Greatest basketball player of all time?

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Skyguy
He didn't have much competition.....maybe a few guys? Different era, different abilities......or lack thereof.

There is much less variance today between the top players, and even between all the average players. Overall ability has increased, even the bottom feeders are up.

How many superstars existed back in the day? How many today? I rest my case. They stood out because there weren't many.

I think your reasoning is backwards... more teams = more dilute talent, more bottom feeders to pile up numbers against. In the 60s there were about 10 teams. That means that 10% of the starting centers in the league were Bill Russel. When you played the worst center in the league, he was maybe the 10th best center in the world.

Sky is right because players today are overall bigger, faster and stronger due to better technology (training methods and equipment), nutrition, and medicine. Also take into account blacks had to deal with racial inequality and some did not want to deal with that (nobody paved the way for them like today). Also, blacks did not have the huge salary incentives like athletes have today. It was a much different time then and more people have the chance/desire to play today (and we haven't even delved into the socioeconomic issues of a manufacturing vs service economy of today = more blacks working instead of going to college).

The argument is strength of competition. Wilt had to play against Bill Russell, probably the best defensive center of all time, every tenth (or even ninth) game. So I don't think you can say that his competition was weak. No one has come close to 50 points per game or 20 rebounds per game, not even in the same ballpark. Not then, not now. Those numbers are so outrageous, so unapproachable it's difficult to get around them. The racial and economic problems should even out - they were as much a detriment to him as his competition. Just as they are/were less of a detriment to say, Michael Jordan and his competition.

If you want to do a "who'd win" comparison, then you almost always have to go with more modern players as they are usually better conditioned, better trained, etc., and you have a very boring and one-sided argument. Military buffs get into this all time - ie what was the greatest fighter? The one that was built last, or the one that did its job most effectively during its heyday? Depending on which question is asked the answer might be an F-22 or a Fokker D-VII or something else.

Yes, Bill Russell was a great defender in his era, but I disagree of all time due to technology/medical/nutrituion advancement of today. Olajawon was faster, taller, and a flat out better defender (I would consider him top 3), as well as others like Mutombo and Mourning. Russell wouldn't have been able to stop today's superstar centers if he couldn't stop Wilt. If you honestly think a jet from the 60s/70s could outmanuever today's advanced computer aided jets, then you're 99.99% wrong. Just because the jet from the 60/70's did its job well does not mean it would win in a dogfight with today's most advanced jet, that is absurd. Yes it may be "boring" (I prefer the term logical) to say they'd always win, but it's because it's common sense.

sigh... I think you have to compare players based on how well they did against their competition, not how well they might do in a hypothetical time-travel matchup. If you do the time travel matchup, the latest, greatest will almost always win. An F-22 will always beat a Spitfire unless the F-22 pilot decides to fly into the ground. So the Spitfire was a terrible, underpowered, underarmed, slow airplane, right? No, it was a great airplane, just from a different era.

I agree with you there... I thought you were trying to compare players of different eras to one another with this statement: "Wilt had to play against Bill Russell, probably the best defensive center of all time". That is what I have a problem with, because I think Hakeem was way better on defense than Russell... and considering he is the most recent, that would make him the best of all time according to your time travel argument (that more recent is always better), which I do agree with.

 

[Hav0k99]

Originally posted by: dug777
That Nike Air guy.

lol

 

[BlancoNino]

So wait a minute...Wilt would have a harder time playing in the NBA today? Why is that? Why can't any basketball player even touch some of his records? Is it because players today are so much bigger, stronger, and faster? Wait a second...back up! If that's the truth, then why do NFL offensive records keep getting smashed? Aren't the players going up against bigger, stronger, and faster defenses?

