Wilt Chamberlain scoring highlights 1960-1968

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]And, can you imagine what WILT would have carpet-bombed those Laker teams with? Hell, in his '62 season alone, he hung THREE 60+ point games on them, including a 78-43 game. Oh, and then he followed that up with THREE MORE 60+ games in '63, including a 72 pointer. My god, he might have been outscoring Baylor and West combined in some of those games.

As for the rest of your post...again, you are giving Oscar's meager number of playoff games WAY TOO much credit. Only 39 total games in his scoring prime.

And one more time, Chamberlain was MILES ahead of West, Baylor, and Oscar, in eFG%'s in the post-seasons. He was even crushing the great RUSSELL for cryingoutloud (and Russell had his entire supporting cast backing him up, too.)

The only way to stop Wilt, was to foul him.

And finally...yes, let's just completely ignore full 80+ game seasons, and go with as little as five game playoff series...

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm[/QUOTE]

Don't exaggerate buddy. Wilt faced some "scrubs" in his career too like vs. the Nats and Royals and he didn't put up ridiculous numbers. Better than against Russell but not by much.

Oscar played 39 games in his scoring prime, Wilt 52 games. Weak argument.

eFG% is nice and all but overall efficiency depends on free throws as well. Comparing FG% between a C and a bunch of backcourt players seems pretty flawed no? Let's compare assists while we're at it?

Wilt is the BEST regular season scorer of his generation there is no argument. But in the postseason he was the #3 or #4 scorer. The numbers don't lie.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]By default if you think Wilt wasn't an unstoppable scorer (something every single one of his peers and contemporaries refer to him as being, and that record books confirm) than you are NOT a knowledgeable poster. You think forming a conclusion against the grain of every one who saw him play or played against him makes you special or something? No, it puts you in the same frame of mind as those people who think men didn't land on the moon, or government conspiracy theorists, or whatever other category of crackpot loonies. Wilt when his role was to score was the most prolific scorer the game has ever known, and the next best isn't close. Denying this it silly [/QUOTE]

If TrueDS made that post about Wilt not being a dominating scorer in a vacuum I'd agree with you but he was making his argument from the standpoint of postseason scoring. Wilt was NOT the best postseason scorer of his era. There may be reasons for that but it's still a fact.

[QUOTE=trueDS]I showed playoff stats vs non Russell teams. West and Oscar were better scorers against these teams than Wilt. So stop using Russell as a excuse.[/QUOTE]

Flat out lie...

[B]A prime Oscar (from 60-68) played in 22 playoff games against non-Boston teams, and averaged 28.4 ppg on .486 eFG%.[/B]

[B]A prime Baylor (from 60-63 and only 4 seasons BTW) played in 34 playoff games against non-Boston teams, and averaged 35.2 ppg on .457 eFG%[/B].

[B]A prime West (from 62-70) played in 62 non-Boston games and averaged 31.4 ppg on an eFG% of .491[/B].

[B]A prime Wilt played in 22 non-Boston games, and averaged 36.0 ppg on a .503 eFG%[/B].


Wilt was easily the best SCORER of the group.

Of course, the Wilt-bashers will never mention that Chamberlain's horrific 62-63 roster was so bad, that his team didn't make the playoffs, ... in a season in which Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG% (and averaged 38 ppg against Russell in nine H2H's.)

And before some idiot claims that Wilt was a "loser" in 62-63 (despite leading the league in 15 statistical categories, including running away with the scoring title, and setting a then FG% record), ...how about Oscar? A prime Oscar missed TWO playoff seasons ('61 and '68.)



And I get so sick-and-tired of the FLAWED TS%'s. In any case, we know that when was those four players were DEFENDED, Chamberlain was a considerably better, and more efficient shooter.

The reality was, Chamberlain's "scoring prime" only involved 52 playoff games, 30 of which came against Russell's Celtics. Had he been in the Western Conference in all of those seven seasons (and made the playoffs in '63), he likely would have been slaughtering the Lakers year-after-year (win or lose.) Hell, in the one season in which he was in the Western Conference, he averaged 38.6 ppg on an eFG% of .559 and in a seven game series.

[QUOTE=dankok8]Don't exaggerate buddy. Wilt faced some "scrubs" in his career too like vs. the Nats and Royals and he didn't put up ridiculous numbers. Better than against Russell but not by much.

Oscar played 39 games in his scoring prime, Wilt 52 games. Weak argument.

eFG% is nice and all but overall efficiency depends on free throws as well. Comparing FG% between a C and a bunch of backcourt players seems pretty flawed no? Let's compare assists while we're at it?

Wilt is the BEST regular season scorer of his generation there is no argument. But in the postseason he was the #3 or #4 scorer. The numbers don't lie.



If TrueDS made that post about Wilt not being a dominating scorer in a vacuum I'd agree with you but he was making his argument from the standpoint of postseason scoring. Wilt was NOT the best postseason scorer of his era. There may be reasons for that but it's still a fact.[/QUOTE]

Every bit of this is pure BS and and with an OBVIOUS anti-Wilt agenda.

How about this comment from trueDS:

[QUOTE]In other words - please, show that Wilt was unstoppable scorer, but use only playoffs. Forget about regular season, it's really not that much important[/QUOTE]

Yep, the 80-82 regular season games aren't important. That explains why Oscar missed TWO post-seasons, then, doesn't ...as well as Chamberlain not making the playoffs in a season in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG%.

But, here we have Oscar with a total of 39 playoff games in his scoring prime, and never advancing to the Finals in any of those six playoff series, and in fact, not getting past the first round in FOUR of the six.


And how about this gem from that Wilt-basher?

[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.[B] 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[/B].

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

Oh, so a prime scoring Chamberlain single-handedly carrying his teams to game seven losses, by margins of 2, and 1 point, against the greatest Dynasty in the history of the NBA, (and had he not been injured in games 3-4 of the '60 EDF's, and with his team losing a game six by two points, who knows?), as well as a competitive Finals against Boston in yet another season, in which his team was outgunned in HOFers by an 8-2 margin...is EMPTY scoring?

But a prime Oscar missing TWO playoff seasons in eight years, being knocked out in the FIRSTY ROUND of four of the six that he did make, and NEVER reaching the Finals...HELPED his offenses better than Wilt did his?

BTW, I am not blaming Oscar for those "failures", and more than I would have blamed Wilt for his. But it sure seems ridiculous to claim that Wilt's stats were "empty" and then turn around claim that Oscar's were somehow more "helpful."

Oh, and West and Baylor COMBINED never doing any more against Boston, than what Wilt did by HIMSELF. And, of course, a PRIME Chamberlain in '67, was THE reason that his Sixers just annihilated Boston (and with Wilt, as always, just castrating Russell in the series.)

And how many times did Oscar, or West, or Baylor, lead the NBA in scoring, and also take their teams to the best record in the league? Wilt accomplished that feat in his 65-66 season (leading the league in scoring, rebounding, and eFG%...all while taking the Sixers to the best record in the league.)

And again, had Wilt had the luxury of facing the Lakers in the post-season in his SCORING prime, I am absolutely convinced that he would now hold at least several post-season scoring and efficiency marks.


Gotta love the Wilt-bashers. they will do ANYTHING to disparage Chamberlain...

And one more damned time...the Wilt-bashers love to point out the post-season, and completely ignore the regular season.

Here again, these idiots will claim that Oscar was a better scorer in the post-season (as well as Hakeem), when those two guys were ROUTINELY crushed in their FIRST ROUNDS and in four-and-five playoff game series.

But, yes, let's completely ignore the 80+ regular season games. Doesn't it seem a little suspicious though, that it was ONLY WILT who was putting up staggering scoring, rebounding, and efficiency numbers in HIS era (the same era that had Baylor, West, and Oscar)?

