Wilt vs. the Best Center in '71-'72

[senelcoolidge]

Wilt didn't exactly take a lot of shots in those seasons..so you would not expect him to score a lot. Look at the FG%. Most of the other centers were 1st and 2nd options on their teams. Big scorers.

[LAZERUSS]

I'm too tired to look up my previous posts on the topic, but I can assure everyone here that a PRIME Chamberlain, was far more dominant against the same centers that a PRIME Kareem would face a few years later.

We are talking about Darrell Imhoff, Connie Dierking, Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, and Nate Thurmond. And, you can even add Jim Fox to the list if you like, even though it was not a prime Wilt that dumped a 66 point game on him just the year before Kareem came into the league (and BTW, Wilt also plastered Dierking with a 60 point game that same season.)

[dankok8]

No player GOAT or otherwise looks great their last year. Why don't you post Kareem's last two years. It makes no sense to compare players after they realize they can't do what they once could. Its like saying I talked all night with Einstein about relativity... after the Alzheimer's was in full bloom - its kinda too late.

Wilt was only in his 13th and 14th seasons though. He led the league in rebounding both years, FG% both years, and even DWS in '72. He could still play.

Besides that post was in response to LAZERUSS claiming that Wilt dominated Lucas and Thurmond in certain playoff series which just isn't true.

[La Frescobaldi]

Wilt was only in his 13th and 14th seasons though. He led the league in rebounding both years, FG% both years, and even DWS in '72. He could still play.

Besides that post was in response to LAZERUSS claiming that Wilt dominated Lucas and Thurmond in certain playoff series which just isn't true.

You are comparing players straight up here. That isn't valid. The '72 Lakers are not a good example of what Chamberlain was like as a younger player, over on the Sixers. His role changed; in fact, it did a complete 180 turnabout when Sharman showed up as coach that season.

Instead of focusing on explosive all round play and his famous man to man defense - which was truly awe-inspiring in Philadelphia - Sharman had Wilt playing the exact style of Bill Russell.

Chamberlain left his old style, and played early '60s Celtics ball with complete abandon. Just as Russell was surrounded by great scorers, and saw Chamberlain stomp all over him in every respect, Wilt did the same thing to all those guys you mention here. Jabbar of course, was in his best days, and nobody was going to stop him from scoring. Not even Wilt Chamberlain could do that.

But there's no denying 33 wins in a row, nor one of the most thunderous shellings ever seen of a great team, the Knicks - MY Knicks - in the Finals.

No, Chamberlain was absolutely stellar that entire season, and no manner of opposing player stats can belie that simple fact. You mentioned Lanier in the OP which is interesting. I saw Chamberlain shut down the entire Pistons team for several minutes one game that year - blocked or altered every shot, got every rebound. The whole crowd was stunned at how complete Wilt's domination was - not of Bob Lanier, but of the entire Detroit team. From the second Elgin Baylor was finally thrown out, Wilt was the leader of the Lakers and the result is still to this day at the very top of what any team has ever achieved.

I think, myself, that the '67 & '68 Sixers were better squads than the '72 Lakers, mainly because Chamberlain was at the height of his powers and his legs were still good. I've never seen a better basketball player than Wilt was in those years. But that is a very debatable thing. Hal Greer was never better than Jerry West, and Wali Jones was no match for Gail Goodrich. Hannum vs. Sharman? whoa!!

But the point here is that coaching is unbelievably underrated by fans in general, & by ISH in particular. Sharman imo ranks with Auerbach, Riley, Hannum, Pops, & P Jax at the very top of coaching in the NBA. When Wilt had weak coaches (which was most of his career), he was put in a position where he had to carry the entire load. Wrongly so. And just as younger fans saw with Michael Jordan, or any number of lesser talents than those two... everybody saw that no single player, no matter how great, can carry a poorly coached team through a full NBA season. Jabbar also was weighed down with mediocre coaches in the '70s.