Let me do a comparison in playing against eras. Chamberlain, when he was old, was able to guard and play very well against Jabbar. Also, at around 45 years old and retired, Chamberlain was able to play a scrimmage against the Lakers in the early 80's against a young and athletic Magic Johnson. Chamberlain blocked every shot in that game. Text. Chamberlain was also offered to come back and play for the Lakers in 1989 at the age of 53. Not able to compete against modern players, huh? Apperently the managers and coaches of the NBA thought he'd do pretty damn well against players of that era at 53 years old.

So by that logic and evidence, Wilt would have had no problem fairing in the 1980's. You guys are talking about eras as if they are hundreds of years apart, when really a single player would have supposedly played through 3 eras (Jabbar). And even as a guy who had been in the league for 17 years (getting old and slow), Jabbar was still able to win the MVP of the finals in 1985.

Oh, and by the way, Wilt Chamberlain was the only player to ever block one of Jabbar's sky hooks. If the players Jabbar went up against in the 80's were so much better at defending and were so much more athletic, why couldn't they block it? Text

 

[Hav0k99]

I vote any of the harlem globetrotters

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
blah blah blah[/L]

Seriously, give it up. The public has spoken. There's nothing you can say that will change peoples minds that MJ wasn't the greatest B-Ball player of all time.

Not to mention that the majority of the arguments you keep spewing is about how he "could" have come back. He played some pickup game and supposidly blocked every single shot in Magic Johnsons career. Some mythical contract in 1989 that no one has ever heard of from the Lakers.

Athletes are apparently slower and can't lift as much weight now. That's about the stupidest thing I've heard in years.

Next you'll bring up that he bagged 20,000 women, which obviously means he's the greatest ladies man of all time too!

"then why do NFL offensive records keep getting smashed"

I didn't realize we were talking about the freaking N F L.

Guess what? MJ was the greatest of all time. Check your poll. Keep making your stupid argument to deaf ears...but everyone apparently knows who the best was.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: kevman
Magic or Micheal.

Magic could play all positions.

Jordan was amazing.

 

[dethman]

as much as i hate michael jordan, i have to say he was probably the best i've seen. as a laker fan i'd like to say magic but i don't think he was as dominating.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
So wait a minute...Wilt would have a harder time playing in the NBA today? Why is that? Why can't any basketball player even touch some of his records? Is it because players today are so much bigger, stronger, and faster? Wait a second...back up! If that's the truth, then why do NFL offensive records keep getting smashed? Aren't the players going up against bigger, stronger, and faster defenses?

Let me do a comparison in playing against eras. Chamberlain, when he was old, was able to guard and play very well against Jabbar. Also, at around 45 years old and retired, Chamberlain was able to play a scrimmage against the Lakers in the early 80's against a young and athletic Magic Johnson. Chamberlain blocked every shot in that game. Text. Chamberlain was also offered to come back and play for the Lakers in 1989 at the age of 53. Not able to compete against modern players, huh? Apperently the managers and coaches of the NBA thought he'd do pretty damn well against players of that era at 53 years old.

So by that logic and evidence, Wilt would have had no problem fairing in the 1980's. You guys are talking about eras as if they are hundreds of years apart, when really a single player would have supposedly played through 3 eras (Jabbar). And even as a guy who had been in the league for 17 years (getting old and slow), Jabbar was still able to win the MVP of the finals in 1985.

Oh, and by the way, Wilt Chamberlain was the only player to ever block one of Jabbar's sky hooks. If the players Jabbar went up against in the 80's were so much better at defending and were so much more athletic, why couldn't they block it? Text

If Wilt wanted to come back at age 53, how come no team wanted him if he was so great and could do all these great things?? Your link from Wiki says: As blocks only became official stats after his career, there are no figures, however, in the early 1980s, at UCLA's practice courts, Chamberlain was playing in a pickup game, including a young Magic Johnson. Johnson called goaltending on Chamberlain, who then said: "There will be no more lay-ups in this game." Chamberlain, who was in his mid-40s, went on to block every lay-up attempt in the game.
How hard is it for a retired NBA superstar to stand under a backboard and block lay-ups against college kids in a pickup game (No, it never specified that it was against the "Lakers", you made that up)? It also doesn't say that Wilt specifically blocked any of Magic's subsequent lay-up attempts, but that Wilt goal tended MJo's first shot. Again, if he was so good why wasn't he still in the NBA?

