Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 109
  1. #61
    NBA rookie of the year Psileas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Great!
    Posts
    6,706

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    Quote Originally Posted by dankok8
    66-67 was his first prime season but his MVP finish has more to do with a down year from the Celtics and Lakers. In subsequent years Nate became a better player. He had more defensive impact (DWS and team defense) as well as significantly better scoring with superior efficiency and improved passing. In '67 Nate was just 25 years old playing his 2nd year as a full-time center. I bet his jumper improved and he got a lot of invaluable experience under his belt as well.
    DWS are dependent on how many wins your team gets, so, as long as Phili and Boston dominated the W's, this number doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. Even worse, Thurmond missed 16 games in the 1967 season, meaning his DWS numbers are deflated. Also, his career high in assists came in 1968 and in 1966-69, he was at his apex as a rebounder, as well. Apart from added experience, I see no real reason to believe that 1970-1974 Thurmond was any better or impactful than his 1967-69 version.

  2. #62
    NBA Legend LAZERUSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,320

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    Quote Originally Posted by dankok8
    Actually Kareem from 69-70 to 73-74 averaged 24.9 ppg, 13.9 rpg, and 3.8 apg on 47.8% shooting against Nate in the regular season. In the playoffs 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8% shooting. He struggled offensively but he also held Nate to 18.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.8 apg on 40.4% shooting in the postseason.

    Starting from 67-68 season Wilt was almost always either outplayed by Nate or at least played to a draw. From 64-65 to 66-67 he had some good games (and also many games where he struggled... we have the full numbers) but Nate was young then and not nearly at his best as you claim. Thurmond's peak was from '69 to '73 both offensively and defensively.

    In Chamberlain's "scoring" prime (64-65 thru 65-66), in 12 H2H's with Nate, he averaged 28.8 ppg, 25.2 rpg and in the five H2H's we have the FG%'s, he shot .517. Nate averaged 16.8 ppg in all of 12, and we only have his rebounding data from seven, in which he averaged 22.1 rpg.

    And we do have all the info from Wilt's three 64-65 H2H's... 29.7 ppg, 24.3 rpg, and on an unfathomable .565 FG%. Think about that... 30-24- .565. No one else approached those numbers against Nate.

    You claim that you believe that Chamberlain shot less than 50% against Nate in 65-66, and I would argue that he shot over it. Here again, we only have TWO of his 9 H2H games, and he shot 17-32 in one and 8-22 in the other. He shot .565 in all three of his H2H's in 64-65, and over the course of the entire 65-66 season, he shot much better against the NBA than he did in 64-65.

    Not only that, but in their first 12 H2H games, Wilt not only outscored Thurmond 11-1, he was outscoring him by margins of 34-25, 33-19, 33-17, 26-9, 30-10, 38-15, and an eye-popping 45-13.

    And in their seven games in which we have rebounding data, Wilt went 5-2. Nate did beat him in one 32-21, but Chamberlain outrebounded Thurmond by margins of 31-23, 30-19, and even 29-10.


    If you include their very first H2H game in the 66-67 season (which came after his "scoring" seasons), in which Hannum instructed his Sixers to feed Wilt in the second half, and he responded with 24 second half points (demonstrating his REAL scoring capability)...in a game in which he outscored Thurmond, 30-13, Wilt averaged 28.9 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and again, probably well over 50% from the field.

    Furthermore, if you include their five regular season H2H's and six H2H's in the Finals, with their first 12 H2H games, a "prime" Wilt outscored Nate by a 20-2-1 margin, and outrebounded him in their 17 known H2H's, 12-5.

    And we don't know what Nate shot against Chamberlain in the vast majority of their H2H's, but we do have their H2H FG% numbers in their three playoff series, covering 17 games. Wilt outshot Nate by margins of .500 - .392; .560 - .343 (a prime Wilt and a prime Nate BTW); and .611 to .373.

    And as Julizaver's research has shown, Chamberlain easily outplayed Nate in the '69 and '73 playoffs, and Wilt just crushed him in every aspect of the '67 Finals.
    Last edited by LAZERUSS; 01-09-2014 at 12:36 AM.

  3. #63
    NBA lottery pick dankok8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,198

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    Quote Originally Posted by LAZERUSS
    In Chamberlain's "scoring" prime (64-65 thru 65-66), in 12 H2H's with Nate, he averaged 28.8 ppg, 25.2 rpg and in the five H2H's we have the FG%'s, he shot .517. Nate averaged 16.8 ppg in all of 12, and we only have his rebounding data from seven, in which he averaged 22.1 rpg.

