The Wilt Chamberlain Offensive Scouting Report Project Thread:

[QUOTE=trueDS]You guys might believe in anything you want, but unless there are missed shots such video doesn't have much worth (shooting tendencies are the only value of such video). It's just like Antoine Walker and his three pointers made - without misses we would think he was great three point shooter.


PS
According to Dipper's/Phila's research Wilt was:

3/10 (30%) from midrange
42/51 (82.4%) at rim (including 18/19 slam dunks - 95%)
0/10 (0%) non at rim in the paint shots
so total 3/20 FG (15%!) outside of at rim area!

[url]http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1247724[/url]

So basically Wilt was worthless as a scorer outside of at rim area (15% FG%!)[/QUOTE]
Just keep in mind Phila's research encompasses an extremely small sample size, like, hardly a [I]fraction[/I] of a percent of Wilt's career. Also bias towards Late-career/Finals/Playoff games. You thinking the video I'm creating being of 'not much value' is your opinion. You're entitled to it. But I have a feeling many others will disagree with you on this. I myself am finding it quite interesting and revealing and I'm the one putting it together.

Also your numbers are wrong, Phila updated that to include the 1973 game. With that 1973 game (which isn't included in the numbers you provided) That is the equivalent of 7 complete NBA games. Only 1 of them regular season, from 1972 when Wilt was a defensive specialist. And on top of that, the equivalent of only 1 game was from Wilt's prime in the 1960's, neither of which during seasons when he was gunning (the 2nd half of 1964 Finals, and the 2nd half of 1967 EDF). Both those seasons were under Hannum, who always coached Wilt to pass more and score less. Context of what you are looking at is important here.

You are the one, who wanted me to look at Dipper's/Phila's shot charts.

Sure, sample is biased towards later Wilt, but it really doesn't change much in overall picture, as everything is consistent with observations and overall numbers - I mean, the less Wilt shot fadeaways, the better his overall FG% was. That's really not some rocket science and if he was 75-80 FG% at rim shooter then it's impossible he was better than 30-33% shooter from fadeaways.

If you disagree, please explain why. What in your opinion was Wilt's FG% from at rim and fadeaway shots in his scoring prime? I know, we don't have numbers, but I would like to know your opinion, even if it's "just" educated guess. Because as 51 G% shooter from 1960 to 1966, he either was really bad from fadeawys, midrange, not at rim in the paint shot, or he was bad as at rim finisher. There are no other possibilities. And of course it's very unlikely Wilt was anything less than 75 FG% shooter at rim.

Does the finger roll count as at the rim, or as a not at the rim paint shot? If it's at the rim, I could see it bringing down his at rim percentage, especially if he stopped using it later on.

I don't have any opinion one way or the other, just wondering. Maybe PHILA/Dipper 13 can let us know.

[QUOTE=trueDS]You are the one, who wanted me to look at Dipper's/Phila's shot charts.

Sure, sample is biased towards later Wilt, but it really doesn't change much in overall picture, as everything is consistent with observations and overall numbers - I mean, the less Wilt shot fadeaways, the better his overall FG% was. That's really not some rocket science and if he was 75-80 FG% at rim shooter then it's impossible he was better than 30-33% shooter from fadeaways.

If you disagree, please explain why. What in your opinion was Wilt's FG% from at rim and fadeaway shots in his scoring prime? I know, we don't have numbers, but I would like to know your opinion, even if it's "just" educated guess. Because as 51 G% shooter from 1960 to 1966, he either was really bad from fadeawys, midrange, not at rim in the paint shot, or he was bad as at rim finisher. There are no other possibilities. And of course it's very unlikely Wilt was anything less than 75 FG% shooter at rim.[/QUOTE]
Shooting above 50% while also scoring at a volume of 50ppg isn't... "bad"... it is legendary, so I'm not sure what you want me to say? When he dropped his volume to 24ppg he shot 68.3%, which is also legendary. He may have greatly reduced his fadeaway in '67 under coach Hannum but the same does not appear to be true for the rest of his career, he took the shot at a decent clip as a Laker, even during the 73 season when he shot 73% from the field on low volume. I think he became more careful with his shot selection when field goal accuracy was something he wanted to concentrate on. This does not necessarily mean retiring shots, I think rather, it means passing up opportunities to shoot over doubles or heavily contested shots. He liked to set personal goals for himself, as many players do. Why he was so accurate some seasons is more or less speculative. He appears to have scored with the same shots throughout his entire career, save for two things that I notice through the project I'm working on now:

*In footage of him in 1967, he only attempts a fade away jumper once, which is proportionately low given the rest of the coverage of shots that season. This is congruent with testimony that Hannum wanted him to shoot jumpers less, at least during the Sixers years - as he definitely still took the fall away shot a lot in '64 footage under Hannum as a Warrior.

