If the Lakers win in 70 and 73, how does perception of Wilt change?

[ceiling raiser]

The 70 Finals was pretty close, the 73 Finals was only 5 games, but both could reasonably have gone the other way.

I actually don't think a ton changes in terms of Wilt's perception at the time, since it was largely vis-a-vis his rivalry with Russell, but if he goes 3-0 in the Finals against non-Celtics, and has an overall "winning" Finals record (I hate this term, but people care about it), his career looks a lot different.

He's probably in a similar position all-time, but I think the biggest shift is he would be remembered primarily for his Lakers career. One loss in 69 to Russell, followed by 3 wins in four years (with the only other playoff loss coming against an all-time team in the Bucks in 71) makes this a bigger part of his story.

I think it also might have the effect of making his defensive impact (which was fantastic) a bigger part of his legacy. Right now the 100 points in Hershey and 50 ppg dominates a lot of casual rhetoric.

[hauntedcomputer]

He enters the Top 5 debate nearly universally, but we all know people don't value defense much in these arguments and by then Wilt's offensive engine was idling. West and Goodrich were pretty much driving the engine at this point, so RealGMers would be downgrading it like they do Durant's rings. The only thing that would help is the "soft loser" rep.

I've gone from judging Finals records to judging how many championships did you win in your total number of seasons. Russell equals 11-of-13, Jordan equals 6-of-15, Lebron 4-of-21, Mikan 7-of-9, Kareem 6-of-20. This would've put Wilt at 4-of-14, not too shabby compared to most but still not near the top.

[tsherkin]

I think it helps him a little, but only so much. I generally have him top 5 already, and I don't think it moves him too much for me. He'd turned himself into a different kind of player, more of a supporting star at that point. A defensive anchor, rebounder, and high-efficiency, low-volume guy who passed more than he shot. Not sure that's what would be building his legacy above and beyond where it's at today.

Couldn't hurt, though.

[70sFan]

People don't realize that had Wilt won the title in 1970, it would have been one of the greatest comeback stories in the league history. Wilt came back off a very serious injury too early to help the Lakers in the playoffs and they almost won the title against a better Knicks team.

For some strange reason the narrative is that he should be blamed for that run, but he put up remarkable effort considering the circumstances. That title could have changed his legacy from narrative perspective a lot, although I suppose people would find a way to criticise him anyway.

1973 would be helpful, but I don't think it would change that much in all-time sense.

[Lakers824]

He enters the Top 5 debate nearly universally, but we all know people don't value defense much in these arguments and by then Wilt's offensive engine was idling. West and Goodrich were pretty much driving the engine at this point, so RealGMers would be downgrading it like they do Durant's rings. The only thing that would help is the "soft loser" rep.

I've gone from judging Finals records to judging how many championships did you win in your total number of seasons. Russell equals 11-of-13, Jordan equals 6-of-15, Lebron 4-of-21, Mikan 7-of-9, Kareem 6-of-20. This would've put Wilt at 4-of-14, not too shabby compared to most but still not near the top.

Yeah I do the same for the most part (regarding judging rings) but i exclude back-end seasons on non-contending teams. I think of Jordan as 6-13. I think of Kobe as 5-17 etc.

[scrabbarista]

I have him 8th, and I'm not going to commit to anything here because I genuinely don't know without digging into the nitty gritty, but if I were to guess, I think I'd move him to 5th/6th.

I'm assuming his play covers the difference in why they lost/won.

[Doctor MJ]

The 70 Finals was pretty close, the 73 Finals was only 5 games, but both could reasonably have gone the other way.

I actually don't think a ton changes in terms of Wilt's perception at the time, since it was largely vis-a-vis his rivalry with Russell, but if he goes 3-0 in the Finals against non-Celtics, and has an overall "winning" Finals record (I hate this term, but people care about it), his career looks a lot different.

He's probably in a similar position all-time, but I think the biggest shift is he would be remembered primarily for his Lakers career. One loss in 69 to Russell, followed by 3 wins in four years (with the only other playoff loss coming against an all-time team in the Bucks in 71) makes this a bigger part of his story.

I think it also might have the effect of making his defensive impact (which was fantastic) a bigger part of his legacy. Right now the 100 points in Hershey and 50 ppg dominates a lot of casual rhetoric.

So, I actually don't think winning more post-Russell would do that much for perception of Wilt. It would have if the Wilt Lakers had never won a title of course, but they did win, with Wilt as the best player, and in a resounding fashion.

