Questions and coments about garnett post game interview

Sounds like a lot of folks were cheering for the Kobes and have to manufacture "fraudulent emotion" claims to feel better.

 

Well KG is also a pr*ck who likes to taunt players of lesser talent with no provocation. KG is an a-hole and a phony.

 

I'm astounded at the negativity in this thread. I think that anyone who says that KG's emotion last night was phony or manufactured just has some personal vendetta against him.

I am so happy that these Celtics, who by all accounts seem to support each other and genuinely enjoy playing together, won the championship instead of the Lakers, who seem to have very little chemistry and sense of camaraderie. I wince every time I see Kobe rip into one of his teammates like a teacher chewing out a disobedient student. How about a little encouragement instead of spewing venom all the time? You want to talk about a world class jerk; Kobe is that ten times over.

I'm very happy for KG.

 

Post #55 by thacabbage pretty much describes how I feel about Garnett as well. I had always felt he was an over-the-top and overrated player. It pissed me off that so many people acted like this guy was this gigantic superstar despite the fact that he had only made it out of the first round once in 13 years (or something like that and that was before this season).

Yet, I sorta never cared all that much until the Hawks series. The way he took out that scrub Eastern European backup center for the Hawks was gutless and showed how much of a punk he really is. It is like my father said about him - "He's haughty." I think that is an excellent description of him. Also, I wasn't happy that damn Gatorade was showing these commercials of him (in a Celtics uniform despite this being his first season but you would never have known that by the commercials) doing all these things in a game with the tagline "Make History or Be History" all to the music of "O Fortuna" from the Carmina Burana by Orff. It was like they (Gatorade) was already predicting and celebrating Garnett and the Celtics winning a championship. Just seeing those commercials over and over made me want to see the Celtics fail and not win it all. But since that didn't happen, we will now see those commercials a gazillion more times. Woo-hoo!

 

Yesterday I was in a rut just trodding through life, but today I feel like...












...ANYTHING IS POSSSSIBLE







groan

 

I would never go so far as to say Kevin Garnett is a fraud. However, what I do dislike about the energetic theatrics is not so much their existence but their timing. I call it fair-weather frenzy. When things are going well, even the most mundane, trivial sense of accomplishment is an excuse to show one’s colors, wag one’s tongue, and pump the fists in a display of victory mania—they are big men doing big things, or so they would lead you to believe. But when things don’t go quite as well, athletes with this tendency often all but disappear, shrinking to the size of shrews. My impression is that this goes well beyond the scope of relieved excitement; it too often appears like self-congratulatory opportunism.

But I don’t think the behavior could ever be deemed fraudulent. If anything, it’s sincerely revealing of a mindset that is all but worshipped in sports culture today when we speak in glowing, ebullient ways of athletes and their enthusiasm and intensity. That’s fine, but while we’re at it, I don’t think it should necessarily be confused with competitive fire (partly because of the observation cited above, but for other reasons, too).

At any rate, Garnett is a world-class athlete, and is well liked by fans, sports writers/personalities, executives, and—perhaps most notably—by his fellow athletes for many of the reasons cited in this thread. If his theatrics tend to bug me, so what?

 

Garnett plays hard, night in and night out....

IMHO, he is NOT a superstar player, he is the ultimate Robin...a guy who is good at everything but needs others to get him a decent shot....he has no go to move, he is no Dream....he is a better Scottie Pippen.

The only thing I am happy about is that Tmac can look at Garnett and garner hope that a player who was maligned as much as Garnett was in not getting out of the first round finally won a championship.

TMac can do the same....in fact, with health it is us against them next year.....and we are younger.........

DD

 

I want to quote this post for its awesomeness, first of all Kam stepping out of his usual sarcasm, secondly the craig biggio total opposite is spot on and lastly as players craig biggio is probably the kg equivalent in baseball as far as consistency, but they are total opposite on the emotional scale and both need to kind of bring it back towards the middle.

 

I've heard the same.....that he's actually pretty brisk, and curt with people when the cameras are off. And you know, I thought it was kinda cool when he was going through all the places that he was repping (the only thing is that it seemed a little rehearsed), but when he came out with "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!!!" I turned the TV off. Isn't that Adidas's slogan? And if it is, how much money do you think they paid him to say that? I guess the days of "I'm going to Disneyworld" are gone.....instead, we're going to have to be subjected to the corporate slogans of shoe companies now? THAT was a travesty.

