Did Wilt and his teams really underperform in the playoffs every single year?

[coastalmarker99]

There are a lot of myths about Wilt, both good and bad.

One persistent myth is: "Wilt and his teams played great in the regular season but then choked and underperformed in the playoffs."

This thread will examine this myth.


This thread:
Takes Wilt's teams' regular season SRS.
Compares this SRS to the regular season SRS of each PO opponent.
Uses SRS difference between teams and Pythagorean theory to calculate Wilt's teams' EXPECTED WINS in each playoff series.
Compares EXPECTED WINS vs. ACTUAL WINS.


For example, Wilt's first PO series was in 1960 vs Syracuse). Warriors & Syracuse were evenly matched in SRS (2.77 each).

With an SRS difference of 0.00, the Warriors were expected to win 1.5 games in a 3-game series. In fact, the Warriors won 3-0.

Thus, 1.5 wins ABOVE expected wins.



In 160 PO games, Wilt's teams won 6.7 MORE games than expected.

Overall, Wilt's teams did NOT underperform!

In Wilt's 29 PO series:
12x Wilt's teams were >0.5 wins BETTER than expected.
11x at expected wins (between -0.5 and +0.5).
6x had FEWER (< -0.5) wins than expected


Therefore in 23 of 29 series, Wilt's teams won more or as many games as expected based on RS SRS.

That's 79%!

Only 21% of the time did Wilt's teams "underperform."

(Note: This is a team stat. There were series that Wilt's teams/TEAMMATES underperformed while Wilt played well.)



Wilt's teams had fewer than expected wins in 6 series:

1961 vs. Syracuse: 3-game series:
Expected wins: 1.4; actually won 0 (-1.4)

1964 vs. Celtics: 5 gms
Exp: 2.1; won 1 (-1.1)

1966 vs. Celtics: 5 gms
Exp. 2.5; won 1 (-1.5)

1968 vs. Celtics: 7 gms
Exp 4.4, won 3 (-1.4)




1973 vs. Bulls: 7 games
Exp. 4.5 wins; actually won 4.
(At -0.5 wins below expectation, this is a close call. You could say that the Lakers matched expectation. But they probably should have won in 6.)

1973 vs. Knicks: 5 gms
Exp. 2.8; won 1 (-1.8)


Rest of Wilt's PO series vs. Russell's Celtics:

1960: 6 gms
Exp: 2.1; won 3 (-0.1: as expected)

1962: 7 gms
Exp: 2.3; won 3 (+0.7: OVERPERFORMED)

1965: 7 gms
Exp: 1.9; won 3 (+1.1: OVER)

1967: 5 gms
Exp: 2.7; won 4 (+2.3: OVER)

1969: 7 gms
Exp: 3.2; won 3 (-0.2: as expected)



In 8 series vs Russell's Celtics:

Wilt's teams:
3x overperformed
2x won as many games as expected
3x underperformed

In 49 PO games vs. Celtics, Wilt's teams won -1.3 games fewer than expected.



Part of the myth is that "Wilt was on a superteam with Baylor and West on the Lakers. So Wilt should have won the championship all 5 years."

First, Baylor played in only 2 POs with Wilt. For the other 3 PO, he was injured.
West also was injured 1 PO.
And Wilt injured in 1 RS.


Second, if we actually look at expected wins, we find that Lakers consistently overperformed or performed as expected for 4 straight PO runs.

In 11 PO series, 1969-72:
7x overperformed by +0.5 or more wins
4x performed as expected (between -0.5 and +0.5)
ZERO TIMES underperformed


Only in 1973 did Wilt's Lakers ever underperform in a PO series:

Vs. Bulls: 7 games
Exp. 4.5 wins; won 4 (-0.5, on the borderline between underperformed and performed as expected).

Vs. Warriors: 5 gms
Exp: 2.6; won 4 (+1.4: over)

Vs. Knicks: 5 gms
Exp: 2.8; won 1 (-1.8)


Overall, Wilt's teams did NOT underperform in POs.

In 160 PO games, Wilt's teams won 6.7 MORE games than expected.

29 PO series:
12x Wilt's teams were >0.5 wins MORE than expected.
11x at expected wins (between -0.5 and +0.5).
6x (21%) had FEWER (< -0.5) wins than expected

[coastalmarker99]

The 62, '65, 69 and '70 playoffs are even more impressive for Wilt and his teams considering:


'62: Tom Gola is injured vs Celtics

'65: Larry Costello, arguably their 2nd best player that year, injured during the playoffs.

69 Baylor was basically worthless in the playoffs along with Vbk.


'70: Happy Hairston is injured the entire playoffs and struggles heavily and Wilt miraculously came back from a ruptured knee but wasn't quite the same player any more.


