why is Wilt ranked above Oscar and West?

[Doctor MJ]

The one thing I'll say about Wilt is...we give guys like KG and Hakeem the benefit of the doubt a lot by extrapolating what they were able to do when they had a competent team and management around them and applying that to earlier years, with the reasoning that they could have been a lot better if they had that their entire careers, and we shouldn't penalize them because of things out of their control...well, isn't it unfair if we don't apply that same logic to Wilt? Aren't his coaches as much to blame for his shortcomings as he is?

If he was coached by Pop (or Red in the 60s), how much better would Wilt have been? That's why I don't want to drop him too low (I have him 9th on my list despite his shortcomings), because I think we should allow him some benefit of the doubt.

Hmm, what you say we do with KG I actually try really hard NOT to do. Let me contrast this with Nash:

-In years where Garnett wasn't getting the glory because his teammates were awful, and he helped them a ton but that still only made them decent rather than fantastic, I basically just count that like another year like the years surrounding it.

-I think that Nash could have been a superstar a lot sooner if coaches has just understood what he could do...but the bottom line to me is that he didn't start playing like 2004 until 2004, and that means on any accomplishment based list, he's hurt by it. I would draft Nash over Kobe in a heartbeat based on what I think Nash can do, but I've got Kobe ahead of Nash on my GOAT list because of what they each actually did in this life as a basketball player.

[Doctor MJ]

You are talking about Wilt inconsistent defense. From what I know, he has some amazing defensive seasons: 1964, 1968, 1972, 1973. That's all time great level defense. Beside that, you have some very strong years like 1960, 1966, 1967. He played great defense in 1962 playoffs. He's much more consistent than Shaq, who BTW anchored below average defensive team in 2001 season (peak Shaq).

Good post in general, I wanted to respond though to this and the thing I quoted below:

The thing is that if you credit Wilt with all of those years, and accept that in the other years the different probably was Wilt not trying as hard, then you've got a "year-by-year" contest that basically ends up around tied (at least between Wilt & Oscar).

To be clear, that's not me making a counterargument to you, it's literally a thought I have every time I think about this stuff:
If I give Wilt the nod in the years he played good defense based on the thought that his defense was his most valuable skill, then I have got to really dock him a good deal in the years where the defense just isn't there.

If I give each competitor the same amount of years, but dock Wilt a lot for the bad defense in bad defensive years, then the other guy comes out on top.

Not saying the thinking there is good enough to say definitive things here, it's just that even when you list year after year here of good Wilt things, it tends to leave room for some unsightly reminders.

You bring 1965 season as an example of Wilt impact. Wilt in RS had health problems and it's his worst RS during his prime (until. 1969). That's not good example without knowing context.

2 things here:

1) Good point to bring up, and it's why as good as ElGee's work is here, it's tough to get a gauge on Wilt because the '65 stuff is basically apples to oranges, and other than that year you're talking about time on the Lakers when he was still getting his footing.

I punish Wilt for being slow to find footing, and quick to lose it again, but in terms of more regular impact, I don't think that data is enough to put a low ceiling on Wilt's impact.

2) I think the more damning thing about '64-65 is that even though all agree that Wilt was playing very injured...he still got his numbers. It just proves the lack of true causality between the two things: People think there's no way Wilt could have numbers that big without having big impact, but the evidence actually suggests that while Wilt did indeed go both things, he could do one without the other, which means that his big numbers in and of themselves aren't worth much.

[Doctor MJ]

Oscar joins the Bucks in 70. They improve by 7 SRS and win a championship in dominant fashion.

How much of that would you simply credit to Kareem getting a lot better?

Good points for both of you.

What I'd say is that I don't assume Oscar was having MVP impact there...but him being able to change how he played the moment he started playing with Kareem blows my mind. Wilt very clearly isn't someone who can do something like that.

