Wilt vs. Duncan?

[QuantMisleads]

I think Wilt would have at least as many championships as Duncan did, no question. Duncan played against a historically weak competition in the seasons that he won the championship. 1999? lol. 2003? The lakers were so pathetic that any attempt to give Duncan all the credit instead of pointing to how bad the Lakers were is revisionist history. 2005? The only competition they had were the Pistons, and even they weren't that good. 2007? Don't make me laugh. Oops, too late.

[Woodsanity]

I think Wilt would have at least as many championships as Duncan did, no question. Duncan played against a historically weak competition in the seasons that he won the championship. 1999? lol. 2003? The lakers were so pathetic that any attempt to give Duncan all the credit instead of pointing to how bad the Lakers were is revisionist history. 2005? The only competition they had were the Pistons, and even they weren't that good. 2007? Don't make me laugh. Oops, too late.

And even when Wilt had better supporting casts than Russell and Frazier he still got beaten. Don't make me laugh. Oops, too late.

[QuantMisleads]

I think Wilt would have at least as many championships as Duncan did, no question. Duncan played against a historically weak competition in the seasons that he won the championship. 1999? lol. 2003? The lakers were so pathetic that any attempt to give Duncan all the credit instead of pointing to how bad the Lakers were is revisionist history. 2005? The only competition they had were the Pistons, and even they weren't that good. 2007? Don't make me laugh. Oops, too late.

And even when Wilt had better supporting casts than Russell he still got beaten. Don't make me laugh. Oops, too late.

It's obviously more complicated than that, and even still that isn't nearly as bad as the sort of competition Duncan had to go through. Not even close.

[ushvinder88]

Well according to you the pistons werent that great, the 2003 lakers were pathetic, and im guessing the 99 lakers were aweful too. Perhaps you have a bias against modern teams and love the players from wilt's era, the 6'7 slow, unathletic white guys. Oh my duncan must fear that era. Wilt's teams had aweful defensive stats from 1960-1963 bcause he made no impact, anyone can score against bums and backup players.

The news reports from wilt's own era called his championship 'tainted', lol.

When wilt finally won, the sixers won 68 games. Celtics won 60 and warriors won 44. The other 7 teams in the league all had losing records. That would suggest it was a very unbalanced league. If anyone dominated crap compeition its wilt. Oh wow he beat a one man show royals, celtics with an injured bill russell and the warriors in the finals, oh man this guy is a world beater, lol.

[Woodsanity]

I think Wilt would have at least as many championships as Duncan did, no question. Duncan played against a historically weak competition in the seasons that he won the championship. 1999? lol. 2003? The lakers were so pathetic that any attempt to give Duncan all the credit instead of pointing to how bad the Lakers were is revisionist history. 2005? The only competition they had were the Pistons, and even they weren't that good. 2007? Don't make me laugh. Oops, too late.

And even when Wilt had better supporting casts than Russell he still got beaten. Don't make me laugh. Oops, too late.

It's obviously more complicated than that, and even still that isn't nearly as bad as the sort of competition Duncan had to go through. Not even close.

Duncan had a mediocre supporting cast in 2003 so winning even against "weak" competition was very impressive.
Manu was not Manu at that point and Tony Parker was pretty bad. DRob was also on his last legs. No matter what revisionist nonsense you spout at the end of the day Wilt only won 2 championships. If he was so great there is no reason he should have won only two when there were times when he had the best team in the league.

Also its not like Wilt won against ridiculously tough competition himself. Beating the 67 warriors.... Only winning 2 championships....

[Dipper 13]

Dipper13, let's see this video and hopefully it is new outside of what you posted prior. I am at work but found an great Shaq comp on youtube which I will upload later on describing what your are saying to a tee. Show me this side of Wilt and what you listed above.

