RealGM

I'm looking at Wilt's career and what I noticed was that he literally stopped shooting after the 1967 season. I know he was trying to play the Russell focus on defense, rebounding, and passing role, but he might have hurt his team by not shooting.

Here are his FGA/36 minutes and ranking on his team in that stat:

66: 19.2 (1st)
67: 11.2 (9 out of 11)
68: 12.9 (10/12)
69: 10.8 (10/11)
70: 16.2 (4/13) (played 12 games)
71: 12.2 (10/13)
72: 7.9 (last)
73: 6.0 (last)

Every year from 60-65, he shot over 20 FGA/36 minutes.

Mind you Wilt shot 68%, 60%, 58%, 57%, 55%, 65%, 73% FG% from 67-73. 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.

Alex Hannum.

EDIT: And Bill Sharman, actually, especially Bill Sharman.

Answer: Because of Hannum, the whole world now realized that if you have any talent on your roster letting Wilt shoot is about the worst thing you could possibly do.

Because he wasn't very good at it...

colts18 wrote: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.

Doctor MJ wrote:

colts18 wrote: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.

Wilt shot at a pace adjusted rate similar to Joel Anthony in his 73 FG% year. You can't convince that having your benchwarmers shooting more than an efficient Wilt is the right move. Maybe in the 1st half of his career it made sense to limit his shots a bit, but he should not be at 10 FGA/36.

In that time span Wilt was shooting at a rate adjusted to today's pace of 10 FGA/36 minutes. That is about what Joakim Noah has shot at the last 2 seasons. Other players who were shooting at that rate last season include Hedo, Calderon, Redick, Brad Miller, and Nene. Maybe Wilt's teams failed in the postseason in the 2nd half of his career because he wasn't shooting enough.

colts18 wrote:Wilt shot at a pace adjusted rate similar to Joel Anthony in his 73 FG% year. You can't convince that having your benchwarmers shooting more than an efficient Wilt is the right move. Maybe in the 1st half of his career it made sense to limit his shots a bit, but he should not be at 10 FGA/36.

In that time span Wilt was shooting at a rate adjusted to today's pace of 10 FGA/36 minutes. That is about what Joakim Noah has shot at the last 2 seasons. Other players who were shooting at that rate last season include Hedo, Calderon, Redick, Brad Miller, and Nene. Maybe Wilt's teams failed in the postseason in the 2nd half of his career because he wasn't shooting enough.

You need to get your head around it. I understand fully why it seems absolutely impossible, but it's the truth, and that's what makes it so profound.

Just on a basic level (we can get into details if and when that seems productive),

Philly in '65-66 shot 44.6 FG%.
Philly in '66-67 shot 48.3 FG%.

That's a huge improvement, which went along with the 76ers turning into one of the great teams in all of history.

Now consider context:

Alex Hannum is a successful coach with one previous stint coaching Wilt, during which he made that team see a huge immediate improvement.

He comes to Philly, and without question his key strategic decision is to make Wilt shoot less per minute than any of the other starters.

You realize what a ballsy move this is of course. He just told the most famous scorer in history to stop shooting. Had the team stunk, Hannum would have been a joke for eternity, and he knew it. He was wagering his career on this. He wouldn't have done it just for the hell of it.

No, he saw the problems, and implemented a drastic change in strategy because he felt that was what was needed to be done in order to make a Wilt offense that wasn't disfunctional. And of course, the results were phenomenal.

You are reluctant to believe because the basic premise violates your intuition something fierce. But understand that you refusing to believe it is to essentially say that Hannum was an idiot who can incredibly lucky that some other factor caused Philly's offense to skyrocket right when he made the world's stupidest decision, and I bet you don't even have a hypothesis for what that "other factor" might have been. Your reluctance is completely understandable, but you've got to get over it, apply your rationale mind and accept where that takes you.

^^ In other words, Wilt is extremely overrated

Because volume shooting and not getting your teammates involved isn't the key to success. Yet another reason why Bill Russell annually slaughtered Wilt's teams.

hayguise wrote:^^ In other words, Wilt is extremely overrated

No, in other words Wilt as a volume scorer was overrated and Wilt as a post passing hub and defensive anchor was considerably better.

Lets not forget that Wilt also changed teams and coaches.

We today can critique history and 2nd guess but in the time, in the moment no scoring champ had ever won a ring and the ONLY recipe for success seemed to be the Celtic formula.

When Wilt arrived in LA he was not a hero or the missing link or anything that we would believe today. He knew he would have to adjust his game and would have to fit in the Lakers system as opposed to the Lakers adjusting to him. Balyor was very, very upset about Wilt taking his touches and clogging the lane. Wilt was going to have to try to pacify Elgin and did so by taking many fewer shots.

tsherkin wrote:

hayguise wrote:^^ In other words, Wilt is extremely overrated

No, in other words Wilt as a volume scorer was overrated and Wilt as a post passing hub and defensive anchor was considerably better.

I'm not denying that Wilt is an all-time great, but, as stated above, his gaudy stats fall short of his actual impact. Many people consider him top 6 all-time, which I consider too high.

EDIT: Gaudy stats as in his massive scoring seasons. Once he cooled down and started HELPING his team, his stats don't look so "another level" anymore (although still very impressive).

