DavidStern wrote:Dwight had several seasons with 60 FG% range. So Wilt, who was similar limited as postup player but BETTER finisher and offensive rebounder, could today as well average +20 ppg with around 60% from the field.
Second, you're ignoring different approach to the game in the 60s. Players then weren't necessary worse shooters skill wise. But they have taken more bad shots because of general basketball philosophy. And Wilt wasn't exception here. But in modern game he would defenietly be better in terms of shot selection. I actually think Dwight is very good comparison scoring wise - but Wilt was even better finisher and offensive rebounder.
Look, Dwight with FT% like volume Wilt (52.3%) would be still +5.6 TS% player in playoffs. So it's very reasonable to think, that Wilt, who 1) would take much less stupid shots (different era philosophy), 2) would play much less vs GOAT defender (volume Wilt played 57% of his playoffs games vs Russell) and 3) was better finisher and offensive rebounder than Dwight, would be today in playoffs +20 ppg scorer with efficiency at +4 maybe even +5 TS% level (I think Wilt today would slightly improve his FT shooting, because back in the 60s he often changed his mechanics and routine - that wouldn't happen today).
well I don't see it that way. the guy who is looking similar to Dwight is Artis Gilmore. power player who was quite efficient around the basket but had limited post moves, poor passing skills and lousy counters. but A-Train was much more efficient than Wilt. he averaged 56% FG/60% TS for his career. if you were looking for Dwight's old school version, A-Train fits perfectly.
Wilt just played completely different than Dwight. despite being a great finisher and offensive rebounder he wasn't a power player. typical Wilt post up: receives the ball down low, makes a couple fake passes and either passes it off to somebody, or starts dribbling. dribbles twice, and either turns around for a fadeaway or tries to scoop a fingeroll. this is not a power player when left to break down the defense. he was extremely soft for someone his size, with his strength and athleticism. the comparison is just bad. I refered to Dwight 2008 only to make a point that Wilt's post game was very raw. stylistically he was different than Dwight.
as for as the shot selection...this is actually a very interesting issue that people are misinterpreting when it comes to Wilt. notice every time Wilt played for a smart coach he was made into a 5th option as a scorer. am I supposed to believe that better shot selection in Wilt's case means that he's gonna be a 20+ ppg player with today's pace? because during Wilt's own career best shot selection for Wilt was not to take any shots at all if possible. the best offensive teams Wilt played on, oh the coincidence, were also the teams who excluded Wilt from scoring on offense. look at how much both Sixers offense improved from 66 to 67 and how much Lakers offense improved from 71 to 72-73. went from somewhat average to all-time levels. that happened with Wilt being the LAST scoring option offensively. well that just proves Wilt's volume scoring is detrimental to great offenses. there's not much talent gap between those Sixers/Lakers teams and each improved greatly year to year just on the basis of Wilt Chamberlain not attempting to score anymore.
also... lmao at saying Wilt would be a better FT shooter. the guy tried everything, even went to psychiatrist about this. is it so hard to understand he didn't have any shooting talent whatsoever? in today's league people change their mechanics all the time. LeBron, Shaq, Dwight... they all tried to improve a little bit shooting wise and made some adjustments. Wilt tried to improve as well and couldn't. he just sucked at shooting, at any range. had no shooting touch.
I even saw posters back in the day saying Wilt was as good a shooter as KG. except Garnett's FT efficiency was like twice as good
what's wrong with you guys? somehow 60s didn't stop Oscar from being an 85% FT shooter. oh I forgot Oscar would shoot 90% today because of better medicine!!
BTW, Chicago mentioned it, but it seems you are ignoring it, so I'll repeat: different FT rules during 60s affected TS% and that's another reason why we should use TS% relatively to league average.
explain.
I'm sorry Bastillon, but you are using double standards here: when you talk about Wilt then it's playoffs all the time, when about Oscar, West or KAJ - then you cite regular season stats.
Playoffs TS% relatively to league average:
Wilt career +3.5, 22.5 PPG, 47.2 MPG
Wilt as volume scorer +4.0, 32.8 PPG, 47.5 MPG
KAJ in Milwaukee +3.8, 29.7 PPG, 44.8 MPG
Oscar career +4.2 (+5.4 without 1972, when he was injured), 22.2 PPG, 42.7 MPG
West career (I'm not counting two one-game playoffs "runs") +4.9 TS%, 29.5 PPG, 41.8 MPG
So Wilt as volume scorer in playoffs doesn't look worse, especially if we consider that he didn't play with guys like Oscar, KAJ or even Baylor and played vs Russell more ofthen than others.
I answered to that in part in my previous post. but let me just say one thing.
the only reason you're using Kareem's Bucks years is because he struggled shooting the ball in those years in the playoffs. he played Thurmond like 3 times and Wilt twice so there's a good reason why (admittedly Wilt was a legendary post defender). you thought I wouldn't notice? of all the people on this board, you should know better. yes, Kareem struggled so much in his Bucks days that he was actually made inefficient in the postseason. now compare early 70s Kareem to his 77-80 version. Kareem was like, what, +15% TS in 77? +20%? selecting Bucks years as a way of bringing down Kareem to Wilt offensively is disappointing.
similarly you should be using the same years for West and Oscar as for Wilt-volume scorer. but you didnt because it didn't suit your agenda. you're trying to prove adjustments are necessary and that those results are not ridiculous at all. but they are ridiculous so what you've been doing here is manipulating with stats. you knew damn well that late 60s/early 70s had much higher TS% lg average than early 60s so you're using career numbers for West and Oscar because they were playing a lot of playoff games then. for example Oscar was 31 ppg 56.6% TS scorer with the Royals but only 22/54% TS for career because of how many playoff games he played in his Bucks career. if you compare Wilt's high volume years with Oscar/West in the same years, the latter two are far away better. simple as that.
now do me a favor and stop doing your magic. I didn't even have to check numbers anywhere to know what you did, why you chose certain years etc. its not gonna work on me.
either way, it makes no sense to make those efficiency adjustments to begin with. you're operating under the assumption that other players struggling to shoot impacted how Wilt shot the ball himself. but that's just not how it works. during the same time period guys like West and Oscar shot the ball a lot better (including FT shooting here). during the 60s, assuming your theory of poor shooting affecting Wilt, Wilt should've improved in terms of efficiency. Oscar should've. same goes for West. Russell. Hondo. I could go on. those guys didn't get better in terms of efficiency as the years went by (Hondo became much more efficient as the main guy though). it proves that other players shooting poorly didn't impact how they shot. makes no sense to compare to lg average and give 60s players handicap just because their opponents couldn't put the ball in the basket.
what makes sense is to give Wilt credit that he was playing Russell like a lot so that brought his efficiency way down. it'd be good to know splits against different opponents. not just Russell/nonRussell. for example I know Wilt didn't play well v Reed or Thurmond either. generally the problem with Wilt was performance against guys who didn't let him score easy pts inside. Wilt was still lucky though because guys in the 60s, even the best defenders, were mismatches for him. I'd like to see prime Wilt get embarassed by Artis Gilmore (I mean his offense).
). what does it matter if Wilt was a 45% FT shooter or 50% ? the point remains: a) his go to offense being a fadeaway banker is laughable given how inefficient he was at shooting the ball b) his FG% might look pretty good but after accounting for FTs it's only 52% TS for his career, a mark that Karl Malone is getting torn apart. considering you're probably Karl Malone's biggest critique on this board, I think you understand what I was trying to say.