However, I do love him as a player, and I don't think a more deserving person could have won the trophy.....here's hoping that now that he's got his championship, he tones down all the other theatrics, and just goes back to playing the game.

 

Oh STFU man. Seriously.
WTF did you want Kobe to say. If he got pissed off at the post game interview and cussed a ton then you would say he was a punk.
The guy just lost in an NBA finals that he'd been waiting to get back to and I'm sure like all his teammates he was stunned by the manner of defeat and just wanted to get away. Put yourself in his position. Even the greatest himself, MJ would probably have given indifferent or vague answers in such a situation in anticipation of the end of the interview. At least he didn't cuss nor belittle the Celts win. He realized The Lakers were bad and the Celts were good/better and won the championship. Give him a freakin break damn.

 

I rooted for him because of that, but I never thought he was as good as advertised and I think this championship run proved that he has been overrated over the course of his career or at least mis-rated(?).

 

...Eh.

This forum had more people pulling for Kobe then I realized. I can feel the bitterness.

...To go back to KG though, if you think he's a fraud, well, he's a fraud with a championship now, so fleh

 

man this took some time

"Keven... 11 time AS, league MVP, defensive player of the year, now it is time to add to your resume... NBA champion, how does that sound?"
Man, I am so hype right now.
Anything is possible.
ANNNNNYTHING IIIIISSSS POSSIBLEEEEEE!

Something about his momma and then bad words are cut out.
KG starts crying. Trainer comes and he cries on trainers shoulder for a moment.

"Kevin,"

KG apologizes for crying
Michelle "It is okay"

This is for everyone in 'Sota
This is for everyone in Chicago
VV
This is for everybody
South Ca (Where is was born, South Carolina)
Bashwood?
My mother, peanut
This is for my momma.
I made it mama.
Top of the world1
I am on top of the world

"What does top of the world feel like Kevin?"

Man I am just so happy right now.
I am not going to sleep for a week.
Ray Allan had a great game
Paul Pierce... everybody
I can't even take all of this... but...
I am certified
I am certified
Michelle, you look good tonight, girl.
Michelle laughing
"One more Kevin, to do this you talked about MINN, to do this in Boston with a franchise this storied and yet to beat a franchise like the Lakers, what does that mean to you? You are a student of the game."

You have to understand when you come here, there is a lot of responsibility because we are putting this great jersey on. I am just happy we carried out tradition.
What you going to say now?
WHAT CAN YOU SAY NOW?!
I MADE IT MAAA!

He goes on to hug Bill Russell. Thanks him and tells him he got his own ring and he can keep his (bill offered him a ring in an earlier interview)

 

Well that explains a lot then.....

One highly overated player loving another.

Bill Russel...great on D.....not so great on "O"......basically the Celtics Deke....

How he gets put into company like Kareem, Wilt, Dream, is startling to me...he played on great teams but he was not an all time great.....you have to play both ends to be that in my book.

But, I can see where Russel likes KG......they both are good defenders, and are overated for their eras.

DD

 

Not really...I'm a much bigger fan of KG than I am of Kobe but the way he plays his emotions up for the crowd is a little over the top.

Let me ask this question. Who was more fierce and competitive, KG or Jordan? Obviously Jordan but he didn't have to look and act like a ghetto ass DMX after every routine play. You could tell how fierce Jordan was by the way he heightened the level of his play when he needed too. He showed his emotions in climactic situations and was classy when he did it...meaning you couldn't lip read him cussing in every other word.

 

Who are we to judge a man for the way he celebrates?

Fraud
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

Fraud? Who did he decieve with his emotional outburst? Wow! He actually celebrated the fans of Minnesota...his old team...when was the last time an athlete showed that kind of gratitude?

This is the same type of haughty opinion that mocks the black church for the way it's Parishioners celebrate, I think its shallow and condescending.

How would you critics celebrate the most exciting event of your life?

