Lowest reasonable ranking for Wilt

[penbeast0]

Actually, Boston played at a faster pace than the rest of the league so the scoring difference would be magnified while the rebounding difference would be minimized but the scoring volume and efficiency differential is the key to what I was looking for . . . thanks. So basically, Wilt v. everyone else scores at a lower volume but much more efficiently -- Hakeem+ efficiency bonus when not playing Boston.

As a comparison, Wilt averaged 34.4 ppg on .540fg% and 24.3 rebounds during the regular season in this period.

how did you come up with this ridiculous conclusion? particularly after acknowledging pace is a factor in comparisons. then you just totally ignored pace and act as if 27 ppg in 120-130 poss/game pace is the same as 27 ppg in ~95 poss/game pace. not to mention you ignored Wilt's all-time worst FT shooting (that's a FACT, the guy was the worst postseason free throw shooter of all-time) and went with the FG% alone as a "efficiency bonus".

Wilt's playoff stats in volume scoring role (60-66) are more in line with a guy like Dwight Howard really. beastly finisher and aggressive offensive rebounder, dismal go-to offense when played straight up, hardly efficient anywhere outside 3 ft range, turnover prone (at least on videotape), vulnerable to intentional fouling. lmao @ ignoring the crapload of posts that mentioned all that. it is to be expected though... I mean what can you say in his defense?

to take a good look at Wilt's career we need to divide it into 3 periods:
1) volume scorer (1960-1966)
2) peak Wilt - low post passer (67-68)
3) Lakers Wilt - finisher (69-73)

I'm gonna use per36 mins stats because he wouldn't be playing 48 mins today and they were playing in a lot of blowouts back in the day. and anyways, in those 36 mins he's playing in as many possessions as guys today playing 48 mins because of the 60s pace. needs to be said Wilt put up his best rebounding numbers and efficiency when the games were over. garbage time could just as well be refered to as Wilt time.

1) Wilt's offensive stats as a volume scorer - 24.9 ppg, 50.5 FG%, 52.3 FT%, 2.4 ast. nothing to brag about considering he was also turnover prone. his 52% TS is refered to as choking whenever we're talking about Karl Malone or David Robinson. the latter two were actually more efficient at higher volume. but yeah 25 ppg @ 52% TS is now supposed to be some GOAT scoring. not to mention his teams didn't really get any better with him on the court offensively. somehow he didn't help them win.

2) Wilt's stats at his peak (67-68) - 16.9 ppg, 55.7% FG, 38.4% FT, 5.9 ast. Wilt is actually helping his team win now with his offense. still nowhere near the best offensive players in the league at the time (West, Oscar) but much better than he was putting up empty scoring numbers that never translated into good team offense. still, for all this talk about how peak Wilt was super efficient, he only has 52.8% TS in that period. both Oscar and West laugh at this.

3) Lakers Wilt (69-73) - 12.2 ppg, 53.1% FG, 44.8% FT, 2.8 ast... again only 52.6% TS. the guy is a finisher now. he's supposed to be super efficient in that role because all he does is dunks. but he's still unable to be efficient in the playoffs, after super-efficient regular seasons with close to 70% FG sometimes. classic stat padder getting exposed when it counts.

so all in all, people might be surprised... Wilt was a career 52% TS scorer and he was consistent in this in every period of his career. he was putting up 52% TS as a volume scorer, as a passer, and even as a finisher. yeah sure, Hakeem + efficiency bonus what an absurd statement

You are misreading my statement. I was comparing Wilt RS to Wilt postseason without Russell. Almost every great other than Hakeem's efficiency declines in the playoffs, some only a little bit (Jordan), some quite a bit (David Robinson). During the period from 1960 to Russell's retirement in 1969, Wilt played a full half his games v. the GOAT defensive force of all time and, unsurprisingly, his scoring volume declined as did his efficiency. The surprising part is that Wilt, compared to Wilt in the regular season, had his scoring volume decline v. everyone else but his efficiency took a massive jump as his fg% rose from .540 to .618 . . . a jump appreciably greater even than Hakeem's who is notorious for raising his efficiency in the playoffs . . . but at a cost of scoring volume. That's what I was talking about if you read the post carefully.

[ardee]

I'm very used to the double standards against Wilt here so I'm not even infuriated that the detractors are harping on that tired old 'ppg dropped in the playoffs!!!' argument, when William Felton Russell, in his peak season of '64 that so many think is better than '91 MJ, had his ppg drop by 1.9 and FG% by over 7%.

Why doesn't it matter? Because he contributed so much in other areas.

Of course, Wilt didn't average almost 30 rpg on a regular basis, foul out half the opposing frontline, draw attention from every part of the floor, run the offense from the post, hit cutters, and just be a general problem for opposition on every possession.

Nope, he didn't.

In all seriousness, 6th is IMO the lowest I can see anyone ranking him. The only players I would think have a case to be above him are Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Magic and Bird.

I've re-evaluated a bit and have him at 3, behind Jordan and Russell, and ahead of Kareem and Magic. He had a few down years but his high-impact years like '62, '64, '65-'68 and '71-'72 were just colossal, more than enough more me to justify his high ranking.

