Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt's teams ORTG rank:

1960 - 7th (in a 8 team league)
1961 - 6th (of 8)
1962 - 4th (of 9) first season when Wilt's team is above (slightly) average offensively
1963 - 5th (of 9)
1964 - 7th (of 9)
1965 SFW - 9th (of 9)
1965 PHI - 5th (of 9) second time his team is barely above average offensively, but he didn't play whole season
1966 - 6th (of 9) again barely above average
1967 - 1st (of 10) first really good offensive team with Wilt, but he wasn't volume scorer anymore and later he played with West, so Lakers teams were usually good on offense - but again Wilt wasn't volume scorer anymore. So where is his offensive impact as a "unstoppable scorer"?

Because there are really only two options: either Wilt's teammates were so bad offensively or Wilt's volume scoring is overrated and as a volume scorer he didn't have big impact on offense.

More likely the second one is true, because Arizin, Gola or Rodgers in no way were bad offensively. For instance Warriors with Arizin before Wilt ranked offensively:

1951 - 6th (of 11)
1952 - 3rd (of 10)
1955 - 6th (of 8)
1956 - 1st (of 8)
1957 - 1st (of 8)
1958 - 4th (of 8)
1959 - 8th (of 8)

Sure, they had Neil Johnston, but Wilt in his place didn't produced better offensive results.

Hmmm...what was the Warriors record before Wilt arrived again? They were a LAST PLACE team. How did they do in Wilt's ROOKIE season? They went 49-26. And had Wilt not badly injured his hand in a fight in game two of the EDF's which rendered it useless in the next two games), and who knows? As it was, they lost a game six by two points. In a series in which Chamberlain averaged 30.5 ppg on a .500 eFG% (and again, with two horrible games in the middle of the series with that injured hand.)

How about his 60-61 post-season? He certainly allowed his teammates to shoot the ball, didn't he? And Arizin responded with a .325 eFG% while Gola shot .206. Incidently, check out Gola's playoff FG%'s with and withOUT Chamberlain. He was just as AWFUL. As for Rodgers...you're joking right? He was probably the WORST full-time shooting player of ALL-TIME (when compared to league average.) Which was bad enough, but he STILL continued to shoot the damn ball.

In Wilt's 61-62 season, and with essentially the same core of the roster that he inherited in his rookie season, only older and worse, he single-handedly carried them thru the first round (and with Wilt's coach finally having Wilt shoot again in game five), and then to a game seven, two point loss against a 60-20 Celtic team. Now, the real question is this? Just how in the hell did Wilt get that team past the first round, and then to a game seven, two point loss against the Celtics...with his teammates collectively shooting .354 in the playoffs?

In his 62-63 season, his TEAM was so bad, (with a total of 16 different players, some of whom only played briefly in the NBA), that they went 31-49. BUT, they lost 35 games by single digits, were only involved in eight games of 20+ margins (and went 4-4 in them); and had a -2.1 ppg differential. BTW, Chamberlain led the league in FIFTEEN of the 22 statistical categories, including WIN-SHARES and PER. And in their nine H2H's with Boston, they only went 1-8 (Boston had NINE HOFers that year...while Wilt was IT for the Warriors), BUT, SIX of the games were close (or a Warrior win), and all of them were relatively close going into the 4th quarters. Oh, and all Wilt did was outscore Russell, per game, 38-14, over the course of those nine games.

63-64? All you need to know is this. The Warriors new coach, Alex Hannum conducted a pre-season scrimmage with the Warrior roster, sans Wilt, and against a bunch of rookies. He was horrified when the rookies won. Still, with Tom Meschery, and his 13 ppg, as Wilt's second best player, that Warrior tam went 48-32. And then, in the first round of the playoffs, a "declining" Wilt put up a 39 ppg .559 eFG% series, and carried them to a seven game series win over a Hawks team that was better players, 2-6. Then, while they lost 4-1 to the Celtics (and their EIGHT HOFers) in the Finals, their last two losses came in the waning seconds. And, as always, Chamberlain just CRUSHED Russell across the board, and with a 29.2 ppg .517 series (in a post-season NBA that shot .420.)

64-65? Yes, an ailing Chamberlain was traded at mid-season, for three players, to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and missed the playoffs. He then single-handedly carried that 40-40 team to a 3-1 romp over Oscar's loaded 48-32 Royals in the first-round. Then, with a staggering 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .555 eFG% series, he led them to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their Dynasty.

How about his old Warrior team? While they went 10-27 with an ill Wilt that season, they went 7-36 with future HOFer Nate Thurmond as his replacement. And then, they drafted future HOFer Rick Barry, and STILL could only go 35-45 the very next season (65-66.) And how about this? Before the start of the 66-67 season, the Warriors added Fred Hetzel, Clyde Lee, and Jeff Mullins to their roster. In that 66-67 season, Thurmond had the greatest year of his career (and finished second behind Wilt in the MVP voting), and Barry led the league with the highest non-Wilt full-time scoring mark in the Wilt-era of 35.6 ppg. Oh, and Tom Meschery, averaged 11 ppg, and was now the Warriors SEVENTH best player. How did that Warrior team perform? They went 44-37, and were wiped out by Wilt's Warriors in the Finals.

Go ahead an compare rosters with Wilt's 63-64 Warriors, which went 48-32, and lost in the Finals. With the LOADED 66-67 Warriors, which went 44-37, and lost in the Finals.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain would lead the Sixers to the best record in the league in his next three seasons after the trade, including 65-66, when he LED the league in SCORING and eFG%. And it culiminated with a dominating world title in '67, in season in which Chamberlain averaged 24 ppg, 24 rpg, 8 apg, and shot an unfathomable .683 from the field (including, and as always, the HIGH game in the NBA that season.) And had his '68 team not been DECIMATED by injuries (including multiple injuries to Wilt, himself), and they would surely have repeated as champs.


Who cares about being 1st in FTA? Offensive impact matters and Wilt's teams usually weren't so good offensively. Just check ORTG.... so his enormous amounts of FTAs doesn't mean a lot, because he missed them.

Who cares? Because Wilts' TEAMMATES benefitted from the extra FTAs. Think about this, Wilt's TEAMMATES shot around .430 from the FIELD (or worse) during his career, BUT they probably shot around .750 from the line. Give them possessions from the line with 2 FTAs (or even 3), as compared to a FGA, and they were averaging 1.5 per possession, instead of .86. Or nearly DOUBLE.

But, yes, Chamberlain's offense had no impact.

[trueDS]

But, yes, Chamberlain's offense had no impact.

Learn to read. I'm not saying he had no impact. I'm saying his impact wasn't as good as should be if he really was unstoppable scorer. I'm saying his volume scoring is overrated because it had slightly effect on offense. I'm saying he wasn't the best scorer ever, or even the best in his era, because Oscar and West were way better scorers in 60s and their scoring wasn't "empty" as they helped their teams offenses A LOT.

Wilt offensively was 3rd best player during 60s. Better than 4th Baylor, worse than 1st Oscar and 2nd West.

[CavaliersFTW]

Learn to read. I'm not saying he had no impact. I'm saying his impact wasn't as good as should be if he really was unstoppable scorer. I'm saying his volume scoring is overrated because it had slightly effect on offense. I'm saying he wasn't the best scorer ever, or even the best in his era, because Oscar and West were way better scorers in 60s and their scoring wasn't "empty" as they helped their teams offenses A LOT.

Wilt offensively was 3rd best player during 60s. Better than 4th Baylor, worse than 1st Oscar and 2nd West.
http://img.pandawhale.com/43689-Christian-Bale-dafuq-wtf-gif-4Vsk.gif












Okay i'd say it's time to stop posting and take a rest for a while, you've blown a gasket... :roll:

[La Frescobaldi]

Learn to read. I'm not saying he had no impact. I'm saying his impact wasn't as good as should be if he really was unstoppable scorer. I'm saying his volume scoring is overrated because it had slightly effect on offense. I'm saying he wasn't the best scorer ever, or even the best in his era, because Oscar and West were way better scorers in 60s and their scoring wasn't "empty" as they helped their teams offenses A LOT.

Wilt offensively was 3rd best player during 60s. Better than 4th Baylor, worse than 1st Oscar and 2nd West.

If you had seen even one of Chamberlain's 60 point games - even as a Laker - or any of his 30 30 10 12 games.......... you'd never say another word like this.

You really just don't know what you are talking about, but simply juggle statistics.

There's never been an unstoppable player like Wilt Chamberlain unleashed.

[LAZERUSS]

Learn to read. I'm not saying he had no impact. I'm saying his impact wasn't as good as should be if he really was unstoppable scorer. I'm saying his volume scoring is overrated because it had slightly effect on offense. I'm saying he wasn't the best scorer ever, or even the best in his era, because Oscar and West were way better scorers in 60s and their scoring wasn't "empty" as they helped their teams offenses A LOT.

Wilt offensively was 3rd best player during 60s. Better than 4th Baylor, worse than 1st Oscar and 2nd West.


:roll: :roll: :roll:

The RECORD BOOKS will tell you a COMPLETELY different story.

First of all, Chamberlain was FAR more efficient, even in the post-season. Your FLAWED TS% with Chamberlain was ridiculous. Again, Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT%' just HAD to be considerably higher than his ACTUAL FT%. In an era of 3-to-make-2, and 2-to-make-1 bonuses, Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT%, no matter how poorly he shot, unless he didn't make ANY, would have been higher. And yes, everyone in that era benefitted from them, but ESPECIALLY VOLUME and poorer FT shooters. I hate to use assumptions, but I really think even Fpliii's research, which gave Chamberlain close to a 1% increase in his TS%'s, was actually considerably higher than that. Perhaps 2-3%. And the reality was this...not West, not Baylor, and not Oscar, could shoot as high from the FIELD, as Wilt did. So what, you ask? The simple fact was, Chamberlain WAS much more UNSTOPPABLE than they were. Yes, they shot FTAs better, but they didn't come within MILES of what Wilt could do when DEFENDED. Again, Wilt was the MOST UNSTOPPABLE OFFENSIVE FORCE IN THE HISTORY OF THE NBA.

Secondly, you base your numbers strictly on the post-season. So, when Oscar puts up excellent numbers, but in only a five game series (much like Hakeem), and then is eliminated, you give it more weight than a Chamberlain who plays in a larger number of post-season games, and is going H2H with Russell (and later Thurmond) in over HALF of his playoff games (and again, it wasn't just Russell, either, but a swarming Celtic defense.) My god, Oscar played in a TOTAL of 39 playoff games in his first nine seasons in the NBA. And it wasn't until he joined KAJ that he would play in 47 more (and scored much less BTW.)

And Iike how you casually dismiss Wilt's 37 ppg, 37 ppg, 38.6 ppg, and 38.7 ppg post-season series (as well as his 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .617 series against an average center like Dierking, who was a typical center that Hakeem battled on a constant basis in the playoffs.) Or his FOUR 50 point games, THREE of which were in MUST-WIN games. West had two, Baylor had one, and Oscar had ZERO (same as Kareem, Bird, Shaq, and Hakeem BTW.) I know West had some great post-seasons. But, again, he was not the focal point of entire team defenses, either. And how come Baylor and West, averaging over 70 ppg in the '62 Finals COMBINED, didn't do any more than a Wilt did, basically by himself, against the Celtics? And, of course, the entire Celtic team was swarming Wilt and letting his inept teammates continue to fire post-season blanks (they collectively shot .354 in that post-season.)

How come Wilt's "empty" scoring at the very least, EQUALED what Baylor and West's TEAM success was thru the mid-60's, and then just blew then away the rest of the decade? And how about Oscar's stats? How come you seem to think his scoring carried more weight than Wilt's, when he couldn't even get past the first round in FOUR of his first six playoff seasons, and never made it to the Finals in any of those six seasons? In fact, his overall W-L record against Wilt's teams in their two playoff H2H's in the mid-60's, was 2-7. Yep...a typical Wilt-basher short-changing Chamberlain, and prasing someone else who basically did half as much.

How about using some common sense and COMPILING their regular season AND post-season numbers? Of course the Wilt-bashers won't do that (just as the Hakeem-lovers won't.) Oscar and West simply couldn't score in the volumes and on the TOTAL efficiency required to so at those unfathomable levels, that Chamberlain could. So, if we were to add Wilt's '62 post-season numbers to his '62 regular season numbers, he would have STILL scored 48.4 ppg, and on a .502 eFG%, in a combined regular-season and post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .424.

And I like how you always bring up mpg, without adjusting for EFFICIENCY. Did it ever occur to you that the other players of Wilt's era, and even moreso today, played considerably less minutes because they simply can't play more, and be effective? If that were not the case, why wouldn't Durant, Lebron, Shaq, and Hakeem playing every minute of every game, like Wilt did?

Chamberlain was quite simply, the most unstoppable force that ever played the game. Not only that, he absolutely crushed his HOF peer centers FAR more than any other center did against their's. In EVERY aspect. He was slaughtering them in scoring, rebounding, effciency, passing, blocks, and only Russell would have a case in overall defense (although Wilt reduced Russell's FG%'s FAR more than Russell reduced Chamberlain's.)

[fpliii]

OT - I've been reading more of bastillion's posting recently. I apologize for accusing him of being a troll, I just think he's a very enthusiastic poster.


Chamberlain was quite simply, the most unstoppable force that ever played the game. Not only that, he absolutely crushed his HOF peer centers FAR more than any other center did against their's. In EVERY aspect. He was slaughtering them in scoring, rebounding, effciency, passing, blocks, and only Russell would have a case in overall defense (although Wilt reduced Russell's FG%'s FAR more than Russell reduced Chamberlain's.)
I haven't been reading the last few pages, but I don't think trueDS or other posters are questioning non-scoring facets of Wilt's game.

[LAZERUSS]

OT - I've been reading more of bastillion's posting recently. I apologize for accusing him of being a troll, I just think he's a very enthusiastic poster.


I haven't been reading the last few pages, but I don't think trueDS or other posters are questioning non-scoring facets of Wilt's game.

Well, if you read read any of them, read the one above your's. I think it certainly puts Wilt's scoring, and efficiency, into a much better perspective.

[Audio One]

Holy shit... I think I used to like that guy because I appreciated the Hakeem scoring skills video and whatnot that he made and that's about all I knew about him... now that I've done more research on him I see he's a total a clown. I googled some more of his posts about Wilt, and I see he's the source of what many people recite. He's like THE source of all the long paragraphs trash and slanderous quotes about Wilt. Accuses Wilt fans of 'cherry picking' only to cherry pick himself. He's perpetuated the 6-6 white unskilled centers BS and the Wilt having a 24 inch vertical and 'unathletic/not special by today's standards' nonsense.

Someone posted me a link to Rick Barry comment recently that made me upload the Rick Barry's opinion of Wilt video just to expose that quote as a cherry picked outdated piece of information... turns out Fatal9 was that guys source of using that outdated quote in his anti-Wilt arguments. Really that guy sounds like a dick. Now I'm definitely going to make a Wilt offensive skills highlight, and it isn't just gonna be scoring moves it's gonna include passing, and all the types of plays he did that Hakeem didn't even do in the post let alone Bynum. Because **** that guy. He is straight wrong about his assumptions about Wilt and his era. You dont' need Hakeem's traveling I mean uhhh, footwork, or fluidity to be a dominant force in the paint when you're basically a taller version of Shaq minus the gut.

That ShaqAttack fellow's no different. Very knowledgeable poster, but has a HUGE bias aganist Russell and Wilt, as LAZERUSS can probably attest to that

[LAZERUSS]

That ShaqAttack fellow's no different. Very knowledgeable poster, but has a HUGE bias aganist Russell and Wilt, as LAZERUSS can probably attest to that

I respect ShaqAttack a lot, but you are right, at least about his stance on Wilt. Last I recall he seemed to hold Russell in a pretty high regard, though. But even he had softened his take on Chamberlain a while back. I certainly wouldn't call him a "Wilt-basher" like some of those other posters from RealGM.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Learn to read. I'm not saying he had no impact. I'm saying his impact wasn't as good as should be if he really was unstoppable scorer. I'm saying his volume scoring is overrated because it had slightly effect on offense. I'm saying he wasn't the best scorer ever, or even the best in his era, because Oscar and West were way better scorers in 60s and their scoring wasn't "empty" as they helped their teams offenses A LOT.

Wilt offensively was 3rd best player during 60s. Better than 4th Baylor, worse than 1st Oscar and 2nd West.

So Wilt wasn't the best of his era because Oscar and Jerry West never went H2H with Russell - THE greatest defender - therefor scored better against the Celtics? Makes sense.

[LAZERUSS]

So Wilt wasn't the best of his era because Oscar and Jerry West never went H2H with Russell, the greatest defender ever, therefor scored better against the Celtics? Makes sense.

The more you post, the more I like you. I may still disagree with you from time-to-time, but IMHO, you have become a very knowledgeable poster here.

:cheers:

If we had the old "rep" system here, I would do so.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The more you post, the more I like you. I may still disagree with you from time-to-time, but IMHO, you have become a very knowledgeable poster here.

:cheers:

If we had the old "rep" system here, I would do so.

I appreciate that, JL. Thank you :cheers:

[LAZERUSS]

If you had seen even one of Chamberlain's 60 point games - even as a Laker - or any of his 30 30 10 12 games.......... you'd never say another word like this.

You really just don't know what you are talking about, but simply juggle statistics.

There's never been an unstoppable player like Wilt Chamberlain unleashed.

Wilt's weakness, at least in the eyes of the Wilt-bashers, was the fact that he had so many unfathomable regular seasons. So, when his scoring, and FG% declined slightly in the post-season, (and again, going against HOFers almost his entire post-season career), they shout to the world..."choker." But, had Chamberlain "only" put up 25-20 seasons in his regular season career, and then exploded for those 35+ ppg and 25+ rpg post-seasons (and on eFG%s that were nearly 10% higher than the post-season league average), then he would have been hailed as the most "clutch" post-season performer of all-time.

Hell, they considered him being OUTPLAYED when his opposing centers held him to a few points less scoring, and a few percentage points lower on his FG%'s, while "raising" their own game. Bill Simmons used that "logic" in some of his laughable assertions. So, when Chamberlain was "only" outscoring those players by 15 ppg, instead of 20, and "only" outrebounding them by five per game, instead of 10, and "only" outshooting them by 10% from the field, instead of 15%...well, he was OUTPLAYED.

[fpliii]

I respect ShaqAttack a lot, but you are right, at least about his stance on Wilt. Last I recall he seemed to hold Russell in a pretty high regard, though. But even he had softened his take on Chamberlain a while back. I certainly wouldn't call him a "Wilt-basher" like some of those other posters from RealGM.
To be fair, we all have biases I'm sure. I have mine as well, but they concern playstyles I prefer more than anything.

[LAZERUSS]

To be fair, we all have biases I'm sure. I have mine as well, but they concern playstyles I prefer more than anything.

I actually consider you to be the most unbiased, and perhaps the most objective poster on this board. And your research is second to none (and that is saying a lot here, since there are a handful of posters that have been brilliant in that regard.)

[Audio One]

No. Highlights of Chamberlain don't begin to do justice to him. Video clips of blocked shots or slam dunks or even these great studies that Cavs is doing just don't show what made 13 the greatest.
It was his ability to completely overshadow the game for several minutes at a time. As a 3rd quarter would go along, he would get more and more remorseless, until it was just brutal. Not just blocking shots, but stopping every shot inside of 15 feet. The snap passes that usually throw a defense into disarray would fail against the Sixers because he and Chet Walker could switch back and forth so quickly that there was just no shot to be had. After 3 or 4 minutes of that TOTAL denial of shots you could see the complete intimidation on the faces of the other team.

On the other end........ you know, people make a big deal about somebody like Mattie Guokas saying something like "Chamberlain always insisted they wait for him to get down the court on offense so he would get an assist."

Lemme tell you, if that was Wilt & not Hannum maiking that decision, well, Chamberlain was absolutely correct in doing that because Guokas was a true scrub, on the court purely to give somebody 2 minutes of deep breathing on the bench. NOBODY wanted Guokas running anything, least of all Alex Hannum. Whenever Coach put that guy in the game he'd start pacing and looking at the clock, wishing the time would go faster so he could get a real player back in the game. Chamberlain threw a lot of deep passes and ran a lot of transition off his rebounds... just not to somebody like Mattie Guokas.

In '68 Wilt had mastered the all round game to the point where his triple double threat was so dangerous that despair set in for other NBA teams. Mailing it in became a major pastime for teams that went to Philly.

Highlights don't begin to show those kinds of things.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

I need to add you to my list of respected posters BTW.

Glad to have you aboard. We need more like you here.

[fpliii]

I actually consider you to be the most unbiased, and perhaps the most objective poster on this board. And your research is second to none (and that is saying a lot here, since there are a handful of posters that have been brilliant in that regard.)
I'm very much opposed to one-dimensional scorers though, and in general I really don't like my offense to be run through my bigs when building teams. Not a fan of the over-dependence on the pick-and-roll (I think it's fine in moderation) or isolations, and like more passing than dribbling.

I also don't prefer to rely on driving to the hoop too often. I'd much rather have guys who can score from midrange or in the post, since those are shots defenses will concede in the playoffs (the long 2 is one as well and is more valuable historically, but since teams need to defend the three, the midrange and post games are available often enough that you don't need to bother with a 20-foot jumper).

Additionally, I value mobility (on defense), help defense in general, and versatility very highly (don't value paint protection and man defense as much, but I'm a defense-first guy so both are huge). Don't care as much about offensive rebounding as defensive rebounding, boxing out is more important when on defense, and I think it's more important to get back on defense so the other team can't get out on the break (it's key to shut down the transition game).

A lot of this may seem fine to you, but I've gotten into far more than a handful of contentious discussions on this board, on other forums, and offline. As I've stated countless times, I don't have a GOAT list, but a good deal of my valuations of players are very, very, very far from the consensus.

[Audio One]

I respect ShaqAttack a lot, but you are right, at least about his stance on Wilt. Last I recall he seemed to hold Russell in a pretty high regard, though. But even he had softened his take on Chamberlain a while back. I certainly wouldn't call him a "Wilt-basher" like some of those other posters from RealGM.



Yes, i do believe he's overrated and I don't consider him a top 5 player. However, it's ridiculous top leave him out of the top 10 due to his impact on the evolution of the league and his peak('67). I covered that here.

http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=179763

His horrendous game 6 and passive game 7 in '68 while his team choked away a 3-1 lead in the Eastern Division Finals, his 11.7 ppg in the 1969 finals and just 8 points with a chance to clinch after averaging 20.5 in the regular season really hurt his career for me.

And while his final numbers(save for scoring efficiency) in the '66 series vs Boston look good, the team was in a 3-1 hole and Wilt had a monster game 5 when they lost, but it was too little, too late. He had only averaged 23.5 ppg on 48.5% shooting in the first 4 games. Granted his teammates played terribly as well, but Wilt didn't set the tone with his leadership, he was skipping practices so that has to be taken into consideration as well.