    And we do have all the info from Wilt's three 64-65 H2H's... 29.7 ppg, 24.3 rpg, and on an unfathomable .565 FG%. Think about that... 30-24- .565. No one else approached those numbers against Nate.

    You claim that you believe that Chamberlain shot less than 50% against Nate in 65-66, and I would argue that he shot over it. Here again, we only have TWO of his 9 H2H games, and he shot 17-32 in one and 8-22 in the other. He shot .565 in all three of his H2H's in 64-65, and over the course of the entire 65-66 season, he shot much better against the NBA than he did in 64-65.

    Not only that, but in their first 12 H2H games, Wilt not only outscored Thurmond 11-1, he was outscoring him by margins of 34-25, 33-19, 33-17, 26-9, 30-10, 38-15, and an eye-popping 45-13.

    And in their seven games in which we have rebounding data, Wilt went 5-2. Nate did beat him in one 32-21, but Chamberlain outrebounded Thurmond by margins of 31-23, 30-19, and even 29-10.


    If you include their very first H2H game in the 66-67 season (which came after his "scoring" seasons), in which Hannum instructed his Sixers to feed Wilt in the second half, and he responded with 24 second half points (demonstrating his REAL scoring capability)...in a game in which he outscored Thurmond, 30-13, Wilt averaged 28.9 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and again, probably well over 50% from the field.

    Furthermore, if you include their five regular season H2H's and six H2H's in the Finals, with their first 12 H2H games, a "prime" Wilt outscored Nate by a 20-2-1 margin, and outrebounded him in their 17 known H2H's, 12-5.

    And we don't know what Nate shot against Chamberlain in the vast majority of their H2H's, but we do have their H2H FG% numbers in their three playoff series, covering 17 games. Wilt outshot Nate by margins of .500 - .392; .560 - .343 (a prime Wilt and a prime Nate BTW); and .611 to .373.

    And as Julizaver's research has shown, Chamberlain easily outplayed Nate in the '69 and '73 playoffs, and Wilt just crushed him in every aspect of the '67 Finals.
    You're posting some wrong stats.

    In 64-65 (3 games) Wilt averaged 26.7 ppg, 27.3 rpg, and 2.7 apg on exactly 50.0% from the field. He games of 34, 24, and 22 points.

    In 65-66 (9 games) Wilt averaged 28.6 ppg and 25.4 rpg on Nate. In the 2 games we have FG% he shot 46.3% from the field. He had games of 45, 38, 33, 30, 26, 25, 23, 22, and 15 points.

    Those scoring averages are well in line with what Kareem put up on prime Nate in the early 70's.

    In 66-67 (7 games) Wilt averaged 20.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, and 8.5 apg on Nate and in the 3 games we have FG% he shot 51.1%. He had games of 30, 27, 23, 16, 15, and 14 points.

    In the '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but not by some kind of enormous margin. Rebounding was rather close and Nate played some pretty inspired defense in the series.

    '67 Finals

    Wilt: 17.7 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg on 56.0 %FG/30.6 %FT/49.7 %TS in 47.8 mpg
    Nate: 14.2 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 3.3 apg on 34.3 %FG/54.8 %FT/37.7 %TS in 47.3 mpg

    In 67-68 (4 games) Wilt averaged 13.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, and 7.0 apg on Nate. We have FG% in 3 of the 4 games and Wilt shot a pathetic 37.9%. Nate averaged 15.0 ppg and 26.8 rpg in his games against Wilt.

    Overall in the 29 games (including 6 finals) that Wilt faced Nate in his prime (64-65 until 67-68) he had JUST 6 games of 30+ points.

    Beyond this point from 68-69 and later Wilt was out of his prime and Nate outscored and outrebounded him in the majority of the remaining games.

    And Wilt did not easily outplay Nate in '69 Round 1 or '73 WCF. That's just crazy talk. Instead of looking at just rpg and FG% also look at the number of shots each person took, the assists, and the free throw shooting. I don't want to break down each game now and pull out articles but take my word for it Wilt didn't clearly outplay let alone dominate Thurmond in either series.

