RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #5

[trex_8063]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Lebron James
4. Bill Russell
5. ????

Will get my thoughts up shortly, but am largely planning on going with Duncan and Wilt for this spot (could potentially be shaken off of Wilt in favour of Shaq as my alternate, though). Anyway, please begin.....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[wojoaderge]

Same first choice as #4

1st - Wilt
2nd - Larry Legend

[MisterHibachi]

Spoiler:

My method of ranking players might be simple, and obviously subjective, but I think it works for me: prime x peak x longevity. I group players by prime, tie breaker with peak, then a further tie breaker with longevity. I think wing players are more valuable on offense than big men, and for most of NBA history, big men are more valuable than wings on defense. I think the latter might be changing in the current NBA. For players who were considered superstars in their league, I consider their years as a championship caliber anchor to be their prime seasons, and longevity outside of that only counts if it was a positive for their teams.

I think Shaq/LeBron/MJ/Hakeem/Wilt/Kareem all have a similar peak level, so I'll go with Kareem for the top spot as he has the best longevity. I'll be honest, I try to imagine how they would play in the 2010 era, so it does color how I view them, but I try not to let it affect my rankings too much.

I don't have exact criteria. But I take a cursory look at the stats, but I don't usually quote them in player comparisons. My scouting skills aren't the best, but that's what I rely on for the most part. I try to watch the player a bunch before making a judgment on him. I look mainly at decision making and skill set. I think if I have a handle on those two things then I can comfortably talk about a player.

From the Russell thread:

With Wilt, I don't pay much attention to the eye popping numbers because I know they are very context dependent, from weaker competition to sub-optimal game strategy to high pace. I've been convinced by posters like Doc MJ and others that his playing style early in his years was simply sup-optimal. He wouldn't be putting up 50/25 in today's game because there are better strategies to impacting games.

So Wilt played for 14 seasons, but only 12 games in 1970 (I actually had no idea he actually missed basically an entire season, what happened this season?) He seemed to be capable of being a championship-anchor in basically all of them, so that's 13 seasons (someone correct me if I'm wrong on my judgement of his later years. A previous thread I made seemed to have 73 Wilt as high as any other 14th year season ever). Shaq on the other hand was capable of being one from 94-05. So that's 12 seasons, with 93, 06, and 09 thrown in as meaningful seasons. So neither has a real advantage in terms of longevity.

I would say Wilt was more impactful in the regular season simply because of his MP, while Shaq was clearly a better playoff performer, and while I'm not a PS > RS (or even vice versa), the reason for the disparity in playoff resilience is key I think. Although some of Wilt's losses were all super close and came down to game 7s, so I can't completely put all the team's fault on him. Would we think differently of him if the ball had bounced in his favour? Someone posted earlier in this thread that Wilt's winning percentage against non-Celtics opponents was 80%. How do I account for him facing the greatest dynasty in sports for his entire career? Does he deserve blame for not producing a decade long dynasty of his own? I'm not sure.

I think their talents are very close. Wilt probably wouldn't be a 30 point scorer in today's league, but I have no doubt he could be as impactful as anyone if he listened to proper coaching. If he came later, it's possible he wouldn't be as focused on stats, but rather on surpassing Russell's 11 rings. I don't want to take away from a player's talent and ability because he wasn't always in the optimal situation.

BUT I have to give credit to Shaq for actually listening to coaching and knowing what way he could best impact the game. As I said when comparing Shaq to LeBron, Shaq had a very simple game. He knew what he could do and he did it. LeBron's advantage against him was LeBron made even better decisions than Shaq in more complex situations. Wilt doesn't have that advantage. Wilt seemed to make the wrong decisions in easier spots than Shaq, and he made the game more complex than it needed to be for him. I don't think facing Russell is that big a handicap for Wilt, because Shaq faced Duncan, who I think is a better player than Russell and probably an equal defender, and also played in what is considered to be the greatest defensive era in the league's history.

I'm gonna cast my vote now, although I might change it if someone convinces me that Wilt's decision making was on par or better than Shaq's.

