The myth of Wilt Chamberlain's unstoppable offense

[mitter]

First off, man, giving you props for actually responding instead of being one of those other fools that couldn't. Rep for that.

But you're still not giving account for how poor that era was. Here, for example, are some video highlights from the Celtics in the FINALS. The defensive effort on both sides is literally shyt - everyone off the ball is just standing around or walking most of the time, there's hardly any help defense and guys are rarely leaving their feet to contest a shot. Not to mention ballhanding/shooting is ugly as hell and it's the FINALS.

I am not going to get into a deep discussion about the quality of the era or how much the players then weighed. That is a whole different discussion. I am going to talk about what Wilt did in his era. Each player is a product of his era, and is exposed to the style of play and nutrition and training regimens of the time. Guys who were 210-220 lbs back then would be 240-250 if they came up in a different era, for example. Also, a note on players' heights: most players today have listed heights that are exaggerated. For instance, Dwight Howard is listed as 6'11" when he is really 6'9"-ish. So Wilt (a legitimate 7'1") would be a giant in today's game as well.

Down below you credited Kareem with an advantage over Wilt due to the fact that Kareem was only 23, but here being only 23 is a disadvantage. You can't have it both ways.

There is a lot of growth from a rookie year to the second year. Kareem went through his own growing pains as a rookie when the Bucks lost to the Knicks.

What championship team today has a 6'9" center with no backup big man at all and no forwards over 6'7" on the roster?

Just because teams have some big stiffs on the bench, that doesn't mean small ball isn't being played left and right.

We say that most teams don't have multiple big men on the floor because guys like Kevin Durant's 6'11", 240lb skinny ass aren't considered "big men" today, when back then he would have been the 3rd biggest player in the entire NBA, both height and weight. Hell, no one on the Celtics entire roster was over 220lb. Look at that video above - even forwards like Durant, Green, Lebron would have been absolutely WRECKING things on defense in that era, not to mention the actual big men.

See me previous comments about era differences. But again, I'm not here to argue about that in this thread.

This is just ridiculous. He lost in a three-game sweep to a team that went 38-41 that year.

Syracuse had two centers - a 7'3" alcoholic named "Swede" who averaged 5ppg on 33.1% shooting that season, and a 6'9" White guy named "Red" who averaged 13ppg on 39.7% shooting that season. Everyone else was under 6'8".

Wilt was guarded by two stiffs who couldn't find the bottom of the hoop even in an era where everyone was 6'5" and unathletic, and he LOST IN A THREE-GAME SWEEP.

Yes and 30 years from now, people will look back and talk about how Shaq was being guarded by "stiffs" like Greg Ostertag and Bill Wennington. Somehow, big white stiffs have proven to be functional players regardless of era.

Chamberlain only had 22 points in Game 7, in a season when he was at his offensive peak.

The leading scorer in that game was Tom Meschery, a 6'6" rookie power forward who scored 32.

That 6'6" rookie scored 32 points doing that while Wilt only had 22? In a Game 7?

The numbers aren't everything. Go back and read the accounts of that game. Tom Heinsohn in particular noted that Wilt played a tremendous all-around game and did a lot to get his teammates going and control the defensive end. And he scored the clutch points near the end of the game.

You skipped the year that Wilt missed the playoffs completely.

His team moved to a new city, lost their coach, lost several key players. shyt happens.

Yes, in 1964 the Celtics had the better team, but you're still not explaining how the better team was 80% White guys under 6'6" and 220lbs. Or explaining that video up top.





That doesn't change the fact that he only went 6-13 from the line in the game and that their coach straight up said that he couldn't go to Wilt on the final play because he thought they would just foul Wilt because they knew he'd miss the free throws.

Yes, everyone knows Wilt is a horrible free throw shooter. Anyway, regardless of that, he wasn't the guy to go to in a catch and shoot situation. A center who operates in the post like Wilt did is not going to be the best option in that specific situation. that doesn't take away from him. It would be like faulting MJ for not being the best option on his team if what they needed was a catch and shoot three-pointer.

If he scored 46 in the Game 5 loss, then why did he only have 25, 23, and 15 in the three losses before that?

The knock against Wilt when playing Russell was that he would dominate the scoring and his team would lose due to a lack of balance. The 76ers took both approaches with Wilt in this series (1. share the ball, 2. carry the offensive load) and neither worked.

As far as the team's disfunctionality, you sleep in the bed you make. Did Wilt not publicly criticize his teammates? Did he not refuse to even live in the city he played in? Did he not refuse to wake up for morning practices and force the coach to schedule practice around him? Did he not skip practice completely during the entire conference finals run?

All superstars are difficult to deal with. Dolph Schayes was an incompetent coach. That is well documented.

And it's not like he was playing with a bunch of scrubs. That team had three HOFers besides Wilt - Hal Greer at his peak, Chet Walker at his peak, and Billy Cunningham as a star rookie, plus Wali Jones too.

The 76ers as a team failed to rise to the occasion. Wilt played well though.

If he was an unstoppable scorer, then why did his role change?

Because, for decades, the consensus among basketball experts was that you win by sharing the ball and having a balanced attack, not by one guy carrying the load. Wilt's early career struggles vs. the Celtics was seen as proof of this. In fact, this consensus prevailed until MJ finally won championships in the 90s. Go back and look at how the experts were sure MJ would never win a title by taking such a high percentage of his team's shots. Virtually all teams that won championships prior to the Bulls had balanced attacks. When Julius Erving joined the 76ers from the ABA, the management explicitly asked him to reduce his scoring and become part of a balanced attack that they felt would maximize their chances of winning.

Why did his role just "happen" to change at the same time the lane widened from 12 feet to 16 feet?

No. It coincided with Alex Hannum becoming the 76ers' new coach and convincing Wilt to give up the scoring title.

Why shouldn't Wilt shoot 30-40 times a game if he was unstoppable?

Because his coach felt that was not the best way for him to play if the team wanted to win.

He only scored 16, 10, 10, and 24 points on 56% shooting in the four wins against a team that only had one guy who played over 6'8". Why????

He didn't shoot the ball much. He set lots of screens and racked up a lot of assists.

Do NOT try to play the civil rights card on that one. The assassination happened before the series started, and the Sixers still jumped out to 3-1 series lead before losing the last three games. All three of their wins, BEFORE they blew the 3-1 lead, came AFTER King's funeral. On top of that, Wilt Chamberlain was a card-carrying Republican who showed up to MLK's funeral with Richard Nixon.

And it's true that the Boston Celtics had a very White team, but their top players were still Bill Russell and Sam Jones, and you're begging the question of how a short skinny White team dominated the entire 1960s. MLK only died one year, Wilt's teams lost to them every year.

