Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
[QUOTE=dankok8]Again I give little credibility to Barry's quote:
1) he changed his mind and used to trash Wilt. How do you make such a radical 180 degree turn?
2) He wasn't exactly a well-liked player and used to piss off his teammates. The words intangibles and leadership have always eluded him.
3) He was never known as a particularly cerebral player or student of the game.
4) He played in the same era and actually lost a finals series to Wilt's Sixers. It's easy to see how it benefits his own legacy to prop up Wilt.
[B]Basically Barry's opinion is likely to be biased. [/B]
What do you think of Oscar's quote on YT when he says Lebron is better than Jordan and in a class of his own? And mind you this was before LBJ even won a title.[/QUOTE]
Incapable of admitting when you're wrong. You're not going to be taken very seriously when you can't admit you're wrong about something so abruptly and specifically countered.
Let's get some other peoples input on this, who here subscribed to this thread thinks dankok was just proven wrong about his statement of (paraphrasing) 'nobody in their right mind would think Wilt > Jabbar by significant or wide margin'?
Rick Barry thinks that. There is no other way to interpret it. You need to learn to own up to when somebody provides a very solid counter. Learn from it, adjust your thought process and move on. Yes, people in their right mind can and do think Wilt was significantly better than Jabbar. Not everyone will, but the simple fact that Rick Barry thinks exactly what you stated nobody in their right mind would, renders your statement to be proven wrong.
Also look up some examples of logical fallacies. You're leaning on them right now by resorting to attempting to slander his character in an effort to reduce value in his opinion.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Incapable of admitting when you're wrong. You're not going to be taken very seriously when you can't admit you're wrong about something so abruptly and specifically countered.
Let's get some other peoples input on this, who here subscribed to this thread thinks dankok was just proven wrong about his statement of (paraphrasing) 'nobody in their right mind would think Wilt > Jabbar by significant or wide margin'?
Rick Barry thinks that. There is no other way to interpret it. You need to learn to own up to when somebody provides a very solid counter. Learn from it, adjust your thought process and move on. Yes, people in their right mind can and do think Wilt was significantly better than Jabbar. Not everyone will, but the simple fact that Rick Barry thinks exactly what you stated nobody in their right mind would, renders your statement to be proven wrong.
Also look up some examples of logical fallacies. You're leaning on them right now by resorting to attempting to slander his character in an effort to reduce value in his opinion.[/QUOTE]
One opinion by a very likely biased player is a solid counter? Please. We have no idea if Barry is informed either or just talking out of his ass. I mean when he ripped Wilt he was talking out of his ass right? And then we had Big O talking about of his ass about Lebron? Gary Payton, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley... all very recently saying complete utter BS. I don't consider them informed or "right" minds sorry.
I've admitted I was wrong before but the "evidence" you've given I don't deem sufficient or anywhere close.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
[QUOTE=dankok8]One opinion by a very likely biased player is a solid counter? Please. We have no idea if Barry is informed either or just talking out of his ass. I mean when he ripped Wilt he was talking out of his ass right? And then we had Big O talking about of his ass about Lebron? Gary Payton, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley... all very recently saying complete utter BS. I don't consider them informed or "right" minds sorry.
I've admitted I was wrong before but the "evidence" you've given I don't deem sufficient or anywhere close.[/QUOTE]
You spoke in absolutes, you said 'nobody' believes _____. Rick Barry believes _____ and he is somebody. This is an very straightforward example of someone (in this case you) being wrong.
You dug your own grave with this one. I'm sorry, but this is pretty cut and dry. Maybe try to not speak in absolutes next time.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
How about Nate Thurmond in his interview with SI?
[QUOTE]SLAM: Who was the toughest center for you to guard?
NT: Kareem had more of a repertoire and was harder to stop. He had a little more versatility when he set up on the floor. Wilt liked the left side, but Jabbar set up on either side. Wilt would rely on the fade-away 70 percent of time; Kareem’s hook was in the same range. I couldn’t stop him from shooting the hook; I could make him take awkward hooks or baseline jumpers. You really couldn’t keep Wilt from taking the fade-away, but you could try to him shoot it a step further out. He was a great fade-away shooter. If you got in close, and he had you out of position, then you could foul him and save yourself one point.
SLAM: Can you rate Chamberlain, Russell and Abdul-Jabbar?
