RealGM

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:49 am**

Wilt's fans often say that he had fadeaway shot and was good at that. Considering his poor FT% it's very unlikely he was good shooter, but lets check it.

I will use two first Wilt's seasons as example (he probably shot the most fadeaways in his first years). We know that he made 46.1% FG in 1960 and 50.9% in 1961. Knowing that we can see how his "at rim" and "non at rim" shots FG% would look if we assume what % of his all shots were "at rim" shots and how efficient he was making them.

Of course that's just assumptions, so I will present different possibilities and I would like you all to chose one which is in your opinion the closets to the truth. If neither is, then please explain why (show numbers, so how many Wilt's shots in your opinion were at rim shots and how efficient he was making them).

1. if 50% of all Wilt's shots were at rim shots then his FG% from all other types of shots would be:

1.1. if his at rim shots FG% was 60%, then it means his not at rim shots % was 32.2% in 1960 and 41.8% in 1961

1.2. if his at rim shots FG% was 70%, then it means his non at rim shots % was 22.2% in 1960 and 31.8% in 1961

1.3. if his at rim shots FG% was 80%, then it means his non at rim shots % was 12.2% in 1960 and 21.8% in 1961

2. if 60% of all Wilt's shots were at rim shots then his FG% from all other types of shots would be:

2.1. if his at rim shots FG% was 60%, then it means his not at rim shots % was 25.2% in 1960 and 37.3% in 1961

2.2. if his at rim shots FG% was 70%, then it means his non at rim shots % was 10.2% in 1960 and 22.3% in 1961

2.3. if his at rim shots FG% was 80%, then it means his non at rim shots % was -4.8% ("-" so it means it's impossible he shot 80% at rim and at rim shots were 60% of his all shots that year) in 1960 and 7.3% in 1961

3. if 70% of all Wilt's shots were at rim shots then his FG% from all other types of shots would be:

3.1. if his at rim shots FG% was 60%, then it means his not at rim shots % was 13.6% in 1960 and 29.7% in 1961

3.2. if his at rim shots FG% was 70%, then it means his non at rim shots % was -9.7% ("-" so it's impossible he shot 70% FG% at rim and at rim shots were 70% of his all shots) in 1960 and 6.4% in 1961

3.3. if his at rim shots FG% was 80%, then it means his non at rim shots % was -33.1% in 1960 and -16.9% in 1961 ("-" so in both cases it's impossible he shot 80% at rim and at rim shots were 70% of his all shots)

So 9 possibilities, which one is the most probably? In my opinion 3.1. or 2.2. and the only possibility he was decent (37-42%) "non at rim" shooter is if he shot only 60% at rim (and 60% from that area for big is really bad result) and "at rim" shots were no more than 60% of his all shots.

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:11 pm**

I’d lay the blame of wilt’s relatively low fg% his first couple years (although it was actually very high in compariosn to the rest of the league), almost as much on the league style of play as a whole as much as his own shot selection.

In the early 60’s the style was very much shoot as much as you can almost regardless of the shot you have. You’ll notice a lot of 60’s NBA stars shot relatively low fg% in the early part of the decade and a good deal higher towards the end of it.

Jerry West shot 30.8ppg on .445 in ’62 and 31.2ppg on .497 in ’69 when he was already 31 years old.

I don’t think we have accurate shot charts for wilt from this period but I’d be curious as to his preferred method of shot during his 76ers years where he was scoring in the mid 20’s but on ridiculous fg% like into the 60s.

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:58 pm**

Wilt was a flawed offensive player

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:18 pm**

Shaq is dominant when he gets to the rim, Wilt getting to the rim is just covering for his lack of a shot outside the rim area.

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:58 pm**

It's silly to group all Wilt fans into a box with statements like "Wilt fans say ...", as if every Wilt fan thought that he could shoot a good fadeaway jumper. I don't say that he was some adept jumpshooter.

But regarding the numbers, you'll have to keep in mind that Wilt should only be compared to his peers. And there are few bigs or even guards who posted solid field %s with volume in that era. West and Oscar are the others.

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:57 pm**

It's a fact that Wilt's off. skills declined as his career (and maybe his increase in muscle) progressed. When he was in college, he had an excellent straight up jump shot out to 17-18 ft. (you can view some of his college games on the internet) and a good hook shot.