*In footage after '68 he's back to shooting the jumper on a regular basis, however he no longer shoots it from the right block.

[QUOTE=fpliii]Does the finger roll count as at the rim, or as a not at the rim paint shot? If it's at the rim, I could see it bringing down his at rim percentage, [b]especially if he stopped using it later on.[/b]

I don't have any opinion one way or the other, just wondering. Maybe PHILA/Dipper 13 can let us know.[/QUOTE]
He never stopped using that shot, that was his bread and butter finishing move for his entire NBA career, I have footage of him taking that shot routinely from his first games as a rookie all the way to literally the last game of his career, and every season in between

CavaliersFTW,

I will use two first Wilt's seasons as example (he probably shot the most fadeaways in his first years). We know that he made 46.1% FG in 1960 and 50.9% in 1961. Knowing that we can see how his at rim and non at rim shots FG% would look if we assume what % of his all shots were "at rim" shots and how efficient he was making them. Of course that's just assumptions, so I will present different possibilities and I would like you to chose one which is in your opinion the closets to the truth. If neither is, then please explain why (show numbers, so [U]how many Wilt's shots in your opinion were at rim shots and how efficient he was making them[/U]).

1. if [b]50% of all Wilt's shots[/b] were at rim shots then his FG% from all other types of shots would be:

1.1. if his at rim shots FG% was 60%, then it means his not at rim shots % was 32.2% in 1960 and 41.8% in 1961

1.2. if his at rim shots FG% was 70%, then it means his non at rim shots % was 22.2% in 1960 and 31.8% in 1961

1.3. if his at rim shots FG% was 80%, then it means his non at rim shots % was 12.2% in 1960 and 21.8% in 1961

2. if [b]60% of all Wilt's shots[/b] were at rim shots then his FG% from all other types of shots would be:

2.1. if his at rim shots FG% was 60%, then it means his not at rim shots % was 25.2% in 1960 and 37.3% in 1961

2.2. if his at rim shots FG% was 70%, then it means his non at rim shots % was 10.2% in 1960 and 22.3% in 1961

2.3. if his at rim shots FG% was 80%, then it means his non at rim shots % was -4.8% ("-" so it means it's impossible he shot 80% at rim and at rim shots were 60% of his all shots that year) in 1960 and 7.3% in 1961

3. if [b]70% of all Wilt's shots[/b] were at rim shots then his FG% from all other types of shots would be:

3.1. if his at rim shots FG% was 60%, then it means his not at rim shots % was 13.6% in 1960 and 29.7% in 1961

3.2. if his at rim shots FG% was 70%, then it means his non at rim shots % was -9.7% ("-" so it's impossible he shot 70% FG% at rim and at rim shots were 70% of his all shots) in 1960 and 6.4% in 1961

3.3. if his at rim shots FG% was 80%, then it means his non at rim shots % was -33.1% in 1960 and -16.9% in 1961 ("-" so in both cases it's impossible he shot 80% at rim and at rim shots were 70% of his all shots)

So 9 possibilities, which are the most probably? In my opinion 3.1. or 2.2., but I would like to know what do you (or any other person for that matter ;)) think.

EDIT - Redacted. I'll need to look over my data before I can answer DS's question.

[IMG]http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/y%20NBA%20etc/Wilt%20Chamberlain/GIFs/1972wiltblocksjackson.gif[/IMG]

Get out of here Pjax

[QUOTE=trueDS]CavaliersFTW,

I will use two first Wilt's seasons as example (he probably shot the most fadeaways in his first years). We know that he made 46.1% FG in 1960 and 50.9% in 1961. Knowing that we can see how his at rim and non at rim shots FG% would look if we assume what % of his all shots were "at rim" shots and how efficient he was making them. Of course that's just assumptions, so I will present different possibilities and I would like you to chose one which is in your opinion the closets to the truth. If neither is, then please explain why (show numbers, so [U]how many Wilt's shots in your opinion were at rim shots and how efficient he was making them[/U]).