Not new, seeing as I had uploaded them last year before Youtube closed the account, citing complaints from the NBA. I may soon create a new account & reupload the videos, which might actually be new if you and others here haven't seen them. The original thread I made recieved very little interest.

viewtopic.php?t=1105160&f=64

[ahonui06]

I think Wilt would have at least as many championships as Duncan did, no question. Duncan played against a historically weak competition in the seasons that he won the championship. 1999? lol. 2003? The lakers were so pathetic that any attempt to give Duncan all the credit instead of pointing to how bad the Lakers were is revisionist history. 2005? The only competition they had were the Pistons, and even they weren't that good. 2007? Don't make me laugh. Oops, too late.

The impressive part about Duncan's championships was the fact that he won with a variety of different supporting casts. In 1999 and 2005, he probably had his most balanced teams and found a way to win a title. In 2007, the league's competition was at its weakest, but the Western Conference was still a difficult challenge. In 2003, Duncan lead a team without any other all-stars and poor offensive production all the way to the Finals. It was just incredible. Duncan put the entire team on his back and lead them to a title over the Nets. Duncan almost had a quadruple double in the Finals clinching game in 2003. Just simply amazing.

[MacGill]

Dipper13, let's see this video and hopefully it is new outside of what you posted prior. I am at work but found an great Shaq comp on youtube which I will upload later on describing what your are saying to a tee. Show me this side of Wilt and what you listed above.

Not new, seeing as I had uploaded them last year before Youtube closed the account, citing complaints from the NBA. I may soon create a new account & reupload the videos, which might actually be new if you and others here haven't seen them. The original thread I made recieved very little interest.

viewtopic.php?t=1105160&f=64

Here is the video I found. It's a few years old but has everything in there from a highlight video. To me, this is such a difference in ability from what I have been shown. Shame, those video's posted were removed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewBnHq04CRg

[kaulkhara15]

Wilt is higher on my rankings, but give me Duncan on my team 10 times out of 10.

[QuantMisleads]

Well according to you the pistons werent that great, the 2003 lakers were pathetic, and im guessing the 99 lakers were aweful too. Perhaps you have a bias against modern teams and love the players from wilt's era, the 6'7 slow, unathletic white guys. Oh my duncan must fear that era. Wilt's teams had aweful defensive stats from 1960-1963 bcause he made no impact, anyone can score against bums and backup players.

The news reports from wilt's own era called his championship 'tainted', lol.

When wilt finally won, the sixers won 68 games. Celtics won 60 and warriors won 44. The other 7 teams in the league all had losing records. That would suggest it was a very unbalanced league. If anyone dominated crap compeition its wilt. Oh wow he beat a one man show royals, celtics with an injured bill russell and the warriors in the finals, oh man this guy is a world beater, lol.

At no point in time was it ever called tainted except in that one newspaper article that bastillon the liar managed to dig up, and that was 5 years after the fact.

Nice, you're trolling. Everyone knows Bill Russell wasn't injured.

[QuantMisleads]

I think Wilt would have at least as many championships as Duncan did, no question. Duncan played against a historically weak competition in the seasons that he won the championship. 1999? lol. 2003? The lakers were so pathetic that any attempt to give Duncan all the credit instead of pointing to how bad the Lakers were is revisionist history. 2005? The only competition they had were the Pistons, and even they weren't that good. 2007? Don't make me laugh. Oops, too late.

The impressive part about Duncan's championships was the fact that he won with a variety of different supporting casts. In 1999 and 2005, he probably had his most balanced teams and found a way to win a title. In 2007, the league's competition was at its weakest, but the Western Conference was still a difficult challenge. In 2003, Duncan lead a team without any other all-stars and poor offensive production all the way to the Finals. It was just incredible. Duncan put the entire team on his back and lead them to a title over the Nets. Duncan almost had a quadruple double in the Finals clinching game in 2003. Just simply amazing.

