How much did the 1963-64 Warriors run their offense through Wilt?

[coastalmarker99]

2nd half of Game 4 ‘64 NBA Finals:

Warriors - 47 possessions

Wilt - 15 post touches

Part of Game 5 ‘64 NBA Finals:

Warriors - 53 possessions

Wilt - 8 post touches!!!


Comparison:

2nd half of Game 1 ‘00 NBA Finals:

Lakers - 36 possessions

Shaq - 34 post touches


2nd half of Game 3 ‘80 NBA Finals:

Lakers - 41 possessions

Kareem - 23 post touches

[coastalmarker99]

My personal theory on why Wilt was getting such a lack of touches in the post.


Is that offence in the 60s often consisted of quick transition shots or contested jumpers, so there weren't many actual half-court possessions.


The floor shrinks with no structured spacing in the half-court, and that was suboptimal conditions for a post-up big.

[coastalmarker99]

If you watch the 1964 finals Wilt's guards could barely get the ball across half court

And when one game was close and the Warriors had the ball.

Instead of getting it to Wilt, Guy Rodgers took a crappy shot and they lost.

It seems when watching footage of Wilt that there was no resemblance to a structured offence with the majority of Wilt's teams.

[coastalmarker99]

In Wilt's era, I think it is clear that teams basically didn't have a good understanding of spacing and how to run a structured half-court offence around a post-up player just yet.

Also, It must be understood that bullying players in the post wasn’t a thing in the 1960s due to the strict offensive fouls rules of that era.


If Wilt in his era could’ve played as Shaq did he’s averaging over 50 PPG on over 60FG% IMO.


As Wilt would have just blown right thru helpless defenders for an easy basket by using his strength in the post.

[coastalmarker99]

The only season where I think Wilt actually got superstar level touches and usage was 1962 as McGuire was like the first coach running a star centric offence


As that was the optimal approach with the lack of talent on those Warrior teams


Also Wilt was great at maximizing his production for the situations where he did receive touches and a large portion of his production comes in a more traditional center way of getting putbacks, and guiding shots in.

[Psileas]

Lol, and there are (and, even more so, used to be) people who have the audacity to think that adjusting for pace and minutes played is the "end it all" result of adjusted stats, when even superstar post players like Wilt were getting the ball like 3+ times less frequently than they should compared to modern tactics. If anything, both Wilt's scoring and passing are vastly deflated as a result of the era he played in. And so were his team's results, at least in his first 7 years (and maybe even later than that), since, as we see by accumulating evidence, comparatively rarely did anything good turn out when he wasn't touching the ball at all.

[RRR3]

Wilt took almost 29 shots a game in 1964 and you’re whining about him not getting enough touches.

[Psileas]

Wilt took almost 29 shots a game in 1964 and youÂ’re whining about him not getting enough touches.

You think that's a lot for today's standards for the best scorer in the game? That's 30.8% of his team's shots. Luka Doncic takes 32.8% of his team's shots (and also passes a lot) and was still not even a top 5 scorer and nobody blames him for ballhogging. An almost random all-star that nobody cared about, Bradley Beal, was at 34%. Even a past prime 36 year old LeBron was at 30.5%. Want a post player? Joel Embiid is at 31.3% and he's not as separated from his competition as Wilt was from his.
The most dominant scorer's of his era 30.8% wouldn't even be top 5 when transported in this era, being outmatched even by an all-star reserve or almost by an 18 year veteran whose main strength wasn't even considered to be scoring.

[RRR3]

So he got a very similar amount of shots as Joel Embiid who is also an all time great center (obviously he’s not Wilt, but he’s someone who will get those kind of touches). Seems like his touches were extraordinarily high for the time and would still be high today.

[coastalmarker99]

Lol, and there are (and, even more so, used to be) people who have the audacity to think that adjusting for pace and minutes played is the "end it all" result of adjusted stats, when even superstar post players like Wilt were getting the ball like 3+ times less frequently than they should compared to modern tactics. If anything, both Wilt's scoring and passing are vastly deflated as a result of the era he played in. And so were his team's results, at least in his first 7 years (and maybe even later than that), since, as we see by accumulating evidence, comparatively rarely did anything good turn out when he wasn't touching the ball at all.

Wilt's team performance with the Warriors in terms of offence and margin of victory was superior when he scored 30+ points, compared to under 30 points (or missed the game).


