Wilt Chamberlain - What IF

[Iceman#44]

Wilt Chamberlain: a legend, HOF, GOAT candidate, greatest offensive force, 100 points in a game, 50 ppg in one single season...most dominant ever to play the game. To me, top 2 all time with MJ.


Now, we know that Wilt sorta of good Giant, was a very nice person, and maybe this has affected his rings collection.

Now, lets think about this What IF: Chamberlain with MJ killer instinct

Results?


More Rings? 3-4 more rings?

What about Records & Averages? Even more dominant season?? :biggums:

What do you think guys?

[BoutPractice]

The actual Wilt almost really won those 3-4 more rings. He came very, very close quite a few times...

[LAZERUSS]

I can guarantee you that the NBA would neevr have allowed Wilt to play like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3FXLyNFew

[Iceman#44]

But what you think Lazeruss? More rings? 3-4? Even more ppg or rpg?? :biggums:

[La Frescobaldi]

But what you think Lazeruss? More rings? 3-4? Even more ppg or rpg?? :biggums:

Chamberlain had enormous drive to win. As much drive as anybody had. Don't kid yourself with all the koolaid about that. It's largely myth.

Now in regards to the Shaq clip? Chamberlain wasn't interested in showing he was bigger than everyone else; he believe basketball was a game of skill. Lots of guys played basketball like that in the '60s; they were straw before #13 when they tried it on him.

[rodman91]

How do we know he didn't have that? All we know about Wilt comes from perception.

I think he shares same fate with D.Robinson. Crazy stats on mediocre teams so he is underrated now. Once surrounded by good players starts winning.

[CavaliersFTW]

Wilt's peers and contemporaries will tell you he didn't want to hurt people, physically, like he would never approach the game from a mindset of I'll break this guys arm if he tries to dunk on me (even though he did dislocate Gus Johnson's shoulder on the same kind of play) - he never tried to hurt people when he played.

However, his peers and contemporaries are all just as quick to point out he was as competitive-minded as any man who has ever played including Michael Jordan. Wanted to win at everything he possibly did whether it be the game of basketball or a game of marbles. Competitiveness = / = A willingness to physically hurt people. They are two different things. Would Wilt have more titles simply due to being okay with physically hurting people? I don't know, but it seems rather ridiculous to me. I can't see how being okay with hurting people was somehow a missing X factor to winning more titles.

[Flash31]

Wilt's peers and contemporaries will tell you he didn't want to hurt people, physically, like he would never approach the game from a mindset of I'll break this guys arm if he tries to dunk on me (even though he did dislocate Gus Johnson's shoulder on the same kind of play) - he never tried to hurt people when he played.

However, his peers and contemporaries are all just as quick to point out he was as competitive-minded as any man who has ever played including Michael Jordan. Wanted to win at everything he possibly did whether it be the game of basketball or a game of marbles. Competitiveness = / = A willingness to physically hurt people. They are two different things. Would Wilt have more titles simply due to being okay with physically hurting people? I don't know, but it seems rather ridiculous to me. I can't see how being okay with hurting people was somehow a missing X factor to winning more titles.


simple what if
What if Wilt had a coach his whole career that would listen to him or Hannun whole career
Wilt was benched in a game 7,4th quarter for scrub c

Wilt was literally 4-5 plays away from having 5-7 rings
he lost several game 7s due to 1 pt.2pt,3-4 pt wins
alot of them due to coaching

Easiest what if is what if Wilt had competent coaches his whole career
5-7 rings right there
or if he joined the Warriors sooner or LAL

Wilt wanted to win always but during those times
nba players werent paid much,some even had another job

Those times werent as glamorous an big as they are now
Teams gave each other rides
After Wilt scored 100,he rode in a car with 3 Knicks players
him and Bill Russell were close
Wilt didnt want to injure anyone,The media called him a giant that just dominates due to his size

Overpowering people and going Shaq on them wasnt looked too favorably especially with how the media was and the racial tensions

Here is this 7'2 foot african american giant dominating
by sheer size

Wilt wanted to prove he wasnt just good bc of size,he emphasized skill,he wanted to prove he could dominate with skill and with the way the media was they would have tore him up if he went Shaq on people
Wilt was more aware of the NBA aituations,paychecks,lifestyle,racial tensions so he didnt try to injure someone or truck them like Shaq

He used skill,maybe that was his downfall at times but at the same time
nobod couls call wilt great just bc of his size

[AirFederer]

One hundred rings and one belt:facepalm

[Psileas]

Like others said, I don't think Wilt wasn't super competitive. It's just that, like others who are viewed, usually with some skepticism, even hostility, as anomalies, he felt he had to prove to fans and the media certain things. If he didn't have this mental barrier, he'd be shooting at probably over 60% FG in his career, as he'd cut down drastically all the fancy stuff (mid range shots, finger rolls, etc) he was trying early on. 1967 was a season when it was noted that Wilt didn't take his fade-away shot any longer and preferred to dunk much more often and his FG%'s skyrocketed.
Though it has to be said that these kinds of questionable shots weren't exclusively Wilt's fault, as, due to the pace, it was kind of expected and considered normal for someone to take shots that are now considered weird.
And it also has to be added that Wilt withoug finesse would be averaging significantly more fouls per game, esp. offensive.

