Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968

[QUOTE=Audio One][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]

Well, there is no question that he over-rated Hakeem. I believe he even had him in HIS top-5, which is a complete joke, since Olajuwon was seldom even considered a Top-5 player when he was actually playing (only FOUR times in the Top-4 in the MVP balloting, in 18 seasons, and only ONE MVP.)

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Let's start with this, shall we...



[url]http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-wilt-meets-bill-and-tommy-4000-words[/url]









Now, we know that Russell was a proud man. Do you think he would sit next during an interview in which Chamberlain states this,



Listen at the five minute mark...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw[/url]

Again...Wilt faced RUSSELL, arguably the greatest defensive center of ALL-TIME, EIGHT times in his post-season career, and FIVE times in his "scoring" seasons (in fact, 30 of his 52 post-season games in that span.) Not only that, but there are those here who have suggested that BOSTON's team defenses from 60-66 were among the greatest ever.

But, when I bring up MJ's considerable decline against the Bad Boys in his four post-seasons, or Shaq's considerable decline against the Spurs in five post-season series, or even KAJ's DRAMATIC declines against Thurmond and Wilt in five playoff series...they either ignore it, or give it a light pass.


Fpliii has suggested, and quite correctly, that Wilt's teammates were such poor shooters, that opposing teams just sagged on Wilt.

And yet the Wilt-bashers will say that Wilt was much less effective in the post-season???

As for using TS% against Chamberlain...

Again, because of the FT shooting rules at the time, Fpliii's research has indicated that Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT% shooting was somewhat higher than his ACTUAL FT%. In fact, I would claim it was CONSIDERABLY higher. Why? Because with rules that had shooting fouls with 3-to-make2, and 2-to-make 1 (on made FGAs.) Think about that. In virtually very 2-to-1 situation, (and Wilt, along with Shaq were obviously the two of the greatest "and one" players of all-time), even if he missed both, it had no more impact than if he missed one in the current NBA. BUT, if he he made the second one, it was essentially the same as going 1-1. Same with the many 3-to-make-2's that he had in his career. The extra foul shot could only have helped his EFFECTIVE FT%'s.

So, with speculation, which is of course, what the Wilt-bashers use ALL the time, I would argue that Wilt's TS%, in both regular seasons, AND especially his post-seasons, was actually CONSIDERABLY higher in terms of EFFECTIVE TS%.

And, of course, the Wilt-bashers always avoid eFG% against LEAGUE AVERAGE eFG%, in which Chamberlain was miles ahead of his peers, and likely had the greatest separation against his peers than any other NBA player had against their's.[/QUOTE]

How did Oscar and West shoot and score so well then? I mean it was an era of poor outside shooting and packed paints how did they score? :oldlol:

But heck positions aside it's clear that Wilt is NOT the best postseason scorer in his own era. At best #3 behind West and Baylor. That's pretty damning for a player who's supposedly GOAT.

And we know by looking at team impact that Oscar made his team's offense much much better than Wilt ever did. Royals were #1 in ORtg for 4 or 5 straight years while Warriors were middle of the pack. And no Cinci didn't have better talent at all.

Let's compare playoff scoring numbers in prime scoring years:

Wilt ('60-'66) - 32.8 ppg on 50.5 %FG/52.0 %TS (52 games)

Baylor ('60-'63) - 35.8 ppg on 45.3 %FG/52.1 %TS (47 games)

- same efficiency with more volume

West ('62-'70) - 31.8 ppg on 48.3 %FG/55.6 %TS (108 games)

- very slightly less volume on much better efficiency

Oscar ('62-'67) - 29.7 ppg on 46.1 %FG/56.6 %TS (39 games)

- less volume on way better efficiency



Give me one postseason scorer better than prime Jordan in his era...

Give me one postseason scorer better than prime Shaq in his era...

Give me one postseason scorer better than prime Kareem in his era...

[QUOTE=dankok8]How did Oscar and West shoot and score so well then? I mean it was an era of poor outside shooting and packed paints how did they score? :oldlol:

But heck positions aside it's clear that Wilt is NOT the best postseason scorer in his own era. At best #3 behind West and Baylor. That's pretty damning for a player who's supposedly GOAT.