[RSCD3_]

For years I have wondered why Wilt is ranked higher than Oscar and West. Both of them have great boxscore stats. Both of them have amazing impact stats (their teams went to sh*t when they were injured). Both of them were incredible playoff performers. What makes Wilt better than them? Of course boxscore RS stats favor Wilt but is there really an argument for Wilt outside of that? Specifically with Jerry West, consider the following, when both of them played with the Lakers West had far stronger impact than Wilt.

Wilt has some enormous question marks:
-offensive impact is incredibly inconsistent and suspect in general. his volume scoring didn't really help his team win. he was best suited to being 5th option on the floor. otherwise team offense wasn't very good.

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.

-defensively he was pretty much like Shaq. In general, he was a positive but tended to have poor seasons. Specifically two weaknesses were glaring when it comes to Wilt: transition defense and pick and roll defense. In both areas Wilt was flat out horrendous. Dude didn't even attempt to guard a pick and roll. He just stood under the basket. This happened even in the biggest games of his life like G7s finals in 69 and 70.

-Wilt's playoff performances were generally a huge downgrade from his RS performances. Wilt lost a record number of G7s. Not only his scoring numbers dropped down but even stats like FT% (and did so dramatically). All that screams a choker to me.

-when Wilt was changing teams there wasn't much improvement on the team he joined, nor was there a big impact on the team he left. Certainly the impact was nothing close to what we would expect from an all-time great. That is a f*ckin big red flag to me. See for details: viewtopic.php?t=1333570

I used to have a section for WOWY (or in/out) on blog. Since then I've improved the method, controlling for other key players and when possible, for when opponent key players missed games as well. I've also introduced a metric designed to capture WOWY quality in a single number, called WOWY Score, which is detailed below. There is also now a WOWY spreadsheet linked below.

This thread will be a collection of WOWY reports related to key players in NBA history and will be updated over time. I've also finally added some formal statistical analysis around the variance/accuracy of these numbers, and that is included in a player's table.

[...]

Here is the link to the WOWY spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cFY3Qk8eLJo8_bKK0z4k8K-A3UpwQRGOCAsrSuUeQl0/edit?usp=sharing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (If you see a date format, that's google spreadsheet reading something like "04-05" as April 5th, or "04/05"." In that case, the month will be the first year of the sample and the day the second (e.g. "08/11/14" = "08-14.")

Chamberlain, Wilt

Spoiler:

Robertson, Oscar

Spoiler:

Russell, Bill

Spoiler:

West, Jerry

Spoiler:

Now when it comes to Oscar and West, none of those concerns are really there. Oscar and West sustained their level of performance in the PS. They had incredible impact on their teams. We know they were the reason their teams were winning because Cincy and LA ranked #1-2 all decade long in terms of offensive efficiency. Obviously when they were out, team offense went to trash. How is Wilt considered above them?

Are you stating that wilt's ideal role is a garbage man like deandre jordan? With more passing maybe? Because that's what fifth option sort of implies and looking at hiis team in his prime I dont really see one were there should be 4 guys with higher usage. Him post prime scoring much less and making his bones on defense doesnt limit his ideal role on offense to me which when building a team is either a strong second option or a super elite 3rd option

[Doctor MJ]

Are you stating that wilt's ideal role is a garbage man like deandre jordan? With more passing maybe? Because that's what fifth option sort of implies and looking at hiis team in his prime I dont really see one were there should be 4 guys with higher usage. Him post prime scoring much less and making his bones on defense doesnt limit his ideal role on offense to me which when building a team is either a strong second option or a super elite 3rd option

In terms of FGA per minute, Wilt did indeed the 5th option.

On the '67 76ers, of the 6 guys playing 2000 minutes, Wilt had the 6th highest FGA/minute rate.
On the '68 76ers, again, of the 6, he had the 6th.
On the '69 Lakers, of the 3, he had the 3rd
On the '70 Lakers, Wilt didn't play 2000 minutes.
On the '71 Lakers, of the 5, he had the 5th.
On the '72 Lakers, of the 5, he had the 5th.
On the '73 Lakers, of the 5, he had the 5th.

So from '67 on, Wilt would NEVER gain have a full season in which any starter level teammate would shoot field goals at a lower rate than him.