Go back and read Chet Walker's autobiography and see how he feels about it. Walker was 9-20 from the free throw line (or something like that) in Game 1, which the 76ers lost.

Chamberlain was a card-carrying Republican in an era where more Republicans were in favor of civil rights than Democrats. Nixon was in favor of civil rights.

Wilt was 4-9 from the field and 6-15 from the line in a Game 7. He got the ball 9 times in the post in the 2nd half of Game 7 and took zero shots. There are no excuses for that.

Are you sure it was 9 times? I think it was less, but I have to check.

Anyway, his main role on offense was to be a facilitator. He led the league in assists that year. And he hadn't been very effective offensively in the series anyway (he was hurt pretty bad).

You're completely ignoring that Chamberlain, supposedly unstoppable on offense, only averaged 11ppg for the series and had THREE games where he scored in single digits.

And I'm not saying he faked anything, but Bill Russell said he did, and Russell was friends with Wilt until then. Where did Russell's comment come from?

His role at that point in his career was not to be an unstoppable offensive force. Chamberlain sacrificed to get Jerry West and Elgin Baylor their shots. Note that West's field goal attempts went up drastically in the finals.

Russell's pride/arrogance led him to make those comments. He and Chamberlain didn't speak for decades afterwards due to his unfair criticism. Russell apologized later. Basically everyone else involved in the game has vouched for the fact that Wilt was not faking anything.

You say that Wilt "somehow" got the Lakers past the Bulls when HOFer Gail Goodrich averaged 30ppg for the Lakers in the series, Jim McMillan added another 18ppg, and Erickson and Hairston were solid players too. The Lakers still had a strong starting five even without West/Baylor.

The Bulls, meanwhile, started a lineup of Bob Love, Chet Walker, Jerry Sloan, Bob Weiss, and Tom Boerwinkle.

Love, Walker and Sloan were very good players.

Kareem averaged 34ppg in the Conference Finals, to Wilt's 11ppg. What the hell "low percentages" was Wilt shooting?

I don't have the stats handy, but Wilt was hardly shooting (again, not his role at this stage of his career), while Kareem was taking A LOT of shots. We have seen plenty of players put up lots of points on low field goal percentages. I know for a fact Wilt held Kareem well below his usual percentage.

And it was Oscar Robertson leaving the game with a stomach injury in the 2nd half that won them the game. The Bucks had actually outscored the Lakers by 20 in the series to that point.


And I am NOT saying that Wilt wasn't a good player. An athletic 7'1" baller like Wilt was a crazy menace, especially against teams that didn't have a live body over 6'8". But the question was whether he was an unstoppable scorer....and in the postseason, against real competition, he was stopped over and over and over again.

 

[David_TheMan]

Nah, man, THIS is the league you're talking about. Here are some highlights from the Finals. The FINALS. They are playing soft as hell in a fukking Finals game, and the regular season was 10 times softer than even this:








Because no one else was 7'1" and athletic?

"I would talk to Wilt about all the players pounding on him. Sometimes, he said he didn't notice it--he was so strong. But I also believe that there were two sets of rules. By that, I mean because Wilt was so strong, the officials let the man guarding him get away with more--almost trying to equalize the game. I also believe that Wilt just took it because he didn't want to get thrown out, and because ithad always been like that with him. But I'd watch it and I'd get mad. It takes me a while to get my temper going, but when it does--look out. I'd see what the other players were doing to Wilt and what the officials were allowing, and I'd get more upset than if it were happening to me. So I jumped in there. It wasn't that Wilt couldn't defend himself. If he ever got really hot, he'd kill people, so he let things pass. But I didn't have to worry about that. I was strong for my size, but I was not about to do anything like the kind of damage would."

--Al Attles, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 242

This is what Wilt went thought, similar to Shaq but worse.

No, not even close to true. He played with Paul Arazin, Tom Gola, Billy Cunningham, and Hal Greer, all Hall of Famers, before even joining the Lakers, plus Chet Walker was just as good as a lot of the supposed HOFers on that Celtics team.

He played the last 3 years of Arazin's career
Tom Gola had retired from a knee injury and then came back after they got Wilt.
So off the bat the first two weren't in their prime.
You are right about Hal and Billy Cunningham and they all did win a title together finally getting by the Celtics.

If they lost, then he wasn't an "unstoppable force". Regular season numbers mean absolutely nothing in that era when teams were rolling with 150 possessions a game and not even trying on defense. In the playoffs, there wasn't a single year, hardly even a single series, where Wilt looked "unstoppable".

This literrally makes no sense. He was in the east stuck behind the celtics who had a top down better team . Knocking him for only winning 1 title during the run of 11 titles for the Celtics dynasty is ridiculous.

Yet Lebron is still scoring more than 11-12ppg. You can't say that someone is an unstoppable offensive force, but that they mysteriously need to limit themselves to only 11-12ppg to have a chance to win (and yet still almost never break through). That's completely nonsensical.

The tail end of his career on a team with 2 other stars he avgs 15ppg 24rebounds and 3 dimes and you say this as if its something to be ashamed of. That makes no sense.




"

Cherry-picking playoffs".

I listed literally every playoff series Wilt ever played, but apparently focusing on the playoffs is just "cherry-picking".

To address my point about him vs Kareem, to only post playoffs instead of all the games they played together regular season included, would be the definition of cherry picking data.

So when did they call fouls? I gave you video of your so-called "physical" league, you give me the video of Wilt being fouled on the regular without any foul calls being made.

And I'm not talking about 2-3 incidents - you can find that easy for Hakeem or Shaq or Lebron or any other powerful player. Show me a game where it's happening regularly without getting called.

You know there wasn't regular video of his games in the era described.

No, you really don't understand.

All I'm saying is that WILT CANNOT DOMINATE WITH WILT-PROOFED RULES.

You're basically saying, "Hell yeah Tiger woud dominate today!", ignoring that the courses are still Tiger-proofed.

How the hell is the shyt that made Wilt less effective in the second half of his career, back when most of his opponents were 6'9" or under, 80% of the league was White, and athleticism was poor at best, not going to still make him less effective today, when

This literally makes no sense and I literally did not say Tiger would dominate today, I said the exact opposite.
You claim that Wilt was less effective the 2nd half of his career, but ignore its the 2nd half because he is older, his athleticism deminished because of injury, and he was on 1 leg. All that still held his own with prime players of his day and Kareem who was going to take over his mantel when he was wanning and Kareem was on the come up.

I'm not talking about what he could do back in his day with a 12-foot key. I'm talking about what he would do NOW, when the key is still out there at 16-feet, still Wilt-proofed.

I know never said differently

And if he was unstoppable with that 12-foot key before 1966, then why didn't he win a single title in that time period.

I don't think you know what "unstoppable" means.

He avg 50+ppg and his team ran into a better team, that is why he didn't win a title.
All I have to say is be careful with this dumb ass logic, because people can easily turn it on LeBron.

