ConSarnit wrote:The other guys just probably talked to his teammates. FGA per game league leaders 1961-62:
#1 Wilt: 39.5
#2 Bob Pettit: 24.5 #3 Riche Guerin: 24.3
It must have been SUPER FUN to play with Wilt. Perfectly reasonable to take 60% more shots than the next highest guy in the league. Everyone LOVES playing with those guys.
Only one other player (Elgin) has ever had a 30+ FGA per game season. Kareem who was a better and more efficient scorer than Wilt never even had a season with more than 25 FGA.
turnaroundJ wrote:Why couldn’t he win in 1969? Or every year he was with Jerry West?
Yeah what happened for the so called MVP of this thread in the 1962 playoffs?
50.4ppg down to 35ppg in the playoffs on worse efficiency. -15ppg decrease. Any other great declines that much in the playoffs and he'd be raked through the coals.
How valuable really was his 50.4ppg high volume scoring when he was nowhere near that in the playoffs where it mattered most?
In game 7 vs Boston he was nowhere to be found as a go to guy. Paul Arizin went 4-22 and Wilt who averaged 50.4ppg only attempts 15 FGAs? Tom Meschery a rookie was more effective and assertive offensively than '62 Wilt who supposedly is the greatest offensive force in history? What other HOFer in history at their scoring zeniths will you ever find deferring to a guy that goes 4 of 22 with their season on the line?
Wilt was the David Robinson of the 60s. Both were high scoring volume HOF Cs in the regular season that declined statistically in the playoffs and couldn't win a title in such a role. For the most part they couldn't build on their regular season performances come playoff time.
They had to assume a deferential role on offence to better scorers for them to start winning titles.
Seems like the old warrior vs pacifist conflict to me. Warrior spirits like Wilt are a dying breed that's no longer as necessary in the modern world as they were in ancient times. And pacifists don't take kindly to them
Yeah, if Wilt and Shaq had officiating that called fouls for them like they should have, they'd be unstoppable. Centers got away with mugging the both of them and because they were huge and strong they got away with it. Yet guards and wings can barely be touched on drives and they get calls. There really were two sets of rules for these guys. Conversely, Shaq should have also been called for offensive fouls as he backed guys up and that was illegal.
FuShengTHEGreat wrote:Yeah what happened for the so called MVP of this thread in the 1962 playoffs?
50.4ppg down to 35ppg in the playoffs on worse efficiency. -15ppg decrease. Any other great declines that much in the playoffs and he'd be raked through the coals.
How valuable really was his 50.4ppg high volume scoring when he was nowhere near that in the playoffs where it mattered most?
I think it's very clear that Wilt didn't shoot as much in the playoffs because Warriors changed their strategy into more balanced attack. It's not like Wilt shot horribly in the playoffs, he took 10 FGA less than in RS though. Not to mention that the pace in postseason games are definitely lower than in RS:
1962 Warriors in RS: 111.6 FGA , 74.2 rpg, 131.1 estimated pace 1962 Warriors in PS: 100.8 FGA, 65.2 rpg, 119.7 estimated pace
Even with ignoring changed role in postseason, Wilt played around 11.5 possessions less per game in the playoffs. If we calculate his volume scoring per possession, it's clear that the gap is vastly overstated:
1962 Wilt in RS: 28.5 points per75 1962 Wilt in PS: 21.9 points per75
Of course it is still a notable drop off, but Warriors faced two best defenses in the league and as I said, Philly changed their offensive gameplan because it wasn't sustainable for the playoffs environment.
In game 7 vs Boston he was nowhere to be found as a go to guy. Paul Arizin went 4-22 and Wilt who averaged 50.4ppg only attempts 15 FGAs? Tom Meschery a rookie was more effective and assertive offensively than '62 Wilt who supposedly is the greatest offensive force in history? What other HOFer in history at their scoring zeniths will you ever find deferring to a guy that goes 4 of 22 with their season on the line?