[bastillon]

@bastillion, im interested in seeing what players would you take over wilt as an offensive anchor in the playoffs in their primes

offense only? tons, tons of players. Wilt's offense was far from dominant in the playoffs. there were many players during Wilt's own career that were clearly better offensively in the postseason. Oscar, West, Frazier, Kareem, Barry... I'd take a guy like Artis Gilmore over Wilt in the postseason quite easily (actually I've seen a matchup of rookie Gilmore v 72 Wilt, supposedly one of his best years, and A-Train was looking dominant). Dr J. Gervin. Walton. I'd like some evidence that Wilt made big impact offensively in the postseason before engaging in fruitless debates with guys whose arguments have been debunked like million times over.

[Squeedump]

Bastillon it seems to me you rely heavily on assertions for which you provide very little objective evidence. Opinions are fine, but eventually you have to support your opinions and you're often pretty weak in that respect.

But I am curious--from what comes this--no other way to term it--HATRED for Chamberlain? From what I've read about him, he was not only an elite player (wherever you rank him, he's clearly elite) but a pretty darn decent human being, intelligent and thoughtful. Compare this to the annointed GOAT, Michael Jordan, who in many ways was an egotistical jerk who often abused and put down teammates. Jordan isn't alone in this, so not necessarilly targetting him. Rick Barry, another elite player, was also a world-class jerk.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me many times here when I see the older era players being downrated, it boils down to just generational bias, plain and simple. If the shoe fits, as they say, wear it. Many things ARE superior today, that's true, especially in terms of technology. But a thoughtful person looks at the past and acknowledges that some things actually WERE better back then, whether that applies to basketball or not. The game has changed--that is certain. But does that mean its categorically better from top to bottom? I think that's debatable.

[bastillon]

You are misreading my statement. I was comparing Wilt RS to Wilt postseason without Russell. Almost every great other than Hakeem's efficiency declines in the playoffs, some only a little bit (Jordan), some quite a bit (David Robinson). During the period from 1960 to Russell's retirement in 1969, Wilt played a full half his games v. the GOAT defensive force of all time and, unsurprisingly, his scoring volume declined as did his efficiency. The surprising part is that Wilt, compared to Wilt in the regular season, had his scoring volume decline v. everyone else but his efficiency took a massive jump as his fg% rose from .540 to .618 . . . a jump appreciably greater even than Hakeem's who is notorious for raising his efficiency in the playoffs . . . but at a cost of scoring volume. That's what I was talking about if you read the post carefully.

why would I take his numbers against scrub opponents seriously? don't you understand this is exactly the criticism of anti-Wilt posters? take Wilt's performances against Russell, Thurmond, Reed and Kareem and see his production fall of a cliff. see? this is why you can't compare this guy to Hakeem. nobody is questioning whether Wilt could feast on Jerry Lucas, Amare etc. what's wrong with his offense is that it's unsustainable when he's being played well. the very same criticism that guys like Malone and Robinson are receving. I have no doubt Wilt could put up big numbers or that he looked dominant against poor competition, I'm questioning his playoff play because of how he struggled against the best. in the playoffs it matters a lot whether you can maintain your level of play against the best. that's what makes Hakeem and Shaq legendary playoff performers. they were pretty much unstoppable.

[bastillon]

Of course, Wilt didn't average almost 30 rpg on a regular basis, foul out half the opposing frontline, draw attention from every part of the floor, run the offense from the post, hit cutters, and just be a general problem for opposition on every possession.

that's definitely not an accurate description of what was happening. first, when Wilt was a volume scorer:

his 1963 team sucked, they were horrible, everyone knows this and saying otherwise is revisionist history.

Wow, okay. So your premise is the typical “his teammates sucked”, “Wilt was amazing, look at his numbers” and so on, and anything else is "revisionist history".

Here is an article from 1963 which states exactly what I and other posters have written about Wilt, with his OWN teammates saying exactly what we are.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=y8 ... 35,2744031

February, 23, 1963, titled: “Wilt hurts Warriors despite high average”

Some things the article points out:

“The basketball riddle for today: how can a man score 45 points a night and still be a liability to his team?...Wilt’s lassitude is in the sameness of his pattern. He stands close to the basket for dunks or leans back for a fadeaway jump shot. Nothing else.”

To the question of Wilt having poor support (he had two all-stars on his team by the way), an NBA veteran says “if Wilt played like he does with San Francisco, the Celtics would lose too”, he has “slovenly habits which have began to eat away at the Warriors as a team.”

This is what one of Wilt’s “horrible” teammates Tom Gola had to say about his role in the offense around Wilt after he got traded mid-season:

“Some games I was never in it offensively at all. I went one whole half without getting a shot. I was always fouling out of games, or on the verge, because I was the only one laying back to pick up on defense.”

"Willie Naulls, a 20-point scorer for six seasons with New York, is now a 14 point scorer with the Warriors. Willie doesn't drive, and Wilt doesn't pass out."

So he’s possibly having a negative impact on the team offensively and isn’t playing defense. Now it starts to make sense how a player putting up 45/24 can be leading one of the worst teams in the league. This is an example of his greatness? When he is volume scoring the offense is predictable and he is making everyone around him worse, yet his teammates are to blame? This is from the words of someone who who played with him night after night from the time period in question and it is EXACTLY what posters (see Doctor MJ’s “price of anarchy”) write on this board.

This is a guy who is having a negative impact on every single one of his teammates and you want me to place no blame on him for why his team sucks? What good is his volume scoring if he makes the team worse on offense (or at best, having a positive impact but giving the offense a very low ceiling) while doing it? Is the point of the game to put up numbers or win games? Do you consider Adrian Dantley to be a better scorer than Larry Bird? If this is the type of offense Wilt needs to put up his “amazing” averages which apparently a reason he is the “GOAT”, then sorry, his numbers are completely meaningless to me. It’s of no meaning to me when you say Wilt “averaged 44 ppg” to whatever Duncan or KG averaged, he is NOT a better offensive player to me just because of his averages. That’s not how I see the game.

