RealGM

1. The Warriors were in the middle of an 11 game losing streak before they traded Wilt to the Sixers. Boggles my mind that a top 10 player in his prime can lose 11 games in a row, regardless of the help.

2. The '65 Sixers had a 21-22 record before they traded for Wilt. With Wilt, they finished the year 19-18 with him and an overall 40-40 record. Again....WTF?

Other notable things from other seasons...

1. The Lakers got worse offensively when they traded for Wilt.

2. The Sixers didn't miss a beat on the offensive end when they traded Wilt to LA. Even winning 55 games without him.

Is Wilt overrated?

That's interesting info. My thoughts may be too broad, but the impression I have is that Wilt was transcendently gifted, to the point that his game was so different from everyone else's that it made him difficult to play with. Even if he got good assist numbers, his game wasn't predicated on making other players better, so he ended up putting up monster numbers on middling efficiency amid limited team success. His combination of size, skill, and athleticism was so unique and omnipresent during his time that it seems to have been challenging for people to play against and around: If you have just the right players around you, or an enormity of talent, you win, but if not you pack the stat sheet from the treadmill and there isn't much middle ground.

In the mid-to-late 60s it seems like Wilt was trying to transition from doing literally everything to being part of a cohesive team - his ppg started to drop, while his rebounding and assists generally increased. But his efficiency didn't really improve for a couple of years, and actually got worse during the period you're talking about, and the same can be said about his teammates. You can see improvements from a number of guys, like Hal Greer, Chet Walker, and Billy Cunningham over the next two to three years. So that's an example of just the right guys around him, and the later Lakers years fit the enormity of talent category.

big men are handcuffed by their perimeter players when it comes to winning games

bearadonisdna wrote:big men are handcuffed by their perimeter players when it comes to winning games

Lol. Not during that era (and many others).

Mean_Streets wrote:1. The Warriors were in the middle of an 11 game losing streak before they traded Wilt to the Sixers. Boggles my mind that a top 10 player in his prime can lose 11 games in a row, regardless of the help.

2. The '65 Sixers had a 21-22 record before they traded for Wilt. With Wilt, they finished the year 19-18 with him and an overall 40-40 record. Again....WTF?

Other notable things from other seasons...

1. The Lakers got worse offensively when they traded for Wilt.

2. The Sixers didn't miss a beat on the offensive end when they traded Wilt to LA. Even winning 55 games without him.

Is Wilt overrated?

Seems like he was much different after that. Assist numbers way up, scoring efficiency went way up. Though that was the knock on Wilt compared to Bill Russell. Ie, flashy numbers vs. winning player.

bearadonisdna wrote:big men are handcuffed by their perimeter players when it comes to winning games

Bro this was the 60s.

https://vault.si.com/vault/1965/01/25/another-big-bluff-by-big-wilt

A little context for how it was viewed at the time. He didn't really get away with his antics back then and he would get absolutely crucified for it today.

And to be fair, Wilt did improve the Sixers immensely and anyone saying otherwise is being disingenuous. They were a tipped ball away from the Finals in 1965 after they traded for Wilt, coming as close to defeating the Celtics as anybody during their legendary run. Wilt learned to adapt and play through a team system more as he had started to do in the 1963-64 season, and within two years the Sixers were embarking on one of the most dominant seasons in NBA history after having been also-rans for a long time before Wilt.

But his tendency to revert to being a mercurial d*ckhead was legendary and is a big part of why his teams often seemed to underachieve.

Wilt had a heart attack right before the season began...

The Sixers actually started off really well post Chamberlain trade before injuries started to derail the team if i recall

Not 1 of us could name guy on either of those teams but then sitting here saying oh why couldn’t he win

Narigo wrote:Wilt had a heart attack right before the season began...

The Sixers actually started off really well post Chamberlain trade before injuries started to derail the team if i recall

He had a heart attack in the 1960s?

165bows wrote:

Mean_Streets wrote:1. The Warriors were in the middle of an 11 game losing streak before they traded Wilt to the Sixers. Boggles my mind that a top 10 player in his prime can lose 11 games in a row, regardless of the help.

2. The '65 Sixers had a 21-22 record before they traded for Wilt. With Wilt, they finished the year 19-18 with him and an overall 40-40 record. Again....WTF?

