

Wilt was statppable

[Horatio33]

Well, to his credit, he is on record as claiming that Wilt shooting 1-11 from the line in game seven of the '70 Finals (in a blowout loss), cost him 3-4 rings.

Amazing how ONE game could cost him so much. Had he just hit a few more FTs in a couple of other game seven's, and Chamberlain likely would have won 10+ rings.

Well you can go on about Wil hitting a few free throws and he would have some rings. But he choked free throws in those games so your point is moot.

[jlauber]

Well you can go on about Wil hitting a few free throws and he would have some rings. But he choked free throws in those games so your point is moot.

Russell shot much worse from the field against Wilt, and nearly as bad from the line (and without nearly the IMPACT or points that Wilt had from the line), and he won 11 rings.

Just goes to show you that when you have great teammates, who play great, you can barely beat the most dominant player ever and his cast of clowns who played worse in the post-season.

Of course, when Wilt's teammates did finally neutralize Russell's, in the '67 ECF's, even with awful FT%, Chamberlain led his team to a 4-1 romp over the 8-time defending champion and 60-21 Celtics, in series in which he battered Russell in every facet of the game.

[jongib369]

Trolls

[Deuce Bigalow]

Actually you made the claim that his 4-13 shooting in game seven of the '69 Finals cost him 3-4 rings.

I won't take the time to look up the actual quote right now, but you didn't deny making that claim when I posted it here...

http://207.58.151.151/forum/showthre...=239468&page=6

Exactly, I never said it. Nice link with the quote...

[jlauber]

Exactly, I never said it. Nice link with the quote...

You were rigt Duncewood,

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...=237677&page=2

Wilt might of won 3-4 rings if he didnt shoot a combined 5-24 from the freethrow line in game 7 of the '69 and '70 Finals

So, shooting 5-24 from the line in TWO games cost Wilt 3-4 rings.

And here was my response...

This is truly laughable...

Wilt going 5-24 from the line in TWO GAMES cost him THREE to FOUR rings. Yep, gotta love that new math.

And, let's examine those two games, while we are at it.

Once again, the Wilt detractors will completely DISTORT REALITY.

Ok, in that game seven of the '69 Finals, Wilt, pulled up lame with six minutes left in the game, and in the process of grabbing a rebound, and his outlet led to a fast break basket. Before he could come out, Boston missed another shot, and Wilt, on ONE leg, grabbed THAT rebound...which ultimately led to two West FTs. He HAD to come out. Within a couple of minutes he asked to go back in. His incompetent coach refused, instead preferring the brilliant play of Mel Counts, who missed two shots down the stretch, en route to a 4-13 game from the floor.

Oh, and how about Russell in that game? Here again, those that rip Wilt for his "declining" numbers in the post-season, NEVER bring up the FACT that Wilt DRAMTICALLY reduced his OPPOSING center's numbers (and he faced a HOF center in 99 of his 160 playoff games.) Wilt, on that one leg, and in those two possessions, matched Russell's entire rebounding totals in that 4th quarter.

And here were their overall numbers from that game...

Russell shot 2-7 from the floor, 2-4 from the line, had 21 rebounds, and scored six points.

Wilt shot 7-8 from the field, that 4-13 from the line, grabbed 27 rebounds, and scored 18 points (in five less minutes than Russell BTW.)


How about game seven of the '70 Finals?

The Knicks hit 15 of their first 21 shots, and exploded to a huge lead. And, in that run, Frazier was all over West, stealing the ball several times.

In that first half, Wilt went 5-10 from the field, (along with 12 rebounds), and only 1-8 from the line. BUT, his teammates, including West, collectively shot 33% from the field in that half...and the result? The Knicks led at the half, 69-42. Now, as you can plainly see, had Wilt somehow managed to go 8-8 from the line in that first half, his team would STILL have been down by 20 points!

Now, how about his battle with Reed...

Reed, with his teammates swarming Wilt, and committing all four of his personal fouls on Wilt in that first half...played 27 minutes and scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with THREE rebounds.

How about Wilt in that game seven? 21 points on 10-16 shooting, that 1-11 from the line, and 24 rebounds. Oh, and BTW, Wilt played 47.5 mpg in that seven game series...and only FOUR MONTHS removed from MAJOR KNEE SURGERY!

[Deuce Bigalow]

You were rigt Duncewood,

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...=237677&page=2



So, shooting 5-24 from the line in TWO games cost Wilt 3-4 rings.

And here was my response...

Now that is what I said, that those 2 games cost him from HAVING 3-4 rings. He already has 2 rings, so it's 1-2 cost rings is what I said. Read it again.

I changed my stance on '70 since I now know it was a blowout, but '69 is easily a cost ring. Also some other Game 7s, like the one where he didn't even get half his regular season ppg ('62), and others cost him rings.

[jlauber]

Now that is what I said, that those 2 games cost him from HAVING 3-4 rings. He already has 2 rings, so it's 1-2 cost rings is what I said. Read it again.

I changed my stance on '70 since I now know it was a blowout, but '69 is easily a cost ring. Also some other Game 7s, like the one where he didn't even get half his regular season ppg ('62), and others cost him rings.

I get so sick-and-tired of having to address these ridiculous "FT" claims.

1. As I have posted MANY times, while Chamberlain was a relatively poor FT shooter (at least in the last half of his career), his overall IMPACT was a BENEFIT to his teammates. Wilt's TEAMS invariably outshot and outscored their opponents from the line in virtually every post-season...some by HUGE margins.