Also, how come you failed to mention that Wilt himself admitted to being a poor leader, just like we've said all along in this thread (and why Russell was better overall and has all the rings)? However, Chamberlain also had his weaknesses. He himself stated in first autobiography, Wilt: Just Like Any Other 7-Foot Black Millionaire Who Lives Next Door: "I?m just not naturally competitive and aggressive. I don?t have a killer instinct". (page 187) This was painfully evident in one case, namely the Game 7 of the 1970 NBA Finals, famous for Knicks center Willis Reed hobbling up court with only one intact thigh. Given Reed's immobility, Chamberlain should have been able to score almost at will. Instead, Chamberlain contributed only 21 points, and his Lakers lost the game, and the championship, to the Knicks.

Jerry West was the LA Lakers leader of the 1972 Champs, NOT Wilt Chamberlain. If he was really as good as you say in his later career, he would have been the leader of the Lakers and dominated all of them in stats. Look at the stats for that year:
Jerry West: 25ppg, 4.2reb, 9.7assists, 38.6 minutes played
Gail Goodrich: 25.9ppg, 2.5reb, 4.5assists, 37.1 mp
Jim McMillian: 18.8ppg, 6.5reb, 2.6assists, 38.1 mp
Wilt Chamberlain: 14.8ppg, 19.2reb, 4.0assists, 42.3 mp

So you're telling me that your vote for the greatest of all time is a guy, who in his only championship year, finished 4th in scoring and 3rd in assists while averaging >3 minutes more a game than the other top 3 scorers? You're telling me this guy led the team to the championship and Jerry West didn't? Please spare us... Wilt was probably the greatest rebounder of all time, a good scorer as well as a superb defender, but that's about it. More importantly, he was nowhere near a leader who inspired others to play above their level, admitted to not being clutch and not having a killer instinct, wasn't as good a scorer as you say, and couldn't shoot free throws worth a dam (modern day superstar centers are shooting 20-25% better than him). He was great, but not greatest of all time in my book.

 

[BlancoNino]

I don't see you trying to argue with anything. Looks like you're backed into the corner and have to use the old "Well, the public has spoken!" argument. Ever stop and think that most of the people who voted here never even saw Chamberlain play? That most are probably 16-30 years old and grew up watching and loving Michael Jordan?

I didn't start the argument that Wilt could play in the modern era. Somebody else (foolishly) did, I was only giving them fact as to why they are probably wrong.

I never said athletes are slower and weaker today...gimme a break.

Supposedly happened in a pickup game? Seriously, read the links and do a search.

"Mythical" contract? Go pick up a book on Wilt. Jerry Buss offered it to him in 1989 with a very high salary. In fact, do some heavy research and you'll find that Houston, Phoenix, LA Lakers, LA Clippers, and New York all made him offers in the Mid-Late 80's.

 

[SP33Demon]

Blanco check out my post and respond please.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
If Wilt wanted to come back at age 53, how come no team wanted him if he was so great and could do all these great things??

Reading comprehension? Tons of teams wanted him in the mid-late 80's.

How hard is it for a retired NBA superstar to stand under a backboard and block lay-ups against college kids in a pickup game (No, it never specified that it was against the "Lakers", you made that up)? It also doesn't say that Wilt specifically blocked any of Magic's subsequent lay-up attempts, but that Wilt goal tended MJo's first shot. Again, if he was so good why wasn't he still in the NBA?

http://espn.go.com/nba/news/1999/1012/110842.html

"So Wilt said: 'There will be no more layups in this gym,' and he blocked every shot after that. That's the truth, I saw it. He didn't let one (of Johnson's) shots get to the rim."

