Shaq Or Wilt Or Olajuwon Or Duncan

[Pointguard]

I don't see why Wilt is so praised. I just looked up highlights on him on youtube and he was basically playing against little white dudes that played zero defense.

Whats so great about that.

Must have been before Kareem caught that tan, huh?

[Odinn]

I'm curious to know why you rank Moses over Hakeem. Is that more of a career ranking or that you simply thought Moses was better?

That's more of a career ranking.
As for peaks, Hakeem > Moses. But I think it's closer than general consensus.
As for primes, pretty damn close. I'd say almost equal.
As for careers, I think Moses is truly overlooked for a 3 times mvp winner.

The deal with Hakeem, as for 3 year spans, Hakeem had one of the top5 peaks ever but he is the only one who ranked thanks to 3 exceptional seasons. I'm not talking about longevity exactly. Hakeem's longevity is still impressive but when you exclude 1993-95 span what do you see in Hakeem's career/legacy? He is the only one who gets this much glory mostly based on 3 seasons.

[iDefend5]

why is KAJ above MJ?

[Odinn]

why is KAJ above MJ?

Asking me?

In my goat list, both of them are ranked as #1.

[jlauber]

That's more of a career ranking.
As for peaks, Hakeem > Moses. But I think it's closer than general consensus.
As for primes, pretty damn close. I'd say almost equal.
As for careers, I think Moses is truly overlooked for a 3 times mvp winner.

The deal with Hakeem, as for 3 year spans, Hakeem had one of the top5 peaks ever but he is the only one who ranked thanks to 3 exceptional seasons. I'm not talking about longevity exactly. Hakeem's longevity is still impressive but when you exclude 1993-95 span what do you see in Hakeem's career/legacy? He is the only one who gets this much glory mostly based on 3 seasons.

What criteria could you possibly be using in which Chamberlain would be ranked so low?????

[PTB Fan]

First of all, Wilt averaged 39.7 ppg on .470 shooting against Russell in the 61-62 regular season (not .458...one game was incorrect with a 13-38 instead of the actual 13-30.) In the post-season, Wilt averaged 33.6 ppg on .468 shooting (while Russell averaged 22 ppg on .420 shooting against him.) In a league that shot .426.

I consider this to be Russell's best defensive display vs Wilt. He slowed Wilt around 18 or so points below his RS averages, shut the lowest percentage vs him and even outmatched him in few games on the boards.

Throw out Wilt's very first game against Russell in his rookie 59-60 season, and he would have averaged 40 ppg on about .475 shooting, in a league that shot .410.

Cool stuff.

In his 62-63 season, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 38.1 to 14.2 in their eight H2H's (and six of them were by single digit margins.)

Yes, Russell "held" Wilt down (actually, held on for life), and even HE would admit (and has) that it was all he could do. He seldom outplayed Wilt. In fact, Wilt CRUSHED him in DOZENS of games, including wins, losses, and in close games.

I have no problem with someone saying Wilt outplayed Russell. No problem at all. However, i have a problem when someone says Wilt crushed or dominated Russell which isn't true. And Russell played Wilt like no one ever could nor did.

And, NO, you, nor Bill Simmons, will EVER convince me that Russell "let" Wilt score in the first three quarters, and then "shut him down" in the 4th. WAY too much evidence to the contrary. BTW, Russell's HOF-laden Celtics held an 85-57 record against Wilt's teams (including a 29-20 margin in the post-season.) So, obviously, Russell was not winning EVERY game...not even close. And you can't tell me that he was THAT great, that he could "allow" Wilt to score enough, and then hold him down, when, in fact, FOUR game seven's came down to razor-thin margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. And, was Russell THAT brilliant that he could hit a guidewire with an inbounds pass, and his team holding a one point lead with five seconds left, and KNOWING that "Havlicek steal the ball?"

I don't use Bill Simmons in any of my arguments. All of the arguments i make are from my research, stats, newspaper articles and other credible sources since i have started watching basketball seriously from 05 to now. Yes, i'm not old.

Russell usually guarded Wilt well.. the Celtics made big lead and in most cases of their match ups, Chamberlain got his stats after the game was done. Of course, there're expectations but not much.

And, what happened in the '67 playoffs? Here again, when Wilt was faced with elimination in game five of the '66 ECF's, he responded with a 46-34 game against Russell. And yet, when Russell was faced with the EXACT same circumstance the very next season, he quietly went like a lamb to slaughter, with a FOUR point game (while Chamberlain poured in 29 points, grabbed 36 rebounds, shot 10-16, handed out 13 assists, and blocked seven shots), in a LOSS. How come Russell couldn't step up? Where was HIS 46 point game?