I realize that there's more that goes into what option you are than just FGA, but there's no one in history as associated with epic levels of FGA as Wilt is, so it's hard for me to ever think about this and not be in awe at how restrained Wilt's shooting became.

[ThaRegul8r]

A summary of my arguments against the perception of Wilt's "failures"

[...]

1962: absolutely carried a worsening cast. Rodgers was completely awful as an offensive player now, shot 35.6% from the field. All his help is Arizin and Gola. Still no real shooting on the team. Wilt is great on both ends of the court, somehow makes them the second best team in the league, and comes one Sam Jones jumper away from upsetting the greatest dynasty in sports. AGREED Russ did a good job on him in the EDF, but really, if that jumper had missed, Wilt would be hailed as the 33/25 hero who single-handedly defeated the ultimate dynasty.

One jumper miss. One jumper miss and he goes down as a God. Is there some kind of strange thing going on that people seem to hate on him otherwise?

I'll say this again, because it always irks me whenever I come across people stating misinformation on the internet.

I'd like to see a case for 06 LeBron over 62 Wilt.

I've said it before. Sam Jones misses that jumper, the Warriors win the title, Wilt goes down in history as the GOAT.

[...]

the game was tied 107-107 when Jones made that shot. Somehow a myth has circulated on the internet that the Celtics' season would have ended had Jones missed. [Unfortunately, the internet is a good vehicle for the spread of misinformation, since everyone just repeats/copies-and-pastes without checking anything.] Had Jones missed that shot, there would still have been an overtime to play. How that might have gone we'll never know, as Jones prevented that from occurring, unlike the unfortunate Mr. Selvy. But for some reason everyone just skips the fact that there still would have been more basketball to be played.

BOSTON (AP)—Sam Jones’ jump shot with two second left pulled the Boston Celtics to a 109-107 victory over Philadelphia Thursday night, capping a dramatic comeback which produced the sixth straight National Basketball Association Eastern Division play-off title for Boston.

The play came immediately following a three-point maneuver by huge Wilt Chamberlain which tied the score.

With the string run out in the best-of-seven series, the Warriors had time only for one last play but Sam Jones—the finishing hero—intercepted and held on as the buzzer sounded.

The Celtics now go after their fourth straight NBA play-off championships against Los Angeles opening here Saturday afternoon.

The Celtics won by two. Three-point shots didn't exist. Simple arithmetic says it was a tie game before the shot that gave Boston a 109-107 win. Sam Jones misses that jumper (which was made with only a couple of seconds left) and there's still more basketball to be played. What would have happened from there we'll never know, because it never came to that (thanks to Jones). But it's bizarre to state one team would have won the game had a shot been missed that broke a tie with two seconds left.

Now since I've already said this to you, the only explanation is that an agenda is at play, since agendas don't care about facts.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if there's a legitimate argument to be made (about anything), then it shouldn't be necessary to deviate one iota from the facts. The truth should be sufficient. The moment anyone goes beyond the truth, it must mean that the truth isn't enough (or that one doesn't care what the truth is).

[E-Balla]

I have Wilt 11th on my GOAT list, Oscar 12th, and West 14th (last I did it). Basically the main reason I have Wilt over them is that in their time people thought Wilt was better. In the case of West it wasn't really close either (public perception that is) and in a situation where there's only so much gametape and stats I have to take what the analysts back then thought more seriously.

[SkyHookFTW]

Are you stating that wilt's ideal role is a garbage man like deandre jordan? With more passing maybe? Because that's what fifth option sort of implies and looking at hiis team in his prime I dont really see one were there should be 4 guys with higher usage. Him post prime scoring much less and making his bones on defense doesnt limit his ideal role on offense to me which when building a team is either a strong second option or a super elite 3rd option

In terms of FGA per minute, Wilt did indeed the 5th option.

