RealGM

Wilt's main problem in the playoffs was that he was facing the GOAT player who happened to be the all-time greatest winner every damn year.

(a) he was selfish and scored too much on some teams where he was asked to be the prime scoring threat. Yet Kobe in his highest scoring season of 06 was shooting a much higher percentage of his team's shots (33% of the team's total shots but since he only played 80% of the time, he took over 40% of the team's shots when he was in the game) at a much lower level of efficiency relative to the league (efg of .491 v. league efg of .490) in his highest scoring season. Wilt in 1962, his 50.4 ppg season where he was averaging over 48mpg, took about 35% of his team's shots on an efg of .504 (2nd in league) relative to the league average of .426 (Kobe's efficiency disadvantage is partially lessened by his much better ft%). Oh, and Wilt scored 100 points in a game (which his team won) so he's clearly more selfish than Kobe who scored only 82 in a game (both against weak teams with a decent percentage of the scoring taking place after the game was clearly won in both cases).

(b) He didn't always play great defense, refusing to chase his man away from the basket and not always showing well on PnR . . . but he did play great post defense and it's hard to make a case that Kobe, who is a good defensive guard when trying, even had a defensive impact equal to Wilt's.

fatal9 wrote:I don't see how Wilt was better than Hakeem on either end of the floor. It was something I thought when I failed to overlook raw/flawed boxscore numbers years ago. I can see maybe an argument for him being better in certain specialized roles (finisher/rebounder) but you can only play that way on certain teams. You can obsess over Wilt's size, strength, athleticism, ability to wrestle mountain lions, misleading stats, whatever...I only care about basketball ability and impact and there's nothing that suggests to me that Wilt beats out Hakeem. I read the OP and it feels a bit like he wants to argue for the sake of arguing, so I'm just going to say right away that I have no interest in engaging in useless debates for pages and pages repeating things that have already been mentioned/addressed in the past.

But anyways, I'll just state my opinion on some things.

There are only three centers I trust in a volume scoring role come playoff time, Hakeem, Shaq and KAJ. There's a reason these are the only big men (not just centers, big men...period) who put up 30 ppg on route to championships. They have all-time great level post scoring and ability to read defenses/keep teammates involved. Shaq had a weakness in his FT shooting, but overcame it with his overwhelming physical dominance combined with fluid footwork for his size that made him unstoppable in the post. People who think Wilt could play like Shaq are clueless imo, when playing so physically at that size you need a very low center of gravity to have the balance/footwork like Shaq did (this is also the reason Hakeem had incredible balance, very low center of gravity). In the case of KAJ and Hakeem, they have moves to evade doubles, unstoppable and reliable go-to shots, for KAJ it was the skyhook and turnaround which were money, Hakeem had the dream shake jump hook and baseline fadeaway as his go to moves (combined with a gazillion countermoves that seemed to just come naturally came to him). Wilt had the fadeaway (which I view as erratic and inconsistent) but do people really think it was as effective and consistent as Hakeem/KAJ's go to moves in the post? I've mentioned in past threads reasons why I view Wilt's post offense as overrated (though his offensive rebounding and finishing were dominant). For all the volume scoring you want to tout Wilt for, there is no way in hell I would want him in a volume scoring role in the playoffs over these three guys (or at all to be honest). His post offense is predictable and easy to make adjustments for, he hurts you at the FT line and doesn't dominate in the post physically like a Shaq (not built the same way). There are certain things Wilt could do better than Hakeem on offense, like finishing. He was also a better passer but Hakeem was a better "playmaker" than any center I've seen. Wilt is better at putting the ball on the money but I don't really view him as a quick and unpredictable decision maker with the ball like Hakeem. You can tell when Wilt wants to score (usually if he has taken a dribble) and when he wants to pass, with Hakeem he could pass out of the same movements he used to score. It's really difficult to game plan for when you put that together with his post scoring.

So Hakeem to me is a better, much more reliable volume scorer in the playoffs, is more difficult to game plan for in the post and is also a better playmaker when in a volume scoring role. He is also not someone you can stop in the post late in the game by fouling because he's a good FT shooter too. I really don't see what Wilt brings to the table offensively that would make me want to choose him over Hakeem, especially in a primary role.

