Wilt Chamberlain - Greatest Forgotten Block in Playoff History! (CLUTCH!)

[coastalmarker99]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiMlxa8ex1g



During the final 33 seconds of game 7 against the Bulls in 1973, A 36-year-old Wilt with bad knees blocks a jumper that would have put the bulls up by two possessions and ended the game.




And it's also important to note that A 36-year-old Wilt with bad knees stat-line for this game was


21 points (10-17FG,1-1FT) in 48 minutes 28 rebounds, 8 blocked shots, 4 assists plus the series-winning block and outlet pass

[coastalmarker99]

It is also important to note that through the first 10 games of Wilt's 1973 postseason run that Wilt blocked a total of 70 shots(49 against Bulls and 21 in first 3 meetings with Warriors during the 1973 WCF)

[Psileas]

Another big time performance by Wilt in a do or die game and another clutch play. People can talk about Russell stepping up most when it mattered etc etc, but when you put all these performances and plays plays side by side, Wilt's have nothing to be "jealous" of, esp. if you take competition into account (it's a totally different thing to have a good performance against Russell vs having a good performance against LeRoy Ellis and Jim Krebs). And I'm still waiting from haters to find me a "choker Wilt" play as blunderous as Russell's "ball hitting cable play" in '65.
Nice contrast with today's announcers, calling a Game 1 block with the left hand one of the best plays ever and yet, here comes the GOAT himself, doing the exact same thing in Game 7, in a video that had never even been f***ing surfaced, unlike, say, the Havlicek stealing the ball play which has been shown since forever. There's a reason I'm saying the NBA and basketball in general has zero respect of history compared to other sports like baseball and soccer. That's a reason why older generations (even people who are now 40-50, let alone real old timers) always struggle to relate with basketball, unlike the aforementioned sports that easily attract fans from all eras.

[csh19792001]

Wilt Chamberlain Game 7 Stats (9 Games): 24.4/27.0/4.6

Bill Russell (10 Games): 18.6/29.3/3.7

Honestly, who would you take?

[getting_old]

Wilt Chamberlain Game 7 Stats (9 Games): 24.4/27.0/4.6

Bill Russell (10 Games): 18.6/29.3/3.7

Honestly, who would you take?


If the team was at least 30 points better than the opponent, Wilt would be my choice. He won when his team was 30 points better.

If the team was merely 28 points better, then Wilt folded, quit, sat on the bench milking a bogus injury, got upstaged by a crippled Willis Reed in a game 7, lost to Russell every frigging time, except when his team was 30 points better in 1967.

[Psileas]

If the team was at least 30 points better than the opponent, Wilt would be my choice. He won when his team was 30 points better.

If the team was merely 28 points better, then Wilt folded, quit, sat on the bench milking a bogus injury, got upstaged by a crippled Willis Reed in a game 7, lost to Russell every frigging time, except when his team was 30 points better in 1967.

This was the "30 points better than opponent" '67 Sixers minus Wilt:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1969-nba-eastern-division-semifinals-celtics-vs-76ers.html
Getting totally manhandled by a weaker version of a team that Wilt's Sixers destroyed in '67.
There isn't a single team Wilt played on that had better material than Russell's Celtics, including the '67 Sixers.

[Kblaze8855]

If the team was at least 30 points better than the opponent, Wilt would be my choice. He won when his team was 30 points better.

If the team was merely 28 points better, then Wilt folded, quit, sat on the bench milking a bogus injury, got upstaged by a crippled Willis Reed in a game 7, lost to Russell every frigging time, except when his team was 30 points better in 1967.

Crazy the things people fabricate to hate. Wilt asked back into that game and his coach had someone tell him “Tell him we don’t need him”. They lost and the coach was fired.

[hiphopanonymous]

Thanks for sharing. I always figured clutch plays happened by the hands of Wilt but history simply got revised as time passed with nothing well documented.

The sentiment early in his career was that he "didn't win big games" which started way back in Kansas - not that he choked or wasn't clutch, nobody was using those terms to describe him and yes these can be thought of as similar concepts but they aren't the same thing. His teams are what came up short. Not his own personal performances - not any more often than any other superstar that has ever played.

Wilt Chamberlain in all the game footage and news archives does not show a pattern of choking. He wasn't particularly clutch like high reputation clutch shooters (like Jones or West) but then again how do non-ball handlers ever even get reputations like that? They need to catch entry passes which defensive efforts can spoil (Havlicek stole the ball anyone!?). He definitely had games where he made clutch plays on big stages. He got similar treatment LeBron gets. He was very polarizing and because he appeared so dominant his critics damned him if his team lost and even damned him if his team won. Over time with lack of game tape and people glancing and misinterpreting his stats (that are role dependent and he changed his game more than just about any player ever) this skewed into he "choked" by new generations of critics which is revisionist history.

But really he didn't. ESPECIALLY not those years / playoff series / Finals where his "numbers went down". Those were actually the years he started receiving the most unanimous praise by fans and journalists at that time. Because his teams were winning and it was often attributed to last minute heroics, plays or defenses he was anchoring. He still could score in dominant fashion too - it's just that he only set up for this occasionally when his team wanted some inside points. The game above for example, the Lakers were dead in the water against Chicago but to give them a boost in the 3rd quarter the coach had the team give Wilt the ball for a few possessions to counter Van Lier's hot shooting and Wilt rattled off 11 points to Van Liers 10. He mostly hung back on defense those late years and only scored when the team couldn't buy a basket and needed some offensive life support.

