ReaGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #6 (Wilt Chamberlain)

[trex_8063]

Yeah, saying that Wilt rarely dominated on defensive end is not backed up with anything. His teams were amazing defensively in playoffs, even in his worst season (1969). He had some weaker regular seasons like 1963 (when whole Warriors franchise was a mess) but overall I don't see him as inconsistent defender.

I could do the work myself, but the way you state this makes me think you have his playoff defenses (rDRTG relative to offense faced) already documented somewhere. Would you be able to share them?

[Doctor MJ]

As someone who also doesn't put much weight on team success, here's a large reason I have duncan over KG:
https://backpicks.com/2018/06/10/aupm-2-0-the-top-playoff-performers-of-the-databall-era/
In terms of impact, duncan goes from fringe top 10 to shaq+ in the playoffs while kg goes from finge goat level to fringe top 10.

Now this isn't a large sample, but its hard to dismiss duncan being shaq+ for three straight postseasons, at least in term sf raw value.

I appreciate the earnest response, and of course I am a big fan of ElGee's work.

This is a box-scored-based approximation of a +/- stat though right? Not saying that's not valuable, but I just want to make sure we're not talking past each other when we say "impact".

My general feeling on playoff +/- data is that I error on the side of not using it to draw dramatic conclusions based on differences from the regular season.

If you look at Garnett's career on/off in the playoffs it's +14.5. It goes even higher if you chop off his pre-prime years. Basically you're talking a much stronger on/off trend in the playoffs with KG than with Duncan.

And as I've said, I'd be very reluctant to actually assert that the +/- data indicates Garnett was clearly more impactful than Duncan for all sorts of reasons you'd imagine...

By that same token, I'm reluctant to reverse my admittedly-regular-season-plus-minus-weighted assessment of their relative impact when I'm seeing playoff data that points in the same direction I was expecting.

And if that sounds like confirmation bias to you, I appreciate that, but there is a distinction. I'm not saying I'm right because I see evidence backing my opinion, I'm saying it's hard for me to turn 180 against my current assessment when the data that comes in that might convince me I'm wrong doesn't clearly say I'm wrong.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah, saying that Wilt rarely dominated on defensive end is not backed up with anything. His teams were amazing defensively in playoffs, even in his worst season (1969). He had some weaker regular seasons like 1963 (when whole Warriors franchise was a mess) but overall I don't see him as inconsistent defender.

I could do the work myself, but the way you state this makes me think you have his playoff defenses (rDRTG relative to offense faced) already documented somewhere. Would you be able to share them?

I'd appreciate this as well. Not being skeptical at all, I feel like this is something I should have already thought to check but I can't recall ever doing so. It would mean something to me if if I saw clear evidence that Wilt always led elite playoff defenses even when he coasted in the regular season.

[mailmp]

Elgee said his teams’ rDRTG improved by two points in the postseason over his career, “far more than any other all-timer.” Here you can see seasons of -8.7 and -8.2 in his two title years, and also seasons of -6.8, -5.9, -5.2, -4.9, -4.4, -4.2, -3.9...

[Blackmill]

I have very little time at the moment so I'm just going to copy this here:

1. Garnett. Reasoning given in this post.

2. Duncan. Checks many of the boxes that Garnett does (see above post for what I think those boxes are) but

1. Is much less quick and mobile.
2. Isn't as good an outside shooter.
3. Is stronger. Thus a better rebounder, absorbs impact better, can bully smaller players more easily.
4. Probably has more prime / peak years.

3. Hakeem. A version of Garnett that

1. Was more raw to start. Gambled more, worse with pass or shoot decisions, did not position as well.
2. A tad less mobile perhaps.
3. Was stronger and more overpowering. Blends Duncan's and Garnett's profiles but was a worse decision maker than both in my opinion.
4. Has a shorter prime.

I could see myself changing the order at some point. But for now I'm most comfortable with this ranking.

Because Duncan has been inducted, I will make Hakeem my #2. I'm going to leave my #3 vote blank, and if I have time, I will update it based on the arguments I read. Shaq, Wilt, and perhaps Magic are the most likely to get my #3 vote.

[Baski]

Pretty underrated imo. 1992-2006 is a very long time of elite-very good play.

'92 Shaq doesn't exist. '93 Shaq was good, but not as good as '12 Dirk, for example.

Shaq's real prime is 1994-2006, with the caveat that he missed a lot of regular season games, and that his 2005 and 2006 Playoff performances were not good, despite his team winning in 2006... His scoring volume and assist went down considerably, he was shooting 41% from the FT line and he was turning the ball over at a record rate for his career. His defense regressed as well...

