Wilt the "Choker"

Wilt was not one of the greatest winners. Period. For the bigger part of his career, he was an individual at first and he played for stats, records etc. That led to being traded in his peak (although that was more on his own will), had team mates calling him out for being selfish and ball hog.

Then, in 67, he decided to go for a team approach and he won a ring. He still had quality support behind him, but he was the reason behind it. And in those LA teams, he cost the teams with his bad FT shooting in the Finals.

2-15, 3-11... and similar performances in key games.That's quite bad. Chamberlain's miss FTs make him as a choker. No doubt Wilt past 67 to the end of his career, made his teams absolutely great with his all-around game and team approach.

It's a shame he didn't play like that, but what should you expect from an individual superstar expect to play for himself at first and then for everything else.

And comparing him to Russell in team accomplishment isn't a good idea, because only Bill managed to beat him well in their match ups.

[QUOTE=PHILA][url]http://www.thefreelibrary.com/2+MEMORIAL+SERVICES+SET+FOR+CHAMBERLAIN.-a083624199[/url]


[I]``It was Wilt's wish to be cremated, and I guess this is part of it, too,'' said former Frankford High basketball coach Vince Miller, Chamberlain's best friend since third grade.

``They're going to leave some of the ashes in L.A. after the funeral, and then bring some of them here next week.

``It's not a bad idea. It's a good idea, actually. Let's face it. He spent about half his life in each place.'' [/I][/QUOTE]

This is among the greatest responses of all-time!

[QUOTE=PTB Fan]Wilt was not one of the greatest winners. Period. For the bigger part of his career, he was an individual at first and he played for stats, records etc. That led to being traded in his peak (although that was more on his own will), had team mates calling him out for being selfish and ball hog.

Then, in 67, he decided to go for a team approach and he won a ring. He still had quality support behind him, but he was the reason behind it. And in those LA teams, he cost the teams with his bad FT shooting in the Finals.

2-15, 3-11... and similar performances in key games.That's quite bad. Chamberlain's miss FTs make him as a choker. No doubt Wilt past 67 to the end of his career, made his teams absolutely great with his all-around game and team approach.

It's a shame he didn't play like that, but what should you expect from an individual superstar expect to play for himself at first and then for everything else.

And comparing him to Russell in team accomplishment isn't a good idea, because only Bill managed to beat him well in their match ups.[/QUOTE]

First of all, saying Wilt was not one of the greatest "winners" is truly laughable. The man played on 12 teams in his 14 seasons that had winning records. And, he took 12 teams to the Conference Finals, and SIX teams to the Finals. For comparision sake, Bird took eight teams to the Conference Finals, and only five to the Finals.

And Wilt played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and WON 33 straight games.) Here again, for comparison sake, how about Russell? Three. And his best record was 62-18.

Wilt also played on FOUR teams that had the BEST record in the league. And, aside from MJ, find me ONE other "great" player that played on team's that went 68-13 and 69-13. And MJ also played on FIVE teams that had LOSING records, too.

How about Wilt's two "non-winning" seasons? In his 62-63 season, all Wilt did was average 44.8 ppg (winning the scoring crown by +10.8 ppg); lead the league in rebounding at 24.3 rpg; set a then record FG% mark of .528 (in a league that shot .441); and even handed out 3.4 apg. He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories, and had offensive and defensive rebounding, rebound %, and blocked shots been official stats, he probably would have led in those, as well. He even LED the league in WIN SHARES, and by a large margin. He was directly responsible for 20.9 of his team's 31 wins, or about 70%. And his PER rating of 31.8 is the ALL-TIME RECORD.

And, while his TEAM, with arguably the worst cast of clowns ever assembled, went 31-49, Wilt managed to keep them in nearly EVERY game. They lost 35 games by single digits, and had a -2.1 ppg differential. And how much help did Wilt receive from that inept roster? They collectively shot .412, which would have been well behind the WORST team in the league (Boston, at .427.)

How bad was that roster? The very next season, Wilt's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, which pitted them against draftees and players who would not make a roster. Guess which team won? Not only that, but the "anti-Wilt" posters will NEVER mention that Chamberlain then took that cast of misfits to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they lost two games in the waning seconds, and 4-1 overall, to the Celtics and their EIGHT HOFers. And all Wilt did in that series was outscore Russell, per game, 29-11; outrebound Russell, per game, 27-25; and Wilt also shot .517 from the floor in that series, and while we don't know what Russell shot in that series, we do know that he shot .356 in his tem post-season games, five of which were against Chamberlain.