NT: I’m going to say that Kareem was the best all-around, and with Wilt and Russell, it depended on what team you needed them for. I just happen to think that all the way around, Kareem was the best. His height, his versatility, his desire and gracefulness. Those three were so close— how they dominated, how they won, how they scored. With Russell, throw in the defense. You could put them all in a bag and take your pick. Wilt was the best scorer ever and Russell the best defensive center. What made Russ the best was that he never blocked the ball out of bounds. I liked to block it in the third row to let the guy know that I didn’t just tip it! I was making a statement.[/QUOTE]
Even though I didn't say what you think I said CavsFTW I will admit fault k. I don't wanna argue with you. I just don't consider Barry an informed and unbiased source or in the "right mind". So I still stand by what I said.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
[QUOTE=dankok8]How about Nate Thurmond in his interview with SI?
Even though I didn't say what you think I said CavsFTW I will admit fault k. I don't wanna argue with you. I just don't consider Barry an informed and unbiased source or in the "right mind". So I still stand by what I said.[/QUOTE]
I know exactly what you said dankok. And hey, that's great, I've already read every quote under the sun about these past greats including that one. I respect Nate's opinion too FWIW (btw he thinks MJ is the GOAT and Oscar is #2, he values all around skill/abilities, he put Oscar at #2 because Jordan could shoot the 3 and with Oscar due to his era he 'never saw it') As long as you understand where every player is coming from and when they said what they said and why they said what they said (if such context is available), these player opinions can offer great insight.
Heck, Oscar Robertson doesn't think Russell, Wilt OR Jabbar are the greatest, let alone MJ. He states big men can't do all the things an all around player can do thus they aren't the greatest players, he thinks Elgin Baylor is the greatest player of all time because Elgin COULD do everything on the floor. He's in his right mind too, and I respect his opinion. You asked me what I thought of his opinion on Lebron, well, I respect that too. Understanding who someone's 'greatest' is is all about understanding their perspective. What you should learn here is that just because someone doesn't think like you doesn't mean they are wrong, or as you like to put it not 'in their right mind'... You basically thought 'nobody' could have a perspective that would put Wilt at the top with no one close, because that's not how you think. But that wasn't true, somebody (Rick Barry) does think that way. You can't just right them off as not being in their 'right mind' just because they don't form the same conclusion as you. Maybe they know things you don't. And for what it's worth, I've come accross quite a few others from my Youtube channel that have echoed such opinions. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant, the fact is, there are examples of people that can conclude what you asserted nobody could conclude.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
I didn't follow multiple pages in the end of this thread, but:
[QUOTE]Again I give little credibility to Barry's quote:
1) He changed his mind and used to trash Wilt. How do you make such a radical 180 degree turn? [/QUOTE]
On the contrary, I would give [B]more[/B] credibility to opinions of people who are willing to admit they were mistaken or at least taken out of context. Not ever being willing to change your opinion, even by 180 degrees, is not indicative of a correct opinion. Not to mention, the time during which Barry believed he's he GOAT has been significantly more than the time during which he'd been "trashing" him (probably an exaggerated word), and the first phase came after the second.
[QUOTE]2) He wasn't exactly a well-liked player and used to piss off his teammates. The words intangibles and leadership have always eluded him. [/QUOTE]
Barry was the unquestioned leader of his team, even if he wasn't liked. Plus, it's irrelevant to his opinion. Whether he ignores intangibles, I've not seen serious evidence. What exactly did he criticize Wilt about?
[QUOTE]3) He was never known as a particularly cerebral player or student of the game.[/QUOTE]
Someone who figured out an out-of-fashion method to shoot over 75-80% from the line was not a student of the game? Would someone who was not cerebral enough be willing to accept a new, passing-first, role in the end of his career? Non-cerebral players are not particularly fond of learning new tricks.
[QUOTE]4) He played in the same era and actually lost a finals series to Wilt's Sixers. It's easy to see how it benefits his own legacy to prop up Wilt. [/QUOTE]
He's also played in the same era with Kareem, he's lost a series to peak playoff Kareem, he's also [B]beaten[/B] Kareem (that's a reason to prop [B]Kareem[/B]), plus, the same excuse could be used for pretty much any player who compliments some legend of his era.
[QUOTE]Basically Barry's opinion is likely to be biased and how informed he is... also very open to debate.[/QUOTE]
What's wrong with this? Most good minds are open to debate. And, yes, most opinions are biased, including opinions of people who meet your own standards of "knowing basketball", most of whom would be very unwilling to accept they are wrong in something.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]I know exactly what you said dankok. And hey, that's great, I've already read every quote under the sun about these past greats including that one. I respect Nate's opinion too FWIW (btw he thinks MJ is the GOAT and Oscar is #2, he values all around skill/abilities, he put Oscar at #2 because Jordan could shoot the 3 and with Oscar due to his era he 'never saw it') As long as you understand where every player is coming from and when they said what they said and why they said what they said (if such context is available), these player opinions can offer great insight.