Here was a prime scoring Chamberlain, with crappy rosters, and usually facing the Celtics in either his first or second round playoff series, and missing the playoffs altogether in his second greatest scoring season (yet MJ would make the playoffs years later in '86 with an even worse team record)...and ultimately only playing in a meager 52 games in that span...30 of which were against Russell and Boston.

The reality was... 52 playoff games was simply not a decent enough sample size, and especially considering that he was battling the greatest defensive center and the greatest dynasty the sport has known, in 30 of those games (and BTW, all he did was average 30.5 ppg on a .507 eFG% (in leagues that shot about .421 in that span.)

Still, in those 52 playoff games, he had FOUR games of 50, 50, 53, and 56 points, three of which were in "must-win" games (and one of those was against Russell), as well as 7 more of 40+ (and all told he had five games of 40+ against Russell.)

Now, if you were to ADD those playoff numbers, with his staggering regular season numbers in those first seven years, and Wilt would have averaged a combined 38 ppg in that span. Over the course of nearly 600 total games.

THAT was CLEARLY the game's greatest SCORER. No one else is even remotely CLOSE.

Wilt is by far the greatest player of the 1961-62 season

[QUOTE=Lord Bean]Wilt is by far the greatest player of the 1961-62 season[/QUOTE]

And yet, because of an obvious anti-Wilt agenda by the players in the league that season, Russell won the MVP.

Still, Wilt was voted first-team All-NBA ahead of Russell. And in their entire decade playing together, Chamberlain held a 7-2 margin in First-Team All-NBA's over Russell.

And Wilt not only won ROY in '60, he also won the MVP. And from the middle of the decade ('66 thru '68) he would run away with the MVP balloting. And he was not only robbed in '62, but '64, as well. (And no one has ever given anywhere near a decent explanation as to how Russell finished ahead of Wilt in the '69 voting.)

The reality was, he was already the best player in the game in '60, and was by far the best player in the game by the mid-to-late 60's. In fact, he was the best player in the league in the entire decade of the 60's.

LAZERUSS...

Nobody is ignoring the regular season. Wilt is the GREATEST REGULAR SEASON SCORER of all time. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Stop repeating points about Chamberlain's regular season!! We aren't discussing that here or disputing any of your points on that.

In the postseason it's a different story. Both Jerry West and Elgin Baylor (before knee injury) have put up much superior scoring averages (including volume and efficiency) in the playoffs. Oscar's numbers were right around Wilt's and he had more overall impact on his team's offense. Those are undeniable facts.

Ultimately your arguments for Wilt's worse numbers...

Wilt faced stronger defense was DISPELLED. West played 7 finals against Boston and averaged 32.7 ppg on 55.1 %TS combined! Baylor in his 2 Finals before injury had a monstrous cumulative average of 37.5 ppg on 52.0 %TS on Boston.

Wilt has never had single series on that level. That's a fact.

And don't bring up FG% when comparing bigs and guards. :no:

[QUOTE=dankok8]LAZERUSS...

Nobody is ignoring the regular season. Wilt is the GREATEST REGULAR SEASON SCORER of all time. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Stop repeating points about Chamberlain's regular season!! We aren't discussing that here or disputing any of your points on that.

In the postseason it's a different story. Both Jerry West and Elgin Baylor (before knee injury) have put up much superior scoring averages (including volume and efficiency) in the playoffs. Oscar's numbers were right around Wilt's and he had more overall impact on his team's offense. Those are undeniable facts.

Ultimately your arguments for Wilt's worse numbers...

Wilt faced stronger defense was DISPELLED. West played 7 finals against Boston and averaged 32.7 ppg on 55.1 %TS combined! Baylor in his 2 Finals before injury had a monstrous cumulative average of 37.5 ppg on 52.0 %TS on Boston.

Wilt has never had single series on that level. That's a fact.

[B]And don't bring up FG% when comparing bigs and guards.[/B] :no:[/QUOTE]
Why, should bigs be penalized for being more likely to make the shots they take? Accuracy isn't just a footnote. In fact, they are what make big men so valuable around the hoop. There is no reason not to bring up accuracy when assessing the offense of many of the great big men past or present.

[QUOTE=dankok8]LAZERUSS...

Nobody is ignoring the regular season. Wilt is the GREATEST REGULAR SEASON SCORER of all time. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Stop repeating points about Chamberlain's regular season!! We aren't discussing that here or disputing any of your points on that.

In the postseason it's a different story. Both Jerry West and Elgin Baylor (before knee injury) have put up much superior scoring averages (including volume and efficiency) in the playoffs. Oscar's numbers were right around Wilt's and he had more overall impact on his team's offense. Those are undeniable facts.

Ultimately your arguments for Wilt's worse numbers...

Wilt faced stronger defense was DISPELLED. West played 7 finals against Boston and averaged 32.7 ppg on 55.1 %TS combined! Baylor in his 2 Finals before injury had a monstrous cumulative average of 37.5 ppg on 52.0 %TS on Boston.

Wilt has never had single series on that level. That's a fact.

And don't bring up FG% when comparing bigs and guards. :no:[/QUOTE]

Here is what started this completely anti-Wilt agenda, from a tyical Wilt-basher ...

[QUOTE]We don't really need to dig it up, because Wilt's playoffs drop off in efficiency is pretty clear. In regular season he stat padded vs weak competition (he was GOAT offensive rebounder so scored a lot that way), but there's much less easy baskets in playoffs and that's why Wilt's scoring limitations were exposed in the playoffs.
[/QUOTE]

Now, here is the REALITY of this "exposed" Chamberlain...

Again, only 52 playoff games in his "scoring" prime, which BTW, is 13 more than all of Oscar's in his, and 5 more than Baylor had in his.

And in those 30, he was defended by RUSSELL, who is widely regarded as the greatest defensive center of all-time. Not only that, but I have provided a TON of quotes, from Russell's OWN TEAMMATES, claiming that they were SWARMING, and even BRUTALIZING Chamberlain in those games.

And how did this "exposed" Chamberlain play against RUSSELL and his swarming teammates in those 30 games? He averaged 30.5 ppg, on a .507 eFG% and in post-season NBA's that shot about .420 in that span.

Furthermore, if we carry the Russell-Wilt battles into Chamberlain's 66-67 season, which may have been the greatest season EVER, by ANYONE, Wilt again just castrated him. 21.6 ppg on a .556 eFG% (in a post-season NBA that shot .428), while holding Russell to 10.2 ppg on a .358 eFG%. Oh, and he outassisted Russell in that same series, 10.0 apg to 6.0 apg, and outrebounded Russell (the second greatest rebounder of all-time, and certainly the second greatest post-season rebounder of all-time) by a staggering 32 rpg to 23 rpg margin.

And in the rest of Wilt's 22 (TWENTY-TWO) post-season games, all he could do was "only" average 36.0 ppg on a .503 eFG% (again, in leagues that shot .420.) Or, in other words, he was the greatest scorer of his post-season era when he was not being defended by the greatest defensive player in the history of the game.

And again, I have provided the HUGE drop-offs that MJ, Shaq, and your boy Kareem had, when they battled their biggest defensive rivals in multiple series. My god, KAJ had a HUGE decline from his regular season numbers when he faced Thurmond and Chamberlain in his five post-season H2H's. During those three regular seasons, Kareem averaged 32 ppg on a .565 eFG%. In those FIVE playoff series against Nate and Wilt... 26 ppg on a .469 eFG%. Just a DRAMATIC decline.

And yet Chamberlain gets no credit for being a FAR greater scorer, and FAR more efficient shooter, in his FIVE post-season series in his scoring prime, against RUSSELL.

But I would not expect anything less from the Wilt-bashers...

I hope I have finally put an end to these complete MYTHS and even LIES regarding Chamberlain in his post-season play.