 

[Jordan>>LeFrozen]

33 ppg on 50% shooting and 26 rpg as a rookie. Not a bad first playoff run. You mention the second tallest player on the Celtics being 6'7", yet neglect the fact that today's game hardly features multiple big men on the floor at the same time.




37 ppg against a tough Syracuse team.




Chamberlain played well in Game 7, scoring the last 7 points for the Warriors to tie the game before Sam Jones hit the game-winning shot.



The Celtics had a better team. Chamberlain played well in the playoffs (averaging nearly 35 ppg) and he played well in the Finals too.



This lets me know that you did not read about the 1965 Celtics-76ers series. Chamberlain played masterfully as the Sixers (who he had been traded to mid-season) went punch-for-punch with the champions. He scored 8 of the 76ers' last 10 points in Game 7, which they lost by two points when "Havlicek stole the ball".



You neglect to mention that he played well in the conference finals, but the team's disfunctionality did them in. Chamberlain scored 46 points in the game where the 76ers got eliminated. He did everything he could.



You conveniently leave out the fact that Chamberlain's role changed after his first 7 seasons. He was no longer a volume scorer. His role was to get teammates involved on offense, while still carrying a considerable role, and control the game on the boards and on defense.

Let me spell it out for you again so that you don't miss this point: CHAMBERLAIN WAS NO LONGER A BIG TIME SCORER. HE WAS ASKED TO PLAY MORE LIKE BILL RUSSELL AND FOCUS ON DEFENSE, REBOUNDING, AND GETTING TEAMMATES INVOLVED. THAT IS WHAT HE DID.



You say Thurmond "held" Chamberlain to 18 ppg, but ignore the fact that the 76ers' scheme was not for Chamberlain to shoot the ball 30-40 times a game. Chamberlain controlled the other aspects of the game. His defense late in Game 6 clinched the championship.




Chamberlain played with very substantial injuries. He was not very mobile during the last several games. Chamberlain did not shoot the ball in the second half of Game 7, but he barely got the ball in the post. He got it just a few times. It's not like they kept throwing the ball in to him and he "gave up". You conveniently leave out the fact that Martin Luther King was assassinated right before the series started, and this affected the 76ers far more than the Celtics. With Billy Cunningham sidelined with an injury (another major setback), all of the 76ers' main contributors were black, while the Celtics had Havlicek, Howell, Siegfried, etc.



Chamberlain was again not being asked to score much. Still, in Game 7, he had 18 points while Russell had 6. Chamberlain got hurt in Game 7 and, after gathering himself, asked to go back in. But his coach, who he had feuded with all year, refused. This is well documented. He did not fake anything and was not scared of the moment. He had already been in several comparable moments.



Chamberlain had missed most of the season with a very serious injury. His career was believed to possibly be over, but he miraculously made it back in time for the playoffs. He was not the same player he had been before. His mobility was diminished, and he was aging anyway.




Chamberlain somehow got the Lakers past a very good Bulls team without Baylor and West. Of course he got outplayed by Kareem. Kareem is possibly the GOAT and was 24 years old.



You neglect to mention that Chamberlain scored 24 points in the clinching Game 5 while playing with a broken hand. He also had 10 blocks in that game.

Wilt was the most important player on that Lakers team, by far. His defense, rebounding, outlet passing, screens, and leadership were central to everything that that team did. He played very well against Kareem in the conference finals, forcing Kareem to shoot low percentages. They didn't play the Bucks in the first round, btw. It was the conference finals. Wilt's inspired play in the second half of Game 6 won them that game.



In Game 7 against the Bulls, the Lakers were down in the final minutes when Chamberlain blocked a shot and passed the ball to a streaking Goodrich (if I remember correctly) to make the clutch, game-winning play.

By that point, Wilt was barely shooting the ball. That was his role on the team.

Bro get out of my head *pause* because I was thinking all of this reading the op.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

"I would talk to Wilt about all the players pounding on him. Sometimes, he said he didn't notice it--he was so strong. But I also believe that there were two sets of rules. By that, I mean because Wilt was so strong, the officials let the man guarding him get away with more--almost trying to equalize the game. I also believe that Wilt just took it because he didn't want to get thrown out, and because ithad always been like that with him. But I'd watch it and I'd get mad. It takes me a while to get my temper going, but when it does--look out. I'd see what the other players were doing to Wilt and what the officials were allowing, and I'd get more upset than if it were happening to me. So I jumped in there. It wasn't that Wilt couldn't defend himself. If he ever got really hot, he'd kill people, so he let things pass. But I didn't have to worry about that. I was strong for my size, but I was not about to do anything like the kind of damage would."

--Al Attles, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 242

This is what Wilt went thought, similar to Shaq but worse.

Old heads say ALL SORTS of shyt about their own era, especially when they're trying to cape for their own teammate.

The book you're quoting is literally called "The Glory Years of the NBA", as if the glory years were when the NBA was 80% White and 90% under 6'6".

He played the last 3 years of Arazin's career
Tom Gola had retired from a knee injury and then came back after they got Wilt.
So off the bat the first two weren't in their prime.
You are right about Hal and Billy Cunningham and they all did win a title together finally getting by the Celtics.

You distort shyt so consistently.

Tom Gola was in his absolute prime when he played with Wilt. He was 27-30, an All Star all four years, finished 8th in MVP voting during Wilt's rookie year. If that wasn't Gola's prime, when the hell was it?

Paul Arazin was also an All Star all three years he played with Wilt, 31-33, even got an MVP vote during Wilt's second year. He wasn't in his absolute prime anymore, but he was still a star. He averaged 22.5ppg those three years, almost right at his career average of 22.8ppg.

Wilt had 4-time all-star Guy Rodgers for six years too, when he was 24-29 and in his prime.

Wilt had prime HOFer Tom Gola, near-prime HOFer Paul Arzin, and a young Guy Rodgers and STILL got swept by the freaking Syracuse Nationals in the 1st round.

And that was the year before his 50ppg season.

This literrally makes no sense. He was in the east stuck behind the celtics who had a top down better team . Knocking him for only winning 1 title during the run of 11 titles for the Celtics dynasty is ridiculous.

You still haven't explained what the Celtics did to Wilt that modern teams wouldn't be able to.

Their only big man was 6'9", 220lbs, everyone else was under 6'7" and 220lb, they were 80% White, and they played like this:




I am not afraid of the 1960s Celtics.

The tail end of his career on a team with 2 other stars he avgs 15ppg 24rebounds and 3 dimes and you say this as if its something to be ashamed of. That makes no sense.

To address my point about him vs Kareem, to only post playoffs instead of all the games they played together regular season included, would be the definition of cherry picking data.

