Why do people criticize Wilt Chamberlain for "only" winning two championships?

[Bosnian Sajo]

I'm smarter than you and know more about basketball. Accept that and life would be easier for you :)

How are you gonna say you know more about Wilt than THE Wilt Chamberlain guy on ISH. Hell, he's the guy who put Wilt vids up on youtube, the same ones they used on TNT, Yahoo, and NBC. The man has obviously watched more Wilt games than most basketball fans, and you're just a Jan 2014



Step off, clown.

[Deuce Bigalow]

The fact that he won those two titles makes him the greatest of alltime. Dude was averaging 30/30 vs Russell's Celtics in their playoff matchups

[knicksman]

maybe if he doesn't have the biggest dropoff, he would've won more. No way a player who only has 2 rings and only 1 ring as the man should be considered top 3 GOAT. Plus the more you give responsibility to your teammates, the happier they are and the more likely a team is winning. While wilt wants all the responsibility so he could've great stats same with bron, Oscar, Iverson, arenas so they could win those mvps. Which results in their teammates being unhappy and considered cancers. No one wants to play with these guys that's why they are losers. That's why LeBron has to form a superteam in order to win.

Theres a reason why Russell and Duncan are considered the greatest winners despite their stats.

[AirFederer]

Dude is the all time best play off performer

[Audio One]

maybe if he doesn't have the biggest dropoff, he would've won more. No way a player who only has 2 rings and only 1 ring as the man should be considered top 3 GOAT. Plus the more you give responsibility to your teammates, the happier they are and the more likely a team is winning. While wilt wants all the responsibility so he could've great stats same with bron, Oscar, Iverson, arenas so they could win those mvps. Which results in their teammates being unhappy and considered cancers. No one wants to play with these guys that's why they are losers. That's why LeBron has to form a superteam in order to win.

Theres a reason why Russell and Duncan are considered the greatest winners despite their stats.

Wilt was unquestionably the leader of those Lakers

http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2011...e-1972-lakers/

http://www.lakersnation.com/wilt-cha...on/2013/08/21/

While West and Goodrich combined to average over 50 points a game, the true leader was Chamberlain, it was his defense and rebounding that would create easy fast break opportunities for the rest of the Lakers

And you seem to be contradicting yourself. First you criticize Wilt for not scoring enough, then criticize him for not playing a team game. Well, how do you know the drop-offs weren't somehow attributed to that? And Chamberlain's dropoff can be attributed to other things as well:

-Having to play the GOAT defender Russell and the defensive juggernaut Boston teams, plus great defensive centers like Thurmond, Reed, Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore, Wes Unseld, Dave Cowens, Walt Bellamy, Willis Reed, Bob Pettit, Jerry Lucas, etc
-Him getting the red light, as his coaches were trying to implement a team-oriented game.

And I found this by Psileas:

OK, time to blow up the "choker" myth a bit more analytically: Wilt's regular season (RS) vs playoff (PO) scoring season by season vs the same opponent:

1960:
vs Nationals-- RS: 38, PO: 38.7 (adv. PO)
vs Celtics-- RS: 39.9, PO: 30.5 (adv. RS)

1961:
vs Nationals-- RS: 39.9, PO: 37 (adv. RS)

1962:
vs Nationals-- RS: 48, PO: 37 (adv. RS)
vs Celtics-- RS: 41.7 (incl. games that Russell missed), PO: 33.6 (adv. RS)

1964:
vs Hawks-- RS: 32.8, PO: 38.6 (adv. PO)
vs Celtics-- RS: 29.1, PO: 29.2 (adv. PO)

1965 (playing for Sixers):
vs Royals-- RS: 36.8, PO: 27.8 (adv. RS)
vs Celtics-- RS: 25.0, PO: 30.1 (adv. PO)

1966:
vs Celtics-- RS: 28.3, PO: 28 (adv. RS)

1967:
vs Royals-- RS: 28.6, PO: 28 (adv. RS)
vs Celtics-- RS: 20.3, PO: 21.6 (adv. PO)
vs Warriors-- RS: 20.7, PO: 17.7 (adv. RS)

1968:
vs Knicks-- RS: 22.6, PO: 25.5 (adv. PO)
vs Celtics-- RS: 17.1, PO: 22.1 (adv. PO)

1969:
vs Warriors-- RS: 12.6, PO: 12.0 (adv. RS)
vs Hawks-- RS: 17.9, PO: 19.2 (adv. PO)
vs Celtics-- RS: 16.3, PO: 11.7 (adv. RS)

1970:
Too small RS samples

1971:
vs Bulls-- RS: 21.2, PO: 15.7 (adv. RS)
vs Bucks-- RS: 23.2, PO: 22 (adv. RS)

1972:
vs Bulls-- RS: 8.8, PO: 14.5 (adv. PO)
vs Bucks-- RS: 13.0, PO: 10.8 (adv. RS)
vs Knicks-- RS: 16.8, PO: 19.4 (adv. PO)

1973:
vs Bulls-- RS: 11.5, PO: 12 (adv. PO)
vs Warriors-- RS: 5.7, PO: 7 (adv. PO)
vs Knicks-- RS: 9.3, PO: 11.6 (adv. PO)

RS vs PO: 13-13

Falls by 5+ ppg: 5
Raises by 5+ ppg: 4

Seems pretty even to me. Choker? I don't think so.