Vote:

1. Shaq
2. Wilt

[trex_8063]

Same first choice as #4

1st - Wilt
2nd - Larry Legend

I realize your arguments for Wilt likely haven't changed, but I'd like it if you could at least copy your arguments over to this one (so other posters don't have to do the legwork to even see your arguments and debate them). Or alternately, could you perhaps provide some brief arguments for Larry as your second (especially this is nearly the first mention he's had in this project)?

[RCM88x]

Missed the last one but...

Vote: Magic Johnson

One of the most unique player in NBA history, Magic headlined one of the top offensive attacks in NBA history for nearly a decade.

WS/48: 8th
WS: 23rd
BPM: 6th
OBPM: 6th
VORP: 12th
ORTG: 3rd
PER: 14th
MVP Shares: 5th

While not providing insane longevity, his ability to lift a team from his rookie year allowed him to maintain elite level success for his entire career. Not to mention he was also an elite playoff performer.

PS WS/48: 6th
PS WS: 5th
PS BPM: 5th
PS OBPM: 6th
PS VORP: 4th
PS ORTG: 1st

His team lifting ability often maximized his teammates performance and provided a skill-set which was easy to build around and allowed the Lakers to maintain their spot at the top of the NBA for nearly all of Magic's career. Nearly every season of his career Magic was in the MVP race and leading a top team in the NBA.

Two possible arguments against:
1. Played in a weak western conference for nearly his entire career, and benefited from many sub par opponents in the playoffs. While often having the most talented and by far highest payroll team in the NBA. (Magic's salary alone was higher than most team's payroll in some seasons).
2. Played his first 10 seasons with Kareem, who I have ranked #2 on my list. I don't think he would have had near the career he did without Kareem, or if he was somewhere other than LA.

Despite this, I still feel comfortable ranking Magic as my #5 due to his insane offensive performance and team leading ability. I don't think any other player could have lifted that LA team higher than Magic did for nearly a decade.

2nd Vote: Wilt Chamberlain

[wojoaderge]

I realize your arguments for Wilt likely haven't changed, but I'd like it if you could at least copy your arguments over to this one (so other posters don't have to do the legwork to even see your arguments and debate them). Or alternately, could you perhaps provide some brief arguments for Larry as your second (especially this is nearly the first mention he's had in this project)?

He started out as the most dominating offensive force the game has ever seen. Switching to a more all-around game, he scaled what I consider to be the all-time highest peak and won a championship along the way. Then he changed again to concentrate on defense and rebounding in order to win another ring. And in every incarnation he set new league records.

A little more on Bird later. For now, quite a bit of it has to with the 79-80 season and the fact that he never played with another (in my book) Top 50 player (other than past-their-primes Dave Cowens in '80 and Bill Walton in '86). The only other players in this tier who didn't are Hakeem and George Mikan.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Tim Duncan
Alt: Kevin Garnett

I'm expecting this to come down between Duncan, Shaq, and Wilt, so that's where I'll focus.

I've gone back and forth on Duncan vs Shaq over the years. I used to be more negative about Shaq due to the fact he has the maturity of an 8 year old, and the self-centeredness of an only child.

The thing is though, up through his time in Miami, Shaq basically always had large impact. It didn't matter how lazy he was being, his talent and his willingness to use it without getting overly fancy made him impossible to really stop.

In terms of prime impact, Shaq has the edge over Duncan, and I don't consider it that close.

We can talk about Duncan making up that deficit with superior longevity, but that's just something people have to decide for themselves. Shaq's prime is better, Duncan's longevity is better, figure out what you think about that.

To me the issue that really ends up swaying me to Duncan is how much superior his effect is on culture. It basically goes without saying you draft Duncan over Shaq. Duncan is a hard-worker, teachable, kind, and someone who enjoys routine. He's someone you can truly develop your franchise around.

Shaq isn't a hard worker, he's not all that teachable, he gets bored easily, and while he is very generous, it takes very little for him to flip toward negativity, and once he does that it's only a matter of time before you're going to lose him or find a way to lose him.

But to be clear, I still see the gap between Duncan and Shaq as small compared to either next to Wilt. As I've talked about, people need to understand how much was going on in Wilt's head, and how much it got in his way.