Defensively, it's insane to think Wilt ever impacted the game like Hakeem. Some of the best shot blocking instincts ever, unbelievably quick feet to stay in front of guards (Wilt doesn't have this), greatest pick and roll defender I've ever seen (weakness for Wilt), covers the entire floor (not something Wilt did). His post defense is excellent, he's always pressuring his man and the entry pass, great at contesting shots of his own man. His quick feet also give him a major advantage in his post defense, as they allowed him to make a swipe for a steal on one side and then recover right away and quickly get behind his man (typically when big men do this, they make bad gambles and get burned, Hakeem though usually recovered before the offensive player can even begin making the move). It's incredible watching him on defense. I could literally write a page of things he did that no other center (that I've seen) would do consistently on defense. Like with Russell, Wilt can't match Hakeem's "horizontal game" on defense (among other things).

Then there are intangibles. Hakeem is one of the greatest big game and playoff players ever. Never seen him get fazed by pressure. In his prime he was 9-1 in elimination games. You really have to watch these games to appreciate what he's doing and the level he's playing at. His concentration on both ends of the floor is on a completely different level than everyone else. He plays with GOAT level confidence and intensity, and you can see his teams feeding off that (part of the reason why Rockets put together so many upsets imo). He can lock in and make huge winning plays on both ends of the court. His motor is off the charts, similar to MJ at his peak (those "whose game is it, it's Michael Jordan's game" moments), he exerts an incredible amount of energy on both ends of the court and never looks fatigued (Wilt fans will misinterpret this by comparing MPG, I'm referring to overall activity on the court). Magic dubbed him "Mr. Hustle", he was so disruptive for the other team with his activity and wore them down. You can read NBA players opinion at the time (high energy guys like Horace Grant), they were amazed by how much energy he exerted.

Peak/Prime vs. Peak/Prime, I can't see how Wilt is over Hakeem. Hakeem is the better primary option on offense, is more reliable in the playoffs, is more versatile on both ends of the court, is on another level defensively and comes with better intangibles. I normally don't say this because I try to stay open minded in comparisons, but I don't see an argument for Wilt and I've read enough of them from his fans over the years. Rest of Hakeem's career is weak relative to the standard he set through '93-'95 but Wilt's career outside of his prime years ('66-'68) is even less impressive to me.




As a bit of an aside, when you look at Hakeem's physical talent as it relates to basketball, I don't think people realize what an outlier Hakeem was. He was 6'10.5 bare feet (adjusted to 7 feet in shoes by the media), but it's the balance, quick feet, reflexes to go along with other traits that we think of as athletic (jumping high, running fast, strength) that separate him. Dude was built for basketball. Even guys we view as the most athletic big men in the league nowadays (who might test better at a combine) can't replicate Hakeem's movements because they don't have the proportions or balance for it.

I read Hubie Brown make a great breakdown of Hakeem's game and physical talent in an interview (Hubie btw is someone who felt Hakeem and MJ were on different level from rest of the league in '93):

"Hakeem looks slender," Brown says, "but that's because he is built perfectly proportioned. 265 pounds of steel. With the quickness of the quickest cat in the world. I just sat there and looked at him. My God.."

"He's got all the offensive moves. The spin-fade - do you know how much distance he covers with that? And he shoots it as well as other guys shoot baby hooks; his percentage is off the charts. You come to him, he gives you a drop step and puts a shoulder under you. Everything a small forward can do, this guy does and he's 7 foot, 265 pounds.

"Defensively, he covers his man, leaves to get yours and someone else's - and gets back to his. Now, how the hell does he do that?

"Quick of foot yes. And his defensive IQ is incredible. Where does that come from? He played one year in high school; he played at the University of Houston. Where'd he learn it? He's so disruptive on defense. He's got it all figured out. A doctorate degree in basketball, and where he'd get it?'

Ramsey, another great coach talking about his balance (also compares him to '67 Wilt)

Even Ramsay, who saw Chamberlain average 21.7 points, nine assists and 29.1 rebounds while leading the 76ers to the 1967 title, says Olajuwon is having a better postseason.