We don't have enough footage to make a clear conclusion but we do have a few minutes from that game. My observations:
- Russell did tremendous job fronting Wilt and due to lack of shooters Philly guards couldn't give Wilt the ball, - Wilt in some plays played in the high post, trying to find shooters and cutters - which proves that their gameplan was different than in RS, - Wilt made two clutch baskets to tie the game - one offensive rebound and-1 and another low post score.
So it was combination of Celtics excellent defense and Warriors trying to take Russell away from offensive plays.
About other HoFers deferring to worse teammates - it's not that uncommon:
1. Hakeem Olajuwon in 1993 WCSF attempted 15 shots in 50 minutes in deciding game 7, Maxwell shot just as much as him. 2. Shaquille O'Neal in the deciding game of1996 ECF took only 13 shots in 42 minutes, less than Hardaway who went 9/21 and as much as Scott who went 4/13. 3. Shaquille O'Neal in 2000 WCF game 7 took only 9 shots in 47 minutes, less than Kobe Bryant (9/19) and Glen Rice (4/10), while losing the first 3 quarters by a large amount. 4. Tim Duncan in 2001 WCF deciding game 4 took only 10 shots in 35 minutes, less than David Robinson (5/16), Antonio Daniels (7/14) and Avery Johnson (6/11). 5. LeBron James in game 6 of 2011 Finals attempted 15 shots in 40 minutes, less than Dwyane Wade who went 6/16. 6. LeBron James in deciding game 4 of 2018 Finals attempted 13 shots in 40 minutes, less than Rodney Hood (4/14) and same as Kevin Love (4/13).
I won't bring more examples, I think it's clear at this point. The difference is that Warriors almost beat superior Celtics team in 7 tough games, so it's possible that maybe Wilt did something well? Contemporary reports certainly didn't blame him for scoring too little.
Wilt was the David Robinson of the 60s. Both were high scoring volume HOF Cs in the regular season that declined statistically in the playoffs and couldn't win a title in such a role. For the most part they couldn't build on their regular season performances come playoff time.
They had to assume a deferential role on offence to better scorers for them to start winning titles.
Well, the largest difference between Wilt and Robinson is that Wilt in playoffs faced the toughest defensive competition ever among top 30 players on average, while Robinson looks below average in that aspect. The difference is that Wilt usually held his own against elite defenses, while Robinson collapsed completely:
Spoiler:
Over +2.0 rDRtg - Bad Defense From +2.0 to -2.0 rDRtg - Average Defense From -2.0 to -4.0 rDRtg - Good Defense From -4.0 to -7.0 rDRtg - Elite Defense Below -7.0 rDRtg - All-Time Great Defense
Wilt Chamberlain (1960-68):
RS: 46.8 mpg, 24.7 rpg, 4.5 apg, 36.0 ppg on 52.7% FG, 52.1% FT and 53.8% TS (+5.50% rTS) Against Bad Defenses (10.0% of playoffs games): -- mpg, 23.1 rpg, 8.6 apg, 27.9 ppg on 55.1% FG, 46.4% FT, 54.7% TS (+6.07 rTS%) Against Average Defenses (23.75% of playoffs games): 48.0 mpg, 23.4 rpg, 4.1 apg, 34.2 ppg on 53.4% FG, 44.2% FT, 52.9% TS (+4.58 rTS%) Against Good Defenses (13.75% of playoffs games): 47.9 mpg, 27.5 rpg, 5.3 apg, 26.5 ppg on 49.6% FG, 45.0% FT, 49.9% TS (+1.23 rTS%) Against Elite Defenses (28.75% of playoffs games): 47.3 mpg, 28.4 rpg, 5.4 apg, 25.5 ppg on 50.8% FG, 45.6% FT, 51.0% TS (+2.47 rTS%) Against All-Time Great Defenses (23.75% of playoffs games): 47.7 mpg, 28.7 rpg, 2.9 apg, 31.2 ppg on 50.9% FG, 56.8% FT, 53.4% TS (+5.30 rTS%)
David Robinson (1990-98):