Chamberlain Above 30 Points

1959-60: 7292 pts (119.5 ppg), 7105 allowed (116.5 ppg), +3.1 MOV (61 Games)

1960-61: 7929 pts (122.0 ppg), 7780 allowed (119.7 ppg), +2.3 MOV (65 Games)

1961-62: 9851 pts (126.3 ppg), 9592 allowed (123.0 ppg), +3.3 MOV (78 Games)

1962-63: 8720 pts (119.5 ppg), 8796 allowed (120.5 ppg), -1.0 MOV (73 Games)

1963-64: 6871 pts (109.1 ppg), 6487 allowed (103.0 ppg), +6.1 MOV (63 Games)




Chamberlain Under 30 Points/Missed Games

1959-60: 1603 pts (114.5 ppg), 1593 allowed (113.8 ppg), +0.7 MOV (14 Games)

1960-61: 1629 pts (116.4 ppg), 1704 allowed (121.7 ppg), -5.4 MOV (14 Games)

1961-62: 184 pts (92.0 ppg), 221 allowed (110.5 ppg), -18.5 MOV (2 Games)

1962-63: 760 pts (108.6 ppg), 851 allowed (122.6 ppg), -13.0 MOV (7 Games)

1963-64: 1743 pts (105.3 ppg), 1718 allowed (101.1 ppg), +1.47 MOV (17 Games)

[coastalmarker99]

You think that's a lot for today's standards for the best scorer in the game? That's 30.8% of his team's shots. Luka Doncic takes 32.8% of his team's shots (and also passes a lot) and was still not even a top 5 scorer and nobody blames him for ballhogging. An almost random all-star that nobody cared about, Bradley Beal, was at 34%. Even a past prime 36 year old LeBron was at 30.5%. Want a post player? Joel Embiid is at 31.3% and he's not as separated from his competition as Wilt was from his.
The most dominant scorer's of his era 30.8% wouldn't even be top 5 when transported in this era, being outmatched even by an all-star reserve or almost by an 18 year veteran whose main strength wasn't even considered to be scoring.


The data and footage we have of Wilt should give people some perspective about the myth of Wilt dominating the ball and making the other Warriors players stand and watch.


Wilt clearly wasn't a ball-dominant player in his scoring days and if anything, I wonder whether he wasn't underutilized in the playoffs.

Of course, some of that has to do with the Celtics disruptive defence and Russell trying to front Wilt all the time.


Nonetheless, it does seem to be true that the Celtics tried to take Wilt away from the action and make the other Warriors players take shots.

[coastalmarker99]

Lol, and there are (and, even more so, used to be) people who have the audacity to think that adjusting for pace and minutes played is the "end it all" result of adjusted stats, when even superstar post players like Wilt were getting the ball like 3+ times less frequently than they should compared to modern tactics. If anything, both Wilt's scoring and passing are vastly deflated as a result of the era he played in. And so were his team's results, at least in his first 7 years (and maybe even later than that), since, as we see by accumulating evidence, comparatively rarely did anything good turn out when he wasn't touching the ball at all.



Here are some stats about how bad the Warriors offence was when they didn’t involve Wilt.


So far in 5.5 games as ( I haven’t completely watched 1 game)


I have with Wilt 66 possessions, 60 FGA, 34 FGM, 6 turnovers



And I have without Wilt 86 possessions 75 FGA, 22 FGM, 11 turnovers.


It is a small sample size so the more I get to add the more accurate it will be.



So far in my data.


I have found without Wilt In those 5.5 games



That the Warriors were shooting 29.3% from the floor as an entire team.

[coastalmarker99]

Lol, and there are (and, even more so, used to be) people who have the audacity to think that adjusting for pace and minutes played is the "end it all" result of adjusted stats, when even superstar post players like Wilt were getting the ball like 3+ times less frequently than they should compared to modern tactics. If anything, both Wilt's scoring and passing are vastly deflated as a result of the era he played in. And so were his team's results, at least in his first 7 years (and maybe even later than that), since, as we see by accumulating evidence, comparatively rarely did anything good turn out when he wasn't touching the ball at all.

The 1970 Lakers made Chamberlain the number 1 option on offence until he tore his patella tendon.


In those 9 Games that Wilt went back to his Scoring days instead of his 1967 to 1969 play-style.

