K Loves 31 vs Wilt 55

[Nivek]

DocMJ: Where do you rank Wilt, and who do you have ahead of him?

As for estimates for the 60s -- there really isn't an answer I prefer. Dean Oliver did a reasonably good job in his book. When I'm trying to compare players across areas, I usually do it by looking at what percentage of his team's stats that he produced. In that way, I feel there's some basis for comparing players -- a guy who scores 30% of his team's 120 ppg (36 ppg) being comparable to a guy who scores 30% of his team's 90 ppg (27 ppg). And so on. It's not perfect, but I think it's a reasonable and logical approach.

[Andrewchos]

for me its
#1.Shaq
#2.Wilt
#3.Kareem

I wasn't trying to knock Wilt for having great athletic ability I was only trying to explain why his number's were so ridiculous. I respectfully disagree with you DocMJ because I believe he did have a significant physical advantage over his opponents on most night's.

[Doctor MJ]

DocMJ: Where do you rank Wilt, and who do you have ahead of him?

I consider Kareem & Russell the clear top 2. I'm in debate about Wilt vs Shaq & Hakeem.

[Nivek]

Russell lands 3rd for me, though I can understand why some might put him ahead of Wilt. I don't think there's any justifcation for Shaq being #1, though.

My list:

1. Kareem
2. Wilt
3. Russell
4. Shaq
5. Robinson
6. Hakeem
7. Mikan
8. Moses
9. Walton
10. Charles Jones

j/k about Jones. For 10, I'd probably lean Neil Johnston (for comparative dominance over contemporary competitors), Patrick Ewing, or possibly Dwight Howard.

Probably my most "controversial" pick would be Robinson over Hakeem. To me, this is almost a pick 'em spot. Both were great players. Very similar accomplishments. Both were phenomenal defenders. Robinson was better on offense. Hakeem was a better in the playoffs. In the end, if I'm building a franchise and I'm forced to choose between these two, I would pick Robinson. I can fully understand someone going the other way -- both were great players.

[Clipclop]

Possibly Harvey Pollack's basketball encyclopedia would be a quality reference material for this interesting study. It may well have the statistics on Chamberlain's game.
Certainly I struggle to see how 30 can be compared to 55. Rebounding is predicated on desire to excel, not merely on size. How can we explain Chamberlain's size as the overriding factor, while Rodman & Barkley out rebounded men 6 or 8 inches taller than they, every night?
You should dismiss the myth of height and recognize the greatness of Chamberlain's ability to excel for what it is; the will to win!!

[Doctor MJ]

Possibly Harvey Pollack's basketball encyclopedia would be a quality reference material for this interesting study. It may well have the statistics on Chamberlain's game.
Certainly I struggle to see how 30 can be compared to 55. Rebounding is predicated on desire to excel, not merely on size. How can we explain Chamberlain's size as the overriding factor, while Rodman & Barkley out rebounded men 6 or 8 inches taller than they, every night?
You should dismiss the myth of height and recognize the greatness of Chamberlain's ability to excel for what it is; the will to win!!

That's a very well written post displaying some not insignificant knowledge along the way. So to hear you talk about "Wilt" and "the will to win" in the same sentence comes as a shock. I'd be interested to hear you address Wilt's tendency to disappear when it mattered.

Re: 30 vs 55. Are you familiar with pace and other such factors?

Re: Barkley. I think he's a fantastic guy to talk about here. Barkley wasn't tall, and that meant he couldn't be a shotblocker, but his frame made him extremely well suited for getting rebounds. Someone with a relatively low center of gravity, and a lot of mass, can push others out of the way. Combine that with smarts, determination, and athleticism, and you've got one hell of a rebounder. Love has largely the same body type and determination, but not quite the athleticism.

Now, let's consider two phrases: "determination" and "will to win". Barkley was an animal at going in there and getting the ball, he had fantastic in-the-moment determination. However, Barkley tended to be lazy on the defensive end, he tended to coast if he wasn't properly motivated, and he a penchant for making enemies and souring the locker room. This is a guy whose career could have been significantly better if he truly had the "will to win" championships at all costs.

So you see how these two traits aren't actually the same even if they tend to have some correlation. With Wilt you had a guy who if he could focus on a very specific immediate goal, he had good determination, and that's part of what made him a great rebounder. Understand though, this is also a guy who made enemies with coaches, and tended to see the game as a paycheck. At one point he forced the team to completely change their practice schedule so that he could live in New York while playing in Philly - in '67-68 he basically decided during the season that he wanted to go to Hollywood and so forced a trade to the Lakers.

[Ming Kong!]

To be fair, players weren't measured in shoes then as they are now, so if your stats says that the average height today is 6'7", it's more like 6' 5.5", so the difference is really 1-2" at most.

Wilt was FAR greater than competition cause he was a world class athlete, he did track & field in college, and played professional volleyball after his NBA days. I'm sure if he wanted to he could of picked up other sports as well, the guy was a freak of nature. Desire to be the best then would translate to today's game too. I have no doubt in my mind that he'd be the best player if he were 27 right now.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm sure if he wanted to he could of picked up other sports as well, the guy was a freak of nature. Desire to be the best then would translate to today's game too. I have no doubt in my mind that he'd be the best player if he were 27 right now.

Not following your logic here. A huge chunk of Wilt's problem is that he really was NOT serious about being the best. He wanted to be considered the best, but he didn't do the work necessary to maximize his talents. He was the ultimate short cut guy maxing out on each stat serially instead of just focusing on an all around game.

[jinxed]

To be fair, players weren't measured in shoes then as they are now, so if your stats says that the average height today is 6'7", it's more like 6' 5.5", so the difference is really 1-2" at most.

Wilt was FAR greater than competition cause he was a world class athlete, he did track & field in college, and played professional volleyball after his NBA days. I'm sure if he wanted to he could of picked up other sports as well, the guy was a freak of nature. Desire to be the best then would translate to today's game too. I have no doubt in my mind that he'd be the best player if he were 27 right now.

Wilt did play professional volleyball. In a Co-ed league that he created.