Jerry West was the LA Lakers leader of the 1972 Champs, NOT Wilt Chamberlain. If he was really as good as you say in his later career, he would have been the leader of the Lakers and dominated all of them in stats. Look at the stats for that year:
Jerry West: 25ppg, 4.2reb, 9.7assists, 38.6 minutes played
Gail Goodrich: 25.9ppg, 2.5reb, 4.5assists, 37.1 mp
Jim McMillian: 18.8ppg, 6.5reb, 2.6assists, 38.1 mp
Wilt Chamberlain: 14.8ppg, 19.2reb, 4.0assists, 42.3 mp

Excuse me, but the coach specifically TOLD Chamberlain he didn't want him to be the main scorer on the team and to instead concentrate on possesion (rebounds) and distributing (4.0 assists per game as a center? WoW!). Also, Chamberlain shot 72.7% from the field that year. That led the league. Oh wait a minute, that was an NBA record and still is. You think if he was taking more shots he could have been the league's best scorer that year? Without question. Instead, coach had a different strategy and wanted everyone to score (unlike MJ who would throw a fit if he wasn't taking an ungodly amount of shots per game). Nice try .

You can say what you want about Wilt being a leader, but you can't deny that as soon as he joined the team, the team had immediate success. West was the leader that year? Why was Wilt named MVP of the finals? Why did the sixers' record drop from 62-20 to 9-73 when Wilt left? The game you mentioned above is just one game. One example. Everyone has bad games.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
If Wilt wanted to come back at age 53, how come no team wanted him if he was so great and could do all these great things??

Reading comprehension? Tons of teams wanted him in the mid-late 80's.

How hard is it for a retired NBA superstar to stand under a backboard and block lay-ups against college kids in a pickup game (No, it never specified that it was against the "Lakers", you made that up)? It also doesn't say that Wilt specifically blocked any of Magic's subsequent lay-up attempts, but that Wilt goal tended MJo's first shot. Again, if he was so good why wasn't he still in the NBA?

http://espn.go.com/nba/news/1999/1012/110842.html

"So Wilt said: 'There will be no more layups in this gym,' and he blocked every shot after that. That's the truth, I saw it. He didn't let one (of Johnson's) shots get to the rim."

Jerry West was the LA Lakers leader of the 1972 Champs, NOT Wilt Chamberlain. If he was really as good as you say in his later career, he would have been the leader of the Lakers and dominated all of them in stats. Look at the stats for that year:
Jerry West: 25ppg, 4.2reb, 9.7assists, 38.6 minutes played
Gail Goodrich: 25.9ppg, 2.5reb, 4.5assists, 37.1 mp
Jim McMillian: 18.8ppg, 6.5reb, 2.6assists, 38.1 mp
Wilt Chamberlain: 14.8ppg, 19.2reb, 4.0assists, 42.3 mp

Excuse me, but the coach specifically TOLD Chamberlain he didn't want him to be the main scorer on the team and to instead concentrate on possesion (rebounds) and distributing (4.0 assists per game as a center? WoW!). Also, Chamberlain shot 72.7% from the field that year. That led the league. Oh wait a minute, that was an NBA record and still is. You think if he was taking more shots he could have been the league's best scorer that year? Without question. Instead, coach had a different strategy and wanted everyone to score (unlike MJ who would throw a fit if he wasn't taking an ungodly amount of shots per game). Nice try .

You can say what you want about Wilt being a leader, but you can't deny that as soon as he joined the team, the team had immediate success. West was the leader that year? Why was Wilt named MVP of the finals? Why did the sixers' record drop from 62-20 to 9-73 when Wilt left? The game you mentioned above is just one game. One example. Everyone has bad games.

Again, if Wilt was so good, WHY WASN'T HE IN THE NBA "in the late 80's"? Answer the question, you can say this or that about contracts that we'll never know about, but the fact of matter was he never played in the NBA past 1973. My guess is that it was all a publicity stunt that never came to be.

