Would Wilt Chamberlain's reputation be hurt or helped if there was more available footage of him?

[Goudelock]

It seems like Chamberlain has a sort of mystery surrounding him, especially early-60's Chamberlain. You see those huge stat lines on BBallReference and you hear about all sorts of crazy feats that he pulled off (like dislocating a guy's shoulder on a blocked dunk), but there's no full or even partial games of him during this time aside from one or two instances. So for the most part, we're stuck with reading newspaper articles and books, listening to interviews, and using our imaginations to fill in the blanks. Because of this, Chamberlain becomes almost a mythical figure for most fans. But then there are people who say that he just put up those stat lines because his competition was mostly 6'5 white guys aside from Bill Russell and the Celtics.

So let's say that 40% of Chamberlain's career was available in the form of complete games, rather than 2% or whatever it is now. We could now go back and watch prime Wilt, the strategies that his teams used, the quality of his competition, and other factors. How would this affect how we perceive Wilt?

[Jiminy Glick]

I don't know PockyCandy you tell us, I know your the one that made the Kareem video and thank you for that. Do you have Wilt footage as well?

However my opinion is that it would help him and there would be no Wilt or Kareem debate it would be clearly Wilt.

[Goudelock]

I don't know PockyCandy you tell us, I know your the one that made the Kareem video and thank you for that. Do you have Wilt footage as well?

However my opinion is that it would help him and there would be no Wilt or Kareem debate it would be clearly Wilt.

I just use what I have available on YouTube. And there's basically nothing on Wilt Chamberlain from before 1970.

[Jiminy Glick]

I don't know PockyCandy you tell us, I know your the one that made the Kareem video and thank you for that. Do you have Wilt footage as well?

However my opinion is that it would help him and there would be no Wilt or Kareem debate it would be clearly Wilt.

I just use what I have available on YouTube. And there's basically nothing on Wilt Chamberlain from before 1970.

We have a lot of college film of him which is very telling, also the 64 finals.

[trex_8063]

It's hard to say.
A lot of people watch footage of 1960's basketball and think the game looks kinda infantile based on how they handle the ball (not realizing that that was the only means of dribbling that was tolerated by the interpretation of the "carries" rule at the time), or that players don't look as quick/explosive as today's players (not realizing the profound effect that footwear has on this, as well as modern physical training geared toward explosiveness, also noting how again the carries rules impacts how a player [with the ball] might change direction or take off on the drive), or otherwise fail to understand how evolution of various skills/practices [in ANY field] occur (that is: gradually over long periods of time, and as a function of a variety of influences, including exposure to new playing styles [via modern media, for example]).

In short, many people would probably watch that footage and take it as further "confirmation" of their previous unflattering opinion of 1960's basketball.
On the other hand, it might help his reputation with some others (especially if it's not that "stylised" slow-motion type footage, which really gives a very false impression of how quick or not quick players were).


I think his reputation would be helped more by raising general awareness and understanding of some of the things I mentioned, as well as perhaps dispelling certain myths, like the "league of 6'5" white guys" thing. The NBA actually crossed over the 50/50 mark (being at least half black) in the late 60's, iirc (were 48% black in '67, I recall from my own research), and the average height of an NBA player has actually changed by <1" in the last 50 years.

[Doctor MJ]

It seems like Chamberlain has a sort of mystery surrounding him, especially early-60's Chamberlain. You see those huge stat lines on BBallReference and you hear about all sorts of crazy feats that he pulled off (like dislocating a guy's shoulder on a blocked dunk), but there's no full or even partial games of him during this time aside from one or two instances. So for the most part, we're stuck with reading newspaper articles and books, listening to interviews, and using our imaginations to fill in the blanks. Because of this, Chamberlain becomes almost a mythical figure for most fans. But then there are people who say that he just put up those stat lines because his competition was mostly 6'5 white guys aside from Bill Russell and the Celtics.

So let's say that 40% of Chamberlain's career was available in the form of complete games, rather than 2% or whatever it is now. We could now go back and watch prime Wilt, the strategies that his teams used, the quality of his competition, and other factors. How would this affect how we perceive Wilt?