Heck, Oscar Robertson doesn't think Russell, Wilt OR Jabbar are the greatest, let alone MJ. He states big men can't do all the things an all around player can do thus they aren't the greatest players, he thinks Elgin Baylor is the greatest player of all time because Elgin COULD do everything on the floor. He's in his right mind too, and I respect his opinion. You asked me what I thought of his opinion on Lebron, well, I respect that too. Understanding who someone's 'greatest' is is all about understanding their perspective. What you should learn here is that just because someone doesn't think like you doesn't mean they are wrong, or as you like to put it not 'in their right mind'... You basically thought 'nobody' could have a perspective that would put Wilt at the top with no one close, because that's not how you think. But that wasn't true, somebody (Rick Barry) does think that way.[B] You can't just right them off as not being in their 'right mind' just because they don't form the same conclusion as you.[/B] Maybe they know things you don't. And for what it's worth, I've come accross quite a few others from my Youtube channel that have echoed such opinions. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant, the fact is, there are examples of people that can conclude what you asserted nobody could conclude.[/QUOTE]
How am I doing that? I've been exactly arguing this entire time that the GOAT debate is in fact a debate and that there is no correct answer. Scroll up and read my previous posts. I value every opinion but do I consider it an end all be all that settles the debate? Of course not. I would also lie if I said I consider every player's opinion equally. I don't.
[QUOTE=Psileas]I didn't follow multiple pages in the end of this thread, but:
Quote:
Again I give little credibility to Barry's quote:
1) He changed his mind and used to trash Wilt. How do you make such a radical 180 degree turn?
On the contrary, I would give more credibility to opinions of people who are willing to admit they were mistaken or at least taken out of context. Not ever being willing to change your opinion, even by 180 degrees, is not indicative of a correct opinion. Not to mention, the time during which Barry believed he's he GOAT has been significantly more than the time during which he'd been "trashing" him (probably an exaggerated word), and the first phase came after the second.
Quote:
2) He wasn't exactly a well-liked player and used to piss off his teammates. The words intangibles and leadership have always eluded him.
Barry was the unquestioned leader of his team, even if he wasn't liked. Plus, it's irrelevant to his opinion. Whether he ignores intangibles, I've not seen serious evidence. What exactly did he criticize Wilt about?
Quote:
3) He was never known as a particularly cerebral player or student of the game.
Someone who figured out an out-of-fashion method to shoot over 75-80% from the line was not a student of the game? Would someone who was not cerebral enough be willing to accept a new, passing-first, role in the end of his career? Non-cerebral players are not particularly fond of learning new tricks.
Quote:
4) He played in the same era and actually lost a finals series to Wilt's Sixers. It's easy to see how it benefits his own legacy to prop up Wilt.
He's also played in the same era with Kareem, he's lost a series to peak playoff Kareem, he's also beaten Kareem (that's a reason to prop Kareem), plus, the same excuse could be used for pretty much any player who compliments some legend of his era.
Quote:
Basically Barry's opinion is likely to be biased and how informed he is... also very open to debate.
What's wrong with this? Most good minds are open to debate. And, yes, most opinions are biased, including opinions of people who meet your own standards of "knowing basketball", most of whom would be very unwilling to accept they are wrong in something.
[/QUOTE]
My post wasn't meant to insult Barry. You make some solid points as always.
Of course most opinions are biased and whether someone is informed and to what degree is subject to debate. That's why I don't think that highly of any one player's opinion.
When opinions are more entrenched among the public then they are to be more respected. Of course media and popularity plays a big role in that (Hello Jordan!) but at least a large volume of people is more likely to think from all angles than a single inherently biased individual.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdmYTdjCXpU[/url]
I should note, these come from such a small sample pool that even if he only shows a move once here, he repeats and/or displays several more moves or variations of the move in Lakers footage despite him scoring less during those years. Because those later Laker years have more coverage. There are several moves of his repertoire that he shows in Laker footage missing from this reel because of the window of time I used and the limited footage from that time. So this isn't 'everything' we are missing some of his less often used moves. But it is a great compilation no doubt of his core/primary moves. (fade aways, turnaround Js, bank shots, finger rolls, reverse Layups, spin moves, transition baskets, tip ins, alley oops etc). Hope you guys enjoy. :cheers:[/QUOTE]
Wilt > Russell.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
[QUOTE=dankok8]Please don't misquote me because that's not what I said. What I said is that whether you argue for Wilt and Kareem as the better player it's crazy to say it isn't close either way. It is very close and debatable and nobody in their right mind should say "Wilt easily" or "Kareem easily".
