Lowest reasonable ranking for Wilt

[Bruh Man]

I see a lot of differing opinions on wilt, going off the other threads what do you guys think is the lowest reasonable ranking for Wilt?

[Reservoirdawgs]

I personally do not see how someone could put Wilt lower than 4. I think that only Jordan and Russell have great arguments for being put over Wilt. Kareem I don't think has much of an argument, but one could give one, MAYBE two half-decent arguments for him over Wilt.

[ceiling raiser]

I don't do GOAT lists anymore, but as of the last time I attempted, he's locked in at 3. Can't put him ahead of MJ, Russ, can't put anyone else ahead of him. I can't see myself doing another top 10 anytime soon, but I might try and figure out who I would take in what order in an all-time draft after we've done more players for ElGee's project.

He had a weird career with ups and downs, but it is what it is. If you give him good coaches things might've turned out differently. I do think people overreact to the volume scoring seasons and the lack of team success those seasons and consequently either overrate him or underrate him severely (the assists as well, but even if he was gunning for the title in 68, he was still a tremendous hub from the high post with Hannum, and great at throwing outlets to lead the break under Sharman). If you look at him as a defender/rebounder (he wouldn't average mid-high 20s for his career, but he's above 20% TRB% for his career even with declining returns for high minutes/pace) and have a good coach fashioning him into a super-Walton-type, you're going to be successful.

He's probably the most polarizing player (more so than a Kobe or LeBron) in terms of these rankings. I'm sure you'll see a couple people not putting him in their top 10s (for shortcomings, part of which was just bad luck), and a few putting him at 1 or 2 (on the basis of being on two GOAT-level teams, though he had solid supporting casts for those years). Posters' different valuations of offense/defense+rebounding and bigs/non-bigs will play into this as well.

[bastillon]

Wilt is actually a great exercise for your understanding of basketball. the more you know about him, the more you're willing to pull him down. generally, he was a guy who cared more about his stats than anything else, whose stats never translated into impact in a way they should've, who struggled offensively in big games despite theoretically being much more powerful/athletic, whose defense was lacking in many aspects such as overall effort, pick and roll defense, and he was so predictable that it was very easy to gameplan for him. you knew he was gonna stand in the paint all game and never come out of there. you knew he's gonna try scoring whenever he touches the ball (early 60s) or wait for cutters/opportunities to dunk (late 60s, 70s). contrary to what people think he was never close to be a top2 offensive player in the league (Oscar & West). I'm not even concinced he's better than Karl Malone or David Robinson.

[Dipper 13]

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1266159

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1182541

[penbeast0]

Wilt is actually a great exercise for your understanding of basketball. The more you know about him, the more you realize he's the greatest individual player of all time but that isn't the same as being the greatest player for a winning team. Current revisionist thinking looks at the way his coaches used him and says, well, no matter how great he was (top 3 all time rebounding, probably greatest of all time relative to his era in scoring, highly intelligent and very willing to listen to his coaches), his teams weren't that great so we should blame it all on Wilt.

Let's look at why he is downgraded by some posters:

(a) he was selfish and scored too much on some teams where he was asked to be the prime scoring threat. Yet Kobe in his highest scoring season of 06 was shooting a much higher percentage of his team's shots (33% of the team's total shots but since he only played 80% of the time, he took over 40% of the team's shots when he was in the game) at a much lower level of efficiency relative to the league (efg of .491 v. league efg of .490) in his highest scoring season. Wilt in 1962, his 50.4 ppg season where he was averaging over 48mpg, took about 35% of his team's shots on an efg of .504 (2nd in league) relative to the league average of .426 (Kobe's efficiency disadvantage is partially lessened by his much better ft%). Oh, and Wilt scored 100 points in a game (which his team won) so he's clearly more selfish than Kobe who scored only 82 in a game (both against weak teams with a decent percentage of the scoring taking place after the game was clearly won in both cases).

(b) He didn't always play great defense, refusing to chase his man away from the basket and not always showing well on PnR . . . but he did play great post defense and it's hard to make a case that Kobe, who is a good defensive guard when trying, even had a defensive impact equal to Wilt's.

(c) He was a playoff choker. Wilt's scoring did go down in the playoffs and he "only" won 2 rings (for which some rate him below players like Oscar who only won one and that as a 2nd banana). However, again, if you look deeper you see that (a) his teammates scoring went up because with the extra prep time, you will see more gimmick defenses played against him. Watch a playoff game against a team other than Boston (who went 1 on 1 against Wilt more than anyone else not that they ever left Russell alone against him either) and you will see 3 guys swarming Wilt consistently. If you look at 62 again, you will see that Wilt's scoring dropped to "only" 35ppg playing 58% of his games against the greatest defensive team of all time but his PF Tom Meschery's scoring shot from 10ppg to 23 ppg neatly taking up this scoring slack as Meschery's man basically stayed on Wilt unless Meschery was within 5 feet of the basket. Wilt's fg% dropped to "only" .467, again understanding that the league average fg% was .426 and that he was played by Bill Russell in over half those games.

Wilt's main problem in the playoffs was that he was facing the GOAT player who happened to be the all-time greatest winner every damn year. Wilt's playoff series win % when facing any other team except the Russell led Celtics was over 80%, a bit HIGHER than Michael Jordan's playoff series win %.

