Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968

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

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

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


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

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

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

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recently that made me upload the Rick Barry's opinion of Wilt video just to expose that quote as a cherry picked outdated piece of information... turns out Fatal9 was that guys source of using that outdated quote in his anti-Wilt arguments.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:cheers:

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

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

:cheers:

If we had the old "rep" system here, I would do so.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate that, JL. Thank you :cheers:

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]If you had seen [I]even one[/I] of Chamberlain's 60 point games - [B][I]even as a Laker[/I][/B] - or any of his 30 30 10 12 games.......... you'd never say another word like this.

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

There's never been an unstoppable player like Wilt Chamberlain unleashed.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Highlights don't begin to show those kinds of things.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Audio One]:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Yes, i do believe he's overrated and I don't consider him a top 5 player. However, it's ridiculous top leave him out of the top 10 due to his impact on the evolution of the league and his peak('67). I covered that here.

[URL="http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=179763"]http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=179763[/URL]

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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