    '69 Round 1

    Wilt: 12.0 ppg, 23.5 rpg, 2.5 apg on 50.0 %FG/32.4 %FT/47.2 %TS in 43.7 mpg
    Nate: 16.7 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 4.7 apg on 39.2 %FG/58.8 %FT/42.7 %TS in 42.2 mpg

    '73 WCF

    Wilt: 7.0 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 3.8 apg on 61.1 %FG/72.2 %FT/62.7 %TS in 45.0 mpg
    Nate: 15.8 ppg, 17.2 rpg, 4.2 apg on 37.3 %FG/81.0 %FT/42.8 %TS in 42.2 mpg
    Last edited by dankok8; 01-09-2014 at 01:58 AM.

  4. #64
    NBA Legend LAZERUSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,320

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    Quote Originally Posted by dankok8
    You're posting some wrong stats.

    In 64-65 (3 games) Wilt averaged 26.7 ppg, 27.3 rpg, and 2.7 apg on exactly 50.0% from the field. He games of 34, 24, and 22 points.

    In 65-66 (9 games) Wilt averaged 28.6 ppg and 25.4 rpg on Nate. In the 2 games we have FG% he shot 46.3% from the field. He had games of 45, 38, 33, 30, 26, 25, 23, 22, and 15 points.

    Those scoring averages are well in line with what Kareem put up on prime Nate in the early 70's.

    In 66-67 (7 games) Wilt averaged 20.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, and 8.5 apg on Nate and in the 3 games we have FG% he shot 51.1%. He had games of 30, 27, 23, 16, 15, and 14 points.

    In the '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but not by some kind of enormous margin. Rebounding was rather close and Nate played some pretty inspired defense in the series.

    '67 Finals

    Wilt: 17.7 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg on 56.0 %FG/30.6 %FT/49.7 %TS in 47.8 mpg
    Nate: 14.2 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 3.3 apg on 34.3 %FG/54.8 %FT/37.7 %TS in 47.3 mpg

    In 67-68 (4 games) Wilt averaged 13.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, and 7.0 apg on Nate. We have FG% in 3 of the 4 games and Wilt shot a pathetic 37.9%. Nate averaged 15.0 ppg and 26.8 rpg in his games against Wilt.

    Overall in the 29 games (including 6 finals) that Wilt faced Nate in his prime (64-65 until 67-68) he had JUST 6 games of 30+ points.

    Beyond this point from 68-69 and later Wilt was out of his prime and Nate outscored and outrebounded him in the majority of the remaining games.

    And Wilt did not easily outplay Nate in '69 Round 1 or '73 WCF. That's just crazy talk. Instead of looking at just rpg and FG% also look at the number of shots each person took, the assists, and the free throw shooting. I don't want to break down each game now and pull out articles but take my word for it Wilt didn't clearly outplay let alone dominate Thurmond in either series.

    '69 Round 1

    Wilt: 12.0 ppg, 23.5 rpg, 2.5 apg on 50.0 %FG/32.4 %FT/47.2 %TS in 43.7 mpg
    Nate: 16.7 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 4.7 apg on 39.2 %FG/58.8 %FT/42.7 %TS in 42.2 mpg

    '73 WCF

    Wilt: 7.0 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 3.8 apg on 61.1 %FG/72.2 %FT/62.7 %TS in 45.0 mpg
    Nate: 15.8 ppg, 17.2 rpg, 4.2 apg on 37.3 %FG/81.0 %FT/42.8 %TS in 42.2 mpg
    You are right about 64-65. Nate had a habit of "ducking" Wilt thorughout their career H2H's, and the one game I looked at was a Wilt 33-18 game on 13-25 shooting. So, a "scoring" Wilt averaged 28.1 ppg against Nate in his first 12 games, and if you include their first H2H in '67, it was 28.2 ppg in 13. And in their last H2H game of '65, thru their nine H2H's in '66, and even into their first H2H of '67, covering 11 straight games, Chamberlain averaged 29.2 ppg.

    Oh, and in their first 13 H2H games, a prime "scoring" Chamberlain had those SIX 30+ point games, which was more than KAJ put on a healthy Nate in their 39 H2H's thru the 73-74 season (and actually Nate was nowhere near healthy in 73-74 either, and was already beginning a steep decline after the 72-73 season.) And again, KAJ never put up games of 38 against Nate, much less than an overwhelming 45 point game.

    And yes, Julizaver's recaps of both '69 and '73 were clearly a solid "win" by Wilt over Nate. And Chamberlain just crushed Thurmond in the '67 Finals. He outscored him in five of the six games; outrebounded him in five of the six games; outassisted him in five of the six games; and outshot him in all six (and by a staggering margin.)

