The Wilt Rules: How Wilt Chamberlain was defended by the 60s Celtics Film Breakdown

[70sFan]

I'll grant the premise, but how do you explain that Wilt's offenses got better the more he passed and the less he shot? If the efficient choice was him taking more shots, wouldn't we see the opposite pattern?

When Wilt bought into that fully on the Sixers, the people he was passing to were a hell of a lot better than what he had before. He had Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham, Luke Jackson. Compare that to who he had on earlier teams. That could explain some of the improvement on offense.

Unquestionably some of it is a coincidence, that he started passing in the parts of his career where he had better teammates. If you looked at the graph of PPG vs ORating but only for the Warriors years you'd assume that shooting *more* was the right move. It's only when you look at '66 on that the "Passing was the right move" becomes really obvious.

That said, it is curious how such a strong scorer barely budged his team's ORating by more than a point or two.

I think that the answer could be easier than some believe - Warriors teams were terribly constructed. Let's look at the 5 best Wilt teammates each year in terms of TS Add (at least 30 games played):

1959/60
Arizin: +94.0
Gola: +72.3
Rucklick: -17.0
Beck: -30.5
Graboski: -46.3

Overall: -243.2 (including Wilt's +161.0)

1960/61
Arizin: +132.7
Gola: +51.5
Attles: -35.6
Hatton: -68.5
Conlin: -83.7

Overall: -64.5 (including Wilt's +291.2)

1961/62
Attles: +38.3
Arizin: +26.2
Gola: -9.3
Luckenbill: -11.9
Radovich: -13.0

Overall: +173.6 (including Wilt's +430.3)

1962/63
Sears: +69.3
Attles: +25.1
Lee: -21.8
Naulls: -34.5
Meschery: -34.7

Overall: -98.9 (including Wilt's +374.9)

1963/64
Meschery: +30.9
Attles: +25.0
Sears: +19.9
Lee: -19.2
Hill: -62.2

Overall: -133.2 (including Wilt's +286.1)

If you compare that to 1967 or 1968 Sixers, the difference is staggering. Wilt as a Warrior usually had one decent secondary scorer in Arizin and extremely bad bench. He played with some of the worst scorers ever in terms of efficiency: Woody Sauldsberry, Garry Philips, Wayne Hightower, Guy Rodgers and Joe Graboski.

Now, as a counter you could say that playing with Wilt who took so many shots made them less efficient, but it's not true:

Woody Sauldsberry with Wilt: 34.6 TS%, without Wilt: 37.2 TS%
Garry Philips with Wilt: 42.3 TS%, without Wilt: 39.6 TS%
Wayne Hightower with Wilt: 43.0 TS%, without Wilt: 42.0% (without counting ABA)
Andy Johnson with Wilt: 41.3 TS%, without Wilt: 41.2 TS%
Guy Rodgers with Wilt: 41.9 TS%, without Wilt: 43.1 TS%

I'm not trying to make Wilt's teammates horrible, guys like Arizin, Gola or Meschery were good. I just want to bring context to this constant criticism of Wilt led offenses during Warriors era. He played with decent starting lineups and horrible benches. He played with one of the worst scoring PG ever that played high minutes.

[Mazter]

That said, it is curious how such a strong scorer barely budged his team's ORating by more than a point or two.

I think that the answer could be easier than some believe - Warriors teams were terribly constructed. Let's look at the 5 best Wilt teammates each year in terms of TS Add (at least 30 games played):

1959/60
Arizin: +94.0
Gola: +72.3
Rucklick: -17.0
Beck: -30.5
Graboski: -46.3

Overall: -243.2 (including Wilt's +161.0)

1960/61
Arizin: +132.7
Gola: +51.5
Attles: -35.6
Hatton: -68.5
Conlin: -83.7

Overall: -64.5 (including Wilt's +291.2)

1961/62
Attles: +38.3
Arizin: +26.2
Gola: -9.3
Luckenbill: -11.9
Radovich: -13.0

Overall: +173.6 (including Wilt's +430.3)

1962/63
Sears: +69.3
Attles: +25.1
Lee: -21.8
Naulls: -34.5
Meschery: -34.7

Overall: -98.9 (including Wilt's +374.9)

1963/64
Meschery: +30.9
Attles: +25.0
Sears: +19.9
Lee: -19.2
Hill: -62.2

Overall: -133.2 (including Wilt's +286.1)

If you compare that to 1967 or 1968 Sixers, the difference is staggering. Wilt as a Warrior usually had one decent secondary scorer in Arizin and extremely bad bench. He played with some of the worst scorers ever in terms of efficiency: Woody Sauldsberry, Garry Philips, Wayne Hightower, Guy Rodgers and Joe Graboski.