Wilt had almost averaged a quadruple double vs. the Celtics, so what? Don't bring up stats dude, because if you do Wilt will always win. Look, Duncan should be given credit for 1999 and 2003, but I can't give him full credit because each time (except for 2003) he had a great team, and mostly faced teams that were really not good at all. Whereas Wilt should honestly be given almost sole credit for the 1972 lakers playing as well as they did, while in 1967 he did have a great team although he also had a great season. We have to remember that Wilt made it to the finals or the conference finals 12 out of his FOURTEEN, 14, seasons (not 13, some people can't count). So yes, he did fail a lot, but he failed and got 2nd place consistently. Is that a knock against him? For some of those seasons yes, it is. but he still made it as far as he did, and almost beat russell in his younger years even though everyone put the Celtics as the heavy favorite for each of those seasons.

[Doctor MJ]

Let's tone it down on the name calling here. I understand "liar" isn't the same thing as "moron", but in a lot of ways it's more counterproductive to conversation. We have an "ignore" function for blocking the people you don't like for a reason. If you refuse to use it, and can't control yourself, that's courting the antipathy.

~Doc

[Dipper 13]

Here is the video I found. It's a few years old but has everything in there from a highlight video. To me, this is such a difference in ability from what I have been shown. Shame, those video's posted were removed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewBnHq04CRg

No you didn't see Wilt performing stutter crossover dribbles or transition spin moves, but you did see a lot of nice stuff. I agree Shaq had quicker feet inside. Very agile for a 325-340 lb center.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0fbgrIRpps&t=1m42s At Overbrook HS, where he practiced so much more than just pure shooting (an obsession on this board).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfGu3_BT1wQ&t=9m04s Drop Step move & finish off the rebound, followed by up & under move vs Russell. No doubt a lesser defender would have left his feet. The drop step is the exact move Shaq himself has used, except without the fake pass & not off the boards though he does cover more ground.

*His famous drop step, followed by either finger roll or dunk was his go to move moreso than the turnaround bank shot. A few examples below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMIFXBZSk9U&t=1m13s Look how graceful he is here, against 6'11 Bellamy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezCa-knJ8ZM&t=6m30s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xp2slHI9sI&t=1m31s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q_LigWC4Rg&t=4m30s (Beaty doesn't even bother to contest dunk, with good reason)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HslKDTMONP8&t=1m21s (Same case with Bellamy)




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XwfzLa9c4A&t=2m39s

Above we can see Gus Johnson sagging off Billy C, clearly anticipating the pass into Wilt. This followed by a simple Wilt handoff to Greer for the layup. Next play after we briefly see Russell trying to shove Wilt out of position to no avail. Greer can't even get the ball into Wilt initially due to KC cheating over, he hits Wali who dumps it in. Wilt fake passes twice to the weakside player as well as the cutter, subtly getting Russell off balance, and turns to hit the shot.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xp2slHI9sI&t=57s (Spins immediately of the catch, forcing KC to take the foul)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRbI6MlD4BY&t=2m55s (Fake pass followed by spin & And-1 slam over 6'10 Imhoff. Against Wilt he looks like a midget.)



Twice below the old man (35) makes it look easy, with a surgically reconstructed (though stronger) knee post injury.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U123LQ8yR-k&t=7m52s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U123LQ8yR-k&t=8m27s



Below he blocks the powerful Walt Bellamy's dunk easily. Also shows off excellent passing skills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ4SnUxUzZw&t=11m27s




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XwfzLa9c4A#t=49s

The above video shows Walker, Greer, & Wilt in a triangle setup where the Bullets defense dictates the Sixers quick passes, and big Luke Jackson comes from the weak side to clean up Greer's miss and clinch the Eastern Division Championship. There is a great discipline involved in such selfless team play from all participants.

[Warspite]

Duncan was an awsome player. No real weakness outside the FT line. A great offensive and defensive anchor.


Wilt was just a little better at everything and in some cases alot better. I cant even imagine Duncan or someone like Larry Brown thinking that Wilt was inferior.

