Bill Walton vs Joel Embiid - skills discussion

[70sFan]

So skills basically means scoring repertoire?

[JN61]

I think in 70s defensive schemes Embiid would be way better and slow slumbering Walton would get roasted every time on modern league. I think Embiid is a better defender even now. When you look even 77s finals Walton's movement is very slow and he doesn't react at all on higher plays but just sits in the post. Otherwise on plays where he rises a bit he gets blown past every time.

Walton's only edge is passing as I see it. And it's not very significant edge either.

[Jaivl]

So skills basically means scoring repertoire?

No. Screening is a skill, dribbling is a compendium of skills. Some defensive stuff like closing on 3 pt shooters, pick and roll coverage are also skills. Basically everything you can drill is a skill. General understanding of the game, positioning, are not skills.

[70sFan]

So skills basically means scoring repertoire?

No. Screening is a skill, dribbling is a compendium of skills. Some defensive stuff like closing on 3 pt shooters, pick and roll coverage are also skills. Basically everything you can drill is a skill. General understanding of the game, positioning, are not skills.

But things like defensive footwork or inside contests are also possible to develop. I'd say that Walton has the edge in all of these things outside of scoring and ball-handling.

[70sFan]

I think in 70s defensive schemes Embiid would be way better and slow slumbering Walton would get roasted every time on modern league. I think Embiid is a better defender even now. When you look even 77s finals Walton's movement is very slow and he doesn't react at all on higher plays but just sits in the post. Otherwise on plays where he rises a bit he gets blown past every time.

I think you're the first poster on this board calling Walton "lumbering and slow". I strongly disagree with your take, but feel free to show evidences.

Walton wasn't slow, nor he was unwilling to defend in space. I get that he's not Russell or Hakeem on perimeter, but he was very fundamentally sound. I haven't tracked his games yet, so I'm willing to change my opinion though.

Walton's only edge is passing as I see it. And it's not very significant edge either.

How is that not significant? Walton is among the best bigman passers ever, Embiid is average and struggles to beat defensive pressure.

[JN61]

I think in 70s defensive schemes Embiid would be way better and slow slumbering Walton would get roasted every time on modern league. I think Embiid is a better defender even now. When you look even 77s finals Walton's movement is very slow and he doesn't react at all on higher plays but just sits in the post. Otherwise on plays where he rises a bit he gets blown past every time.

I think you're the first poster on this board calling Walton "lumbering and slow". I strongly disagree with your take, but feel free to show evidences.

Walton wasn't slow, nor he was unwilling to defend in space. I get that he's not Russell or Hakeem on perimeter, but he was very fundamentally sound. I haven't tracked his games yet, so I'm willing to change my opinion though.

Walton's only edge is passing as I see it. And it's not very significant edge either.

How is that not significant? Walton is among the best bigman passers ever, Embiid is average and struggles to beat defensive pressure.

He would definitely get blown past every time on modern game. His feet are slow compared to what is required from centers these days.

[GeorgeMarcus]

I guess it depends how you define skill but Embiid is playing at an MVP level the last 2 seasons and has really honed his offensive game during that time. I'm not sure I buy that Walton was more skilled (and I'm definitely not biased )

[dygaction]

I think in 70s defensive schemes Embiid would be way better and slow slumbering Walton would get roasted every time on modern league. I think Embiid is a better defender even now. When you look even 77s finals Walton's movement is very slow and he doesn't react at all on higher plays but just sits in the post. Otherwise on plays where he rises a bit he gets blown past every time.

I think you're the first poster on this board calling Walton "lumbering and slow". I strongly disagree with your take, but feel free to show evidences.

Walton wasn't slow, nor he was unwilling to defend in space. I get that he's not Russell or Hakeem on perimeter, but he was very fundamentally sound. I haven't tracked his games yet, so I'm willing to change my opinion though.

Walton's only edge is passing as I see it. And it's not very significant edge either.

How is that not significant? Walton is among the best bigman passers ever, Embiid is average and struggles to beat defensive pressure.

