Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968

[QUOTE=trueDS]If Russell was the only "thing" to keep Wilt from multiple titles, then please answer to this questions:

- if Wilt was so dominant scorer why he didn't led his teams to better offensive results (ortg)? Sure, weak supporting cast might explain something (but still, Arizin, Gola and Rodgers weren't bad offensive - overall, not only scoring - players), but why Pistons in 1960 with Howell and Shue as best players were better offensively than Warriors? Or NYK with Guerin and Sears? Similar story next year and on several other occasions.

- if we he was so good scorer why he stopped to be volume scorer in 1967 season and his team was so much better offensively? Why his COACH wanted him to shot less if his scoring was unstoppable?

- why Chamberlain was traded three times (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?

- why his team didn't advance to playoffs in 1963? Weak supporting cast? So why Pistons with Howell and DeBusschere did?

- why he didn't dominate injured Reed in G7 of 1970 finals?[/QUOTE]
"If the twin towers were brought down by planes, how come steel doesn't melt at the temperature jet fuel burns at?"

"If men landed on the moon, how come the astronauts look transparent in footage, and the flag blows in the wind"

"How could the pyramids have been built without lazers and anti-gravity alien technology"

You are the basketball equivalent of people who ask these types of silly leading questions. Smarminess and an overall lack of basketball knowledge, both historically and intellectually, are why you will never be able to acquire the 'objective' answers you presume to seek, not to mention the fact that you are attacking this subject from an angle with an answer already formed in your head. Answers that AREN'T at all in line with reality. You are only leading yourself astray, no one else.

and one more question:
- what happened in 1961 playoffs, when Warriors lost to lower seed? (and BTW, Arizin shot at similar % to Nats best player - Schayes, so It's unlikely "weak supporting cast" is the explanation here)

[QUOTE=trueDS]and one more question:
- what happened in 1961 playoffs, when Warriors lost to lower seed? (and BTW, Arizin shot at similar % to Nats best player - Schayes, so It's unlikely "weak supporting cast" is the explanation here)[/QUOTE]
Evidently you've never seen the interviews where Arizin openly admits "Boston just had better teams" when compared to Wilt's Warrior teams? Yeah guess not, why would you, you've already got all the answers formed in your imagination you only ask these questions not to seek information, but rather to 'prove' you're invalid imaginary points... This is sad because there are real answers to be found.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Evidently you've never seen the interviews where Arizin openly admits "Boston just had better teams"[/QUOTE]

Learn the facts first - in 1961 Warriors lost to Nationals, not Celtics.

[QUOTE=trueDS]Learn the facts first - in 1961 Warriors lost to Nationals, not Celtics.[/QUOTE]
Learn the facts? Oh brother, right I'm sure you know much more than I about this topic. I misread and believed you were talking about the '61-62 season, I had some articles bookmarked on the 61 playoff series but google news archives appears to be down, Phila hopefully has something saved. I recall coverage pointing out Swede Halbrook played Wilt for at least part of that series and played (defensively) quite well. Wilt still averaged 37 on him. At the end of the day you're still talking about a team that was not deep nor talented beyond Wilt and the aging Arizin, at that time you needed much more in a smaller league, they didn't have any fighting chance in the playoffs until Frank McGuire coached that squad the following year to feed Wilt the lions share of offensive possessions. I don't know what more you wanted from him in the '61 playoffs, are you implying he didn't do his job? Because he did, he played well. 37 a game in the playoffs, that's pretty damn dominant.

[QUOTE=trueDS]If Russell was the only "thing" to keep Wilt from multiple titles, then please answer to this questions:

- if Wilt was so dominant scorer why he didn't led his teams to better offensive results (ortg)? Sure, weak supporting cast might explain something (but still, Arizin, Gola and Rodgers weren't bad offensive - overall, not only scoring - players), but why Pistons in 1960 with Howell and Shue as best players were better offensively than Warriors? Or NYK with Guerin and Sears? Similar story next year and on several other occasions.

- if we he was so good scorer why he stopped to be volume scorer in 1967 season and his team was so much better offensively? Why his COACH wanted him to shot less if his scoring was unstoppable?

[B]- why Chamberlain was [COLOR="DarkRed"]traded three times[/COLOR] (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?[/B]

- why his team didn't advance to playoffs in 1963? Weak supporting cast? So why Pistons with Howell and DeBusschere did?

- why he didn't dominate injured Reed in G7 of 1970 finals?[/QUOTE]

He wasn't traded THREE times...He was traded TWICE...