If you're judging those seasons against his peak sure. I still think "very good" at least describes every one of those seasons. His rookie season was spectacular so I'd still put it in there.

[freethedevil]

As someone who also doesn't put much weight on team success, here's a large reason I have duncan over KG:
https://backpicks.com/2018/06/10/aupm-2-0-the-top-playoff-performers-of-the-databall-era/
In terms of impact, duncan goes from fringe top 10 to shaq+ in the playoffs while kg goes from finge goat level to fringe top 10.

Now this isn't a large sample, but its hard to dismiss duncan being shaq+ for three straight postseasons, at least in term sf raw value.

I appreciate the earnest response, and of course I am a big fan of ElGee's work.

This is a box-scored-based approximation of a +/- stat though right? Not saying that's not valuable, but I just want to make sure we're not talking past each other when we say "impact".
[b]yeah, you kind of a have to go more on box stuff for stable playoff stats. Fwiw, i recall a realgm poster showing duncan having an edge in raw playoff apm tho its mega unstable for playoff runs.[/b]


My general feeling on playoff +/- data is that I error on the side of not using it to draw dramatic conclusions based on differences from the regular season. .
which is fair. there is also the boxscore difference of a significant source of kg's scoring, free throw attempts, going down, duncan's scoring went up irrc
If you look at Garnett's career on/off in the playoffs it's +14.5. It goes even higher if you chop off his pre-prime years. Basically you're talking a much stronger on/off trend in the playoffs with KG than with Duncan.
i'm pretty religiously against using raw on/off as an induvidual player stat because it really isn't. Without adjusting for lineups you're basically just comparing a semblance of 5 man units.
And as I've said, I'd be very reluctant to actually assert that the +/- data indicates Garnett was clearly more impactful than Duncan for all sorts of reasons you'd imagine...
well i think they're fundementally different, since raw +/- measures lineups while even boc based apm deriatives adjust for them allowing them to, at least some degree, estimate players. Using raw +/- feels like a half step off just using "rings" to measure players.
By that same token, I'm reluctant to reverse my admittedly-regular-season-plus-minus-weighted assessment of their relative impact when I'm seeing playoff data that points in the same direction I was expecting.
which is fair, it is a smll sample size and box based +/- trades of some accuracy for stability
And if that sounds like confirmation bias to you, I appreciate that, but there is a distinction. I'm not saying I'm right because I see evidence backing my opinion, I'm saying it's hard for me to turn 180 against my current assessment when the data that comes in that might convince me I'm wrong doesn't clearly say I'm wrong.
I have a similar opinion in regards to duncan, which is why I haven't put him at #3 or #4 definiteively. But I feel i need to account for the possibility the data is accurate here which means from my view duncan was providing jordan/shaq esque championship equity during his best seasons. That kinda thing would put duncan at #3 for me, and my floor on duncan is maybe a little worse than KG. When considering botht he cieling and the floor then, along with duncan basically getting all of my tiebreakers, it becomes kinda hard to see KG over dunca

[freethedevil]

Elgee said his teams’ rDRTG improved by two points in the postseason over his career, “far more than any other all-timer.” Here you can see seasons of -8.7 and -8.2 in his two title years, and also seasons of -6.8, -5.9, -5.2, -4.9, -4.4, -4.2, -3.9...

I know this didn't mantain for his career but didn't shaq's 01 lakers playoffs see a massive defensive rs-post season improvement? It was like -6 irrc, how much credit should shaq get for that. It kinda aligns with my memory of that run with shaq becoming a rim god in the postseason.

That said, a -2 improvement may make up for the effiency plummet on aggregate. Do you have what the offense regressed by?

[freethedevil]

Yeah, saying that Wilt rarely dominated on defensive end is not backed up with anything. His teams were amazing defensively in playoffs, even in his worst season (1969). He had some weaker regular seasons like 1963 (when whole Warriors franchise was a mess) but overall I don't see him as inconsistent defender.

I could do the work myself, but the way you state this makes me think you have his playoff defenses (rDRTG relative to offense faced) already documented somewhere. Would you be able to share them?

I'd appreciate this as well. Not being skeptical at all, I feel like this is something I should have already thought to check but I can't recall ever doing so. It would mean something to me if if I saw clear evidence that Wilt always led elite playoff defenses even when he coasted in the regular season.