But explain to me how I’m in the wrong or “revising history” on that season for seeing past the numbers, looking into details and then questioning his impact. Is it a coincidence that when most posters on this board took a deeper look into his career that they came out thinking less of him?

Now I know what you’re going to say..."but that was Wilt’s role, he would make more impact if used differently”. But he was used differently in many types of roles in his career and he still was prone to bad habits. Wilt had a bizarre obsession with stats that dictated how he plays no matter if he is volume scoring (where he plays in a way to score as much as possible while hurting the team), whether he is an offensive hub (where he began playing in a way to pad his assist totals which again lowered the ceiling of his teams offensively), whether he is just a finisher (where he reduces his aggressiveness and has clear instances of where he stops shooting to preserve FG% ). This is not someone I’m going to give credit for playing the “right way” when he was put in all sorts of situations and ALWAYS had some kind of issues. He is fundamentally flawed in the way he approaches the game. Duncan is everything Wilt isn’t, and that’s a good thing.

if Wilt made up for his decrease in scoring efficiency in other areas of his game it'd be fine. but he didn't. and even if he was scoring efficiently in the RS, it didn't seem to make much impact anyway.

[Chicago76]

why would I take his numbers against scrub opponents seriously? don't you understand this is exactly the criticism of anti-Wilt posters? take Wilt's performances against Russell, Thurmond, Reed and Kareem and see his production fall of a cliff. see? this is why you can't compare this guy to Hakeem. nobody is questioning whether Wilt could feast on Jerry Lucas, Amare etc. what's wrong with his offense is that it's unsustainable when he's being played well. the very same criticism that guys like Malone and Robinson are receving. I have no doubt Wilt could put up big numbers or that he looked dominant against poor competition, I'm questioning his playoff play because of how he struggled against the best. in the playoffs it matters a lot whether you can maintain your level of play against the best. that's what makes Hakeem and Shaq legendary playoff performers. they were pretty much unstoppable.

Looking at Chamberlain vs. Russell in postseason and comparing Chamberlain's full regular season stats on a games weighted basis across seasons:

RS: 32.8 ppg, 23.9 rpg, 4.8 apg, 30.0 "scoring touches", .530 FG%
PS vs. Russell: 25.7 ppg, 28.0 rpg, 3.9 apg, 23.6 "scoring touches", .530 FG%

So he was just as efficient, he rebounded better vs. Russell than he did against those scrubs, distributed a bit less, and his scoring took a hit (but didn't "fall off a cliff") due to the touch reduction. Against what may have been the greatest defender of all time.

For reference, doing the same thing for Olajuwon in his postseason play vs. his elite contemporaries (Ewing and Robinson). This is per 40 because unlike Chamberlain who was essentially capped at 47 min per game, Olajuwon could and did play more in the postseason.
RS: 27.4 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 3.5 apg, .522 FG%, 24.1 "scoring touches"
PS: 28.4 ppg, 9.9 rpg, 3.9 apg, .531 FG%, 24.6 "scoring touches"

More than half the postseason sample was the series where Olajuwon torched Robinson.
Olajuwon fared better (on a smaller sample size), but the results don't look as extraordinary as we often remember them to be. Adjusting for pace (which helps Olajuwon) and defensive quality (which helps Chamberlain), I don't see how Olajuwon is leaps and bounds more effective.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Bastillon it seems to me you rely heavily on assertions for which you provide very little objective evidence. Opinions are fine, but eventually you have to support your opinions

You can't go by stats alone. You can't can't compare a high school players's rebounding numbers to pro players rebounding numbers. Even comparing stats from players playing in the same league in the same year and adjusting for team pace doesn't create totally objective comparisons.

In my opinion comparing Wilt to modern players requires ignoring the statistics.

Bastillon said he watched Wilt play. What more can you do except talk about details of his play.

When you look at a high school kid and try to guess how he would do in the pros you have the added problem of the kid still becoming a better ball player. Judging how Wilt could do in a modern league is not as hard as judging high school kids futures.

Habits are hard to break. I don't think modern players could easily adjust to how travelling was called in the 1960s. Some 1960s players had habits that would be trouble in the modern game, like low release points.

Then there is an apparent problem with nostalgia. I hope I am not as blind about the 1980s as some guys who saw 1960s basketball seem to be blind when watching 1960s basketball while they can analyze modern ball perfectly well. I wasn't a kid in the 1980s so I am probably not as infatuated with 1980s players as people are with their boyhood heroes. I don't know why I watched Booby Orr as a kid and ignored Russell and Cowens. Bill Russell blames Boston's racism. I got into watching Basketball When the Celtics were bad 2 years before Bird arrived.

Anyway, forget the stats when assessing greatness of 1960s Basketball players because Bill Russell and Chamberlain did not play in a league comparable to today's NBA. At the end of Chamberlain's career the majority of the players started looking almost comparable to modern players.

[Chicago76]

Bastillon it seems to me you rely heavily on assertions for which you provide very little objective evidence. Opinions are fine, but eventually you have to support your opinions

You can't go by stats alone. You can't can't compare a high school players's rebounding numbers to pro players rebounding numbers. Even comparing stats from players playing in the same league in the same year and adjusting for team pace doesn't create totally objective comparisons.