When he was setting records in the early to mid-sixties, he shot a lot of fadeaways which he could make at a respectable pct. But it cut down on his fg. pct. He had an excellent pivot move to the basket where he would either use the fingerroll or if close enough dunk. With his size, length, strength, spring, and quickness, desire, he was virtually unstoppable. That was also the fairly "skinny" Wilt who only weighed about 250 lbs.

When he won his first championship at the age of 30, he still shot the fadeaway, but it was almost a desperation shot. Most of his shots were fingerolls and dunks. I never saw him even take a hook shot. He could still wheel into the lane on most centers and score if he wanted, but he had lost a little quickness. He was a heavier player by that time and looked it. He weighed around 275-280.

By his last days all he had were the fingerrolls and dunks. His knees were creaky and he was over 300 lbs. all of it muscle. At no time was Wilt ever overweight. He just kept adding muscle. He could still move well on defense, but smaller, athletic centers like Dave Cowens gave him a lot of trouble. Cowens could hit jumpers out to 15-17 feet , plus with his quickness and spring could score on Wilt In other ways like hook shots.

So why did Wilt's off. skills decline? Too much muscle? Too little practice? Probably a combination of both. I suppose many people have seen that video of Wilt post-retirement making four hook shots in row from what looks like 17-18 feet from the basket which shows Wilt had not lost that shot through the years. But even though I saw a lot of Wilt during his Sixer years, I never saw him shoot a hook.

Why didn't Wilt keep his off. skills honed as he aged? Why didn't he at least shoot hook shots? Who knows. Even without a jump shot and a hook, he was still a dominant center...when healthy. But most of his dominance related to his def. and rebounding. His knees also gave him a lot of problems after he reached 30.

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:48 pm**

Laimbeer wrote:Shaq is dominant when he gets to the rim, Wilt getting to the rim is just covering for his lack of a shot outside the rim area.

Is this supposed to have green font or are you actually serious?

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:05 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:Shaq is dominant when he gets to the rim, Wilt getting to the rim is just covering for his lack of a shot outside the rim area.

Is this supposed to have green font or are you actually serious?

Sorry, thought the sarcasm was obvious.

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:47 pm**

I'm not quite sure to be honest.

I set up an Excel document in case anybody wants to play around with it:

http://www56.zippyshare.com/v/68975853/file.html

The first sheet lays out all possibilities (some a lot more likely than others), the second sheet lets you edit the % of shots taken at the rim to derive the other numbers, and the third sheet lets you set the away from the rim FG%. In both the second and third sheets, his at rim percentage is set at 70% since it makes the most sense, though you can edit that if you want.

My current guess is in sheet 2:

Code: Select all

        %rim   FG%     %else  FG%
60-61   0.40   70.0%   0.60   34.3%   
62-63   0.40   70.0%   0.60   39.3%
64-66   0.40   70.0%   0.60   40.7%
67-68   0.70   70.0%   0.30   48.3%
69-73   0.70   70.0%   0.30   38.3%

In order for Wilt to be 40% away from the rim, here are the shot selection numbers:

Code: Select all

        %rim   FG%     %else  FG%
60-61   0.29   70.0%   0.71   40.0%
62-63   0.39   70.0%   0.61   40.0%
64-66   0.41   70.0%   0.59   40.0%
67-68   0.78   70.0%   0.22   40.0%
69-73   0.68   70.0%   0.32   40.0%

A few notes:

• It's possible that FG% at the rim is higher (maybe more putbacks?) or lower (maybe he missed more finger rolls?) or lower obviously, but I settled on the middle of DavidStern's range.
• The 40% table numbers are possible, but unlikely I think. It seems that he was likely better in 67-68, at around that point in 62-63 and 64-66, and lower in 60-61 and 69-73.
• 64-66 could probably be split further into 64, 65sfw, and 65phi+66, but I wanted to leave groupings of at least two seasons at a time.

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:44 pm**

Laimbeer wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:Shaq is dominant when he gets to the rim, Wilt getting to the rim is just covering for his lack of a shot outside the rim area.

Is this supposed to have green font or are you actually serious?

Sorry, thought the sarcasm was obvious.

I've seen worse; particularly directed at Wilt for some reason.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:12 am**

I have thought this over for awhile and I think I have come to a reasonable conclusion.
Hopefully you guys will appreciate my insight.