Would sorta explain wilt's warriors being able to compete with russell's celtics a couple times.

[drza]

As someone who also doesn't put much weight on team success, here's a large reason I have duncan over KG:
https://backpicks.com/2018/06/10/aupm-2-0-the-top-playoff-performers-of-the-databall-era/
In terms of impact, duncan goes from fringe top 10 to shaq+ in the playoffs while kg goes from finge goat level to fringe top 10.

Now this isn't a large sample, but its hard to dismiss duncan being shaq+ for three straight postseasons, at least in term sf raw value.

I appreciate the earnest response, and of course I am a big fan of ElGee's work.

This is a box-scored-based approximation of a +/- stat though right? Not saying that's not valuable, but I just want to make sure we're not talking past each other when we say "impact".
[b]yeah, you kind of a have to go more on box stuff for stable playoff stats. Fwiw, i recall a realgm poster showing duncan having an edge in raw playoff apm tho its mega unstable for playoff runs.[/b]


My general feeling on playoff +/- data is that I error on the side of not using it to draw dramatic conclusions based on differences from the regular season. .
which is fair. there is also the boxscore difference of a significant source of kg's scoring, free throw attempts, going down, duncan's scoring went up irrc
If you look at Garnett's career on/off in the playoffs it's +14.5. It goes even higher if you chop off his pre-prime years. Basically you're talking a much stronger on/off trend in the playoffs with KG than with Duncan.
i'm pretty religiously against using raw on/off as an induvidual player stat because it really isn't. Without adjusting for lineups you're basically just comparing a semblance of 5 man units.
And as I've said, I'd be very reluctant to actually assert that the +/- data indicates Garnett was clearly more impactful than Duncan for all sorts of reasons you'd imagine...
well i think they're fundementally different, since raw +/- measures lineups while even boc based apm deriatives adjust for them allowing them to, at least some degree, estimate players. Using raw +/- feels like a half step off just using "rings" to measure players.
By that same token, I'm reluctant to reverse my admittedly-regular-season-plus-minus-weighted assessment of their relative impact when I'm seeing playoff data that points in the same direction I was expecting.
which is fair, it is a smll sample size and box based +/- trades of some accuracy for stability
And if that sounds like confirmation bias to you, I appreciate that, but there is a distinction. I'm not saying I'm right because I see evidence backing my opinion, I'm saying it's hard for me to turn 180 against my current assessment when the data that comes in that might convince me I'm wrong doesn't clearly say I'm wrong.
I have a similar opinion in regards to duncan, which is why I haven't put him at #3 or #4 definiteively. But I feel i need to account for the possibility the data is accurate here which means from my view duncan was providing jordan/shaq esque championship equity during his best seasons. That kinda thing would put duncan at #3 for me, and my floor on duncan is maybe a little worse than KG. When considering botht he cieling and the floor then, along with duncan basically getting all of my tiebreakers, it becomes kinda hard to see KG over dunca

The topic of KG's postseason impact is one of my favorites to get into, and I still hope to do that justice at some point. But here, I just want to point out something really quickly for you to marinate on. You say that you don't put much emphasis on team success when evaluating the individual, but that Duncan having the better Augmented +/- profile is "a large reason (you) have duncan over KG."

The thing I'd point you to is the methodology for how AUPM was calculated. Primarily, this line: "Since postseason samples are so small, I examined three-year stretches with a minimum of 1,000 minutes played". Now, that line came from one of the sub-links from where ElGee was explaining his methodology, but unless I'm mistaken I believe that it's the same for the main AUPM 2.0 3-year samples he used in your main link.

The reason that's important here? As he alluded to in KG's blurb (and as we all know), KG's Minnesota postseason career was full of short-minute runs. In fact, there is only a single 3-year stretch during KG's first 12 seasons when he played more than 1000 minutes in the playoffs. And in that single run from 2002-04, he posted one of the few mega-elite +6 AUPM2 scores on record. Immediately following that run, the Timberwolves missed the next 3 playoffs. KG had another long run in 2008, then was injured for 2009 and played hobbled in 2010 before returning for several good playoffs runs in his later seasons.

The upshot: Duncan doesn't necessarily have more +6 AUPM2 stretches than KG because he played better in the postseason. KG just didn't have enough long playoffs runs during his prime for AUPM2 to evaluate him on the same scale as it did for Duncan. In the literal only 3-year run over 1000 minutes of KG's first 12 seasons, he turned in the same mega-elite AUPM that seems to have changed your mind about Duncan...and he doesn't have any other 3-year opportunities until late in his career. Just some food for thought.