67 is the season where pretty much Wilt clearly outplayed Russell. Can't argue that.

And don't bother looking for games in which Russell statistically outplayed Wilt. They are few-and-far between, and they were very close even in those. The fact was, Wilt outscored Russell in 132 of their 142 H2H games, and outrebounded him by a 92-42-8 margin. In MANY of them, and as I have provided previously, Chamberlain just OVERWHELMED Russell. How in the hell does Russell get outrebounded by a 55-19 margin? Or get outscored by a 62-23 margin. Or the MANY other games in which Chamberlain hung 40-30 games on him (24 times BTW)?

I didn't bother because Bill didn't play for stats. He played to win. No one, neither Wilt could stop him from achieving his goals. I give Chamberlain the edge in 60, 67... 68 is also arguable.

Russell did excellent job on Wilt in the playoffs.

And, you mentioned FG%. In almost EVERY known FG% game, series, or even SEASON, Chamberlain OUTSHOT Russell, and some by HUGE margins (unlike your Kareem reference against Wilt...who outshot Kareem .530 to .464 in their H2H's.)

Russell wasn't exactly a very efficient scorer to begin with, so there's a reason why his FG% is never brought in discussion. And it's normal for me that Wilt had higher FG% than Kareem because he took less shots. But when you take a look at what Chamberlain was doing in the league.. Kareem has to be given credit for his D.

In the '60 season, in Russell's career best season of .467 from the floor, in their known ten games (they met 11 times), Wilt outshot Russell, .465 to .398 (and Wilt only shot .461 in the entire season.) In the '62 ECF's, Wilt outshot Russell .468 to .420. In the '64 Finals, we KNOW that Chamberlain not only oustcored Russell, per game, 29.2 to 11.2 ppg (as well as outrebounding him, which he did in ALL eight of their H2H post-season series), but Wilt also shot .517 in that series. I don't know what Russell shot against Wilt, BUT, he only shot .356 in his ten post-season games, and FIVE of them were against Wilt.

Cool stuff.

In the 66-67 regular season, Wilt shot .549 against Russell. In the '67 ECF's, Wilt not only outshot Russell, he did so by a staggering .556 to .358 margin.

That year, Wilt totally outplayed Russell. Even as a Russell supporter, i can't argue that.

Once again, in the VAST MAJORITY of their KNOWN H2H games, series, and seasons, Wilt easily outshot Russell, and in MANY, by unfathomable margins.

Same here.

Russell got the best out of his teammates, to be sure, BUT, he played alongside his HOF teammates for a TOTAL of 71 seasons. Wilt played alongside his in 24 FULL seasons. Not even close in terms of talented rosters. And, yes, Wilt's teammates repeatedly FLOPPED in their post-seasons. You want a great example? How about this? Wilt averaged 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, and shot .540 in his 65-66 season. In doing so, he led his team to the BEST RECORD in the league, at 55-25 (Russell's stacked roster went 54-26 BTW.) And in their nine regular season H2H's, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg and 30.7 rpg against Russell. Then, in the ECF's, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 against Russell. And yet, Russell's Celtics won that series, 4-1. What happened? Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot .352. How can anyone blame Wilt, when he played the EXACT same way that he did in the regular season, when his team had the best record in the league?

Russell never depended on his team mates. It wasn't the crucial thing why he beat Wilt. It was the fact that he got the best of his team mates, impacted the game on both sides, slowed down Wilt and came through better in the clutch.

Call it luck, call it what ever you like.. but when it came down to the clutch moments, Russell was tougher. How come Wilt underachieved vs Russell in their duels since '64 where he had clearly the better teams? It's not a good argument.

I could go on, but I will let you do your research, and continue the discussion...

I did a little research to get some facts since i've started using the newspaper articles as valuable source for info. We can continue the discussion whenever you like to continue.

I'll be waiting.

[CavaliersFTW]

Sure thing:

Prior to the series:


Consensus of game 2: Wilt bests Lew... Wilt Devastating


Consensus of game 3: Even Bucks Oscar Robertson commented - "Chamberlain made a big difference"


Recap of the series 3 games in: Veteran Chamberlain has kept the NBA Most Valuable Player Alcindor from dominating the series


Milwaukee's recap of game 5, and the series: Despite the Buck's victory... A massive image of Wilt swatting their MVP is used to showcase the series and it takes up quite a lot of the sports page real estate... Again, this is the Milwaukee Journal - they extended the game description going out of their way to talk about Wilt's performance for two pages.
Part 1:

Part 2:

*bump for PTB fan - in case you missed it

[jlauber]

.