(d) It was the 60s and Wilt was playing a bunch of 6'5 white guys. The last time I compared midcareer Wilt's competition, the average starting center he played against had a listed height of within 1.5" of the average starting center in the NBA in 2010 (haven't done this comp more recently) and those heights were listed without shoes which add an average of, surprise, about 1.5". Oh, and more than half of them were black. So, unsurprising in an era which empasized post play much more and where the rules/refs were much less favorable to wing slashers, the big men tended to be as tall and more important to their teams.

Wilt was so incredibly individually dominant that people either just can't wrap their heads around his ridiculous feats ("Wilt Chamberlain would be a poor man's Dwight Howard today") or blame him for the team's play style -- I do this too to some degree; Wilt walked up court often cutting his team's time to work the ball around for a good shot but that's a coaching decision to a large degree and based on the coach feeling a need to have Wilt on the floor every single minute (in 62 he averaged over 48 minutes a game!). When Wilt's coach asked him to run the floor and play less (Alex Hannum), he did. He still wasn't Bill Russell defensively anymore than Shaq even in 2001 was prime Hakeem, but Wilt showed he would and could play different styles successfully.

The lowest reasonable ranking for Wilt is 4th. Bill Russell proved he was the more successful player head to head and Michael Jordan has a good, though not conclusive, case as well (I rate Jordan higher fairly easily but if I rated Russell lower or the rest of the Celtics higher, I might move Wilt above Jordan). The only other player with a decent case to be rated above Wilt is Kareem. I don't believe Kareem was better -- in his first decade, he did win any more than Wilt or dominate the league quite as much and his rebounding was never as impressive nor was his defense appreciably better -- but I can see an argument based on Kareem's ridiculous longevity and success with the Showtime Lakers. There is no other player with a good argument and the reevaluation of Wilt that many posters, some of whom I respect quite highly, seems to hold Wilt to a different standard than other players or, as Bast said, shows a different understanding of basketball and how players affect games.

[Dipper 13]

Wilt's main problem in the playoffs was that he was facing the GOAT player who happened to be the all-time greatest winner every damn year.

Yes, I am of the belief that if the Sixers from 1965-68 got a couple of lucky breaks here and there (particularly 1965), they could have had won 4 consecutive championships. It is a bit unfair though to expect that from any team in the modern era. The fact that they got Wilt basically for cash in a trade, and drafted Billy Cunningham later that year made this team one of the greatest of all time. Not to forget the great draft picks of Luke Jackson and Chet Walker who joined vets like Hal Greer, Larry Costello, and Dave Gambee. Forget about doing that in this era, with the cap and the inflated salaries. They could have easily won 4 championships during Wilt's time there, but in 1965 Havlicek stole the ball, in 1966 they inexplicably tanked in the series, and in 1968 they were massacred by injuries. The way I see it, those Eastern Division series between Philadelphia and Boston were basically deciding the NBA championship. I believe the Sixers would defeat the Lakers in the Finals more easily than Boston did, as evidenced by their regular season results below. They only time the Lakers ever had a point margin in the positive was 1967-68, and against Boston. Perhaps someone will double check to see how big a factor injuries were.




1965-66 Lakers

vs. Boston (10 Games)
Record: 3-7
Point Margin: -1.9 ppg


vs. Philadelphia (10 Games)
Record: 2-8
Point Margin: -6.4 ppg




1966-67 Lakers

vs. Boston (9 Games)
Record: 4-5
Point Margin: -5.7 ppg


vs. Philadelphia (9 Games)
Record: 1-8
Point Margin: -7.4 ppg




1967-68 Lakers


vs. Boston (7 Games)
Record: 3-4
Point Margin: +3.9 ppg


vs. Philadelphia (7 Games)
Record: 2-5
Point Margin: -6.9 ppg

[bastillon]

penbeast just a couple quick thoughts before quoting bunch of posts...

(a) he was selfish and scored too much on some teams where he was asked to be the prime scoring threat. Yet Kobe in his highest scoring season of 06 was shooting a much higher percentage of his team's shots (33% of the team's total shots but since he only played 80% of the time, he took over 40% of the team's shots when he was in the game) at a much lower level of efficiency relative to the league (efg of .491 v. league efg of .490) in his highest scoring season. Wilt in 1962, his 50.4 ppg season where he was averaging over 48mpg, took about 35% of his team's shots on an efg of .504 (2nd in league) relative to the league average of .426 (Kobe's efficiency disadvantage is partially lessened by his much better ft%). Oh, and Wilt scored 100 points in a game (which his team won) so he's clearly more selfish than Kobe who scored only 82 in a game (both against weak teams with a decent percentage of the scoring taking place after the game was clearly won in both cases).

1. why are you using eFG%? first of all, using eFG% only makes sense when there's 3pt shooting. there was no 3pt shooting in the 60s so what you're really using is FG% in disguise of an advanced stat, you're miscapturing what's really important. Wilt's scoring efficiency (TS%) is far away from the best. Wilt was not a comparable offensive force to Oscar and West, and this is why the latter 2 were leading the best offensive teams of the decade when Wilt's teams struggled offensively with him in a volume scoring role.