Jordan/Kareem aren't as statistically dominant as Wilt or as great winners as Russell. BUT they are greater winners than Wilt and more statistically dominant than Russell. Ultimately how you rank players depends on how you weigh the different categories. Wilt and Russell are the two extremes while Jordan and Kareem are high on both the winning and dominance scales but not at the top of either.
I personally weigh winning more than sheer numbers. I hugely believe in intangibles and it's a fact that stats can be greatly inflated and correlate poorly with impact. Thus I would have Jordan, Kareem and Russell over Wilt. Again that's just me.[/QUOTE]
Solid post.. I agree 100%..
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
[QUOTE=trueDS]Slightly? Again:
[code]
60-66 PPG MPG FG% TS%
PO 32,8 47,5 50,5 52,0
RS 39,6 47,0 51,1 52,9
[/code]
Drop off in scoring efficiency is in fact marginal (especially if we adjust for competition – he played a lot of games vs Bill Russell), but in scoring volume is huge (and with lower volume we should expect better efficiency!). From 39.6 PPG to 32.8 PPG – it’s 17% drop off!
How overrated Jordan is – that’s different story, but we are talking about Wilt here, so don’t change the topic.
BTW, Jordan in playoffs and regular season from 1988 to 1991:
[code]
MPG PPG TS%
PO 41,8 34,5 59,8
RS 39,1 33,1 60,7
[/CODE]
So in fact Jordan slightly increased his volume in playoffs and slightly decreased efficiency. Completely different story than Wilt (and MJ vs Bad Boys was still much better scorer than Wilt vs Russell).
Not true. During “Bill Russell era” (60-69) Wilt in first rounds averaged 30.8 PPG on 53.0 TS% in 47.9 MPG. Or 34.6 PPG, 51.5 TS% in 47.8 MPG during his “scoring prime” (60-66). On the other hand Olajuwon in his “scoring prime” (87-95) in first rounds: 29 PPG, 59.1 TS% in 41.1 MPG. So Hakeem was MUCH more efficient and scored on similar volume considering differences in pace and minutes (per 36 “scoring prime” Wilt 26.0 PPG, “scoring prime” Hakeem 25.4 PPG and of course Chamberlain played in much higher pace, so basically their volume is the same, but Olajuwon much more efficient).
And Antoine Walker was consistently making three pointers – but it doesn’t mean he was good three point shooter.
Really, I posted actual numbers – with which you disagree?
On that NCAA footage from 1957 Wilt made 53 shots (so 19.3% of his total FGM during that season)?
Postups, fadeaways and 3 other plays (non transition, cuts or ORB) were 50.9% of his all made shots on that footage?
You disagree with assumption that he made around 75% around the rim (so in transition, cuts or after ORB)? If so, then how efficient around the rim he was in your opinion? In Dippers/Phila NBA sample he made 83% of shots at rim! And in NCAA his competition was much worse (all but 3 of these 53 shots are against white short defenders).
So if he was making around 75% of his attempts at rim, and these attempts were around 50% of his all attempts, that means from postups and fadeaways he was around 34%. That’s in best case scenario, because only insane person would say that he was worse than around 75% at rim. (and in reality he was probably more close to 80% at rime, so around 30% from fadeaways and postups.)
So bottom line is – Wilt often used his fadeaway in earlier years (both NCAA and NBA) and that’s why his efficiency was worse than later, when he focused on at rim shots. But using something often doesn’t mean you are good at that (Antoine Walker’s case). Wilt simply was bad shooter. Even FT% confirms that (there’s high correlation between quality of FT shot and jump shot), as in NCAA he was bad, but not awfully bad shooter (like at the end of his career). Had even some around 60% years in the NBA at the beginning, but with time he was worse and worse, probably because of his mentality and weight training. Anyway, he never, even at his best as a shooter in NCAA, was ok shooter. He shot a lot of fadeaways, but made them at bad rate (around 34% in best case scenario), just like Antoine Walker and his three pointers.
If you disagree, please tell me which numbers are wrong.[/QUOTE]
I was going to go into an in-depth reply to this with all kinds of stats, but let's do this...
