What if Wilt had never changed his playstyle after 1966

[coastalmarker99]

In this what-if Wilt after 1966 never changes his playstyle to become an all-round player and instead chooses to keep focusing on scoring. as Wilt, after his career had ended said many times if he had known future generations would be so fixated on scoring and stats he would have never changed his game the way he did and would have put the scoring record way out of sight.

In this what-if how do you think Wilt's legacy would change does he still win the 2 rings he won in real life or does a Wilt that refuses to change his playstyle sabotage those two teams he won two rings on in 1967 and 1972.

For Wilt individually he would most likely have won 11 scoring titles instead of 7 he did in real life as he would of lead the Nba in scoring from 1967 to 1970 in this what-if through he would have not won the assist title in 1968.


Instead of being 7 on the all-time scoring list nowadays it is very likely that Wilt would be the all-time scoring leader with over 40000 points along with having the highest PPG average for his career instead of Jordan.

Wilt could also have won one more Mvp and rebounding title in 1970 if he had not gotten injured 9 games into that season as up to that point Wilt was leading the Nba in rebounding field goal percentage and scoring and the Lakers were 6 and 3 before he got hurt.

He would also have a way higher playoff scoring average then 22.5 for his career as from 1960 to 1966 Wilt would average 33.5 points in the playoffs before he changed his playstyle after 1966.

[Jiminy Glick]

Good question, but he was a capable passer even before 1966 but your right scoring a lot was just his style. I think he could've easily kept scoring a lot more.

[Jaivl]

Biggest loser ever

[Dutchball97]

I don't see him winning a ring without changing his playstyle to a more team oriented one.

[coastalmarker99]

I don't see him winning a ring without changing his playstyle to a more team oriented one.

I do and here's why I will argue that that Wilt allowing himself to become a role player on offence from 1969 to 1973 hurt him and the Lakers and I love Wilt, but I think his reluctance to shoot really hurt the Lakers in the 1973 Finals. He averaged 8.4 FGA & 11.6 pts and watched McMillian shoot (not well at 39%) 21 times per game.

If Wilt takes a couple of more shots and averages 15 to 18 points a game in the finals the Lakers likely win the title in 1973 with Wilt getting the finals MVP. He showed that in game 5 of that series that he could still bring it on offence why did Wilt not display this from games 1 to 4 in the 1973 finals is a mystery to me.

Also in 1969 Wilt should have taken more shots in the 1969 finals instead of Baylor who was puking all over the floor in the finals shooting 40 per cent and playing horrible defence. If he had shot more and is more selfish instead of being passive like LeBron was in the 2011 finals the Lakers win the title in 5 games despite Bvk being a horrible coach in the finals that year.


We see in 1970 through the first nine games of that season before Wilt's knee injury that Wilt was still a monster offensively leading the league in scoring and efficiency and he was going to have a serious case to be the MVP that year if he never got hurt. It is clear to me that Wilt should have made himself the lakers first option sooner with West being made into his second fiddle on offence as the Lakers and Wilt would have been far better for it.

Therefore if Wilt was more selfish scoring-wise with the Lakers instead of copying Russell and being even more passive then him on offence, instead of playing the, I don't shoot. But still, when I do, I shoot 70% from the field and taking 0 to 6 shots in crucial games that the Lakers lost and instead imposed his will offensively instead of being a role player on offence from 1968 to 1973.

There is a higher chance the Lakers win the title in 1969 and 1970 and 1973 which. Gives Wilt 5 rings and three finals MVPs in 1970 1972 and 1973 plus a finals record of 5 and 2.And a career scoring average of 34 to 37 points a game and 36,000 to 40,000 points for his career along with 10 to 11 scoring titles.

[coastalmarker99]

Biggest loser ever

Disagree completely Wilt still gets two rings as those 76er's teams were too good as only injuries stopped them from repeating before Wilt left them to go to La and remember if Wilt still has that mindset they most likely win that very close game 7 in 1968 against the Celtics and against La that year in the finals who knows who wins.