[pudman13]

When people make the arguments about Russell vs. Wilt, I think they're looking at it a bit wrong. Wilt certainly was selfish in certain personal ways (but so was Russell, the only Celtic who ever got away with sitting out practices), most notably how mad he would be if his teammates blew his would-be assists that one year he decided to lead the league, but I agree with the other posters here that he wanted to win and wanted to play team ball. What I think makes him different from Russell is that Russell just had a natural instinct for how to mesh, while Wilt didn't. I have no doubt that Wilt tried really hard, especially towards the end of his career, but watching him play point-center, It just seems that it's just as I say it here--he tried really hard but didn't instinctively know what to do. Very few people do. As has been noted here, he was just a couple of lucky breaks away from having four rings instead of two, and if that had happened people wouldn't be having these discussions. Even as it is, I don't see anyone calling Jerry West a loser.

[pudman13]

One thing that does stand out is his fanatical obsession with never fouling out. You have to think that he cost his teams some games from lack of defensive (and offensive) aggressiveness in games where he reached 4 or 5 (no less trustworthy a source as John Havlicek said he became a different player once he reached 4) but I have no evidence that this ever happened in any key playoff game. It's notable that he had 5 fouls in that famous game 7 in 1969, but we'll never know how he would have handled that if he'd been on the court during the final five minutes.

[CavaliersFTW]

One thing that does stand out is his fanatical obsession with never fouling out. You have to think that he cost his teams some games from lack of defensive (and offensive) aggressiveness in games where he reached 4 or 5 (no less trustworthy a source as John Havlicek said he became a different player once he reached 4) but I have no evidence that this ever happened in any key playoff game. It's notable that he had 5 fouls in that famous game 7 in 1969, but we'll never know how he would have handled that if he'd been on the court during the final five minutes.
'fanatical obsession'? No, Wilt was just more valuable on the floor than off the floor even with 4 or 5 fouls and he knew it. People who try to discredit him due to his fouls are just trying to hate on Wilt. The way Russell played the game he should foul out of games from time to time, his value revolves almost entirely around his defensive abilities and his emotional leadership - if he lessons his defensive pressure he's basically not playing into his own dominating game anymore. Wilt on the other hand was a powerful weapon on many more dimensions due to his broader skill set and talents on both ends of the floor.

Sonny Hill boasts about Wilt's intellect and his ability to not foul out, so do many former players and contemporaries of Wilt. They marvel at the fact that he never fouled out. Sonny Hill is Mr. Basketball, not some armchair basketball fan on the net. Keyboard warriors on the net and Wilt haters are the only ones who really try to act like what Wilt did was some sort of 'bad' thing. Even John Havlicek's words were not meant to be a slight towards Wilt they only sound that way when taken out of context. There have been lots of players in NBA history who were not prone to fouling out, Moses Malone went for many years without fouling out, heck Lebron did too and this during a time he was one of the 'best' defensive players in the league. Smart players can avoid fouls, and still be hugely impactful. Wilt was one of them, in fact he was the very best at it.

[Deuce Bigalow]

greatest offensive force most dominant ever to play the game.

No and no

[pudman13]

'fanatical obsession'? No, Wilt was just more valuable on the floor than off the floor even with 4 or 5 fouls and he knew it. People who try to discredit him due to his fouls are just trying to hate on Wilt, Havlicek included. Russell should foul out of games, his value revolves almost entirely around his defensive abilities - if he lessons his defensive pressure he's basically not playing his game anymore. Wilt on the other hand was an essential tool on both ends of the floor. Sonny Hill boasts about Wilt's intellect and his ability to not foul out, Sonny Hill is Mr. Basketball. Armchair basketball fans on the net and Bill Russell stans (including former Celtics) are the only ones who really try to act like it was 'bad' thing. There have been lots of players in NBA history who were not prone to fouling out, Moses Malone went for many years without fouling out, heck Lebron did too and this is during the time he was one of the 'best' defensive players in the league. Smart players can avoid fouls, and still be hugely impactful. Wilt was one of them, in fact he was the very best at it.

I think he was fanatical about it. If you want to make that argument that he was more valuable playing safe with four or five than sitting on the bench, your point is a good one. Still, given all I've read about him, I'm just not going to buy that his pride about that stat didn't motivate him.

Re: Lebron. During his time in Cleveland I spent a lot of time on the local Cavs chat board, and he got nothing for grief for committing so few fouls. People thought his defense was soft. He's definitely improved since his early days, but getting a few chase down blocks doesn't make someone a great defender in my book. It's like saying a shortstop is great because he makes some diving stops, yet some better shortstop might have made the very same plays without having to dive at all. Do people really think Lebron is a great defender, or does your use of quotes mean you agree with me that he's overrated?

By the way, there's no doubt in my mind that Wilt was a great defender. Russell may have played mind games with him, but he has also often admitted that Wilt was as tough a defender as there was.

My mind still boggles at the thought of Wilt and Nate Thurmond on the same team...

[LAZERUSS]

I think he was fanatical about it. If you want to make that argument that he was more valuable playing safe with four or five than sitting on the bench, your point is a good one. Still, given all I've read about him, I'm just not going to buy that his pride about that stat didn't motivate him.

Re: Lebron. During his time in Cleveland I spent a lot of time on the local Cavs chat board, and he got nothing for grief for committing so few fouls. People thought his defense was soft. He's definitely improved since his early days, but getting a few chase down blocks doesn't make someone a great defender in my book. It's like saying a shortstop is great because he makes some diving stops, yet some better shortstop might have made the very same plays without having to dive at all. Do people really think Lebron is a great defender, or does your use of quotes mean you agree with me that he's overrated?

By the way, there's no doubt in my mind that Wilt was a great defender. Russell may have played mind games with him, but he has also often admitted that Wilt was as tough a defender as there was.

My mind still boggles at the thought of Wilt and Nate Thurmond on the same team...

You are a good poster, but ijn general, th topic of Wilt's fouls has been way overblown.