    Here were their 68-69 H2H's...

    http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=321075

    I would give them a tie in game one, and perhaps a tie in game five (Nate outscored Wilt in that game, but Chamberlain slaughtered him on the glass, and blocked 10 shots.) After that, a solid 4-0 for Wilt.

    And, of course, we have the OP, in which I would give Nate game four, possibly a "win" in game one (but more likely a tie), and then Wilt handily "won" the other 3... in a blowout series win. Interesting too, because Nate led the Warriors over KAJ's 60-22 Bucks in the first round, but was easily outplayed by Wilt in this series.

    And the 66-67 Finals were really epitomized by the clinching game six. Wilt outscored Nate, 23-12; outrebounded him, 23-22; and dramatically outshot him the field, 8-13 to 4-13. He was doing that the entire series. And in the games in which blocks were recorded, Chamberlain had at least two games of 10 (and in one of them, probably 15.)
    Last edited by LAZERUSS; 01-09-2014 at 05:44 AM.

  5. #65
    NBA rookie of the year Psileas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Great!
    Posts
    6,706

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    In the '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but not by some kind of enormous margin. Rebounding was rather close and Nate played some pretty inspired defense in the series.

    '67 Finals

    Wilt: 17.7 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg on 56.0 %FG/30.6 %FT/49.7 %TS in 47.8 mpg
    Nate: 14.2 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 3.3 apg on 34.3 %FG/54.8 %FT/37.7 %TS in 47.3 mpg
    Given that, not only did he outperform Thurmond in every single category in which they didn't guard each other (btw, since you count FT's, count fouls as well: Thurmond commited 20, Wilt 16), he did so practically game-by-game. He outscored him all but once, outrebounded him all but once (though by small margins), outassisted him in all games (and not by small margins), outshot him in all games and probably outblocked him overall as well (more references exist about Wilt's blocked shots), so for me that's some pretty thorough outplaying.
    Look at it this way: In the 1992 Finals, Jordan held a decisive advantage only in scoring and FG%. Drexler actually beat Jordan in some fields, yet it's still considered domination on Jordan's part. This series, to be, belongs in the same category. Yes, Wilt wasn't putting up 30-40 point games, but he wasn't giving up 25-30 point games, either.

  6. #66
    Dunking on everybody in the park
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    666

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    Quote Originally Posted by LAZERUSS
    Of course it is not "official" but I was actually at game three in that series, and I had Wilt with 11 blocks.

    I will never forget...at halftime they had dogs catching frisbees (pretty amazing stuff), and then at the start of the second half, the Lakers went on a tear in the first couple of minutes, and essentailly blew the game wide open. After a quick timeout, a Warrior fan sitting behind me stood up, and yelled, "Bring back the frisbee show!"


    As for the series...Wilt outshot Nate from the floor, .611 to .373. And during the regular season, and in their six H2H's, Chamberlain outshot Kareem, .737 to .450. Granted, Chamberlain was not taking many shots, but still, in one H2H game with Kareem that season, he outscored him, 24-21, while outshooting him, 10-14 to 10-27. Oh, and in the first round of the playoffs, Nate and the Warriors shocked the 60-22 Bucks, 4-2, in a series in which Thurmond held KAJ to .428 shooting.

  7. #67
    NBA lottery pick dankok8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,198

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    In '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but he did not DOMINATE him. The stats are a bit close though in Wilt's favor for sure.

    The comparison to Jordan-Drexler is a huge stretch. Jordan put up 11 more ppg on better efficiency and also outassisted Clyde. MJ killed Clyde in that series and I can say so because I watched it as well.

    '69 Round 1

    Game 1 26.03.1969 - SFW win 99-94

    Wilt 48 min 11 pts (5-11 FG, 1-3 FT), 30 rebs, 3 asts
    Nate 48 min 15 pts (6-16 FG, 3-6 FT), 27 rebs, 8 asts

    Game 2 28.03.1969 - SFW win 107-101

    Wilt 41 min 10 pts (4-10 FG, 2-9 FT), 17 rebs, 1 asts
    Nate 48 min 27 pts (11-18 FG, 5-6 FT), 28 rebs, 4 asts, 14 blks