2. raw numbers are basically irrelevant. who cares if Wilt was scoring 100 points in a meaningless RS game when his entire team was playing in a way that he would score? wanna look at his scoring and praise then you better come up with something to defend his horrendous scoring performances in numerous finals series. how is near-peak Wilt scoring 11 ppg in 69 finals? how is he choking away big game after big game in 68-70 ? the arguments are well known and repeating meaningless stats is just a very poor argument.

(b) He didn't always play great defense, refusing to chase his man away from the basket and not always showing well on PnR . . . but he did play great post defense and it's hard to make a case that Kobe, who is a good defensive guard when trying, even had a defensive impact equal to Wilt's.

that's an absurd argument. Kobe isn't top15 player of all-time because of his defense. you're admitting Wilt didn't play great defense and waive it off like it didn't mean anything? because Kobe didn't play great defense either?

now...

I don't see how Wilt was better than Hakeem on either end of the floor. It was something I thought when I failed to overlook raw/flawed boxscore numbers years ago. I can see maybe an argument for him being better in certain specialized roles (finisher/rebounder) but you can only play that way on certain teams. You can obsess over Wilt's size, strength, athleticism, ability to wrestle mountain lions, misleading stats, whatever...I only care about basketball ability and impact and there's nothing that suggests to me that Wilt beats out Hakeem. I read the OP and it feels a bit like he wants to argue for the sake of arguing, so I'm just going to say right away that I have no interest in engaging in useless debates for pages and pages repeating things that have already been mentioned/addressed in the past.

But anyways, I'll just state my opinion on some things.

There are only three centers I trust in a volume scoring role come playoff time, Hakeem, Shaq and KAJ. There's a reason these are the only big men (not just centers, big men...period) who put up 30 ppg on route to championships. They have all-time great level post scoring and ability to read defenses/keep teammates involved. Shaq had a weakness in his FT shooting, but overcame it with his overwhelming physical dominance combined with fluid footwork for his size that made him unstoppable in the post. People who think Wilt could play like Shaq are clueless imo, when playing so physically at that size you need a very low center of gravity to have the balance/footwork like Shaq did (this is also the reason Hakeem had incredible balance, very low center of gravity). In the case of KAJ and Hakeem, they have moves to evade doubles, unstoppable and reliable go-to shots, for KAJ it was the skyhook and turnaround which were money, Hakeem had the dream shake jump hook and baseline fadeaway as his go to moves (combined with a gazillion countermoves that seemed to just come naturally came to him). Wilt had the fadeaway (which I view as erratic and inconsistent) but do people really think it was as effective and consistent as Hakeem/KAJ's go to moves in the post? I've mentioned in past threads reasons why I view Wilt's post offense as overrated (though his offensive rebounding and finishing were dominant). For all the volume scoring you want to tout Wilt for, there is no way in hell I would want him in a volume scoring role in the playoffs over these three guys (or at all to be honest). His post offense is predictable and easy to make adjustments for, he hurts you at the FT line and doesn't dominate in the post physically like a Shaq (not built the same way). There are certain things Wilt could do better than Hakeem on offense, like finishing. He was also a better passer but Hakeem was a better "playmaker" than any center I've seen. Wilt is better at putting the ball on the money but I don't really view him as a quick and unpredictable decision maker with the ball like Hakeem. You can tell when Wilt wants to score (usually if he has taken a dribble) and when he wants to pass, with Hakeem he could pass out of the same movements he used to score. It's really difficult to game plan for when you put that together with his post scoring.

So Hakeem to me is a better, much more reliable volume scorer in the playoffs, is more difficult to game plan for in the post and is also a better playmaker when in a volume scoring role. He is also not someone you can stop in the post late in the game by fouling because he's a good FT shooter too. I really don't see what Wilt brings to the table offensively that would make me want to choose him over Hakeem, especially in a primary role.

Defensively, it's insane to think Wilt ever impacted the game like Hakeem. Some of the best shot blocking instincts ever, unbelievably quick feet to stay in front of guards (Wilt doesn't have this), greatest pick and roll defender I've ever seen (weakness for Wilt), covers the entire floor (not something Wilt did). His post defense is excellent, he's always pressuring his man and the entry pass, great at contesting shots of his own man. His quick feet also give him a major advantage in his post defense, as they allowed him to make a swipe for a steal on one side and then recover right away and quickly get behind his man (typically when big men do this, they make bad gambles and get burned, Hakeem though usually recovered before the offensive player can even begin making the move). It's incredible watching him on defense. I could literally write a page of things he did that no other center (that I've seen) would do consistently on defense. Like with Russell, Wilt can't match Hakeem's "horizontal game" on defense (among other things).

Then there are intangibles. Hakeem is one of the greatest big game and playoff players ever. Never seen him get fazed by pressure. In his prime he was 9-1 in elimination games. You really have to watch these games to appreciate what he's doing and the level he's playing at. His concentration on both ends of the floor is on a completely different level than everyone else. He plays with GOAT level confidence and intensity, and you can see his teams feeding off that (part of the reason why Rockets put together so many upsets imo). He can lock in and make huge winning plays on both ends of the court. His motor is off the charts, similar to MJ at his peak (those "whose game is it, it's Michael Jordan's game" moments), he exerts an incredible amount of energy on both ends of the court and never looks fatigued (Wilt fans will misinterpret this by comparing MPG, I'm referring to overall activity on the court). Magic dubbed him "Mr. Hustle", he was so disruptive for the other team with his activity and wore them down. You can read NBA players opinion at the time (high energy guys like Horace Grant), they were amazed by how much energy he exerted.

