Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968

One more table, all at least 18 ppg scorers in playoffs during Wilt's scoring prime (60-66). No need to adjust TS% to league average, because they all played in the same league:

[code]
G MP AST PTS TS% Player
35 47.0 9.2 30.3 .562 Oscar Robertson*
68 41.9 4.9 31.3 .553 Jerry West*
10 42.7 3.4 20.9 .527 Walt Bellamy*
52 47.5 3.2 32.8 .520 Wilt Chamberlain*
26 36.6 5.7 18.9 .518 Richie Guerin*
89 32.2 2.5 20.6 .513 Sam Jones*
67 43.2 4.1 32.5 .512 Elgin Baylor*
4 39.8 1.5 20.0 .510 Dave DeBusschere*
53 40.6 3.1 25.6 .508 Bob Pettit*
32 31.9 1.9 18.3 .507 Jack Twyman*
33 36.7 2.4 18.2 .502 Bailey Howell*
89 46.6 4.8 18.7 .498 Bill Russell*
38 38.9 4.1 19.4 .496 Hal Greer*
63 31.3 3.6 18.9 .495 Cliff Hagan*
10 31.5 1.6 18.7 .491 Joe Caldwell
24 38.0 2.2 18.5 .481 Tom Meschery
30 38.2 3.1 21.8 .481 Don Ohl
24 39.8 3.0 24.3 .478 Paul Arizin*
13 29.8 1.2 19.0 .465 Lee Shaffer
72 29.9 2.0 19.7 .456 Tom Heinsohn*
50 33.3 3.0 18.2 .449 John Havlicek*

[/code]

Wilt is among the best, but no way he is the best scorer. That title belongs to Oscar or West and Wilt is a level below with Baylor.

And one more thing: playoffs only vs Russell's Celtics:

[code]
vs BOS MPG PPG TS% APG
Wilt 47,4 25,7 51,7 4,1
West 44,2 33,0 55,2 4,9
Oscar 46,6 31,4 54,0 7,5
Wilt60-66 47,3 30,5 52,2 2,7
[/code]

West and Oscar were clearly better scorers against Celtics defense. So Chambrlain wasn't even the best scorer of his era, not to mention all time...

[QUOTE=trueDS]One more table, all at least 18 ppg scorers in playoffs during Wilt's scoring prime (60-66). No need to adjust TS% to league average, because they all played in the same league:

[code]
G MP AST PTS TS% Player
35 47.0 9.2 30.3 .562 Oscar Robertson*
68 41.9 4.9 31.3 .553 Jerry West*
10 42.7 3.4 20.9 .527 Walt Bellamy*
52 47.5 3.2 32.8 .520 Wilt Chamberlain*
26 36.6 5.7 18.9 .518 Richie Guerin*
89 32.2 2.5 20.6 .513 Sam Jones*
67 43.2 4.1 32.5 .512 Elgin Baylor*
4 39.8 1.5 20.0 .510 Dave DeBusschere*
53 40.6 3.1 25.6 .508 Bob Pettit*
32 31.9 1.9 18.3 .507 Jack Twyman*
33 36.7 2.4 18.2 .502 Bailey Howell*
89 46.6 4.8 18.7 .498 Bill Russell*
38 38.9 4.1 19.4 .496 Hal Greer*
63 31.3 3.6 18.9 .495 Cliff Hagan*
10 31.5 1.6 18.7 .491 Joe Caldwell
24 38.0 2.2 18.5 .481 Tom Meschery
30 38.2 3.1 21.8 .481 Don Ohl
24 39.8 3.0 24.3 .478 Paul Arizin*
13 29.8 1.2 19.0 .465 Lee Shaffer
72 29.9 2.0 19.7 .456 Tom Heinsohn*
50 33.3 3.0 18.2 .449 John Havlicek*

[/code]

Wilt is among the best, but no way he is the best scorer. That title belongs to Oscar or West and Wilt is a level below with Baylor.[/QUOTE]

Chamberlain played against RUSSELL and his SWARMING CELTICS in 30 of his 52 SCORING PRIME post-season games. You can ask your buddies at RealGM what they think about Russel and his Celtics defensively from 60-66. Oh, and Wilt, with a cast of clowns roster, gave Russell's Celtics all they could handle, and in fact, BEAT Russell's Celtics, while a PRIME Baylor and West combined couldn't. Much less Oscar, who had as much surrounding talent as Wilt in the 60's.

And YES, we HAVE to account for ERA LEAGUE AVERAGE in ANY of these CROSS ERA discussions.

Furthermore, Chamberlain's IMPACT at the FT LINE went WELL beyond his FT%. Take a look at his team's regular season FTAs, and post-season FTAs. Hell, they won entire playoff series BECAUSE of HIS impact at the line.

And again, this so-called efficient scoring Kareem couldn't hit an ocean from a lifeboat against Thurmond nor Wilt in the playoffs.

Had Wilt been going up the centers and NON-CENTERS that a prime Hakeem faced, and in the 80's and 90's, when EFFICIENCY was OFF THE CHARTS across the ENTIRE NBA, he would have been putting up astronomical numbers.

My god, there were 30-52 teams shooting .504 from the field in the mid-80's. The ENTIRE league was at nearly 50%. And in the 90's, and using eFG%, the leagues were shooting at 50%.

I'm sorry, but you are a sad case.

Another Wilt-basher who will use ANY NONSENSE to detract from what he accomplished.