The other side of Wilt Chamberlain in '72 was this - he was literally the 5th scoring option on the Lakers play list. They almost never called #13. Lots of announcers that season pointed this out, over and over - "Chamberlain isn't scoring, he isn't even shooting... at all." Bill Russell was announcing by then, and he saw with perfect clarity what Sharman was doing. But when somebody got hurt, or he had to take over, Wilt was perfectly capable of throwing down 8 or 10 points and 6 or 8 rebounds in 2 or 3 minutes. He and Sharman would walk along the sideline at a timeout, and after a few times when you saw them do that, it was clear to one and all... that ball game was over.

Plenty of times in the 4th quarter that year, fans would see them strolling to the baseline and back and every seat instantly empty. Because the whole Forum was on its feet, straining to watch Chamberlain in his glory.

Also, you mention he was in his 13th season. But in those days a season was 40 or 50 games longer than it is today. The '60s NBA, desperate to make a name for itself and just as desperate to make a go of it, had endless numbers of exhibition games before the season started. You could see the Hawks or the Bullets in the weirdest places, almost like playing at a highway rest stop. Very very few players made it 15 seasons in those days. Havlicek was considered a human marvel when he went 17 seasons. It was unheard of!

This is an interesting idea for a thread though. It throws some light and darkness, some relief, on that '72 Lakers team, and how valuable coaching really is to a winning team.

[LAZERUSS]

You are comparing players straight up here. That isn't valid. The '72 Lakers are not a good example of what Chamberlain was like as a younger player, over on the Sixers. His role changed; in fact, it did a complete 180 turnabout when Sharman showed up as coach that season.

Instead of focusing on explosive all round play and his famous man to man defense - which was truly awe-inspiring in Philadelphia - Sharman had Wilt playing the exact style of Bill Russell.

Chamberlain left his old style, and played early '60s Celtics ball with complete abandon. Just as Russell was surrounded by great scorers, and saw Chamberlain stomp all over him in every respect, Wilt did the same thing to all those guys you mention here. Jabbar of course, was in his best days, and nobody was going to stop him from scoring. Not even Wilt Chamberlain could do that.

But there's no denying 33 wins in a row, nor one of the most thunderous shellings ever seen of a great team, the Knicks - MY Knicks - in the Finals.

No, Chamberlain was absolutely stellar that entire season, and no manner of opposing player stats can belie that simple fact. You mentioned Lanier in the OP which is interesting. I saw Chamberlain shut down the entire Pistons team for several minutes one game that year - blocked or altered every shot, got every rebound. The whole crowd was stunned at how complete Wilt's domination was - not of Bob Lanier, but of the entire Detroit team. From the second Elgin Baylor was finally thrown out, Wilt was the leader of the Lakers and the result is still to this day at the very top of what any team has ever achieved.

I think, myself, that the '67 & '68 Sixers were better squads than the '72 Lakers, mainly because Chamberlain was at the height of his powers and his legs were still good. I've never seen a better basketball player than Wilt was in those years. But that is a very debatable thing. Hal Greer was never better than Jerry West, and Wali Jones was no match for Gail Goodrich. Hannum vs. Sharman? whoa!!

But the point here is that coaching is unbelievably underrated by fans in general, & by ISH in particular. Sharman imo ranks with Auerbach, Riley, Hannum, Pops, & P Jax at the very top of coaching in the NBA. When Wilt had weak coaches (which was most of his career), he was put in a position where he had to carry the entire load. Wrongly so. And just as younger fans saw with Michael Jordan, or any number of lesser talents than those two... everybody saw that no single player, no matter how great, can carry a poorly coached team through a full NBA season. Jabbar also was weighed down with mediocre coaches in the '70s.

The other side of Wilt Chamberlain in '72 was this - he was literally the 5th scoring option on the Lakers play list. They almost never called #13. Lots of announcers that season pointed this out, over and over - "Chamberlain isn't scoring, he isn't even shooting... at all." Bill Russell was announcing by then, and he saw with perfect clarity what Sharman was doing. But when somebody got hurt, or he had to take over, Wilt was perfectly capable of throwing down 8 or 10 points and 6 or 8 rebounds in 2 or 3 minutes. He and Sharman would walk along the sideline at a timeout, and after a few times when you saw them do that, it was clear to one and all... that ball game was over.