Peak/Prime vs. Peak/Prime, I can't see how Wilt is over Hakeem. Hakeem is the better primary option on offense, is more reliable in the playoffs, is more versatile on both ends of the court, is on another level defensively and comes with better intangibles. I normally don't say this because I try to stay open minded in comparisons, but I don't see an argument for Wilt and I've read enough of them from his fans over the years. Rest of Hakeem's career is weak relative to the standard he set through '93-'95 but Wilt's career outside of his prime years ('66-'68) is even less impressive to me.




As a bit of an aside, when you look at Hakeem's physical talent as it relates to basketball, I don't think people realize what an outlier Hakeem was. He was 6'10.5 bare feet (adjusted to 7 feet in shoes by the media), but it's the balance, quick feet, reflexes to go along with other traits that we think of as athletic (jumping high, running fast, strength) that separate him. Dude was built for basketball. Even guys we view as the most athletic big men in the league nowadays (who might test better at a combine) can't replicate Hakeem's movements because they don't have the proportions or balance for it.

I read Hubie Brown make a great breakdown of Hakeem's game and physical talent in an interview (Hubie btw is someone who felt Hakeem and MJ were on different level from rest of the league in '93):

"Hakeem looks slender," Brown says, "but that's because he is built perfectly proportioned. 265 pounds of steel. With the quickness of the quickest cat in the world. I just sat there and looked at him. My God.."

"He's got all the offensive moves. The spin-fade - do you know how much distance he covers with that? And he shoots it as well as other guys shoot baby hooks; his percentage is off the charts. You come to him, he gives you a drop step and puts a shoulder under you. Everything a small forward can do, this guy does and he's 7 foot, 265 pounds.

"Defensively, he covers his man, leaves to get yours and someone else's - and gets back to his. Now, how the hell does he do that?

"Quick of foot yes. And his defensive IQ is incredible. Where does that come from? He played one year in high school; he played at the University of Houston. Where'd he learn it? He's so disruptive on defense. He's got it all figured out. A doctorate degree in basketball, and where he'd get it?'

Ramsey, another great coach talking about his balance (also compares him to '67 Wilt)

Even Ramsay, who saw Chamberlain average 21.7 points, nine assists and 29.1 rebounds while leading the 76ers to the 1967 title, says Olajuwon is having a better postseason.

''Wilt had a great playoff run, but he didn't do the things that Olajuwon is doing," Ramsay said. "You can't stop him. He has such body control and great shooting touch. Every move he makes, he ends up perfectly balanced and gets the shot off. He's become a good passer. He's a defensive force. He plays incredible minutes and I'm sure he feels fatigued but he never shows it. He's a rare one."


Dave Cowens talking about his balance/porportions:

"No question about it, he's a phenomenal player," Cowens said. "If you look at the way he's built, he's a big guy, but his center of gravity is remarkable. He doesn't really have long legs or a long torso. It's great for balance. Plus he's got the soccer background, and he's got a great amount of concentration. He doesn't get distracted at all." But in dismantling Robinson, Olajuwon showed Cowens things he had never seen.

With so few games, it's tough to get a complete picture but here's what I remember from each game...


'64 finals game, he looked lazy on defense to me (Russell scored some really easy points on him) but okay overall. Displayed a nice touch on his fadeaway, was a beast on offensive boards as expected (I really think people underestimate how much Wilt scored off of offensive boards at times), but his post game left something to be desired. Wilt did get a good amount of double teaming in this game.

'67 G4 vs. Boston, he looked great on defense to me but offensively just didn't have the fluidity and smoothness at all on post ups. It's not about whether the shots went in or not, just the moves themselves were really poor. He seemed to be very involved on offense, the guards ran a lot of their plays through him (get ball to Wilt, then Wilt passes it back --> shot).


Here's basically all his post ups from the above two games, again the point isn't whether he missed or made the shot, it's that he consistently just looked really awkward with his dribbling, footwork (which made me laugh) and mobility (ie. things that stay consistent game to game). Also bad habits like not keeping the ball high (making him prone to turnovers). I'm also pretty sure that Wilt ended up with games that on a sheet of paper look impressive statistically 27/38 in the '64 game and close to a triple double in the '67 game.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oemQKScZ7MQ[/youtube]

'69 finals game 7, I won't judge as Wilt left half way through. It should be noted a commentator did mention about Wilt's weakness on defense regarding pick and rolls/guarding players off screens IIRC and how Counts came in and did a better job of doing it. Really don't know how to judge Wilt's defense that season, '67 and '68 seem to be awesome but it seems like Lakers didn't see much of an improvement on defense by adding Wilt that year.

The '70 finals game 7 is the one where he looked really bad to me. Even though he wound up with a nice statline, and shot better than most of his team, he was the worst offensive option on the floor. Any time the ball was fed to him (which seemed to be the strategy in the first half), it was either a turnover, a bad offensive set, a bad post move, him drawing a foul but only to miss two FTs. If you ever watch this game, just take a note of how basically every offensive possession they went to Wilt for a post-up ended poorly.

