Wilt the "Choker"

[QUOTE=PTB Fan]No, Wilt never played in a bad era. His numbers are impressive considering that he faced a HOF center like 60% of the time he played. Even though that i don't agree with Jlauber on everything, i have to say that he's right on this one.

Wilt had competition and that competition was good.[/QUOTE]

I've posted about this before several years ago, but I've been trying to increase historical awareness since the advent of the internet, and all these years later, people are no more knowledgeable as a whole, so I'm going to stop wasting my time. People are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless to how many facts you present. I've got better things to do with my time.

FT% is flat out the weakest argument there is for a center. If you go there its because your argument is desperate. It

Agreed.

The difference between shooting 50 or 70% from the line only averages out to 2-3 lost PPG. Considering that most of these GOAT Centers were highly efficient from the field (55%+) that more then makes up for the small amount of points they lost from the line.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Was Wilt a "failure", a "loser", and a "choker?"

Here is my response taken from another thread...

The more and more research that has become available, the more we see just how horribly misguided was the PERCEPTION of Chamberlain's career...even at the time in which he played.

Those that ripped him for his "drop" in the post-season, now know that he faced a HOF center in two-thirds of ALL of his 160 post-season games. His scoring dropped SLIGHTLY, (especially of you factor in that he only played 52 of his 160 post-season games in his "scoring" seasons...and in one of those, his 44.8 season, he did not get an opportunity.) He also ELEVATED his rebounding, significantly at times (a 32 rpg series against RUSSELL for cryingoutloud.) And we know that his DEFENSE was brilliant. In virtually EVERY case, his opposing center shot either worse, or MUCH worse against him. The fact was, not only did Wilt outplay his opposing centers in all 29 of his post-season series, he was seldom outplayed in very many games!

Clutch? We now know that Wilt has the HIGHEST FG% of any "great" in game seven's. He shot .626 in his nine game sevens. And, while he is "only" second in rebounding among the greats in game seven's, to Russell, we also KNOW that Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, in their four H2H game seven's by a 28.5 to 24.5 margin. In fact, Wilt's game seven's are probably the greatest in NBA history. 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and .626 from the field. Furthermore, against Russell, Wilt outscored him, in their four H2H's, 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg. He outrebounded him, 28.5 to 24.5. And while we only have two of Russell's game seven FG% numbers, out of those four games, Russell only shot .391 in those two. How about Wilt against Russell? A staggering .652! My god, Wilt had a game seven against Russell in which he scored 30 points, with 32 rebounds, and shot 80% (yes 80%.) He had another game seven against Russell, in which he outscored him, 18-6, outrebounded him, 27-21, and outshot him by an 88% to 29% margin!

We also know that Wilt never had some of the MISERABLE game sevens that Kareem had. Nor was Wilt ever held to well below the league average in FG% in ANY of his post-seasons, while Kareem, had FOUR post-seasons with those numbers, including three in his PRIME. We also know that Wilt seldom got to play a center of less than HOF quality in his post-seasons, but when he did, he CRUSHED them. A 37-23 series against Kerr (an all-star BTW.) A 38-23 series against Beatty (an all-star BTW), and a 28-26-11 .612 series against Dierking. Nor was Wilt ever held WAY below his seasonal numbers by a center of Ostertag's quailty. And while Russell held Wilt below his seasonal averages, he was better against Russell, than Shaq was against Robinson. Or when he faced a crappy center, like Shaq so often in his career, like he did in game six of the '70 Finals, all he did was put up a 45 point, 20-27 shooting from the field, and 27 rebounds...all only four months remolved from major knee surgery. As for Kareem, he was outplayed SEVERAL times by HOF centers (Thurmond, Wilt, and Moses), and some were downright embarrasing (.405, .428, .462, .457 FG% in eras of much higher league averages.) Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series. Kareem was not only routinely outrebounded, there were several in which he was just KILLED. Wilt never had to have a GUARD lead his team in rebounding.