More complete games available would hurt him among people focused on process.

Watch Game 7 vs the Knicks in 1970 and you'll see him hurling free throws at the rim in a way that seems purposefully destructive, you'll see him settling for harder shots than he should, him continuing to use Harlem Globetrotter techniques that were getting feasted on by the defense, and him seeming to be unable to ask himself "Wow, I can't go further with the ball right now, someone must be great position to attack" (Instead he'd just past the ball back out to a guy not in position to shoot or drive.)

Wilt just has a lot of really, really basic issues even as a veteran that he shouldn't still have. Coaches saw the issues and saw considerably more than that, but Wilt was so talented that you basically just had to let him play however he wanted to play.

[trex_8063]

It seems like Chamberlain has a sort of mystery surrounding him, especially early-60's Chamberlain. You see those huge stat lines on BBallReference and you hear about all sorts of crazy feats that he pulled off (like dislocating a guy's shoulder on a blocked dunk), but there's no full or even partial games of him during this time aside from one or two instances. So for the most part, we're stuck with reading newspaper articles and books, listening to interviews, and using our imaginations to fill in the blanks. Because of this, Chamberlain becomes almost a mythical figure for most fans. But then there are people who say that he just put up those stat lines because his competition was mostly 6'5 white guys aside from Bill Russell and the Celtics.

So let's say that 40% of Chamberlain's career was available in the form of complete games, rather than 2% or whatever it is now. We could now go back and watch prime Wilt, the strategies that his teams used, the quality of his competition, and other factors. How would this affect how we perceive Wilt?

More complete games available would hurt him among people focused on process.

Watch Game 7 vs the Knicks in 1970 and you'll see him hurling free throws at the rim in a way that seems purposefully destructive, you'll see him settling for harder shots than he should, him continuing to use Harlem Globetrotter techniques that were getting feasted on by the defense, and him seeming to be unable to ask himself "Wow, I can't go further with the ball right now, someone must be great position to attack" (Instead he'd just past the ball back out to a guy not in position to shoot or drive.)

Wilt just has a lot of really, really basic issues even as a veteran that he shouldn't still have. Coaches saw the issues and saw considerably more than that, but Wilt was so talented that you basically just had to let him play however he wanted to play.

I can't deny there's some truth in this. However, I'm uncertain how much to lay on Wilt as an individual, and how much to put on coaching or just "prevailing basketball opinion" at the time.

[Doctor MJ]

It seems like Chamberlain has a sort of mystery surrounding him, especially early-60's Chamberlain. You see those huge stat lines on BBallReference and you hear about all sorts of crazy feats that he pulled off (like dislocating a guy's shoulder on a blocked dunk), but there's no full or even partial games of him during this time aside from one or two instances. So for the most part, we're stuck with reading newspaper articles and books, listening to interviews, and using our imaginations to fill in the blanks. Because of this, Chamberlain becomes almost a mythical figure for most fans. But then there are people who say that he just put up those stat lines because his competition was mostly 6'5 white guys aside from Bill Russell and the Celtics.

So let's say that 40% of Chamberlain's career was available in the form of complete games, rather than 2% or whatever it is now. We could now go back and watch prime Wilt, the strategies that his teams used, the quality of his competition, and other factors. How would this affect how we perceive Wilt?

More complete games available would hurt him among people focused on process.

Watch Game 7 vs the Knicks in 1970 and you'll see him hurling free throws at the rim in a way that seems purposefully destructive, you'll see him settling for harder shots than he should, him continuing to use Harlem Globetrotter techniques that were getting feasted on by the defense, and him seeming to be unable to ask himself "Wow, I can't go further with the ball right now, someone must be great position to attack" (Instead he'd just past the ball back out to a guy not in position to shoot or drive.)

Wilt just has a lot of really, really basic issues even as a veteran that he shouldn't still have. Coaches saw the issues and saw considerably more than that, but Wilt was so talented that you basically just had to let him play however he wanted to play.

I can't deny there's some truth in this. However, I'm uncertain how much to lay on Wilt as an individual, and how much to put on coaching or just "prevailing basketball opinion" at the time.