How long you going to keep quoting regular season stats as if it means anything? Regular season effort in that era was like an all-star game today. Teams were going 150 possessions/game with guys playing 48 minutes who smoked during halftime. How the hell you think they were doing that except by barely giving out effort for most of the game?

Look at the effort during the Finals game I posted, cut that by 90%, and you have the regular season.

You know there wasn't regular video of his games in the era described.

Why is it so much easier for me to come up with video that proves my case than it is for you? I've been showing videos of Arizin, Gola, the 1963 Celtics Finals, that easily proves my point, and it took no effort to find them. Your points, if true, should be even easier to prove (because you're trying to prop up the era, and highlight videos usually prop up their games).

TThis literally makes no sense and I literally did not say Tiger would dominate today, I said the exact opposite.

Why don't you understand then that Wilt wouldn't dominate for the exact same reason? How can you use Tiger as an analogy yourself, and then refuse to accept the analogy?

You claim that Wilt was less effective the 2nd half of his career, but ignore its the 2nd half because he is older, his athleticism deminished because of injury, and he was on 1 leg.

And you ignore that the NBA started getting more talented, less all-White, and they increased the key from 12 feet to 16 feet.

Wilt didn't get hurt until the 1968-69 season. His playoff scoring had dropping to mediocre numbers long before that.

You rely on your imagination - imagining that Wilt could dominate offensively with 16-foot key, imagining that Wilt could dominate against big centers with skill, imagining that Wilt could dominate in the modern era...when none of that ever happened. I'm relying on what did happen. He only dominated in regular season games in an extremely unskilled league full of short White players where he stood next to the basket due to a 12-foot key. Outside of that, he was a great player, an all-time top-10 player, but he was NOT a dominant offensive player.

All I have to say is be careful with this dumb ass logic, because people can easily turn it on LeBron.

I don't care about that, I haven't mentioned Lebron's name once this conversation. The majority doesn't even put Wilt on Lebron's level anymore - just about every GOAT list has Lebron above Wilt already and his career ain't even over yet.

But ask yourself this:

Did Lebron never show he could dominate with modern bball rules?

Did Lebron never win a title as the leading scorer on his team?

Did Lebron never show an ability to dominate in the playoffs the way he had in the regular season?

Did Lebron pile up stats in an All-White league where he was one of only 3-4 players over 6'9"?


If the answer to any of those questions is "no", then this thread has nothing to do with Lebron.

 

[Jordan>>LeFrozen]

Old heads say ALL SORTS of shyt about their own era, especially when they're trying to cape for their own teammate.

The book you're quoting is literally called "The Glory Years of the NBA", as if the glory years were when the NBA was 80% White and 90% under 6'6".






You distort shyt so consistently.

Tom Gola was in his absolute prime when he played with Wilt. He was 27-30, an All Star all four years, finished 8th in MVP voting during Wilt's rookie year. If that wasn't Gola's prime, when the hell was it?

Paul Arazin was also an All Star all three years he played with Wilt, 31-33, even got an MVP vote during Wilt's second year. He wasn't in his absolute prime anymore, but he was still a star. He averaged 22.5ppg those three years, almost right at his career average of 22.8ppg.

Wilt had 4-time all-star Guy Rodgers for six years too, when he was 24-29 and in his prime.

Wilt had prime HOFer Tom Gola, near-prime HOFer Paul Arzin, and a young Guy Rodgers and STILL got swept by the freaking Syracuse Nationals in the 1st round.

And that was the year before his 50ppg season.






You still haven't explained what the Celtics did to Wilt that modern teams wouldn't be able to.

Their only big man was 6'9", 220lbs, everyone else was under 6'7" and 220lb, they were 80% White, and they played like this:




I am not afraid of the 1960s Celtics.







How long you going to keep quoting regular season stats as if it means anything? Regular season effort in that era was like an all-star game today. Teams were going 150 possessions/game with guys playing 48 minutes who smoked during halftime. How the hell you think they were doing that except by barely giving out effort for most of the game?

Look at the effort during the Finals game I posted, cut that by 90%, and you have the regular season.






Why is it so much easier for me to come up with video that proves my case than it is for you? I've been showing videos of Arizin, Gola, the 1963 Celtics Finals, that easily proves my point, and it took no effort to find them. Your points, if true, should be even easier to prove (because you're trying to prop up the era, and highlight videos usually prop up their games).







Why don't you understand then that Wilt wouldn't dominate for the exact same reason? How can you use Tiger as an analogy yourself, and then refuse to accept the analogy?






And you ignore that the NBA started getting more talented, less all-White, and they increased the key from 12 feet to 16 feet.

Wilt didn't get hurt until the 1968-69 season. His playoff scoring had dropping to mediocre numbers long before that.

You rely on your imagination - imagining that Wilt could dominate offensively with 16-foot key, imagining that Wilt could dominate against big centers with skill, imagining that Wilt could dominate in the modern era...when none of that ever happened. I'm relying on what did happen. He only dominated in regular season games in an extremely unskilled league full of short White players where he stood next to the basket due to a 12-foot key. Outside of that, he was a great player, an all-time top-10 player, but he was NOT a dominant offensive player.





I don't care about that, I haven't mentioned Lebron's name once this conversation. The majority doesn't even put Wilt on Lebron's level anymore - just about every GOAT list has Lebron above Wilt already and his career ain't even over yet.

But ask yourself this:

Did Lebron never show he could dominate with modern bball rules?

Did Lebron never win a title as the leading scorer on his team?

Did Lebron never show an ability to dominate in the playoffs the way he had in the regular season?

Did Lebron pile up stats in an All-White league where he was one of only 3-4 players over 6'9"?


If the answer to any of those questions is "no", then this thread has nothing to do with Lebron.

shyt can change fast. See how quick nikkas was ready to put Curry over lebron last season before the cavs won. You'll never know how people will turn on you and your legacy

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Just because teams have some big stiffs on the bench, that doesn't mean small ball isn't being played left and right.

