Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968

[QUOTE=PHILA]I don't know. Actually it began on this forum, he has even stated that Bynum>Wilt as a scorer.

[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6122175&postcount=37"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6122175&postcount=37[/URL][/QUOTE]
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recently that made me upload the Rick Barry's opinion of Wilt video just to expose that quote as a cherry picked outdated piece of information... turns out Fatal9 was that guys source of using that outdated quote in his anti-Wilt arguments.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=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]

As far as I remember, Fatal9, who had been here, mostly tried to bear a "mythbuster" and "protector of the underrated" name. Started by posting stuff against Jordan's hype while not caring much about Wilt (sometimes even wrote positive things about him), but gradually moved to trying to bust similar stories about Wilt and became increasingly hostile towards him, while always being much keener on Kareem/Hakeem, who had been considered the "underrated" big men.
I'm not a RealGM poster, but a few ones are even worse. They, for example, have fallen so pathologically in love with the season-by-season WS margins, SRS margins, etc, that they'll get to conclusions like Wilt being a bad defender in 1969, Wilt having little offensive impact in some of his highest scoring seasons and so on.
What's comical in such situations is that, in case Wilt's teams seem to underperform, Wilt's game is the only one which is scrutinized as consistently changing and is considered mostly responsible for the negative turn, while the other players' value and impact somehow remain unchanged. If Wilt's teams play great, then it becomes a different story...
Oh, and try to disagree. Best case, you'll be called out as ignorant. Worst case, I guess, you may even get banned if you don't shut up after a while.

And on Wilt having 24 inches of vert, here's a 2008 topic here:
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98884[/url]

[QUOTE]And on Wilt having 24 inches of vert, here's a 2008 topic here:
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98884[/url][/QUOTE]

Now I'm viewing the last pages and it seems like you already know about this.

[QUOTE=Psileas]As far as I remember, Fatal9, who had been here, mostly tried to bear a "mythbuster" and "protector of the underrated" name. Started by posting stuff against Jordan's hype while not caring much about Wilt (sometimes even wrote positive things about him), but gradually moved to trying to bust similar stories about Wilt and became increasingly hostile towards him, while always being much keener on Kareem/Hakeem, who had been considered the "underrated" big men.
I'm not a RealGM poster, but a few ones are even worse. They, for example, have fallen so pathologically in love with the season-by-season WS margins, SRS margins, etc, that they'll get to conclusions like Wilt being a bad defender in 1969, Wilt having little offensive impact in some of his highest scoring seasons and so on.
What's comical in such situations is that, in case Wilt's teams seem to underperform, Wilt's game is the only one which is scrutinized as consistently changing and is considered mostly responsible for the negative turn, while the other players' value and impact somehow remain unchanged. If Wilt's teams play great, then it becomes a different story...
Oh, and try to disagree. Best case, you'll be called out as ignorant. Worst case, I guess, you may even get banned if you don't shut up after a while.

And on Wilt having 24 inches of vert, here's a 2008 topic here:
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98884[/url][/QUOTE]

At one time he was actually a knowledgeable poster...

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165643[/url]

[QUOTE]Is the perception of Wilt being a perenial choker overblown? I looked at all his do or die games (ie. Game 7s, though sometimes those could be game 3s or Game 5s depending on what round the series was in).

1960 G3 vs. Nationals: 53 points, ? rebounds (playoff record at the time for pts)
1962 G5 vs. Nationals: 56 pts, 35 rebs (breaks his own playoff record)
1962 G7 vs Celtics : 22 pts, 21 rebs (7/14 shooting - Warriors were on the verge of pulling off this upset but Sam James hit a clutch shot. Wilt was undoubtedly fronted by the entire Celtics frontline, as was the case for most of his games vs. Celtics in mid-60s, a defensive strategy which would have been illegal in 80s/90s mind you)
1964 G7 vs. Hawks: 39 pts, 26 rebs, 12 blocks (many of which led to 14-0 run

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]At one time he was actually a knowledgeable poster...

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165643[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah, he could really be impressive some times and debate very well. Then the next day totally miss the boat and not be capable of defending himself.

"The point isn't whether he made or missed the shots, those things vary game to game. But it's things like his awful footwork, how many dribbles he uses to make his move (this wouldn't fly in today's game where double teaming and trapping is waaay more common), his dribbles aren't fluid or in rhythm, his touch outside of 5+ feet away looks really awkward but it's pretty soft on his bank shot (though he is soo slow in getting into that move), has a bad habit of exposing the ball and he clearly doesn't have a lower base and center of gravity (long skinny legs) of a guy like Shaq to play the power game like him. These are things that are consistent on a game to game basis. But you guys can believe that a guy who was as horrible as Wilt at FTs had awesome midrange game. I just think it's a big leap of faith.


