Would Wilt have won more championships if he was an 75% free throw shooter?

[navy]

From what Ive seen a common theme of Wilt's losses wer free throws, of course very few posters post about Wilt without an agenda so who knows how true it is.


How would Wilt's legacy have changed f he could hit free throws at a respectable rate?

[fpliii]

If either Shaq or Wilt hits his FTs at a 75% rate, he's the consensus GOAT I'd think.

[KirbyPls]

If either Shaq or Wilt hits his FTs at a 75% rate, he's the consensus GOAT I'd think.

This.

[Kvnzhangyay]

If either Shaq or Wilt hits his FTs at a 75% rate, he's the consensus GOAT I'd think.

Nah Shaq just needed more longevity/motivation. Never watched wilt so I dunno about him

[LAZERUSS]

How many more titles would Bird had won had he shot even 50% in his post-seasons (in post-seasons that had an eFG% of nearly that in that span)?

How many more titles would Kareem had won had he not so poorly from the field in several of his post-season series?

And we all know that Shaq won FOUR rings with just awful FT%'s, including a Finals when he shot .387.

And Russell won 11 titles, several of which included post-season series, and even entire post-seasons, of less than 40% shooting from the floor.

If Chamberlain had shot better from the line, but worse from the field, would he have more success, or less?

If Wilt had been outrebounded as often as Hakeem, Shaq, and Kareem were in their post-seasons, would he still have had as much success? Or if Wilt would have allowed his opposing centers to shoot as efficiently as what Hakeem, Shaq, and Kareem were allowing their's, would he have had as much success?

Clearly, all the greats had their weaknesses. The bashers will ignore the FACT that, despite Wilt's poor FT shooting, his IMPACT at the line made up for much of it. His TEAMs just waxed their opposition from the line in his SIX Finals, and in fact, throughout his entire post-season career.

Wilt had one major weakness, and yes, he likely would have won more rings had he shot better.

BUT, had Wilt's TEAMMATES performed nearly as well as Bird's, KAJ's, Shaq's, and yes, Hakeem's, he would certainly have won at LEAST FOUR more rings. And we are talking about a mere NINE points BTW.

[Psileas]

From what Ive seen a common theme of Wilt's losses wer free throws, of course very few posters post about Wilt without an agenda so who knows how true it is.


How would Wilt's legacy have changed f he could hit free throws at a respectable rate?

Even supposing he'd have won some rings more, most would still find excuses to keep him away from the (always unofficial) GOAT title. For example, they'd still be pointing out his ppg decline in the playoffs (while always ignoring r.s vs playoff competition) and there would be even more b.s talk about weak competition, since Russell would probably have less rings now and people would be stuck even more to his limited scoring - maybe he'd be seen like a Nate Thurmond with less scoring but with a better team, thus denying him a place among the GOATs and thus making Wilt's competition look inferior. Also, his failed title attempts would be magnified even more than now and in cases like in 1969, people would still be pointing out that West was the F.MVP or that so and so outscored him, etc. After all, most of Wilt's real missed title opportunities happened in his lower scoring seasons, and we all know how many regard Russell and his 11 titles - as "overrated", because he didn't score enough...In any case, I don't think a player from Wilt's era would be "allowed" by the media to be called the GOAT for way too long, I believe Jordan would still have the most voters (especially outside the US), although the vote margin would be smaller.

Btw, I'm also not that sure that Wilt would be drawing as many fouls if he were a good FT shooter - meaning that refs might be allowing his defenders to play him even rougher before blowing the whistle.

[oarabbus]

]Even supposing he'd have won some rings more, most would still find excuses to keep him away from the (always unofficial) GOAT title. [/B]For example, they'd still be pointing out his ppg decline in the playoffs (while always ignoring r.s vs playoff competition) and there would be even more b.s talk about weak competition, since Russell would probably have less rings now and people would be stuck even more so to his limited scoring - maybe he'd be seen like a Nate Thurmond with less scoring but with a better team, thus denying him a place among the GOATs and thus making Wilt's competition look inferior. Also, his failed title attempts would be magnified even more than now and in cases like in 1969, people would still be pointing out that West was the F.MVP or that so and so outscored him, etc.
Btw, I'm also not that sure that Wilt would be drawing as many fouls if he were a good FT shooter - meaning that refs might be allowing his defenders to play him even rougher before blowing the whistle.

Whoa, slow down there. The only reason people say that stuff is because Wilt had 2 rings and Bill Russell 11. And some people call Russell GOAT.

If Wilt had something like 7 rings to Russell's 6, no one would be doubting Wilt's GOATness.

[LAZERUSS]

Whoa, slow down there. The only reason people say that stuff is because Wilt had 2 rings and Bill Russell 11. And some people call Russell GOAT.

If Wilt had something like 7 rings to Russell's 6, no one would be doubting Wilt's GOATness.

You do realize that Wilt's teams lost FOUR game SEVEN's to Russell's, by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points, and his teammates collectively shot .365, .373, .343, and .360 in those four games?

Chamberlain was a mere NINE points away from holding a 5-3 margin over Russell in post-season H2H series, and overall, SIX rings.

[Psileas]

Whoa, slow down there. The only reason people say that stuff is because Wilt had 2 rings and Bill Russell 11. And some people call Russell GOAT.

If Wilt had something like 7 rings to Russell's 6, no one would be doubting Wilt's GOATness.

Lots probably would for the reasons I mentioned. Mostly because people would be seeing Wilt's competition as even weaker than they view it now and if Russell isn't considered the GOAT by most today, despite his 11 rings, imagine what he'd be considered if he only had 6.
(Btw, this is kind of crazy talk, Wilt probably wouldn't have won 7 rings, even as a 75% FT shooter, especially 5 more vs Russell).

Long story short, the main reason most people wouldn't be calling anyone from back then GOAT is the "back then" part. ISH actually looks like an informed place compared to an average board when it comes to knowledge on that era. We all know that most modern fans don't treat Wilt's era as any kind of a golden age, therefore, it's highly unlikely to imagine that a player from that age would be considered the GOAT, even while earning what many today call "the right" to be named so.

[Stringer Bell]

Given how many games they lost by close margins and he shot awfully from the free throw line, it's easy to see why people say he would have won more than 2 titles if he wasn't such a bad FT shooter.

But there's always more factors that come into play. You could look at a player miss 6 free throws and the team loses by 2, and say that cost them the game, but who knows really? A lot of things can change throughout the game. For example, in Jordan's last game as a Bull, the Jazz got cheated out of 3 points when Howard Eisley hit a 3, clearly before the shot clock expired, but Dick Bavetta ruled it no good. Ron Harper hit a big 2 late in the game that was ruled good, but it looked like he didn't beat the shot clock. The Jazz lost by 1. Or the Lakers getting 3 points at the end of the first half against Sacramento in game 4 in 2002, the game with the Robert Horry buzzer beater. That 3 by Walker should not have counted.

But who knows if that really changed things in the long run? A team can play with a little more urgency when they are down more, or the team ahead might play a little too relaxed and end up giving up the lead. Maybe a particular playcall by the offense is changed depending on the situation, and it ends up working, or not working. Or the refs may consciously, or subconsciously, give close calls to the team behind.

So in those close games, if Wilt shoots better from the line, maybe the other team raises their level of play and still win. Maybe they don't.

It's kind of hard to say.