Wilt vs. Duncan?

[CBB_Fan]

My reasoning is that Wilt didn't need a super refined post game to excel in his era. His finger rolls and fade away shots went in often enough to put up big numbers, and no one told him it would be better to do it a different way. In the modern era, he'd be raised to a different standard.

Okay, perhaps this makes sense based on the discussion you were having, but it has to be noted:

The one thing we absolutely DO know is that Wilt's DID NOT excel in his era as a scorer. That's the problem. His scoring was so problematic it wasn't having much of a net impact at all.

We truly don't know anything else. It's not impossible that in a later era he'd have been a super-Shaq level scorer, but in his own era, you can't say, "Hey, he did what worked" because it didn't.

And as we talk about "in this era he'd be taught better" there's some truth in this, but we still have volume scorers earning max salaries without contributing even Shane Battier-level impact in today's game. Not everything's fixed.

I probably should restate that:

"What Wilt did in his own era put numbers up"

That was what I meant by "worked." I didn't mean that he had a huge net positive impact, because I tried to state that his statistical dominance was not reflected in his teams win/loss column, or else he'd be the unanimous GOAT.

In this era, I think the Dwight Howard comparison is a fair one. Dwight Howard does not have an amazing offensive game; he started with little more than a jump hook and even now is methodical, even boring on offense. However, no one doubts that Dwight Howard is a top 5 player in the league and the hands down best center.

I think Wilt's game would be similar, but better. Obviously, shoe technology would make a big difference, but I can only speculate that his game would be similar to a larger, more athletic Howard's, or at least more similar to Howard than centers with more defined post games.

He'd have a couple fairly predictable post moves, though not necessarily the ones that worked in his time. He would be able to exploit either his strength or his athleticism over any center in the league right now, same as in his own era, which would help him maintain decent numbers.

One of the differences in today's league is the usage rate on top player's has gone down, and efficiency has gone up. These are heavily related. I think it is fair to say that Chamberlain's usage rating would be off the charts compared to players in later eras, and this heavily affected his offensive impact. With a usage rating of 40% or greater, it would be hard for him to have a very positive impact even if he was statistically dominant, because he would start eating into his teammates production.

I think a more reasonable number would come from the league's top centers in recent years, which would be around 28-30% (only three center player-seasons from 2007-2012 topped 28%, so this is still assuming a very high usage rate for Wilt). I think that is achievable, and I think it would improve his efficiency and his impact.

The three players that achieved this were Amare Stoudemire in 10-11, Chris Bosh in 09-10, and Tim Duncan in 08-09. They had true shooting percentages that ranged from 55% (Duncan) to Amare's 66%. These are all numbers within Chamberlain's range, and I'd expect him to maintain a middle ground of roughly 60-65% in the modern era (in other words, similar to his best years of efficiency.

Going by my hypothetical conjectures, I'd expect him to average significantly less than he did in his era, and have more impact. Part of the reason is that centers and guards score in different ways. While we have a ton of volume scoring guards and wings in the league with minimal impact, we have very few corresponding bigs and most of those are power forwards. Part of the reason is that centers tend to make the biggest difference on defense of any position, while guards are defined more by offensive output.

Therefore, it is much harder for a center or power forward to score a lot of points yet have minimal impact, and Wilt was the rare exception in his day. I don't think he'd be an exception in the modern game with a lower usage rate. I definitely think his raw numbers would be down, but still significantly better than any other center's, and I think his impact would be greater than Duncan's (aside from the argument that Duncan's leadership is great enough to overcome the difference in play).

[MisterWestside]

I probably should restate that:

"What Wilt did in his own era put numbers up"

That was what I meant by "worked." I didn't mean that he had a huge net positive impact, because I tried to state that his statistical dominance was not reflected in his teams win/loss column, or else he'd be the unanimous GOAT.

In this era, I think the Dwight Howard comparison is a fair one. Dwight Howard does not have an amazing offensive game; he started with little more than a jump hook and even now is methodical, even boring on offense. However, no one doubts that Dwight Howard is a top 5 player in the league and the hands down best center.

I think Wilt's game would be similar, but better. Obviously, shoe technology would make a big difference, but I can only speculate that his game would be similar to a larger, more athletic Howard's, or at least more similar to Howard than centers with more defined post games.

He'd have a couple fairly predictable post moves, though not necessarily the ones that worked in his time. He would be able to exploit either his strength or his athleticism over any center in the league right now, same as in his own era, which would help him maintain decent numbers.

One of the differences in today's league is the usage rate on top player's has gone down, and efficiency has gone up. These are heavily related. I think it is fair to say that Chamberlain's usage rating would be off the charts compared to players in later eras, and this heavily affected his offensive impact. With a usage rating of 40% or greater, it would be hard for him to have a very positive impact even if he was statistically dominant, because he would start eating into his teammates production.

I think a more reasonable number would come from the league's top centers in recent years, which would be around 28-30% (only three center player-seasons from 2007-2012 topped 28%, so this is still assuming a very high usage rate for Wilt). I think that is achievable, and I think it would improve his efficiency and his impact.