In my opinion comparing Wilt to modern players requires ignoring the statistics.

Bastillon said he watched Wilt play. What more can you do except talk about details of his play.

When you look at a high school kid and try to guess how he would do in the pros you have the added problem of the kid still becoming a better ball player. Judging how Wilt could do in a modern league is not as hard as judging high school kids futures.

Habits are hard to break. I don't modern players could easily adjust to how traveling was called in the 1960s. Some 1960s players had habits that would be trouble in the modern game, like low release points.

Watching Wilt is the best we can do.
Then there is an apparent problem with nostalgia. I hope I am not as blind about the 1980s as some guys who saw 1960s basketball seem to be blind when watching 1960s basketball while they can analyze modern ball perfectly well.

The problem isn't nostalgia. In this case, it is selectively picking the evidence you want to present without presenting any sort of context. The fact that Artis Gilmore did well against Chamberlain when he was 35 years old is fine, just recognize that a 35 year old center in those days is more like a 38 year old center today. Same with Chamberlain playing a young Jabbar, Reed, etc. Trying to make statements of quality in a head to head setting when one player is the equivalent of a 35-39 yo player in Olajuwon's era is dangerous. How did Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing look when they were 35 to 39 yo?

Dwight Howard feasted on Shaquille O'Neal the last three years of O'Neal's career. Outscored him. Outrebounded him. He drew fouls on him at will. O'Neal couldn't stay on the court and out of foul trouble. God forbid someone were to use this as evidence of Howard's superiority, or just as bad, someone on RGM in 2040 were to accuse people of being overly nostalgic about O'Neal's era.

We've all seen the same game film of Chamberlain. You can't ignore context and the entirety of the evidence when trying to assess a player (film, stats, head to head, team effect/supporting cast, team impact, era, style, what he was asked to do by coaches, quality of opponent defenses/offenses, where a player was in his career arc when going head to head vs. various all time greats, etc).

[bastillon]

Looking at Chamberlain vs. Russell in postseason and comparing Chamberlain's full regular season stats on a games weighted basis across seasons:

RS: 32.8 ppg, 23.9 rpg, 4.8 apg, 30.0 "scoring touches", .530 FG%
PS vs. Russell: 25.7 ppg, 28.0 rpg, 3.9 apg, 23.6 "scoring touches", .530 FG%

So he was just as efficient, he rebounded better vs. Russell than he did against those scrubs, distributed a bit less, and his scoring took a hit (but didn't "fall off a cliff") due to the touch reduction. Against what may have been the greatest defender of all time.

For reference, doing the same thing for Olajuwon in his postseason play vs. his elite contemporaries (Ewing and Robinson). This is per 40 because unlike Chamberlain who was essentially capped at 47 min per game, Olajuwon could and did play more in the postseason.
RS: 27.4 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 3.5 apg, .522 FG%, 24.1 "scoring touches"
PS: 28.4 ppg, 9.9 rpg, 3.9 apg, .531 FG%, 24.6 "scoring touches"

More than half the postseason sample was the series where Olajuwon torched Robinson.
Olajuwon fared better (on a smaller sample size), but the results don't look as extraordinary as we often remember them to be. Adjusting for pace (which helps Olajuwon) and defensive quality (which helps Chamberlain), I don't see how Olajuwon is leaps and bounds more effective.

first, I don't know what kind of creative accounting you're trying to pull off here but that's just not right. Hakeem was 27/9/3.6 @50% FG V Ewing and 35/12.5/5 @ 56% FG V Robinson. I don't even have to use math to know it ends up being more than 28/10/4.

second, Chamberlain played 47.4 mpg in the 60s (postseason) at ~120-130 pace. Olajuwon played 42.7 mpg @ ~95 pace. so Hakeem played 68% possessions of Wilt in the postseason.

third, yet another Wilt supporter using FG% crap in his defense. any other comparison, you would using TS%. but since this is Wilt and he was the worst postseason FT shooter ever, you just chose to ignore that part as if nobody noticed. guess what, Hakeem's efficiency towers over Wilt's. how many times do I have to repeat this over and over again to stop quoting FG% ? from now on, I'll just quote this post every time someone starts bringing up FG%. seems like a pointless exercise but it's what it is.

I'll just quote what has already been said:

Wilt is a 52.4 TS% player in the playoffs, and this is with all his later lower usage years. Wilt in the playoffs even when he wasn't volume scoring never managed to even go over 56.2 TS%, and that came when he was averaging 14.7 ppg in 47 minutes a game. He had only one playoff year in the 60s where he broke 55 TS% and just barely. His playoff scoring looks even worse when you look at minutes and certain playoff games where he statpadded bad games into "good ones" on the boxscore (that happens when you're playing 48 minutes in blowouts). This is not exactly the standard of greatness when guys like Oscar and West had no problem being 55+ TS% volume scorers in the playoffs during the same era. Willis Reed in the 20 playoff games he played in the 60s had a higher TS% than Wilt did in his most efficient playoff run...ever (including his low usage leading the league in FG% years). Safe to say this is not someone who came through like KAJ, Hakeem and Shaq did. Forget how advanced his skills are or aren't, based on what actually happened, how can anyone put him on their level as a playoff volume scorer?