[70sFan]

Yeah, saying that Wilt rarely dominated on defensive end is not backed up with anything. His teams were amazing defensively in playoffs, even in his worst season (1969). He had some weaker regular seasons like 1963 (when whole Warriors franchise was a mess) but overall I don't see him as inconsistent defender.

I could do the work myself, but the way you state this makes me think you have his playoff defenses (rDRTG relative to offense faced) already documented somewhere. Would you be able to share them?

Here are rORtg and rDRtg numbers for all Wilt teams in playoffs (source: Taylor's backpicks.com):

1960 Warriors: +1.0 rORtg, -5.3 rDRtg
1961 Warriors: -5.7 rORtg, -4.2 rDRtg
1962 Warriors: -3.1 rORtg, -7.4 rDRtg
1964 Warriors: +4.3 rORtg, -0.2 rDRtg
1965 Sixers: +5.8 rORtg, +0.6 rDRtg
1966 Sixers: -2.7 rORtg, +1.2 rDRtg
1967 Sixers: +3.3 rORtg, -7.2 rDRtg
1968 Sixers: +0.9 rORtg, -2.3 rDRtg
1969 Lakers: +0.6 rORtg, -5.4 rDRtg
1970 Lakers: +5.1 rORtg, -1.0 rDRtg
1971 Lakers: +0.5 rORtg, -2.5 rDRtg
1972 Lakers: +2.3 rORtg, -7.4 rDRtg
1973 Lakers: +4.4 rORtg, -3.6 rDRtg

Overall: 2.1 rORtg, -3.7 rDRtg

[ThreeMileAllan]

This already has lost credibility with LeBron at 1. Seriously.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[70sFan]

What are you based off? Playing a total of 16 Playoff series in the 60's and half of them being against Boston who were a below average (multiple times worst in the league) offensive team every year of the decade outside of 1967? And like the San Francisco Warriors, and Knicks?

The only legit offensive teams Wilt faced in a Playoff series were like Syracuse twice in the early 60's, and Cincinnati twice in the mid 60's, and outside of the series in 1967 against the Royals, i don't really see these teams struggling to run up points against Wilt teams.

Wilt faced a few more good offensive teams in playoffs:

1960 Nationals
1961 Nationals
1964 Hawks
1965 Royals
1967 Royals
1967 Celtics
1968 Knicks
1969 Hawks
1970 Suns
1970 Hawks
1970 Knicks
1971 Bulls
1971 Bucks
1972 Bulls
1972 Bucks
1973 Bulls
1973 Knicks

[70sFan]

There's literal footage out there of what offensive 'tactic' Wilt teams employed early on in his career... His teammates got the ball, sprinted over the half-line and waited for Wilt to slowly make his way into the post and go to work... There was literally no offense. No movement, no cutting, no passing, no transition easy buckets... It was just ''We have Wilt, he is so good... let's just give him the ball on offense every time and watch...''

What footage are you talking about?

[70sFan]

Alright, I'm a bit busier today so don't have time to really do anything fun. But, it seems like Wilt's getting traction this thread and in the past I did some interesting comps between Wilt and other ATGs. I'll re-post them here, starting with this one:

I want to thank you for another in-depth post. This time I want to respond for some of your points.

But outside of 1965, I couldn’t find much else in the way of overachieving in the postseason for Wilt’s teams. He did win two titles, which is outstanding, but there wasn’t a noticable uptick in the quality of those teams from the regular season that could be traced to Wilt, that I could tell. Outside of those three instances, probably the most impressive part of Wilt’s postseason resume is that he often led teams that made the dynasty Celtics work in the playoffs…but the matchups weren’t taking place because Wilt’s teams overachieved in their match-ups with other opponents, and the Celtics matchups (though close) almost always ended in a loss. Plus, in three seasons, Wilt’s team had better regular season records than the Celtics (in 1968 and 69, significantly so) and they still lost.

Well, first of all - Wilt has one more clear upset win in 1971 when Lakers without West beat very strong Bulls team in 7 games. Chicago were better than LA even in RS before West injury, so I think we should count this as quite big upset.

I think that 1964 series vs Hawks should be seen as an upset even if Warriors finished with higher SRS in RS. SF team was much less talented and their good RS was closely related to Wilt himself.

Besides that, Nationals finished with identical SRS in 1960. I don't think I'd call that an upset, but it could be argued as one. Another one is 1972 WCF - Bucks and Lakers were basically on identical level and many though Wilt was the MVP of that series.