Again, Wilt SINGLE-HANDEDLY, and I mean SINGLE-HANDEDLY was carry PUTRID rosters, that PLAYED WORSE, to near monumental upsets of the greatest Dynasty in NBA history.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Chamberlain played against RUSSELL and his SWARMING CELTICS in 30 of his 52 SCORING PRIME post-season games. [/QUOTE]

I love how you guys ignore presented facts:

[QUOTE=trueDS]And one more thing: playoffs only vs Russell's Celtics:

[code]
vs BOS MPG PPG TS% APG
Wilt 47,4 25,7 51,7 4,1
West 44,2 33,0 55,2 4,9
Oscar 46,6 31,4 54,0 7,5
Wilt60-66 47,3 30,5 52,2 2,7
[/code]

West and Oscar were clearly better scorers against Celtics defense. So Chambrlain wasn't even the best scorer of his era, not to mention all time...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]And one more thing: playoffs only vs Russell's Celtics:

Code:

vs BOS MPG PPG TS% APG Wilt 47,4 25,7 51,7 4,1 West 44,2 33,0 55,2 4,9 Oscar 46,6 31,4 54,0 7,5 Wilt60-66 47,3 30,5 52,2 2,7


West and Oscar were clearly better scorers against Celtics defense. So Chambrlain wasn't even the best scorer of his era, not to mention all time...[/QUOTE]

So true. And add a healthy Baylor and maybe Pettit to that list as well. Wilt struggled against Boston more than those other players. Of course much of that has to do with being defended directly by Russell. But we know Russ did spend significant time defending Pettit in the finals and he was even on Baylor for the last 3 games of the 1962 Finals.

How many players did better against the Bad Boy Pistons than MJ? How many players did better than Shaq vs the Spurs?

Also I don't like the idea of correcting the FG%... In 65-66 Wilt shot 54.0% and the very next season he shot 68.3%. What prevented him from shooting better in 65-66 or heck even 61-62? The league was basically the same and with such inflated rebounding totals you'd think he'd get a lot of easy baskets on putbacks. Of course he shot better in 66-67 because he took far fewer shots.

LAZERUSS likes to correct and compare PPG and FG% like they were completely unrelated without noticing the clear correlation between shot attempts and efficiency. 30 ppg on 55% shooting is far more impressive than 20 ppg on 60% shooting. PPG without FG% and vice versa is worthless.

And no I never speculated on Wilt's stats. Don't misquote me. When I talked about the 66-67 season I always specified when the FG% data was incomplete. But thanks for playing.

[QUOTE=dankok8]So true. And add a healthy Baylor and maybe Pettit to that list as well. Wilt struggled against Boston more than those other players. [B]Of course much of that has to do with being defended directly by Russell.[/B] But we know Russ did spend significant time defending Pettit in the finals and he was even on Baylor for the last 3 games of the 1962 Finals.

How many players did better against the Bad Boy Pistons than MJ? How many players did better than Shaq vs the Spurs?

Also I don't like the idea of correcting the FG%... In 65-66 Wilt shot 54.0% and the very next season he shot 68.3%. What prevented him from shooting better in 65-66 or heck even 61-62? The league was basically the same and with such inflated rebounding totals you'd think he'd get a lot of easy baskets on putbacks. Of course he shot better in 66-67 because he took far fewer shots.

LAZERUSS likes to correct and compare PPG and FG% like they were completely unrelated without noticing the clear correlation between shot attempts and efficiency. 30 ppg on 55% shooting is far more impressive than 20 ppg on 60% shooting. PPG without FG% and vice versa is worthless.

And no I never speculated on Wilt's stats. Don't misquote me. When I talked about the 66-67 season I always specified when the FG% data was incomplete. But thanks for playing.[/QUOTE]

Let's start with this, shall we...

[QUOTE]In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. [B]Tom Heinsohn[/B], [B]the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, [COLOR="DarkRed"]said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain[/COLOR][/B]. [B]"We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls[/B]."[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE]One distinct advantage which Bill had over Wilt was his coach, Red Auerbach. Red understood basketball and people inside out. Red took Wilt’s measure when Wilt was a teenager at Kutscher’s.

The strategy that Red and Bill worked out to contain Wilt was simple: tire Wilt out by making him run full speed on every play; deny him the ball on offense; deny him position; if the pass is lobbed inside,[B] swarm him with Celtics; if he gets the ball, let Russell play him man to man; as a last resort, if he gets past Russell, have Heinsohn foul him[/B].
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]That assignment was given to Tommy Heinsohn. [B]When Wilt got the ball in the low post, Tommy was detailed to stop him - punch the ball, grab his arms, and, if nothing else worked, tackle the giant[/B]. Tommy’s courage was legendary, as he proved repeatedly over the course of his career, but putting him up against Wilt seemed a horrendous mismatch. Tommy was a full head shorter and fifty pounds lighter and wasn’t the only one who considered Wilt the strongest man in the world, once calling him “King Kong in sneakers”.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][B]With Red urging him on, Tommy didn’t just settle for blocking Wilt’s path. When fighting for position, going for rebounds, they were pushing and shoving and clutching and grabbing[/B].

In one of these encounters under the basket, Tommy jabbed Wilt with an elbow. Wilt lost his temper and shoved Tommy so hard he fell backwards and slid all the way to center court. Wilt charged after him with fists clenched and fury in his eyes. The crowd went wild. Players poured from both benches.

Tommy started to get up and Wilt swung a wild roundhouse right at Tommy’s chin just as Tom Gola jumped between the two. Wilt connected full force with the back of Gola’s head as the crowd noise reached a crescendo. Gola went down. Tommy started throwing punches that seemed to bounce right off the Big Dipper. Then, somehow, Wilt was on the floor with Tommy standing over him ready to eat his lunch.

Johnny Most gargled into the microphone: “Believe it or not, the Stilt’s punches are even less accurate than his free throw shooting! He just decked his own teammate!”

Wilt was lucky he didn’t break any bones in his hand, but his knuckle joints were severely bruised and, by halftime, his hand was badly swollen. He continued playing but had trouble handling the ball. It was a sloppily played game by both teams and the Warriors pulled out the win.

Wilt took the floor for Game Three with his hand wrapped in a bandage. It was so swollen and sore he could hardly move his fingers. He played poorly. At one point, he pulled down a rebound, turned to look up court, and Tommy was there. Tommy punched at the ball, missed, and hit Wilt hard on the injured hand. Wilt danced around in serious pain. Tommy was called for the foul.