'70 game vs. Bulls, looked like a force and what I imagine to be an example of 70s Wilt at his best.

'72 matchup with Kareem. Even though KAJ had a big game and ended the winning streak, Wilt was very impressive in his one on one defense. Good level of physicality and amazing at contesting KAJ's shots without fouling. And then later the '72 finals G5, probably his best total game that I've seen even though the competition (depleted Knicks frontline) was not impressive at all.


Maybe it's not fair because the games that are out there aren't exactly Wilt's best, but offensively Wilt looks really bad to me on post-ups, looks great as a finisher and offensive rebounder, inconsistent defensively though awesome in the 70s game. To be frank, I think Wilt wasn't as efficient of a post up option as people believe. His FG% in his scoring years is somewhat low for someone who I imagine getting a lot of putbacks, finishing a lot of plays around the basket efficiently, but on post ups? In some of the games he might shoot 7/14, but be like 1/6 on post-ups, miss most of the FTs on plays he was fouled on, and he looked turnover prone to me in every game as well. Then of course there is the concern others have pointed out of "overworking" him in the offense which produced gaudy stats but wasn't in the best interest of the team offensively.

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.

[Dipper 13]

hold Wilt to a different standard than other players

This is the key here. At least the constant daily trashing has stopped, now this place actually reads like a basketball discussion forum. No more of those who attribute team (estimated) results entirely to one player, while deliberately neglecting any context. Below I plugged some figures into Dean Oliver's formula, and in 1967, one of Oscar's dominant years, he was leading a +1.6 offense. That is lower than the 1962 Warriors estimate (+2.4). Were Wayne Embry's screens that important to Oscar? After all his nickname was "The Wall". Below we can see what I came up with using Oliver's estimates. Not once in any single year from 1961-1969 did Oscar, West, or Baylor provide more offensive lift than Wilt did from 1965 to 1966. They rarely ever even played on teams that equaled the offensive value of Wilt this year.


When I plugged in the numbers for the 1965 Sixers offense, excluding Wilt's stats (since he was the only player they received in trade), and the Sixers ORtg without his contribution that year was 89.3, or -3.8 below league average. In 1966 they were +3.4 on offense. So him and Cunningham boosted the Sixers offense by +7.2.


I also did this for the Warriors offense based on Dean Oliver's formula, correct me if I'm wrong:


1965 Warriors (Entire Season): 87.7 ORtg (-5.4)


Without Wilt: 81.0 ORtg (-12.1)


Difference: 6.7



If we assume the Warriors ORtg with Wilt in lineup was 94.4 (since they were at 87.7 for the entire season) then the difference would be 13.4.


Not only was 1966 his final year of volume scoring, but it was his only year playing in a stable environment as a scorer with the 16 foot lane. Even if the wider paint took him a couple feet further from the hoop, it helped him out too a lot since there was more room in the paint to work with not only for himself but the entire team as well, including cutters. This is especially given how poor the concepts of floor spacing were back then compared to now. If he played with the 16 foot lane for the first half of his career, I'm sure his team's offensive results would be much higher on average. Look how poor the spacing is on this play for instance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNw0c19DhIU&t=13m48s

A wider paint would reduce the defensive congestion by default. The only way to ignore Wilt's offensive impact on the 76ers is to assume that a 22 year old rookie Billy Cunningham was basically a +7 player on offense the instant he arrived. For comparison, as a rookie in 1960, Wilt improved the Warriors by +4.1 (+3.3 on offense) from the previous year. Even Oscar only improved the Royals offense by +0.8 as a rookie.


Royals ORtg

1960: 89.2 (+1.6)
1961: 94.8 (+2.4) *Oscar first season, offense improves by +0.8
1962: 98.8 (+4.5)
1963: 99.0 (+3.4)
1964: 97.6 (+3.9)
1965: 97.3 (+4.2)
1966: 98.2 (+5.1)
1967: 98.9 (+1.6)
1968: 101.1 (+3.4) *Oscar missed 17 games
1969: 100.1 (+4.0)
1970: 99.2 (-0.9) *Cousy takes over



Lakers ORtg

1958: 84.6 (-1.2)
1959: 87.4 (-0.2) *Elgin first season
1960: 86.3 (-4.4)
1961: 90.8 (-1.6) *West first season
1962: 95.5 (+1.2)
1963: 97.4 (+1.8)
1964: 95.9 (+2.2)
1965: 96.4 (+3.3)
1966: 98.8 (+5.7)
1967: 99.1 (+1.8) *West misses 16 games
1968: 102.9 (+5.2) *West misses 31 games

[The Infamous1]

Him having to scale his scoring back so much to finally win a title makes me question the impact of big PPG numbers(which I already question do to the pace and team defense of the 60's). Also Wilt Chamberlain is the One of the HOF player in NBA History to NEVER elevate his game and average MORE points in the playoffs than he did in the regular season.

He was the 4th and 5th leading scorer on his two title teams

[ceiling raiser]

Him having to scale his scoring back so much to finally win a title makes me question the impact of big PPG numbers

Agreed. So few dominant scorers have won championships as the most impactful player, that it's forced me to reevaluate the importance of individual offense.