You can be one of the best bigman passers but still only has a small edge if you do not use it much. Also was his passing skills overated? Walton averaged 3.4apg with 5.0 career high. He had a 3.0a/2.7tov since turnovers were recorded. Embiid averages 3.3apg with 4.5apg this season. 3.3a/3.4tov, slightly more turnover but that mainly because he scores A LOT more.

[70sFan]

I think in 70s defensive schemes Embiid would be way better and slow slumbering Walton would get roasted every time on modern league. I think Embiid is a better defender even now. When you look even 77s finals Walton's movement is very slow and he doesn't react at all on higher plays but just sits in the post. Otherwise on plays where he rises a bit he gets blown past every time.

I think you're the first poster on this board calling Walton "lumbering and slow". I strongly disagree with your take, but feel free to show evidences.

Walton wasn't slow, nor he was unwilling to defend in space. I get that he's not Russell or Hakeem on perimeter, but he was very fundamentally sound. I haven't tracked his games yet, so I'm willing to change my opinion though.

Walton's only edge is passing as I see it. And it's not very significant edge either.

How is that not significant? Walton is among the best bigman passers ever, Embiid is average and struggles to beat defensive pressure.

He would definitely get blown past every time on modern game. His feet are slow compared to what is required from centers these days.

Maybe, can you show examples of his slow feet though?

[70sFan]

I think in 70s defensive schemes Embiid would be way better and slow slumbering Walton would get roasted every time on modern league. I think Embiid is a better defender even now. When you look even 77s finals Walton's movement is very slow and he doesn't react at all on higher plays but just sits in the post. Otherwise on plays where he rises a bit he gets blown past every time.

I think you're the first poster on this board calling Walton "lumbering and slow". I strongly disagree with your take, but feel free to show evidences.

Walton wasn't slow, nor he was unwilling to defend in space. I get that he's not Russell or Hakeem on perimeter, but he was very fundamentally sound. I haven't tracked his games yet, so I'm willing to change my opinion though.

Walton's only edge is passing as I see it. And it's not very significant edge either.

How is that not significant? Walton is among the best bigman passers ever, Embiid is average and struggles to beat defensive pressure.

You can be one of the best bigman passers but still only has a small edge if you do not use it much. Also was his passing skills overated? Walton averaged 3.4apg with 5.0 career high. He had a 3.0a/2.7tov since turnovers were recorded. Embiid averages 3.3apg with 4.5apg this season. 3.3a/3.4tov, slightly more turnover but that mainly because he scores A LOT more.

Walton used it a lot though, it was the whole Blazers offense. There are plenty of 1977-78 Portland games available, you can watch it on your own.

As far as assist numbers goes, I have two points:

1. Assists don't measure how good of a passer you are. Embiid averages more assists than bigs like Duncan or Shaq, but I don't think anyone would argue he's a better passer and playmaker than them. If you don't like different era comparisons, then KAT is far better passer than him as well. Walton's passing was essential for one of the best offensive teams in the league, while Embiid's main weakness is his passing (he keeps improving on that matter, but he's still not close to Walton).

2. Walton played in an era when teams averaged less assisted baskets (around 57% vs 60%) and superstars played with much lower usage. If you compare their relative rankings:

1978 Walton ranks: 17th in apg (90th percentile), 25th in assist per100 (85th percentile), 17th in ATS% (90th percentile)
2022 Embiid rank: 37th in apg (84th percentile), 50th in assists per100 (79th percentile), 32nd in AST% (87th percentile)

Walton was certainly among the best passers in the league despite having the ball less in his hands than Embiid.

Now, if we compare their passing rates in absolute terms by using various mathematical models, Walton is always ahead.

You don't need all these stats though. All you have to do is to watch a few Walton games to get the idea how much impactful his passing was compared to Embiid.

[dygaction]

I think you're the first poster on this board calling Walton "lumbering and slow". I strongly disagree with your take, but feel free to show evidences.

Walton wasn't slow, nor he was unwilling to defend in space. I get that he's not Russell or Hakeem on perimeter, but he was very fundamentally sound. I haven't tracked his games yet, so I'm willing to change my opinion though.