Plenty of times in the 4th quarter that year, fans would see them strolling to the baseline and back and every seat instantly empty. Because the whole Forum was on its feet, straining to watch Chamberlain in his glory.

Also, you mention he was in his 13th season. But in those days a season was 40 or 50 games longer than it is today. The '60s NBA, desperate to make a name for itself and just as desperate to make a go of it, had endless numbers of exhibition games before the season started. You could see the Hawks or the Bullets in the weirdest places, almost like playing at a highway rest stop. Very very few players made it 15 seasons in those days. Havlicek was considered a human marvel when he went 17 seasons. It was unheard of!

This is an interesting idea for a thread though. It throws some light and darkness, some relief, on that '72 Lakers team, and how valuable coaching really is to a winning team.

And once again, a PRIME Wilt was FAR more dominant against Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, Imhoff, and Dierking than Kareem was against those same centers, and most all of them were declining by the time Kareem ran into them.

[dankok8]

You are comparing players straight up here. That isn't valid. The '72 Lakers are not a good example of what Chamberlain was like as a younger player, over on the Sixers. His role changed; in fact, it did a complete 180 turnabout when Sharman showed up as coach that season.

Instead of focusing on explosive all round play and his famous man to man defense - which was truly awe-inspiring in Philadelphia - Sharman had Wilt playing the exact style of Bill Russell.

Chamberlain left his old style, and played early '60s Celtics ball with complete abandon. Just as Russell was surrounded by great scorers, and saw Chamberlain stomp all over him in every respect, Wilt did the same thing to all those guys you mention here. Jabbar of course, was in his best days, and nobody was going to stop him from scoring. Not even Wilt Chamberlain could do that.

But there's no denying 33 wins in a row, nor one of the most thunderous shellings ever seen of a great team, the Knicks - MY Knicks - in the Finals.

No, Chamberlain was absolutely stellar that entire season, and no manner of opposing player stats can belie that simple fact. You mentioned Lanier in the OP which is interesting. I saw Chamberlain shut down the entire Pistons team for several minutes one game that year - blocked or altered every shot, got every rebound. The whole crowd was stunned at how complete Wilt's domination was - not of Bob Lanier, but of the entire Detroit team. From the second Elgin Baylor was finally thrown out, Wilt was the leader of the Lakers and the result is still to this day at the very top of what any team has ever achieved.

I think, myself, that the '67 & '68 Sixers were better squads than the '72 Lakers, mainly because Chamberlain was at the height of his powers and his legs were still good. I've never seen a better basketball player than Wilt was in those years. But that is a very debatable thing. Hal Greer was never better than Jerry West, and Wali Jones was no match for Gail Goodrich. Hannum vs. Sharman? whoa!!

But the point here is that coaching is unbelievably underrated by fans in general, & by ISH in particular. Sharman imo ranks with Auerbach, Riley, Hannum, Pops, & P Jax at the very top of coaching in the NBA. When Wilt had weak coaches (which was most of his career), he was put in a position where he had to carry the entire load. Wrongly so. And just as younger fans saw with Michael Jordan, or any number of lesser talents than those two... everybody saw that no single player, no matter how great, can carry a poorly coached team through a full NBA season. Jabbar also was weighed down with mediocre coaches in the '70s.

The other side of Wilt Chamberlain in '72 was this - he was literally the 5th scoring option on the Lakers play list. They almost never called #13. Lots of announcers that season pointed this out, over and over - "Chamberlain isn't scoring, he isn't even shooting... at all." Bill Russell was announcing by then, and he saw with perfect clarity what Sharman was doing. But when somebody got hurt, or he had to take over, Wilt was perfectly capable of throwing down 8 or 10 points and 6 or 8 rebounds in 2 or 3 minutes. He and Sharman would walk along the sideline at a timeout, and after a few times when you saw them do that, it was clear to one and all... that ball game was over.

Plenty of times in the 4th quarter that year, fans would see them strolling to the baseline and back and every seat instantly empty. Because the whole Forum was on its feet, straining to watch Chamberlain in his glory.