Take a look at how the Warriors' record bounced up and down from year to year as Wilt put more or less focus on defense - where he actually contributed massive value.

Take a look at how little Wilt's presence seemed to actually help in '65. Yes he was hurt, but he was still putting up numbers that make it easy to think he was accomplishing a lot, and yet he had basically no impact at all with those huge numbers.

Take a look at how Wilt lost focus in '68. Obsessed further on obscure stats, daydreamed of LA and actually tried harder against LA to that end.

Take a look at how Wilt arrived in LA, who already had the best offense in the league using the Princeton, and basically ended that coach's career.

Take a look at all the finesse shots that were his trademark. He didn't want to be seen as a gorilla so he decided to showcase skill. He was never as good with finesse shots as he would have been had he focused on a power game, but that wasn't the point. The point was perception.

Take a look at his free throw shooting. Line drive daggers that seemed to be saying "I'm not good at this and I don't like it, and it doesn't count toward FG% any way."

I want to emphasize that much of this happened because of how the sports landscape was at the time. If Wilt thought he could get Jordan level adoration simply by playing basketball to win, he'd have been different. Not entirely different. He's still have been high maintenance, but he'd have been better.

The thing to consider then is how much we should hold all this against him. This is an all-time list. We adjust for era how we see fit. If a player only had less impact because of the relative unimportance of the league at the time, you can argue that that should be normalized away.

I can't do that though for the simple reason that that's not how Wilt's peers treated the game. Russell, Oscar, West. These guys lived and breathed the game. To give Wilt a boost beyond those guys in the name of what he could have theoretically done against them, when it was Wilt himself who chose not to do more, to me is unacceptable.

I don't want to blow this out of proportion here. Wilt, such as he was, still has a strong argument for being the 2nd most accomplished player for his era. But since a lot of people have trouble looking at Wilt as something other than a top tier GOAT candidate, it's important to emphasize these things that really drive him well out of GOAT contention range.

[70sFan]

Take a look at how the Warriors' record bounced up and down from year to year as Wilt put more or less focus on defense - where he actually contributed massive value.

Outside of 1963, I don't see him as being unimpactful defender. Variations in DRtg is also more than just Wilt focus on defense. He was always good defender and Warriors were consistently in top 3 defensive teams in all but 1963 seasons with Wilt.

Take a look at how little Wilt's presence seemed to actually help in '65. Yes he was hurt, but he was still putting up numbers that make it easy to think he was accomplishing a lot, and yet he had basically no impact at all with those huge numbers.

As you said, he was hurt. Besides, Warriors without hurt Wilt were even worse, so he still had positive impact.

Take a look at how Wilt lost focus in '68. Obsessed further on obscure stats, daydreamed of LA and actually tried harder against LA to that end.

And they would still have won a title with even semi-healthy roster in playoffs. I agree here though, Wilt shouldn't have left Sixers. That was bad move for his career.

Take a look at how Wilt arrived in LA, who already had the best offense in the league using the Princeton, and basically ended that coach's career.

This is more about coach's unwillingnes to find a spot for Wilt. He didn't want him on his team and he consistantly said that they would have been better without him. Maybe their old system didn't work with Wilt but good coach would try solve this problem, he wouldn't hope that Wilt would got injured.

Take a look at all the finesse shots that were his trademark. He didn't want to be seen as a gorilla so he decided to showcase skill. He was never as good with finesse shots as he would have been had he focused on a power game, but that wasn't the point. The point was perception.

From what I've seen, he wasn't able to rely on his power all the time. Refs were very strict for him. I watched 1971 Bulls vs Lakers game and Wilt was called for off. foul because he... shot fadeaway. Don't measure him in similar fashion to Shaq because Wilt played in much different times. Besides, some finesse moves are necessary. He needed them to be more dangerous scorer. Can you imagine Shaq without jumphook? Because jumphook and one-handed turnarounds are his finesse moves. Without them he would be much easier to stop. Wilt had many moves down low and many countermoves. Not all of them were as efficient as drop step and dunk, but this option wasn't always available. Players aren't robots - they couldn't just do everytime in what they are the best. James is much better as a slasher than as a shooter, but he has to shoot. Otherwise, he wouldn't be even good offensive player.