The other guys on the court weren't making these types of mistakes to anywhere near the same degree. I'll put it like this:

Oscar Robertson was probably a smarter player as a college freshman than Wilt Chamberlain ever was.
I say "probably" because freshman weren't allowed to play. Once he played, it was clear.

There's a reason why the 76ers did so much better when they stopped having Wilt volume score, and it wasn't because Wilt's true calling was as a passer.

[70sFan]

It would help him because right now we have basically only his Lakers games when he was past his prime. We would learn more about his tendencies and defenses he played against. So many people are sure that he was turnover prone and he was inefficient in the post even though we don't have any good example of prime Wilt footage.

I know NBA have some games (or at least parts) but they don't want to show us this footage. It's really frustrating...

[KobesScarf]

Help a lot because people could see just how skilled he was. He could spam fadeaways and finger rolls in any era.

[GeneralManager]

Scored 62 on the "supposedly" beast defender Russell. Wilt exposed the myth of Russell as defensive GOAT.

Did Shaq score 62 on Hakeem?

Any footage helps Wilt.

[Goudelock]

More complete games available would hurt him among people focused on process.

Watch Game 7 vs the Knicks in 1970 and you'll see him hurling free throws at the rim in a way that seems purposefully destructive, you'll see him settling for harder shots than he should, him continuing to use Harlem Globetrotter techniques that were getting feasted on by the defense, and him seeming to be unable to ask himself "Wow, I can't go further with the ball right now, someone must be great position to attack" (Instead he'd just past the ball back out to a guy not in position to shoot or drive.)

Wilt just has a lot of really, really basic issues even as a veteran that he shouldn't still have. Coaches saw the issues and saw considerably more than that, but Wilt was so talented that you basically just had to let him play however he wanted to play.

I can't deny there's some truth in this. However, I'm uncertain how much to lay on Wilt as an individual, and how much to put on coaching or just "prevailing basketball opinion" at the time.

The other guys on the court weren't making these types of mistakes to anywhere near the same degree. I'll put it like this:

Oscar Robertson was probably a smarter player as a college freshman than Wilt Chamberlain ever was.
I say "probably" because freshman weren't allowed to play. Once he played, it was clear.

There's a reason why the 76ers did so much better when they stopped having Wilt volume score, and it wasn't because Wilt's true calling was as a passer.

I always thought that it was interesting that even though Chamberlain wasn't the smartest player (by any stretch of the imagination), he was, like you said, an extremely gifted passer. Usually the best passers have a high BBall IQ.

[HeartBreakKid]

Scored 62 on the "supposedly" beast defender Russell. Wilt exposed the myth of Russell as defensive GOAT.

Did Shaq score 62 on Hakeem?

Any footage helps Wilt.

Shaq didn't score an arbitrary high number, but he did beast Olajuwon and no one seems to think Olajuwon is any less of a defender (quite the opposite, people think he guarded Shaq well in their series).

[Doctor MJ]

I can't deny there's some truth in this. However, I'm uncertain how much to lay on Wilt as an individual, and how much to put on coaching or just "prevailing basketball opinion" at the time.

The other guys on the court weren't making these types of mistakes to anywhere near the same degree. I'll put it like this:

Oscar Robertson was probably a smarter player as a college freshman than Wilt Chamberlain ever was.
I say "probably" because freshman weren't allowed to play. Once he played, it was clear.

There's a reason why the 76ers did so much better when they stopped having Wilt volume score, and it wasn't because Wilt's true calling was as a passer.

I always thought that it was interesting that even though Chamberlain wasn't the smartest player (by any stretch of the imagination), he was, like you said, an extremely gifted passer. Usually the best passers have a high BBall IQ.

I think the key to the understanding is that if you're super-tall, and defenders leave their men open to come to you, it's really easy to make good passes.

The difference between a great passer and Wilt is that a great passer would be evaluating this constantly and could use it to strike a harmonious balance between scoring and passing that left the defense with no good options. Whereas Wilt basically forgot how to pass when he was looking to score, and when he looked to pass he was quite passive at taking advantage of scoring opportunities.