I consider this to be Russell's best defensive display vs Wilt. He slowed Wilt around 18 or so points below his RS averages, shut the lowest percentage vs him and even outmatched him in few games on the boards.

Not really. Wilt averaged 39.7 ppg on .471 shooting against Russell in their 10 H2H regular season games. 33.6 ppg on .468 in a lower-scoring post-season, was not that dramatic a difference. Now, if you want to argue that Russell played him better than most everyone else (with the exception of Nate Thurmond), I will agree. BUT, keep in mind that Russell is, by most intelligent observations, regarded as the greatest defensive center (and player) in NBA history. (BTW, by most all measurements, Wilt was the SECOND greatest.)

As for game recaps, yes, ShaqAttack posted all of them, and I give Russell an edge in TWO of the seven, with one possible tie (game seven.) In game two, though, Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20, and the result? Wilt's team won by seven points. THAT was what Chamberlain was faced with in those early seasons. He HAD to have SUPER-HUMAN games in order for his pathetic rosters to be even be competitive.

In any case, no one has been able to explain to me, just how Wilt took that cast of clowns, thru Syracuse, and then to a game seven, two point loss against Russell's HOF-laden 60-20 Celtics, and with his teammates collectively shooting .354. Just how in the hell did it happen?

have no problem with someone saying Wilt outplayed Russell. No problem at all. However, i have a problem when someone says Wilt crushed or dominated Russell which isn't true. And Russell played Wilt like no one ever could nor did.

Sorry, but there were MANY games, in both wins and LOSSES, in which Russell was CRUSHED by Chamberlain. I could give you DOZENS of examples, but real quickly...a "must-win" game five of the '60 ECF's...Chamberlain outscored Russell, 50-22, and outrebounded him, 35-27, in a 128-107 win.

Once again, games in which Wilt outscored Russell by some 35+ points. Or outrebounded him by as many as 36! Holding Russell to an 0-14 game from the floor. Scoring 62 points on 27-45 shooting against Russell. TONS of other examples.

BUT, you won't find the reverse, though, at least not very often (game four of the '60 ECF's stands out, BUT, Wilt had badly injured his wrist the game before throwing a punch after being brutalized the entire game.)

I don't use Bill Simmons in any of my arguments. All of the arguments i make are from my research, stats, newspaper articles and other credible sources since i have started watching basketball seriously from 05 to now. Yes, i'm not old.

Russell usually guarded Wilt well.. the Celtics made big lead and in most cases of their match ups, Chamberlain got his stats after the game was done. Of course, there're expectations but not much.

The problem with the above is that it is truly unfair to Wilt. Chamberlain gets accused of "stats-padding" because he was playing in blowouts. The FACT was, Wilt played nearly every minute of nearly EVERY game in his entire career. If he were truly a "selfish" "stats-padder" as some here have suggested, why would he alter his game, per his coach's requests, MULTIPLE times in his career? Why didn't he strive to continue to pour in 50+ games his entire career, when it was obvious as late as his 10th and 11th seasons, that he was capable of it?

And once again, yes, Russell usually did a decent job of guarding Wilt...except, he SELDOM guarded him one-on-one. And I have produced lengthy articles, and even an interview involving both Wilt AND Russell, which substantiated that very point. And even then, "holding" Wilt to 40-30 games is hardly "containging" Chamberlain.

BTW, there were MANY games, in their 142 matchups in which Boston did not have big leads. BUT, in one, and I won't look it up now, but NYCelt produced the game recap, Chamberlain led a comeback, from 20 points down in the second half, with a 40+ point performance, in a WIN. And once again, there were MANY post-season games in which Boston just EKED out a win. You will never convince me that such a proud man as Russell, would have "let" Wilt score. And I have never read anything by HIM, that would confirm it, either.

continued...

[jlauber]

I didn't bother because Bill didn't play for stats. He played to win. No one, neither Wilt could stop him from achieving his goals. I give Chamberlain the edge in 60, 67... 68 is also arguable.

Russell did excellent job on Wilt in the playoffs.

How about '62, when Wilt outscored, outshot, and outrebounded Russell, and with his inept teammates collectively playing WORSE than they did in the regular season (particularly his HOF teammates, Arizin and Gola), and yet, somehow, Wilt got them to a game seven, two point loss?

Or in the '64 Finals, when Wilt, outgunned in HOF teammates, 8-2 (and his lone HOF teammate was rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time and out of position), outscoring Russell, per game, 29.2 ppg to 11.2 ppg, as well as outrebounding him, 27.0 to 25.3 rpg (and pronably out shooting him by a HUGE margin), and while his team lost, 4-1, they had two losses in the last few seconds.

