Lowest reasonable ranking for Wilt

[Squeedump]

One last comment...interested in seeing what posters here can think of any team in NBA history that could beat the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers, of which Wilt was the linchpin in a seven-game series. Personally having seen them all I can't think of a single one--none of the Jordan Bulls teams, not even the great Celtic and Laker teams of the 80s. Comments?

[Squeedump]

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).

Maybe just anecdotal, but I saw Wilt in one of the games early in his career block twelve shots against the Hawks...after than I stopped counting. True!

[Squeedump]

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.

With all due repect, there's the rub...there's a big difference between seeing someone play live as opposed to watching jerky old films. I'll take Wilt defensively over about anyone not named Russell, Thurmond, or when he bothered, Shaq, and at his peak he was as good as any of them.

[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).

Maybe just anecdotal, but I saw Wilt in one of the games early in his career block twelve shots against the Hawks...after than I stopped counting. True!

Good stuff. There are plenty of stories like that, the man did some incredible things. When he put his mind to it, he played at a level the league has likely never seen before or since.

One last comment...interested in seeing what posters here can think of any team in NBA history that could beat the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers, of which Wilt was the linchpin in a seven-game series. Personally having seen them all I can't think of a single one--none of the Jordan Bulls teams, not even the great Celtic and Laker teams of the 80s. Comments?

67 Sixers and 86 Celtics are my top 2 GOAT teams (though I wasn't around to see the former, so I've had to live through film, Wayne Lynch's book, other anecdotes, newspaper synopses, and stats), it'd be great to watch them play.

[Y-Knot]

According to this article Wilt averaged a 28-28 in the 140 games he was guarded by Russell, and held Russell significantly below his rebound average. If true that he dominated Russell, hard for me to think he would be bested by later big men.

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/13 ... layer-ever

[HanDownManDown3]

I have him at 9

[Narigo]

Wilt Playoff PPG from 1960- 1969

1960
Other Teams- 38.3ppg (3 gms)
Boston Celtics- 30.5ppg (6 gms)

1961
Other Teams- 37.0ppg(3gms)
Celtics- Did not play against the Celtics

1962
Other Teams- 37.0ppg (5 gms)
Boston Celtics 33.5ppg (7 gms)

1963
Miss Postseason

1964
Other Teams- 38.5ppg (7 gms)
Boston Celtics- 29.2ppg (5 gms)

1965
Other Teams- 27.7ppg(4 gms)
Boston Celtics- 30.1ppg (7 gms)

1966
Other Teams- Did not play
Boston Celtics- 28.0ppg (5 gms)

1967
Other Teams- 21.8ppg (10 gms)
Boston Celtics- 21.6ppg(5 gms)

1968
Other Teams- 25.5ppg (6 gms)
Boston Celtics- 22.1ppg (7 gms)

1969
Other Teams- 15.2ppg (11 gms)
Boston Celtics- 11.7ppg (7 gms)

[Narigo]

Wilt Playoff ppg Overall

From 1960 to 1969

Not Against Russell- 27.1 ppg (49 gms)
Against Russell- 25.7 ppg (49 gms)

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

There is no Santa Claus and there is no Wilt the GOAT.
I didn't need to see more than few games to realize that the 1960s legends were not worthy of their Halos.

There is no way for me to accurately judge Wilt because the players in his era were too inferior.

Young Wilt could swoop to the rim like a graceful small forward but that Wilt did not last. The next phase of Wilt may have been better but he was losing mobility even during his prime. Sometimes in 1967 Wilt looked stiff. In 1970 and 1972 the Wilt I saw looked stiff ( rigid, unfluid, mechanical. like he had a back injury)

I have been watching one game from 1967, 76ers Celtics repeatedly lately trying to see the greatness of the 1960s and it just isn't there. I am sorry for all you guys who want to believe that your 1960s heroes were the best.

One play Wilt's hands look good and the Next play Wilt seems to have stone hands worse than Dwight Howard.

The defense all over the floor was atrocious. The shooting was horrible. The argument that 1960s players fg% is almost as good as modern players therefore their shooting was modern is false because they were getting and missing easy shots.

When was that legendary rough tough time when ball players would get punished under the rim because it sure as hell wasn't the late 1960s. The refs called a tight game.

