Kareem Abdul Jabbar vs Wilt Chamberlain

[oolalaa]

In their first H2H game, in the 69-70 season, Wilt crushed Kareem, outscoring him, 25-23; outrebounding him, 25-20; outassisting Kareem, 5-2; outblocking him, 3-2, and outshooting him from the floor, 9-14 to 9-21 (.643 to .429.)

Wilt shredded his knee shortly after that game, and had major knee surgery. He would face Kareem in 27 games after that injury, and from age 34 to 36.

How about this?

In the 70-71 season, which was Wilt's last 20+ ppg season (and arguably his WORST season of his career), Chamberlain and Kareem met five times in the regular season, and five times in the post-season.

Now, keep in mind that this was perhaps Kareem's greatest season (if you include the post-season.) He LED the NBA in scoring, at 31.7 ppg, shot .577 from the floor (in a league that shot .449...and that .128 differential over the league average was the highest in Kareem's 20 year career), and 16.0 rpg.

In their five regular season games, Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 27.8 ppg to 23.2 ppg. Wilt outrebounded Kareem, per game, 15 rpg to 13.2 rpg. And Wilt outshot Kareem from the floor, .467 to .438.

In their five H2H playoff games, Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 25 ppg to 22 ppg. Wilt outrebounded Kareem, per game, 18.8 rpg to 17.2 rpg. And Wilt outshot Kareem from the floor, .489 to .481.

So, over the course of their first 11 games, when Wilt was still somewhat capable of routinely scoring 20+ ppg, Kareem held a 26.1 ppg to 22.6 ppg scoring edge, BUT, Wilt outrebounded Kareem, per game, 17.6 rpg to 15.6 rpg, and Chamberlain outshot Kareem overall, .490 to .454.

And once again, TEN of those eleven games were played by a 34 year old Wilt, and only a year removed from major knee surgery.


As for Wilt's defense against Kareem? In the '72 WCF's, Chamberlain held Kareem, who had shot .574 during the regular season, to .457 in their six H2H games. AND, in the last FOUR pivotal games of that series, Kareem could only shoot .414. Furthermore, Wilt blocked some 15+ "unblockable" sky-hooks in that series. All from a 35 year old Wilt, and against a Kareem at his scoring PEAK.

THEN, in Wilt's LAST season, he and Kareem faced off in SIX regular season games. Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 29 ppg to 11 ppg, BUT, Wilt outhsot Kareem by a .737 to .450 margin. Included in those six games, was one game in which Wilt outscored Kareem, 24-21, while outshooting Jabbar, 10-14 to 10-27.


As for a PRIME "scoring" Wilt...

Chamberlain, in his 68-69 season, in a year in which he averaged 14 FGAs per game, hung TWO games of 60+ points (one of them was a 66 point game, on 29-35 shooting, which is the highest FG% game in a 60+ point game in NBA history.) Why is that significant? Because Kareem came into the league in the VERY next season, and faced those same two centers on several occasions...and yet, he never came close to duplicating those numbers against those two centers...NOR over the course of his ENTIRE 20 year career (his high game was 55 points.)

And, Wilt hung THREE games of 50+ on HOFer Willis Reed (and several more of 40+), with a HIGH game of 58 points. Chamberlain also had THREE games of 60+ against 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy, (and a season of 55 ppg against him) with a HIGH game of 73 points! Furthermore, Wilt faced 6-11 HOFer Nate Thurmond in about a dozen, or so, games in Wilt's "scoring" prime. He had SEVERAL 30+ point games against Thurmond, including one game in which he outscored Thurmond, 45-13.

Now, Kareem faced all three of those guys MANY times in his career...and never APPROACHED those games. In fact, he faced Thurmond in some 50+ H2H games, and his high game against Nate was only 34 points (and only a few of 30+.)

How come? How come a PRIME Wilt could just OBLITERATE the MANY of the same centers that Kareem would face...and yet Kareem couldn't come within MILES of a PRIME Wilt's domination?

