Let's compare Wilt's playoff numbers during his most dominant scoring years (1959-1965) to other big men's 6 most dominant years in the playoffs on a per 36 minute basis: Wilt's best years: 1959: 25.9 1960: 27.7 1961: 26.2 1963: 26.8 1964: 21.6 1965: 21.0 Total: 24.9 ppg on .502 fg% Shaq's 6 best playoff years: 1996: 26.7 1997: 28.5 1998: 24.3 1999: 25.5 2000: 25.9 2001: 25.1 Total: 26.0 ppg on .548 fg% Olajuwon's 6 best: 1985: 25.2 1986: 27.0 1987: 33.3 1988: 22.4 1993: 24.2 1994: 28.1 Total: 26.7 ppg on .550 fg% Why does Wilt's stats not stack up?
Thurmond was a beast, one of my fav centers of all time. He held everybody low on their numbers, Kareem says he's the best defensive player he ever went up against, Wilt says he was equal to Russell in terms of his 1 on 1 ability to disrupt his (Chamberlain's) game. Also for context for anyone - those numbers both reg season/playoffs are low because Wilt never played more than a handful of games against Thurmond during his scoring seasons - and actually never played Thurmond in the playoffs during his scoring seasons. Somewhere out there I think someone did a game by game stat break down of the h2h. Thurmond is one of the few guys who could play 'up' to the levels of Jabbar or Chamberlain, he showed up for the biggest matchups.
Per 36? We're going to penalize Wilt's #1 all-time endurance now? haha. Let's adjust his stats for height too, what would his stats adjust too if he was only 6 foot 9 instead of 7 foot 1? His size isn't fair either, we should bring it down to the real world so we can normalize it, you know?
This is why the argument that Wilt didnt have those moves because he didnt need them comes off as childish. Clearly he could have used some extra moves to average more than 12.5 ppg against Thurmond.
Not really, his teams against Thurmond were the Lakers and the Sixers, he had teammates that could score at those times. Wilt was a smart player, he played for the easiest baskets. It is not easy to score on Thurmond, it doesn't matter if you're Jabbar or Wilt - Thurmond as I said is one of the greatest 1 on 1 post defenders of all time. If he was being guarded by Thurmond he didn't need to put the ball in the hole with guys like Cunningham, Greer, Chet, Baylor, West, or Goodrich on his team. If you're up against a dominant defensive big, let the guards and forwards do work if you've got them. Like I said, Wilt never really played Thurmond during his scoring years when he didn't have a good supporting cast. He played only a few games against Thurmond where his role was more focused on scoring.
I am sorry but this "didnt need to" sounds very much like a cop-out. When you are averaging more points against everyone else, and your ppg as the most dominant scorer in the post drops to 12 against a premiere defender, it is very clear that he was limited and could have used more to his game against this guy. I understand that your agenda is to promote Wilt and you have been doing it for years on the other forums as well but childish arguments like these do not help your cause.
He changed his role as his teammates and teams changed, thus his scoring changed. He played every opponent different. He averaged about 40 points per game against Bill Russell's Celtics in 1962 for example where as he averaged about 55 points against Walt Bellamy's Chicago club. Different opponents net different matchups. Some times it is more appropriate for Wilt to score against some teams, some times it isn't. He adjusts the number of shots he takes accordingly. Do you need to see a timeline to see when Wilt played against Thurmond? As I said, he didn't play him when he was a scorer, and he had better supporting casts in the backcourt than Thurmond every time they played each other - why not let the back courts carry the load especially when Thurmond is such a good 1 on 1 post defender? Should Wilt have taken the Kareem approach and just become a shot jacker against Thurmond? Jabbar shot 43% against Thurmond. He got his 30 points though. Is that what Wilt should have done just jacked up shots? Like I said that wasn't his role when he had those Sixer and Lakers supporting casts, he kept his teammates involved. Really, the people who try to think of Wilt as some sort of bum really seem to fail to realize the different ways he played the game... There's nothing childish about what I'm saying. I get the feeling you just don't want to hear it.