Your link to the pickup game, you never provided it in your post above. Second, your link doesn't say Wilt played a scrimmage vs the LA Lakers. It's a pickup game that had Magic in it, with UCLA Coach Brown watching. We'll take his word that Wilt blocked Magic's shots in the pickup game, big deal. A Hall of Fame shot blocker/rebounder stood under the basket and blocked layups on a guy 2 inches shorter than him, alert the media! Magic's strengths were never to score on someone at will anyhow...

Why are you saying wow at 4 assists a game for a center? Hakeem averaged 3-3.5 while scoring 10+ more ppg. And while 72% is impressive for one season, it's well known that centers get good looks, especially on a team that had guys averaging 9.7, 4.5 and 2.6 assists per game... His lifetime FG% is still 4% behind Shaq's. How do you explain that? Yes coaches may have asked him to pass more and shoot less, but why is that? Simple, because Jerry West was the leader of the team and the leaders get the ball the most. Wilt was not the go to man of the 1972 Lakers, West was. From Wiki: "West retired two years later, after leading the Lakers to yet another Pacific Division title in the 1973-74 season ? this, in spite of the loss of legendary center Wilt Chamberlain to retirement. As a testament to West's on-court leadership and presence, the Lakers fell to the Pacific Division cellar the year after he retired with a 30-52 record. West later became a coach who carried the Lakers into the playoffs in his three seasons 1976-1979, after which he was hired as an executive for the club in various positions."

Yes, the Willis Reed thing was absolutely humiliating for Wilt. While yes, it was only "one game", has MJ ever been embarrassed in the playoffs like that? Quite the opposite, he's posterized HoFers like Patrick Ewing!

Wilt was a self admitted follower who never felt "competitive". He never lead others to an NBA title, others led him. He didn't inspire anyone enough to up their game, you can argue that Jerry West actually inspired him to play harder. Hence, the greatest player of all time cannot go to Wilt in my book, despite the fact he was the greatest rebounder of all time, a good scorer, and good defender.

 

[Walzber813]

Michael Jordan is no doubt the best basketball player to ever play the game. You can't use Wilt Chamberlains insanely high shooting average against Jordan, look at the difference in positions that they play. No play has been as diverse and talented as Jordan, there really has been no one who can compare.

 

[deftron]

That mascot that jumps off a trampoline and does a flip, then a dunk

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Again, if Wilt was so good, WHY WASN'T HE IN THE NBA "in the late 80's"? Answer the question, you can say this or that about contracts that we'll never know about, but the fact of matter was he never played in the NBA past 1973. My guess is that it was all a publicity stunt that never came to be.

Nope, it was never a publicity stunt. He was made legit offers, but refused them all. He was done playing basketball...he wanted to do other things in life.

Your link to the pickup game, you never provided it in your post above. Second, your link doesn't say Wilt played a scrimmage vs the LA Lakers. It's a pickup game that had Magic in it, with UCLA Coach Brown watching. We'll take his word that Wilt blocked Magic's shots in the pickup game, big deal. A Hall of Fame shot blocker/rebounder stood under the basket and blocked layups on a guy 2 inches shorter than him, alert the media! Magic's strengths were never to score on someone at will anyhow...

This was just an argument for the talent level in different eras. I simply said that Wilt still had an extraordinary game at that age against supposed better talent.

Yes, the Willis Reed thing was absolutely humiliating for Wilt. While yes, it was only "one game", has MJ ever been embarrassed in the playoffs like that? Quite the opposite, he's posterized HoFers like Patrick Ewing!

Jordan had plenty of games where he scored roughly the same.

Wilt was a self admitted follower who never felt "competitive". He never lead others to an NBA title, others led him. He didn't inspire anyone enough to up their game, you can argue that Jerry West actually inspired him to play harder. Hence, the greatest player of all time cannot go to Wilt in my book, despite the fact he was the greatest rebounder of all time, a good scorer, and good defender.