Wilt was traded to the Sixers at mid-season the very next year. Keep in mind that Philly had gone 34-46 the year before. And Wilt guided them to a 40-40 record. THEN, he took them to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals. Following that series, Wilt led the Sixers to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics. And in that game seven, all he did was score Philly's last six points (including 2-2 from the line), and a roaring comeback from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109. And it took a miracle steal by Havlicek to perserve Boston's win, too. In that seventh game, Wilt scored 30 points, with 32 rebounds, and on 12-15 shooting from the floor. For the series, all he did was average 30 ppg and 31 rpg.

BTW, Wilt came to a LAST PLACE team. Russell, by comparison, basically replaced Ed McCauley, AND, joined HOFer rookie Tom Heinsohn in his first season, on a team that had gone 39-33 the year before. Furthermore, the Celtics added Sam Jones the very next season. Conversely, Wilt's rosters got WORSE each season. His good teammates got older, and were not replaced.

And, think about this... in Wilt's first six post-seasons, covering his first seven seasons, his teammates collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .354, .352, and even .332 in the post-season. And yet Wilt still took two of those team's to game seven losses by 2 and 1 point against Russell's vaunted Dynasty...as well as that '64 trip to the Finals. How? How could ONE man so single-handedly carry those teams so far, and against such superior rosters?


And let's dispose of this nonsense that all Wilt played for in the first half of his career was personal stats. He did whatever his COACH's asked of him. It was NOT Wilt's idea to score 50 ppg in the 61-62 season. His coach took one look at the pathetic cast of teammates on that roster, and asked Wilt to shoot the ball. And who could blame him? Wilt shot .506 from the field, while his teammates collectively shot .402 (in a league that shot .426.) Then, somehow Wilt got that putrid cast past Syracuse (and with a game five, in a best-of-five series, of 56-35) and to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers, and with those teammates collectively shooting an awful .354 from the floor in the post-season.

Wilt finally had a quality supporting cast in the 65-66 season. And, much like his 62-63 season, when his team went 31-49, all Wilt did was lead the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; lead the league in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; hand out 5.2 apg; and shoot a then-record .540 from the floor...en route to leading the Sixers to the BEST record in the league. BUT, what happened in the post-season? Wilt averaged 28 ppg, with 30.2 rpg, and on .509 shooting, while his teammates collectively shot .352. Yet, Wilt gets the blame???


And this FT shooting crap has to stop, as well. Russell had the good fortune to win SIX titles in post-seasons in which he shot less than 60% from the line(.585, .552, .526, .523, .508, and .506.) AND, he also won SIX rings while shooting .427, .423, .409, .409, .365, and .356 from the FLOOR (as well as two other post-seasons of .365 and .360 shooting.) Shaq won two of his our rings with post-season's of .456 and .374 shooting, and he had other post-seasons of .471, .466, .429, .393, and .333.


And comparing Russell to Wilt in TEAM accomplishments??? Russell played his ENTIRE career with a minimum of FOUR HOF teammates, and as many as EIGHT. Not only that, but he collectively received 71 seasons from his HOF teammates, while Wilt got 20 from his. None other than the great John Wooden commented that had Wilt had the same rosters that Russell played with in his career, he would likely have won as many rings, as well. In any case, swap their rosters in their ten H2H seasons in the league, and Wilt would have won far more than one ring in that span. As it was, Wilt was nine measley points away from going 5-3 against Russell in the post-season, instead of 1-7. And does anyone in their right mind believe that Wilt would not have murdered Russell's teams in 62-63 and 63-64 had they swapped rosters?

Basketball is a TEAM game. I give Russell credit for maximizing his surrounding talent, but he enjoyed a HUGE edge in talent in the course of their ten years in the league together, as well as a HUGE edge in coaching. While Russell had the great Auerbach, Wilt was saddled with either lazy coaches, who just asked Wilt to single-handedly carry those inept rosters, or incompetent coaches who had no idea how to use Wilt.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]This is among the greatest responses of all-time![/QUOTE]

Touche. Unfortunately, the underlying point of my post will fall upon deaf ears. Jlauber's infatuation for Chamberlain is enough to throw him into a mental asylum, straight jacket and all.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Touche. Unfortunately, the underlying point of my post will fall upon deaf ears. Jlauber's infatuation for Chamberlain is enough to throw him into a mental asylum, straight jacket and all.[/QUOTE]

And you are one of a handful of posters that completely waste your time, and everyone else's, with uneducated, unresearched, and unintelligent posts.