#1. Finishing ability
Wilt was a great finisher and great at converting baskets at the rim.

#2. Post game ability/efficiency
Wilt had a decent post game (he wasn't garbage like some say) but he was clearly below the Shaq/Kareem level by a significant degree.
He wasn't as skilled or as effective when it came to creating his own shot in the post when compared to those two.
He wasn't a top level post scorer.

This is evident by his poor FG% which plagued him in his younger years and carried over to his later years where by all accounts he stopped gunning and stopped taking a large volume of perimeter shots.
54%FG while decent for a volume scorer is very bad when you are only scoring 14ppg.
53%FG is quite poor when you are only scoring 24ppg in 48.5mpg.
Even 58%FG isn't overly impressive when you are scoring less then 22ppg in 48mpg and that was Wilt's Peak & an outlier year for him in most respects.

#3. Perimeter game
I am less certain about this facet then the other two but for now this is how I see it.
For now I would say Wilt's perimeter game was comparable to Shaq's.
His banker/jumper like Shaq's jumphook pretty/semi reliable inside of 6-8 feet.
Outside of that range though I think he was pretty damn inefficient with it although perhaps more effective then Shaq could have been who rarely took shots further out then that and wasn't efficient when he did so.
Still it isn't a shot any coach would want him to take outside of bailout type situations.

So... Wilt was pretty good offensively.
He was a great finisher, had an ok/decent perimeter game for a power C in his younger years and while his post game wasn't on that top level it was decent.
Decent enough to where you'd want to run your offense through him in a typical volume scorer role? Not sure.
He might be better off in more of a supporting role offensively where he can focus more on finishing/passing then on creating for himself.

Keep in mind the above opinions are just that, opinions.
I have formed them with the aid of statistical data, common sense, from watching a limited amount of video and from what I think has been logical reasoning on my part.
Unless the NBA starts releasing full games of Prime Wilt or accurate pbp data I can't say for sure that any of them are 100% correct or not.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:37 am**

RayBan-Sematra wrote:I have thought this over for awhile and I think I have come to a reasonable conclusion.
Hopefully you guys will appreciate my insight.

#1. Finishing ability
Wilt was a great finisher and great at converting baskets at the rim.

#2. Post game ability/efficiency
Wilt had a decent post game (he wasn't garbage like some say) but he was clearly below the Shaq/Kareem level by a significant degree.
He wasn't as skilled or as effective when it came to creating his own shot in the post when compared to those two.
He wasn't a top level post scorer.

This is evident by his poor FG% which plagued him in his younger years and carried over to his later years where by all accounts he stopped gunning and stopped taking a large volume of perimeter shots.
54%FG while decent for a volume scorer is very bad when you are only scoring 14ppg.
53%FG is quite poor when you are only scoring 24ppg in 48.5mpg.
Even 58%FG isn't overly impressive when you are scoring less then 22ppg in 48mpg and that was Wilt's Peak & an outlier year for him in most respects.

#3. Perimeter game
I am less certain about this facet then the other two but for now this is how I see it.
For now I would say Wilt's perimeter game was comparable to Shaq's.
His banker/jumper like Shaq's jumphook pretty/semi reliable inside of 6-8 feet.
Outside of that range though I think he was pretty damn inefficient with it although perhaps more effective then Shaq could have been who rarely took shots further out then that and wasn't efficient when he did so.
Still it isn't a shot any coach would want him to take outside of bailout type situations.

So... Wilt was pretty good offensively.
He was a great finisher, had an ok/decent perimeter game for a power C in his younger years and while his post game wasn't on that top level it was decent.
Decent enough to where you'd want to run your offense through him in a typical volume scorer role? Not sure.
He might be better off in more of a supporting role offensively where he can focus more on finishing/passing then on creating for himself.

Keep in mind the above opinions are just that, opinions.
I have formed them with the aid of statistical data, common sense, from watching a limited amount of video and from what I think has been logical reasoning on my part.
Unless the NBA starts releasing full games of Prime Wilt or accurate pbp data I can't say for sure that any of them are 100% correct or not.

