Wilt the "Choker"

[jlauber]

Was Wilt a "failure", a "loser", and a "choker?"

Here is my response taken from another thread...

The more and more research that has become available, the more we see just how horribly misguided was the PERCEPTION of Chamberlain's career...even at the time in which he played.

Those that ripped him for his "drop" in the post-season, now know that he faced a HOF center in two-thirds of ALL of his 160 post-season games. His scoring dropped SLIGHTLY, (especially of you factor in that he only played 52 of his 160 post-season games in his "scoring" seasons...and in one of those, his 44.8 season, he did not get an opportunity.) He also ELEVATED his rebounding, significantly at times (a 32 rpg series against RUSSELL for cryingoutloud.) And we know that his DEFENSE was brilliant. In virtually EVERY case, his opposing center shot either worse, or MUCH worse against him. The fact was, not only did Wilt outplay his opposing centers in all 29 of his post-season series, he was seldom outplayed in very many games!

Clutch? We now know that Wilt has the HIGHEST FG% of any "great" in game seven's. He shot .626 in his nine game sevens. And, while he is "only" second in rebounding among the greats in game seven's, to Russell, we also KNOW that Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, in their four H2H game seven's by a 28.5 to 24.5 margin. In fact, Wilt's game seven's are probably the greatest in NBA history. 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and .626 from the field. Furthermore, against Russell, Wilt outscored him, in their four H2H's, 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg. He outrebounded him, 28.5 to 24.5. And while we only have two of Russell's game seven FG% numbers, out of those four games, Russell only shot .391 in those two. How about Wilt against Russell? A staggering .652! My god, Wilt had a game seven against Russell in which he scored 30 points, with 32 rebounds, and shot 80% (yes 80%.) He had another game seven against Russell, in which he outscored him, 18-6, outrebounded him, 27-21, and outshot him by an 88% to 29% margin!

We also know that Wilt never had some of the MISERABLE game sevens that Kareem had. Nor was Wilt ever held to well below the league average in FG% in ANY of his post-seasons, while Kareem, had FOUR post-seasons with those numbers, including three in his PRIME. We also know that Wilt seldom got to play a center of less than HOF quality in his post-seasons, but when he did, he CRUSHED them. A 37-23 series against Kerr (an all-star BTW.) A 38-23 series against Beatty (an all-star BTW), and a 28-26-11 .612 series against Dierking. Nor was Wilt ever held WAY below his seasonal numbers by a center of Ostertag's quailty. And while Russell held Wilt below his seasonal averages, he was better against Russell, than Shaq was against Robinson. Or when he faced a crappy center, like Shaq so often in his career, like he did in game six of the '70 Finals, all he did was put up a 45 point, 20-27 shooting from the field, and 27 rebounds...all only four months remolved from major knee surgery. As for Kareem, he was outplayed SEVERAL times by HOF centers (Thurmond, Wilt, and Moses), and some were downright embarrasing (.405, .428, .462, .457 FG% in eras of much higher league averages.) Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series. Kareem was not only routinely outrebounded, there were several in which he was just KILLED. Wilt never had to have a GUARD lead his team in rebounding.

Playing hurt? Thanks to news articles of the day, we now KNOW that Wilt played the last four games of the '68 ECF's with THREE different leg injuries, and that he was noticeably limping throughout those four games. So, those that love to rip Wilt's game six in that series (when he shot 8-23 from the floor, albeit, with 27 rebounds), need to put it in a proper perspective. Here was Wilt, PLAYING with SEVERAL leg injuries...and yet, we witnessed Kareem sitting out a game six in a Finals with an ankle sprain. We also witnessed Reed missing the better part of three Finals' games with a thigh injury (while Chamberlain was PLAYING on a knee that had just had major surgery four months prior)...and when Reed played in those last three games, he did NOTHING. We also KNOW that Wilt not only PLAYED with TWO severely injured wrists in game five of the '72 Finals (one was badly sprained, and the other was FRACTURED), he DOMINATED that game (24 points, 29 rebounds to the ENTIRE Knick's team of 39, 10-14 shooting, and 10 blocks.) Meanwhile, when Kareem broke his wrist, he missed 16 games. Or that HOF teammate Billy Cunningham missed that ENTIRE '68 ECF series with a broken wrist.