Wilt is mostly compared to Bill Russell and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar from the era, so I think it's mostly beating those guys' teams that would help him.

If the Lakers had won in 1971 over the Bucks with Wilt embarrassing Kareem, that's a thing that would help Wilt at least in that comparison.

If the 76ers had 3-peated over Russell's last 3 years, that would have been absolutely huge for Wilt as it would cement a legacy of "Wilt won once he got good teammates". Given that to this day there are still people who are so quick to conclude this despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary, I think it would likely have ended the Wilt vs Russell debate in Wilt's favor to see Russell retire after repeatedly getting beaten by Wilt and his new teammates.

But yeah, winning those other chips over guys everyone takes as clearly inferior to Wilt I don't think helps that much - though obviously it would be nice for Wilt's narrative not to have that Game 7 1970 finals performance.

[One_and_Done]

Most people wouldn't care, just like they don't care about Russell or Pettit's titles. How often do you hear these guys discussed by talking heads in the all-time conversation? Very little if ever, because deep down most people know the league back then was weak.

When thinking basketball did their all-time peaks project, they excluded Wilt and Russell's era, because the guy doing it knew he'd never be able to honestly justify ranking them against modern players using actual footage.

[penbeast0]

Or maybe "Thinking Basketball" just wasn't up to doing the thinking so they took the easy way out.

(I've done that with Mikan in the past too, it wasn't that I didn't think the comparison was possible, it was that it was more difficult to do. Of course, I don't run a blog or business setting myself up as an expert.)

[Joao Saraiva]

It changes the perception of him. There are not many people who actually lived that era talking on forums and even TV, so results like two more rings definitely help him a lot.

I have him as a GOAT candidate and usually defend him in my top 5, I don't think my perception changes a lot on who Wilt was. But that's the type of stuff that makes a player jump spots on casuals' eyes and tv shows who are extremely result oriented.

[70sFan]

When thinking basketball did their all-time peaks project, they excluded Wilt and Russell's era, because the guy doing it knew he'd never be able to honestly justify ranking them against modern players using actual footage.

Ben excluded pre-merger years because he doesn't have enough footage to work with. He doesn't exclude Wilt and Russell from his all-time discussions and he firmly has Russell 4th all-time, so you are absolutely wrong on just another topic

[One_and_Done]

I don't know what Ben's official excuse was, but I feel pretty confident about why he didn't include them in actuality. That's just my speculation of course.

I don't see his all-time ranking as relevant, because as I understand it he's not trying to measure them objectively as players but is giving them credit for what they did in era also.

[Cavsfansince84]

I feel like what Wilt needed was a healthy team in 68 that should have repeated and then the Lakers to find a way to win that game 7 in 69. That would have given him 3 straight wins over Russell and credence to the idea that if Wilt had a good supporting cast he could beat Russell. Him winning in 70&73 is nice but it would be with him playing more like Russell rather than his true peak form which was likely 65-68. Wins in 68/69 puts him somewhat firmly into goat discussions I think(even though some already put him there).

[70sFan]

I don't know what Ben's official excuse was, but I feel pretty confident about why he didn't include them in actuality. That's just my speculation of course.

So you know better than Ben why he did that? I literally spoke with Ben many times about that and he did make a video about Wilt when he got more footage from the league (and from me) in the 2nd season of the series.

I have no idea why you think anybody shares your delusions, but you should stop putting your own ideas into others moths.

[70sFan]

But yeah, winning those other chips over guys everyone takes as clearly inferior to Wilt I don't think helps that much - though obviously it would be nice for Wilt's narrative not to have that Game 7 1970 finals performance.

The bad thing about this whole narrative creation is that Wilt is the one who is blamed for the Lakers collapse in G7 of 1970 Finals, but the whole team played horribly and it's not like Wilt was particularly bad. As I said, Wilt shouldn't have even played in that series, he was visibly limited physically throughout the postseason. That was by far the worst he ever looked on defensive end because his mobility was severely limited.

Of course he didn't play well and Reed's injury added the narrative to that, but the reality is that Wilt wasn't the driving force of this team in the postseason and yet the other players doesn't get the same treatment for 1970 loss.

[penbeast0]

Wilt was just such an incredible talent, he took the lion's share of notice even when playing with the likes of West and Baylor. As such he gets outsize credit for his wins and outsize blame for the losses. Same goes for Kareem, Jordan, and LeBron. No one else (maybe Mikan, I wasn't alive then) was seen in the same way, not even Russell (though he didn't have many key losses) or Shaq.