And in '62, most recaps suggest Russell outplayed him in that close 7 game series.

Really, his numbers aren't so mindblowing when put into perspective that they make up for the lack of championships and the underwhelming playoff performances. Now his rebounding was consistently excellent, but the 20+ rpg numbers are misleading because other guys were averaging that as well due to stars playing more minutes back then and there being so many more possessions available.

And in his 50 ppg season, he took 40 shots and 17 free throws per game which shows you how different the era was and why the stats must be put into perspective. And in the playoffs that year, he dropped to 35 ppg on 47% shooting with a TS% of 51% and 29 shots per game.



Destroyed? Your copy and paste essays written by someone else haven't destroyed anyone. And I still have no idea why you like the gifs of Wilt working out so much.......nobody else cares, irrelevant clips like that have nothing to do with what he did on the basketball court and you constantly posting them brings up a whole new series of questions.........

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3298261&postcount=9


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3298463&postcount=16

He thinks Hakeem is better than Bill Russell!?! :biggums: No, he gets no passes from me. He's really not that much different than the other Chamberlain haters, he's just not as blind. Same ****, different toilet

[LAZERUSS]

I'm very much opposed to one-dimensional scorers though, and in general I really don't like my offense to be run through my bigs when building teams. Not a fan of the over-dependence on the pick-and-roll (I think it's fine in moderation) or isolations, and like more passing than dribbling.

I also don't prefer to rely on driving to the hoop too often. I'd much rather have guys who can score from midrange or in the post, since those are shots defenses will concede in the playoffs (the long 2 is one as well and is more valuable historically, but since teams need to defend the three, the midrange and post games are available often enough that you don't need to bother with a 20-foot jumper).

Additionally, I value mobility (on defense), help defense in general, and versatility very highly (don't value paint protection and man defense as much, but I'm a defense-first guy so both are huge). Don't care as much about offensive rebounding as defensive rebounding, boxing out is more important when on defense, and I think it's more important to get back on defense so the other team can't get out on the break (it's key to shut down the transition game).

A lot of this may seem fine to you, but I've gotten into far more than a handful of contentious discussions on this board, on other forums, and offline. As I've stated countless times, I don't have a GOAT list, but a good deal of my valuations of players are very, very, very far from the consensus.

No matter what your opinions are, you back them up very well. Which is all I ask. Anyone can just make a claim like, "David Lee is the greatest player of all-time", but if they do, they had better have some research and criteria to back it up.

[LAZERUSS]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3298261&postcount=9


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3298463&postcount=16

He thinks Hakeem is better than Bill Russell!?! :biggums: No, he gets no passes from me. He's really not that much different than the other Chamberlain haters, he's just not as blind. Same ****, different toilet

Well, there is no question that he over-rated Hakeem. I believe he even had him in HIS top-5, which is a complete joke, since Olajuwon was seldom even considered a Top-5 player when he was actually playing (only FOUR times in the Top-4 in the MVP balloting, in 18 seasons, and only ONE MVP.)

[dankok8]

Let's start with this, shall we...



http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-wilt-meets-bill-and-tommy-4000-words









Now, we know that Russell was a proud man. Do you think he would sit next during an interview in which Chamberlain states this,



Listen at the five minute mark...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw

Again...Wilt faced RUSSELL, arguably the greatest defensive center of ALL-TIME, EIGHT times in his post-season career, and FIVE times in his "scoring" seasons (in fact, 30 of his 52 post-season games in that span.) Not only that, but there are those here who have suggested that BOSTON's team defenses from 60-66 were among the greatest ever.

But, when I bring up MJ's considerable decline against the Bad Boys in his four post-seasons, or Shaq's considerable decline against the Spurs in five post-season series, or even KAJ's DRAMATIC declines against Thurmond and Wilt in five playoff series...they either ignore it, or give it a light pass.


Fpliii has suggested, and quite correctly, that Wilt's teammates were such poor shooters, that opposing teams just sagged on Wilt.

And yet the Wilt-bashers will say that Wilt was much less effective in the post-season???

As for using TS% against Chamberlain...

Again, because of the FT shooting rules at the time, Fpliii's research has indicated that Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT% shooting was somewhat higher than his ACTUAL FT%. In fact, I would claim it was CONSIDERABLY higher. Why? Because with rules that had shooting fouls with 3-to-make2, and 2-to-make 1 (on made FGAs.) Think about that. In virtually very 2-to-1 situation, (and Wilt, along with Shaq were obviously the two of the greatest "and one" players of all-time), even if he missed both, it had no more impact than if he missed one in the current NBA. BUT, if he he made the second one, it was essentially the same as going 1-1. Same with the many 3-to-make-2's that he had in his career. The extra foul shot could only have helped his EFFECTIVE FT%'s.

So, with speculation, which is of course, what the Wilt-bashers use ALL the time, I would argue that Wilt's TS%, in both regular seasons, AND especially his post-seasons, was actually CONSIDERABLY higher in terms of EFFECTIVE TS%.

And, of course, the Wilt-bashers always avoid eFG% against LEAGUE AVERAGE eFG%, in which Chamberlain was miles ahead of his peers, and likely had the greatest separation against his peers than any other NBA player had against their's.

How did Oscar and West shoot and score so well then? I mean it was an era of poor outside shooting and packed paints how did they score? :oldlol:

But heck positions aside it's clear that Wilt is NOT the best postseason scorer in his own era. At best #3 behind West and Baylor. That's pretty damning for a player who's supposedly GOAT.

And we know by looking at team impact that Oscar made his team's offense much much better than Wilt ever did. Royals were #1 in ORtg for 4 or 5 straight years while Warriors were middle of the pack. And no Cinci didn't have better talent at all.

Let's compare playoff scoring numbers in prime scoring years:

Wilt ('60-'66) - 32.8 ppg on 50.5 %FG/52.0 %TS (52 games)

Baylor ('60-'63) - 35.8 ppg on 45.3 %FG/52.1 %TS (47 games)

- same efficiency with more volume

West ('62-'70) - 31.8 ppg on 48.3 %FG/55.6 %TS (108 games)

- very slightly less volume on much better efficiency

Oscar ('62-'67) - 29.7 ppg on 46.1 %FG/56.6 %TS (39 games)

- less volume on way better efficiency



Give me one postseason scorer better than prime Jordan in his era...

Give me one postseason scorer better than prime Shaq in his era...

Give me one postseason scorer better than prime Kareem in his era...

[LAZERUSS]

How did Oscar and West shoot and score so well then? I mean it was an era of poor outside shooting and packed paints how did they score? :oldlol:

But heck positions aside it's clear that Wilt is NOT the best postseason scorer in his own era. At best #3 behind West and Baylor. That's pretty damning for a player who's supposedly GOAT.

And we know by looking at team impact that Oscar made his team's offense much much better than Wilt ever did. Royals were #1 in ORtg for 4 or 5 straight years while Warriors were middle of the pack. And no Cinci didn't have better talent at all.

Let's compare playoff scoring numbers in prime scoring years:

Wilt ('60-'66) - 32.8 ppg on 50.5 %FG/52.0 %TS (52 games)

Baylor ('60-'63) - 35.8 ppg on 45.3 %FG/52.1 %TS (47 games)

- same efficiency with more volume

West ('62-'70) - 31.8 ppg on 48.3 %FG/55.6 %TS (108 games)

- very slightly less volume on much better efficiency

Oscar ('62-'67) - 29.7 ppg on 46.1 %FG/56.6 %TS (39 games)

- less volume on way better efficiency



Give me one postseason scorer better than prime Jordan in his era...

Give me one postseason scorer better than prime Shaq in his era...

And as always...

Chamberlain battled RUSSELL and his swarming Celtics FIVE times in his six prime scoring post-seasons.

What were Shaq's numbers against San Antonio again in his FIVE playoff series?

How about MJ's dramatic decline against the Pistons in his FOUR series against them?

Or Kareem's in his FIVE post-seasons against Wilt and Thurmond? And a few years later, Moses was outscoring him in damned every post-season H2H game, and some by huge margins.

Chamberlain was facing what those guys faced, but FAR more often, and generally much sooner, as well.

And I already TRASHED the TS%'s above. Wilt's EFFECTIVE TS%'s HAD to be higher than his ACTUAL TS%'s. The real question was, just how much? 2-3%, or more perhaps.

Not West, nor Oscar, nor Baylor, ever shot anywhere CLOSE to Wilt's FG%'s, either. Which means, that when they were DEFENDED they were MUCH easier to stop than Chamberlain was, when he was DEFENDED.

He was MILES ahead of those guys in eFG%'s.

[fpliii]

But again, Wilt's ACTUAL FT%, which, of course, affected his TS%'s, was lower than his EFFECTIVE FT%. If he even hit ONE of those "extra" FTs in his post-season career, it would have raised his TS%. The reality was, he was probably hitting about 50% of them. So then the question becomes, just how much higher was his EFFECTIVE TS%'s?

And, as you also claimed, the entire league benefitted from the bonus FTAs, but those that shot a considerably amount of FTs, and then particularly those that were relatively poor FT shooters, benefitted even moreso.
Ah okay, I follow now. This is correct, sorry if I misunderstood.

[LAZERUSS]

Thanks for sharing this. To be honest I had no idea about these penalty free throws. Appreciate your work as always! :cheers:



West faced the Celtics 7 times in 9 postseason and averaged a cumulative... wait for it... 32.7 ppg on 47.0 %FG and 55.1 %TS. Those are insane numbers and Wilt hasn't had a single series against the Celtics on that kind of level. :bowdown:

Baylor also had two monster series on Boston in '62 and '63 Finals. And Russell even defended him quite a lot in '62.

Look at the link fpiii shared above. Wilt's TS% in scoring years would improve by 0.2% to 0.6% per year. That's just negligible and I'm sure all other players' TS% from the era would improve as well.

Again the best we can do is compare players is by looking at their dominance in their own eras. Everything else is speculation. In the playoffs, who was better than Kareem, Shaq, or Jordan in their own eras? I'm afraid it's nobody...

As for Wilt? West and Baylor at the very least and Oscar is arguable. Just agree with that facts. I don't know how you can dispute it.

Fpliii already admitted that it was TSA, and not TS%'s. No way was it only 1%.

And I have already disputed it.

Oscar played in 39 playoff games, in his scoring prime, and with rosters better than what Wilt had. Most all ended in the first round. And no, he wasn't be primarily defended by RUSSELL, either. Oh, and he was 2-7 in H2H games with Chamberlain, and Wilt outscored him over the course of those nine games, and easily outshot him from the floor.

Same with West and Baylor. The TWO COMBINED couldn't do any better against Russell's Celtics, than Chamberlain by himself.

And again, NONE of those three came within MILES of Wilt's eFG%'s either.


But, of course, the Wilt-bashers will just throw out 80 regular season games, and then turn around and give Oscar (and Hakeem) credit for FIVE playoff games in a post-season.

And again, NOT West, nor Oscar, nor Baylor, anywhere near the overall team success that Wilt had either, and they had far more loaded rosters than what Wilt had in his first six seasons. And then after Wilt's first six seasons, he was LIGHT YEARS ahead of all three of them.

And had Wilt had the luxury of playing against even good, instead of great centers, who knows what post-season numbers he would have put up.

He had playoff series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, and 38.7 ppg against Red Kerr, who was a multiple all-star in his career, and then a 38.6 ppg .559 seven game series (and in a post-season that had an eFG% of .420) against Zelmo Beaty, who was also a multiple all-star. And then, in '67, he shelled Connie Dierking with a 28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .617 eFG% series, and in the first two games of that four game series, he hung games of 41 on 19-30 shooting, and then 37 on 16-24 shooting against him.

Instead, he was battling Bellamy in 10 playoff games, Reed in 12, a peak Kareem in 11, Thurmond in 16, and Russell in 49. And in his peak seasons, he played in 67 post-season games, 35 of which came against Russell and another six against a peak Thurmond. Oh, and he was just crushing Russell and Thurmond in those series, BTW.

[PHILA]

volume
http://i.imgur.com/KzhbT66.png


Boston's defense, stylistically. Prime scoring Wilt's offensive play style was easier for Boston's defense to stop than West's/Oscar's (or phrased differently, that West/Oscar stylistically were more suited to score against Boston's defense). No small part of this is going against Russell I'm sure (though obviously, with his great mobility, he guarded Oscar and West at times as well).

Russell was the anchor, but the Celtics had multiple playmakers on defense. The Sixers lost two playoff series (1966, 1968) primarily due to their inability to get the ball into Wilt. At the very least they'd have a much better chance at getting a good shot as opposed to a backcourt turnover. Oscar and West were the primary ball handlers on their teams. West even said he preferred to bring it up since he didn't want to give the defense a chance to deny him the ball in the half court.



Wilt: Larger Than Life - Robert Cherry

http://i.imgur.com/TahMgbC.png

[fpliii]

Look at the link fpiii shared above. Wilt's TS% in scoring years would improve by 0.2% to 0.6% per year. That's just negligible and I'm sure all other players' TS% from the era would improve as well.


Fpliii already admitted that it was TSA, and not TS%'s. No way was it only 1%.

And I have already disputed it.
Hm maybe I was unclear at some point, but the ∆ column is indeed difference in TS%. It is quite a big difference though (particularly from 67 on, when it went from penalty after 6th foul -> penalty after 5th foul), especially at that volume. Some seasons it increases his rounded TS% by 2 or more percent. Again, doesn't seem huge, but it is functionally, based on the volume.

[fpliii]

http://i.imgur.com/KzhbT66.png



Russell was the anchor, but the Celtics had multiple playmakers on defense. The Sixers lost two playoff series (1966, 1968) primarily due to their inability to get the ball into Wilt. At the very least they'd have a much better chance at getting a good shot as opposed to a backcourt turnover. Oscar and West were the primary ball handlers on their teams. West even said he preferred to bring it up since he didn't want to give the defense a chance to deny him the ball in the half court.



Wilt: Larger Than Life - Robert Cherry

http://i.imgur.com/TahMgbC.png
Thanks for the info. :cheers:

Was the ball denial primarily due to double teams, or Russell fronting him?

Also, do you any info/quotes on the quality of the jumpshooters on his teams (through 66, since we're talking volume scoring Wilt here)?

[Audio One]

I need to add you to my list of respected posters BTW.

Glad to have you aboard. We need more like you here.

http://oi36.tinypic.com/iyn1gz.jpg

[PHILA]

Was the ball denial primarily due to double teams, or Russell fronting him?
Primarily sagging defense and illegal shading.


Also, do you any info/quotes on the quality of the jumpshooters on his teams (through 66, since we're talking volume scoring Wilt here)?

With the Sixers it was excellent, though they inexplicably went ice cold in the 1966 series. But with the Warriors, other than Paul Arizin it was very mediocre at best. Even then Wilt noted how teams would sag in on him, preferring to give Arizin the outside shot.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183551

[fpliii]

Still doesn't show Wilt's EFFECTIVE TS%'s. It simply had to be considerably greater than his ACTUAL TS%'s.

As for the Wilt vs Boston...go back two pages and scroll down, and read my post on what Wilt was battling when he faced the Celtics...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=323251&page=17
This post, right?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9461568&postcount=247

(Apologies, I changed over to 40 posts displayed per page in the User CP, so links to specific pages of a thread don't work for me.)

I think based on the swarming defense/multiple defenders, it backs up what I said in my next post in (1) and (2). His poor FT shooting made fouling him an option, while his lack of shooters and second scorers (on the Warriors at least) made it a viable option.

[fpliii]

With the Sixers it was excellent, though they inexplicably went ice cold in the 1966 series. But with the Warriors, other than Paul Arizin it was very mediocre at best. Even then Wilt noted how teams would sag in on him as opposed to giving Arizin the outside shot.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183551
Thanks for the info!

[LAZERUSS]

Hm maybe I was unclear at some point, but the ∆ column is indeed difference in TS%. It is quite a big difference though (particularly from 67 on, when it went from penalty after 6th foul -> penalty after 5th foul), especially at that volume. Some seasons it increases his rounded TS% by 2 or more percent. Again, doesn't seem huge, but it is functionally, based on the volume.

Fpliii,

I just have to disagree with this. In Wilt's "scoring" post-seasons, he averaged over 12 FTAs per game. Now, I just have to believe that he was taking "bonus" shots of at least TWO per game. If he made just ONE of them, if that was indeed the case, that means that instead of going 5-10, he was now going 6-12, BUT, his EFFECTIVE FT% would have been 6-10.

Think about that. In his scoring post-seasons, Chamberlain 26.5 FGAs per game, and made about 13.3. Had he then averaged 6-10 from the line, instead of 5-10 (and his actual 6-12), his TRUE TS% (2pts for each FGA and 1 pt for each FT) would have risen from .502 to .517. That is almost a TWO percent rise in TS%. And that is with just two "bonus" shots per game.

[fpliii]

Fpliii,

I just have to disagree with this. In Wilt's "scoring" post-seasons, he averaged over 12 FTAs per game. Now, I just have to believe that he was taking "bonus" shots of at least TWO per game. If he made just ONE of them, if that was indeed the case, that means that instead of going 5-10, he was now going 6-12, BUT, his EFFECTIVE FT% would have been 6-10.

Think about that. In his scoring post-seasons, Chamberlain 26.5 FGAs per game, and made about 13.3. Had he then averaged 6-10 from the line, instead of 5-10 (and his actual 6-12), his TRUE TS% (2pts for each FGA and 1 pt for each FT) would have risen from .502 to .517. That is almost a TWO percent rise in TS%. And that is with just two "bonus" shots per game.
I understand where you're coming from, but the bonus rule kicked in only after six team fouls originally, and five from 66-67 or in the last two minutes of the game. Here are rules:

[quote]1954-55

[fpliii]

I have a file with fouls committed in every game of his career against Wilt though:

http://www10.zippyshare.com/v/51474728/file.html

I'm going to check playoff TS% in Wilt's prime scoring years against Boston, and against all other teams. I think this could be useful for the analysis, and it may give us more insight into team fouling against him in the postseason.

[LAZERUSS]

This post, right?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9461568&postcount=247

(Apologies, I changed over to 40 posts displayed per page in the User CP, so links to specific pages of a thread don't work for me.)

I think based on the swarming defense/multiple defenders, it backs up what I said in my next post in (1) and (2). His poor FT shooting made fouling him an option, while his lack of shooters and second scorers (on the Warriors at least) made it a viable option.

As you can see, it was Wilt vs. BOSTON in those H2H's. And it applied at the OTHER end, as well. For instance, (and these are just two examples), in game four of the '64 Finals, Russell tips in the winning basket, BUT, Wilt had jumped out to alter Tommy Heinsohn's shot. And in game seven of the '62 EDF's, Sam Jones hit the game-winning basket...over Wilt's out-stretched fingertips.

Wilt was as close to a one-man team as the league has ever seen. In fact, his teammates often had a negative impact. I have posted them before, but here they are again...




Wilt's HOF Teammate's Playoff FG%'s...

'60 Arizin .431 Gola .412
'61 Arizin .325 Gola .206
'62 Arizin .375 Gola .271
'63 Gola...played 21 games and was shipped out
'64 Thurmond .438
'65 Greer .455 Walker .480
'66 Greer .352 Cunningham .161 Walker .375
'67 Greer .429 Walker .467 Cunningham .376
'68 Greer .432 Walker .410 Cunningham broke wrist in first round (played 3 games)
'69 West .469 Baylor .385
'70 West .469 Baylor .466
'71 West and Baylor...both injured and do not play in playoffs. Goodrich .425
'72 Baylor retires after 9 nine games. West .376. Goodrich .445
'73 West .449 Goodrich .448

'62 Meschery was NOT an all-star. Shoots .397 in playoffs.
'63 Meschery (* All Star. Played 64 games. 16 ppg .425 FG% during season.)
'63 Rodgers (shoots .387 in regular season.
'64 Rodgers .329 in post-season.
'65 Jackson .338 in playoffs

And here were his teammates collective eFG%'s (minus Wilt's) in those post-seasons:


'60 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .380 from the field. Lose game six of EDF's.

'61 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .332 from the field. Lose in 1st round.

'62 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .354 from the field. Lose in game seven of EDF's.

'64 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .383 from the field. Lose in game five of Finals.

'65 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .413 from the field. Lose in game seven of EDF's.

'66 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .352 from the field. Lose in game five of EDF's.

'67 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .428 from the field. Wins Title

'68 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .416 from the field. Lose in game seven of EDF's.

'69 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .421 from the field. Lose game seven of Finals.

'70 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .469 from the field. Lose game seven of Finals.

'71 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .446 from the field. Lose game five of WCF's.

'72 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .414 from the field. Wins Title.

'73 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .446 from the field. Lose game five of Finals.

[fpliii]

Those are pretty bad percentages. Since we're only dealing with volume scoring Wilt in the playoffs here:

'60 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .380 from the field. Lose game six of EDF's.

'61 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .332 from the field. Lose in 1st round.

'62 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .354 from the field. Lose in game seven of EDF's.

'64 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .383 from the field. Lose in game five of Finals.

'65 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .413 from the field. Lose in game seven of EDF's.

'66 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .352 from the field. Lose in game five of EDF's.

League average in those seasons:

60 .410
61 .415
62 .426
64 .433
65 .426
66 .433

Well below average (playoff defenses are harder and they faced Boston, but those are terrible nonethless). So that means of my two theories, (2) is at least in part correct. I'm still working on the spreadsheet for fouling, which might help explain (1) (but part of it is stylistic, so we'll need more anecdotes of double teams and CavsFTW's scouting video).

[LAZERUSS]

And again, this "post-season means all" crap is pretty ridiculous.

Giving Oscar's post-seasons in which he played just five games, some kind of preference over Chamberlain's entire regular seasons, and then multiple playoff series, is just laughable.

Yep...let's just throw out 90% of an entire season, and with at least a solid share of those games having playoff implications...and just use five playoff games as THE true indication of a great scorer.

My god, Bernard King's 5 game series against the Pistons in 83-84, in which he averaged 42.6 ppg on an eFG% of .604, and a TS% of .644 would make him the all-time GOAT scorer. Let's just forget about the rest of his entire career, though, and use that ONE five game series, as THE measuring stick.

Luckily for Elway, Unitas, Jim Brown, and Willie Mays, that those guys's careers were not ranked solely on post-season play.

[Audio One]

For the advanced stats nerds:

http://basketballjournalist.blogspot.com/2011/08/best-defensive-centers-of-all-time.html

:bowdown:

[LAZERUSS]

Those are pretty bad percentages. Since we're only dealing with volume scoring Wilt in the playoffs here:

'60 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .380 from the field. Lose game six of EDF's.

'61 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .332 from the field. Lose in 1st round.

'62 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .354 from the field. Lose in game seven of EDF's.

'64 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .383 from the field. Lose in game five of Finals.

