The Wilt Chamberlain Offensive Scouting Report Project Thread:

[QUOTE=trueDS]Exactly. Such highlights could show us some tendencies, but not much besides that. Without misses we really don't know how efficient player was in particular types of plays. Hey, even Shaq had a few seasons when he made 70 midrange jumpers each year and we could made exactly the same highlights video without misses and he would look good from midrange. But that would be just delusion, as is also in Wilt's case.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect, you have Shaq's entire career to draw from

We have 2% of Wilt's field goals, we can't just select ANY 2% we want either, as in your analogy of 'we could just select footage of shaq making those shots that particular season!' That is invalid logic and does not apply here. These are not 'highlights', these are all of the random collection of Wilt's field goals made.

Highlights would be like if we had Wilt's ENTIRE career on film, and we only selected the very best of the best. We don't have that luxury, not even close. The information you seek is a shot chart. Which you can get details on from the poster Phila.

No, if there aren't missed shots then = highlights - no matter from what sample (2% field goals, or whole career).

Really, what is so difficult to understand in that if player X often used some type of shot, that doesn't mean he was effective in that? For example Antoine Walker made a lot of threes, but he was bad three point shooter. The same is with Wilt's fadeaways. He made a lot of them during his early years, but wasn't efficient as fadeaway shooter. No wonder his efficiency from the field skyrocket, when he limited fadeaways and focused on putbacks and overall shots at rim.

[QUOTE=trueDS]No, if there aren't missed shots then = highlights - no matter from what sample (2% field goals, or whole career).

Really, what is so difficult to understand in that if player X often used some type of shot, that doesn't mean he was effective in that? For example Antoine Walker made a lot of threes, but he was bad three point shooter. The same is with Wilt's fadeaways. He made a lot of them during his early years, but wasn't efficient as fadeaway shooter. No wonder his efficiency from the field skyrocket, when he limited fadeaways and focused on putbacks and overall shots at rim.[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you siding with a guy who just argued Wilt's left block fingerroll was a bad shot?

The shot he still kept intact in his repertoire (as evidenced by footage of him taking the shot repeatedly, make or miss, in '67 and '73 in both games film and Winek documentary footage?) when he set records in accuracy that still stand?

He shot the fall away from both blocks in '62 when he scored, 50.4ppg on greater than 50% from the floor. He retired it to a great degree in '67. After '67 he was taking it again on a fairly consistent basis, but only from the left block.

You also assert he focused more on 'putbacks' later in his career? Putbacks? Really? I have 2 putbacks of his on film. Just 2. How much of Wilt's game do you understand that ISN'T based on an obvious assumption? Is that not why a video like this needs to be made? Do you not see the value in it?

As I stated, if you want shot charts of the known games of his that exists, look up Phila's shot chart. He made one. Watch the games on Youtube to see exactly what shots were attempted, they're there. What I'm making, still isn't a highlight. In highlights the cream rises to the top. What I'm showing, is footage of the random 2% of his field goals made that are lucky to exist on film. There is a distinct difference.

[QUOTE]No, if there aren't missed shots then = highlights - no matter from what sample (2% field goals, or whole career).[/QUOTE]

Νο, field goals made don't necessarily equal scoring highlights, unless someone wants to believe that scoring a field goal would automatically constitute a highlight and I know most don't. When we see highlights of a game, we don't get to see all FGM's of it.

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=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.