With regards to their first h2h meeting, i get the feeling you are using that one game to justify to yourself that wilt > kareem. Can you not see the absurdity of using just 1 game to draw a meaningful conclusion, especially when you consider wilt was just past his prime and kareem was only a rookie?

I gave you the combined stats of all their h2h meetings. Yes, it is not a fair comparison. Wilt was on his last legs and kareem was young. It is impossible to say how they would have fared against each other in their primes but even if wilt 'dominated' kareem does that automatically make him a better player? Of course not. Wilt 'dominated' russell (statistically anyway) but i think most fair minded, objective, knowledgeable basketball fans would conclude that russell was the greater player (russells intangibles made up for the disparity in scoring).


Wilt is the greatest regular season player of all time!! I have conceded this many times. No one can touch him and i will lambast anyone who disputes this.

But did wilt hang 50, 60 & 70 point games on reed, bellamy and thurmond in the playoffs (you know, when it really mattered)? Nope.

It's also funny that you brought up his 68/69 season exploits considering the fact that he went on to average a 14/25/3 on 55% (and 39% from the line!!!) against thurmond, zelmo beaty and a 35 year old russell in the playoffs...


Look, i rank kareem over wilt on my all time list partly because of his amazing longevity. This has to be taken into account. If he retired 5/6 years earlier then i would have to rethink things but he didn't.

I think kareem gets overrated. Just not as overrated as wilt

[jlauber]

With regards to their first h2h meeting, i get the feeling you are using that one game to justify to yourself that wilt > kareem. Can you not see the absurdity of using just 1 game to draw a meaningful conclusion, especially when you consider wilt was just past his prime and kareem was only a rookie?

I gave you the combined stats of all their h2h meetings. Yes, it is not a fair comparison. Wilt was on his last legs and kareem was young. It is impossible to say how they would have fared against each other in their primes but even if wilt 'dominated' kareem does that automatically make him a better player? Of course not. Wilt 'dominated' russell (statistically anyway) but i think most fair minded, objective, knowledgeable basketball fans would conclude that russell was the greater player (russells intangibles made up for the disparity in scoring).


Wilt is the greatest regular season player of all time!! I have conceded this many times. No one can touch him and i will lambast anyone who disputes this.

But did wilt hang 50, 60 & 70 point games on reed, bellamy and thurmond in the playoffs (you know, when it really mattered)? Nope.

It's also funny that you brought up his 68/69 season exploits considering the fact that he went on to average a 14/25/3 on 55% (and 39% from the line!!!) against thurmond, zelmo beaty and a 35 year old russell in the playoffs...


Look, i rank kareem over wilt on my all time list partly because of his amazing longevity. This has to be taken into account. If he retired 5/6 years earlier then i would have to rethink things but he didn't.

I think kareem gets a little overrated. Just not as overrated as wilt

Wilt never faced Bellamy, Reed, or Thurmond, in the post-season, in his SCORING seasons. He DID face Beaty, though. The result? 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg, and on .559 shooting. In game seven of that series, he hung a 39 point, 26 rebound, 12 block game on Beaty, and in game five, he poured in 50 points on 22-32 shooting.

And a SCORING Wilt faced Russell MANY times. Included in those playoff H2H's were a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting) and in a "must win" win. He also had FOUR 40-30 games against Russell, including a 46-34 game in a "must win" loss. In fact, he had FOUR entire series against Russell of 30+, including a 30-31 seven game series in '65. And he also had a 29-27 .517 series (in a league that shot .433) against Russell in the '64 Finals, as well as 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, .509 series against him in '66 (again, in a league that shot .433.)