1. if [b]50% of all Wilt's shots[/b] were at rim shots then his FG% from all other types of shots would be:

1.1. if his at rim shots FG% was 60%, then it means his not at rim shots % was 32.2% in 1960 and 41.8% in 1961

1.2. if his at rim shots FG% was 70%, then it means his non at rim shots % was 22.2% in 1960 and 31.8% in 1961

1.3. if his at rim shots FG% was 80%, then it means his non at rim shots % was 12.2% in 1960 and 21.8% in 1961

2. if [b]60% of all Wilt's shots[/b] were at rim shots then his FG% from all other types of shots would be:

2.1. if his at rim shots FG% was 60%, then it means his not at rim shots % was 25.2% in 1960 and 37.3% in 1961

2.2. if his at rim shots FG% was 70%, then it means his non at rim shots % was 10.2% in 1960 and 22.3% in 1961

2.3. if his at rim shots FG% was 80%, then it means his non at rim shots % was -4.8% ("-" so it means it's impossible he shot 80% at rim and at rim shots were 60% of his all shots that year) in 1960 and 7.3% in 1961

3. if [b]70% of all Wilt's shots[/b] were at rim shots then his FG% from all other types of shots would be:

3.1. if his at rim shots FG% was 60%, then it means his not at rim shots % was 13.6% in 1960 and 29.7% in 1961

3.2. if his at rim shots FG% was 70%, then it means his non at rim shots % was -9.7% ("-" so it's impossible he shot 70% FG% at rim and at rim shots were 70% of his all shots) in 1960 and 6.4% in 1961

3.3. if his at rim shots FG% was 80%, then it means his non at rim shots % was -33.1% in 1960 and -16.9% in 1961 ("-" so in both cases it's impossible he shot 80% at rim and at rim shots were 70% of his all shots)

So 9 possibilities, which are the most probably? In my opinion 3.1. or 2.2., but I would like to know what do you (or any other person for that matter ;)) think.[/QUOTE]


All this is cool work and all, but you miss the bigger picture of Wilt Chamberlain. Aside from free throws where as far as I know efficiency was always celebrated, Chamberlain basically [I]invented [/I]the entire concept of offensive efficiency.

His work in '67 & '68 in that area - exactly like every other area of basketball - set standards which have never been approached. 35 shots in a row, 9 triple doubles in a row, quadruple doubles in the playoffs.... Those kinds of things are completely untouched. Exactly as he trailblazed [I]all[/I] the areas of basketball.... rebounding, scoring, blocking shots. etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., where lesser players have tried to follow.... he basically invented efficiency too:

* NBA Record - Most consecutive seasons leading NBA in field goal percentage (5, from 1964-65 through 1968-69)
Tied with Shaquille O'Neal

* NBA Record - Highest Field Goal Percentage in a season (72.7% in 1972-73)
Chamberlain also holds the second highest percentage with 68.3% in 1966-67

[B]* NBA Record - Most consecutive field goals (35 from February 17-28, 1967)
* NBA Record - Most field goals in a game without a miss (18, Philadelphia 76ers vs. the Baltimore Bullets on February 24, 1967)

* Chamberlain also holds the next two most with 16 (March 19, 1967) and 15 (January 20, 1967)
[/B]
You can get more efficient than 100%, not even if you're Wilt Chamberlain.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]All this is cool work and all, but you miss the bigger picture of Wilt Chamberlain. Aside from free throws where as far as I know efficiency was always celebrated, Chamberlain basically [I]invented [/I]the entire concept of offensive efficiency.

His work in '67 & '68 in that area - exactly like every other area of basketball - set standards which have never been approached. 35 shots in a row, 9 triple doubles in a row, quadruple doubles in the playoffs.... Those kinds of things are completely untouched. Exactly as he trailblazed [I]all[/I] the areas of basketball.... rebounding, scoring, blocking shots. etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., where lesser players have tried to follow.... he basically invented efficiency too:

* NBA Record - Most consecutive seasons leading NBA in field goal percentage (5, from 1964-65 through 1968-69)
Tied with Shaquille O'Neal

* NBA Record - Highest Field Goal Percentage in a season (72.7% in 1972-73)
Chamberlain also holds the second highest percentage with 68.3% in 1966-67

[B]* NBA Record - Most consecutive field goals (35 from February 17-28, 1967)
* NBA Record - Most field goals in a game without a miss (18, Philadelphia 76ers vs. the Baltimore Bullets on February 24, 1967)

* Chamberlain also holds the next two most with 16 (March 19, 1967) and 15 (January 20, 1967)
[/B]
You can get more efficient than 100%, not even if you're Wilt Chamberlain.[/QUOTE]

That's not answer to my question ;]

Really Wilt's fans, just pick one answer or propose another possible from mathematical point of view.

