Wilt Chamberlain - What IF

[LAZERUSS]

I think he was fanatical about it. If you want to make that argument that he was more valuable playing safe with four or five than sitting on the bench, your point is a good one. Still, given all I've read about him, I'm just not going to buy that his pride about that stat didn't motivate him.

Re: Lebron. During his time in Cleveland I spent a lot of time on the local Cavs chat board, and he got nothing for grief for committing so few fouls. People thought his defense was soft. He's definitely improved since his early days, but getting a few chase down blocks doesn't make someone a great defender in my book. It's like saying a shortstop is great because he makes some diving stops, yet some better shortstop might have made the very same plays without having to dive at all. Do people really think Lebron is a great defender, or does your use of quotes mean you agree with me that he's overrated?

By the way, there's no doubt in my mind that Wilt was a great defender. Russell may have played mind games with him, but he has also often admitted that Wilt was as tough a defender as there was.

My mind still boggles at the thought of Wilt and Nate Thurmond on the same team...

You are a good poster, but ijn general, th topic of Wilt's fouls has been way overblown.

Did you know that in the 143 Russell-Wilt h2h's, that Chamberlain had a toal of 19 games with 4+ fouls? Or that his team's went 9-10 in those games (which was actualy a better w-l percentage than overall)? Or that Wilt committed five fouls in only six of those games (and his team's went 2-4)? Meanwhile, Russell had 71 games against Wilt of 4+ fouls, with 47games of 5+, and six in which he fouled out?

Furthermore, over the course of Wilt's entire regular season career, he averaged 2.0 PFs per game, in a career in which he averaged 45.8 mpg. And, in his 160 post-season games, in which he averaged a mind-boggling 47.2 mpg, he was committing 2.5 PFs per game. The reality was, Chamberlain was very seldom even sniffing foul trouble.

And in previous topics on this subject, the challenge has been thrown out there for the wilt-bashers to provide proof of Wilt's foul trouble costing his team's games...and no one has unearthed even one game.

In an OT game four of the '72 Finals, Chamberlain, burdened with five fouls, blocked two key shots down the stretch to preserve the win. And, it is interesting that you brought up Chamberlain's game seven of the '69 Finals (the famous van Breda Kolf loses the series game by benching Wilt in the last five minutes of a two point loss.) Wilt had picked up his fifth foul late in the third quarter, and with Boston leading by 15 points. Why is that interesting? Because early in the 4th quarter Russell picked up HIS 5th foul, and with Boston leading by 17 points. The very next play LA threw the ball into Chamberlain, who went right around th statuesque Russell for an easy layin. And while the idiotic Van Breda Kolf did not have his team pass the ball down low to Wilt again in that game, LA still knocked the deficit down to seven points when Wilt finally came off the floor...in a matter of four minutes.

And let's get real here...if a player gets in foul trouble, he SHOULD play a softer defense. I could never understand the criticism that Chamberlain received, when in reality, he was probably the best player in history at limiting his fouls, and in the rare instances when he was in foul trouble, playing smart enough to avoid fouling out.


As for the Wilt-Thurmond tandem...I alays get a kick out of those (and this is not directed at you BTW), that will include this fact in their take on the HOF players that Wilt played with in his career. The fact was, the two played together for one full season, and it was in Nate's rookie season. Thurmond was a natural center, so he was playing out of position, and he only played part-time. Furthermore, he shot .395 from the field because of it.

[Psileas]

Did you know that in the 143 Russell-Wilt h2h's, that Chamberlain had a toal of 19 games with 4+ fouls? Or that his team's went 9-10 in those games (which was actualy a better w-l percentage than overall)? Or that Wilt committed five fouls in only six of those games (and his team's went 2-4)? Meanwhile, Russell had 71 games against Wilt of 4+ fouls, with 47games of 5+, and six in which he fouled out?

If these were Wilt's fouling stats, people would be flocking like there's no tomorrow, showing this significant number discrepancy between games of 5 fouls and games of 6 fouls (47 vs 6) as clear evidence that Wilt didn't play defense after commiting 5 fouls...

[LAZERUSS]

But what you think Lazeruss? More rings? 3-4? Even more ppg or rpg??