Did you know that in the 143 Russell-Wilt h2h's, that Chamberlain had a toal of 19 games with 4+ fouls? Or that his team's went 9-10 in those games (which was actualy a better w-l percentage than overall)? Or that Wilt committed five fouls in only six of those games (and his team's went 2-4)? Meanwhile, Russell had 71 games against Wilt of 4+ fouls, with 47games of 5+, and six in which he fouled out?

Furthermore, over the course of Wilt's entire regular season career, he averaged 2.0 PFs per game, in a career in which he averaged 45.8 mpg. And, in his 160 post-season games, in which he averaged a mind-boggling 47.2 mpg, he was committing 2.5 PFs per game. The reality was, Chamberlain was very seldom even sniffing foul trouble.

And in previous topics on this subject, the challenge has been thrown out there for the wilt-bashers to provide proof of Wilt's foul trouble costing his team's games...and no one has unearthed even one game.

In an OT game four of the '72 Finals, Chamberlain, burdened with five fouls, blocked two key shots down the stretch to preserve the win. And, it is interesting that you brought up Chamberlain's game seven of the '69 Finals (the famous van Breda Kolf loses the series game by benching Wilt in the last five minutes of a two point loss.) Wilt had picked up his fifth foul late in the third quarter, and with Boston leading by 15 points. Why is that interesting? Because early in the 4th quarter Russell picked up HIS 5th foul, and with Boston leading by 17 points. The very next play LA threw the ball into Chamberlain, who went right around th statuesque Russell for an easy layin. And while the idiotic Van Breda Kolf did not have his team pass the ball down low to Wilt again in that game, LA still knocked the deficit down to seven points when Wilt finally came off the floor...in a matter of four minutes.

And let's get real here...if a player gets in foul trouble, he SHOULD play a softer defense. I could never understand the criticism that Chamberlain received, when in reality, he was probably the best player in history at limiting his fouls, and in the rare instances when he was in foul trouble, playing smart enough to avoid fouling out.


As for the Wilt-Thurmond tandem...I alays get a kick out of those (and this is not directed at you BTW), that will include this fact in their take on the HOF players that Wilt played with in his career. The fact was, the two played together for one full season, and it was in Nate's rookie season. Thurmond was a natural center, so he was playing out of position, and he only played part-time. Furthermore, he shot .395 from the field because of it.

[Psileas]

Did you know that in the 143 Russell-Wilt h2h's, that Chamberlain had a toal of 19 games with 4+ fouls? Or that his team's went 9-10 in those games (which was actualy a better w-l percentage than overall)? Or that Wilt committed five fouls in only six of those games (and his team's went 2-4)? Meanwhile, Russell had 71 games against Wilt of 4+ fouls, with 47games of 5+, and six in which he fouled out?

If these were Wilt's fouling stats, people would be flocking like there's no tomorrow, showing this significant number discrepancy between games of 5 fouls and games of 6 fouls (47 vs 6) as clear evidence that Wilt didn't play defense after commiting 5 fouls...

[LAZERUSS]

But what you think Lazeruss? More rings? 3-4? Even more ppg or rpg?? :biggums:

You would have to provide me with some examples first. I have read some who have claimed that Wilt "eased up" against Reed in game seven of the '70 Finals, and it may have even been somewhat true, but the reality was, a team of MJ's probably would not have beaten the Knicks that day. NY came out and hit 15 of their first 21 shots, and by halftime they had built a 27 point lead. Furthermore, Wilt was the ONLY Laker who played well in that game (and keep in mind that he, himself, was only four months removed from major knee surgery.)

I have posted it before, and I won't bother reposting it now, but the real reason that Chamberlain "only" won two rings, was that his teammatess were either inferior (and in several series, FAR inferior), injured, poorly coached, puked all over themselves (especially in critical games), or a combination of all those. Add to that that his opposing teams even had some luck, and it there was probably no other Top-10 player who played on team's that lost so many close key games, which ultimately cost Wilt 4-5 rings.

And once again, the NBA would never have allowed Chamberlain to play like Shaq back then. They were already creating a number of "ant-Wilt" rules in an attempt to curtail his domination (none of which really did BTW...except the dunking of FTs), so I am convinced that they would not have allowed Wilt to just run over and thru his opposing players. If they had, they would have been carrying players off in body bags. Wilt would have made a complete mockery of the NBA, and likely would have killed it off altogether.

[LAZERUSS]

If these were Wilt's fouling stats, people would be flocking like there's no tomorrow, showing this significant number discrepancy between games of 5 fouls and games of 6 fouls (47 vs 6) as clear evidence that Wilt didn't play defense after commiting 5 fouls...

You and I both know that no matter what stats are used...the "Wilt-bashers" will try to twist them around in a way to make Chamberlain look bad, even when it is almost impossible to do so.

[CavaliersFTW]

You are a good poster, but ijn general, th topic of Wilt's fouls has been way overblown.

Did you know that in the 143 Russell-Wilt h2h's, that Chamberlain had a toal of 19 games with 4+ fouls? Or that his team's went 9-10 in those games (which was actualy a better w-l percentage than overall)? Or that Wilt committed five fouls in only six of those games (and his team's went 2-4)? Meanwhile, Russell had 71 games against Wilt of 4+ fouls, with 47games of 5+, and six in which he fouled out?

Furthermore, over the course of Wilt's entire regular season career, he averaged 2.0 PFs per game, in a career in which he averaged 45.8 mpg. And, in his 160 post-season games, in which he averaged a mind-boggling 47.2 mpg, he was committing 2.5 PFs per game. The reality was, Chamberlain was very seldom even sniffing foul trouble.

And in previous topics on this subject, the challenge has been thrown out there for the wilt-bashers to provide proof of Wilt's foul trouble costing his team's games...and no one has unearthed even one game.

