RealGM Top 100 #5

[An Unbiased Fan]

Question to people (so far An Unbiased Fan, drza and SDChargers#1) who now voted for Wilt or Shaq but in last thread for Magic - what makes Wilt/Shaq better than Bird and worse than Johnson?

1) The first thing I would point out is that I was debating KAJ vs Magic vs Wilt in my head since #3. Wilt would have gone earlier for me, but the wealth of insight in these threads changed my historical view of him. Magic was actually in contention for #3 on my list, but KAJ's longevity won out. At no point, was Bird ever in contention for me, or even much of a topic of discussion in the threads.

2) Translation of skills/style to other eras:

Wilt would be a monster in any era, and I think his mindset actually fits the modern game better. If he had been making millions in salary & endorsements, Wilt's focus on the NBA would have been greater, IMO. And he wouldn't have had to deal with Russell. A 7' foot bigman who can score down low & rebound at an elite level is truly a premium talent.

Magic is perhaps the most unique player in history, and would still be dominant in any era. Even today, he would be a massive mismatch for defenses. His court vison and ability to see the floor would make him a super version of Nash. His post game would still be as effective because guards would have a tough time with his frame even today. Defensively he would still have issues though.

Bird, would still be very good, but I do wonder how he would handle the change in athleticism. Defenders are longer, and quicker, which is the number one issue for a shooter. Team defensive schemes are always very good in the modern era at keying on shooters. Bird was elite at getting his shot off though, I just wonder if it would hamper him. Unlike Dirk, he's not able to shoot over defenders as easily. Forwards are a bit stronger today(especially in the legs), so I wonder if his post game would be hurt too. Like Magic, his court vison and passing would be elite in today's game, and his defense would be a big liability.

Overall, Wilt translates the best, and Magic translates slighty better than Bird.


3) Era Dominance:

All 3 were great regular season performers.

Wilt won 7 All-NBA 1st teams over Mr. Russell, 7 straight scoring titles with 9 FG% titles. And he had 11 rebounding titles over Bill. Not to mention 4 MVPs.

Magic and Bird both had the same number of All-NBA 1st teams, and MVPs. Bird does have more MVP shares, I'll give him that. Magic however, was either #1 or #2 in apg for 10 straight years. he also posted a TS% of 60+ for ten years. Bird was a superior rebounder to Magic, but it's not like Bird was elite in that regard, not in the way Magic was with assists.

Career TRB%
Bird - 14.5%
magic - 10.9%

Career AST%
Bird - 24.7%
Magic - 42.2%
^
So Magic's impact with assisting was more than Bird's rebounding impact.

Also, Magic destroys Bird in ast/to ratio.

Magic - 2.89
Bird - 2.02

Bird was the superior volume scorer, though his efficiency was dwarfed by Magic's.

Overall, I give Wilt the slight edge over Magic, and Magic the edge over Bird.


3) Playoff Success:

This is really where Magic's impact overrides Wilt's. Bird however, is on par with Wilt in this regard, so he stays in 3rd place.

Playoff record:
Magic 80-91' 32-7 82.1%
Bird 80-91' 23-8 74.2%
Wilt 60-73' 18-11 62.1%

I don't want to hear about how Magic had KAJ, when Bird had a team of HOFers for most years. the only guy who's undersold in this comaprison is Wilt because he didn't have the support of either.

However....when you comapre their records with HCA(equal footing), Magic still wins out.

Magic 80-91' 30-3 90.9%
Bird 80-91' 23-7 76.7%
Wilt 60-73' 15-5 75%

Magic won when he was suppsoed to. Bird, despite fabulous regular season records, lost a whopping SEVEN times with HCA. the Celtics had the better RS records, but magic's teams won 5 rings to his 3. During Bird's vaunted peak, Magic's team win the title over his on the road.

Wilt is on par with Bird with HCA. So there is no clear advantage for Bird over Wilt in postseason impact.

So some may ask, "But the West was weak in the 80's". Well, here are the 3's records againt +4 SRS teams with HCA....

Magic 80-91' 6-1 85.7%
Bird 80-91' 6-5 54.5%
Wilt 60-73' 3-3 50%

Magic's team, with a prime KAJ or without, against good or bad teams, with HCA or overall, outperform both Bird's & Wilts. And I see no real sepreation between Bird & Wilt in playoff success.

Overall, Magic is a 5-time Champ with 3 Finals MVPs, Bird is a 3-time Champ with 2 Finals MVps, and Wilt is a 2-time Champ with 1 Finals MVP(they didn't have them in 67')

4) #4....#5.....and so on:

Magic vs Wilt was not an easy choice, but Magic ultimately won out becuase I value playoff impact over regualr season impact. Wilt's dropoff postseason production was like an anchor in the comparison.

As far as Wilt vs Bird. I see Wilt as having just as much Regular & playoff success. but in overall abilty, and impact, I've giving it to Wilt. Put both guys into today's game, and who would be the better player? Is ay Wilt. Again, I also think the 00's guys have passed Bird up to. So really this wasn't a hard choice.

