How Strong a Case does 1962 Wilt have for best ever Era-Relative peak?

[OhayoKD]

Not going to pretend I've watched a bunch of 60's footage, but looking at the broad-strokes

-> Warriors are terrible without Wilt
-> Warriors are bad when Wilt is hobbled
-> 1962 Warriors are very good in the regular season(49-wins/+2.92 srs may not seem like much, but remember point differntial/win totals are significantly lower during this time period)
->The Warriors elevate significantly in the postseason beating another very good team before playing the +8.25!!! Celtics to a near-tie(7-game series decided by a possession, margin of just 2ppg)
->Celtics are expected to sweep the Warriors, end up winning on a buzzer beater with the final play of game 7.

Wilt is often treated as a playoff-faller, but his teams generally elevated in the postseason with the defense scaling up twice as much as the offense dropped(2 points vs 1 point). In 1962, Wilt comes up against the greatest team ever at the height of their powers(srs more than doubled basically everyone over this period) and pushes them to the brink(in this case literally within a possession) with what, from what we have, seems to be a very underwhelming cast.

Ben harps on "scoring-blindness" and how the 50 ppg wasn't all that, but even if Wilt wasn't a Kareem/Shaq level offensive engine, the combination of defense and offense is what matters here and the results here seem hard to knock.

All that said, I'm wondering what the various more folks here more knowledgeable about this time period have to say. From my relatively limited perspective this looks like a pretty promising "best peak" candidate

[ronnymac2]

In my honest opinion, a player cannot have the best era-relative peak when he probably wasn't even the best player for that one season.

As far as pushing Boston to the brink, this is true in that it went to Gm 7, and the final possessions at that, but the point differential was solidly in favor of Boston for the series.

I wish I had the book "The Rivalry" on me right now to provide more context for that series. From what I remember reading about that season, the Warriors, and the league itself, wanted Wilt to be a mega-draw and put on a show to be talked about in newspapers. His 50 PPG was to sell tickets and keep the Warriors and the league afloat financially. Thus, the greatest talent the league has seen in 75 years had his basketball development stunted.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think the question is why does Wilt only attempt 15fga while going 8-9 from the line in that game 7 that his team loses by 2 pts to the Celtics? While Paul Arizin goes 4-22 and Guy Rodgers goes 6-15? I'm honestly curious how and why that would happen. Because if Wilt gets 20+ shots like he should I would think the Warriors would have won and the whole narrative around Wilt changes greatly with his 62 season probably being widely considered the goat peak since it was also before his ft shooting had become a real weakness.

[Cavsfansince84]

In my honest opinion, a player cannot have the best era-relative peak when he probably wasn't even the best player for that one season.

As far as pushing Boston to the brink, this is true in that it went to Gm 7, and the final possessions at that, but the point differential was solidly in favor of Boston for the series.

I wish I had the book "The Rivalry" on me right now to provide more context for that series. From what I remember reading about that season, the Warriors, and the league itself, wanted Wilt to be a mega-draw and put on a show to be talked about in newspapers. His 50 PPG was to sell tickets and keep the Warriors and the league afloat financially. Thus, the greatest talent the league has seen in 75 years had his basketball development stunted.

I don't see that as mattering much tbh. Hard to blame Wilt for Arizin averaging 22fgapg and only shooting 33%. His teammates as a whole shot 35.4%.

[penbeast0]

Not going to pretend I've watched a bunch of 60's footage, but looking at the broad-strokes

-> Warriors are terrible without Wilt
-> Warriors are bad when Wilt is hobbled
-> 1962 Warriors are very good in the regular season(49-wins/+2.92 srs may not seem like much, but remember point differntial/win totals are significantly lower during this time period)
->The Warriors elevate significantly in the postseason beating another very good team before playing the +8.25!!! Celtics to a near-tie(7-game series decided by a possession, margin of just 2ppg)
->Celtics are expected to sweep the Warriors, end up winning on a buzzer beater with the final play of game 7.

Wilt is often treated as a playoff-faller, but his teams generally elevated in the postseason with the defense scaling up twice as much as the offense dropped(2 points vs 1 point). In 1962, Wilt comes up against the greatest team ever at the height of their powers(srs more than doubled basically everyone over this period) and pushes them to the brink(in this case literally within a possession) with what, from what we have, seems to be a very underwhelming cast.

Ben harps on "scoring-blindness" and how the 50 ppg wasn't all that, but even if Wilt wasn't a Kareem/Shaq level offensive engine, the combination of defense and offense is what matters here and the results here seem hard to knock.