On the '67 76ers, of the 6 guys playing 2000 minutes, Wilt had the 6th highest FGA/minute rate.
On the '68 76ers, again, of the 6, he had the 6th.
On the '69 Lakers, of the 3, he had the 3rd
On the '70 Lakers, Wilt didn't play 2000 minutes.
On the '71 Lakers, of the 5, he had the 5th.
On the '72 Lakers, of the 5, he had the 5th.
On the '73 Lakers, of the 5, he had the 5th.

So from '67 on, Wilt would NEVER gain have a full season in which any starter level teammate would shoot field goals at a lower rate than him.

I realize that there's more that goes into what option you are than just FGA, but there's no one in history as associated with epic levels of FGA as Wilt is, so it's hard for me to ever think about this and not be in awe at how restrained Wilt's shooting became.

I don't think Doc is calling Wilt a garbage man. Actually, if you look at what he was doing on the court, he was so busy as a facilitator, defender, and rebounder that he didn't have time for much scoring. We saw Wilt in his early career when he had to be the man on both ends of the court. His stats were impressive...hell, they were damn near unbelievable sometimes...but he didn't win any championships until he was not the first option. Sure, he came close, but didn't win.

If one looks at Wilt in his championship years, you see a player who became an all-time facilitator/team mate on the court who could still score efficiently.

And that is the gist of the problem. Wilt proved at one time or another that he could be the best at anything done on the court during his playing days (except shoot fouls), which is one reason he is the greatest pure athlete to ever play the game. But no one can do it all at the same time and expect success. Not even Jordan the GOAT. Close isn't good enough, and sure, he was close many times before he won.

[mischievous]

He was much more dominant statistically and his resume is better, i don't think there is much need for investigation here.

[turk3d]

Although all of them were great players, sheer dominance is the answer as to why Wilt was rated higher. Robertson had a young Kareem when he won his only ring. West had Baylor and Wilt (when he finally won one). Who did Wilt have as a secondary player throughout most of his career? No one really (except with the 6ers and the Lakers when he was near the end of his career).

Had he had another star player with him, he would have won a lot more rings. And all those years when Russell beat him, Russell was playing with an all star team so it's not fair in most of these Wilt comparisons imo. Oscar and West were great (two of the greatest imo) but they both had exceptional big man when they won their only rings.

[Johnlac1]

A summary of my arguments against the perception of Wilt's "failures"

1961: Arizin is even older, a rookie Al Attles doesn't help TOO much... But Wilt still gets them to the Playoffs, puts up a 37/23, but his supporting cast flops BADLY. Arizin, Gola and Rodgers combined to shoot 31% from the field. Warriors get swept by the Royals. Can't blame Wilt here, his team stunk it up.

1962: absolutely carried a worsening cast. Rodgers was completely awful as an offensive player now, shot 35.6% from the field. All his help is Arizin and Gola. Still no real shooting on the team. Wilt is great on both ends of the court, somehow makes them the second best team in the league, and comes one Sam Jones jumper away from upsetting the greatest dynasty in sports. AGREED Russ did a good job on him in the EDF, but really, if that jumper had missed, Wilt would be hailed as the 33/25 hero who single-handedly defeated the ultimate dynasty.

One jumper miss. One jumper miss and he goes down as a God. Is there some kind of strange thing going on that people seem to hate on him otherwise?

1963: His team dropped off a good bit, but seriously... We're talking a team with no shooting, no defense, had Arizin retire, Gola miss 60 games, and Wilt still has the team make league average offense AND defense? With that kind of supporting cast, blame the guy who goes 45/25, leads the league in FG% and anchors the defense? Where is the logic here?

1965: He drops off a bit due to the heart disease. Bad team results in the beginning of the year. If you want to hold that against him, fine. He gets traded to Philly because the SFW management is full of asses. Philly immediately improves, they go 11-3 in the first 14 games with Wilt. Then Greer, Costello and Jackson all get injured in the second half of the season. Wilt still drags them to .500 and then outplays Russ in the EDF, losing because HAVLICEK STOLE THE BALL. This is the second time that one play has decided whether or not Wilt beats Russell.