Wilt stood at the foul line and sent a murderous glare Tommy’s way. Tommy didn’t grab a photographer’s stool for protection. He didn’t even run out of the stadium the way he did when Red chased him over the exploding cigar. Tommy stood his ground, or, in this case, parquet, and fearlessly stared back. In their glaring contest, Wilt turned away first.

[B]By the time his coach, Neil Johnston, removed him in the third quarter of Game Three, Wilt had only scored twelve points, his hand was practically useless, and the Celtics were running away with the game. The hand bothered him again in Game Four, which the Celtics took for a 3-1 series lead[/B].

[B]In Game Five in the sold-out Garden, Wilt shrugged off the swollen hand and turned in the kind of performance that Bill Russell had feared: he scored fifty points and led his team to an easy 128-107 win. The result shocked the Celtics and gave the momentum back to Philadelphia[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][B]K.C. Jones, arguably the savviest team player in the history of the game, was also a rookie that year and had a front row seat for Bill and Wilt's encounters. "[COLOR="DarkRed"]Bill didn't do it all. We just used TEAM[/COLOR].[/B] That's a word that's thrown out all over the place, but the total personification of team is what we used. We used everybody's ability, and everybody had a role out there that was natural for them. Whoever was guarding the ball had four guys back there helping his ass out. The whole is bigger than the sum of the parts; we wrote that without knowing the phrase. We knew how good we were. And we knew how to use one another because we knew one another. The most important part of it was the understanding that we had of each teammate - what this guy likes and what that guy doesn't like and who can't play defense and who shoots the ball well. We used all that. If a guy couldn't play defense, we were there, picking him up. Let each guy do what he does best."

Years later, Wilt proved that he never quite understood what K.C. was saying. "What people don't realize," he opined, "is that it was never Wilt versus Russell. I never got, or needed, any help guarding Russell. But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up."[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE]"[B]Now when I get the ball, instead of having two and three people, and Russ at the same time[/B]..."[/QUOTE]

Listen at the five minute mark...

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

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

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


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

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

As for using TS% against Chamberlain...

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

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

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

The Wilt-bashers love to bring up Chamberlain's FT shooting in any discussions about Chamberlain. But they completely ignore his IMPACT from the line. His teammates BENEFITTED greatly from his propensity to draw fouls. They were in the bonus much quicker, and much more often. And the opposing players were foul trouble sooner, and more often, which resulted in either playing softer defensively, or heading to the bench.

How about this IMPACT? Wilt's teams were almost always among the leaders in FTAs, and often LED the NBA in FTAs. His 66-67 Sixers, which went 68-13 BTW, were MILES ahead of the next best team. And, in the Finals, the Warriors matched Philly's FGMs in that series. And yet, the Sixers won the series easily. Why? Because even though Chamberlain himself only shot 22-72 from the stripe, his team annihilated the Warriors from the line in MAKES.

And how about this? In the 68-69 season, Chamberlain's Lakers LED the NBA in FTAs in BOTH the regular season, AND post-season. And they outscored Boston by a good margin the Finals, despite shooting horribly from the field in that series. In fact, in game seven, if you subtract both Russell's and Wilt's FG/FGAs, Boston outshot LA by a .477 to .360 margin from the field in that game, and yet had to hang on for a two point win.

Again, the 68-69 Lakers led the NBA in FTAs in both the regular season AND post-season. In the 69-70 season, Wilt went down with an injury early in the season, and would miss 70 games. The result? The Lakers plummeted to 12th, in a 14 team league. BUT, Wilt returned for the playoffs, and LA shot 200 more FTAs than the next best team. And they lost a seven game series to the heavily-favored Knicks, but OUTSCORED them by over 50 points from the line.

And while Wilt was a poor FT shooter (although not nearly as bad early in his NBA career), he still MADE FTs. He currently ranks 16th all-time in FTs MADE, in NBA history. Which had him ahead of players like Robinson, Duncan, Olajuwon, Havlicek, Magic, and Bird. Hell, he MADE 2000 more FTs than Bird did in his career.

And even in the post-season, he was consistently OUTSCORING his opposing centers from the LINE. In fact, he OUTSCORED his opposing center from the line in EVERY one of his six Finals.

Again, Wilt's IMPACT from the line went way beyond his own poor shooting.

Not only Wilt played vs Celtics and Oscar or West were much better against Boston dynasty.

Besides we could as well check how they looked in playoffs vs teams other than Celtics:

[code]
vs others MPG PPG TS% APG PPG per36
Oscar 47,0 28,4 59,0 11,0 21,8
West 40,5 30,0 56,1 5,8 26,7
Wilt 47,5 27,2 52,7 4,7 20,6
Baylor 41,4 28,7 50,2 4,2 25,0
[/code]

So once again Wilt doesn't look as unstoppable scorer. In fact he is significantly worse scorer than West or Oscar and on the level of Baylor (better efficiency, but worse volume).

EDIT
Who cares about being 1st in FTA? Offensive impact matters and Wilt's teams usually weren't so good offensively. Just check ORTG.... so his enormous amounts of FTAs doesn't mean a lot, because he missed them.

Wilt's teams ORTG rank:

1960 - 7th (in a 8 team league)
1961 - 6th (of 8)
1962 - 4th (of 9) first season when Wilt's team is above (slightly) average offensively
1963 - 5th (of 9)
1964 - 7th (of 9)
1965 SFW - 9th (of 9)
1965 PHI - 5th (of 9) second time his team is barely above average offensively, but he didn't play whole season
1966 - 6th (of 9) again barely above average
1967 - 1st (of 10) first really good offensive team with Wilt, but he wasn't volume scorer anymore and later he played with West, so Lakers teams were usually good on offense - but again Wilt wasn't volume scorer anymore. So where is his offensive impact as a "unstoppable scorer"?

Because there are really only two options: either Wilt's teammates were so bad offensively or Wilt's volume scoring is overrated and as a volume scorer he didn't have big impact on offense.