[Dipper 13]

elevate his game

"Game" is a lot more than ppg or scoring average. How do we explain his rebounding numbers increase almost every year in the playoffs, despite the pace slowing down? Wilt should be viewed not in the category of a KAJ, Shaq, or Hakeem, but instead in the category of an all around player like Oscar Robertson or Bill Russell. Especially Oscar, the best all around player and pick/roll guard ever, who just happened to be a great scorer as well.



New York Daily News - Nov 3, 1996

Here's Wilt on:

The 100-point game

"I see now on TV where some company is saying you can buy a tape with that game on it. Let me tell you, the only camera that was ever in the arena that night was the one of me showing '100 points' on a sign," Chamberlain said. "When people see me, they say, 'There's the guy who scored 100 points.' It's a tag and I don't like that tag. It's not a putdown. But it's a simplification of how people see me. It doesn't exemplify what I tried to do in basketball. People forget, I had games where I only took one shot. Some games I didn't take any. I led the league in scoring seven straight years and then I was asked to do other things. That was a testament to how good I was."

[The Infamous1]

Because wilts biggest attribute and claim to fame is his ability to score the basketball. When the only time you Every won titles is when you had to massively scale back your offensive game to the point where you werent even the best scorer in the playoffs on your team(not even top 3) that's an issue. As a scorer he was simply a finisher at that point(basically what people say current Dwight's role should be)

[Dipper 13]

Because wilts biggest attribute and claim to fame is his ability to score the basketball. When the only time you Every won titles is when you had to massively scale back your offensive game to the point where you werent even the best scorer in the playoffs on your team(not even top 3) that's an issue. As a scorer he was simply a finisher at that point(basically what people say current Dwight's role should be)

When he won the championship on the greatest team of all time (1967) he was the main playmaker. He used the threat of his scoring ability to create for the other 4 players. Dwight Howard on the other hand can barely create for himself, and at least this past season has shown bad hands as far as catching the ball in the paint. He can't even bring the ball down to gather himself without getting stripped. He is not as strong as you would think looking at his chiseled shoulders. I don't know how big his hands are but he cannot keep bringing the ball down low like Wilt, Shaq, or Barkley did to gather themselves, since his grip and overall strength is weak compared to them. You would never see any of them get stripped under the basket like that.

Dwight's problem is not his so called lack of moves. We have seen him make a few nice moves before, but the problem is he doesn't know how read the defense and incorporate the moves into game situations. He really has regressed since 2011, and his offensive awareness really seems to be below par. When the Lakers were eliminated we saw Barkley and Shaq criticizing him on the post game show, and they understand. Both of them developed into tremendous passers out of the post over the years. Their entire game offensively was based on drawing help defense to open the game up for others.



The '67 team would set up with splits and cutters moving off Wilt, not unlike how Portland played off Bill Walton 10 years later, though Walton played in the high post more than Wilt. He could play high as well as low, but in the footage I have seen preferred the mid-post area a step or two off the block, to open up some room for the baseline cutters while also remaining a scoring threat. In this style of play, he is holding the ball high and constantly looking for cutters, who seldom stopped moving. In this action it is defense who is at Wilt's mercy if they don't hard double him, seeing as any of the other 4 players is a potential threat to score. The modern teams (2001-present) are not accustomed to defending anywhere near this kind of constant player movement, they are more used to defending zones or specific areas on the floor, which will also leave them prone to giving up offensive rebounds.

Remember there was no incentive to shoot from distance back then (3 point line), so there was a lot of cutting and player movement. On the baseline handoffs for instance, not only is Wilt acting as a playmaker, but he is also acting as a screen. In the splits, he is acting as a pick for both players as well. Here is an example in the All Star Game, where there is a defensive error and Wilt hands it off to Big O for the basket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phho8i6rj0Y&t=45s


The defensive objective would be to try and emulate what the Celtics and Russell tried to do, which was full court press the guards and try to make them eat up a good chunk of the shot clock. Once in the front court, they will shade Wilt with another man to try and prevent the entry pass. Basically they have to try and limit his touches, which will probably open up some opportunities for others like Greer or Walker. But no fronting, that would almost be equal to surrendering two points.

Two examples of Russell fronting Wilt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w&t=4m4s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs&t=4m42s


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngg3owcJl1g&t=17m21s (Celtics shading excessively on Wilt's preferred (left) side of the floor, leaves Wali Jones wide open.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwCmKvHJNoQ&t=23m08s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwCmKvHJNoQ&t=11m44s



I don't know about others here, but I am seeing almost an arrogance in the way this Sixers team played offensively. They were very methodical & deliberate, not fast breaking as much as the other teams of the era. But they were also quick and very powerful on both backboards. Even Luke Jackson at 6'10, 260 lbs was agile enough to play a two man game with Wilt like this.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngg3owcJl1g&t=2m39s

Above we can see 3 specific plays I am talking about. In the first play, Cunningham fakes Gus Johnson out and instead hits Wilt, then cuts right to the basket with Johnson out of the play. In the 2nd clip, Walker hits Wilt in the low post, who feeds Greer cutting along the baseline for a layup. In the 3rd clip, the Celtics have K.C Jones shading Wilt off the ball, so they make an extra pass to have a proper angle for the entry pass, where the ball goes into him. All the while Russell is heavily leaning on Wilt to try and force him out of position, to no avail. Then he fake passes the ball twice including a fake handoff to Walker, subtly getting Russell off balance, and hits a quick turnaround bank shot. This is a play meant to force the switch, and Bob Ferry does not switch in the 2nd clip. Whoever is guarding Wilt will have to switch or try and cut off and trap that cutter along the baseline.