'65 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .413 from the field. Lose in game seven of EDF's.

'66 Playoffs. Teammates collectively shoot .352 from the field. Lose in game five of EDF's.

League average in those seasons:

60 .410
61 .415
62 .426
64 .433
65 .426
66 .433

Well below average (playoff defenses are harder and they faced Boston, but those are terrible nonethless). So that means of my two theories, (2) is at least in part correct. I'm still working on the spreadsheet for fouling, which might help explain (1) (but part of it is stylistic, so we'll need more anecdotes of double teams and CavsFTW's scouting video).


You were right, of course, post-season eFG% were a little tougher overall...

'60. .402
'61. .403
'62. .411
'64. .420
'65. .429
'66. .441.

BTW, here were Wilt's eFG%'s in those six post-seasons...

'60. .496 (and 30.5 ppg on a .500 eFG% against Russell)

'61. .469

'62. .467 (33.6 ppg on a .468 eFG% against Russell)

'64. .543 (29.2 ppg on a .517 eFG% against Russell) And 38.6 ppg on a .559 eFG% against the Hawks.

'65. .530 (30.1 ppg on a .555 eFG% against Russell)

'66. .509 (28.0 ppg on a .509 eFG% against Russell.)

And let's throw in his '67 as well.

Post-season League eFG% was .428.

Against the Royals, 28.0 ppg on a .617 eFG%
Against the Celtics, 21.6 ppg on a .556 eFG%
Against the Warriors, 17.5 ppg on a .560 eFG%.

I also like Wilt's '68 playoff series against Bellamy (and he held Bellamy to .421 BTW...in a season in which Bellamy shot .541 against the NBA) In a post-season that shot .446, Chamberlain averaged 25.0 ppg on a .584 eFG%.

[LAZERUSS]

For the advanced stats nerds:

http://basketballjournalist.blogspot.com/2011/08/best-defensive-centers-of-all-time.html

:bowdown:

Yep...no real surprise there, except perhaps Thurmond seems a bit low. But then again, he seldom won a playoff series. He certainly had Kareem's number in their three post-season H2H's.

[fpliii]

Wow, good find Lazeruss, you were right about the difference in TS% being too low.

I just found a huge error in my 3-for-2 research. When calculating % of the time in the penalty, I used:

4

[LAZERUSS]

[QUOTE=fpliii]Wow, good find Lazeruss, you were right about the difference in TS% being too low.

I just found a huge error in my 3-for-2 research. When calculating % of the time in the penalty, I used:

4

[fpliii]

You are so far ahead of me, you might as well type that formula in Russian.

BTW, those two formulas look identical to me.

I wish I had even a tenth of your mathematical ability.

Glad it's you and not me tasked with this research.

In any case, it is greatly appreciated.
Oops sorry, fixed it. The second one (fixed version) does not have x.875.

[MichaelCorleone]

It's time we move on to a more competitive, more entertaining era of basketball.

[LAZERUSS]

Oops sorry, fixed it. The second one (fixed version) does not have x.875.

Of course, I had no idea what I was really looking at, but glad you do.

[fpliii]

So it's not a massive difference, but it's still quite big:


sPF% tTS% tTSA ∆
1960 0.22 0.492 38.6 0.5%
1961 0.25 0.523 37.2 0.7%
1962 0.23 0.539 47.2 0.5%
1963 0.23 0.555 40.8 0.5%
1964 0.25 0.543 34.4 0.7%
1965tot 0.23 0.519 33.8 0.6%
1965sfw 0.23 0.501 39.3 0.6%
1965phi 0.23 0.547 27.8 0.6%
1966 0.24 0.556 30.5 0.7%
1967 0.39 0.656 19.0 2.1%
1968 0.39 0.579 21.6 1.7%
1969 0.37 0.581 18.3 1.8%
1970 0.36 0.564 25.0 1.6%
1971 0.34 0.562 18.8 1.2%
1972 0.32 0.614 12.4 1.6%
1973 0.30 0.650 10.5 1.9%
1960P 0.22 0.497 33.8 0.6%
1961P 0.25 0.495 37.8 0.6%
1962P 0.23 0.510 34.6 0.5%
1964P 0.25 0.549 32.0 0.7%
1965P 0.23 0.560 26.5 0.8%
1966P 0.24 0.511 27.9 0.9%
1967P 0.39 0.562 20.0 1.8%
1968P 0.39 0.531 23.0 1.6%
1969P 0.37 0.536 13.4 1.9%
1970P 0.36 0.538 21.2 1.6%
1971P 0.34 0.483 19.4 1.0%
1972P 0.32 0.566 13.4 1.7%
1973P 0.30 0.523 10.3 1.7%

But here's the TSA/TS% data against Boston and other opponents in the playoffs:

http://i.imgur.com/3OIGAXx.png

So against Boston 28.9 TSA on .528 TS%, against everyone else 24.5 TSA on .522 TS%, or 4.5 fewer TSA on +.006 TS% against the Celtics.

[LAZERUSS]

So it's not a massive difference, but it's still quite big:


sPF% tTS% tTSA ∆
1960 0.22 0.492 38.6 0.5%
1961 0.25 0.523 37.2 0.7%
1962 0.23 0.539 47.2 0.5%
1963 0.23 0.555 40.8 0.5%
1964 0.25 0.543 34.4 0.7%
1965tot 0.23 0.519 33.8 0.6%
1965sfw 0.23 0.501 39.3 0.6%
1965phi 0.23 0.547 27.8 0.6%
1966 0.24 0.556 30.5 0.7%
1967 0.39 0.656 19.0 2.1%
1968 0.39 0.579 21.6 1.7%
1969 0.37 0.581 18.3 1.8%
1970 0.36 0.564 25.0 1.6%
1971 0.34 0.562 18.8 1.2%
1972 0.32 0.614 12.4 1.6%
1973 0.30 0.650 10.5 1.9%
1960P 0.22 0.497 33.8 0.6%
1961P 0.25 0.495 37.8 0.6%
1962P 0.23 0.510 34.6 0.5%
1964P 0.25 0.549 32.0 0.7%
1965P 0.23 0.560 26.5 0.8%
1966P 0.24 0.511 27.9 0.9%
1967P 0.39 0.562 20.0 1.8%
1968P 0.39 0.531 23.0 1.6%
1969P 0.37 0.536 13.4 1.9%
1970P 0.36 0.538 21.2 1.6%
1971P 0.34 0.483 19.4 1.0%
1972P 0.32 0.566 13.4 1.7%
1973P 0.30 0.523 10.3 1.7%

But here's the TSA/TS% data against Boston and other opponents in the playoffs:

http://i.imgur.com/3OIGAXx.png

So against Boston 28.9 TSA on .528 TS%, against everyone else 24.5 TSA on .522 TS%, or 4.5 fewer TSA on +.006 TS% against the Celtics.


Not sure exactly what I am looking at (no surprise there of course), but what do you come up with Wilt's total effective TS%'s?

In other words, we know that his actual listed '60 playoff TS% was .498, so does your research indicate a .519? Or about a full 2% higher?

Or are you using a TRUE TS%, instead of the .44 TS%? In which case, you would have to adjust your numbers a little higher.

[fpliii]

Not sure exactly what I am looking at (no surprise there of course), but what do you come up with Wilt's total effective TS%'s?

In other words, we know that his actual listed '60 playoff TS% was .498, so does your research indicate a .519? Or about a full 2% higher?
Ah sorry, there are two pieces of data here, a table and a picture.

The table is for entire playoff runs or seasons, and has four columns:

sPF% = % of time his team was in the penalty
tTS% = true TS%
tTSA = true TSA
∆ = difference from basketball-reference.com TS%

The graphic is a screenshot of my spreadsheet with numbers and information. Again, tTS% and tTSA are the valuable data here, but I left the numbers from my calculations in, along with the number of games from each year and opponent. Of the columns that aren't obvious:

%poss = percentage of free throw attempts which are possessional (i.e. not penalties, etc.)
coeff = coefficient in TS% (.44 is used typically, but there's some variation from season-to-season based on foul rates on FGA)
aTS% = what WOULD be TS% if his opponent was in the penalty 100 of the time
PF = average personal fouls by his opponents per game (these aren't whole numbers, I just truncated it from displaying decimals)

[fpliii]

Or are you using a TRUE TS%, instead of the .44 TS%? In which case, you would have to adjust your numbers a little higher.
I'm not sure what TRUE TS% is, but here are the values if I change the coefficient to .44 for every playoff series:

http://i.imgur.com/Xl8zCPC.png

[LAZERUSS]

I'm not sure what TRUE TS% is, but here are the values if I change the coefficient to .44 for every playoff series:

http://i.imgur.com/Xl8zCPC.png

I won't argue with your research, especially when I wouldn't even know where to begin to do mine, but it still does seem a tad low.

Still, it is just a shade under a full percent. I suspect the rest of the league would have also benefitted, but probably at a much lower rate overall.

Overall, it does add probably at least a half percent against league average.

So, if he was shooting 4% above the post-season league average in his post-season career, which is about what he was doing, it would now be around 4.5%, and likely even higher, since those TS% numbers rose considerably after '66. In fact, it might now approach 5% over the course of his entire post-season career.

[fpliii]

I won't argue with your research, especially when I wouldn't even know where to begin to do mine, but it still does seem a tad low.

Still, it is just a shade under a full percent. I suspect the rest of the league would have also benefitted, but probably at a much lower rate overall.

Overall, it does add probably at least a half percent against league average.

So, if he was shooting 4% above the post-season league average in his post-season career, which is about what he was doing, it would now be around 4.5%, and likely even higher, since those TS% numbers rose considerably after '66. In fact, it might now approach 5% over the course of his entire post-season career.
The rest of the league benefited, but by very little. Again, you have to be very very bad at shooting FT's and attempt a lot of them. This was only an issue with the Wilt formula (since as I said, I found the opponent fouls for each game in his career instead of using league average PF rate), but from my initial research (quoting myself on RealGM), these were the only other players who were affected:


In the first spreadsheet, see the last sheet for some test cases (I checked the players who averaged at least 9.5PPG from the above B-R queries). All of them fell between 0.6%-0.8%. I think these are probably the player-seasons most affected by the rule (you can try others yourself, or nominate them for me to attempt). Here they are:

67 Russell (+0.7%), 68 Green (+0.6%), 69 Russell (+0.7%), 73 Bellamy (+0.8%), 81 McGinnis (+0.7%), 69 playoffs Caldwell (+0.7%), 69 playoffs Russell (+0.6%), 69 playoffs Kimball (+0.6%), 70 playoffs Ogden (+0.7%), 75 playoffs Rowe (+0.8%), 76 playoffs Shumate (+0.7%), 79 playoffs King (+0.8%).

Of non-Wilt scorers from the era, West had one instance (68 playoffs) in which he was at +.5%.

This was really a Wilt issue alone.

[fpliii]

BTW I fixed a problem with my estimated relative playoffs ORtg/DRtg estimates in my files that I shared last week. I was somewhat overrating offense and somewhat underrating defense because I double counted one term (higher positive number is better for both):


Team pO pD
60 PHW 2% 6%
61 PHW -6% 4%
62 PHW 2% 6%
63 SFW -- --
64 SFW 2% -2%
65 SFW -- --
65 PHI 10% 2%
66 PHI -2% -6%
67 PHI 2% 9%
68 PHI 2% -0%
69 LAL -0% -2%
70 LAL 6% 10%
71 LAL -1% 7%
72 LAL 2% 9%
73 LAL 5% 5%

[LAZERUSS]

The rest of the league benefited, but by very little. Again, you have to be very very bad at shooting FT's and attempt a lot of them. This was only an issue with the Wilt formula (since as I said, I found the opponent fouls for each game in his career instead of using league average PF rate), but from my initial research (quoting myself on RealGM), these were the only other players who were affected:



Of non-Wilt scorers from the era, West had one instance (68 playoffs) in which he was at +.5%.

This was really a Wilt issue alone.

Your research is just remarkable.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[fpliii]

Your research is just remarkable.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:
All of that being said, a huge part of the lowered TS%, as you are aware, is due to Wilt's abysmal FT shooting. You obviously can't discount it though, since it's still a possession, but this research isn't an indictment of his ability to score from the floor.

To get into that, we'll need to see the full tape to analyze his scoring. Fortunately, CavsFTW's scouting video will come out soon which will be some help in taking a look at Wilt's offensive game.

The other means of analysis is relative estimate ORtg trends. The difficulty in this, though, is that there's not much in the sample from seasons in which he had a good supporting cast and was still a volume scorer. We really only have the second half of 64-65, all of 65-66, and 69-70 before getting hurt (maybe someone could analyze his hot scoring stretches in 66-67, 67-68, 68-69 as well, but that's tough I think) though so it's tough to make those determinations.

This may be an unpopular view, but at the moment I think Wilt was more impactful on defense than he was on offense (he himself said he came into the league as a defensive player). Again, this is just my present stance, and I'm open to reconsidering with more data/information.

[LAZERUSS]

One thing was clear, however, and that was in Wilt's "scoring" prime post-season play, his games against non-Celtic teams is just way too low a number to consider it a sampling size. Only 22 games. He still averaged 35.5 ppg in them, and on a decent FG%, (and despite the .502 FG%, it was still MILES ahead of the post-season league average in that span, of about .420.)

But I really think three non-Russell series deserve mention, and two of those came in the '67 and '68 post-seasons.

The first one was his staggering 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg, .559 eFG% seven game series against Zelmo Beaty...and in a post-season that averaged 105.8 ppg on a .420 eFG%.

The second one was in the first round of the '67 playoffs, when Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, and shot .617 from the field. In the first two games of that series, he put up a 41 point game, on 19-30 shooting from the field, and then a 38 point game, on 16-24 from the floor. The rest of that four game series he concentrated on passing,...and in game three, he hung a 16 point, 30 rebound, 19 assist game.

The last one came in the first round of the '68 playoffs, and against HOFer Walt Bellamy. In that series, he held Bellamy to a .421 FG% (in a season in which he shot .541 against the entire NBA), while averaging 25 ppg on a .584 eFG% himself. Oh, and he outrebounded Bellamy by a 24-16 rpg margin, as well. In the first game of that series, he exploded for 37 points, on 17-29 shooting (and 29 rebounds.)

I don't think there is any question, that had Chamberlain had the benefit of playing in another conference instead of having to battle Boston in either in his first, or second round, in six of those eight seasons (and in four of his five "scoring" seasons), that his post-season numbers would have been considerably higher. And, given the fact that he was routinely hanging 60+ point games on the Lakers in his "scoring" seasons, and given the fact that Russell was putting up 23 ppg .540 eFG% and even 18 ppg .700 eFG% series against them, ...well one can only imagine what Chamberlain would have leveled them with.

[LAZERUSS]

All of that being said, a huge part of the lowered TS%, as you are aware, is due to Wilt's abysmal FT shooting. You obviously can't discount it though, since it's still a possession, but this research isn't an indictment of his ability to score from the floor.

To get into that, we'll need to see the full tape to analyze his scoring. Fortunately, CavsFTW's scouting video will come out soon which will be some help in taking a look at Wilt's offensive game.

The other means of analysis is relative estimate ORtg trends. The difficulty in this, though, is that there's not much in the sample from seasons in which he had a good supporting cast and was still a volume scorer. We really only have the second half of 64-65, all of 65-66, and 69-70 before getting hurt (maybe someone could analyze his hot scoring stretches in 66-67, 67-68, 68-69 as well, but that's tough I think) though so it's tough to make those determinations.

This may be an unpopular view, but at the moment I think Wilt was more impactful on defense than he was on offense (he himself said he came into the league as a defensive player). Again, this is just my present stance, and I'm open to reconsidering with more data/information.

No question that his FT shooting his overall production. But,..and this is important...his eFG%'s, especially against the post-season league averages, was just staggering. Why was that so significant? Again, when he was DEFENDED, he was still putting up huge scoring, and highly efficient games, from the field. No one, and that includes Russell and his swarming teammates, could stop him. Their only real defense was to foul, and hope that he would miss the FTs. And we really don't know just how many "and-one's" that Chamberlain had in his post-season career (well, maybe you do now.) Those are significant, because, whether he made the FT, or not, it was purely a bonus (obviously it was still a lost point in the long run, but, it was a point that the majority of the others were not getting.)

And your take on Chamberlain's defensive presence has been confirmed by Defensive Win Shares. He has the two highest "non-Russell" seasons in NBA history, and three more in the top-29 (and really, I think something is completely amiss if his '67 season only ranked 63rd.)

His individual defense, particularly in the post-season, was perhaps the best ever. He routinely limited his opposing centers to a much lower eFG% than their regular season averages. And, how about this? He held Russell even more under his regular season eFG%, in their 49 post-season games, than Russell held Wilt under his. And again, Chamberlain was putting up monster FG% seasons.

Of course, Kareem can attest to that, as well. In their two playoff series H2H's, Chamberlain held Kareem to .481 and .457, in seasons in which KAJ shot .577 and .574 respectively.

[dankok8]

Fpliii already admitted that it was TSA, and not TS%'s. No way was it only 1%.

And I have already disputed it.

Oscar played in 39 playoff games, in his scoring prime, and with rosters better than what Wilt had. Most all ended in the first round. And no, he wasn't be primarily defended by RUSSELL, either. Oh, and he was 2-7 in H2H games with Chamberlain, and Wilt outscored him over the course of those nine games, and easily outshot him from the floor.

Same with West and Baylor. The TWO COMBINED couldn't do any better against Russell's Celtics, than Chamberlain by himself.

And again, NONE of those three came within MILES of Wilt's eFG%'s either.


But, of course, the Wilt-bashers will just throw out 80 regular season games, and then turn around and give Oscar (and Hakeem) credit for FIVE playoff games in a post-season.

And again, NOT West, nor Oscar, nor Baylor, anywhere near the overall team success that Wilt had either, and they had far more loaded rosters than what Wilt had in his first six seasons. And then after Wilt's first six seasons, he was LIGHT YEARS ahead of all three of them.

And had Wilt had the luxury of playing against even good, instead of great centers, who knows what post-season numbers he would have put up.

He had playoff series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, and 38.7 ppg against Red Kerr, who was a multiple all-star in his career, and then a 38.6 ppg .559 seven game series (and in a post-season that had an eFG% of .420) against Zelmo Beaty, who was also a multiple all-star. And then, in '67, he shelled Connie Dierking with a 28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .617 eFG% series, and in the first two games of that four game series, he hung games of 41 on 19-30 shooting, and then 37 on 16-24 shooting against him.

Instead, he was battling Bellamy in 10 playoff games, Reed in 12, a peak Kareem in 11, Thurmond in 16, and Russell in 49. And in his peak seasons, he played in 67 post-season games, 35 of which came against Russell and another six against a peak Thurmond. Oh, and he was just crushing Russell and Thurmond in those series, BTW.

I'm not doubting Wilt's competition in the postseason but he's still only the 3rd best postseason scorer in his own era, after West and Baylor.

Oscar had far more loaded teams that Wilt? Are you shitting me? Even the two seasons Big O had both Jerry Lucas and Jack Twyman in their primes he had no defensive talent on his team whatsoever. And Lucas was injured in the '64 playoffs against the Celtics when Royals were at their best and Oscar won MVP.

Baylor and West had each other but how about that gaping hole at C? Russell was dominating their frontline.

[LAZERUSS]

To get into that, we'll need to see the full tape to analyze his scoring. Fortunately, CavsFTW's scouting video will come out soon which will be some help in taking a look at Wilt's offensive game.

I am really looking forward to it.

But, having said that, it is just a pure shame that we don't have even ONE of Chamberlain's 271 40+ point games on video. Well, we do have the bulk of his '62 ASG, when he scored 42 points, on 17-23 (and he looked brilliant in that BTW.)

The reality is/was, there only exists about 2% of Wilt's actual game footage. And given the fact that those that watched an early Chamberlain have attested to the fact that he had very good range...




Carl Braun said, "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."

--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70

...I doubt we will ever really get to see the best of what Chamberlain was capable of.

[fpliii]

No question that his FT shooting his overall production. But,..and this is important...his eFG%'s, especially against the post-season league averages, was just staggering. Why was that so significant? Again, when he was DEFENDED, he was still putting up huge scoring, and highly efficient games, from the field. No one, and that includes Russell and his swarming teammates, could stop him. Their only real defense was to foul, and hope that he would miss the FTs. And we really don't know just how many "and-one's" that Chamberlain had in his post-season career (well, maybe you do now.) Those are significant, because, whether he made the FT, or not, it was purely a bonus (obviously it was still a lost point in the long run, but, it was a point that the majority of the others were not getting.)

And your take on Chamberlain's defensive presence has been confirmed by Defensive Win Shares. He has the two highest "non-Russell" seasons in NBA history, and three more in the top-29 (and really, I think something is completely amiss if his '67 season only ranked 63rd.)

His individual defense, particularly in the post-season, was perhaps the best ever. He routinely limited his opposing centers to a much lower eFG% than their regular season averages. And, how about this? He held Russell even more under his regular season eFG%, in their 49 post-season games, than Russell held Wilt under his. And again, Chamberlain was putting up monster FG% seasons.

Of course, Kareem can attest to that, as well. In their two playoff series H2H's, Chamberlain held Kareem to .481 and .457, in seasons in which KAJ shot .577 and .574 respectively.
I'm not a big fan of DWS, but the team wasn't exceptional defensively during the regular season. Here's the defense column from the table from before, with the season numbers too::


Team D pD
60 PHW 5% 6%
61 PHW 2% 4%
62 PHW 1% 6%
63 SFW -3% --
64 SFW 7% -2%
65 SFW 1% --
65 PHI -1% 2%
66 PHI 4% -6%
67 PHI 2% 9%
68 PHI 6% -0%
69 LAL 0% -2%
70 LAL 2% 10%
71 LAL -0% 7%
72 LAL 3% 9%
73 LAL 4% 5%
Wilt's teams were generally very good defensively. 63 Warriors and 66 Sixers playoffs were his only bad defensive teams.

[fpliii]

I am really looking forward to it.

But, having said that, it is just a pure shame that we don't have even ONE of Chamberlain's 271 40+ point games on video. Well, we do have the bulk of his '62 ASG, when he scored 42 points, on 17-23 (and he looked brilliant in that BTW.)

The reality is/was, there only exists about 2% of Wilt's actual game footage. And given the fact that those that watched an early Chamberlain have attested to the fact that he had very good range...



...I doubt we will ever really get to see the best of what Chamberlain was capable of.
When did you start watching? Did you get to see much of Warriors Wilt, or mostly Sixers/Lakers versions?

If you saw younger Wilt, was he taking straight-on jumpers, or were they out of the post? Were there any non-fadeaways, and what kind of range are we talking?

[LAZERUSS]

I'm not doubting Wilt's competition in the postseason but he's still only the 3rd best postseason scorer in his own era, after West and Baylor.