I don't think you fully appreciate the league when you rip Wilt for his early scoring percentages. He was leading a league where the efg (ie. there wasn't a more efficient 3 point shot to pass out to) was appreciably lower than in Shaq's or even Kareem's day. His efg relative to league was
+51% in his rookie year,
+94% in his second year,
+80% in his 3rd year, and
+87% in his fourth year
. . . . while playing ridiculous minutes and scoring at rates unprecedented in league history and at higher levels than even Shaq and Kareem. Whether his coaches should have designed the offense to share the load more so his teammates didn't stand around as much is a real issue but that's an extremely effective scoring machine.

Compare to consensus GOAT scorer Michael Jordan's first four years (ignoring injured 86) . . .
+22% in his rookie year
-.04% in his 3rd year
+.48% his 4th year
+.57% his 5th year

But Wilt was an "inefficient scorer" in his early high scoring years? Wilt always seems to get held to a different standard for some reason.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:39 am**

Yeah, deviation from league average is important, especially in differing offensive environments.

Check out his TSdiff some time.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:42 am**

I'd use it (it's a better stat) but for some reason B-R.com no longer has it in their season summaries and I'd too tired/lazy to go lookng around for it.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:45 am**

penbeast0 wrote:I'd use it (it's a better stat) but for some reason B-R.com no longer has it in their season summaries and I'd too tired/lazy to go lookng around for it.

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showth ... sted-shots

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:39 am**

fpliii wrote:I'm not quite sure to be honest. I set up an Excel document in case anybody wants to play around with it:

http://www56.zippyshare.com/v/68975853/file.html

The first sheet lays out all possibilities (some a lot more likely than others), the second sheet lets you edit the % of shots taken at the rim to derive the other numbers, and the third sheet lets you set the away from the rim FG%. In both the second and third sheets, his at rim percentage is set at 70% since it makes the most sense, though you can edit that if you want.

My current guess is in sheet 2:

Code: Select all
%rim FG% %else FG% 60-61 0.40 70.0% 0.60 34.3% 62-63 0.40 70.0% 0.60 39.3% 64-66 0.40 70.0% 0.60 40.7% 67-68 0.70 70.0% 0.30 48.3% 69-73 0.70 70.0% 0.30 38.3%

In order for Wilt to be 40% away from the rim, here are the shot selection numbers:

Code: Select all
%rim FG% %else FG% 60-61 0.29 70.0% 0.71 40.0% 62-63 0.39 70.0% 0.61 40.0% 64-66 0.41 70.0% 0.59 40.0% 67-68 0.78 70.0% 0.22 40.0% 69-73 0.68 70.0% 0.32 40.0%

A few notes:

• It's possible that FG% at the rim is higher (maybe more putbacks?) or lower (maybe he missed more finger rolls?) or lower obviously, but I settled on the middle of DavidStern's range.
• The 40% table numbers are possible, but unlikely I think. It seems that he was likely better in 67-68, at around that point in 62-63 and 64-66, and lower in 60-61 and 69-73.
• 64-66 could probably be split further into 64, 65sfw, and 65phi+66, but I wanted to leave groupings of at least two seasons at a time.

Great work. The more I look at that, the more close I'm to admit Wilt might had 38-40% FG% from "not at rim area". As one poster on ISH pointed out, for example Shaq in his prime has taken around 46% of his all shots around rim. So it's very likely that Wilt (especially during early years), who had more range than Shaq, also shot 55% or even 60% of his all shots outside of at rim area.

So that table

Code: Select all

        %rim   FG%     %else  FG%
60-61   0.40   70.0%   0.60   34.3%   
62-63   0.40   70.0%   0.60   39.3%
64-66   0.40   70.0%   0.60   40.7%
67-68   0.70   70.0%   0.30   48.3%
69-73   0.70   70.0%   0.30   38.3%

is very close to truth IMO.

BTW, maybe for Wilt on offense comparison to Duncan is much better than to Shaq?

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:06 am**

DavidStern wrote:Great work. The more I look at that, the more close I'm to admit Wilt might had 38-40% FG% from "not at rim area". As one poster on ISH pointed out, for example Shaq in his prime has taken around 46% of his all shots around rim. So it's very likely that Wilt (especially during early years), who had more range than Shaq, also shot 55% or even 60% of his all shots outside of at rim area.