Now, as a counter you could say that playing with Wilt who took so many shots made them less efficient, but it's not true:

Woody Sauldsberry with Wilt: 34.6 TS%, without Wilt: 37.2 TS%
Garry Philips with Wilt: 42.3 TS%, without Wilt: 39.6 TS%
Wayne Hightower with Wilt: 43.0 TS%, without Wilt: 42.0% (without counting ABA)
Andy Johnson with Wilt: 41.3 TS%, without Wilt: 41.2 TS%
Guy Rodgers with Wilt: 41.9 TS%, without Wilt: 43.1 TS%

I'm not trying to make Wilt's teammates horrible, guys like Arizin, Gola or Meschery were good. I just want to bring context to this constant criticism of Wilt led offenses during Warriors era. He played with decent starting lineups and horrible benches. He played with one of the worst scoring PG ever that played high minutes.

It probably was terribly constructed, and he did not have the best teammates. But I don't think it's easy to evaluate shooters from that era, since there is not enough data available. The league did shoot 36.8% from beyond 16 feet last season though, while shooting 46% in general. In Wilt's Warriors years the league shot 41-43%, so any shooter shooting 33-35% from 16 feet and beyond would probably have been just fine.

And given there was no 3-point line, TS Add certainly is not the best way to assess a shooter from that era, due to their FTr being very low. Take Bockhorn in '62. Despite having a 43 FG% and 78.9 FT% (both above league average), he had a -27.2 TS Add. TS Add penalizes him for not getting to the line enough, while as a shooting guard that probably was not even his main task.

Thus, despite his teammates not looking very good, they might have been shooting better than we think. In the end, the Warriors were in the top half in FG% in most of those years, therefore that not being their real problem. It might have been TO's and/or Offensive rebounding in combination with poor FT shooting.

[70sFan]

That said, it is curious how such a strong scorer barely budged his team's ORating by more than a point or two.

I think that the answer could be easier than some believe - Warriors teams were terribly constructed. Let's look at the 5 best Wilt teammates each year in terms of TS Add (at least 30 games played):

1959/60
Arizin: +94.0
Gola: +72.3
Rucklick: -17.0
Beck: -30.5
Graboski: -46.3

Overall: -243.2 (including Wilt's +161.0)

1960/61
Arizin: +132.7
Gola: +51.5
Attles: -35.6
Hatton: -68.5
Conlin: -83.7

Overall: -64.5 (including Wilt's +291.2)

1961/62
Attles: +38.3
Arizin: +26.2
Gola: -9.3
Luckenbill: -11.9
Radovich: -13.0

Overall: +173.6 (including Wilt's +430.3)

1962/63
Sears: +69.3
Attles: +25.1
Lee: -21.8
Naulls: -34.5
Meschery: -34.7

Overall: -98.9 (including Wilt's +374.9)

1963/64
Meschery: +30.9
Attles: +25.0
Sears: +19.9
Lee: -19.2
Hill: -62.2

Overall: -133.2 (including Wilt's +286.1)

If you compare that to 1967 or 1968 Sixers, the difference is staggering. Wilt as a Warrior usually had one decent secondary scorer in Arizin and extremely bad bench. He played with some of the worst scorers ever in terms of efficiency: Woody Sauldsberry, Garry Philips, Wayne Hightower, Guy Rodgers and Joe Graboski.

Now, as a counter you could say that playing with Wilt who took so many shots made them less efficient, but it's not true:

Woody Sauldsberry with Wilt: 34.6 TS%, without Wilt: 37.2 TS%
Garry Philips with Wilt: 42.3 TS%, without Wilt: 39.6 TS%
Wayne Hightower with Wilt: 43.0 TS%, without Wilt: 42.0% (without counting ABA)
Andy Johnson with Wilt: 41.3 TS%, without Wilt: 41.2 TS%
Guy Rodgers with Wilt: 41.9 TS%, without Wilt: 43.1 TS%

I'm not trying to make Wilt's teammates horrible, guys like Arizin, Gola or Meschery were good. I just want to bring context to this constant criticism of Wilt led offenses during Warriors era. He played with decent starting lineups and horrible benches. He played with one of the worst scoring PG ever that played high minutes.

It probably was terribly constructed, and he did not have the best teammates. But I don't think it's easy to evaluate shooters from that era, since there is not enough data available. The league did shoot 36.8% from beyond 16 feet last season though, while shooting 46% in general. In Wilt's Warriors years the league shot 41-43%, so any shooter shooting 33-35% from 16 feet and beyond would probably have been just fine.

And given there was no 3-point line, TS Add certainly is not the best way to assess a shooter from that era, due to their FTr being very low. Take Bockhorn in '62. Despite having a 43 FG% and 78.9 FT% (both above league average), he had a -27.2 TS Add. TS Add penalizes him for not getting to the line enough, while as a shooting guard that probably was not even his main task.