With Larry Costello basically out of the series in 1965 the talent, disparity between the two teams was overwhelming and it's crazy to think Wilt even got them that far in the first place.

Fully healthy I think they almost certainly win that series and take home the ring that year against a Baylor less Lakers team.

[70sFan]

I think that the only years Wilt underperform in his prime were 1961 (three games sample with his teammates missing everything) and 1966 (he wasn't agressive enough in first 4 games, again his teammates missed everything). Other than that, Wilt was quite consistent playoff performer in his prime.

I'd also add 1969 of course, but this season had a lot of off the court circumstances that shouldn't have happened.

[coastalmarker99]

I think that the only years Wilt underperform in his prime were 1961 (three games sample with his teammates missing everything) and 1966 (he wasn't agressive enough in first 4 games, again his teammates missed everything). Other than that, Wilt was quite consistent playoff performer in his prime.

I'd also add 1969 of course, but this season had a lot of off the court circumstances that shouldn't have happened.

I won't blame him for 1966 that was an utter nightmare for every 76ers player outside of Wilt who to his credit showed up and at least showed some fight against the Celtics who were doubling him and also fronting him throughout the series.





1969 was weird in general he was playing like his 1972 self in the playoffs and being very unselfish offensively in favour of a declining Baylor and a brilliant West. But I just don't think the timing and team fit was right that year in 1969 for Wilt to play the same way as he did in 1972 under Sharman.

[penbeast0]

Wilt is actually a great playoff performer; he didn't score as much but he pushed up his rebounding and defensive intensity and that's the way most modern analysts wanted him to play anyway. His trouble was that Bill Russell was ALSO a great playoff performer and the Celtics were always just a little better except in 67. If you take Wilt's series against the Celtics out of his legacy, he wins over 80% of his playoff series, just above Michael Jordan and well above the likes of LeBron or Kareem.

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt is actually a great playoff performer; he didn't score as much but he pushed up his rebounding and defensive intensity and that's the way most modern analysts wanted him to play anyway. His trouble was that Bill Russell was ALSO a great playoff performer and the Celtics were always just a little better except in 67. If you take Wilt's series against the Celtics out of his legacy, he wins over 80% of his playoff series, just above Michael Jordan and well above the likes of LeBron or Kareem.

I wish Russell came into the Nba around 10 or 15 years later as Kareem did or did another sport such as high jump.


Because Wilt would be seriously the undisputed goat if he was left alone in the 1960's as Kareem was in the 1970s and Jordan was in the 1990's.






He seriously would have if Russell never played in the Nba or came around 15 years later


5 or 6 MVPs

8 or 9 rings

13 rebounding titles

10 scoring titles

all of the rebounding records to only himself.


A career scoring average of 35 points both in the regular season and playoffs as he would have never changed his playstyle after 1966 if he was winning rings earlier before 1967 as a scoring machine.

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt is actually a great playoff performer; he didn't score as much but he pushed up his rebounding and defensive intensity and that's the way most modern analysts wanted him to play anyway. His trouble was that Bill Russell was ALSO a great playoff performer and the Celtics were always just a little better except in 67. If you take Wilt's series against the Celtics out of his legacy, he wins over 80% of his playoff series, just above Michael Jordan and well above the likes of LeBron or Kareem.

Wilt's teams lost to Boston in the playoffs in...1960, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, and 1969. His team won the championship in 1967. So 7 years between 1960 and 1969 Russell's team knocked out Chamberlain's team. Without Russell, Chamberlain could have won 7 more, bringing his total to 9 rings for his entire career

Without Russell, Chamberlain is a Babe Ruthian figure in basketball history. He would have retired as the leader in points, points per game, rebounds, and rebounds per game (eta - by huge margins). He would have been considered the best defensive player of all time. He most likely would have between 8 and 9 rings. The game would have been divided into pre-Wilt and post-Wilt eras.

[penbeast0]

I don't think he would have been considered the best defensive player (or been) of all time; though arguably the best rim protector. He's more a Shaq+ type defender (great intimidation, massive blocks), but didn't have the global impact that Russell did (or to a lesser extent, Hakeem/KG/or the other great horizontal as well as vertical defenders).

Without great competition, he would be dismissed like a Mikan type figure, and Thurmond/Bellamy/Beaty isn't going to resonate the same way. We already see a lot of posters that dismiss 60s players in general. When you say Ruthian figure, you would be accurate. I would argue he already is seen that way. But if you go to baseball analysts for the GOAT, a lot of them don't say Ruth or qualify it saying "compared to his era, but . . . "

[Jaivl]

We know that's not the case - he overperformed in some, underperformed in others, as with most superstars. And especially with a player that is primarily defensive, going with raw numbers won't tell the whole story (and honestly not even half).