"Hi five Michelle"

 

this post is so ridiculous, even by your "manu won championship" standards. I'm going to call you out on your faux logic everytime

 

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=97308&page=7&pp=20

not to derail thread, this post should be standard reading material for any basketball bball fan

On the Celtics, it wasn’t necessary—“[D]ifferent players had to play different roles in order to win. We couldn’t expect to do so if each player took on the identical role of scoring as many points as possible, hoping that ours added up to more than our opponents’. … If [Red had] said to me, ‘What we need from you is twenty-five points a game,’ I might have been able to do it, but we wouldn’t have won much.”—but he could score if necessary for his team to win.

EXAMPLE: In the 1962 NBA playoffs, Russell led the Celtics in scoring at 22.4 ppg, and in the NBA Finals, which would have been one of his NBA Finals MVP awards had it existed then: team-high 22.9 points and 27.0 rebounds per game, becoming the first player in NBA history to average 20 points and 20 rebounds during the course of a Finals, and in the deciding Game 7, he had 30 points and 40 rebounds in a game the Celtics won by three points in one of the greatest single-game performances in NBA Finals history.

1963 NBA Finals: 20.0 points, 26.0 rebounds, 5.3 assists per game, averages 20-20 for the second consecutive NBA Finals. 25 points on 10-of-19 shooting and 29 rebounds in Game 2 in a three-point Boston win. 21 points, 19 rebounds, five assists in Game 3. 22 points, 19 rebounds in Game 4. 24 points on 7-of-13 shooting from the floor and 10-of-13 from the free throw line, 27 rebounds and five assists in Game 5. Finished one assist shy of a triple double in the deciding Game 6. He, not Willis Reed, would have been the first player in NBA history to win All-Star Game MVP, regular season MVP, and NBA Finals MVP in the same season. Oh yeah, plus the Defensive Player of the Year Award, had it existed, making the him first one ever to do that, winning every damn award he would have been eligible for.

1965 NBA Finals: Set an NBA Finals record for highest field-goal percentage in a 5-game series (70.2 percent), a record which still stands to this day. In the deciding Game 5, he had a team-high 22 points on 6-of-9 shooting from the floor and 10 of 12 shooting from the line, 30 rebounds and four assists before leaving the game with six minutes remaining. Yet another NBA Finals MVP award to go with his regular season MVP award.

1966 NBA Finals: Led the Celtics in scoring at 23.6 points-per-game and shot 74 percent from the free throw line, and in the deciding Game 7, he had a team-high 25 points and 32 rebounds to lead Boston to a 95-93 win.

Tom Heinsohn: “His detractors are always quick to say he couldn’t score, which isn’t true; he scored plenty of points when it counted.” But of course, people just talk without knowing what they’re talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpMan
Russell was 6-9, he rarely played against a center that was smaller than him.



Jerry West: “Russell is not big for a center … but he’s so smart and so quick he has complete control of the middle of the court. He stops guys from driving and shooting and passing near the basket because he blocks so many shots and intercepts so many passes he inhibits the other guys.”


Quote:
Originally Posted by francis 4 prez
and hakeem couldn't dominate the boards and block shots with the best of them? and shaq wouldn't have torn down rebound after rebound and had tons of blocks? it's not that russell didn't do these things and do them very well, but kareem, shaq, and hakeem could have all been monsters on the glass and been as dominant defensively (well maybe not shaq since he didn't care), but they could also dominate offensively. you know, for those times when you don't have 4 other hall of famers on the court with you to do the scoring. they could do what russell could do, but he couldn't do what they did.



B.S. Shaq never dominated the boards or got tons of blocks NOW. Mr. MDE couldn’t rebound with the 6-8 Rodman, so how’s he going to rebound with Russ and Wilt? And apparently you’re unaware of one of the knocks on Kareem at the time:

“Though [7 feet 2 inches] tall, Abdul-Jabbar is not a good rebounder. Because of his size, he has done adequately in the statistics, but he could do more. Defensively, he plays hard in spurts. There are days when he roams the court like an aggrieved Goliath searching for missing offspring behind every rival pick. Then there are days when he resembles a lifelike statue placed under the basket.”