[D.Brasco]

Here's a cool vid of some baseline behind the basket throw downs from wilt

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PcEqa2l5eE&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

[JordansBulls]

What would happen if you switched the players? How many rings would Duncan have in place of Wilt? How many rings would Wilt have in place of Duncan?

Well it depends on what years you are using? For instance use 1967 Wilt as 2003 Duncan, 1966 Wilt as 2002 Duncan, etc.

[Brenice]

What would happen if you switched the players? How many rings would Duncan have in place of Wilt? How many rings would Wilt have in place of Duncan?

Well it depends on what years you are using? For instance use 1967 Wilt as 2003 Duncan, 1966 Wilt as 2002 Duncan, etc.

You take Wilt from the age when he joined the NBA and morph him into San Antonio starting the year Duncan joined San Antonio, with Wilt retiring at the same age. Wilt playing under rules during the era.

Or you take Tim and do the reverse, only Tim retiring at the age Wilt retired. Tim playing under the rules from Tim's era.

[fatal9]

his 1963 team sucked, they were horrible, everyone knows this and saying otherwise is revisionist history.

Wow, okay. So your premise is the typical “his teammates sucked”, “Wilt was amazing, look at his numbers” and so on, and anything else is "revisionist history".

Here is an article from 1963 which states exactly what I and other posters have written about Wilt, with his OWN teammates saying exactly what we are.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=y8 ... 35,2744031

February, 23, 1963, titled: “Wilt hurts Warriors despite high average”

Some things the article points out:

“The basketball riddle for today: how can a man score 45 points a night and still be a liability to his team?...Wilt’s lassitude is in the sameness of his pattern. He stands close to the basket for dunks or leans back for a fadeaway jump shot. Nothing else.”

To the question of Wilt having poor support (he had two all-stars on his team by the way), an NBA veteran says “if Wilt played like he does with San Francisco, the Celtics would lose too”, he has “slovenly habits which have began to eat away at the Warriors as a team.”

This is what one of Wilt’s “horrible” teammates Tom Gola had to say about his role in the offense around Wilt after he got traded mid-season:

“Some games I was never in it offensively at all. I went one whole half without getting a shot. I was always fouling out of games, or on the verge, because I was the only one laying back to pick up on defense.”

"Willie Naulls, a 20-point scorer for six seasons with New York, is now a 14 point scorer with the Warriors. Willie doesn't drive, and Wilt doesn't pass out."

So he’s possibly having a negative impact on the team offensively and isn’t playing defense. Now it starts to make sense how a player putting up 45/24 can be leading one of the worst teams in the league. This is an example of his greatness? When he is volume scoring the offense is predictable and he is making everyone around him worse, yet his teammates are to blame? This is from the words of someone who who played with him night after night from the time period in question and it is EXACTLY what posters (see Doctor MJ’s “price of anarchy”) write on this board.

This is a guy who is having a negative impact on every single one of his teammates and you want me to place no blame on him for why his team sucks? What good is his volume scoring if he makes the team worse on offense (or at best, having a positive impact but giving the offense a very low ceiling) while doing it? Is the point of the game to put up numbers or win games? Do you consider Adrian Dantley to be a better scorer than Larry Bird? If this is the type of offense Wilt needs to put up his “amazing” averages which apparently a reason he is the “GOAT”, then sorry, his numbers are completely meaningless to me. It’s of no meaning to me when you say Wilt “averaged 44 ppg” to whatever Duncan or KG averaged, he is NOT a better offensive player to me just because of his averages. That’s not how I see the game.

But explain to me how I’m in the wrong or “revising history” on that season for seeing past the numbers, looking into details and then questioning his impact. Is it a coincidence that when most posters on this board took a deeper look into his career that they came out thinking less of him?