All that said, I'm wondering what the various more folks here more knowledgeable about this time period have to say. From my relatively limited perspective this looks like a pretty promising "best peak" candidate

In almost all Wilt's peak scoring years, his scoring dropped in the playoffs (and his rebounding elevated); maybe because opponents built their defenses around him, maybe because his own teams realized it was great box office but not maximizing win potential.

Wilt was far from a playoff failure; against everyone but Russell he was highly successful with an 80% plus playoff series win rate for his career (higher than MJ in Chicago just for example), just that while he won the individual matchups with Russell, his teammates generally dropped off significantly in the playoffs while Russell's teammates were mixed. Maybe because of their defensive styles (my belief), maybe because of a decade straight of bad luck.

[OhayoKD]

Not going to pretend I've watched a bunch of 60's footage, but looking at the broad-strokes

-> Warriors are terrible without Wilt
-> Warriors are bad when Wilt is hobbled
-> 1962 Warriors are very good in the regular season(49-wins/+2.92 srs may not seem like much, but remember point differntial/win totals are significantly lower during this time period)
->The Warriors elevate significantly in the postseason beating another very good team before playing the +8.25!!! Celtics to a near-tie(7-game series decided by a possession, margin of just 2ppg)
->Celtics are expected to sweep the Warriors, end up winning on a buzzer beater with the final play of game 7.

Wilt is often treated as a playoff-faller, but his teams generally elevated in the postseason with the defense scaling up twice as much as the offense dropped(2 points vs 1 point). In 1962, Wilt comes up against the greatest team ever at the height of their powers(srs more than doubled basically everyone over this period) and pushes them to the brink(in this case literally within a possession) with what, from what we have, seems to be a very underwhelming cast.

Ben harps on "scoring-blindness" and how the 50 ppg wasn't all that, but even if Wilt wasn't a Kareem/Shaq level offensive engine, the combination of defense and offense is what matters here and the results here seem hard to knock.

All that said, I'm wondering what the various more folks here more knowledgeable about this time period have to say. From my relatively limited perspective this looks like a pretty promising "best peak" candidate

In almost all Wilt's peak scoring years, his scoring dropped in the playoffs (and his rebounding elevated); maybe because opponents built their defenses around him, maybe because his own teams realized it was great box office but not maximizing win potential.

Wilt was far from a playoff failure; against everyone but Russell he was highly successful with an 80% plus playoff series win rate for his career (higher than MJ in Chicago just for example), just that while he won the individual matchups with Russell, his teammates generally dropped off significantly in the playoffs while Russell's teammates were mixed. Maybe because of their defensive styles (my belief), maybe because of a decade straight of bad luck.

Well, IIRC from ben's write-up, when you account for the defensive improvement. Wilt's teams actually improved in the postseason. My impression was that Wilt's defense elevated while his offense dropped and the net improvement allowed otherwise solid rs teams to challenge the celtics over and over again

[VanWest82]

Courtesy of the folks more knowledgeable about that time. Interesting that Oscar received more first place votes.

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt has a case especially when you consider that he was utterly robbed of the MVP due to other players disliking him.

A reporter in 1962 asked a player on the Knicks why no one has Wilt Chamberlain in their MVP voting.

His response: “Don’t like the guy, personally. I wouldn’t vote for him for anything.”

That’s how absurd the MVP voting used to be back in the day lol.

As the media voted Wilt first team over Russell but he didn’t win the MVP due to players voting.

[OhayoKD]

Wilt has a case especially when you consider that he was utterly robbed of the MVP due to other players disliking him.

A reporter in 1962 asked a player on the Knicks why no one has Wilt Chamberlain in their MVP voting.

His response: “Don’t like the guy, personally. I wouldn’t vote for him for anything.”

That’s how absurd the MVP voting used to be back in the day lol.

As the media voted Wilt first team over Russell but he didn’t win the MVP due to players voting.

That's pretty damning actually.

[coastalmarker99]

No other player in history has come close to achieving what Chamberlain did in 1962 with what he had to work with. He defied all the odds.

Take Wilt off that team and the Warriors would be dead last in the league in fg% at .402.

and his teammates would collectively shoot an even worse .352 in the playoffs.

And although Wilt finished second only to Russell in playoff defensive win shares, the Warriors were still the absolute worst defensive team in the league. On top of that, 7 of the top 10 playoff defensive win share holders that year were all Celtics players.

The Warriors had no business being in the East Finals and were not even favored to win a single game against Boston.

Yet Wilt managed to push that sorry cast of characters to a Game 7 two point loss.

Wilt did everything necessary to win that game 7 otherwise it wouldn't have been that close.