You would have to provide me with some examples first. I have read some who have claimed that Wilt "eased up" against Reed in game seven of the '70 Finals, and it may have even been somewhat true, but the reality was, a team of MJ's probably would not have beaten the Knicks that day. NY came out and hit 15 of their first 21 shots, and by halftime they had built a 27 point lead. Furthermore, Wilt was the ONLY Laker who played well in that game (and keep in mind that he, himself, was only four months removed from major knee surgery.)

I have posted it before, and I won't bother reposting it now, but the real reason that Chamberlain "only" won two rings, was that his teammatess were either inferior (and in several series, FAR inferior), injured, poorly coached, puked all over themselves (especially in critical games), or a combination of all those. Add to that that his opposing teams even had some luck, and it there was probably no other Top-10 player who played on team's that lost so many close key games, which ultimately cost Wilt 4-5 rings.

And once again, the NBA would never have allowed Chamberlain to play like Shaq back then. They were already creating a number of "ant-Wilt" rules in an attempt to curtail his domination (none of which really did BTW...except the dunking of FTs), so I am convinced that they would not have allowed Wilt to just run over and thru his opposing players. If they had, they would have been carrying players off in body bags. Wilt would have made a complete mockery of the NBA, and likely would have killed it off altogether.

[LAZERUSS]

If these were Wilt's fouling stats, people would be flocking like there's no tomorrow, showing this significant number discrepancy between games of 5 fouls and games of 6 fouls (47 vs 6) as clear evidence that Wilt didn't play defense after commiting 5 fouls...

You and I both know that no matter what stats are used...the "Wilt-bashers" will try to twist them around in a way to make Chamberlain look bad, even when it is almost impossible to do so.

[CavaliersFTW]

You are a good poster, but ijn general, th topic of Wilt's fouls has been way overblown.

Did you know that in the 143 Russell-Wilt h2h's, that Chamberlain had a toal of 19 games with 4+ fouls? Or that his team's went 9-10 in those games (which was actualy a better w-l percentage than overall)? Or that Wilt committed five fouls in only six of those games (and his team's went 2-4)? Meanwhile, Russell had 71 games against Wilt of 4+ fouls, with 47games of 5+, and six in which he fouled out?

Furthermore, over the course of Wilt's entire regular season career, he averaged 2.0 PFs per game, in a career in which he averaged 45.8 mpg. And, in his 160 post-season games, in which he averaged a mind-boggling 47.2 mpg, he was committing 2.5 PFs per game. The reality was, Chamberlain was very seldom even sniffing foul trouble.

And in previous topics on this subject, the challenge has been thrown out there for the wilt-bashers to provide proof of Wilt's foul trouble costing his team's games...and no one has unearthed even one game.

In an OT game four of the '72 Finals, Chamberlain, burdened with five fouls, blocked two key shots down the stretch to preserve the win. And, it is interesting that you brought up Chamberlain's game seven of the '69 Finals (the famous van Breda Kolf loses the series game by benching Wilt in the last five minutes of a two point loss.) Wilt had picked up his fifth foul late in the third quarter, and with Boston leading by 15 points. Why is that interesting? Because early in the 4th quarter Russell picked up HIS 5th foul, and with Boston leading by 17 points. The very next play LA threw the ball into Chamberlain, who went right around th statuesque Russell for an easy layin. And while the idiotic Van Breda Kolf did not have his team pass the ball down low to Wilt again in that game, LA still knocked the deficit down to seven points when Wilt finally came off the floor...in a matter of four minutes.

And let's get real here...if a player gets in foul trouble, he SHOULD play a softer defense. I could never understand the criticism that Chamberlain received, when in reality, he was probably the best player in history at limiting his fouls, and in the rare instances when he was in foul trouble, playing smart enough to avoid fouling out.


As for the Wilt-Thurmond tandem...I alays get a kick out of those (and this is not directed at you BTW), that will include this fact in their take on the HOF players that Wilt played with in his career. The fact was, the two played together for one full season, and it was in Nate's rookie season. Thurmond was a natural center, so he was playing out of position, and he only played part-time. Furthermore, he shot .395 from the field because of it.

Well that about destroys this 'Wilt cost his teams by not fouling out' nonsense. Who's behind that B.S. theory anyways, was this theory that Wilt's 'fouling out record = a bad thing' just more of the typical made up crap mentioned in Bill Simmons book?

