All known blocked shot data of Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain:

[countryboy667]

Speaks to how weak the competition was in the 1960's.

at least in the 60's, unlike today, chuckers got benched instead of being rewarded with a ridiculously easy three point goal.

No nice way to say this--I watched lots of NBA in the 60s. It was a different game--skilled bigs like Wilt, Russ, Bells, Nate meant much, much more--but this absurd, easily debunked conceit (by anyone who has done any reasonable amount of research) that the league was just a bunch of 6'5" white guys who couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time is so much boolsheet.

It certainly was a much more interesting game then...not the boring, predictable chuckfest today's league has become.

Eh, but it really was pretty much like that. it's funny how Mikan gets totally disregard, yet is only years away from Russ/Wilt, while Russ/Wilt are decades from even MJ, much less today. 90% of the NBA in the 60's wouldn't even make a team today. People were dribbling with one hand, had no explosion, no hops, and weren't all that physically powerful. Top ahtletes didn't go to the NBA much either, since it wasn't a premier league back then, and more like the MLS.

Just go watch old games of Wilt and Russ....it's incredibly unimpressive. Looks like some tall college players going to a rec center to play against weekend warriors.

LOL yourself, I have watched them--in person. Can you say the same? I was a fan of the old Cincinnati Royals--bet you had forgotten such a team once even existed, if you ever knew, am I correct? There were plenty of primo athletes playing in the 60s--it's true they didn't do the strength-building stuff that players do today (though Wilt did) but there were plenty of physical specimens--look at pics of guys like Gus Johnson, Bill Bridges, Zelmo Beatty, Oscar Robertson, Wilt, Nate Thurmond, Bill Russell, Wesley Unseld, Hal Greer, Jerry West and many others--all in a much smaller league--and tell me those guys couldn't physically compete in today's league. If anything, it's guys in today's league who, strength training or not, don't look that impressive. Stephen Curry, for example, looks a sedentary dental assistant compared to Oscar. None of today's dainty bigs impress me much--Embiid might be the only one I've seen who might have been able to compete against the best bigs of the 60s.
Very few of today's players would have had an easy time in the 60s, dealing with hand checking, the travel conditions, poorer quality equipment, no luxury suites to stay in, less advanced medical care, and maybe most of all actually having to obey the rules in regard to steps and palming, no zone defenses to cover up defensive weaklings, and defenses that many times got very physical, in what was a faster paced game in which they routinely played more minutes than most players today.

[Johnlac1]

Speaks to how weak the competition was in the 1960's.

at least in the 60's, unlike today, chuckers got benched instead of being rewarded with a ridiculously easy three point goal.

No nice way to say this--I watched lots of NBA in the 60s. It was a different game--skilled bigs like Wilt, Russ, Bells, Nate meant much, much more--but this absurd, easily debunked conceit (by anyone who has done any reasonable amount of research) that the league was just a bunch of 6'5" white guys who couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time is so much boolsheet.

It certainly was a much more interesting game then...not the boring, predictable chuckfest today's league has become.

Eh, but it really was pretty much like that. it's funny how Mikan gets totally disregard, yet is only years away from Russ/Wilt, while Russ/Wilt are decades from even MJ, much less today. 90% of the NBA in the 60's wouldn't even make a team today. People were dribbling with one hand, had no explosion, no hops, and weren't all that physically powerful. Top ahtletes didn't go to the NBA much either, since it wasn't a premier league back then, and more like the MLS.

Just go watch old games of Wilt and Russ....it's incredibly unimpressive. Looks like some tall college players going to a rec center to play against weekend warriors.

Yeah, all those incredible athletes in today's NBA like Jokic, Vucevic, Marc Gasol, Pachulia, Dellavedova, Ingles. What thoroughbreds. /s

[E-Balla]

at least in the 60's, unlike today, chuckers got benched instead of being rewarded with a ridiculously easy three point goal.