In fact, the papers praised Wilt for playing "outstanding defense" while sharing scoring with his teammates.
He was literally all over the place.

But after Guy Rodgers fouled out and the Warriors began to trail he immediately went to work and tied the game by himself.

And in the end, all it came down to was Boston barely squeaking by on technicalities.

Bottom line is that what Wilt did in the 1962 playoffs was incredible, and no other player could've come close to what he accomplished with the amount of success he had given the cards he was dealt.


Furthermore


​

There is a story behind his 22 points in that Game 7. Warriors coach Frank McGuire asked Chamberlain to play out of the pivot more.

Tom Meschery continued his hot shooting from Game 6.

Tom Gola returned from injury and also shot well.

This took pressure off Chamberlain to focus more on defense.

​



Lets not forget that the Celtics entire defensive strategy was to either let him score everything or double team him

[VanWest82]

Wilt has a case especially when you consider that he was utterly robbed of the MVP due to other players disliking him.

A reporter in 1962 asked a player on the Knicks why no one has Wilt Chamberlain in their MVP voting.

His response: “Don’t like the guy, personally. I wouldn’t vote for him for anything.”

That’s how absurd the MVP voting used to be back in the day lol.

As the media voted Wilt first team over Russell but he didn’t win the MVP due to players voting.

That's pretty damning actually.

It's not damning at all, actually. One quote doesn't make a league, and perhaps part of the reason why guys didn't like him is because he was a selfish basketball player who sometimes put his own stats above the team. Edit: Oscar wasn't particularly well liked either and yet he received more first place votes than Wilt. Pretty much throws that narrative out the window.

[capfan33]

While I can't claim to be a Wilt expert, the consensus seems to be 62 Wilt isn't even one of his 2 best years so I'm not really sure how it could be the best era-relative peak.

Moreover, the point you bring up about them taking the Celtics to 7 seems impressive, except that the Celtics routinely got taken to 6-7 games (and very close games at that) in the 60s against oftentimes vastly inferior teams, they just always managed to win at the end. Russell, of course, was 10-0 in-game 7s and whether it's luck or Russell elevating his game, it wasn't an anomaly at all.

Hell, Wilt literally did it again 3 years later with better stats, against a similar-strength Celtics, and a much worse team around him. Also, I don't think his defense in 62 was anything to write home about compared to years like 64. (70sFan keep me honest) 62 is incredible of course, but once you get past the 50 points a game I don't really see the case for it over 64 at all. 64 Wilt was eons better defensively, a better postseason scorer, more mature and just generally a better player.

[OhayoKD]

No other player in history has come close to achieving what Chamberlain did in 1962 with what he had to work with. He defied all the odds.

Take Wilt off that team and the Warriors would be dead last in the league in fg% at .402.

and his teammates would collectively shoot an even worse .352 in the playoffs.

And although Wilt finished second only to Russell in playoff defensive win shares, the Warriors were still the absolute worst defensive team in the league. On top of that, 7 of the top 10 playoff defensive win share holders that year were all Celtics players.

The Warriors had no business being in the East Finals and were not even favored to win a single game against Boston.

Yet Wilt managed to push that sorry cast of characters to a Game 7 two point loss.

Wilt did everything necessary to win that game 7 otherwise it wouldn't have been that close.

In fact, the papers praised Wilt for playing "outstanding defense" while sharing scoring with his teammates.
He was literally all over the place.

But after Guy Rodgers fouled out and the Warriors began to trail he immediately went to work and tied the game by himself.

And in the end, all it came down to was Boston barely squeaking by on technicalities.

Bottom line is that what Wilt did in the 1962 playoffs was incredible, and no other player could've come close to what he accomplished with the amount of success he had given the cards he was dealt.


Furthermore


​

There is a story behind his 22 points in that Game 7. Warriors coach Frank McGuire asked Chamberlain to play out of the pivot more.

Tom Meschery continued his hot shooting from Game 6.

Tom Gola returned from injury and also shot well.

This took pressure off Chamberlain to focus more on defense.

​



Lets not forget that the Celtics entire defensive strategy was to either let him score everything or double team him

Interesting.

Might check out that game 7 myself then. Would be the second 60's game I've seen this year (I only saw 1 in 2021 )

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt has a case especially when you consider that he was utterly robbed of the MVP due to other players disliking him.

A reporter in 1962 asked a player on the Knicks why no one has Wilt Chamberlain in their MVP voting.

His response: “Don’t like the guy, personally. I wouldn’t vote for him for anything.”

That’s how absurd the MVP voting used to be back in the day lol.

As the media voted Wilt first team over Russell but he didn’t win the MVP due to players voting.