[QUOTE=jlauber]And you are one of a handful of posters that completely waste your time, and everyone else's, with uneducated, unresearched, and unintelligent posts.[/QUOTE]

Yes, because your constant whining, crying, moaning, copy and pasting is so much more liberating. As for me? No spam, I just present the facts and reality. You're wasting YOUR life sucking Wilt's dick. He's not better than Russell or Jordan, the world knows it.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Touche. Unfortunately, the underlying point of my post will fall upon deaf ears. Jlauber's infatuation for Chamberlain is enough to throw him into a mental asylum, straight jacket and all.[/QUOTE]

It's best to just ignore, it doesn't stop. Even when you agree with him it's never enough unless you agree with it all. Just steer clear of Wilt talk with him.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Yes, because your constant whining, crying, moaning, copy and pasting is so much more liberating. As for me? No spam, I just present the facts and reality. You're wasting YOUR life sucking Wilt's dick. He's not better than Russell or Jordan, the world knows it.[/QUOTE]

He is sick, seriously, the guy is not normal.
It's one thing to really like someone when you're a kid looking for role models but we are talking about a 56 year old man who's just obsessed with a basketball player who retired almost 40 years ago.

The guy is even older than my father and if my father would act like Jlauber I'd get him some professional help, his obsession is just ridiculous...

[QUOTE=millwad]He is sick, seriously, the guy is not normal.
It's one thing to really like someone when you're a kid looking for role models but we are talking about a 56 year old man who's just obsessed with a basketball player who retired almost 40 years ago.

The guy is even older than my father and if my father would act like Jlauber I'd get him some professional help, his obsession is just ridiculous...[/QUOTE]

Millwad and kuniva...quite possibly the same idiotic poster.

[QUOTE=jlauber]First of all, saying Wilt was not one of the greatest "winners" is truly laughable. The man played on 12 teams in his 14 seasons that had winning records. And, he took 12 teams to the Conference Finals, and SIX teams to the Finals. For comparision sake, Bird took eight teams to the Conference Finals, and only five to the Finals.

And Wilt played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and WON 33 straight games.) Here again, for comparison sake, how about Russell? Three. And his best record was 62-18.

Wilt also played on FOUR teams that had the BEST record in the league. And, aside from MJ, find me ONE other "great" player that played on team's that went 68-13 and 69-13. And MJ also played on FIVE teams that had LOSING records, too.

How about Wilt's two "non-winning" seasons? In his 62-63 season, all Wilt did was average 44.8 ppg (winning the scoring crown by +10.8 ppg); lead the league in rebounding at 24.3 rpg; set a then record FG% mark of .528 (in a league that shot .441); and even handed out 3.4 apg. He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories, and had offensive and defensive rebounding, rebound %, and blocked shots been official stats, he probably would have led in those, as well. He even LED the league in WIN SHARES, and by a large margin. He was directly responsible for 20.9 of his team's 31 wins, or about 70%. And his PER rating of 31.8 is the ALL-TIME RECORD.

And, while his TEAM, with arguably the worst cast of clowns ever assembled, went 31-49, Wilt managed to keep them in nearly EVERY game. They lost 35 games by single digits, and had a -2.1 ppg differential. And how much help did Wilt receive from that inept roster? They collectively shot .412, which would have been well behind the WORST team in the league (Boston, at .427.)

How bad was that roster? The very next season, Wilt's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, which pitted them against draftees and players who would not make a roster. Guess which team won? Not only that, but the "anti-Wilt" posters will NEVER mention that Chamberlain then took that cast of misfits to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they lost two games in the waning seconds, and 4-1 overall, to the Celtics and their EIGHT HOFers. And all Wilt did in that series was outscore Russell, per game, 29-11; outrebound Russell, per game, 27-25; and Wilt also shot .517 from the floor in that series, and while we don't know what Russell shot in that series, we do know that he shot .356 in his tem post-season games, five of which were against Chamberlain.

Wilt was traded to the Sixers at mid-season the very next year. Keep in mind that Philly had gone 34-46 the year before. And Wilt guided them to a 40-40 record. THEN, he took them to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals. Following that series, Wilt led the Sixers to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics. And in that game seven, all he did was score Philly's last six points (including 2-2 from the line), and a roaring comeback from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109. And it took a miracle steal by Havlicek to perserve Boston's win, too. In that seventh game, Wilt scored 30 points, with 32 rebounds, and on 12-15 shooting from the floor. For the series, all he did was average 30 ppg and 31 rpg.

