what do you think are some overblown/exxagerated common narratives

[stormi]

Simmons and Embiid cannot play together.

A duo doesn't win that many games and statistically dominate their opponents as drastically as they do while being a bad fit.

Or they're just two generational talents overcoming the odds of each other to win 50+ games and a playoff round every year from day one.

The misconception is that they actually need to be trio'd with a lead guard that can operate the P&R not another stiff forward like Harris that wants to crash and bang down low and isn't a willing shooter. Maybe going all in for Chris Paul would have changed the trajectory of the 76ers, but here we are.

[Owly]

--Frank McGuire: Coached 1 year in the NBA, resigned (rather than be fired) after 1962.

Do you have a source on this?
My impression was that he didn't want to go to San Francisco and fwiw, this is what Wikipedia has as well.

[Outside]

--Frank McGuire: Coached 1 year in the NBA, resigned (rather than be fired) after 1962.

Do you have a source on this?
My impression was that he didn't want to go to San Francisco and fwiw, this is what Wikipedia has as well.

That's also what I recall from one of the books I read (maybe The Rivalry by John Taylor). As I remember it, McGuire had a son who was very ill, and he didn't want to move to San Francisco because of that.

The year with McGuire was very successful. The previous season, they lost to Syracuse 3-0 in the first round. With McGuire they beat Syracuse 3-2 and lost 4-3 to Boston. The Celtics won game 7 by 2 when Sam Jones made a shot with 2 seconds left. The Celtics were three-time reigning champions in the midst of winning eight titles in a row, they were easily the better team, but that Philly team gave them a run for their money.

[ty 4191]

--Frank McGuire: Coached 1 year in the NBA, resigned (rather than be fired) after 1962.

Do you have a source on this?
My impression was that he didn't want to go to San Francisco and fwiw, this is what Wikipedia has as well.

Apparently he resigned due to having a sick son with cerebral palsy. He was in France when Gottieb called him about the team moving to San Francisco, and he declined. Resigned.

So, you're right- I can't find anything about the ostensible firing. My fault.

However, the fact still remains, he only coached 1 year, and couldn't land a job anywhere after it in the NBA.

Source:
https://www.amazon.com/Rivalry-Russell-Chamberlain-Golden-Basketball-ebook/dp/B000FCKGSY/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=bill+russell+wilt+chamberlain+rivalry+book&qid=1638037888&sr=8-2

I can't give specific page citations because I read it on a Kindle device. It's locations 3005 and shortly thereafter.

[70sFan]

That Wilt Chamberlain is incredibly overrated because he was merely an "empty scorer" the first half of his career. Ben Taylor said it, so everyone else here parrots it, without doing any research beyond the statement itself to

Saying thay "everyone else here parrots" Ben is just wrong. This board is full of very knowledgeable posters who have different opinions about certain things. You have a lot of posters who don't agree with Ben's take of Wilt or other Ben takes.

Such a shame that Odinn isn't available recently, he's the example of poster I'm talking about. Does anybody knows if everything is alright with him?

Besides, you shouldn't be so dismissive of Taylor's work. I disagree with his observations quite strongly regarding Wilt, but he's very knowledgeable himself and he can defend his opinions.

This isn't something you want to hear, but Wilt was not a perfect player and isn't above some legit criticism. Sorry.

Any player should be criticized legitimately, the question is whether this criticism is 100% legit. I don't think we have enough footage from prime Wilt games to have such a strong opinion, even after two years of researching it's still not enough.

Not to mention that I find Ben's criticism a bit inconsistent in this case. Basically everything he says about Wilt's offense can be applied to Hakeem Olajuwon, in most cases to the larger degree. Yet Ben doesn't lower Olajuwon's rank because of that and as I said - Hakeem's offense is more problematic than Wilt's.

[ty 4191]

Any player should be criticized legitimately, the question is whether this criticism is 100% legit. I don't think we have enough footage from prime Wilt games to have such a strong opinion, even after two years of researching it's still not enough. .