But of course, you wouldn’t be aware of that. Kareem couldn’t have done for the Celtics what Russell did, and more scoring isn’t what they needed. And Kareem couldn’t have done what Russell did against Chamberlain. Look at what Moses Malone did to Kareem, and then imagine a PRIME Wilt. As it was, a NON-prime Wilt held his own against Kareem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpMan
You'd also see that plenty of them had stats that would make you wonder why the heck they belonged in the Hall, I believe only Havlicek, Heinson, Sharmon and Cousy had stats that belonged in the Hall. KC Jones didn't average double figures in anything, not even points, EVER, in his whole career, but I believe he's in the Hall of Fame and if not mistaken that was before his coaching career. He wasn't the only guy who had similar numbers but still made the hall over guys that were better individual basketball players without the rings.



Exactly. Everyone talks about all the Hall of Famers Russell was surrounded with, yet fail to consider how many of them would have been Hall of Famers if they hadn’t played with Russell on a part of the greatest dynasty ever. Case in point, K.C. Jones: career averages of 7.4 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.5 apg. Shot 38.7% from the floor and 63.2% from the line as a GUARD. Never averaged more than 9.2 ppg in a single season. HE WAS NEVER EVEN AN NBA ALL-STAR (how do you get to be a Hall of Famer when you were never even an ALL-STAR???). Damn it was good to have been a teammate of Russell for his entire basketball playing career.


Quote:
Originally Posted by giddyup
How did Bill Russell only make one all-NBA Defensive Team? Is that a mistake? That and winning championships is all he is known for...



The NBA All-Defensive Teams didn’t come into existence until the 1968-69 season, which was Russell’s last in the league. Yet he was still First Team All-Defense at 34 years old.


Quote:
Originally Posted by London'sBurning
People like to mention Russel as one of the best, but people also forget the cast he had along with him. Pretty much the whole Celtics roster back then were full of hall of famers. Wilt had less to manage with, but was still the most dominant force in the game.



See above. And from the 1965-66 season to the 1968-69 season, Chamberlain had the cast, but he could only win once. His teams had a better record every year from that point on, and in ’69, he Baylor and West could be three-fifths of an ALL-TIME TEAM. NO ONE had the Celtics winning. They weren’t even supposed to GET that far because they were a bunch of “old men.” And you tell me that Jordan, Magic, or Bird is going to lose a series after going up 3-1. Russell won when his team had the better record, he won when his team didn’t have the better record, he won when he wasn’t supposed to win (1968, 69). The bottom line is, he just won.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Scar
Russell is great, but had you put Kareem or Hakeem or Wilt or Shaq on those Celts teams do they miss a beat, doubtfull or at worst questionable.



See above. And Wilt for one, disagrees:


Quote:
A lot of people have said to me, “Wilt, what if you had that team? Boy, you would never have lost!” Not true. If I was on their team, I would be taking away from some of what the other guys were doing. Everybody had a role on that team. (Tom) Heinsohn wouldn’t be getting the same number of shots, nor would (Bill) Sharman, nor would Bob Cousy because I’d be shooting the ball a whole lot more. Bill Russell gave them just what they needed. I would’ve given them a little bit more in certain things, which I think would have made the team not as good. I’ve always believed that he made that team exactly what it was supposed to be. And you couldn’t get any better.



Shaq wouldn’t provide the rebounding and defense the Celtics needed to fuel their fast-break offense, and waiting for him to get down the floor would slow them up. Shaq also couldn’t have played the minutes Russell did, and if he didn’t adjust, he’d foul out. And against the Warriors/Sixers, no way he could keep up with Wilt, who played 48 minutes a game.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dharocks
I don't think stats tell the whole story with Russell, personally.



No, they don’t. Stats don’t even begin to do the man justice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr of Dunk
People scream that an in-his-prime Shaq isn't great because you couldn't leave him in at the end of games due to his horrific FT%.... tell me what Russell's was.



Pure ignorance, spoken by someone who—like the majority of people, unfortunately—didn’t bother to do his research before making a statement. But unfortunately for that little argument, I’m here with the facts to shoot that down. One of the things about Russell is that he made his free throws when winning or losing the game depended on it.

“What told me so much about Russell was his foul shooting,” said Fred Schaus, coach of the Los Angeles Lakers for four of their six NBA Finals defeats at the hands of Russell and the Celtics. “For most of the game you wanted him at the line. He was lucky to hit 60 percent. He had terrible form, sort of flinging the ball instead of shooting it. But down the stretch, he never missed a clutch free throw. … Foul shooting was the weakest part of his game, yet it wasn’t something he’d let defeat him.”