Below is a clip of this attempted trap of Hal Greer by Havlicek and Embry, and Wilt makes himself available to Greer for the pass and dunk, unlike Dwight in the Miami game. You may have to watch in slow motion to really see the whole play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Np29MW_XN8&t=27m53s


A couple more examples of failed baseline traps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwCmKvHJNoQ&t=17m29s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwCmKvHJNoQ&t=22m13s



Below Gus Johnson leaves Luke Jackson wide open under rim to try and steal the ball from Wilt's blind side, like Jordan did to Malone in the Finals. But that doesn't work here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCnrD94U-20&t=1m29s


The video below shows excellent ball movement in a game of "keep away" with 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. Look closely at the Bullets defensive movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngg3owcJl1g&t=49s


Below shows two fake passes to cutters followed by a power move to the basket, drawing four defenders and finding Billy C unguarded in front of the rim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Np29MW_XN8&t=3m28s



In the first example below, Imhoff steps up leaving Elgin alone with Wilt under the basket. In the 2nd clip, Russell stays back, and still cannot prevent the dunk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjwkiXiwzCY&t=1m43s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs&t=8m56s





Hakeem & Yao commenting on Dwight Howard.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc-PGuhncxw[/youtube]

[JordansBulls]

Not sure how you could have him out of the top 10 all time.

[penbeast0]

penbeast just a couple quick thoughts before quoting bunch of posts...

...

1. why are you using eFG%? first of all, using eFG% only makes sense when there's 3pt shooting. there was no 3pt shooting in the 60s so what you're really using is FG% in disguise of an advanced stat, you're miscapturing what's really important. Wilt's scoring efficiency (TS%) is far away from the best. Wilt was not a comparable offensive force to Oscar and West, and this is why the latter 2 were leading the best offensive teams of the decade when Wilt's teams struggled offensively with him in a volume scoring role.

2. raw numbers are basically irrelevant. who cares if Wilt was scoring 100 points in a meaningless RS game when his entire team was playing in a way that he would score? wanna look at his scoring and praise then you better come up with something to defend his horrendous scoring performances in numerous finals series. how is near-peak Wilt scoring 11 ppg in 69 finals? how is he choking away big game after big game in 68-70 ? the arguments are well known and repeating meaningless stats is just a very poor argument.

(b) He didn't always play great defense, refusing to chase his man away from the basket and not always showing well on PnR . . . but he did play great post defense and it's hard to make a case that Kobe, who is a good defensive guard when trying, even had a defensive impact equal to Wilt's.

that's an absurd argument. Kobe isn't top15 player of all-time because of his defense. you're admitting Wilt didn't play great defense and waive it off like it didn't mean anything? because Kobe didn't play great defense either?

now...

To answer your questions:

I used efg because (a)Basketball-reference.com doesn't show ts% league wide and I was too lazy to look around for it. Using just fg% would be unfair to Kobe whose 3 point shot is a valuable part of his game where Wilt wouldn't be shooting 3's anyway so his fg% would be equal to his efg% and since there was no 3, his efficiency relative to the league is reflected. In terms of ts%, Wilt is 5th in the league at .536 v. .554 for the leaders (reasonably close) whereas Kobe's ts% of .559 isn't close to the league leaders (Steve Nash .623, Josh Childress .626) but as I said it closes the gap a bit. Still, the point I'm making is that people dropping Wilt out of the top 10 use the "selfish" argument particularly about this season, and he's shooting less than Kobe (who is in almost all those top 10s) and at a much higher percentage relative to both the league and his teammates which means either that Wilt wasn't as selfish as they say, or Kobe should also be penalized for this, which most people don't do.

The question about dropping Wilt out of the top 10 while ranking Kobe in it also has people slamming Wilt's defense in his Warrior days because he wasn't Bill Russell (neither was anyone else in NBA history). Wilt was still an extremely valuable defensive player, similar to Shaq in the 3 peat Laker period -- didn't show away from the basket well but was an intimidating inside force and a much better defensive rebounder which is part of why he didn't move away from the basket. Wilt was one of the top 10-20 defensive bigs in the NBA, appreciably more impactful than several of the guys who are in those top 20 GOAT lists (Shaq, Karl Malone, Moses, etc.) though not up there with Russell (the GOAT), Hakeem, or Duncan. Wilt was a great all around player, scoring, rebounding, and defense; he was also a good post passing big who played intelligently if not really instinctively.

So, those are the reasons the argument was set up that way, I started by comparing him to Kobe who is pretty much a consensus top 10 player among the posters here who drop WIlt below that and looked at his impact in terms of scoring and defense, then went on to show why Wilt's playoff numbers look appreciably less impactful than his regular season ones -- basically he was smart enough to give the ball up when double/triple teamed and opps did a lot more of that in the playoffs plus, of course, he had to fact Bill Russell who I think is the NBA's true GOAT every year which drastically affects both his stats and, more importantly, his playoff series win%.