Now I know what you’re going to say..."but that was Wilt’s role, he would make more impact if used differently”. But he was used differently in many types of roles in his career and he still was prone to bad habits. Wilt had a bizarre obsession with stats that dictated how he plays no matter if he is volume scoring (where he plays in a way to score as much as possible while hurting the team), whether he is an offensive hub (where he began playing in a way to pad his assist totals which again lowered the ceiling of his teams offensively), whether he is just a finisher (where he reduces his aggressiveness and has clear instances of where he stops shooting to preserve FG% ). This is not someone I’m going to give credit for playing the “right way” when he was put in all sorts of situations and ALWAYS had some kind of issues. He is fundamentally flawed in the way he approaches the game. Duncan is everything Wilt isn’t, and that’s a good thing.

In 1964-1965 Wilt had health issues (a heart attack), and even he knew he was playing badly and was in a funk.

Fair enough, but again, you’re missing the point. This is a guy who put up 35/23 in the season on league leading 51% shooting that year, and was also a defensive force according to his fans. Why are his boxscore numbers not translating to impact? Why is his team the worst in the league when he is averaging an “amazing!!” 39/24? Why is the team he got traded to not improve record wise when he is averaging an “amazing!!” 30/23? After all, for most, the case for Wilt’s greatness hinges on his boxscore numbers does it not. Why is it translating to such little impact?

and as i have said a million times, 1969 was by far Wilt's worst season, for reasons due partly to him not exerting himself at all and his coach telling him to rebound and do nothing else. So that's exactly what Wilt did, which is why it was his worst season. Using this season as indicative of his overall performance is not accurate, though if one wanted to penalize him based on this poor season I couldn't blame them or argue against them.

Okay, so another season where there is an excuse for why Wilt should be immune to criticism and isn’t improving the team as much as expected. They really seem to be starting to add up. Like I said he gets traded to a roster that was starving for a center all decade (SRS goes down, lose to same team, actually have more trouble getting out of the first round than they did previously...how can he have such little impact?). If a center who is the greatest at every facet of the game according to his fans isn’t having an impact in a season his coach asked him to stop shooting, then what is his value? And blaming everything on the coach (who actually improved the Laker offense when he came in the previous year) is exactly why I find it pointless to argue with Wilt fans. You don’t want to hold him accountable for anything. Did his coach make him drop his scoring from 21 ppg on 56 TS% to 13.7 ppg on 51.8 TS% in the playoffs (and even worse in the finals)? Did his coach make him go 2/11 from the line in a game his team lost by one point and he had only 8 points? Why is Wilt the one who is having all these issues? Does this not say bad things about his portability, especially offensively? And based on Wilt's history, isn't the coach RIGHT in asking him to score less?

Here’s an LA times article about Wilt following that season by the way which is very critical about his impact on the team:

Now that the seventh and perhaps pivotal game of the NBA Finals is in the can, it may be appropriate to pause and reflect for a while. Say five months.

Analysis of whatever technical errors the Lakers may have committed will be left to keener basketball minds. In this period of re-examination, I’d just like to raise one point, one I think can properly be raised by even a casual spectator.

The point is that the past season suggests, if it does not actually prove, that Wilt Chamberlain is not worth $250,000 a year. And if that’s what he’s really getting, his teammates are being insulted.

This is not the intemperate response of an embittered fan. A good friend of mine is connected with the Lakers, but I have had no real emotional attachment to the team, and never have had.

At any rate, the Lakers, with Chamberlain, lost the seventh playoff game by two points — on the Lakers’ floor. So they have come no closer with Wilt than they did without him.

But the intent here is not to charge Chamberlain with unsatisfactory performance. To be sure, there are some things he can’t do. His field goal average, on shots taken from more than a few feet from the hoop, is rotten. His free throw average, on the other hand, is even worse. Nor can he move with the ball the way Bill Russell can.

But you can’t fault a man for not doing things he is physically incapable of doing. Norm Van Brocklin was hardly a great scrambler. But you didn’t rap him for that. The man just couldn’t run. Chamberlain, from any distance, just can’t shoot.

But some say there are things Wilt is capable of doing that he does not do. They say he could play more evenly. They say he loafs.

...