In an OT game four of the '72 Finals, Chamberlain, burdened with five fouls, blocked two key shots down the stretch to preserve the win. And, it is interesting that you brought up Chamberlain's game seven of the '69 Finals (the famous van Breda Kolf loses the series game by benching Wilt in the last five minutes of a two point loss.) Wilt had picked up his fifth foul late in the third quarter, and with Boston leading by 15 points. Why is that interesting? Because early in the 4th quarter Russell picked up HIS 5th foul, and with Boston leading by 17 points. The very next play LA threw the ball into Chamberlain, who went right around th statuesque Russell for an easy layin. And while the idiotic Van Breda Kolf did not have his team pass the ball down low to Wilt again in that game, LA still knocked the deficit down to seven points when Wilt finally came off the floor...in a matter of four minutes.

And let's get real here...if a player gets in foul trouble, he SHOULD play a softer defense. I could never understand the criticism that Chamberlain received, when in reality, he was probably the best player in history at limiting his fouls, and in the rare instances when he was in foul trouble, playing smart enough to avoid fouling out.


As for the Wilt-Thurmond tandem...I alays get a kick out of those (and this is not directed at you BTW), that will include this fact in their take on the HOF players that Wilt played with in his career. The fact was, the two played together for one full season, and it was in Nate's rookie season. Thurmond was a natural center, so he was playing out of position, and he only played part-time. Furthermore, he shot .395 from the field because of it.
:applause:

Well that about destroys this 'Wilt cost his teams by not fouling out' nonsense. Who's behind that B.S. theory anyways, was this theory that Wilt's 'fouling out record = a bad thing' just more of the typical made up crap mentioned in Bill Simmons book?

[La Frescobaldi]

You are a good poster, but ijn general, th topic of Wilt's fouls has been way overblown.

Did you know that in the 143 Russell-Wilt h2h's, that Chamberlain had a toal of 19 games with 4+ fouls? Or that his team's went 9-10 in those games (which was actualy a better w-l percentage than overall)? Or that Wilt committed five fouls in only six of those games (and his team's went 2-4)? Meanwhile, Russell had 71 games against Wilt of 4+ fouls, with 47games of 5+, and six in which he fouled out?

Furthermore, over the course of Wilt's entire regular season career, he averaged 2.0 PFs per game, in a career in which he averaged 45.8 mpg. And, in his 160 post-season games, in which he averaged a mind-boggling 47.2 mpg, he was committing 2.5 PFs per game. The reality was, Chamberlain was very seldom even sniffing foul trouble.

And in previous topics on this subject, the challenge has been thrown out there for the wilt-bashers to provide proof of Wilt's foul trouble costing his team's games...and no one has unearthed even one game.

In an OT game four of the '72 Finals, Chamberlain, burdened with five fouls, blocked two key shots down the stretch to preserve the win. And, it is interesting that you brought up Chamberlain's game seven of the '69 Finals (the famous van Breda Kolf loses the series game by benching Wilt in the last five minutes of a two point loss.) Wilt had picked up his fifth foul late in the third quarter, and with Boston leading by 15 points. Why is that interesting? Because early in the 4th quarter Russell picked up HIS 5th foul, and with Boston leading by 17 points. The very next play LA threw the ball into Chamberlain, who went right around th statuesque Russell for an easy layin. And while the idiotic Van Breda Kolf did not have his team pass the ball down low to Wilt again in that game, LA still knocked the deficit down to seven points when Wilt finally came off the floor...in a matter of four minutes.

And let's get real here...if a player gets in foul trouble, he SHOULD play a softer defense. I could never understand the criticism that Chamberlain received, when in reality, he was probably the best player in history at limiting his fouls, and in the rare instances when he was in foul trouble, playing smart enough to avoid fouling out.


As for the Wilt-Thurmond tandem...I alays get a kick out of those (and this is not directed at you BTW), that will include this fact in their take on the HOF players that Wilt played with in his career. The fact was, the two played together for one full season, and it was in Nate's rookie season. Thurmond was a natural center, so he was playing out of position, and he only played part-time. Furthermore, he shot .395 from the field because of it.
Chamberlain would go game after game after game and not have any fouls at all. That's always been a stupid conversation, started by people who never saw any books except simmons Book of Basketball Lies, nor saw Chamberlain play (or probably Kareem either, for that matter), and here you've looked into some stats that completely destroy it... ty. It's only what guys that watched ball in those days always knew.
Not only did #13 play at an increasingly great defensive level as he got older, he just never did foul. It was almost always in the newspaper if he got 5 fouls - because that was very freaking newsworthy.

[CavaliersFTW]

You are a good poster, but ijn general, th topic of Wilt's fouls has been way overblown.

Did you know that in the 143 Russell-Wilt h2h's, that Chamberlain had a toal of 19 games with 4+ fouls? Or that his team's went 9-10 in those games (which was actualy a better w-l percentage than overall)? Or that Wilt committed five fouls in only six of those games (and his team's went 2-4)? Meanwhile, Russell had 71 games against Wilt of 4+ fouls, with 47games of 5+, and six in which he fouled out?

Furthermore, over the course of Wilt's entire regular season career, he averaged 2.0 PFs per game, in a career in which he averaged 45.8 mpg. And, in his 160 post-season games, in which he averaged a mind-boggling 47.2 mpg, he was committing 2.5 PFs per game. The reality was, Chamberlain was very seldom even sniffing foul trouble.

And in previous topics on this subject, the challenge has been thrown out there for the wilt-bashers to provide proof of Wilt's foul trouble costing his team's games...and no one has unearthed even one game.