And, in the '65 ECF's all Wilt did was take a 40-40 team, to a game seven, one point loss, against Russell's 62-18 Celtics, in a series in which Wilt averaged 30 ppg and 31.4 rpg (BADLY outscoring AND outrebounding Russell in that series.) And, in the game seven loss, Wilt scored Philly's six of their last eight points, including 2-2 from the line with 36 secs left, and a dunk over Russell with 5 seconds left that closed the gap from 110-101 to 110-109. Once again, had "Havlicek not stolen the ball", Chamberlain might have led his Sixers to perhaps the greatest upset in NBA history. BTW, in that game seven, Wilt scored 30 points, on 12-15 from the field, and with 32 rebounds.

I'll cover their last four seasons in a few...

Russell wasn't exactly a very efficient scorer to begin with, so there's a reason why his FG% is never brought in discussion. And it's normal for me that Wilt had higher FG% than Kareem because he took less shots. But when you take a look at what Chamberlain was doing in the league.. Kareem has to be given credit for his D.

Kareem was playing with equally talented as rosters as Wilt in their four years in the league together. Wilt was a better a "winner" who had a 3-1 edge in Finals in those 4 seasons, and the only one in which his team lost, he battled Kareem to a statistical draw, and withOUT BOTH West and Baylor. Had those two played, and Wilt might have won another ring.

Russell never depended on his team mates. It wasn't the crucial thing why he beat Wilt. It was the fact that he got the best of his team mates, impacted the game on both sides, slowed down Wilt and came through better in the clutch.

Call it luck, call it what ever you like.. but when it came down to the clutch moments, Russell was tougher. How come Wilt underachieved vs Russell in their duels since '64 where he had clearly the better teams? It's not a good argument.

Russell didn't depend on his teammates???

Think about this...Sam Jones had many seasons of 20+ ppg (as did several of Russell's teammates), including one of 25.9 (and a post-season of 26.1 ppg.) Why is that significant? It is pretty clear that, had Jones been "the man" somewhere else, he likely could have been a 30 ppg scorer. AND, how about Havlicek, who routinely put up 20 ppg seasons in the Russell-era? After Russell retired, he had two seasons of 27.5 ppg and 28.9 ppg. CLEARLY Jones and Havlicek were ELITE scorers. And guys like Heinsohn and Sharman, who had multiple 20+ ppg seasons, were capable more more, as well.

And Russell more "clutch" than Wilt? You will NEVER convince me of that. Here again, all Russell had to do was try to contain Wilt, while allowing his teammates (who usually enjoyed a huge edge in talent) to outplay Wilt's. Russell never HAD to score. Wilt did. And he not only scored, he put up some staggering games against Russell.

Once again, Russell won four rings at Wilt's expense, by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. If you research those series, you will find that Wilt easily outplayed Russell in all of them. It was Russell's edge in talent, and in the clucth play of his teammates (as well as the choking play of Wilt's teammates) that won those four series.

And for those that claim that Wilt had better teammates from '66 on, the difference was marginal, at best (and Russell had an edge in HOFers in each of them, as well as deeper rosters.)

Furthermore, Wilt played EXACTLY like he did against Russell in the regular season in the '66 ECF's, BUT, his teammates puked all over themselves while collectively shooting .352!

We all know that Wilt's equal supporting cast in '67 allowed a dominating Wilt to overwhelm Russell, as he always did, and win a convincing title.

As for '68...this is truly laughable. Wilt didn't have HOF teammate Billy Cunningham at all in that series, and in game five, with the Sixers leading the series, 3-1, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones sustained injuries. Of course, no one brings up the fact that Wilt, himself, was nursing MULTIPLE injuries, including a tear in his quad (a similar injury that Reed had in the '70 Finals, and which cost him the better part of three games), and was noticeably limping. And not only did Wilt PLAY (every minute of that series BTW), he put up a 22-25 series. And with all of that, and his teammates completely ignoring him in the second half of game seven (and shooting .333 in the process), his team lost a game seven by four points.

As for '69... Wilt was ONE PLAY away, in game four, of winning that series, 4-1. His Lakers were leading the series, 2-1, and were leading late in game four, 88-87, AND they had the ball. BUT, for some reason Johnny Egan was handling the ball (why not West?), and he lost it. Sam Jones hit the game winner, at the buzzer, while falling down. In game five, LA romped to a 117-104 win, in a game in which Wilt dominated Russell. So, that ONE PLAY (coupled with a miraculous buzzer beater) cost Wilt and his Lakers a 4-1 series romp. As it was, Chamberlain was on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven, two point loss.