More likely the second one is true, because Arizin, Gola or Rodgers in no way were bad offensively. For instance Warriors with Arizin before Wilt ranked offensively:

1951 - 6th (of 11)
1952 - 3rd (of 10)
1955 - 6th (of 8)
1956 - 1st (of 8)
1957 - 1st (of 8)
1958 - 4th (of 8)
1959 - 8th (of 8)

Sure, they had Neil Johnston, but Wilt in his place didn't produced better offensive results.

And the Wilt-bashers will never acknowledge the fact that a PRIME Chamberlain, dominated his peers, both in regular season, AND post-season play, more than any other all-time "great."

This was the case every season from 60-68. If you factor in his absolute demolition of Reed in their 12 H2H's in the 64-65 season, with his castration of Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell in both the 65-66 and 66-67 seasons and post-seasons, there has never been another center who just obliterated his HOF peers over the course of regular season, AND post-season play, as much as Wilt did in those years.

He was heavily outscoring, massively outshooting from the field, crushing them on the glass, outassisting them, outblocking them, and even outscoring them from the FT line. His separation was just staggering. And, as we know, he annihilated Thurmond in the 65-66 season in SCORING (and likely by a huge margin in efficiency), including margins of 33-17, 33-10, 38-15 and even 45-13. Then he destroyed a peak Thurmond in every facet in 66-67 including unfathomable FG%s. A peak KAJ, facing a fading Nate, never approached those numbers against Thurmond.

In fact, a peak/prime Kareem never came close to the carpet-bombing that a prime Wilt wrought, and against many of the same centers (and most were on the dec,ine when Kareem got them.) Chamberlain had entire H2H SEASONS, covering 9-12 games, in which he AVERAGED more than a KAJ's HIGH GAME against them.

And again, had Wilt not battled RUSSELL and the his Celtics in 30 of his first 52 playoff games in his scoring prime, there is no telling what kind of playoff scoring records he would hold today. Had his team been able to score three more points against the heavily-favored Celtics in the '62 EDF's, and he would have faced a Laker team that he had averaged 51.5 ppg in nine regular season H2H's. In fact, Russell, who shot .399 against Wilt in that series, would go on to average 23 ppg on a .543 FG% against LA in a seven game Finals, including a game seven of 30 points and 40 rebounds. Wilt, had THREE games of 60+ points against LA in his seasonal H2H's, including a 78-43 game.

And had Chamberlain's '65 Sixers scored two more points in game seven against Boston, and he would have again faced the Lakers in the Finals. Think about this...in the '65 EDF's, Wilt averaged 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, shot .583 from the line, and shot a staggering .555 against Russell, while holding Russell to 15.6 ppg on a .447 eFG%. Russell would go on to average 18 ppg on a ...get this... .702 eFG% against the Lakers in the Finals. Just what would THAT Chamberlain have shelled LA with?

Yep. The "declining" Wilt. The Chamberlain who could "only" put up playoff series against Russell (and his swarming Celtics), of 30.5 ppg on a .500 eFG% (in a post-season NBA that shot .402); 33.6 ppg on a .468 eFG% (in a post-season NBA that shot .411); 29.2 ppg on a .517 eFG% (in a post-season NBA that shot .420); 30.1 ppg on a .555 eFG% (in a post-season NBA that shot .429); 28.0 ppg on a .509 eFG% (in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .441), 21.6 ppg on a .560 eFG% (in a post-season NBA that shot .428); and an injury-plagued 22.1 ppg on a .487 eFG% (in a post-season NBA that shot .446.) All while carrying pathetic rosters to near upsets, while crushing Russell on the glass, and dramatically reducing Russell's efficiencies FAR more than what Russell did to his.

What a "flop."

[QUOTE=trueDS]Wilt's teams ORTG rank:

1960 - 7th (in a 8 team league)
1961 - 6th (of 8)
1962 - 4th (of 9) first season when Wilt's team is above (slightly) average offensively
1963 - 5th (of 9)
1964 - 7th (of 9)
1965 SFW - 9th (of 9)
1965 PHI - 5th (of 9) second time his team is barely above average offensively, but he didn't play whole season
1966 - 6th (of 9) again barely above average
1967 - 1st (of 10) first really good offensive team with Wilt, but he wasn't volume scorer anymore and later he played with West, so Lakers teams were usually good on offense - but again Wilt wasn't volume scorer anymore. So where is his offensive impact as a "unstoppable scorer"?

Because there are really only two options: either Wilt's teammates were so bad offensively or Wilt's volume scoring is overrated and as a volume scorer he didn't have big impact on offense.

More likely the second one is true, because Arizin, Gola or Rodgers in no way were bad offensively. For instance Warriors with Arizin before Wilt ranked offensively:

1951 - 6th (of 11)
1952 - 3rd (of 10)
1955 - 6th (of 8)
1956 - 1st (of 8)
1957 - 1st (of 8)
1958 - 4th (of 8)
1959 - 8th (of 8)

Sure, they had Neil Johnston, but Wilt in his place didn't produced better offensive results.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm...what was the Warriors record before Wilt arrived again? They were a LAST PLACE team. How did they do in Wilt's ROOKIE season? They went 49-26. And had Wilt not badly injured his hand in a fight in game two of the EDF's which rendered it useless in the next two games), and who knows? As it was, they lost a game six by two points. In a series in which Chamberlain averaged 30.5 ppg on a .500 eFG% (and again, with two horrible games in the middle of the series with that injured hand.)

How about his 60-61 post-season? He certainly allowed his teammates to shoot the ball, didn't he? And Arizin responded with a .325 eFG% while Gola shot .206. Incidently, check out Gola's playoff FG%'s with and withOUT Chamberlain. He was just as AWFUL. As for Rodgers...you're joking right? He was probably the WORST full-time shooting player of ALL-TIME (when compared to league average.) Which was bad enough, but he STILL continued to shoot the damn ball.

