I think I read somewhere that Wilt's vertical was in the 38-43 inch range. Can anyone confirm this?
Another view might say Mike was lucky he did not have to face a team with a true superstar center like Dream in the playoffs, or he would have had much fewer rings. The Rockets with Dream were one of the few teams than more than held their own against the Jordan and Pippin Bulls. I know it was just the regular season, but Dream's Rockets knew how to take it to the weak ass interior Bulls.
You get in to some interesting territory if you do tha woulddda couldda shouldda...
Case-in-point: Sabonis: Had he come into the NBA sooner, he could have completely dominated. But he didn't, and just made Shaq look stupid considering that Sabonis had no knees against him.
Olijuwon is better than Shaq. Shaq never beat O anywhere near his prime. The MDE had someone whom he never dominated.
And how would you know that? Remember, he's been playing all season with a ed up wrist.
Oh really? Then why did Robinson take 41 shots and the next highest on the team had 10? Why did he go out and score 71 points in a meaningless ing game when every other superstar in the league would be taking it easy and saving themselves for the playoffs? If he was all about the team and sportsmanship, why would he want to show up another team like that?
And Shaq played his final game AFTER Robinson did...if he REALLY was the one that wanted the scoring le, don't you think that HE would have jacked up 40+ shots and tried to beat Robinson's 71? He didn't even put up a fight.
The young Sabonis does not get enough love.
If the above questions aren't intended to be rhetorical, the answer would be "John Lucas".
How would he have gone about doing that, just out of curiosity?
Thank you, slayermin. IIRC, you and I agreed on this point on another Spurs board some time ago and caught all kinds of for it.
Bill Russell was great, no doubt, but he played with an entire wing of the Basketball Hall of Fame. Auerbach put together Dream Team after Dream Team back when teams didn't know how to assemble rosters, and Russell's legacy benefitted the most.
If Russell came up today, you'd recognize him as Dennis Rodman without all the nonsense. Now Rodman was great in his way, but would you take him ahead of Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, Dave, etc.?
Me neither.
I thought I was reading a post by Whott!
Hehe I do agree with you all the way though but I'm biased - David Robinson is my favourite player of all time (with Manu a close second!)
Well, how did Russell lose 4 out of 5 in the 1967 playoffs to Wilt's team - a team the Celtics took 5 of 9 from during the year? I thought Russell's desire would carry them - or does it matter sometimes that the other team happens to be better?
No, no, you must be right, "at ude" and "desire" are much more important than "talent". Russell's desire must have been lacking in 1967. And his ankle injury in the 1958 Finals was no doubt the result of a desire deficit. Bob Pet led the NBA in desire in 1958, as we all know, so it's no wonder the Hawks defeated the Celtics and Russell's off-year in desire that season.
Yes Dennis Rodman - no brainer
unbelievable...
1. chamberlain
2. olajuwon
3. russell
4. kareem
5. oneal
6. Robinson
7. malone
...after that i don't care.
Scoop Jackson is of no consequence. He's not worth reading.
The only writers on Page 2 worth my time are Bill Simmons and Gregg Easterbrook. They're both liberals, but at least they are original and funny, and interesting. Jason Whitlock was great, too, until he got upset over something stupid that Scoop Jackson wrote.
I'm with Simmons on the issue, however. It's impossible to intelligently rank the all-time greatest because of the different eras involved. As he writes, "you mean to say that Hakeem wouldn't have averaged 45-25 in 1962?" Shoot, David would have dominated that era himself.
Hear, hear.
Finally, someone here understands that talent, skill, and good coaching & execution matter at least as much as at ude and desire to win.
Robinson was the one on the court taking those shots. You don't think a superstar could tell some pissant below-average coach "No, I'd rather not do that"?
I've heard this as well. I saw him play volleyball a few times (after his basketball career was over) and he could get up. Can you imagine a 7footer that can jump at the net in a volleyball game? Wilt was an incredible athlete that had the biggest ego one could imagine.
Yeah, David Robinson was known for that.Now you are just being stupid.
If you don't want to know the answers to questions, don't ing ask them.
John Lucas was trying to increase Robinson's competetive fire, because Dave didn't give a about scoring les, or NBA les for that matter. It sort of backfired because Robinson was used up for the playoffs, and the Spurs got eliminated by an inferior squad (again). This time a team of guys that got a lot of rest at the end of the year.
Wilt is the reason there's an NBA rule stating you can't cross the free-throw line until the ball hits the rim. He could dunk his free throws.
NOt your vydas, not my vydas, but Arvydas. Sweet highlight reel, a little grainy, but shows Sabonis schooling a young D-Rob
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHhnDBlBMEE
Ah, so he's classy enough to not try to go over the head of his coach, but not quite classy enough to stop himself from embarrassing his opponents by dropping 71 on them in a meaningless game for no reason except a scoring le? riiiiiiiight...Yeah, David Robinson was known for that.
The bottom line is that he wanted that scoring le just as much as anybody else would want it. That's why he did what he did. Stoking his compe ive fire for the playoffs, his coach, whatever, those are all bull excuses.
It might have been meaningless, but no one wants to lose, and the Spurs where only up by 2 points going into the 4th. They then outscored theClipps by 13 that quarter to put the game away. And D-Rob still had 5 assists that game
Sure he wanted the scoring le. Shaq wanted it too. That's why he ed and moaned about it for 5 years.
So which time period would you call Shaq’s prime years? I define it as 94 to 03.
The standings are as follows:
REB. Lead Shaq
1994 Rodman 2nd
1995 Rodman 3rd
1996 Rodman N/A
1997 Rodman N/A
1998 Rodman N/A
1999 Webber N/A
2000 Mutombo 2nd
2001 Mutombo 3rd
2002 Wallace N/A
2003 Wallace N/A
Blocks Lead Shaq
1994 Mutombo 4th
1995 Mutombo N/A
1996 Mutombo N/A
1997 Mutombo N/A
1998 Camby N/A
1999 Mourning N/A
2000 Mourning 3rd
2001 Ratliff 4th
2002 Wallace N/A
2003 Ratliff N/A
Scoring Lead Shaq
1994 Robinson 2nd
1995 Shaq 1st
1996 Jordan 3rd
1997 Jordan 3rd
1998 Jordan 2nd
1999 Iverson 2nd
2000 Shaq 1st
2001 Iverson 3rd
2002 Iverson 2nd
2003 McGrady 4th
An N/A standing means that either Shaq placed lower than 5th, or he didn’t play enough games to qualify. These are taken on a per game basis, not total.
First off, my mistake, Shaq lead the league in scoring twice, not once. But then when you look at the stats, there are a high % of years where Shaq didn’t finish in top 5 in rebounds and/or blocks, and in scoring, finished only 2nd to Jordan once.
As for Duncan, he was a PF and no, he is not blessed with the same size, agility and speed of Shaq (well, maybe speed), and was never expected to lead the league in any statistical category. Compare Shaq’s career to, say Robinson or Olajuwon would be more appropriate. Even though both of those players shared their prime years with Jordan and Rodman at their respective peaks, Robinson still managed to lead the league in rebounding once and scoring once (blocks once as well), and Olajuwon lead the league in rebounding and blocks as well.
Okay well that's fine. I have no problem with that. I think the way he did it was cheap, but even then it's not a big deal.
I just don't get how people can insist that he didn't give a about the scoring le (he obviously did). And how saying that Robinson might actually care about a personal statistic somehow becomes more offensive than raping Princess Diana's corpse.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