Oscar had far more loaded teams that Wilt? Are you shitting me? Even the two seasons Big O had both Jerry Lucas and Jack Twyman in their primes he had no defensive talent on his team whatsoever. And Lucas was injured in the '64 playoffs against the Celtics when Royals were at their best and Oscar won MVP.

Baylor and West had each other but how about that gaping hole at C? Russell was dominating their frontline.

And, can you imagine what WILT would have carpet-bombed those Laker teams with? Hell, in his '62 season alone, he hung THREE 60+ point games on them, including a 78-43 game. Oh, and then he followed that up with THREE MORE 60+ games in '63, including a 72 pointer. My god, he might have been outscoring Baylor and West combined in some of those games.

As for the rest of your post...again, you are giving Oscar's meager number of playoff games WAY TOO much credit. Only 39 total games in his scoring prime.

And one more time, Chamberlain was MILES ahead of West, Baylor, and Oscar, in eFG%'s in the post-seasons. He was even crushing the great RUSSELL for cryingoutloud (and Russell had his entire supporting cast backing him up, too.)

The only way to stop Wilt, was to foul him.

And finally...yes, let's just completely ignore full 80+ game seasons, and go with as little as five game playoff series...

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[LAZERUSS]

When did you start watching? Did you get to see much of Warriors Wilt, or mostly Sixers/Lakers versions?

If you saw younger Wilt, was he taking straight-on jumpers, or were they out of the post? Were there any non-fadeaways, and what kind of range are we talking?

I started following the major sports around '63 ('63-64 for the NBA.) And Wilt was routinely hitting turn-around 10-12 footers, as well as fade-away bank shots back then. I don't really recall any of those 15 ft jump shots that he exhibited in college, but I am convinced that he shot them early in his NBA career, (which would explain his lower FG%s.)

And regarding that outside shot selection...while overall it may not have been as effective (and probably not even nearly as effective) as his other post moves and shots, it was still a means of shooting, and scoring. And it probably also opened up the defense (and defenders) somewhat, because, he was making at least some of them. In any case, it basically meant that Wilt could shoot at will, and score in doing so, (and who knows how many times he followed up his misses, either.)

Overall, he was MUCH quicker than anything that was displayed in Fatal's footage, and with more variety.

If you like, here is at least a taste of what THAT Chamberlain was capable of...

(and it is too bad that the near full version is no longer on YouTube)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09xvhy9paR0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbkNazC351k

[fpliii]

I started following the major sports around '63 ('63-64 for the NBA.) And Wilt was routinely hitting turn-around 10-12 footers, as well as fade-away bank shots back then. I don't really recall any of those 15 ft jump shots that he exhibited in college, but I am convinced that he shot them early in his NBA career, (which would explain his lower FG%s.)

And regarding that outside shot selection...while overall it may not have been as effective (and probably not even nearly as effective) as his other post moves and shots, it was still a means of shooting, and scoring. And it probably also opened up the defense (and defenders) somewhat, because, he was making at least some of them. In any case, it basically meant that Wilt could shoot at will, and score in doing so, (and who knows how many times he followed up his misses, either.)

Overall, he was MUCH quicker than anything that was displayed in Fatal's footage, and with more variety.

If you like, here is at least a taste of what THAT Chamberlain was capable of...

(and it is too bad that the near full version is no longer on YouTube)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09xvhy9paR0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbkNazC351k
Cool, thanks for the info. 10-12 foot range doesn't seem unreasonable. If he could hit the 15 foot jumper he would've been a good fit at the high post, since there's the threat of a shot.

[LAZERUSS]

I'm not doubting Wilt's competition in the postseason but he's still only the 3rd best postseason scorer in his own era, after West and Baylor.

Oscar had far more loaded teams that Wilt? Are you shitting me? Even the two seasons Big O had both Jerry Lucas and Jack Twyman in their primes he had no defensive talent on his team whatsoever. And Lucas was injured in the '64 playoffs against the Celtics when Royals were at their best and Oscar won MVP.

Baylor and West had each other but how about that gaping hole at C? Russell was dominating their frontline.

BTW, during the WILT-era, and aside from Chamberlain, there were a TOTAL of FIVE 60+ point games (Baylor had four, and West had one)...

Chamberlain had 32.

If it were so easy to score 60+ points back then, how come Wilt was the only guy routinely doing it?

Same with 50 and 40 point games. Chamberlain was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his peers.

Why ONLY Wilt?

[trueDS]

So Wilt wasn't the best of his era because Oscar and Jerry West never went H2H with Russell - THE greatest defender - therefor scored better against the Celtics? Makes sense.

I showed playoff stats vs non Russell teams. West and Oscar were better scorers against these teams than Wilt. So stop using Russell as a excuse.

[trueDS]

That ShaqAttack fellow's no different. Very knowledgeable poster, but has a HUGE bias aganist Russell and Wilt, as LAZERUSS can probably attest to that

You guys are hilarious. If very knowledgeable poster don't think Wilt was unstoppable scorer then he "have bias against Wilt". Guess what, maybe it's you who is Wilt's lover and doesn't see truth...

[Fresh Kid]

It's time we move on to a more competitive, more entertaining era of basketball.
dis niguh:facepalm

[CavaliersFTW]

You guys are hilarious. If very knowledgeable poster don't think Wilt was unstoppable scorer then he "have bias against Wilt". Guess what, maybe it's you who is Wilt's lover and doesn't see truth...
By default if you think Wilt wasn't an unstoppable scorer (something every single one of his peers and contemporaries refer to him as being, and that record books confirm) than you are NOT a knowledgeable poster. You think forming a conclusion against the grain of every one who saw him play or played against him makes you special or something? No, it puts you in the same frame of mind as those people who think men didn't land on the moon, or government conspiracy theorists, or whatever other category of crackpot loonies. Wilt when his role was to score was the most prolific scorer the game has ever known, and the next best isn't close. Denying this it silly :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

I showed playoff stats vs non Russell teams. West and Oscar were better scorers against these teams than Wilt. So stop using Russell as a excuse.
A point guard and a shooting guard ...vs a center, yeah cause they guarded each other... :facepalm


God damn you are more retarded than I thought :biggums:

[dankok8]

And, can you imagine what WILT would have carpet-bombed those Laker teams with? Hell, in his '62 season alone, he hung THREE 60+ point games on them, including a 78-43 game. Oh, and then he followed that up with THREE MORE 60+ games in '63, including a 72 pointer. My god, he might have been outscoring Baylor and West combined in some of those games.

As for the rest of your post...again, you are giving Oscar's meager number of playoff games WAY TOO much credit. Only 39 total games in his scoring prime.

And one more time, Chamberlain was MILES ahead of West, Baylor, and Oscar, in eFG%'s in the post-seasons. He was even crushing the great RUSSELL for cryingoutloud (and Russell had his entire supporting cast backing him up, too.)

The only way to stop Wilt, was to foul him.

And finally...yes, let's just completely ignore full 80+ game seasons, and go with as little as five game playoff series...

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Don't exaggerate buddy. Wilt faced some "scrubs" in his career too like vs. the Nats and Royals and he didn't put up ridiculous numbers. Better than against Russell but not by much.

Oscar played 39 games in his scoring prime, Wilt 52 games. Weak argument.

eFG% is nice and all but overall efficiency depends on free throws as well. Comparing FG% between a C and a bunch of backcourt players seems pretty flawed no? Let's compare assists while we're at it?

Wilt is the BEST regular season scorer of his generation there is no argument. But in the postseason he was the #3 or #4 scorer. The numbers don't lie.


By default if you think Wilt wasn't an unstoppable scorer (something every single one of his peers and contemporaries refer to him as being, and that record books confirm) than you are NOT a knowledgeable poster. You think forming a conclusion against the grain of every one who saw him play or played against him makes you special or something? No, it puts you in the same frame of mind as those people who think men didn't land on the moon, or government conspiracy theorists, or whatever other category of crackpot loonies. Wilt when his role was to score was the most prolific scorer the game has ever known, and the next best isn't close. Denying this it silly

If TrueDS made that post about Wilt not being a dominating scorer in a vacuum I'd agree with you but he was making his argument from the standpoint of postseason scoring. Wilt was NOT the best postseason scorer of his era. There may be reasons for that but it's still a fact.

[LAZERUSS]

I showed playoff stats vs non Russell teams. West and Oscar were better scorers against these teams than Wilt. So stop using Russell as a excuse.

Flat out lie...

A prime Oscar (from 60-68) played in 22 playoff games against non-Boston teams, and averaged 28.4 ppg on .486 eFG%.

A prime Baylor (from 60-63 and only 4 seasons BTW) played in 34 playoff games against non-Boston teams, and averaged 35.2 ppg on .457 eFG%.

A prime West (from 62-70) played in 62 non-Boston games and averaged 31.4 ppg on an eFG% of .491.

A prime Wilt played in 22 non-Boston games, and averaged 36.0 ppg on a .503 eFG%.


Wilt was easily the best SCORER of the group.

Of course, the Wilt-bashers will never mention that Chamberlain's horrific 62-63 roster was so bad, that his team didn't make the playoffs, ... in a season in which Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG% (and averaged 38 ppg against Russell in nine H2H's.)

And before some idiot claims that Wilt was a "loser" in 62-63 (despite leading the league in 15 statistical categories, including running away with the scoring title, and setting a then FG% record), ...how about Oscar? A prime Oscar missed TWO playoff seasons ('61 and '68.)



And I get so sick-and-tired of the FLAWED TS%'s. In any case, we know that when was those four players were DEFENDED, Chamberlain was a considerably better, and more efficient shooter.

The reality was, Chamberlain's "scoring prime" only involved 52 playoff games, 30 of which came against Russell's Celtics. Had he been in the Western Conference in all of those seven seasons (and made the playoffs in '63), he likely would have been slaughtering the Lakers year-after-year (win or lose.) Hell, in the one season in which he was in the Western Conference, he averaged 38.6 ppg on an eFG% of .559 and in a seven game series.

[LAZERUSS]

Don't exaggerate buddy. Wilt faced some "scrubs" in his career too like vs. the Nats and Royals and he didn't put up ridiculous numbers. Better than against Russell but not by much.

Oscar played 39 games in his scoring prime, Wilt 52 games. Weak argument.

eFG% is nice and all but overall efficiency depends on free throws as well. Comparing FG% between a C and a bunch of backcourt players seems pretty flawed no? Let's compare assists while we're at it?

Wilt is the BEST regular season scorer of his generation there is no argument. But in the postseason he was the #3 or #4 scorer. The numbers don't lie.



If TrueDS made that post about Wilt not being a dominating scorer in a vacuum I'd agree with you but he was making his argument from the standpoint of postseason scoring. Wilt was NOT the best postseason scorer of his era. There may be reasons for that but it's still a fact.

Every bit of this is pure BS and and with an OBVIOUS anti-Wilt agenda.

How about this comment from trueDS:


In other words - please, show that Wilt was unstoppable scorer, but use only playoffs. Forget about regular season, it's really not that much important

Yep, the 80-82 regular season games aren't important. That explains why Oscar missed TWO post-seasons, then, doesn't ...as well as Chamberlain not making the playoffs in a season in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG%.

But, here we have Oscar with a total of 39 playoff games in his scoring prime, and never advancing to the Finals in any of those six playoff series, and in fact, not getting past the first round in FOUR of the six.


And how about this gem from that Wilt-basher?


Learn to read. I'm not saying he had no impact. I'm saying his impact wasn't as good as should be if he really was unstoppable scorer. I'm saying his volume scoring is overrated because it had slightly effect on offense. I'm saying he wasn't the best scorer ever, or even the best in his era, because Oscar and West were way better scorers in 60s and their scoring wasn't "empty" as they helped their teams offenses A LOT.

Wilt offensively was 3rd best player during 60s. Better than 4th Baylor, worse than 1st Oscar and 2nd West.

Oh, so a prime scoring Chamberlain single-handedly carrying his teams to game seven losses, by margins of 2, and 1 point, against the greatest Dynasty in the history of the NBA, (and had he not been injured in games 3-4 of the '60 EDF's, and with his team losing a game six by two points, who knows?), as well as a competitive Finals against Boston in yet another season, in which his team was outgunned in HOFers by an 8-2 margin...is EMPTY scoring?

But a prime Oscar missing TWO playoff seasons in eight years, being knocked out in the FIRSTY ROUND of four of the six that he did make, and NEVER reaching the Finals...HELPED his offenses better than Wilt did his?

BTW, I am not blaming Oscar for those "failures", and more than I would have blamed Wilt for his. But it sure seems ridiculous to claim that Wilt's stats were "empty" and then turn around claim that Oscar's were somehow more "helpful."

Oh, and West and Baylor COMBINED never doing any more against Boston, than what Wilt did by HIMSELF. And, of course, a PRIME Chamberlain in '67, was THE reason that his Sixers just annihilated Boston (and with Wilt, as always, just castrating Russell in the series.)

And how many times did Oscar, or West, or Baylor, lead the NBA in scoring, and also take their teams to the best record in the league? Wilt accomplished that feat in his 65-66 season (leading the league in scoring, rebounding, and eFG%...all while taking the Sixers to the best record in the league.)

And again, had Wilt had the luxury of facing the Lakers in the post-season in his SCORING prime, I am absolutely convinced that he would now hold at least several post-season scoring and efficiency marks.


Gotta love the Wilt-bashers. they will do ANYTHING to disparage Chamberlain...

[LAZERUSS]

And one more damned time...the Wilt-bashers love to point out the post-season, and completely ignore the regular season.

Here again, these idiots will claim that Oscar was a better scorer in the post-season (as well as Hakeem), when those two guys were ROUTINELY crushed in their FIRST ROUNDS and in four-and-five playoff game series.

But, yes, let's completely ignore the 80+ regular season games. Doesn't it seem a little suspicious though, that it was ONLY WILT who was putting up staggering scoring, rebounding, and efficiency numbers in HIS era (the same era that had Baylor, West, and Oscar)?

Here was a prime scoring Chamberlain, with crappy rosters, and usually facing the Celtics in either his first or second round playoff series, and missing the playoffs altogether in his second greatest scoring season (yet MJ would make the playoffs years later in '86 with an even worse team record)...and ultimately only playing in a meager 52 games in that span...30 of which were against Russell and Boston.

The reality was... 52 playoff games was simply not a decent enough sample size, and especially considering that he was battling the greatest defensive center and the greatest dynasty the sport has known, in 30 of those games (and BTW, all he did was average 30.5 ppg on a .507 eFG% (in leagues that shot about .421 in that span.)

Still, in those 52 playoff games, he had FOUR games of 50, 50, 53, and 56 points, three of which were in "must-win" games (and one of those was against Russell), as well as 7 more of 40+ (and all told he had five games of 40+ against Russell.)

Now, if you were to ADD those playoff numbers, with his staggering regular season numbers in those first seven years, and Wilt would have averaged a combined 38 ppg in that span. Over the course of nearly 600 total games.

THAT was CLEARLY the game's greatest SCORER. No one else is even remotely CLOSE.

[Lord Bean]

Wilt is by far the greatest player of the 1961-62 season

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt is by far the greatest player of the 1961-62 season

And yet, because of an obvious anti-Wilt agenda by the players in the league that season, Russell won the MVP.

Still, Wilt was voted first-team All-NBA ahead of Russell. And in their entire decade playing together, Chamberlain held a 7-2 margin in First-Team All-NBA's over Russell.

And Wilt not only won ROY in '60, he also won the MVP. And from the middle of the decade ('66 thru '68) he would run away with the MVP balloting. And he was not only robbed in '62, but '64, as well. (And no one has ever given anywhere near a decent explanation as to how Russell finished ahead of Wilt in the '69 voting.)

The reality was, he was already the best player in the game in '60, and was by far the best player in the game by the mid-to-late 60's. In fact, he was the best player in the league in the entire decade of the 60's.

[dankok8]

LAZERUSS...

Nobody is ignoring the regular season. Wilt is the GREATEST REGULAR SEASON SCORER of all time. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Stop repeating points about Chamberlain's regular season!! We aren't discussing that here or disputing any of your points on that.

In the postseason it's a different story. Both Jerry West and Elgin Baylor (before knee injury) have put up much superior scoring averages (including volume and efficiency) in the playoffs. Oscar's numbers were right around Wilt's and he had more overall impact on his team's offense. Those are undeniable facts.

Ultimately your arguments for Wilt's worse numbers...

Wilt faced stronger defense was DISPELLED. West played 7 finals against Boston and averaged 32.7 ppg on 55.1 %TS combined! Baylor in his 2 Finals before injury had a monstrous cumulative average of 37.5 ppg on 52.0 %TS on Boston.

Wilt has never had single series on that level. That's a fact.

And don't bring up FG% when comparing bigs and guards. :no:

[CavaliersFTW]

LAZERUSS...

Nobody is ignoring the regular season. Wilt is the GREATEST REGULAR SEASON SCORER of all time. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Stop repeating points about Chamberlain's regular season!! We aren't discussing that here or disputing any of your points on that.

In the postseason it's a different story. Both Jerry West and Elgin Baylor (before knee injury) have put up much superior scoring averages (including volume and efficiency) in the playoffs. Oscar's numbers were right around Wilt's and he had more overall impact on his team's offense. Those are undeniable facts.

Ultimately your arguments for Wilt's worse numbers...

Wilt faced stronger defense was DISPELLED. West played 7 finals against Boston and averaged 32.7 ppg on 55.1 %TS combined! Baylor in his 2 Finals before injury had a monstrous cumulative average of 37.5 ppg on 52.0 %TS on Boston.

Wilt has never had single series on that level. That's a fact.

And don't bring up FG% when comparing bigs and guards. :no:
Why, should bigs be penalized for being more likely to make the shots they take? Accuracy isn't just a footnote. In fact, they are what make big men so valuable around the hoop. There is no reason not to bring up accuracy when assessing the offense of many of the great big men past or present.

[LAZERUSS]

LAZERUSS...

Nobody is ignoring the regular season. Wilt is the GREATEST REGULAR SEASON SCORER of all time. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Stop repeating points about Chamberlain's regular season!! We aren't discussing that here or disputing any of your points on that.

In the postseason it's a different story. Both Jerry West and Elgin Baylor (before knee injury) have put up much superior scoring averages (including volume and efficiency) in the playoffs. Oscar's numbers were right around Wilt's and he had more overall impact on his team's offense. Those are undeniable facts.

Ultimately your arguments for Wilt's worse numbers...

Wilt faced stronger defense was DISPELLED. West played 7 finals against Boston and averaged 32.7 ppg on 55.1 %TS combined! Baylor in his 2 Finals before injury had a monstrous cumulative average of 37.5 ppg on 52.0 %TS on Boston.

Wilt has never had single series on that level. That's a fact.

And don't bring up FG% when comparing bigs and guards. :no:

Here is what started this completely anti-Wilt agenda, from a tyical Wilt-basher ...


We don't really need to dig it up, because Wilt's playoffs drop off in efficiency is pretty clear. In regular season he stat padded vs weak competition (he was GOAT offensive rebounder so scored a lot that way), but there's much less easy baskets in playoffs and that's why Wilt's scoring limitations were exposed in the playoffs.


Now, here is the REALITY of this "exposed" Chamberlain...

Again, only 52 playoff games in his "scoring" prime, which BTW, is 13 more than all of Oscar's in his, and 5 more than Baylor had in his.

And in those 30, he was defended by RUSSELL, who is widely regarded as the greatest defensive center of all-time. Not only that, but I have provided a TON of quotes, from Russell's OWN TEAMMATES, claiming that they were SWARMING, and even BRUTALIZING Chamberlain in those games.

And how did this "exposed" Chamberlain play against RUSSELL and his swarming teammates in those 30 games? He averaged 30.5 ppg, on a .507 eFG% and in post-season NBA's that shot about .420 in that span.

Furthermore, if we carry the Russell-Wilt battles into Chamberlain's 66-67 season, which may have been the greatest season EVER, by ANYONE, Wilt again just castrated him. 21.6 ppg on a .556 eFG% (in a post-season NBA that shot .428), while holding Russell to 10.2 ppg on a .358 eFG%. Oh, and he outassisted Russell in that same series, 10.0 apg to 6.0 apg, and outrebounded Russell (the second greatest rebounder of all-time, and certainly the second greatest post-season rebounder of all-time) by a staggering 32 rpg to 23 rpg margin.

And in the rest of Wilt's 22 (TWENTY-TWO) post-season games, all he could do was "only" average 36.0 ppg on a .503 eFG% (again, in leagues that shot .420.) Or, in other words, he was the greatest scorer of his post-season era when he was not being defended by the greatest defensive player in the history of the game.

And again, I have provided the HUGE drop-offs that MJ, Shaq, and your boy Kareem had, when they battled their biggest defensive rivals in multiple series. My god, KAJ had a HUGE decline from his regular season numbers when he faced Thurmond and Chamberlain in his five post-season H2H's. During those three regular seasons, Kareem averaged 32 ppg on a .565 eFG%. In those FIVE playoff series against Nate and Wilt... 26 ppg on a .469 eFG%. Just a DRAMATIC decline.

And yet Chamberlain gets no credit for being a FAR greater scorer, and FAR more efficient shooter, in his FIVE post-season series in his scoring prime, against RUSSELL.

But I would not expect anything less from the Wilt-bashers...

[LAZERUSS]

I hope I have finally put an end to these complete MYTHS and even LIES regarding Chamberlain in his post-season play.

And to get back to the REAL topic here...

I can't wait for CavsFan video, which will completely stamp out the Fatal's of this world.

And this footage will CLEARLY depict a SKILLFUL Chamberlain, making a wide variety of remarkable shots, with exceptional foot-work and unequaled athleticism.

However, keep in mind that this footage is only about TWO-PERCENT of Chamberlain's NBA career. And there is absolutely ZERO footage of any of Chamberlain's 271 40+ point games (or 122 50+ point games, or 32 60+ point games.) None of his 132 40-30 games (or 32 50-30 games, or his 28 60-20 games, or his 8 40-40 games, or his 5 50-40 games.) None of his 15-15 FGA/FGA games, (or 16-16, or 18-18, or 18-19 games.) No footage from his 22-25-21 game (or his 53-32-14 game.)

The facts are...there is simply no footage available, of Wilt at his unfathomable best...

[CavaliersFTW]

I hope I have finally put an end to these complete MYTHS and even LIES regarding Chamberlain in his post-season play.

And to get back to the REAL topic here...

I can't wait for CavsFan video, which will completely stamp out the Fatal's of this world.

And this footage will CLEARLY depict a SKILLFUL Chamberlain, making a wide variety of remarkable shots, with exceptional foot-work and unequaled athleticism.

However, keep in mind that this footage is only about TWO-PERCENT of Chamberlain's NBA career. And there is absolutely ZERO footage of any of Chamberlain's 271 40+ point games (or 122 50+ point games, or 32 60+ point games.) None of his 132 40-30 games (or 32 50-30 games, or his 28 60-20 games, or his 8 40-40 games, or his 5 50-40 games.) None of his 15-15 FGA/FGA games, (or 16-16, or 18-18, or 18-19 games.) No footage from his 22-25-21 game (or his 53-32-14 game.)