How is that not significant? Walton is among the best bigman passers ever, Embiid is average and struggles to beat defensive pressure.

You can be one of the best bigman passers but still only has a small edge if you do not use it much. Also was his passing skills overated? Walton averaged 3.4apg with 5.0 career high. He had a 3.0a/2.7tov since turnovers were recorded. Embiid averages 3.3apg with 4.5apg this season. 3.3a/3.4tov, slightly more turnover but that mainly because he scores A LOT more.

Walton used it a lot though, it was the whole Blazers offense. There are plenty of 1977-78 Portland games available, you can watch it on your own.

As far as assist numbers goes, I have two points:

1. Assists don't measure how good of a passer you are. Embiid averages more assists than bigs like Duncan or Shaq, but I don't think anyone would argue he's a better passer and playmaker than them. If you don't like different era comparisons, then KAT is far better passer than him as well. Walton's passing was essential for one of the best offensive teams in the league, while Embiid's main weakness is his passing (he keeps improving on that matter, but he's still not close to Walton).

2. Walton played in an era when teams averaged less assisted baskets (around 57% vs 60%) and superstars played with much lower usage. If you compare their relative rankings:

1978 Walton ranks: 17th in apg (90th percentile), 25th in assist per100 (85th percentile), 17th in ATS% (90th percentile)
2022 Embiid rank: 37th in apg (84th percentile), 50th in assists per100 (79th percentile), 32nd in AST% (87th percentile)

Walton was certainly among the best passers in the league despite having the ball less in his hands than Embiid.

Now, if we compare their passing rates in absolute terms by using various mathematical models, Walton is always ahead.

You don't need all these stats though. All you have to do is to watch a few Walton games to get the idea how much impactful his passing was compared to Embiid.

The moment you list 17th vs. 37th, you need to know those stats fall on a Gaussian like distribution, not linear. The difference between 17 and 37 the same year is FAR less than the difference between 1 and 17. Like end of first round pick vs. high 2nd round pick.
In 1978, Walton ranked 17th with 5.0apg, the 37th was 4.0apg, that's extra 2 points per game.
In 2022, Embiid ranks 37th with 4.5apg, the 17th has 6.4apg, that's extra 4 points per game.
The difference are there, but nothing like being #1 vs. #17, where you can see a big cliff drop. For example:
In 2022 pts/100, Embiid ranks #1 @ 45.0 pints, #17 is @ 31.7pts, while #37 is @ 28.2 pts.
In 1978 pts/100, # was @ 35.0points, Walton was #19 @ 27.2pts, while #37 was @24.8pts.

Compare Embiid to Walton per 100, their scoring was 45.0pts vs. 27.2pts, their assist/turnover was 6.8/4.5 vs. 7.0/4.9.

If you call Walton's +0.2 assist at the sacrifice of +0.4turnover a "significant" advantage, what do you call Embiid's +17.8points at significant higher efficiency?

[70sFan]

You can be one of the best bigman passers but still only has a small edge if you do not use it much. Also was his passing skills overated? Walton averaged 3.4apg with 5.0 career high. He had a 3.0a/2.7tov since turnovers were recorded. Embiid averages 3.3apg with 4.5apg this season. 3.3a/3.4tov, slightly more turnover but that mainly because he scores A LOT more.

Walton used it a lot though, it was the whole Blazers offense. There are plenty of 1977-78 Portland games available, you can watch it on your own.

As far as assist numbers goes, I have two points:

1. Assists don't measure how good of a passer you are. Embiid averages more assists than bigs like Duncan or Shaq, but I don't think anyone would argue he's a better passer and playmaker than them. If you don't like different era comparisons, then KAT is far better passer than him as well. Walton's passing was essential for one of the best offensive teams in the league, while Embiid's main weakness is his passing (he keeps improving on that matter, but he's still not close to Walton).