TL;DR: Wilt was an awesome finisher and awesome on the offensive boards but his post offense is very overrated. That combined with his historically bad FT shooting (and likely high propensity for turnovers) doesn't make him an efficient option in the post like his numbers would suggest.


Defensively, I've heard his fans compare his impact to Russell. Even at his best when he was motivated, I disagree with that strongly. He was a dominant shot blocker, a good man to man defender in the post in his later years and that's it. I've heard commentators point out how Wilt doesn't leave the paint and cover screen and rolls. Clearly doesn't have Russell's (or KG's or Hakeem's or Walton's) "horizontal" game. His defensive impact is inconsistent throughout his years. I see him defensively like I do Shaq. Great when he wants to be (though can be exploited by some weaknesses) but inconsistent effort wise. I'm pretty sure we have some data too of Wilt not improving offenses and defenses as much as you'd expect from someone with his boxscore numbers.


His year by year impact from team to team definitely doesn't say much in his favor either:"

:facepalm

[QUOTE=jongib369]"The point isn't whether he made or missed the shots, those things vary game to game. But it's things like his awful footwork, how many dribbles he uses to make his move (this wouldn't fly in today's game where double teaming and trapping is waaay more common), his dribbles aren't fluid or in rhythm, his touch outside of 5+ feet away looks really awkward but it's pretty soft on his bank shot (though he is soo slow in getting into that move), has a bad habit of exposing the ball and he clearly doesn't have a lower base and center of gravity (long skinny legs) of a guy like Shaq to play the power game like him. These are things that are consistent on a game to game basis. But you guys can believe that a guy who was as horrible as Wilt at FTs had awesome midrange game. I just think it's a big leap of faith.


TL;DR: Wilt was an awesome finisher and awesome on the offensive boards but his post offense is very overrated. That combined with his historically bad FT shooting (and likely high propensity for turnovers) doesn't make him an efficient option in the post like his numbers would suggest.


Defensively, I've heard his fans compare his impact to Russell. Even at his best when he was motivated, I disagree with that strongly. He was a dominant shot blocker, a good man to man defender in the post in his later years and that's it. I've heard commentators point out how Wilt doesn't leave the paint and cover screen and rolls. Clearly doesn't have Russell's (or KG's or Hakeem's or Walton's) "horizontal" game. His defensive impact is inconsistent throughout his years. I see him defensively like I do Shaq. Great when he wants to be (though can be exploited by some weaknesses) but inconsistent effort wise. I'm pretty sure we have some data too of Wilt not improving offenses and defenses as much as you'd expect from someone with his boxscore numbers.


His year by year impact from team to team definitely doesn't say much in his favor either:"

:facepalm[/QUOTE]
Exactly, what a f*cking idiot. How about this number:

[QUOTE=Fatal9]I would say Shaq had a better touch outside the paint than Wilt...[/QUOTE]

:biggums: :biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

Based on what!?, his imagination!? :roll: :roll: :roll:

I think Fatal9 genuinely bought into the idea that Wilt did nothing but dunk on 6-6 white centers, and that he was merely an 'average' (heck, maybe even subpar) athlete by today's standards. That his 7-1 height was equivilent to say, Tyson Chandler... he also thinks Wilt's weight ranged only about 225lbs to about 275lbs, he also thinks Wilt had a 24 inch vertical and a 7 foot 2 inch armspan... His only two sourcese of game footage he liked to use to 'judge wilt's talent' was the 2nd halves of the 1964 Finals and the 2nd half of the 1967 Finals where Wilt had 2 inflamed knees and shinsplints that crippled his mobility, a fact Fatal9 never seemed aware of because he fails to acknowledge it when he posts his "Wilt post moves" video intended to ridicule Wilt. He's happy with that video, and those descriptions encompassing Wilt's abilities. Seems pretty set in his ways about it too. Wonder if he's ever seen any of my posts or my YT channel, because I've about shredded most of that nonsense with the more in depth research I've done.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]I think Fatal9 genuinely bought into the idea that Wilt did nothing but dunk on 6-6 white centers, and that he was merely an 'average' (heck, maybe even subpar) athlete by today's standards. That his 7-1 height was equivilent to say, Tyson Chandler... he also thinks Wilt's weight ranged only about 225lbs to about 275lbs, he also thinks Wilt had a 24 inch vertical and a 7 foot 2 inch armspan... His only two sourcese of game footage he liked to use to 'judge wilt's talent' was the 2nd halves of the 1964 Finals and the 2nd half of the 1967 Finals where Wilt had 2 inflamed knees and shinsplints that crippled his mobility, a fact Fatal9 never seemed aware of because he fails to acknowledge it when he posts his "Wilt post moves" video intended to ridicule Wilt. He's happy with that video, and those descriptions encompassing Wilt's abilities. Seems pretty set in his ways about it too. Wonder if he's ever seen any of my posts or my YT channel, because I've about shredded most of that nonsense with the more in depth research I've done.[/QUOTE]