The trouble is there is another dimension to Chamberlain’s salary. When you announce you are giving a man $250,000 a year (or do not deny published reports that that’s what he’s getting), you are telling your fans, in effect, that you have acquired a super force. The magnitude of the sum almost suggests here is a man against whom there can be no defense.

But it can be seen now by every Laker fan that, while Chamberlain may be a great player, he is not the ultimate weapon. The same thing can be seen by his teammates. For the record, they may tell you, “more power to the guy. He’s entitled to anything he can get.” Privately, however, they must deeply resent the fact that Chamberlain is being paid five to 10 times as much as a lot of players he is not five to 10 times greater than. It would be irrational to believe this resentment has not adversely affected the team.

Saying that Wilt was comparable to Shaq defensively is much worse than saying he was comparable to Russell.

Great shot blocker and intimidating presence in the lane, bad screen and roll defender, mediocre defender outside of the paint, inconsistent effort throughout the years, outright bad defender in some years, great post defender in some years, leading average to mediocre defenses in a lot of years. Who does this sound like to you? Shaq might actually be more impressive here because his best defensive year came in a year where he was leading the league in scoring and carrying a big offensive load, not in a setting where the only thing he had to do on offense was finish and focus on rebounding and defense.

Whoever made this video was trying to show Wilt at his worst. FIrst of all, that game 4 1967 game was immediately after the game 3 where Wilt rebounded the ball 41 times and had an unbelievable statline. After the game and for the next few days his knees were badly aching, it was in the newspapers. So you're showing us a game where his knees were hurting him and wasn't necessarily what he could do on the offensive end. Anyway, this was not Wilt in his scoring prime, so it really doesn't prove anything. and in 1964, I'll admit, Wilt looked rusty offensively. if you look at some of the other videos that were posted, however, you'd see that Wilt at his offensive best was a powerhouse. It's not for nothing that he managed to get the scoring output that he did. Most of you seem to think this happened on accident or something, it's **** bizarre. I really don't know how you guys are making this sort of argument with a straight face and getting away with it, unbelievable. Same thing with that Shaq homie in this thread, you guys all make the case, implicitly, that everything Wilt did was an accident, or if it wasn't he wasn't really doing anything of value. Again, **** bizarre.

Including every post up, even makes that didn’t count (like fadeaway bank after the whistle) of him in his prime is trying to make him look bad? I prefaced the video by saying that things like whether he made or missed the shot should be irrelevant because they vary. But things like footwork, rhythm, type of shots he’s getting don’t mean anything? Why is a highlight video (half of them from college against horrible competition) more indicative of his skills than actual game footage? If I wanted to make Wilt look bad, I would go to his past prime years and show how bad he looked when posting up in those years. Also, again you seem to be saying Wilt at his "offensive best" (presumably in his volume scoring years) was a "powerhouse"...hardly when you look at the big picture.

The problem is that you can't talk about his failures in his later years (where he was expected to win) and then also talk about lack of impact from his scoring, which were in a different set of years and in which he came close to winning on various occasions.

Alright so I can’t criticize his later years either, because I'm critical of his earlier years? More seasons where Wilt should be immune to criticism. This makes no sense to me.

Actually everyone mentioned how he could hit that jumpshot but couldn't hit a free throw. His coach actually told him to shoot hte free throw like he was shooting that jump shot, but wilt said he didn't want to bring even more attention to himself by doing that.

Look nobody has made excuses for Wilt's performance in that game 7, but using that game as some sort of indication of his overall contribution is simply inaccurate.

Yes, it can be bad if you're shooting jump shots and you're also the primary rebounder for your team in a fast paced game. I have said a thousand times over that the reason Wilt was not successful in his early, high scoring years was because it was a fast paced game, which was not conducive to having all the scoring done by one person.