The facts are...there is simply no footage available, of Wilt at his unfathomable best...
IMO what stands out the most in his footage is his sheer size and strength and physical presence. I think it needs to be made clear what Fatal9 perpetuated was a notion that in order for others to consider Wilt to be ''a good offensive player" he must have the ability to travel, I mean use the footwork and up and under moves that Hakeem used. Fatal9 and the people who supported his discussions all failed to grasp just how big and strong Wilt was. Fatal9 wanted people to look at only certain characteristics of Wilt's game, the 'bar' as it were for assessing Wilt's scoring ability, was according to Fatal9, quickness, footwork, fluidity and use of deception. Basically, Fatal9 and those who bought into his evaluation of Wilt's offensive abilities all failed entirely to understand what Chamberlain brought to the table against a defense.

Wilt is a giant compared to Hakeem, both in strength and in size. He didn't need ANY of that footwork to create the same, and many times even better scoring opportunities. Wilt could get so much deeper in the post just bumping his man off him like tissue paper. Hakeem couldn't do that. Hakeem needed his quickness and deception to drop 25 a night, he needed to get around you because he couldn't straight go through you or over top of you the way Wilt could. Wilt could back right into you and bump you out of the way or score over top of you, no matter what his footwork looks like Wilt's physical tools give him the advantage over Hakeem. That said, Wilt was indeed a helluva lot more skilled than Fatal9 implied. Using a wide array of moves and displaying a much greater amount of body control than Fatal's 2 minute "Wilt posting up" nonsense.

[LAZERUSS]

And to reiterate just how DOMINANT Chamberlain was at EVERY aspect of the game...

He had an entire season, covering 12 H2H games, in which he just obliterated Willis Reed. How about 38.6 ppg on a .531 eFG% (in a league that shot an eFG% of .426.) Included were carpet-bombings of 37-22, 46-25, 41-9, 52-23, and even 58-28.)

He battled a prime Bellamy in 20 straight H2H's, over the course of two straight seasons, and averaged 43.7 ppg in one 10 game season, and then... 52.7 ppg in the other. The beatdowns are just too numerous to list, but needless to say, he had a total of THREE 60+ games against him, including a 73-36 battering.

Russell? The greatest defensive center of all-time. Think about this...the two went H2H 143 times, and Wilt AVERAGED 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg against him, and all at about a 50% eFG% (in leagues that averaged about .430.) And in MANY of them he just demolished him. Again, too many to list, except that he had 24 40+ games against him, including five of 50+, and a high game of 62 (on 27-45 shooting.) Against a PRIME RUSSELL. And while he was crushing him in terms of offense in those 143 games, he was dramatically reducing Russell's own efficiencis, by considerably greater margins that what Russell could do to him. Oh, and he waxed Russell in the vast majority of their rebounding battles (a 92-43-8 margin...and many by overwhelming margins....including an unfathomable 55-19 margin in one.)

Thurmond. Keep in mind that a peak Kareem faced a aging Thurmond in 40 H2H games (before Nate's 73-74 season, when he was just a shell), and his high game was only 34 points (over the course of all 50 H2H's BTW.) Not only that, but Kareem could only shoot an eFG% of .440 in that span. And in the post-season, it was even worse. KAJ shot .486, .428, and even .405 against Nate.

How about a prime Wilt? Think about this, from their last H2H game in '65, thru their nine H2H's in '66, and into their first meeting in '67...a total of 11 H2H games, Wilt had SIX 30+ games against Nate...which was one more than a peak Kareem had in his 40 H2H's with Thurmond. Included were whippings of 33-17, 33-10, 38-15, and an unbelievable 45-13 bashing. And a prime Wilt, against a peak Thurmond, in '67, and covering six H2H games, averaged 21 ppg on... get this... a .633 eFG%. And then in the Finals, he outscored a peak Thurmond, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg...all while outshooting him by an unfathomable .560 to .343 margin.

How about H2H's with Dierking, and Imhoff. MANY 50+ point games, including 60+ point games (and even a 100 point game.) And just the year before KAJ came into the league, Wilt hung a 60 point game on Jim Fox.

A peak Kareem would face ALL of those centers in his career (and most of them were well past their primes, too), and never once came within the other side of the Galaxy of the kind of obliterations that a Prime Chamberlain had leveled those same centers by.

And, as we all should know by now...

A 38-39 year old KAJ, in a span of two straight regular seasons, covering 10 straight games, averaged 32 ppg on a .621 eFG% against Hakeem. Included were games of 40, 43, and even a 46 point explosion (and on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.) Hell, a 37-41 year old Kareem, in his 23 career H2H's with a 23-26 year old Hakeem outscored him, and outshot him by a .607 to .512 margin from the floor. And in his eight career H2H's with Patrick Ewing, a 39-40 year old Kareem outscored him by a 21-19 ppg margin, and ousthot him by a .581 to .446 margin. Included was a game in which a 39 year old Kareem outscored Patrick by a 40-9 margin, and outshot him by a 15-22 to 3-17 margin.


Now...ask yourself this...

just what would a PRIME Chamberlain have been capable of against the best centers of the 80's...the same centers who would be among the best centers of the 90's?

[dankok8]

Why, should bigs be penalized for being more likely to make the shots they take? Accuracy isn't just a footnote. In fact, they are what make big men so valuable around the hoop. There is no reason not to bring up accuracy when assessing the offense of many of the great big men past or present.

I'm not saying accuracy isn't important but let's use TS% which also takes free throws into account and is a more comprehensive measure of efficiency. By FG% alone we know bigs are way ahead of guards but overall many great guards can actually be more efficient than the great centers.

As for LAZERUSS he keeps pasting a lot info that has nothing to do with postseason scoring... I'll respond to the relevant points.


And how did this "exposed" Chamberlain play against RUSSELL and his swarming teammates in those 30 games? He averaged 30.5 ppg, on a .507 eFG% and in post-season NBA's that shot about .420 in that span.

Postseason Scoring vs. Boston:

West ('62 to '70) - 32.7 ppg on 55.1 %TS (45 games)

Baylor ('62 and '63) - 37.5 ppg on 52.1 %TS (13 games)

Oscar ('63, '64, and '66) - 31.4 ppg on 53.8 %TS (17 games)

Wilt ('60, '62, '64, '65, and '66) - 30.5 ppg on 52.2 %TS (30 games)

Postseason Scoring Overall:

West ('62-'70) - 31.8 ppg on 48.3 %FG/55.6 %TS (108 games)

Baylor ('60-'63) - 35.8 ppg on 45.3 %FG/52.1 %TS (47 games)

Oscar ('62-'67) - 29.7 ppg on 46.1 %FG/56.6 %TS (39 games)

Wilt ('60-'66) - 32.8 ppg on 50.5 %FG/52.0 %TS (52 games)


Denial in the face of facts!

Again which player was a better postseason scorer than Jordan, Shaq, and Kareem in their respective eras?

[millwad]

So tired fo Jlauber's (Lazeruss) bogus excuses about how Wilt only played few of his playoff games in his "scoring" prime. He's acting like it's a turn off and on button.

Does that even make any sense to start with? He and alot of other Wilt fans are acting like Wilt just decided that he wanted to stop scoring just because of the sake of it.

Wilt dropped big time in the playoffs in terms of scoring, even in his "scoring" prime he dropped in both FG% and scoring average. Yes, he has amazing scoring seasons in the regular season, bravo, really.

But he was a different animal in the playoffs, we always see CavaliersFTW spam about the fact that Wilt scored 60 points or more 32 times in his career. What he never mention is that none of them were in the playoffs.

And the sad part of it all is that Wilt never even won in his "scoring prime", he won in '67 when he had the tied 2nd highest point per game average in the playoffs of that team. And in '72 he was only the 4th best scorer.

Here we have the perfect example of a stat padder, he never won anything in his "scoring" prime and he always dropped big time in the playoffs in terms of scoring and FG% and he won when others took over the scoring for him.

[millwad]

And to reiterate just how DOMINANT Chamberlain was at EVERY aspect of the game...

He had an entire season, covering 12 H2H games, in which he just obliterated Willis Reed. How about 38.6 ppg on a .531 eFG% (in a league that shot an eFG% of .426.) Included were carpet-bombings of 37-22, 46-25, 41-9, 52-23, and even 58-28.)

He battled a prime Bellamy in 20 straight H2H's, over the course of two straight seasons, and averaged 43.7 ppg in one 10 game season, and then... 52.7 ppg in the other. The beatdowns are just too numerous to list, but needless to say, he had a total of THREE 60+ games against him, including a 73-36 battering.

Russell? The greatest defensive center of all-time. Think about this...the two went H2H 143 times, and Wilt AVERAGED 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg against him, and all at about a 50% eFG% (in leagues that averaged about .430.) And in MANY of them he just demolished him. Again, too many to list, except that he had 24 40+ games against him, including five of 50+, and a high game of 62 (on 27-45 shooting.) Against a PRIME RUSSELL. And while he was crushing him in terms of offense in those 143 games, he was dramatically reducing Russell's own efficiencis, by considerably greater margins that what Russell could do to him. Oh, and he waxed Russell in the vast majority of their rebounding battles (a 92-43-8 margin...and many by overwhelming margins....including an unfathomable 55-19 margin in one.)

Thurmond. Keep in mind that a peak Kareem faced a aging Thurmond in 40 H2H games (before Nate's 73-74 season, when he was just a shell), and his high game was only 34 points (over the course of all 50 H2H's BTW.) Not only that, but Kareem could only shoot an eFG% of .440 in that span. And in the post-season, it was even worse. KAJ shot .486, .428, and even .405 against Nate.

How about a prime Wilt? Think about this, from their last H2H game in '65, thru their nine H2H's in '66, and into their first meeting in '67...a total of 11 H2H games, Wilt had SIX 30+ games against Nate...which was one more than a peak Kareem had in his 40 H2H's with Thurmond. Included were whippings of 33-17, 33-10, 38-15, and an unbelievable 45-13 bashing. And a prime Wilt, against a peak Thurmond, in '67, and covering six H2H games, averaged 21 ppg on... get this... a .633 eFG%. And then in the Finals, he outscored a peak Thurmond, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg...all while outshooting him by an unfathomable .560 to .343 margin.

How about H2H's with Dierking, and Imhoff. MANY 50+ point games, including 60+ point games (and even a 100 point game.) And just the year before KAJ came into the league, Wilt hung a 60 point game on Jim Fox.

A peak Kareem would face ALL of those centers in his career (and most of them were well past their primes, too), and never once came within the other side of the Galaxy of the kind of obliterations that a Prime Chamberlain had leveled those same centers by.

And, as we all should know by now...

A 38-39 year old KAJ, in a span of two straight regular seasons, covering 10 straight games, averaged 32 ppg on a .621 eFG% against Hakeem. Included were games of 40, 43, and even a 46 point explosion (and on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.) Hell, a 37-41 year old Kareem, in his 23 career H2H's with a 23-26 year old Hakeem outscored him, and outshot him by a .607 to .512 margin from the floor. And in his eight career H2H's with Patrick Ewing, a 39-40 year old Kareem outscored him by a 21-19 ppg margin, and ousthot him by a .581 to .446 margin. Included was a game in which a 39 year old Kareem outscored Patrick by a 40-9 margin, and outshot him by a 15-22 to 3-17 margin.


Now...ask yourself this...

just what would a PRIME Chamberlain have been capable of against the best centers of the 80's...the same centers who would be among the best centers of the 90's?

This is just bogus cherry picking, I mean, you wrote all that text for nothing. You cherry pick what you want to mention, you make the most one sided post and then you act like you just convinced the world about how amazing Wilt was.

No one but CavaliersFTW agrees with your rants, and he even called you out for being a jackass.

[LAZERUSS]

I'm not saying accuracy isn't important but let's use TS% which also takes free throws into account and is a more comprehensive measure of efficiency. By FG% alone we know bigs are way ahead of guards but overall many great guards can actually be more efficient than the great centers.

As for LAZERUSS he keeps pasting a lot info that has nothing to do with postseason scoring... I'll respond to the relevant points.



Postseason Scoring vs. Boston:

West ('62 to '70) - 32.7 ppg on 55.1 %TS (45 games)

Baylor ('62 and '63) - 37.5 ppg on 52.1 %TS (13 games)

Oscar ('63, '64, and '66) - 31.4 ppg on 53.8 %TS (17 games)

Wilt ('60, '62, '64, '65, and '66) - 30.5 ppg on 52.2 %TS (30 games)

Denial in the face of facts!

Again which player was a better postseason scorer than Jordan, Shaq, and Kareem in their respective eras?

RUSSELL was NOT the primary defender on West, Baylor, and Oscar, and you KNOW it.

And all of the above is in a VERY limited amount of games, too. My god, Baylor had 13 games against Boston, and BTW, he shot .445 from the field against them in those 13 games.

Now, the REAL argument should have been, had Wilt not faced the Celtics in 60% of his post-season games during his prime "scoring" seasons, and instead had the free passes that Baylor and West had in the west, what would have his scoring and effciency looked like? Hell, what kind of numbers would he have put up facing the LAKERS in those years????? He was ROUTINELY shelling them for 60+ point games (SIX of them). And we know that Russell put up post-seasons of 23 ppg on a .543 eFG%; 23 ppg on a .538 eFG%; and 18 ppg on a .702 eFG% against those same Laker teams in the Finals. I can't even begin to imagine the wreckage that Chamberlain would have left LA with.

And you keep forgetting that Chamberlain missed the playoffs entirely in his 62-63 season (and certainly not his fault) in a season in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG%. Oh, and BTW, he averaged 38.1 ppg against RUSSELL in their NINE regular season H2H's that year too.

How many times did West, or Baylor miss the post-season in their primes? And we know that Oscar missed it TWICE in his.

And all of the above ties into KAJ, MJ, and Shaq in their scoring primes. Fortunately for them, they didn't face their greatest defensive antagonists in 60% of their playoff games. If they had, you can be sure that their numbers would have looked much worse.

[millwad]

And all of the above ties into KAJ, MJ, and Shaq in their scoring primes. Fortunately for them, they didn't face their greatest defensive antagonists in 60% of their playoff games. If they had, you can be sure that their numbers would have looked much worse.

This is just false information and you basically lying.

Wilt played in an era with defensive schemes that can't be compared to the modern era, his biggest competition was Bill Russell. Wilt was way taller than Russell and yet you have failed to prove your nonsense about how Wilt was "swarmed" and triple teamed by his opponents.

The footage that is out there in the match-ups between Wilt and Russell you clearly see that Russell is defending Wilt mostly by himself, even though Wilt was way taller. Non-existing swarming defense and no constant double and triple teams.

And Wilt dropped big time in the playoffs in terms of scoring, not only against Russell but overall.

[LAZERUSS]

This is just false information and you basically lying.

Wilt played in an era with defensive schemes that can't be compared to the modern era, his biggest competition was Bill Russell. Wilt was way taller than Russell and yet you have failed to prove your nonsense about how Wilt was "swarmed" and triple teamed by his opponents.

The footage that is out there in the match-ups between Wilt and Russell you clearly see that Russell is defending Wilt mostly by himself, even though Wilt was way taller. Non-existing swarming defense and no constant double and triple teams.

And Wilt dropped big time in the playoffs in terms of scoring, not only against Russell but overall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w

Just a PORTION of ONE game of their 143 H2H games...

[millwad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w

This is just sad, you really don't know anything at all about basketball.

What you think is "swarming" defense with double and triple team is a team not spreading the court and players momentarily being next to Wilt due the fact that their own man is packing the lane.

So all those posts about "swarming defenses" and how Wilt was the most "doubled and tripled" player of all-time is something you based on garbage like this.

[dankok8]

RUSSELL was NOT the primary defender on West, Baylor, and Oscar, and you KNOW it.

And all of the above is in a VERY limited amount of games, too. My god, Baylor had 13 games against Boston, and BTW, he shot .445 from the field against them in those 13 games.

Now, the REAL argument should have been, had Wilt not faced the Celtics in 60% of his post-season games during his prime "scoring" seasons, and instead had the free passes that Baylor and West had in the west, what would have his scoring and effciency looked like? Hell, what kind of numbers would he have put up facing the LAKERS in those years????? He was ROUTINELY shelling them for 60+ point games (SIX of them). And we know that Russell put up post-seasons of 23 ppg on a .543 eFG%; 23 ppg on a .538 eFG%; and 18 ppg on a .702 eFG% against those same Laker teams in the Finals. I can't even begin to imagine the wreckage that Chamberlain would have left LA with.

And you keep forgetting that Chamberlain missed the playoffs entirely in his 62-63 season (and certainly not his fault) in a season in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG%. Oh, and BTW, he averaged 38.1 ppg against RUSSELL in their NINE regular season H2H's that year too.

How many times did West, or Baylor miss the post-season in their primes? And we know that Oscar missed it TWICE in his.

And all of the above ties into KAJ, MJ, and Shaq in their scoring primes. Fortunately for them, they didn't face their greatest defensive antagonists in 60% of their playoff games. If they had, you can be sure that their numbers would have looked much worse.

You can't have it both ways LAZERUSS. If Russell was so great at shutting down Wilt and his teammates who shot terribly... then you must respect him as a player as great if not greater than Wilt. Clearly Russell had enormous impact on his team, on defense and leadership and he made strategic plays. And yet you scoff at those who say Russell > Wilt.

Truth is West and Baylor didn't have it much if any easier with KC and Hondo on them and then if they beat their defenders Russ was there lurking in the paint.

Wilt had a terrific series against the Hawks in '64 but so did Baylor and West in many years.

Your double standards are funny. First you make case for Wilt for missing the playoffs in '63 which probably lowered his playoff numbers but then you rip Oscar for missing in in '61 in what was an amazing season for him statistically.

Bottom line is your counterarguments are weak. You love stats and stats say West and Baylor >> Wilt in the playoffs and Oscar has a strong case as well.

[LAZERUSS]

This is just sad, you really don't know anything at all about basketball.

What you think is "swarming" defense with double and triple team is a team not spreading the court and players momentarily being next to Wilt due the fact that their own man is packing the lane.

So all those posts about "swarming defenses" and how Wilt was the most "doubled and tripled" player of all-time is something you based on garbage like this.

When you provide me with full game footage from Wilt's 1200 career NBA games, I'll get back to you...

And BTW, why don't you take the time to read thru this...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9461568&postcount=247

[millwad]

When you provide me with full game footage from Wilt's 1200 career NBA games, I'll get back to you...

This is the same answer you give everyone when they confront you regarding the lies about the defense Wilt faced.

What you're doing is believing in fairy tales and biased assumptions rather than judging the defense based on the footage we actually have.

So it's completely fine for you to go on rants about rumours, stories and myths about how amazing Wilt was but you think it's unfair to judge the defense based on what it actually was.

And you sent the link to that game footage because you actually thought it would prove your case but that is just you not knowing what you're talking about. You don't even know the fundamentals of basketball and you just showed us.

[millwad]

And BTW, why don't you take the time to read thru this...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9461568&postcount=247

You've spammed that link a thousand times, I am talking about actual footage, FOOTAGE.

The reason why you can't find what you want to find is because it doesn't exist. The most obvious part is that Heinsohn talked about the Celtics being one of the first teams trying to use a team concept to stop Wilt, that is how under-developed the league was. A league that just started to try to think about team defense.

There is no footage which proves anything you like to claim about the so called massive swarming double and triple teams. The best you can find and what I could find was Wilt's team doing a shitty job spreading the floor and Wilt holding the ball too long in his hands which resulted in him getting a player on him momentarily.

[trueDS]

Flat out lie...

A prime Oscar (from 60-68) played in 22 playoff games against non-Boston teams, and averaged 28.4 ppg on .486 eFG%.

A prime Baylor (from 60-63 and only 4 seasons BTW) played in 34 playoff games against non-Boston teams, and averaged 35.2 ppg on .457 eFG%.

A prime West (from 62-70) played in 62 non-Boston games and averaged 31.4 ppg on an eFG% of .491.

A prime Wilt played in 22 non-Boston games, and averaged 36.0 ppg on a .503 eFG%.


Wilt was easily the best SCORER of the group.

Of course, the Wilt-bashers will never mention that Chamberlain's horrific 62-63 roster was so bad, that his team didn't make the playoffs, ... in a season in which Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG% (and averaged 38 ppg against Russell in nine H2H's.)

And before some idiot claims that Wilt was a "loser" in 62-63 (despite leading the league in 15 statistical categories, including running away with the scoring title, and setting a then FG% record), ...how about Oscar? A prime Oscar missed TWO playoff seasons ('61 and '68.)



And I get so sick-and-tired of the FLAWED TS%'s. In any case, we know that when was those four players were DEFENDED, Chamberlain was a considerably better, and more efficient shooter.

The reality was, Chamberlain's "scoring prime" only involved 52 playoff games, 30 of which came against Russell's Celtics. Had he been in the Western Conference in all of those seven seasons (and made the playoffs in '63), he likely would have been slaughtering the Lakers year-after-year (win or lose.) Hell, in the one season in which he was in the Western Conference, he averaged 38.6 ppg on an eFG% of .559 and in a seven game series.

It's hilarious to pick years to fit your agenda. I showed their whole stats, no cherry picking, during Russell's era.

[trueDS]

If Russell was the only "thing" to keep Wilt from multiple titles, then please answer to this questions:

- if Wilt was so dominant scorer why he didn't led his teams to better offensive results (ortg)? Sure, weak supporting cast might explain something (but still, Arizin, Gola and Rodgers weren't bad offensive - overall, not only scoring - players), but why Pistons in 1960 with Howell and Shue as best players were better offensively than Warriors? Or NYK with Guerin and Sears? Similar story next year and on several other occasions.

- if we he was so good scorer why he stopped to be volume scorer in 1967 season and his team was so much better offensively? Why his COACH wanted him to shot less if his scoring was unstoppable?

- why Chamberlain was traded three times (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?

- why his team didn't advance to playoffs in 1963? Weak supporting cast? So why Pistons with Howell and DeBusschere did?

- why he didn't dominate injured Reed in G7 of 1970 finals?

[CavaliersFTW]

If Russell was the only "thing" to keep Wilt from multiple titles, then please answer to this questions:

- if Wilt was so dominant scorer why he didn't led his teams to better offensive results (ortg)? Sure, weak supporting cast might explain something (but still, Arizin, Gola and Rodgers weren't bad offensive - overall, not only scoring - players), but why Pistons in 1960 with Howell and Shue as best players were better offensively than Warriors? Or NYK with Guerin and Sears? Similar story next year and on several other occasions.

- if we he was so good scorer why he stopped to be volume scorer in 1967 season and his team was so much better offensively? Why his COACH wanted him to shot less if his scoring was unstoppable?