[La Frescobaldi]

You are a good poster, but ijn general, th topic of Wilt's fouls has been way overblown.

Did you know that in the 143 Russell-Wilt h2h's, that Chamberlain had a toal of 19 games with 4+ fouls? Or that his team's went 9-10 in those games (which was actualy a better w-l percentage than overall)? Or that Wilt committed five fouls in only six of those games (and his team's went 2-4)? Meanwhile, Russell had 71 games against Wilt of 4+ fouls, with 47games of 5+, and six in which he fouled out?

Furthermore, over the course of Wilt's entire regular season career, he averaged 2.0 PFs per game, in a career in which he averaged 45.8 mpg. And, in his 160 post-season games, in which he averaged a mind-boggling 47.2 mpg, he was committing 2.5 PFs per game. The reality was, Chamberlain was very seldom even sniffing foul trouble.

And in previous topics on this subject, the challenge has been thrown out there for the wilt-bashers to provide proof of Wilt's foul trouble costing his team's games...and no one has unearthed even one game.

In an OT game four of the '72 Finals, Chamberlain, burdened with five fouls, blocked two key shots down the stretch to preserve the win. And, it is interesting that you brought up Chamberlain's game seven of the '69 Finals (the famous van Breda Kolf loses the series game by benching Wilt in the last five minutes of a two point loss.) Wilt had picked up his fifth foul late in the third quarter, and with Boston leading by 15 points. Why is that interesting? Because early in the 4th quarter Russell picked up HIS 5th foul, and with Boston leading by 17 points. The very next play LA threw the ball into Chamberlain, who went right around th statuesque Russell for an easy layin. And while the idiotic Van Breda Kolf did not have his team pass the ball down low to Wilt again in that game, LA still knocked the deficit down to seven points when Wilt finally came off the floor...in a matter of four minutes.

And let's get real here...if a player gets in foul trouble, he SHOULD play a softer defense. I could never understand the criticism that Chamberlain received, when in reality, he was probably the best player in history at limiting his fouls, and in the rare instances when he was in foul trouble, playing smart enough to avoid fouling out.


As for the Wilt-Thurmond tandem...I alays get a kick out of those (and this is not directed at you BTW), that will include this fact in their take on the HOF players that Wilt played with in his career. The fact was, the two played together for one full season, and it was in Nate's rookie season. Thurmond was a natural center, so he was playing out of position, and he only played part-time. Furthermore, he shot .395 from the field because of it.

Chamberlain would go game after game after game and not have any fouls at all. That's always been a stupid conversation, started by people who never saw any books except simmons Book of Basketball Lies, nor saw Chamberlain play (or probably Kareem either, for that matter), and here you've looked into some stats that completely destroy it... ty. It's only what guys that watched ball in those days always knew.
Not only did #13 play at an increasingly great defensive level as he got older, he just never did foul. It was almost always in the newspaper if he got 5 fouls - because that was very freaking newsworthy.

[CavaliersFTW]

You are a good poster, but ijn general, th topic of Wilt's fouls has been way overblown.

Did you know that in the 143 Russell-Wilt h2h's, that Chamberlain had a toal of 19 games with 4+ fouls? Or that his team's went 9-10 in those games (which was actualy a better w-l percentage than overall)? Or that Wilt committed five fouls in only six of those games (and his team's went 2-4)? Meanwhile, Russell had 71 games against Wilt of 4+ fouls, with 47games of 5+, and six in which he fouled out?

Furthermore, over the course of Wilt's entire regular season career, he averaged 2.0 PFs per game, in a career in which he averaged 45.8 mpg. And, in his 160 post-season games, in which he averaged a mind-boggling 47.2 mpg, he was committing 2.5 PFs per game. The reality was, Chamberlain was very seldom even sniffing foul trouble.

And in previous topics on this subject, the challenge has been thrown out there for the wilt-bashers to provide proof of Wilt's foul trouble costing his team's games...and no one has unearthed even one game.