If I'm not mistaken fatal9 and the majority of his type disappeared almost instantly after they saw your clip of Wilt Chamberlain going to the top of the backboard to block a shot in a game. vanished into thin air

except the ubiquitous molldywad - he's still around here somewhere. Look in the basement corners.
Bring this along:

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JjlSqNTK8sA/TsRn6TphFsI/AAAAAAAAuWo/ftOpcjHyNu4/s400/raid%2Bslogan.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=jongib369]"The point isn't whether he made or missed the shots, those things vary game to game. But it's things like his awful footwork, how many dribbles he uses to make his move (this wouldn't fly in today's game where double teaming and trapping is waaay more common), his dribbles aren't fluid or in rhythm, his touch outside of 5+ feet away looks really awkward but it's pretty soft on his bank shot (though he is soo slow in getting into that move), has a bad habit of exposing the ball and he clearly doesn't have a lower base and center of gravity (long skinny legs) of a guy like Shaq to play the power game like him. These are things that are consistent on a game to game basis. But you guys can believe that a guy who was as horrible as Wilt at FTs had awesome midrange game. I just think it's a big leap of faith.


TL;DR: Wilt was an awesome finisher and awesome on the offensive boards but his post offense is very overrated. That combined with his historically bad FT shooting (and likely high propensity for turnovers) doesn't make him an efficient option in the post like his numbers would suggest.


Defensively, I've heard his fans compare his impact to Russell. Even at his best when he was motivated, I disagree with that strongly. He was a dominant shot blocker, a good man to man defender in the post in his later years and that's it. I've heard commentators point out how Wilt doesn't leave the paint and cover screen and rolls. Clearly doesn't have Russell's (or KG's or Hakeem's or Walton's) "horizontal" game. His defensive impact is inconsistent throughout his years. I see him defensively like I do Shaq. Great when he wants to be (though can be exploited by some weaknesses) but inconsistent effort wise. I'm pretty sure we have some data too of Wilt not improving offenses and defenses as much as you'd expect from someone with his boxscore numbers.


[B]His year by year impact from team to team definitely doesn't say much in his favor either[/B]:"

:facepalm[/QUOTE]

Yep...Chamberlain had very little impact on his teams.

In his rookie season, he took what had been a last-place team to a 49-26 record, to a game six, two point loss, against a heavily-favored Celtic team, in a series in which he badly injured his hand, and because of it, his team lost the next game, 120-90.

In his 61-62 season, he took that same last-place roster, which was now older and worse, to a game seven, two point loss against an even more dominant Celtic team...in a post-season in which his teammates collectively shot .354 from the field.

HE was blamed for his 62-63 Warrior team going 31-49, in a season in which SF lost 35 games by single digits. Included was a 1-8 record against the Celtics, which fielded a roster of NINE HOFers, and Wilt kept his roster in almost all of those games (and outscored Russell, per game, 38-14 ppg in the process.)

How bad was that roster? The very next season his new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, with the veterans playing against draft picks and scrubs...and guess which team won? Hannum was absolutely horrified. In his own words, those Warrior players had totally forgotten how to play basketball. Oh, and then Wilt single-handedly took that same pathetic cast of clowns roster to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals. And I mean single-handedly. It took his 39 ppg, 23 rpg, .559 WDF's series to beat a Hawks team that was better, from players 2-6, in seven games. Then, while they lost to the overwhelmingly favored Celtics (and their EIGHT HOFers) in the Finals, 4-1, the last two games came down to the wire, in a series in which Chamberlain trashed Russell.