I am not sure why you keep going to extremes. This is not the first time you have accused others of thinking Wilt is some bum or a scrub because they are questioning certain part of his game. Your insecurity is showing. For the record, I actually think very highly of Wilt based on what I have seen and read about him but at the same time I also think he had holes in his game and there was clearly room for improvement. And yes, saying that the guy didnt need more to his game when there clearly was a drop in his stats against certain players.....is childish. You can make all the excuses you want about him not needing to or him being smart etc., but clearly he was getting his numbers the same season against other opponents. The most dominant post player should score more than 12ppg against his opponent. If he is not, there is room for improvement. To deny it is foolish and illogical.
I doubt the 62 Warriors win the NCAA tourney these days. That being said, you can't just transplant guys. Training methods, nutrition, etc. are all so much more advanced now.
How many assists was he getting against Nate Thurmond, how many rebounds? What kind of numbers do you think Wilt "should" have gotten? Do you think Wilt felt he should have got those numbers you do? You never did answer my question about Jabbar, should Wilt have turned into a shot jacker versus Thurmond like Jabbar did? Jabbar was shooting almost 60% against the entire league back then. But he shot 43% against Thurmond. He still got his 30 though, so that's what Wilt should have done is that what you are saying? Should he have dismissed his teams backcourt matchup edge versus Nate's teams and demanded the ball from his guards who could light it up on anyone the Warriors had just to get numbers? Is that what smart basketball players with good teams do? Really the fact that you don't want to acknowledge these things means your mind was made up in advance about Wilt - and any facts I mention that doesn't jive with your pre-formed perception about him seems to be met with some slight hostility. The fact that you'd like to personalize insults towards me, referring to me as insecure, is a perfect example of this. You're not ready to change your mind and that's okay, I get it. Just thought I'd share a video and some knowledge to go with it, you can choose to ignore it if that means keeping the way you thought of Wilt before I entered the picture completely in tact, or you can listen and perhaps learn something. I'm not here on some mission to change your life, I can only educate those with an open ear not a closed mind.
Aren't we talking about how good these players are? Putting them all on level ground by comparing per 36 minutes shows that Wilt wasn't some unstoppable scoring machine any more than Olajuwon or Shaq. He scored less points per 36 and had a much worse fg%. He just played more minutes per game. You are trying to give the impression that Wilt was this unstoppable scorer who could score without breaking a sweat. I posted those stats to show you that you are full of it.
because those were not his averages? http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambwi01.html 1959: 33.2 1960: 37.0 1961: 35.0 1963: 34.7 1964: 29.3 1965: 28.0 then look at hsi rebounding numbers, above his regular season numbers
Let's compare Wilt's playoff numbers during his most dominant scoring years (1959-1965) to other big men's 6 most dominant years in the playoffs on a per 36 minute basis: Wilt's best years: 1959: 25.9 1960: 27.7 1961: 26.2 1963: 26.8 1964: 21.6 1965: 21.0 Total: 24.9 ppg on .502 fg%
He is probably the most athletic NBA player ever, but his stats are inflated from terrible post defense. That highlight video is primarily him easily spinning around someone and dunking but there are flashes of brilliance.
duh, if you asked tub-o-goo Shaq to play 48 minutes, do you think he'd have the same per 36 minute averages? Wilt played way more games vs. hall-of-fame post defenders in an 8 team league with 4 good centers, facing guys like Russel 20+ times a year including playoffs, than Shaq did feasting on the Will Purdues (or worse) in a league of 32 teams also with 4 good centers
I never noticed, but did he bring the ball down below his waist everytime he scored? That crap would've been swatted a hell of a lot in todays game. Those guys never even attempted to do that back then. Some are just standing around watching him, even though they're standing right next to him...like eff it, I'm not even going to try. Lots of points scored around 6-8 feet. Just curious but why was he not scoring in the 60% or even 70% FG range with his dominance? No zone, smaller lane at first, more lenient defense, and less quality opponents overall. And 50% was the best player the game has ever known could possibly muster? It's baffling.
50% was a very high percentage in the early 60s. The game was fast paced, and teams didn't really work the ball around looking for the best shot. I'm guessing in those early years Wilt took a lot of those low-percentage fadeaway bankers which dropped his FG% down.