And to get back to the REAL topic here...

I can't wait for CavsFan video, which will completely stamp out the Fatal's of this world.

And this footage will CLEARLY depict a SKILLFUL Chamberlain, making a wide variety of remarkable shots, with exceptional foot-work and unequaled athleticism.

However, keep in mind that this footage is only about TWO-PERCENT of Chamberlain's NBA career. And there is absolutely ZERO footage of any of Chamberlain's 271 40+ point games (or 122 50+ point games, or 32 60+ point games.) None of his 132 40-30 games (or 32 50-30 games, or his 28 60-20 games, or his 8 40-40 games, or his 5 50-40 games.) None of his 15-15 FGA/FGA games, (or 16-16, or 18-18, or 18-19 games.) No footage from his 22-25-21 game (or his 53-32-14 game.)

The facts are...there is simply no footage available, of Wilt at his unfathomable best...

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]I hope I have finally put an end to these complete MYTHS and even LIES regarding Chamberlain in his post-season play.

And to get back to the REAL topic here...

I can't wait for CavsFan video, which will completely stamp out the Fatal's of this world.

And this footage will CLEARLY depict a SKILLFUL Chamberlain, making a wide variety of remarkable shots, with exceptional foot-work and unequaled athleticism.

However, keep in mind that this footage is only about TWO-PERCENT of Chamberlain's NBA career. And there is absolutely ZERO footage of any of Chamberlain's 271 40+ point games (or 122 50+ point games, or 32 60+ point games.) None of his 132 40-30 games (or 32 50-30 games, or his 28 60-20 games, or his 8 40-40 games, or his 5 50-40 games.) None of his 15-15 FGA/FGA games, (or 16-16, or 18-18, or 18-19 games.) No footage from his 22-25-21 game (or his 53-32-14 game.)

The facts are...there is simply no footage available, of Wilt at his unfathomable best...[/QUOTE]
IMO what stands out the most in his footage is his sheer size and strength and physical presence. I think it needs to be made clear what Fatal9 perpetuated was a notion that in order for others to consider Wilt to be ''a good offensive player" he must have the ability to travel, I mean use the footwork and up and under moves that Hakeem used. Fatal9 and the people who supported his discussions all failed to grasp just how big and strong Wilt was. Fatal9 wanted people to look at only certain characteristics of Wilt's game, the 'bar' as it were for assessing Wilt's scoring ability, was according to Fatal9, quickness, footwork, fluidity and use of deception. Basically, Fatal9 and those who bought into his evaluation of Wilt's offensive abilities all failed entirely to understand what Chamberlain brought to the table against a defense.

Wilt is a giant compared to Hakeem, both in strength and in size. He didn't need ANY of that footwork to create the same, and many times even better scoring opportunities. Wilt could get so much deeper in the post just bumping his man off him like tissue paper. Hakeem couldn't do that. Hakeem [I]needed[/I] his quickness and deception to drop 25 a night, he needed to get around you because he couldn't straight go through you or over top of you the way Wilt could. Wilt could back right into you and bump you out of the way or score over top of you, no matter what his footwork looks like Wilt's physical tools give him the advantage over Hakeem. That said, Wilt was indeed a helluva lot more skilled than Fatal9 implied. Using a wide array of moves and displaying a much greater amount of body control than Fatal's 2 minute "Wilt posting up" nonsense.

And to reiterate just how DOMINANT Chamberlain was at EVERY aspect of the game...

He had an entire season, covering 12 H2H games, in which he just obliterated Willis Reed. How about 38.6 ppg on a .531 eFG% (in a league that shot an eFG% of .426.) Included were carpet-bombings of 37-22, 46-25, 41-9, 52-23, and even 58-28.)

He battled a prime Bellamy in 20 straight H2H's, over the course of two straight seasons, and averaged 43.7 ppg in one 10 game season, and then... 52.7 ppg in the other. The beatdowns are just too numerous to list, but needless to say, he had a total of THREE 60+ games against him, including a 73-36 battering.

Russell? The greatest defensive center of all-time. Think about this...the two went H2H 143 times, and Wilt AVERAGED 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg against him, and all at about a 50% eFG% (in leagues that averaged about .430.) And in MANY of them he just demolished him. Again, too many to list, except that he had 24 40+ games against him, including five of 50+, and a high game of 62 (on 27-45 shooting.) Against a PRIME RUSSELL. And while he was crushing him in terms of offense in those 143 games, he was dramatically reducing Russell's own efficiencis, by considerably greater margins that what Russell could do to him. Oh, and he waxed Russell in the vast majority of their rebounding battles (a 92-43-8 margin...and many by overwhelming margins....including an unfathomable 55-19 margin in one.)

Thurmond. Keep in mind that a peak Kareem faced a aging Thurmond in 40 H2H games (before Nate's 73-74 season, when he was just a shell), and his high game was only 34 points (over the course of all 50 H2H's BTW.) Not only that, but Kareem could only shoot an eFG% of .440 in that span. And in the post-season, it was even worse. KAJ shot .486, .428, and even .405 against Nate.

How about a prime Wilt? Think about this, from their last H2H game in '65, thru their nine H2H's in '66, and into their first meeting in '67...a total of 11 H2H games, Wilt had SIX 30+ games against Nate...which was one more than a peak Kareem had in his 40 H2H's with Thurmond. Included were whippings of 33-17, 33-10, 38-15, and an unbelievable 45-13 bashing. And a prime Wilt, against a peak Thurmond, in '67, and covering six H2H games, averaged 21 ppg on... get this... a .633 eFG%. And then in the Finals, he outscored a peak Thurmond, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg...all while outshooting him by an unfathomable .560 to .343 margin.

How about H2H's with Dierking, and Imhoff. MANY 50+ point games, including 60+ point games (and even a 100 point game.) And just the year before KAJ came into the league, Wilt hung a 60 point game on Jim Fox.

A peak Kareem would face ALL of those centers in his career (and most of them were well past their primes, too), and never once came within the other side of the Galaxy of the kind of obliterations that a Prime Chamberlain had leveled those same centers by.

And, as we all should know by now...

A 38-39 year old KAJ, in a span of two straight regular seasons, covering 10 straight games, averaged 32 ppg on a .621 eFG% against Hakeem. Included were games of 40, 43, and even a 46 point explosion (and on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.) Hell, a 37-41 year old Kareem, in his 23 career H2H's with a 23-26 year old Hakeem outscored him, and outshot him by a .607 to .512 margin from the floor. And in his eight career H2H's with Patrick Ewing, a 39-40 year old Kareem outscored him by a 21-19 ppg margin, and ousthot him by a .581 to .446 margin. Included was a game in which a 39 year old Kareem outscored Patrick by a 40-9 margin, and outshot him by a 15-22 to 3-17 margin.


Now...ask yourself this...

just what would a PRIME Chamberlain have been capable of against the best centers of the 80's...the same centers who would be among the best centers of the 90's?

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Why, should bigs be penalized for being more likely to make the shots they take? Accuracy isn't just a footnote. In fact, they are what make big men so valuable around the hoop. There is no reason not to bring up accuracy when assessing the offense of many of the great big men past or present.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying accuracy isn't important but let's use TS% which also takes free throws into account and is a more comprehensive measure of efficiency. By FG% alone we know bigs are way ahead of guards but overall many great guards can actually be more efficient than the great centers.

As for LAZERUSS he keeps pasting a lot info that has nothing to do with postseason scoring... I'll respond to the relevant points.