And I think even if Wilt loses still in 1969 that Wilt still having that mindset helps the Lakers a ton in the years to follow against New York in the finals I can see a more aggressive Wilt helping the Lakers repeat in 1973 as all the games were close even though Wilt was scoring 5 to 9 points a game before he finally become aggressive in game 5 scoring 23 points in his last game ever on 60 percent shooting.

[70sFan]

I don't see him winning a ring without changing his playstyle to a more team oriented one.

I think that Wilt played well enough in 1964 to win with a proper team, but unfortunately he had absolutely terrible supporting cast.

Don't get me wrong, I view 1967 Wilt as GOAT level player and he wouldn't reach that without changing style, but I think a lot of Wilt's lack of success in 1964-66 period was situational.

It'd be interesting to see 1970 without Wilt's injury, he came back to high volume scoring in that season. Slthough 1970 Knicks were very strong, the finals series was very close anyway and healthy Wilt would be a huge upgrade over the version that played in real life.

[nolang1]

Would've been worse than how his original career played out because his best scoring years were made unattainable with wider lanes.

[D.Brasco]

Biggest loser ever

Disagree completely Wilt still gets two rings as those 76er's teams were too good as only injuries stopped them from repeating before Wilt left them to go to La and remember if Wilt still has that mindset they most likely win that very close game 7 in 1968 against the Celtics and against La that year in the finals who knows who wins.


And I think even if Wilt loses still in 1969 that Wilt still having that mindset helps the Lakers a ton in the years to follow against New York in the finals I can see a more aggressive Wilt helping the Lakers repeat in 1973 as all the games were close even though Wilt was scoring 5 to 9 points a game before he finally become aggressive in game 5 scoring 23 points in his last game ever on 60 percent shooting.

Wilt's 2 rings were also on some of what are considered the best teams in NBA history the '67 76ers and the '72 Lakers who won 33 games in a row.

There's no player who wouldn't be seen as a "loser" if the standard is to directly compare them Bill Russell and his 11 rings.

[Johnlac1]

Biggest loser ever

Yes, two championships makes him a loser. Great logic. (smh)

[Johnlac1]

I don't see him winning a ring without changing his playstyle to a more team oriented one.

Before he won his first title he lost two conf. titles to Boston on last second plays. His Warriors team might have won his rookie year if hadn't hurt his hand in the playoff series with Boston after being goaded into a fight. After hurting his shooting hand punching Tom Heinsohn he could barely shoot for two games. Philly down 3 games to 1 he scored 50 pts. and Philly won game five making it 3-2. They lost game six on a last second shot. If he didn't hurt his hand, there very likely might have been game seven and a decent shot at going to the finals.
It's just a fluke that he didn't win four or five more titles.

[Johnlac1]

Biggest loser ever

Disagree completely Wilt still gets two rings as those 76er's teams were too good as only injuries stopped them from repeating before Wilt left them to go to La and remember if Wilt still has that mindset they most likely win that very close game 7 in 1968 against the Celtics and against La that year in the finals who knows who wins.


And I think even if Wilt loses still in 1969 that Wilt still having that mindset helps the Lakers a ton in the years to follow against New York in the finals I can see a more aggressive Wilt helping the Lakers repeat in 1973 as all the games were close even though Wilt was scoring 5 to 9 points a game before he finally become aggressive in game 5 scoring 23 points in his last game ever on 60 percent shooting.

Wilt's 2 rings were also on some of what are considered the best teams in NBA history the '67 76ers and the '72 Lakers who won 33 games in a row.

There's no player who wouldn't be seen as a "loser" if the standard is to directly compare them Bill Russell and his 11 rings.

Agree with your comments. And if Wilt is a loser because he won "only" two titles, what does that say for Baylor and West who only won one title between them despite going to eight finals. Baylor never did win a title retiring the same year,'72, West won his only title. And that's with Chamberlain.
Baylor was 0-8 in title attempts despite being considered the greatest sf of the sixties. West, with Robertson, is certainly in the top two best guards of the sixties.
The problem was not only was Boston the best team of the decade, like Chamberlain, the Lakers didn't have a lot of luck in the finals.
But neither Baylor or West are called losers despite only winning one title between them and considered the best 1-2 punch in the league during the sixties.