Wilt might not be as good as Patrick Ewing or Dwight Howard despite being bigger than them.. It is hard to compare Wilt to Ewing because Wilt's league was so weak. Past his prime Bill Russel wasn't all that great. Wayne Embry and Bailey Howell were bad.

Watch a 1960s game with the nostalgic blinders off. Good lord it is primative. The 1967 76ers might struggle to defeat the 2013 NCAA champion Louisville team playing by 1967 NBA rules except allowing only the Louisville players to play by current travelling and zone rules.

As for the travelling issue: When I played ball recreationally I over-dribbled because one bounce per step seemed natural to me and I was not coached. Current players travel a lot but much of what looks like travelling to me turns out to be legal by the rule book. Wilt's best looking jam in that 1967 game looked like a travel to me until I watched frame by frame and then I was 60% to 40% that he did not travel but I still could not decide. I originally thought that 1960s players were simply obeying the travelling rules (unlike modern players) but on closer review I think players tended to dribble more than required either because like for me over-dribbling feels more natural or to err on the side of caution because travelling was strictly enforced.

Pro Basketball wasn't always a well paying job. Baseball was king because Baseball was the ideal for radio. America had was not an asphalt nation when the 1960s players were kids in the 1950s. Dribbling on an unpaved driveway is not fun. Teens got jobs (now done by immigrants) rather than hang out on playgrounds. The argument that the 1960s would have produced an equal number of quality basketball players in proportion to America's population in the 1960s as it does now is false.

[Chicago76]

An extended look at Wilt's Bos vs. other postseason stats during the Russell era:

Boston: 49 G, 25.7 ppg, 28.0 rpg, 3.9 apg, .530 fg%
Other: 49 G, 27.2 ppg, 24.5 rpg, 4.3 apg, .618 fg%

If Chamberlain shot as well from the line vs. everyone else (this has nothing to do w/ D and everything to do w/ random luck) as he did vs. Boston, he would have averaged 27.7 ppg.

If we had the benefit of pace adjusting, the scoring and rebounding difference would probably be roughly zero. The big difference is the FG%.

[penbeast0]

Actually, Boston played at a faster pace than the rest of the league so the scoring difference would be magnified while the rebounding difference would be minimized but the scoring volume and efficiency differential is the key to what I was looking for . . . thanks. So basically, Wilt v. everyone else scores at a lower volume but much more efficiently -- Hakeem+ efficiency bonus when not playing Boston.

As a comparison, Wilt averaged 34.4 ppg on .540fg% and 24.3 rebounds during the regular season in this period.

[penbeast0]

There is no Santa Claus and there is no Wilt the GOAT.
I didn't need to see more than few games to realize that the 1960s legends were not worthy of their Halos.

There is no way for me to accurately judge Wilt because the players in his era were too inferior.

Young Wilt could swoop to the rim like a graceful small forward but that Wilt did not last. The next phase of Wilt may have been better but he was losing mobility even during his prime. Sometimes in 1967 Wilt looked stiff. In 1970 and 1972 the Wilt I saw looked stiff ( rigid, unfluid, mechanical. like he had a back injury)

I have been watching one game from 1967, 76ers Celtics repeatedly lately trying to see the greatness of the 1960s and it just isn't there. I am sorry for all you guys who want to believe that your 1960s heroes were the best.

One play Wilt's hands look good and the Next play Wilt seems to have stone hands worse than Dwight Howard.

The defense all over the floor was atrocious. The shooting was horrible. The argument that 1960s players fg% is almost as good as modern players therefore their shooting was modern is false because they were getting and missing easy shots.

When was that legendary rough tough time when ball players would get punished under the rim because it sure as hell wasn't the late 1960s. The refs called a tight game.

Wilt might not be as good as Patrick Ewing or Dwight Howard despite being bigger than them.. It is hard to compare Wilt to Ewing because Wilt's league was so weak. Past his prime Bill Russel wasn't all that great. Wayne Embry and Bailey Howell were bad.

Watch a 1960s game with the nostalgic blinders off. Good lord it is primative. The 1967 76ers might struggle to defeat the 2013 NCAA champion Louisville team playing by 1967 NBA rules except allowing only the Louisville players to play by current travelling and zone rules.