2016: Cavs started 6'9" 240lb TT, 6'10" 250lb Love, and 6'8" 250lb Lebron. 7'1" 275lb Mosgov and 6'11" 255lb Frye played real minutes too.
2015: Warriors started 7'0" 260lb Bogut and 6'8" 210lb Barnes, while Green is 230lbs. 6'11" 255lb Ezeli, 6'10" 255lb Speights, and 6'9" 250lb Lee also got minutes.
2014: Spurs started 6'11" 250lb Duncan and 6'11" 245lb Splitter, while Leonard is 230lbs. 6'8" 250lb Diaw, 6'10" 235lb Bonner, and 6'10" 260lb Baynes all got minutes.
2013: Heat started 6'11" 235lb Bosh, 6'8" 250lb Lebron, and 6'8" 235lb Haslem. 6'10" 245lb Birdman, 6'8" 220lb Battier, and 6'8" 220lb Miller all got minutes.
2012: Heat started 6'8" 250lb Lebron, 6'8" 220lb Battier, and 6'11" 235lb Bosh/6'8" 235lb Haslem. 6'9" 245lb Anthony, 6'8" 220lb Miller, and 6'10" 250lb Turiaf all got minutes
2011: Mavs started 7'1" 240lb Chandler and 7'0" 245lb Nowitzki. 7'0 270lb Haywood and 6'9" 220lb Peja got big minutes.
2010: Lakers started 7'0" 285lb Bynum, 7'0" 250lb Gasol, and 260lb MWP. 6'10" 220lb Odom and 6'8" 235lb Walton got minutes.
2009: Lakers started 7'0" 285lb Bynum, 7'0" 250lb Gasol, and 6'8" 215lb Ariza. 6'10" 220lb Odom and 6'8" 235lb Walton got minutes.
2008: Celtics started 6'11" 240lb Garnett and 6'10" 260lb Perkins. 6'11" 225lb PJ, 6'8" 240lb Powe, 6'8" 215lb Posey and 6'9" 290lb Davis all got minutes
2007: Spurs started 6'11" 250lb Duncan and 7'0" 230lb Elsen/6'10" 235lb Oberto, while 6'9" 220lb Horry got minutes.


Going back 10 years, EVERY championship team has had at least 4-5 guys who could play over 6'7" and a similar number over 220lbs, including 2-3 starters.

So no, they are NOT like the 1960s Celtics, who often only had 2 players over 6'6", only one of which was over 6'7" and zero players over 220lbs, not to mention 80% of the team was White and half unathletic.

Hell, the 2011 Mavs alone had three 7-footers who could play, when there were spans in the 1960s where the ENTIRE LEAGUE didn't have three 7-footers.

To be a rare 7-footer in the 1960s, especially an athletic and talented one, is a different world than being one of many in the 1990s and beyond.

Yes and 30 years from now, people will look back and talk about how Shaq was being guarded by "stiffs" like Greg Ostertag and Bill Wennington. Somehow, big white stiffs have proven to be functional players regardless of era.

So why were nearly all of them in Wilt's era 6'8" or shorter?

The knock against Wilt when playing Russell was that he would dominate the scoring and his team would lose due to a lack of balance. The 76ers took both approaches with Wilt in this series (1. share the ball, 2. carry the offensive load) and neither worked.

So why didn't they work? I'm still trying to understand how an unstoppable offensive force can, no matter what he does, score at a lesser rate than his shorter, less talented opponents.

Because, for decades, the consensus among basketball experts was that you win by sharing the ball and having a balanced attack, not by one guy carrying the load. Wilt's early career struggles vs. the Celtics was seen as proof of this. In fact, this consensus prevailed until MJ finally won championships in the 90s. Go back and look at how the experts were sure MJ would never win a title by taking such a high percentage of his team's shots. Virtually all teams that won championships prior to the Bulls had balanced attacks. When Julius Erving joined the 76ers from the ABA, the management explicitly asked him to reduce his scoring and become part of a balanced attack that they felt would maximize their chances of winning.

Yet even in a "balanced attack", somebody leads the lead in scoring. There were tons of players - Kareem, West, Reed - putting up way more points than Wilt was in these critical junctures. Even in a "balanced attack", you'd expect the most unstoppable offensive force in basketball to be leading the scoring, not putting up single digits in Finals games. How the hell was it better for everyone else to take far more shots than Wilt if he was the best shooter?

Chamberlain was a card-carrying Republican in an era where more Republicans were in favor of civil rights than Democrats. Nixon was in favor of civil rights.

Please, Nixon was the AUTHOR of the "Southern Strategy", purposely catering to White racists and giving up on the Black vote. It's true that there were anti-civil rights Democrats in the South, but Wilt didn't come from the South. In the North, especially by the late 1960s, the Democrats were ahead of the Republicans on the Civil Rights question. Democrats like Robert Byrd were trying to run from their racist past, while Republicans like Strom Thurmond were openly embracing theirs. Kareem and others really got on Wilt for his support of Republicans.

Are you sure it was 9 times? I think it was less, but I have to check.

That's what I read when I fact-checked it. 7 in one quarter (probably the third) and 2 in the other.

His role at that point in his career was not to be an unstoppable offensive force. Chamberlain sacrificed to get Jerry West and Elgin Baylor their shots. Note that West's field goal attempts went up drastically in the finals.

So you either have to argue that basketball minds of the era were mindless, or that Wilt wasn't an unstoppable force anymore. Because why the hell would you take nearly all your shots away from an supposedly "unstoppable force" in order to give them to an inferior, more inefficient player?

 

[mitter]

2016: Cavs started 6'9" 240lb TT, 6'10" 250lb Love, and 6'8" 250lb Lebron. 7'1" 275lb Mosgov and 6'11" 255lb Frye played real minutes too.
2015: Warriors started 7'0" 260lb Bogut and 6'8" 210lb Barnes, while Green is 230lbs. 6'11" 255lb Ezeli, 6'10" 255lb Speights, and 6'9" 250lb Lee also got minutes.
2014: Spurs started 6'11" 250lb Duncan and 6'11" 245lb Splitter, while Leonard is 230lbs. 6'8" 250lb Diaw, 6'10" 235lb Bonner, and 6'10" 260lb Baynes all got minutes.
2013: Heat started 6'11" 235lb Bosh, 6'8" 250lb Lebron, and 6'8" 235lb Haslem. 6'10" 245lb Birdman, 6'8" 220lb Battier, and 6'8" 220lb Miller all got minutes.
2012: Heat started 6'8" 250lb Lebron, 6'8" 220lb Battier, and 6'11" 235lb Bosh/6'8" 235lb Haslem. 6'9" 245lb Anthony, 6'8" 220lb Miller, and 6'10" 250lb Turiaf all got minutes
2011: Mavs started 7'1" 240lb Chandler and 7'0" 245lb Nowitzki. 7'0 270lb Haywood and 6'9" 220lb Peja got big minutes.
2010: Lakers started 7'0" 285lb Bynum, 7'0" 250lb Gasol, and 260lb MWP. 6'10" 220lb Odom and 6'8" 235lb Walton got minutes.
2009: Lakers started 7'0" 285lb Bynum, 7'0" 250lb Gasol, and 6'8" 215lb Ariza. 6'10" 220lb Odom and 6'8" 235lb Walton got minutes.
2008: Celtics started 6'11" 240lb Garnett and 6'10" 260lb Perkins. 6'11" 225lb PJ, 6'8" 240lb Powe, 6'8" 215lb Posey and 6'9" 290lb Davis all got minutes
2007: Spurs started 6'11" 250lb Duncan and 7'0" 230lb Elsen/6'10" 235lb Oberto, while 6'9" 220lb Horry got minutes.