Playing hurt? Thanks to news articles of the day, we now KNOW that Wilt played the last four games of the '68 ECF's with THREE different leg injuries, and that he was noticeably limping throughout those four games. So, those that love to rip Wilt's game six in that series (when he shot 8-23 from the floor, albeit, with 27 rebounds), need to put it in a proper perspective. Here was Wilt, PLAYING with SEVERAL leg injuries...and yet, we witnessed Kareem sitting out a game six in a Finals with an ankle sprain. We also witnessed Reed missing the better part of three Finals' games with a thigh injury (while Chamberlain was PLAYING on a knee that had just had major surgery four months prior)...and when Reed played in those last three games, he did NOTHING. We also KNOW that Wilt not only PLAYED with TWO severely injured wrists in game five of the '72 Finals (one was badly sprained, and the other was FRACTURED), he DOMINATED that game (24 points, 29 rebounds to the ENTIRE Knick's team of 39, 10-14 shooting, and 10 blocks.) Meanwhile, when Kareem broke his wrist, he missed 16 games. Or that HOF teammate Billy Cunningham missed that ENTIRE '68 ECF series with a broken wrist.

Big games? How about a 56-35 game in game five of a best-of-five series???? How about taking a 40-40 team to a game seven, one-point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team that had a 5-2 edge in HOFers,...and scoring eight of his team's last ten points, and bringing his team back from a 110-101 deficit to 110-109? Oh, and outscoring Russell, 30-15, outrebounding him, 32-29, and outshooting him, 12-15 to 7-16? How about a 50-35 game against Russell, in an elimination game in the '60 ECF's? Or crushing Russell in a clinching game five of the '67 ECF's, when he outscored him, 29-4, outrebounded him, 36-21, outassisted him, 13-7, and outshot him, 10-16 to 2-5? Wilt had numerous 40-30 games in the post-season, and several of them came against Russell. He had four 50+ point games in his post-season, including one against Russell. He had a TON of 30+ rebound games in his post-seasons, including an NBA record of 41...against Russell. He also outrebounded and vastly outshot the great Thurmond in their three H2H post-seasons, including one in which he outrebounded him by a 23.6 to 17.2 margin, as well as outshooting him in another by an astonsihing .560 to .343 margin.

Furthermore, has ANY other great player taken a 40-40 team, up against the best team in the league, by far, the 62-18 Celtics, who had a 5-2 edge in HOFers,...to a game seven, one point loss. All he did in that series was outscore Russell by 211-109, and outrebounded him by a 221-177 margin. He also took a badly undermanned 49-31 Warrior team to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their 6-3 edge in HOFers. Give me an example of Kareem or Shaq carrying teams of that level, that far.

A "loser?" In fact, he played on only one losing team, and all he did that season was LEAD the NBA in 15 of the 22 statistical categories, including winning the scoring title by 10.8 ppg (44.8 to 34.0), as well as leading the league in rebounding at 24.6, and setting a then record of .528 from the field. He also LED that NBA that season in Win Shares, by a HUGE margin...AND he had the HIGHEST PER in NBA HISTORY. How about the rest of his career? 13 playoff series in 14 seasons (in an era when it was much tougher to make the playoffs.) 12 Conference Finals. Six conference regular season titles. Best record in the league four times. Four 60+ win seasons. Two seasons in which his team set an all-time W-L record (sinced broken by the '96 Bulls), and two DOMINATING title teams.

Of course, no one claimed MJ as a "loser" despite FIVE losing seasons. Or an MJ who played spectacularly in the '86 playoffs, but his TEAM was swept by the 67-15 Celtics, and their FIVE HOFers. No, when Jordan gets swept under those circumstances, he was "heroic." When Wilt takes his 49-31 Warriors up against a 60-20 Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and gets that team to a game seven, two-point loss, despite CLEARLY being the Warriors BEST player in that series....well, he was outplayed by Russell.

So, let's finally put all of these RIDICULOUS myths to rest. Wilt was NOT a "loser", nor was he a "failure", nor was he a "choker." In fact, he was among the greatest winners of all-time; he DOMINATED not only the regular season, but in his post-seasons: and he was arguably, the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.[/QUOTE]

Tyson TKO5

[QUOTE=Pointguard]FT% is flat out the weakest argument there is for a center. If you go there its because your argument is desperate. It

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I've posted about this before several years ago, but I've been trying to increase historical awareness since the advent of the internet, and all these years later, people are no more knowledgeable as a whole, so I'm going to stop wasting my time. People are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless to how many facts you present. I've got better things to do with my time.[/QUOTE]

Good and fair point.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]FT% is flat out the weakest argument there is for a center. If you go there its because your argument is desperate. It’s a total garbage argument. Its like comparing Reggie Miller, Steve Nash and Stockton's points in the paint. Its a fail.