RS: 37.4 mpg, 11.6 rpg,3.0 apg, 2.9 tov, 25.1 ppg on 52.4% FG, 74.5% FT and 59.1% TS (+5.61% rTS) Against Bad Defenses (12.90% of playoffs games): 38.8 mpg, 12.7 rpg, 2.5 apg, 3.1 tov, 27.9 ppg on 60.6% FG, 85.1% FT and 67.8% TS (13.96% rTS) Against Average Defenses (56.54% of playoffs games): 39.4 mpg, 11.6 rpg, 2.8 apg, 3.1 tov, 23.6 ppg on 46.4% FG, 71.8% FT, 53.8% TS (-0.04% rTS) Against Good Defenses (30.65% of playoffs games): 39.4 mpg, 12.8 rpg, 3.3 apg, 2.4 tov, 21.0 ppg on 45.9% FG, 64.8% FT and 51.7% TS (-1.54% rTS) Against Elite Defenses (0.00% of playoffs games): -- Against All-Time Great Defenses (0.00% of playoffs games): --
Here are culminative stats against -2.0 rDRtg defenses or better:
Wilt Chamberlain (66.25% of playoffs games): 47.6 mpg, 28.3 rpg, 4.5 apg, 27.7 ppg on 50.6% FG, 49.5% FT, 51.7% TS (+3.30 rTS%) David Robinson (30.65% of playoffs games): 39.4 mpg, 12.8 rpg, 3.3 apg, 2.4 tov, 21.0 ppg on 45.9% FG, 64.8% FT and 51.7% TS (-1.54% rTS)
Here are culminative stats against -4.0 rDRtg defenses or better:
Wilt Chamberlain (52.50% of playoffs games): 47.5 mpg, 28.5 rpg, 4.3 apg, 28.1 ppg on 50.8% FG, 50.6% FT, 52.2% TS (+3.84 rTS%) David Robinson (0.00% of playoffs games):--
Robinson didn't face ATG defenses in his prime in the playoffs, while Wilt faced them for 2/3rd of his postseason games. Wilt scored considerably more on far better efficiency than Robinson against good defensive teams, Robinson only dominated poor defensive teams and he struggled even with average ones.
As a kid I remember the arguments about Wilt, Bird, Magic, and Kareem as being the greatest. While I never watched Wilt live, I grew up around many that did, which of course means they also watched Russell, yet Russell was never in those conversations outside of saying if Wilt had his teammates he would still be winning championships in the early 80s.
Today when I write or talk about the GOAT, I always rank based on the ones I have seen, because the fact is Wilt clearly has an argument as GOAT but his stats and his lack of championships make it hard to judge just how good he is.
I do think it is both sad and funny how many have included Russell in the GOAT arguments now that never watched him play and attack anybody that has Wilt clearly ahead of him, yet those that watched them argue Russell shouldn't be in the conversation.
The Rebel wrote:As a kid I remember the arguments about Wilt, Bird, Magic, and Kareem as being the greatest. While I never watched Wilt live, I grew up around many that did, which of course means they also watched Russell, yet Russell was never in those conversations outside of saying if Wilt had his teammates he would still be winning championships in the early 80s.
Today when I write or talk about the GOAT, I always rank based on the ones I have seen, because the fact is Wilt clearly has an argument as GOAT but his stats and his lack of championships make it hard to judge just how good he is.
I do think it is both sad and funny how many have included Russell in the GOAT arguments now that never watched him play and attack anybody that has Wilt clearly ahead of him, yet those that watched them argue Russell shouldn't be in the conversation.
Where did you grow up? Many people from the 60s have Russell ranked higher than Wilt. Most players, coaches, and media members from that era have Russell ranked higher.
The comparison I would make is Harden/Giannis. Harden scores more points and is more skilled. Giannis is the better defensive player and teammate. Harden quits on teams and comes up short in the playoffs, and talks about how he should have won MVP awards over Giannis.