So that table

Code: Select all
%rim FG% %else FG% 60-61 0.40 70.0% 0.60 34.3% 62-63 0.40 70.0% 0.60 39.3% 64-66 0.40 70.0% 0.60 40.7% 67-68 0.70 70.0% 0.30 48.3% 69-73 0.70 70.0% 0.30 38.3%

is very close to truth IMO.

BTW, maybe for Wilt on offense comparison to Duncan is much better than to Shaq?

I think it's possible, a few things have me concerned though:

1) 60-61 is still extremely low at 40%. I don't think it's likely that fewer than 40% of his shots were at the rim, but why would his percentage away from the rim increase by 5% in 62-63? Was it just because of the increased volume (though nothing seems to suggest he became an improved shooter as he spend more time in the NBA, anybody can feel free to correct me if this is wrong), or were fewer shots at the rim taken after? If we make %rim 30% in 60-61 we get 39.4%, but would Wilt take 70% of his shots away from the basket in his first two years?

2) I broke down the 64-66 group further:

Code: Select all

           %rim   FG%     %else  FG%
64         0.40   70.0%   0.60   40.7%
65sfw      0.40   70.0%   0.60   36.5%
65phi-66   0.40   70.0%   0.60   42.7%

So in his two (or really season and a half) seasons when he had shooters around him, and was still in volume scoring role, this would put him at 42.7% at the rim. I'm just eyeballing it, but I think 60-65 (pre-trade) is something like 37%-38%.

3) Regarding the Duncan/Shaq comparison, what data do we have on their splits as above (% of shots at the rim and elsewhere, and FG% at the rim elsewhere) in volume scoring capacities? Which other volume scoring bigs do you think are worth looking into, 96-97 to present (since that's when the data starts) for comparison?

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:39 am**

penbeast0 wrote:I don't think you fully appreciate the league when you rip Wilt for his early scoring percentages.

Maybe I don't but I think I do.
I don't see what the league did to make Wilt so inefficient.
His opposing C competition didn't seem overly stellar especially in the early 60's and based on footage I have seen of mid 60's Wilt it wasn't like he was running down the floor, catching the ball and just launching away.
He would generally gain position and post up or go into a move like any modern offensive C would.
He wasn't a blind gunner who would launch the ball the second he got it or if he was in a bad spot.

He was leading a league where the efg (ie. there wasn't a more efficient 3 point shot to pass out to) was appreciably lower than in Shaq's or even Kareem's day.

So?
Defenses back then were often seem infantile compared to defenses we see in today's games and he wasn't always battling amazing talent in the post.
He also wasn't just blindly chucking shots... not based on the footage we have available anyway.

The league being less efficient on its own does not a good excuse for his poor efficiency.
Oscar & West had no problem maintaining elite efficiency despite playing in the 60's.
I don't see what specifically would prevent a guy like Kareem from maintaining his usual efficiency if you put him the early to mid 60's.

His efg relative to league was

I don't like the whole relative to league efficiency stat. I think for the most part it is irrelevant.
Sometimes it can be brought up and hold relevance in combination with other info in specific comparisons but I don't see it being relevant in this one.

. . . . while playing ridiculous minutes and scoring at rates unprecedented in league history and at higher levels than even Shaq and Kareem.

Wilt should get credit for his GOAT level stamina but if anything that allowed him to score at an even slower rate while still getting up huge volume and it also allowed him to beat up on weaker backup C's.
But obviously that was a valuable trait of his and added rather then subtracted from his value as a player.

The scoring at unprecedented rates is true but his volume in the playoffs wasn't that much higher then what we see from typical elite scorers.
The extra 3-7ppg doesn't blow me away when you take into account mp, pace & his extremely low efficiency.
He also had the further advantage of playing in shorter playoff runs.
Rather then proving himself over 20-23+ games he only had to prove himself through 10-12 games.

But Wilt was an "inefficient scorer" in his early high scoring years?

Yes. 50%FG is very low for a GOAT level volume scoring C and 53-55%FG is very low for a GOAT level scoring C who is only being asked to score around 14-22ppg.

Wilt always seems to get held to a different standard for some reason.