The three players that achieved this were Amare Stoudemire in 10-11, Chris Bosh in 09-10, and Tim Duncan in 08-09. They had true shooting percentages that ranged from 55% (Duncan) to Amare's 66%. These are all numbers within Chamberlain's range, and I'd expect him to maintain a middle ground of roughly 60-65% in the modern era (in other words, similar to his best years of efficiency.

Going by my hypothetical conjectures, I'd expect him to average significantly less than he did in his era, and have more impact. Part of the reason is that centers and guards score in different ways. While we have a ton of volume scoring guards and wings in the league with minimal impact, we have very few corresponding bigs and most of those are power forwards. Part of the reason is that centers tend to make the biggest difference on defense of any position, while guards are defined more by offensive output.

Therefore, it is much harder for a center or power forward to score a lot of points yet have minimal impact, and Wilt was the rare exception in his day. I don't think he'd be an exception in the modern game with a lower usage rate. I definitely think his raw numbers would be down, but still significantly better than any other center's, and I think his impact would be greater than Duncan's (aside from the argument that Duncan's leadership is great enough to overcome the difference in play).

I don't agree with every point you made here, but this is the first intelligent and objective post I've read in this whole thread. Well done.

Re: Wilt in today's game, you need to remember that you cannot transplant 60s Wilt to today's game and directly compare him to today's bigs. Today's bigs have the advantage of studying the game from previous eras and expanding on that knowledge (including skillset and repertoire). 60s Wilt might not look as graceful next to modern Cs, but he was well ahead of his contemporaries when it came to low-post scoring. When you keep in mind all the physical tools that he brings to the table, I think he'd adapt well with his moves on the block.

I also disagree with Wilt's usage. You have to keep the higher pace of the 50s/60s NBA in mind -- his prime usg is estimated to be more in the low 30s, and usage rates for top players have gone up over history (especially Cs in the 80s/90s as they take their games to the low block). It's not different from the stars in today's game.

[Warspite]

Ok, so reviewing the video footage, thank you Dipper13, I have a couple of questions and I am hoping Fatal9 jumps back in here.

I am finding a theme and the theme is that teams wanted Wilt to score for the good of the game. On page 9, when Wilt joins Philly the person doing the documentary says that they wanted Wilt to score and score lots, to attract fans. Bill Russell also makes mention to this in the Wilt 100 documentary and says the 2 of them were trying to bring popularity to the sport.

ThaRegul8tr has posted an article in which the league thought it would be good for Wilt to average 50ppg for the season and his teammates championed this to turn into a reality by ensuring he had all the touches needed.

Ok now look, I am just going to throw out something which will appear pretty silly, but maybe this is why it is hard to see his impact given the ultra high raw stats. I mean, could the league have cared about Wilt stats first, for the expansion of the game, and Wilt team impoact 2nd because of this?

I mean, what team says 'hell yeah' I'll pass up my opportunity as a professional athlete' so you can become the highest paid player in the league and get the praise?

Now, I read articles from earlier in his career questioning his impact? I mean a journalist can figure this out but not a professional nba coach? And then the swing is so extreme but the sport has caught on and growing.

I guess what I am trying to say is that as more pieces come out? The more I also think his sole purpose was to put the nba on the map, which he did of course but too many things just aren't making sense from a competitive athlete pov.

Obsessed soley about individual stats and chose this over team success at times

Why would he care so much about what people thought unless the outcome of their thoughts was 'I won't come watch you'?

Never seemed truly in luv with the sport and teammates site he never hung out with the team

Suddenly he is changed in how he is utilized because his teams aren't winning??? Was it to showcase skill or to give the fans what they wanted to see or hadn't really been seeing. His teams winning.

I don't know....just typing out loud here.

Your starting to understand historical context.....

I dont care about Wilts impact on the Warriors simply because
THE WARRRIORS NEVER CARED ABOUT WINNING.
THE WARRIORS NEVER CARED AROUT PLAYING GOOD BASKETBALL

WIlt never wanted to score 50ppg. He never believed his team was better or that its best chance at winning was from his huge scoring. Wilt put up those stats because thats what he was told to do. He was a sideshow and his job was to put people in the arenas and to get ink in the newspaper. Despite that he tried to win games and championships when his League, owner, coach, teammates and fans were much more interested in how many pts Wilt had and not how many Ws.

If you dont understand 1960s history (social, economic, political) and you try to believe that 1963 and 2012 are pretty much the same then you will always draw the wrong conclusions. In the early 60s the NBA was much more like the X games is today. It wasnt a mainstream sport. In fact the 3 biggest sports in the 60s were.
1. MLB 2. boxing 3. horse racing.

We all have wondered why WIlt was so obsessed with his stats. Maybe he was normal and that everyone was obsessed with Wilts stats.

I have always said that NBA owners realy dont care about winning. Theres not 10 owners that care about winning. Theres at least 20 owners that just want to stay in business and be competetitve. Making the playoffs is the long term goal of 20 owners. The Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Heat, Mavs play to win championships. The Bulls and Spurs want to win as long as they are in the black. Everyone else is just trying to keep the lights on by winning a playoff series.