2. Walton played in an era when teams averaged less assisted baskets (around 57% vs 60%) and superstars played with much lower usage. If you compare their relative rankings:

1978 Walton ranks: 17th in apg (90th percentile), 25th in assist per100 (85th percentile), 17th in ATS% (90th percentile)
2022 Embiid rank: 37th in apg (84th percentile), 50th in assists per100 (79th percentile), 32nd in AST% (87th percentile)

Walton was certainly among the best passers in the league despite having the ball less in his hands than Embiid.

Now, if we compare their passing rates in absolute terms by using various mathematical models, Walton is always ahead.

You don't need all these stats though. All you have to do is to watch a few Walton games to get the idea how much impactful his passing was compared to Embiid.

The moment you list 17th vs. 37th, you need to know those stats fall on a Gaussian like distribution, not linear. The difference between 17 and 37 the same year is FAR less than the difference between 1 and 17. Like end of first round pick vs. high 2nd round pick.
In 1978, Walton ranked 17th with 5.0apg, the 37th was 4.0apg, that's extra 2 points per game.
In 2022, Embiid ranks 37th with 4.5apg, the 17th has 6.4apg, that's extra 4 points per game.
The difference are there, but nothing like being #1 vs. #17, where you can see a big cliff drop. For example:
In 2022 pts/100, Embiid ranks #1 @ 45.0 pints, #17 is @ 31.7pts, while #37 is @ 28.2 pts.
In 1978 pts/100, # was @ 35.0points, Walton was #19 @ 27.2pts, while #37 was @24.8pts.

Compare Embiid to Walton per 100, their scoring was 45.0pts vs. 27.2pts, their assist/turnover was 6.8/4.5 vs. 7.0/4.9.

If you call Walton's +0.2 assist at the sacrifice of +0.4turnover a "significant" advantage, what do you call Embiid's +17.8points at significant higher efficiency?

To me it's obvious that these distributions are not linear, but I didn't have the time to calculate anything beyond simple percentage rankings. I just wanted to point out that Walton's passing volume was higher despite carrying lower usage, which is true no matter how you decide to measure it. My bigger point is that assists don't capture passing ability well at all.

How would I describe scoring gap? As massive, what else can I say? I mentioned it many times that Embiid is significantly better scorer than Walton, it's not even close. I don't think passing is close either, although scoring gap is bigger definitely. It doesn't make Embiid a better player though

[dygaction]

Walton used it a lot though, it was the whole Blazers offense. There are plenty of 1977-78 Portland games available, you can watch it on your own.

As far as assist numbers goes, I have two points:

1. Assists don't measure how good of a passer you are. Embiid averages more assists than bigs like Duncan or Shaq, but I don't think anyone would argue he's a better passer and playmaker than them. If you don't like different era comparisons, then KAT is far better passer than him as well. Walton's passing was essential for one of the best offensive teams in the league, while Embiid's main weakness is his passing (he keeps improving on that matter, but he's still not close to Walton).

2. Walton played in an era when teams averaged less assisted baskets (around 57% vs 60%) and superstars played with much lower usage. If you compare their relative rankings:

1978 Walton ranks: 17th in apg (90th percentile), 25th in assist per100 (85th percentile), 17th in ATS% (90th percentile)
2022 Embiid rank: 37th in apg (84th percentile), 50th in assists per100 (79th percentile), 32nd in AST% (87th percentile)

Walton was certainly among the best passers in the league despite having the ball less in his hands than Embiid.

Now, if we compare their passing rates in absolute terms by using various mathematical models, Walton is always ahead.

You don't need all these stats though. All you have to do is to watch a few Walton games to get the idea how much impactful his passing was compared to Embiid.

The moment you list 17th vs. 37th, you need to know those stats fall on a Gaussian like distribution, not linear. The difference between 17 and 37 the same year is FAR less than the difference between 1 and 17. Like end of first round pick vs. high 2nd round pick.
In 1978, Walton ranked 17th with 5.0apg, the 37th was 4.0apg, that's extra 2 points per game.
In 2022, Embiid ranks 37th with 4.5apg, the 17th has 6.4apg, that's extra 4 points per game.
The difference are there, but nothing like being #1 vs. #17, where you can see a big cliff drop. For example:
In 2022 pts/100, Embiid ranks #1 @ 45.0 pints, #17 is @ 31.7pts, while #37 is @ 28.2 pts.
In 1978 pts/100, # was @ 35.0points, Walton was #19 @ 27.2pts, while #37 was @24.8pts.

