Why must you persist on being such an immature, name calling baby whenever someone has a stance you don't agree with? Jesus H, it's like talking to a woman with the name calling. Settle down with the bitch talk, cinnamon.

>>Has there ever been a player so singularly dominant to
>return
>>such little in the way of team success in terms of titles?
>
>Yes, EVERY OTHER PLAYER IN HIS ERA. Elgin Baylor, Jerry West,
>Oscar Robertson, et al.

Those players were dominant in the mythical proportions of Wilt? Really?

>the Cs dynasty with more titles. Chamberlain got two. Pettit
>only got one. West got none (it was post-Celtics), Baylor got
>none, Robertson got none (one later with Milwaukee) and so on.
>If you were not on the Celtics, you were not winning, period,
>and Wilt still managed to snag one title and then later a
>second one. This is a dumb ass argument.

I suppose if you're looking at it defensively with hurt feelings, sure. We're in a conversation about overrated players, are we not?

A factor I look at when rating players is winning titles.
Apparently titles are meaningless to you, but they aren't to me. Wilt and West are two guys who really should have had more when you look at their talent. Wilt especially, Celtics be damned.

>consistently deep in the playoffs, only his years in SF were
>weak from a team standpoint. The Philadelphia Warriors were a
>one man show and still competitive, once he got to the Sixers
>they were perennial contenders and won a title.

Great. He netted two rings total, a feat, but again... Wilt is on the short list of guys many truly feel could have and perhaps should have won more.

>Wilt was, at that point, what Kobe and every
>other player only dreamed to be.

And that's precisely the kind of player people would think would have more than two titles for their career. The fact that this elicits such a passionate response is a little troubling.

>A total mismatch for the
>league that re-wrote the rulebook.

Sounds like the kind of guy that would have at least 4-5 to me and many others.

He lead the league in assists because he wanted to do it. It wasn't about being a team player, it was about getting those numbers.

>His teams and the Lakers were the only ones to consistently
>challenge the Cs, everyone else faded in and out. The Celtics
>had dominant TEAMS, the only knock against Wilt was Russell's
>swan song in 1969, and it wasn't like Boston didn't pull off
>two upsets in series just to reach the Finals. Seven game
>series with Wilt benched at the end over petty shit, but still
>a major blow in the Russ-Wilt debate.



>As far being undersized, well let's take a look at
>Chamberlain's competitive vs Shaq's or Dwight Howard.

For what? I'm not making the argument; in fact, I've said many times that Shaq's prime came when other great centers were gone.

Shaq had
>some guys early in his career and never separated himself from
>them (Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson). Later he was dominant against
>a bunch of respectable but hardly dominant imports.

Cool, what does this have to do with anything?

>Chamberlain competed against not only Russell but Thurmond,
>Reed and how about Kareem?

Kareem had the height, but Wilt was significantly larger than the others. Players in general were just flat out smaller overall though and that really isn't debatable.

If you do the boxing the man who
>beat the man, anyone who played against Kareem goes WAY up
>into NBA history because his career was so long. So we can see
>what Wilt would have done against later greats and even in his
>OWN time, he played better competition than more recent
>dominant centers.

I don't see where I've argued against Wilt's greatness, like at all.
In fact, my argument is all ABOUT his greatness; my position is simple. A player of HIS magnitude gets dinged a little bit for his failure to win more titles. He's THAT great that 2 doesn't feel acceptable. David Robinson, sure. Hakeem? I can live with 2.

Wilt? 2? Seems like he underachieved on that end.

>I don't care about this paragraph, I don't think Kobe is
>"overrated" generally, anyway.

I mean, I wasn't writing directly to you or anything.

>Anyone pointing to the "titles" argument re: Robertson, West,
>Baylor, Chamberlain, et al just does not understand the era
>and how dominant the Celtics were.

You're either The Man, or the guy The Man beats.

Kobe was The Man.

There's Close, and then there's The Cigar.

Kobe puffed Cubans.

The point is, titles are a factor and when you're the one who can't get over the hump while someone else runs roughshod, that matters. It's merely a piece of the puzzle, not the end all be all or anything.

>Right, because Wilt was inconsistent in some way and he didn't
>contribute in EVERY imaginable way (besides foul shooting) to
>wins all the time. If you are trying to sell me on Kobe
>impacting the game in more ways than Wilt, you will never
>succeed, because it didn't happen.

This part of the post isn't about Wilt. It's about the laughable amount of votes Kobe has on this poll.

>So you are saying that because he was the most gifted player
>ever, who put up the biggest numbers, who put up the biggest
>adjusted numbers (real it in Kalb's book) and who "only" won
>two titles, he is more overrated than ANY other player.
>Riiiiiiiight.

The balance of personal/team success is a factor, absolutely. Two titles is paltry for a man of his stature. Perhaps it just makes him overrated and not the MOST overrated ever, but it's a fair examination IMO.

>I should know who I am talking, a posturing bitch.

Oh lord. Looks like someone got their feelings hurt :(

Cheer up cowboy. The Lakers suck, sunshine, and that's something for you to smile about. I'm sorry I called The Stilt overrated, cupcake.