[QUOTE]And how did this "exposed" Chamberlain play against RUSSELL and his swarming teammates in those 30 games? He averaged 30.5 ppg, on a .507 eFG% and in post-season NBA's that shot about .420 in that span.[/QUOTE]

[B]Postseason Scoring vs. Boston:[/B]

West ('62 to '70) - 32.7 ppg on 55.1 %TS (45 games)

Baylor ('62 and '63) - 37.5 ppg on 52.1 %TS (13 games)

Oscar ('63, '64, and '66) - 31.4 ppg on 53.8 %TS (17 games)

Wilt ('60, '62, '64, '65, and '66) - 30.5 ppg on 52.2 %TS (30 games)

[B]Postseason Scoring Overall:[/B]

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

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

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

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


Denial in the face of facts!

Again which player was a better postseason scorer than Jordan, Shaq, and Kareem in their respective eras?

So tired fo Jlauber's (Lazeruss) bogus excuses about how Wilt only played few of his playoff games in his "scoring" prime. He's acting like it's a turn off and on button.

Does that even make any sense to start with? He and alot of other Wilt fans are acting like Wilt just decided that he wanted to stop scoring just because of the sake of it.

Wilt dropped big time in the playoffs in terms of scoring, even in his "scoring" prime he dropped in both FG% and scoring average. Yes, he has amazing scoring seasons in the regular season, bravo, really.

But he was a different animal in the playoffs, we always see CavaliersFTW spam about the fact that Wilt scored 60 points or more 32 times in his career. What he never mention is that none of them were in the playoffs.

And the sad part of it all is that Wilt never even won in his "scoring prime", he won in '67 when he had the tied 2nd highest point per game average in the playoffs of that team. And in '72 he was only the 4th best scorer.

[B]Here we have the perfect example of a stat padder, he never won anything in his "scoring" prime and he always dropped big time in the playoffs in terms of scoring and FG% and he won when others took over the scoring for him. [/B]

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]And to reiterate just how DOMINANT Chamberlain was at EVERY aspect of the game...

He had an entire season, covering 12 H2H games, in which he just obliterated Willis Reed. How about 38.6 ppg on a .531 eFG% (in a league that shot an eFG% of .426.) Included were carpet-bombings of 37-22, 46-25, 41-9, 52-23, and even 58-28.)

He battled a prime Bellamy in 20 straight H2H's, over the course of two straight seasons, and averaged 43.7 ppg in one 10 game season, and then... 52.7 ppg in the other. The beatdowns are just too numerous to list, but needless to say, he had a total of THREE 60+ games against him, including a 73-36 battering.

Russell? The greatest defensive center of all-time. Think about this...the two went H2H 143 times, and Wilt AVERAGED 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg against him, and all at about a 50% eFG% (in leagues that averaged about .430.) And in MANY of them he just demolished him. Again, too many to list, except that he had 24 40+ games against him, including five of 50+, and a high game of 62 (on 27-45 shooting.) Against a PRIME RUSSELL. And while he was crushing him in terms of offense in those 143 games, he was dramatically reducing Russell's own efficiencis, by considerably greater margins that what Russell could do to him. Oh, and he waxed Russell in the vast majority of their rebounding battles (a 92-43-8 margin...and many by overwhelming margins....including an unfathomable 55-19 margin in one.)

Thurmond. Keep in mind that a peak Kareem faced a aging Thurmond in 40 H2H games (before Nate's 73-74 season, when he was just a shell), and his high game was only 34 points (over the course of all 50 H2H's BTW.) Not only that, but Kareem could only shoot an eFG% of .440 in that span. And in the post-season, it was even worse. KAJ shot .486, .428, and even .405 against Nate.

How about a prime Wilt? Think about this, from their last H2H game in '65, thru their nine H2H's in '66, and into their first meeting in '67...a total of 11 H2H games, Wilt had SIX 30+ games against Nate...which was one more than a peak Kareem had in his 40 H2H's with Thurmond. Included were whippings of 33-17, 33-10, 38-15, and an unbelievable 45-13 bashing. And a prime Wilt, against a peak Thurmond, in '67, and covering six H2H games, averaged 21 ppg on... get this... a .633 eFG%. And then in the Finals, he outscored a peak Thurmond, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg...all while outshooting him by an unfathomable .560 to .343 margin.

How about H2H's with Dierking, and Imhoff. MANY 50+ point games, including 60+ point games (and even a 100 point game.) And just the year before KAJ came into the league, Wilt hung a 60 point game on Jim Fox.

A peak Kareem would face ALL of those centers in his career (and most of them were well past their primes, too), and never once came within the other side of the Galaxy of the kind of obliterations that a Prime Chamberlain had leveled those same centers by.

And, as we all should know by now...

A 38-39 year old KAJ, in a span of two straight regular seasons, covering 10 straight games, averaged 32 ppg on a .621 eFG% against Hakeem. Included were games of 40, 43, and even a 46 point explosion (and on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.) Hell, a 37-41 year old Kareem, in his 23 career H2H's with a 23-26 year old Hakeem outscored him, and outshot him by a .607 to .512 margin from the floor. And in his eight career H2H's with Patrick Ewing, a 39-40 year old Kareem outscored him by a 21-19 ppg margin, and ousthot him by a .581 to .446 margin. Included was a game in which a 39 year old Kareem outscored Patrick by a 40-9 margin, and outshot him by a 15-22 to 3-17 margin.


Now...ask yourself this...

just what would a PRIME Chamberlain have been capable of against the best centers of the 80's...the same centers who would be among the best centers of the 90's?[/QUOTE]

This is just bogus cherry picking, I mean, you wrote all that text for nothing. You cherry pick what you want to mention, you make the most one sided post and then you act like you just convinced the world about how amazing Wilt was.

No one but CavaliersFTW agrees with your rants, and he even called you out for being a jackass.

[QUOTE=dankok8]I'm not saying accuracy isn't important but let's use TS% which also takes free throws into account and is a more comprehensive measure of efficiency. By FG% alone we know bigs are way ahead of guards but overall many great guards can actually be more efficient than the great centers.

As for LAZERUSS he keeps pasting a lot info that has nothing to do with postseason scoring... I'll respond to the relevant points.



Postseason Scoring vs. Boston:

West ('62 to '70) - 32.7 ppg on 55.1 %TS (45 games)

Baylor ('62 and '63) - 37.5 ppg on 52.1 %TS (13 games)

Oscar ('63, '64, and '66) - 31.4 ppg on 53.8 %TS (17 games)

Wilt ('60, '62, '64, '65, and '66) - 30.5 ppg on 52.2 %TS (30 games)

Denial in the face of facts!

Again which player was a better postseason scorer than Jordan, Shaq, and Kareem in their respective eras?[/QUOTE]

RUSSELL was NOT the primary defender on West, Baylor, and Oscar, and you KNOW it.

And all of the above is in a VERY limited amount of games, too. My god, Baylor had 13 games against Boston, and BTW, he shot .445 from the field against them in those 13 games.

Now, the REAL argument should have been, had Wilt not faced the Celtics in 60% of his post-season games during his prime "scoring" seasons, and instead had the free passes that Baylor and West had in the west, what would have his scoring and effciency looked like? Hell, what kind of numbers would he have put up facing the LAKERS in those years????? He was ROUTINELY shelling them for 60+ point games (SIX of them). And we know that Russell put up post-seasons of 23 ppg on a .543 eFG%; 23 ppg on a .538 eFG%; and 18 ppg on a .702 eFG% against those same Laker teams in the Finals. I can't even begin to imagine the wreckage that Chamberlain would have left LA with.

And you keep forgetting that Chamberlain missed the playoffs entirely in his 62-63 season (and certainly not his fault) in a season in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG%. Oh, and BTW, he averaged 38.1 ppg against RUSSELL in their NINE regular season H2H's that year too.

How many times did West, or Baylor miss the post-season in their primes? And we know that Oscar missed it TWICE in his.