Big games? How about a 56-35 game in game five of a best-of-five series???? How about taking a 40-40 team to a game seven, one-point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team that had a 5-2 edge in HOFers,...and scoring eight of his team's last ten points, and bringing his team back from a 110-101 deficit to 110-109? Oh, and outscoring Russell, 30-15, outrebounding him, 32-29, and outshooting him, 12-15 to 7-16? How about a 50-35 game against Russell, in an elimination game in the '60 ECF's? Or crushing Russell in a clinching game five of the '67 ECF's, when he outscored him, 29-4, outrebounded him, 36-21, outassisted him, 13-7, and outshot him, 10-16 to 2-5? Wilt had numerous 40-30 games in the post-season, and several of them came against Russell. He had four 50+ point games in his post-season, including one against Russell. He had a TON of 30+ rebound games in his post-seasons, including an NBA record of 41...against Russell. He also outrebounded and vastly outshot the great Thurmond in their three H2H post-seasons, including one in which he outrebounded him by a 23.6 to 17.2 margin, as well as outshooting him in another by an astonsihing .560 to .343 margin.

Furthermore, has ANY other great player taken a 40-40 team, up against the best team in the league, by far, the 62-18 Celtics, who had a 5-2 edge in HOFers,...to a game seven, one point loss. All he did in that series was outscore Russell by 211-109, and outrebounded him by a 221-177 margin. He also took a badly undermanned 49-31 Warrior team to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their 6-3 edge in HOFers. Give me an example of Kareem or Shaq carrying teams of that level, that far.

A "loser?" In fact, he played on only one losing team, and all he did that season was LEAD the NBA in 15 of the 22 statistical categories, including winning the scoring title by 10.8 ppg (44.8 to 34.0), as well as leading the league in rebounding at 24.6, and setting a then record of .528 from the field. He also LED that NBA that season in Win Shares, by a HUGE margin...AND he had the HIGHEST PER in NBA HISTORY. How about the rest of his career? 13 playoff series in 14 seasons (in an era when it was much tougher to make the playoffs.) 12 Conference Finals. Six conference regular season titles. Best record in the league four times. Four 60+ win seasons. Two seasons in which his team set an all-time W-L record (sinced broken by the '96 Bulls), and two DOMINATING title teams.

Of course, no one claimed MJ as a "loser" despite FIVE losing seasons. Or an MJ who played spectacularly in the '86 playoffs, but his TEAM was swept by the 67-15 Celtics, and their FIVE HOFers. No, when Jordan gets swept under those circumstances, he was "heroic." When Wilt takes his 49-31 Warriors up against a 60-20 Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and gets that team to a game seven, two-point loss, despite CLEARLY being the Warriors BEST player in that series....well, he was outplayed by Russell.

So, let's finally put all of these RIDICULOUS myths to rest. Wilt was NOT a "loser", nor was he a "failure", nor was he a "choker." In fact, he was among the greatest winners of all-time; he DOMINATED not only the regular season, but in his post-seasons: and he was arguably, the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.

[Harison]

*This message is hidden because jlauber is on your ignore list. *

But since its easy to guess OP topic, few points

1. Wilt wasnt a choker, just he was more inclined to get personal records than to win the rings.

2. Russell was ultimate winner, so even though they both had similar chance to win it all (Rus first half of their career, Wilt - 2nd half), Rus won almost 6x more rings, I think it says more than enough.

If you want spectacular individual performance you pick Wilt, if you want to win Championships, you pick Russell. There are many factors, but at the very core its that simple

[The_Yearning]

Nobody gives a **** about Wilt.

[Andrei89]

Howard could also score 100 points playing against mostly scrubs. And average 50 points per game as a C.

WILT most overrated center of all time

[Micku]

So, let's finally put all of these RIDICULOUS myths to rest. Wilt was NOT a "loser", nor was he a "failure", nor was he a "choker." In fact, he was among the greatest winners of all-time; he DOMINATED not only the regular season, but in his post-seasons: and he was arguably, the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.

People will never consider him the greatest winners of all-time. He was consider more of a underachieve because of his talent. How can someone that dominant as much as he does, but could never win the championship? The reason is because it is a team sport. He was criticize because of his output, his stats, and points. It wasn't until he stop producing as many points did they win a title. This will always be something that will hang over Wilt's head.

He was consider a underachieve since his college days. I don't think he ever won in college either. Why should the people believe his the greatest winner of all time when he couldn't win in college and barely won in the NBA? Nobody consider him the best winner then, why should we consider him the best winner now? Team always beat individuals. Winning was never his record, it's individual dominance.