As for the travelling issue: When I played ball recreationally I over-dribbled because one bounce per step seemed natural to me and I was not coached. Current players travel a lot but much of what looks like travelling to me turns out to be legal by the rule book. Wilt's best looking jam in that 1967 game looked like a travel to me until I watched frame by frame and then I was 60% to 40% that he did not travel but I still could not decide. I originally thought that 1960s players were simply obeying the travelling rules (unlike modern players) but on closer review I think players tended to dribble more than required either because like for me over-dribbling feels more natural or to err on the side of caution because travelling was strictly enforced.

Pro Basketball wasn't always a well paying job. Baseball was king because Baseball was the ideal for radio. America had was not an asphalt nation when the 1960s players were kids in the 1950s. Dribbling on an unpaved driveway is not fun. Teens got jobs (now done by immigrants) rather than hang out on playgrounds. The argument that the 1960s would have produced an equal number of quality basketball players in proportion to America's population in the 1960s as it does now is false.

And, of course, PED's and weight training were not the standard, kids weren't coming out of HS ripped like young Arnold Schwartzenegger. And if anyone thinks that because the NBA hasn't had big doping scandals like baseball and cycling therefore PED's aren't the norm, they are living in David Stern's fantasy world.

[Squeedump]

There is no Santa Claus and there is no Wilt the GOAT.
I didn't need to see more than few games to realize that the 1960s legends were not worthy of their Halos.

There is no way for me to accurately judge Wilt because the players in his era were too inferior.

Young Wilt could swoop to the rim like a graceful small forward but that Wilt did not last. The next phase of Wilt may have been better but he was losing mobility even during his prime. Sometimes in 1967 Wilt looked stiff. In 1970 and 1972 the Wilt I saw looked stiff ( rigid, unfluid, mechanical. like he had a back injury)

I have been watching one game from 1967, 76ers Celtics repeatedly lately trying to see the greatness of the 1960s and it just isn't there. I am sorry for all you guys who want to believe that your 1960s heroes were the best.

One play Wilt's hands look good and the Next play Wilt seems to have stone hands worse than Dwight Howard.

The defense all over the floor was atrocious. The shooting was horrible. The argument that 1960s players fg% is almost as good as modern players therefore their shooting was modern is false because they were getting and missing easy shots.

When was that legendary rough tough time when ball players would get punished under the rim because it sure as hell wasn't the late 1960s. The refs called a tight game.

Wilt might not be as good as Patrick Ewing or Dwight Howard despite being bigger than them.. It is hard to compare Wilt to Ewing because Wilt's league was so weak. Past his prime Bill Russel wasn't all that great. Wayne Embry and Bailey Howell were bad.

Watch a 1960s game with the nostalgic blinders off. Good lord it is primative. The 1967 76ers might struggle to defeat the 2013 NCAA champion Louisville team playing by 1967 NBA rules except allowing only the Louisville players to play by current travelling and zone rules.

As for the travelling issue: When I played ball recreationally I over-dribbled because one bounce per step seemed natural to me and I was not coached. Current players travel a lot but much of what looks like travelling to me turns out to be legal by the rule book. Wilt's best looking jam in that 1967 game looked like a travel to me until I watched frame by frame and then I was 60% to 40% that he did not travel but I still could not decide. I originally thought that 1960s players were simply obeying the travelling rules (unlike modern players) but on closer review I think players tended to dribble more than required either because like for me over-dribbling feels more natural or to err on the side of caution because travelling was strictly enforced.

Pro Basketball wasn't always a well paying job. Baseball was king because Baseball was the ideal for radio. America had was not an asphalt nation when the 1960s players were kids in the 1950s. Dribbling on an unpaved driveway is not fun. Teens got jobs (now done by immigrants) rather than hang out on playgrounds. The argument that the 1960s would have produced an equal number of quality basketball players in proportion to America's population in the 1960s as it does now is false.

With all due respect, how does a thinking, intelligent person rationally come to an absolutely baseless conclusion such as that in mere half a century or so, athletes who play sports today have evolved into supermen when compared to their predecessors? Evolution just doesn't proceed at such a hyper-accelerated pace. Common sense and a basic understanding of the rudiments of biology and human anatomy should tell you that.

