Wilt Chamberlain 1964 NBA Finals Series highlights (29.2ppg, 27.6rpg, 2.4apg)

[hiphopanonymous]

29 of his 62 FGM now exist on film for almost half of his shots.


https://youtu.be/1vCb-i8XpaQ

This is Wilts only series - at 5 games - that he was looking to score. He attempted 24 shots per game this series as opposed to only 11.7 for the rest of his NBA finals career (30 additional games). This has lead many to see his 18.6 finals ppg and conclude he must have not been as capable as his 30ppg regular season career number indicates but it’s actually because his role changed so much and he played more finals in a fewer shot attempt role.

For actual apples to apples comparison:
33.8ppg, 27.9rpg, 4.1apg in 17 1964 regular season games vs Russell
29.2ppg, 27.6rpg, 2.4apg in 5 1964 Finals games vs Russell

And Russell vs Wilt for reference:
14.8ppg, 26.4rpg, 6apg in 17 1964 regular season games vs Wilt
11.2ppg, 25.2rpg, 5apg in 5 1964 Finals games vs Wilt

Anyways just thought you guys would enjoy the video

[Axe]

@coastalmarker99

[Torphy]

Thank you for this highlight video Activate MyPrepaidCenter (https://www.myprepaidcenter.bid/)

[Round Mound]

:bowdown:

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt usually obliterated Russell every time they matched up in the playoffs aside from the 1969 finals but of course, Russell having the better teammates and coach was usually able to barely get by the one-man team that was Wilt Chamberlain.





Russ fans claim that Celtics 7-1 PO record shows Russ dominated and is better than Wilt as a player.

Wilt fans say he dominated Russ individually but that Russ’s teammates outplayed Wilt’s. This thread looks at the actual record, series by series and game by game.

I examined all 49 PO games. I tracked data in four categories: TS%, Pts, Reb, Ast.

The overall data showed this: PTS: Wilt: 43-6 (Wilt had more points than BR in 43 games vs. 6 games for Russ.) REB: Wilt: 32-18 (1 tie) AST: BR: 27-15 (7 ties) TS%: Wilt: 32-17

I figured out Russ/Wilt’s teammates’ data by subtracting Russ/Wilt’s stats from team stats.

PTS: BR's teammates: 40-9 (BR teammates had more points than Wilt's in 40 of those games, vs. 9 for Wilt's mates.) REB: BR teammates, 33-15 (1 tie) AST: BR teammates: 28-16-5 TS%: BR teammates, 26-23

[coastalmarker99]

Also.



Wilt and Russell played against each other in 8 playoff years: 49 games. Those same years, Wilt played 46 playoff games against other teams/centers. The results Wilt's P/G vs. others in PO in 8 years was 26.5 Wilt's P/G vs. Russell in PO in 8 years was 25.7

So Russell held Wilt to 0.8 fewer P/G

Rebounds: 24.6 (vs. others) vs. 28.4 (vs. Russ) Wilt had 3.8 MORE rebounds vs. Russ than vs. others

TS%: . 52.9 vs. .51.8 Russell held him to 1% lower shooting

Russell vs. Others & vs. Wilt in PO in 8 years Russell P/G: 16.5 (vs. others) 14.9 (vs. Wilt) Wilt held Russell to 1.6 fewer P/G

Russell R/G: 23.8 (vs. Others) vs. 24.7 (vs. Wilt) Russell had 0.9 more rebounds

Russell TS%: .50.8 (vs. others) vs .456 Russell had 5% lower shooting efficiency vs. Wilt

Wilt also averaged more FTA/FGA against Russ than against other centers in the PO: .52 vs .60

Russell averaged fewer FTA/FGA against Wilt: .56 vs .37

Wilt averaged 2.5 fouls per game against Russ and 2.5 vs. others. Russell averaged 3.3 PF/G vs. others and 4.1 vs. Wilt.

Overall, Wilt vs. Russell as % of Wilt vs. others: P/G 97% Rb/G 114% A/G 84% FG% 94% FT% 114% TS% 98% FTA/FGA 115% PF/G 101%

Except for assists--which are dependent on teammates making their shots--Wilt's numbers were basically the same against Russ Russ vs. Wilt as % Russ vs. others P/G 90% Rb/G 104% A/G 98% FG% 90% FT% 99% FTA/FGA67% TS% 90% PF/G 124%

Except for rebounds, Russell's numbers were worse in every category

Thus we see through the data that Wilt held down Russell more than Russ held down Wilt in the PO in those 8 years.