4th, I'd like to see some splits. Wilt's multiple year stats look a lot better than seperately. he seems more balanced than he really was etc. in truth it was either high volume scoring with 52% TS or high volume ast with low 20s ppg (at 52% TS nonetheless). can you post those stats year by year? I'm guessing Wilt was a monster statistically in 67 when Russell was playing injured and was largely ineffective all postseason run. I'd like to see how Wilt was doing in other years.

5th, like I said, there are numerous times when games were blowouts but Wilt would have his way to make his boxscore look impressive. the fact that you're telling me to give you evidence is ignorance of what's been said and posted on this board many times. just look for some articles in the RPOY. the guy played 47.4 mpg in the postseason, how would you not expect him to statpad?

[bastillon]

The problem isn't nostalgia. In this case, it is selectively picking the evidence you want to present without presenting any sort of context. The fact that Artis Gilmore did well against Chamberlain when he was 35 years old is fine, just recognize that a 35 year old center in those days is more like a 38 year old center today. Same with Chamberlain playing a young Jabbar, Reed, etc. Trying to make statements of quality in a head to head setting when one player is the equivalent of a 35-39 yo player in Olajuwon's era is dangerous. How did Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing look when they were 35 to 39 yo?

what you did not mention is that Chamberlain's 72 season was arguably his 2nd best year. no question it's better than 60-63, 65, 69-71. so comparison with 35-39 Olajuwon/Ewing is completely inappropriate. not to mention that Artis Gilmore was just an anecdote, not the crux of my argument.

what's important is this: Wilt was a spectacular failure in big games, he was a very poor ballhandler, lacked footwork offensively and couldn't shoot to save his life. his go-to offense (fadeaway) is the worst offensive move of any offensive superstar ever. his freethrow shooting alone cost his team a couple titles. there are accounts saying he was a negative offensively. there are legitimate concerns about the portability of his offense. there is a huge red flag with his volume scoring not translating into offensive impact.

that's what pro-Wilt posters need to answer. not some Gilmore crap that was never brought up as main point to begin with.

[lorak]

Bastillon,
looking only at +20 PPG seasons in playoffs:

Wilt (98 games) 30 ppg, 47 mpg, +3.5 TS% (Chamberlain never had single year with below league average TS% in playoffs)
Hakeem (132 games) 27 ppg, 40 mpg, +3.8 TS%

(And Chamberlain more often played vs better competition = Russell)

[JimmyTD3]

what's important is this: Wilt was a spectacular failure in big games, he was a very poor ballhandler, lacked footwork offensively and couldn't shoot to save his life. his go-to offense (fadeaway) is the worst offensive move of any offensive superstar ever. his freethrow shooting alone cost his team a couple titles. there are accounts saying he was a negative offensively. there are legitimate concerns about the portability of his offense. there is a huge red flag with his volume scoring not translating into offensive impact.

Yet he is the only player ever to score 100 points in a game or average 50PPG in a season, had 9 consecutive years where he averaged over 30 PPG, and is a career 30PPG scorer and 54% FG shooter.

So something in your account is off here.

People write articles and accounts all of the time. Skip Bayless could write some BS attention-seeking article saying LeBron is actually a negative on offense. It would be laughed at, then 40 years later someone will use it as evidence to say that there were concerns about his offense.

Also don't agree that he was a "very poor" ball handler and "lacking offensive footwork". Compared to PG's, maybe. Compared to centers?

[bastillon]

Bastillon,
looking only at +20 PPG seasons in playoffs:

Wilt (98 games) 30 ppg, 47 mpg, +3.5 TS% (Chamberlain never had single year with below league average TS% in playoffs)
Hakeem (132 games) 27 ppg, 40 mpg, +3.8 TS%

(And Chamberlain more often played vs better competition = Russell)

+20 ppg cutoff doesn't make much sense to me because it doesn't even take Wilt's role into account. Wilt had 3 distinguishable periods in his career as I said earlier: volume scoring Wilt 60-66, passing Wilt (67-68), Laker Wilt (69-73). what's the point of some arbitrary 20 ppg cutoff if it doesn't take that into account?

anyway, regardless of the cutoff Wilt's still a 52% TS scorer with 46.5% FT for his postseason career. so two points come to mind to me: first, you can't adjust FTs for era so Wilt would have to be like 65% FG player to play +4% TS today with that kind of FT shooting; second why would I give Wilt credit that people in the 60s were worse shooters than today? it doesn't make much sense. if you adjusted for era like that 71 Kareem is probably like 75% FG player. yeah, seems legit... that's just statistically.

now I'm also considering the tape. I've probably seen more Wilt footage than anybody on this site with perhaps a one or two exceptions. I know for a fact that the guy struggled to score 1 v 1 when the defense was set. so good luck breaking down the defense in the playoffs when it doesn't give you easy points. running the offense through Wilt-scorer is like running into a wall. look at the first half of 1970 G7. Wilt looks good in boxscore but he was probably the worst player on the court, at least offensively. to me those scoring numbers are like looking at David Robinson. there are lots of players who seem to be great scorers in the RS but only a very few can maintain that level under pressure.