Wilt was sick for much of the first half of the 64-65 season, and his team's doctor mis-diagnosed his condition as a heart problem. With Chamberlain at less than 100%, and virtually no surrounding talent, they fell to 10-27. The warriors panicked and traded Wilt to Philly at the mid-way point in the season, for three players.

Wilt took a team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and missed the playoffs (and minus three players now) to a 40-40 record. Not bad. BUT, in the post-season, he single-handedly carried them past a 48-32 Royals team in the first round, and then to a game seven, one point defeat to a 62-18 Celtics team that was at the peak of their dynasty. And in that series, he administered the most one-sided beatdown of a another GOAT candidate in NBA history.

He would then lead the Sixers to the best record in the league in his next three years in Philly, including a dominating title in '67, on a team that smashed all kinds of records at the time.

Meanwhile, the 64-65 Warriors, went 7-36 without Wilt. They moved Thurmond to center, where he would become a HOFer. They then drafted Rick Barry, who would become a HOFer. The result? 35-45. Think about that. TWO HOFers replacing Wilt, and they could only go 35-45.

But it gets better. In the Warriors' 66-67 season, they added Jeff Mullins, Fred Hetzel, and Clyde Lee. Thurmond had his greatest season ever, and Rick Barry led the NBA in scoring at 35.6 ppg. The result? A 44-37 record, and were blown out by Wilt's Sixers in the Finals. Think about this. In Wilt's 63-64 season, his second best player was Tom Meschery, who averaged 13 ppg. That team went 48-32. On the 66-67 Warriors, Meschery averaged 11 ppg, and was SF's SEVENTH best player...and they only went 44-37, and couldn't even equal Wilt's 63-64 season.

Chamberlain basically forced a trade before the start of the 68-69 season. His 67-68 Sixers had gone 62-20, but were decimated by injuries in the post-season, and lost a close game seven to Boston in the EDF's. He was "traded" to LA, for three players, who collectively had averaged 29 ppg and 15 rpg in '67-68. In fact, Clark and Imhoff would go on to combine for a 36-20 .510 series in the first round against a 48-34 Celtic team...and they were demolished, 4-1. Contrary to popular myth, that was a HUGE drop. Oh, and the Sixers would continue to slide, and by Wilt's last season in the league, they went 9-73.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain's 68-69 Lakers "only" improved from a 52-30 record, to a 55-27 record (their best ever record in LA at the time BTW.) However, Chamberlain had to not only replace Imhoff and Clark's 29-15 per game averages, but the Lakers also lost Gail Goodrich and his 14 ppg from 67-68 in the expansion draft. So, Wilt basically replaced 42 ppg and 18 rpg. And even with an incompetent coach, they were one play away from easily beating Boston in the Finals, 4-1. They lost game seven, by two points, with Chamberlain relegated to the bench in the last five minutes by the stubborn and witless Van Breda Kolf, who was basically fired right after the game.

In his five seasons in LA, the Lakers went to FOUR Finals, losing two in game seven's. They won a dominating title in 71-72, on a team that smashed all kinds of records (at the time...including a 33 game winning streak.) They won 69 and 60 games in his last two seasons, and went to the Finals in both (winning their first-ever title in LA in 71-72.) Oh, and along the way, they destroyed his old Warrior team twice in the post-season.

Chamberlain "retired" after his 72-73 season, and the Lakers immediately plummetted to a 47-35 record, and were blown away in the first round of the playoffs. In their next season, the fell to 30-52. They then traded for KAJ, and could only go 40-42. They were nothing but early round playoff cannon-fodder the rest of the decade. It wasn't until MAGIC arrived in 79-80, that they returned to where Chamberlain had left them.

But, yes, Wilt had no impact on his teams...

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]If I'm not mistaken fatal9 and the majority of his type disappeared almost instantly after they saw your clip of Wilt Chamberlain going to the top of the backboard to block a shot in a game. vanished into thin air

except the ubiquitous molldywad - he's still around here somewhere. Look in the basement corners.
Bring this along:

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JjlSqNTK8sA/TsRn6TphFsI/AAAAAAAAuWo/ftOpcjHyNu4/s400/raid%2Bslogan.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]

The remnants are now aptly named ... the "Custerites"...