''Wilt had a great playoff run, but he didn't do the things that Olajuwon is doing," Ramsay said. "You can't stop him. He has such body control and great shooting touch. Every move he makes, he ends up perfectly balanced and gets the shot off. He's become a good passer. He's a defensive force. He plays incredible minutes and I'm sure he feels fatigued but he never shows it. He's a rare one."


Dave Cowens talking about his balance/porportions:

"No question about it, he's a phenomenal player," Cowens said. "If you look at the way he's built, he's a big guy, but his center of gravity is remarkable. He doesn't really have long legs or a long torso. It's great for balance. Plus he's got the soccer background, and he's got a great amount of concentration. He doesn't get distracted at all." But in dismantling Robinson, Olajuwon showed Cowens things he had never seen.

fatal9 wrote:With so few games, it's tough to get a complete picture but here's what I remember from each game...


'64 finals game, he looked lazy on defense to me (Russell scored some really easy points on him) but okay overall. Displayed a nice touch on his fadeaway, was a beast on offensive boards as expected (I really think people underestimate how much Wilt scored off of offensive boards at times), but his post game left something to be desired. Wilt did get a good amount of double teaming in this game.

'67 G4 vs. Boston, he looked great on defense to me but offensively just didn't have the fluidity and smoothness at all on post ups. It's not about whether the shots went in or not, just the moves themselves were really poor. He seemed to be very involved on offense, the guards ran a lot of their plays through him (get ball to Wilt, then Wilt passes it back --> shot).


Here's basically all his post ups from the above two games, again the point isn't whether he missed or made the shot, it's that he consistently just looked really awkward with his dribbling, footwork (which made me laugh) and mobility (ie. things that stay consistent game to game). Also bad habits like not keeping the ball high (making him prone to turnovers). I'm also pretty sure that Wilt ended up with games that on a sheet of paper look impressive statistically 27/38 in the '64 game and close to a triple double in the '67 game.

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

'69 finals game 7, I won't judge as Wilt left half way through. It should be noted a commentator did mention about Wilt's weakness on defense regarding pick and rolls/guarding players off screens IIRC and how Counts came in and did a better job of doing it. Really don't know how to judge Wilt's defense that season, '67 and '68 seem to be awesome but it seems like Lakers didn't see much of an improvement on defense by adding Wilt that year.

The '70 finals game 7 is the one where he looked really bad to me. Even though he wound up with a nice statline, and shot better than most of his team, he was the worst offensive option on the floor. Any time the ball was fed to him (which seemed to be the strategy in the first half), it was either a turnover, a bad offensive set, a bad post move, him drawing a foul but only to miss two FTs. If you ever watch this game, just take a note of how basically every offensive possession they went to Wilt for a post-up ended poorly.

'70 game vs. Bulls, looked like a force and what I imagine to be an example of 70s Wilt at his best.

'72 matchup with Kareem. Even though KAJ had a big game and ended the winning streak, Wilt was very impressive in his one on one defense. Good level of physicality and amazing at contesting KAJ's shots without fouling. And then later the '72 finals G5, probably his best total game that I've seen even though the competition (depleted Knicks frontline) was not impressive at all.


Maybe it's not fair because the games that are out there aren't exactly Wilt's best, but offensively Wilt looks really bad to me on post-ups, looks great as a finisher and offensive rebounder, inconsistent defensively though awesome in the 70s game. To be frank, I think Wilt wasn't as efficient of a post up option as people believe. His FG% in his scoring years is somewhat low for someone who I imagine getting a lot of putbacks, finishing a lot of plays around the basket efficiently, but on post ups? In some of the games he might shoot 7/14, but be like 1/6 on post-ups, miss most of the FTs on plays he was fouled on, and he looked turnover prone to me in every game as well. Then of course there is the concern others have pointed out of "overworking" him in the offense which produced gaudy stats but wasn't in the best interest of the team offensively.

fatal9 wrote:

QuantMisleads wrote: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.

QuantMisleads wrote: In 1964-1965 Wilt had health issues (a heart attack), and even he knew he was playing badly and was in a funk.

Fair enough, but again, you’re missing the point. This is a guy who put up 35/23 in the season on league leading 51% shooting that year, and was also a defensive force according to his fans. Why are his boxscore numbers not translating to impact? Why is his team the worst in the league when he is averaging an “amazing!!” 39/24? Why is the team he got traded to not improve record wise when he is averaging an “amazing!!” 30/23? After all, for most, the case for Wilt’s greatness hinges on his boxscore numbers does it not. Why is it translating to such little impact?