To understand the first trade, you need a little background info first. Wilt came to the Philadephia Warriors in a territorial draft. What is that you ask? In the 50's the NBA owners decided that to help keep up local fan base interest, that they would allow owners to lock in a player if he were more of a "local" favorite. I won't get into the rules, which were somewhat complicated, and it is unneccessary for this topic anyway. In any case, Chamberlain, being from the Philadelphia area, and still in high school at the time, was "locked in" by the Philly ownership group. Remember, he was in HIGH SCHOOL. So, he was WAY ahead of his time in terms of those that supposedly broke the barriers of jumping right to the NBA out of high school. Of course, at the time, a player still had to go to college, or at least had to wait until his class would have graduated before he could play in the NBA.

BTW, for those that may have read Red Auerbach's many blistering attacks on Wilt (i.e. that he wasn't a team player, or that he was only stats conscious, etc.) how about this...

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain[/url]

[QUOTE]During summer vacations Chamberlain worked as a bellhop in Kutsher's Hotel. Red Auerbach, the coach of the Boston Celtics, spotted the talented teenager there and had him play 1-on-1 against Kansas University standout and national champion, B. H. Born, elected the Most Valuable Player of the 1953 NCAA Finals. Chamberlain won 25–10; Born was so dejected that he gave up a promising NBA career and became a tractor engineer ("If there were high school kids that good, I figured I wasn't going to make it to the pros"),[18] and [B]Auerbach wanted Chamberlain to go to a New England university, so he could draft him as a territorial pick for the Celtics, but Chamberlain did not respond[/B].[/QUOTE]

So Wilt joined the Warriors in the 59-60 season, a team that had been in LAST PLACE just the year before. BTW, in his first game, Chamberlain put up a 43 point, 28 rebound, 17 block game. I always get a kick out of those that try to compare players like Kobe or Lebron on the "first to get to xxx points"...because, had Chamberlain been allowed to play in the NBA right out of high school, there is no doubt that he would have added several thousand more points and rebounds to his career totals.

How big was Wilt for the NBA. His team set attendance records everywhere he went. Why is that important? Because following Wilt's staggering 61-62 season, the Philly ownership sold the team to a group based in San Francisco. Why? Because they were offered $850,000 for it, which was considerably more than the $50,000 that they had paid for it orginally. Keep that figure in mind, too, because I will bring it up later.

Chamberlain's Warriors relocated to the West Coast, but not all of the players joined him. HOFer Paul Arizin, already in his 30's, decided to retire. And the Warriors also shipped off their other HOFer, Tom Gola (who is perhaps near the very top of the WORST NBA HOFers of all-time.)

In any case, the Warriors had perhaps the worst roster in NBA history. They had a total of 16 different players on that roster, and some five of them would only be in the NBA for a short stint. Some posters here will point out that Wilt had two "all-star" teammates in that 62-63 season, in Guy Rodgers and Tom Meschery, but the reality was, those two were no more thanabove average, at best players. To be sure, Rodgers was a great passer, and would lead the league that year in assists...but unfortunately, he shot way too much. And, in comparing his FG% against the league averages, he may very well have been the WORST shooter in NBA history. He even had one season in which he shot nearly 100 points BELOW the league average. Meanwhile, somehow Meschery made the all-star team in that 62-63 season, with a 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and .425 FG%, but it would be his ONLY all-star appearance. And even with those ordinary stats, he was still SF's second best player. And, the fact was, both of those guys would have been sitting at the very END of the Celtic bench in that 62-63 season...a team that boasted NINE HOFers (AND a HOF coach, as well.)

Chamberlain had an extraordinary season in 62-63. In fact, in terms of statistical domination, it may very well have been the greatest in NBA history. He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories. He ran away with the scoring title, at 44.8 ppg (Baylor was next at a distant 34.0 ppg.) He led the NBA in rebounding at 24.3 (on a team that only grabbed 58 per game.) And he set a FG% mark (at the time...that he would break THREE more times) at .528. Keep that figure in mind, as well, because I will bring that up in a moment. And, despite his team only putting up a 31-49 record, Chamberlain ran away with the advanced stat of Win Shares, at 20.9. Thinks about that for a moment...Wilt was directly responsible for 67% of his TEAM's wins. BTW, for the advanced stat geeks, Chamberlain also recorded a PER of 31.8, which is the all-time record.