You didn’t actually address what I wrote. This is probably going to be something where you’re going to have your opinion and I’m going to have mine, and people can believe whatever seems reasonable to them. To me Wilt has all the signs of a guy whose post scoring is not as good as his fans like to advertise. And using practice to say Wilt was actually a great FT shooter but had a mental block in games? Shaq used to say the same thing, that he was an 80% FT shooter in practice. It's easy to make these claims when no one is consistently recording anything and when you are shooting the same shot 100 consecutive times in a row and in rhythm (instead of 2 and then heading back on defense). Doesn't mean either guy was a good jumpshooter.

Like I mentioned, his FG% isn't really that high when you take into account how physically dominant he was, how he was one of the GOAT finishers/offensive rebounders. And based on the fact he clearly wasn't a pure shooter, I see his fadeaway as an unreliable and erratic shot. He falls off scoring wise in the playoffs big time (would be even worse statistically in his prime if he didn't statpad in some of these series by playing 48 minutes in blowouts), which is another sign that his post game wasn't as reliable or unstoppable as his fans would like us to believe (like other guys known to underperform in playoffs because they have inefficient go to offense). On top of that he's one of the worst FT shooters in history, so I have major doubts on how nice his touch really is 10+ feet away from the basket. His own coach made him stop taking those shots in the offense and become mainly a finisher, why? why would you limit someone's post scoring if they are the greatest ever at it? would any coach ask Kareem to stop shooting his skyhook? stop Hakeem/Shaq from going to work in the post? If his post scoring is so great and dominant and Wilt can play a balanced games, why do teams play so much better when he is literally the last option on the floor for scoring (not just Philly from '66 to '67, but LA also began limiting Wilt more and more in the post in '72 when compared to '70 and '71)? Wilt just doesn't pass my BS test. Lot of things to be legitimately skeptical about.

His playoff performances were superb, lets remember that he lost a combined 5 game 7s (technically one was game 6) by 11 points.

Okay, this is one argument I absolutely can't stand. I’ll let the “superb playoff performer” comment go, if you really believe that then you have really low standards for what a great playoff player really is. I’ve done a year by year detailed look into his playoff years and it’s not impressive, it’s actually when I first began questioning how good Wilt really was. But to paint Wilt as "unlucky" for losing those series is to ignore his own failings and also his own "luck" which put him in those situations.

In 1965, Wilt is “unlucky” for losing a game 7 where Hondo stole the ball. But was he unlucky when Hal Greer made a miracle 35 foot shot in game 4 to send the game to overtime to prevent Sixers from going down 3-1 (and in all likelihood losing in 5 games)?

In 1968, Wilt is “unlucky” for losing a series where his team blew a 3-1 lead with home court. Was he unlucky when his teammate Hal Greer poured in 40 points on 15/24 shooting in game 6 but Wilt shot 6/21 from the field in that game an 8/23 from the line (hard to imagine a worse scoring game than this) or how about his bizarre performance in game 7. is it bad luck or is it Wilt not showing up in the last two critical games of the series?

In 1969, Wilt in unlucky for losing a game 7 where in the finals he averaged 11.7 ppg, a huge drop off from regular season and the previous playoff series. Was it bad luck that he shot 2/11 from the FT line in game 4 in a one point loss which would have put the Lakers up 3-1?

In 1970, he fails to take advantage of an injured Willis Reed and the team plays terribly in the first half when they decide to run the offense through Wilt.

And on and on. Wilt was often "unlucky" because he himself put himself in those situations. This isn't an argument for Wilt, but one against him.

[Z-boomCha]

Amazing posts by Fatal9.
Injecting some truth into this thread.

In my opinion Wilt is one of the most overrated players ever in terms of offensive ability/impact.
Honestly not sure he'd be a better offensive anchor then Duncan.

[thizznation]

Fatal9 you are starting to sound like the guys who claim Bob Cousey would be unable to dribble with both hands in today's NBA. Like Warspite said if Wilt was transported to the league today, he would be able to pick up on the more modern styles of the NBA in probably a year or two.


Today's NBA players are standing on the shoulders of giants....(no pun intended)