Take a look at his free throw shooting. Line drive daggers that seemed to be saying "I'm not good at this and I don't like it, and it doesn't count toward FG% any way."

Wilt searched for the way to improve his FT shooting. He was just bad in that period. He spent much more time trying to fix this problem than Shaq for example. I don't see anything about his perception that is bad in this aspect. Blame him for bad shooting, but not for that he didn't try enough. Because he did.

[ardee]

I am voting Wilt here. From my part, I am going to use the same post that I made when I voted for him in 2014. I could make a new post but IMO that one was extremely comprehensive and provided a ton of context for all the criticisms leveled by his detractors on this board.

Let's take a look at his year-by-year career.

Early days

1960: Rookie year. This year is villified by many for his efficiency, and admittedly it's not as pretty as it'll be later on, but consider this... He comes onto a team with a terribly inefficient Guy Rodgers, Tom Gola and an aging Paul Arizin as his only decent team-mates. There was NO spacing on that team, and the lane was still narrow. Wilt used to get SWARMED. The team was a -2.3 SRS team the year before, it was +2.8 when Wilt arrived. He turned the second worst team in the league to the second best. His defense was great that year, he was blocking 15 shots a game according to stories. Won the MVP over a prime Russell. Honestly, don't see how this isn't the second best rookie season ever after Kareem. Start of a legendary career.

1961: One of his weaker years. His efficiency from the field improves, gets to work on that fadeaway jumper (which people love to hate on, but it LED THE LEAGUE in FG%, so I guess it worked at the time). Arizin is even older, a rookie Al Attles doesn't help TOO much... But Wilt still gets them to the Playoffs, puts up a 37/23, but his supporting cast flops BADLY. Arizin, Gola and Rodgers combined to shoot 31% from the field. Warriors get swept by the Royals. Can't blame Wilt here, his team stunk it up.

1962: The first glimpse of prime Wilt. Sets all time scoring and rebounding records, absolutely carried a worsening cast. Rodgers was completely awful as an offensive player now, shot 35.6% from the field. All his help is Arizin and Gola. Still no real shooting on the team. Wilt is great on both ends of the court, somehow makes them the second best team in the league, and comes one Sam Jones jumper away from upsetting the greatest dynasty in sports. AGREED Russ did a good job on him in the EDF, but really, if that jumper had missed, Wilt would be hailed as the 33/25 hero who single-handedly defeated the ultimate dynasty. Since he lost, people vilify this year for his scoring dropping somewhat AGAINST THE GOAT DEFENDER. Not saying this year was perfect but it really doesn't get the credit it deserves.

1963: His team dropped off a good bit, but seriously... We're talking a team with no shooting, no defense, had Arizin retire, Gola miss 60 games, and Wilt still has the team make league average offense AND defense? With that kind of supporting cast, blame the guy who goes 45/25, leads the league in FG% and anchors the defense? Where is the logic here?

I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here but this is where standards are shifted for Wilt. In 2006 and 2007 people make all kinds of excuses for KG regarding his supporting cast and multiple problems he faced. Yet he NEVER had this kind of situation. This would be the equivalent of the 2015 Heat having Bosh leave, Wade miss 60 games, and then expect LeBron to match his previous season's results. Wilt was depending on Guy Rodgers, who was shooting 38.7% from the field, to be his second option. It is bull to blame Wilt for this season's results, given all he did. This was probably his second best pre-prime year. You can put Russell, Kareem, anyone on that team and the results do not get better. He had one of the worst supporting casts in history.

Prime Wilt

1964: GOAT-level year. This was possibly Wilt at his best. His scoring drops a little bit but the efficiency goes up, and he becomes the consensus second best defender after Russ. The Warriors were a -6 defensive team, the second best mark of the era by any team besides the Russell Celtics (and the same mark people were going gaga over for the Pacers earlier this season). Wilt also becomes a part-time high post facilitator, finishing 6th in the league in assists. He ups his efficiency in the Playoffs, and makes his first Finals, losing to the GOAT defensive team. This is legendary stuff. The load he carried on both ends was ridiculous. His defense this year consistently gets underestimated. He was like a combination of Russell and Shaq, this was domination on another level. 35 ppg on 55% FG in the Playoffs, playing Russell? In that era? My God.