That's pretty damning actually.

It's not damning at all, actually. One quote doesn't make a league, and perhaps part of the reason why guys didn't like him is because he was a selfish basketball player who sometimes put his own stats above wins.

It’s funny you say that as the more Wilt shot the ball the more his teams won.

It is worth noting in 1960, the Warriors go 31-12 when Wilt takes 32+ shots; they go 18-14 for the rest of the season.

1961: Warriors go 29-13 when Wilt takes 32+ shots; they go 17-20 for the rest of the season.

Warriors have the 2nd highest fg% in the league.

The more he shot the ball, the more they won. And that was more apparent in 62 in which he pushed the Celtics to the utter limit with a below average roster.


Swap Wilt and Russell that season and I am not even sure if Russell takes two games of the Celtics.


As the Margin of error Russell had compared to Wilt was insane.


Look at game 2 of the 1962 Ecf for example.


As Wilt dropped 42 and 37 compared to Russell’s 9 and 20 while holding him to 4 out of 14 from the floor and yet the Warriors only win by seven points.

[OhayoKD]

While I can't claim to be a Wilt expert, the consensus seems to be 62 Wilt isn't even one of his 2 best years so I'm not really sure how it could be the best era-relative peak.

'
If I take your 1964 points as accurate, then maybe it isn't. Of course that might just mean Wilt has the best 3 era-relative peaks as opposed to the best one

Moreover, the point you bring up about them taking the Celtics to 7 seems impressive, except that the Celtics routinely got taken to 6-7 games (and very close games at that) in the 60s against oftentimes vastly inferior teams, they just always managed to win at the end. Russell, of course, was 10-0 in-game 7s and whether it's luck or Russell elevating his game, it wasn't an anomaly at all.

Weren't all but one of those game 7's against Wilt? Perhaps Wilt was the anomaly

[AEnigma]

Are we going to pretend like players historically have not loved the biggest box score producers? Even in that era, Oscar received plenty of love while winning a lot less than Wilt and by most accounts having a more abrasive on-court personality.

We do not need to act as if it was some deep love for the team game which drove those voting results. I am not saying that makes Wilt “better” than Russell. The award is irrelevant to that determination. But because it is not relevant, we do not need to invent reasons why it went the way it did.

[capfan33]

That's pretty damning actually.

It's not damning at all, actually. One quote doesn't make a league, and perhaps part of the reason why guys didn't like him is because he was a selfish basketball player who sometimes put his own stats above wins.

It’s funny you say that as the more Wilt shot the ball the more his teams won.

It is worth noting in 1960, the Warriors go 31-12 when Wilt takes 32+ shots; they go 18-14 for the rest of the season.

1961: Warriors go 29-13 when Wilt takes 32+ shots; they go 17-20 for the rest of the season.

Warriors have the 2nd highest fg% in the league.

The more he shot the ball, the more they won. And that was more apparent in 62 in which he pushed the Celtics to the utter limit with a below average roster.


Swap Wilt and Russell that season and I am not even sure if Russell takes two games of the Celtics.


As the Margin of error Russell had compared to Wilt was insane.


Look at game 2 of the 1962 Ecf for example.


As Wilt dropped 42 and 37 compared to Russell’s 9 and 20 while holding him to 4 out of 14 from the floor and yet the Warriors only win by seven points.

This is an interesting point to make because I think there may be some selection bias going on here. If you think about it if someone shoots the ball a lot they're probably having a really good game and by extension are going to give their team a much better chance of winning. Especially in the case of Wilt who seemed conscious of his efficiency and wouldn't just chuck up shots if he was having an off night, Kobe would probably be the counterexample to this lol.

I would be curious to see something similar with other players to see what the correlation is between shots taken and winning percentage. I think this may be a chicken and egg problem. Like if you shoot 28-40 from the field you're team probably has a very good chance of winning, that doesn't make it an optimal strategy because of course it's not sustainable and also may not actually be the best way to play to optimize your teams chance of winning.

[VanWest82]

Are we going to pretend like players historically have not loved the biggest box score producers? Even in that era, Oscar received plenty of love while winning a lot less than Wilt and by most accounts having a more abrasive on-court personality.

We do not need to act as if it was some deep love for the team game which drove those voting results. I am not saying that makes Wilt “better” than Russell. The award is irrelevant to that determination. But because it is not relevant, we do not need to invent reasons why it went the way it did.

Nor do we need to pretend like that voting was all just biased favoritism. It is relevant. How is someone able to clear the bar of best era-relative peak when they couldn't even clear the bar of consensus (basketball) respect among their peers?