No nice way to say this--I watched lots of NBA in the 60s. It was a different game--skilled bigs like Wilt, Russ, Bells, Nate meant much, much more--but this absurd, easily debunked conceit (by anyone who has done any reasonable amount of research) that the league was just a bunch of 6'5" white guys who couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time is so much boolsheet.

It certainly was a much more interesting game then...not the boring, predictable chuckfest today's league has become.

Eh, but it really was pretty much like that. it's funny how Mikan gets totally disregard, yet is only years away from Russ/Wilt, while Russ/Wilt are decades from even MJ, much less today. 90% of the NBA in the 60's wouldn't even make a team today. People were dribbling with one hand, had no explosion, no hops, and weren't all that physically powerful. Top ahtletes didn't go to the NBA much either, since it wasn't a premier league back then, and more like the MLS.

Just go watch old games of Wilt and Russ....it's incredibly unimpressive. Looks like some tall college players going to a rec center to play against weekend warriors.

Yeah, all those incredible athletes in today's NBA like Jokic, Vucevic, Marc Gasol, Pachulia, Dellavedova, Ingles. What thoroughbreds. /s

Not athletic:


Pinnacle of human evolution:

[countryboy667]

Yeah, this guy wasn't athletic either...

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F8c%2Fe0%2F58%2F8ce058c62fc1295d9fb8d10c13798ce2.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F206110120426331803%2F&docid=y-kCh8xvsta21M&tbnid=KvCDpDgV1_dHtM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjspNC1-9fhAhWHmuAKHRl9AO0QMwhiKAcwBw..i&w=442&h=640&bih=607&biw=1280&q=nate%20thurmond&ved=0ahUKEwjspNC1-9fhAhWHmuAKHRl9AO0QMwhiKAcwBw&iact=mrc&uact=8

but this guy is....(compare)

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs.hdnux.com%2Fphotos%2F77%2F61%2F15%2F16716654%2F3%2F920x920.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mysanantonio.com%2Fsports%2Fspurs%2Farticle%2FKawhi-Leonard-gets-rude-welcome-in-return-to-San-13507294.php&docid=67SIkmdo-5r-1M&tbnid=8TUAGL-4BOxLeM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjR4IeM_NfhAhWLTN8KHfC3DowQMwhsKAEwAQ..i&w=920&h=613&bih=607&biw=1280&q=Kahwi%20Leonard&ved=0ahUKEwjR4IeM_NfhAhWLTN8KHfC3DowQMwhsKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8

[TrueLAfan]

I’m absolutely sure that Wilt and Russell blocked 6+ shots a game in the 60s (and, in Wilt’s case, maybe/probably/possibly the early 70s as well). We need to keep in mind that those raw totals wouldn‘t result so much from skill above and beyond anything seen before or since, or lack of competition as much as two less dramatic but much more obvious things: shots available to be blocked (the higher pace of the Sixties) and player court time (Wilt and Russ averaged 40+ mpg).

For instance, let’s take a 26 year old player that we will call DeAndre Jordan. DJ played about 71.5% of his team’s minutes in 2015, which means he’s was on the court for an estimated 71.5% of opponents 4786 shots. And DJ blocked 183 of those 3422 shots—about 5.3 or 5.4%. That’s his block percentage. This isn’t his highest block percentage. It isn’t the year he got the most blocks. It’s a good year by a very good shot blocker.

In 1965, the average NBA team took 7987 shots. Now, some of those were threes. It wasn’t anything like the 35% of shots that are threes now, of course … but Jerry West and Sam Jones were doing something out there, sometimes. Just for fun, let’s say that … 5% of team shots were threes. We take those out for block percentage. So a typical 1965 team had around 7588 shots that counted in block percentage.

First—if DeAndre Jordan had played as much he did in 2015 in 1965, he’d have been on the court for 71.5% of those 7588 shots. So there would have been 5425 shots for him to block … so if he’d blocked 5.4% of them, he’d have gotten around 293 blocks. That’s 3.6 shots a game.