Yet he is the only player ever to score 100 points in a game or average 50PPG in a season, had 9 consecutive years where he averaged over 30 PPG, and is a career 30PPG scorer and 54% FG shooter.

meaningless numbers without context. Wilt was a great finisher and offensive rebounder but none of that says he was a good post scorer. the guy suddenly became a 65% FG scorer after he stopped volume scoring. you know why that happened? look Wilt is always gonna score some efficient dunks here and there (24 ppg per 48 mins @ 120 pace is more like 15pts per 75 poss; if that, anyway). this is no question. but why did his efficiency drop so DRASTICALLY when he was volume scoring? think about it, the guy is a 65% FG without volume scoring, goes down to ~50% when he starts volume scoring. it means he must've outright sucked as a post scorer per se.

simple math:
I'm making 6/10 when I'm taking 10 shots a game. then I raise my volume to 15 but I'm only making 8/15. it means that on those extra possessions I was 2/5. and the guy was just ugly volume scorer. just watch how Wilt's efficiency DRASTICALLY changes when his volume drops. at 7 FGA he was 73% FG (73). at 9.3 FGA he was 65% FG (72). at 15 FGA he was 54.5% FG (71). so that means those extra possessions were pretty damn useless. no wonder why Hannum told Wilt to stop volume scoring. just look at Lakers Wilt: 6 extra FGA in 71 but only 2 more made. makes you wonder why he was so inefficient at those extra field goals.

and generally just goes along with what I've been saying. Wilt's volume scoring is just overrated. he was extremely unpolished and raw post scorer who relied on his athleticism too much and whose skills were lacking in fundamentals. and yes, compared to centers; not point guards. Russell was a great ballhandler, probably the best on his own team from what I've seen. Reed was a reliable 17 foot jumpshooter. some couldn't shoot as well but EVERYONE shot better than Wilt. there's a reason the guy is the worst FT shooter in postseason history. things like footwork, balance, ability to spin away from the defense or split the double team... just go watch it for yourself. Wilt was Dwight 08 in terms of post skills (at best):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oemQKScZ7MQ[/youtube]

if you think this guy is comparable to Kareem/Dream/Shaq in the post, think again

[lorak]

Bastillon,
looking only at +20 PPG seasons in playoffs:

Wilt (98 games) 30 ppg, 47 mpg, +3.5 TS% (Chamberlain never had single year with below league average TS% in playoffs)
Hakeem (132 games) 27 ppg, 40 mpg, +3.8 TS%

(And Chamberlain more often played vs better competition = Russell)

+20 ppg cutoff doesn't make much sense to me because it doesn't even take Wilt's role into account. Wilt had 3 distinguishable periods in his career as I said earlier: volume scoring Wilt 60-66, passing Wilt (67-68), Laker Wilt (69-73). what's the point of some arbitrary 20 ppg cutoff if it doesn't take that into account?

I doesn't change much, in fact Wilt looks even better as volume scorer:

'60-'66: 32.8 ppg, 47.5 mpg, +4.0 TS% (and 57% of games he played vs Russell!)
'67-'68: 22.6 ppg, 48.2 mpg, +2.6 TS%
'69-'73: 15.8 ppg, 46.8 mpg, +3.4 TS%

anyway, regardless of the cutoff Wilt's still a 52% TS scorer with 46.5% FT for his postseason career. so two points come to mind to me: first, you can't adjust FTs for era so Wilt would have to be like 65% FG player to play +4% TS today with that kind of FT shooting;

Wilt volume scorer was 52.3 FT shooter. That basically the same as prime Shaq.

second why would I give Wilt credit that people in the 60s were worse shooters than today? it doesn't make much sense

It also doesn't make much sense to blame Wilt for playing in different era, when coaches wanted him (and other players as well) to take as many shots as possible - and most of them were bad shots. Something like that ain't happen today.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Do those of you have have seen 25 year old Wilt and 30 year old Wilt agree with me that 25 year old was much quicker and much more agile than 30 year old Wilt but that 30 year old Wilt was stronger and more comfortable using his strength?

Wilt did not use his strength to the same degree as Shaq and Moses Malone but that was probably because using your strength that aggressively would have been a foul in the 1960s.

I am guessing that the ruggedness that some people claim existed in the 1960s was really the 1950s and very early 1960s. Somebody wrote that the early 1970s ABA allowed elbowing and hard fouls.

[bastillon]

I doesn't change much, in fact Wilt looks even better as volume scorer:

'60-'66: 32.8 ppg, 47.5 mpg, +4.0 TS% (and 57% of games he played vs Russell!)
'67-'68: 22.6 ppg, 48.2 mpg, +2.6 TS%
'69-'73: 15.8 ppg, 46.8 mpg, +3.4 TS%

I already answered that in latter part of my post. first, how can you adjust TS% if Wilt's FTs have to stay the same? second, I dont buy that adjustments - why would I credit Wilt for other players' struggles? and even if you wanna say Wilt's scoring was not inefficient in his own days, we have proof that his volume scoring never translated into offensive impact.

this is a good post about Wilt's "adjusted" scoring compared to Kareem, as well as Wilt's offensive impact as a volume scorer:

Both raw and adjusted (for era pace and efficiency) numbers have him as the superior scorer

So when you adjust to ignore the fact that Kareem was vastly more efficient, Wilt was more efficient? I find that silly beast.

Let's start off looking at the college career.

Wilt's TS% was 51, while Kareem's was a 64. Was that a difference between eras? Not at all, Oscar's TS was around 60 around the same time as Wilt while scoring even more than Wilt.

So people need to understand immediately: It was not the case that Wilt was always scoring a the best possible volume & efficiency. Dude was far more raw as a scorer coming out of college than Kareem.