BTW, I enjoy the discussion...

[Pointguard]

I consider this to be Russell's best defensive display vs Wilt. He slowed Wilt around 18 or so points below his RS averages, shut the lowest percentage vs him and even outmatched him in few games on the boards.

It was never just Russell. It was a team effort. The slower pace in the playoffs, and defensive strategies took like 15 ppg in general off of Wilt's scoring average.

Russell was a great rebounder, its fair for him to have one strong suite that was measurable. As far as rebounding is concerned, most of the time, mano a mano, it wasn't like you were comparing equals. Wilt let it be known there was rank and file. Once in awhile Dalembert is going to out-rebound Dwight Howard. That is supposed to happen. A great rebounder hardly ever gets out rebounded 80% of the time by one player - while being dominated in more games than he outrebounded Wilt. Nevermind, getting dominated scoring wise to boot.

However, i have a problem when someone says Wilt crushed or dominated Russell which isn't true. And Russell played Wilt like no one ever could nor did.

I borrowed this from one of JLauder's post. Its the first four of a much longer list:
Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13 He scored three times as much as Russ + more than doubled his rebounds.

Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21

To me those are domination numbers, yeah, crush numbers. And Russell had plenty of team help with handling Wilt. What do you call it? And there are number beyond these. Those are prime beast numbers. And these were years supposedly when Russell defense was said to be equal to Wilt's offense. It's beasting when you act like nobody is there defending you or stopping you from getting rebounds.

Russell never depended on his team mates. It wasn't the crucial thing why he beat Wilt. It was the fact that he got the best of his team mates, impacted the game on both sides, slowed down Wilt and came through better in the clutch.

If Russell didn't depend on his teammates he would have developed his offensive game. He leaned on them to score more so than anybody else in the GOAT argument.

[DMAVS41]

That's more of a career ranking.
As for peaks, Hakeem > Moses. But I think it's closer than general consensus.
As for primes, pretty damn close. I'd say almost equal.
As for careers, I think Moses is truly overlooked for a 3 times mvp winner.

The deal with Hakeem, as for 3 year spans, Hakeem had one of the top5 peaks ever but he is the only one who ranked thanks to 3 exceptional seasons. I'm not talking about longevity exactly. Hakeem's longevity is still impressive but when you exclude 1993-95 span what do you see in Hakeem's career/legacy? He is the only one who gets this much glory mostly based on 3 seasons.

Did you watch them both play?

[PTB Fan]

It was never just Russell. It was a team effort. The slower pace in the playoffs, and defensive strategies took like 15 ppg in general off of Wilt's scoring average.

In most of the available footage, Russell guarded Wilt straight up.. 1 on 1. No double team was needed.

Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21

To me those are domination numbers, yeah, crush numbers. And Russell had plenty of team help with handling Wilt. What do you call it? And there are number beyond these. Those are prime beast numbers. And these were years supposedly when Russell defense was said to be equal to Wilt's offense. It's beasting when you act like nobody is there defending you or stopping you from getting rebounds.

What's the efficiency? Those numbers sure look amazing, but what's the efficiency? You can could said that AI was even a better scorer than what he's regarded now if don't look at the efficiency.

That's my problem with the stats. And like i said, Celtics used Russell to guard Wilt 1 on 1. No quotes are convincing me either wise, since in nearly 100% of the available footage, Russell always played Wilt 1 on 1.

If Russell didn't depend on his teammates he would have developed his offensive game. He leaned on them to score more so than anybody else in the GOAT argument.

Russell made the things that he was needed to. But let that not fool you about his ability to score when it was needed most.

[PTB Fan]

*bump for PTB fan - in case you missed it

These are probably from 71, right?

Great find.

[Odinn]

Did you watch them both play?

Yes, I did.

[Helix]

In most of the available footage, Russell guarded Wilt straight up.. 1 on 1. No double team was needed.

You do realize the "available footage" amounts to probably about 1% of the actual game time Chamberlain and Russell faced each other? And of the available footage probably more than half of that is from the 66-67 season and on when Wilt had become a facilitator. Beginning in the 66-67 season Wilt was looking to pass first.....Boston could not double and triple team Wilt anymore because Wilt was such a good passer.

Boston certainly did double and triple team Wilt in his "scoring" years, and that is attested to by Tom Heinsohn and K.C. Jones, amongst others. Why would they lie? With well over 100 hours of actual game time between Russell and Chamberlain, and you've seen a few minutes of it, and you know better than Heinsohn and Jones, two Celtic players who were there. Yea.....OK.