[QUOTE=trueDS]That's not answer to my question ;]

Really Wilt's fans, just pick one answer or propose another possible from mathematical point of view.[/QUOTE]
I'm not a Wilt fan, but I'm wondering if you think this is reasonable:
[CODE] %rim FG% %else FG% tot FG% FT%
60-61 0.40 70.0% 0.60 34.3% 48.6% 54.2%
62-63 0.40 70.0% 0.60 39.3% 51.6% 60.4%
64-66 0.40 70.0% 0.60 40.7% 52.4% 50.4%
67-68 0.70 70.0% 0.30 48.3% 63.5% 41.0%
69-73 0.70 70.0% 0.30 38.3% 60.5% 47.5%[/CODE]

[QUOTE=fpliii]I'm not a Wilt fan, but I'm wondering if you think this is reasonable:
[CODE] %rim FG% %else FG% tot FG% FT%
60-61 0.40 70.0% 0.60 34.3% 48.6% 54.2%
62-63 0.40 70.0% 0.60 39.3% 51.6% 60.4%
64-66 0.40 70.0% 0.60 40.7% 52.4% 50.4%
67-68 0.70 70.0% 0.30 48.3% 63.5% 41.0%
69-73 0.70 70.0% 0.30 38.3% 60.5% 47.5%[/CODE][/QUOTE]
What good is playing around with fictitious numbers when the guy who is proposing them doesn't even seem to understand how the game was played back then?

I suggest to DS, to quietly learn more, and project opinions less. Seems like he has opinions that are pre-formed despite a lack of data, if there is a lack of data he seems to make up his own data. Then he proceeds to state revealing Wilt footage is 'not very valuable/important' Kinda silly no?

[QUOTE=fpliii]I'm not a Wilt fan, but I'm wondering if you think this is reasonable:
[CODE] %rim FG% %else FG% tot FG% FT%
60-61 0.40 70.0% 0.60 34.3% 48.6% 54.2%
62-63 0.40 70.0% 0.60 39.3% 51.6% 60.4%
64-66 0.40 70.0% 0.60 40.7% 52.4% 50.4%
67-68 0.70 70.0% 0.30 48.3% 63.5% 41.0%
69-73 0.70 70.0% 0.30 38.3% 60.5% 47.5%[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I will check it later, but it's difficult to believe center shot less than 50% of his shots at rim.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]What good is playing around with fictitious numbers when the guy who is proposing them doesn't even seem to understand how the game was played back then?

I suggest to DS, to quietly learn more, and project opinions less. Seems like he has opinions that are pre-formed despite a lack of data, if there is a lack of data he seems to make up his own data. Then he proceeds to state revealing Wilt footage is 'not very valuable/important' Kinda silly no?[/QUOTE]

Could you answer to question: what in your opinion was Wilt's FG% at rim and what % of his all shots were at rim shots?

[QUOTE=trueDS]Could you answer to question: what in your opinion was Wilt's FG% at rim and what % of his all shots were at rim shots?[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to give you fictitious numbers, what is the point? Phila's shot chart reveals a few fragments of what you seek to know, so long as you understand what games they came from, when those games were played which can effect his role, and just how few there are. My project when finished, will reveal quite a bit more about his scoring habits, so patiently wait for it, trust me it is rather revealing in assessing how he scored the lion share of his points. Also probably most of all ask questions and listen to people like La Fresco who watched Wilt play. You're asking for stuff that isn't possible, you're an advanced stats era-minded fan, but you won't get advanced stats from Wilt, they don't exist.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]I'm not going to give you fictitious numbers, what is the point? [/QUOTE]

The point is to know your opinion, because either you think early Wilt was weak at rim finisher or you are overrating his fadeaway shots. There's no other possibility (and if is, then please show it from mathematical point of view).

[QUOTE=trueDS]The point is to know your opinion, because either you think early Wilt was weak at rim finisher or you overrating his fadeaway shots. [B]There's no other possibility.[/B][/QUOTE]
Incorrect, having no opinion at all on the subject is a possibility.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Incorrect, having no opinion at all on the subject is a possibility.[/QUOTE]

By the way you are talking about Wilt one can say you clearly have opinion on that subject. But it's obvious you are afraid to answer that question, because it might put Wilt in bad light and expose him as "fadeaway shooter". So good luck with preparing highlights with only made shots and acting like it says much about Wilt. I'm done with this forum and no wonder most good posters from here migrated to realGM.