In an OT game four of the '72 Finals, Chamberlain, burdened with five fouls, blocked two key shots down the stretch to preserve the win. And, it is interesting that you brought up Chamberlain's game seven of the '69 Finals (the famous van Breda Kolf loses the series game by benching Wilt in the last five minutes of a two point loss.) Wilt had picked up his fifth foul late in the third quarter, and with Boston leading by 15 points. Why is that interesting? Because early in the 4th quarter Russell picked up HIS 5th foul, and with Boston leading by 17 points. The very next play LA threw the ball into Chamberlain, who went right around th statuesque Russell for an easy layin. And while the idiotic Van Breda Kolf did not have his team pass the ball down low to Wilt again in that game, LA still knocked the deficit down to seven points when Wilt finally came off the floor...in a matter of four minutes.

And let's get real here...if a player gets in foul trouble, he SHOULD play a softer defense. I could never understand the criticism that Chamberlain received, when in reality, he was probably the best player in history at limiting his fouls, and in the rare instances when he was in foul trouble, playing smart enough to avoid fouling out.


As for the Wilt-Thurmond tandem...I alays get a kick out of those (and this is not directed at you BTW), that will include this fact in their take on the HOF players that Wilt played with in his career. The fact was, the two played together for one full season, and it was in Nate's rookie season. Thurmond was a natural center, so he was playing out of position, and he only played part-time. Furthermore, he shot .395 from the field because of it.

JL/Lazeruss, this incredibly thread worthy - will you make a new topic and just copy-paste this post in it (could call it something like the myth/lie that Wilt was a liability because of his fouling out record) so it can be more easily searchable/referenced in the future? I will def be referencing this any time someone tries to assert Wilt was somehow a 'liability' due to his record of never fouling out.

[LAZERUSS]

JL/Lazeruss, this incredibly thread worthy - will you make a new topic and just copy-paste this post in it (could call it something like the myth/lie that Wilt was a liability because of his fouling out record) so it can be more easily searchable/referenced in the future? I will def be referencing this any time someone tries to assert Wilt was somehow a 'liability' due to his record of never fouling out.

I appreciate the kind words, but the information is readily available out there. I actually used fpliii's Russell-Wilt h2h's...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...5TkFDY3c#gid=0

In any case, feel free to post it, or reference it anytime you like.

Also, it would be interesting for the resident researchers here to come up with Chamberlain's key playoff games, in which he played with five fouls, and how his play affected the outcome. I already posted his key defensive blocks in game four of the '72 Finals (and BTW, in the same game he was playing with a fractured wrist, as well.)


And speaking of fpliii....

I hope he makes a post here on the topic of the effect of the 2-to-make-1, and 3-to-make-2 FTs on Wilt's TS%. He has posted it on another forum, so I won't paste the link, but it is just fascinating research. The bottom line...Wilt's "effective" TS% was somewhat higher than his actual TS%.

The only thing I would like to see him add to that, would be Wilt's "effective" TS% against the league average. Which is the one major flaw in any argument on the subject of TS%. As I have claimed for a long time, in any of these Wilt statistical discussions, you not only have to factor in pace, but league average as well. Furthermore, while it is virtually impossible to prove, it is still a very valid assumption....that Wilt's MPG hindered his efficiencies in his career.

Once again, thanks.

[Pointguard]

You are a good poster, but ijn general, th topic of Wilt's fouls has been way overblown.

Did you know that in the 143 Russell-Wilt h2h's, that Chamberlain had a toal of 19 games with 4+ fouls? Or that his team's went 9-10 in those games (which was actualy a better w-l percentage than overall)? Or that Wilt committed five fouls in only six of those games (and his team's went 2-4)? Meanwhile, Russell had 71 games against Wilt of 4+ fouls, with 47games of 5+, and six in which he fouled out?

Furthermore, over the course of Wilt's entire regular season career, he averaged 2.0 PFs per game, in a career in which he averaged 45.8 mpg. And, in his 160 post-season games, in which he averaged a mind-boggling 47.2 mpg, he was committing 2.5 PFs per game. The reality was, Chamberlain was very seldom even sniffing foul trouble.

And in previous topics on this subject, the challenge has been thrown out there for the wilt-bashers to provide proof of Wilt's foul trouble costing his team's games...and no one has unearthed even one game.