[Horatio33]

The Wilt Chamberlain Excuse Machine is in high gear.

[Manny98]

Wilt usually obliterated Russell every time they matched up in the playoffs aside from the 1969 finals but of course, Russell having the better teammates and coach was usually able to barely get by the one-man team that was Wilt Chamberlain.





Russ fans claim that Celtics 7-1 PO record shows Russ dominated and is better than Wilt as a player.

Wilt fans say he dominated Russ individually but that Russ’s teammates outplayed Wilt’s. This thread looks at the actual record, series by series and game by game.

I examined all 49 PO games. I tracked data in four categories: TS%, Pts, Reb, Ast.

The overall data showed this: PTS: Wilt: 43-6 (Wilt had more points than BR in 43 games vs. 6 games for Russ.) REB: Wilt: 32-18 (1 tie) AST: BR: 27-15 (7 ties) TS%: Wilt: 32-17

I figured out Russ/Wilt’s teammates’ data by subtracting Russ/Wilt’s stats from team stats.

PTS: BR's teammates: 40-9 (BR teammates had more points than Wilt's in 40 of those games, vs. 9 for Wilt's mates.) REB: BR teammates, 33-15 (1 tie) AST: BR teammates: 28-16-5 TS%: BR teammates, 26-23

Russell elevated his teammates, Wilt craters his teammates production at the expense of gaining stats.

https://i.postimg.cc/W4LWRDyP/Wilts-Correlation-PPG-and-Team-ORtg-1.png

Russell dominated Wilt Head to head because he understood that team basketball leads to success whilst Wilt tried doing everything himsef which lowered his team ceilings.

Only later in his career where he took a lesser scoring role and played within the flow of the offense when he started to win

[coastalmarker99]

Russell elevated his teammates, Wilt craters his teammates production at the expense of gaining stats.

https://i.postimg.cc/W4LWRDyP/Wilts-Correlation-PPG-and-Team-ORtg-1.png

Russell dominated Wilt Head to head because he understood that team basketball leads to success whilst Wilt tried doing everything himsef which lowered his team ceilings.

Only later in his career where he took a lesser scoring role and played within the flow of the offense when he started to win



No Russell won because he had the better teammates and coach


Wilt's FG% and his teammates FG% in first 5 PO series against the Celtics:

Year WC team Mates

1960 .50.0 .37.5

1962 .46.8 .35.4

1964 .51.7 .34.8

1965 .55.5 .38.2

1966 .50.9 .35.2

Gee, I wonder why Wilt took so many of his team's shots during his first seven years

Also as well Overall FG% in 49 PO games: .50.8 Wilt .38.7 Wilt's teammates

.41.7 Russell .40.6 Russ' teammates

Also, Russ' mates were much better FT shooters in the 49 PO games: .77.3 Russ' mates .72.8 Wilt's

Bill Russell's teammates shot better from the line because Bill Russell a known poor foul shooter gave them tips and encouragement to improve their percentage/s.


94 meetings between Russell and Wilt in the regular season and 49 in the playoffs, here are the numbers:

Wilt put up 30/28/4 on 49% FG to Russell's 14/23/4 on 37% FG. In the playoffs those numbers go to Wilt averaging 26/28/4 on 51% FG to Russell's 14/24/5 on 41% FG.

Saying that Russell is greater than Wilt would be like saying Draymond is greater than Barkley because he won more. It is stupid and totally glosses over who was hands down BY A MILE, the better player.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell elevated his teammates, Wilt craters his teammates production at the expense of gaining stats.

https://i.postimg.cc/W4LWRDyP/Wilts-Correlation-PPG-and-Team-ORtg-1.png

Russell dominated Wilt Head to head because he understood that team basketball leads to success whilst Wilt tried doing everything himsef which lowered his team ceilings.

Only later in his career where he took a lesser scoring role and played within the flow of the offense when he started to win

Statistics should be used with context, so I will dive a little deeper here:

It's important to not just look at the star, but the teammates around him, especially in an era like the 60s where usage was shared more among the starters. Besides Wilt joining the team in 1960, let's take a look at who else was on this roster in '60:

Woody Sauldsberry regressed from a 83 TS+ to a 75 TS+. He played less minutes but was significantly worse. This season was the 3rd worst NBA history by TS Added (unsurprisingly, Woody also holds the worst in history for his '61 season.) Now, why can we not attribute his awful play to Wilt? Well, he was awful before Wilt got there and was awful after him. He was a poor scorer being given quite a bit of shots in an antiquated era for offense.