And all of the above ties into KAJ, MJ, and Shaq in their scoring primes. Fortunately for them, they didn't face their greatest defensive antagonists in 60% of their playoff games. If they had, you can be sure that their numbers would have looked much worse.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]

And all of the above ties into KAJ, MJ, and Shaq in their scoring primes. Fortunately for them, they didn't face their greatest defensive antagonists in 60% of their playoff games. If they had, you can be sure that their numbers would have looked much worse.[/QUOTE]

This is just false information and you basically lying.

Wilt played in an era with defensive schemes that can't be compared to the modern era, his biggest competition was Bill Russell. Wilt was way taller than Russell and yet you have failed to prove your nonsense about how Wilt was "swarmed" and triple teamed by his opponents.

The footage that is out there in the match-ups between Wilt and Russell you clearly see that Russell is defending Wilt mostly by himself, even though Wilt was way taller. Non-existing swarming defense and no constant double and triple teams.

And Wilt dropped big time in the playoffs in terms of scoring, not only against Russell but overall.

[QUOTE=millwad]This is just false information and you basically lying.

Wilt played in an era with defensive schemes that can't be compared to the modern era, his biggest competition was Bill Russell. Wilt was way taller than Russell and yet you have failed to prove your nonsense about how Wilt was "swarmed" and triple teamed by his opponents.

The footage that is out there in the match-ups between Wilt and Russell you clearly see that Russell is defending Wilt mostly by himself, even though Wilt was way taller. Non-existing swarming defense and no constant double and triple teams.

And Wilt dropped big time in the playoffs in terms of scoring, not only against Russell but overall.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w[/url]

Just a PORTION of ONE game of their 143 H2H games...

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w[/url][/QUOTE]

This is just sad, you really don't know anything at all about basketball.

What you think is "swarming" defense with double and triple team is a team not spreading the court and players momentarily being next to Wilt due the fact that their own man is packing the lane.

So all those posts about "swarming defenses" and how Wilt was the most "doubled and tripled" player of all-time is something you based on garbage like this.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]RUSSELL was NOT the primary defender on West, Baylor, and Oscar, and you KNOW it.

And all of the above is in a VERY limited amount of games, too. My god, Baylor had 13 games against Boston, and BTW, he shot .445 from the field against them in those 13 games.

Now, the REAL argument should have been, had Wilt not faced the Celtics in 60% of his post-season games during his prime "scoring" seasons, and instead had the free passes that Baylor and West had in the west, what would have his scoring and effciency looked like? Hell, what kind of numbers would he have put up facing the LAKERS in those years????? He was ROUTINELY shelling them for 60+ point games (SIX of them). And we know that Russell put up post-seasons of 23 ppg on a .543 eFG%; 23 ppg on a .538 eFG%; and 18 ppg on a .702 eFG% against those same Laker teams in the Finals. I can't even begin to imagine the wreckage that Chamberlain would have left LA with.

And you keep forgetting that Chamberlain missed the playoffs entirely in his 62-63 season (and certainly not his fault) in a season in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG%. Oh, and BTW, he averaged 38.1 ppg against RUSSELL in their NINE regular season H2H's that year too.

How many times did West, or Baylor miss the post-season in their primes? And we know that Oscar missed it TWICE in his.

And all of the above ties into KAJ, MJ, and Shaq in their scoring primes. Fortunately for them, they didn't face their greatest defensive antagonists in 60% of their playoff games. If they had, you can be sure that their numbers would have looked much worse.[/QUOTE]

You can't have it both ways LAZERUSS. If Russell was so great at shutting down Wilt and his teammates who shot terribly... then you must respect him as a player as great if not greater than Wilt. Clearly Russell had enormous impact on his team, on defense and leadership and he made strategic plays. And yet you scoff at those who say Russell > Wilt.

Truth is West and Baylor didn't have it much if any easier with KC and Hondo on them and then if they beat their defenders Russ was there lurking in the paint.

Wilt had a terrific series against the Hawks in '64 but so did Baylor and West in many years.

Your double standards are funny. First you make case for Wilt for missing the playoffs in '63 which probably lowered his playoff numbers but then you rip Oscar for missing in in '61 in what was an amazing season for him statistically.

Bottom line is your counterarguments are weak. [B]You love stats and stats say West and Baylor >> Wilt in the playoffs and Oscar has a strong case as well. [/B]

[QUOTE=millwad]This is just sad, you really don't know anything at all about basketball.

What you think is "swarming" defense with double and triple team is a team not spreading the court and players momentarily being next to Wilt due the fact that their own man is packing the lane.

So all those posts about "swarming defenses" and how Wilt was the most "doubled and tripled" player of all-time is something you based on garbage like this.[/QUOTE]

When you provide me with full game footage from Wilt's 1200 career NBA games, I'll get back to you...

And BTW, why don't you take the time to read thru this...

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9461568&postcount=247[/url]

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]When you provide me with full game footage from Wilt's 1200 career NBA games, I'll get back to you...[/QUOTE]

This is the same answer you give everyone when they confront you regarding the lies about the defense Wilt faced.

What you're doing is believing in fairy tales and biased assumptions rather than judging the defense based on the footage we actually have.

So it's completely fine for you to go on rants about rumours, stories and myths about how amazing Wilt was but you think it's unfair to judge the defense based on what it actually was.

And you sent the link to that game footage because you actually thought it would prove your case but that is just you not knowing what you're talking about. You don't even know the fundamentals of basketball and you just showed us.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]

And BTW, why don't you take the time to read thru this...

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9461568&postcount=247[/url][/QUOTE]

You've spammed that link a thousand times, I am talking about actual footage, FOOTAGE.

The reason why you can't find what you want to find is because it doesn't exist. The most obvious part is that Heinsohn talked about the Celtics being one of the first teams trying to use a team concept to stop Wilt, that is how under-developed the league was. A league that just started to try to think about team defense.

There is no footage which proves anything you like to claim about the so called massive swarming double and triple teams. The best you can find and what I could find was Wilt's team doing a shitty job spreading the floor and Wilt holding the ball too long in his hands which resulted in him getting a player on him momentarily.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Flat out lie...

[B]A prime Oscar (from 60-68) played in 22 playoff games against non-Boston teams, and averaged 28.4 ppg on .486 eFG%.[/B]

[B]A prime Baylor (from 60-63 and only 4 seasons BTW) played in 34 playoff games against non-Boston teams, and averaged 35.2 ppg on .457 eFG%[/B].

[B]A prime West (from 62-70) played in 62 non-Boston games and averaged 31.4 ppg on an eFG% of .491[/B].

[B]A prime Wilt played in 22 non-Boston games, and averaged 36.0 ppg on a .503 eFG%[/B].


Wilt was easily the best SCORER of the group.

Of course, the Wilt-bashers will never mention that Chamberlain's horrific 62-63 roster was so bad, that his team didn't make the playoffs, ... in a season in which Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG% (and averaged 38 ppg against Russell in nine H2H's.)

And before some idiot claims that Wilt was a "loser" in 62-63 (despite leading the league in 15 statistical categories, including running away with the scoring title, and setting a then FG% record), ...how about Oscar? A prime Oscar missed TWO playoff seasons ('61 and '68.)



And I get so sick-and-tired of the FLAWED TS%'s. In any case, we know that when was those four players were DEFENDED, Chamberlain was a considerably better, and more efficient shooter.

The reality was, Chamberlain's "scoring prime" only involved 52 playoff games, 30 of which came against Russell's Celtics. Had he been in the Western Conference in all of those seven seasons (and made the playoffs in '63), he likely would have been slaughtering the Lakers year-after-year (win or lose.) Hell, in the one season in which he was in the Western Conference, he averaged 38.6 ppg on an eFG% of .559 and in a seven game series.[/QUOTE]

It's hilarious to pick years to fit your agenda. I showed their whole stats, no cherry picking, during Russell's era.