Once again, though, Wilt's teammates were just AWFUL. I mentioned Wilt's record-setting .528 FG%. However, his teammates collectively shot just .412 without his percentage....which would have been WAY below gthe worst team in that category, which was at .427. Still, that 31-49 record was somewhat deceptive. Their differential was only -2.1 ppg. They lost 35 games by single digits. And they were only involved in eight games of 20+ margins (and only one of 30), and they went 4-4 in those games. BTW, they only went 1-8 against the champion Celtics, but six of those games were very close...and Wilt averaged 38 ppg against Russell in those nine games...including one game of 50.

How bad was that roster? After that season, the Warriors brought in a new head coach, Aex Hannum, and one of his first orders of business was to see just what kind of a roster that he had inherited. He scheduled a scrimmage with that roster, sans Chamberlain, against rookies and undrafted players. And, he was shocked when the Warriors lost the game.

Even more remarkable, was the fact that Wilt would take that cast of clowns to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and to the Finals, where, despite Wilt outscoring Russell by a 29-11 margin per game, and outrebounding him by a 27-25 margin per game, and outshooting Russell by a .517 to .386 eFG% margin, the Celtics, and their EIGHT HOFers (Wilt had ONE other HOF teammate...rookie Nate Thurmond, who played part-time, out of position, and shot .395), won a couple of close games en route to a 4-1 series win.

to be continued...

Still, despite making the Finals, the city of San Francisco never took to the Warriors. Their attendance was just horrible. And their ownership was in financial trouble to boot. And to make matters MUCH worse, Wilt did not feel well before the start of the 64-65 season. He missed the SF's first seven games...and as expected, they went 1-6. He mysteriously lost weight, and he was in a weakened condition. The Warrior team physicians ran a battery of tests on him, and they concluded that he had a heart ailment. The Warrior ownership was now in panic mode. They were in financial straits, and now their lone meal ticket was a walking time bomb.

To Wilt's credit, he PLAYED. Not only that, but the NBA had decided to widen the lane before the start of the 64-65 season, in hopes of curtailing his overwhelming dominance. In Wilt's 63-64 season, he averaged 36.9 per game on .524 shooting. In the first half of the 64-65 season, and with the now widened lane, Chamberlain was averaging 38.9 ppg on .499 shooting (and BTW, he would averaged 33.5 ppg on a then record .540 FG% the very next year.) So, despite every effort to contain Wilt's dominance, he was still laying waste to the NBA, and this, despite being nowhere near 100%.

The panic-stricken Warriors, and with a putrid roster that was 11-33 at the time, finallly decided to pull the trigger and trade Wilt. BTW, as a sidenote, the Warriors were a terrible 10-27 with an ill Wilt...and would go 7-36 without him.

I mentioned that, primarily because of Wilt, the Warrior franchise sold for a then whopping $850,000 in '62. Well, a new group of investors in Philadelphia bought the failing Syracuse franchise for $500,000 in 1964. As you can see, Chamberlain's true impact carried beyond the basketball court.

The Warriors traded Wilt to the new 76er team at mid-season, a team that had gone 34-46 the year before in Syracuse, for THREE players, two of whom were decent players...Paul Neumann and Connie Dierking...AND a staggering (at the time) amount of $150,000.

So, that was the first "pennies on the dollar" trade that Simmons mentions in his book.

BTW, when Wilt went back to Philly, he went to his personal physician, who diagnosed Chamberlain's ailment as a case of pancreatis. Soon Wilt was back to a 100%, and the result was amazing. Chamberlain took another bottom-feeding roster, that would finish the 64-65 season at 40-40, to a first round 3-1 series romp over the 48-32 Royals, and then, playing brilliantly the ENTIRE series (he would averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg in the series), Chamberlain nearly led his team to perhaps what would have been the greatest upset in NBA playoff history. His 40-40 76ers took the HOF-laden (SIX of them) 62-18 Celtics, at the apex of their dynasty, to a game seven, ONE point loss (and had Havlicek not stolen their last ditch inbounds pass, who knows?)

Incidently, Simmons never goes into much detail in these trades for "pennies on the dollar", but think about this...

Chamberlain came to a crappy Philly team, and nearly led them to a shocking upset of the vaunted Celtics in his very first season there. In the following season, Wilt would lead the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a FG% mark, AND take the Sixers to the best record in the league. Two years after that trade, the 76ers would post a then record 68-13 mark (which is STILL a team record), en route to a dominating world title, that included a 4-1 annihilation of the 60-21 Celtics in the ECF's. And, in his last season in Philly, he would lead the NBA in assists and take the Sixers to the runaway best mark in the league again, at 62-20. Unfortunately, a RASH of injuries just DECIMATED that team, and they subsequently dropped a game seven to the eventual champion Celtics, by FOUR points.