    Game 3 31.03.1969 - Lakers win 115-98

    Wilt 44 min 22 pts (9-14 FG, 4-13 FT), 28 rebs, 5 asts, 8 blks
    Nate 44 min 22 pts (8-20 FG, 6-11 FT), 20 rebs, 5 asts, 8 blks

    Game 4 02.04.1969 - Lakers win 103-88

    Wilt 42 min 11 pts (4-10 FG, 3-6 FT), 14 rebs, 3 asts, 9 blks
    Nate 36 min 10 pts (3-13 FG, 4-5 FT), 15 rebs, 4 asts, 3 blks

    Game 5 04.04.1969 - Lakers win 103-98

    Wilt 48 min 7 pts (3-6 FG, 1-3 FT), 27 rebs, 2 asts, 10 blks
    Nate 48 min 18 pts (9-22 FG, 0-3 FT), 13 rebs, 6 asts

    Game 6 05.04.1969 - Lakers win 118-78

    Wilt 39 min 11 pts (5-9 FG, 1-3 FT), 25 rebs, 1 ast, 10 blks
    Nate 29 min 8 pts (3-13 FG, 2-3 FT), 14 rebs, 1 ast
    Game 1 and 2 are a win for Nate. Game 3, 4, and 5 look pretty damn close either way and Game 6 is clear edge Wilt.

    Overall in the series even if you want to give Wilt an edge in another game he still didn't dominate or even clearly outplay Nate all-together. In fact there is as much of an argument for the opposite Nate > Wilt.

    And if I remember correctly a big reason cited for the Warriors' collapse from a 2-0 lead in the series was the injury of all-star guard Jeff Mullins. He scored 56 points in the first two games and just 30 points in the last four games combined.

    '73 WCF

    Game 1 17.04.1973 - Lakers win 101-99

    Wilt 44 min 4 pts (2-5 FG, 0-0 FT), 25 rebs, 2 asts, 8 blks
    Nate 48 min 22 pts (8-21 FG, 6-7 FT), 26 rebs, 5 asts

    Game 2 19.04.1973 - Lakers win 104-93

    Wilt 48 min 5 pts (1-3 FG, 3-4 FT), 30 rebs, 4 asts, 7* blks
    Nate 47 min 16 pts (8-20 FG, 0-0 FT), 14 rebs, 6 asts

    Game 3 21.04.1973 - Lakers win 126-70

    Wilt 39 min 12 pts (2-2 FG, 8-10 FT), 23 rebs, 3 asts, 8 blks
    Nate 37 min 9 pts (3-13 FG, 3-4 FT), 13 rebs, 2 asts

    Game 4 23.04.1973 - Warriors win 117-109

    Wilt 48 min 9 pts (4-6 FG, 1-1 FT), 16 rebs, 3 asts
    Nate 47 min 23 pts (10-20 FG, 3-3 FT), 18 rebs, 3 asts

    Game 5 25.04.1973 - Lakers win 128-118

    Wilt 46 min 5 pts (2-2 FG, 1-3 FT), 22 rebs, 7 asts, 6 blks
    Nate 32 min 9 pts (2-9 FG, 5-7 FT), 15 rebs, 5 asts
    Game 1 is definite edge Nate.

    Game 2 and 3 are slight edge Wilt.

    Game 4 is definite edge Nate.

    Game 5 is definite edge Wilt.

    Overall this series is a wash. It's 3:2 Wilt but it seems Nate won his games by larger margins.
    Last edited by dankok8; 01-09-2014 at 01:19 PM.

  8. #68
    Local High School Star
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,434

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    Quote Originally Posted by dankok8
    In '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but he did not DOMINATE him. The stats are a bit close though in Wilt's favor for sure.
    Twelve percent gap in TS%. Close?!?!

    All else being equal that's a huge amount.

    The 76ers took roughly 120.2503704 true shots per game (fg+(fta*.48))/81 (for 81 games).
    Lets suppose for the purposes of illustration all things are equal and their opponents had the same number of true shot attempts.

    So lets say the whole Sixers team outshot their rivals by that amount (or a team of Chamberlains did so to a team of Thurmonds)

    120.2503704*.12 (representing the twelve percent difference)= 14.43004444

    Now lets turn that from a true shooting based calculation into a points per possession based one (double it) 28.86008889.

    Applied to a team level, at '67 Sixers pace, Chamberlain's efficiency scoring edge, would represent a gap of 28.86 points per game. That's a ridiculous margin.