In fact, Jordan had the same treatment. They criticize him that NOBODY can win the NBA title leading the league in scoring and being the one man show. They wanted him to be more like Bird or Magic who pass the ball, decreasing their scoring output, and make their team better. The only person who lead the league in scoring and win the title was Kareem. It wasn't until the triangle system that Jordan ended up proving them wrong. Then later Shaq. Wilt never had that luxury.

The common people just think that Wilt was ahead of his time, care too much about stats than team production, when he concentrated on team production he couldn't get over the hump as much. His record doesn't argue against it in the main outcome, and that's what will the people will see.

Wilt was probably the best athletic freak that the NBA ever seen, unfortunately he could not dominant the NBA titles as much he can dominate the stats. That is the main concept of winning, and he could not do it because basketball is a team sport.

Wilt even wanted to quit the NBA because he could never win the title. Plus people nowdays think he never had the "killer instant". He never wanted to to completely destroy the opponent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVV7D...lated#t=06m10s

People nowadays would say if Wilt had Russel mentality, Bird, or Jordan (nowadays) then Wilt would be more amazing.

But overall: Wilt just does not have the record of winning the titles. That is what people will see. People will think "This guy averaged this many points/rebounds/assists and he still couldn't win?" Wilt will never be consider as the best winner.

[creepingdeath]

What kinda makes me emphatic toward your argument in general, not the original post in particular, is that past players do get forgotten in a way and revisionists seem to rewrite basketball history to fit their agenda or ignorance. Past glory seems to become dull and grey in the face of a new one.

Funny thing is, you don't even have to change the decade for that. For example, some people seem to be oblivious to the fact that Shaq was the clear #1 on the LA team. Only 16 years old Kobe fanboys, who didn't even WATCH the games then and don't realize the media coverage of that time, would refute that. Or the way Grant Hill was dealt with as the next Jordan. The way KG beasted in the early 2000s. Early T-Mac. That Dirk was "the thing" in the mid 00's and dominating. What Iverson did with his team despite all his faults. How Kobe was a persona non grata because of the alleged rape incident and refs were conducting games in dubio contra reo; how great Kobe was although the refs were biased AGAINST him. The kind of impact great role players have always had. There are tons of examples for the last decade alone. Myths everywhere. Twisted facts and realities.

Don't even mention the 90s. For some ISH members, there are only two kinds of guys: winners and chokers. Only extremes, no area in-between. Jordan and Malone. Hakeem and Ewing. They often take rings as main factor in their depiction of GOAT lists and seem to forget that basketball is still a team game. That history is sometimes influenced by tiny details, that one missed bucket could've changed whole dynasties. More importantly, that some players got more lucky than others concerning their team, their franchise, their owner. Yeah, a ring is fine and all, but to say that Kobe/Duncan/ANYONE has to be in everyone's top 10 is just ridiculous. First of all, GOAT lists are always subjective. Secondly, when comparing players you have to factor in the different eras AND of course the circumstances. Why, for example, is it a heresy to have Dr. J or Robertson in front of Kobe (the question is rhetorical, I don't want to hear your biased arguments)? Or anyone else, for that matter? This is exactly why such lists suck. Past players, especially ringless ballers, drown in the veiled mysteries of the past, although they might have been better.

[PHILA]

What kinda makes me emphatic toward your argument in general, not the original post in particular, is that past players do get forgotten in a way and revisionists seem to rewrite basketball history to fit their agenda or ignorance. Past glory seems to become dull and grey in the face of a new one.

Funny thing is, you don't even have to change the decade for that. For example, some people seem to be oblivious to the fact that Shaq was the clear #1 on the LA team. Only 16 years old Kobe fanboys, who didn't even WATCH the games then and don't realize the media coverage of that time, would refute that. Or the way Grant Hill was dealt with as the next Jordan. The way KG beasted in the early 2000s. Early T-Mac. That Dirk was "the thing" in the mid 00's and dominating. What Iverson did with his team despite all his faults. How Kobe was a persona non grata because of the alleged rape incident and refs were conducting games in dubio contra reo; how great Kobe was although the refs were biased AGAINST him. The kind of impact great role players have always had. There are tons of examples for the last decade alone. Myths everywhere. Twisted facts and realities.