In Wilt's 61-62 season, and with essentially the same core of the roster that he inherited in his rookie season, only older and worse, he single-handedly carried them thru the first round (and with Wilt's coach finally having Wilt shoot again in game five), and then to a game seven, two point loss against a 60-20 Celtic team. Now, the real question is this? Just how in the hell did Wilt get that team past the first round, and then to a game seven, two point loss against the Celtics...with his teammates collectively shooting .354 in the playoffs?

In his 62-63 season, his TEAM was so bad, (with a total of 16 different players, some of whom only played briefly in the NBA), that they went 31-49. BUT, they lost 35 games by single digits, were only involved in eight games of 20+ margins (and went 4-4 in them); and had a -2.1 ppg differential. BTW, Chamberlain led the league in FIFTEEN of the 22 statistical categories, including WIN-SHARES and PER. And in their nine H2H's with Boston, they only went 1-8 (Boston had NINE HOFers that year...while Wilt was IT for the Warriors), BUT, SIX of the games were close (or a Warrior win), and all of them were relatively close going into the 4th quarters. Oh, and all Wilt did was outscore Russell, per game, 38-14, over the course of those nine games.

63-64? All you need to know is this. The Warriors new coach, Alex Hannum conducted a pre-season scrimmage with the Warrior roster, sans Wilt, and against a bunch of rookies. He was horrified when the rookies won. Still, with Tom Meschery, and his 13 ppg, as Wilt's second best player, that Warrior tam went 48-32. And then, in the first round of the playoffs, a "declining" Wilt put up a 39 ppg .559 eFG% series, and carried them to a seven game series win over a Hawks team that was better players, 2-6. Then, while they lost 4-1 to the Celtics (and their EIGHT HOFers) in the Finals, their last two losses came in the waning seconds. And, as always, Chamberlain just CRUSHED Russell across the board, and with a 29.2 ppg .517 series (in a post-season NBA that shot .420.)

64-65? Yes, an ailing Chamberlain was traded at mid-season, for three players, to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and missed the playoffs. He then single-handedly carried that 40-40 team to a 3-1 romp over Oscar's loaded 48-32 Royals in the first-round. Then, with a staggering 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .555 eFG% series, he led them to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their Dynasty.

How about his old Warrior team? While they went 10-27 with an ill Wilt that season, they went 7-36 with future HOFer Nate Thurmond as his replacement. And then, they drafted future HOFer Rick Barry, and STILL could only go 35-45 the very next season (65-66.) And how about this? Before the start of the 66-67 season, the Warriors added Fred Hetzel, Clyde Lee, and Jeff Mullins to their roster. In that 66-67 season, Thurmond had the greatest year of his career (and finished second behind Wilt in the MVP voting), and Barry led the league with the highest non-Wilt full-time scoring mark in the Wilt-era of 35.6 ppg. Oh, and Tom Meschery, averaged 11 ppg, and was now the Warriors SEVENTH best player. How did that Warrior team perform? They went 44-37, and were wiped out by Wilt's Warriors in the Finals.

Go ahead an compare rosters with Wilt's 63-64 Warriors, which went 48-32, and lost in the Finals. With the LOADED 66-67 Warriors, which went 44-37, and lost in the Finals.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain would lead the Sixers to the best record in the league in his next three seasons after the trade, including 65-66, when he LED the league in SCORING and eFG%. And it culiminated with a dominating world title in '67, in season in which Chamberlain averaged 24 ppg, 24 rpg, 8 apg, and shot an unfathomable .683 from the field (including, and as always, the HIGH game in the NBA that season.) And had his '68 team not been DECIMATED by injuries (including multiple injuries to Wilt, himself), and they would surely have repeated as champs.

[QUOTE]Who cares about being 1st in FTA? Offensive impact matters and Wilt's teams usually weren't so good offensively. Just check ORTG.... so his enormous amounts of FTAs doesn't mean a lot, because he missed them.[/QUOTE]

Who cares? Because Wilts' TEAMMATES benefitted from the extra FTAs. Think about this, Wilt's TEAMMATES shot around .430 from the FIELD (or worse) during his career, BUT they probably shot around .750 from the line. Give them possessions from the line with 2 FTAs (or even 3), as compared to a FGA, and they were averaging 1.5 per possession, instead of .86. Or nearly DOUBLE.

But, yes, Chamberlain's offense had no impact.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]

But, yes, Chamberlain's offense had no impact.[/QUOTE]

Learn to read. I'm not saying he had no impact. I'm saying his impact wasn't as good as should be if he really was unstoppable scorer. I'm saying his volume scoring is overrated because it had slightly effect on offense. I'm saying he wasn't the best scorer ever, or even the best in his era, because Oscar and West were way better scorers in 60s and their scoring wasn't "empty" as they helped their teams offenses A LOT.

Wilt offensively was 3rd best player during 60s. Better than 4th Baylor, worse than 1st Oscar and 2nd West.

[QUOTE=trueDS]Learn to read. I'm not saying he had no impact. I'm saying his impact wasn't as good as should be if he really was unstoppable scorer. I'm saying his volume scoring is overrated because it had slightly effect on offense. [B][SIZE="6"]I'm saying he wasn't the best scorer ever, or even the best in his era, because Oscar and West were way better scorers in 60s and their scoring wasn't "empty" as they helped their teams offenses A LOT.

Wilt offensively was 3rd best player during 60s. Better than 4th Baylor, worse than 1st Oscar and 2nd West.[/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://img.pandawhale.com/43689-Christian-Bale-dafuq-wtf-gif-4Vsk.gif[/IMG]












Okay i'd say it's time to stop posting and take a rest for a while, you've blown a gasket... :roll:

[QUOTE=trueDS]Learn to read. I'm not saying he had no impact. I'm saying his impact wasn't as good as should be if he really was unstoppable scorer. I'm saying his volume scoring is overrated because it had slightly effect on offense. I'm saying he wasn't the best scorer ever, or even the best in his era, because Oscar and West were way better scorers in 60s and their scoring wasn't "empty" as they helped their teams offenses A LOT.