[Dutchball97]

I don't see him winning a ring without changing his playstyle to a more team oriented one.

Before he won his first title he lost two conf. titles to Boston on last second plays. His Warriors team might have won his rookie year if hadn't hurt his hand in the playoff series with Boston after being goaded into a fight. After hurting his shooting hand punching Tom Heinsohn he could barely shoot for two games. Philly down 3 games to 1 he scored 50 pts. and Philly won game five making it 3-2. They lost game six on a last second shot. If he didn't hurt his hand, there very likely might have been game seven and a decent shot at going to the finals.
It's just a fluke that he didn't win four or five more titles.

A fluke that he won 2 titles instead of 6/7? Yeah that's a reach if I've ever seen one.

[2klegend]

As much as I heavily judge player dominance base on statistics, I must say it is very important on how they do so to earn those stat otherwise rating them become very cloudy. For instance, if I never watch Hakeem, Bird, Magic, Kobe, and simply look at stat alone, I see the like of Westbrook/Harden as superior to those players. Wilt is in that category and very difficult to judge. He is a stat-padder, and it is a fact. That's why he doesn't win as that many compare to his peer All-Timers.

[70sFan]

Would've been worse than how his original career played out because his best scoring years were made unattainable with wider lanes.

Wilt didn't struggle to score with wider lanes.

[nolang1]

Would've been worse than how his original career played out because his best scoring years were made unattainable with wider lanes.

Wilt didn't struggle to score with wider lanes.

He certainly did relative to 50 points per game. Not that hard to understand.

[70sFan]

Would've been worse than how his original career played out because his best scoring years were made unattainable with wider lanes.

Wilt didn't struggle to score with wider lanes.

He certainly did relative to 50 points per game. Not that hard to understand.

He still scored over 30 ppg in 1965 and 1966.

[nolang1]

Wilt didn't struggle to score with wider lanes.

He certainly did relative to 50 points per game. Not that hard to understand.

He still scored over 30 ppg in 1965 and 1966.

The difference between 30 and 50 is big. When did I say he struggled to score? I said his best scoring was done with narrower lanes, so obviously continuing to try to score 50 a game rather than passing more wouldn't have gone as well.

[70sFan]

He certainly did relative to 50 points per game. Not that hard to understand.

He still scored over 30 ppg in 1965 and 1966.

The difference between 30 and 50 is big. When did I say he struggled to score? I said his best scoring was done with narrower lanes, so obviously continuing to try to score 50 a game rather than passing more wouldn't have gone as well.

Do you think that Wilt scored 50 ppg because of narrower lane? If so, then you are wrong.

Wilt averaged 36.9 ppg in the last season with narrower lane, then he averaged 34.7 ppg (38.9 ppg before the trade) in the first season with wider lane. Then he averaged 33.5 ppg in 1966.

Wilt scored less points because he changed his style and played with more talented teams. Not because of wider lane.

[nolang1]

He still scored over 30 ppg in 1965 and 1966.

The difference between 30 and 50 is big. When did I say he struggled to score? I said his best scoring was done with narrower lanes, so obviously continuing to try to score 50 a game rather than passing more wouldn't have gone as well.

Do you think that Wilt scored 50 ppg because of narrower lane? If so, then you are wrong.

Wilt averaged 36.9 ppg in the last season with narrower lane, then he averaged 34.7 ppg (38.9 ppg before the trade) in the first season with wider lane. Then he averaged 33.5 ppg in 1966.

Wilt scored less points because he changed his style and played with more talented teams. Not because of wider lane.

If that were the case, his efficiency would've increased rather than decreased given such a significant reduction in volume (.495 TS% before the trade versus .550 and .537 the two seasons prior). Anyhow it's pretty safe to say that his most successful year from a team standpoint came after he changed his playstyle, so obviously trying to keep being a volume scorer wouldn't have gone as well when his age, the widened lanes, and more talent in the league would've all been working against him.