    Now given they were only individiuals it was probably roughly a five or six point edge that Chamberlain was worth in this area. Still losing by that much at one position is huge (not to mention Wilt had advantages elsewhere).

    You might argue Wilt held Thurmond below his usual output offensively, but you can't argue it was close, because it wasn't.

  9. #69
    Local High School Star
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,152

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    Quote Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
    Not just the two rings about Willis Reed though.



    Dude played in a huge media bubble, especially in the 1960s. Unlike today... when anybody with cable tv can watch just about any game they want, and even more with league pass, internet, etc..... back then even local tv might not cover games. National tv wasn't going to be happening at all except for the Sunday afternoon Celtics - Sixers matchups. San Francisco was remote, isolated from the East Coast by an entire continent in days when 2 lane interstate highways were not just a novelty, they were amazing feats of engineering. It was the Jet Age, you follow?

    Still, Reed was an incredible presence on the court, with a game style for a center that was almost unique in history. He was incredibly strong with a powerful core that couldn't be moved at all. It was like trying to move an oak tree. His passing was better than Nate's and that's saying a lot. When Reed was on fire he could just ignite the entire arena with excitement.
    Of course too, his teammates were immeasurably better than Frisco, which only made Captain Reed shine all the brighter.
    I am not questioning his greatness, I am just saying that Reed received more recognition than Nate due to his two titles. In future I can do some W. Reed vs N. Thurmond research.

  10. #70
    Local High School Star
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,152

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    Quote Originally Posted by dankok8
    Actually Kareem from 69-70 to 73-74 averaged 24.9 ppg, 13.9 rpg, and 3.8 apg on 47.8% shooting against Nate in the regular season. In the playoffs 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8% shooting. He struggled offensively but he also held Nate to 18.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.8 apg on 40.4% shooting in the postseason.

    Starting from 67-68 season Wilt was almost always either outplayed by Nate or at least played to a draw. From 64-65 to 66-67 he had some good games (and also many games where he struggled... we have the full numbers) but Nate was young then and not nearly at his best as you claim. Thurmond's peak was from '69 to '73 both offensively and defensively.
    I insist that Nate was peaking from 1966-67 season. Anyway, since we bring another centers for comparison from the known data I have at the moment:

    How Nate shot vs Russell, Kareem and Wilt ?

    vs Russell - 19,6 ppg on 0.409
    vs Kareem - 18.6 ppg on 0.413
    vs Wilt - 16.3 ppg on 0.382

    And how the others shot against him ?

    Kareem vs Nate - 24.76 ppg on 0.447
    Wilt vs Nate - 14.84 ppg on 0.530
    Russell vs Nate - 11.59 ppg on 4.34

    The data covers the 1965-1973 period. The data for Wilt vs Nate and Russell vs Nate is still incomplete (but I have the majority of the games data).

  11. #71
    NBA rookie of the year Psileas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Great!
    Posts
    6,706

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    In '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but he did not DOMINATE him. The stats are a bit close though in Wilt's favor for sure.

    The comparison to Jordan-Drexler is a huge stretch. Jordan put up 11 more ppg on better efficiency and also outassisted Clyde. MJ killed Clyde in that series and I can say so because I watched it as well.
    You're the same one who claimed that Wilt's rebounding edge over Thurmond was insignificant, yet you mention Jordan's outassisting of Drexler as a significant margin (else, you would claim that it was insignificant, like I did for Wilt-Thurmond rebounding)? There are 2 statistical fields where Jordan clearly outplayed Drexler and they even are interconnected. There are 2 statistical fields where Wilt clearly outplayed Thurmond and they're not even interconnected (FG% and passing). Drexler beat Jordan in rebounding (leaving aside marginal victories, like shot blocking and FT%), Thurmond beat Wilt in FT% and nowhere else. Drexler arguably outplayed Jordan in at least 1 game. Thurmond outplayed Wilt in none.

  12. #72
    NBA lottery pick dankok8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,198

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl
    Twelve percent gap in TS%. Close?!?!

    All else being equal that's a huge amount.

    The 76ers took roughly 120.2503704 true shots per game (fg+(fta*.48))/81 (for 81 games).
    Lets suppose for the purposes of illustration all things are equal and their opponents had the same number of true shot attempts.

    So lets say the whole Sixers team outshot their rivals by that amount (or a team of Chamberlains did so to a team of Thurmonds)

    120.2503704*.12 (representing the twelve percent difference)= 14.43004444

    Now lets turn that from a true shooting based calculation into a points per possession based one (double it) 28.86008889.