Most people now have Giannis ranked higher, but 60 years from now people who are obsessed with PPG and the 3-point shot will talk about how Harden was better.
LAL1947 wrote:This threads reminds me of how Kobe Bryant was robbed of 2-3 MVPs too.
1) 2002-03, when they gave it to boring but likable Timmy Duncan instead of the brash, cocky new kid on the block who had taken the league by storm... scoring 40+ points in 9 straight games, 35+ in 13 straight games... because "he has Shaq". The league and media were also biased against the Lakers winning all team trophies at that time, so were looking for opportunities to spread some of the individual awards around.
2) 2005-06, when they gave it to Steve Nash because of the rape case that had been looming over Kobe's head... despite him averaging 35 PPG and making All-NBA First Defense... first player in the modern NBA to do so.
3) 2006-07, when they gave it to Dirk Novitzki for the same reason... despite Kobe averaging 31.6 PPG and making All-NBA First Defense again.
03 boring duncan deserved it. Kobe couldnt lead the team to a winning record in the games shaq missed to start the year. And Duncan further proved it in the playoffs by singlehandedly (with no all stars) eviscerating a 2 headed monster laker team. Leaving kobe crying on the bench im the blowout elimination game.
06 kobe was the best player but just didnt have the wins. Its like a student having the best grades in the district but not accumulating enough community service hours that were required . Ur not getting the scholarship, son. U just dont quality. Theres a reason he wasnt even runner up. Oh and he also choked a 3-1 lead to rhe mvp.
07: same as 06.
I can think of examples of olajuwon owning d rob, lebron owning d rose, of guys that felt they deserved mvp, had a chance to prove it in the playoffs, and proved their point emphatically.
Kobe? 03 and 06? Got owned and sent home against players either he or his fanboys felt he should have won mvp over that season. Funny how that works. Before anyone brings up the limp argument, Yes its a regular Season award but it was about proving ur point when it mattered most.
NbaAllDay wrote:A lot the bias held against Wilt, is the exact same bias that people show towards Lebron.
It's a lot easier to contextualise how people see the Russell v Wilt arguement around "winning" and who was actually a better player when you swap Wilt for Lebron and Russell for MJ. Obviously i'm not making an arguement either way, i'm just saying it follows a similar path.
You can make the arguement that Russell was better, but starting with this idea that Russell wanted to 'win more' or was just a better 'winner' is so simplistic in it's analysis you may as well be saying MJ > Lebron cause 6>4
Edit: I will recongise that there are accounts that Wilt cared more about his individual production over the team and (for example didnt sleep the night before his 100 point game), but these things should only be considered if these attitudes actually stopped him from doing more, which is hard to articulate year on year.
You have to separate desperately wanting to win no matter what it takes from mentally knowing how to win and what it takes to win, and also understand the 50's and 60's were very early in the league's development curve, so any advantage a player or a team developed was amplified.
I mean Bill Russell came up in an era where players didn't jump to block shots, where coaches told players not to do it. He developed that on his own inspite of objections, and eventually convinced his coaches it was literally a game changer (when done right).
Anyway, the concept that Russell was more of a winner than Wilt is not simplistic at all ... it's very complex. You have to reach well out of the box score and the W-L record to understand it. So even if you didn't grow up in an era where people were debating and dissecting whether Wilt or Russell were the GOAT like we chatter incessantly about MJ and LeBron now; you can still reach back to numerous articles, discussions, and books on the topic about what drove these players and made them great by the media, themselves, and their peers, etc, etc.
Those of us who understand the context behind these players always find it very simplistic when someone who isn't brings up a stats or team based argument to favor Wilt.
Some of us even remember the claims that Jordan would never win anything if he kept dominating the ball like he did early in his career. Alas, we'll never know thanks to Phil Jackson, Tex Winter, and Jerry Krause.