Other notable things from other seasons...

1. The Lakers got worse offensively when they traded for Wilt.

2. The Sixers didn't miss a beat on the offensive end when they traded Wilt to LA. Even winning 55 games without him.

Is Wilt overrated?

Seems like he was much different after that. Assist numbers way up, scoring efficiency went way up. Though that was the knock on Wilt compared to Bill Russell. Ie, flashy numbers vs. winning player.

Wilt was a stat chaser. His scoring numbers fall off significantly once you reach the post season.

Compare his finals scoring average to Russell's finals scoring average if you want a better idea of how they compare when things are on the line...

Roscoe Sheed wrote:

Narigo wrote:Wilt had a heart attack right before the season began...

The Sixers actually started off really well post Chamberlain trade before injuries started to derail the team if i recall

He had a heart attack in the 1960s?

Alleged:

Chamberlain's health became an issue in the 1960s, when his former coach with the then-San Francisco Warriors was quoted as saying Chamberlain might have had a heart attack before the 1964 season. Chamberlain denied it.

https://www.espn.com/nba/news/1999/1012/110895.html

KrAzY3 wrote:Compare his finals scoring average to Russell's finals scoring average if you want a better idea of how they compare when things are on the line...

If you compare Wilt to Russell in head to head matchups in the playoffs, Wilt outscored Russell every time.

og15 wrote:

Roscoe Sheed wrote:

Narigo wrote:Wilt had a heart attack right before the season began...

The Sixers actually started off really well post Chamberlain trade before injuries started to derail the team if i recall

He had a heart attack in the 1960s?

Alleged:

Chamberlain's health became an issue in the 1960s, when his former coach with the then-San Francisco Warriors was quoted as saying Chamberlain might have had a heart attack before the 1964 season. Chamberlain denied it.

https://www.espn.com/nba/news/1999/1012/110895.html

Wow- never knew that. He’d probably be forced to retire in the modern day with such an ailment

Mean_Streets wrote:1. The Warriors were in the middle of an 11 game losing streak before they traded Wilt to the Sixers. Boggles my mind that a top 10 player in his prime can lose 11 games in a row, regardless of the help.

2. The '65 Sixers had a 21-22 record before they traded for Wilt. With Wilt, they finished the year 19-18 with him and an overall 40-40 record. Again....WTF?

Other notable things from other seasons...

1. The Lakers got worse offensively when they traded for Wilt.

2. The Sixers didn't miss a beat on the offensive end when they traded Wilt to LA. Even winning 55 games without him.

Is Wilt overrated?

You're talking about later career Wilt who was years removed from leading the league in scoring. You're not talking about the same WIlt Chamberlain that scored 100 points in a game or averaged 50 points per game.

So no he's not overrated. You're just talking about older Wilt who was on the downside of his career and 4 years away from retirement.

Didn’t watch Wilt. It’s challenging to fathom what kind of player he was. All I can think of is a Shaq/LeBron hybrid that played 48mins per game and had more skill. But teamed up with armatures. Going against a team that was decades ahead of everyone else. With Russell like Duncan

bearadonisdna wrote:Not 1 of us could name guy on either of those teams but then sitting here saying oh why couldn’t he win

Lol speak for yourself. Lots of famous players on Wilt's teams. Thurmond, Greer, Walker, Red Kerr...

Jaivl wrote:

bearadonisdna wrote:Not 1 of us could name guy on either of those teams but then sitting here saying oh why couldn’t he win

Lol speak for yourself. Lots of famous players on Wilt's teams. Thurmond, Greer, Walker, Red Kerr...

You were able to name those guys off the top of your head ?

Well this is very in depth. Maybe it’s because he was playing with teammates shooting 35-38%.

bearadonisdna wrote:

Jaivl wrote:

bearadonisdna wrote:Not 1 of us could name guy on either of those teams but then sitting here saying oh why couldn’t he win

Lol speak for yourself. Lots of famous players on Wilt's teams. Thurmond, Greer, Walker, Red Kerr...

You were able to name those guys off the top of your head ?

...yes? Not like I would know 75% of the players without looking on b-ref, but those are All-NBA caliber players and multiple time all-stars. Larry Costello as well.