    Applied to a team level, at '67 Sixers pace, Chamberlain's efficiency scoring edge, would represent a gap of 28.86 points per game. That's a ridiculous margin.

    Now given they were only individiuals it was probably roughly a five or six point edge that Chamberlain was worth in this area. Still losing by that much at one position is huge (not to mention Wilt had advantages elsewhere).

    You might argue Wilt held Thurmond below his usual output offensively, but you can't argue it was close, because it wasn't.
    Honestly it wasn't 5 or 6 points because Wilt was only the 5th leading scorer on his team. Wilt contributed only 106/747 or 14.2% of his team's points. Take 14.2% of 28.86 and that's 4.1 points a game...

    TS% is also flawed because a FT back then (no 3pt shots) was worth half of a FG so Wilt bricking his free throws was hurting his team more than it would today.

    People bring up rebounding edge like it's a big deal. Wilt grabbed 11 extra rebounds over 6 games. That's not really significant at all. And we know that Nate had 3 games at around 8-10 blocked shots.

    I wouldn't respond in such detail to such minor points but you're the one who did the analysis!
    Wilt OUTPLAYED Nate and I said so but he DID NOT DOMINATE him.

    I insist that Nate was peaking from 1966-67 season. Anyway, since we bring another centers for comparison from the known data I have at the moment:

    How Nate shot vs Russell, Kareem and Wilt ?

    vs Russell - 19,6 ppg on 0.409
    vs Kareem - 18.6 ppg on 0.413
    vs Wilt - 16.3 ppg on 0.382

    And how the others shot against him ?

    Kareem vs Nate - 24.76 ppg on 0.447
    Wilt vs Nate - 14.84 ppg on 0.530
    Russell vs Nate - 11.59 ppg on 4.34

    The data covers the 1965-1973 period. The data for Wilt vs Nate and Russell vs Nate is still incomplete (but I have the majority of the games data).
    Wilt shot a much higher FG% against Nate but on far fewer shots than Kareem. If Wilt took 25 shots a game I suspect he wouldn't shoot well either.

    You're the same one who claimed that Wilt's rebounding edge over Thurmond was insignificant, yet you mention Jordan's outassisting of Drexler as a significant margin (else, you would claim that it was insignificant, like I did for Wilt-Thurmond rebounding)? There are 2 statistical fields where Jordan clearly outplayed Drexler and they even are interconnected. There are 2 statistical fields where Wilt clearly outplayed Thurmond and they're not even interconnected (FG% and passing). Drexler beat Jordan in rebounding (leaving aside marginal victories, like shot blocking and FT%), Thurmond beat Wilt in FT% and nowhere else. Drexler arguably outplayed Jordan in at least 1 game. Thurmond outplayed Wilt in none.
    That's fair but see my post above. Wilt really didn't dominate Nate. He just outplayed him but it wasn't a blowout by any means.

    My initial response was primarily to LAZERUSS who said Wilt KILLED Nate in '67 Finals. I strongly disagree with that.
    Last edited by dankok8; 01-09-2014 at 05:52 PM.

  13. #73
    Local High School Star
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,434

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    Quote Originally Posted by dankok8
    Honestly it wasn't 5 or 6 points because Wilt was only the 5th leading scorer on his team. Wilt contributed only 106/747 or 14.2% of his team's points. Take 14.2% of 28.86 and that's 4.1 points a game...

    TS% is also flawed because a FT back then (no 3pt shots) was worth half of a FG so Wilt bricking his free throws was hurting his team more than it would today.
    A 4 point advantage per game (even if that was the only area Wilt had an advantage) at one position is still a big deal. Indeed it accounts for more than half the per game points differential over the series.

    I don't see how missing a ft is more harmful because there were no threes. TS% is (or may be) imperfect for that era but it's not to do with 3s. The extra value of the three is factored in by using points (thereby accounting for the extra value of the three) rather than field goal attempts, if there aren't three point attempts it still works fine. With different free throw rules and different values of a typical free throw relative to a possession it might shift at the margins. Even so it would be marginal, especially relative to Chamberlain's substantial edge in this area.

  14. #74
    NBA Legend LAZERUSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,320

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    While I don't have the complete breakdown, game-by-game, I now have the totals for Chamberlain in their six regular season H2H's in 66-67.