Wilt offensively was 3rd best player during 60s. Better than 4th Baylor, worse than 1st Oscar and 2nd West.[/QUOTE]

If you had seen [I]even one[/I] of Chamberlain's 60 point games - [B][I]even as a Laker[/I][/B] - or any of his 30 30 10 12 games.......... you'd never say another word like this.

You really just don't know what you are talking about, but simply juggle statistics.

There's never been an unstoppable player like Wilt Chamberlain unleashed.

[QUOTE=trueDS]Learn to read. I'm not saying he had no impact. I'm saying his impact wasn't as good as should be if he really was unstoppable scorer. I'm saying his volume scoring is overrated because it had slightly effect on offense. I'm saying he wasn't the best scorer ever, or even the best in his era, [B]because Oscar and West were way better scorers in 60s and their scoring wasn't "empty" as they helped their teams offenses A LOT[/B].

[B]Wilt offensively was 3rd best player during 60s. Better than 4th Baylor, worse than 1st Oscar and 2nd West[/B].[/QUOTE]


:roll: :roll: :roll:

The RECORD BOOKS will tell you a COMPLETELY different story.

First of all, Chamberlain was FAR more efficient, even in the post-season. Your FLAWED TS% with Chamberlain was ridiculous. Again, Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT%' just HAD to be considerably higher than his ACTUAL FT%. In an era of 3-to-make-2, and 2-to-make-1 bonuses, Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT%, no matter how poorly he shot, unless he didn't make ANY, would have been higher. And yes, everyone in that era benefitted from them, but ESPECIALLY VOLUME and poorer FT shooters. I hate to use assumptions, but I really think even Fpliii's research, which gave Chamberlain close to a 1% increase in his TS%'s, was actually considerably higher than that. Perhaps 2-3%. And the reality was this...not West, not Baylor, and not Oscar, could shoot as high from the FIELD, as Wilt did. So what, you ask? The simple fact was, Chamberlain WAS much more UNSTOPPABLE than they were. Yes, they shot FTAs better, but they didn't come within MILES of what Wilt could do when DEFENDED. Again, Wilt was the MOST UNSTOPPABLE OFFENSIVE FORCE IN THE HISTORY OF THE NBA.

Secondly, you base your numbers strictly on the post-season. So, when Oscar puts up excellent numbers, but in only a five game series (much like Hakeem), and then is eliminated, you give it more weight than a Chamberlain who plays in a larger number of post-season games, and is going H2H with Russell (and later Thurmond) in over HALF of his playoff games (and again, it wasn't just Russell, either, but a swarming Celtic defense.) My god, Oscar played in a TOTAL of 39 playoff games in his first nine seasons in the NBA. And it wasn't until he joined KAJ that he would play in 47 more (and scored much less BTW.)

And Iike how you casually dismiss Wilt's 37 ppg, 37 ppg, 38.6 ppg, and 38.7 ppg post-season series (as well as his 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .617 series against an average center like Dierking, who was a typical center that Hakeem battled on a constant basis in the playoffs.) Or his FOUR 50 point games, THREE of which were in MUST-WIN games. West had two, Baylor had one, and Oscar had ZERO (same as Kareem, Bird, Shaq, and Hakeem BTW.) I know West had some great post-seasons. But, again, he was not the focal point of entire team defenses, either. And how come Baylor and West, averaging over 70 ppg in the '62 Finals COMBINED, didn't do any more than a Wilt did, basically by himself, against the Celtics? And, of course, the entire Celtic team was swarming Wilt and letting his inept teammates continue to fire post-season blanks (they collectively shot .354 in that post-season.)

How come Wilt's "empty" scoring at the very least, EQUALED what Baylor and West's TEAM success was thru the mid-60's, and then just blew then away the rest of the decade? And how about Oscar's stats? How come you seem to think his scoring carried more weight than Wilt's, when he couldn't even get past the first round in FOUR of his first six playoff seasons, and never made it to the Finals in any of those six seasons? In fact, his overall W-L record against Wilt's teams in their two playoff H2H's in the mid-60's, was 2-7. Yep...a typical Wilt-basher short-changing Chamberlain, and prasing someone else who basically did half as much.

How about using some common sense and COMPILING their regular season AND post-season numbers? Of course the Wilt-bashers won't do that (just as the Hakeem-lovers won't.) Oscar and West simply couldn't score in the volumes and on the TOTAL efficiency required to so at those unfathomable levels, that Chamberlain could. So, if we were to add Wilt's '62 post-season numbers to his '62 regular season numbers, he would have STILL scored 48.4 ppg, and on a .502 eFG%, in a combined regular-season and post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .424.

And I like how you always bring up mpg, without adjusting for EFFICIENCY. Did it ever occur to you that the other players of Wilt's era, and even moreso today, played considerably less minutes because they simply can't play more, and be effective? If that were not the case, why wouldn't Durant, Lebron, Shaq, and Hakeem playing every minute of every game, like Wilt did?

Chamberlain was quite simply, the most unstoppable force that ever played the game. Not only that, he absolutely crushed his HOF peer centers FAR more than any other center did against their's. In EVERY aspect. He was slaughtering them in scoring, rebounding, effciency, passing, blocks, and only Russell would have a case in overall defense (although Wilt reduced Russell's FG%'s FAR more than Russell reduced Chamberlain's.)

OT - I've been reading more of bastillion's posting recently. I apologize for accusing him of being a troll, I just think he's a very enthusiastic poster.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Chamberlain was quite simply, the most unstoppable force that ever played the game. Not only that, he absolutely crushed his HOF peer centers FAR more than any other center did against their's. In EVERY aspect. He was slaughtering them in scoring, [B]rebounding, effciency, passing, blocks, and only Russell would have a case in overall defense[/B] (although Wilt reduced Russell's FG%'s FAR more than Russell reduced Chamberlain's.)[/QUOTE]
I haven't been reading the last few pages, but I don't think trueDS or other posters are questioning non-scoring facets of Wilt's game.