Going back 10 years, EVERY championship team has had at least 4-5 guys who could play over 6'7" and a similar number over 220lbs, including 2-3 starters.

So no, they are NOT like the 1960s Celtics, who often only had 2 players over 6'6", only one of which was over 6'7" and zero players over 220lbs, not to mention 80% of the team was White and half unathletic.

Hell, the 2011 Mavs alone had three 7-footers who could play, when there were spans in the 1960s where the ENTIRE LEAGUE didn't have three 7-footers.

To be a rare 7-footer in the 1960s, especially an athletic and talented one, is a different world than being one of many in the 1990s and beyond.

I don't know why you are listing all of these players. I already stated I did not want to turn this into an era-comparing thread. But some things you should note:

1. Those heights may or may not be accurate. For instance, Kevin Love is listed as 6'10" when he is more like 6'7"

2. The weights are largely irrelevant. If the 60s and 70s players had today's diet and training regimen, they would weigh more. Look at Wilt himself --- he was heavier and more muscular as an old man in the 80s than at any point during his career.

3. Half of those guys are wing players who would not be guarding Wilt anyway

So why didn't they work? I'm still trying to understand how an unstoppable offensive force can, no matter what he does, score at a lesser rate than his shorter, less talented opponents.

Neither of the two approaches worked in the 1966 series because it is a team game and it requires a team to be clicking as a unit for a strategy to work. The next year, they beat the Celtics with Wilt sharing the ball.

Yet even in a "balanced attack", somebody leads the lead in scoring. There were tons of players - Kareem, West, Reed - putting up way more points than Wilt was in these critical junctures. Even in a "balanced attack", you'd expect the most unstoppable offensive force in basketball to be leading the scoring, not putting up single digits in Finals games. How the hell was it better for everyone else to take far more shots than Wilt if he was the best shooter?

Are you being serious?

There is a big difference between having a dominant scorer who almost always leads the team in scoring by a wide margin, and balanced attack where any given player could lead the team in scoring in a particular game.

Wilt was asked by his coaches to play more like Bill Russell in the second half of his career, and the points he contributed were really secondary to all of the other things he regularly did on the court to help the team win (defense, rebounding, outlet passes, screens, assists, etc.)

The conventional wisdom at the time was to aim to not have one player dominate the scoring load.

Please, Nixon was the AUTHOR of the "Southern Strategy", purposely catering to White racists and giving up on the Black vote. It's true that there were anti-civil rights Democrats in the South, but Wilt didn't come from the South. In the North, especially by the late 1960s, the Democrats were ahead of the Republicans on the Civil Rights question. Democrats like Robert Byrd were trying to run from their racist past, while Republicans like Strom Thurmond were openly embracing theirs. Kareem and others really got on Wilt for his support of Republicans.

I'm not saying Wilt wasn't a pro-business Republican with some conservative leanings. But supporting the Republican candidate in 1968 was vastly different from supporting the Republican candidate today. There were lots of socially liberal Republicans at the time, and Nixon was actually fairly liberal on social issues, despite his cynical campaign strategy. He came out for Civil Rights in the 1960 campaign, for instance.

So you either have to argue that basketball minds of the era were incredibly retarded, or that Wilt wasn't an unstoppable force anymore. Because why the hell would you take nearly all your shots away from an supposedly "unstoppable force" in order to give them to an inferior, more inefficient player?

In my previous post, I pointed out that most coaches and followers of the game thought it was a bad idea for one player to dominate the scoring load. You can call them "incredibly retarded" if you want, but that was the thinking for a very long time (you don't have to look far for articles from MJ's early career that suggested he'd never win a championship because he didn't get his teammate involved to the extent that Magic and Larry did). In fact, that thinking still resurfaces in modern times (look at the criticism Kobe Bryant got for taking lots of shots). Anyone who has followed basketball for a while and knows the history of the game knows that "sharing the ball" has been espoused as the best way to win for a very long time. It used to be pretty much a consensus view until MJ's success (and the slowing down of the game) made people reconsider.

Anyway, looking at Chamberlain's scoring from the second half of his career to make a point is quite misleading. He was asked to score less by his coaches. That is a fact. His main contributions to his team in those days were through defense, rebounding, and passing.

In many of the examples you cite, Wilt played very well, despite what you think his scoring totals should be. For instance, in the 1967 ECF, he averaged a triple double, and had 29-36-13 in the series-clinching victory. In the 1972 Finals, he actually scored more than he did during the regular season, and he led the way in the series-clinching game despite playing with a broken hand.

 

[LEEeveryday]

So disrespectful

 

[Professor Emeritus]

So disrespectful

This is why comparing over eras is ridiculous. Just because he played a long time ago, it's "disrespectful" to list facts about his career.

Yet lay out the weaknesses in Curry or Kobe or Lebron or Duncan's career, and no one says the same thing. I've laid out Hakeem's career in a similar season-by-season matter, and people acted like it was a public service. Hell, even talking about Bird and Magic didn't get this kind of attention. But I do it for Wilt (and, I suspect, if I did it for Russell or Kareem), and people act like I spit on their papa.

I don't know why you are listing all of these players. I already stated I did not want to turn this into an era-comparing thread. But some things you should note:

1. Those heights may or may not be accurate. For instance, Kevin Love is listed as 6'10" when is more like 6'7"

Please. Kevin Love was measured at 6'8", no shoes, as a teenager and almost certainly has grown since then.

Here's Love with Lebron, and Lebron is a solid 6'8" that no one disputes.

2. The weights are largely irrelevant. If the 60s and 70s players had today's diet and training regimen, they would weigh more. Look at Wilt himself --- he was heavier and more muscular as an old man in the 80s than at any point during his career.

They're extremely relevant because not everyone can magically put on weight, especially the right weight. In the 1960s anyone with height could have a chance, which is why some of those guys were like sticks while others were pudgy as hell. With most of the Black population frozen out of the game, all the international community irrelevant, and basketball not even that popular among the American White community, the pool of talent to choose from just wasn't that big, and so you didn't have your choice of body types.

Nowadays you have a million big men of all sorts of body types trying to make it, and so you get a far larger proportion of them being the ideal size who can hold weight and hold it well. (Or, on occasion, who are slender but so skilled and fast and coordinated with it that they don't even have to play post.)

That's why weight matters. It's not just that a 300-pound Shaq will abuse any 220-pound guy who tries to match up with him. It's that you get far more opportunities to land those sorts of ideal big men.

3. Half of those guys are wing players who would not be guarding Wilt anyway

So you're saying no switches, no double-teams, no zones, no trying to get the ball over tall bodies and long arms denying access to passing lanes?

This isn't the 1960s anymore.