Guy Rodgers received 1000 more minutes and became a starter. I know some might claim Guy Rodgers was a plus--but he was a massive negative. Rodgers has the worst career TS Added in NBA history, he was a very poor offensive player that took way too many shots. Regardless of his passing ability, Guy Rodgers was so far below the rest of the league in TS Added that he was no doubt hurting the spacing and offensive ability of the team.

Paul Arizin was older this season and on the downturn of his career, he regressed from his '59 season which hurt the offensive capabilities of the team. The next year he improved but was never back at his prime levels.

Secondly, this leads me to believe Wilt's usage isn't as high as people seem to believe as 1960's offences were primarily not being run through bigs but rather guards.

In fact, A good chunk of Wilt's shots were coming off missed shots from his teammates, rather than getting the ball in the halfcourt and the offence functioning around him as we might see in later eras. The '64 Finals Warriors film is a good example of this, where players are passing the ball around and jacking up shots rather than running it through Wilt in the post like the Lakers did with Shaq.

[coastalmarker99]

Also - for all this talk how bad volume shooting Wilt was for team's offence it's quite ironic that the best Warriors offence Wilt played in was when he took the most shots and averaged 50 points a game. The 1962 Warriors were good offensive team, despite not having that good offensive roster - outside of old Arizin and rookie Meschery, they were bad period.



And for the record, nobody questions MJ offensive impact when he led mediocre team offences in 1987 and 1988. He gets excuses because of a weak team and poor team structure. Why can't we use the same criteria for Wilt?

To me, personally, The Warriors being good offensively despite having a terrible offensive system and an incredibly weak offensive roster is a big plus for Wilt, not a minus.

[coastalmarker99]

Also, you have to remember that a ORTG of +0.9 above average in 1962 was actually good. People keep calling their offense this season "above average" but in reality they were only 0.5 below the Lakers for 3rd and 0.7 below the Hawks for 2nd. Both the Lakers and Hawks had "above average" offenses that season yet were top 3. I




It was harder to score efficiently in this era due to the rules limiting offence and the strong defensive presence of the Celtics. I would also like to point out that the Warriors offence was probably even better than what their ORTG says because 1. Tom Gola missed 20 games and 2. They had to play the Celtics three more times than Western teams such as the Lakers and Hawks.

Michael Jordan had above average offensive teams early on in his career, and it's no surprise--his teammates were quite poor. Wilt's were even worse. And he played in an era that didn't fully utilize superstars and instead spread the shots around more. This is obvious with watching film, such as '64 Finals, where Wilt touches the ball 15 times on 47 possessions. Compare this to 2000 Shaq in the triangle offence where he is getting 34 touches on 36 possessions and the difference is night and day. Had he been regularly receiving post-ups this would have lead to more open shots and therefore assist opportunities for Wilt. It didn't help that guards back then initiated the offence and were getting a massive amount of the touches.

Besides '62, early Wilt was not getting the ball anywhere near as much as people think due to many shots coming off offensive rebounds. He certainly wasn't getting as much usage compared to a modern player. In the '64 Finals film they are up with 2 minutes to go and Wilt doesn't even touch the ball once, let alone shoot because the guards are controlling the offense and shooting up abysmal jumpers. It's no surprise to me that when Frank McGuire had Wilt shooting more than ever that the offense rose by over 3 points--because the ball was being fed to Wilt more as opposed to worse players.

Wilt's teammates were getting quite a bit of shots up for their role even with the amount of shots he was taking himself. This made it harder to impact an offence from his role in a significant way. Guards dominated the ball and controlled a large portion of the touches for an offence (big men back then were not used for dribbling and running an offense--that was the guard's job, making it harder for big men to receive meaningful usage in the halfcourt unless they were used as a passing hub off screens like in Auerbach's system.) So, while Wilt could definitely still bring a positive aspect to an offence, he was basically at the mercy of his guards getting the ball to him so he could create. This can be seen in-game film from '64 and even '67 (where his touches are still much lower than a modern player.)