Again, one play. One 50-50 play. 25% chance he ends up with 2 titles already.

1966: he first of 3 straight MVPs. 30/30 in the Playoffs, and only loses to Boston because his two best team-mates, Greer and Walker, screw up badly, shooting 36% from the floor combined. Shades of what happened with Gola and Arizin in '61. Keep this in mind when talking about his supporting cast this year. How is it logical to blame the one guy who showed up when the rest of the team flops so badly?

1968: In the Playoffs, he dragged an injury ridden team past the Knicks, leading both teams in every major statistical category. He lost a game 7 to Boston by 4 points, in a game where Hannum had his only real failing as a coach. He simply couldn't devise a game-plan to get the ball to Wilt with Embry and Russell swarming him. The series was still so close despite the litany of injuries the Sixers had. Billy C was out of the series, Wilt had a bad calf problem, practically the whole starting 5 was hobbled.

That is providing some context for the "failures" in his prime that some of the filthy comments out here are referring to. In reality he was literally a handful of bad breaks away from exiting the 60s with five titles.

Should mention Wilt's rookie year. In the playoffs against the Celtics Wilt's team, the Warriors, lost in six games. But Wilt hurt his hand in game two after being goaded into a fight by a Celtics players. He could barely shoot for the next two games both which the Warriors lost. In game five with a healthy hand Wilt scored 50 pts. and the Warriors won.
In game six, although I can find no details of the game other than the box score, the Wilt "only" scored 20 some pts and the Celtics won on a last second shot. I would bet looking at the shot totals for some other Warriors, they double teamed Wilt whenever he posted up.
He had games of 42 and 50 pts in that series. If he hadn't hurt his hand, the Warriors might have very well won one of the two games he played with his hurt hand . And maybe one of the Warriors would have made a last second shot to win the series against the champion Celtics. The Warriors probably would have gone on to win the title.
That's the thing about Wilt...he won two championships and came very close numerous other times in the playoffs losing due to injuries to him or other key players, or losing on a last second play by the other team. Wilt just was not a very lucky player. If he had won his third title, I doubt he'd be facing as much criticism for his "failures."

[70sFan]

A summary of my arguments against the perception of Wilt's "failures"

1961: Arizin is even older, a rookie Al Attles doesn't help TOO much... But Wilt still gets them to the Playoffs, puts up a 37/23, but his supporting cast flops BADLY. Arizin, Gola and Rodgers combined to shoot 31% from the field. Warriors get swept by the Royals. Can't blame Wilt here, his team stunk it up.

1962: absolutely carried a worsening cast. Rodgers was completely awful as an offensive player now, shot 35.6% from the field. All his help is Arizin and Gola. Still no real shooting on the team. Wilt is great on both ends of the court, somehow makes them the second best team in the league, and comes one Sam Jones jumper away from upsetting the greatest dynasty in sports. AGREED Russ did a good job on him in the EDF, but really, if that jumper had missed, Wilt would be hailed as the 33/25 hero who single-handedly defeated the ultimate dynasty.

One jumper miss. One jumper miss and he goes down as a God. Is there some kind of strange thing going on that people seem to hate on him otherwise?

1963: His team dropped off a good bit, but seriously... We're talking a team with no shooting, no defense, had Arizin retire, Gola miss 60 games, and Wilt still has the team make league average offense AND defense? With that kind of supporting cast, blame the guy who goes 45/25, leads the league in FG% and anchors the defense? Where is the logic here?

1965: He drops off a bit due to the heart disease. Bad team results in the beginning of the year. If you want to hold that against him, fine. He gets traded to Philly because the SFW management is full of asses. Philly immediately improves, they go 11-3 in the first 14 games with Wilt. Then Greer, Costello and Jackson all get injured in the second half of the season. Wilt still drags them to .500 and then outplays Russ in the EDF, losing because HAVLICEK STOLE THE BALL. This is the second time that one play has decided whether or not Wilt beats Russell.

Again, one play. One 50-50 play. 25% chance he ends up with 2 titles already.