Thats the way it is today and it was much worse in the 60s. The Celtics owner was deep in debt and was only able to pay his bills if the Celtics reached the 2nd rd. The Celtics players were told that they had to reach the Finals if they wanted a pay raise. Oscar Robertson has always decried the Royals policy of only drafting and trading for players from Ohio,Indiana and Kentucky. His owner simply wasnt interested in winning.

[CBB_Fan]

I also disagree with Wilt's usage. You have to keep the higher pace of the 50s/60s NBA in mind -- his prime usg is estimated to be more in the low 30s, and usage rates for top players have gone up over history (especially Cs in the 80s/90s as they take their games to the low block). It's not different from the stars in today's game.

We don't have really good usage ratings for back in the day, so my 40% number was an estimation. However, usage rating is supposed to be an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor. Wilt had games with ridiculous usage ratings, where he was literally the absolute focus point of the team, and that is not an intelligent way to play.

Of course, Wilt's usage rating is actually hurt by his minutes per game, because he averaged 45 minutes a game for a career, including a season where he average 48.5 (basic playing every minute). Because of the way usage rating is calculated a player playing a larger amount of minutes will need to make a larger amount of plays to have the same usage rating. So Wilt's usage rating could by 30%, but his total plays per game would be much larger than Amare Stoudemire's plays per game in 2010-2011 because he averaged 9 more minutes a game.

This is another one of those era quirks that you'd have to adjust for. There is no way Wilt would play 45 minutes a game in the modern game. No player played 40 minutes per game in 2011-2012, and even the best pure centers only averaged about 35-36. To put that in perspective, Wilt never had a season where he played less than 42 minutes a game, because no one went to those games to watch him on the bench.

Anyway, I think it is reasonable to say Wilt would be a top 3 player in virtually any era (maybe not over MJ, Magic, and Bird), but his statistical dominance comes from a variety of factors that he really wouldn't get in the modern game. He got a great combination of high usage rating and high minutes per game, resulting in a ton of field goal attempts and points. He would still be a terrific rebounder today because of his height and athleticism, but that would be tempered by playing significantly less minutes (and playing against slightly better competition). I think his defensive impact would be greater with less minutes, because it is hard to imagine any 270 lb center being at peak form playing 45 minutes a game, 80 games a year.

Just some more thoughts on the quirks of the era.

[ElGee]

This has been a good threaD -- I see so much backlash to the Wilt information that I wanted to put something into perspective as someone labeled by so many Wilt fans as anti-Wilt (and if they're paying attention they know I'm anti-box score without context).

I probably have WIlt Chamberlain 11th on my GOAT list. I can't say he's dropped on the list, because I never made one until last year. I can say he's dropped in my eyes over the years, simply because I was IGNORANT. I was fed a line that Wilt had weak teams and Russell and good teams and, even from Boston, assumed that Russell was unfairly revered for his team strength and Wilt cast aside for his...Winning Bias. Plus Wilt averaged 50 ppg in a year (!) and set every record and could dunk from the free throw line and once tried to kill Jungle Jim Luscotoff.

But not only is that oversimplification wrong, I simply didn't have the data I have now. When I had these opinions, I didn't know what SRS was, O or DRtg. Heck, we didn't even know PS stats before the Internet because we were acclimated to RS data in the Sunday paper, season preview mags and the back of basketball cards. When I (a) learned more about the game and (b) learned more about the 60's and Wilt, I formed a new opinion.

But every opinion I have, especially of older players where we need to infer stuff, read other's opinions, and rely on 10 games over a career, must be given a reality check against the contemporary opinion. If it deviates from the norm, there better be a CLEAR reason why. Does my take (and many other posters here) deviate?

No. It really doesn't.

Understand that the opinion of every player has a distribution -- it falls within a range. Some people thought Reggie Miller was a fringe all-star, and others a fringe-all-NBAer. That was the majority of the bell curve during the 90's...and thus the opinions of his "range" . In 2009 most people thought Kobe fell between a top-3 player and the best player in the game. Polarizing guys had a wider "range' of opinion (Dantley) and others have a very small range (Jordan). What was the range of viewpoints on Wilt?

When he played, his range -- based on not just accolades and voting, but newspaper articles, contemporary opinions of guys in the league and everyone I've talked to involved in or obsessed with the game at that time -- was somewhere between a slightly overrated, overstated stat-guy (like, literally would argue with scorekeepers about his stats) who couldn't win due to pseudo-cancerousness...and others thought he was the best player in the league (and such people believed this because of his box score numbers, primarily). Bill Simmons very much tackled this in his book when he went as far to claim that, by 1969, there was NO Russell-Wilt debate...and goes on to cite Russell's election to the 35th team in 1979 as the center.