Lebron James and Kevin Durant are wing players, and they make their height relevant to post players all the time. I saw Lebron freaking block Duncan, Splitter, and Kawhi in the same playoff game.

Are you being serious?

There is a big difference between having a dominant scorer who almost always leads the team in scoring by a wide margin, and balanced attack where any given player could lead the team in scoring in a particular game.

Wilt was asked by his coaches to play more like Bill Russell in the second half of his career, and the points he contributed were really secondary to all of the other things he regularly did on the court to help the team win (defense, rebounding, outlet passes, screens, assists, etc.)

The conventional wisdom at the time was to aim to not have one player dominate the scoring load.

But it wasn't "any given player" who led the scoring load. You're creating this fake narrative as if Wilt was an unstoppable scorer who was forced to be an even partner in a crew, when in fact he was always a lesser partner on the scoring end once the lane was widened and the competition he faced got tougher.

In 1967 and 1968, Hal Greer led scoring over the postseason and in every significant series by a LARGE amount over Wilt.
In 1969 and 1970, Jerry West led scoring over the postseason and in every significant series by a LARGE amount over Wilt.
In 1971, 1972, and 1973 the scoring was more balanced, but Goodrich still led the team in scoring all three postseasons and both Finals series.

Perhaps more amazing, from 1967-1973, in EVERY season after the expansion of the key from 12 feet to 16 feet, Wilt NEVER had better than 24ppg in any postseason or even any single meaningful series. Yet Hal Greer did it 5 times in 2 years, Jerry West 6 times in 5 years, and Gail Goodrich 2 times in 3 years.

Despite this "balanced scoring" philosophy, it was quite possible for Greer, West, and Goodrich to pile up big scoring numbers consistently, just not Wilt.

1967 playoffs: Hal Greer averaged 28ppg, Wilt and Chet 22ppg each.
1967 Finals Hal Greer led with 26ppg, Chet 23ppg, Jones 20ppg, Cunningham 20ppg, Wilt 18ppg
1967 ECF Hal Greer led with 29ppg (Wilt 2nd with 22ppg)
1968 playoffs: Hal Greer averaged 26ppg, Wilt 24ppg, Cunningham 21ppg, Chet 19ppg.
1968 ECF Hal Greer led with 26ppg, Wilt 22ppg, Chet 20ppg.
1969 playoffs: Jerry West averaged 31ppg, Baylor 15ppg, Wilt and Egan 13ppg each.
1969 WCF: Jerry West averaged 20ppg, Wilt 19ppg, Baylor 16ppg, Egan 16ppg
1969 Finals: Jerry West averaged 38ppg, Baylor 18ppg, Egan 15ppg, Wilt 12ppg
1970 playoffs: Jerry West averaged 30ppg, Wilt 22ppg, Baylor 19ppg
1970 WCF: Jerry West averaged 34ppg, Baylor 23ppg, Wilt 17ppg, Garrett 17ppg
1970 Finals: Jerry West averaged 31ppg, Wilt 23ppg, Baylor 18ppg
1971 playoffs: Gail Goodrich averaged 25ppg, Wilt 18ppg, Hairston 17ppg, Erickson 16ppg, McMillan 15ppg
1971 WCF: Wilt averaged 22ppg, Goodrich 19ppg, Hairston 19ppg
1972 playoffs: Gail Goodrich averaged 24ppg, West 23ppg, McMillan 19ppg, Wilt 15ppg, Haiston 14ppg
1972 WCF: Jim McMillan 23ppg, West 22ppg, Goodrich 19ppg, Hairston 13ppg, Wilt 11ppg
1972 Finals: Gail Goodrich 26ppg, West 20ppg, Wilt 19ppg, McMillan 17ppg, Hairston 13ppg
1973 playoffs: Gail Goodrich averaged 24ppg, West 23ppg, McMillan 19ppg, Hairston 16ppg, Wilt 13ppg
1973 WCF: Jerry West 26ppg, Goodrich 22ppg, McMillan 22ppg, Counts 13ppg, Erickson 9ppg, Bridges 8ppg, Wilt 7ppg
1973 Finals: Gail Goodrich 22ppg, West 21ppg, McMillan 20ppg, Wilt 12ppg

That's a lot of guys who were putting up big point totals. Obviously, it was allowed in the era, even by Wilt's coaches.

Hell, you look at the points that guys like Willis Reed and Kareem piled up on him, and obviously some of Wilt's opponent's coaches were allowing it as well.

Anyway, looking at Chamberlain's scoring from the second half of his career to make a point is quite misleading. He was asked to score less by his coaches. That is a fact..

Okay, stop making your negative arguments for you position and make a positive one for me.

Do you have ANY solid evidence that Wilt Chamberlain was an unstoppable scorer in a postseason environment with a 16-foot lane?

Do you have ANY solid evidence that Wilt Chamberlain was an unstoppable scorer in a postseason environment when faced skilled players remotely close to his own height?

Do you have ANY solid evidence that Wilt Chamberlain would be an unstoppable scorer in an environment that is ANYTHING like today's game?

 

[mitter]

This is why comparing over eras is ridiculous. Just because he played a long time ago, it's "disrespectful" to list facts about his career.

Yet lay out the weaknesses in Curry or Kobe or Lebron or Duncan's career, and no one says the same thing. I've laid out Hakeem's career in a similar season-by-season matter, and people acted like it was a public service. Hell, even talking about Bird and Magic didn't get this kind of attention. But I do it for Wilt (and, I suspect, if I did it for Russell or Kareem), and people act like I spit on their papa.





Please. Kevin Love was measured at 6'8", no shoes, as a teenager and almost certainly has grown since then.

Here's Love with Lebron, and Lebron is a solid 6'8" that no one disputes.

They're extremely relevant because not everyone can magically put on weight, especially the right weight. In the 1960s anyone with height could have a chance, which is why some of those guys were like sticks while others were pudgy as hell. With most of the Black population frozen out of the game, all the international community irrelevant, and basketball not even that popular among the American White community, the pool of talent to choose from just wasn't that big, and so you didn't have your choice of body types.

Nowadays you have a million big men of all sorts of body types trying to make it, and so you get a far larger proportion of them being the ideal size who can hold weight and hold it well. (Or, on occasion, who are slender but so skilled and fast and coordinated with it that they don't even have to play post.)

That's why weight matters. It's not just that a 300-pound Shaq will abuse any 220-pound guy who tries to match up with him. It's that you get far more opportunities to land those sorts of ideal big men.





So you're saying no switches, no double-teams, no zones, no trying to get the ball over tall bodies and long arms denying access to passing lanes?

This isn't the 1960s anymore.

Lebron James and Kevin Durant are wing players, and they make their height relevant to post players all the time. I saw Lebron freaking block Duncan, Splitter, and Kawhi in the same playoff game.