In an OT game four of the '72 Finals, Chamberlain, burdened with five fouls, blocked two key shots down the stretch to preserve the win. And, it is interesting that you brought up Chamberlain's game seven of the '69 Finals (the famous van Breda Kolf loses the series game by benching Wilt in the last five minutes of a two point loss.) Wilt had picked up his fifth foul late in the third quarter, and with Boston leading by 15 points. Why is that interesting? Because early in the 4th quarter Russell picked up HIS 5th foul, and with Boston leading by 17 points. The very next play LA threw the ball into Chamberlain, who went right around th statuesque Russell for an easy layin. And while the idiotic Van Breda Kolf did not have his team pass the ball down low to Wilt again in that game, LA still knocked the deficit down to seven points when Wilt finally came off the floor...in a matter of four minutes.

And let's get real here...if a player gets in foul trouble, he SHOULD play a softer defense. I could never understand the criticism that Chamberlain received, when in reality, he was probably the best player in history at limiting his fouls, and in the rare instances when he was in foul trouble, playing smart enough to avoid fouling out.


As for the Wilt-Thurmond tandem...I alays get a kick out of those (and this is not directed at you BTW), that will include this fact in their take on the HOF players that Wilt played with in his career. The fact was, the two played together for one full season, and it was in Nate's rookie season. Thurmond was a natural center, so he was playing out of position, and he only played part-time. Furthermore, he shot .395 from the field because of it.
JL/Lazeruss, this incredibly thread worthy - will you make a new topic and just copy-paste this post in it (could call it something like the myth/lie that Wilt was a liability because of his fouling out record) so it can be more easily searchable/referenced in the future? I will def be referencing this any time someone tries to assert Wilt was somehow a 'liability' due to his record of never fouling out.

[LAZERUSS]

JL/Lazeruss, this incredibly thread worthy - will you make a new topic and just copy-paste this post in it (could call it something like the myth/lie that Wilt was a liability because of his fouling out record) so it can be more easily searchable/referenced in the future? I will def be referencing this any time someone tries to assert Wilt was somehow a 'liability' due to his record of never fouling out.

I appreciate the kind words, but the information is readily available out there. I actually used fpliii's Russell-Wilt h2h's...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdEpOeFRwY29NRTUtWVlFWVJ5TkFDY 3c#gid=0

In any case, feel free to post it, or reference it anytime you like.

Also, it would be interesting for the resident researchers here to come up with Chamberlain's key playoff games, in which he played with five fouls, and how his play affected the outcome. I already posted his key defensive blocks in game four of the '72 Finals (and BTW, in the same game he was playing with a fractured wrist, as well.)


And speaking of fpliii....

I hope he makes a post here on the topic of the effect of the 2-to-make-1, and 3-to-make-2 FTs on Wilt's TS%. He has posted it on another forum, so I won't paste the link, but it is just fascinating research. The bottom line...Wilt's "effective" TS% was somewhat higher than his actual TS%.

The only thing I would like to see him add to that, would be Wilt's "effective" TS% against the league average. Which is the one major flaw in any argument on the subject of TS%. As I have claimed for a long time, in any of these Wilt statistical discussions, you not only have to factor in pace, but league average as well. Furthermore, while it is virtually impossible to prove, it is still a very valid assumption....that Wilt's MPG hindered his efficiencies in his career.

Once again, thanks.

[Pointguard]

You are a good poster, but ijn general, th topic of Wilt's fouls has been way overblown.

Did you know that in the 143 Russell-Wilt h2h's, that Chamberlain had a toal of 19 games with 4+ fouls? Or that his team's went 9-10 in those games (which was actualy a better w-l percentage than overall)? Or that Wilt committed five fouls in only six of those games (and his team's went 2-4)? Meanwhile, Russell had 71 games against Wilt of 4+ fouls, with 47games of 5+, and six in which he fouled out?

Furthermore, over the course of Wilt's entire regular season career, he averaged 2.0 PFs per game, in a career in which he averaged 45.8 mpg. And, in his 160 post-season games, in which he averaged a mind-boggling 47.2 mpg, he was committing 2.5 PFs per game. The reality was, Chamberlain was very seldom even sniffing foul trouble.

And in previous topics on this subject, the challenge has been thrown out there for the wilt-bashers to provide proof of Wilt's foul trouble costing his team's games...and no one has unearthed even one game.

In an OT game four of the '72 Finals, Chamberlain, burdened with five fouls, blocked two key shots down the stretch to preserve the win. And, it is interesting that you brought up Chamberlain's game seven of the '69 Finals (the famous van Breda Kolf loses the series game by benching Wilt in the last five minutes of a two point loss.) Wilt had picked up his fifth foul late in the third quarter, and with Boston leading by 15 points. Why is that interesting? Because early in the 4th quarter Russell picked up HIS 5th foul, and with Boston leading by 17 points. The very next play LA threw the ball into Chamberlain, who went right around th statuesque Russell for an easy layin. And while the idiotic Van Breda Kolf did not have his team pass the ball down low to Wilt again in that game, LA still knocked the deficit down to seven points when Wilt finally came off the floor...in a matter of four minutes.

And let's get real here...if a player gets in foul trouble, he SHOULD play a softer defense. I could never understand the criticism that Chamberlain received, when in reality, he was probably the best player in history at limiting his fouls, and in the rare instances when he was in foul trouble, playing smart enough to avoid fouling out.


As for the Wilt-Thurmond tandem...I alays get a kick out of those (and this is not directed at you BTW), that will include this fact in their take on the HOF players that Wilt played with in his career. The fact was, the two played together for one full season, and it was in Nate's rookie season. Thurmond was a natural center, so he was playing out of position, and he only played part-time. Furthermore, he shot .395 from the field because of it.
Good Stuff

[Pointguard]

Chamberlain had enormous drive to win. As much drive as anybody had. Don't kid yourself with all the koolaid about that. It's largely myth.

