RealGM

for those who dont know what i mean, i am talking about criticisms on wilt approach to the game that i dont feel give him a fair shake (but i may be wrong)

i dont mean intangibles or attitude criticisms which are valid although fairly subjective

1- wilt not moving off ball in offense: This is a common criticism, in particular when compared to shaq or kareem

my doubt here is that from what i understand and from limited footage watching, fighting for position inside the way it was done in later eras was much less of a thingh in wilt era, with refs more likely to call offensive fouls for it

2- wilt lack of effort in offense without the ball: It seems unlikely that he truly did nothingh off ball when he such a dominant rebounder (and seems unlikely it was only defensive boards or that he could grab a ton of offensive rebounds without some off ball movement for positioning)

and more importantly: nobody played more minutes than wilt, and in such a fast paced era

this is somethingh i dont think ben taylor gives a fair deal to wilt with: there is no way someone can play a 115 possesions ~ game full 48 minutes or close to it and
not have to save Energy

someone like shaq who played much less minutes in a much slower league was incredible stationary in defense. maybe it was laziness but it seems unlikely shaq could sustain full defensive effort while doing all his movement and fighting for position in the paint for a full game

expecting wilt who was a Premier defensive player (meaning he probably used more Energy in defense thsn shaq although i am guessing here) to have full Energy in offense while playing like 8-10 minutes more in a much faster league where he had to run nonstop seems a impossible demand

3- wilt didnt use his phisicallity and relied in less efficient finesse moves: couldnt this have been heavily influence by the era reffing if it really was so punishing to offensive post players as is often said?

4- wilt didnt pass and score at the same time, focused in one or the other: this one seems like the more true one with the exception of late 60's seasons as wilt had really low assists for how much he shot

at the same time i wonder if there was a decisión of him or if his early teams asked him to play that way instead? i am unsure about that

looking at people who are much more knoledgeable than me on pre merger basketball like penbeast, doctor mj or 70'sfan (and others) to give me a better idea if these points are valid or not

absolutely unfair.the guy singlehandedly saved pro basketball from near extinction by being the sole cash cow and all some critics bring up is his play style.it was a totally different environment,one where your play and playstyle isnt the end-of-all-things.so what if he wasnt as effective as others (just an example)...he was on a totally different mission.basketball was just a tiny part of dippers universe.the guy was a mythical figure before he even entered the nba and that aura remained until his death.the whole critique of what he did on the court is nuts.that doesnt mean that his performances cant be graded but i think it has gotten way out of hand.

CumberlandPosey wrote:absolutely unfair.the guy singlehandedly saved pro basketball from near extinction by being the sole cash cow and all some critics bring up is his play style.

He didn't singlehandly save it but your larger point is correct. The NBA was a struggling business and he helped establish the sport. He deserves a lot of credit for that. The NBA could have plateaud at a low level and the guys willing to serve as ambassadors for the sport: Wilt, Dr. J, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Lebron deserve our respect. Kareem, Duncan and many other all-time greats couldn't or wouldn't help sell the league.

But basketball is a competitive sport. We do care who wins the games and the criticism directed against Wilt aren't just modern. Even back then a lot of people questioned his approach to the game.

In terms of things like shooting too much when he was younger, yes. Wilt being able to change his style of play multiple times is impressive. The Warriors in his 50ppg season were a good team losing by 2 pts in Game 7 to the Celtics despite Russell having a better supporting cast, it would be different if they were having Walt Bellamy results.

However in terms of attitude and playoff letdowns there are issues.

I will try to answer all these questions, although I don't have the time to go into it super deep.

falcolombardi wrote:1- wilt not moving off ball in offense: This is a common criticism, in particular when compared to shaq or kareem

my doubt here is that from what i understand and from limited footage watching, fighting for position inside the way it was done in later eras was much less of a thingh in wilt era, with refs more likely to call offensive fouls for it

I don't think we have enough footage of prime Wilt to make a clear conclusion either way. I have some games in which Wilt looks very active without the ball and consistently moving, setting screens and trying to find a good position. It's mostly visible in Sixers era, when he played more without the ball. He wasn't as active in most Warriors clips, probably because he was forced to play more on-ball with worse talent around him.

One thing is always the same - Wilt was extremely active on offensive glass. This alone should disprove that he was lazy off-ball player.

About fighting for positon, two things:

- some ot Wilt's prime seasons were before widening the lane, so he didn't have to fight for it nearly as much,
- it's true that offensive players weren't allowed to wrestle under the basket the same way, I can provide examples if anyone wishes.

2- wilt lack of effort in offense without the ball: It seems unlikely that he truly did nothingh off ball when he such a dominant rebounder (and seems unlikely it was only defensive boards or that he could grab a ton of offensive rebounds without some off ball movement for positioning)

and more importantly: nobody played more minutes than wilt, and in such a fast paced era

this is somethingh i dont think ben taylor gives a fair deal to wilt with: there is no way someone can play a 115 possesions ~ game full 48 minutes or close to it and
not have to save Energy

No doubt about it, Wilt wasn't lazy without the ball. I guess you can find moments when he didn't demand the ball enough in the post, but other than that he was always active and he might be the best offensive rebounder ever because of that. I'd also add that he run in transition a lot, usually without the ball.

someone like shaq who played much less minutes in a much slower league was incredible stationary in defense. maybe it was laziness but it seems unlikely shaq could sustain full defensive effort while doing all his movement and fighting for position in the paint for a full game

expecting wilt who was a Premier defensive player (meaning he probably used more Energy in defense thsn shaq although i am guessing here) to have full Energy in offense while playing like 8-10 minutes more in a much faster league where he had to run nonstop seems a impossible demand

Wilt wasn't always willing to step out on perimeter (he was mixed bag with that), but his activity inside was on another level to Shaq - he was contesting everything, like bigger version of Dwight Howard. I also think he was smarter defender in general than Shaq and his fundamentals were far superior.