The newspapers his last few seasons always credited the team captain Wilt in his low scoring Laker years as the biggest reason those teams kept making Playoff and Finals appearances. The fans in 2020 say - "look at his numbers dip". And also, he was playing great in Playoffs early in his career too, the writers and some fans just behaved similarly to today giving him little to no press that was positive and perhaps some press that was negative because he hadn't been on teams that won big games yet. This is exactly done today, regardless if a player has good individual performances or not.

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt Chamberlain Game 7 Stats (9 Games): 24.4/27.0/4.6

Bill Russell (10 Games): 18.6/29.3/3.7

Honestly, who would you take?



Wilt dominated Russell in those 4 game sevens they played against each other.



Wilt's total combined average across these four-game sevens vs Russell was 21.3 ppg and 28.5 RPG and 4 APG plus 10.4 blocks on a staggering .65.2 field goal percentage.




He blocked 14 to 15 shots in 1962 vs Russell in that famous game 7 loss where Sam jones hit the game-winner


And he blocked about 9 to 11 shots in that famous 1968 game 7 loss where he didn't get to touch the ball for the entire second half



Plus in 1969 he blocked 10 shots before hurting his knee which made him leave the game midway through the fourth quarter before that dumbass Vbk prevented Wilt from returning to the game out of spite towards Wilt.

[coastalmarker99]

If the team was at least 30 points better than the opponent, Wilt would be my choice. He won when his team was 30 points better.

If the team was merely 28 points better, then Wilt folded, quit, sat on the bench milking a bogus injury, got upstaged by a crippled Willis Reed in a game 7, lost to Russell every frigging time, except when his team was 30 points better in 1967.

Now, this is plain disingenuous. Van Breda Kolf hated Wilt's guts and did not even try to properly integrate him into the team's offence. Baylor had visibly declined after his knee injury in 1965 and West despite being the better player deferred to Baylor who took the most shots on mediocre efficiency. Then there is the infamous "we don`t need you" comment by VBK in the final game which turned into a loss.



Afterwards, in 1970 Baylor continued to decline and Wilt shattered his knee after only 9 games in the next season, a stretch where he completely dominated on both sides of the field.







Also, Russell was plain lucky in 68 to an unbelievable degree. If Wilt`s team had been healthy and not the entire starting five labouring with injuries they would have crushed the Celtics just like they did the previous year In 1967.

In fact, his team won 4 series against Wilt by combined margins of 9, and in most cases, neither Wilt nor Russell were in position to influence the outcome of the last possession much. If Wilt`s teammates had been just a tiny little bit better the current narrative about those two would be quite different.

[Psileas]

But really he didn't. ESPECIALLY not those years / playoff series / Finals where his "numbers went down". Those were actually the years he started receiving the most unanimous praise by fans and journalists at that time. Because his teams were winning and it was often attributed to last minute heroics, plays or defenses he was anchoring. He still could score in dominant fashion too - it's just that he only set up for this occasionally when his team wanted some inside points. The game above for example, the Lakers were dead in the water against Chicago but to give them a boost in the 3rd quarter the coach had the team give Wilt the ball for a few possessions to counter Van Lier's hot shooting and Wilt rattled off 11 points to Van Liers 10. He mostly hung back on defense those late years and only scored when the team couldn't buy a basket and needed some offensive life support.

Right, and this is a big reason why, in Wilt's later years, there appears to exist a somewhat negative correlation between Wilt shooting often and his teams winning (unlike his high scoring seasons, when there's a definite positive correlation). Not because he decides to become a ballhog in some specific nights (heck, how can you be a ballhog when you shoot 13/15 FG or 21/28 FG?), but because his teams happen to be cold in those nights, so, late on, they start looking for "scorer Wilt" once again, and more often than not this leads to them cutting the losing deficit's margin, but often not enough for them to win. So, this whole "the less Wilt shot the better his teams performed" theory that some, very ironically "boxscore doesn't tell the whole truth" types of fans have propagated these recent years needs to go or, at least, be thoroughly checked and revised.

[coastalmarker99]

Right, and this is a big reason why, in Wilt's later years, there appears to exist a somewhat negative correlation between Wilt shooting often and his teams winning (unlike his high scoring seasons, when there's a definite positive correlation). Not because he decides to become a ballhog in some specific nights (heck, how can you be a ballhog when you shoot 13/15 FG or 21/28 FG?), but because his teams happen to be cold in those nights, so, late on, they start looking for "scorer Wilt" once again, and more often than not this leads to them cutting the losing deficit's margin, but often not enough for them to win. So, this whole "the less Wilt shot the better his teams performed" theory that some, very ironically "boxscore doesn't tell the whole truth" types of fans have propagated these recent years needs to go or, at least, be thoroughly checked and revised.



If Wilt had stuck to his guns and kept his scoring mindset past 1966 one has to think at the very least that he wins titles in 1969 1970 and 1973 as it was clear in both the 1969 finals and 1973 fials that the Lakers needed Wilt shooting instead of other players such as Baylor in 1969 and Jim McMillian in 1973 both who by the way shot under 40 per cent in those two finals.

[light]

That's only the first round though.

Nothing that happens in the first round will be considered the greatest in playoff history.

[hiphopanonymous]

That's only the first round though.

Nothing that happens in the first round will be considered the greatest in playoff history.
Didn’t stop ESPN and every other journalist from crowning Bam (Round 1, Game 1) a goat playoff block candidate - and all he did was prevent a tie he didn’t even win the series from behind with a 4 point swing

[SouBeachTalents]

Didn’t stop ESPN and every other journalist from crowning Bam (Round 1, Game 1) a goat playoff block candidate - and all he did was prevent a tie he didn’t even win the series from behind with a 4 point swing
Bruh that was the ECF

[Chick Stern]

Wilt was a god.

This was a pretty great block


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpk_O6TVPsI