Lol the Kobe factor? That's hilarious. Kobe's team mates didn't make him an inefficient shooter, he did that all by himself.
Good topic. Wilt might be the GOAT, but it's hard for us to get caught up in an argument over a player most of us haven't seen, other than a few highlights, Many of us have seen Michael Jordan dominate, so we can compare him to later candidates (like Lebron) and argue about him being better than them.
Factually true, but looking at it that way makes any analysis impossible, from a historical perspective. Obviously the USA would easily obliterate the ancient Roman Empire, but that doesn't mean that we cannot acknowledge that Rome was -at least so far- a much stronger empire that lasted much longer.
That's why I always add the few extra words when talking about players like Wilt, if you say "greatest player ever" it's inaccurate, if you say "greatest player ever at that time" it's accurate. Sort of like how we might talk about an ancient army being "the most powerful ever at that point in history", if we don't add the ending, it's an inaccurate statement because an ancient Roman or Persian army would be crushed by literally any modern military. Comparing Wilt to modern players is every bit as unfair a comparison.....but unfortunately there are those out there who don't realize that.
No he didn't. He def didn't outplay him in G7 of the 69 Finals, when Wilt/Baylor/West formed a Superteam to beat Russell and still lost the title at home, with Wilt quitting according to some. Russell didn't put an emphasis on statistics. Wilt did.
Arguments can be made for many players. All I know is this. If I could start an NBA franchise today, and had the ability to choose from any player that ever played basketball, I'm taking Wilt.
I am taking Benn Simmons and getting him a fine shooting coach right from the start, Dr Lucas perhaps.
Kobe, like Wilt, felt he had to carry much of the scoring load. That was the comparison, and I think its quite valid. Wilt was NEVER an inefficient shooter, fwiw. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Yes, he did. Check their stats in their matchups. This is part of the problem Wilt has...everyone just assumes things about him that simply aren't accurate, but are always negative. You can see how they fared in every matchup here: https://stathead.com/tiny/PAGXr Here are their playoff comparisons: Player G W L GS MP FG FGA FG% FT FTA FT% TRB AST PF PTS Bill Russell 49 29 20 46.3 5.9 14.0 .417 3.2 5.2 .607 24.7 4.9 3.9 14.9 Wilt Chamberlain 49 20 29 47.5 10.0 19.6 .508 5.8 11.8 .490 28.0 4.1 2.4 25.7 More rebounds (Bill's best stat), more assists, WAY more points. Doesn't include blocks, but likely led that as well. How is that NOT outplaying Russell?
Compare Wilt's points and efficiency versus the rest of the NBA and then against Russell. That was the reason why the Celtics always beat Wilt. The only time they didn't was when Russell failed to limit Wilt in '67. Russell was also huge in limiting Wilt's teammates. Once he did that while Wilt could not do the same, he would just allow math to take care of the final score. This reminds me of the battles Ben Wallace had with Shaq. Wallace limited Shaq offensively, outrebounded him, and would obviously outplay him defensively. Even though Shaq would double to triple Wallace's scoring, Wallace ultimately outplayed him because he didn't allow Shaq to provide for his team what the Lakers need from him.
I’m not assuming anything. One has insane stats because he really cared about stats. One didn’t care that much about stats as long as he won the game. Neither of those is an assumption. Both guys were pretty open about it.
That's fair, as long as you're not implying that Russell could put up anywhere close to the same stats as Wilt if he simply "cared" about it more. Despite being one of a handful of ridiculously athletic big man at the time, he only shot 44% from the field as a big man in a weaker defensive era with shorter, less athletic players. He was also much more selective in his shot attempts than Wilt. He simply was not a gifted offensive scorer. Usually when someone is a "stat chaser," the main implication is that they are jacking up inefficient shots to score more points. That doesn't appear to be the case. Wilt shot 54% career, and was the most efficient player in terms of field goal percentage of his era. Why would anyone want him to shoot less?
Because him scoring so much and dominating the offense/ball clearly wasn’t as productive towards winning as the guy not as concerned with numbers. The most dominant team, winning wise, was built around a guy focused on defense and getting others involved. Not the gaudy offensive numbers.
Again, I kind of hate these arguments. Because of the era differences, it's not really fair to either party. Though, for Wilt, like MJ, he is arguably the greatest player ever for the simple fact is he has most of the NBA records. He also dominated his competition, like no one else in the league's history. No one has been able to score as much as he did, as dominating as he was the boards and lead the league in assists. All-time scoring leader (previously), all-time rebounds, and all-time passing leader for all centers and power forwards (big men). He also was a pretty good defensive player. To say he is not in the discussion is silly. Because, if we could've put him a well-rounded team, like the Celtics or modern-day Spurs. Perhaps, had the chance to build around Wilt under modern day FA and salary cap rules. You could build the best team ever around Wilt (and even other great centers) without necessarily have too many superstars. Imagine putting a super athletic, 3 point shooting team with great ball-movement around Wilt, like a modern day team. Give a team, like the modern day Jazz or even the Hornets, any good to fairly decent team, a Wilt type player, I believe they'd destroy the best Bull teams and would also beat a few Celtics and Lakers team. He'd be the missing piece for good or middling team that can't quite get to that next level.
Wilt formed a superteam in 69. Still lost to Russell. Lost with a better team in 68 too. Either way, that comment wasn't necessarily geared towards Wilt. I'm saying folks seem to be fixated on scoring and numbers, when the best example we have of winning was the complete opposite of that. Maybe we are looking at it wrong.