While modern medicine and advances in training techniques, equipment and such can and have introduced incremental improvements in performance, the idea that actual basic athleticism has increased exponentially in fifty years is just absurd. There have always been super athletes, and those super athletes would be super athletes no matter what era they were born in. How they trained and the equipment they used might help them some, but their base athleticism was the primary reason for their superior performance, as is true of athletes in any sport today

On the other hand, how that performance is regulated is a HUGE factor. Fans who say that players like Oscar, Wilt, Russell, West, and others would be scrubs today blythely ignore the fact that the game has—as they would put it--”evolved.” How good do they think today's stars would look if they had to actually play by the rules? No four, five, or even six steps without dribbling when driving to the basket as is allowed today, no palming, turning over, or carrying the ball, and so forth? These were prohibited by the rules players had to abide by in the past. Today they are often all but totally ignored. The game today is aesthetically pleasing, but it is not the game of basketball you find described in the rulebook. If you are going to accurately anf fairly judge players from the 60s, that is a factor that it is just dishonest to ignore.

My take is that the stars from the 60s would still be stars today, after a period of adjustment. The reverse is also true—today's stars would be stars whenever they played, but would have to make some adjustments to play in the 60s as well...I can imagine a Wade or Rose going to the basket and getting mugged with nary a foul called as happened to Jerry West regularly when he dared go into the paint. He had his nose broken more than once doing that. The 60s game was much more geared and favorable to the bigs than today's game, which rule changes have geared to make much more advantageous to wing players.

So if you're going to judge players from past eras, to be fair you need to take more factors into consideration than just watching some jerky old black and white film clips and sneering at them from the height of your twenty something years of accumulated wisdom. Like most things in life, it's just not that simple. If you think it is, you've got a LOT to learn.

[bastillon]

Actually, Boston played at a faster pace than the rest of the league so the scoring difference would be magnified while the rebounding difference would be minimized but the scoring volume and efficiency differential is the key to what I was looking for . . . thanks. So basically, Wilt v. everyone else scores at a lower volume but much more efficiently -- Hakeem+ efficiency bonus when not playing Boston.

As a comparison, Wilt averaged 34.4 ppg on .540fg% and 24.3 rebounds during the regular season in this period.

how did you come up with this ridiculous conclusion? particularly after acknowledging pace is a factor in comparisons. then you just totally ignored pace and act as if 27 ppg in 120-130 poss/game pace is the same as 27 ppg in ~95 poss/game pace. not to mention you ignored Wilt's all-time worst FT shooting (that's a FACT, the guy was the worst postseason free throw shooter of all-time) and went with the FG% alone as a "efficiency bonus".

Wilt's playoff stats in volume scoring role (60-66) are more in line with a guy like Dwight Howard really. beastly finisher and aggressive offensive rebounder, dismal go-to offense when played straight up, hardly efficient anywhere outside 3 ft range, turnover prone (at least on videotape), vulnerable to intentional fouling. lmao @ ignoring the crapload of posts that mentioned all that. it is to be expected though... I mean what can you say in his defense?

to take a good look at Wilt's career we need to divide it into 3 periods:
1) volume scorer (1960-1966)
2) peak Wilt - low post passer (67-68)
3) Lakers Wilt - finisher (69-73)

I'm gonna use per36 mins stats because he wouldn't be playing 48 mins today and they were playing in a lot of blowouts back in the day. and anyways, in those 36 mins he's playing in as many possessions as guys today playing 48 mins because of the 60s pace. needs to be said Wilt put up his best rebounding numbers and efficiency when the games were over. garbage time could just as well be refered to as Wilt time.

1) Wilt's offensive stats as a volume scorer - 24.9 ppg, 50.5 FG%, 52.3 FT%, 2.4 ast. nothing to brag about considering he was also turnover prone. his 52% TS is refered to as choking whenever we're talking about Karl Malone or David Robinson. the latter two were actually more efficient at higher volume. but yeah 25 ppg @ 52% TS is now supposed to be some GOAT scoring. not to mention his teams didn't really get any better with him on the court offensively. somehow he didn't help them win.

2) Wilt's stats at his peak (67-68) - 16.9 ppg, 55.7% FG, 38.4% FT, 5.9 ast. Wilt is actually helping his team win now with his offense. still nowhere near the best offensive players in the league at the time (West, Oscar) but much better than he was putting up empty scoring numbers that never translated into good team offense. still, for all this talk about how peak Wilt was super efficient, he only has 52.8% TS in that period. both Oscar and West laugh at this.