His rebounding stayed dominant and he had the single greatest passing season in the history of centers, plus they didn't keep blocks or steals in his career. He also set the single-season TS% record and his defensive impact was undeniable.

tsherkin wrote:His rebounding stayed dominant and he had the single greatest passing season in the history of centers, plus they didn't keep blocks or steals in his career. He also set the single-season TS% record and his defensive impact was undeniable.

I'll give you the defensive part, but it really is hard to compare across eras. As much as people hate to admit it, he DID play in a weaker era (once he started helping his team instead of scoring inefficiently), played at a much faster pace, and also all probably had an extremely high usage rate (no data, but it's probably safe to assume) to contribute to his stats. I know AST% and TRB% are flawed stats, but they show that his passing and rebounding, while very good, are not historical outliers and are at the very least comparable to modern players.

tsherkin wrote:His rebounding stayed dominant and he had the single greatest passing season in the history of centers, plus they didn't keep blocks or steals in his career. He also set the single-season TS% record and his defensive impact was undeniable.

Yeah, probably the greatest rebounder in history, and in '67 certainly a great defender to go along with his balanced play setting up the team's shot.

Although, his defensive impact was rather unsteady through his career with issues mirroring his offense. His team's defenses tended to varying a good deal from year to year with the good times (statistically) coinciding with articles talking about Wilt's "new" focus on defense. Basically, like a lot of offense-praised players, he tended to coast on defense. This was quite unfortunate because until he became a passing hub, he was a far superior defensive player than offensive player.

Also, as on offense, Wilt tended to focus on the tangible. He felt like if he blocked as many shots as Russell, he was doing as much as Russell on defense and he'd get miffed when a coach told him he was doing something "wrong", i.e. "Can you do more of X like Russell does?".

Actually Russell, whose career roughly parallels Wilt in terms of era, had a reasonably significant edge in rebounding per 36 -- 19.1 to 18. Wilt's statistical edge came from playing 3.5 more minutes/game than Russell. (Although it is certainly fair to guess that in those 3.5 minutes, Wilt outrebounds Russell's backup enough to make back the difference.)

Rodman deserves consideration as the rebounding GOAT too; but Wilt is certainly top 3.

He literally stopped? Meaning he didn't take another shot after 1967?

penbeast0 wrote:Actually Russell, whose career roughly parallels Wilt in terms of era, had a reasonably significant edge in rebounding per 36 -- 19.1 to 18. Wilt's statistical edge came from playing 3.5 more minutes/game than Russell. (Although it is certainly fair to guess that in those 3.5 minutes, Wilt outrebounds Russell's backup enough to make back the difference.)

If you compare them both after 13 seasons in the league, they played the exact same number of games, which makes things perfect for a comparison:



Chamberlain had 778 more rebounds than Russell in the same amount of games, but they came in 3,591 more minutes. Since they played the same number of games at that point, it can be seen that the difference is entirely due to the significantly more minutes played.

Contemporaries said that Russell was the better technical rebounder:

“From the standpoint of technique, Russell is the acknowledged rebound artist of the N.B.A. His forte is position play—getting between the basket and opponents to intercept the ball as it descends. ‘That’s the basic move,’ Russell says. ‘If a man half a head shorter has position of me, I can’t get the ball unless I foul him.’”

Jack Ramsay said that the best rebounder he ever saw was a “[t]ossup between Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain. With Russell it was timing and tenacity. Chamberlain was just powerful.”

“He swept the boards with a grace and efficiency that stood in sharp contrast to Chamberlain’s raw power.”

Pete Newell: “The better rebounders have the proper body angle. If you go straight up you run a greater risk of having the ball stripped from you on the way down. Sixty degrees is the best body angle. Bill Russell was the best at this. By doing so there was no way his opponent could get to the ball. He’d have to go over his back and foul him. Good defensive rebounding is about technique.”

Chamberlain said this too:

“Where I see him as the tremendous player is as a rebounder. He was the only guy who could rebound along with me, and sometimes I thought he was a better rebounder than I was. He used more things to get to the ball than I had to use. I always had the highest respect for his rebounding.”

Russell was smaller and had better technique in getting the ball, “He used more things to get to the ball than I had to use,” but Wilt was bigger and stronger and so didn't need to do all the things Russell did to get the ball.

I think rebounding is a lot more complicated than people give it credit for. There are some possessions where having a guy who can figure out where to place his body to collect a rebound is more likely to get the rebound than the guy whose faster and stronger than he is, vice versa, and a lot of in between. But in it's most general sense, I think Wilt would help a teams rebounding more than Russell's would. I don't know if he's a better rebounder, I might be able to see arguments either way but I don't think the per minute or per possession stats (if they were available) would tell the whole story, but with Wilt playing more minutes I would feel comfortable with him being my #1 most impactful rebounder of all time. Although him and Russell are certainly #1 and #2 in this regard.

penbeast0 wrote:Actually Russell, whose career roughly parallels Wilt in terms of era, had a reasonably significant edge in rebounding per 36 -- 19.1 to 18. Wilt's statistical edge came from playing 3.5 more minutes/game than Russell. (Although it is certainly fair to guess that in those 3.5 minutes, Wilt outrebounds Russell's backup enough to make back the difference.)

Rodman deserves consideration as the rebounding GOAT too; but Wilt is certainly top 3.

But we also know that Bill Russell was given anywhere between 3-7rpg by the hometown scorekeeper. Russell has to have a huge statistical adv to be on the same lvl because we know that Russells stats are inflated/fictional.