Because of the high amount of rebounds available, bigs were less involved in the offence than the numbers lead you to believe. They would have been getting more offensive rebounds back then and if they put them back up as shots it would make bigs seem more involved in the offence than they really were. In reality, it was mainly the guards and wings controlling the flow of the offence while the best rebounding big men like Wilt and Bellamy put up big numbers with help from their ability to offensive rebound missed shots. I believe this helped cap their teams offensive potential if their teammates were poor.

This era was more predicated on having a good, well-rounded team than any after it. You needed a roster that could score efficiently because many different players would be shooting and the rules were slanted to help the defence more--this also made having a team full of defenders very successful as well. This is why players like Rodgers and Sauldsberry have such awful TS Adds because they were allowed to take more shots than they should have been. Players like that could sink an offence and make it difficult to rank high in ORTG.

I think that looking at how players (especially bigs) impacted an offence by simply plugging them onto the roster and seeing how much better they were in ORTG the next season is not fully taking into account the playstyle and era of the 50s/60s. In modern play, players can impact an offence drastically because they are touching the ball more. In the halfcourt, bigs weren't getting the ball as often while guards and wings controlled the ball more from the perimeter due to the lack of spacing, antiquated offensive schemes, and no enforcement of the zone defence rule.

Essentially: impacting an offence as a big was harder in general due to a combination of teams spreading shots around, less touches in the halfcourt, and a defensively focused era.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell elevated his teammates, Wilt craters his teammates production at the expense of gaining stats.

https://i.postimg.cc/W4LWRDyP/Wilts-Correlation-PPG-and-Team-ORtg-1.png

Russell dominated Wilt Head to head because he understood that team basketball leads to success whilst Wilt tried doing everything himsef which lowered his team ceilings.

Only later in his career where he took a lesser scoring role and played within the flow of the offense when he started to win

First of all, Chamberlain dramatically raised his team's offence during his legendary 14-year career from 1959 to 1973.

'58-59, and before Wilt. ORtg: 7th out of 8 teams. BUT, 103.3 ppg in a league that averaged 108.2. And they shot .38.1 in a league that shot .39.5.

'59-60, Wilt's rookie season: ORtg: seventh out of 8 teams. This is hilarious. Wilt's Warriors were third in PPG, at 118.6, in a league that averaged 115.3 ppg. They did shoot slightly behind the league average, .40.9 to .41.0, but their actual offensive production was a +8.2 over '59 (-4.9 to +3.3.) A staggering increase I must say.

'60-61: ORtg: sixth out of 8 teams. Yep, sixth, in a league in which they second in PPG (and just barely out of first), at 121.0, and in a league that averaged 118.1 ppg. They also finished second in eFG%, at .42.4, in a league that shot .41.5. And, as would almost always be the case, they came in second in FTAs.

'61-62: this is funny: ORtg of fourth. Just how funny was that rating? They steamrolled the NBA that year with one of the highest-scoring seasons in NBA history, at 125.4 ppg....in a league that averaged 118.8 ppg. Oh, and they also were second in eFG%, at .43.9, in a league that shot .42.6. FTAs? second once again.

62-63: fifth in ORtg...in a league in which they were 4th in scoring, and 3rd in eFG%. Oh, and they outscored the league average by +3.2 ppg. That their defence was so horrible could directly be attributed to Wilt and a roster of 15 players who comprised the worst roster in NBA history.

63-64: 6th and deservedly so, despite another monster year from Wilt. Last in scoring, and a -3.3. Still, take Wilt's 36.9 ppg and .52.4 FG% away, and the team would have shot .40.2. BTW, there was not one player whoever came close to 20 ppg, whether with or without Wilt, at any time in their careers on that roster except Thurmond, who was Wilt's backup and playing PF (and shooting .39.5.) As always, Wilt had virtually no help, and none of those players were ever decent offensive players at any time in their careers.

64-65: I won't bother breaking it down. The Warriors had no talent, and Wilt was ill for half the season (and played sick.) He was traded to a Sixer team, at mid-season (for three players.) A team that had gone 34-46 the year before and missed the playoffs. He single-handedly carried them into the playoffs, where he wiped out Oscar's 48-32 Royals in a first round romp, and then single-handedly carried that bottom-feeding team to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team at it's peak. In a series in which he carpet-bombed Russell with a staggering 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .55.5 series. clearly, Chamberlain's offence made a huge difference for the 76ers that season.

65-66: SIXTH out of 9 teams. Yeah right. fourth in scoring at 117.3 ppg, in a league that averaged 115.5 ppg (again + in differential), and second in FG% at .44.6 in a league that shot .43.3.