EXAMPLE: Game 7 of the 1962 NBA Finals against the Los Angeles Lakers. The Celtics won.110-107—a three point margin. Russell scored 30 points and grabbed an NBA Finals single-game record 40 rebounds. You know what else? HE MADE 14 OF 17 FREE THROWS. That’s 82.4 percent. Since you compared his free throw shooting to Shaq, made me an instance where Shaq did that, and in a game of such magnitude. The Lakers kept putting him on the line, and he kept making his free throws. As a matter of fact, Russell shot 75.4 percent from the line for that series. Russell also led the Celtics in free throw attempts during the Finals with 61, 26 more than Tom Heinsohn, and only Elgin Baylor (100) and Jerry West (83) went to the line more in the series.

Game 1: 122-108 Boston. Russell: 3-3
Game 2: 129-122 LA. Russell: 3-9
Game 3: 117-115 LA. Russell: 8-11
Game 4: 115-103 Boston. Russell: 5-5
Game 5: 126-121 LA. Russell: 6-6
Game 6: 119-105 Boston. Russell: 7-10
Game 7: 110-107 Boston. Russell: 14-17

Russell was being put on the line and he was making his free throws. Because that’s what he needed to do for them to win.

How about another example? 1966 NBA Finals: Russell shoots 74 percent from the line. In the deciding Game 7 which Boston won 95-93, Russell was perfect from the line because in a close game they could have meant the difference between winning and losing. That’s why the man never lost a Game 7 in his life. See, you can get away with stuff like that with other people, but I actually have the evidence to the contrary. Most people say the same thing over and over again, so I compiled the evidence to refute what seem to be the most common statements. But you could have read that in the newspaper:


Quote:
his laughable free-throw percentage became irrelevant when he sank the big ones, time after time, against the 76ers, Lakers and Cincinnati Royals.



And as far as the Russell vs. Chamberlain argument, Chamberlain and Russell played four Game 7s, all of which were won, of course, by Russell. The Celtics won those games by a total of nine points. Chamberlain missed 24 free throws.

Game 7 of the 1962 Eastern Conference Finals — The Celtics won 107-105. Not Chamberlain’s fault here. Chamberlain was 8 of 9 from the free-throw line, and Russell made all five of his attempts.

Game 7 of the 1965 Eastern Conference Finals — This is the game where Havlicek stole the ball. I used to have the box score, but I can’t find it at the moment.

Game 7 of the 1968 Eastern Conference Finals — Boston won 100-96. Chamberlain was 6 of 15 from the free-throw line (40 percent).

Game 7 of the 1969 NBA Finals — In a game the Celtics won by two points—108-106, Chamberlain was 4 of 13 from the free-throw line (30.8 percent).

Considering the fact that the Celtics weren’t blowing Chamberlain’s teams out, Chamberlain’s abysmal free-throw shooting hurt. With the exception of the ’62 ECF where he went 8 of 9, things could have been different if he’d simply made his free throws, and he could have won despite Russell’s “superior supporting cast.” But of course, it’s just easier to say that the only reason Russell won is because of his superior supporting cast, and he just went along for the ride. Russell did WHATEVER it took to win. If it meant making free throws, that’s what he did. Russell didn’t cost the Celtics games with poor free throw shooting. Another reason why Russell’s better than Chamberlain, who for three straight years couldn’t even shoot 40 percent from the free throw line in the playoffs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpMan
Russell made most of his game winning plays on the defensive either with a block or big rebound that usually led to an easy basket the other way. He was one of the most clutch players of all time, but not with scoring, pretty much like Magic, there's no way you win 11 championships against some of the greatest players of all time if you're not.




Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpMan
In the Eastern Division Finals, the club came back from a two-game deficit to force a seventh game with Chamberlain and the 76ers. The Celtics were leading, 97-95, with 34 seconds left when Russell took over. He sank a foul shot, blocked a shot by Walker, grabbed a rebound off a Greer miss, and fed the ball to Sam Jones, who made the final basket in a 100-96 triumph.



I was going to cite this very instance. There are a couple others too, but unfortunately by computer crashed in the past, and I’ve had to painstakingly start from scratch in putting everything back together again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Panda
Now onto his defense, the notion Russel is the best rebounder and shot blocker of all time is quite baseless. His rebounding numbers were closely matched by his peers like Wilt and later on guys like Artis Gilmore.