[QUOTE=trueDS]By the way you are talking about Wilt one can say you clearly have opinion on that subject. But it's obvious you are afraid to answer that question, because it might put Wilt in bad light and expose him as "fadeaway shooter". So good luck with preparing highlights with only made shots and acting like it says much about Wilt. I'm done with this forum and no wonder most good posters from here migrated to realGM.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://img.pandawhale.com/post-32449-ace-ventura-eye-roll-gif-Jim-C-FTgU.gif[/IMG]

Not really related, but I'm wondering if you guys have a rough timeline for changes in Wilt's FT form? When did he start shooting from way behind the line, and when did he experiment with shooting underhand?

[QUOTE=fpliii]Not really related, but I'm wondering if you guys have a rough timeline for changes in Wilt's FT form? When did he start shooting from way behind the line, and when did he experiment with shooting underhand?[/QUOTE]
There's clips of him shooting free throws every season I think, and from HS all the way to his final season there isn't much room for speculation it's just a matter of pinpointing, also there's a bit of testimonial out there as to why he switched his forms and when he was switching them. I'm not going to sidetrack myself with that right now, someone else who has payed attention to this can comment on that if they know. All I know offhand is his form changed from HS, to NCAA due to pain in his knees, and from at least his 5th season (maybe sooner though) until 1968 he shot underhand. From 1971-73 I know he was shooting one step back and one step to the left, not giving much of a f*ck at that point looking very defeated just being there in the first place :lol

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]There's clips of him shooting free throws every season I think, and from HS all the way to his final season there isn't much room for speculation it's just a matter of pinpointing, also there's a bit of testimonial out there as to why he switched his forms and when he was switching them. I'm not going to sidetrack myself with that right now, someone else who has payed attention to this can comment on that if they know. All I know offhand is his form changed from HS, to NCAA due to pain in his knees, and from at least his 5th season (maybe sooner though) until 1968 he shot underhand. From 1971-73 I know he was shooting one step back and one step to the left, not giving much of a f*ck at that point looking very defeated just being there in the first place :lol[/QUOTE]
lol thanks, I don't want to distract you. :D

BTW, when you say 1971, you mean 70-71, or 71-72?

[QUOTE=trueDS]By the way you are talking about Wilt one can say you clearly have opinion on that subject. But it's obvious you are afraid to answer that question, because it might put Wilt in bad light and expose him as "fadeaway shooter". So good luck with preparing highlights with only made shots and acting like it says much about Wilt. I'm done with this forum and no wonder most good posters from here migrated to realGM.[/QUOTE]


[img]http://www.clker.com/cliparts/R/3/i/V/Q/c/guy-waving-bye-md.png[/img]

[B][I][SIZE="6"]bye bye!![/SIZE][/I][/B]

[QUOTE=trueDS]I will check it later, but it's difficult to believe center shot less than 50% of his shots at rim.[/QUOTE]

It looks like the NBA started charting these exact shots beginning with the 2000-2001 season.

How about Shaq in that same season (and including the playoffs)?

1776 total FGAs

768 "at the rim", which from what I can gather, is 0-2 ft., or .43.2% of the time.

Now, how about this. Of those 768 shots "at the rim", Shaq made 603 of them, or .785. BUT, included were 300 dunks, of which he made 287 (.957.)

So, from 3 ft on out, Shaq shot a combined 401-1008, or .398.

In his 2001-2002 season, Shaq took a combined 1613 FGAs (regular season and playoffs), and made 915.

He took 783 shots "at the rim", or .485. Of those, (again 0-2 ft), he made a total of 586, or .748. BTW, he made 329 of 344 dunk attempts (.956.)

From 3 ft on, he made 329 of 830 FGAs, or .396. Hell, subtract his point-blank dunk attempts, and he made 586-1269, or .462. Just what in the hell was he doing taking anything but dunks?


Now, how about a typical Tim Duncan season? In his 05-06 season (and one in which he primarily a post-up center), he made a combined 695-1396 FGAs. Of those, he took 461 "at the rim" or .330 of his total shots.

"At the rim" (0-2 ft.) he made 335-461 shots, or a .727 FG%.

From 3 ft on out, he made 360-935 FG/FGA, or a .385 FG%.

Again, ask yourself, why in the hell was Duncan shooting anything but 0-2 ft shots?


And to get back to the Wilt question. Using Duncan as an example, I REALLY believe that a 59-60 to 62-63 Wilt was taking FAR more 3+ foot shots than "at the rim" shots. IMHO, he was probably in the "Duncan" range, which would have meant that he was probably shooting around 40-45% from 3-12 to feet. Which would explain his "inefficient" shooting in those seasons.


BTW, how about a couple of Wilt's "inefficient" seasons, like his 61-62 and 62-63 seasons?