Don't even mention the 90s. For some ISH members, there are only two kinds of guys: winners and chokers. Only extremes, no area in-between. Jordan and Malone. Hakeem and Ewing. They often take rings as main factor in their depiction of GOAT lists and seem to forget that basketball is still a team game. That history is sometimes influenced by tiny details, that one missed bucket could've changed whole dynasties. More importantly, that some players got more lucky than others concerning their team, their franchise, their owner. Yeah, a ring is fine and all, but to say that Kobe/Duncan/ANYONE has to be in everyone's top 10 is just ridiculous. First of all, GOAT lists are always subjective. Secondly, when comparing players you have to factor in the different eras AND of course the circumstances. Why, for example, is it a heresy to have Dr. J or Robertson in front of Kobe (the question is rhetorical, I don't want to hear your biased arguments)? Or anyone else, for that matter? This is exactly why such lists suck. Past players, especially ringless ballers, drown in the veiled mysteries of the past, although they might have been better.

[zay_24]

Howard could also score 100 points playing against mostly scrubs. And average 50 points per game as a C.

WILT most overrated center of all time

I would rep you if i could.

[MasterDurant24]

Howard could also score 100 points playing against mostly scrubs. And average 50 points per game as a C.

WILT most overrated center of all time

Get out troll, the centers today are just terrible. How did we go from Wilt and Russsel, to Kareem, McAdoo, Bill Walton, Bob Lanier, and Willis Reed, to Moses Malone and Robert Parish, to Hakeem, David Robinson, and Patrick Ewing, to Shaq and Duncan, to freaking Dwight Howard and Andrew Bogut?

[jlauber]

He was consider a underachieve since his college days. I don't think he ever won in college either. Why should the people believe his the greatest winner of all time when he couldn't win in college and barely won in the NBA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

[QUOTE]At KU, Chamberlain became a player for the Kansas Jayhawks freshman team under coach Phog Allen, whom he admired, and also a member of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc, where he was the president of his pledge class.[24] Announced as "looking lighter than his 240 pounds, [able to] reach 9'6" up in the air [flatfooted], and a [wingspan of] 7'2"", [B]his debut was highly anticipated, and he delivered: in Chamberlain's debut game for the freshman squad, the freshman Jayhawks were pitted against the varsity Jayhawks, who were favored to win their conference that year. Chamberlain dominated his older college mates by scoring 42 points (16

[ashlar]

Is it accurate to say a good college team nowadays would dominate a 60s pro team?

[jlauber]

Is it accurate to say a good college team nowadays would dominate a 60s pro team?

I wonder how many good college teams today have a player like 6-9 260 lb Luke Jackson at PF, or 6-7 "Kangaroo" Billy Cunningam on the bench, along with players like Hal Greer and Chet Walker on their starting five? Oh, and BTW, a 7-1, 285 lb center that was a high-jump champion, a long-jumper, a sprinter, a powerful weight-lifter (perhaps as much as 500 lb. bench press) that could score from 15 ft. with a variety of post moves and shots.

[PHILA]

Is it accurate to say a good college team nowadays would dominate a 60s pro team?

Best team back then would humiliate any active NBA team from 2010.

[ashlar]

Best team back then would humiliate any active NBA team from 2010.

you are too much

[jlauber]

Thanks to PHILA...

Originally Posted by PHILA
'"How many layups do you think there were in the last Laker game? Forty-eight. People will tell you guys shoot better now. No doubt they shoot a little better, but not like you'd think from looking at the percentages. Mike Cooper is shooting 59 percent. You want to bet some money he'd outshoot Jerry West? I'll bet my house against him (Cooper) on Dolph Schayes. I'll take Larry Costello and give you any Laker with the exception of Wilkes.

Players just get to the basket (layups) more. It ups their percentage. There's no defense inside. When I played, if the other team ran a fast break two or three times, the coach would assign a forward to break back on defense as soon as the ball went up. I never see a coach doing that now. There were no uncontested layups.

My last two or three years I shot 69 to 73 percent. You think I was a better shooter? No, the defenses got worse and I was able to dunk every damn ball I wanted to. It was easier to get there. When I played against guys like Johnny Kerr . . . He was 6-10 and couldn't jump, but I'll tell you, you didn't get to the basket on him."'