QuantMisleads wrote: and as i have said a million times, 1969 was by far Wilt's worst season, for reasons due partly to him not exerting himself at all and his coach telling him to rebound and do nothing else. So that's exactly what Wilt did, which is why it was his worst season. Using this season as indicative of his overall performance is not accurate, though if one wanted to penalize him based on this poor season I couldn't blame them or argue against them.

Okay, so another season where there is an excuse for why Wilt should be immune to criticism and isn’t improving the team as much as expected. They really seem to be starting to add up. Like I said he gets traded to a roster that was starving for a center all decade (SRS goes down, lose to same team, actually have more trouble getting out of the first round than they did previously...how can he have such little impact?). If a center who is the greatest at every facet of the game according to his fans isn’t having an impact in a season his coach asked him to stop shooting, then what is his value? And blaming everything on the coach (who actually improved the Laker offense when he came in the previous year) is exactly why I find it pointless to argue with Wilt fans. You don’t want to hold him accountable for anything. Did his coach make him drop his scoring from 21 ppg on 56 TS% to 13.7 ppg on 51.8 TS% in the playoffs (and even worse in the finals)? Did his coach make him go 2/11 from the line in a game his team lost by one point and he had only 8 points? Why is Wilt the one who is having all these issues? Does this not say bad things about his portability, especially offensively? And based on Wilt's history, isn't the coach RIGHT in asking him to score less?

Here’s an LA times article about Wilt following that season by the way which is very critical about his impact on the team:

Now that the seventh and perhaps pivotal game of the NBA Finals is in the can, it may be appropriate to pause and reflect for a while. Say five months.

Analysis of whatever technical errors the Lakers may have committed will be left to keener basketball minds. In this period of re-examination, I’d just like to raise one point, one I think can properly be raised by even a casual spectator.

The point is that the past season suggests, if it does not actually prove, that Wilt Chamberlain is not worth $250,000 a year. And if that’s what he’s really getting, his teammates are being insulted.

This is not the intemperate response of an embittered fan. A good friend of mine is connected with the Lakers, but I have had no real emotional attachment to the team, and never have had.

At any rate, the Lakers, with Chamberlain, lost the seventh playoff game by two points — on the Lakers’ floor. So they have come no closer with Wilt than they did without him.

But the intent here is not to charge Chamberlain with unsatisfactory performance. To be sure, there are some things he can’t do. His field goal average, on shots taken from more than a few feet from the hoop, is rotten. His free throw average, on the other hand, is even worse. Nor can he move with the ball the way Bill Russell can.

But you can’t fault a man for not doing things he is physically incapable of doing. Norm Van Brocklin was hardly a great scrambler. But you didn’t rap him for that. The man just couldn’t run. Chamberlain, from any distance, just can’t shoot.

But some say there are things Wilt is capable of doing that he does not do. They say he could play more evenly. They say he loafs.

...

The trouble is there is another dimension to Chamberlain’s salary. When you announce you are giving a man $250,000 a year (or do not deny published reports that that’s what he’s getting), you are telling your fans, in effect, that you have acquired a super force. The magnitude of the sum almost suggests here is a man against whom there can be no defense.

But it can be seen now by every Laker fan that, while Chamberlain may be a great player, he is not the ultimate weapon. The same thing can be seen by his teammates. For the record, they may tell you, “more power to the guy. He’s entitled to anything he can get.” Privately, however, they must deeply resent the fact that Chamberlain is being paid five to 10 times as much as a lot of players he is not five to 10 times greater than. It would be irrational to believe this resentment has not adversely affected the team.

QuantMisleads wrote:Saying that Wilt was comparable to Shaq defensively is much worse than saying he was comparable to Russell.

Great shot blocker and intimidating presence in the lane, bad screen and roll defender, mediocre defender outside of the paint, inconsistent effort throughout the years, outright bad defender in some years, great post defender in some years, leading average to mediocre defenses in a lot of years. Who does this sound like to you? Shaq might actually be more impressive here because his best defensive year came in a year where he was leading the league in scoring and carrying a big offensive load, not in a setting where the only thing he had to do on offense was finish and focus on rebounding and defense.