Hope that answers your questions about my post.

[penbeast0]

btw, if Dipper or anyone else has done the work, I would love to know Wilt's playoff statistics v. everyone other than Boston year by year and overall. I would guess it makes a significant difference but don't know this for a fact.

[Squeedump]

haven't been here long, but lurked a long time and have Bastillon pegged as the biggest Wilt-hater and Dipper 13 as his biggest supporter.

I think with all due respect Bastillon you go beyond anything reasonable to put Wilt down. You claim--with very little data to support it--that Wilt was a stat hog, totally ignoring the fact that in almost all cases, Wilt was doing exactly what his coaches wanted him to do. If they wanted him to score, he scored. They wanted him to pass, defend, and rebound, he did so and did so with few if any peers in any of those departments.

Also-at almost seventy years of age, I'll claim a little first-hand observational experience here, which I doubt either you or Dipper 13 can claim--I think modern fans wildly underestimate just how good, what a machine, the Russell-era Celtics were. IMO, if there had been a comparable team in the league to oppose Jordan's Bulls, Michael doesn't come close to six rings. So dissing Wilt, as I've often seen done here, for having only two rings is grossly unfair.

Wilt was a flawed man in some respects--he had an ego, but I never heard of him putting down or abusing teammates like Jordan did. He wanted to be respected as a complete player--which he was!--so early in his career he downplayed his strengths and de-emphasized the power game.

I'm sorry, but when I see people here comparing him negatively to someone like Hakeem, I just laugh and shake my had in disbelief. Not that Hakeem wasn't a really great player, but there's only one Wilt, and maybe the ony player at his position in league history who compares is prime Shaq--and even prime Shaq was not the athlete and complete player Wilt was.

Penbeast pegs it pretty well. And I also laugh when I see people here lionize chuckers like Melo--and yes, the "Mamba"--and then turn around and criticize Wilt for his outrageous scoring feats.

In terms of all-time ranking, there are ones that obviously belong in the top ten--Wilt is one of them--but considering Jordan won "only" six rings to Russell's 11, I find it illogical that he is almost without argument accorded GOAT status when he played in a period that was clearly a little watered down by expansion and had clearly declined from the golden era of the Bird Celtics/Showtime Lakers era. I think Magic Johnson figures into that argument...same for Oscar....Shaq...some others...

I will say this--Wilt is arguably the best player ever, though he has legit competition for that distinction...but having seen them all, in terms of the best and most complete athlete, in my opinion there's simply no contest---It's Wilt by a large margin.

Posters here make fun of the claims about Wilt made by his peers. But on the other hand, none of them ever present any reasonable motives about why all of them should be lying.

[RayBan-Sematra]

My main issue with Wilt is trying to determine how good of a scorer he was.

When I look at his first 6 seasons (playoffs) he averaged 28ppg (P41) on 52%TS.
Those numbers don't exactly blow me away.

Sure he was in a different era but that didn't stop guys like West or Oscar from attaining good efficiency.
The rest of his career he averaged 15ppg (P41) on 53%TS.

I would also mention that he had big FT problems from 66-70 often shooting in the low 40's & high 30's.
That is bad enough where hacking him would at time become a viable strategy.

Now... beyond that I can look at defense.
Do I think he was better then Shaq or Kareem defensively? Based on what I have seen no, not really.
He was similar to Shaq. Excellent in terms of post, rim and man defense but not that great outside of the paint.

Maybe his late career defensive Prime is superior to those two but that is only because he had the luxury of focusing primarily on defense.

His rebounding obviously was his most unique strength.

When I compare him to someone like Hakeem.
Was he a better playoff performer?
Was he a better scorer or offensive anchor?
Was he a better big game performer?
Was he better defensively?
Was he a better rebounder?

The answer to all those questions except for the last one seems to be no.

In Wilt's defense.

#1. The league was still evolving in the 60's (especially the early 60's) and really was quite different from the game today.
It is quite hard and perhaps unfair to judge players who played in different eras.
Wilt was certainly considered at worst the 2nd or 3rd best player of his generation.

#2. My actual knowledge and my perspective when it comes to players from his generation is still fairly infantile compared to many other posters here.
I am hesitant to speak in absolutes when discussing guys like Wilt & Russell for those very reasons.

I can only current judge him based on the limited footage I have seen plus his seasonal stats.
Currently I rank him behind Jordan, Kareem, Shaq, Russell, Magic, Duncan & Hakeem.
He is for now in the 8-10 area with Bird & Kobe.

[ceiling raiser]

btw, if Dipper or anyone else has done the work, I would love to know Wilt's playoff statistics v. everyone other than Boston year by year and overall. I would guess it makes a significant difference but don't know this for a fact.

I haven't done that exactly (since the numbers aren't available) but someone could go through our gamelog file:

http://nbastats.net/01NBA/07playerlogs/Chamberlain.xls

and do the calculations. They're probably not complete, but I think they're pretty extensive (note: ignore "estimated blocks", they're probably not very reliable; if blocks are listed on their own they're more trustworthy).