1965: He drops off a bit due to the heart disease. Bad team results in the beginning of the year. If you want to hold that against him, fine. He gets traded to Philly because the SFW management is full of asses. Philly immediately improves, they go 11-3 in the first 14 games with Wilt. Then Greer, Costello and Jackson all get injured in the second half of the season. Wilt still drags them to .500 and then outplays Russ in the EDF, losing because HAVLICEK STOLE THE BALL. This is the second time that one play has decided whether or not Wilt beats Russell.

1966: Start of peak Wilt. He takes his efficiency to a new level... 54% from the field on 25 FGA/game. Continues helping out with playmaking from the high post. He is now the undoubted best player in the league, taking the conch from Russell. The Sixers go 55-25. Wilt has a good supporting cast now but it's not THAT good. Greer was great, the perfect second option for Wilt. Walker was a nice do-it-all guy, but neither of them were particularly efficient. Billy C was too young to be a huge factor, Dolph Schayes refused to give Jackson the mpg he needed to make an impact, and Wali Jones was basically a better defensive version of Guy Rodgers, but even more inefficient. The results were still great though, given what he had. The first of 3 straight MVPs. 30/30 in the Playoffs, and only loses to Boston because his two best team-mates, Greer and Walker, screw up badly, shooting 36% from the floor combined. Shades of what happened with Gola and Arizin in '61. Keep this in mind when talking about his supporting cast this year. Again, GOAT level stuff.

1967: The greatest season anyone has ever played, at the very least in the top 3 with Jordan and Shaq. Sets a FG% record, becomes the first real point-center, is the keynote of Hannum's percusor to the triangle offense, and leads the Sixers to a record 68-13. I don't know how much I need to say about this year, but I'll let you guys take a look at his game-log from the Playoffs:

1967 EDSF vs. Royals

G1 - 41 points, 23 rebounds, 5 assists, 63% FG
G2 - 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists, 67% FG
G3 - 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists, 62% FG
G4 - 18 points, 27 rebounds, 9 assists, 50% FG

Series Average: 28.0 ppg, 26.8 rpg, 11 apg, 61% FG
Oscar Robertson: 24.8 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 11.3 apg, 51.6% FG

He had as many assists as Oscar and killed him everywhere else!

1967 EDF vs. Celtics

G1 - 24 points, 32 rebounds, 12 assists, 12 blocks, 69% FG
G2 - 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks, 45% FG
G3 - 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 blocks, 57% FG
G4 - 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assists, at least 3 blocks, 44% FG
G5 - 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists, 7 blocks, 63% FG

Series Average: 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6+ bpg, 56% FG
Bill Russell: 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 36% FG

1967 NBA Finals vs. Warriors

G1 - 16 points, 33 rebounds, 10 assists, 75% FG (including a game-saving block on Nate)
G2 - 10 points, 38 rebounds (26 in 1st half), 10 assists, 10 blocks, 40% FG
G3 - 26 points, 26 rebounds, 5 assists, 52% FG
G4 - 10 points, 27 rebounds, 8 assists, 11 blocks, 50% FG
G5 - 20 points, 24 rebounds, 4 assists, 60% FG
G6 - 24 points, 23 rebounds, 4 assists, 62% FG

Series Average: 17.6 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg, 56% FG
Nate Thurmond: 14.1 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 3.3 apg, 34% FG

That year, Wilt was fifth in scoring, first in rebounds, third in assists, and first in FG%. He was probably first or second in blocks too. How many players can achieve that level of statistical domination on an ELITE team?

He would get the rebound, either throw an outlet or let Greer bring it up before he got the entry pass at the high post again. Facing the basket, he then hit cutters, used a handoff to a guard to set a screen or either posted up to devastating effect (68% from the field!!!). Wilt was ungodly that year, there has never been anyone as good at basketball as Wilt was in 1967.