    Thanks to nbastats.net, we know that Wilt faced the Warriors in all nine regular season games in 66-67, while Nate only played in six (more on that in a moment.) And, fortunately, we have the complete totals for Wilt's three games in which Nate ducked him.

    Those three games were played on 3/2, 3/14, and 3/16:

    On 3/2: Wilt scored 24 points, on 8-20 from the field, with 38 rebounds, and 13 assists.

    On 3/14: Wilt scored 21 points, on 9-13 from the field, with 25 rebounds, and 9 assists.

    On 3/16: Wilt scored 16 points, on 6-18 from the field, with 20 rebounds, and 6 assists.

    Totals: 61 points, 23-51 from the field, 83 rebounds, and 28 assists.


    OK, in the book Season of the Sixers, Wilt's season totals are listed against each team.


    Versus the Warriors, in his nine games:

    186 points, 233 rebounds, 79 assists, and 73-130 from the field.


    So, in his six H2H's with Nate:

    125 points, 150 rebounds, 51 assists, and 50-79 from the field.

    Or, 20.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 8.5 apg, and get this... a [COLOR="DarkRed"].633 FG%[/COLOR] against Thurmond
    .


    Here were their known numbers from those six H2H's:

    11/4/66: Wilt with 13 FGM, 30 points, 26 rebounds, 13 assists, and 12 blocks (Season of the Sixers.) Nate with 13 points.

    11/24/66: Wilt 10-16, 27 pts, 31 rebs, 7 ast. Nate 11 pts, 16 rebs.

    12/22: Wilt 6-12, 14 pts, 22 rebs, 8 ast. Nate 9 pts, 25 rebs.

    2/2/67: Wilt 7-17, 16 pts, 26 rebs, 6 ast, 5 blk. Nate 16 pts, 23 rebs.

    2/4/67: Wilt 10 FGM, 23 pts, 19 rebs, 8 ast. Nate with 21 pts, 29 rebs.

    2/7/67: Wilt 4 FGM, 15 pts, 26 rebs, 9 ast. Nate with 9 pts, 26 rebs.

    In the three H2H games in which we have Wilt's FG/FGA, he went 23-45, which means that in the three we don't, he shot, get this... 27-34, or a .794 FG% from the floor.


    Factor in that Chamberlain just annihilated Thurmond in the '67 Finals, and this season was perhaps an even greater domination of Thurmond that his 65-66 season (when he just shelled Nate by a staggering margin.)

    BTW, Nate almost always had a case of "Wiltitis" in each of his seasons, as well. It seems like he was always missing H2H games against Chamberlain. But how about this 66-67 season.

    Nate missed games with Wilt on 3/2, 3/14, and 3/16, ...BUT, he played in other games on 3/10, 3/11, 3/13, 3/17 and 3/18. Hmmm...
    Last edited by LAZERUSS; 01-09-2014 at 08:32 PM.

  15. #75
    NBA rookie of the year Psileas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Great!
    Posts
    6,706

    Default Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

    So, in his six H2H's with Nate:

    125 points, 150 rebounds, 51 assists, and 50-79 from the field.

    Or, 20.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 8.5 apg, and get this... a .633 FG% against Thurmond.


    Here were their known numbers from those six H2H's:

    11/4/66: Wilt with 13 FGM, 30 points, 26 rebounds, 13 assists, and 12 blocks (Season of the Sixers.) Nate with 13 points.

    11/24/66: Wilt 10-16, 27 pts, 31 rebs, 7 ast. Nate 11 pts, 16 rebs.

    12/22: Wilt 6-12, 14 pts, 22 rebs, 8 ast. Nate 9 pts, 25 rebs.

    2/2/67: Wilt 7-17, 16 pts, 26 rebs, 6 ast, 5 blk. Nate 16 pts, 23 rebs.

    2/4/67: Wilt 10 FGM, 23 pts, 19 rebs, 8 ast. Nate with 21 pts, 29 rebs.

    2/7/67: Wilt 4 FGM, 15 pts, 26 rebs, 9 ast. Nate with 9 pts, 26 rebs.

    In the three H2H games in which we have Wilt's FG/FGA, he went 23-45, which means that in the three we don't, he shot, get this... 27-34, or a .794 FG% from the floor.
    Cool...so it seems like prime Wilt "slightly" outplayed Thurmond. Decent, halfway impressive.
    (Am I doing it right?)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •