Why Wilt is not a top 5 player of all time.

[ShaqAttack3234]

People look at his stats and rank him as a GOAT candidate without looking at pace and minutes and with a heavy emphasis on regular season stats. Yet Tiny Archibald seems to be considered in the top 40-50 range despite having a 34/11 season on good efficiency becoming the only player to lead the league in scoring and assists in the same season(prior to '69 league leaders were awarded based on totals, not averages).

After some of my own research and mostly research Fatal9 did, I can't see a legit argument for Wilt being top 5.

First of all, in Wilt's 1962 season, individual stats were through the roof. Oscar Robertson averaged 31/13/11 on 48% shooting, Elgin Baylor averaged 38/19/5 while sharing the ball with Jerry West, Bill Russell averaged 19/24/5, Bob Pettit averaged 31/19/4, Walt Bellamy averaged 32/19/3 and Jerry West averaged 31/8/5 in just his second season.

Then consider that Wilt played every minute of the season excluding the end of an OT game where he was ejected. Now every team is involved in blow outs which means Wilt was out there stat-padding in blowouts. The following season, he averaged 45/24/3, but his team was just 31-49, they missed the playoffs and again, Wilt averaged 47.6 mpg which means plenty of stat-padding in blowouts. More on that later. In fact, putting up those numbers on a team that bad shows that those stats aren't nearly as impressive as they look. Can you think of any other top 10 player losing that much in their prime? Much less in a season where they were healthy and played every game? Hell, in '65 his team was 11-33 before he was traded to Philly. Once again, name another top 10 player of all time losing like that in their prime.

But now on to the real important stuff, the playoffs.

1960- Points and rebounds dropped a bit from the regular season, but his FG% went up and it was his rookie year so no complaints.
1961- Had homecourt advantage, but was held to 46.9% shooting by Red Kerr and was swept.
1962- His scoring average dropped by 15.4 ppg, his FG% dropped way down to 46.7% and he had a TS% of 50.8%, awful for a center. Now he did have a 56 point game vs Syracuse, but on 22/48 from the field and 12/22 from the line. Sorry, that doesn't amaze me. Now on to the Boston series.

Wilt averaged 33.6 ppg apparently, but even those numbers were inflated. I really wish I could find shooting percentages for the series.

Game 1- Boston won 117-89, Wilt had just 12 points in the first half meaning he probably stat-padded his way to those 33 points with the game out of reach.

Game 2- Wilt had 42 and won, but he allowed Russell to score 31 on him.

Game 3- 35 points, but Russell outscored Wilt 21-13 and out-rebounded him 14-11 in the first half giving Boston a 21 point halftime lead. Russell finished with 31 again. So more stat-padding.

Game 5- Wilt had 30 points and Russell had 29. But Wilt shot 4-13 in the first half and had just 11 points in the half while Russell out-rebounded him 11-9 to give Boston a 23 point halftime lead. Once again, more stat-padding by Wilt.

Game 7- Wilt had just 22 points and Russell again nearly matched him with 19.

To put that in perspective, Wilt outscored Russell by exactly 31.5 ppg during the regular season, yet as you can see, Russell was basically matching Wilt's offensive output in some games and in game 3, Russell outscored him by 8 leading Boston to a 21 point halftime lead.

1964- Russell held him well below his season scoring average in the finals and his stats in general for the playoffs were about as good as the regular season, but his scoring average dropped in the finals by almost 8 ppg from his season average. Regardless, I can't call his finals series poor, or say he choked, and in fairness, in the footage I've seen, Boston clearly had a much more talented team. He did average 27.6 rpg as well.

1965- It does seem that he played well vs Boston in that close 7 game series, but again, in the playoffs, his scoring numbers fell off but 29 ppg on a TS% of 29 ppg is impressive for the playoffs regardless.

1966- Horrible TS% of 50% in the playoffs. He did have a 46/34 game in the elimination game on an impressive 19/34 from the field, but he shot 8/25 from the line and they lost. Also, prior to that Wilt had averaged 23.5 ppg on 47-48% shooting in the first 4 games and Philly was in a 3-1 hole.

1967- Nothing really negative to say here. Regardless of era, 24/24/8 on 68% shooting on a 68-13 team is phenomenal. In the limited footage available, Wilt seemed to be an absolute monster defensively. 22/29/9 for the playoffs on 58% shooting is also incredible, particularly on a championship team. But one interesting thing is that, Wilt finally won, but it was the 1st title where he wasn't relied on to be the big time scorer. He was tied for 2nd on the team in scoring during the playoffs and 5 ppg behind Hal Greer. 5th on the team in the finals at 17.7 ppg on 56% shooting. He did average 28.5 rpg and 6.8 apg and shoot 56%, but he shot 30.6% from the line. Regardless, a legendary season.

1968- Averaged 24/24/9 on 60% shooting in the regular season on a 62 win team and 24/25/7 in the playoffs, but due to his FG% dropping to 53% and his FT% being at just 38%, his TS% was a subpar 51%. But that's not the main point of emphasis here.

Wilt had a 3-1 lead in the EDF vs Boston. Now lets look at game 6 and 7.

Game 6- Hal Greer scored an extremely efficient 40 points for Philly(15/24 from the field, 10/13 from the line), but the 76ers lost. Why? Well Wilt had 20 and 27 rebounds, but on 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line. That is just embarrassing. I've heard of players having more FGA than points, but more FGA and FTA each than points? No excuses, that's choking, a chance to close out the series and Wilt turns in what was probably one of the worst playoff performances ever by an all time great, much less in their prime despite his teammate stepping up big time. Russell had 17 points and 31 rebounds.

Game 7- Wilt had 34 rebounds, but just 14 points on 4/9 shooting and 6/15 from the line. Despite not getting touches in the half, it's well documented that he wasn't demanding the ball and when he got the ball, he was passive.

That's how you choke away a 3-1 lead. For the series Wilt averaged 21.7 ppg, 25.1 rpg and 6.7 apg, but most likely on poor efficiency and he came up small when it mattered the most. BTW, the only other ptop 10 player to lose a 3-1 lead was Kobe in 2006 and his team were under dogs and Kobe did everything he could to end it in game 6 with a 50 point game, but we all remember Tim Thomas.

1969- Wilt averaged 20.5 ppg on 58.3% shooting, but fell to 13.9 ppg on 54.5% shooting in the playoffs and 11.7 ppg in the finals including 8 points in game 6 when LA had a chance to clinch. The Lakers were heavily favored and Wilt's offensive production was nearly cut in half. His TS% in the playoffs was an Iverson-esque 51.8%.

He played well in the playoffs in the '70s and was part of another great team in '72, the 69-13 Lakers who won 33 games in a row and he had a hell of a finals series, but in the end, he won just 2 titles and he had numerous other opportunities. In '62, it's not hard to imagine Philly winning if Wilt played anywhere near his normal standard, same with '68 and '69. In '66, Philly had homecourt and lost, probably in large part due to Wilt's subpar first 4 games. Coming back from the knee injury and averaging 22/22 in the 1970 playoff also deserves a mention as one of Wilt's accomplishments, but in the end, his playoff career was simply disappointing.

Look at the other top 10 players, Jordan, Kareem, Bird, Shaq, Magic, Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem and Russell. They all won more titles except for Hakeem who was easily a better playoff performer. None of them choked to the extent Wilt did in '68 or '69 and none of them had so many series where they played below their standard and lost, yeah, they all had some, but that many? And picture any of them in their prime, when healthy, much less playing every game, leading a team to a record of 31-49 or even 11-33 midway through the season like Wilt did before the trade in the 1964-65 season.

Basketball is about winning and the greats were expected to raise their games in the playoffs. I'm not hating on Wilt, I acknowledged his accomplishments such as his exceptional '67 season or '72 and didn't blame him for the playoff losses in '60, '65, '70 and '71, but the facts are there, interpret them as you wish. I use to be a Wilt>Russell guy, but after seeing some of these playoff stats and recaps, I can't possibly justify that claim anymore, particularly after researching the 1962 series.

The main argument for him being top 5 is regular season stats, but I've already explained why that's flawed. Aside from playing in blowouts, this is a guy who was known to check the stat sheet at halftime and he was even known to have passed up easy shots to prove he could lead the league in assists in 1968.