If Russell was the only "thing" to keep Wilt from multiple titles, then please answer to this questions:

- if Wilt was so dominant scorer why he didn't led his teams to better offensive results (ortg)? Sure, weak supporting cast might explain something (but still, Arizin, Gola and Rodgers weren't bad offensive - overall, not only scoring - players), but why Pistons in 1960 with Howell and Shue as best players were better offensively than Warriors? Or NYK with Guerin and Sears? Similar story next year and on several other occasions.

- if we he was so good scorer why he stopped to be volume scorer in 1967 season and his team was so much better offensively? Why his COACH wanted him to shot less if his scoring was unstoppable?

- why Chamberlain was traded three times (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?

- why his team didn't advance to playoffs in 1963? Weak supporting cast? So why Pistons with Howell and DeBusschere did?

- why he didn't dominate injured Reed in G7 of 1970 finals?

[QUOTE=trueDS]If Russell was the only "thing" to keep Wilt from multiple titles, then please answer to this questions:

- if Wilt was so dominant scorer why he didn't led his teams to better offensive results (ortg)? Sure, weak supporting cast might explain something (but still, Arizin, Gola and Rodgers weren't bad offensive - overall, not only scoring - players), but why Pistons in 1960 with Howell and Shue as best players were better offensively than Warriors? Or NYK with Guerin and Sears? Similar story next year and on several other occasions.

- if we he was so good scorer why he stopped to be volume scorer in 1967 season and his team was so much better offensively? Why his COACH wanted him to shot less if his scoring was unstoppable?

- why Chamberlain was traded three times (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?

- why his team didn't advance to playoffs in 1963? Weak supporting cast? So why Pistons with Howell and DeBusschere did?

- why he didn't dominate injured Reed in G7 of 1970 finals?[/QUOTE]
"If the twin towers were brought down by planes, how come steel doesn't melt at the temperature jet fuel burns at?"

"If men landed on the moon, how come the astronauts look transparent in footage, and the flag blows in the wind"

"How could the pyramids have been built without lazers and anti-gravity alien technology"

You are the basketball equivalent of people who ask these types of silly leading questions. Smarminess and an overall lack of basketball knowledge, both historically and intellectually, are why you will never be able to acquire the 'objective' answers you presume to seek, not to mention the fact that you are attacking this subject from an angle with an answer already formed in your head. Answers that AREN'T at all in line with reality. You are only leading yourself astray, no one else.

and one more question:
- what happened in 1961 playoffs, when Warriors lost to lower seed? (and BTW, Arizin shot at similar % to Nats best player - Schayes, so It's unlikely "weak supporting cast" is the explanation here)

[QUOTE=trueDS]and one more question:
- what happened in 1961 playoffs, when Warriors lost to lower seed? (and BTW, Arizin shot at similar % to Nats best player - Schayes, so It's unlikely "weak supporting cast" is the explanation here)[/QUOTE]
Evidently you've never seen the interviews where Arizin openly admits "Boston just had better teams" when compared to Wilt's Warrior teams? Yeah guess not, why would you, you've already got all the answers formed in your imagination you only ask these questions not to seek information, but rather to 'prove' you're invalid imaginary points... This is sad because there are real answers to be found.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Evidently you've never seen the interviews where Arizin openly admits "Boston just had better teams"[/QUOTE]

Learn the facts first - in 1961 Warriors lost to Nationals, not Celtics.

[QUOTE=trueDS]Learn the facts first - in 1961 Warriors lost to Nationals, not Celtics.[/QUOTE]
Learn the facts? Oh brother, right I'm sure you know much more than I about this topic. I misread and believed you were talking about the '61-62 season, I had some articles bookmarked on the 61 playoff series but google news archives appears to be down, Phila hopefully has something saved. I recall coverage pointing out Swede Halbrook played Wilt for at least part of that series and played (defensively) quite well. Wilt still averaged 37 on him. At the end of the day you're still talking about a team that was not deep nor talented beyond Wilt and the aging Arizin, at that time you needed much more in a smaller league, they didn't have any fighting chance in the playoffs until Frank McGuire coached that squad the following year to feed Wilt the lions share of offensive possessions. I don't know what more you wanted from him in the '61 playoffs, are you implying he didn't do his job? Because he did, he played well. 37 a game in the playoffs, that's pretty damn dominant.

[QUOTE=trueDS]If Russell was the only "thing" to keep Wilt from multiple titles, then please answer to this questions:

- if Wilt was so dominant scorer why he didn't led his teams to better offensive results (ortg)? Sure, weak supporting cast might explain something (but still, Arizin, Gola and Rodgers weren't bad offensive - overall, not only scoring - players), but why Pistons in 1960 with Howell and Shue as best players were better offensively than Warriors? Or NYK with Guerin and Sears? Similar story next year and on several other occasions.

- if we he was so good scorer why he stopped to be volume scorer in 1967 season and his team was so much better offensively? Why his COACH wanted him to shot less if his scoring was unstoppable?

[B]- why Chamberlain was [COLOR="DarkRed"]traded three times[/COLOR] (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?[/B]

- why his team didn't advance to playoffs in 1963? Weak supporting cast? So why Pistons with Howell and DeBusschere did?

- why he didn't dominate injured Reed in G7 of 1970 finals?[/QUOTE]

He wasn't traded THREE times...He was traded TWICE...

To understand the first trade, you need a little background info first. Wilt came to the Philadephia Warriors in a territorial draft. What is that you ask? In the 50's the NBA owners decided that to help keep up local fan base interest, that they would allow owners to lock in a player if he were more of a "local" favorite. I won't get into the rules, which were somewhat complicated, and it is unneccessary for this topic anyway. In any case, Chamberlain, being from the Philadelphia area, and still in high school at the time, was "locked in" by the Philly ownership group. Remember, he was in HIGH SCHOOL. So, he was WAY ahead of his time in terms of those that supposedly broke the barriers of jumping right to the NBA out of high school. Of course, at the time, a player still had to go to college, or at least had to wait until his class would have graduated before he could play in the NBA.

BTW, for those that may have read Red Auerbach's many blistering attacks on Wilt (i.e. that he wasn't a team player, or that he was only stats conscious, etc.) how about this...

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain[/url]

[QUOTE]During summer vacations Chamberlain worked as a bellhop in Kutsher's Hotel. Red Auerbach, the coach of the Boston Celtics, spotted the talented teenager there and had him play 1-on-1 against Kansas University standout and national champion, B. H. Born, elected the Most Valuable Player of the 1953 NCAA Finals. Chamberlain won 25–10; Born was so dejected that he gave up a promising NBA career and became a tractor engineer ("If there were high school kids that good, I figured I wasn't going to make it to the pros"),[18] and [B]Auerbach wanted Chamberlain to go to a New England university, so he could draft him as a territorial pick for the Celtics, but Chamberlain did not respond[/B].[/QUOTE]

So Wilt joined the Warriors in the 59-60 season, a team that had been in LAST PLACE just the year before. BTW, in his first game, Chamberlain put up a 43 point, 28 rebound, 17 block game. I always get a kick out of those that try to compare players like Kobe or Lebron on the "first to get to xxx points"...because, had Chamberlain been allowed to play in the NBA right out of high school, there is no doubt that he would have added several thousand more points and rebounds to his career totals.

How big was Wilt for the NBA. His team set attendance records everywhere he went. Why is that important? Because following Wilt's staggering 61-62 season, the Philly ownership sold the team to a group based in San Francisco. Why? Because they were offered $850,000 for it, which was considerably more than the $50,000 that they had paid for it orginally. Keep that figure in mind, too, because I will bring it up later.

Chamberlain's Warriors relocated to the West Coast, but not all of the players joined him. HOFer Paul Arizin, already in his 30's, decided to retire. And the Warriors also shipped off their other HOFer, Tom Gola (who is perhaps near the very top of the WORST NBA HOFers of all-time.)

