Worst re-writing of NBA history on ISH?

[Fatal9]

But look at the '62 EDF

Wilt averaged 33.6 ppg, well below his season average and it looks like Russell was well above his season average, though I can't find his scoring average for the entire series.

Game 1- Boston won 117-89, Wilt had just 12 points in the first half.

Game 2- Wilt had 42 and won, but he allowed Russell to score 31 on him.

Game 3- 35 points, but Russell outscored Wilt 21-13 and out-rebounded him 14-11 in the first half giving Boston a 21 point halftime lead. Russell finished with 31 again.

Game 5- Wilt had 30 points and Russell had 29. But Wilt shot 4-13 in the first half and had just 11 points in the half while Russell out-rebounded him 11-9 to give Boston a 23 point halftime lead.

Game 7- Wilt had just 22 points and Russell again nearly matched him with 19.

It appears that he padded his stats with the game basically decided in games 1, 3 and 5. So as far as the 33.6 ppg were below his usual 50.4 ppg average, it helps put his play in perspective. It also doesn't say much about his defense in his early years that Russell was noticeably above his season average vs Wilt unless he just had 3 terrible games aside from the 4 games where I found his point totals.

This is exactly what I mean, and I see it happening in many of his games against Russell. He will get his stats after Boston is already up 20+ and win the statistical battle to create an illusion that he outplayed him every game. I actually gained a lot of respect for Russell when I noticed this trend.

[Mr. Jabbar]

His point is valid. They were a bucket or two away from only having one ring. It doesn't matter if it was the WCF, the fact was that they only had one postseason of domination.

Lets put it this way, on those 3 years the lakers faced 12 teams. (4 x 3 seasons). From which only 2 posed a real threat. I say thats domination, you could put up a case against any "dominating" team for that matter.


Lets take a look at the Bulls first three-peat playoff record: 45-13,.....now the second: 45-13.
Now lets see Lakers playoff record during their three-peat: 45-13.

Not saying both dominated in the same way, but it gives you a clue.

[Nero Tulip]

Those were the only 2 teams with a chance in 3 years. And that wasn't even in the Finals. Lakers dominated the Finals, and in the process they had a 15-1 playoff record. Yeah, they did dominate.

Hey not taking anything away from them, I actually like the Lakers. But the year they almost swept the playoffs is the only one when they dominated.

Who cares if the finals were easy? The Eastern Conference was basically the NBDL at that point. Did San Antonio dominate the league because of how easy the New Jersey Nets and the Cleveland Cavaliers were for them?

My point is, they were lucky to win it (especially against Sacramento), so they didn't really dominate. Dominating the league means being above the rest of the competition, and those 2 teams at least were as good as them.

[JMT]

People who aren't old enough to have seen players, and instead rely on stats to bolster their uninformed opinions, have nothing to bring to the discussion.

Yet that's the basis of a huge percentage of the posts here.

Seems half the topics posted are revisionist history.

[OrlandoAnderson]

Within the last two months there was a claim that Luc Longley was a do-everything center and would dominate the game today.

could you even be more hypocritical, you probably never even saw luc longley play.. don't know what he looks, don't kno what country he's from.. and what he did for the bulls that was so special.. please shut the fk up.. and post in the kiddy threads.

[jlauber]

People who aren't old enough to have seen players, and instead rely on stats to bolster their uninformed opinions, have nothing to bring to the discussion.

Yet that's the basis of a huge percentage of the posts here.

Seems half the topics posted are revisionist history.

100% agreed.