And we know by looking at team impact that Oscar made his team's offense much much better than Wilt ever did. Royals were #1 in ORtg for 4 or 5 straight years while Warriors were middle of the pack. And no Cinci didn't have better talent at all.

Let's compare playoff scoring numbers in prime scoring years:

Wilt ('60-'66) - 32.8 ppg on 50.5 %FG/52.0 %TS (52 games)

Baylor ('60-'63) - 35.8 ppg on 45.3 %FG/52.1 %TS (47 games)

- same efficiency with more volume

West ('62-'70) - 31.8 ppg on 48.3 %FG/55.6 %TS (108 games)

- very slightly less volume on much better efficiency

Oscar ('62-'67) - 29.7 ppg on 46.1 %FG/56.6 %TS (39 games)

- less volume on way better efficiency



Give me one postseason scorer better than prime Jordan in his era...

Give me one postseason scorer better than prime Shaq in his era...[/QUOTE]

And as always...

Chamberlain battled RUSSELL and his swarming Celtics FIVE times in his six prime scoring post-seasons.

What were Shaq's numbers against San Antonio again in his FIVE playoff series?

How about MJ's dramatic decline against the Pistons in his FOUR series against them?

Or Kareem's in his FIVE post-seasons against Wilt and Thurmond? And a few years later, Moses was outscoring him in damned every post-season H2H game, and some by huge margins.

Chamberlain was facing what those guys faced, but FAR more often, and generally much sooner, as well.

And I already TRASHED the TS%'s above. Wilt's EFFECTIVE TS%'s HAD to be higher than his ACTUAL TS%'s. The real question was, just how much? 2-3%, or more perhaps.

Not West, nor Oscar, nor Baylor, ever shot anywhere CLOSE to Wilt's FG%'s, either. Which means, that when they were DEFENDED they were MUCH easier to stop than Chamberlain was, when he was DEFENDED.

He was MILES ahead of those guys in eFG%'s.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]But again, Wilt's ACTUAL FT%, which, of course, affected his TS%'s, was lower than his EFFECTIVE FT%. If he even hit ONE of those "extra" FTs in his post-season career, it would have raised his TS%. The reality was, he was probably hitting about 50% of them. So then the question becomes, just how much higher was his EFFECTIVE TS%'s?

And, as you also claimed, the entire league benefitted from the bonus FTAs, but those that shot a considerably amount of FTs, and then particularly those that were relatively poor FT shooters, benefitted even moreso.[/QUOTE]
Ah okay, I follow now. This is correct, sorry if I misunderstood.

[QUOTE=dankok8]Thanks for sharing this. To be honest I had no idea about these penalty free throws. Appreciate your work as always! :cheers:



West faced the Celtics 7 times in 9 postseason and averaged a cumulative... wait for it... 32.7 ppg on 47.0 %FG and 55.1 %TS. Those are insane numbers and Wilt hasn't had a single series against the Celtics on that kind of level. :bowdown:

Baylor also had two monster series on Boston in '62 and '63 Finals. And Russell even defended him quite a lot in '62.

[B]Look at the link fpiii shared above. Wilt's TS% in scoring years would improve by 0.2% to 0.6% per year. That's just negligible and I'm sure all other players' TS% from the era would improve as well[/B].

Again the best we can do is compare players is by looking at their dominance in their own eras. Everything else is speculation. In the playoffs, who was better than Kareem, Shaq, or Jordan in their own eras? I'm afraid it's nobody...

As for Wilt? West and Baylor at the very least and Oscar is arguable. Just agree with that facts. I don't know how you can dispute it.[/QUOTE]

Fpliii already admitted that it was TSA, and not TS%'s. No way was it only 1%.

And I have already disputed it.

Oscar played in 39 playoff games, in his scoring prime, and with rosters better than what Wilt had. Most all ended in the first round. And no, he wasn't be primarily defended by RUSSELL, either. Oh, and he was 2-7 in H2H games with Chamberlain, and Wilt outscored him over the course of those nine games, and easily outshot him from the floor.