66-67: Finally the ORtg gets it right. first. And the reality was, it was one of the most dominant offensive teams of all-time. 125.2 ppg which blew away the league, (average was 117.4 ppg), on a .48.8 eFG%, which again, was miles better than the runnerup (.45.3), and WAY over the league average of .44.1. Oh, and they not only led the league in FTAs, they shot 400 more than the next best team. And even with a poor FT shooting Wilt...first in FTM's! Wilt's impact at the FT line in his entire career was just remarkable.

67-68: In a 12 team league...tied for fourth. . Ype, all while leading the NBA in scoring at 122.6 ppg in a league that averaged 116.6 (again, just a huge differential.) Oh, and they were second (just barely) in FG%, at .47.1, in a league that shot .44.6 overall. FTAs? #1. And they easily outscored the league average in FTM's.

68-69: Wilt is traded from Philly to LA. His former team, the Sixers finish 4th in a 14 team league in ORtg. but, they also declined in ppg from 122.6 down to 118.9. and their FG% dropped from .47.1 down to .45.4.

The Lakers: seventh. But, this is interesting. The Lakers have West and Baylor take the BULK of the FGAs. Their ppg is nearly identical to '68 in both ppg and FG%, and they lead the league in FTAs. Clearly, this was a poorly coached team. And even despite that fact, and losing THREE quality players to get Wilt (Clark, Imhoff, and the Goodrich to the expansion draft), they improve from '68, going from 52-30 to 55-27. Meanwhile, his former Sixer team drops from 62-20 and a game seven loss in the EDFs (with an injury-riddled roster) to 55-27 and a first-round blowout loss against the Celtics.

69-70. Wilt is injured in game nine. They drop to 8th in ORtg, but 12th overall in ppg, and 7th in FG% (down from 6th and first in '69.) Oh, and remember them leading the league in FTAs in '69? Guess what, 12th in a 14 team league. but, in the post-season, and with Wilt back...200 more FTAs than the next best team, and they were MILES ahead of the Knicks in the Finals in FTM!

70-71. ORtg gets it right. With Baylor out for the entire season and West missing the last 4th of it, Chamberlain still leads this team to a tie for 3rd. They actually were 6th in scoring, but as always, ahead of the league average, and second in eFG% (again with two huge losses.)

71-72: ORtg. first. And even the ridiculous ORtg stat can't hide that fact. Arguably the greatest offensive team of all-time. They outscored the league average by a staggering 11 ppg, and the second-best team was a full 5 ppg behind them.

72-73: ORtg. Again First. This would be Wilt's last season.

Wilt "retires"...

73-74. His old team, the Lakers drop to tenth in ORtg. Third in scoring and 12th in eFG%. And just a shell of the high scoring Wilt-led Laker teams.

It is clear that Chamberlain's offensive impact was staggering almost his entire career. The ORtg rating...a clear POS that is only used to put down Wilt's legacy as an offensive player.

[Manny98]

As shown in the graph I just posted Wilt was a black hole on offense and achieved his stats at the expense of his teammates. He had good enough teammates but he was an awful leader who didn't know how to bring out the best in other players.

He also underperformed in many playoffs series and had many choking moments

1968 - blew a 3-1 lead to Russell's Celtic, disappeared in game 7

1969 - averaged a pathetic 11ppg in the finals, shut down by Bill Russell

1970 - Got to the finals and chokes in game 7 yet again

How does a player manage to lose so many game 7s is beyond me :oldlol:

[coastalmarker99]

As shown in the graph I just posted Wilt was a black hole on offense and achieved his stats at the expense of his teammates. He had good enough teammates but he was an awful leader who didn't know how to bring out the best in other players.

He also underperformed in many playoffs series and had many choking moments

1968 - blew a 3-1 lead to Russell's Celtic, disappeared in game 7

1969 - averaged a pathetic 11ppg in the finals, shut down by Bill Russell

1970 - Got to the finals and chokes in game 7 yet again

How does a player manage to lose so many game 7s is beyond me :oldlol:



Do you seriously ever have an honest argument?

Wilt blew out his patellar tendon in the 69-70 season, an injury that for anyone else during that era would have ended their career. He came back just in time for the playoffs but was barely mobile. The reason Reed was having such a great series before he got hurt in-game 5 is because Wilt couldn't close out on him. A ruptured tendon even today is an injury that costs a player one or two years and Wilt managed to come back to play the same season, but he clearly wasn't his preinjury self.