First of all, your college breakdown is pure speculation. It reminds me of Dankok8 claiming that Wilt only shot .518 against Thurmond in the '66-67 regular season, even though three of their H2H's were missing. Well, after I uncovered the fact that all three of the games in which Thurmond missed against Wilt that season (I call them..."Wilt-itis, since he played in games before and after)...had Wilt's totals. Using Lynch's book on the '76ers, which broke down Wilt's FG/FGA against every team in the league that season...we now KNOW that Chamberlain averaged 20.8 ppg, on get this, ...a .633 FG% against Thurmond!
So much for speculation.
Now, here is THE most important fact regarding your FG%'s (actually eFG%'s) and TS%'s: They do NOT account for ERA-adjustments.
Here is a brief breakdown...
Let's use Wilt's 63-64 Finals, and Hakeem's 94-95 Finals, as examples.
Now, before I begin, I don't have the time, nor the patience, to use the typical TS% method, which involves some ridiculous formula, which ultimately weights FTs at .44. Instead, MY TS% formula is simpler, (although it HURTS poorer FT shooters like Wilt somewhat.)
Every FGA, including 3PT FGA is worth 2 pts. Every FTA is worth 1 pt. And every 3PT FGM is worth 1.5 (x2).
Example:
Player A shoots 10-20 in TOTAL FG/FGA, but out of those 20 FGA, he goes 2-5 from the 3pt arc. And he also shoots 7-10 from the FT line.
Here we go:
10-20 FG/FGA, minus 3pt FG/FGA = 8-15 FG/FGA.
2-5 3PT FG/FGA = 6-10 in FGA/FGA
7-10 FT/FTA = 7-10 FT/FTA
His eFG% (which is completely accurate) would be 8-15 x2 , or 16-30, + 6-10, or 22-40 for a .550 eFG%.
His TS% (which varies slightly from the actual formula most often used)
16-30 + 6-10, + 7-10 = 29-50 or .580.
Wilt in the 63-64 Finals, averaged 29.2 ppg on 24 FGAs per game, and 10.6 FTAs per game.
[B]Wilt shot an eFG% of .517, in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .420[/B].
Using MY TS% formula (which, again, hurts players like Wilt)
62-120 FG/FGA and 22-53 FT/FTA
124-240 + 22-53 or 146/293, or .498
'64 Post-season NBA averaged 361-860 FG/FGA and 230-322 FT/FTA
361-860 x2 = 722-1720 or that actual .420 eFG%.
722-1720 + 230-322 = 952-2042 of a TS% of .466.
[B]So Wilt shot a Finals TS% of .498, in a post-season NBA that had a TS% of .466.[/B]
Chamberlain's eFG% was 9% higher than the post-season league average. And his TS% was 3% higher than the post-season league average. (Incidently, Wilt actually had a career post-season TS% of a 4+% higher TS% than the post-season league league in that period.)
But, even that number is deceptive. In Wilt's era, the FT shooting rules were considerably different. The NBA had single shot fouls, 2-2, 2 to make 1, and 3 to make 2. While we know Wilt's ACTUAL FT% (every FTA was counted), we simply don't know what his EFFECTIVE FT% was. In any case, and using SPECULATION, it was probably higher, and using THAT percentage, and compiling it with his FG%, I suspect that his overall TS% was probably at least 1% higher, if not more.
Now, how about Hakeem's supposed great Finals in '95?
He averaged 32.8 ppg on, get this, 29 FGAs per game. BTW, the entire Rockets team averaged 86 FGAs per game in that series. So Hakeem was essentially taking an 30% of his team's shots. (I don't have the '64 Finals break downs, but I KNOW that there was just no way Wilt's 24 FGAs was anywhere near the huge shot-jacking numbers that Hakeem put up.)
In that series, Hakeem made a total of 56-116 FG/FGAs, and 18-26 FT/FTAs. Included was a 1-1 3pt FG/FGA.
Now, here were the entire Rockets team totals, including Hakeem's:
162-343 FG/FGA, 37-92 3PT FG/FGA, 95-123 FT/FTA
Subtract Hakeem's numbers and you get:
106-227 FG/FGA, 36-91 3PT FG/FGA, and 77-96 FTA
Hakeem's percentages:
55-115 FG/FGA, 1-1 3PT FG/FGA, and 18-26 FT/FTA
110/230 + 3/2 = 113/232 or a .487 eFG%
110/230 + 3/2 + 18/26 = 131/258 or a .508 TS%
Hakeem's teammates:
106/36 and 227-91 = 70/136 FG/FGA
36/91 3PT FG/FGA
78/96 FT/FTA
140/272 + 108/182 = 248/454 or an eFG% of .546
140/272 + 108/182 + 77/96 = 325/550 or an TS% of .591
Post-season NBA league cumulative league averages:
9 games : 324/704 FG/FGA, 61/162 3PT FG/FGA, 197/268 FT/FTA
324/704 - 61/162 = 263/542 FG/FGA, 61-162 3PT FG/FGA, 197/268 FT/FTA
526/1084 + 183/324 = 709/1408 or eFG% of .504 (which was dead on.)