In an OT game four of the '72 Finals, Chamberlain, burdened with five fouls, blocked two key shots down the stretch to preserve the win. And, it is interesting that you brought up Chamberlain's game seven of the '69 Finals (the famous van Breda Kolf loses the series game by benching Wilt in the last five minutes of a two point loss.) Wilt had picked up his fifth foul late in the third quarter, and with Boston leading by 15 points. Why is that interesting? Because early in the 4th quarter Russell picked up HIS 5th foul, and with Boston leading by 17 points. The very next play LA threw the ball into Chamberlain, who went right around th statuesque Russell for an easy layin. And while the idiotic Van Breda Kolf did not have his team pass the ball down low to Wilt again in that game, LA still knocked the deficit down to seven points when Wilt finally came off the floor...in a matter of four minutes.

And let's get real here...if a player gets in foul trouble, he SHOULD play a softer defense. I could never understand the criticism that Chamberlain received, when in reality, he was probably the best player in history at limiting his fouls, and in the rare instances when he was in foul trouble, playing smart enough to avoid fouling out.


As for the Wilt-Thurmond tandem...I alays get a kick out of those (and this is not directed at you BTW), that will include this fact in their take on the HOF players that Wilt played with in his career. The fact was, the two played together for one full season, and it was in Nate's rookie season. Thurmond was a natural center, so he was playing out of position, and he only played part-time. Furthermore, he shot .395 from the field because of it.

Good Stuff

[Pointguard]

Chamberlain had enormous drive to win. As much drive as anybody had. Don't kid yourself with all the koolaid about that. It's largely myth.

The mentality to score 50ppg or 40ppg over 7 years is something I would like to have seen in any other big man. Even when Kareem had bounce in his legs, a shot nobody was touching, and was angry with the league he was never going to get close to 40ppg. You have to be crazy determined to pull that off. If you remember the Jordan's 37ppg year how much of an effort he put into it was amazing that he could keep up the energy.

If Wilt did the rebounding alone that would show a will of great passion. But he was doing both at crazy levels. And blocking shots at unheard of levels. So there was nothing ever wrong with his motor. The amount of movement, speed and will in him was off the charts. Jordan and Russell had uncommonly high levels of killer instinct, like a young Mike Tyson when he smelt blood. I don't see a lot of killer instinct in Mayweather, or Duncan for that matter, but they definitely have it. Wilt was more like the later.

They would not have let Wilt go like Shaq where he showed disregard for other players. They went out to tame Wilt at every corner. One could argue they even used the MVP to tame him (voting favored him at under 40ppg). Wilt knew that if he ever got careless, fouling out would have been a "taming" tactic.

[LAZERUSS]

The mentality to score 50ppg or 40ppg over 7 years is something I would like to have seen in any other big man. Even when Kareem had bounce in his legs, a shot nobody was touching, and was angry with the league he was never going to get close to 40ppg. You have to be crazy determined to pull that off. If you remember the Jordan's 37ppg year how much of an effort he put into it was amazing that he could keep up the energy.

If Wilt did the rebounding alone that would show a will of great passion. But he was doing both at crazy levels. And blocking shots at unheard of levels. So there was nothing ever wrong with his motor. The amount of movement, speed and will in him was off the charts. Jordan and Russell had uncommonly high levels of killer instinct, like a young Mike Tyson when he smelt blood. I don't see a lot of killer instinct in Mayweather, or Duncan for that matter, but they definitely have it. Wilt was more like the later.

They would not have let Wilt go like Shaq where he showed disregard for other players. They went out to tame Wilt at every corner. One could argue they even used the MVP to tame him (voting favored him at under 40ppg). Wilt knew that if he ever got careless, fouling out would have been a "taming" tactic.

As always, an excellent post.

It just amazes me at how the Wilt-detractors try to diminish Chamberlain's accomplishments at almost every turn.

As you mentioned...he averaged 40 ppg over the course of seven straight seasons...combined. The next best full SINGLE season scoring mark IN the Wilt era... 35.6 ppg. Or that there were a total of 37 60+ point games during Wilt's 14 seasons...and he had 32 of them. So, take Chamberlain out of the equation, and with the exception of rebounding, and the period from 1960 thru 1973 would have been a very ordinary 14 years. Furthermore, remove Wilt from that period, and the highest FG% would have been little known Johnny Green's .587.