Wait a minute, you might say—that’s a long way from saying Wilt and Russell got at least six a game. And it is. But Wilt and Russell didn’t play 30 minutes a game. They didn’t play 71.5% of their team’s minutes. They played a whole lot more. How much more? I’m going to use 1964, because Wilt was traded in 1965. Wilt played 95.5% of his team’s minutes. Russ played 90.1% (and missed two games; in the 78 games he played, Bill Russell played about 92.4% of team minutes). This wasn’t an outlier year for either of them; it wasn’t the most minutes they played per game, or overall in a season.

If DeAndre Jordan had played 93% of his team’s minutes in 1965, he would have been on the court for around 7057 shot attempts, and blocked about 381 of them. That’s 4.8 blocks a game.

So, to get back to the question—did Wilt and Russell block over 6 shots a game regularly, in multiple seasons? I have to ask—were they 20-25% better shot blockers than DeAndre Jordan? And this is conjecture. And my response is—of course. Are you serious? To block 6 a game in 1965 while playing Wilt/Russell minutes, you’d need to have a block percentage about 25% higher than De Andre Jordan’s. And there are lots of players and seasons with block percentages over 6.9. Lots of players have done it multiple times: Mutombo, Zo, Camby, Wallace. Guys like Theo Ratliff and Greg Ostertag were over that percentage all the time. And I think my numbers are pretty conservative in terms of threes. I don’t the average 1965 NBA team was putting up five threes a game. There were more shots available. And 1965 was far from the year that teams took the most shots.

So I really do think that Wilt and Russell probably averaged 6—and sometimes 7, sometimes maybe even 8—blocks in a season. Some games they probably had 2 or 3 blocks. And that meant there were plenty of double digit block games. They weren’t supermen. But they were really good shot blockers. And, more importantly, they played a lot of minutes in a league where there were a lot more shots and, with fewer threes, a lot more shots available for them to block.

[frica]

Yeah, this guy wasn't athletic either...

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F8c%2Fe0%2F58%2F8ce058c62fc1295d9fb8d10c13798ce2.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F206110120426331803%2F&docid=y-kCh8xvsta21M&tbnid=KvCDpDgV1_dHtM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjspNC1-9fhAhWHmuAKHRl9AO0QMwhiKAcwBw..i&w=442&h=640&bih=607&biw=1280&q=nate%20thurmond&ved=0ahUKEwjspNC1-9fhAhWHmuAKHRl9AO0QMwhiKAcwBw&iact=mrc&uact=8

but this guy is....(compare)

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs.hdnux.com%2Fphotos%2F77%2F61%2F15%2F16716654%2F3%2F920x920.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mysanantonio.com%2Fsports%2Fspurs%2Farticle%2FKawhi-Leonard-gets-rude-welcome-in-return-to-San-13507294.php&docid=67SIkmdo-5r-1M&tbnid=8TUAGL-4BOxLeM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjR4IeM_NfhAhWLTN8KHfC3DowQMwhsKAEwAQ..i&w=920&h=613&bih=607&biw=1280&q=Kahwi%20Leonard&ved=0ahUKEwjR4IeM_NfhAhWLTN8KHfC3DowQMwhsKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8

Is physique athleticism?

Was Frank Bruno more athletic than Muhammad Ali?
Is a bottom top 300 US sprinter more athletic than Mo Farah?

Long arms are an advantage in the NBA and Kawhi has extremely long arms relative to his height, especially for a 6'6 barefoot player.
But long arms will always look stretched out so to speak. It's harder to build big muscles on longer limbs. That's why somebody who's 5'3 can often easily build an impressive physique in the gym, and somebody who's 6'6 needs a lot of a hard work and dedication. There's a bit more to it but whatever.

Thurmond has impressive arms, but longer arms are a bigger advantage than bigger biceps (in basketball.)

[HeartBreakKid]

Yeah, this guy wasn't athletic either...