- why Chamberlain was traded three times (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?

- why his team didn't advance to playoffs in 1963? Weak supporting cast? So why Pistons with Howell and DeBusschere did?

- why he didn't dominate injured Reed in G7 of 1970 finals?
"If the twin towers were brought down by planes, how come steel doesn't melt at the temperature jet fuel burns at?"

"If men landed on the moon, how come the astronauts look transparent in footage, and the flag blows in the wind"

"How could the pyramids have been built without lazers and anti-gravity alien technology"

You are the basketball equivalent of people who ask these types of silly leading questions. Smarminess and an overall lack of basketball knowledge, both historically and intellectually, are why you will never be able to acquire the 'objective' answers you presume to seek, not to mention the fact that you are attacking this subject from an angle with an answer already formed in your head. Answers that AREN'T at all in line with reality. You are only leading yourself astray, no one else.

[trueDS]

and one more question:
- what happened in 1961 playoffs, when Warriors lost to lower seed? (and BTW, Arizin shot at similar % to Nats best player - Schayes, so It's unlikely "weak supporting cast" is the explanation here)

[CavaliersFTW]

and one more question:
- what happened in 1961 playoffs, when Warriors lost to lower seed? (and BTW, Arizin shot at similar % to Nats best player - Schayes, so It's unlikely "weak supporting cast" is the explanation here)
Evidently you've never seen the interviews where Arizin openly admits "Boston just had better teams" when compared to Wilt's Warrior teams? Yeah guess not, why would you, you've already got all the answers formed in your imagination you only ask these questions not to seek information, but rather to 'prove' you're invalid imaginary points... This is sad because there are real answers to be found.

[trueDS]

Evidently you've never seen the interviews where Arizin openly admits "Boston just had better teams"

Learn the facts first - in 1961 Warriors lost to Nationals, not Celtics.

[CavaliersFTW]

Learn the facts first - in 1961 Warriors lost to Nationals, not Celtics.
Learn the facts? Oh brother, right I'm sure you know much more than I about this topic. I misread and believed you were talking about the '61-62 season, I had some articles bookmarked on the 61 playoff series but google news archives appears to be down, Phila hopefully has something saved. I recall coverage pointing out Swede Halbrook played Wilt for at least part of that series and played (defensively) quite well. Wilt still averaged 37 on him. At the end of the day you're still talking about a team that was not deep nor talented beyond Wilt and the aging Arizin, at that time you needed much more in a smaller league, they didn't have any fighting chance in the playoffs until Frank McGuire coached that squad the following year to feed Wilt the lions share of offensive possessions. I don't know what more you wanted from him in the '61 playoffs, are you implying he didn't do his job? Because he did, he played well. 37 a game in the playoffs, that's pretty damn dominant.

[LAZERUSS]

If Russell was the only "thing" to keep Wilt from multiple titles, then please answer to this questions:

- if Wilt was so dominant scorer why he didn't led his teams to better offensive results (ortg)? Sure, weak supporting cast might explain something (but still, Arizin, Gola and Rodgers weren't bad offensive - overall, not only scoring - players), but why Pistons in 1960 with Howell and Shue as best players were better offensively than Warriors? Or NYK with Guerin and Sears? Similar story next year and on several other occasions.

- if we he was so good scorer why he stopped to be volume scorer in 1967 season and his team was so much better offensively? Why his COACH wanted him to shot less if his scoring was unstoppable?

- why Chamberlain was traded three times (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?

- why his team didn't advance to playoffs in 1963? Weak supporting cast? So why Pistons with Howell and DeBusschere did?

- why he didn't dominate injured Reed in G7 of 1970 finals?

He wasn't traded THREE times...He was traded TWICE...

To understand the first trade, you need a little background info first. Wilt came to the Philadephia Warriors in a territorial draft. What is that you ask? In the 50's the NBA owners decided that to help keep up local fan base interest, that they would allow owners to lock in a player if he were more of a "local" favorite. I won't get into the rules, which were somewhat complicated, and it is unneccessary for this topic anyway. In any case, Chamberlain, being from the Philadelphia area, and still in high school at the time, was "locked in" by the Philly ownership group. Remember, he was in HIGH SCHOOL. So, he was WAY ahead of his time in terms of those that supposedly broke the barriers of jumping right to the NBA out of high school. Of course, at the time, a player still had to go to college, or at least had to wait until his class would have graduated before he could play in the NBA.

BTW, for those that may have read Red Auerbach's many blistering attacks on Wilt (i.e. that he wasn't a team player, or that he was only stats conscious, etc.) how about this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain


During summer vacations Chamberlain worked as a bellhop in Kutsher's Hotel. Red Auerbach, the coach of the Boston Celtics, spotted the talented teenager there and had him play 1-on-1 against Kansas University standout and national champion, B. H. Born, elected the Most Valuable Player of the 1953 NCAA Finals. Chamberlain won 25–10; Born was so dejected that he gave up a promising NBA career and became a tractor engineer ("If there were high school kids that good, I figured I wasn't going to make it to the pros"),[18] and Auerbach wanted Chamberlain to go to a New England university, so he could draft him as a territorial pick for the Celtics, but Chamberlain did not respond.

So Wilt joined the Warriors in the 59-60 season, a team that had been in LAST PLACE just the year before. BTW, in his first game, Chamberlain put up a 43 point, 28 rebound, 17 block game. I always get a kick out of those that try to compare players like Kobe or Lebron on the "first to get to xxx points"...because, had Chamberlain been allowed to play in the NBA right out of high school, there is no doubt that he would have added several thousand more points and rebounds to his career totals.

How big was Wilt for the NBA. His team set attendance records everywhere he went. Why is that important? Because following Wilt's staggering 61-62 season, the Philly ownership sold the team to a group based in San Francisco. Why? Because they were offered $850,000 for it, which was considerably more than the $50,000 that they had paid for it orginally. Keep that figure in mind, too, because I will bring it up later.

Chamberlain's Warriors relocated to the West Coast, but not all of the players joined him. HOFer Paul Arizin, already in his 30's, decided to retire. And the Warriors also shipped off their other HOFer, Tom Gola (who is perhaps near the very top of the WORST NBA HOFers of all-time.)

In any case, the Warriors had perhaps the worst roster in NBA history. They had a total of 16 different players on that roster, and some five of them would only be in the NBA for a short stint. Some posters here will point out that Wilt had two "all-star" teammates in that 62-63 season, in Guy Rodgers and Tom Meschery, but the reality was, those two were no more thanabove average, at best players. To be sure, Rodgers was a great passer, and would lead the league that year in assists...but unfortunately, he shot way too much. And, in comparing his FG% against the league averages, he may very well have been the WORST shooter in NBA history. He even had one season in which he shot nearly 100 points BELOW the league average. Meanwhile, somehow Meschery made the all-star team in that 62-63 season, with a 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and .425 FG%, but it would be his ONLY all-star appearance. And even with those ordinary stats, he was still SF's second best player. And, the fact was, both of those guys would have been sitting at the very END of the Celtic bench in that 62-63 season...a team that boasted NINE HOFers (AND a HOF coach, as well.)

Chamberlain had an extraordinary season in 62-63. In fact, in terms of statistical domination, it may very well have been the greatest in NBA history. He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories. He ran away with the scoring title, at 44.8 ppg (Baylor was next at a distant 34.0 ppg.) He led the NBA in rebounding at 24.3 (on a team that only grabbed 58 per game.) And he set a FG% mark (at the time...that he would break THREE more times) at .528. Keep that figure in mind, as well, because I will bring that up in a moment. And, despite his team only putting up a 31-49 record, Chamberlain ran away with the advanced stat of Win Shares, at 20.9. Thinks about that for a moment...Wilt was directly responsible for 67% of his TEAM's wins. BTW, for the advanced stat geeks, Chamberlain also recorded a PER of 31.8, which is the all-time record.

Once again, though, Wilt's teammates were just AWFUL. I mentioned Wilt's record-setting .528 FG%. However, his teammates collectively shot just .412 without his percentage....which would have been WAY below gthe worst team in that category, which was at .427. Still, that 31-49 record was somewhat deceptive. Their differential was only -2.1 ppg. They lost 35 games by single digits. And they were only involved in eight games of 20+ margins (and only one of 30), and they went 4-4 in those games. BTW, they only went 1-8 against the champion Celtics, but six of those games were very close...and Wilt averaged 38 ppg against Russell in those nine games...including one game of 50.

How bad was that roster? After that season, the Warriors brought in a new head coach, Aex Hannum, and one of his first orders of business was to see just what kind of a roster that he had inherited. He scheduled a scrimmage with that roster, sans Chamberlain, against rookies and undrafted players. And, he was shocked when the Warriors lost the game.

Even more remarkable, was the fact that Wilt would take that cast of clowns to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and to the Finals, where, despite Wilt outscoring Russell by a 29-11 margin per game, and outrebounding him by a 27-25 margin per game, and outshooting Russell by a .517 to .386 eFG% margin, the Celtics, and their EIGHT HOFers (Wilt had ONE other HOF teammate...rookie Nate Thurmond, who played part-time, out of position, and shot .395), won a couple of close games en route to a 4-1 series win.

to be continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Still, despite making the Finals, the city of San Francisco never took to the Warriors. Their attendance was just horrible. And their ownership was in financial trouble to boot. And to make matters MUCH worse, Wilt did not feel well before the start of the 64-65 season. He missed the SF's first seven games...and as expected, they went 1-6. He mysteriously lost weight, and he was in a weakened condition. The Warrior team physicians ran a battery of tests on him, and they concluded that he had a heart ailment. The Warrior ownership was now in panic mode. They were in financial straits, and now their lone meal ticket was a walking time bomb.

To Wilt's credit, he PLAYED. Not only that, but the NBA had decided to widen the lane before the start of the 64-65 season, in hopes of curtailing his overwhelming dominance. In Wilt's 63-64 season, he averaged 36.9 per game on .524 shooting. In the first half of the 64-65 season, and with the now widened lane, Chamberlain was averaging 38.9 ppg on .499 shooting (and BTW, he would averaged 33.5 ppg on a then record .540 FG% the very next year.) So, despite every effort to contain Wilt's dominance, he was still laying waste to the NBA, and this, despite being nowhere near 100%.

The panic-stricken Warriors, and with a putrid roster that was 11-33 at the time, finallly decided to pull the trigger and trade Wilt. BTW, as a sidenote, the Warriors were a terrible 10-27 with an ill Wilt...and would go 7-36 without him.

I mentioned that, primarily because of Wilt, the Warrior franchise sold for a then whopping $850,000 in '62. Well, a new group of investors in Philadelphia bought the failing Syracuse franchise for $500,000 in 1964. As you can see, Chamberlain's true impact carried beyond the basketball court.

The Warriors traded Wilt to the new 76er team at mid-season, a team that had gone 34-46 the year before in Syracuse, for THREE players, two of whom were decent players...Paul Neumann and Connie Dierking...AND a staggering (at the time) amount of $150,000.

So, that was the first "pennies on the dollar" trade that Simmons mentions in his book.

BTW, when Wilt went back to Philly, he went to his personal physician, who diagnosed Chamberlain's ailment as a case of pancreatis. Soon Wilt was back to a 100%, and the result was amazing. Chamberlain took another bottom-feeding roster, that would finish the 64-65 season at 40-40, to a first round 3-1 series romp over the 48-32 Royals, and then, playing brilliantly the ENTIRE series (he would averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg in the series), Chamberlain nearly led his team to perhaps what would have been the greatest upset in NBA playoff history. His 40-40 76ers took the HOF-laden (SIX of them) 62-18 Celtics, at the apex of their dynasty, to a game seven, ONE point loss (and had Havlicek not stolen their last ditch inbounds pass, who knows?)

Incidently, Simmons never goes into much detail in these trades for "pennies on the dollar", but think about this...

Chamberlain came to a crappy Philly team, and nearly led them to a shocking upset of the vaunted Celtics in his very first season there. In the following season, Wilt would lead the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a FG% mark, AND take the Sixers to the best record in the league. Two years after that trade, the 76ers would post a then record 68-13 mark (which is STILL a team record), en route to a dominating world title, that included a 4-1 annihilation of the 60-21 Celtics in the ECF's. And, in his last season in Philly, he would lead the NBA in assists and take the Sixers to the runaway best mark in the league again, at 62-20. Unfortunately, a RASH of injuries just DECIMATED that team, and they subsequently dropped a game seven to the eventual champion Celtics, by FOUR points.

In any case, that "pennies on the dollar" trade became a HUGE money-maker for the ownership of the 76ers.

Next...the OTHER "pennies on the dollar" trade...

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt was traded twice in his career, and somehow Simmons came to the conclusion that he was traded for "pennies on the dollar."

I have covered the first one, and now I will address the second one. Here again, we need a little background first.

Wilt and the 76er owner, Ike Richmond, became great friends after the first trade. Chamberlain considered him somewhat of a "father" figure. And according to Wilt, the two came to a verbal agreement in which Wilt would eventually be able to acquire part ownership of the franchise.

However, in a game in Boston in 1965, Richmond suffered a heart attack, and was declared DOA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

[QUOTE]In the 1967

[LAZERUSS]

why Chamberlain was traded three times (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?

Shaq was traded once at his peak.

And Kareem was traded once and at his peak...

[trueDS]

Learn the facts? Oh brother, right I'm sure you know much more than I about this topic. I misread and believed you were talking about the '61-62 season, I had some articles bookmarked on the 61 playoff series but google news archives appears to be down, Phila hopefully has something saved. I recall coverage pointing out Swede Halbrook played Wilt for at least part of that series and played (defensively) quite well. Wilt still averaged 37 on him. At the end of the day you're still talking about a team that was not deep nor talented beyond Wilt and the aging Arizin, at that time you needed much more in a smaller league, they didn't have any fighting chance in the playoffs until Frank McGuire coached that squad the following year to feed Wilt the lions share of offensive possessions. I don't know what more you wanted from him in the '61 playoffs, are you implying he didn't do his job? Because he did, he played well. 37 a game in the playoffs, that's pretty damn dominant.


37 PPG is misleading, when sample is so small (only 3 games). Game by game:



G PTS RBS FGM FGA FTM FTA GAME DIFFERENTIAL
1 46 32 19 39 8 14 -8
2 32 14 13 28 6 10 -1
3 33 23 13 29 7 14 -3



So Wilt played great in game 1, but not so good in the other two. And the less he shot, the better Warriors played (-1 and -3 pts differential).

Besides it was 0-3 sweep, so how it is possible Warriors as a higher seed weren't able to won at least one game? They were good enough in regular season to won 46 games, but failed to win at least one game vs 38W team? And it's not like Nats were stacked team - as I said, their best player shot 33.6 FG% in playoffs.

[trueDS]

Shaq was traded once at his peak.

And Kareem was traded once and at his peak...

Shaq was traded at the end of his prime, not peak. KAJ - ok, but only once.

Anyway, your explanations of Wilt trades look good, thank you. (but I wish you would do it in less words ;))

[LAZERUSS]

If Russell was the only "thing" to keep Wilt from multiple titles, then please answer to this questions:

- if Wilt was so dominant scorer why he didn't led his teams to better offensive results (ortg)? Sure, weak supporting cast might explain something (but still, Arizin, Gola and Rodgers weren't bad offensive - overall, not only scoring - players), but why Pistons in 1960 with Howell and Shue as best players were better offensively than Warriors? Or NYK with Guerin and Sears? Similar story next year and on several other occasions.

- if we he was so good scorer why he stopped to be volume scorer in 1967 season and his team was so much better offensively? Why his COACH wanted him to shot less if his scoring was unstoppable?

- why Chamberlain was traded three times (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?

- why his team didn't advance to playoffs in 1963? Weak supporting cast? So why Pistons with Howell and DeBusschere did?

- why he didn't dominate injured Reed in G7 of 1970 finals?

Arizin played with Wilt for three seasons, and Chamberlain's presence hardly affected his offense, at all. Still, he was nearing the end, and in two of his three playoff series with Chamberlain, he shot .375 and .325.

Gola also played with Wilt for three seasons, and was a decent, but certainly not a great player (and nowhere near a "HOFer.") He also had his best regular seasons of his career WITH Chamberlain. But, in two of his three post-seasons with Chamberlain, he shot .271 and .206. Now, before you blame Wilt, take a look at his entire post-season career. He was simply an awful shooter BEFORE Wilt, and with Chamberlain.

Rodgers? My god, he was arguably the worse shooter, compared to league average, of all-time (well, I believe Rubio is making at run at that distinction now.) But to make matters worse, Rodgers STILL shot the ball. In any case, he basically played the same way, AFTER Wilt, as he did WITH Chamberlain (albeit, he did score a little more, but of course, he took way more shots.)

The reality was, Chamberlain inherited a LAST PLACE roster in his rookie season, and immediately led them to a 49-26 record. He also single-handedly blew away the Nats in the first round of the playoffs (including the must-win clinching performance of 53 points and 22 rebounds.) And in the EDF's, he badly injured his hand at the end of game two of that series, and the swelling was so bad, that it was useless in the next two games, both Boston wins (in fact, in the very next game, he had arguably the worse post-season game of his career, and was badly outplayed by Russell... in a 120-90 loss.) His Warriors fell behind, 3-1, but he came back with a vengeance in the must-win game five, with a 50 point, 35 rebound game. His team lost a game six, by two points. Had he not been injured for two of those games, who knows. In any case, and even with the injuries, he averaged 30.5 ppg on a .500 eFG% (in a post-season NBA that shot .402.)

And the roster would continue to get older and worse. In his 60-61 post-season, Arizin shot .325, and Gola shot .206, and while Wilt put up a 37 ppg, 23 rpg, .469 series (in a post-season NBA that shot .403), his teammates collectively shot .332, and they were swept by a more talented Nats team.

And because of just how poorly his teammates played in that post-season, Chamberlain's coach, Frank McGuire, went to Wilt before the start of the '61-62 season, and asked Wilt to just shoot the ball. It wasn't WILT's idea to take 40 FGAs per game, but rather his COACH's.

The result? Chamberlain led his team to a 49-31 record. Then in the first round of the playoffs, from at least some of the articles that I found at the time, an for some strange reason, Wilt's COACH had him distributing the ball again. It didn't work. And with the series tied, 2-2, and going into the deciding game five, he had Wilt return to shooting the ball again. Chamberlain responded with a 56 point, 35 rebound game, and his Warriors won easily.

They met the 60-20 HOF-laden Celtics in the EDF's. Keep in mind that during their regular season H2H's, Wilt had averaged 39.7 ppg on a .471 eFG% against Russell. The series went to seven games, and Boston won game seven, by two points. Chamberlain had been swarmed the entire game, but was clutch down the stretch, and in fact a basket and subsequent FT had tied the game. But, alas, Sam Jones hit the game winner over Wilt's fingertips, in a two point win. Wilt averaged 33.6 ppg on a .468 eFG% in that series, which was down slightly from his regular season averages against Russell, but keep in mind that during the regular season, the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg on a .426 eFG%. In the '62 playoffs, the NBA averaged 112.6 ppg on a .411 eFG%. And while I don't know what Wilt's teammates shot during that series, they collectively shot .354 in the entire playoffs. (Arizin shot .375, and Gola shot .271 BTW.)

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Shaq was traded at the end of his prime, not peak. KAJ - ok, but only once.

Anyway, your explanations of Wilt trades look good, thank you. (but I wish you would do it in less words ;))

Look, we got off on the wrong foot (and mostly my fault BTW.)

I can see you are an intelligent poster, and you obviously have done your research. You bring up valid points, and argue them well.

We can go back and forth until the cows come home, but I am tired right now. For the moment, at least, let's just agree to disagree.

:cheers:

We can continue these discussions tomorrow night if you like...

[LAZERUSS]

37 PPG is misleading, when sample is so small (only 3 games). Game by game:



G PTS RBS FGM FGA FTM FTA GAME DIFFERENTIAL
1 46 32 19 39 8 14 -8
2 32 14 13 28 6 10 -1
3 33 23 13 29 7 14 -3



So Wilt played great in game 1, but not so good in the other two. And the less he shot, the better Warriors played (-1 and -3 pts differential).

Besides it was 0-3 sweep, so how it is possible Warriors as a higher seed weren't able to won at least one game? They were good enough in regular season to won 46 games, but failed to win at least one game vs 38W team? And it's not like Nats were stacked team - as I said, their best player shot 33.6 FG% in playoffs.

I will address this as quickly as I can...

take a look at Syracuse's and Wilt's Warriors SRS in '61. While Chamberlain's team went 46-33, and the Nats could only go 38-41, the Nats actually had a higher SRS (1.92 to Philly's 0.88.)

And I don't have the Nats statistical breakdown in that series, but I do know that, aside from Chamberlain, the Warriors collectively shot .332 from the field (in a post-season NBA that shot .403.) And again, the three games were close (margins of 8, 1, and 3 points.)

[aj1987]

Hey Lazers, did Wilt ever have a 50-40 game? If not, what's the closest that he has ever gotten?

[CavaliersFTW]

Hey Lazers, did Wilt ever have a 50-40 game? If not, what's the closest that he has ever gotten?
Just off the top of my head, in his 2nd highest scoring game of 78 points he grabbed 43 rebounds

[trueDS]

Look, we got off on the wrong foot (and mostly my fault BTW.)

I can see you are an intelligent poster, and you obviously have done your research. You bring up valid points, and argue them well.

We can go back and forth until the cows come home, but I am tired right now. For the moment, at least, let's just agree to disagree.

:cheers:

We can continue these discussions tomorrow night if you like...

Maybe in the future, but for now I learned some things from you in this thread and I need to process it ;) Mostly how bad Wilt's supporting cast was - but I will examine it further and I will look into how his supporting casts and team results can be compared to Hakeem's and KG's situation, because usually people who criticize Wilt the most at the same time value KG and HO very much.

[La Frescobaldi]

Hey Lazers, did Wilt ever have a 50-40 game? If not, what's the closest that he has ever gotten?

Here's a cool little page, dunno if it is 1-0-0 per cent accurate but

http://www.sporcle.com/games/mstanek28/30reb30pts

see how you do on the quiz!!

[millwad]

Maybe in the future, but for now I learned some things from you in this thread and I need to process it ;) Mostly how bad Wilt's supporting cast was - but I will examine it further and I will look into how his supporting casts and team results can be compared to Hakeem's and KG's situation, because usually people who criticize Wilt the most at the same time value KG and HO very much.

Don't ever trust Lazeruss, he's the biggest clown on this site.
He lies and cherry picks stats so Wilt will look even better and he belittles other players and Wilt's teammates all the time.

Lazeruss had an old account called "Jlauber" and he started his new account because people got tired of his lies and myths which he tried to make to reality. Lazeruss is even so obsessed that he started a new account called "Houston" last month to belittle the other centers which Wilt was compared to. He is a clown.