I don't feel the opinions here fall outside the band of Wilt opinions at the time, with the one caveat being today people can clearly back up with they are saying with numerical evidence. (You don't have to buy it, but it matches what the naysayers of the time said, which is clearly reinforcing evidence). Still, I think Wilt has a top-5 peak of all-time and consider many of his seasons excellent (I'm actually wondering if Quants now thinks his 1964 season was his peak). I think he was the 2nd-best player of his era behind Russell. This is well within the "range" of contemporary opinions. Going further, my placing of Wilt on the GOAT-list by decade would be:

1972 - 2nd
1982 - 3rd (probably)
1992 - 6th
2002 - 8th
2012 - 11th

This is not really out of line with a "lower-end range" of thinking regarding Wilt in the 60's or even 70's, perhaps coupled with some "higher-end" thinking about one or two modern guys. Julius Erving has faced a similar usurping over the years (no worse than 4th or 5th on my list when he retired...now 12th). The simple difference is, if you view Wilt on the "high-end range," you'd hold him closer to (or above Russell) and fewer people (MJ? Kareem?) would pass him over the years. But to frame these stances as "revisionist history" is simply not accurate.

And let's note that some of the people making such allegations are also admitting that Chamberlain:

-was inconsistent
-"didn't practice"
-was misused
-unhealthy at times
-stat-obsessed in his later years (namely 68 and 73)

and those things matter a lot to people in a 14-year career. Just like the Warrior-context Warspite just provided matters a lot to others.

[thizznation]

Fatal9, what I was referring to is how you keep on nit picking on the nuances of Wilt's post game with a modern perspective. You are being so strict with your critiques here. I'm not saying they are off base, your analysis has a penchant for attention to detail, and I've agreed with a lot of the things you have said about many players. I think your critiques are correct but you need to take in account the level of play wasn't as advanced! Are there any big men from 60's era that will be able to hold water under that level of scrutiny?

Here is my take. Wilt was talented. The level of talent that if he played in this era with more advanced peers he would not sink, but swim. I'm not saying he would become Kevin McHale in the post but there would certainly be a massive improvement in his overall game.

[Dipper 13]

Is he magically going to develop a better touch to shoot free throws and from everywhere else on the floor?

Sure, with a proper foul shooting coach. He used to practice for hours every day with little results. But today, instead of sending him to a psychiatrist, the team would hire a special foul shooting coach to fix his mechanics, ensuring that he would be practicing them the right way. Considering how good of a foul shooter he was at Overbrook, I believe he could shoot roughly 70% from the line.



3/24/1991

On his free throw shooting, which was 51-percent for his career: "I even went to see a psychiatrist about it. After six months, the psychiatrist could make 10 out of 10 and I was still screwed up."




Tall Tales: The Glory Years of the NBA - Terry Pluto

Rick Barry: Wilt would have shot 75% from the line if he had stuck with shooting underhanded and learned the proper technique. But he experimented so much that he never had a feel for how he wanted to shoot free throws.


Wilt Chamberlain: But let's talk about one thing that no one ever remembers. I may have missed a lot of foul shots, but by me going to the line so much, that meant my team got into the penalty situation faster and my teammates got to shoot more free throws. Besides, if I did make 75 percent, then what would people have to talk about?



With all these advantages today, plus the $100 million contract incentive, there is no way he would be shooting those flat shots from the line.

Is he not going to be even more of a liability at the end of games as teams would use "hack-a-Wilt" even more?

No, teams were already doing that to him a great deal for his first 7 seasons, before the rules were changed to what they are today.

Would his FT shooting not even be MORE of a liability with no "three to make two" rule?

Based on my viewing of Game 6 of the '63 Finals, I can see how FT's were recorded in the boxscore back then. The boxscore had Heinsohn making 6/9 free throws. But in watching the game, he actually made 4/6. This not including the missed shot before the penalty, since it would have given him no potential extra points had he made it to begin with. According to the boxscore Heinsohn missed 3 FT's, when in reality he only missed 2 FT's that had any kind of value to the team. With his three shots occuring at the very end of the game, we have to wonder how often this happened to Wilt's teams, and how it allowed their opponents to close the gap, preventing them from padding their margin of victory (and thus SRS) for future internet observers to gush over.



Tall Tales: The Glory Years of the NBA - Terry Pluto

Rod Thorn: Wilt was the reason they put in a rule to stop players from intentionally fouling away from the ball. Everyone was just grabbing Wilt and making the game last forever.



I won't even dwell on the blatant inaccuracies below:

Wiley: 0/4 FT in boscore, 0/1 in game footage
Havlicek: 2/5 FT in boxscore, 2/3 in game footage
Russell: 2/5 FT in boxscore, 3/5 in game footage
K.C. Jones: 3/5 FT in boxscore, 3/4 in game footage
Selvy: 1/5 in boxscore, 1/1 in game footage


Of the players who missed FT's, only Sam Jones (1/3) & Jerry West (6/10) were properly recorded in the boxscore.