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F8c%2Fe0%2F58%2F8ce058c62fc1295d9fb8d10c13798ce2.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F206110120426331803%2F&docid=y-kCh8xvsta21M&tbnid=KvCDpDgV1_dHtM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjspNC1-9fhAhWHmuAKHRl9AO0QMwhiKAcwBw..i&w=442&h=640&bih=607&biw=1280&q=nate%20thurmond&ved=0ahUKEwjspNC1-9fhAhWHmuAKHRl9AO0QMwhiKAcwBw&iact=mrc&uact=8

but this guy is....(compare)

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs.hdnux.com%2Fphotos%2F77%2F61%2F15%2F16716654%2F3%2F920x920.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mysanantonio.com%2Fsports%2Fspurs%2Farticle%2FKawhi-Leonard-gets-rude-welcome-in-return-to-San-13507294.php&docid=67SIkmdo-5r-1M&tbnid=8TUAGL-4BOxLeM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjR4IeM_NfhAhWLTN8KHfC3DowQMwhsKAEwAQ..i&w=920&h=613&bih=607&biw=1280&q=Kahwi%20Leonard&ved=0ahUKEwjR4IeM_NfhAhWLTN8KHfC3DowQMwhsKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8

you cannot tell how athletic someone is based on their physique not in an acute way at least.

[frica]

Speaks to how weak the competition was in the 1960's.

at least in the 60's, unlike today, chuckers got benched instead of being rewarded with a ridiculously easy three point goal.

No nice way to say this--I watched lots of NBA in the 60s. It was a different game--skilled bigs like Wilt, Russ, Bells, Nate meant much, much more--but this absurd, easily debunked conceit (by anyone who has done any reasonable amount of research) that the league was just a bunch of 6'5" white guys who couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time is so much boolsheet.

It certainly was a much more interesting game then...not the boring, predictable chuckfest today's league has become.

Eh, but it really was pretty much like that. it's funny how Mikan gets totally disregard, yet is only years away from Russ/Wilt, while Russ/Wilt are decades from even MJ, much less today. 90% of the NBA in the 60's wouldn't even make a team today. People were dribbling with one hand, had no explosion, no hops, and weren't all that physically powerful. Top ahtletes didn't go to the NBA much either, since it wasn't a premier league back then, and more like the MLS.

Just go watch old games of Wilt and Russ....it's incredibly unimpressive. Looks like some tall college players going to a rec center to play against weekend warriors.

Dolph Schayes and Paul Arizin played with Mikan in the league and kept their impact all the way to the late 50s/early 60s.
If they could hang and keep their effectiveness, then so the could the much superior Mikan.

I haven't seen that much from Mikan (obviously) but he looked like an excellent passer (in highlights) and with his weight he was likely quite strong too.
It's funny, if the top guys from the 60s could hang on with the current top. Then why not the top of the 50s too?

[70sFan]

Who said Mikan wouldn't be able to play? Guys like him, Pettit, Schayes and Arizin were very good and talented players. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to compete in today league.

[frica]

Who said Mikan wouldn't be able to play? Guys like him, Pettit, Schayes and Arizin were very good and talented players. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to compete in today league.

People that aren't you on a variety of forums + reddit.

[70sFan]

Who said Mikan wouldn't be able to play? Guys like him, Pettit, Schayes and Arizin were very good and talented players. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to compete in today league.

People that aren't you on a variety of forums + reddit.

Yeah and almost as much people say the same about Wilt/Russell/Oscar. Hell, I've heard people saying the same about Hakeem or Kareem. I thought we are talking about serious discussions though.

[JoeMalburg]

Here's a Spreadsheet I put together about ten years ago with all the data I could find.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iu33HwwVQD8kJQU8-spmL0Q1lQ8dddFbxfmWYUvtTuc/edit?usp=sharing

YEAR SAMPLE BLOCKS AVG
1957 7 56 8
1958 8 65 8.1
1959 15 99 6.6
1960 7 56 8
1961 8 66 8.3
1962 6 49 8.1
1963 5 51 10.2
1964 9 72 8
1965 12 73 6.1
1966 6 42 7
1967 3 12 4
1968 11 100 9.1
1969 12 99 8.3

[antdoggydogg]

I’m absolutely sure that Wilt and Russell blocked 6+ shots a game in the 60s (and, in Wilt’s case, maybe/probably/possibly the early 70s as well). We need to keep in mind that those raw totals wouldn‘t result so much from skill above and beyond anything seen before or since, or lack of competition as much as two less dramatic but much more obvious things: shots available to be blocked (the higher pace of the Sixties) and player court time (Wilt and Russ averaged 40+ mpg).