3- wilt didnt use his phisicallity and relied in less efficient finesse moves: couldnt this have been heavily influence by the era reffing if it really was so punishing to offensive post players as is often said?

It was influenced by the era, watch any Artis Gilmore game to understand that.

4- wilt didnt pass and score at the same time, focused in one or the other: this one seems like the more true one with the exception of late 60's seasons as wilt had really low assists for how much he shot

at the same time i wonder if there was a decisión of him or if his early teams asked him to play that way instead? i am unsure about that

For all I know, it seams that Wilt dealt with some incompetent coaches early on. We can see that very raw version of Wilt in college had passing instinct and we're talking about someone with no post game outside of fadeaway at this point. Yet coaches never tried to make any use out of it until Hannum took him under his wings. Since 1963/64, I don't think Wilt had any problems with combining passing and scoring. I'd say he was better passer than most high quality post bigmen to be honest.

We have to realize (and Ben Taylor did a great job underlining it) that players back then had far lesser possibility to create open looks. Wilt could pass like Jokic and he still wouldn't be able to make comparable impact out of his passing.

My main criticism of Wilt is his passiveness on offence with the Lakers.

I understand he took on Bill Russell's role with the Lakers, but I felt like that came to the detriment of the team at times, most notably in the 1969 finals series and 1973 finals.


I mean there is no excuse for him only taking.


4FGA

3FGA

8FGA


In games 2 to 4 of the 1973 finals when you consider the fact that all of the games were very close.


And that when he finally got aggressive on offence he dropped 23 points on 60 percent shooting in game 5 of that series.

coastalmarker99 wrote:My main criticism of Wilt is his passiveness on offence with the Lakers.

I understand he took on Bill Russell's role with the Lakers, but I felt like that came to the detriment of the team at times, most notably in the 1969 finals series and 1973 finals.


I mean there is no excuse for him only taking.


4FGA

3FGA

8FGA


In games 2 to 4 of the 1973 finals when you consider the fact that all of the games were very close.


And that when he finally got aggressive on offence he dropped 23 points on 60 percent shooting in game 5 of that series.

Did it ever occur to you that he might have been done at that point. Despite all the ABA talk afterwards I don't really think it was a coincidence that those were the last games of his career.

Mazter wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:My main criticism of Wilt is his passiveness on offence with the Lakers.

I understand he took on Bill Russell's role with the Lakers, but I felt like that came to the detriment of the team at times, most notably in the 1969 finals series and 1973 finals.


I mean there is no excuse for him only taking.


4FGA

3FGA

8FGA


In games 2 to 4 of the 1973 finals when you consider the fact that all of the games were very close.


And that when he finally got aggressive on offence he dropped 23 points on 60 percent shooting in game 5 of that series.

Did it ever occur to you that he might have been done at that point. Despite all the ABA talk afterwards I don't really think it was a coincidence that those were the last games of his career.

Wilt was still dominant in 1973 and nowhere on his last legs as he averaged 13.1 PPG/18.6 RPG/4.5 APG/5.56 BPG on 72.7% FG in the regular season while leading the NBA in rebounding and FG%

And then in the playoffs, he averaged 10.4 PTS 22.5 REBS 3.5 ASTS 6.9 BLKS on a FG% of 55.2.



Hell in Wilt's last ever game he put up 23pts (9-16fg) 21reb 3a 2blk 3stl that does not look like a player who looks done to me.

Wilt was a man of extremes, and somewhat was a product of wanting to prove himself. It shows in a couple of the criticisms:

1. In 1973 he seemed too determined to have the best shooting % ever, basically not shooting enough. I dont remember any real good explanation for it.

2. He developed his fade away shot largely to show that he didnt score just because he was bigger than anyone else.


But also,

A. He was a real good passer - it showed in Laker games, he made a lot of real good passes.
B. It is really hard to play as much as he did. He gets unfairly penalized when you look at rates per 75 possessions, because he is out there for every single possession.

I think Wilt is used (somewhat unfairly) as an example often to explain common misconceptions about basketball. Now that we have at least 3 full generations of fans who never saw Wilt play, the response to his historical outlier numbers (100 points, 50ppg, 25rpg etc.) is either to mythologize Wilt or rationalize Wilt (learn what the hell those numbers mean!)

So Wilt often gets brought up to explain things like:
- How pace inflates per game stats.
- How funneling your offense through your most efficient player doesn't result in good offense. (or the need for offensive diversification).
- How more missed shots produce more rebounds.

Sometimes people are mythologizing, and then people are clapping back with explanations, and it makes sit seem like people either love Wilt as a bball god or revile him as a false one. The real Wilt is obviously in between: an all-time great bucket getter, rebounder, defender; an outlier physical force who was held back by the rules of the day.

I think the hundred point game and the counting stats, in general, have ended up making Wilt less understood than he should be. We don't talk about Wilt the same way we talk about other top 10 all-time players because there's so much junk to sift through in his discourse.

DQuinn1575 wrote:2. He developed his fade away shot largely to show that he didnt score just because he was bigger than anyone else.

Overall good post, but I'd like to point out one thing - Wilt actually said he developed his fadeaway shot when he was a teenager because he played against adults in lower league and he was forced to develop a shot that would give him the advantage against stronger and older competition. I don't think Wilt tried to prove any point at this point of his career, he was forced to adjust and did so.