1966: he first of 3 straight MVPs. 30/30 in the Playoffs, and only loses to Boston because his two best team-mates, Greer and Walker, screw up badly, shooting 36% from the floor combined. Shades of what happened with Gola and Arizin in '61. Keep this in mind when talking about his supporting cast this year. How is it logical to blame the one guy who showed up when the rest of the team flops so badly?

1968: In the Playoffs, he dragged an injury ridden team past the Knicks, leading both teams in every major statistical category. He lost a game 7 to Boston by 4 points, in a game where Hannum had his only real failing as a coach. He simply couldn't devise a game-plan to get the ball to Wilt with Embry and Russell swarming him. The series was still so close despite the litany of injuries the Sixers had. Billy C was out of the series, Wilt had a bad calf problem, practically the whole starting 5 was hobbled.

That is providing some context for the "failures" in his prime that some of the filthy comments out here are referring to. In reality he was literally a handful of bad breaks away from exiting the 60s with five titles.

Should mention Wilt's rookie year. In the playoffs against the Celtics Wilt's team, the Warriors, lost in six games. But Wilt hurt his hand in game two after being goaded into a fight by a Celtics players. He could barely shoot for the next two games both which the Warriors lost. In game five with a healthy hand Wilt scored 50 pts. and the Warriors won.
In game six, although I can find no details of the game other than the box score, the Wilt "only" scored 20 some pts and the Celtics won on a last second shot. I would bet looking at the shot totals for some other Warriors, they double teamed Wilt whenever he posted up.
He had games of 42 and 50 pts in that series. If he hadn't hurt his hand, the Warriors might have very well won one of the two games he played with his hurt hand . And maybe one of the Warriors would have made a last second shot to win the series against the champion Celtics. The Warriors probably would have gone on to win the title.
That's the thing about Wilt...he won two championships and came very close numerous other times in the playoffs losing due to injuries to him or other key players, or losing on a last second play by the other team. Wilt just was not a very lucky player. If he had won his third title, I doubt he'd be facing as much criticism for his "failures."

Wilt was really unlucky. Imagine if he had won in 1960, 1962 or 1965 against the Celtics. People would not talk about how he " chokes" in postseason

Look at his numbers in these 3 series. He was ultra-dominant. In 1965 he reached the level that nobody, maybe beside Hakeem in 1995, matched against GOAT level defender. 30-30 on 55%, you can talk about Shaq but I don't think he ever had as good playoff series.
Again, if he didn't hurt his hand he would probably beat Celtics in his rookie season. That would make him GOAT rookie.
Let's not forgot about his injury in 1968. He beat Knicks by himself before and then pkayed very good against Celtics until last 2 games. I don't know what happened. Maybe he was too tired, maybe injury was too much for him...

4 close series, imagine if he had won even one of them. He would be viewed as a winner.

[penbeast0]

Oscar joins the Bucks in 70. They improve by 7 SRS and win a championship in dominant fashion.

How much of that would you simply credit to Kareem getting a lot better?

Good points for both of you.

What I'd say is that I don't assume Oscar was having MVP impact there...but him being able to change how he played the moment he started playing with Kareem blows my mind. Wilt very clearly isn't someone who can do something like that.

Warriors Wilt to Sixers/Lakers Wilt goes from being 1st option to pass first player with multiple others taking more FGA/minute . . . there are certainly critiques of Wilt but not being able to change how he played sure isn't one of them.

[Owly]

How much of that would you simply credit to Kareem getting a lot better?

Good points for both of you.

What I'd say is that I don't assume Oscar was having MVP impact there...but him being able to change how he played the moment he started playing with Kareem blows my mind. Wilt very clearly isn't someone who can do something like that.

Warriors Wilt to Sixers/Lakers Wilt goes from being 1st option to pass first player with multiple others taking more FGA/minute . . . there are certainly critiques of Wilt but not being able to change how he played sure isn't one of them.

I suspect the implication is that Wilt didn't do on his own initiative and perhaps reluctantly.