Same with West and Baylor. The TWO COMBINED couldn't do any better against Russell's Celtics, than Chamberlain by himself.

And again, NONE of those three came within MILES of Wilt's eFG%'s either.


But, of course, the Wilt-bashers will just throw out 80 regular season games, and then turn around and give Oscar (and Hakeem) credit for FIVE playoff games in a post-season.

And again, NOT West, nor Oscar, nor Baylor, anywhere near the overall team success that Wilt had either, and they had far more loaded rosters than what Wilt had in his first six seasons. And then after Wilt's first six seasons, he was LIGHT YEARS ahead of all three of them.

And had Wilt had the luxury of playing against even good, instead of great centers, who knows what post-season numbers he would have put up.

He had playoff series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, and 38.7 ppg against Red Kerr, who was a multiple all-star in his career, and then a 38.6 ppg .559 seven game series (and in a post-season that had an eFG% of .420) against Zelmo Beaty, who was also a multiple all-star. And then, in '67, he shelled Connie Dierking with a 28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .617 eFG% series, and in the first two games of that four game series, he hung games of 41 on 19-30 shooting, and then 37 on 16-24 shooting against him.

Instead, he was battling Bellamy in 10 playoff games, Reed in 12, a peak Kareem in 11, Thurmond in 16, and Russell in 49. And in his peak seasons, he played in 67 post-season games, 35 of which came against Russell and another six against a peak Thurmond. Oh, and he was just crushing Russell and Thurmond in those series, BTW.

[quote]volume[/quote]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/KzhbT66.png[/IMG]

[quote]Boston's defense, stylistically. Prime scoring Wilt's offensive play style was easier for Boston's defense to stop than West's/Oscar's (or phrased differently, that West/Oscar stylistically were more suited to score against Boston's defense). No small part of this is going against Russell I'm sure (though obviously, with his great mobility, he guarded Oscar and West at times as well).[/quote]

Russell was the anchor, but the Celtics had multiple playmakers on defense. The Sixers lost two playoff series (1966, 1968) primarily due to their inability to get the ball into Wilt. At the very least they'd have a much better chance at getting a good shot as opposed to a backcourt turnover. Oscar and West were the primary ball handlers on their teams. West even said he preferred to bring it up since he didn't want to give the defense a chance to deny him the ball in the half court.



[B]Wilt: Larger Than Life[/B] - Robert Cherry

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TahMgbC.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=dankok8]Look at the link fpiii shared above. Wilt's TS% in scoring years would improve by 0.2% to 0.6% per year. That's just negligible and I'm sure all other players' TS% from the era would improve as well.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Fpliii already admitted that it was TSA, and not TS%'s. No way was it only 1%.

And I have already disputed it.[/QUOTE]
Hm maybe I was unclear at some point, but the ∆ column is indeed difference in TS%. It is quite a big difference though (particularly from 67 on, when it went from penalty after 6th foul -> penalty after 5th foul), especially at that volume. Some seasons it increases his rounded TS% by 2 or more percent. Again, doesn't seem huge, but it is functionally, based on the volume.

[QUOTE=PHILA][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/KzhbT66.png[/IMG]



Russell was the anchor, but the Celtics had multiple playmakers on defense. The Sixers lost two playoff series (1966, 1968) primarily due to their inability to get the ball into Wilt. At the very least they'd have a much better chance at getting a good shot as opposed to a backcourt turnover. Oscar and West were the primary ball handlers on their teams. West even said he preferred to bring it up since he didn't want to give the defense a chance to deny him the ball in the half court.



[B]Wilt: Larger Than Life[/B] - Robert Cherry

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TahMgbC.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info. :cheers:

Was the ball denial primarily due to double teams, or Russell fronting him?

Also, do you any info/quotes on the quality of the jumpshooters on his teams (through 66, since we're talking volume scoring Wilt here)?

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]I need to add you to my list of respected posters BTW.