By that logic, Jordan isn't that great either. Who did Jordan inspire to be a better player? Pippen brought instant success to the program and had his best years when Jordan was playing baseball. Rodman was a well-established player well before he came to Chicago. Kerr joined the Bulls after Jordan retired and has his best season ever.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Walzber813
Michael Jordan is no doubt the best basketball player to ever play the game. You can't use Wilt Chamberlains insanely high shooting average against Jordan, look at the difference in positions that they play. No play has been as diverse and talented as Jordan, there really has been no one who can compare.

We're not comparing who is better pound for pound or by what position. Who is more productive? Who would you pick to have on your team first if you wanted to win games? Who can personally lead a team to victory?

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: invidia
Dennis Rodman. He had personality.

And class.

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
[So you're telling me that your vote for the greatest of all time is a guy, who in his only championship year, finished 4th in scoring and 3rd in assists while averaging >3 minutes more a game than the other top 3 scorers?

Check your facts - Wilt won two championships. In 1966-1967 the 76'er won the championship with Wilt scoring 24.3pts, 24.2 rebs, 7.8 assts. The 76ers that year were considered one of the best teams ever as they started 46-4 and finished 68-13. Just to prove the assists weren't a fluke he won his 3rd straight MVP the next year with 24.3 ppts, 23.8rebs, 8.6 assts.

Wilt was probably the greatest rebounder of all time, a good scorer as well as a superb defender, but that's about it.

I'm not going to say that he was the best player ever, but you are flat wrong in your statement above. He wasn't a good scorer, he was the greatest scorer. A player has cracked 3,000 points in a season 4 times in NBA history. He did 3 times. He is the only player to score over 4,000 in a season, the next highest is 3,586 --- also by him.

If you look at the list of top ten scoring averages in a season, he has 5 of them. He is the only player to average more than 40 points in a season (he did twice) and the only to average more than 50. He has 118 games scoring 50 points or more the next closest is Michael Jordan with 31. He has 271 games scoring 40 or more points the next closest is Jordan with 170. He led the league in FG% 9 seasons (an NBA record), including 5 consecutive (also a record). He has 5 out of the 8 highest scores in a game (the top 4 in fact).

To say he was a "good" scorer is like saying Dan Marino was a good QB or Mario Lemieux was a good scorer.

 

[James3shin]

MJ...not only was he amazing, but he made his teammates better.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
[So you're telling me that your vote for the greatest of all time is a guy, who in his only championship year, finished 4th in scoring and 3rd in assists while averaging >3 minutes more a game than the other top 3 scorers?

Check your facts - Wilt won two championships. In 1966-1967 the 76'er won the championship with Wilt scoring 24.3pts, 24.2 rebs, 7.8 assts. The 76ers that year were considered one of the best teams ever as they started 46-4 and finished 68-13. Just to prove the assists weren't a fluke he won his 3rd straight MVP the next year with 24.3 ppts, 23.8rebs, 8.6 assts.

Wilt was probably the greatest rebounder of all time, a good scorer as well as a superb defender, but that's about it.

I'm not going to say that he was the best player ever, but you are flat wrong in your statement above. He wasn't a good scorer, he was the greatest scorer. A player has cracked 3,000 points in a season 4 times in NBA history. He did 3 times. He is the only player to score over 4,000 in a season, the next highest is 3,586 --- also by him.

If you look at the list of top ten scoring averages in a season, he has 5 of them. He is the only player to average more than 40 points in a season (he did twice) and the only to average more than 50. He has 118 games scoring 50 points or more the next closest is Michael Jordan with 31. He has 271 games scoring 40 or more points the next closest is Jordan with 170. He led the league in FG% 9 seasons (an NBA record), including 5 consecutive (also a record). He has 5 out of the 8 highest scores in a game (the top 4 in fact).