In any case, that "pennies on the dollar" trade became a HUGE money-maker for the ownership of the 76ers.

Next...the OTHER "pennies on the dollar" trade...

Wilt was traded twice in his career, and somehow Simmons came to the conclusion that he was traded for "pennies on the dollar."

I have covered the first one, and now I will address the second one. Here again, we need a little background first.

Wilt and the 76er owner, Ike Richmond, became great friends after the first trade. Chamberlain considered him somewhat of a "father" figure. And according to Wilt, the two came to a verbal agreement in which Wilt would eventually be able to acquire part ownership of the franchise.

However, in a game in Boston in 1965, Richmond suffered a heart attack, and was declared DOA.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain[/url]

[QUOTE]In the 1967

[QUOTE] why Chamberlain was traded three times (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?[/QUOTE]

Shaq was traded once at his peak.

And Kareem was traded once and at his peak...

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Learn the facts? Oh brother, right I'm sure you know much more than I about this topic. I misread and believed you were talking about the '61-62 season, I had some articles bookmarked on the 61 playoff series but google news archives appears to be down, Phila hopefully has something saved. I recall coverage pointing out Swede Halbrook played Wilt for at least part of that series and played (defensively) quite well. Wilt still averaged 37 on him. At the end of the day you're still talking about a team that was not deep nor talented beyond Wilt and the aging Arizin, at that time you needed much more in a smaller league, they didn't have any fighting chance in the playoffs until Frank McGuire coached that squad the following year to feed Wilt the lions share of offensive possessions. I don't know what more you wanted from him in the '61 playoffs, are you implying he didn't do his job? Because he did, he played well. 37 a game in the playoffs, that's pretty damn dominant.[/QUOTE]


37 PPG is misleading, when sample is so small (only 3 games). Game by game:

[CODE]
G PTS RBS FGM FGA FTM FTA GAME DIFFERENTIAL
1 46 32 19 39 8 14 -8
2 32 14 13 28 6 10 -1
3 33 23 13 29 7 14 -3

[/CODE]

So Wilt played great in game 1, but not so good in the other two. And the less he shot, the better Warriors played (-1 and -3 pts differential).

Besides it was 0-3 sweep, so how it is possible Warriors as a higher seed weren't able to won at least one game? They were good enough in regular season to won 46 games, but failed to win at least one game vs 38W team? And it's not like Nats were stacked team - as I said, their best player shot 33.6 FG% in playoffs.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Shaq was traded once at his peak.

And Kareem was traded once and at his peak...[/QUOTE]

Shaq was traded at the end of his prime, not peak. KAJ - ok, but only once.

Anyway, your explanations of Wilt trades look good, thank you. (but I wish you would do it in less words ;))

[QUOTE=trueDS]If Russell was the only "thing" to keep Wilt from multiple titles, then please answer to this questions:

-[B] if Wilt was so dominant scorer why he didn't led his teams to better offensive results (ortg)? Sure, weak supporting cast might explain something (but still, Arizin, Gola and Rodgers weren't bad offensive - overall, not only scoring - players), but why Pistons in 1960 with Howell and Shue as best players were better offensively than Warriors? Or NYK with Guerin and Sears? Similar story next year and on several other occasions[/B].

- if we he was so good scorer why he stopped to be volume scorer in 1967 season and his team was so much better offensively? Why his COACH wanted him to shot less if his scoring was unstoppable?

- why Chamberlain was traded three times (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?

- why his team didn't advance to playoffs in 1963? Weak supporting cast? So why Pistons with Howell and DeBusschere did?

- why he didn't dominate injured Reed in G7 of 1970 finals?[/QUOTE]

Arizin played with Wilt for three seasons, and Chamberlain's presence hardly affected his offense, at all. Still, he was nearing the end, and in two of his three playoff series with Chamberlain, he shot .375 and .325.

Gola also played with Wilt for three seasons, and was a decent, but certainly not a great player (and nowhere near a "HOFer.") He also had his best regular seasons of his career WITH Chamberlain. But, in two of his three post-seasons with Chamberlain, he shot .271 and .206. Now, before you blame Wilt, take a look at his entire post-season career. He was simply an awful shooter BEFORE Wilt, and with Chamberlain.

Rodgers? My god, he was arguably the worse shooter, compared to league average, of all-time (well, I believe Rubio is making at run at that distinction now.) But to make matters worse, Rodgers STILL shot the ball. In any case, he basically played the same way, AFTER Wilt, as he did WITH Chamberlain (albeit, he did score a little more, but of course, he took way more shots.)