[QUOTE=fpliii]OT - I've been reading more of bastillion's posting recently. I apologize for accusing him of being a troll, I just think he's a very enthusiastic poster.


I haven't been reading the last few pages, but I don't think trueDS or other posters are questioning non-scoring facets of Wilt's game.[/QUOTE]

Well, if you read read any of them, read the one above your's. I think it certainly puts Wilt's scoring, and efficiency, into a much better perspective.

[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]

That ShaqAttack fellow's no different. Very knowledgeable poster, but has a HUGE bias aganist Russell and Wilt, as LAZERUSS can probably attest to that

[QUOTE=Audio One]That ShaqAttack fellow's no different. Very knowledgeable poster, but has a HUGE bias aganist Russell and Wilt, as LAZERUSS can probably attest to that[/QUOTE]

I respect ShaqAttack a lot, but you are right, at least about his stance on Wilt. Last I recall he seemed to hold Russell in a pretty high regard, though. But even he had softened his take on Chamberlain a while back. I certainly wouldn't call him a "Wilt-basher" like some of those other posters from RealGM.

[QUOTE=trueDS]Learn to read. I'm not saying he had no impact. I'm saying his impact wasn't as good as should be if he really was unstoppable scorer. I'm saying his volume scoring is overrated because it had slightly effect on offense. I'm saying he wasn't the best scorer ever, or even the best in his era, because Oscar and West were way better scorers in 60s and their scoring wasn't "empty" as they helped their teams offenses A LOT.

Wilt offensively was 3rd best player during 60s. Better than 4th Baylor, worse than 1st Oscar and 2nd West.[/QUOTE]

So Wilt wasn't the best of his era because Oscar and Jerry West never went H2H with Russell - THE greatest defender - therefor scored better against the Celtics? Makes sense.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]So Wilt wasn't the best of his era because Oscar and Jerry West never went H2H with Russell, the greatest defender ever, therefor scored better against the Celtics? Makes sense.[/QUOTE]

The more you post, the more I like you. I may still disagree with you from time-to-time, but IMHO, you have become a very knowledgeable poster here.

:cheers:

If we had the old "rep" system here, I would do so.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]The more you post, the more I like you. I may still disagree with you from time-to-time, but IMHO, you have become a very knowledgeable poster here.

:cheers:

If we had the old "rep" system here, I would do so.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate that, JL. Thank you :cheers:

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]If you had seen [I]even one[/I] of Chamberlain's 60 point games - [B][I]even as a Laker[/I][/B] - or any of his 30 30 10 12 games.......... you'd never say another word like this.

You really just don't know what you are talking about, but simply juggle statistics.

There's never been an unstoppable player like Wilt Chamberlain unleashed.[/QUOTE]

Wilt's weakness, at least in the eyes of the Wilt-bashers, was the fact that he had so many unfathomable regular seasons. So, when his scoring, and FG% declined slightly in the post-season, (and again, going against HOFers almost his entire post-season career), they shout to the world..."choker." But, had Chamberlain "only" put up 25-20 seasons in his regular season career, and then exploded for those 35+ ppg and 25+ rpg post-seasons (and on eFG%s that were nearly 10% higher than the post-season league average), then he would have been hailed as the most "clutch" post-season performer of all-time.

Hell, they considered him being OUTPLAYED when his opposing centers held him to a few points less scoring, and a few percentage points lower on his FG%'s, while "raising" their own game. Bill Simmons used that "logic" in some of his laughable assertions. So, when Chamberlain was "only" outscoring those players by 15 ppg, instead of 20, and "only" outrebounding them by five per game, instead of 10, and "only" outshooting them by 10% from the field, instead of 15%...well, he was OUTPLAYED.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]I respect ShaqAttack a lot, but you are right, at least about his stance on Wilt. Last I recall he seemed to hold Russell in a pretty high regard, though. But even he had softened his take on Chamberlain a while back. I certainly wouldn't call him a "Wilt-basher" like some of those other posters from RealGM.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, we all have biases I'm sure. I have mine as well, but they concern playstyles I prefer more than anything.

[QUOTE=fpliii]To be fair, we all have biases I'm sure. I have mine as well, but they concern playstyles I prefer more than anything.[/QUOTE]

I actually consider you to be the most unbiased, and perhaps the most objective poster on this board. And your research is second to none (and that is saying a lot here, since there are a handful of posters that have been brilliant in that regard.)

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]No. Highlights of Chamberlain don't begin to do justice to him. Video clips of blocked shots or slam dunks or even these great studies that Cavs is doing just don't show what made 13 the greatest.
It was his ability to completely overshadow the game for several minutes at a time. As a 3rd quarter would go along, he would get more and more remorseless, until it was just brutal. Not just blocking shots, but stopping [I]every[/I] shot inside of 15 feet. The snap passes that usually throw a defense into disarray would fail against the Sixers because he and Chet Walker could switch back and forth so quickly that there was just no shot to be had. After 3 or 4 minutes of that TOTAL denial of shots you could see the complete intimidation on the faces of the other team.

On the other end........ you know, people make a big deal about somebody like Mattie Guokas saying something like "Chamberlain always insisted they wait for him to get down the court on offense so he would get an assist."

Lemme tell you, if that [I]was[/I] Wilt & not Hannum maiking that decision, well, Chamberlain was absolutely correct in doing that because Guokas was a true scrub, on the court purely to give somebody 2 minutes of deep breathing on the bench. NOBODY wanted Guokas running anything, least of all Alex Hannum. Whenever Coach put that guy in the game he'd start pacing and looking at the clock, wishing the time would go faster so he could get a real player back in the game. Chamberlain threw a lot of deep passes and ran a lot of transition off his rebounds... just not to somebody like Mattie Guokas.

In '68 Wilt had mastered the all round game to the point where his triple double threat was so dangerous that despair set in for other NBA teams. Mailing it in became a major pastime for teams that went to Philly.