What top center was killing it at the line? What center was very good at the line? Its tantamount to watching basketball for the ref’s whistles. Centers rebound, block shots, man the paint, post, score on the blocks, play defense, pass out the post, anchor the offense and defense. You have to be skurred of where the real game is being played. And brining it up every other day is pathetic.

If you made a team up of every center that shot below 75% and played them against every center that shot above it, the good free throw shooters would look as trashed as this argument is. Why? Well part of it is because it’s a worthless stupid argument on a good day.[/QUOTE]

We all know you're a big time Wilt fan so your comment doesn't come as a surprise.

And it's one thing to be mediocre from the FT-line and it's a whole other thing if you're horrible from the FT-line like Wilt. If your horrible FT-shooting costs your team games in the finals, then it's a very valid point to make about Wilt and especially when people (Jlauber) spams about Wilt being the greatest winner, super-clutch and a great FT-shooter..:facepalm

His FT-shooting even costed him a ring when he choked big time in the finals of 1969 a la:

[B][U]Game 3, 1969 Finals

Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)

Game 4, 1969 Finals

Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.

Game 7, 1969 Finals

Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)[/U][/B]


Yeah, sure, such a weak argument..

[QUOTE=millwad]We all know you're a big time Wilt fan so your comment doesn't come as a surprise.

And it's one thing to be mediocre from the FT-line and it's a whole other thing if you're horrible from the FT-line like Wilt. If your horrible FT-shooting costs your team games in the finals, then it's a very valid point to make about Wilt and especially when people (Jlauber) spams about Wilt being the greatest winner, super-clutch and a great FT-shooter..:facepalm

His FT-shooting even costed him a ring when he choked big time in the finals of 1969 a la:

[B][U]Game 3, 1969 Finals

Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)

Game 4, 1969 Finals

Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.

Game 7, 1969 Finals

Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)[/U][/B]


Yeah, sure, such a weak argument..[/QUOTE]
I hear what you are saying Milwad but you can't isolate free throw shooting from his other play. Wilt had a 56 and 35 game in an elimintion game... But why not make a big deal about his free throws? Wilt could have blocked 12 shots in the game you mentioned. Wilt could have gotten 10 offensive rebounds. I don't care if he missed 15 freethrows... I would have preferred Wilt on my team doing what he does best, above all other centers at that time. Every soul on this planet has a weakness in something they are great at - no exceptions. Nobody had Wilt's burden at that time.

As far as his FT shooting costing them the game... they have no chance of winning without Wilt and his strengths. We seen Shaq play and would you rather have had a better free throw shooting center on any of those teams? How many articles have you ever read where they were saying we should reevaluate Shaq because of his FT%. This wasn't a big deal then, and Wilt was hated on with avengence, so I don't see how you are going to override the times just because you are the hater of all haters. It doesn't work like that. And you do this a whole lot.

When talking about a guy that has distanced himself further than any other player in the sport in scoring than any other sport ever. Was the greatest rebounder. Likely the greatest blocker and one of the greatest defenders. One of the best passers out of his position as well, and you repetively bring up something that the whole position, at least the great ones, were bad at.

It's funny how many lengths Jlauber goes to to defend Wilt the Stilt. If Wilt needs defending that much, he must have been shaky in the clutch.

Also the the free throw shooting is interesting. If Wilt was missing 8 freebies in a game and his team lost by 4 points, what does that say? But we will blame his teammates when he was the number one option shooting the ball 30+ times a game.

Plus Jlauber goes on and on about Wilt's 'superhuman' physical skills. If he was so much more physicaly dominant than the other players why do you defend him. why could he not win every year? If no one could stop him why did he only win two rings?

[QUOTE=Horatio33]It's funny how many lengths Jlauber goes to to defend Wilt the Stilt. If Wilt needs defending that much, he must have been shaky in the clutch.

Also the the free throw shooting is interesting. If Wilt was missing 8 freebies in a game and his team lost by 4 points, what does that say? But we will blame his teammates when he was the number one option shooting the ball 30+ times a game.

Plus Jlauber goes on and on about Wilt's 'superhuman' physical skills. If he was so much more physicaly dominant than the other players why do you defend him. why could he not win every year? If no one could stop him why did he only win two rings?[/QUOTE]

Did you see Shaq in his prime? And Shaq is one of the few people inside his career where he practically had anothe top ten player in the league on his team a great majority of his career - and this rarely existed for other players during the same time. And the opposing center in his second decade was usually horrible. Its a team game. Jordan too, won with one of the better all around players accompanying him as well. But you really should know this.