526/1084 + 183/324 + 197/268 = 906/1676 or a TS% of .541.
[B]So, in the '95 Finals, Hakeem had an eFG% of .487, his team had an eFG% of .546, and the post-season league average was .504[/B]
[B]And in the '95 Finals, Hakeem had a TS% of .508, his team had an eFG% of .591, and the post-season league average was .541.[/B]
Hakeem shot nearly 2% WORSE than the post-season eFG%, and over 3% WORSE than the post-season TS%. And his teammates just wiped the floor's with Shaq's in that Finals, BTW.
[B]As for Hakeem's '95 entire post-season: He had an eFG% of .533 and MY TS% of .544 (and an official .560), again, in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .504, and a TS% (MY TS%) of .541. So, he was BARELY above the league averages.
Chamberlain's numbers in his entire '64 post-season? A .543 eFG% in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .420, and a TS% of .529 (again MINE...his actual was .543) in a post-season NBA that shot .466.[/B] [B]So Wilt was 12% (!) higher against eFG%, and over 6% higher against league TS%.[/B]
You simply HAVE to account for LEAGUE AVERAGES.
And I won't get into "pace" in those series, since Hakeem shot-jacked at a FAR greater frequency than Wilt did.
Chamberlain's post-season eFG% of .522, came in post-season's that shot an eFG% of about .430 to .435, on average, in his 13 post-seasons...or probably about 9% HIGHER.
And his post-season TS%'s were about 4% HIGHER, on average, than the post-season league TS"s in that same span.
Furthermore, his teammates almost always shot worse, to considerably worse in those areas, than the league averages. AND, in the meantime, Chamberlain was DRAMATICALLY reducing the eFG%'s and TS%'s of his OPPOSING centers. And in the majority of his playoff series, he was facing a HOF center. In fact, he faced a HOF starting center in 105 of his 160 post-season games, and then a multiple All-star in 26 more of them. So he was either facing a good, to very great, center, in 131 of his 160 post-season games, and just SLAUGHTERING them in terms of scoring and efficiency.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
And again, Chamberlain faced the Celtics EIGHT times in his 13 post-seasons. Yes, his numbers declined, just as MJ's did against the Bad Boys, and Shaq's did against the Spurs.
How about Wilt's numbers against the Celtics in his "scoring" seasons.
1960: 30.5 ppg on a .500 eFG% (BTW, the post-season NBA shot .402 that season.) During the regular season, Wilt averaged 39 ppg on a .463 FG% against Russell. Incidently, NYCelts84 posted an article in which those two were going H2H for the 11th time, and in it, it mentioned that Russell had shot .399 against Wilt in their first 10 H2H's, in a season in which Russell shot .467. Wilt actually shot higher against Russell in the regular season, than he did against the rest of the league, and then was much higher against him in the post-season.
1962: 33.6 ppg on a .468 eFG%. (BTW, during Wilt's 10 regular season H2H's with Russell, he averaged 39.7 ppg on a .471 FG%.) Oh, and the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg on a .426 eFG% in the regular season, and 112.6 ppg on a .411 eFG% in the playoffs. Russell? He had shot .457 against the NBA in the regular season. Against Wilt in the EDF's... .399.
1964: 29.2 ppg on a .517 eFG%. The NBA averaged 105.8 ppg on a .420 eFG% in that post-season. Oh, and Chamberlain held Russell, who had shot .433 during the regular season, to a .386 eFG% in that series.
1965: 30.1 ppg on a .555 eFG%, in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .429. Oh, and during their regular season H2H's, Wilt "only" averaged 25.3 ppg on a .473 eFG%. So, he was WAY ahead of his regular season numbers against Russell, and was considerably more efficient against him in the '65 EDF's, than he was against the entire league during the regular season.
1966. 28.0 ppg on a .509 eFG%, in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .441. In his nine regular season H2H's with Russell, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg on an estimated .525 eFG%.