And don't ever believe his nonsense about Wilt's "bad" teammates and don't for one second believe that he was in a same situation as KG and Hakeem because that is just false and stupid.

We are talking about the same guy who was carried offensively when he got his first ring and Wilt's teammates put up following stats in the '67 finals:


Greer: 26 points (39% FG), 8 rebounds and 6 assists
Walker: 23 points (45% FG), 8.8 rebounds and 3.3 assists
Jones: 20.2 points (45% FG) 3.5 rebounds and 5.3 assists
Cunningham: 19.7 points (45% FG), 5.7 rebounds and 3 assist

And overall he had alot, alot of talent next to him, don't believe the garbage Lazeruss is trying to brainwash you with. Wilt played with a total of 9 HALL OF FAME players during his career and he played with 2 HOF:ers or more in 12 of his 14 seasons in the NBA.

[LAZERUSS]

Hey Lazers, did Wilt ever have a 50-40 game? If not, what's the closest that he has ever gotten?

FIVE 50-40 games, and a total of EIGHT 40-40 games (including one against Russell.) And CavsFan was right... a 78-43 game, as well.

[LAZERUSS]

Maybe in the future, but for now I learned some things from you in this thread and I need to process it ;) Mostly how bad Wilt's supporting cast was - but I will examine it further and I will look into how his supporting casts and team results can be compared to Hakeem's and KG's situation, because usually people who criticize Wilt the most at the same time value KG and HO very much.

I'll cover Hakeem's post-seasons, and particularly his two Finals later on tonight. Needless to say, his first title run was over-rated (and the best player in the league took the year off), and in his next Finals, his TEAMMATES just shelled Shaq's. In fact, his teammates collectively had as higher eFG% and TS% than Hakeem did (Hakeem's was BELOW the post-season league average in both BTW.)

[SHAQisGOAT]

Don't ever trust Lazeruss, he's the biggest clown on this site.
He lies and cherry picks stats so Wilt will look even better and he belittles other players and Wilt's teammates all the time.

Lazeruss had an old account called "Jlauber" and he started his new account because people got tired of his lies and myths which he tried to make to reality. Lazeruss is even so obsessed that he started a new account called "Houston" last month to belittle the other centers which Wilt was compared to. He is a clown.

And don't ever believe his nonsense about Wilt's "bad" teammates and don't for one second believe that he was in a same situation as KG and Hakeem because that is just false and stupid.

We are talking about the same guy who was carried offensively when he got his first ring and Wilt's teammates put up following stats in the '67 finals:


Greer: 26 points (39% FG), 8 rebounds and 6 assists
Walker: 23 points (45% FG), 8.8 rebounds and 3.3 assists
Jones: 20.2 points (45% FG) 3.5 rebounds and 5.3 assists
Cunningham: 19.7 points (45% FG), 5.7 rebounds and 3 assist

And overall he had alot, alot of talent next to him, don't believe the garbage Lazeruss is trying to brainwash you with. Wilt played with a total of 9 HALL OF FAME players during his career and he played with 2 HOF:ers or more in 12 of his 14 seasons in the NBA.

:applause:

[millwad]

I'll cover Hakeem's post-seasons, and particularly his two Finals later on tonight. Needless to say, his first title run was over-rated (and the best player in the league took the year off), and in his next Finals, his TEAMMATES just shelled Shaq's. In fact, his teammates collectively had as higher eFG% and TS% than Hakeem did (Hakeem's was BELOW the post-season league average in both BTW.)

Haha, this is laughable.

You're the same clown who created the account "Houston" here at Insidehoops just to write bogus about Olajuwon.

Let us guess, you're not biased at all..

If you guys have missed it, Lazeruss (Jlauber) has had this fetisch with writing lies and bogus about Olajuwon just because people at Insidehoops started to compare him with Wilt.

He got exposed time after time and since he's going to try to break down the finals for you guys tonight, let me tell you this. He didn't even see the games at all and he got exposed for it a long time ago.

And last but not least, here is Lazeruss alt account, "Houston".

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/member.php?u=301097

[RightToCensor]

:roll: @ everyone praising YMCA stats.

[dankok8]

It puzzles me how LAZERUSS cites Wilt's FG% and his teammates' and then pretends there is absolutely no link between them. Wilt's style of play AFFECTED his teammates.

Is it a coincidence that when Wilt shot less his teams did much better? In 65-66 the Sixers had an ORtg of 95.3 (6th of 9 teams) and in 66-67 the team had an ORtg of 101.5 (1st of 10 teams). Wilt went from 25 shots to 14 shots a game. Despite being the best and most efficient scorer on his team when he took fewer shots (and his awful awful teammates took more), the Sixers became an offensive juggernaut. Explain to me why that was the case kind sir...

A similar though smaller jump in ORtg was also seen between the 70-71 and 71-72 seasons. Wilt again decided to shoot less and focus on rebounding, defense, and outlet passing.

Of course we know that in 67-68 and 72-73 Wilt got carried away and started shooting too little even when his teams needed him. Both Alex Hannum and Bill Sharman were puzzled at Wilt's lack of aggression at times.

[Dr.J4ever]

It puzzles me how LAZERUSS cites Wilt's FG% and his teammates' and then pretends there is absolutely no link between them. Wilt's style of play AFFECTED his teammates.

Is it a coincidence that when Wilt shot less his teams did much better? In 65-66 the Sixers had an ORtg of 95.3 (6th of 9 teams) and in 66-67 the team had an ORtg of 101.5 (1st of 10 teams). Wilt went from 25 shots to 14 shots a game. Despite being the best and most efficient scorer on his team when he took fewer shots (and his awful awful teammates took more), the Sixers became an offensive juggernaut. Explain to me why that was the case kind sir...

A similar though smaller jump in ORtg was also seen between the 70-71 and 71-72 seasons. Wilt again decided to shoot less and focus on rebounding, defense, and outlet passing.

Of course we know that in 67-68 and 72-73 Wilt got carried away and started shooting too little even when his teams needed him. Both Alex Hannum and Bill Sharman were puzzled at Wilt's lack of aggression at times.
This is what I've been trying to say. For example, Allen Iverson. He regularly suppressed his teammates scoring by shooting so much, that by the end of the game, no teammate had enough confidence to help out in scoring. This happened a lot and so many good scorers/players/teammates fell by the wayside and dismissed as not good enough. Meanwhile, lesser players contribute on other title teams because the superstar is less unselfish.(BTW I don't believe apg alone is a good stat in knowing who is and who isn't a selfish player. Players who "glue" the team together with passes that lead to assist passes are valuable too)
Now, I am not saying this is what happened in wilt's case, but it is a possibility. What i have also been trying to say is this---the bottom line is winning. Winning players know how to create the proper chemistry on the court. It's an intangible of knowing when to feed your teammates, and when you as the superstar need to take over. And really, the only way to know who the best players are in creating these winning conditions is to have watched the games themselves in real time. Not highlights. Not stats.

[millwad]

It puzzles me how LAZERUSS cites Wilt's FG% and his teammates' and then pretends there is absolutely no link between them. Wilt's style of play AFFECTED his teammates.

Is it a coincidence that when Wilt shot less his teams did much better? In 65-66 the Sixers had an ORtg of 95.3 (6th of 9 teams) and in 66-67 the team had an ORtg of 101.5 (1st of 10 teams). Wilt went from 25 shots to 14 shots a game. Despite being the best and most efficient scorer on his team when he took fewer shots (and his awful awful teammates took more), the Sixers became an offensive juggernaut. Explain to me why that was the case kind sir...

A similar though smaller jump in ORtg was also seen between the 70-71 and 71-72 seasons. Wilt again decided to shoot less and focus on rebounding, defense, and outlet passing.

Of course we know that in 67-68 and 72-73 Wilt got carried away and started shooting too little even when his teams needed him. Both Alex Hannum and Bill Sharman were puzzled at Wilt's lack of aggression at times.

The problem is that Lazeruss is the most biased fan around, he won't accept Wilt getting any criticism at all.

He has excuses and irrelevant replies to every single thing. According to him, nothing of Wilt's failures was because of Wilt himself. It was his teammates fault, his coaches, his injuries, the media, the era, the opposing players and the list goes on.

[julizaver]

Don't ever trust Lazeruss, he's the biggest clown on this site.
He lies and cherry picks stats so Wilt will look even better and he belittles other players and Wilt's teammates all the time.

You proclaimed him dead last year and even created a thread about it. Should rethink who's the biggest clown here. :hammerhead:


We are talking about the same guy who was carried offensively when he got his first ring and Wilt's teammates put up following stats in the '67 finals:


Greer: 26 points (39% FG), 8 rebounds and 6 assists
Walker: 23 points (45% FG), 8.8 rebounds and 3.3 assists
Jones: 20.2 points (45% FG) 3.5 rebounds and 5.3 assists
Cunningham: 19.7 points (45% FG), 5.7 rebounds and 3 assist

You are gonna deny the fact that Wilt was the best player in '67 finals ? Seriously ... :facepalm



"... don't believe the garbage Lazeruss is trying to brainwash you with.

And thrust millwad. He is as credible poster as one could be ...:rockon:

[Audio One]

http://ohn1.slausworks.netdna-cdn.com/newohnblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/frabz-Hes-right-you-know-967a8c1.jpg

[mehyaM24]

I will address this as quickly as I can...

take a look at Syracuse's and Wilt's Warriors SRS in '61. While Chamberlain's team went 46-33, and the Nats could only go 38-41, the Nats actually had a higher SRS (1.92 to Philly's 0.88.)

And I don't have the Nats statistical breakdown in that series, but I do know that, aside from Chamberlain, the Warriors collectively shot .332 from the field (in a post-season NBA that shot .403.) And again, the three games were close (margins of 8, 1, and 3 points.)

wake me up when wilt has more playoff wins than shaq.
……kinda hard considering, well, shaq was a winner……why is he so important to you?…..and thanks for admitting the value in what every center besides wilt was. punch yourself in the face,mental midget…..im the genius here

[fpliii]

BTW LAZ - I remember we talked about major rule changes, here's the list I'm using presently:

[code]Season
1955 Shot Clock Introduced Penalty FTA after 6
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965 Lane widened 12

[LAZERUSS]

It puzzles me how LAZERUSS cites Wilt's FG% and his teammates' and then pretends there is absolutely no link between them. Wilt's style of play AFFECTED his teammates.

Is it a coincidence that when Wilt shot less his teams did much better? In 65-66 the Sixers had an ORtg of 95.3 (6th of 9 teams) and in 66-67 the team had an ORtg of 101.5 (1st of 10 teams). Wilt went from 25 shots to 14 shots a game. Despite being the best and most efficient scorer on his team when he took fewer shots (and his awful awful teammates took more), the Sixers became an offensive juggernaut. Explain to me why that was the case kind sir...

A similar though smaller jump in ORtg was also seen between the 70-71 and 71-72 seasons. Wilt again decided to shoot less and focus on rebounding, defense, and outlet passing.

Of course we know that in 67-68 and 72-73 Wilt got carried away and started shooting too little even when his teams needed him. Both Alex Hannum and Bill Sharman were puzzled at Wilt's lack of aggression at times.

Because, as usual, ORtg is an advanced, and flawed stat. I can give you a ton of examples, but let's use Wilt's 61-62 season (his highest FGA season BTW), as an example.

His Warriors LED the league in scoring (and by a solid margin) at 125.4 ppg. They also finished 2nd in eFG% at .439. And think about this... the league ppg average was 118.8 ppg, and the league eFG% was at .426. Now you tell me how his team which was MILES ahead of the league average in scoring, and well ahead of the league average in efficiency, came in FOURTH in ORtg????

But let's chronicle Wilt's contributions...

First, a year before Wilt arrived, the Warriors were 7th in scoring (in an eight team league) at 103.3 ppg, in an NBA that averaged 108.2 ppg. They were 8th (dead last) in eFG% at .381, in a league that shot .395. And their ORtg was last.

In Wilt's rookie season, his team jumped to third in scoring, at 118.6 ppg, in a league that averaged 115.3 ppg. They shot an eFG% of .409, which was good enough for 6th, and in a league that shot .410 overall. Their ORtg was 7th. Again, makes absolutely zero sense. But, that is still not the point. From what the actual scoring and efficiency numbers show me, his presence DRAMATICALLY improved their offense from the year before. BTW, their team record improved from a last-place 32-40 mark in 58-59, to 49-26 in his rookie season.

In Chamberlain's second season, his FGAs declined slightly, but so did their team record (down to 46-33 from 49-26 in his rookie season.) His effciency, however, was considerably better. In any case, his Warriors continued their upward trend in SCORING, averaging 121.0 (which was barely behind the leading team at 121.3), and in a league that averaged 118.1 ppg. And the Warriors now jumped to second in eFG% at .424, in a league that shot .415. So, second (and barely) in scoring, and second in eFG%...and guess what? SIXTH in ORtg. ?????????

I already mentioned Wilt's staggering third season above. His team's scoring was the best in the league, and their eFG% was 2nd...and only FOURTH in ORtg. Oh, and their record improved to 49-31 from the year before. In any case, in Wilt's highest FGA season, his team's scoring and efficiency jumped considerably from the season before.

And this is where it gets interesting. In Chamberlain's 4th season, (62-63), his team's offense declined somewhat, even though Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG%. Overall, they came in 4th in scoring, at 118.5 ppg, in a league that averaged 115.3 ppg, and their eFG% of .450 was good enough for 3rd. Their ORtg was still a puzzling 5th overall. Still, with that offensive production, how in the hell did they finish with a 31-49 record?

And this is where your theory really gets blown to bits. Chamberlain's new coach in the 63-64 season, Alex Hannum, brought in a new philosophy. And here is an excerpt...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1075691/2/index.htm

[QUOTE]
San Francisco had a coach, but what Hannum got was no bargain. The team had the morale of a bunch of recruits immediately after their first G.I. haircuts. Says Hannum, "I realized how completely inadequate the team had become. They had learned to depend on Wilt so completely they were even incapable of beating a squad of rookies. I had to convince them that they, too, had responsibilities."

Hannum demanded that the Warriors play all-out the entire time they were in a practice game, running constantly and finally cutting toward the basket or to an uncluttered spot for a jump shot. When a player began to bleed from the eyes, Hannum would send in a substitute. But the trouble was, these players had no stomach for continuous motion because they knew that if Chamberlain got the ball they would never see it again.

Hannum's next task, then, was to convince Wilt Chamberlain

[LAZERUSS]

continuing...

As for his 65-66 Sixers... Again, this ORtg ranking was/is pure s**t. Their ORtg was only good enough for 6th, but they finsihed 4th in scoring at 117.3 ppg, in a league that averaged 115.5 ppg, and second in eFG% at .446, in a league that shot .433. And Wilt led the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; led the league in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; led the league in FG% at .540 (and again, was light years above the league average.) AND, he even had time to hand out 5.2 apg. Oh, and his Sixers went from a 40-40 record the year before, to the best record in the league, at 55-25. Incidently, while Wilt was shooting that .540 from the floor, his teammates collectively shot .416.

But then your theory really gets blown to bits. During the regular season series with Boston, Wilt's Sixers went 6-3. And in those nine games, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, and 30.7 rpg. We don't have all of his games for his FG/FGA and apg, but in what we do have, he shot .521 from the field, and handed out 3.7 apg.

In the EDF's, his Sixers were wiped out 4-1 by a Celtics team that they had so easily beaten 6-3 during the regular season. Obviously Chamberlain must have had a huge decline, right? In the EDF's, Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and handed out 3.2 apg. (BTW, the recaps had Wilt completely outplaying Russell...even in his lowest scoring game of the series.) So, here was Wilt putting up almost IDENTICAL numbers against Russell and Boston that he had during the regular season...and yet his team was waxed 4-1. Well, the answer was pretty emphatic. Chamberlain's TEAMMATES collectively shot .352 from the field in that series.

I could continue to the end of his career, but it was all too painfully obvious. Chamberlain almost always played nearly the same way in his post-seasons, that he had in his regular seasons, but his TEAMMATES almost always had DRAMATIC declines in those post-seasons.

[LAZERUSS]

BTW LAZ - I remember we talked about major rule changes, here's the list I'm using presently:


Season
1955 Shot Clock Introduced Penalty FTA after 6
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965 Lane widened 12’->16’
1966
1967 Penalty FTA after 6->5 Zone defense curtailed Hack-a-Shaq added
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979 Hand-checking curtailed Hack-a-Shaq 2 minutes regulation
1980 Three-point FG introduced
1981
1982 Penalty FTA eliminated
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995 Three-point line shortened Hand-checking curtailed
1996
1997
1998 Three-point line restored Hand-checking curtailed
1999
2000 Hand-checking curtailed 5 seconds back to the basket
2001
2002 Zone defense allowed Hand-checking relaxed
2003
2004
2005 Hand-checking curtailed
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

I would add this:

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html


1981-82
• Zone defense rules clarified with new rules for Illegal Defensive Alignments.
a. Weak side defenders may come in the pro lane (16’), but not in the college lane (12’) for more than three seconds.
b. Defender on post player is allowed in defensive three-second area (A post player is any player adjacent to paint area).
c. Player without ball may not be double-teamed from weak side.
d. Offensive player above foul line and inside circle must be played by defender inside dotted line.
e. If offensive player is above the top of the circle, defender must come to a position above foul line.
f. Defender on cutter must follow the cutter, switch, or double-team the ball

The double-teaming rule obviously means that the great post players of the 60's and 70's were routinely being doubled, even without the ball (which, of course, we KNOW that Chamberlain was.)

As a side-note, the widening of the lane before the start of the 64-65 season (incidently college never adopted this BTW), was aimed strictly at WILT. And it had ZERO affect on him. In his 63-64 season, he had averaged 36.9 ppg. During the first half of the 64-65 season, and before he was traded at mid-season, an ailing Wilt was averaging 38.9 ppg. After the trade to the Sixers, and with a better supporting cast, he cut back his shooting, and finished the season at 34.7 ppg. (Oh, and against Russell in the EDF's, he hung a 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .555 eFG% , .580 TS% series.) Then, in his 65-66 season, he led the NBA in scoring at 33.5 ppg on a then record .540 eFG% (in a league that shot an eFG% of .433.)

The widening of the lane had NO affect on Chamberlain, BUT, it did have a considerable affect on the rest of the NBA. The league eFG%'s went down from .433 in '63-64, to .426 in 64-65, and scoring declined slightly from 111.0 ppg in 63-64, to 110.6 ppg in 64-65.

[fpliii]

I would add this:

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html



The double-teaming rule obviously means that the great post players of the 60's and 70's were routinely being doubled, even without the ball (which, of course, we KNOW that Chamberlain was.)
Ah okay, thanks. Updated my files.

[dankok8]

LAZERUSS...

ORtg is points produced per 100 possessions and thus it's normalized for pace. The reason for example Wilt's 61-62 Warriors led the league in PPG but weren't that efficient offensively is that they were the league's faster paced team at 131.1 possessions per game. The high pace incidentally also aided Wilt in accumulating stats.

ORtg is a damn fine stat for comparing the teams in the same league. It basically gives points per possession. It combines the effect of field goals, free throws, offensive rebounds etc. It's really the closest there is to a perfect stat when comparing team offenses.

[dankok8]

And please don't say Wilt played just as well in the playoffs.



Season: 30.1 ppg, 22.9 rpg, 4.4 apg on 54.0 %FG/51.1 %FT/54.7 %TS in 45.8 mpg
Playoffs: 22.5 ppg, 24.5 rpg, 4.2 apg on 52.2 %FG/46.5 %FT/52.4 %TS in 47.2 mpg
Finals: 18.6 ppg, 24.6 rpg, 3.8 apg on 55.9 %FG/37.5 %FT/52.8 %TS in 47.3 mpg


Year-by-year playoff scoring compared to regular season?
1960: -4.6 ppg, +3.5 %FG, +0.5 %TS
1961: -1.4 ppg, -4.0 %FG, -2.7 %TS
1962: -15.4 ppg, -3.9 %FG, -2.8 %TS
1963: did not make playoffs
1964: -2.2 ppg, +1.9 %FG, +0.6 %TS
1965: -5.4 ppg, +2.0 %FG, +3.9 %TS
1966: -5.5 ppg, -3.1 %FG, -4.7 %TS
1967: -2.4 ppg, -10.4 %FG, -9.1 %TS
1968: -0.6 ppg, -6.1 %FG, -4.6 %TS
1969: -6.6 ppg, -3.8 %FG, -4.6 %TS
1970: -5.2 ppg, -1.9 %FG, -2.6 %TS
1971: -2.4 ppg, -9.0 %FG, -7.9 %TS
1972: -0.1 ppg, -8.6 %FG, -4.8 %TS
1973: -2.8 ppg, -17.5 %FG, -13.3 %TS

Year-by-year finals scoring compared to the regular season?
1964: -7.7 ppg, -0.9 %FG, -2.8 %TS
1967: -6.4 ppg, -12.3 %FG, -14.0 %TS
1969: -8.8 ppg, -8.3 %FG, -9.3 %TS
1970: -4.0 ppg, +5.7 %FG, +2.2 %TS
1972: +4.6 ppg, -4.9 %FG, -0.7 %TS
1973: -1.6 ppg, -20.3 %FG, -19.5 %TS

[LAZERUSS]

LAZERUSS...

ORtg is points produced per 100 possessions and thus it's normalized for pace. The reason for example Wilt's 61-62 Warriors led the league in PPG but weren't that efficient offensively is that they were the league's faster paced team at 131.1 possessions per game. The high pace incidentally also aided Wilt in accumulating stats.

ORtg is a damn fine stat for comparing the teams in the same league. It basically gives points per possession. It combines the effect of field goals, free throws, offensive rebounds etc. It's really the closest there is to a perfect stat when comparing team offenses.

It is yet another pure S**T advanced stat, and I just proved it to you. And pace is pace. The league wide pace in '62 was (an ESTIMATED) 126 (which, of course blows away Pauk/Montana's theory of 140-150...and this was by far, the highest in the decade.) You simply can't punish Wilt for ELEVATING his team's pace.

And again, it is purely an estimate. Why? If we were to just normalize for "pace" alone, then the average NBA team in '62, transported to 2014, would be scoring 87 ppg...or 13 ppg less than the average team in 2014. Again, it is pure POS stat.

But, I wouldn't expect anything different from a KNOWN Wilt-basher. (and a closet Magic-basher.)

[millwad]

You proclaimed him dead last year and even created a thread about it. Should rethink who's the biggest clown here. :hammerhead:



You are gonna deny the fact that Wilt was the best player in '67 finals ? Seriously ... :facepalm




And thrust millwad. He is as credible poster as one could be ...:rockon:

You're an idiot, and it's "trust" and not "thrust" and learn the difference between claiming and proclaiming.

I got a PM about Jlauber (Lazeruss) and everything besides him being dead was right, the guy even gave me his address and the name of his wife, something I didn't spread though.