1968: Pretty much more of the same. His efficiency from the field dropped to "only" 60%, but for the first time, toppled Russell's Celtics for the best defense in the league.

This was the only time in the 60s Russ didn't anchor the league's best defense. So Wilt was the only guy to beat Russell in the Playoffs, as well as the only guy to have a better defense than him.

In the Playoffs, he dragged an injury ridden team past the Knicks, leading both teams in every major statistical category. He lost a game 7 to Boston by 4 points, in a game where Hannum had his only real failing as a coach. He simply couldn't devise a game-plan to get the ball to Wilt with Embry and Russell swarming him. The series was still so close despite the litany of injuries the Sixers had. Billy C was out of the series, Wilt had a bad calf problem, practically the whole starting 5 was hobbled.

Wilt has an unfair reputation as a 'big-game choker'. Take a look here at his performance in swing games, elimination games and game 7s through the years:

Wilt in do or die games...

1960 G3 vs. Nationals: 53 points, ? rebounds (playoff record at the time for pts)
1962 G5 vs. Nationals: 56 pts, 35 rebs (breaks his own playoff record)
1962 G7 vs Celtics : 22 pts, 21 rebs (7/14 shooting - Warriors were on the verge of pulling off this upset but Sam James hit a clutch shot. Wilt was undoubtedly fronted by the entire Celtics frontline, as was the case for most of his games vs. Celtics in mid-60s, a defensive strategy which would have been illegal in 80s/90s mind you)
1964 G7 vs. Hawks: 39 pts, 26 rebs, 12 blocks (many of which led to 14-0 run…and scored 50 pts a couple of days earlier in the pivotal game 5)
1965 G7 vs. Celtics: 30 pts, 32 rebs (famous game where Havlichek stole the ball, had 30/26 to save team from elimination the game before)
1968 G7 vs Celtics: 14 pts, 34 rebs, (wilt’s role different, but he definitely could have stepped up offensively in the second half)
1969 G7 vs. Celtics: 18 pts, 27 rebs (injured in final 6 minutes of game, attempted to come back, coach held him back...and Lakers end up losing close game on a lucky shot by Don Nelson)
1970 G7 vs. Suns: 30 pts, 27 rebs, 11 blocks (Lakers come back from down 3-1, and Wilt was 34 at the time)
1970 G7 vs. Knicks: 21 pts, 24 rebs (45 pts 27 rebs in the game before this to save Lakers from elimination, and AGAIN, he is 34 years old)

He has the highest FG% in game 7s of anyone: .626. Second highest rebounding rate of anyone (besides Russ) in game 7s. So the myth that Wilt is a big-game player really needs to be gotten rid of.

Needless to say.

Vote: Wilt Chamberlain

2nd preference: Magic Johnson

[ardee]

I answer all these Wilt criticisms in my big post above, but I'll put them in here one by one as well.

1. Take a look at how little Wilt's presence seemed to actually help in '65. Yes he was hurt, but he was still putting up numbers that make it easy to think he was accomplishing a lot, and yet he had basically no impact at all with those huge numbers.

The Sixers went 11-3 as soon as Wilt arrived in '65. After that, Costello, Jackson and Greer all get injured. You think LeBron is getting the same results of Kyrie, Thompson and JR are all hurt?

Take a look at how Wilt lost focus in '68. Obsessed further on obscure stats, daydreamed of LA and actually tried harder against LA to that end.

Lost focus? They won 62 games, statistically he put up a better season than the year before, and most crucially: they had a better defense than BOSTON. 1968 was arguably his best defensive year. Facts state that he was 98% as good as 1967, narratives aren't going to change that.

Take a look at how Wilt arrived in LA, who already had the best offense in the league using the Princeton, and basically ended that coach's career.

You are really reaching now. They finished 3 wins better and improved 2.1 points on defense. The offense fell of a little bit because the fit was worse: Wilt and Baylor were a bit of a messy combination because Wilt liked posting up on the left block, which is where Baylor liked to drive from. That's the coaches' job to figure out, and he didn't. He was fired because in game 7, he kept the team's best player on the bench in the last few minutes because of ego.

