Chicago wrote: It's completely right. I referenced this was per 40 min in the calculation. You need to look at this over constant minutes because Hakeem was playing 44-45 min per game in the ps compared to 38-39 in the regular season. I'm not comparing Chamberlain to Olajuwon, but rather comparing how both did in the regular season to how they did against elite competition in the postseason, which is something you value greatly.
Now this is just silly. You're looking at pace, but you're totally disregarding lg efficiency per possession. You can't look at one without the other. Estimated pace for Chamberlain's first 10 years in league (60s) vs. Olajuwon's year 2 through 11 (his biggest playoff runs): 25% difference. Minutes elite v. elite were not substantially different (46 or 47 mpg vs. 44 or 45). The big difference you conveniently choose to ignore was that offense was 13% less efficient in the 60s. 68% of possessions is misleading at best, a completely dishonest argument at worst. The true net adjustment isn't 32%, but something in the neighborhood of 10-15%. Big difference.
Hakeem was playing 43 mpg (not sure where 45 mpg came from). Wilt was playing over 47 mpg (again, not sure where 46 number came from). if you were comparing them to themselves then per minute adjustment makes no sense. a guy who becomes more productive in the postseason because of higher playing time is an improvement over himself from the RS.
what does efficiency have to do with the number of possessions they were on the court? this is absurd math. I was right: Hakeem was on the court for 68% of Wilt's possessions. 47 v 43 mpg, 125 vs 95 pace and this is what you get. the true net adjustment isn't 32% either (cmon now). 68 * 1.32 is not 100 but only 89.76. you'd have to use 46% adjustment to get to a 100. they were playing a lot more possessions back in the 60s, simple as that. note: I made up 125 for Wilt and 95 for Hakeem but I think it's quite right. for example Warriors 64 put up 115 scoring attempts (FGA + 0,44 * FTA); Houston 94 only 89 scoring attempts. 89/115 is 0.77, 95/125 is 0.76 so my eye test matches almost exactly basic calculations.
all in all, Hakeem was for about 2/3rds of Wilt's possessions on the court. any per possession estimation would be brutal to Wilt's stats. those mins adjustments make no sense (unless you can explain).
I'll humor you for a second though, because you're breaking one of the cardinal sins of era comparison. The same logical fallacy which would suggest that Larry Bird is nothing more than an slightly above three point shooter: you aren't comparing things to lg avg.
[...]
TS% postseason for both, compared to league average (weighted by "scoring touches", or FGA + 0.44 FTA):
Chamberlain: +3.5 pts
Olajuwon: +3.2 pts
this example is absurd. the reason for Bird not looking like a GOAT 3pt shooter is very simple - 3pt shot just wasn't used in the 80s very often. it's obvious Bird could shoot 3s as evidenced by his 90% FT shooting (only elite 3pt shooters eclipse that mark). it's not at all obvious 60s players would be better shooters in later eras. am I supposed to believe that KC Jones develops a jumpshot that he didn't have? that's just way to big of a handicap. you're basically saying 60s players have +5-7% to their TS for no other reason than playing in the 60s. how does that make any sense? poor offensive players were affecting how Wilt couldn't dribble or make moves in the post?
I'll humor you though. going by that logic of adjusting for era efficiency in the 60s makes Oscar and West better scorers than Michael Jordan. they're +8-9% TS in the postseason which would make them #1 and #2 all-time playoff scorers at their volumes. looking at them, they were great scorers but lets be real. nowhere near MJ.
btw, I've seen you make a point earlier that Wilt didn't regress in the postseason v Russell, just that he had less "scoring touches". so basically you're saying that if the guy is scoring 7 pts less at the same efficiency, his production is the same? this is
Wilt v Russell put up
Boston: 49 G, 25.7 ppg, 28.0 rpg, 3.9 apg, .530 fg%
RS Wilt in the same time period
34.4 ppg, 24.4 rpg, 4.5 apg, 53% FG
that doesn't even include stuff like
1) pace (higher v Boston so his scoring took an even bigger hit)
2) TS% (pretty sure it was lower v Russell)
3) turnovers (pretty sure they were an issue considering he was trying to volume score and his shot attempts were way down...had to drop for a reason)
4) team ORtg (pretty sure it wasn't pretty v Boston)
to say that Wilt performed just as well v Russell as in the RS is complete nonsense. if he had less "scoring touches" it meant either Russell denied him the ball better, or that Wilt turned it over a lot more. that should be obvious. that's exactly how Shaq ended up shooting a lot less than Dream in 95 finals. sometimes Hakeem would front taking Magic out of their set and completely ruining entire possession, sometimes Shaq would travel or commit offensive fouls, and ended up with the worst tov series of his career. I'd imagine Russell would do the same to Wilt.
from what I've read in the papers from the 60s I know Wilt would sometimes get blown out after abysmal first half but would come back with strong 2nd half when the game was way out of reach anyways. so that further screws his stats. overall Wilt's offense fell off a cliff in the postseason v Russell and no amount of creative accounting is gonna change it.