BTW, Wilt came to a LAST PLACE team. Russell, by comparison, basically replaced Ed McCauley, AND, joined HOFer rookie Tom Heinsohn in his first season, on a team that had gone 39-33 the year before. Furthermore, the Celtics added Sam Jones the very next season. Conversely, Wilt's rosters got WORSE each season. His good teammates got older, and were not replaced.

And, think about this... in Wilt's first six post-seasons, covering his first seven seasons, his teammates collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .354, .352, and even .332 in the post-season. And yet Wilt still took two of those team's to game seven losses by 2 and 1 point against Russell's vaunted Dynasty...as well as that '64 trip to the Finals. How? How could ONE man so single-handedly carry those teams so far, and against such superior rosters?


And let's dispose of this nonsense that all Wilt played for in the first half of his career was personal stats. He did whatever his COACH's asked of him. It was NOT Wilt's idea to score 50 ppg in the 61-62 season. His coach took one look at the pathetic cast of teammates on that roster, and asked Wilt to shoot the ball. And who could blame him? Wilt shot .506 from the field, while his teammates collectively shot .402 (in a league that shot .426.) Then, somehow Wilt got that putrid cast past Syracuse (and with a game five, in a best-of-five series, of 56-35) and to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers, and with those teammates collectively shooting an awful .354 from the floor in the post-season.

Wilt finally had a quality supporting cast in the 65-66 season. And, much like his 62-63 season, when his team went 31-49, all Wilt did was lead the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; lead the league in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; hand out 5.2 apg; and shoot a then-record .540 from the floor...en route to leading the Sixers to the BEST record in the league. BUT, what happened in the post-season? Wilt averaged 28 ppg, with 30.2 rpg, and on .509 shooting, while his teammates collectively shot .352. Yet, Wilt gets the blame???


And this FT shooting crap has to stop, as well. Russell had the good fortune to win SIX titles in post-seasons in which he shot less than 60% from the line(.585, .552, .526, .523, .508, and .506.) AND, he also won SIX rings while shooting .427, .423, .409, .409, .365, and .356 from the FLOOR (as well as two other post-seasons of .365 and .360 shooting.) Shaq won two of his our rings with post-season's of .456 and .374 shooting, and he had other post-seasons of .471, .466, .429, .393, and .333.


And comparing Russell to Wilt in TEAM accomplishments??? Russell played his ENTIRE career with a minimum of FOUR HOF teammates, and as many as EIGHT. Not only that, but he collectively received 71 seasons from his HOF teammates, while Wilt got 20 from his. None other than the great John Wooden commented that had Wilt had the same rosters that Russell played with in his career, he would likely have won as many rings, as well. In any case, swap their rosters in their ten H2H seasons in the league, and Wilt would have won far more than one ring in that span. As it was, Wilt was nine measley points away from going 5-3 against Russell in the post-season, instead of 1-7. And does anyone in their right mind believe that Wilt would not have murdered Russell's teams in 62-63 and 63-64 had they swapped rosters?

Basketball is a TEAM game. I give Russell credit for maximizing his surrounding talent, but he enjoyed a HUGE edge in talent in the course of their ten years in the league together, as well as a HUGE edge in coaching. While Russell had the great Auerbach, Wilt was saddled with either lazy coaches, who just asked Wilt to single-handedly carry those inept rosters, or incompetent coaches who had no idea how to use Wilt.[/QUOTE]


All those stats, numbers... yet two titles. That's right. And he's one of the greatest winners ever? Please... he was never one of the greatest winners ever.

He shouldn't be mentioned in same sentence with the likes of Russell, Jordan, Kareem etc when it comes to winning, period.

[QUOTE=PTB Fan]All those stats, numbers... yet two titles. That's right. And he's one of the greatest winners ever? Please... he was never one of the greatest winners ever.

He shouldn't be mentioned in same sentence with the likes of Russell, Jordan, [B]Kareem[/B] etc when it comes to winning, period.[/QUOTE]

Kareem won ONE ring in the weakest decade for champions in NBA history, and with the easiest road to a title ever in that season.