That’s a bald-faced lie. As part of a project I was working on, I compiled the top 137 single-season rebounding averages in NBA history, which extends to the cutoff point of 14 rebounds-per-game. I have that list in front of me and am looking at it. Nowhere is Artis Gilmore’s name. I present to you Gilmore’s rebounding numbers.

13.0
13.1
12.7
9.0
10.1
10.2
12.0
10.3
10.4
8.5
7.1
2.6
3.1
3.0

As we can see, Gilmore NEVER averaged as many rebounds as Russell. His rebounding numbers were closely matched by his peers? He and Wilt were the only ones rebounding like that, so that’s also a lie. An average of 20 or more rebounds per game was achieved 25 times in NBA history. Russell achieved it 10 times, Chamberlain achieved it 10 times, Jerry Lucas did it twice, Nate Thurmond did it twice, and Bob Pettit did it once. The two times Thurmond did it was in 65 and 51 games, one of Lucas’ times was in 66 games.

If you’re talking about Gilmore while he was in the ABA:

17.8
17.6
18.3
16.2
15.5

Russell’s career low rebounding average was 18.6 in his next-to-last season, when he was 33. So the best a 25-year-old Artis Gilmore could do was 0.3 away from Russell’s career low when he got when he was 33. Okay…


Quote:
Originally Posted by Panda
For a guy with average or below average offense who sucks at FT, the only way he can make it up in the ranking of greats is through the greatest defense that's ever played. Unfortunately, there is either no proof on his blocked shots or the proof says his rebounding is only marginally standing out among his elite peers.



I already showed concrete evidence that Russell didn’t “suck” at free-throw shooting when winning and losing hinged on it. So you’re saying that Russell’s rebounding only marginally stood out among his elite peers when the only man who rebounded like he did was Chamberlain.

CAREER REBOUNDS PER GAME
Chamberlain 22.9
Russell 22.5
Bob Pettit 16.2
Jerry Lucas 15.6
Nate Thurmond 15.0
Wes Unseld 14.0
Walt Bellamy 13.7
Dave Cowens 13.6
Elgin Baylor 13.5
George Mikan 13.4

Yeah, Russell’s rebounding was only marginally better than his peers…


Quote:
Originally Posted by francis 4 prez
it seems if russell was better at offense the celtics offense would become better and they would win more.



Wrong. The Celtics didn’t need more scoring. The Celtics were leading the league in scoring before Russell got there, and they went 11-17 in the playoffs. As one player said about the Celtics: “When you played the Celtics, Cousy would get 20 and Sharman and Macauley would get their 20, but you still could beat them by 20.” Look at the top offensive teams in the league and where they are right now. Will adding more offense make them better and win more?


Quote:
Originally Posted by francis 4 prez
and how in the world does hakeem not compare to russell on defense? the all-time leader in shot blocks



I find it funny how everyone keeps saying this: “Hakeem is the all-time leader in blocked shots.” Of course, that’s leaving out the fact that blocked shots were not recorded until the 1973-74 season, after which Russell and Chamberlain were both retired. Olajuwon is the all-time leader in blocked shots since they began recording the statistic. To say anything else is misleading. EXAMPLE: For Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s first four seasons (321 games), blocked shots were not kept. He has 3,189 recorded blocked shots in the 1,239 games for which blocked shots were tabulated, an average of 2.57 per game. Now Kareem did not have zero blocked shots for the first four seasons of his career. If you the average of blocks per game that we have for his games where they WERE recorded and apply it to the 321 games for which blocks WEREN’T kept, he’d have an extra 826 blocks, which would give him 4,015, 185 more than Olajuwon. FACT: Olajuwon is NOT the all-time leading shot blocker.


Quote:
Originally Posted by francis 4 prez
who just happens to be #7 all time in steals



Steals weren’t recorded until the ’73-74 season either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by francis 4 prez
the only guy with over 2000 of each.



See above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by francis 4 prez
what, hakeem couldn't have pulled down 20+ a season back in the 60s? even with the lesser athletes, even with all the extra shots taken, even w/ the extra minutes per game russell and wilt played? he would be every bit the rebounder those were. so would shaq. who in the world would stop shaq's fat ass from getting rebounds back then?