Compare Embiid to Walton per 100, their scoring was 45.0pts vs. 27.2pts, their assist/turnover was 6.8/4.5 vs. 7.0/4.9.

If you call Walton's +0.2 assist at the sacrifice of +0.4turnover a "significant" advantage, what do you call Embiid's +17.8points at significant higher efficiency?

To me it's obvious that these distributions are not linear, but I didn't have the time to calculate anything beyond simple percentage rankings. I just wanted to point out that Walton's passing volume was higher despite carrying lower usage, which is true no matter how you decide to measure it. My bigger point is that assists don't capture passing ability well at all.

How would I describe scoring gap? As massive, what else can I say? I mentioned it many times that Embiid is significantly better scorer than Walton, it's not even close. I don't think passing is close either, although scoring gap is bigger definitely. It doesn't make Embiid a better player though

To be sure, Walton was a better passer, the question is does that move a needle in comparing these two on the offensive end.
Compare Embiid to Walton per 100, their scoring was 45.0pts vs. 27.2pts, their assist/turnover was 6.8/4.5 vs. 7.0/4.9. If Walton had Embiid's ability to draw fouls and score at high efficiency, should he increase or decrease passing rate? If you can assign some numbers to compensate the invisible passing skills, how much do you give to offset the difference in 17.8 pts per 100? Embiid is like Shaq - ultimate finisher. His passing is also getting better while being underrated.

[70sFan]

The moment you list 17th vs. 37th, you need to know those stats fall on a Gaussian like distribution, not linear. The difference between 17 and 37 the same year is FAR less than the difference between 1 and 17. Like end of first round pick vs. high 2nd round pick.
In 1978, Walton ranked 17th with 5.0apg, the 37th was 4.0apg, that's extra 2 points per game.
In 2022, Embiid ranks 37th with 4.5apg, the 17th has 6.4apg, that's extra 4 points per game.
The difference are there, but nothing like being #1 vs. #17, where you can see a big cliff drop. For example:
In 2022 pts/100, Embiid ranks #1 @ 45.0 pints, #17 is @ 31.7pts, while #37 is @ 28.2 pts.
In 1978 pts/100, # was @ 35.0points, Walton was #19 @ 27.2pts, while #37 was @24.8pts.

Compare Embiid to Walton per 100, their scoring was 45.0pts vs. 27.2pts, their assist/turnover was 6.8/4.5 vs. 7.0/4.9.

If you call Walton's +0.2 assist at the sacrifice of +0.4turnover a "significant" advantage, what do you call Embiid's +17.8points at significant higher efficiency?

To me it's obvious that these distributions are not linear, but I didn't have the time to calculate anything beyond simple percentage rankings. I just wanted to point out that Walton's passing volume was higher despite carrying lower usage, which is true no matter how you decide to measure it. My bigger point is that assists don't capture passing ability well at all.

How would I describe scoring gap? As massive, what else can I say? I mentioned it many times that Embiid is significantly better scorer than Walton, it's not even close. I don't think passing is close either, although scoring gap is bigger definitely. It doesn't make Embiid a better player though

To be sure, Walton was a better passer, the question is does that move a needle in comparing these two on the offensive end.
Compare Embiid to Walton per 100, their scoring was 45.0pts vs. 27.2pts, their assist/turnover was 6.8/4.5 vs. 7.0/4.9. If Walton had Embiid's ability to draw fouls and score at high efficiency, should he increase or decrease passing rate? If you can assign some numbers to compensate the invisible passing skills, how much do you give to offset the difference in 17.8 pts per 100? Embiid is like Shaq - ultimate finisher. His passing is also getting better while being underrated.