The mentality to score 50ppg or 40ppg over 7 years is something I would like to have seen in any other big man. Even when Kareem had bounce in his legs, a shot nobody was touching, and was angry with the league he was never going to get close to 40ppg. You have to be crazy determined to pull that off. If you remember the Jordan's 37ppg year how much of an effort he put into it was amazing that he could keep up the energy.

If Wilt did the rebounding alone that would show a will of great passion. But he was doing both at crazy levels. And blocking shots at unheard of levels. So there was nothing ever wrong with his motor. The amount of movement, speed and will in him was off the charts. Jordan and Russell had uncommonly high levels of killer instinct, like a young Mike Tyson when he smelt blood. I don't see a lot of killer instinct in Mayweather, or Duncan for that matter, but they definitely have it. Wilt was more like the later.

They would not have let Wilt go like Shaq where he showed disregard for other players. They went out to tame Wilt at every corner. One could argue they even used the MVP to tame him (voting favored him at under 40ppg). Wilt knew that if he ever got careless, fouling out would have been a "taming" tactic.

[LAZERUSS]

The mentality to score 50ppg or 40ppg over 7 years is something I would like to have seen in any other big man. Even when Kareem had bounce in his legs, a shot nobody was touching, and was angry with the league he was never going to get close to 40ppg. You have to be crazy determined to pull that off. If you remember the Jordan's 37ppg year how much of an effort he put into it was amazing that he could keep up the energy.

If Wilt did the rebounding alone that would show a will of great passion. But he was doing both at crazy levels. And blocking shots at unheard of levels. So there was nothing ever wrong with his motor. The amount of movement, speed and will in him was off the charts. Jordan and Russell had uncommonly high levels of killer instinct, like a young Mike Tyson when he smelt blood. I don't see a lot of killer instinct in Mayweather, or Duncan for that matter, but they definitely have it. Wilt was more like the later.

They would not have let Wilt go like Shaq where he showed disregard for other players. They went out to tame Wilt at every corner. One could argue they even used the MVP to tame him (voting favored him at under 40ppg). Wilt knew that if he ever got careless, fouling out would have been a "taming" tactic.

As always, an excellent post.

It just amazes me at how the Wilt-detractors try to diminish Chamberlain's accomplishments at almost every turn.

As you mentioned...he averaged 40 ppg over the course of seven straight seasons...combined. The next best full SINGLE season scoring mark IN the Wilt era... 35.6 ppg. Or that there were a total of 37 60+ point games during Wilt's 14 seasons...and he had 32 of them. So, take Chamberlain out of the equation, and with the exception of rebounding, and the period from 1960 thru 1973 would have been a very ordinary 14 years. Furthermore, remove Wilt from that period, and the highest FG% would have been little known Johnny Green's .587.

I have read Simmons' take, as well as other posters here, disparaging Chamberlain for leading the league in assists one season (oh, and he BTW, he came in third in another.) One poster made the comment that all Wilt did was pass to open teammates who hit 20 ft shots. Yep, which despite being horribly inaccurate, was still the definition of an assist. But even more laughable, was the fact that Chamberlain's passing hurt his team so much that they could only go 62-20, and ran away with the best record in the league.

The Wilt-bashers always use "pace" against Wilt, but never mention league average. And they will use the fact that Chamberlain played nearly every minute of every game against him in an attempt to diminish his achievements, but they will never acknowledge the fact that playing 46 mpg for his entire career most assuredly hurt his efficiencies (e.g., FG%, or TRB%.)

They will claim that Wilt's rebounding numbers were inflated, but neevr acknowledge that he just blew away his peers away, not only in the numbers, but in H2h play, as well (for instance, in 143 H2H games with Russell, Wilt outrebounded him, on average, by FIVE per game.) Or that a 36 year old Wilt, in his last post-season, and covering 17 playoff games, averaged 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg. And that the next best mark, since, was KAJ's 17.3 rpg in 11 playoff games in 76-77.

The anti-Wilt gang bring up "competition" ...mostly the completely fabricated notion that he faced small white guys...but never mention the fact that Chamberlain just destroyed the 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy his entire career. Or that a prime Wilt crushed the 6-11 HOFer Nate Thurmond far more than a prime Kareem did against an aging Thurmond. Or that a Wilt, in his last two seasons, covering 11 straight games, averaged 24 ppg on a staggering .784 FG% against 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier. Or that a prime Wilt just shelled all the other seven-footers of his era (and keep in mind that most of the 6-11 players of his era would measure at over seven feet today.)

The Wilt-detractors scoff at his blocked shot numbers. But they will never bring up the fact that a Wilt, in his last season, averaged 5.4 bpg. And only 12 years later Mark Eaton set the "official" mark of 5.56. Nor do they ever bring up the fact that Wilt was routinely blocking a prime Kareem's "unblockable" sky-hook (hell, we have VIDEO footage of an old Chamberlain rejecting TWO of them in a span of about five seconds.)

The "Custer Gang", as I like to call them, label Wilt as a "choker", despite the fact that Chamberlain was one of the most prolific "big game" players in NBA history. As well as the fact that he almost always outplayed his opposing centers in the post-season (and in his post-season career, he faced a HOF starting center in 105 of his 160 post-season games.)

They will call him a "loser" despite the fact that he played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, and two of which he anchored are among the top-four teams in NBA history. Or that he went to 12 Conference Finals in his 13 post-seasons, as well as SIX Finals. And he even took putrid rosters to the brink of upsetting the greatest Dynasty in modern American team sports history on several occasions.