Wilt

32 PPG

21 RPG

3 APG

56.5 TS (+5.4 rTS)


Jerry West:

31 PPG

7 APG

3 RPG

64.3 TS (+13.2 rTS)




I have always thought that Wilt sacrificing his offensive game with the Lakers was a dumb decision that backfired in 1969 and 1970.



Had he been the Lakers first option on offence in 1969 1970.


Or had he been getting fed the ball more in the 1973 finals there is a high chance that the Lakers win 4 titles in five years.



Wilt with five rings to go along with a career average of over 33 PPG would be considered by a lot more people to be the GOAT

[coastalmarker99]

Lol, and there are (and, even more so, used to be) people who have the audacity to think that adjusting for pace and minutes played is the "end it all" result of adjusted stats, when even superstar post players like Wilt were getting the ball like 3+ times less frequently than they should compared to modern tactics. If anything, both Wilt's scoring and passing are vastly deflated as a result of the era he played in. And so were his team's results, at least in his first 7 years (and maybe even later than that), since, as we see by accumulating evidence, comparatively rarely did anything good turn out when he wasn't touching the ball at all.

The "problem" with Wilt is he had two careers because he was more versatile and talented than everyone else in NBA history.

Had he only continued shooting and scoring and focusing on that, he would have had 40,000 points in the regular season.


He said in 1985 that: "Had I known Kareem would break the record, I would have scored 40,000 points."



When Wilt broke Pettit's scoring record in 1966, it was mentioned and celebrated with a fraction of the bravado and coverage and awe of when Kareem broke his record in 1985.


My point being, like Ty Cobb/Pete Rose (re: total hits) in baseball, he really had nothing to aim for, unlike later players.


Had he had any guidance and good coaching (people who understood all his talents and versatility), he would have been just as dominant as Russell defensively.


Look at his defence once Wilt starting passing (and focusing on defence) from 1967-1973.


This is despite being past 30 (without modern medicine and sports science), despite missing nearly the entire 1969-1970 season, and coming back with a vertical about 6 inches lower and much less lateral movement because of his reconstructed knee.



And, he's competing against all positions here.

Defensive Win Shares, 1967-1973:

Chamberlain: 43.9

Havlicek: 39.2

Thurmond: 35.9

DeBusschere: 33.7

Hayes: 31.5

Unseld: 30.5

Frazier: 29.3

Reed: 28.4

Russell: 26.9

Jabaar: 24.3

[Horatio33]

Just keep making these excuse threads. You're changing no one's mind.

[LAL]

If Shaq could grab 35 rebounds a game against short weak white dudes in the 60's, he wouldn't have needed as much post touches with all those second chance points.

[coastalmarker99]

Just keep making these excuse threads. You're changing no one's mind.


If you have nothing constructive to say at all about the topic at hand in this thread besides saying that I am making excuse threads then please leave.

[coastalmarker99]

If Shaq could grab 35 rebounds a game against short weak white dudes in the 60's, he wouldn't have needed as much post touches with all those second chance points.

Despite the notion that you have that Wilt was playing against short weak white dudes the average weighted heights of Centers from 1960-73 was 82" (6'10).


The average weighted heights of Centers from 2006-19 was 83.5" (6'11.5)


Also, it should be noted that Wilt in his career went up countless all-time great black centers in (Russell, Kareem, Thurmond, Willis Reed, Bellamy, Elvin Hayes).

[coastalmarker99]

If Shaq could grab 35 rebounds a game against short weak white dudes in the 60's, he wouldn't have needed as much post touches with all those second chance points.

Wilt Chamberlain played 865 of his 1205 games (72%) against HOF Centers:



Wilt dominated 14 HOF Centers across 865 games out of the 1205 games he played in his entire career to a clip of.

25.7 PPG /22.4 REB /4.3 AST on .54.6 shooting against them.


Those 14 HOF Centers combined averaged.


18.9 PPG /14.3 REB /2.9 AST on only 41.4 FG% shooting against him!




Now compare that with Kareem who only played 37% of his games against HOF Centers (659 out of 1797).


Kareem's averages against those HOF centers he faced throughout his 20-year career.


Were 26.1 PPG / 11.53 REB / 3.5 AST / 2.16 BLK on 52.9 FG%



While the HOF centers combined averages against Kareem were.

18.6 PPG/ 10.5 REB/ 2.95 AST / 1.88 BLK on 50.5 FG%