And, how about his three series against Thurmond? He outrebounded him, 28.5 rpg to 26.7 rpg in '67, and outshot Nate in that series, .560 to .343. In the '69 playoffs against Thurmond, he outrebounded Nate, 23.5 rpg to 19.5 rpg, while outshooting Thurmond, .500 to .398. And in Wilt's LAST post-season, and in the '73 WCF's, he outrebounded Thurmond, 23.6 rpg to 17.2 rpg, and outshot Nate, .550 to .392.

As for Bellamy, in the '68 playoffs, he held Bellamy to .421 shooting, and in the process, he LED BOTH teams in scoring, rebounding, AND assists.

Of course, Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series, and that included EIGHT against Russell, THREE against Reed, THREE against Thurmond, THREE against Lucas, TWO against Kareem, and one against Bellamy.

[jlauber]

Kareem easily

Wilt is the biggest stat-padder in history. How can you "dominate and be the best NBA player ever" and win only 2 titles?

I wonder how many more rings Wilt would have won had he been paired with a PRIME Magic for TEN seasons?

[G.O.A.T]

Wilt is my choice, superior on both ends and a better athlete. For all of Wilt's mental shortcomings, Kareem wasn't any better. Most of Wilt's teammates liked him and despised the system coaches set up (some thought Wilt was unbearable sure) Kareem's teammates, either feared, hated or felt distant from him.

[ThaRegul8r]

Kareem easily

Wilt is the biggest stat-padder in history. How can you "dominate and be the best NBA player ever" and win only 2 titles?

So you have Russell WAY ahead of Kareem then, right? 11 rings in 13 seasons, compared to only six in 20 (and the last two Kareem was not even LA's second best player.)

But Russell was CRUSHED (IN CAPS FOR EXTRA EMPHASIS!!!) by Wilt, as you are oh-so-fond of reiterating, so if Kareem is "easily" over Wilt, then Russell—WHO WAS CRUSHED BY WILT (ALL CAPS FOR EXTRA EMPHASIS!!!)—would be behind Kareem as well.

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]But Russell was CRUSHED (IN CAPS FOR EXTRA EMPHASIS!!!) by Wilt, as you are oh-so-fond of reiterating, so if Kareem is "easily" over Wilt, then Russell

[PTB Fan]

Russell was the game's greatest winner...and I have always acknowledged that fact. His teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's, and I have acknowledged that, as well. And yes, Russell deserves much of the credit for that, and Chamberlain probably deserves some of the blame.

But yes, there were games, series, and even seasons in which Wilt buried Russell. Not that Russell probably ever cared.

I don't have a problem with those that rank Russell over Wilt. But I do have a problem with those that claim that Wilt was just a "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in post-season.

Now this is wrong.

You claim that Wilt outplayed Russell, but Russell is better?

No sense at all.

[PTB Fan]

By the way, Wilt never understood to fully use his talents. As a scorer, he could never win because he took too many chances out of his team mates. As a defender he did much better, but his best came as an all-around force.

Wilt's lack of consistent play hurt him when it mattered. And he was a choker in some way. He played to put stats, which he did, but didn't play to win which is why he was defeated in the post season.

I acknowledge him as a GOAT candidate, but there are other guys with much better cases for GOAT and Kareem is one of those.

[jlauber]

Now this is wrong.

You claim that Wilt outplayed Russell, but Russell is better?

No sense at all.

Here is 40+ reasons...

[QUOTE]I have pointed out the some 40 games in which Chamberlain just hammered Russell, and here they are again:

For reference, the first number of the pair next to each player's name is points in that particular game, while the second is rebounds. An example would be the first one, with Wilt scoring 45 points, and grabbing 35 rebounds (45-35), while Russell's numbers were 15 points, with 13 rebounds (15-13.)


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39

[oolalaa]

Russell was the game's greatest winner...and I have always acknowledged that fact. His teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's, and I have acknowledged that, as well. And yes, Russell deserves much of the credit for that, and Chamberlain probably deserves some of the blame.

But yes, there were games, series, and even seasons in which Wilt buried Russell. Not that Russell probably ever cared.