Of course, I'm not trying to imply Chamberlain wasn't w/o his faults, but what NBA player, let alone human, isn't w/o their faults? So again I ask, how many rings was he supposed to win, and why?

[iamgine]

Great stats by Psileas. I think the critic has some merit though. According to Psileas' stats, Wilt had his scoring dip in the playoff by 20%-25% 4 times during his high scoring years ('60-'66) out of 10 times. That's 40% of the times. I don't know how bad that is, gotta compare with other high scoring GOATs.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Because they don't know sh!t.

[ILLsmak]

I don't think it's an outright criticism. It's more of a reply or context. People say Wilt (stats) and then someone replies "Yea, but..."

It's a legit gripe. If someone can put up 50 ppg, you'd think he could lead his team to a championship. If you score 50 ppg and don't win a ring, then people are gonna say... why didn't you win, you must have been doing something wrong. Basically, it comes with people knowing he was capable of leading a team to a championship because of his individual dominance.

If Wilt is gonna come out and say, "Well, I just didn't have the team around me... Bill had a better squad." Then he's a bitch, period. I heard Wilt joke about when they played the Cs that he'd try to go out and torch Bill because he knew his team wasn't gonna win. It was a funny joke, but there is probably some truth in it. I know personally if I was on a team... it doesn't matter if we're playing NBA video games online, playing at the YMCA, or at the highest level... if I am getting 50 points per game and we aren't winning, I'm going to be pissed.

It's illogical to say a player was capable of scoring 50 ppg and incapable of winning.

So, in summary, the idea is that IF he was the player his peak stats indicate (which IMO he's NOT... altho he's an all time great, top 10 player), then he'd have won more than one + one role player championship.

It's not a criticism... nobody is 'hating' on Wilt. It's more of a legit rebuttal to those who say due to his name appearing so much in the record books and his statistical dominance, he should be considered the GOAT.

-Smak

[CavaliersFTW]

I don't think it's an outright criticism. It's more of a reply or context. People say Wilt (stats) and then someone replies "Yea, but..."

It's a legit gripe. If someone can put up 50 ppg, you'd think he could lead his team to a championship. If you score 50 ppg and don't win a ring, then people are gonna say... why didn't you win, you must have been doing something wrong. Basically, it comes with people knowing he was capable of leading a team to a championship because of his individual dominance.

If Wilt is gonna come out and say, "Well, I just didn't have the team around me... Bill had a better squad." Then he's a bitch, period. I heard Wilt joke about when they played the Cs that he'd try to go out and torch Bill because he knew his team wasn't gonna win. It was a funny joke, but there is probably some truth in it. I know personally if I was on a team... it doesn't matter if we're playing NBA video games online, playing at the YMCA, or at the highest level... if I am getting 50 points per game and we aren't winning, I'm going to be pissed.

It's illogical to say a player was capable of scoring 50 ppg and incapable of winning.

So, in summary, the idea is that IF he was the player his peak stats indicate (which IMO he's NOT... altho he's an all time great, top 10 player), then he'd have won more than one + one role player championship.

It's not a criticism... nobody is 'hating' on Wilt. It's more of a legit rebuttal to those who say due to his name appearing so much in the record books and his statistical dominance, he should be considered the GOAT.

-Smak

There is zero connection to one player scoring a shit load of points and that persons team winning championships. Anyone who assumes there is one doesn't know basketball. Holding Wilt's 50 against him is asinine, do you hold MJ's 37 against him when his team couldn't even crack .500? Was it his fault? He's capable of scoring 37 yet couldn't win a championship when he scored like that, really? Don't be a hypocrite. Basketball is a 5 on 5 game.

[JohnFreeman]

I am not sure and I have nothing to bring to this thread.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Bill Russel has 11.

I think this is part of the reason.

Wilt is a legit candidate for GOAT. So is Russell with 11 rings. So is Jordan with 6 rings. So is Kareem with 6 rings. Maybe Magic and he has 5.

You can say Wilt didn't win more for this or that, but that fact of the matter is that literally every other GOAT candidate doesn't need to make those excuses. Unless you think I'm missing someone from the conversation? For me it's MJ, Russell, Wilt, or KAJ.

[ILLsmak]

There is zero connection to one player scoring a shit load of points and that persons team winning championships. Anyone who assumes there is one doesn't know basketball. Holding Wilt's 50 against him is asinine, do you hold MJ's 37 against him when his team couldn't even crack .500? Was it his fault? He's capable of scoring 37 yet couldn't win a championship when he scored like that, really? Don't be a hypocrite. Basketball is a 5 on 5 game.

I must not know basketball then lol.

I don't care about MJ. 37 isn't 50 any more than 24 is 37. Points, as used in the Wilt argument are a measurement of his dominance. Wins are pretty much the all-time measurement of any player's dominance. I don't think it's hard to see why people say Wilt should have won more...

If you can put up 50 ppg and are a threat to drop 60 or 70, then you should be able to win a playoff series if you play correctly. Who knows, maybe if MJ had been a bit smarter during his best statistical season, he would have won more then, too.

-Smak

[MichaelCorleone]

Bill Russel has 11.

Bill Russel has 11.

[PsychoBe]

style of play didn't translate to wins when it mattered the most. just that simple. cant even claim the title of best scorer when mj averaged more points in his entire career than wilt did.

[CelticBaller]

He's dead

But to rustle your jimmies, he choked almost every chance he had, not only that he also pulled a LeBron and colluded only to choke