But it wasn't "any given player" who led the scoring load. You're creating this fake narrative as if Wilt was an unstoppable scorer who was forced to be an even partner in a crew, when in fact he was always a lesser partner on the scoring end once the lane was widened and the competition he faced got tougher.

In 1967 and 1968, Hal Greer led scoring over the postseason and in every significant series by a LARGE amount over Wilt.
In 1969 and 1970, Jerry West led scoring over the postseason and in every significant series by a LARGE amount over Wilt.
In 1971, 1972, and 1973 the scoring was more balanced, but Goodrich still led the team in scoring all three postseasons and both Finals series.

Perhaps more amazing, from 1967-1973, in EVERY season after the expansion of the key from 12 feet to 16 feet, Wilt NEVER had better than 24ppg in any postseason or even any single meaningful series. Yet Hal Greer did it 5 times in 2 years, Jerry West 6 times in 5 years, and Gail Goodrich 2 times in 3 years.

Despite this "balanced scoring" philosophy, it was quite possible for Greer, West, and Goodrich to pile up big scoring numbers consistently, just not Wilt.

1967 playoffs: Hal Greer averaged 28ppg, Wilt and Chet 22ppg each.
1967 Finals Hal Greer led with 26ppg, Chet 23ppg, Jones 20ppg, Cunningham 20ppg, Wilt 18ppg
1967 ECF Hal Greer led with 29ppg (Wilt 2nd with 22ppg)
1968 playoffs: Hal Greer averaged 26ppg, Wilt 24ppg, Cunningham 21ppg, Chet 19ppg.
1968 ECF Hal Greer led with 26ppg, Wilt 22ppg, Chet 20ppg.
1969 playoffs: Jerry West averaged 31ppg, Baylor 15ppg, Wilt and Egan 13ppg each.
1969 WCF: Jerry West averaged 20ppg, Wilt 19ppg, Baylor 16ppg, Egan 16ppg
1969 Finals: Jerry West averaged 38ppg, Baylor 18ppg, Egan 15ppg, Wilt 12ppg
1970 playoffs: Jerry West averaged 30ppg, Wilt 22ppg, Baylor 19ppg
1970 WCF: Jerry West averaged 34ppg, Baylor 23ppg, Wilt 17ppg, Garrett 17ppg
1970 Finals: Jerry West averaged 31ppg, Wilt 23ppg, Baylor 18ppg
1971 playoffs: Gail Goodrich averaged 25ppg, Wilt 18ppg, Hairston 17ppg, Erickson 16ppg, McMillan 15ppg
1971 WCF: Wilt averaged 22ppg, Goodrich 19ppg, Hairston 19ppg
1972 playoffs: Gail Goodrich averaged 24ppg, West 23ppg, McMillan 19ppg, Wilt 15ppg, Haiston 14ppg
1972 WCF: Jim McMillan 23ppg, West 22ppg, Goodrich 19ppg, Hairston 13ppg, Wilt 11ppg
1972 Finals: Gail Goodrich 26ppg, West 20ppg, Wilt 19ppg, McMillan 17ppg, Hairston 13ppg
1973 playoffs: Gail Goodrich averaged 24ppg, West 23ppg, McMillan 19ppg, Hairston 16ppg, Wilt 13ppg
1973 WCF: Jerry West 26ppg, Goodrich 22ppg, McMillan 22ppg, Counts 13ppg, Erickson 9ppg, Bridges 8ppg, Wilt 7ppg
1973 Finals: Gail Goodrich 22ppg, West 21ppg, McMillan 20ppg, Wilt 12ppg

That's a lot of guys who were putting up big point totals. Obviously, it was allowed in the era, even by Wilt's coaches.

Hell, you look at the points that guys like Willis Reed and Kareem piled up on him, and obviously some of Wilt's opponent's coaches were allowing it as well.






Okay, stop making your negative arguments for you position and make a positive one for me.

Do you have ANY solid evidence that Wilt Chamberlain was an unstoppable scorer in a postseason environment with a 16-foot lane?

Do you have ANY solid evidence that Wilt Chamberlain was an unstoppable scorer in a postseason environment when faced skilled players remotely close to his own height?

Do you have ANY solid evidence that Wilt Chamberlain would be an unstoppable scorer in an environment that is ANYTHING like today's game?

You keep bringing up the lane, then neglect the fact that Wilt had a MUCH greater tendency to shoot fadeaways from relatively far out during the first half of his career (when he was a big time scorer) than he did later on. In the second half of his career, he just didn't shoot as much.

 

[SadimirPutin]

People are getting annoyed at the OP...

But still arent refuting his points

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You keep bringing up the lane, then neglect the fact that Wilt had a MUCH greater tendency to shoot fadeaways from relatively far out during the first half of his career (when he was a big time scorer) than he did later on. In the second half of his career, he just didn't shoot as much.

What a weasely evasion. You could have just said, "Nah, I got nothing."

So for what % of his scoring in the pre-1966 era was Wilt setting up outside of where the 16-foot lane would have been? 25%? Give me a number and back it up.

 

[Bledswole]

thread

 

[Da_Eggman]

Yo after reading this wilt fukking garbage fukk that bum

 

[mitter]

What a weasely evasion. You could have just said, "Nah, I got nothing."

So for what % of his scoring in the pre-1966 era was Wilt setting up outside of where the 16-foot lane would have been? 25%? Give me a number and back it up.

There are no stats on that. All we can go on is what has been written. However, notice that his field goal percentage shot up to 0.68 (From usually being in the low .50s) in 1966-67, once Wilt stopped being a volume shooter, and stopped regularly taking fadeaway jumpers from far out.

I've wasted far too much time in my life reading every article, every book, every website I could find about 1960s basketball. And your theory regarding Wilt's decline in scoring has never been raised by anyone who was there at the time, including those who were habitually critical of him (and there were plenty).

It is very well-documented that Alex Hannum asked Wilt Chamberlain to score less and relinquish the scoring title in 1966-67. It is very well-documented that Wilt was bored with scoring and was intrigued by the possibility of leading the league in assists in 1967-68 (which he did). It is very well-documented that Wilt sacrificed when he went to the Lakers in 1968-69 because he was joining "Elgin and Jerry's" team, and that to make things work, Chamberlain spent a lot of time stepping out, setting screens, and making sure he didn't clog the lane so that Baylor could drive. It is clear that Chamberlain had a very serious injury in 1969-70 and was never the same afterward. And finally, it has been documented in countless sources how Wilt reduced his scoring even more in 1971-72 (when Bill Sharman became the Lakers' coach) and started playing the "Bill Russell role" almost exclusively. In his last two seasons, Wilt hardly ever shot the ball! But from everything we know about his team during those two years, Wilt was easily the most important player on a juggernaut Lakers team.