This quote in the first article is something else:
"Tom Gola, driving like a lady motorist in a South Jersey traffic circle, pile up a season-high 26 points"
I don't get the reference, but I'm entertained! So much better than today's over-saturated media space where every title is "You'll Never Guess What Secret Food LeBron Eats Every Day" and the article is just an empty breeding ground for the most insidious of pop-up ads.
rzzzzz wrote:It depends on what you value. Spectacle, individual achievement, you gotta go with Wilt every time. Winning titles? That’s all Russell was about. ....
Well, for what it is worth, Wilt actually won more titles than Bill Russell Wilt Chamberlain 7× NBA scoring champion (1960–1966) 11× NBA rebounding champion (1960–1963, 1966–1969, 1971–1973) NBA assist leader (1968)
Bill Russell 4× NBA rebounding champion (1958, 1959, 1964, 1965)
Now, Bill Russell's teams happened to win more titles than Wilt's but, after all as we all know, basketball is a team sport. Russell's teammates had plenty to do with that for certain.
You realize you just proved my point, right? Basketball is a team sport. It takes special, definitely more intangible, skills to get your team to beat another team. Wilt played with guys like West, Baylor, Cunningham, Greer, Walker, Jackson and on and on. And he played well with them. As I said, I think his ‘67 squad was better than any of Russell’s. GOAT worthy. If you think individual achievements are most important, he’s your guy. If you think championships are most important, it’s Russell.
But the fact that he consistently scored considerably less in the playoffs than he did in the regular season literally every single year, and his career playoff scoring average being almost 10 ppg less than his career regular season scoring average , is problematic.
The thing is you couldn't measure Russell's full game from a stat sheet so even if his numbers went down it didn't mean his game did. If blocks and steals were kept in their era I bet Wilt would go for those records to just to show up people like he did with assists.
Wilt could have shown he dominant he was when Russell left the picture in 1969 but it didn't fully show.
The Greatest of All Time debate in basketball is essentially who has the greatest basketball resume of the player who has the best highlights instead of who is the best player
MaxZaslofskyJr wrote:Well, for what it is worth, Wilt actually won more titles than Bill Russell Wilt Chamberlain 7× NBA scoring champion (1960–1966) 11× NBA rebounding champion (1960–1963, 1966–1969, 1971–1973) NBA assist leader (1968)
Yeah that's not how it works.
He has more individual accomplishments. He has far fewer titles.
canada_dry wrote:Wilt certainly is one of the goats.
But the fact that he consistently scored considerably less in the playoffs than he did in the regular season literally every single year, and his career playoff scoring average being almost 10 ppg less than his career regular season scoring average , is problematic.
His playoff scoring was really rather unremarkable compared to his regular season scoring. Of course the reason he scored so much was he took the most shots per game in NBA history. I think he has the three highest seasons in field goal attempts per game. Obviously his peers were not as impressed by that.
Magic#1 wrote:We have won two playoff games in two years. If we decide to keep this team for the next two years, maybe it will feel like we won a series.
70sFan wrote:Even in his absolute best 2000 season, Shaq wasn't willing to step out of the paint. I tracked 30 Shaq MVP season games, including almost all from playoffs and his P&R defense was always very concerning.
Wilt was far more consistent and intense defender than Shaq, it's not up to any debate.
I agree, but I'd say his biggest stinkers are 1968 ECF and 1969 Finals. He was injured in 1968 ECF, but he still played poorly. 1969 is inexcusable, though he didn't actually play bad in game 7.
I definitely wouldn't hold too much criticism for his 1970 finals, as he shouldn't have played in that series. He also had a lot of very bright moments in elimination games, some examples:
1962 game 5 vs Nationals: 56/35/1 1964 game 7 vs Hawks: 39/30/6 on 62 TS% 1965 game 7 vs Celtics: 30/32/2 on 72 TS%, including clutch baskets to tie the game in last possessions 1970 game 7 vs Suns: 30/27/6 on 59 TS% 1971 game 7 vs Bulls: 25/19/9 on 64 TS% 1973 game 7 vs Bulls: 21/28/4 on 60 TS%, including game saving block and game-winning assist
Without much footage, narratives can go a bit too far.