For instance, let’s take a 26 year old player that we will call DeAndre Jordan. DJ played about 71.5% of his team’s minutes in 2015, which means he’s was on the court for an estimated 71.5% of opponents 4786 shots. And DJ blocked 183 of those 3422 shots—about 5.3 or 5.4%. That’s his block percentage. This isn’t his highest block percentage. It isn’t the year he got the most blocks. It’s a good year by a very good shot blocker.

In 1965, the average NBA team took 7987 shots. Now, some of those were threes. It wasn’t anything like the 35% of shots that are threes now, of course … but Jerry West and Sam Jones were doing something out there, sometimes. Just for fun, let’s say that … 5% of team shots were threes. We take those out for block percentage. So a typical 1965 team had around 7588 shots that counted in block percentage.

First—if DeAndre Jordan had played as much he did in 2015 in 1965, he’d have been on the court for 71.5% of those 7588 shots. So there would have been 5425 shots for him to block … so if he’d blocked 5.4% of them, he’d have gotten around 293 blocks. That’s 3.6 shots a game.

Wait a minute, you might say—that’s a long way from saying Wilt and Russell got at least six a game. And it is. But Wilt and Russell didn’t play 30 minutes a game. They didn’t play 71.5% of their team’s minutes. They played a whole lot more. How much more? I’m going to use 1964, because Wilt was traded in 1965. Wilt played 95.5% of his team’s minutes. Russ played 90.1% (and missed two games; in the 78 games he played, Bill Russell played about 92.4% of team minutes). This wasn’t an outlier year for either of them; it wasn’t the most minutes they played per game, or overall in a season.

If DeAndre Jordan had played 93% of his team’s minutes in 1965, he would have been on the court for around 7057 shot attempts, and blocked about 381 of them. That’s 4.8 blocks a game.

So, to get back to the question—did Wilt and Russell block over 6 shots a game regularly, in multiple seasons? I have to ask—were they 20-25% better shot blockers than DeAndre Jordan? And this is conjecture. And my response is—of course. Are you serious? To block 6 a game in 1965 while playing Wilt/Russell minutes, you’d need to have a block percentage about 25% higher than De Andre Jordan’s. And there are lots of players and seasons with block percentages over 6.9. Lots of players have done it multiple times: Mutombo, Zo, Camby, Wallace. Guys like Theo Ratliff and Greg Ostertag were over that percentage all the time. And I think my numbers are pretty conservative in terms of threes. I don’t the average 1965 NBA team was putting up five threes a game. There were more shots available. And 1965 was far from the year that teams took the most shots.

So I really do think that Wilt and Russell probably averaged 6—and sometimes 7, sometimes maybe even 8—blocks in a season. Some games they probably had 2 or 3 blocks. And that meant there were plenty of double digit block games. They weren’t supermen. But they were really good shot blockers. And, more importantly, they played a lot of minutes in a league where there were a lot more shots and, with fewer threes, a lot more shots available for them to block.

This is one of the most informative breakdowns I've seen. Exactly what I was thinking too. I did the math using the block totals in this thread, compared to the pace Russel's teams played during his career and came up with a 6.1% career block rate for Russell, and 7.2% for Chamberlain. The obvious caveat being its only using the block totals accounted for in the original post of this thread. For a historical perspective, this is how their career block %'s would rank all time:

1) Shawn Bradley 7.83%
2) Wilt Chamberlain 7.2%
3) Theo Ratliff 7.19%
4) Mark Eaton 6.92%
5) Alonzo Mourning 6.57%
6) Dikembe Mutombo 6.28%
7) George Johnson 6.26%
8) Tree Rollins 6.24%
9) Bill Russell 6.11%
10) Marcus Camby 6.06%

[mstat13shuh]

Quick Eye, does your old friend have any personal recollections about the highest block totals in certain games that he saw from Wilt, Russ, Thurmond, etc?