You can't **** on Wilt for asking out due to his injury and not do the same to LeBron for his cramps in 2014. If I recall, anyone who says anything about LeBron's cramps in a negative way is branded as a non-serious poster. Keep things consistent with the Dipper too.

Take a look at all the finesse shots that were his trademark. He didn't want to be seen as a gorilla so he decided to showcase skill. He was never as good with finesse shots as he would have been had he focused on a power game, but that wasn't the point. The point was perception.

You do realize you're criticizing the shot selection of a guy who led the league in field goal percentage 9 out of 13 full seasons he played?

And if he didn't want to be seen as a gorilla, it was the 60s. Read John Taylor's The Rivalry, fans weren't ready for black players yet. They faced a ton of racism. If he just overpowered people, he'd have been labeled the "big black brute injuring white players" or some nonsense like that. It's a very different thing for someone caring how they're perceived in 2017 for petty reasons vs. doing the same in the 60s to spare themselves racism. Holding that against him is cruel.

Context.

Take a look at his free throw shooting. Line drive daggers that seemed to be saying "I'm not good at this and I don't like it, and it doesn't count toward FG% any way."

You're voting Shaq over him when he literally said he didn't care about free throws "me hitting 40% is God's way of saying no one's perfect" versus you just performing some kind of amateur psychoanalysis on Wilt's free throw form to make it seem like he didn't care?

[penbeast0]

My choice right now is Wilt. He is so individually dominant, like prime Shaq but with superior rebounding and against consistently tougher competition at the center position that I think he has to be in the mix. I do agree that his strongest impact was defensively despite his unwillingness to chase shooters out on the floor; in his era with the extra need for rim protection and rebounding that might not be as bad a choice unless you are as quick as Russell. He has a knock against him for not being a winner but when NOT playing against Bill Russell (against, most impactful player in NBA history) his playoff series win % was just over 80%, slightly higher than Michael Jordan's career playoff series win % which is extraordinary. 70s Fan had an interesting post to close the #4 thread about how Wilt toned down his scoring (and upped his rebounding/defense) in the playoffs during his Warriors run and the motivations behind his ridiculous scoring feats.

Again, my focus is on impact in era modified by some degree of strength of era calculation. The 60s were a strong decade with lots of great talent concentrated on a relatively few teams. For that whole decade, the NBA was basically Russell v. Wilt, the greatest impact player of all time v. the greatest statistical player of all time, this despite the presence of great players like Oscar, West, Pettit, and Baylor. They were that dominant that anyone else even challenging them seriously was a shock.

Vote: Wilt (open to be convinced of Tim Duncan or George Mikan and will change vote if you can do it)
Runnerup: George Mikan -- dominated like a combination of Wilt and Russell, but in a much weaker era. Again, I am far from sure about this one and am willing to be moved off it by arguments for Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Oscar, West, or even Curry or Durant if someone can make the case strongly enough.

[wojoaderge]

Runnerup: George Mikan

I have him 8th

[penbeast0]

,,,
A little more on Bird later. For now, quite a bit of it has to with the 79-80 season and the fact that he never played with another (in my book) Top 50 player (other than past-their-primes Dave Cowens in '80 and Bill Walton in '86). The only other players in this tier who didn't are Hakeem and George Mikan.

Just out of curiosity, who on the Russell Celtics was better than Bird era McHale (during that era since you aren't including past prime Cowens and Walton who were both arguably better than Russell era Cousy, at least in the playoffs -- to say nothing of Drexler and arguably Barkley in Houston)? And if you have Cousy or Sharman (or Sam Jones?) top 50, where do you rate Vern Mikkelson, Slater Martin, and Bob Pollard?

[janmagn]

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon
2nd vote: Tim Duncan

The reasoning can be found on the last thread

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[wojoaderge]

Just out of curiosity, who on the Russell Celtics was better than Bird era McHale (during that era since you aren't including past prime Cowens and Walton who were both arguably better than Russell era Cousy, at least in the playoffs -- to say nothing of Drexler and arguably Barkley in Houston)? And if you have Cousy or Sharman (or Sam Jones?) top 50, where do you rate Vern Mikkelson, Slater Martin, and Bob Pollard?