[magnax1]

He always seemed to be an amazing player to me from the games I've watched. He plays great defense, you can run the offense through him like a point guard (Which is a huge reason why I like him so much) and he has a pretty skilled, though maybe not very modern post game. Really, he has almost everything I'd want from a player. Its hard for me to understand why you wouldn''t rank him at minimum #5. Obviously his early career stats are extremely inflated, and he wouldn't be averaging 25-25 today, and he was a bit of a choker, but he was still a great player, despite his obvious flaws.

[Sarcastic]

Is this a joke?

You are pulling up circumstantial stats like "1961- Had homecourt advantage, but was held to 46.9% shooting by Red Kerr and was swept." or
"Game 1- Boston won 117-89, Wilt had just 12 points in the first half meaning he probably stat-padded his way to those 33 points with the game out of reach." as reasons why Wilt is not a top 5 player?

Do you realize he averaged over 20 rebounds a game for 12 consecutive years? Do you understand how sick that is?

[PHILA]

Don't feed the troll.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Is this a joke?

You are pulling up circumstantial stats like "1961- Had homecourt advantage, but was held to 46.9% shooting by Red Kerr and was swept." or
"Game 1- Boston won 117-89, Wilt had just 12 points in the first half meaning he probably stat-padded his way to those 33 points with the game out of reach." as reasons why Wilt is not a top 5 player?

Do you realize he averaged over 20 rebounds a game for 12 consecutive years? Do you understand how sick that is?

Yes, Wilt was a great rebounder, but you're one of those idiots who just hears 20 rpg and doesn't have the intelligence to put it in perspective. jerry lucas averaged 20 rpg too, so did Bob Pettit and Elgin Baylor, a 6'5", high scoring SF came 0.4 per game away from doing it.

Rodman put up insane rebounding numbers, yet he's not even considered a likely hall of famer.

And yes, playing every minute, even in blowouts suggests stat-padding.

Don't feed the troll.

Oh, the irony. The same guy who spams every Wilt related thread with paragraphs of copy and pasted text as well as .gifs of Wilt working out.

[che guevara]

Where do you rank him all time?

Is this a joke?

You are pulling up circumstantial stats like "1961- Had homecourt advantage, but was held to 46.9% shooting by Red Kerr and was swept." or
"Game 1- Boston won 117-89, Wilt had just 12 points in the first half meaning he probably stat-padded his way to those 33 points with the game out of reach." as reasons why Wilt is not a top 5 player?

Do you realize he averaged over 20 rebounds a game for 12 consecutive years? Do you understand how sick that is?

It's much less impressive when adjusted for minutes and pace, though he is still one of the greatest rebounders of all time.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Where do you rank him all time?

Up until recently I had him top 5, as recent as 6 or so months ago, I considered him a GOAT candidate. In the OP, I listed 9 players who to me, seem like clearly better player performers, 8 of whom won more, at the moment, I can only rank Wilt in the 8-10 range, no more, no less.

Actually, the research I've done on Wilt as well as all of the stuff Fatal has found has given me a new found respect for Russell. There's a reason why Russell was voted MVP in Wilt's 50/26 season and why Russell probably outplayed him in the '62 EDF, shut him down in game 6 and game 7 of the '68 EDF while leading his team from down 3-1 to beat Wilt's team and shut down Wilt in the '69 finals while his Celtics beat the heavily favored Lakers.

And yes, Wilt has an argument for being the greatest rebounder ever, but I don't consider him to be in a different class than Rodman, Russell and Moses Malone in that category.

[Fatal9]

1965- It does seem that he played well vs Boston in that close 7 game series, but again, in the playoffs, his scoring numbers fell off but 29 ppg on a TS% of 29 ppg is impressive for the playoffs regardless.

That was also the year he got traded from his team after all he could lead the Warriors to was a 11-33 record at the time of the trade. That was the two years after he led his team to 31 wins despite playing in every game. I don't understand the whole "luck" angle for that '65 series. Yes Havlicek made the steal, but Hal Greer hit a 35 footer at the buzzer to send game 4 to overtime. If that doesn't happen, the series is over in 5.

His statpadding to hit 30+ pts in playoff games vs. Russell actually cracks me up. Seemed like so many recaps would start with, Russell outplayed Wilt in the first half, the game was out of reach but Wilt posted 15 pts in the fourth quarter. It's almost as if he was content creating an illusion through stats that he was outplaying Russell in most playoff games.