I posted in another thread.

[QUOTE]Wilt's scoring from regular season to playoffs went down every single year of his career (sometimes by a lot) on lower efficiency (.547 to .523). Obviously facing better teams and facing Russell (who held Wilt to 5.7 ppg under his career average in their 147 meetings) had something to do with it, but Wilt failed to step up his game and it didn't help his teams in the playoffs.

In the regular season , Wilt was on some of the best teams in his era. Most seem to assume that Wilt just didn't have the supporting cast to contend with the greatest dynasty ever. This is not the case. His 1967 Sixers were named the best team ever in 1980, and he had that team's core (Wilt, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Jackson) for 3 years straight, and also had the best SG in West and best SF in Baylor (up to that point) for a couple years after, forming a trio that Wilt himself said he thought could go down as the greatest team of all time. Talented rosters that won a lot in the regular season and had high expectations in the playoffs.

When the playoffs arrived, however, it was a different story. Wilt's failures:

1961: Wilt's 46-33 Warriors are swept by the 38-41 Nationals

1962: Wilt, at the height of his scoring prowess having averaged 50.4 ppg in the regular season, is held to a season-low 22 points in the 7th and deciding game by Bill Russell

1966: Wilt's 55-25 Sixers lose 4-1 to the 54-26 Celtics

1967: Wilt's single impressive playoff run, nearly averaging a triple double. The 68-13 Sixers soundly beat the Celtics 4-1, proving that this was a championship caliber core

1968: The same Sixers (with Wilt winning season MVP) go 62-20 and lose to the 54-28 Celtics in 7 games [b]after being up 3-1. In Game 7 Wilt did not attempt a field goal in the 2nd half [/b]

1969: One of the most talented trios ever in Wilt, West, and Baylor go 55-25 and win the regular season series 4-2 against the 48-34 Celtics, proving again Wilt had the talent to beat them. The Lakers were heavily favored against the Celtics in the Finals. But again, [b]Wilt laid another 7th game egg against the Celtics when he "hurt his leg" with 6 minutes to go and did not play the rest of the game[/b]

1970: Wilt's Lakers return to the Finals, this time against the Knicks. Reed missed game 6 due to injury and Wilt demolished the Knicks to send it to a 7th game. So what happened in Game 7? You guessed it: another stinker by [b]Wilt's 21 points (1-11 from the line) against a hobbling, injured Reed and his backups.[/b]

[quote]And let's be real about something: In the 1970 Finals, the Lakers were up 20 points in Game 5 and Willis Reed was hurt and the Knicks still won that game. Game 6, Willis Reed missed that game and the Lakers won and in game 7 Willis Reed was still hurt and he came in to play in the game. He only scored like 4 points in it and thus that is why his stats were down. So don't give me this mess about how good Wilt was when he couldn't dominate a player that was injured.
Frazier took over Game 7 and that's why the Knicks won. Thus what was Wilt doing in Game 7 in the Finals? He couldn't even dominate a hubbled Willis Reed.
[/quote]

1973: Wilt's 60-22 Lakers lose 4-1 to the 57-25 Knicks


[b]Wilt lost 5 series when his teams were the higher seed. He failed to step up in 4 Game 7s[/b]. By what standards was Wilt an excellent playoff performer if he couldn't lead his teams to victory when he had great opportunities to do so? Certainly not GOAT standards. Jordan never lost a series in which the Bulls were the higher seed.

Wilt, despite all his individual brilliance in the regular season, was a chronic underachiever in the playoffs. To paraphrase Barry, Wilt was simply a loser.


Now tell me, how do you average 50 ppg for a season but in game 7 of the playoffs you score 22? How could anyone be considered the best when in the most important games they show up like that?

Also what about this what Bill Russell even noticed.

[url]http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1969.htm[/url]

[b]The Lakers were heavily favored to win the 1969 NBA Finals against the old, battered Celtics[/b], but then Chamberlain became the victim of one of the most controversial coaching decisions in NBA history. [b]In Game 7, Wilt hurt his leg with six minutes left to play, with the Lakers trailing by nine points[/b]. The Celtics won, 108-106. [b]When Chamberlain had asked out of the game, the Lakers had been trailing by nine points, but then mounted a comeback to pull within one by the time he asked back in[/b]; this caused some to assume that Chamberlain had not really been injured, but instead [b][u]had given up and "copped out" of the game when it looked as though the Lakers would lose. Because of this, some branded him a scapegoat and a quitter. Even Bill Russell ridiculed him, which almost caused Chamberlain to end their friendship.[/b][/u].