In those five post-seasons, covering 30 H2H games, Chamberlain collectively averaged 30.5 ppg on a .508 eFG% (in league's that averaged about a .421 eFG% in that span.
How about MJ in his four post-seasons against the Pistons?
1988: 27.4 ppg on an eFG% of .495. During the regular season against the NBA Jordan averaged 35.0 ppg on a .533 eFG%.
1989: 29.7 ppg on an eFG% of .476. During the regular season against the NBA, he averaged 32.5 ppg on a .546 eFG%.
1990: 32.1 ppg on a .485 eFG%. Regular season: 33.6 ppg on a .550 eFG%.
1991: 29.8 ppg on a .556 eFG%. Regular season: 31.5 ppg on a .547 eFG%.
Shaq against the Spurs in the post-season:
1999: 23.8 ppg on a .493 eFG%. Against the NBA during the regular season: 26.3 ppg on a .576 eFG%.
2001: 27.0 ppg on a .541 eFG%. Regular season: 28.7 ppg on a .572 eFG%.
2002: 21.4 ppg on a .447 eFG%. Regular season: 27.2 ppg on a .579 eFG%.
2003: 25.3 ppg on a .559 eFG%. Regular season: 27.5 ppg on a .574 eFG%.
2004: 22.5 ppg on a .635 eFG%. Regular season: 21.5 ppg on a .584 eFG%.
Both players generally declined across the board.
Oh, and how about a PEAK Kareem against Nate Thurmond in his three straight post-season H2H series from '71 thru '73?
In his 70-71 post-season against Thurmond, he averaged 27.8 ppg on an eFG% of .486. BTW, against an old Chamberlain... 25.0 ppg on a .481 eFG%. And in that regular season, KAJ averaged 31.7 ppg on an eFG% of .577. A HORRIBLE drop.
But it would get worse.
In his 71-72 playoff series against Thurmond, he averaged 22.8 ppg on, get this... an eFG% of .405!. BTW, Thurmond averaged 25.4 ppg on a .438 eFG% against Kareem in that series. Incidently, against an old Chamberlain...33.7 ppg on a .457 eFG% (and olnly .414 over the course of his last four games.) During the regular season: 34.8 ppg on an eFG% of .574.
And in his 72-73 playoff series against Thurmond... 22.8 ppg on an eFG% of .428. In a season in which he averaged 30.2 ppg on a .554 eFG%.
Hell, if Kareem would have had to battle Nate and Wilt for EIGHT post-seasons, his post-season numbers likely would have been just dreadful.
Yet Chamberlain was ripped for his "declines"?
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
I have mentioned this before, but will do again...
You simply HAVE to make adjustments for ERAs in these discussions.
I have never had anyone explain to me how players whose careers spanned the early to late 60's (and into the 70's)...generally shot better, to MUCH better in the late 60's. Or player-after-player whose career spanned the 60's and 70's...better, to much better in the 70's. Same with those that spanned the 70'as and 80's. BUT, then, even the CENTERS of the 80's, had their FG% efficiencies just plummet in the 90's.
Darrall Imhoff...three seasons in the early 60's of eFG%'s of .394, .386, and even .314. And by 69-70... a .540 FG%.
Johnny Green. Seasons of .430 and .436 in the early 60's. By the 70's, he was leading the league at .587 (BTW, that was the highest non-Wilt FG% of the Chamberlain-era), and .570.
John Havlicek. He played eight seasons in the 60's, and eight seasons in the 70's. Guess what? He shot better EVERY season in the 70's, than he did in his best season of the 60's. Hell, in the mid-60's he had a season of .399.
Rick Barry. Averaged 35.6 ppg on a .451 FG% in '67. In '75 he averaged 30.6 ppg on a .464 eFG%.
Elgin Baylor. Seasons as low as .401 in the early 60's, and as high as .486 in the late 60's.
Jerry West. Interesting. Watch footage of his shooting form in the '62 all-star game. EXACTLY the same form he would have his entire career. In that '62 season he shot .445, and the year before, he shot .419. By the late 60's he was shooting as high as .514.
Chamberlain. How do you explain Wilt shooting .461 in a season? You can't. By the mid-60's he was averaging 34 ppg on a .540 eFG% and in leagues that were shooting .433. The next year he averaged 24 ppg on a .683 eFG% and in a league that shot an eFG% of .441.