In any case, the Warriors had perhaps the worst roster in NBA history. They had a total of 16 different players on that roster, and some five of them would only be in the NBA for a short stint. Some posters here will point out that Wilt had two "all-star" teammates in that 62-63 season, in Guy Rodgers and Tom Meschery, but the reality was, those two were no more thanabove average, at best players. To be sure, Rodgers was a great passer, and would lead the league that year in assists...but unfortunately, he shot way too much. And, in comparing his FG% against the league averages, he may very well have been the WORST shooter in NBA history. He even had one season in which he shot nearly 100 points BELOW the league average. Meanwhile, somehow Meschery made the all-star team in that 62-63 season, with a 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and .425 FG%, but it would be his ONLY all-star appearance. And even with those ordinary stats, he was still SF's second best player. And, the fact was, both of those guys would have been sitting at the very END of the Celtic bench in that 62-63 season...a team that boasted NINE HOFers (AND a HOF coach, as well.)

Chamberlain had an extraordinary season in 62-63. In fact, in terms of statistical domination, it may very well have been the greatest in NBA history. He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories. He ran away with the scoring title, at 44.8 ppg (Baylor was next at a distant 34.0 ppg.) He led the NBA in rebounding at 24.3 (on a team that only grabbed 58 per game.) And he set a FG% mark (at the time...that he would break THREE more times) at .528. Keep that figure in mind, as well, because I will bring that up in a moment. And, despite his team only putting up a 31-49 record, Chamberlain ran away with the advanced stat of Win Shares, at 20.9. Thinks about that for a moment...Wilt was directly responsible for 67% of his TEAM's wins. BTW, for the advanced stat geeks, Chamberlain also recorded a PER of 31.8, which is the all-time record.

Once again, though, Wilt's teammates were just AWFUL. I mentioned Wilt's record-setting .528 FG%. However, his teammates collectively shot just .412 without his percentage....which would have been WAY below gthe worst team in that category, which was at .427. Still, that 31-49 record was somewhat deceptive. Their differential was only -2.1 ppg. They lost 35 games by single digits. And they were only involved in eight games of 20+ margins (and only one of 30), and they went 4-4 in those games. BTW, they only went 1-8 against the champion Celtics, but six of those games were very close...and Wilt averaged 38 ppg against Russell in those nine games...including one game of 50.

How bad was that roster? After that season, the Warriors brought in a new head coach, Aex Hannum, and one of his first orders of business was to see just what kind of a roster that he had inherited. He scheduled a scrimmage with that roster, sans Chamberlain, against rookies and undrafted players. And, he was shocked when the Warriors lost the game.

Even more remarkable, was the fact that Wilt would take that cast of clowns to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and to the Finals, where, despite Wilt outscoring Russell by a 29-11 margin per game, and outrebounding him by a 27-25 margin per game, and outshooting Russell by a .517 to .386 eFG% margin, the Celtics, and their EIGHT HOFers (Wilt had ONE other HOF teammate...rookie Nate Thurmond, who played part-time, out of position, and shot .395), won a couple of close games en route to a 4-1 series win.

to be continued...

Still, despite making the Finals, the city of San Francisco never took to the Warriors. Their attendance was just horrible. And their ownership was in financial trouble to boot. And to make matters MUCH worse, Wilt did not feel well before the start of the 64-65 season. He missed the SF's first seven games...and as expected, they went 1-6. He mysteriously lost weight, and he was in a weakened condition. The Warrior team physicians ran a battery of tests on him, and they concluded that he had a heart ailment. The Warrior ownership was now in panic mode. They were in financial straits, and now their lone meal ticket was a walking time bomb.

To Wilt's credit, he PLAYED. Not only that, but the NBA had decided to widen the lane before the start of the 64-65 season, in hopes of curtailing his overwhelming dominance. In Wilt's 63-64 season, he averaged 36.9 per game on .524 shooting. In the first half of the 64-65 season, and with the now widened lane, Chamberlain was averaging 38.9 ppg on .499 shooting (and BTW, he would averaged 33.5 ppg on a then record .540 FG% the very next year.) So, despite every effort to contain Wilt's dominance, he was still laying waste to the NBA, and this, despite being nowhere near 100%.

The panic-stricken Warriors, and with a putrid roster that was 11-33 at the time, finallly decided to pull the trigger and trade Wilt. BTW, as a sidenote, the Warriors were a terrible 10-27 with an ill Wilt...and would go 7-36 without him.

I mentioned that, primarily because of Wilt, the Warrior franchise sold for a then whopping $850,000 in '62. Well, a new group of investors in Philadelphia bought the failing Syracuse franchise for $500,000 in 1964. As you can see, Chamberlain's true impact carried beyond the basketball court.

The Warriors traded Wilt to the new 76er team at mid-season, a team that had gone 34-46 the year before in Syracuse, for THREE players, two of whom were decent players...Paul Neumann and Connie Dierking...AND a staggering (at the time) amount of $150,000.

So, that was the first "pennies on the dollar" trade that Simmons mentions in his book.

BTW, when Wilt went back to Philly, he went to his personal physician, who diagnosed Chamberlain's ailment as a case of pancreatis. Soon Wilt was back to a 100%, and the result was amazing. Chamberlain took another bottom-feeding roster, that would finish the 64-65 season at 40-40, to a first round 3-1 series romp over the 48-32 Royals, and then, playing brilliantly the ENTIRE series (he would averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg in the series), Chamberlain nearly led his team to perhaps what would have been the greatest upset in NBA playoff history. His 40-40 76ers took the HOF-laden (SIX of them) 62-18 Celtics, at the apex of their dynasty, to a game seven, ONE point loss (and had Havlicek not stolen their last ditch inbounds pass, who knows?)

Incidently, Simmons never goes into much detail in these trades for "pennies on the dollar", but think about this...

Chamberlain came to a crappy Philly team, and nearly led them to a shocking upset of the vaunted Celtics in his very first season there. In the following season, Wilt would lead the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a FG% mark, AND take the Sixers to the best record in the league. Two years after that trade, the 76ers would post a then record 68-13 mark (which is STILL a team record), en route to a dominating world title, that included a 4-1 annihilation of the 60-21 Celtics in the ECF's. And, in his last season in Philly, he would lead the NBA in assists and take the Sixers to the runaway best mark in the league again, at 62-20. Unfortunately, a RASH of injuries just DECIMATED that team, and they subsequently dropped a game seven to the eventual champion Celtics, by FOUR points.

In any case, that "pennies on the dollar" trade became a HUGE money-maker for the ownership of the 76ers.

Next...the OTHER "pennies on the dollar" trade...

Wilt was traded twice in his career, and somehow Simmons came to the conclusion that he was traded for "pennies on the dollar."

I have covered the first one, and now I will address the second one. Here again, we need a little background first.

Wilt and the 76er owner, Ike Richmond, became great friends after the first trade. Chamberlain considered him somewhat of a "father" figure. And according to Wilt, the two came to a verbal agreement in which Wilt would eventually be able to acquire part ownership of the franchise.

However, in a game in Boston in 1965, Richmond suffered a heart attack, and was declared DOA.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain[/url]

[QUOTE]In the 1967

[QUOTE] why Chamberlain was traded three times (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?[/QUOTE]

Shaq was traded once at his peak.

And Kareem was traded once and at his peak...