Russ - well, there's Hondo, but I rank him above Bird at #5. Drexler/Barkley were past their prime in my opinion. I'm not sure about the MPLS players, but not Top 50.

[JordansBulls]

Comes down to Magic, Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, Wilt, Bird to me. Let's compare records with HCA.

Code: Select all

 vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams 
Wilt:     4-3 (57%)/   9-2 (82%)
Magic:    9-2 (82%)/   20-1 (95%)
Bird:     10-6 (63%)/  14-1 (93%)
Olajuwon: 4-0 (100%)/  5-2 (71%)
Shaq:     11-3 (79%)/  13-2 (87%)
Duncan:   19-5 (79%)/  11-1 (92%)


Wilt 13-5 in series with HCA
Magic 29-3 in series with HCA
Bird 24-7 in series with HCA
Hakeem 9-2 in series with HCA
Shaq 24-5 in Series with HCA
Duncan 30-7 in Series with HCA

Wilt with 4 league mvps, Magic with 3 league mvp's, Bird with 3 league mvp's, Duncan with 2 league mvp's, Shaq and Hakeem each with 1 league mvp.


1st Vote: Magic Johnson
2nd Vote: Tim Duncan

[RSCD3_]

Ardee is driving a hard bargain for Wilt but the longevity in terms of years skews towards Shaq, im more comfortable with his offense and less with his defense compared to wilt, but Shaq had a tendency to turn it on defensively during the playoffs while wilt kind of kept the same impact on both ends. IMO

Deciding between those two and maybe Duncan


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[penbeast0]

Just out of curiosity, who on the Russell Celtics was better than Bird era McHale (during that era since you aren't including past prime Cowens and Walton who were both arguably better than Russell era Cousy, at least in the playoffs -- to say nothing of Drexler and arguably Barkley in Houston)? And if you have Cousy or Sharman (or Sam Jones?) top 50, where do you rate Vern Mikkelson, Slater Martin, and Bob Pollard?

Russ - well, there's Hondo, but I rank him above Bird at #5. Drexler/Barkley were past their prime in my opinion. I'm not sure about the MPLS players, but not Top 50.

You are right and somehow I forgot him; though to be fair, his offensive efficiency early on is poor (like so many Celtics) and I worry about his defensive rep when the Celtics had to put Russell on Chet Walker because Walker was eating the Celtic forwards' lunch in the playoffs. He had possibly the GOAT motor but wasn't the player in the 60s yet that he became in the 70s. I'd rate Bird era McHale above Russell era Havlicek but yeah, he's top 50 (and possibly so is McHale).

[penbeast0]

Ardee is driving a hard bargain for Wilt but the longevity in terms of years skews towards Shaq, im more comfortable with his offense and less with his defense compared to wilt, but Shaq had a tendency to turn it on defensively during the playoffs while wilt kind of kept the same impact on both ends. IMO

Deciding between those two and maybe Duncan


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Interesting because the narrative on Warriors era Wilt is that he turned up his defense (and rebounding) in the playoffs but (unlike Shaq) couldn't maintain his scoring. I've always attributed some of that to gimmick front and back defenses like the one that allowed Tom Meschery to up his scoring from 12 to 20ppg in the playoffs in 62 (though on below .400 shooting even then!).

[Joao Saraiva]

Ardee is driving a hard bargain for Wilt but the longevity in terms of years skews towards Shaq, im more comfortable with his offense and less with his defense compared to wilt, but Shaq had a tendency to turn it on defensively during the playoffs while wilt kind of kept the same impact on both ends. IMO

Deciding between those two and maybe Duncan


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Actually not all longevity is equal. Shaq has more years in the league, but more missed games and a lot less MPG.

Also Wilt played more minutes during prime time most years, so there is a diferent sense for lognevity because he was producing more than Shaq in minutes he had after his Heat seasons.

Wilt has 550 more minutes played than Shaq in the RS. Playoffs of course had less rounds... so that has to come into consideration.

I'd definitely say Wilt > Shaq overall, and Wilt > Shaq in longevity.

I think Wilt's longevity and durability is a bit underrated. People can't just come up with seasons played and call it longevity.