Recently this was basically the issue with Kobe's passing in a nutshell. Not as problematic as Wilt, and his lack of height meant it was harder to make the passes he did, but Kobe always had 2 different modes - scorer or passer - and this was why his supporters insisted he was amazing at both while I was always critical of him. A player with the kind of primacy Kobe had should be finding an optimal balance rather than veering toward extremes.

[GeneralManager]

Scored 62 on the "supposedly" beast defender Russell. Wilt exposed the myth of Russell as defensive GOAT.

Did Shaq score 62 on Hakeem?

Any footage helps Wilt.

Shaq didn't score an arbitrary high number, but he did beast Olajuwon and no one seems to think Olajuwon is any less of a defender (quite the opposite, people think he guarded Shaq well in their series).

Shaq did not beast Olajuwon. Shaq played well, but Olajuwon won that battle by a clear margin and nobody disputes that.

I'm sorry, if a defender gives up 62 points to ANYONE, that defender is not the GOAT defender. Russell is overrated defensively (and especially offensively FWIW).

[HeartBreakKid]

Scored 62 on the "supposedly" beast defender Russell. Wilt exposed the myth of Russell as defensive GOAT.

Did Shaq score 62 on Hakeem?

Any footage helps Wilt.

Shaq didn't score an arbitrary high number, but he did beast Olajuwon and no one seems to think Olajuwon is any less of a defender (quite the opposite, people think he guarded Shaq well in their series).

Shaq did not beast Olajuwon. Shaq played well, but Olajuwon won that battle by a clear margin and nobody disputes that.

I'm sorry, if a defender gives up 62 points to ANYONE, that defender is not the GOAT defender. Russell is overrated defensively (and especially offensively FWIW).

Shaq averaged 28/12.5/6.3 on 60% FG and 10.5 FTA in a finals series. Don't bother bringing up what Olajuwon scored, because we're only talking about his defense here.

That doesn't seem like Olajuwon did that good of a job defending him. Could there be that there is more to defense than how much a player scores in isolation?

If Shaq took 30-40 FGA attempts, I am pretty sure he would have scored 60 points. Wilt Chamberlain would also drop 60 on Olajuwon if Olajuwon had to guard him on an island, for nearly every possession of a basketball game. No player can stop a superstar from volume scoring they are literally playing 1 vs 1 and the player can shoot as much as he likes. It's impossible...you've ever seen players play one on one before?

[THKNKG]

Scored 62 on the "supposedly" beast defender Russell. Wilt exposed the myth of Russell as defensive GOAT.

Did Shaq score 62 on Hakeem?

Any footage helps Wilt.

Shaq didn't score an arbitrary high number, but he did beast Olajuwon and no one seems to think Olajuwon is any less of a defender (quite the opposite, people think he guarded Shaq well in their series).

Shaq did not beast Olajuwon. Shaq played well, but Olajuwon won that battle by a clear margin and nobody disputes that.

I'm sorry, if a defender gives up 62 points to ANYONE, that defender is not the GOAT defender. Russell is overrated defensively (and especially offensively FWIW).

Giving up 62 to a superlative scorer doesn't remove you from contending as GOAT defender, just like a historically awful offensive game wouldn't remove a player from contending as GOAT offensive player.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[GeneralManager]

I did not say Russell was a bad defender. I said he is not GOAT defender.

Are you arguing that a defender that allows 62 points head-to-head has a case for GOAT defender? That's some argument.

Giving up 62 points is worse than giving up 30, 40, 50. 62 points is a very high number. It is different than a bad offensive game because sometimes your "muscle memory" or "shooting stroke" is off for a night. A bad defensive game has nothing to do with a nuanced concept like "muscle memory" or "shooting stroke." It is pure ability to defend a man right in front of you.

Furthermore, it's not just one game. Wilt routinely played extremely well versus Russell's defense.

[GeneralManager]

No player can stop a superstar from volume scoring

Yes, a GOAT defender could stop it. You defend your man extremely well and force him to pass out of it.

Defense 101, defend your man such that they don't have a good shot, then they forego the shot and pass out of it.

[RCM88x]

Hurt.

I don't think any players reputation improves with more material, especially for someone like Wilt. For many people the myth is probably greater than the man.