QuantMisleads wrote:Whoever made this video was trying to show Wilt at his worst. FIrst of all, that game 4 1967 game was immediately after the game 3 where Wilt rebounded the ball 41 times and had an unbelievable statline. After the game and for the next few days his knees were badly aching, it was in the newspapers. So you're showing us a game where his knees were hurting him and wasn't necessarily what he could do on the offensive end. Anyway, this was not Wilt in his scoring prime, so it really doesn't prove anything. and in 1964, I'll admit, Wilt looked rusty offensively. if you look at some of the other videos that were posted, however, you'd see that Wilt at his offensive best was a powerhouse. It's not for nothing that he managed to get the scoring output that he did. Most of you seem to think this happened on accident or something, it's **** bizarre. I really don't know how you guys are making this sort of argument with a straight face and getting away with it, unbelievable. Same thing with that Shaq homie in this thread, you guys all make the case, implicitly, that everything Wilt did was an accident, or if it wasn't he wasn't really doing anything of value. Again, **** bizarre.

Including every post up, even makes that didn’t count (like fadeaway bank after the whistle) of him in his prime is trying to make him look bad? I prefaced the video by saying that things like whether he made or missed the shot should be irrelevant because they vary. But things like footwork, rhythm, type of shots he’s getting don’t mean anything? Why is a highlight video (half of them from college against horrible competition) more indicative of his skills than actual game footage? If I wanted to make Wilt look bad, I would go to his past prime years and show how bad he looked when posting up in those years. Also, again you seem to be saying Wilt at his "offensive best" (presumably in his volume scoring years) was a "powerhouse"...hardly when you look at the big picture.

QuantMisleads wrote:The problem is that you can't talk about his failures in his later years (where he was expected to win) and then also talk about lack of impact from his scoring, which were in a different set of years and in which he came close to winning on various occasions.

Alright so I can’t criticize his later years either, because I'm critical of his earlier years? More seasons where Wilt should be immune to criticism. This makes no sense to me.

QuantMisleads wrote:Actually everyone mentioned how he could hit that jumpshot but couldn't hit a free throw. His coach actually told him to shoot hte free throw like he was shooting that jump shot, but wilt said he didn't want to bring even more attention to himself by doing that.

Look nobody has made excuses for Wilt's performance in that game 7, but using that game as some sort of indication of his overall contribution is simply inaccurate.

Yes, it can be bad if you're shooting jump shots and you're also the primary rebounder for your team in a fast paced game. I have said a thousand times over that the reason Wilt was not successful in his early, high scoring years was because it was a fast paced game, which was not conducive to having all the scoring done by one person.

You didn’t actually address what I wrote. This is probably going to be something where you’re going to have your opinion and I’m going to have mine, and people can believe whatever seems reasonable to them. To me Wilt has all the signs of a guy whose post scoring is not as good as his fans like to advertise. And using practice to say Wilt was actually a great FT shooter but had a mental block in games? Shaq used to say the same thing, that he was an 80% FT shooter in practice. It's easy to make these claims when no one is consistently recording anything and when you are shooting the same shot 100 consecutive times in a row and in rhythm (instead of 2 and then heading back on defense). Doesn't mean either guy was a good jumpshooter.

Like I mentioned, his FG% isn't really that high when you take into account how physically dominant he was, how he was one of the GOAT finishers/offensive rebounders. And based on the fact he clearly wasn't a pure shooter, I see his fadeaway as an unreliable and erratic shot. He falls off scoring wise in the playoffs big time (would be even worse statistically in his prime if he didn't statpad in some of these series by playing 48 minutes in blowouts), which is another sign that his post game wasn't as reliable or unstoppable as his fans would like us to believe (like other guys known to underperform in playoffs because they have inefficient go to offense). On top of that he's one of the worst FT shooters in history, so I have major doubts on how nice his touch really is 10+ feet away from the basket. His own coach made him stop taking those shots in the offense and become mainly a finisher, why? why would you limit someone's post scoring if they are the greatest ever at it? would any coach ask Kareem to stop shooting his skyhook? stop Hakeem/Shaq from going to work in the post? If his post scoring is so great and dominant and Wilt can play a balanced games, why do teams play so much better when he is literally the last option on the floor for scoring (not just Philly from '66 to '67, but LA also began limiting Wilt more and more in the post in '72 when compared to '70 and '71)? Wilt just doesn't pass my BS test. Lot of things to be legitimately skeptical about.