The '68 series is inexcusable. Your teammate gives you 40 pts to help you close out a series, and all you can manage is 20 pts on 6/21 shooting and 8/23 from the line? And then seemingly hide away from the ball in the game 7 which was a close game from start to finish? His playoff record is just so poor, I can't put him in the top 5 either. '69 finals too, almost had his offensive production cut in half during the finals.

If you look at his career in detail, especially in the playoffs where you can break it down game by game, he is the least impressive top 10 player. You also need to have a decent perspective on some of these numbers, can't just look at 30 rebounds and say "great game" when games had 150+ rebounds available.

[Sarcastic]

Jerry Lucas did 21.1 and 20.0 in 2 years.

Wilt did 27.0, 27.2, 25.7, 24.3, 22.3, 22.9, 23.5, 22.3, 24.6. 24.2, 23.8, and 21.1.
He then followed that up with 18.4, 18.2, 19.2, and 18.6.

If you don't see the difference, then I don't know what to say.

[Micku]

For me I think it's an era issue. As you said, the minutes and pacing do have a lot to do with it, but it's more than that. It's the way the game is called, the way the coaches play their players, and how the game is played. Things change. I don't think Wilt will average the same stats if he played today's game, but that doesn't mean he isn't a great player. Vice versa for players in today's game.

You have to take the era into consideration.

[magnax1]

While theres nothing wrong with ranking Russell higher then Wilt, I don't think its fair at all to rank Wilt in the 8-10 range. During Wilt's time with the Lakers, Russell himself even said Wilt played better then Russell in the same role on LA. I don't really want to look up the quote, But I'm sure if you googled it it wouldn't be to difficult to find.

[Sarcastic]

While theres nothing wrong with ranking Russell higher then Wilt, I don't think its fair at all to rank Wilt in the 8-10 range. During Wilt's time with the Lakers, Russell himself even said Wilt played better then Russell in the same role on LA. I don't really want to look up the quote, But I'm sure if you googled it it wouldn't be to difficult to find.

Switch Russell for Wilt, and Wilt ends up with all the rings. It's not even a question.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Jerry Lucas did 21.1 and 20.0 in 2 years.

Wilt did 27.0, 27.2, 25.7, 24.3, 22.3, 22.9, 23.5, 22.3, 24.6. 24.2, 23.8, and 21.1.
He then followed that up with 18.4, 18.2, 19.2, and 18.6.

If you don't see the difference, then I don't know what to say.

Of course Wilt was much better than Jerry Lucas who doesn't even crack top 20 lists, hell, isn't he considered borderline top 50? But that was to put rebounding numbers in perspective. The point was, there were numerous guys hovering around 20 rpg. In the last 30 years, there have been exactly 3 who have topped 15 rpg, Moses Malone and Big Ben were 2 of the 3 and they only did it once each in that time period.

Give Wilt the same percentage of his team's rebounds except on an average 90's or 00's team and in 40 mpg, in his best years, that same percentage of his team's rebounds equates to roughly 15-16 per game. Great, but not as superhuman as the 20+ rpg sound without putting them in perspective.

[Sarcastic]

Of course Wilt was much better than Jerry Lucas who doesn't even crack top 20 lists, hell, isn't he considered borderline top 50? But that was to put rebounding numbers in perspective. The point was, there were numerous guys hovering around 20 rpg. In the last 30 years, there have been exactly 3 who have topped 15 rpg, Moses Malone and Big Ben were 2 of the 3 and they only did it once each in that time period.

Give Wilt the same percentage of his team's rebounds except on an average 90's or 00's team and in 40 mpg, in his best years, that same percentage of his team's rebounds equates to roughly 15-16 per game. Great, but not as superhuman as the 20+ rpg sound without putting them in perspective.

I understand what you are saying, but still if you put him in the modern game he is still dominating the glass like no other.

And we still are not even talking about his scoring numbers yet.

[magnax1]

Switch Russell for Wilt, and Wilt ends up with all the rings. It's not even a question.

I agree, but thats not to take away from how great Russell was either. They are pretty equal, but they dominate in such different ways its tough to compare them. I don't think that there is any doubt that Wilt was an idiot stat stuffer for 3/4th of his career, but when he put his mind to it, he was probably the most dominant player ever. Russell was a player that gave 100% no matter what, and wasn't okay with a loss.