All told, I could be convinced that playoff Wilt was either better or worse than regular season Wilt, based on this level of analysis. Considering that regular season WIlt seemingly had clearly less impact than regular season Shaq, he needed a solid win here to change my view. Instead…

Well, I don't think Shaq had any upset win in playoffs for what it's worth. He consistently played with top tier rosters who fared well without him and he rarely was put in position to beat better team.

Now, you might very fairly point out that we don’t have that data for Wilt, making it hard to directly compare. And you’d be right. BUT. The data that we DO have for Wilt indicates that he wasn’t having anywhere near Shaq’s impact in the regular season, and there’s nothing about his playoffs results that suggest that he suddenly jumped up to all-time impact levels there compared to what he was doing in the regular season.

Counter point to that is that Shaq missing games was a normal part of his RS play - teams didn't mind Shaq missing 10s games and they didn't worry even when they had worse moments.

With Wilt, situations were different. 1965 was a trade in mid-season, so Wilt jumped into a team that likely wasn't ready for him (and they dealt with many injuries). In 1970, Lakers didn't expect him to come back at all so they had to change their strategy to play differently.

Not saying that it translates into Wilt having bigger impact, but these are not apples to apples comparisons.

I also think that we have to keep in mind things like portability and Shaq's defense is a concern relative to Wilt. I know that some people said in the past that they shared similar issues, but I've seen enough to say that even 35 years old Wilt was comfortably better defender than any version of Shaq I've seen. Impact data are very important in analysis, but I just can't ignore such a clear (at least, in my eyes) observation. Shaq would have to be significantly better offensively to overcome that. Was he really that much better? I don't know, some data may imply so but right now I don't think it's true.

I hope that more Wilt footage I'll uncover in near future will help us answering these questions.

Thanks for engaging. And I see your points about Wilt's teams potentially deserving a tick more credit for winning against some good teams, Wilt being a relative iron man vs Shaq's more consistent nagging injuries and/or shape issues at different points in his career, and that Wilt has a better defensive profile than Shaq. I think those are all valid points.

My question to you, though, is along the lines of impact, which you do reference in here but don't really do much to rebut the case I was making. Cliff notes, my case was that Wilt has three really long "absences" from three different teams in his career (two, of course, due to a mid-season trade and not injury). But these 3 very long absences give us WOWY situations with much more power than some of the shorter absences that we have to extrapolate from. We're talking three "absences" of 40+ games, which is a pretty big sample to get a legitimate look at what a team looks like. I know you say that in 1965 his new team wasn't ready for him, but...I mean, dang. I just have trouble seeing how the best player in the world could join any situation and not have it get massively better.

You mention that the comps aren't apples to apples, and that's very true. It's kind of the nature of the beast when comparing across eras. But, while the specifics are different, the point of the approaches is to be able to quantifiably estimate "impact on winning" as much as possible. In Shaq's case, since a good chunk of his career was in the databall era, we already KNOW that he had generational individual impact on his team's chances. Yes, he had flaws in his game (especially on defense), his attitude (especially towards staying in peak shape) and potentially off-the-court with some of his best teammates (and that obviously can affect a team's results). All stipulated, here. BUT, even with those things factored in, we know that at his peak Shaq measured out with the largest quantifiable impact in the league in multiple seasons. And the same in the playoffs, where in addition to all of the observations and other stats, we have +/- data that (noisy as it is) CLEARLY pegs Shaq as one of the biggest impact postseason performers of the last 25 years.

We don't have (nearly) that level of granularity for pegging Wilt's impact on winning outside of the box scores. But, we do have the afore-mentioned WOWY results that a) are a lot more granular than just looking at overall team results but b) completely fit the narrative about Wilt's awesome individual production not translating to maximum team impact.

So, my question for you (and, really, anyone that wants to join the conversation), is...how can that not matter? Again, I can understand the counterpoints that you made here, and in general the pro-Wilt arguments based around his skillset and awesome boxscore accomplishments are eye-catching. But at the end of the day, for me, if I'm comparing to the absolute best players that have ever played the game...all of whom that I can quantifiably estimate maximum impact levels from using the best tools of their time...it's going to matter to me that I can't do the same for Wilt. What I'm trying to wrap my mind around in these discussions, is, does that not matter to you? Or...