I don't have a problem with those that rank Russell over Wilt. But I do have a problem with those that claim that Wilt was just a "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in post-season.

[jlauber]

By the way, Wilt never understood to fully use his talents. As a scorer, he could never win because he took too many chances out of his team mates. As a defender he did much better, but his best came as an all-around force.

Wilt's lack of consistent play hurt him when it mattered. And he was a choker in some way. He played to put stats, which he did, but didn't play to win which is why he was defeated in the post season.

I acknowledge him as a GOAT candidate, but there are other guys with much better cases for GOAT and Kareem is one of those.

Wilt played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13. He led his team's to the best record in the league on four separate occasions. He even led his TEAM to the BEST RECORD in the league while LEADING the league in SCORING (and rebounding, and FG%, and averaging 5.2 apg in that same season.)

How well did his teammates perform in the post-season? Keep in mind that Wilt camme to a LAST PLACE team, and immediately took them to a 49-26 record. But, as remarkable as that was, how about this fact? In his first six post-seasons, his teammates collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .352, .352, and .332. And yet, he STILL had two of those team's lose game seven's to Russell's Dynasty by margins of 2 and 1 point. And he took a last place roster to a championship in '64, where he played brilliantly, but his team, outgunned EIGHT to TWO in HOFers, was beaten by Russell's Celtics.

How good were Wilt's teammates early in his career? When Alex Hannum took over the team before the start of the 63-64 season, he conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, and against some draftees and benchwarmers. To Hannum's shock, the "scrubs" beat his Warriors. And yet, Wilt took that inept group of clowns to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals.


As for Kareem as the GOAT...you obviously didn't read my post on just how "clutch" Kareem was. Take MAGIC away, and Kareem would have retired somewhere in the mid-80's with one ring, and his career would have been considered a major disappointment. Kareem FLOPPED SEVERAL times in the post-season.

And I always find this fact interesting...

In Kareem's 71-72 season, he played 44.2 mpg, and averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting. His Bucks went 63-19, and had a whopping +11.1 point differential. BUT, when he played with the 40-42 Lakers in the 75-76 season, he could only play 41.2 mpg, with 27.7 ppg and on .529 shooting. Oh, and BTW, how did Kareem play in the post-season in that 71-72 season? 28.8 ppg on .437 shooting. And yet Wilt gets accused of "stats-padding?"

[Duncan21formvp]

Here is 40+ reasons...



And there were many other 30-20+ games by Wilt, as well. You would be hard-pressed to find a handful of games in which Russell statistically outplayed Wilt, and you most certainly won't find any in which he trashed Wilt.

And this doesn't include efficiency either, in which Wilt has quite a few knwon games, series, and even SEASONS in which he outshot Russell by HUGE margins.

Now, if you want to argue team success, no question, Russell had a solid edge (although his 7-1 H2H edge in post-season play was nine points away from Wilt holding a 5-3 margin over him.) Russell also had a considerable edge in quality teammates, too.

Of course, if you are measuring greatness by team success...then Russell is the all-time greatest, and by a whopping margin. But, once again, Wilt came within an eyelash of beating Russell's Celtics on four occassions, and he DID beat him once.

You are also forgetting that from 1966-1969 that Wilt had HCA all 4 years over Russell and lost 3 series to him including being up 3-1 in the 1968 series and up 3-2 in 1969.

[PTB Fan]

Here is 40+ reasons...



And there were many other 30-20+ games by Wilt, as well. You would be hard-pressed to find a handful of games in which Russell statistically outplayed Wilt, and you most certainly won't find any in which he trashed Wilt.

And this doesn't include efficiency either, in which Wilt has quite a few knwon games, series, and even SEASONS in which he outshot Russell by HUGE margins.

Now, if you want to argue team success, no question, Russell had a solid edge (although his 7-1 H2H edge in post-season play was nine points away from Wilt holding a 5-3 margin over him.) Russell also had a considerable edge in quality teammates, too.