I have read Simmons' take, as well as other posters here, disparaging Chamberlain for leading the league in assists one season (oh, and he BTW, he came in third in another.) One poster made the comment that all Wilt did was pass to open teammates who hit 20 ft shots. Yep, which despite being horribly inaccurate, was still the definition of an assist. But even more laughable, was the fact that Chamberlain's passing hurt his team so much that they could only go 62-20, and ran away with the best record in the league.

The Wilt-bashers always use "pace" against Wilt, but never mention league average. And they will use the fact that Chamberlain played nearly every minute of every game against him in an attempt to diminish his achievements, but they will never acknowledge the fact that playing 46 mpg for his entire career most assuredly hurt his efficiencies (e.g., FG%, or TRB%.)

They will claim that Wilt's rebounding numbers were inflated, but neevr acknowledge that he just blew away his peers away, not only in the numbers, but in H2h play, as well (for instance, in 143 H2H games with Russell, Wilt outrebounded him, on average, by FIVE per game.) Or that a 36 year old Wilt, in his last post-season, and covering 17 playoff games, averaged 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg. And that the next best mark, since, was KAJ's 17.3 rpg in 11 playoff games in 76-77.

The anti-Wilt gang bring up "competition" ...mostly the completely fabricated notion that he faced small white guys...but never mention the fact that Chamberlain just destroyed the 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy his entire career. Or that a prime Wilt crushed the 6-11 HOFer Nate Thurmond far more than a prime Kareem did against an aging Thurmond. Or that a Wilt, in his last two seasons, covering 11 straight games, averaged 24 ppg on a staggering .784 FG% against 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier. Or that a prime Wilt just shelled all the other seven-footers of his era (and keep in mind that most of the 6-11 players of his era would measure at over seven feet today.)

The Wilt-detractors scoff at his blocked shot numbers. But they will never bring up the fact that a Wilt, in his last season, averaged 5.4 bpg. And only 12 years later Mark Eaton set the "official" mark of 5.56. Nor do they ever bring up the fact that Wilt was routinely blocking a prime Kareem's "unblockable" sky-hook (hell, we have VIDEO footage of an old Chamberlain rejecting TWO of them in a span of about five seconds.)

The "Custer Gang", as I like to call them, label Wilt as a "choker", despite the fact that Chamberlain was one of the most prolific "big game" players in NBA history. As well as the fact that he almost always outplayed his opposing centers in the post-season (and in his post-season career, he faced a HOF starting center in 105 of his 160 post-season games.)

They will call him a "loser" despite the fact that he played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, and two of which he anchored are among the top-four teams in NBA history. Or that he went to 12 Conference Finals in his 13 post-seasons, as well as SIX Finals. And he even took putrid rosters to the brink of upsetting the greatest Dynasty in modern American team sports history on several occasions.

Or they will claim that Russell was the better player despite the fact that Wilt outplayed him in the vast majority of their H2H's, and absolutely destroyed him in many of them.

I could go on, and have before, but Simmons and his disciples have been completely shredded in their arguments. And now with the advanced research we have available, as well as the amazing video footage that Cavs Fan, and others, have unearthed, it is pretty clear that Wilt was the most dominant force that has ever played the game. And even the most ardent "Custerites" have scattered for the hills. And only a small handful of blockheads remain to troll in these discussions.

[pudman13]

RE: Wilt and Thurmond together..history has shown that the twin towers concept can often be more trouble than it's worth. That's not a knock on Wilt (or Thurmond either--after all, he was a rookie), but on the concept. Reed and Bellamy couldn't play together, and if you look closely at the Houston teams of the mid-80s, Sampson actually played his best ball when Hakeem wasn't on the floor. McHale and Parish payed well together, but McHale really was a natural PF, just a tall one, and both guys played a game where they didn't clog up space (and they didn't have a team full of people who drove the lane anyway.)

When I think about all the basketball I've watched in my life, the one thing that still baffles me more than anything is the Shaq offense and how the refs just threw the rule book out the window for him. I think I agree with the poster who says the game is better becaue they don't call palming anymore (i.e. it would have been better to see the stars of the 60s and 70s dribble like today's players than to see today's players dribble like West and Robertson), but the latitude given to Shaq is a whole other story. Anyone who thinks Wilt wouldn't have been an even *more* amazing offensive force, as if that was possible, if he'd been reffed like Shaq, just has no clue about the game.