Now one might argue with how much players could/should organize teams counter to the wishes of the coaches, or whom on the '63 and on Warriors should have been taking more shots. But I think the line of argument is that Wilt did a poor job of recognizing what was in his teams best interest and fitting into that role, rather than the he couldn't or didn't ultimately change roles.

[penbeast0]

Never heard that Wilt was less than willing (unlike, say, MJ when Phil Jackson tried to put in the triangle).

If anything Wilt was too insecure and tended to do what others told him to do rather than just play by instinct . . . like his shooting fadeaways rather than dunks/power moves for fear of being seen as just a physical freak.

[Doctor MJ]

How much of that would you simply credit to Kareem getting a lot better?

Good points for both of you.

What I'd say is that I don't assume Oscar was having MVP impact there...but him being able to change how he played the moment he started playing with Kareem blows my mind. Wilt very clearly isn't someone who can do something like that.

Warriors Wilt to Sixers/Lakers Wilt goes from being 1st option to pass first player with multiple others taking more FGA/minute . . . there are certainly critiques of Wilt but not being able to change how he played sure isn't one of them.

Okay let me highlight the main difference here:

Oscar is someone who it seems to me like he himself adapted how he played to the moment.

Wilt by contrast who basically always struggled to find the right balance except for this one time in 1966 when he likely took Hannum's advice more than Hannum expected it to, and it turned out amazing.

I'm not alleging that Wilt's incapable of having impact immediately, I'm saying that he doesn't have the ability to figure out how he should play. With the right instructions from someone else he could be incredibly valuable, and could do so immediately, but that's a very different thing than what Oscar could do.

[turk3d]

Never heard that Wilt was less than willing (unlike, say, MJ when Phil Jackson tried to put in the triangle).

If anything Wilt was too insecure and tended to do what others told him to do rather than just play by instinct . . . like his shooting fadeaways rather than dunks/power moves for fear of being seen as just a physical freak.

I think that you've touched on something here that many are probably not aware of. I believe that it wasn't a confidence problem (Wilt was extremely confidence of his abilities) it was more of a complex due to his inordinate size. Keep in mind when he was playing, you didn't have the giants out their that we have today nor the skill level of most of the big man at his level. Even Bill Russell (who as great as he was) was only 6'9 (many say that he was only about 6'7 (which I don't quite buy) and he was Wilt's top competitor. But of course Russell was surrounded by quite a few extremely talented players in their own rights.

[Doctor MJ]

Good points for both of you.

What I'd say is that I don't assume Oscar was having MVP impact there...but him being able to change how he played the moment he started playing with Kareem blows my mind. Wilt very clearly isn't someone who can do something like that.

Warriors Wilt to Sixers/Lakers Wilt goes from being 1st option to pass first player with multiple others taking more FGA/minute . . . there are certainly critiques of Wilt but not being able to change how he played sure isn't one of them.

I suspect the implication is that Wilt didn't do on his own initiative and perhaps reluctantly.

Now one might argue with how much players could/should organize teams counter to the wishes of the coaches, or whom on the '63 and on Warriors should have been taking more shots. But I think the line of argument is that Wilt did a poor job of recognizing what was in his teams best interest and fitting into that role, rather than the he couldn't or didn't ultimately change roles.

I'm of the opinion that much of the problems with Wilt's impact underachieving had nothing to do with game plan, it just came from the fact that basketball is a dynamic game, that plans are static, and that if a player struggles with awareness and decision making in the moment, there isn't necessarily a way to smoothly grow the player's abilities on those fronts.

I might liken Wilt to rookie quarterback in the NFL. In general, you want your quarterback to know what all of his options are, quickly read the defense, rank the likely success of each move, then rapidly look around to analyze each situation as the play evolves, before actually pulling the trigger. But if you've got a rookie, there's certain things that just fall off the map, and as a result you emphasize priorities. The rookie QB may be overreliant on the 1st option getting open in the most extreme scenarios.