Wilt then improved to be about as efficient of a volume scorer as Oscar, but when Wilt stopped volume scoring, Oscar continued doing his thing until Kareem's rookie season with no real change to his efficiency, which was of course far less than what Kareem would do by his 2nd year.

ftr, Kareem's single season improvement in TS% from his first to his second year was 5.4%, a significantly greater leap while volume scoring than Wilt ever did, despite the fact that he had already starter out at a much higher level than Wilt.

I don't see any reason to say that Wilt was a more efficient volume scorer than the Oscar's of the world, and Oscar was not in Kareem's league there.

Then you've got to factor in Wilt's remarkable inability to create a good offense while volume scoring. Here's how the Warriors did before and during Wilt on offense relative to the median

Code: Select all

Year Relative
'58-59 -3.7% (before Wilt)
'59-60 -2.8% (Wilt rookie)
'60-61 -0.0%
'61-62 +1.1%
'62-63 +0.0%
'63-64 -2.3%
'64-65 -7.4% (Wilt half season)
'65-66 -3.7% (no Wilt)


Here's something similar with the 76ers:

Code: Select all

'63-64 -2.0% (no Wilt)
'64-65 +0.0% (Wilt half season)
'65-66 +0.0%
'66-67 +6.1% (Wilt stops volume scoring)

By comparison, here's what the Bucks' look like:

Code: Select all

'68-69 -1.5% (no Kareem)
'69-70 +4.0% (Kareem rookie)

Note: I don't have full league numbers for the next year, but the Bucks improved more.

I find this data astonishing, and to be clear, it's not Kareem's data that's noteworthy. That 5.5 improvement with Kareem is about what you'd expect when a team gets an offensive superstar. Wilt though basically never led to any great offense or even great offensive improvement until they made him stop scoring so much.

Praise should be given for Wilt being able to thrive in a more distributor role come '66-67 when he wasn't trained to do that, and I do consider him the best in the game at that point. However, that such an improvement occurred tells you there were serious problems when Wilt tried to score like Kareem, and the only way anyone found to solve them was literally make it so that when the starting lineup was on the floor: Wilt Chamberlain was the 5TH OPTION to shoot the ball!

You don't do that to someone who is truly the best ever at helping his team by putting the ball in the bucket.

Now add in all of Wilt's emotional baggage and bad habits, and the choice for me is easily Kareem here.

[bastillon]

Yet he is the only player ever to score 100 points in a game or average 50PPG in a season, had 9 consecutive years where he averaged over 30 PPG, and is a career 30PPG scorer and 54% FG shooter.

So something in your account is off here.

People write articles and accounts all of the time. Skip Bayless could write some BS attention-seeking article saying LeBron is actually a negative on offense. It would be laughed at, then 40 years later someone will use it as evidence to say that there were concerns about his offense.

Also don't agree that he was a "very poor" ball handler and "lacking offensive footwork". Compared to PG's, maybe. Compared to centers?

look at this as well:

Does a guy shooting 65% and 73% from the field really help his team by shooting the least? Sure his efficiency would go down, but I doubt Bill Bridges or Happy Erickson are a better use of your team's shots than one of the great scorers of all-time.

Realizing this counter-intuitive truth is one of the key advances in basketball history imho.

What you need to understand is that when Wilt joined the Warriors, he never actually improved the offense that much. People have a hard time believing this, because they look at Wilt's numbers and think "Well clearly he was unstoppable". In reality, a truly unstoppable scorer would score 100 points per game. The Warriors at Wilt's peak of scoring were essentially trying to have him score on every possessions, and yet he still only scored about 40% of his team's points because teams were successful in forcing the Warriors to rely on the rest of the team that much.

When most possessions end up with your primary scorer NOT scoring (i.e., which has always been the case for every team in NBA history), offensive success is dependent on you being able to explore usage of your star, without sacrificing the rest of your offense terribly, and Wilt's teams never figured this out because if you show your cards early (i.e. have an obvious strategy), you make it very easy to be a defense.

We don't have turnover stats from back then, but there's every reason to think that Wilt focused offenses struggled mightily on that front. Turnovers trying to pass the ball to Wilt. Turnovers as the defense swarmed Wilt. Turnovers as Wilt belatedly passed the ball out and the team had to act in haste.

I understand someone having a hard time accepting how someone could look so good statistically and still not have a huge impact, but they really can. I'll share the example of the Game 7 of the '70 Finals. Reed had gotten injured, and Wilt had done fantastic in Game 6 with no Reed to defend him, so they tried to run the offense through Wilt in Game 7.

At first glance, it doesn't look that bad. Wilt scored 11 in the first half, which was about what he was averaging in those playoffs. But look at the break down:

Times the ball was passed into Wilt in the post in the first half: 21
Made field goals: 2
Missed field goals: 5
Fouled: 4 times, 1-8 shooting
Turnovers: 3

So the tally: 5 points in 14 used possessions.

Wilt got 6 points off of offensive rebounds, which is absolutely fair to mention as a positive. He was a great rebounder, and if he could score a quick bucket from an offensive board, you want him to do it.

However, when the offense actually focused on using him, the results were incredibly bad, before you even consider that he ended up passing the ball back OUT quite a bit for no gain (just time wasted on the clock).

Now, one can rightly point out that this wasn't Wilt at the pinnacle of his abilities, but the fact remains, dude had a double double at half time (which looks quite good)...and the Lakers by that point were so far down they'd already lost the championship (which granted had to do with more than this poor choice of offensive strategy).

Anyway I digress...