I could give you a TON of examples, but I will just give a couple for now. In his 68-69 season, Chamberlain's Lakers LED the NBA in FTAs. Same in the post-season (where theu just torched Boston from the line.) Then, in the very next season, 69-70, Wilt was injured early in the season, and missed a total of 70 games. Guess what? The Lakers dropped to 12th in FTAs, in a 14 team league! But, it gets better. Wilt then came back for the playoffs, and his Lakers were MILES ahead of the next team in FTAs (200 more than the Knicks.)

And how about his '67 Finals, when he shot 22-72? His Sixers just waltzed to a title. And how about the clinching game six win? While Wilt was shooting a dismal 2-17 from the line, he had gotten virtually every Warrior player in foul trouble in the process. Do you want an example of IMPACT? Wilt shot 2-17, while his teammates, aside from Wilt, outshot the Warriors by a 39-47 to 22-29 margin (obviously a 41-64 to 22-29 margin overall.)

2. Chamberlain was probably the king of the "And-One's"...or baskets with a bonus shot, in NBA history (and only Shaq would have been with the other side of the ocean from him in that regard.) So, even if he shot 33% on those shots, it is still more than a normal player simply scoring a basket.

3. Russell and Shaq were poor post-season FT shooters, as well, and yet they collectively won 15 rings. Shaq WON two rings in the Finals with a .387 and a .292 FT%. And Russell not only shot below average from the line in the post-season, he won SEVERAL rings by shooting less than 40% from the FIELD.

4. And let's put this FT weakness in perspective, too. While Kareem, Duncan, and Hakeem were decent FT shooters for CENTERS, they were BELOW AVERAGE overall. Wilt was a 50% FT shooter, and those guys were around 70% (with series well below that.) There have been MANY centers who shot MUCH better. Yao, McAdoo, even Moses (who had FOUR post-seasons of .900+.) In any case, the ACTUAL difference between Kareem and Hakeem shooting 5-7, compared to Wilt's 5-10, is very minimal.

5. And while Wilt gets ripped for poor FT shooting, how come he NEVER gets praised for his unfathomable FG%'s (especially against the LEAGUE AVERAGE and in BOTH the regular season, AND the post-season)? Duncewood harps about 4-13 from the line, but what about 7-8 from the FIELD (especially in a game seven, two point loss, in which his teammates collectively shot .360 from the field?) He had another game seven, one point loss, in which he shot 6-13 from the line, BUT, he also shot 12-15 from the field (80%!)

6. And, here again, Chamberlain gets slammed for poor FT shooting, but how often do you read anyone calling Bird, Kobe, or Kareem "chokers" for their AWFUL poor FG% series? I have listed them all, many times, but those guys had SEVERAL post-season series (even in wins) in which they were just HORRIBLE from the line. Chamberlain shot .708 from the field in his game seven's in the Finals. Kobe shot .365.

7. AND, finally, what about Wilt's rebounding and defense in the post-season? While Wilt shot .708 (17-24) from the field in his game seven's, and averaged 25.5 rpg, his two opposing starting centers shot 4-12 (.333), and averaged 12 rpg.

I could go on for hours about that. Wilt played in 29 post-season series, and was NEVER outrebounded in ONE series. And he faced Russell in eight, Reed in three, Thurmond in three, and Kareem in two.

And he was DRAMATICALLY lowering his opposing centers FG% in the post-season. Russell rarely shot over .400 against him (while Chamberlain was around 50% against him.) Wilt held Russell to post-season series of as low as .399, .387, .396, and even .358.

Wilt faced HOF center Nate Thurmond in three post-season series, and outshot him by margins of .500 to .392; .550 to .398; and an unbelievable .560 to .343 margin (in the '67 Finals, and against a Thurmond who finished second in the MVP balloting.)

Wilt outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Bellamy in the '68 playoffs, by a .584 to .421 margin, in a season in which Bellamy had shot .541 against the NBA.

An OLD Wilt, playing against a PRIME Kareem, held Kareem to .481 and .457 shooting in two straight WCF's, in seasons in which Kareem had shot .577 and .574 against the rest of the NBA. BTW, in the last four games of the '72 WCF's, Wilt held Kareem to .414 shooting. Oh, and in their two series clinching H2H games, Wilt outshot Kareem by a .545 to .383 margin.

But, nope. Let's forget all of that. Or that Wilt's teammates routinely shot miserably in the post-season. He had SIX post-season in which his teammates shot less than .383 from the field. He had numerous game seven's in which theu shot well below .399. He had players like Baylor going 4-14, 2-12, and 8-22 from the FIELD in three games of the '69 Finals (all losses.)

Nope. Let's focus exclusively on Wilt's poor FT shooting instead. He was the ONLY reason why his team's lost so often in the post-season (even in a seven game series in which he put up a 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and .555 FG% against Russell.)

Too bad his teammates were saddled with such a choking loser. Can you imagine how many more rings they would have won without Wilt?

[Round Mound]

Wilt the GOAT Center

[jongib369]

Wilt the GOAT Center

are you being sarcastic or no? It's hard to tell on these boards haha. He's my favorite player and I'd have to agree, but it is arguable. not going to sit here on my computer thinking Im master of the basketball universe lol

[Horatio33]

Russell shot much worse from the field against Wilt, and nearly as bad from the line (and without nearly the IMPACT or points that Wilt had from the line), and he won 11 rings.

Just goes to show you that when you have great teammates, who play great, you can barely beat the most dominant player ever and his cast of clowns who played worse in the post-season.

Of course, when Wilt's teammates did finally neutralize Russell's, in the '67 ECF's, even with awful FT%, Chamberlain led his team to a 4-1 romp over the 8-time defending champion and 60-21 Celtics, in series in which he battered Russell in every facet of the game.

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.

[josh99]

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.

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)