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Learn the facts? Oh brother, right I'm sure you know much more than I about this topic. I misread and believed you were talking about the '61-62 season, I had some articles bookmarked on the 61 playoff series but google news archives appears to be down, Phila hopefully has something saved. I recall coverage pointing out Swede Halbrook played Wilt for at least part of that series and played (defensively) quite well. Wilt still averaged 37 on him. At the end of the day you're still talking about a team that was not deep nor talented beyond Wilt and the aging Arizin, at that time you needed much more in a smaller league, they didn't have any fighting chance in the playoffs until Frank McGuire coached that squad the following year to feed Wilt the lions share of offensive possessions. I don't know what more you wanted from him in the '61 playoffs, are you implying he didn't do his job? Because he did, he played well. 37 a game in the playoffs, that's pretty damn dominant.[/QUOTE]


37 PPG is misleading, when sample is so small (only 3 games). Game by game:

[CODE]
G PTS RBS FGM FGA FTM FTA GAME DIFFERENTIAL
1 46 32 19 39 8 14 -8
2 32 14 13 28 6 10 -1
3 33 23 13 29 7 14 -3

[/CODE]

So Wilt played great in game 1, but not so good in the other two. And the less he shot, the better Warriors played (-1 and -3 pts differential).

Besides it was 0-3 sweep, so how it is possible Warriors as a higher seed weren't able to won at least one game? They were good enough in regular season to won 46 games, but failed to win at least one game vs 38W team? And it's not like Nats were stacked team - as I said, their best player shot 33.6 FG% in playoffs.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Shaq was traded once at his peak.

And Kareem was traded once and at his peak...[/QUOTE]

Shaq was traded at the end of his prime, not peak. KAJ - ok, but only once.

Anyway, your explanations of Wilt trades look good, thank you. (but I wish you would do it in less words ;))

[QUOTE=trueDS]If Russell was the only "thing" to keep Wilt from multiple titles, then please answer to this questions:

-[B] if Wilt was so dominant scorer why he didn't led his teams to better offensive results (ortg)? Sure, weak supporting cast might explain something (but still, Arizin, Gola and Rodgers weren't bad offensive - overall, not only scoring - players), but why Pistons in 1960 with Howell and Shue as best players were better offensively than Warriors? Or NYK with Guerin and Sears? Similar story next year and on several other occasions[/B].

- if we he was so good scorer why he stopped to be volume scorer in 1967 season and his team was so much better offensively? Why his COACH wanted him to shot less if his scoring was unstoppable?

- why Chamberlain was traded three times (including one time during his absolute PEAK)? What other superstars were traded a couple of times during their primes?

- why his team didn't advance to playoffs in 1963? Weak supporting cast? So why Pistons with Howell and DeBusschere did?

- why he didn't dominate injured Reed in G7 of 1970 finals?[/QUOTE]

Arizin played with Wilt for three seasons, and Chamberlain's presence hardly affected his offense, at all. Still, he was nearing the end, and in two of his three playoff series with Chamberlain, he shot .375 and .325.

Gola also played with Wilt for three seasons, and was a decent, but certainly not a great player (and nowhere near a "HOFer.") He also had his best regular seasons of his career WITH Chamberlain. But, in two of his three post-seasons with Chamberlain, he shot .271 and .206. Now, before you blame Wilt, take a look at his entire post-season career. He was simply an awful shooter BEFORE Wilt, and with Chamberlain.

Rodgers? My god, he was arguably the worse shooter, compared to league average, of all-time (well, I believe Rubio is making at run at that distinction now.) But to make matters worse, Rodgers STILL shot the ball. In any case, he basically played the same way, AFTER Wilt, as he did WITH Chamberlain (albeit, he did score a little more, but of course, he took way more shots.)

The reality was, Chamberlain inherited a LAST PLACE roster in his rookie season, and immediately led them to a 49-26 record. He also single-handedly blew away the Nats in the first round of the playoffs (including the must-win clinching performance of 53 points and 22 rebounds.) And in the EDF's, he badly injured his hand at the end of game two of that series, and the swelling was so bad, that it was useless in the next two games, both Boston wins (in fact, in the very next game, he had arguably the worse post-season game of his career, and was badly outplayed by Russell... in a 120-90 loss.) His Warriors fell behind, 3-1, but he came back with a vengeance in the must-win game five, with a 50 point, 35 rebound game. His team lost a game six, by two points. Had he not been injured for two of those games, who knows. In any case, and even with the injuries, he averaged 30.5 ppg on a .500 eFG% (in a post-season NBA that shot .402.)

And the roster would continue to get older and worse. In his 60-61 post-season, Arizin shot .325, and Gola shot .206, and while Wilt put up a 37 ppg, 23 rpg, .469 series (in a post-season NBA that shot .403), his teammates collectively shot .332, and they were swept by a more talented Nats team.

And because of just how poorly his teammates played in that post-season, Chamberlain's coach, Frank McGuire, went to Wilt before the start of the '61-62 season, and asked Wilt to just shoot the ball. It wasn't WILT's idea to take 40 FGAs per game, but rather his COACH's.

The result? Chamberlain led his team to a 49-31 record. Then in the first round of the playoffs, from at least some of the articles that I found at the time, an for some strange reason, Wilt's COACH had him distributing the ball again. It didn't work. And with the series tied, 2-2, and going into the deciding game five, he had Wilt return to shooting the ball again. Chamberlain responded with a 56 point, 35 rebound game, and his Warriors won easily.

They met the 60-20 HOF-laden Celtics in the EDF's. Keep in mind that during their regular season H2H's, Wilt had averaged 39.7 ppg on a .471 eFG% against Russell. The series went to seven games, and Boston won game seven, by two points. Chamberlain had been swarmed the entire game, but was clutch down the stretch, and in fact a basket and subsequent FT had tied the game. But, alas, Sam Jones hit the game winner over Wilt's fingertips, in a two point win. Wilt averaged 33.6 ppg on a .468 eFG% in that series, which was down slightly from his regular season averages against Russell, but keep in mind that during the regular season, the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg on a .426 eFG%. In the '62 playoffs, the NBA averaged 112.6 ppg on a .411 eFG%. And while I don't know what Wilt's teammates shot during that series, they collectively shot .354 in the entire playoffs. (Arizin shot .375, and Gola shot .271 BTW.)

Continued...

[QUOTE=trueDS]Shaq was traded at the end of his prime, not peak. KAJ - ok, but only once.

Anyway, your explanations of Wilt trades look good, thank you. (but I wish you would do it in less words ;))[/QUOTE]

Look, we got off on the wrong foot (and mostly my fault BTW.)

I can see you are an intelligent poster, and you obviously have done your research. You bring up valid points, and argue them well.

We can go back and forth until the cows come home, but I am tired right now. For the moment, at least, let's just agree to disagree.

:cheers:

We can continue these discussions tomorrow night if you like...

[QUOTE=trueDS]37 PPG is misleading, when sample is so small (only 3 games). Game by game:

[CODE]
G PTS RBS FGM FGA FTM FTA GAME DIFFERENTIAL
1 46 32 19 39 8 14 -8
2 32 14 13 28 6 10 -1
3 33 23 13 29 7 14 -3

[/CODE]

So Wilt played great in game 1, but not so good in the other two. And the less he shot, the better Warriors played (-1 and -3 pts differential).

Besides it was 0-3 sweep, so how it is possible Warriors as a higher seed weren't able to won at least one game? They were good enough in regular season to won 46 games, but failed to win at least one game vs 38W team? And it's not like Nats were stacked team - as I said, their best player shot 33.6 FG% in playoffs.[/QUOTE]

I will address this as quickly as I can...

take a look at Syracuse's and Wilt's Warriors SRS in '61. While Chamberlain's team went 46-33, and the Nats could only go 38-41, the Nats actually had a higher SRS (1.92 to Philly's 0.88.)

And I don't have the Nats statistical breakdown in that series, but I do know that, aside from Chamberlain, the Warriors collectively shot .332 from the field (in a post-season NBA that shot .403.) And again, the three games were close (margins of 8, 1, and 3 points.)

Hey Lazers, did Wilt ever have a 50-40 game? If not, what's the closest that he has ever gotten?