In his 61-62 season, he averaged 50.4 ppg on a .506 eFG%, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .426. In his 62-63 season, he averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG%, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .441.

Now, lets compare that with some other "greats" in their highest scoring seasons, shall we?

How about David Robinson in his highest scoring season? 29.8 ppg on an eFG% of .507, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .485.

Oh, and how about Hakeem in his highest scoring season? 27.8 ppg on an eFG% of .517, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of...get this... .500!


Of course, we could compare Chamberlain's 65-66 season, in which he led the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg, and in eFG%, at .540, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .433.

Or, Chamberlain's unfathomable 66-67 season, when he averaged 24.1 ppg on an eFG% of .683, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .441. BTW, during the regular season, he averaged 20.8 ppg on a .633 eFG% against Nate Thurmond: against Russell in the regular season, he averaged 20.3 ppg on a .549 eFG% (and then 21.6 ppg on a .556 eFG% in the EDF's against him); and against Bellamy, he averaged 22.7 ppg on a .709 eFG%.


The bottom line...a young Wilt just coming into the NBA was probably taking the vast majority of his shots from 5-12 ft. And that would explain those "inefficient" seasons of .461, .509, .506, and .528.

Oh, and once again...

[url]http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html[/url]

[QUOTE]

Carl Braun said "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."
[B]"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league [COLOR="DarkRed"]with a good touch from the outside[/COLOR], which made his early scoring that much more significant[/B]. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."

--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70
[/QUOTE]


So, when CavsFan posts the very limited footage of Wilt that is available, I would contend that Wilt hitting 12-15 foot shots was not only common, but in fact, he was probably shooting them (especially his fade-away bank shots which Duncan would later copy) on a decent percentage.

I find these shooting splits fascinating.

The Wilt-bashers come up with blatantly fabricated theories that try to minimize Wilt's shooting, particular his early NBA career shooting, and yet, I see no one has responded to what I posted above.

Shaq, and even Duncan, had entire seasons (both regular season and post-season combined), in which they collectively shot .398, or worse, away "from the rim."

How about Vlade Divac in '03-04? From 3-10 feet... a .306 eFG%.

How about Garnett in his highest scoring season? From 3-10 feet... .414.

Once again, the NBA began tracking these shots from the 2000-2001 season, and Hakeem was nearing the end, but how about him in that season... from 3-10 feet... .363.

And Robinson in that same season? From 3-10 feet... .320.

Hey Laz what do you think about Wilt's finger roll?

[QUOTE=turnaroundJ]Hey Laz what do you think about Wilt's finger roll?[/QUOTE]

One of the greatest offensive weapons in NBA history.

Again, using "at the rim", and 3-10 foot shooting, and I suspect the two greatest post scoring players in NBA history, were Kareem and Wilt.

And Shaq and Chamberlain were the two greatest "at the rim" players.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]One of the greatest offensive weapons in NBA history.

Again, using "at the rim", and 3-10 foot shooting, and I suspect the two greatest post scoring players in NBA history, were Kareem and Wilt.

And Shaq and Chamberlain were the two greatest "at the rim" players.[/QUOTE]

Why did she shoot it facing backwards and/or fading away though? And sometimes at a distance (the 3-10 ft you're referring to)

Was that something he'd always done? I'm genuinely curious.

I've seen the highlights of course, but also some finals footage where he completely bricks some.

[QUOTE=turnaroundJ]Why did she shoot it facing backwards and/or fading away though? And sometimes at a distance (the 3-10 ft you're referring to)

Was that something he'd always done? I'm genuinely curious.

I've seen the highlights of course, but also some finals [B]footage[/B] where he completely bricks some.[/QUOTE]

That's the problem...

the only footage we have of Chamberlain equates to less 2% of his NBA career.

Still, and as I pointed out a few posts back, there is this massive misconception that the only way Wilt scored was by dunking. And the Wilt-bashers seem to think he couldn't do anything else. Yet, in the little footage we have of an early NBA Chamberlain, he was making a large percentage of 5-15 foot shots.

And we know, by those that were actually around in his early NBA career, that he had very good range (read quotes from peers in my post a few posts back.) That would explain his FG%'s of .461, .509, .506, and .528 in his first four seasons.

In the mid-60's, he narrowed his range and shot selection (and was still leading the league in scoring), and his FG%'s rose dramatically. And after his surgery, and into the 70's, he was primarily scoring "at the rim", which would explain his off-the-charts FG%'s.