Kareem. In the 70's he had seasons of .539, .529, .518, and even .513 (in the middle of the decade.) In the first eight seasons of the 80's, he never shot lower than .564, and had his highest seasons of .604 and .599. BUT, a peak Kareem couldn't hit the Grand Canyon from the ledge against Thurmond in 40 H2H games (he shot .440 in those career H2H's.) And yet a 38-39 year old KAJ was scoring 33 pgg on a .621 FG% in the span of ten straight games against Hakeem. In fact, a 37-41 year old KAJ outscored Hakeem in their 23 H2H's, and outshot him by a .607 to .512 margin.
Gilmore. A prime 27 year old Gilmore averaged 18.6 ppg on a .522 FG% in the 70's. A 35 year old Gilmore averaged 19.1 ppg on a .623 FG%. And Gilmore's high FG% season in the 70's was .575. In the 80's he had seasons of .618, .623, .626, .631, .652, and .670.
Dantley. He shot .510, .512, and .520 in his three seasons in the 70's. In the 80's he put up four straight seasons of 30 ppg and on eFG%'s of .558, .559, .570, and .580.
Gervin. In the early 70's he was a 23 ppg scorer on about 50%. By the late 70's and into the 80's, he was scoring 30 ppg and shooting .540.
Did all these guys learn to shoot later in their careers?
And conversely, how about the best CENTERS of the 80's and 90's.
Hakeem. Highest FG% season came in his ROOKIE season, at .538. He followed that up with a .526 his very next season. He finally topped that .526 with seasons of .528 and .529 in the mid-90's, and then slowly declined.
Ewing. In the 80's, and in his 3rd, 4th, and fifth seasons, he shot .555, .567, and .551. He theen just crumbled and would be shooting as poorly as .496 at age 31, and then even worse after that.
Robinson. He didn't join the NBA until the 89-90 season, but in that rookie season he shot .531. In his next two years he would shoot .552 and .551. From that point on, a solid decline. A prime Admiral was only shooting .507 in his highest scoring season.
And keep in mind that the league eFG%'s of the 80's and 90's were generally in the .490 to even .500 range (94-95.)
And how about this... in the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756 from the FT line. After Wilt retired in the 73-74 season, the NBA shot .771 from the line. Last year the NBA shot .753 from the line, and guess what, that is what the current NBA is shooting this year, as well.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]I was going to go into an in-depth reply to this with all kinds of stats, but let's do this...
First of all, your college breakdown is pure speculation. It reminds me of Dankok8 claiming that Wilt only shot .518 against Thurmond in the '66-67 regular season, even though three of their H2H's were missing. Well, after I uncovered the fact that all three of the games in which Thurmond missed against Wilt that season (I call them..."Wilt-itis, since he played in games before and after)...had Wilt's totals. Using Lynch's book on the '76ers, which broke down Wilt's FG/FGA against every team in the league that season...we now KNOW that Chamberlain averaged 20.8 ppg, on get this, ...a .633 FG% against Thurmond!
So much for speculation.[/QUOTE]
You still didn't answer to the point!
Which of my Wilt's NCAA numbers aren't true? Could you be specific and don't change topic to other things?
I will bold them to you:
[quote]
Really, I posted actual numbers
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
[QUOTE=trueDS]You still didn't answer to the point!
Which of my Wilt's NCAA numbers aren't true? Could you be specific and don't change topic to other things?
I will bold them to you:[/QUOTE]
None of your numbers are anything beyond imaginary. Do actual research, you bring literally nothing to the table by speculating. Quit being such a lazy **** and watch those games and count his field goals and attempts. Get this speculative bullshit out of here there is no place for it when the actual games exist, you're just being incredibly lazy and unhelpful otherwise.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]
You simply HAVE to account for LEAGUE AVERAGES.
[/QUOTE]
So stop using some strange modifications and simply do it.
I will show several players in their all playoffs runs, when they averaged at least 20ppg and how their PPG and TS% relatively league average are:
[code]
MPG PPG TS% player
46,3 28,6 8,0 Oscar Robertson*
37,6 25,4 6,7 Adrian Dantley*
40,1 27,3 5,4 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*
41,8 29,5 4,9 Jerry West*
40,7 27,3 3,8 Hakeem Olajuwon*
47,6 28,0 3,6 Wilt Chamberlain*
[/code]
So Wilt is slightly worse than Hakeem, significantly worse than KAJ and much, much worse than Oscar.
Besides keep in mind you Wilt's lovers don't use his playoffs numbers to show his greatness. You use mostly regular season numbers, 50 ppg, 100 pts and so on. That's why it's important to look at Wilt's drop off from regular season to playoffs. Because no doubt he was good player in playoffs, but simply not dominant as his regular season numbers suggest.
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.