3) Lakers Wilt (69-73) - 12.2 ppg, 53.1% FG, 44.8% FT, 2.8 ast... again only 52.6% TS. the guy is a finisher now. he's supposed to be super efficient in that role because all he does is dunks. but he's still unable to be efficient in the playoffs, after super-efficient regular seasons with close to 70% FG sometimes. classic stat padder getting exposed when it counts.

so all in all, people might be surprised... Wilt was a career 52% TS scorer and he was consistent in this in every period of his career. he was putting up 52% TS as a volume scorer, as a passer, and even as a finisher. yeah sure, Hakeem + efficiency bonus what an absurd statement

[The Infamous1]

@bastillion, im interested in seeing what players would you take over wilt as an offensive anchor in the playoffs in their primes

[Dipper 13]

The 1967 76ers might struggle to defeat the 2013 NCAA champion Louisville team playing by 1967 NBA rules except allowing only the Louisville players to play by current travelling and zone rules.

What is this based on? The '67 team would easily defeat any NBA team from the 2000's. Nobody can match that front line, especially college kids.

[Chicago76]

Actually, Boston played at a faster pace than the rest of the league so the scoring difference would be magnified while the rebounding difference would be minimized but the scoring volume and efficiency differential is the key to what I was looking for . . . thanks. So basically, Wilt v. everyone else scores at a lower volume but much more efficiently -- Hakeem+ efficiency bonus when not playing Boston.

Yeah. It was late when I posted that. I meant to say rebounding would have probably been effectively no different and PPG scoring v. BOS would have been lower. Using mpg of what we know and assuming a 10% drop in touches, scoring and rebounding in BOS as a pace adjustment, per 48 numbers:

BOS: 23.4 pts, 25.5 reb, 3.5 ast, .530 fg%, 2.1 pf, 22.9 touches
Other: 27.7 pts, 25.0 reb, 4.4 ast, .618 fg%, 2.5 pf, 23.2 touches
This assumes he would have shot as well from the line vs. other teams as he did vs. BOS (48%). I'm chalking up the lower FT% to random statistical chance.

As a comparison, Wilt averaged 34.4 ppg on .540fg% and 24.3 rebounds during the regular season in this period.

This is probably a bit unfair to Chamberlain, because the playoffs were longer later in his career when he wasn't putting up the ridiculous numbers of his early career. Weighted by postseason game for each year, this is his 1959/60-1968/69 stat line regular season vs. postseason per 48:

Reg 31.6 ppg, 23.7 rpg, 5.0 apg, .538 fg%, 29.7 scoring touches
PS 26.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, 4.4 apg, .520 fg%, 25.2 scoring touches

Pace was a bit lower in postseason too, but not material (2% lower). Playing BOS 50% of those games no doubt hurt his numbers, but really, there isn't much difference at all regular season vs. postseason. Fg% is marginally lower and his touches went down a bit as teams worked more diligently to reduce his impact.

[Dipper 13]

was also turnover prone

I have seen this repeated many times based on nothing. Adjusting for pace he averaged 2.3 TOV in the game footage.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1247724

[Chicago76]

needs to be said Wilt put up his best rebounding numbers and efficiency when the games were over. garbage time could just as well be refered to as Wilt time.

Evidence please.

nothing to brag about considering he was also turnover prone.

Again, evidence. Game footage tracking of what we do have would suggest otherwise.

his 52% TS is refered to as choking whenever we're talking about Karl Malone or David Robinson. the latter two were actually more efficient at higher volume. but yeah 25 ppg @ 52% TS is now supposed to be some GOAT scoring.

How does that compare against his contemporaries? Because that's all that really matters. If we apply this logic to Larry Bird, he was just a marginally above average three point shooter. I mean, fewer than 3 3FAs a game at higher pace at only .376? See how that works?

not to mention his teams didn't really get any better with him on the court offensively. somehow he didn't help them win.

The only evidence to support this is a possession estimate for early era games, which hinges almost exclusively on ORB variance among teams holding more or less constant over time. We know that for a lot of other statistics, variance across teams in a given year was much greater than it is today. This intuitively makes sense. Teams understand strategy better today, and they all pursue the game more similarly to maximize efficiency. If we're off in ORB estimation (which is probably true), then we're probably overestimating possessions for Wilt's teams, which means we're underestimating his offensive impact in terms of Ortg.