AS Wilt said, no one loves Goliath.

[Doctor MJ]

Most people wouldn't care, just like they don't care about Russell or Pettit's titles. How often do you hear these guys discussed by talking heads in the all-time conversation? Very little if ever, because deep down most people know the league back then was weak.

When thinking basketball did their all-time peaks project, they excluded Wilt and Russell's era, because the guy doing it knew he'd never be able to honestly justify ranking them against modern players using actual footage.

No, they were left because of limited footage availability.

You really need to stop making statements saying you know why people did things because here you are in a place where you could just ask and people would happily give you knowledge, but instead you make things up egregiously and we can all see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doctor MJ]

I don't know what Ben's official excuse was, but I feel pretty confident about why he didn't include them in actuality. That's just my speculation of course.

I don't see his all-time ranking as relevant, because as I understand it he's not trying to measure them objectively as players but is giving them credit for what they did in era also.

Your speculation, asserted as fact, in a forum with people who were actually involved with the process and can tell you you’re wrong with certainty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doctor MJ]

I don't know what Ben's official excuse was, but I feel pretty confident about why he didn't include them in actuality. That's just my speculation of course.

So you know better than Ben why he did that? I literally spoke with Ben many times about that and he did make a video about Wilt when he got more footage from the league (and from me) in the 2nd season of the series.

I have no idea why you think anybody shares your delusions, but you should stop putting your own ideas into others moths.

Right, Ben was later involved in the Wilt documentary, and through that process - along with I'm sure some help from you 70s - he made a video.

I think people need to understand that that Greatest Peaks series was primarily about making videos for people to watch rather than making a ranked list for people to read.

It's worth noting that before he was on YouTube he did the project now typically referred to as the BackPicks 40 which was to be read and did have a ranked list that included Wilt & Russell, though even then he looked to emphasize something other than the ranking.

While Wilt ranked 9th, he was the 1st profile in the project, and this was something Ben & I talked about for years before he went out and did it, that the most important player to understand in basketball history - and thus the place to start with all-time analysis - was Wilt.

This was also why his zeroth video for the Greatest Peak series focused on Wilt & Russell, whose rivalry is the most important rival to understand in basketball history.

[Doctor MJ]

But yeah, winning those other chips over guys everyone takes as clearly inferior to Wilt I don't think helps that much - though obviously it would be nice for Wilt's narrative not to have that Game 7 1970 finals performance.

The bad thing about this whole narrative creation is that Wilt is the one who is blamed for the Lakers collapse in G7 of 1970 Finals, but the whole team played horribly and it's not like Wilt was particularly bad. As I said, Wilt shouldn't have even played in that series, he was visibly limited physically throughout the postseason. That was by far the worst he ever looked on defensive end because his mobility was severely limited.

Of course he didn't play well and Reed's injury added the narrative to that, but the reality is that Wilt wasn't the driving force of this team in the postseason and yet the other players doesn't get the same treatment for 1970 loss.

You're not wrong about the damage that our need for simplistic narrative does to the objectivity of analysis.

I'll also say that Walt Frazier in Game 7 just shot the lights out, and that was central to why the Knicks won.

At the same time, I'm not comfortable letting Wilt off the hook here.

The '69-70 Lakers was a team whose best offensive player was Jerry West.
When Willis Reed got hurt, the Lakers decided to focus their scheme around Wilt, and it was great in Game 6.

In Game 7 Reed comes back but can barely move, and so the Lakers continue to focus their offense around Wilt...but Wilt can't seem to get anything going against this much shorter player who can't move. Wilt shooting 10-16 may not seem bad, but:

* The Lakers really did focus everything on Wilt's scoring in the 1st half, and West ending up with more FGA was due to the Lakers abandoning that strategy in the 2nd half.

* There's nothing in the box score to indicate either a) Wilt repeatedly giving up and passing the ball back out with limited time on the shot clock, or b) Wilt fumbling the ball as he tried to slowly work his way into scoring position.

* And then there are Wilt's free throws in the game. It's not just that he went 1-11 but that his form at that time almost looked like he was trying to miss throwing line drives in the rim.

I believe Wilt deserves plenty of criticism for his failure in Game 7, I just don't think that that one game looms that large when people reflect on Wilt in 2025 and so I don't think it helps Wilt that much from today's lens if the Lakers win that chip. Maybe I'm wrong though as it certainly is something that lingered in the stories of Wilt from the time.