Of course, if you are measuring greatness by team success...then Russell is the all-time greatest, and by a whopping margin. But, once again, Wilt came within an eyelash of beating Russell's Celtics on four occassions, and he DID beat him once.

Wilt played for the numbers. He got them. And most of the stats came when the game were done. Russell has edge in most of their head to head plays like in 62, 64, 65, 69 i think. This is off the top of my head. Wilt has edge in 67, 66... i'm not sure about 63.

Russell holds the edge in wins and titles though.

[PTB Fan]

Wilt played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13. He led his team's to the best record in the league on four separate occasions. He even led his TEAM to the BEST RECORD in the league while LEADING the league in SCORING (and rebounding, and FG%, and averaging 5.2 apg in that same season.)

How well did his teammates perform in the post-season? Keep in mind that Wilt camme to a LAST PLACE team, and immediately took them to a 49-26 record. But, as remarkable as that was, how about this fact? In his first six post-seasons, his teammates collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .352, .352, and .332. And yet, he STILL had two of those team's lose game seven's to Russell's Dynasty by margins of 2 and 1 point. And he took a last place roster to a championship in '64, where he played brilliantly, but his team, outgunned EIGHT to TWO in HOFers, was beaten by Russell's Celtics.

It's not like i said that Wilt didn't make any impact at all. However, it's clear that Wilt as a scorer couldn't push those teams. Why? Because he couldn't provide great play (other than scoring and rebounding) when it mattered. He took too many chances away from his team mates, didn't let them to get in rhythm which would hurt them later on and it's easy to blame them for that.

But, when Wilt past 67 took a back seat to scoring, his teams became truly tough to stop. Especially in that 67 famous squad, wheres Wilt was at his personal best. That's my point, and no numbers will convince me otherwise.

How good were Wilt's teammates early in his career? When Alex Hannum took over the team before the start of the 63-64 season, he conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, and against some draftees and benchwarmers. To Hannum's shock, the "scrubs" beat his Warriors. And yet, Wilt took that inept group of clowns to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals.

Past 67, he had outstanding team mates. West, Baylor, Greer, Goodrich, McMilan etc. These guys were outstanding. It's a shame that he won a total of 2 rings with these guys.

As for Kareem as the GOAT...you obviously didn't read my post on just how "clutch" Kareem was. Take MAGIC away, and Kareem would have retired somewhere in the mid-80's with one ring, and his career would have been considered a major disappointment. Kareem FLOPPED SEVERAL times in the post-season.

Kareem's clutch abilities are underrated here. Kareem was arguably the finest big man who could take over scoring wise in crunch time as he numerous times did.

Example is in the 5th game of the 1980 Finals, where despite being injured, he dropped 16 points in the fourth en route to a 40 point performances versus a very good Philly team.

And this is one of the numerous. Kareem had many bad luck with his team mates early in his career, which is why he has only 6 and not 8 titles.
And I always find this fact interesting...

In Kareem's 71-72 season, he played 44.2 mpg, and averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting. His Bucks went 63-19, and had a whopping +11.1 point differential. BUT, when he played with the 40-42 Lakers in the 75-76 season, he could only play 41.2 mpg, with 27.7 ppg and on .529 shooting. Oh, and BTW, how did Kareem play in the post-season in that 71-72 season? 28.8 ppg on .437 shooting. And yet Wilt gets accused of "stats-padding?"

Kareem had a different role in the Lakers. He wasn't asked to score, he was asked to be also a passer (as he averaged 6 dimes in one period of the season), was a dominant rebounder, shot blocker and still torched teams offensively. In other words, just the perfect center.

That's like saying that Wilt in 67 lost his scoring ability from 32 to 24 points or something, wheres he was just playing a different role.

[IGotACoolStory]

I'd put my money on Wilt's corpse.