[url]http://www.barrystickets.com/lakers/lakers-players/wilt-chamberlain.php[/url]

In 1970, the acquisition of the sharpshooting guard Gail Goodrich helped with the Lakers' offensive firepower with the loss of Baylor. In the NBA Finals, the Lakers were matched up against the New York Knicks, one of the best defensive teams of the post-Russell-Celtics era. Both teams fought a hard, grueling series, but in Game 5, Chamberlain's opposing center Willis Reed suffered a serious thigh injury. The Knicks won that game, but they were demolished in Game 6 with Chamberlain's strong offense, and they looked doomed in Game 7 without their starting center. However, Reed limped onto the court, won the opening tip-off against Chamberlain, and scored the first four points, inspiring his team to one of the most famous playoff upsets of all time. Although Reed was able to play only a fraction of the game, and could hardly move when he did play, Chamberlain still scored only 21 points (his season average had been 27.3) on only 16 shots, quite few in a Game 7. Further, [b]he shot an abysmal 1-of-11 from the foul line, making the game perhaps his greatest on-court failure.[/b]

1-11 from the foul in Game 7 of the NBA Finals and this is supposed to be the GOAT?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=DaPerceive]This is why you should use TS%. Free throws play a part of that but they also take into consideration the field goals made, FG%, etc. Centers are not suppose to be elite free throw shooters like you said, but they are suppose to play inside and score inside right? So they should shoot a higher FG% than perimeter players. TS% is used to determine scoring efficiency within not just one position, but all the positions. The strong FG% is evened out by its weak FT% and for perimeter players its the total opposite. It is one reason why TS% is a good stat to use. It's comparable within all positions and it determines every facet of scoring, FG, FT, etc.[/QUOTE]
This.

[QUOTE=D-Wade316]This.[/QUOTE]

Do you know anything else than "this"?
Seriously, you join discussions only to hang on to peoples nuts..

[QUOTE=millwad]Do you know anything else than "this"?
Seriously, you join discussions only to hang on to peoples nuts..[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Pointguard]I hear what you are saying Milwad but you can't isolate free throw shooting from his other play. Wilt had a 56 and 35 game in an elimintion game... But why not make a big deal about his free throws? Wilt could have blocked 12 shots in the game you mentioned. Wilt could have gotten 10 offensive rebounds. I don't care if he missed 15 freethrows... I would have preferred Wilt on my team doing what he does best, above all other centers at that time. Every soul on this planet has a weakness in something they are great at - no exceptions. Nobody had Wilt's burden at that time.

As far as his FT shooting costing them the game... they have no chance of winning without Wilt and his strengths. We seen Shaq play and would you rather have had a better free throw shooting center on any of those teams? How many articles have you ever read where they were saying we should reevaluate Shaq because of his FT%. This wasn't a big deal then, and Wilt was hated on with avengence, so I don't see how you are going to override the times just because you are the hater of all haters. It doesn't work like that. And you do this a whole lot.

When talking about a guy that has distanced himself further than any other player in the sport in scoring than any other sport ever. Was the greatest rebounder. Likely the greatest blocker and one of the greatest defenders. One of the best passers out of his position as well, and you repetively bring up something that the whole position, at least the great ones, were bad at.[/QUOTE]

Not at all, I don't question his whole game just because his worthless FT%! I thought I made that clear earlier but I mixed this thread up with another thread.

Still, FT's is a huge part of the game when you are a starplayer who gets fouled constantly and when you continue to miss them, it's a big issue.

And we are not talking about minor problems from the FT-line, we are talking about a guy who choked from the FT-line in the finals constantly.

We've seen all this nonsense from Wilt-fans on this site about how Wilt was the greatest winner of all-time, what a great shooter he was and that his FT's never were an issue but fact still remains that the guy to this date choked the most from the FT-line in the NBA finals history..

And I never claimed his teams could win without his strengths and regarding Shaq, the guy is constantly labeled as one of the worst FT-shooters of all-time, I don't really see why Wilt should get a pass just because he excelled in other parts of the game. The guy freaking cost his team a title due his horrible FT-shooting, it doesn't matter how much you'll try to deny that, it's still a fact.