[bastillon]

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.
[...]
Hope that answers your questions about my post.

again, you're just WAY OFF. nobody is knocking down Wilt for scoring a lot of points. it's a bunch of other factors that come into play and all of that was mentioned countless times. you know those arguments well but decided to ignore them instead and seeing as you don't have anything to back up your pro-Wilt argument with, you came up with Kobe v Wilt comparison looking at it wrong way.

so to remind you what are the arguments against Wilt's offense, just in case if you bothered to enter legitimate debate instead of some irrelevant points about Kobe's scoring and if you bothered to read what fatal9 wrote in the posts that I quoted:

-his team offenses were never good when he was in volume scoring role (I'm talking about the RS now) it proves that Wilt's style of play was poorly impacting team offense. Dantley was a guy that comes to mind immediately but Dantley actually had better offensive impact as a volume scorer than Wilt did. most of the time Wilt was volume scoring, his teams were mediocre offensively and he showed little to no impact offensively whenever he changed teams. this should be a huge red flag for anybody trying to capture his impact on offense.

-his scoring looks outright bad. his go to fadeaway jumper is a horrendous inefficient move. just look at the tape there is plenty of it. fatal's posts even have a highlight reel. his ballhandling is terrible. basically anything related to basketball skills, Wilt looks unlike an NBA player. nonexistent shooting touch, pathetic footwork, poor ballhandling. how is this guy supposed to volume score on the call? he was admittedly a great finisher and nasty offensive rebounder. but as a guy who's supposed to break down the defense, Wilt was very much exposed on any video footage. particularly his go-to offense, it's much worse than for guys like Karl Malone or D-Rob who are being knocked down for lack of go-to scoring. Wilt's go-to scoring is significantly worse than either of them. these here are fundamental flaws that make Wilt's offensive prowess a joke. his post game is simply lacking in many aspects. turnover prone, poor ballhandling, laughable footwork, astonishingly bad shooting touch - those are not gonna change, no matter the era. how can he be compared to a guy like Shaq with those flaws? actually Shaq had a far better shooting touch because he could take a 10 ft hook shot at great efficiency. footwork and ballhandling are blowouts in Shaq's way. Shaq was also very good at not turning the ball over, his highest tov series of his career was 5.2 per game and came against freakin Hakeem in 95 finals. Wilt looks like a very high tov player on any video when he starts volume scoring off of his post game.

-for the reason that his go-to scoring was so poor, Wilt's offense struggled in the playoffs. he becomes a mere 52% TS player despite being a force on the offensive glass and as a finisher. he was basically a 0.7 pt per play post scorer in isolation situations (if that). just look at the tape. so when teams started to play defense and didn't let him score easy pts, Wilt was hopeless offensively and couldn't really do anything.

-there are major concerns about portability of his offense. Sixers had an incredibly stacked team that was elite offensively even after Wilt left (and Luke Jackson too). relative to era 67 Sixers might be the most stacked team ever. you had 4 legitimate all-star caliber players around Wilt (Greer, Jackson, Cunningham, Walker). if this is the only team Wilt can help win, it's almost impossible to build around him. as I said, on a team level (global impact) Wilt never proved who could play well as a volume scorer.

-his offensive numbers are inflated because of how much he was stat-padding in blowouts. Wilt was not a guy who cared about winning a lot so his best performances came when the games were out of reach and started putting up monster quarters. there are numerous accounts pointing to those facts. Wilt loved his stats and didn't wanna be criticized by the media so he would rather statpadd so that he could point out to his boxscore in his defense. there are countless times when Boston destroys his team but the game is 48 min long so he feasts in garbage time to make it look as if he outplayed Russell. in reality he was getting asswhooped when it mattered.

in comparison to Kobe his offense is laughable. Kobe is a dynamic playmaker who doesn't need a specific team setup to help his team offensively. unlike Wilt, Kobe is improving every team on offense because of his portability. he's very hard to gameplan for because of how unpredictable his offense is. and when his jumpshot is on (which happened like a lot), he's plain and simple unstoppable. Kobe's playoff offense is in a different world compared to Wilt. if you consider per possession stats, Kobe destroys Wilt's volumes. I could go on but first you better respond to many of the huge red flags that Wilt's offense is raising. Kobe is irrelevant in this thread.