In those days, every single missed FT was recorded, so if a player was to hit the first one and miss the last two (one of which was a penalty) shot, boxscore would have him at a 33% accuracy during this sequence, instead of 50% as it would be in this era. You have to realize the highest number of possible points a player could score on any given trip to the line was 2, despite potentially receiving 3 attempts in the penalty. What you need to understand is that missing one FT in the penalty does not penalize the team at all, but rather the individual. And since all the possession estimates used for ORtg & DRtg here are 100% dependent on statistics that are already recorded in the box score, this heavily distorts not only the individual's FT% but also the team possession efficiency estimates.

How can something so obvious be so neglected?

because offenses overall are more efficient

In the '67 Celtics Sixers Gm. 4 footage, I have noticed the Celtics late in the 3rd quarter fouling Greer just as soon as he crossed midcourt, this way the most points they can score on that possession is 1 (barring a missed FT, offensive board, and field goal sequence). The commentators even referred to them as "strategy fouls". Restore these rules in the modern NBA as well as remove the 3 pt line and you would see team's offensive efficiency plummet.

Only a couple teams today have the proper level of stamina to keep up with the '67 Sixers for 48 minutes and none of them have the frontline size to match up. Based on an ORtg "estimate" for the 76ers one year under Coach Schayes, they were merely average. But as noted in article below, most of their FG's came in the paint at a high efficiency. This in contrast to Boston who relied much more on the outside shot. With no 3 point shot back then, this leaves the foul line accuracy as the other factor.



Christian Science Monitor - Apr 8, 1966

Philadelphia replaced its old basket and backboard setup before the season with a single post model. This post has a steel finger coming off the top which holds both backboard and basket in a very rigid position. And this is perfect for a physically powerful team like the 76ers, who score so many of their baskets in close, and who depend so heavily on Chamberlain for the turnaround dunk. But a tight hoop should work against the Celtics' outside shooters. The ball also rebounds differently on this type of backboard. It is usually a very active rebound, generally high and often deep.


Can you imagine if the '67 Sixers played under modern rules with a penalty foul limit per quarter? After the first foul (shooting or non shooting), instead of automatically going to the line for 1 shot, they would actually have a chance to score 2 points during that possession with a FG. Up to five more chances actually, barring a shooting foul, where the FGA will never count as a miss unless it goes in for a possible 3 pt. play. Surely these factors would result in the Sixers offensive efficiency skyrocketing, as would the removal of traveling from the NBA's violation book.

How would his predictable offensive game work against better team defenses?

Take what they give him. He had more than enough moves to keep them honest.

He relied on what I believe was an inefficient go to shot

How is a drop step & dunk (or point blank finger roll) inefficient?

clear that Hibbert's peak is not in Wilt's league.

The fact that this needs to be said at all is dumbfounding. Hibbert doesn't compare to any version of Wilt.

I would take period anti-wilt press articles with a grain of salt.

I have posted countless articles regarding his play that dispute the 2 or 3 they have posted, mainly from '63 or '69. I wonder why I continue posting them if they don't bother to read.

[fatal9]

^^ Okay...you can believe all of that.

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?).

Are you twisting things intentionally? Lose to the same team? They took the freaking Celts to Game 7 he got injured in the 4th and his idiot coach went with reserves and ended up losing a close game, getting himself run out of town in the process.

And the first round? Seriously? It took them 6 games instead of 5.

and then an article about his salary? By someone sounding bitter and has no understanding that teams bring players in to sell tickets?

Well someone just accused me of revising history. I showed him a contemporary opinion of not only the journalist but also players around the league stating otherwise. I agree that it's a piece of the puzzle, problem is Wilt fans aren't treating it as such.

Are you twisting things intentionally? Lose to the same team? They took the freaking Celts to Game 7 he got injured in the 4th and his idiot coach went with reserves and ended up losing a close game, getting himself run out of town in the process.

And the first round? Seriously? It took them 6 games instead of 5.

Yes, the first round. LA lost the first two games at home, was going on the road down 0-2 and then the Warriors leading scorer (Mullins) got injured.

So one article. Lets look at his drastic impact on Willie Naulis. Willie was a low efficiency volume scorer for NY who was falling off when he was traded. He came and spent 1 year in GS where he averaged .420 FG% and 11 points. Then he left for the promised land in Boston where he'd get to play for a real team and a real player in Russell and get back to his old form (result .417 FG% and 9.8 ppg)

Gola? He has just bounced from Philly we ha was involved to the tune of just over 12 FGA/G and got totally cut out of SFW with only 11.6 FGA/g. In NY the next year he never saw that many shots or points again.

You need a better quick-scan approach to looking at historical stats my friend. Go look at the per minute numbers, you'll see that both players took clear steps forward when they left the Warriors...despite the fact that they went to the 2 worst offenses in the league, and hence what should have been the two least capable of making them productive.

The fact that they happened to play less minutes when they went to the new team is of course something to be mentioned as well. If you want to make an argument based on given playing time that's one thing, but when we're talking about what happened when the guys were actually playing on the court with Wilt, the answer is that they hit their low point with Wilt.