I didn't say anything about Taylor's work. I simply said people here seem to follow it blindly, as they all say "Wilt was an empty/black hole scorer", and things like that, but have no citations and substantiating evidence for it.

Does that make sense? What are the other sources and where are they?

How many Wilt games have you broken down? And how many do you need, do you think, to make it enough?

Not to mention that I find Ben's criticism a bit inconsistent in this case. Basically everything he says about Wilt's offense can be applied to Hakeem Olajuwon, in most cases to the larger degree. Yet Ben doesn't lower Olajuwon's rank because of that and as I said - Hakeem's offense is more problematic than Wilt's.

Great call here on the Double Standard.

[70sFan]

I didn't say anything about Taylor's work. I simply said people here seem to follow it blindly, as they all say "Wilt was an empty/black hole scorer", and things like that, but have no citations and substantiating evidence for it.

Does that make sense? What are the other sources and where are they?

Yes, I agree with this observation. I think it's more pronounced in different places online though, Ben's most recent work didn't influence PC Board nearly as much as the rest of basketball community.

How many Wilt games have you broken down? And how many do you need, do you think, to make it enough?

So far, I tracked 13 1962-68 Wilt games but all of them are heavily incomplete. Basically the only tracked games that have significant part available are games 4 and 5 from the 1964 finals. Other than that, most of the games tracked are 15 min long clips with completely random actions and different angles.

I will also track two other games that are in big part available from 1967 playoffs, but that's still very little information. To get a solid sample, I'd need at least 20 full games with prime Wilt and they should be representative for Wilt's average work (so not all against the Celtics).

I hope that I will get more Wilt games in future, but finding a full game from the 1960s doesn't happen too often.

[Texas Chuck]

Any player should be criticized legitimately, the question is whether this criticism is 100% legit.

Absolutely. I have no issue if any poster wants to push back against the black hole narrative. My issue isn't with the push back but with the dismissal of the entire board as Ben Taylor sycophants which is of course ridiculous.

I would never personally refer to Wilt as a black hole, but when you have the number of FGA/FTA Wilt has in some seasons, it's at least an idea that deserves some examination. Same as it has for other guys with that reputation through the years. You don't average 50 points for a season regardless of pace without a great deal of looking for your own.

[ty 4191]

I hope that I will get more Wilt games in future, but finding a full game from the 1960s doesn't happen too often.

Where do you buy your games from/find them?

As to Ben Taylor, I've been a follower/Patreon subscriber before. I came away thinking, for one, David Robinson is the most underrated player ever.

Oscar does extremely well in Prime WOWYR and career WOWYR. As does David Robinson.

[Texas Chuck]

I didn't say anything about Taylor's work. I simply said people here seem to follow it blindly, as they all say "Wilt was an empty/black hole scorer", and things like that, but have no citations and substantiating evidence for it.

Does that make sense? What are the other sources and where are they?

Again, I'm not taking a position on Wilt. But speaking for me personally, I don't cite sources basically ever. It would be the exception, not the rule for me. One, I don't keep detailed records of where I heard or saw something, but mostly I'm posting what I think. Not telling you what others think. It's then up to each poster to decide how much value, if any, my contributions on a topic have. I don't know enough directly about Wilt to speak very declaratively, but on players/teams I have a lot of familiarity on, I would hope I wouldn't need documented foot notes to share my thoughts.

Lots of other posters are like me. They are here to share their thoughts. Not regurgitate the thoughts of others. If you think anonymous posters here automatically have less to offer than some guy with an SI article or a blog or whatever, that's your right. But remember you have chosen here to have these discussions. With these people.

[ty 4191]

I would never personally refer to Wilt as a black hole, but when you have the number of FGA/FTA Wilt has in some seasons, it's at least an idea that deserves some examination.

I agree. Let's examine it.