Glad to have you aboard. We need more like you here.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://oi36.tinypic.com/iyn1gz.jpg[/IMG]

[quote]Was the ball denial primarily due to double teams, or Russell fronting him?[/quote]
Primarily sagging defense and illegal shading.

[quote]Also, do you any info/quotes on the quality of the jumpshooters on his teams (through 66, since we're talking volume scoring Wilt here)?[/quote]

With the Sixers it was excellent, though they inexplicably went ice cold in the 1966 series. But with the Warriors, other than Paul Arizin it was very mediocre at best. Even then Wilt noted how teams would sag in on him, preferring to give Arizin the outside shot.

[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183551"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183551[/URL]

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS][B]Still doesn't show Wilt's EFFECTIVE TS%'s. It simply had to be considerably greater than his ACTUAL TS%'s.[/B]

As for the Wilt vs Boston...go back two pages and scroll down, and read my post on what Wilt was battling when he faced the Celtics...

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=323251&page=17[/url][/QUOTE]
This post, right?

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9461568&postcount=247[/url]

(Apologies, I changed over to 40 posts displayed per page in the User CP, so links to specific pages of a thread don't work for me.)

I think based on the swarming defense/multiple defenders, it backs up what I said in my next post in (1) and (2). His poor FT shooting made fouling him an option, while his lack of shooters and second scorers (on the Warriors at least) made it a viable option.

[QUOTE=PHILA]With the Sixers it was excellent, though they inexplicably went ice cold in the 1966 series. But with the Warriors, other than Paul Arizin it was very mediocre at best. Even then Wilt noted how teams would sag in on him as opposed to giving Arizin the outside shot.

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183551[/url][/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info!

[QUOTE=fpliii]Hm maybe I was unclear at some point, but the ∆ column is indeed difference in TS%. It is quite a big difference though (particularly from 67 on, when it went from penalty after 6th foul -> penalty after 5th foul), especially at that volume. Some seasons it increases his rounded TS% by 2 or more percent. Again, doesn't seem huge, but it is functionally, based on the volume.[/QUOTE]

Fpliii,

I just have to disagree with this. In Wilt's "scoring" post-seasons, he averaged over 12 FTAs per game. Now, I just have to believe that he was taking "bonus" shots of at least TWO per game. If he made just ONE of them, if that was indeed the case, that means that instead of going 5-10, he was now going 6-12, BUT, his EFFECTIVE FT% would have been 6-10.

Think about that. In his scoring post-seasons, Chamberlain 26.5 FGAs per game, and made about 13.3. Had he then averaged 6-10 from the line, instead of 5-10 (and his actual 6-12), his TRUE TS% (2pts for each FGA and 1 pt for each FT) would have risen from .502 to .517. That is almost a TWO percent rise in TS%. And that is with just two "bonus" shots per game.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Fpliii,

I just have to disagree with this. In Wilt's "scoring" post-seasons, he averaged over 12 FTAs per game. Now, I just have to believe that he was taking "bonus" shots of at least TWO per game. If he made just ONE of them, if that was indeed the case, that means that instead of going 5-10, he was now going 6-12, BUT, his EFFECTIVE FT% would have been 6-10.

Think about that. In his scoring post-seasons, Chamberlain 26.5 FGAs per game, and made about 13.3. Had he then averaged 6-10 from the line, instead of 5-10 (and his actual 6-12), his TRUE TS% (2pts for each FGA and 1 pt for each FT) would have risen from .502 to .517. That is almost a TWO percent rise in TS%. And that is with just two "bonus" shots per game.[/QUOTE]
I understand where you're coming from, but the bonus rule kicked in only after six team fouls originally, and five from 66-67 or in the last two minutes of the game. Here are rules:

[quote][b]1954-55[/b]

I have a file with fouls committed in every game of his career against Wilt though:

[url]http://www10.zippyshare.com/v/51474728/file.html[/url]

I'm going to check playoff TS% in Wilt's prime scoring years against Boston, and against all other teams. I think this could be useful for the analysis, and it may give us more insight into team fouling against him in the postseason.