Also, you mention he was in his 13th season. But in those days a season was 40 or 50 games longer than it is today. The '60s NBA, desperate to make a name for itself and just as desperate to make a go of it, had endless numbers of exhibition games before the season started. You could see the Hawks or the Bullets in the weirdest places, almost like playing at a highway rest stop. Very very few players made it 15 seasons in those days. Havlicek was considered a human marvel when he went 17 seasons. It was unheard of!

This is an interesting idea for a thread though. It throws some light and darkness, some relief, on that '72 Lakers team, and how valuable coaching really is to a winning team.

Good post!

I'm well aware of Wilt's role on the 71-72 Lakers. He rebounded, anchored the defense, and ignited fast breaks with brilliant outlet passes mirroring the great Celtics teams of the 60's. West and Goodrich would provide the brunt of the scoring and Wilt would shoot sparingly though at high efficiency. Walton's Blazers also played a similar style to great effect though the Mountain Man was even better as a facilitator from the high post.

Anyways the '72 Knicks were really not at their best. Reed was out all year with injury and DeBusschere got hurt in Game 2 of the series and wasn't the same after.

And I don't think Chamberlain was far and away the leader of the Lakers. Jerry West led the team in MVP voting and despite his shooting slump in the playoffs his impact was very much on a high level. It was a 1a/1b kind of situation.

And once again, a PRIME Wilt was FAR more dominant against Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, Imhoff, and Dierking than Kareem was against those same centers, and most all of them were declining by the time Kareem ran into them.

When Wilt was in his scoring prime Thurmond and Reed were very very young...

[LAZERUSS]

Good post!

I'm well aware of Wilt's role on the 71-72 Lakers. He rebounded, anchored the defense, and ignited fast breaks with brilliant outlet passes mirroring the great Celtics teams of the 60's. West and Goodrich would provide the brunt of the scoring and Wilt would shoot sparingly though at high efficiency. Walton's Blazers also played a similar style to great effect though the Mountain Man was even better as a facilitator from the high post.

Anyways the '72 Knicks were really not at their best. Reed was out all year with injury and DeBusschere got hurt in Game 2 of the series and wasn't the same after.

And I don't think Chamberlain was far and away the leader of the Lakers. Jerry West led the team in MVP voting and despite his shooting slump in the playoffs his impact was very much on a high level. It was a 1a/1b kind of situation.



When Wilt was in his scoring prime Thurmond and Reed were very very young...

Thurmond was 24 in Wilt's 65-66 season (when he was burying Nate by margins of 33-10, 33-17, 38-15 and 45-13), and Nate was 25 and had his greatest season when Wilt averaged 21.0 ppg on .633 FG% against him in the regular season, and then slaughtered him in the Finals in every aspect of the game (virtually every game BTW.)

Kareem was 23 and 24 in his two greatest statistical seasons (and best defensive seasons, as well.)

Reed was 22, but he averaged 20 ppg against Russell that season in 9 H2H's, and held Bellamy to 22.5 ppg (while scoring 20.7 ppg himself) in 10 H2H's. Bellamy only had two games of 30+ against Reed (31 and 30 BTW.)

Meanwhile, Chamberlain averaged 38.6 ppg on a .524 FG% (In an NBA that shot an eFG% of .426 BTW) in 12 H2H's with Reed, including beatdowns of 37-22, 46-25, 41-9, 52-23, and 58-28. So, in effect, Chamberlain nearly averaged 40 ppg in 12 H2H games against Reed, all while outshooting the league eFG% by 10%!


And you certainly don't want to get into the Bellamy-KAJ, Bellamy-Wilt comparisons, do you? (Not to mention Dierking and Imhoff.)

[dankok8]

Thurmond was 24 in Wilt's 65-66 season (when he was burying Nate by margins of 33-10, 33-17, 38-15 and 45-13), and Nate was 25 and had his greatest season when Wilt averaged 21.0 ppg on .633 FG% against him in the regular season, and then slaughtered him in the Finals in every aspect of the game (virtually every game BTW.)