The reality was, Chamberlain inherited a LAST PLACE roster in his rookie season, and immediately led them to a 49-26 record. He also single-handedly blew away the Nats in the first round of the playoffs (including the must-win clinching performance of 53 points and 22 rebounds.) And in the EDF's, he badly injured his hand at the end of game two of that series, and the swelling was so bad, that it was useless in the next two games, both Boston wins (in fact, in the very next game, he had arguably the worse post-season game of his career, and was badly outplayed by Russell... in a 120-90 loss.) His Warriors fell behind, 3-1, but he came back with a vengeance in the must-win game five, with a 50 point, 35 rebound game. His team lost a game six, by two points. Had he not been injured for two of those games, who knows. In any case, and even with the injuries, he averaged 30.5 ppg on a .500 eFG% (in a post-season NBA that shot .402.)

And the roster would continue to get older and worse. In his 60-61 post-season, Arizin shot .325, and Gola shot .206, and while Wilt put up a 37 ppg, 23 rpg, .469 series (in a post-season NBA that shot .403), his teammates collectively shot .332, and they were swept by a more talented Nats team.

And because of just how poorly his teammates played in that post-season, Chamberlain's coach, Frank McGuire, went to Wilt before the start of the '61-62 season, and asked Wilt to just shoot the ball. It wasn't WILT's idea to take 40 FGAs per game, but rather his COACH's.

The result? Chamberlain led his team to a 49-31 record. Then in the first round of the playoffs, from at least some of the articles that I found at the time, an for some strange reason, Wilt's COACH had him distributing the ball again. It didn't work. And with the series tied, 2-2, and going into the deciding game five, he had Wilt return to shooting the ball again. Chamberlain responded with a 56 point, 35 rebound game, and his Warriors won easily.

They met the 60-20 HOF-laden Celtics in the EDF's. Keep in mind that during their regular season H2H's, Wilt had averaged 39.7 ppg on a .471 eFG% against Russell. The series went to seven games, and Boston won game seven, by two points. Chamberlain had been swarmed the entire game, but was clutch down the stretch, and in fact a basket and subsequent FT had tied the game. But, alas, Sam Jones hit the game winner over Wilt's fingertips, in a two point win. Wilt averaged 33.6 ppg on a .468 eFG% in that series, which was down slightly from his regular season averages against Russell, but keep in mind that during the regular season, the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg on a .426 eFG%. In the '62 playoffs, the NBA averaged 112.6 ppg on a .411 eFG%. And while I don't know what Wilt's teammates shot during that series, they collectively shot .354 in the entire playoffs. (Arizin shot .375, and Gola shot .271 BTW.)

Continued...

[QUOTE=trueDS]Shaq was traded at the end of his prime, not peak. KAJ - ok, but only once.

Anyway, your explanations of Wilt trades look good, thank you. (but I wish you would do it in less words ;))[/QUOTE]

Look, we got off on the wrong foot (and mostly my fault BTW.)

I can see you are an intelligent poster, and you obviously have done your research. You bring up valid points, and argue them well.

We can go back and forth until the cows come home, but I am tired right now. For the moment, at least, let's just agree to disagree.

:cheers:

We can continue these discussions tomorrow night if you like...

[QUOTE=trueDS]37 PPG is misleading, when sample is so small (only 3 games). Game by game:

[CODE]
G PTS RBS FGM FGA FTM FTA GAME DIFFERENTIAL
1 46 32 19 39 8 14 -8
2 32 14 13 28 6 10 -1
3 33 23 13 29 7 14 -3

[/CODE]

So Wilt played great in game 1, but not so good in the other two. And the less he shot, the better Warriors played (-1 and -3 pts differential).

Besides it was 0-3 sweep, so how it is possible Warriors as a higher seed weren't able to won at least one game? They were good enough in regular season to won 46 games, but failed to win at least one game vs 38W team? And it's not like Nats were stacked team - as I said, their best player shot 33.6 FG% in playoffs.[/QUOTE]

I will address this as quickly as I can...

take a look at Syracuse's and Wilt's Warriors SRS in '61. While Chamberlain's team went 46-33, and the Nats could only go 38-41, the Nats actually had a higher SRS (1.92 to Philly's 0.88.)

And I don't have the Nats statistical breakdown in that series, but I do know that, aside from Chamberlain, the Warriors collectively shot .332 from the field (in a post-season NBA that shot .403.) And again, the three games were close (margins of 8, 1, and 3 points.)

Hey Lazers, did Wilt ever have a 50-40 game? If not, what's the closest that he has ever gotten?