For starters:

Wilt had horrible coaches during his Scoring Years- 1960-1965- except Hannum (and he had pathetic teammates during the Hannum SF Warriors 1.5 years). Frank McGuire literally told him to shoot every time down to beat the Celtics especially, and both Feerick and Johnston (his other coaches those years) likely did, as well. They certainly encouraged him to score as much as possible to the detriment, even, of their team W-L record.

Wilt, also, overall, had horrible teammates, as evidenced by their TS Add numbers compared to every other all time great I've looked it.

[Texas Chuck]

I would never personally refer to Wilt as a black hole, but when you have the number of FGA/FTA Wilt has in some seasons, it's at least an idea that deserves some examination.

I agree. Let's examine it.

For starters:

Wilt had horrible coaches during his Scoring Years- 1960-1965- except Hannum (and he had pathetic teammates during the Hannum SF Warriors 1.5 years). Frank McGuire literally told him to shoot every time down to beat the Celtics especially, and both Feerick and Johnston (his other coaches those years) likely did, as well. They certainly encouraged him to score as much as possible to the detriment, even, of their team W-L record.

Wilt, also, overall, had horrible teammates, as evidenced by their TS Add numbers compared to every other all time great I've looked it.

Okay. So let me just accept your position that his coaches were idiots and none of his teammates could do anything. Even if this is true and thus the best strategy they could devise for winning would be for Wilt to shoot and shoot and shoot, doesn't that still make him a black hole?

Might not be by his choice, but your position seems to agree he is a black hole. So maybe the issue is the negative connotation with that phrase more than a disagreement that there were years where the ball went to Wilt and most of the time a shot then went up.

[ty 4191]

Lots of other posters are like me. They are here to share their thoughts. Not regurgitate the thoughts of others. If you think anonymous posters here automatically have less to offer than some guy with an SI article or a blog or whatever, that's your right. But remember you have chosen here to have these discussions. With these people.

Personally, I think the ability to produce citations (even if one doesn't have the proclivity to produce them organically) is very important. They show someone is well read, and well informed, and ready to debate a topic in a serious manner.

I think I understand who I'm having discussions with. I've been debating online on forums since 2003 (over 15,000 posts between golf, basketball, baseball, and tennis).

And I apologize if I offended you or anyone else with that half sentence, pages ago. It was wrong to generalize anything to an entire forum.

I'd like to see people who ARE very well read/researched/informed on Wilt, specifically, to also be debating here. I've certainly put a ton of time and effort into him, myself.

[ty 4191]

Okay. So let me just accept your position that his coaches were idiots and none of his teammates could do anything. Even if this is true and thus the best strategy they could devise for winning would be for Wilt to shoot and shoot and shoot, doesn't that still make him a black hole?

Not if he's scoring 40 points a game for 7 years while also leading in FG%. A black hole is something from which nothing is produced or escapes. This doesn't seem like an apt metaphor for Wilt's production those years, or his style.

And even if he is a black hole, offensively, that would make him a direct product of his terrible coaching (and teammates).

He shot .508 while his teammates shot .391, 1960-1965.

I can almost guarantee there's never been even remotely close to this kind of gap for any 6 year span in NBA history.

[Texas Chuck]

Personally, I think the ability to produce citations (even if one doesn't have the proclivity to produce them organically) is very important. They show someone is well read, and well informed, and ready to debate a topic in a serious manner.

I think I understand who I'm having discussions with. I've been debating online on forums since 2003 (over 15,000 posts between golf, basketball, baseball, and tennis).

And I apologize if I offended you or anyone else with that half sentence, pages ago. It was wrong to generalize anything to an entire forum.

I'd like to see people who ARE very well read/researched/informed on Wilt, specifically, to also be debating here. I've certainly put a ton of time and effort into him, myself.

I agree. Researched opinions are super valuable.