Kareem was 23 and 24 in his two greatest statistical seasons (and best defensive seasons, as well.)

Reed was 22, but he averaged 20 ppg against Russell that season in 9 H2H's, and held Bellamy to 22.5 ppg (while scoring 20.7 ppg himself) in 10 H2H's. Bellamy only had two games of 30+ against Reed (31 and 30 BTW.)

Meanwhile, Chamberlain averaged 38.6 ppg on a .524 FG% (In an NBA that shot an eFG% of .426 BTW) in 12 H2H's with Reed, including beatdowns of 37-22, 46-25, 41-9, 52-23, and 58-28. So, in effect, Chamberlain nearly averaged 40 ppg in 12 H2H games against Reed, all while outshooting the league eFG% by 10%!


And you certainly don't want to get into the Bellamy-KAJ, Bellamy-Wilt comparisons, do you? (Not to mention Dierking and Imhoff.)

Neither Thurmond nor Reed were in their primes in '65 and '66. Statistically, impact-wise, defensively... basically by any criteria. Reed started really becoming a great player around '67-'68 and peaked from '69-'71.

We've already beat Thurmond's career to death in other threads. His prime started in '66-'67 until '73-'74. His peak season was probably '70-'71. It was his best campaign statistically and he was perfectly healthy.

Wilt pulverized a rookie Reed and did about the same against Thurmond as Kareem but Nate had a year or less experience as a starting center when "scoring" Wilt faced him.

Whether we fully agree or not Reed's and Thurmond's prime coincided more with Kareem's prime than Wilt's prime.

[La Frescobaldi]

Good post!

I'm well aware of Wilt's role on the 71-72 Lakers. He rebounded, anchored the defense, and ignited fast breaks with brilliant outlet passes mirroring the great Celtics teams of the 60's. West and Goodrich would provide the brunt of the scoring and Wilt would shoot sparingly though at high efficiency. Walton's Blazers also played a similar style to great effect though the Mountain Man was even better as a facilitator from the high post.

Anyways the '72 Knicks were really not at their best. Reed was out all year with injury and DeBusschere got hurt in Game 2 of the series and wasn't the same after.

And I don't think Chamberlain was far and away the leader of the Lakers. Jerry West led the team in MVP voting and despite his shooting slump in the playoffs his impact was very much on a high level. It was a 1a/1b kind of situation.



When Wilt was in his scoring prime Thurmond and Reed were very very young...

The '72 Knicks were much like the '68 Sixers. Injuries blew the team up. It was even worse for the Sixers, their regular season was stellar but players started dropping like flies with injuries in the playoffs.

You would be right to think West was at a high level during the regular season in '72, but let's put this one to rest about Chamberlain. That dude never, ever choked in any playoff game that I ever saw (and I watched a whole lot of ball back in those days... it was our crazed passion for a bunch of us to jump in the car and go to Baltimore, NYC, Philly, Boston, even clear to St. Louis a couple times just to see a game). He had some off nights, particularly in '69 and '70, but he never choked, and he never had a bad playoff series. While I would not say West choked, that I ever remember - and keep in mind all this is a very very long time ago now - he did have a few poor playoff showings. Wilt never did.

The other thing about '72 Lakers, when you talk about Goodrich and West is something I never did figure out which was what happened to Jimmy MacMilian? That guy caught fire and never let off the gas until the last game.... never was all that great before or after but that season

Another thing about West is the Willis game, '70 Finals game 7. Jerry did not choke that game, even though I have read and heard, that is what the Logo thinks about it. Walt Frazier had the greatest Finals game in my experience as a NBA fan (which runs from those days, with a few misses over the years, to the exquisite Ray Allen save last year... may he boil in oil for a decade for beating Timmy like that).

{Had to throw that in there about Clyde, my all-time favorite player!!}

[dankok8]

Updated the OP. Now we have full stats for his opponents including FG%.

Kareem and Lanier shot well, Hayes and Haywood not so much but still ok. Jerry Lucas with his shooting range really seemed to give Wilt fits. Chamberlain reportedly rarely even ventured out to contest the Kevin Love of that era.