And no one said that Wilt wasn't the best player in the '67 finals, what I said was that had massive help. He had 4 teammates who scored more than him that year in the finals and 4 teammates who averaged more than 19 points per game during the finals. And if your english wouldn't be equal with a pile of crap you'd understand that my point was that Wilt in fact didn't have little help like Jlauber always try to claim.

[millwad]

But, I wouldn't expect anything different from a KNOWN Wilt-basher. (and a closet Magic-basher.)


Oh, go **** yourself, you bastard.

You have no right to call out anyone for bashing players, you're the same pathetic fool who just signed up with a new alt account called "Houston" just to bash on Hakeem Olajuwon. Pathetic fool.

[LAZERUSS]

And please don't say Wilt played just as well in the playoffs.


I have covered this a million times.

Bellamy in 10 playoff H2H's
Reed in 11 (actually 17) playoff starts
An absolute PEAK Kareem in 11 H2H's.(whose scoring and efficiency he DRAMATICALLY reduced as well.)
Thurmond in 17 H2H's (and of course, just ask KAJ about his playoff H2H's with Nate.)
Russell in 49 (yes, 49 H2H games.)

And again, aside from '62, when he only played a total of 12 playoff games, seven of which were against Russell (and his RS numbers against Russell in '62 were 39.7 ppg on a .471 eFG%)...his numbers were nearly the same every post-season (with '69 being mostly affected by an incompetent coach, as well as Nate and Russell.)

Had he played the MANY panzies that Kareem, Hakeem, and Shaq faced throughout their playoff runs, and his numbers would have been much more elevated.

Of course, just look at KAJ's post-season career eFG%. It was .533, which is slightly ahead of Chamberlain's .522. BUT, he played 158 of his 237 playoff games (2/3's of his entire post-season career) in the 80's, and in post-seasons that shot eFG%'s of between .473 to .497 and averaged about .485 overall. In Wilt's 60's, the NBA shot eFG%'s of .402, .403, .411, .420, .429. .440, .424, .446, and .431 in his nine playoff seasons, and averaged .425 in that span. A STAGGERING difference of .060.

Incidently, in his four seasons IN the Wilt-era, KAJ's post-season eFG% was at .491. AND, how about this: In his FIVE playoff series H2H's with Nate and Wilt from '71 thru '73, he averaged 25.8 ppg (697 points in 27 games) on a ...get this... .450 eFG% (304-675 FG/FGA). Against the NBA in those three seasons, he averaged 32.2 ppg on a .568 eFG%. Just an unfathomable COLLAPSE in his scoring and efficiency.

And yet, that was basically what Chamberlain was battling for much of his post-season career, and certainly in his scoring prime and peak ('60 thru '68.)

[LAZERUSS]

Oh, go **** yourself, you bastard.

You have no right to call out anyone for bashing players, you're the same pathetic fool who just signed up with a new alt account called "Houston" just to bash on Hakeem Olajuwon. Pathetic fool.

You are a complete tool. I have no idea who this "Houston" is, nor do I care. Gotta love it, whenever ANYONE here generally agrees with me here, they are my alt's. Julizaver, PHILA, Psileas, CavsFan, Helix, and the endless list that goes on...well, they must be my "alts."

GTFO...

[millwad]

You are a complete tool. I have no idea who this "Houston" is, nor do I care. Gotta love it, whenever ANYONE here generally agrees with me here, they are my alt's. Julizaver, PHILA, Psileas, CavsFan, Helix, and the endless list that goes on...well, they must be my "alts."

GTFO...

That is complete nonsense and you're to ashamed to admit it. You didn't even want to admit that Lazeruss was your new account after your "Jlauber"-account. Are we supposed to believe that someone would create a new account under the name "Houston" for the sole purpose to bash on Olajuwon with all your stupid bashing and lying. No one would do so, I have never seen people writing or using your arguments while bashing Olajuwon and considering that you have several accounts already and that the poster "Houston" used all your arguments it's more than obvious that the account belongs to you.

Julizaver - His english is garbage, he is not you.

CavaliersFTW - He has several times PM'd me about how retarded you are.

Phila and Psileas - Much better posters than you.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Why this no-life, ignorant asshole lazeruss hasn't been banned yet? What a disgraceful poster, managed to ruin for everyone a thread with a great video of his favorite player :facepalm

[dankok8]

It is yet another pure S**T advanced stat, and I just proved it to you. And pace is pace. The league wide pace in '62 was (an ESTIMATED) 126 (which, of course blows away Pauk/Montana's theory of 140-150...and this was by far, the highest in the decade.) You simply can't punish Wilt for ELEVATING his team's pace.

And again, it is purely an estimate. Why? If we were to just normalize for "pace" alone, then the average NBA team in '62, transported to 2014, would be scoring 87 ppg...or 13 ppg less than the average team in 2014. Again, it is pure POS stat.

But, I wouldn't expect anything different from a KNOWN Wilt-basher. (and a closet Magic-basher.)

Who's punishing Wilt? I'm just saying despite his huge stats his teams were middle of the pack offensively. Clearly his impact wasn't so great.

If you would have read my post above I said ORtg and DRtg are great for comparing teams in the same league. Of course if you compare a 60's team to a modern team things get out of whack. The style of play, pace, skill level, coaching, level of physicality... all different then and today. You're making trivial statements in an attempt to expose me... it's not working. :lol


I have covered this a million times.

Bellamy in 10 playoff H2H's
Reed in 11 (actually 17) playoff starts
An absolute PEAK Kareem in 11 H2H's.(whose scoring and efficiency he DRAMATICALLY reduced as well.)
Thurmond in 17 H2H's (and of course, just ask KAJ about his playoff H2H's with Nate.)
Russell in 49 (yes, 49 H2H games.)

And again, aside from '62, when he only played a total of 12 playoff games, seven of which were against Russell (and his RS numbers against Russell in '62 were 39.7 ppg on a .471 eFG%)...his numbers were nearly the same every post-season (with '69 being mostly affected by an incompetent coach, as well as Nate and Russell.)

Had he played the MANY panzies that Kareem, Hakeem, and Shaq faced throughout their playoff runs, and his numbers would have been much more elevated.

Of course, just look at KAJ's post-season career eFG%. It was .533, which is slightly ahead of Chamberlain's .522. BUT, he played 158 of his 237 playoff games (2/3's of his entire post-season career) in the 80's, and in post-seasons that shot eFG%'s of between .473 to .497 and averaged about .485 overall. In Wilt's 60's, the NBA shot eFG%'s of .402, .403, .411, .420, .429. .440, .424, .446, and .431 in his nine playoff seasons, and averaged .425 in that span. A STAGGERING difference of .060.

Incidently, in his four seasons IN the Wilt-era, KAJ's post-season eFG% was at .491. AND, how about this: In his FIVE playoff series H2H's with Nate and Wilt from '71 thru '73, he averaged 25.8 ppg (697 points in 27 games) on a ...get this... .450 eFG% (304-675 FG/FGA). Against the NBA in those three seasons, he averaged 32.2 ppg on a .568 eFG%. Just an unfathomable COLLAPSE in his scoring and efficiency.

And yet, that was basically what Chamberlain was battling for much of his post-season career, and certainly in his scoring prime and peak ('60 thru '68

If you did the same breakdown for Kareem and Russell you'd find they faced as many HOFers and as often as Wilt did... yet their numbers WENT UP in the playoffs! Please explain to me why.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Wilt is a better scorer than MJ. stay maddd:applause:

[julizaver]

I got a PM about Jlauber (Lazeruss) and everything besides him being dead was right, the guy even gave me his address and the name of his wife, something I didn't spread though.


:oldlol:



And no one said that Wilt wasn't the best player in the '67 finals, what I said was that had massive help. He had 4 teammates who scored more than him that year in the finals and 4 teammates who averaged more than 19 points per game during the finals.

I got it. Wilt was the best player during the series and had massive help. The same could be true for every FMVP in NBA history.



And if your english wouldn't be equal with a pile of crap you'd understand that my point was that Wilt in fact didn't have little help like Jlauber always try to claim.

Finally I understood. Thanks God my brain is not like my English. :banana:

If you want to talk basketball - since your point is that Wilt in fact didn't have little help , we shall measure it somehow. To begin with - who in your opinion had a greater supporting cast Wilt or Russell ?

[aj1987]

FIVE 50-40 games, and a total of EIGHT 40-40 games (including one against Russell.) And CavsFan was right... a 78-43 game, as well.
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[LAZERUSS]

Who's punishing Wilt? I'm just saying despite his huge stats his teams were middle of the pack offensively. Clearly his impact wasn't so great.

If you would have read my post above I said ORtg and DRtg are great for comparing teams in the same league. Of course if you compare a 60's team to a modern team things get out of whack. The style of play, pace, skill level, coaching, level of physicality... all different then and today. You're making trivial statements in an attempt to expose me... it's not working. :lol



If you did the same breakdown for Kareem and Russell you'd find they faced as many HOFers and as often as Wilt did... yet their numbers WENT UP in the playoffs! Please explain to me why.

Actually, neither faced anywhere near the percenatge of HOF centers in their post-season careers, including Russell, who played IN the Wilt era for 10 seasons.

Regarding Russell, he put up some huge Finals, against the Lakers, including three Final series' of 23 ppg on an eFG% of .543; 18 ppg on an eFG% of .702 (yes .702); and 24 ppg on an eFG% of .538. Against Wilt in the EDF's in those three seasons: 22 ppg on an eFG% of .399; 16 ppg on an eFG% of .447; and 14 ppg on an eFG% of .451. And all of those were his BEST series against Chamberlain.

KAJ? His overall post-season numbers declined across the board. Scoring, rebounding, and eFG%. And again, his career post-season eFG% of .533 is just slightly ahead of Wilt's (.522.) BUT, (and again) he played in 158 of his 237 playoff games in the 80's (2/3's) and in post-season NBA's that shot between .473 and .497, and averaged an eFG% of .485. Contrast that with Chamberlain's nine post-seasons in the 60's, and in post-seasons which shot between .402 and .440 in that span, and averaged .421. So, Wilt actually had a MUCH HIGHER eFG% compared to the post-season league average, than KAJ did against his peers.

AND, we also know that in his four seasons IN the WILT-era, that Kareem had an eFG% of .491 in that span in his playoffs. BUT, in gets even worse. He battled an aging Thurmond and an aging Wilt in FIVE H2H playoff series in those four post-seasons, and his scoring dropped by over six ppg, and his eFG% declined from a regular season average of .568 in those four seasons...down to .450 (yes .450) against Thurmond and Wilt.

I have said it before, but had a prime KAJ battled the greatest defensive center of his era, in 60% of his playoff games, his post-season numbers would have looked FAR WORSE.

[CavaliersFTW]

When MJ scored 37 a game his team was 12th of 23 offensively and failed to even crack .500 in the W's and L's

Overrated scorer because of his teams offense and success being mediocre? :confusedshrug: According to dankok logic, yes.

Now that we know peak MJ and Wilt are to be written off as overrated scorers, we need to figure out who ARE the legit all-time scorers.












lol

[LAZERUSS]

:oldlol:



I got it. Wilt was the best player during the series and had massive help. The same could be true for every FMVP in NBA history.



Finally I understood. Thanks God my brain is not like my English. :banana:

If you want to talk basketball - since your point is that Wilt in fact didn't have little help , we shall measure it somehow. To begin with - who in your opinion had a greater supporting cast Wilt or Russell ?

Julizaver,

You don't have to ever apologize to that clown. First of all, your research regarding the KAJ-Wilt H2H's was the first that I ever saw on the internet, and in fact, was routinely being used as THE source by many others.

Secondly, I know that English is, at the very least, your second language. I suspect that there are many here, who only speak English, and yet their written English is far worse than your's.

And finally, you don't really expect Millwad to get into any discussion with you that involves facts, or data, or logic, or any kind of real research, do you? He would have his a$$ handed to him on his own toilet seat.

[LAZERUSS]

When MJ scored 37 a game his team was 12th of 23 offensively and failed to even crack .500 in the W's and L's

Overrated scorer because of his teams offense and success being mediocre? :confusedshrug: According to dankok logic, yes.

Gotta love dankok's logic. He says that Wilt didn't improve his team's with his volume shooting, and then uses some abstract formula that no one can understand, and is based on ESTIMATES...

but then he claims that MY data is off. Yep, when Wilt came to the last place Warriors, they had averaged 103.3 ppg in a league that averaged 108.2, and in his first season, they averaged 118.6 ppg in a league that averaged 115.3.

By his third season, his team LED the league in SCORING, at 125.4 ppg, in a league that averaged 118.8 ppg...or nearly SEVEN ppg HIGHER than the league average.

And, of course, I trashed the rest of his argument with his 62-63 season, and then his 63-64 season. And, of course, he didn't bother to respond to just how come his 65-66 Sixers went 6-3 against Boston in the regular, and then went 1-4 in their post-season H2H's...and Wilt's numbers against Boston in both the regular season, AND post-season that year...were IDENTICAL. Yep...it HAD to be Chamberlain's fault, though. He should have known that because of his identical play in both, that his teammates would collectively shoot .416 in the '66 regular season, and then .352 against Boston in the playoffs.

[LAZERUSS]

Why this no-life, ignorant asshole lazeruss hasn't been banned yet? What a disgraceful poster, managed to ruin for everyone a thread with a great video of his favorite player :facepalm

Yep...I come into this thread and DEFEND Wilt against nothing but pure crap, even from YOU, and I ruined this thread??????!!!!!!

GTFOutta here.

[LAZERUSS]

When MJ scored 37 a game his team was 12th of 23 offensively and failed to even crack .500 in the W's and L's

Overrated scorer because of his teams offense and success being mediocre? :confusedshrug: According to dankok logic, yes.

Now that we know peak MJ and Wilt are to be written off as overrated scorers, we need to figure out who ARE the legit all-time scorers.












lol

Well we KNOW that KAJ certainly wasn't among them. He couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat against an aging Thurmond, and an old Wilt in five straight playoff series' H2H's. His offensive decline against those two was just unfathomable. His scoring dropped from his regular season average in that span, of 32.2 ppg, down to 25.8 ppg (and he was shooting even MORE.) And, as bad as that huge drop-off was, how about his eFG%??? It looked like the von Hindenburg... from .568 in that regular season span.....











crashing down to an eFG% of .450.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Hindenburg_disaster,_1937.jpg

[dankok8]

When MJ scored 37 a game his team was 12th of 23 offensively and failed to even crack .500 in the W's and L's

Overrated scorer because of his teams offense and success being mediocre? :confusedshrug: According to dankok logic, yes.

Now that we know peak MJ and Wilt are to be written off as overrated scorers, we need to figure out who ARE the legit all-time scorers.

Yes Jordan's impact in the 86-87 season was mighty overrated. His team won 40 games and like you pointed out they were average offensively despite his monster numbers. Of course the Bulls' talent that year was much worse than Wilt's at any points in his career. Oak and Paxson were his 2nd and 3rd options. OUCH!

But Jordan wasn't so overrated later on. As years went by and he became a better player his Bulls were getting increasingly dominant offensively. MJ learned to trust his teammates and focused on making the best basketball play. Just like Wilt was a better player (or at least played the right way) in 66-67 as opposed to 61-62.

It's actually possible for the most efficient scorer on a team to take more shots but for the team's collective offense to get worse. Ever heard of the Braess Paradox?


Gotta love dankok's logic. He says that Wilt didn't improve his team's with his volume shooting, and then uses some abstract formula that no one can understand, and is based on ESTIMATES...

but then he claims that MY data is off. Yep, when Wilt came to the last place Warriors, they had averaged 103.3 ppg in a league that averaged 108.2, and in his first season, they averaged 118.6 ppg in a league that averaged 115.3.

By his third season, his team LED the league in SCORING, at 125.4 ppg, in a league that averaged 118.8 ppg...or nearly SEVEN ppg HIGHER than the league average.

And, of course, I trashed the rest of his argument with his 62-63 season, and then his 63-64 season. And, of course, he didn't bother to respond to just how come his 65-66 Sixers went 6-3 against Boston in the regular, and then went 1-4 in their post-season H2H's...and Wilt's numbers against Boston in both the regular season, AND post-season that year...were IDENTICAL. Yep...it HAD to be Chamberlain's fault, though. He should have known that because of his identical play in both, that his teammates would collectively shoot .416 in the '66 regular season, and then .352 against Boston in the playoffs.



ORtg is an abstract formula? :roll:

Points/Pace * 100 ... It looks at points scored per 100 possessions. Wilt's team scored the most PPG but they were also the fastest paced team in 61-62. ORtg corrects for pace.

Wilt in the '66 playoffs didn't play nearly as well as in the regular season. His cumulative stats held up (although assists still plummeted from 5.2 to 3.0 and efficiency dropped from 52.2 %TS to 50.0 %TS...) but look at it game by game. Wilt in games 1 through 4 averaged 23.5 ppg on 48.7 %FG and well under 50 %TS. He really didn't have a good series. He had 3 subpar games on the offensive end.

G1: 25/32 (9/17, 7/15)
G2: 23/25 (9/23, 5/7)
G4: 31/27/4 (12/22, 7/17)
G4: 15/33/3/6 (7/14, 1/4)
G5: 46/34 (19/34, 8/25)

Series Average: 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, 3.0 apg on 50.9% FG/41.2% FT/50.0% TS

And again you dismiss the possibility that Wilt was at least partly responsible for his teammates underperforming.

[LAZERUSS]

Yes Jordan's impact in the 86-87 season was mighty overrated. His team won 40 games and like you pointed out they were average offensively despite his monster numbers. Of course the Bulls' talent that year was much worse than Wilt's at any points in his career. Oak and Paxson were his 2nd and 3rd options. OUCH!

But Jordan wasn't so overrated later on. As years went by and he became a better player his Bulls were getting increasingly dominant offensively. MJ learned to trust his teammates and focused on making the best basketball play. Just like Wilt was a better player (or at least played the right way) in 66-67 as opposed to 61-62.

It's actually possible for the most efficient scorer on a team to take more shots but for the team's collective offense to get worse. Ever heard of the Braess Paradox?



ORtg is an abstract formula? :roll:

Points/Pace * 100 ... It looks at points scored per 100 possessions. Wilt's team scored the most PPG but they were also the fastest paced team in 61-62. ORtg corrects for pace.

Wilt in the '66 playoffs didn't play nearly as well as in the regular season. His cumulative stats held up (although assists still plummeted from 5.2 to 3.0 and efficiency dropped from 52.2 %TS to 50.0 %TS...) but look at it game by game. Wilt in games 1 through 4 averaged 23.5 ppg on 48.7 %FG and well under 50 %TS. He really didn't have a good series. He had 3 subpar games on the offensive end.

G1: 25/32 (9/17, 7/15)
G2: 23/25 (9/23, 5/7)
G4: 31/27/4 (12/22, 7/17)
G4: 15/33/3/6 (7/14, 1/4)
G5: 46/34 (19/34, 8/25)

Series Average: 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, 3.0 apg on 50.9% FG/41.2% FT/50.0% TS

And again you dismiss the possibility that Wilt was at least partly responsible for his teammates underperforming.

Regarding Wilt's '66 playoff series, you and I both know that PHILA posted a recap of Chamberlain's worst game in that series (game four), and his play was described as nearly single-handedly beating Boston in that game.

And, yes, I suppose that Wilt might have had some blame in losing that series, but from what I have read, and then from what the blatantly obvious numbers show, his teammates were mostly certainly just crushed by Russell's.

IMHO, Wilt's post-season career is often judged solely by his two rings. However, it was not as if his team's were just blown away in the first round of the playoffs, and in series in which he was just awful. He played on five other teams that lost to the eventual champions, in game seven's, and in four of those, the losses were by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

Not only that, but aside from the Celtic Dynasty, in which he suffered series losses in seven of the eight times his team's played them, his team's would also go on to lose to the '70 Knicks, and the '71 Bucks...two teams which often show up as among the greatest ever. And in his last season, his Lakers lost 4-1 to a Knick team that had six HOFers, and all four losses came in the last minute (by margins of 4, 4, 5, and 9 points.)

And if you take the eight series against Boston away from his post-season averages, he often played better, overall, than he did in his regular seasons. I have mentioned it before, but had his team's been locked in the Western Conference in the first half of his career, his playoff numbers likely would have shot thru the roof. I am not claiming that he would have had any more rings because of it, because ultimately he would have had to face Boston in every year of them, but he would have probably had at least one more series, each year, and in most of them, he would have faced a Laker team that he was routinely scoring 50+ points on in his regular season H2H's (and with six games of 60+ in that span, including a 78 point game.) And we both agree that Russell went on to generally demolish those Laker teams himself. Here again, maybe his teaqm's don't even beat those Laker squads, but I am convinced that his overall offensive production would have likely, at the very least, mirrored what he did against the Hawks in his lone season in the West (39 ppg on a .556 FG%, in a post-season NBA that averaged 105.8 ppg on a .420 eFG%.)


Look, I don't want to keep arguing with you on Wilt's career. At this point you have your opinions, and I have mine, and all we are doing is just recycling the same arguments. And, like some other posters here, I may not always agree with your opinions, but I do respect them. So, I will politely just end this by saying that, maybe we should just agree to disagree.

[julizaver]

Julizaver,

You don't have to ever apologize to that clown. First of all, your research regarding the KAJ-Wilt H2H's was the first that I ever saw on the internet, and in fact, was routinely being used as THE source by many others.

Secondly, I know that English is, at the very least, your second language. I suspect that there are many here, who only speak English, and yet their written English is far worse than your's.

And finally, you don't really expect Millwad to get into any discussion with you that involves facts, or data, or logic, or any kind of real research, do you? He would have his a$$ handed to him on his own toilet seat.

Yes, I am European and English is not my native language.
I have started the research about KAJ and Wilt two years before I published it here. The break came when I found the Milwaukee newspapers in the googlenews archives. Only when I have all the complete data I published it,otherwise I have most of the data for most of the time.

[La Frescobaldi]

Yes, I am European and English is not my native language.
I have started the research about KAJ and Wilt two years before I published it here. The break came when I found the Milwaukee newspapers in the googlenews archives. Only when I have all the complete data I published it,otherwise I have most of the data for most of the time.

You do a great job always and keep it up!! The extra advantage you will find in your newspaper work, imo, is by going away from the NBA cities in your research. Generally the newspapers were infinitely less biased than today's corporate media - which is absolutely scandalous..... but not in the sports pages!!

Some city newspapers that might give you a different viewpoint about the NBA of those days would be Dallas, Ft. Worth, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh. For the regular season they might have 3 or 4 articles about teams in a season, but often the sportswriters from those cities would travel to the playoff games. All of those guys liked to hit the bars after the games!!

The very dregs of reporting in those days came from Boston, where they even lied about stats in the sports pages. Some of those writers sat by cops when they showed up in the other cities because the cops were the only guys that wouldn't beat them down.