Is he to blame that his team couldn't shoot? His team average FG% was .403. He had 1 other teammate with a positive PER. His next 3 highest scorers shot .419, .380, .394 respectively. While shooting a combined 43.2 FGA to score a combined 43.8 points. While Wilt shot 33.6 times to score 38.9 (rudimentary I know but it shows how inefficient these guys were)

This was the reasonable point to make before 1967. After all, with all the pressure Wilt was theoretically taking off his teammates, he MUST be making them more efficient than they'd otherwise be, right? Turns out no. When Wilt stopped volume scoring, his teammates' efficiency skyrocketed in one of the great year over year improvements in all of history.

Attach the blame where you want, but the result of a Wilt-as-volume-scorer system was that other scoring talent just died on the vine.

Summed up well here.

Fatal9, what I was referring to is how you keep on nit picking on the nuances of Wilt's post game with a modern perspective. You are being so strict with your critiques here. I'm not saying they are off base, your analysis has a penchant for attention to detail, and I've agreed with a lot of the things you have said about many players. I think your critiques are correct but you need to take in account the level of play wasn't as advanced! Are there any big men from 60's era that will be able to hold water under that level of scrutiny?

Here is my take. Wilt was talented. The level of talent that if he played in this era with more advanced peers he would not sink, but swim. I'm not saying he would become Kevin McHale in the post but there would certainly be a massive improvement in his overall game.

This is fine but I hope you realize "how he would play in other eras" is not something that weighs much on my overall opinion of Wilt. More so how he played in his own era. It's just a passing note for me to make against people who themselves open up the era can of worms. It's not even something I want to particularly discuss that much because it's a totally subjective opinion.

Not unreasonable to question his impact, but to know the impact Wilt made you have to dig very deep and look at everything. You can't look at a few variables and say "ok, he sucked" or "ok, he rocked".

So me thinking he was say the 12th best player of all-time means I think he "sucked"? Take your own advice, Wilt didn't always "rock".

Why don't you mention game 5, Wilt's stats in game 5? Oh because it wouldn't fit your storyline. Yet the fact is that in games 5-7 his teammates averaged 30% from the field. Wilt WAS injured in this series, Russell said as much. Anyway, this season was probably Wilt's most unfortunate one of all of his years, because they should have clearly won but for whatever reason he and his team both failed.

I'm not the one creating a storyline here. I responded to a common storyline of Wilt's career of being an unlucky player when he clearly didn't help himself with his play.



I'll leave everyone to read what's been posted on both sides and they can decide for themselves what sounds more reasonable. There's no point in wasting time on pages of debates with the same information that I, and others, already know getting recycled over and over again. I don't think some people realize there's a difference between thinking Wilt isn't as great of a player as KAJ/Shaq/Hakeem/Duncan/KG and thinking Wilt should be compared to Roy Hibbert. I'm making arguments for reasons I think Wilt isn't one of the ten greatest players ever to me, based on what's been written, is there not evidence to raise that question? I still see him around 12th, I'm aware of the positive things he brings to the table. I myself had Wilt really high a few years ago, but like ElGee mentioned, I was much ignorant to the overall picture than I am now.

[Dipper 13]

^^ Okay...you can believe all of that.

I admit 70% FT may be a stretch. In 1966 he was quoted as saying the following:

"I'll just never be a good foul shooter because I exercise different muscles and my game is so varied that I'm not physically relaxed at the line."


But I have also posted indisputable evidence that the estimated offensive ratings of Wilt's teams are possibly inaccurate by great margins. Though I wonder if Dean Oliver has some kind of adjustment for the 3-to-make-2 and 2-to-make-1 rule in his formulas.

[lorak]

It's really interesting that so many people judge Wilt's individual impact based on team metric which is estimated (and estimations parameters are based on data from completely different league than during 60s). No logic in that at all.

[ardee]

It's really interesting that so many people judge Wilt's individual impact based on team metric which is estimated (and estimations parameters are based on data from completely different league than during 60s). No logic in that at all.

No one could have put it better then this.

To begin with, we have no turnover numbers, so calculating pace is downright impossible and whatever numbers we have will be ridden with error.

On top of that, box score keeping was done pretty poorly back then. I mean, even as late as 1970, in game seven of the FINALS, the scorekeepers still had Frazier down for 19 assists instead of 9.

To quote numbers like ORtg and SRS and keep using them to bring down a single player is strange.

[The Main Event]

Actually i did my research. Notice how your criteria is 1960-1972, rather than individual seasons. Why dont you go ahead and name all the players from 1960-1968, that were 6'10 or taller and were playing a minimum of 2000 minutes per season. Ouch that list would get much smaller.

Nba players that were 6'10 or taller from 1960-1968, criteria is minimum of 2000 minutes played.

1960- 1962: Wilt chamberlain, walter dukes, phil jordon
1963 and 1964: Wilt chamberlain, walt bellamy
1965: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellies, reggie harding, gene wiley
1966: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellis, joe strawder
1967: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellis, darrel imhoff, joe strawder
1968: same as 1967 but also includes the mighty legend clyde lee

So essentially wilt was being guarded by walt bellamy, nate thurmond, 6'9 russell and a bunch of scrubs.