-1982



"It's a run up and down the court and dunk the ball game now. These are speed merchants and jumping fools. That's why their shooting percentages are going way up. I led the league 11 times in field goal percentage and my lifetime average was 54%. There are now five billion guys shooting over 54%. Can you imagine playing when your hands are so cold and the ball is as hard as a brick? I can remember going to Detroit and playing the old Detroit Arena and there's about 3000 people in this big old huge thing. Every time they opened the door, the wind blows through. I can vividly remember Paul Arizin blowing into his hands and the smoke was blowing out of his nose. Guys were shooting 37%, and these were great shooters. People look at that any say, 'Is that a basketball player or was he on a blind team?' They don't know how to put that into perspective."

-1985




Wilt Chamberlain


1960 Game 3 vs. Nationals (best of 3 series at the time): 53 points in a 20 point win.

1962 Game 5 vs. Nationals: 56 points, 35 rebounds in a 17 point win.

1962 Game 6 vs Celtics: 32 points in a 10 point win

1962 Game 7 vs Celtics: 22 points, 21 rebounds in a 2 point loss

1964 Game 5 vs. Hawks: 50 points in a 24 point win.

1964 Game 7 vs. Hawks: 39 points, 26 rebounds, 12 blocks in a 10 point win.

1965 Game 6 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 26 rebounds in a 6 point win

1965 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 32 rebounds in a 1 point loss

1966 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 46 points, 34 rebounds in an 8 point loss

1967 Game 2 vs. Royals: 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists in a 21 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Royals: 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 1 vs. Celtics: 24 points, 32 rebounds, 13 assists, 12 blocks in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Celtics: 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists in an 11 point win.

1967 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists in a 24 point win.

1968 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 25 points, 27 rebounds in an 18 point win. Little known fact is that Chamberlain led BOTH TEAMS in points, rebounds, and assists for the entire series, whilst nursing an assortment of injuries, including his annual shin splints. This against two Hall Of Fame centers Walt Bellamy & Willis Reed. Apparently Willis used to tremble at the mere sight of Luke Jackson in the MSG tunnel pre-game.

1968 Game 7 vs Celtics: 14 points, 34 rebounds in a 4 point loss (This despite two touches in the entire 4th quarter, the smartest move Russell has ever made in his career switching himself over to guard Chet).

1969 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 18 points, 27 rebounds in a 2 point loss (Head coach leaves him on the bench due to a personal grudge.)

1970 Game 5 vs. Suns: 36 points, 14 rebounds in a 17 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Suns: 30 points, 27 rebounds, 11 blocks in a 35 point win (helped lead Lakers back from 1-3 deficit)

1970 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 45 points, 27 rebounds in a 22 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Knicks: 21 points, 24 rebounds in a 14 point loss

(Understand that he should have not even been playing in the 1969-70 season after his injury, but was able to rehab his knee in time with his workouts in volleyball, a sport he would later become a Hall Of Famer in as well.)

1971 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 25 points, 18 rebounds in an 11 point win

1971 Game 5 vs. Bucks: 23 points, 12 rebounds, 6 blocks in an 18 point loss without Elgin Baylor or Jerry West. (Alcindor in this game had 20 points, 15 rebounds, and 3 blocks).

1973 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 21 points, 28 rebounds in a 3 point win (Bulls had the ball and a one point lead with 30 or so seconds left in the 4th. Norm Van Lier goes up for the shot only to have it rejected by the "big choker" Wilt Chamberlain. Chamberlain blocked Van Lier's shot right to Gail Goodrich down court for the go ahead basket. Is there any mention of this clutch defensive play from Chamberlain in Bill Simmons "Book Of Basketball"?

1973 Game 5 vs. Knicks: 23 points, 21 rebounds in a 9 point loss (a hobbled Jerry West finished with 12 points)


Yep...Wilt was a "choker" and a "failure."

Incidently, you can add game five of the '60 ECF's (Philadelphia was down 3-1, so it was a must-win game), and he responded with a 50-35 game against Russell in a 128-107 win. Keep in mind that game was in his rookie season, and he faced a Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers.

And, IMHO, his greatest effort came against Kareem in game six of the WCF's. He held Kareem to 16-37 shooting, while going 8-12 himself, and scoring 22 points with 24 rebounds. And, he absolutely took over the game in the 4th quarter, and led LA back from a 10 point deficit to a clinching four point win. He also blocked 11 shots in that game, and five of them were Kareem's sky-hooks.

Or Wilt, with two badly injured wrists dominating the clinching game five win the Finals, with a 24 point, 10-14 shooting, 29 rebound (the ENTIRE Knick team had 39 BTW), and 10 block game.