Or they will claim that Russell was the better player despite the fact that Wilt outplayed him in the vast majority of their H2H's, and absolutely destroyed him in many of them.

I could go on, and have before, but Simmons and his disciples have been completely shredded in their arguments. And now with the advanced research we have available, as well as the amazing video footage that Cavs Fan, and others, have unearthed, it is pretty clear that Wilt was the most dominant force that has ever played the game. And even the most ardent "Custerites" have scattered for the hills. And only a small handful of blockheads remain to troll in these discussions.

[pudman13]

RE: Wilt and Thurmond together..history has shown that the twin towers concept can often be more trouble than it's worth. That's not a knock on Wilt (or Thurmond either--after all, he was a rookie), but on the concept. Reed and Bellamy couldn't play together, and if you look closely at the Houston teams of the mid-80s, Sampson actually played his best ball when Hakeem wasn't on the floor. McHale and Parish payed well together, but McHale really was a natural PF, just a tall one, and both guys played a game where they didn't clog up space (and they didn't have a team full of people who drove the lane anyway.)

When I think about all the basketball I've watched in my life, the one thing that still baffles me more than anything is the Shaq offense and how the refs just threw the rule book out the window for him. I think I agree with the poster who says the game is better becaue they don't call palming anymore (i.e. it would have been better to see the stars of the 60s and 70s dribble like today's players than to see today's players dribble like West and Robertson), but the latitude given to Shaq is a whole other story. Anyone who thinks Wilt wouldn't have been an even *more* amazing offensive force, as if that was possible, if he'd been reffed like Shaq, just has no clue about the game.

Another interesting topic here is the idea that the 3-pointer is a key reason centers no longer lead the league in scoring. Just another way the game has been irrevocably changed. Whether you think it's good or bad is personal, but I really have trouble with the fact that so many people simply assume the 3-pointer has made the game better without really thinking through all of the things that are different because of it.

[pudman13]

the topic of Wilt's fouls has been way overblown.


Fair enough, and your research in awesome.

I think part of the reason the Wilt fans here get trolled so much, though, is that no matter how much you're a fan of someone, or how much you feel they've been wronged, sooner or later it's only realistic to criticize them a bit in some legitimate way. It's impossible to argue that Wilt didn't care deeply about his stats. You can make good arguments that it was no big deal, that his striving to lead the league in assists or to never foul out never hurt his teams (or even that they helped his teams), but I still think it's only fair to admit that he was obsessed by stuff like that, that it as a big motivator for him. Maybe that sometimes makes someone a better player. Who knows? And who's to say that this kind of thing isn't good for the fans? I find it really interesting that Kobe was so sensitive to this kind of criticism that he sat out the last game of a season when he could easily have won a scoring title. I think the NBA would have been better off if he played that game and tried to score his 40 or 45, or whatever it was. Aren't we all better off because of those amazing season-ending games by Gervin, Thompson and Robinson?

[CavaliersFTW]

Fair enough, and your research in awesome.

I think part of the reason the Wilt fans here get trolled so much, though, is that no matter how much you're a fan of someone, or how much you feel they've been wronged, sooner or later it's only realistic to criticize them a bit in some legitimate way. It's impossible to argue that Wilt didn't care deeply about his stats. You can make good arguments that it was no big deal, that his striving to lead the league in assists or to never foul out never hurt his teams (or even that they helped his teams), but I still think it's only fair to admit that he was obsessed by stuff like that, that it as a big motivator for him. Maybe that sometimes makes someone a better player. Who knows? And who's to say that this kind of thing isn't good for the fans? I find it really interesting that Kobe was so sensitive to this kind of criticism that he sat out the last game of a season when he could easily have won a scoring title. I think the NBA would have been better off if he played that game and tried to score his 40 or 45, or whatever it was. Aren't we all better off because of those amazing season-ending games by Gervin, Thompson and Robinson?
Wilt cared no more about his stats than MJ, or Kobe, or Lebron care/cared about their own stats. And it is impossible to argue otherwise. He wanted to make averages and set goals for himself just like any other player, and at the same time he didn't want to go over the top (he didn't want to be in the 100 point game for example... he was embarrassed how many shots he was taking). His mentality towards his stats is the same as any elite all time player, he just was more capable than the rest, his ceiling was higher.

What you don't seem realize is that the Wilt fans around here ARE able to criticize Wilt about his shortcomings in fact we understand his shortcomings and his overall game better than anyone. Wilt's haters and causual fans just WISH Wilt had more flaws than he really did so they twist his records around so that they somehow become a negative and they look at his stats at a glance and take things out of context, blow other things out of proportion and quite literally just make stuff up. Examples? Wilt the selfish stats padder, Wilt the 'choker', Wilt the guy with the ego (specifically as if it were bigger than any other top all-time players ego), Wilt the guy who 'lacked killer instinct/competitiveness', < --- literally none of those are true criticisms, they are journalist or fan (hater, to be more specific) fabricated fluff, recently pushed into mainstream by Bill Simmons and his book of basketball lies and spread and repeated by word of mouth by ignorant fans.

Wilt the awful free throw shooter.... <--- now that's a realistic criticism.

[pudman13]

Wilt cared no more about his stats than MJ, or Kobe, or Lebron care/cared about their own stats.

Wilt the awful free throw shooter.... <--- now that's a realistic criticism.

True, true, and those guys deserve to be called on it too. I'm not sure if "criticism" is the right word on that one. "Poked fun at" maybe?

I don't know if you were watching that game, but I remember cringing when the Cavs had Lebron feed big Z about four times for long shots desperately trying to get him that first triple double. I guess it's not as bad as Ricky Davis shooting at the wrong basket but it was still pretty weak.