TrueLAFan:

"Here are the starting Cs of 1962 with their listed heights and weights. Everyone is measured barefoot or in socks; all but Wilt have college weights listed.

Walt Bellamy 6'11", 225; Clyde Lovelette 6'9", 234; Walter Dukes 7'0", 220; Wayne Embry 6'8", 240; Jim Krebs 6'8", 230; Darrell Imhoff 6'10", 220; Red Kerr 6'9", 230; Wilt Chamberlian 7'1", 275; Bill Russell 6'9", 215

That's an average height of 6'10" without shoes. To give you an idea how how tall that is, here are some players that were measured at exactly 6'10" in socks at NBA combines:

LaMarcus Aldridge, Nazr Mohammed, P.J. Brown, Kwame Brown, DeSagana Diop

To go a bit further--

Tony Battie, Channing Frye, Antonio McDyess, Alonzo Mourning, Rasheed Wallace and Troy Murphy measured *less* than that...between 6'9" and 6'10"

Adonal Foyle, Brian Grant, Amare Stoudemrie, Theo Ratliff and Emeka Okafor measured between 6'8" and 6'9"

The listed 1962 weights are pretty far off too. Wilt is actually overstated...he had said he played at about 250-260 in his first years. Gary Pomerantz lists him at 260 in his (excellent) book Wilt, 1962. Clyde Lovelette was described as closer to 300 than 250 in his final years in several sources...and his final year was 1964. According to Oscar, Wayne Embry was the shortest C in the league..at 6'8", and around 255-260 in his peak years. Most of the other players are probably around 10-15 pounds light in how they're listed. So, in modern measurements, the average starting C of 1962 is

6'11.275", 243 lbs.

So, really, I'd like to know. How are the 1962 starting NBA Cs undersized?

Wilt (3 Cs on 7/8 remaining teams)
1961--Russell, Kerr, Embry
1962--Russell, Bellamy, Kerr
1964--Russell, Bellamy, Beaty/Embry/Kerr

Shaq (9 Cs on 28 remaining teams)
2000--Mutombo, Mourning, Robinson, Ewing, Divac, Sabonis, Ratliff, Brown, D. Davis
2001--Mutombo, Wallace, Robinson, Camby, Ratliff, A. Davis, Brown, Divac, LaFrentz,
2003--Wallace, Yao, Magloire, Ilgauskas, Amare, Robinson, Thomas, Grant, Brown

So Wilt had better competition as well."

[MisterWestside]

This is fine but I hope you realize "how he would play in other eras" is not something that weighs much on my overall opinion of Wilt. More so how he played in his own era. It's just a passing note for me to make against people who themselves open up the era can of worms.

Then keep it to that, instead of comparing Wilt to Roy Hibbert.

[QuantMisleads]

This and the other Wilt thread comparing him to Shaq are actually really good resources for arguments for and against Wilt, probably as good as it gets.

[Shot Clock]

So one article. Lets look at his drastic impact on Willie Naulis. Willie was a low efficiency volume scorer for NY who was falling off when he was traded. He came and spent 1 year in GS where he averaged .420 FG% and 11 points. Then he left for the promised land in Boston where he'd get to play for a real team and a real player in Russell and get back to his old form (result .417 FG% and 9.8 ppg)

Gola? He has just bounced from Philly we ha was involved to the tune of just over 12 FGA/G and got totally cut out of SFW with only 11.6 FGA/g. In NY the next year he never saw that many shots or points again.

You need a better quick-scan approach to looking at historical stats my friend. Go look at the per minute numbers, you'll see that both players took clear steps forward when they left the Warriors...despite the fact that they went to the 2 worst offenses in the league, and hence what should have been the two least capable of making them productive.

The argument is that Wilt was holding them back. Gola produced almost identical numbers the following year in NY. Per minute, FG% everything. Naulls some more touches per minute. Same FG%. Saying they both hit rock bottom with Wilt is a stretch and ignores every other factor that could lead to that decline in FGA's.

This was the reasonable point to make before 1967. After all, with all the pressure Wilt was theoretically taking off his teammates, he MUST be making them more efficient than they'd otherwise be, right? Turns out no. When Wilt stopped volume scoring, his teammates' efficiency skyrocketed in one of the great year over year improvements in all of history.

You are introducing an entirely new argument and trying to tie it into mine. The point was made why he had no impact that year. His team did suck, he left the next year and they still sucked offensively. He wasn't holding them back in SF. My point was you can't claim "impact" on a bad team. Surround anyone with bad players and they will struggle.

Now you jump ahead to Philly. He had some good talent around him. Totally different situation. Coach comes in and totally changes the gameplan. Wilt starts setting these guys up and the FG% goes up and Wilt is at fault? I really doubt Wilt was ignoring his coaches for years and getting away with it. He was asked to score and he did. The NBA was still trying to grow and they needed entertainment, Wilt brought it.