I don't think it's controversial to pick Embiid over Walton on offense, though you have to keep in mind that the difference in scoring volume/efficiency doesn't capture the difference in offensive impact. Embiid isn't 18 points per100 more valuable than average starting center, let alone someone like Walton.

Going by this logic, you should take Embiid over any bigman ever offensively because nobody scored as often as he does. I think you overstate volume scoring impact in general, but that's another topic.

I also wouldn't compare Embiid to Shaq, they play nothing alike. Shaq's value comes mostly from his off-ball play and offensive rebounding, neither of which is Embiid's strength. Joel is hyper skilled scorer who can create any kind of shot, that's not how Shaq played. I would call Shaq clearly a smarter passer as well for what it's worth.

[LukaTheGOAT]

To me it's obvious that these distributions are not linear, but I didn't have the time to calculate anything beyond simple percentage rankings. I just wanted to point out that Walton's passing volume was higher despite carrying lower usage, which is true no matter how you decide to measure it. My bigger point is that assists don't capture passing ability well at all.

How would I describe scoring gap? As massive, what else can I say? I mentioned it many times that Embiid is significantly better scorer than Walton, it's not even close. I don't think passing is close either, although scoring gap is bigger definitely. It doesn't make Embiid a better player though

To be sure, Walton was a better passer, the question is does that move a needle in comparing these two on the offensive end.
Compare Embiid to Walton per 100, their scoring was 45.0pts vs. 27.2pts, their assist/turnover was 6.8/4.5 vs. 7.0/4.9. If Walton had Embiid's ability to draw fouls and score at high efficiency, should he increase or decrease passing rate? If you can assign some numbers to compensate the invisible passing skills, how much do you give to offset the difference in 17.8 pts per 100? Embiid is like Shaq - ultimate finisher. His passing is also getting better while being underrated.

I don't think it's controversial to pick Embiid over Walton on offense, though you have to keep in mind that the difference in scoring volume/efficiency doesn't capture the difference in offensive impact. Embiid isn't 18 points per100 more valuable than average starting center, let alone someone like Walton.

Going by this logic, you should take Embiid over any bigman ever offensively because nobody scored as often as he does. I think you overstate volume scoring impact in general, but that's another topic.

I also wouldn't compare Embiid to Shaq, they play nothing alike. Shaq's value comes mostly from his off-ball play and offensive rebounding, neither of which is Embiid's strength. Joel is hyper skilled scorer who can create any kind of shot, that's not how Shaq played. I would call Shaq clearly a smarter passer as well for what it's worth.

Walton is clearly a better passer to me, but in an era with so much less spacing than today, it is harder to make the same high-leverage passes.

[70sFan]

To be sure, Walton was a better passer, the question is does that move a needle in comparing these two on the offensive end.
Compare Embiid to Walton per 100, their scoring was 45.0pts vs. 27.2pts, their assist/turnover was 6.8/4.5 vs. 7.0/4.9. If Walton had Embiid's ability to draw fouls and score at high efficiency, should he increase or decrease passing rate? If you can assign some numbers to compensate the invisible passing skills, how much do you give to offset the difference in 17.8 pts per 100? Embiid is like Shaq - ultimate finisher. His passing is also getting better while being underrated.

I don't think it's controversial to pick Embiid over Walton on offense, though you have to keep in mind that the difference in scoring volume/efficiency doesn't capture the difference in offensive impact. Embiid isn't 18 points per100 more valuable than average starting center, let alone someone like Walton.

Going by this logic, you should take Embiid over any bigman ever offensively because nobody scored as often as he does. I think you overstate volume scoring impact in general, but that's another topic.

I also wouldn't compare Embiid to Shaq, they play nothing alike. Shaq's value comes mostly from his off-ball play and offensive rebounding, neither of which is Embiid's strength. Joel is hyper skilled scorer who can create any kind of shot, that's not how Shaq played. I would call Shaq clearly a smarter passer as well for what it's worth.

Walton is clearly a better passer to me, but in an era with so much less spacing than today, it is harder to make the same high-leverage passes.

Which makes his passing even more impressive to me.