Hakeem wouldn’t have rebounded like Russell or Wilt, no. Don’t get what you’re trying to make about the extra minutes. Are you saying that Hakeem would be able to play the minutes that Russell and Chamberlain did? And Shaq? Shaq didn’t dominate the boards in THIS era. And are you suggesting that Shaq would be able to play the 40+ minutes that Russell and Chamberlain did? Right…

Okay, this is probably already lengthy enough as it is, as people usually complain about my posts being too long. But I’m going to say this: one of the things that really bothers me about Chamberlain—something which isn’t reflected in the stats and hardly anyone talks about—is that he didn’t have the killer instinct of a Russell, a Jordan, a Bird. As Bill Bradley observed:


Quote:
He never developed the killer instinct necessary for team victory. In his rookie year he was constantly battered, kneed, elbowed, tripped, and gouged. He did not hit back. Instead, he threatened retirement. In his duels with Bill Russell he patted him on the behind when Russell made a good play, showing what Wilt thought was magnanimity. It was as if he were paralyzed within his enormous body, unwilling to strike out for fear of injuring an opponent or demeaning himself. Above all, Wilt, sensitive to being called a bully, made sure he never took unfair advantage. If someone said Wilt could only score by dunking, he retaliated by taking fall-away jumpers. If critics questioned his passing ability, he stopped shooting and rolled up the assists. He seemed driven to be the best, and on everyone else’s terms.



In Chamberlain’s own words, the year after he finally beat Russell:


Quote:
I didn’t go into the 1967-68 season with any great enthusiasm. I’ve always been the kind of person who needs specific concrete goals and challenges; with them, I’m the most competitive guy in the world; without them, I tend to be lackadaisical. I’m just not naturally competitive and aggressive. I don’t have a killer instinct. In the past, I’d always been able to set challenging goals for myself--whether it was selling $200 worth of junk in one day as a kid or leading the league in scoring as an NBA rookie. But by my ninth year in the NBA, there really weren’t many goals I hadn’t already reached. I’d led the league in damn near everything more times than I could count. I’d broken my own records year after year. I’d even been on a championship team. What else could I do? With my attitude toward Philadelphia and [Philadelphia 76ers owner, Irv] Kosloff, I just wasn’t in the mood to work hard at dreaming up some goal. I couldn’t just go through the motions, though; I had too much pride in myself--and too much affection and respect for my teammates to do that. So I decided I’d lead the NBA in assists. That was the only category, except free throws, that I’d never led the league in, and it was the one category that no other center had ever led in either. For basketball’s greatest scorer to lead the league in assists would really be something, I thought. It would be like Babe Ruth leading the game in sacrifice bunts or Jim Brown leading the league in blocking.



What else could he do? How about win again? Was one title enough for Russell? Magic? Bird? Jordan? After they won for the first time, they kept winning. When the Bulls finally got past the Detroit Pistons after getting knocked out of the playoffs by them every year, Jordan made sure it never happened again. You’d think if Chamberlain took such exception to people regarding Russell as a better player than him, he’d have made it a point to do something about it now that he finally had the teammates around him which he lacked earlier. But no, he was content with getting his ring, and decided he’d turn his attention to leading the league in assists. That’s one of the reasons why the Celtics wouldn’t have won as many titles with Chamberlain as they did with Russell, as some argue they would have. After a while, Chamberlain would get bored and set his sights on some personal goal. You notice that Chamberlain did win with Philadelphia in ’67 and Los Angeles in ’72, but he couldn’t sustain it like Russell, Magic, and Jordan did. Winning never got old for Russell. It never got old for Magic. Bird. Jordan. Chamberlain was awesome in the 1967 playoffs where he finally overcame Russell and got his ring. Why couldn’t he decide to do that EVERY year? All of the other candidates for the title of THEE greatest of all time have that killer instinct where they’d rip your heart out. Russell was “the foxiest, smartest, meanest player, psychologically, that ever played the game. Whatever it took to win, Russell would do.” Jordan was “an assassin in shorts.” That’s one of the reasons I have Chamberlain below Russell and Jordan, who are IMO, the top two greatest players of all time. Stats don’t tell the whole story.

 

"I'm certified"

Wow, this is too much. Although, I guess he's right and I can't call him "The Loser" anymore.