(Gahh. I'm frustrated because I'm not articulating my question well. I don't in any way intend for this to be combative or patronizing, and I'm afraid it can be taken that way. I'm legitly, sincerely trying to understand where we diverge so starkly in our evaluations. Because, just like you wrote to me about that KG and Duncan post last thread, I tend to read, enjoy and agree with the information you lay out in most of your points. But in the end, in cases like these, we disagree on the conclusion. And I'm trying to figure out why, and what information we could exchange or discussion we could have to bridge those gaps).

I'm not sure what are you asking about to be honest. English isn't my first language, so maybe it's on me but I can't grasp the idea of your question.

We don't have any impact metrics for Wilt outside of WOWY, which are always very noisy. Let's take a look at 1965 Sixers - in theory, they didn't improve much with Wilt but then they beat far better team in Royals, then they almost upset Celtics. Then in very next season, Sixers became the best team in the league in RS and there wasn't much of a difference between 1965 and 1966 team (unless you want to praise rookie Cunningham for this improvement, but it's highly unlikely).

Looking at WOWY, we can see that Wilt didn't improve them much. When we look from bigger perspective though, we can see that the addition of Wilt made Sixers arguably the best team in the league in 1966-68 period. This alone makes me question the WOWY results.

[Dutchball97]

I'm still having a hard time with KG getting traction over the likes of Shaq, Magic, Bird and Hakeem. He didn't have much success in his first few years. Then he matched up well against Duncan in 99 and 01, which gives him credibility as someone on his level. In 2002 he got smoked by a 23 year old Dirk though. In 03 and 04 the Timberwolves lost to the Lakers and while KG definitely wasn't much worse than Shaq and Kobe, I'm not really seeing much supporting he was better either. Then we got unmotivated KG who missed the play-offs 3 years in a row. He was great in 08 with the superteam Celtics but that was pretty much his last truely elite season.

Kobe did manage to get the terrible mid 00s Lakers to the play-offs for 2 of the 3 years KG missed the play-offs. Hakeem won a ring in 94 and I'm not sure that Rockets team was mch better than the 03/04 Timberwolves. I'm not getting granting KG the same accolades just because he might've been able to have a GOAT resume on a better team, since he also didn't reach the heights on bad teams that other GOAT candidates who played on bad teams did. He only got past the first round once in his entire Timberwolves run.

I'm not trying to disparage people who are voting or considering KG, everyone has their own criteria after all. As someone who looks at this top 100 as a combination of how well an individual played along with how much success their team enjoyed during a player's peak, I see KG as someone who has the individual accolades but lacks the top end team impact. Players like LeBron are valued not only for their high level of play but also for the impact they have on their teammates' performance. That's why I think we shouldn't simply count rings but at the same time we shouldn't ignore what the players achieved in the post-season either.

[eminence]

Does anyone know what was up with Greer in the '66 playoffs?

[70sFan]

Does anyone know what was up with Greer in the '66 playoffs?

I have no idea, but whole Philly team collapsed in that series. Walker wasn't any better than Greer, Cunningham had the worst playoff debut in NBA history and Wali Jones missed everything. To be honest, Wilt didn't score well either but it was a huge anomaly in how badly Sixers shot the ball.

Maybe someone have any details regarding this series, it would be an interesting read for sure.

[eminence]

Does anyone know what was up with Greer in the '66 playoffs?

I have no idea, but whole Philly team collapsed in that series. Walker wasn't any better than Greer, Cunningham had the worst playoff debut in NBA history and Wali Jones missed everything. To be honest, Wilt didn't score well either but it was a huge anomaly in how badly Sixers shot the ball.

Maybe someone have any details regarding this series, it would be an interesting read for sure.

Looking at it I'd say Walker was better than Greer (relatively), though still not good. Cunningham missed game 3, so not sure if he had some injury issues or what. Wilt seems like the least of their problems in that series.

[70sFan]

Does anyone know what was up with Greer in the '66 playoffs?

I have no idea, but whole Philly team collapsed in that series. Walker wasn't any better than Greer, Cunningham had the worst playoff debut in NBA history and Wali Jones missed everything. To be honest, Wilt didn't score well either but it was a huge anomaly in how badly Sixers shot the ball.

Maybe someone have any details regarding this series, it would be an interesting read for sure.

Looking at it I'd say Walker was better than Greer (relatively), though still not good. Cunningham missed game 3, so not sure if he had some injury issues or what. Wilt seems like the least of their problems in that series.

At least Chet drew fouls (which always has value) and made FTs on good rate, but he didn't shoot well from the field either and he wasn't agressive as a scorer.