RealGM

Kinda curious. All the talk going on lately, and it just seems weird to me that some people say that unless a certain player gets 6 or more titles, they can't be the GOAT.

But a lot of the same people seem to include Wilt in the GOAT conversation. He only has 2 titles in a much smaller league.

I hear about how he's just so statistically dominant that you have to include him, but a few problems with that:

-Pace. Adjust for that, and he doesn't look like such an outlier anymore.
-Team strategy. His team force-fed him the ball to sell tickets, instead of trying to actually win games.
-When he actually won titles, he did so doing his best Bill Russell impersonation and NOT scoring 30, 40, 50 a game, but focusing on defense and passing

Just seems kind of like a huge double standard to say certain players can't be the GOAT because they didn't win enough, and being GOAT isn't about stats...but then include Wilt despite only winning 2 titles as the 4th or 5th scoring option, based on his stats during his earlier years.

I rarely hear Wilt being in the convo for being the GOAT tbh

Bill Russell

That said, GOAT conversation shouldn't put much value on number of rings.

#staywoke

Wilt was the GOAT at smashin broads.

Wilt beat the Russell Celtics at their peak and was on the team that held the best record for over 30 years.

You can't blame anyone of that era for not winning more titles because the Celtics were around.

Add into it that his individual numbers are so monstrous and there it is.

Because a lot of people don't think it's that important...at least those who understand all the dynamics and who he played against, and that teams, not players win championships.

Well, for one thing if rings are the most important determinant in goat, then there are a number of Celtics with more rings than Jordan (John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn). By the rings argument they are greater than Jordan.
For another thing no player in the history of the league has been unluckier than Chamberlain in postseason play. He lost two titles on one play, and two conf. finals on one play. He also lost several more conf. finals due to serious
injuries to him or other key players, '68 being the best example. In '71 West missed the entire playoffs. In '73 West pulled muscles in both legs after the Lakers won the first game of the finals and was basically crippled for the last few games. All the games were close games.
Now great players make great plays, and Wilt is like a lot of other great players who lost games due to great plays by great players from the other team. Sam Jones victimized Wilt twice with great last second plays, once in a conf. finals, and once in the finals . Havlicek did it to Wilt in a conf. finals as well in the last seconds.
And great teams sometimes come down with serious injuries in the playoffs ruining their chances. That happened to Wilt four times.
In short, Wilt was the unluckiest great player in league history. Given the normal breaks, he would have had four or five titles easy. If the breaks actually had gone his way, six or seven.

If Rangz were important, Le 3*/8 wouldn't be in the Goat discussion. Wilt would have at least 5 Rings if Bill Russell didn't exist.

therealbig3 wrote:Kinda curious. All the talk going on lately, and it just seems weird to me that some people say that unless a certain player gets 6 or more titles, they can't be the GOAT.

But a lot of the same people seem to include Wilt in the GOAT conversation. He only has 2 titles in a much smaller league.

I hear about how he's just so statistically dominant that you have to include him, but a few problems with that:

-Pace. Adjust for that, and he doesn't look like such an outlier anymore.
-Team strategy. His team force-fed him the ball to sell tickets, instead of trying to actually win games.
-When he actually won titles, he did so doing his best Bill Russell impersonation and NOT scoring 30, 40, 50 a game, but focusing on defense and passing

Just seems kind of like a huge double standard to say certain players can't be the GOAT because they didn't win enough, and being GOAT isn't about stats...but then include Wilt despite only winning 2 titles as the 4th or 5th scoring option, based on his stats during his earlier years.

Odd post.
1)Most people typically DO discount/handicap Wilt because he only won two rings. The discussion usually revolves around whether he was so good that it overcomes that.
2)Who are these "people" who say that six titles is the mandatory minimum AND then say that Wilt is the greatest. I've never seen anyone say that.
3)Most posters I've read talk about rings as a factor, another piece of evidence, not as some absolute standard.
4)Maybe some people figure that you need to wait until a career is over before things like GOAT are meaningfully debated.
5)Why the prancing around with "some people" and "certain players"? If you mean "why won't people admit that LJ (or whoever) is better than MJ (or whoever)" just say it.

Because for stats geeks, wilts stats makes them jizz in their pants. He is too far off the stats scale to not be in the conversation.

I rarely ever hear Wilt's name brought up in the conversation.

It usually MJ or Kareem. Sometimes people will bring Russell up.

And lately LeBron has been injected.

Because the league has 8 teams in Wilt era.

You rarely hear Wilt's name in the convo for GOAT.

Only time i ever heard it was from a guy that had a weird obsession with him

Wilt Chamberlain is my personal GOAT, but I just heard a great quote from Bill Russell on why he is the GOAT over Wilt and Jordan.

"You pick Bill Russell.... One reason is because he will never distort your defense or your offense. I had games in my peak where I got six shots. I could close out the whole front court. The way I play, my team wins" - Bill Russell

What a **** GOAT quote.

(Video is here: https://youtu.be/46RutBTe-as starts at 5:15 but video is worth watching)

The 1960s Celtics were an aberration. They had by far the most talent in an 8 team league with no salary cap. Switch Wilt and Russell's teams and Wilt be talked about as GOAT and Russell wouldn't be revered as much as he is.

watch1958 wrote:Who are these "people" who say that six titles is the mandatory minimum AND then say that Wilt is the greatest. I've never seen anyone say that.

I've never seen it either, and I keep track of stuff like that.

Of topic: Wilt Chamberlain and Otto Porter must be related. They have the exact same head and face.

Axl Rose wrote:You rarely hear Wilt's name in the convo for GOAT.

Only time i ever heard it was from a guy that had a weird obsession with him

If you're referring to a poster on another forum, I know who you're talking about, but he isn't the only one, just the most fanatical.

The guy who runs The Wilt Chamberlain Archive is another. He's posted on RealGM before, though not as frequently as on the other place, and I actually don't recall the last time he's posted here. He also posts on Reddit under the handle "dantheman9758." He's posted that there are four legitimate GOAT candidates, but his personal belief is Wilt. Which is why he doesn't run the "Michael Jordan Archive," or the "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Archive" or the "Bill Russell Archive."