Reed only played 27 minutes in game 7. He hit his first two shots, yes, but went scoreless the rest of the time. He had three rebounds. Yes, his performance inspired the Knicks, but seriously, have you even watched that game? The star was Walt Frazier, who was unstoppable both scoring and passing and kept stripping the Laker guards who were hopeless that night. Frazier had probably the best game 7 in NBA history and was the reason the Knicks won not because Wilt choked or what have you.




Also in 1968 vs the Celtics Wilt was being treated for numerous ailments, including a strained hamstring behind his knee, a partial tear of the right calf (a similar, a bum toe, and arthritis in both knees...all of which had him noticeably limping in that series. In fact, Russell commented later that a "Lessor man would not have played".






Furthermore, the Sixers were without HOFer Billy Cunningham that entire series. Factor in that in game five, and leading the series 3-1, and only trailing by two points at the time, both Wali Jones and Luke Jackson suffered leg injuries and were basically worthless the last two games, as well as Chamberlain playing with his assorted injuries, and it was actually quite amazing that the Sixers only lost a game seven by four points.

Clearly, had the Sixers been healthy in that post-season, and it would have been a repeat of the '67 EDF's, when they destroyed the Celtics, 4-1 but indeed no team wins a playoff series with serious injuries to 4 starters and their 6th man out.

But then again, that was Wilt "the Choker" for you. Only Chamberlain would get ripped in a series in which he averaged 22 ppg, led both teams in rebounding and assists, and still easily outplayed Russell in every facet of the game. A Wilt who played every minute of that series with multiple injuries.

Also If you're being fair about that famous game 7 in the 1969 finals Russell had six points on 28 per cent shooting. He also put up 21 rebounds.


Wilt in that game scored 18 points on 7 of 8 shooting to go with 27 rebounds, outstripping Russell in both categories easily despite playing five fewer minutes.



The reason he played less than Russell is because Butch van Breda Kolff refused to put him back into the game in the closing minutes, one of the worst coaching decisions in the history of the NBA finals and it ended up costing the Lakers the title as they would lose to the Celtics by two points.

[Manny98]

You're telling me Wilt just happened to be playing injured in 3 consecutive game 7s :oldlol:

You make the excuse that Wilt had no help but he had guys like Hal Greer and Chet Walker who are bonafide HOF by his side during his career
He even went on to form a literal superteam with Elgin Baylor and Jerry West and still got spanked by Daddy Bill Russell in the finals :facepalm

"Bu-bu-but he was injured" sorry buddy but the injury excuse can work one year but not for every time Wilt choked in the playoffs :roll:

[coastalmarker99]

You're telling me Wilt just happened to be playing injured in 3 consecutive game 7s :oldlol:

You make the excuse that Wilt had no help but he had guys like Hal Greer and Chet Walker who are bonafide HOF by his side during his career
He even went on to form a literal superteam with Elgin Baylor and Jerry West and still got spanked by Daddy Bill Russell in the finals :facepalm

"Bu-bu-but he was injured" sorry buddy but the injury excuse can work one year but not for every time Wilt choked in the playoffs :roll:

It's funny how Wilt gets all the blame for the '1969 Finals loss when it was Baylor who had four games of 4-18, 2-14 (and 1-5 from the line...in a one-point loss), 4-13, and then a game seven of 8-22 from the field. In those four games, three of them losses, Baylor shot a combined 18-67, or .26.9! For the entire series, Baylor shot .39.7. And how about this...Baylor was the worst shooting Laker player on that entire roster in the entire '69 playoffs (.38.5.)



Again, instead of only blaming Wilt for the 1969 finals loss why not question the ridiculous strategy of VBK, who had Chamberlain playing the high post, and also had his teammates ignoring him, and shooting bricks in the entire series? Meanwhile, Chamberlain only averaged eight FGAs per game in that series.

And, in-game seven, if you remove Wilt's 7-8 FG/FGA, and Russell's 2-7 FG/FGA, Russell's TEAMMATES outshot Wilt's by a .47.7 to .36.0 margin. Looking at that stunning stat, and you have to wonder just how in the hell the Lakers only lost that game seven by two points.

And before you claim that it was Russell's defence that limited Wilt to eight shots per game...Wilt had post-seasons against Russell when he was routinely taking 25-30 FGAs per game. Did a 35-year-old Russell suddenly figure Wilt out after 136 previous H2H games?