And I'm not offended regarding me. I know what I bring and what I don't. But yeah I was a little offended on behalf of a board with a ton of really smart posters who have a lot more to contribute than I do---and in some cases more than published authors on specific topics. No need to apologize though it shows a lot of class that you did. But when you come to a place to have a conversation telling people who have an opinion you don't like that they are all sheep isn't good form.

[Texas Chuck]

Okay. So let me just accept your position that his coaches were idiots and none of his teammates could do anything. Even if this is true and thus the best strategy they could devise for winning would be for Wilt to shoot and shoot and shoot, doesn't that still make him a black hole?

Not if he's scoring 40 points a game for 7 years while also leading in FG%. A black hole is something from which nothing is produced or escapes. This doesn't seem like an apt metaphor for Wilt's production those years, or his style.

And even if he is a black hole, offensively, that would make him a direct product of his terrible coaching (and teammates).

He shot .508 while his teammates shot .391, 1960-1965.

I can almost guarantee there's never been even remotely close to this kind of gap for any 6 year span in NBA history.

I think we must have a semantic difference in what a black hole means. For instance Kevin McHale was often called a black hole, but he was also a very efficient scorer. Adrian Dantley similar rep, even more efficient scorer. Black holes can be really effective scorers and still be black holes--at least how I've always understood the defintion which is simply a guy who when he gets the ball is much more likely to shoot than move the ball along.

And I already conceded it might have been the best strategy except you yourself call those coaches terrible and when he gets a "smart" coach, they attack in a very different way. So it's like you understand that Wilt taking all the shots isn't a good thing, but you are defensive towards perceived criticism of Wilt even if that criticism really isn't just about Wilt and is clearly a valid criticism you yourself agree with based on your views on which coaches were good and not.

[ty 4191]

But when you come to a place to have a conversation telling people who have an opinion you don't like that they are all sheep isn't good form.

Not at all what I was implying. I realize the Mods here certainly have a TON more in the way of both knowledge and baseball intellect and wisdom than I do. Most regulars- like you, Owly, 70sFan, and many others, do, as well, I'm sure.

I'm here to learn.

I speak with limited expertise on Chamberlain since I've read 4 books on him the past 4 months and have watched everything on the Wilt Chamberlain Archive, along with some games 70's Fan has posted.

[Texas Chuck]

But when you come to a place to have a conversation telling people who have an opinion you don't like that they are all sheep isn't good form.

Not at all what I was implying.

Well this is what started us down this path:

That Wilt Chamberlain is incredibly overrated because he was merely an "empty scorer" the first half of his career. Ben Taylor said it, so everyone else here parrots it, without doing any research beyond the statement itself to

I'm struggling to see what else you could have been implying?

[ty 4191]

I think we must have a semantic difference in what a black hole means. For instance Kevin McHale was often called a black hole, but he was also a very efficient scorer. Adrian Dantley similar rep, even more efficient scorer. Black holes can be really effective scorers and still be black holes--at least how I've always understood the defintion which is simply a guy who when he gets the ball is much more likely to shoot than move the ball along.

I understand. We're using the same definition, I think. McHale had 1.7 AST/G which is almost last among forwards in his career with 20000 MP, so he certainly qualifies.

Dantley averaged 3.0 assists, among 35 forwards with 20,000 MP.

Wilt was second among all centers 1964-1965 in assists per game. Despite his coaches encouraging him to score every time down/being generally lousy and misinformed/chock full of bad players.

And I already conceded it might have been the best strategy except you yourself call those coaches terrible and when he gets a "smart" coach, they attack in a very different way. So it's like you understand that Wilt taking all the shots isn't a good thing, but you are defensive towards perceived criticism of Wilt even if that criticism really isn't just about Wilt and is clearly a valid criticism you yourself agree with based on your views on which coaches were good and not.

I'm not defending Feerick, Johnston, or McGuire. I think they were all lousy, and totally misused Wilt.

[ty 4191]

I'm struggling to see what else you could have been implying?

I've already apologized. Can we please move on?