[LAZERUSS]

Updated the OP. Now we have full stats for his opponents including FG%.

Kareem and Lanier shot well, Hayes and Haywood not so much but still ok. Jerry Lucas with his shooting range really seemed to give Wilt fits. Chamberlain reportedly rarely even ventured out to contest the Kevin Love of that era.

Lucas had 25+ foot range.

Despite that fact, after Lucas shot 9-11 from the 405 freeway in the first half of game one of the Finals, he would only shoot 37-81 (.457) the remainder of the series...primarily because Chamberlain defended him. On top of that, Wilt OWNED the glass the entire series, and averaged 7.4 bpg in that Finals. In the clinching game five win, the entire Knick team had 39 rebounds...Wilt, by himself, had 29...to go along with 8 blocked shots...and 24 points, on 10-14 shooting.

A pretty amazing accomplishment considering that Wilt was 35 years old.

[DatAsh]

I honestly don't care what Wilt's ppg/fg% looked like against his peers in those years. You're comparing a 5th(Wilt was dead last in fga/36) option to guys who were the focus of their team's offense. It's not like the team would have been any better with him scoring more ppg, so why fault a guy for not doing something that in all likelihood makes his team worse? Isn't that a good thing? To me it shows he - contrary to what I think many believe - was willing to do whatever it took to win.

I suppose his opposing centers shooting above their averages against him is a fair point, but his role as defensive anchor was more about reducing the other team's offense than it was about reducing the opposing center's offense. That's what makes great centers so much more valuable on defense than any other position. They were the second best defensive in the league after the Bucks.

[iamgine]

Looking at Wilt in the 71-72 is useless. He's pretty much a Tyson Chandler or Ben Wallace who didn't have much scoring burden on offense and only had to defend while his opposing centers had to do both. Wilt vs Kareem in 71-72 is like Tyson Chandler vs Tim Duncan. Won't make much sense as a comparison.

[Pointguard]

Wilt was only in his 13th and 14th seasons though. He led the league in rebounding both years, FG% both years, and even DWS in '72. He could still play.

Besides that post was in response to LAZERUSS claiming that Wilt dominated Lucas and Thurmond in certain playoff series which just isn't true.

Wilt had accumulated more minutes than anybody before him. More points and more rebounds and perhaps more blocks than anybody before him. More than likely, more years of 30 ppg and 20 rebs than the whole league added together. The guy was more active/productive/consistently high years than any player in any sport. In his first seven years when he averaged 40ppg and 23 rebounds rarely missed a game and averaged like 46 mins per. Could you imagine averaging 40ppg (over 20,000 points) and getting about the same career numbers as Kareem in rebounds in just 7 years. And very likely more than 6 blocks per game.

Sometimes spending more than 24 hours in transit only to play without heat or air conditioning. Playing many back to back to back to back games. He was the games premier iron man with his ppg, rpg and bpg making a sheer mockery of anybody. So to pretend like it he should have been great at 36 is a bit crazy. His flame was mighty for a long time. But he shouldn't be expected to go like other players after a severe lower body operation at 36.

[La Frescobaldi]

Looking at Wilt in the 71-72 is useless. He's pretty much a Tyson Chandler or Ben Wallace who didn't have much scoring burden on offense and only had to defend while his opposing centers had to do both. Wilt vs Kareem in 71-72 is like Tyson Chandler vs Tim Duncan. Won't make much sense as a comparison.

Not so far as that.
Chamberlain still had several 30 30 games that season, and was able to dominate with amazing scoring displays in a hurry. He could get 6 or 8 points in just a couple of minutes.... against anybody.

I remember Cowens getting called to the microphone after a game and he just would not talk when they brought up Chamberlain. He just stood there tottering from one foot to the other like a duck that had just been clubbed.

All of the OP is, I'm sure, correct as far as numbers.

But they miss the entire fact of how Chamberlain would explode on Jabbar or Thurmond just exactly when those points were needed. When the Lakers made their run, he would suddenly be option #1 for three or five minutes and he made all those guys look like twigs trying to stop a hurricane force.

That was a magical season