QuantMisleads wrote:His playoff performances were superb, lets remember that he lost a combined 5 game 7s (technically one was game 6) by 11 points.

Okay, this is one argument I absolutely can't stand. I’ll let the “superb playoff performer” comment go, if you really believe that then you have really low standards for what a great playoff player really is. I’ve done a year by year detailed look into his playoff years and it’s not impressive, it’s actually when I first began questioning how good Wilt really was. But to paint Wilt as "unlucky" for losing those series is to ignore his own failings and also his own "luck" which put him in those situations.

In 1965, Wilt is “unlucky” for losing a game 7 where Hondo stole the ball. But was he unlucky when Hal Greer made a miracle 35 foot shot in game 4 to send the game to overtime to prevent Sixers from going down 3-1 (and in all likelihood losing in 5 games)?

In 1968, Wilt is “unlucky” for losing a series where his team blew a 3-1 lead with home court. Was he unlucky when his teammate Hal Greer poured in 40 points on 15/24 shooting in game 6 but Wilt shot 6/21 from the field in that game an 8/23 from the line (hard to imagine a worse scoring game than this) or how about his bizarre performance in game 7. is it bad luck or is it Wilt not showing up in the last two critical games of the series?

In 1969, Wilt in unlucky for losing a game 7 where in the finals he averaged 11.7 ppg, a huge drop off from regular season and the previous playoff series. Was it bad luck that he shot 2/11 from the FT line in game 4 in a one point loss which would have put the Lakers up 3-1?

In 1970, he fails to take advantage of an injured Willis Reed and the team plays terribly in the first half when they decide to run the offense through Wilt.

And on and on. Wilt was often "unlucky" because he himself put himself in those situations. This isn't an argument for Wilt, but one against him.

hold Wilt to a different standard than other players

The Infamous1 wrote:Him having to scale his scoring back so much to finally win a title makes me question the impact of big PPG numbers

elevate his game

The Infamous1 wrote:Because wilts biggest attribute and claim to fame is his ability to score the basketball. When the only time you Every won titles is when you had to massively scale back your offensive game to the point where you werent even the best scorer in the playoffs on your team(not even top 3) that's an issue. As a scorer he was simply a finisher at that point(basically what people say current Dwight's role should be)

bastillon wrote:penbeast just a couple quick thoughts before quoting bunch of posts...

...

1. why are you using eFG%? first of all, using eFG% only makes sense when there's 3pt shooting. there was no 3pt shooting in the 60s so what you're really using is FG% in disguise of an advanced stat, you're miscapturing what's really important. Wilt's scoring efficiency (TS%) is far away from the best. Wilt was not a comparable offensive force to Oscar and West, and this is why the latter 2 were leading the best offensive teams of the decade when Wilt's teams struggled offensively with him in a volume scoring role.

2. raw numbers are basically irrelevant. who cares if Wilt was scoring 100 points in a meaningless RS game when his entire team was playing in a way that he would score? wanna look at his scoring and praise then you better come up with something to defend his horrendous scoring performances in numerous finals series. how is near-peak Wilt scoring 11 ppg in 69 finals? how is he choking away big game after big game in 68-70 ? the arguments are well known and repeating meaningless stats is just a very poor argument.

(b) He didn't always play great defense, refusing to chase his man away from the basket and not always showing well on PnR . . . but he did play great post defense and it's hard to make a case that Kobe, who is a good defensive guard when trying, even had a defensive impact equal to Wilt's.

that's an absurd argument. Kobe isn't top15 player of all-time because of his defense. you're admitting Wilt didn't play great defense and waive it off like it didn't mean anything? because Kobe didn't play great defense either?

now...

penbeast0 wrote:btw, if Dipper or anyone else has done the work, I would love to know Wilt's playoff statistics v. everyone other than Boston year by year and overall. I would guess it makes a significant difference but don't know this for a fact.