Another interesting topic here is the idea that the 3-pointer is a key reason centers no longer lead the league in scoring. Just another way the game has been irrevocably changed. Whether you think it's good or bad is personal, but I really have trouble with the fact that so many people simply assume the 3-pointer has made the game better without really thinking through all of the things that are different because of it.

[pudman13]

the topic of Wilt's fouls has been way overblown.

Fair enough, and your research in awesome.

I think part of the reason the Wilt fans here get trolled so much, though, is that no matter how much you're a fan of someone, or how much you feel they've been wronged, sooner or later it's only realistic to criticize them a bit in some legitimate way. It's impossible to argue that Wilt didn't care deeply about his stats. You can make good arguments that it was no big deal, that his striving to lead the league in assists or to never foul out never hurt his teams (or even that they helped his teams), but I still think it's only fair to admit that he was obsessed by stuff like that, that it as a big motivator for him. Maybe that sometimes makes someone a better player. Who knows? And who's to say that this kind of thing isn't good for the fans? I find it really interesting that Kobe was so sensitive to this kind of criticism that he sat out the last game of a season when he could easily have won a scoring title. I think the NBA would have been better off if he played that game and tried to score his 40 or 45, or whatever it was. Aren't we all better off because of those amazing season-ending games by Gervin, Thompson and Robinson?

[CavaliersFTW]

Fair enough, and your research in awesome.

I think part of the reason the Wilt fans here get trolled so much, though, is that no matter how much you're a fan of someone, or how much you feel they've been wronged, sooner or later it's only realistic to criticize them a bit in some legitimate way. It's impossible to argue that Wilt didn't care deeply about his stats. You can make good arguments that it was no big deal, that his striving to lead the league in assists or to never foul out never hurt his teams (or even that they helped his teams), but I still think it's only fair to admit that he was obsessed by stuff like that, that it as a big motivator for him. Maybe that sometimes makes someone a better player. Who knows? And who's to say that this kind of thing isn't good for the fans? I find it really interesting that Kobe was so sensitive to this kind of criticism that he sat out the last game of a season when he could easily have won a scoring title. I think the NBA would have been better off if he played that game and tried to score his 40 or 45, or whatever it was. Aren't we all better off because of those amazing season-ending games by Gervin, Thompson and Robinson?

Wilt cared no more about his stats than MJ, or Kobe, or Lebron care/cared about their own stats. And it is impossible to argue otherwise. He wanted to make averages and set goals for himself just like any other player, and at the same time he didn't want to go over the top (he didn't want to be in the 100 point game for example... he was embarrassed how many shots he was taking). His mentality towards his stats is the same as any elite all time player, he just was more capable than the rest, his ceiling was higher.

What you don't seem realize is that the Wilt fans around here ARE able to criticize Wilt about his shortcomings in fact we understand his shortcomings and his overall game better than anyone. Wilt's haters and causual fans just WISH Wilt had more flaws than he really did so they twist his records around so that they somehow become a negative and they look at his stats at a glance and take things out of context, blow other things out of proportion and quite literally just make stuff up. Examples? Wilt the selfish stats padder, Wilt the 'choker', Wilt the guy with the ego (specifically as if it were bigger than any other top all-time players ego), Wilt the guy who 'lacked killer instinct/competitiveness', < --- literally none of those are true criticisms, they are journalist or fan (hater, to be more specific) fabricated fluff, recently pushed into mainstream by Bill Simmons and his book of basketball lies and spread and repeated by word of mouth by ignorant fans.

Wilt the awful free throw shooter.... <--- now that's a realistic criticism.

[pudman13]

Wilt cared no more about his stats than MJ, or Kobe, or Lebron care/cared about their own stats.

Wilt the awful free throw shooter.... <--- now that's a realistic criticism.

True, true, and those guys deserve to be called on it too. I'm not sure if "criticism" is the right word on that one. "Poked fun at" maybe?

I don't know if you were watching that game, but I remember cringing when the Cavs had Lebron feed big Z about four times for long shots desperately trying to get him that first triple double. I guess it's not as bad as Ricky Davis shooting at the wrong basket but it was still pretty weak.

RE: Wilt the free throw shooter. People seem to neglect to mention that Russell wasn't so great either...and that Duncan also had his problems (mental, like Wilt's) with them.