I have read quotes from Thurmond, that he (Nate) could stop the finger-roll...but how does he explain a mid-60's Chamberlain routinely hanging 30+ point games against him (and even crushing him by margins of 38-15 and 45-13...as well as having an entire season of 21 ppg on a .633 FG% against him)?

An early NBA Wilt was just unstoppable from the standpoint that he could score from up to 15 feet. There was simply no way of defending him. And a mid-60's Chamberlain was only taking much better shots, and again, if he shot it, it too was unstoppable.

The Wilt-bashers will always try to minimize Chamberlain's scoring seasons, but they never acknowledge that a Wilt from 67-69 still put up the highest scoring games during those seasons.

And it's too bad that Wilt blew out his knee in the ninth game of his 69-70 season. His new coach, Joe Mullaney, had asked Wilt to focus on scoring again, and in those first nine games, Wilt responded by leading the league in scoring at 32.2 ppg (and on a .579 FG%.) Included were games of 33, 35, 37 (against 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle), 38 (against reigning MVP Wes Unseld), 42 (against Bob Rule), and 43 points. Oh, and in his one H2H with Kareem before that injury, he just shelled Alcindor in every facet of the game (he outscored him, 25-23; outrebounded him, 25-20; outassisted him, 5-2; outblocked him 3-2; and outshot him from the field, 9-14 to 9-21.)

So, here was a 33 year old Wilt, on his way to yet another scoring title, and doing so with a spectacular FG%, too. Oh, and a one-legged Wilt, only four months removed from major knee surgery, still put up a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 FG% seven game Finals.

[QUOTE=fpliii]I'm not a Wilt fan, but I'm wondering if you think this is reasonable:
[CODE] %rim FG% %else FG% tot FG% FT%
60-61 0.40 70.0% 0.60 34.3% 48.6% 54.2%
62-63 0.40 70.0% 0.60 39.3% 51.6% 60.4%
64-66 0.40 70.0% 0.60 40.7% 52.4% 50.4%
67-68 0.70 70.0% 0.30 48.3% 63.5% 41.0%
69-73 0.70 70.0% 0.30 38.3% 60.5% 47.5%[/CODE][/QUOTE]

If a prime Shaq was only taking 45% of his shots "at the rim", then I suspect an early NBA Wilt (from 59-60 thru 62-63) was probably more "Duncan-like" and was around 30-35%. Which would have put his 3+ foot range shooting in the 40-45% (maybe even higher) category. And in reality, I suspect that Wilt's range from 60-63 was probably around 5-10 ft, on average, with a considerable amount of shots from 10-15 ft.

[QUOTE=turnaroundJ]Why did she shoot it facing backwards and/or fading away though? And sometimes at a distance (the 3-10 ft you're referring to)

Was that something he'd always done? I'm genuinely curious.

[B]I've seen the highlights of course, but also some finals footage where he completely bricks some.[/B][/QUOTE]
So? I've seen Jordan completely brick dunks, was it truthfully a bad shot perhaps? :facepalm :oldlol:

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]So? I've seen Jordan completely brick dunks, bad shot perhaps? :facepalm :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Fatal posted footage of a Wilt, chasing down a shot at the sideline, and then stumbling to fire up a shot that clanked off the top of the backboard. It was an obvious attempt to disparage Wilt's offense. Of course, he never mentioned that the 24 second clock was about to expire either.

BTW, I remember PHILA posting footage of Shaq, from about five feet away, shooting an air-ball.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]If a prime Shaq was only taking 45% of his shots "at the rim", then I suspect an early NBA Wilt (from 59-60 thru 62-63) was probably more "Duncan-like" and was around 30-35%. Which would have put his 3+ foot range shooting in the 40-45% (maybe even higher) category. And in reality, I suspect that Wilt's range from 60-63 was probably around 5-10 ft, on average, with a considerable amount of shots from 10-15 ft.[/QUOTE]
That's possible too, I was just speculating.

BTW do you have an idea of roughly during which seasons Wilt shot free throws underhanded, and when he started the far back and to the side of the line routine? CavsFTW gave some good responses above, just wondering what your thoughts are.

For those that somehow believe that an early Chamberlain was taking 75% from "at the rim", here are a prime Shaq's numbers, from his 00-01 season (and again, we don't have anything before that season)...

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01/shooting/2001/[/url]

Clearly, a prime Shaq was probably taking a far greater percentage of his "at the rim" shots than an early Wilt. BUT, it was STILL only 43.2% of the time. The more interesting comparison would have been a mid-60's Chamberlain, particularly in his 66-67 season.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]The Wilt-bashers will always try to minimize . Oh, and in his one H2H with Kareem before that injury, he just shelled Alcindor in every facet of the game (he outscored him, 25-23; outrebounded him, 25-20; outassisted him, 5-2; outblocked him 3-2; and outshot him from the field, 9-14 to 9-21.)