Highlights don't begin to show those kinds of things.[/QUOTE]

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[QUOTE=Audio One]:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:[/QUOTE]

I need to add you to my list of respected posters BTW.

Glad to have you aboard. We need more like you here.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]I actually consider you to be the most unbiased, and perhaps the most objective poster on this board. And your research is second to none (and that is saying a lot here, since there are a handful of posters that have been brilliant in that regard.)[/QUOTE]
I'm very much opposed to one-dimensional scorers though, and in general I really don't like my offense to be run through my bigs when building teams. Not a fan of the over-dependence on the pick-and-roll (I think it's fine in moderation) or isolations, and like more passing than dribbling.

I also don't prefer to rely on driving to the hoop too often. I'd much rather have guys who can score from midrange or in the post, since those are shots defenses will concede in the playoffs (the long 2 is one as well and is more valuable historically, but since teams need to defend the three, the midrange and post games are available often enough that you don't need to bother with a 20-foot jumper).

Additionally, I value mobility (on defense), help defense in general, and versatility very highly (don't value paint protection and man defense as much, but I'm a defense-first guy so both are huge). Don't care as much about offensive rebounding as defensive rebounding, boxing out is more important when on defense, and I think it's more important to get back on defense so the other team can't get out on the break (it's key to shut down the transition game).

A lot of this may seem fine to you, but I've gotten into far more than a handful of contentious discussions on this board, on other forums, and offline. As I've stated countless times, I don't have a GOAT list, but a good deal of my valuations of players are very, very, very far from the consensus.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]I respect ShaqAttack a lot, but you are right, at least about his stance on Wilt. Last I recall he seemed to hold Russell in a pretty high regard, though. But even he had softened his take on Chamberlain a while back. I certainly wouldn't call him a "Wilt-basher" like some of those other posters from RealGM.[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Yes, i do believe he's overrated and I don't consider him a top 5 player. However, it's ridiculous top leave him out of the top 10 due to his impact on the evolution of the league and his peak('67). I covered that here.

[URL="http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=179763"]http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=179763[/URL]

His horrendous game 6 and passive game 7 in '68 while his team choked away a 3-1 lead in the Eastern Division Finals, his 11.7 ppg in the 1969 finals and just 8 points with a chance to clinch after averaging 20.5 in the regular season really hurt his career for me.

And while his final numbers(save for scoring efficiency) in the '66 series vs Boston look good, the team was in a 3-1 hole and Wilt had a monster game 5 when they lost, but it was too little, too late. He had only averaged 23.5 ppg on 48.5% shooting in the first 4 games. Granted his teammates played terribly as well, but Wilt didn't set the tone with his leadership, he was skipping practices so that has to be taken into consideration as well.

And in '62, most recaps suggest Russell outplayed him in that close 7 game series.

Really, his numbers aren't so mindblowing when put into perspective that they make up for the lack of championships and the underwhelming playoff performances. Now his rebounding was consistently excellent, but the 20+ rpg numbers are misleading because other guys were averaging that as well due to stars playing more minutes back then and there being so many more possessions available.

And in his 50 ppg season, he took 40 shots and 17 free throws per game which shows you how different the era was and [B]why the stats must be put into perspective.[/B] And in the playoffs that year, he dropped to 35 ppg on 47% shooting with a TS% of 51% and 29 shots per game.



Destroyed? Your copy and paste essays written by someone else haven't destroyed anyone. And I still have no idea why you like the gifs of Wilt working out so much.......nobody else cares, irrelevant clips like that have nothing to do with what he did on the basketball court and you constantly posting them brings up a whole new series of questions.........[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3298261&postcount=9"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3298261&postcount=9[/URL]


[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3298463&postcount=16"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3298463&postcount=16[/URL]

He thinks Hakeem is better than Bill Russell!?! :biggums: No, he gets no passes from me. He's really not that much different than the other Chamberlain haters, he's just not as blind. Same ****, different toilet

[QUOTE=fpliii]I'm very much opposed to one-dimensional scorers though, and in general I really don't like my offense to be run through my bigs when building teams. Not a fan of the over-dependence on the pick-and-roll (I think it's fine in moderation) or isolations, and like more passing than dribbling.

I also don't prefer to rely on driving to the hoop too often. I'd much rather have guys who can score from midrange or in the post, since those are shots defenses will concede in the playoffs (the long 2 is one as well and is more valuable historically, but since teams need to defend the three, the midrange and post games are available often enough that you don't need to bother with a 20-foot jumper).

Additionally, I value mobility (on defense), help defense in general, and versatility very highly (don't value paint protection and man defense as much, but I'm a defense-first guy so both are huge). Don't care as much about offensive rebounding as defensive rebounding, boxing out is more important when on defense, and I think it's more important to get back on defense so the other team can't get out on the break (it's key to shut down the transition game).

A lot of this may seem fine to you, but I've gotten into far more than a handful of contentious discussions on this board, on other forums, and offline. As I've stated countless times, I don't have a GOAT list, but a good deal of my valuations of players are very, very, very far from the consensus.[/QUOTE]

No matter what your opinions are, you back them up very well. Which is all I ask. Anyone can just make a claim like, "David Lee is the greatest player of all-time", but if they do, they had better have some research and criteria to back it up.

[QUOTE=Audio One][URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3298261&postcount=9"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3298261&postcount=9[/URL]


[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3298463&postcount=16"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3298463&postcount=16[/URL]

He thinks Hakeem is better than Bill Russell!?! :biggums: No, he gets no passes from me. He's really not that much different than the other Chamberlain haters, he's just not as blind. Same ****, different toilet[/QUOTE]

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

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



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









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



Listen at the five minute mark...

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

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

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


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

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

As for using TS% against Chamberlain...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- same efficiency with more volume

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

- very slightly less volume on much better efficiency

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

- less volume on way better efficiency



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- same efficiency with more volume

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

- very slightly less volume on much better efficiency

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

- less volume on way better efficiency



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

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

And as always...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

And I have already disputed it.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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