RE: Wilt the free throw shooter. People seem to neglect to mention that Russell wasn't so great either...and that Duncan also had his problems (mental, like Wilt's) with them.

[Psileas]

Fair enough, and your research in awesome.

I think part of the reason the Wilt fans here get trolled so much, though, is that no matter how much you're a fan of someone, or how much you feel they've been wronged, sooner or later it's only realistic to criticize them a bit in some legitimate way. It's impossible to argue that Wilt didn't care deeply about his stats. You can make good arguments that it was no big deal, that his striving to lead the league in assists or to never foul out never hurt his teams (or even that they helped his teams), but I still think it's only fair to admit that he was obsessed by stuff like that, that it as a big motivator for him. Maybe that sometimes makes someone a better player. Who knows? And who's to say that this kind of thing isn't good for the fans? I find it really interesting that Kobe was so sensitive to this kind of criticism that he sat out the last game of a season when he could easily have won a scoring title. I think the NBA would have been better off if he played that game and tried to score his 40 or 45, or whatever it was. Aren't we all better off because of those amazing season-ending games by Gervin, Thompson and Robinson?

I generally agree except partially for the bolded part. Wilt fans, IMO, are mostly trolled because general modern fans haven't been used to their frequent presence and to reading arguments that go against the negative tales and myths told and believed about Wilt. They read things like Wilt being a great playoff performer, Wilt facing great personal opponents and find it hard to believe. Of course, there had always existed the positive Wilt stories and myths, as well, but the general stance of fans throughout the last 3 dacades had been a dismissive one, especially since there had always existed the numerical "dooming" evidence that supposedly can't lie (="2 rings" and "22.5 ppg in the playoffs").
Incidentally, as a European, I can recall reading 80's, 90's and 00's (even today's at times) basketball magazines that had continuously perpetuated the negative Wilt myths (not even the numerical evidence, but the flat-out myths, like Wilt facing midgets, supposedly playing badly in games when he actually didn't, etc). I'd even read in the early 90's in an article that Reed had held him to 4 points in Game 7 of the 1970 Finals, which means either that the writer was completely ignorant (it was Reed, not Wilt, the one who scored 4 points) or completely malevolent and shouldn't be writing at all. Nowadays, such mistakes are more rare, because it's easier for people to spot their mistakes and call them out, but there has been some long-lasting damage done to a whole generation of fans.

So, I feel their trolling and attacks is one of their last lines of defense, like the defense that the traditional zealot will use against the innovator.

[pudman13]

Wilt fans, IMO, are mostly trolled because general modern fans haven't been used to their frequent presence and to reading arguments that go against the negative tales and myths told and believed about Wilt.

You make a good point. What amazes me is that the claims, especially that he only played against unathletic 6'6" white guys, can be so easily proven wrong by anyone who bothers to do any research at all. Even modern *players* buy into the myth that the game was completely primitive in the 60s (i.e. Dwight Howard being stunned and shocked when he discovered that Bill Russell was taller than him.)

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt the awful free throw shooter.... <--- now that's a realistic criticism.


Even that has been overblown, as well. First of all, there have been very few centers who were even average FT shooters. KAJ, Hakeem, and Duncan...all below average. Furthermore, how about Russell and particularly Shaq? They were bad FT shooters, and yet still won a combined 15 rings.

And very few will acknowledge Wilt's IMPACT at the line. I have repeatedly brought up the fact that his team's were always among the leaders in both FTAs AND FTMs. His teammates benefitted from the "bonus" FTs they were receiving. Wilt's 66-67 76ers just blew away the league. And how about this example? Chamberlain's 68-69 Lakers led the NBA in FTAs, and then were miles ahead of everyone in the post-season in FTAs and FTMs. However, early on in the 69-70 season, Chamberlain shredded his knee in the ninth game, and would miss 70 games. The result? LA finished 12th, in a 14 team league. BUT, Chamerlain returned for the post-season, and his Lakers attempted 200 more FTs than any other team in the post-season.

And, as fpliii's new research has uncovered, Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT% was somewhat higher than his actual FT% because of the FT rules that existed at the time. BTW, that also raised his TS%'s...some dramatically later in his career when his FT shooting really declined.

But the bottom line was...Chamberlain MADE FTs, too. He currently ranks 16th all-time in career NBA FTM (and 19th of you include ABA player's careers.) Think about that. Wilt MADE more FTs in his career than players like Robinson, Havlicek, Barry, Hakeem, and Magic. Hell, he MADE 2000 more FTs than Bird did in his career, and they both played close to the same number of games. And while KAJ made more FTs in his career, Wilt averaged 100 more made per season.

And early in Wilt's career, and in his high-scoring seasons, while he certainly was not a good FT shooter, he was not a poor one. He had seasons of around .600 (and he was even better in his college career.) And how about this little known fact...Jerry West holds the NBA single season record of 840 MADE FTs, but guess who is in second place? Yep...Chamberlain, with 835 in his 61-62 season (BTW, he shot .613 from the line that year...and in the playoffs he shot .636.) Oh, and how about his 100 point game, in which he made 28 out of 32?

So here again, even in Wilt's worst statistical accomplishment, at times he was extraordinary.

[pudman13]

Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT% was somewhat higher than his actual FT% because of the FT rules that existed at the time.

Well, yeah, but so was everyone else's.

[pudman13]

The worse you are at the line, the more times you're going to shoot the extra penalty FTA. The more times you go to the line, the more penalty FTA you'll take. This artificially increases True Shooting Attempts (TSA), which incorrectly lowers True Shooting Percentage (TS%).

Interesting how these things work out, and I understand the math behind it.

That's just another reason that was such a bad rule...it benefitted peopel who were bad at something more than people who were good at it.