Also, how come Wilt's new coach in the very next season had Chamberlain leading the league in scoring (before he shredded his knee)? And how come, even on one leg, was Chamberlain scoring 23 ppg on a .62.5 FG% in the '70 Finals?

Russell was a great "winner", but he certainly wasn't the key Celtic player in the '69 Finals. Hondo nearly matched West at 28 ppg, and Sam Jones was not only scoring 19 ppg, but he also hit his usual game-winning shot in the series (in that game four.)


The '69 Lakers were probably equal on paper...other than depth...but Baylor was simply awful, and his career would essentially be over after the next season. And then there was the "VBK Factor"...an incompetent coach, making a series of poor decisions, which ultimately cost him his coaching career, and the city of LA their first-ever title (which Wilt would finally bring to them three years later.)

[dankok8]

Injury is not an excuse. The best ability is availability. If a guy is hurt, I usually dock him for that more than if he "choked".

[Manny98]

It's funny how Wilt gets all the blame for the '1969 Finals loss when it was Baylor who had four games of 4-18, 2-14 (and 1-5 from the line...in a one-point loss), 4-13, and then a game seven of 8-22 from the field. In those four games, three of them losses, Baylor shot a combined 18-67, or .26.9! For the entire series, Baylor shot .39.7. And how about this...Baylor was the worst shooting Laker player on that entire roster in the entire '69 playoffs (.38.5.)



Again, instead of only blaming Wilt for the 1969 finals loss why not question the ridiculous strategy of VBK, who had Chamberlain playing the high post, and also had his teammates ignoring him, and shooting bricks in the entire series? Meanwhile, Chamberlain only averaged eight FGAs per game in that series.

And, in-game seven, if you remove Wilt's 7-8 FG/FGA, and Russell's 2-7 FG/FGA, Russell's TEAMMATES outshot Wilt's by a .47.7 to .36.0 margin. Looking at that stunning stat, and you have to wonder just how in the hell the Lakers only lost that game seven by two points.

And before you claim that it was Russell's defence that limited Wilt to eight shots per game...Wilt had post-seasons against Russell when he was routinely taking 25-30 FGAs per game. Did a 35-year-old Russell suddenly figure Wilt out after 136 previous H2H games?

Also, how come Wilt's new coach in the very next season had Chamberlain leading the league in scoring (before he shredded his knee)? And how come, even on one leg, was Chamberlain scoring 23 ppg on a .62.5 FG% in the '70 Finals?

Russell was a great "winner", but he certainly wasn't the key Celtic player in the '69 Finals. Hondo nearly matched West at 28 ppg, and Sam Jones was not only scoring 19 ppg, but he also hit his usual game-winning shot in the series (in that game four.)


The '69 Lakers were probably equal on paper...other than depth...but Baylor was simply awful, and his career would essentially be over after the next season. And then there was the "VBK Factor"...an incompetent coach, making a series of poor decisions, which ultimately cost him his coaching career, and the city of LA their first-ever title (which Wilt would finally bring to them three years later.)
Everybody's fault except for Wilts :oldlol:

[csh19792001]

As shown in the graph I just posted Wilt was a black hole on offense and achieved his stats at the expense of his teammates. He had good enough teammates but he was an awful leader who didn't know how to bring out the best in other players.

He also underperformed in many playoffs series and had many choking moments

1968 - blew a 3-1 lead to Russell's Celtic, disappeared in game 7

1969 - averaged a pathetic 11ppg in the finals, shut down by Bill Russell

1970 - Got to the finals and chokes in game 7 yet again

How does a player manage to lose so many game 7s is beyond me :oldlol:

Wilt's Career Game 7 Stats: 24.4/27.0/4.7

Russell Career Game 7 Stats: 18.6/29.3/3.7

Wilt owned Russell. Ask Bill himself. Russell simply had drastically better teammates.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/indexef2f.html?p=3543

[Manny98]

Wilt's Career Game 7 Stats: 24.4/27.0/4.7

Russell Career Game 7 Stats: 18.6/29.3/3.7

Wilt owned Russell. Ask Bill himself. Russell simply had drastically better teammates.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/indexef2f.html?p=3543
Russell played a better brand of basketball, that's why he always won

Wilt didn't start winning until he sacrificed his scoring for the betterment of the team