No he is being held to the same standard I hold every GOAT offensive C to.
You're asking me to pretend that offensive C's had it harder back then based purely on the fact that the league as a whole was less efficient but I don't believe they did. That single fact alone isn't enough to make me believe.
I can't imagine Prime Shaq shooting 53% from the field when he only has to score 14-22ppg. I just cannot see that happening regardless of what era you put him in.

tsherkin wrote:Yeah, deviation from league average is important

I disagree. Unless you use that league average stat along with other info showing why it was harder for a player to score as efficiently at that time compared to the other time then the stat is completely useless and so far I have seen no information that leads me to believe Wilt would have it any easier scoring in the 70's, 80's or the early 00's then he would have had scoring in the 60's.

I mean... why could Oscar and West score efficiently back then but Wilt who hypothetically is a GOAT offensive C in the same boat as Shaq or Kareem could not?
Going by that logic we'd have to say that Oscar & West are the undisputed GOAT offensive players or that it was harder for C's to score back then as opposed to perimeter players (something I do not currently believe).

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:40 am**

penbeast0 wrote:I don't think you fully appreciate the league when you rip Wilt for his early scoring percentages.

Maybe I don't but I think I do.
I don't see what the league did to make Wilt so inefficient.
His opposing C competition didn't seem overly stellar especially in the early 60's and based on footage I have seen of mid 60's Wilt it wasn't like he was running down the floor, catching the ball and just launching away.
He would generally gain position and post up or go into a move like any modern offensive C would.
He wasn't a blind gunner who would launch the ball the second he got it or if he was in a bad spot.

He was leading a league where the efg (ie. there wasn't a more efficient 3 point shot to pass out to) was appreciably lower than in Shaq's or even Kareem's day.

So?
Defenses back then often seem infantile compared to defenses we see in today's games and he wasn't always battling amazing talent in the post.

The league being less efficient on its own does not seem like a good excuse for his poor efficiency.
Oscar & West had no problem maintaining elite efficiency despite playing in the 60's.
I don't see what specifically would prevent another great offensive C like Kareem from maintaining his usual efficiency if you put him the early to mid 60's.
The only argument I could think of is "he would be forced to chuck like he was playing on the SS0L Suns" but based on footage I have seen Wilt was not forced to play that way.

His efg relative to league was

I don't like the whole relative to league efficiency stat. I think for the most part it is irrelevant.
Sometimes it can be brought up and hold relevance in specific comparisons but I don't see it being relevant in this one.

. . . . while playing ridiculous minutes and scoring at rates unprecedented in league history and at higher levels than even Shaq and Kareem.

Wilt should get credit for his GOAT level stamina but if anything that allowed him to score at an even slower rate while still getting up huge volume and it also allowed him to beat up on weaker backup C's.
But obviously that was a valuable trait of his and added rather then subtracted from his value as a player.

The scoring at unprecedented rates is true but his volume in the playoffs wasn't that much higher then what we see from typical elite scorers.
The extra 3-7ppg doesn't blow me away when you take into account mp, pace & his extremely low efficiency.
He also had the further advantage of playing in shorter playoff runs.
Rather then proving himself over 20-23+ games he only had to prove himself through 10-12 games.

But Wilt was an "inefficient scorer" in his early high scoring years?

Yes. 50%FG is very low for a GOAT level volume scoring power C and 53-55%FG is very low for a GOAT level scoring power C who is only being asked to score around 14-22ppg.

Wilt always seems to get held to a different standard for some reason.

No he is being held to the same standard I hold every GOAT offensive C to.
You're asking me to believe that offensive C's had it harder back then based purely on the fact that the league as a whole was less efficient but currently I don't believe they did.
That single fact alone isn't enough to make me believe and footage I have seen doesn't make me believe they did.
I can't imagine Prime Shaq shooting 53% from the field when he only has to score 14-22ppg. I just cannot see that happening regardless of what era you put him in.

I mean... why could Oscar and West score efficiently back then but Wilt who hypothetically is a GOAT offensive C in the same boat as Shaq or Kareem could not?
Going by that logic we'd have to say that Oscar & West are the undisputed GOAT offensive players or that it was harder for C's to score back then as opposed to perimeter players (something I do not currently believe).

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:24 pm**

RayBan-Sematra wrote:Oscar & West had no problem maintaining elite efficiency despite playing in the 60's.

Oscar and West currently rank 92nd and 166th all-time respectively in TS%. Players like Eddy Curry and Richard Jefferson outrank them both for their careers.

Rethink your argument.

RealGM

How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?

Re: How good shooter was Wilt outside of "at rim" area?