[feyki]

The point difference between Wilt and Russell in the season was 31 and in the ECF, it was only 11, at the year of 1962. I wouldn't call it underperform, but it does make sense to me.

[Johnlac1]

I've written these things a number of times, but here I go again.
Wilt's team's lost two conf. finals on a last second plays in '62 and '65.
He lost to the Celtics his rookie year in six games, but he severely hurt his right shooting hand in the second game when he was goaded into swinging at Tom Heinsohn and either hit Heinsohn's or another teammates head. He could barely shoot for the next two games both of which the Warriors lost. With his right hand improved by game five and his team down 3-1, Wilt scored 50 pts and the Warriors won. They lost game six on a last second shot by Heinsohn. With a healthy hand the whole series, it's possible the Warriors might have upset the Celtics, although the Celtics were definitely a better team. It didn't help that Paul Arizin, a league superstar and the second best player on the Warriors had a very poor sixth game.
Arizin's poor performance in game seven of the '62 playoffs also severely hurt the Warriors.
In '65 the Celtics beat the Sixers in seven games thanks to Havlicek stealing the ball when the Sixers tried an in bound pass under the Boston basket with about five seconds to go. The Celtics won the game by one point.
In '66 after beating the Celtics during the regular season, Wilt's teammates choked against the Celtics and the Sixers were whipped in five games. In the fifth and elimination game, Wilt scored 46 pts and had 29 rebounds. But his key teammates (Greer, Walker, Jones) played awful for the series.
In '68 the Sixers lost to the Celtics in seven games of the conf. finals after being ahead 3-1. The Sixers were besieged with serious injuries including Chamberlain. The worst injury was to Billy Cunningham who broke his wrist against the Knicks in the first round and didn't play against the Celtics. Chamberlain played the seventh game with a torn calf muscle, a pulled thigh muscle, and a bad toe sprain all on the right leg. It's a wonder he could even walk. The Sixers lost the final game by four points.
In '69 the Lakers lost in seven games including by two pts. in the final game. Many people talk about the last game where Wilt got hurt in the fourth quarter, sat out a few minutes to get his leg worked on, and then his coach, Butch Van Breda Kolff, refused to put him back into the game. Jerry West was infuriated later that Van Breda Kolff didn't put Wilt back into the game.
But the Lakers were simply unlucky. In the fourth game with the Celtics down one point and a few seconds to go, Sam Jones took an inbounds pass at the top of the key and basically caught and shot the ball in the same motion. Most players would have been lucky to hit the rim. But this is Sam Jones, and the ball rattled into the basket giving Boston a one point win at the buzzer.
If Jones missed that shot, the Lakers win the title in five games after crushing the Celtics in game five.
In '70 the Lakers again lost in seven games. Many people remember West's famous half court shot in game three that tied the game at the end of regulation. What they don't remember is Dave DeBusschere hitting a tough shot in between the foul line and the top of the key to give the Knicks a two point lead right before West's shot. If DeBusschere missed the shot or got fouled and only made one of two fts, the Lakers win the title in six games after Wilt's 45 pts 27 rbds in game six.
In '71 West was injured and missed the playoffs crushing any hopes of the Lakers beating the Bucks in the conf. finals. The almost 35 year old Wilt averaged 22 ppg and 19 rbds against KAJ who averaged 25 ppg after averaging almost 32 ppg for the regular season.
In the '73 finals against the Knicks, after winning the first game, the Lakers lost the next four by close margins. West got injured again and Happy Hairston only played about 20 minutes for the whole series. The Knicks and Lakers were about even, but the Knicks got lucky against the Celtics in the playoffs when Havlicek injured his right shoulder killing Boston's chances.
Wilt's teams simply didn't have any luck in the playoffs concerning injuries and last second plays. If he had just the average fortune of most players, he could have ended up with four to six more titles.

[Mazter]

Basically in the play offs you need 4 good/great performances that leads to 4 wins. Anything other is just not good enough. For example, some one can average 30 points at 60TS% and lose the series 3-4, one would say the team didn't lose because of him. But if he averaged 50 points at 75TS% in the 3 wins and 15 points at 40TS% in the 4 losses, his performances in the 4 losses tell more than whatever he did in those 3 wins or his general stats in the series.

The same goes when you average 33ppg in a series while averaging 37 the series before and 50 during the season.

[feyki]

Lol at execusing Arizin in the game 7, Wilt had 22 points in that game; 50 to 22 .