[IMG]http://cms2.westport.k12.ct.us/cmslmc/Grade7/resources/custer2.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]If I'm not mistaken fatal9 and the majority of his type disappeared almost instantly after they saw your clip of Wilt Chamberlain going to the top of the backboard to block a shot in a game. vanished into thin air

except the ubiquitous molldywad - he's still around here somewhere. Look in the basement corners.
Bring this along:

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JjlSqNTK8sA/TsRn6TphFsI/AAAAAAAAuWo/ftOpcjHyNu4/s400/raid%2Bslogan.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I don't know about Fatal9 personally, but many of his disciples are still active on other boards where I don't post, or only post rarely. I'm realizing now, that I'm constantly catching wind of the ridiculous things he's said in the past by other posters. Literally people on other boards say "thanks to the research of Fatal9 (insert BS about Wilt)"

Also now I'm wondering, what came first, Bill Simmons' book or Fatal9's posts? One of those guys obviously drew inspiration from the other.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]I don't know about Fatal9 personally, but many of his disciples are still active on other boards where I don't post, or only post rarely. I'm realizing now, that I'm constantly catching wind of the ridiculous things he's said in the past by other posters. Literally people on other boards say "thanks to the research of Fatal9 (insert BS about Wilt)"

Also now I'm wondering, what came first, Bill Simmons' book or Fatal9's posts? One of those guys obviously drew inspiration from the other.[/QUOTE]
There are a few on the RealGM PC board, where PHILA and I post regularly (ThaRegul8r, ShaqAttack, and a few others are there sometimes too). I think a lot of them are waiting for a video like the scoring skills mix you'd mentioned. I posted your new work there:

[url]http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1299207[/url]

and while I got some genuine responses, others want more complete footage. Aside from bastillion (guy at the bottom of the first page who quoted fatal9), these are all good posters. There are some others (like Doctor MJ, a global mod there) who are smart guys, and would be open to reevaluating if the tape is out there.

Clutchfans is a lost cause. Those are dedicated fans, but some aren't willing to listen to reason. bmd from here also seems to post there, and pushes the "doctored/sped up" footage schtick to plant seeds of doubt.

As I've said before, I don't have a dog in this fight, I just think Wilt (as any other player) deserves a fair shake.

[QUOTE=fpliii]There are a few on the RealGM PC board, where PHILA and I post regularly (ThaRegul8r, ShaqAttack, and a few others are there sometimes too). I think a lot of them are waiting for a video like the scoring skills mix you'd mentioned. I posted your new work there:

[url]http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1299207[/url]

and while I got some genuine responses, others want more complete footage. Aside from bastillion (guy at the bottom of the first page who quoted fatal9), these are all good posters. There are some others (like Doctor MJ, a global mod there) who are smart guys, and would be open to reevaluating if the tape is out there.

Clutchfans is a lost cause. Those are dedicated fans, but some aren't willing to listen to reason. bmd from here also seems to post there, and pushes the "doctored/sped up" footage schtick to plant seeds of doubt.

As I've said before, I don't have a dog in this fight, I just think Wilt (as any other player) deserves a fair shake.[/QUOTE]
Getting pretty difficult to push the docotored/sped up schtick when I'm using shot clocks to calibrate footage - if you watch that latest Wilt mix everything looks damn near perfect because I was able to calibrate virtually every single clip based on shotclocks either directly within the clip, or indirectly by using the same percentage I used for sister clips (clips from the same stock as another clip that had a shot clock visible). There's really nothing about any of those clips that doesn't look completely natural.

Also I'm on clutchfans right now. Getting some resistence after posting the video, but it's really futile, I find it easy to address most of these guys arguments because they seem to base their assumptions on the research of others (...Fatal9) rather than doing it themselves.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Getting pretty difficult to push the docotored/sped up schtick when I'm using shot clocks to calibrate footage - if you watch that latest Wilt mix everything looks damn near perfect because I was able to calibrate virtually every single clip based on shotclocks either directly within the clip, or indirectly by using the same percentage I used for sister clips (clips from the same stock as another clip that had a shot clock visible). There's really nothing about any of those clips that doesn't look completely natural.

Also I'm on clutchfans right now. Getting some resistence after posting the video, but it's really futile, I find it easy to address most of these guys arguments because they seem to base their assumptions on the research of others (...Fatal9) rather than doing it themselves.
[/QUOTE]
I think clutchfans is probably not worth it though. If you can put the scoring skills video out there for the RealGM PC Board guys (and that's really probably the place for highest quality basketball analysis on the net, outside of APBRmetrics perhaps, which though I read/participate occasionally, is more of a niche community).

(BTW I feel bad that you feel like doing this so soon after completing the incredible trio of Wilt mixes. Don't feel obligated if you don't want to do so, and don't feel rushed if you do indeed want to put together the scoring skills tape. :cheers: )