What the world saw in '67, is that if Wilt changed his mindset so that he passed first, and only scored when he had an easy bucket, the results were amazing. For the first time in his career, Wilt's team had an elite offense. Wilt's presence, combined with the other good talent, resulted in spacing that made it very difficult for defenses to cope.

[lorak]

I doesn't change much, in fact Wilt looks even better as volume scorer:

'60-'66: 32.8 ppg, 47.5 mpg, +4.0 TS% (and 57% of games he played vs Russell!)
'67-'68: 22.6 ppg, 48.2 mpg, +2.6 TS%
'69-'73: 15.8 ppg, 46.8 mpg, +3.4 TS%

I already answered that in latter part of my post.

And I answered to that part...

this is a good post about Wilt's "adjusted" scoring compared to Kareem,

KAJ in Milwaukee (period of his career closest to Wilt's era), playoffs: 29.7 ppg, 44.8 mpg, +3.8 TS% - only 30% of games vs Thurmond, and most of the time he had Oscar - far better playmaker and player overall than anyone who played with Wilt, yet Chamberlain as volume scorer averaged 32.8 ppg, 47.5 mpg, +4.0 TS% and 57% of games he played vs Russell.

[Chicago76]

first, I don't know what kind of creative accounting you're trying to pull off here but that's just not right. Hakeem was 27/9/3.6 @50% FG V Ewing and 35/12.5/5 @ 56% FG V Robinson. I don't even have to use math to know it ends up being more than 28/10/4.

It's completely right. I referenced this was per 40 min in the calculation. You need to look at this over constant minutes because Hakeem was playing 44-45 min per game in the ps compared to 38-39 in the regular season. I'm not comparing Chamberlain to Olajuwon, but rather comparing how both did in the regular season to how they did against elite competition in the postseason, which is something you value greatly.

second, Chamberlain played 47.4 mpg in the 60s (postseason) at ~120-130 pace. Olajuwon played 42.7 mpg @ ~95 pace. so Hakeem played 68% possessions of Wilt in the postseason.

Now this is just silly. You're looking at pace, but you're totally disregarding lg efficiency per possession. You can't look at one without the other. Estimated pace for Chamberlain's first 10 years in league (60s) vs. Olajuwon's year 2 through 11 (his biggest playoff runs): 25% difference. Minutes elite v. elite were not substantially different (46 or 47 mpg vs. 44 or 45). The big difference you conveniently choose to ignore was that offense was 13% less efficient in the 60s. 68% of possessions is misleading at best, a completely dishonest argument at worst. The true net adjustment isn't 32%, but something in the neighborhood of 10-15%. Big difference.

third, yet another Wilt supporter using FG% crap in his defense. any other comparison, you would using TS%. but since this is Wilt and he was the worst postseason FT shooter ever, you just chose to ignore that part as if nobody noticed. guess what, Hakeem's efficiency towers over Wilt's. how many times do I have to repeat this over and over again to stop quoting FG% ? from now on, I'll just quote this post every time someone starts bringing up FG%. seems like a pointless exercise but it's what it is..

There are two reasons I was looking at FG%. 1) I was trying to discern how Chamberlain played from the floor vs. BOS compared to other opponents. Russell was a great defender, but he can't block free throws. 2) Trying to compare TS% in earlier eras is difficult because of three shots to make two and two shots to make one rules. The factor for a ft is not 0.44 for earlier eras. Are you aware of this?

I'll humor you for a second though, because you're breaking one of the cardinal sins of era comparison. The same logical fallacy which would suggest that Larry Bird is nothing more than an slightly above three point shooter: you aren't comparing things to lg avg.

TS% postseason for both, compared to league average (weighted by "scoring touches", or FGA + 0.44 FTA):
Chamberlain: +3.5 pts
Olajuwon: +3.2 pts

Yup. Chamberlain was more efficient than Olajuwon.

Keep in mind that of Chamberlain's 160 playoff games, 49 came against arguably the greatest defender of all time (Russell). 51 more came against SFW, MIL, NYK teams that featured Jabbar, Thurmond, and Reed. In reality, Chamberlain's TS% was something higher, because the FT component should be weighted lower under the old FT rules.

4th, I'd like to see some splits. Wilt's multiple year stats look a lot better than seperately. he seems more balanced than he really was etc. in truth it was either high volume scoring with 52% TS or high volume ast with low 20s ppg (at 52% TS nonetheless). can you post those stats year by year? I'm guessing Wilt was a monster statistically in 67 when Russell was playing injured and was largely ineffective all postseason run. I'd like to see how Wilt was doing in other years...

Postseason TS% relative to league average by year:

60 +3.4, 61 +2.3, 62 +2.9, 64 +5.8, 65 +7.2, 66 +1.4, 67 +5.3, 68 +1.3, 60 +2.7, 70 +1.7, 71 -2.1, 72 +5.8, 73 +5.8

That's about as consistent as you will find for any player in the history of the game.

5th, like I said, there are numerous times when games were blowouts but Wilt would have his way to make his boxscore look impressive. the fact that you're telling me to give you evidence is ignorance of what's been said and posted on this board many times. just look for some articles in the RPOY. the guy played 47.4 mpg in the postseason, how would you not expect him to statpad?

If that was the case in the context of postseason performance, then how in the heck was Chamberlain able to reasonably approximate his production over 49 games against the best defender in the world in meaningful games. I would fully expect some dropoff considering the competition, but the dropoff, was not ridiculous.