To say he was a "good" scorer is like saying Dan Marino was a good QB or Mario Lemieux was a good scorer.

why did you choose to use Dan Marino (not even 2nd behind Joe Montana) and Mario Lemieux (how does he compare to Gretzky?)

are you trying to say that Wilt is no more than a Marino (Wilt did win 2 championships vs Marino's 0 you know).

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

why did you choose to use Dan Marino (not even 2nd behind Joe Montana) and Mario Lemieux (how does he compare to Gretzky?)

are you trying to say that Wilt is no more than a Marino (Wilt did win 2 championships vs Marino's 0 you know).

My point was calling Wilt a "good" scorer was ridiculous just as calling Marino a "good" QB or Lemieux a "good" scorer would be ridiculous. I wasn't making the argument that Wilt is the greatest player, that would be my opinion not fact (just like your opinion on Marino).

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
[So you're telling me that your vote for the greatest of all time is a guy, who in his only championship year, finished 4th in scoring and 3rd in assists while averaging >3 minutes more a game than the other top 3 scorers?

Check your facts - Wilt won two championships. In 1966-1967 the 76'er won the championship with Wilt scoring 24.3pts, 24.2 rebs, 7.8 assts. The 76ers that year were considered one of the best teams ever as they started 46-4 and finished 68-13. Just to prove the assists weren't a fluke he won his 3rd straight MVP the next year with 24.3 ppts, 23.8rebs, 8.6 assts.

Wilt was probably the greatest rebounder of all time, a good scorer as well as a superb defender, but that's about it.

I'm not going to say that he was the best player ever, but you are flat wrong in your statement above. He wasn't a good scorer, he was the greatest scorer. A player has cracked 3,000 points in a season 4 times in NBA history. He did 3 times. He is the only player to score over 4,000 in a season, the next highest is 3,586 --- also by him.

If you look at the list of top ten scoring averages in a season, he has 5 of them. He is the only player to average more than 40 points in a season (he did twice) and the only to average more than 50. He has 118 games scoring 50 points or more the next closest is Michael Jordan with 31. He has 271 games scoring 40 or more points the next closest is Jordan with 170. He led the league in FG% 9 seasons (an NBA record), including 5 consecutive (also a record). He has 5 out of the 8 highest scores in a game (the top 4 in fact).

To say he was a "good" scorer is like saying Dan Marino was a good QB or Mario Lemieux was a good scorer.

Wilt set all most of his scoring records in 1960-1966, he only finished in the top 10 TWICE from 1967 - 1973, he finished 3rd in 1967 and 1968. You can blame it on the coach all you want, but the fact of the matter is: Why would a coach tell the alleged greatest scorer of all time, if he was in fact the greatest scorer, not to be the go to guy? Did Phil Jackson ever tell MJ not to "score as much"? Would MJ have still won 6 titles if his coach told him not to score as much? Hell no. That's why I don't think Wilt was the greatest scorer.

In addition, Chamberlain didn't get along well with his last coach Van Breda Kolff (LA Lakers 69-73, read about Wilt being benched in the final minutes of Game 7 1969) and was quoted as not being "on the same page" as his first coach Dolph Schayes (1960-1966). Was there ever a coach that MJ didn't get along with?

Also, you mention Marino and Mario, but they weren't the greatest ever in scoring in their respective sports (many of Marino's records are getting broken by Manning and Favre). Although Mario definitely was more of a leader than Wilt was (like I explained above). Did Wilt have the mental toughness of Gretzky, MJ, Payton, Rice, Favre, Manning, Magic, Bird, Isiah? No, he did not.

If Wilt got along with his coaches more, was more competitive/killer instinct (he said he never was), and won more championships (his last team certainly had the pieces with J.West, Elgin) then I would say he's greatest ever. This equated to the fact that he squandered too many opportunities (1969 spat with Lakers coach in Game 7, 1970 Willis Reed in Game 7, 1960-1966 getting exploited for his free throw shooting by the Celtics) in crunch time that guys like MJ would have never let happen.