Countryboy667: What specific recollections do you still have of certain games, if any?

[penbeast0]

Who said Mikan wouldn't be able to play? Guys like him, Pettit, Schayes and Arizin were very good and talented players. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to compete in today league.

People that aren't you on a variety of forums + reddit.

Yeah and almost as much people say the same about Wilt/Russell/Oscar. Hell, I've heard people saying the same about Hakeem or Kareem. I thought we are talking about serious discussions though.

Heck, in the 90s people were saying guys from the 60s weren't athletic enough to play in the "modern" NBA since the league had progressed so much in 30 years. Now it's 30 years later so that Jordan guy apparently wouldn't be athletic enough to play in today's league.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

This doesn't look trustworthy to be honest. On one it says "Blocked 9 shots and nicked at least a dozen more" and it's just tallied as 21 blocks. If this is all just based on newspaper reports the stats are not trustworthy at all.

To validate it someone should check what numbers guys like Alcindor or Thurmond or Lanier would collect in those same years using a similar method. Then we would compare to their numbers post 1973, adjust to age and pace, and see if they old up.

[penbeast0]

This doesn't look trustworthy to be honest. On one it says "Blocked 9 shots and nicked at least a dozen more" and it's just tallied as 21 blocks. If this is all just based on newspaper reports the stats are not trustworthy at all.

To validate it someone should check what numbers guys like Alcindor or Thurmond or Lanier would collect in those same years using a similar method. Then we would compare to their numbers post 1973, adjust to age and pace, and see if they old up.

Are you objecting to the questionable nature of "at least a dozen more" or the characterization of "nicked" as a blocked shot?

[Ryoga Hibiki]

This doesn't look trustworthy to be honest. On one it says "Blocked 9 shots and nicked at least a dozen more" and it's just tallied as 21 blocks. If this is all just based on newspaper reports the stats are not trustworthy at all.

To validate it someone should check what numbers guys like Alcindor or Thurmond or Lanier would collect in those same years using a similar method. Then we would compare to their numbers post 1973, adjust to age and pace, and see if they old up.

Are you objecting to the questionable nature of "at least a dozen more" or the characterization of "nicked" as a blocked shot?

Just saying that just looking at only Russell's and Wilt's estimates has very little value.
The moment you add context you might get something useful.

[Mazter]

Two things, block percentage and high minutes never matched well throughout history. Most shotblockers with a high blocking percentage didn't play that many minutes. The 92 players having a 7.0+ Blk% combined for 24.1 mpg in those seasons. And the volume centers in minutes, scoring and rebounding, aren't consistently among top % blockers. Since blocks are registered a center averaged 30+ minutes 498 times yet registered 7.0+ BLK% only 21 times of the 92. Those 498 times include Shaq 15x, KAJ 14x, Olajuwon 14x, Ewing 13x, Mutombo 11x, Mourning 9x, and D.Robinson 10x to mention some.

The other thing, with watching live games things mostly become memorable when something special happens. Would any one ever say: "Remember that game of Russell where he had 34 points, 27 rebounds and 1 block.", guess not. The 1 block is not memorable and either left out or not even noticed. Everyone started counting when Russell or Wilt had like 2-3 blocks early or quickly after each other late in the game. And the odds are they end up with at least 4-5 blocks or more in those games, or just noted as 2 or more (since they did not remember exactly how many they had early in the game) . No one would be counting blocks if he had his first block in the 2nd half or so. So 0 or 1 blocks games are quickly forgotten and left out of the equation. Chances are, Russell only averaged 3-4 blocks or less in the remaining 872 games. Which would still lead to a high average number. But percentage wise, would not.

Mutombo for example averaged 7.7 in his 100 most memorable block games, yet averaged only 3.4 blocks during his peak.

[countryboy667]

I'm surprised, actually, that the averages aren't HIGHER. I personally saw a game against the old Cincinnati Royals in the Oscar era where I stopped counting after Wilt's 14th block.