[magnax1]

Payton and Kidd were better then Stockton
Hakeem was, or had a case for GOAT center
Jordan would've been just like Dominique if not for Pippen
Mutumbo didn't deserve his DPOTYs
Pau was the best player on the Lakers
AI was cancer
KG was a choker

[BlueandGold]

"Wilt is not a top10 player in the game" - shaqattack

[Psileas]

But scoring? I mean, you see the 35 ppg in the '62 playoffs and you think it's impressive, but then you see that he shot a shade under 47% and had a TS% of just under 51% which is very inefficient. Yes, you could say that league average shooting percentages were much lower then, but why were the shooting percentages lower? Most likely because guards were taking quicker pull up jumpers. I doubt Wilt was doing that. Wouldn't he be the same post player regardless? I mean, what would he be doing differently in a different league? I'd imagine he'd still be shooting his finger rolls, fadeaways, getting dunks ect. so how would the league average affect his shooting percentage.

47% FG and 51% TS was not considered inefficient and you can trace this back if you want. Abe had posted some time ago an article from SI from his rookie season and you could see that Wilt was actually praised for shooting in the range of 45%, which he upped during the season to about 47%.
After all, you're not going to shoot much better if you are playing at this pace and take all types of shots, including a lot that you shouldn't. See Hakeem, Duncan. These guys don't shoot any better from the field than high scoring Wilt and they do get praised when they take more offensive responsibilities. You even mentioned the Hakeem vs Shaq thing. Hakeem shot 48% from the field on 30 shots per game and only few FT's, but he was praised, and that was in 1995, not 1960. Wilt shooting "only" 45-50% from the field for 40-pointers would earn him praises as long as his team won.

What would change nowadays? Apart from the obvious better conditions of practicing, etc, the more sophisticated offensive schemes would give him more good shots than unnecessary ones and would raise his percentages. In a league where every big man dunks on every chance, why would Wilt do any different? This is the story with Euroleague. It's the most physical league worldwide as long as defenses go, yet it has a lot of players shooting 60% or close to this from the field. That's because the offensive schemes of the teams always try to get a player the easiest shot possible. One Kobe-like move is deemed unnecessary, 5 such moves will be considered tanking the game. Euroleague's fans pretty much accuse the modern NBA for a lot of the same things that the modern NBA's fans accuse 60's NBA.

And if you say that his efficiency wasn't as bad as it looks initially because of the era then you also must factor in that because of the shot attempts players could get, the 35 ppg isn't as good as it initially looks.

By today's standards, yes. By standards of the era? How many others were scoring 35 ppg. Baylor a couple of times and that's it. Again, it's like taking Wilt's 25 rpg and comparing them to today's rebounding leaders' mark and getting to the conclusion that Wilt was like an 80% better rebounder than Howard or prime Garnett.

And in the Boston series in '62, I believe Wilt averaged something like 33 ppg(don't have his shooting percentages).

Or in '66, the Sixers were in a 3-1 hole and Wilt had averaged only 23 ppg on 48% shooting through those 4 games, both well below his season averages, he did have a 46/34 game which is impressive. I don't find the free throw shooting as huge of a problem because he did score 46 and had a great rebounding night, and I can't judge how efficient he was without knowing what he shot from the field. But when you lose and you miss that many free throws, that does have to be a factor because it's well below even his standard to shoot 8/25.

True, he played below his standards in this series. 3 points though:

1) He also held Russell to 14 ppg. As a comparison, Russell got a career-high for a series 23.6 ppg in the following series against the Lakers. So, that

[alexandreben]

This is exactly what I mean, and I see it happening in many of his games against Russell. He will get his stats after Boston is already up 20+ and win the statistical battle to create an illusion that he outplayed him every game. I actually gained a lot of respect for Russell when I noticed this trend.

down by 20 pts in the halftime, so.. the player should give up?

we've seen so many times that Bulls down by around 20 pts entered into the fourth Qtr, using that logic you mentioned, Jordan was just another guy who went for the stats that create an illusion that he outplayed someone on the other side??

i'm not here to judge your logic, nevertheless, if any player(not to mention a superstar), who give up the game just becase they're down by 20pts at the halftime, should definitely be blamed...

remember the old NY Knicks? they never ever give up not till the last moment...

it aint over till it's over