Wilt is less clutch than Russell, and Wilt's teammates were less clutch than Russell's. So some of the barely losses are his fault, some of it isn't.
The relationship between Wilt, his teammates and franchise is worse than on teams like Russell Celtics or Duncan Spurs. Wilt is a distraction in offseason haggling with the team over his contract etc. He is complaining that he's not getting enough shots and other times seems not aggressive enough. Ultimately, bad vibes like this does hurt you, and lack of collective unity does make a difference when a team doesn't have it in close games. Wilt had the talent around him for the next dynasty in 67/68 Sixers at the perfect time to catch the declining Celtics, they lost the 2nd year, but so did Russell in his 2nd year. But he quit at the first bad loss just to go to a big market, worse coached team that didn't know how to use his high post passing game the same way, and therefore wasn't nearly as valuable as in his previous situation. This is his fault and the type of move today's stars would make.
Why didn’t Wilt win more?
Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal
Re: Why didn’t Wilt win more?
- Dr Positivity
- RealGM
- Posts: 62,673
- And1: 16,363
- Joined: Apr 29, 2009
-
Re: Why didn’t Wilt win more?
Liberate The Zoomers
Re: Why didn’t Wilt win more?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,598
- And1: 2,017
- Joined: Feb 18, 2021
-
Re: Why didn’t Wilt win more?
Dr Positivity wrote:Wilt is less clutch than Russell, and Wilt's teammates were less clutch than Russell's. So some of the barely losses are his fault, some of it isn't.
I ran weighted averaged for every teammate Russell and Wilt played throughout their careers for WS/48. I used min 3000 career MP with Russell and 2000 MP with Wilt (because he switched teams twice) as the lower bound threshold. Went through each teammates' (approximated) MP for every year they played with each.
For example, West played 356 games alongside Wilt in his career, he played 356 games alongside Wilt in his career and played 39.7 MPG those years. Ergo, approximately 14,133 MP alongside Wilt.
In summary, Wilt's teammates' weighted average for WS/48 was .097, overall (.100 is average, so 3% worse than league average). Russell's weighted average of teammates was .143, or 43% above league average.
I know you'll all probably object, since WS/48 has its obvious flaws, and without on/off it's an approximation...
But I think it gives a very solid ballpark as to whom had better teammates, overall.
Here is the data, here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hthTt1jZsSriTCBYCenyhS2jXmC7RrXZbeuQZ8unp_M/edit#gid=0
Re: Why didn’t Wilt win more?
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,951
- And1: 712
- Joined: Feb 20, 2014
Re: Why didn’t Wilt win more?
70sFan wrote:Greer shot 40.5%, Jones 47.5% on pretty similar scoring, really hard for me to give Greer any edge.
Hal Greer had the best season of his career, while Jones was past his prime at that point. I don't know why you ignore full season and focus only on 7 games sample, Greer was far better player in that season.
The whole thing is ignoring the full season and focusing on the 7 games of playoffs. Wilt's teams had better records than Russell's 4 years in a row, but the topic isn't "Why did Wilt's teams do better in the regular season?" - It's why did Russell's teams win? And for 1969 two of the big reasons are because (1) Cunningham didn't play, and (2) Jones played about as well as Greer.
So yes, Cunningham and Greer were good in regular season, which helped Wilt's teams win more games than Russell that year. But they didn't help him win in the playoffs.
70sFan wrote:I don't care that Costello was old, he was far more effective player than Siegfried ever was. Costello is extremely underrated these days, he was a legit star in his prime and a lot of reports were consistent with him having a positive impact on that team.
Costello played 25 minutes in the 67 playoffs. I dont think his play over Siegfried moved the needle, but it is the year that Wilt's team won anyway.
70sFan wrote:DQuinn1575 wrote:note neither Nelson or Cunningham are playing very much, edge is mostly Havlicek over Walker.
He played 27 mpg, that is a lot for a sixth man.
He played 69 minutes, scoring 11 points in the Playoffs. His advantage over Nelson helped the regular season, didn't really impact the playoffs.
What is impacting the 66 series is Greer shooting 35%. For the series, Russell's teammates shot 41.3%, Wilt's 35.2%. That difference is 24 fg, or 9.6 ppg over the 5 game series. In 1968 it is 46.8% vs .40.1%/ That difference is 40 fg, or over 11 ppg in the 7 game series. So in two series, you have about a 10 ppg difference in teammate's shooting.
Now you can tell me that you think that Russell's help defense is 10 ppg better than Wilt's was - you've looked at this way more than me, but then you are giving Russell so much credit on defense, as you would have to add to that 10 points (1) whatever you give Wilt credit for, and (2) whatever you give Russell's man defense, which is a decent sized number. Or you could give some defensive credit to Jones & Sanders, who were both considered excellent defenders.