Thus, despite his teammates not looking very good, they might have been shooting better than we think. In the end, the Warriors were in the top half in FG% in most of those years, therefore that not being their real problem. It might have been TO's and/or Offensive rebounding in combination with poor FT shooting.

Sure, I was talking about scoring, not shooting. It's possible that they were better shooters than scorers.

I can talk only about players I've seen enough on the tape. I have enough footage of 1964 Warriors to draw some rough conclusions - Rodgers and Philips were horrible shooting backcourt, most likely the worst in the league. Hightower had some range, so I'd probably call him only slightly below average shooter. Thurmond wasn't good shooter either. The only player on that team I'd call good shooter was Tom Meschery, though he worked mostly on short midrange area.

I can't talk about pre-1964 Warriors with a lot of confidence. I can tell that Wilt had much better shooters and spacing around him as a Sixer. The difference in spacing is quite staggering even though it was still poor compared to modern teams or even early 1970s Bucks or Knicks.

As to reasons of Warriors underwhelimg offense - turnovers could be a strong factor (Rodgers seems to be turnover prone and we have have very mixed data about Wilt), but assuming that a team with probably the best offensive rebounder ever was weak on the glass isn't the most probable scenario. Also, it's true that Warriors were usually good in terms of FG% but it's mostly because of Wilt's efficiency and gigantic volume.

[Mazter]

I can't talk about pre-1964 Warriors with a lot of confidence. I can tell that Wilt had much better shooters and spacing around him as a Sixer. The difference in spacing is quite staggering even though it was still poor compared to modern teams or even early 1970s Bucks or Knicks.

As to reasons of Warriors underwhelimg offense - turnovers could be a strong factor (Rodgers seems to be turnover prone and we have have very mixed data about Wilt), but assuming that a team with probably the best offensive rebounder ever was weak on the glass isn't the most probable scenario. Also, it's true that Warriors were usually good in terms of FG% but it's mostly because of Wilt's efficiency and gigantic volume.

Yeah, so I heard. As to reasons, maybe you should take a look at the difference between the 1966 and 1967 Sixers. The Sixers were a middle of the pack offense before and with Wilt under Schayes. Than Hannum came in, asked Wilt to do less on offense and they jumped to the top of the league on offense in 1967. The results were a win win for everyone on the team:
Wilt 1966 -> 1967: 2649 pts at 54.7 TS% -> 1956 pts at 63.7 TS%
teammates 1966 -> 1967: 6749 pts at 47.3 TS% -> 8187 pts at 50.7 TS%

The biggest difference other than the coach is that Wilt dropped his TSattempts from 62.0 to 37.8 per game.
So one would wonder, was Wilt (or any "one dimensional" player for that matter) doing too much on offense actually helping or hurting his teams?

[70sFan]

I can't talk about pre-1964 Warriors with a lot of confidence. I can tell that Wilt had much better shooters and spacing around him as a Sixer. The difference in spacing is quite staggering even though it was still poor compared to modern teams or even early 1970s Bucks or Knicks.

As to reasons of Warriors underwhelimg offense - turnovers could be a strong factor (Rodgers seems to be turnover prone and we have have very mixed data about Wilt), but assuming that a team with probably the best offensive rebounder ever was weak on the glass isn't the most probable scenario. Also, it's true that Warriors were usually good in terms of FG% but it's mostly because of Wilt's efficiency and gigantic volume.

Yeah, so I heard. As to reasons, maybe you should take a look at the difference between the 1966 and 1967 Sixers. The Sixers were a middle of the pack offense before and with Wilt under Schayes. Than Hannum came in, asked Wilt to do less on offense and they jumped to the top of the league on offense. The results were a win win for everyone on the team:
Wilt: 2649 pts at 54.7 TS% -> 1956 pts at 63.7 TS%
rest: 6749 pts at 47.3 TS% -> 8187 pts at 50.7 TS%

The biggest difference other than the coach is that Wilt dropped his TSattempts from 62.0 to 37.8 per game.
So one would wonder, was Wilt (or any "one dimensional" player for that matter) doing too much on offense actually helping or hurting his teams?

The biggest difference between 1966 and 1967 teams are:

- Cunningham huge improvement from his rookie season (-30.5 TS Add to +57.9 TS Add),
- Costello playing over half of the season, he replaced old Al Bianchi who was terrible.

Wali Jones also got better, but I wouldn't call it a huge difference maker. Exchanging 2nd years Cunningham and Costello for rookie Cunningham and Bianchi would already improve their overall efficiency significantly.

Does it mean that the change of startegy wasn't important? Not at all, in my opinion it was by far the most important change for Sixers. I'm not sure if Wilt playing 1967 ball would make Philly as good as he did next year though, the difference in supporting casts is quite apparent.