More on how his poor FT shooting prevented Wilt's team from ever beating the Celtics from 1960-1966, from Wiki:
"Celtics forward Tom Heinsohn said his team ruthlessly exploited his only weakness, free throw shooting, with an early version of the Hack-a-Shaq (a tactic in which a poor free throw shooter is intentionally fouled, in the hope that he misses free throws and the team gets an easy ball possession without giving up many points). "Half the fouls against him were hard fouls", Heinsohn continued, "he [Chamberlain] took the most brutal pounding of any player ever". An additional point was that Chamberlain refrained from retaliating, and preferred to play through the many fouls. [1]

This tactic proved highly effective against Chamberlain. Since the Celtics were in the same Eastern Division as the Warriors, Chamberlain and his teammates could not even reach the NBA Finals without finding a way to beat them."

So to reiterate: MJ never had problems with teams exploiting his FT shooting, got along with his coaches and was a leader who made his teammates better without sacrificing scoring, was a super competitive guy with a vicious killer instinct, and frequently embarrassed his opponents in the postseason i.e. clutch (unlike Wilt's letdown vs Willis Reed which will always be remembered in history). That's why MJ is the greatest over Wilt, he took advantage of his opportunities more.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
[So you're telling me that your vote for the greatest of all time is a guy, who in his only championship year, finished 4th in scoring and 3rd in assists while averaging >3 minutes more a game than the other top 3 scorers?

Check your facts - Wilt won two championships. In 1966-1967 the 76'er won the championship with Wilt scoring 24.3pts, 24.2 rebs, 7.8 assts. The 76ers that year were considered one of the best teams ever as they started 46-4 and finished 68-13. Just to prove the assists weren't a fluke he won his 3rd straight MVP the next year with 24.3 ppts, 23.8rebs, 8.6 assts.

Wilt was probably the greatest rebounder of all time, a good scorer as well as a superb defender, but that's about it.

I'm not going to say that he was the best player ever, but you are flat wrong in your statement above. He wasn't a good scorer, he was the greatest scorer. A player has cracked 3,000 points in a season 4 times in NBA history. He did 3 times. He is the only player to score over 4,000 in a season, the next highest is 3,586 --- also by him.

If you look at the list of top ten scoring averages in a season, he has 5 of them. He is the only player to average more than 40 points in a season (he did twice) and the only to average more than 50. He has 118 games scoring 50 points or more the next closest is Michael Jordan with 31. He has 271 games scoring 40 or more points the next closest is Jordan with 170. He led the league in FG% 9 seasons (an NBA record), including 5 consecutive (also a record). He has 5 out of the 8 highest scores in a game (the top 4 in fact).

To say he was a "good" scorer is like saying Dan Marino was a good QB or Mario Lemieux was a good scorer.

Wilt set all most of his scoring records in 1960-1966, he only finished in the top 10 TWICE from 1967 - 1973, he finished 3rd in 1967 and 1968. You can blame it on the coach all you want, but the fact of the matter is: Why would a coach tell the alleged greatest scorer of all time, if he was in fact the greatest scorer, not to be the go to guy? Did Phil Jackson ever tell MJ not to "score as much"? Would MJ have still won 6 titles if his coach told him not to score as much? Hell no. That's why I don't think Wilt was the greatest scorer.

In addition, Chamberlain didn't get along well with his last coach Van Breda Kolff (LA Lakers 69-73, read about Wilt being benched in the final minutes of Game 7 1969) and was quoted as not being "on the same page" as his first coach Dolph Schayes (1960-1966). Was there ever a coach that MJ didn't get along with?

Supposedly, Jordan was responsible for getting Doug Collins fired from the Bulls.

 

[chr6]

joe dumars

 

[imported_goku]

Why isn't steve young on this poll!!!! :| Or, terrell owens, or Babe ruthe?