I 100% agree with that take and personally, I think that Russell was better than Wilt.
Thanks for correcting me. It's helpful.
I think you provided some good points and I don't disagree too much with your take. Wilt fans overrate him to death, but there are a lot of misconceptions about his career that turned him into someone he never was.
It's such a shame that we still don't have enough footage to get a clear conclusion of how he played. I still hope NBA will release something for 75th anniversary that could help us.
I found the passage from When The Garden was Eden by Harvey Araton (which does mention the torn knee tendons Wilt suffered before the 1970 playoffs, his layered and complex personality, as well as his social activism):
"Unable to string titles together like his rival, Chamberlain went out of his way to convince people that basketball did not define him. He took the opportunity to lecture reporters on the dangers of fueling America's obsession with winning at all costs-a worthy discussion, then and now, but made at a rather questionable juncture: soon after his 45-point, 27-rebound performance in Game 6. Teammates rolled their eyes, chagrined at the latest iteration of Wilt being Wilt. Was he already making excuses for what he feared or expected would happen in New York? One of his teammates told Sports Illustrated: "You play the whole season to win, don't you? Isn't that what competition was all about?" Another one, requesting anonymity for fear of coming off disrespectful to a deceased man, told me, "We were dumbfounded. For the second year in a row, it was as if he was saying, 'It doesn't really matter.' After we all - Wilt included - worked so hard to get there."
Compelling character. Just imagine how polarizing he would be in today's society.
anatomicbomb wrote:This quote in the first article is something else:
"Tom Gola, driving like a lady motorist in a South Jersey traffic circle, pile up a season-high 26 points"
I don't get the reference, but I'm entertained! So much better than today's over-saturated media space where every title is "You'll Never Guess What Secret Food LeBron Eats Every Day" and the article is just an empty breeding ground for the most insidious of pop-up ads.
NbaAllDay wrote:A lot the bias held against Wilt, is the exact same bias that people show towards Lebron.
It's a lot easier to contextualise how people see the Russell v Wilt arguement around "winning" and who was actually a better player when you swap Wilt for Lebron and Russell for MJ. Obviously i'm not making an arguement either way, i'm just saying it follows a similar path.
You can make the arguement that Russell was better, but starting with this idea that Russell wanted to 'win more' or was just a better 'winner' is so simplistic in it's analysis you may as well be saying MJ > Lebron cause 6>4
Edit: I will recongise that there are accounts that Wilt cared more about his individual production over the team and (for example didnt sleep the night before his 100 point game), but these things should only be considered if these attitudes actually stopped him from doing more, which is hard to articulate year on year.
You have to separate desperately wanting to win no matter what it takes from mentally knowing how to win and what it takes to win, and also understand the 50's and 60's were very early in the league's development curve, so any advantage a player or a team developed was amplified.
I mean Bill Russell came up in an era where players didn't jump to block shots, where coaches told players not to do it. He developed that on his own inspite of objections, and eventually convinced his coaches it was literally a game changer (when done right).
Anyway, the concept that Russell was more of a winner than Wilt is not simplistic at all ... it's very complex. You have to reach well out of the box score and the W-L record to understand it. So even if you didn't grow up in an era where people were debating and dissecting whether Wilt or Russell were the GOAT like we chatter incessantly about MJ and LeBron now; you can still reach back to numerous articles, discussions, and books on the topic about what drove these players and made them great by the media, themselves, and their peers, etc, etc.
Those of us who understand the context behind these players always find it very simplistic when someone who isn't brings up a stats or team based argument to favor Wilt.
Some of us even remember the claims that Jordan would never win anything if he kept dominating the ball like he did early in his career. Alas, we'll never know thanks to Phil Jackson, Tex Winter, and Jerry Krause.