I previously thought that with Greer, Cunningham, plus Walker that the Sixers were about as good as the Celtics group of Havlicek and Jones. Looking at it some more, I realize that Cunningham only impacted 1 series, and that Bailey Howell was about as good as Walker.
Re: Why didn’t Wilt win more?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 29,839
- And1: 25,175
- Joined: Aug 11, 2015
-
Re: Why didn’t Wilt win more?
DQuinn1575 wrote:70sFan wrote:Greer shot 40.5%, Jones 47.5% on pretty similar scoring, really hard for me to give Greer any edge.
Hal Greer had the best season of his career, while Jones was past his prime at that point. I don't know why you ignore full season and focus only on 7 games sample, Greer was far better player in that season.
The whole thing is ignoring the full season and focusing on the 7 games of playoffs. Wilt's teams had better records than Russell's 4 years in a row, but the topic isn't "Why did Wilt's teams do better in the regular season?" - It's why did Russell's teams win? And for 1969 two of the big reasons are because (1) Cunningham didn't play, and (2) Jones played about as well as Greer.
So yes, Cunningham and Greer were good in regular season, which helped Wilt's teams win more games than Russell that year. But they didn't help him win in the playoffs.70sFan wrote:I don't care that Costello was old, he was far more effective player than Siegfried ever was. Costello is extremely underrated these days, he was a legit star in his prime and a lot of reports were consistent with him having a positive impact on that team.
Costello played 25 minutes in the 67 playoffs. I dont think his play over Siegfried moved the needle, but it is the year that Wilt's team won anyway.70sFan wrote:DQuinn1575 wrote:note neither Nelson or Cunningham are playing very much, edge is mostly Havlicek over Walker.
He played 27 mpg, that is a lot for a sixth man.
He played 69 minutes, scoring 11 points in the Playoffs. His advantage over Nelson helped the regular season, didn't really impact the playoffs.
What is impacting the 66 series is Greer shooting 35%. For the series, Russell's teammates shot 41.3%, Wilt's 35.2%. That difference is 24 fg, or 9.6 ppg over the 5 game series. In 1968 it is 46.8% vs .40.1%/ That difference is 40 fg, or over 11 ppg in the 7 game series. So in two series, you have about a 10 ppg difference in teammate's shooting.
Now you can tell me that you think that Russell's help defense is 10 ppg better than Wilt's was - you've looked at this way more than me, but then you are giving Russell so much credit on defense, as you would have to add to that 10 points (1) whatever you give Wilt credit for, and (2) whatever you give Russell's man defense, which is a decent sized number. Or you could give some defensive credit to Jones & Sanders, who were both considered excellent defenders.
I previously thought that with Greer, Cunningham, plus Walker that the Sixers were about as good as the Celtics group of Havlicek and Jones. Looking at it some more, I realize that Cunningham only impacted 1 series, and that Bailey Howell was about as good as Walker.
People asked when Wilt had comparable cast, I don't know why I should fixate on their h2h series only.
Re: Why didn’t Wilt win more?
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,167
- And1: 1,520
- Joined: Sep 05, 2017
Re: Why didn’t Wilt win more?
His prime overlapped with the greatest dynasty in sports history and his twilight years were marred by injury.
Wilt's career is a lot like that LeBron hater wet dream hypothetical where Kyrie and Ray Allen miss their threes and he ends up 2-8 in the finals. Many of the narratives surrounding LeBron and his finals losses would have a lot more ground to stand on if we didn't have so many tools to analyze the nuances of his impact and were forced to rely entirely on incomplete box scores, media headlines, and estimates of team ratings.
Wilt's career is a lot like that LeBron hater wet dream hypothetical where Kyrie and Ray Allen miss their threes and he ends up 2-8 in the finals. Many of the narratives surrounding LeBron and his finals losses would have a lot more ground to stand on if we didn't have so many tools to analyze the nuances of his impact and were forced to rely entirely on incomplete box scores, media headlines, and estimates of team ratings.
Doctor MJ wrote:I like the analogy with Curry as Coca-Cola. And then I'd say Iverson was Lean.
Re: Why didn’t Wilt win more?
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,951
- And1: 712
- Joined: Feb 20, 2014
Re: Why didn’t Wilt win more?
70sFan wrote:People asked when Wilt had comparable cast, I don't know why I should fixate on their h2h series only.
I was basing this on the thread title of "Why didn't Wilt win more?"
I assume it meant playoffs.
Regular season (per StatMuse) Wilt is at 64.3% vs say 65.0% for LeBron and 65.9% for Jordan.