So, here was a 33 year old Wilt, on his way to yet another scoring title, and doing so with a spectacular FG%, too. Oh, and a one-legged Wilt, only four months removed from major knee surgery, still put up a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 FG% seven game Finals
.[/QUOTE]


Love your videos. But you really don't care about being taken seriously do you?

He SHELLED Alcinder. Come on.

[QUOTE=fpliii]That's possible too, I was just speculating.

BTW do you have an idea of roughly during which seasons Wilt shot free throws underhanded, and when he started the far back and to the side of the line routine? CavsFTW gave some good responses above, just wondering what your thoughts are.[/QUOTE]

I only saw Wilt from 63-64 on. He was shooting under-handed by then. And I can't exactly when he went to the 18 ft FT attempts, but I believe it was after his knee injury.

What was interesting, though, was the fact that a college, and then an early-NBA Wilt actually had very good form. And while he was not a good FT shooter then, he was around the 60% mark (and often had spectacular games from the line.) Clearly, "hack-a-Wilt" in his early years was not worth it.

[QUOTE=stanlove1111]Love your videos. But you really don't care about being taken seriously do you?

He SHELLED Alcinder. Come on.[/QUOTE]

In EVERY facet of the game.

Makes you wonder what a PRIME Chamberlain would have carpet-bombed him with, doesn't it?

[QUOTE=turnaroundJ]Why did she shoot it facing backwards and/or fading away though? And sometimes at a distance (the 3-10 ft you're referring to)

Was that something he'd always done? I'm genuinely curious.

I've seen the highlights of course, but also some finals footage where he completely bricks some.[/QUOTE]

The finger roll was a counter.

Wilt's main move off the block, of course, was the power dunk. But he had a whole series of counters:

* He would spin off either shoulder for the dunk;
* He would spin toward the baseline, past the help defender, and go under the basket for the dunk;
* He would spin away from the basket for the turnaround fadeaway;
* He would spin away from the basket, take a step towards the free throw line, spin and shoot an 8 foot jumper;
* He would spin towards the baseline and shoot a hook shot;
* He would spin away from the basket, and put up the finger roll.

In Philly he had a whole team of excellent outside shooters, and they ran the triangle with all those cutters..... his offensive game became just overkill. In LA, Wilt had the same offensive skills but he was the third option, 4th or not at all. He would take 2 or 3 shots, a lot of games none at all.

Wilt used to go to the playgrounds in Philly or NYC in the summers and you could watch him in the afternoons or in the evening, running Mikan drills, practicing his hook shot, and polishing his enormous repertoire. He did it by the hour, and he would draw enormous crowds - especially there would be girls. Girls everywhere!!
Every one of those moves was a "go-to" move - you had to defend each one of them as a #1 threat - which of course, made him unstoppable.

[B][I]edit ~~ those moves all started from this position right here:[/B]

[/I][img]http://cbsphilly.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/wilt-chamberlain.jpg%3Fw%3D300[/img]

[img]http://www.nba.com/bulls/sites/bulls/files/content/images-top/2013/03/wilt_130325.jpg[/img]
[B]
If you got stuck down low with him like that, it was just [I]too bad[/I].[/B]

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]For those that somehow believe that an early Chamberlain was taking 75% from "at the rim", here are a prime Shaq's numbers, from his 00-01 season (and again, we don't have anything before that season)...

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01/shooting/2001/[/url]

Clearly, a prime Shaq was probably taking a far greater percentage of his "at the rim" shots than an early Wilt. BUT, it was STILL only 43.2% of the time. The more interesting comparison would have been a mid-60's Chamberlain, particularly in his 66-67 season.[/QUOTE]

That's an enlightening graph. Since "at rim" shots are considered only the ones taken from <3 feet away and the pretty much most "bulldozer" prime versions of Shaq, the player who had by far the most dunks than any other since the early 90's, were taking less than 60% and, at times, less than 50% of their shots from that range, any notion of young Wilt (=the one trying to play with finesse and style rather than with power) taking 60-70% of their shots at rim is ridiculous. I especially feel so for rookie Wilt, who shot by far a career-low in FG%, yet his FT% was the 3rd highest of his career. This makes me suspect that rookie Wilt had by far the worst shooting selections of his career and therefore not many "at rim" shots at all.