He won FIVE rings playing alongside a PRIME Magic for TEN seasons. And TWO of those came when he was LA's third and FIFTH best player. In fact, a case could be made that the Lakers won a title DESPITE Kareem's AWFUL play in '88.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain had to battle the greatest Dynasty in major professional sports history for TEN of his 14 seasons, and was heavily outgunned in surrounding personnel for the majority of that. Then, he had to battle the great 69-70 Knicks with West, an over-the-hill Baylor, and little else...and all while playing on ONE leg. In 70-71 he faced that 66-16 Bucks team, without BOTH West and Baylor. And in 72-73, he faced a Knick team with SIX HOFers.

In between, he LED two teams to dominating titles...blowing out Russell and the eight-time defending champs...and then whipping Kareem's '72 defending champion Bucks, as well as dominating the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers.

In the first half of his career, he was saddled with crappy rosters and coaches. In the last half, he took FIVE teams, in seven seasons, to the Finals, winning twice (and losing in game seven's twice.) In four of those seven years, his team's won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Kareem won ONE ring in the weakest decade for champions in NBA history, and with the easiest road to a title ever in that season.

He won FIVE rings playing alongside a PRIME Magic for TEN seasons. And TWO of those came when he was LA's third and FIFTH best player. In fact, a case could be made that the Lakers won a title DESPITE Kareem's AWFUL play in '88.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain had to battle the greatest Dynasty in major professional sports history for TEN of his 14 seasons, and was heavily outgunned in surrounding personnel for the majority of that. Then, he had to battle the great 69-70 Knicks with West, an over-the-hill Baylor, and little else...and all while playing on ONE leg. In 70-71 he faced that 66-16 Bucks team, without BOTH West and Baylor. And in 72-73, he faced a Knick team with SIX HOFers.

In between, he LED two teams to dominating titles...blowing out Russell and the eight-time defending champs...and then whipping Kareem's '72 defending champion Bucks, as well as dominating the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers.

In the first half of his career, he was saddled with crappy rosters and coaches. In the last half, he took FIVE teams, in seven seasons, to the Finals, winning twice (and losing in game seven's twice.) In four of those seven years, his team's won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13.[/QUOTE]

so hes 2-3 in the Finals.....

[QUOTE=jlauber] Bla bla bla...[/QUOTE]

Greatest winners of all-time is dedicated to players who actually WON a great amount of titles.

Did Wilt win a great amount if titles? NO...

[QUOTE=jlauber]Kareem won ONE ring in the weakest decade for champions in NBA history, and with the easiest road to a title ever in that season.

He won FIVE rings playing alongside a PRIME Magic for TEN seasons. And TWO of those came when he was LA's third and FIFTH best player. In fact, a case could be made that the Lakers won a title DESPITE Kareem's AWFUL play in '88.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain had to battle the greatest Dynasty in major professional sports history for TEN of his 14 seasons, and was heavily outgunned in surrounding personnel for the majority of that. Then, he had to battle the great 69-70 Knicks with West, an over-the-hill Baylor, and little else...and all while playing on ONE leg. In 70-71 he faced that 66-16 Bucks team, without BOTH West and Baylor. And in 72-73, he faced a Knick team with SIX HOFers.

In between, he LED two teams to dominating titles...blowing out Russell and the eight-time defending champs...and then whipping Kareem's '72 defending champion Bucks, as well as dominating the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers.

In the first half of his career, he was saddled with crappy rosters and coaches. In the last half, he took FIVE teams, in seven seasons, to the Finals, winning twice (and losing in game seven's twice.) In four of those seven years, his team's won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13.[/QUOTE]

I'm giving Wilt the credit for taking it to a fully healthy Russell led Celtics team in his career. But Kareem was a bigger winner than Wilt, because he managed to use his abilities wisely and made his teams a force with it.

That's why the Bucks won a title in his second season, with him leading the way. And Kareem was more unlucky than Wilt with team mates injuries. Had that no happen, he'd have had 4 rings with the Bucks instead of two.

I'm willing to admit that Wilt had bad luck with his team mates, as they shot bad in some post season (no need to post it, as you already had covered it million times) and injuries (like in 68).

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]so hes 2-3 in the Finals.....[/QUOTE]

And haha, "crappy rosters" is just nonsense. With all his rosters counted it's safe to say that Wilt had great teammates by his side, HOF:ers and all-stars. Sure, he had bad teammates early on but he's not the only player who've been stuck playing with less skilled players..

Jordan had crappy teammates in the early stages of his career too, big deal..