With Wilt you had a guy who could keep a priority list, but could keep real-time perception of the changing options available to him, and the result was that when his first job was volume scoring, he often missed opportunities to pass to other people, and he also quite likely ended up falling right in to traps that caused turnovers. Hannum comes in in '66 and essentially gives him a new priority list that ends up helping more than I think even Hannum thought it would. Ends up being the best of all worlds. The rest of the league has years of training to be scared to death of Wilt's scoring, and now instead of that attack that they are prepared for, he's first looking to exploit them whenever they focus too much on him. The results are devastating, as we all know.

[Doctor MJ]

Never heard that Wilt was less than willing (unlike, say, MJ when Phil Jackson tried to put in the triangle).

If anything Wilt was too insecure and tended to do what others told him to do rather than just play by instinct . . . like his shooting fadeaways rather than dunks/power moves for fear of being seen as just a physical freak.

Huh? What about when he went to the Lakers? His unwillingness to follow a coach who had already shown indications to be the best offensive mind in the game has caused that coach to be seen as a laughingstock by most.

[Brooklyn_34]

Spoiler:

A summary of my arguments against the perception of Wilt's "failures"

1961: Arizin is even older, a rookie Al Attles doesn't help TOO much... But Wilt still gets them to the Playoffs, puts up a 37/23, but his supporting cast flops BADLY. Arizin, Gola and Rodgers combined to shoot 31% from the field. Warriors get swept by the Royals. Can't blame Wilt here, his team stunk it up.

1962: absolutely carried a worsening cast. Rodgers was completely awful as an offensive player now, shot 35.6% from the field. All his help is Arizin and Gola. Still no real shooting on the team. Wilt is great on both ends of the court, somehow makes them the second best team in the league, and comes one Sam Jones jumper away from upsetting the greatest dynasty in sports. AGREED Russ did a good job on him in the EDF, but really, if that jumper had missed, Wilt would be hailed as the 33/25 hero who single-handedly defeated the ultimate dynasty.

One jumper miss. One jumper miss and he goes down as a God. Is there some kind of strange thing going on that people seem to hate on him otherwise?

1963: His team dropped off a good bit, but seriously... We're talking a team with no shooting, no defense, had Arizin retire, Gola miss 60 games, and Wilt still has the team make league average offense AND defense? With that kind of supporting cast, blame the guy who goes 45/25, leads the league in FG% and anchors the defense? Where is the logic here?

1965: He drops off a bit due to the heart disease. Bad team results in the beginning of the year. If you want to hold that against him, fine. He gets traded to Philly because the SFW management is full of asses. Philly immediately improves, they go 11-3 in the first 14 games with Wilt. Then Greer, Costello and Jackson all get injured in the second half of the season. Wilt still drags them to .500 and then outplays Russ in the EDF, losing because HAVLICEK STOLE THE BALL. This is the second time that one play has decided whether or not Wilt beats Russell.

Again, one play. One 50-50 play. 25% chance he ends up with 2 titles already.

1966: he first of 3 straight MVPs. 30/30 in the Playoffs, and only loses to Boston because his two best team-mates, Greer and Walker, screw up badly, shooting 36% from the floor combined. Shades of what happened with Gola and Arizin in '61. Keep this in mind when talking about his supporting cast this year. How is it logical to blame the one guy who showed up when the rest of the team flops so badly?

1968: In the Playoffs, he dragged an injury ridden team past the Knicks, leading both teams in every major statistical category. He lost a game 7 to Boston by 4 points, in a game where Hannum had his only real failing as a coach. He simply couldn't devise a game-plan to get the ball to Wilt with Embry and Russell swarming him. The series was still so close despite the litany of injuries the Sixers had. Billy C was out of the series, Wilt had a bad calf problem, practically the whole starting 5 was hobbled.

That is providing some context for the "failures" in his prime that some of the filthy comments out here are referring to. In reality he was literally a handful of bad breaks away from exiting the 60s with five titles.

Great post...tbh, I don't know what some posters have against Wilt.

West was great and so was Oscar....

But Wilt was Wilt.