Before Wilt scored 100 points he had a night where he scored 78 in a game and lost. Now if anything that would be an opportunity for his coach to go off but McGuire praised him and said Wilt would have scored 100 if they didn't play a 4 man defense on him. His coach and others including Baylor were all waiting for a 100 point game. (btw I am completely against the 100 pt game and feel it's an embarrassment but understand that everyone wanted to see it)

It was a different time, we apply today's environment to that period. But that period was early for the NBA, black people were still being held back. Dunking wasn't widely accepted yet. It was considered showboating and many felt this was just an effort to restrict black players.

[lorak]

Ok, so reviewing the video footage, thank you Dipper13, I have a couple of questions and I am hoping Fatal9 jumps back in here.

I am finding a theme and the theme is that teams wanted Wilt to score for the good of the game. On page 9, when Wilt joins Philly the person doing the documentary says that they wanted Wilt to score and score lots, to attract fans. Bill Russell also makes mention to this in the Wilt 100 documentary and says the 2 of them were trying to bring popularity to the sport.

ThaRegul8tr has posted an article in which the league thought it would be good for Wilt to average 50ppg for the season and his teammates championed this to turn into a reality by ensuring he had all the touches needed.

Ok now look, I am just going to throw out something which will appear pretty silly, but maybe this is why it is hard to see his impact given the ultra high raw stats. I mean, could the league have cared about Wilt stats first, for the expansion of the game, and Wilt team impoact 2nd because of this?

I mean, what team says 'hell yeah' I'll pass up my opportunity as a professional athlete' so you can become the highest paid player in the league and get the praise?

Now, I read articles from earlier in his career questioning his impact? I mean a journalist can figure this out but not a professional nba coach? And then the swing is so extreme but the sport has caught on and growing.

I guess what I am trying to say is that as more pieces come out? The more I also think his sole purpose was to put the nba on the map, which he did of course but too many things just aren't making sense from a competitive athlete pov.

Obsessed soley about individual stats and chose this over team success at times

Why would he care so much about what people thought unless the outcome of their thoughts was 'I won't come watch you'?

Never seemed truly in luv with the sport and teammates site he never hung out with the team

Suddenly he is changed in how he is utilized because his teams aren't winning??? Was it to showcase skill or to give the fans what they wanted to see or hadn't really been seeing. His teams winning.

I don't know....just typing out loud here.

Why this post was ignored by anti-Wilt camp?

[Narigo]

Ok, so reviewing the video footage, thank you Dipper13, I have a couple of questions and I am hoping Fatal9 jumps back in here.

I am finding a theme and the theme is that teams wanted Wilt to score for the good of the game. On page 9, when Wilt joins Philly the person doing the documentary says that they wanted Wilt to score and score lots, to attract fans. Bill Russell also makes mention to this in the Wilt 100 documentary and says the 2 of them were trying to bring popularity to the sport.

ThaRegul8tr has posted an article in which the league thought it would be good for Wilt to average 50ppg for the season and his teammates championed this to turn into a reality by ensuring he had all the touches needed.

Ok now look, I am just going to throw out something which will appear pretty silly, but maybe this is why it is hard to see his impact given the ultra high raw stats. I mean, could the league have cared about Wilt stats first, for the expansion of the game, and Wilt team impoact 2nd because of this?

I mean, what team says 'hell yeah' I'll pass up my opportunity as a professional athlete' so you can become the highest paid player in the league and get the praise?

Now, I read articles from earlier in his career questioning his impact? I mean a journalist can figure this out but not a professional nba coach? And then the swing is so extreme but the sport has caught on and growing.

I guess what I am trying to say is that as more pieces come out? The more I also think his sole purpose was to put the nba on the map, which he did of course but too many things just aren't making sense from a competitive athlete pov.

Obsessed soley about individual stats and chose this over team success at times

Why would he care so much about what people thought unless the outcome of their thoughts was 'I won't come watch you'?

Never seemed truly in luv with the sport and teammates site he never hung out with the team

Suddenly he is changed in how he is utilized because his teams aren't winning??? Was it to showcase skill or to give the fans what they wanted to see or hadn't really been seeing. His teams winning.

I don't know....just typing out loud here.

Good post. i'm on the fence as well in terms of Wilt's impact

[QuantMisleads]

btw, count another game where someone's most memorable moment had to do with Wilt:

http://www.nba.com/bulls/history/vanlier_050215.html

[wigglestrue]

viewtopic.php?p=33356999#p33356999

Bump, for this post, because it is probably one of the most significant posts in RealGM history, for the impact it should have on advanced statistical comparisons involving the 50's, 60's, or 70's.

[penbeast0]

Stray thought I never had before -- might that be part of the Wilt scoring a lot less in the playoffs (while his PFs scored a lot more) while rebounding better which normally would be an effort stat -- could it be that they pumped up his scoring in the regular season to sell tickets then spread the offense more in the playoffs where it was "must win" (since Wilt's teams qualified easily for the playoffs almost every season)?

I'd be inclined to say no, no sane coach would practice one way all season then drastically change a successful team's focus in the playoffs just to sell tickets, but it's a stray thought that popped up from these comments.