Will LeBron match Wilt's coveted 2/6 mark?

[Ne 1]

For decades the league has been waiting and NBA fans have been asking.... Will we ever see another Wilt Chamberlain? People originally thought, nobody, but flash forward to June, 16th, 2015 and we have another anomaly of biology, a freak of nature by the name of LeBron Raymone James, now just one game away later today from matching the historic 2/6 mark left by the Big Dipper.

[Ne 1]

Mikan 7/7, Russell 11/11, Shaq 4/6, KAJ 6/10, Hakeem 2/3, Wilt 2/6

One is not like the others

[zoom17]

Makes this thread when it's 3-2 and not 2-2 or 2-1 agenda detected.

[plowking]

Mikan 7/7, Russell 11/11, Shaq 4/6, KAJ 6/10, Hakeem 2/3, Wilt 2/6

One is not like the others

Wilt is better than every single one of those players on that list.

You think comparing Bron to Wilt is some kind of insult?

[BBallZen83]

Probably.

Context mean anything?

[oarabbus]

Wilt is better than every single one of those players on that list.

You think comparing Bron to Wilt is some kind of insult?

This, at the end of the day, as much as we give Wiltstans shit for mountain lion stories, Wilt was still a legend.

[Ne 1]

Wilt is better than every single one of those players on that list.

Disagree. People look at Wilt's stats and rank him as a GOAT candidate without looking at pace and minutes and with a heavy emphasis on regular season stats. If you look at his career in detail, especially in the playoffs where you can break it down game by game, he is the least impressive top 10 player. You also need to have a decent perspective on some of these numbers, can't just look at 30 rebounds and say "mind blowing game" when games had 150+ rebounds available. The main argument for him being top 5 is regular season stats, but that's flawed. Aside from playing in blowouts, this is a guy who was known to check the stat sheet at halftime and he was even known to have passed up easy shots to prove he could lead the league in assists in 1968.

Basketball is about winning and the greats were expected to raise their games in the playoffs. Look at the other top 10 players, Jordan, Kareem, Bird, Shaq, Magic, Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem and Russell. They all won more titles than Wilt except for Hakeem who has as many and was easily a better playoff performer. None of them choked to the extent Wilt did in '68 or '69 and none of them had so many series where they played below their standard and lost, yeah, they all had some, but not as many as Wilt. And picture any of them in their prime, when healthy, much less playing every game, leading a team to a record of 31-49 or even 11-33 midway through the season like Wilt did before being traded in 1965.

[bail]

what are the finals record of mj and kobe?

[Ne 1]

This, at the end of the day, as much as we give Wiltstans shit for mountain lion stories, Wilt was still a legend.

Yes, he's a legend, but very overrated once you look at his entire playoff career game by game and realize how much he stat-padded in blowouts. I don't consider him a top 5 player but there is no denying he is top 10 due to his impact on the evolution of the league and his peak (1967).

[Ne 1]

what are the finals record of mj and kobe?

Jordan: 6/6

Bryant: 5/7

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Mikan 7/7, Russell 11/11, Shaq 4/6, KAJ 6/10, Hakeem 2/3, Wilt 2/6

One is not like the others

So you're saying it's better to make 3 finals than make 6? Winning in the finals > making the finals > not making the finals.

[Ne 1]

So you're saying it's better to make 3 finals than make 6? Winning in the finals > making the finals > not making the finals.

Losing more often than not at any level is unacceptable. The way I look at it: if you're good enough to make it to the Finals, you're good enough to win it all.

If you make 10 first rounds, you should win atleast 6

of the 6 times you make the 2nd round. you should win at least 4

of the 4 times you make the 3rd round. you should win at least 3

of the 3 times you make the finals. you should win at least 2

There is no excuse for losing more often than you win at any level.

So yes, it is much much much more impressive to make the finals and lose than lose in the 1st round, but that does not change the fact that you should have a winning record at every level. Especially if you're getting to that level a bunch of times.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

[plowking]

Losing more often than not at any level is unacceptable. The way I look at it: if you're good enough to make it to the Finals, you're good enough to win it all.

If you make 10 first rounds, you should win atleast 6

of the 6 times you make the 2nd round. you should win at least 4

of the 4 times you make the 3rd round. you should win at least 3

of the 3 times you make the finals. you should win at least 2

There is no excuse for losing more often than you win at any level.

So yes, it is much much much more impressive to make the finals and lose than lose in the 1st round, but that does not change the fact that you should have a winning record at every level. Especially if you're getting to that level a bunch of times.

So you ask for context in your last two posts, yet you put out a generic answer like this completely ignoring context.

Eh, boring.

[Sarcastic]

This might make the "backfire" thread.