[ElGee]

I disagree with a lot of this.

Shaq sucked in an all-time sense in 1993. Don't be fooled by gaudy rebounding and blocking numbers. He had nobody on his team to rebound the ball, and he was a foul machine. He was raw in the post and though he was a creative passer, he couldn't read defenses properly. A very Kemp-like season.

I totally disagree with that stronger than you disagreed with me previously. Shaq joined a team that for all intents and purposes, added one more key player (Dennis Scott). He instantly helped improve the defense (whether he was raw or not) and was an offensive weapon, even if unpolished. I may be overvaluing that season slightly, especially in relation to 94, but c'mon.

1996 was the same Shaq, except he was injured during the regular season. Yet he dominated the playoffs, even against Chicago's all-time defense- at least in an individual sense. He dropped 27/10 on over 60 percent shooting, with Scott and choker doing their usual thing (not a good thing), Anderson missing game 4 (is this a plus or a minus? I'm not sure), Horace Grant basically missing the series, and the team having no good bench or good coaching- all against a GOAT team. What was he supposed to do?

In '97, he probably had his second worst playoffs ever ('99 against Duncan and Robinson was worse). He didn't play badly though.

As I said, if you value these two injury-plagued years, then I think you move Shaq up into the Magic-Bird territory (or even higher). I was never impressed with them. Maybe that needs to be re-evaluated.

'98 and '99...I just talked about '99. He dominated in '98.

2001- During the playoffs, he was better than 2000 Shaq. Picking a knit...

2003- How is that comparable to '99? He ripped everybody apart in the playoffs. He has even better numbers in the regular season, too.

The rest of the years, I basically agree with.

Not sure how this last part disagrees. I think you had fuzzy TV reception if you thought Shaq was the same player in 03 as he was in 2000, or even 01. And as I said, it's not a big decline.

[pancakes3]

Rather, I was claiming for a player that took the sheer amount of shot attempts he did, I'd be expecting a TS% that reflects the absolute top among his era (meaning #1) - similarly to how he did the latter part of his career, and similarly to other high volume scorers of his era. He was a player, Russell or not that his efficiency dropped in the playoffs, was ridiculously high volume, and had a few seasons in that stretch where we have to question the impact he had on the team.

aside from the ridiculous fact that you expect the #1 TS% out of a man who takes the most shots in the league (you want the #1 fga player to have the highest scoring % also? when has that expectation ever lived up to your thoughts?)... wilt DID have a ridiculously high TS%.

in the 8 seasons from '61 to '68 he was in the top 10 of TS% 7 times and led the league in '67. yes. TS%. yes. this includes his woeful ft %. if you want to talk about fg%? 13 top 10 finishes in his career including 9 #1 overall with a career fg% of 54%. yeah... pretty darn good. a lot better than any other scoring champ that's for hella-sure.

EDIT - As for the double and triple team argument, point taken. But if he was doubled and tripled so much, then shouldn't he have been focusing on trying to find the open teammate, instead of forcing something over a triple team? And while Wilt faced crazy defensive attention, we should not pretend that other players haven't faced similarly elite defensive attention as well (though, I would concede Wilt probably got alot more triples being a post player, similarly with Shaq, however).

he has 4 top 10 apg seasons. yeah. FOUR. all before he was traded to the lakers and "changed his game". 4th, 7th, 3rd, and FIRST! so... yes. the math checks out. he WAS triple teamed and he DID find the open man a lot of the time.

[Baller 24]

I don't want to hear about how Magic had KAJ, when Bird had a team of HOFers for most years. the only guy who's undersold in this comparison is Wilt because he didn't have the support of either.

Huh!?

Wilt had Jerry West(MVP Candidate), Elgin Baylor(MVP Candidate), Billy Cunningham (MVP Candidate), Chet Walker(All-Star), Hal Greer(MVP Candidate), & Gail Goodrich (MVP Candidate).

Bird came onto a team that won 29 games prior season, turned them into a 61 win team, that's the most significant difference in probably league history, there were no significant injuries, there were no players traded, and there were no players injured the prior season, he simply came in and brought them to relevancy (no McHale OR Parish).

McHale didn't have an elite MVP caliber season until AFTER the Celtics stopped winning championships, and for their first championship run he was a simple 10PPG bench player. As for Parish, he didn't receive his recognition until he arrived in Boston and played with Bird. None of the HOF players Bird played with were established NBA players before their arrival. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar however, was a 5 time MVP, NBA Champion, and a the most effective defensive anchor in the league.

Playoff record:
Magic 80-91' 32-7 82.1%
Bird 80-91' 23-8 74.2%
Wilt 60-73' 18-11 62.1%

Are we not examining conferences here or what? Celtics had to go through Dr. J (MVP level) & Moses Malone and the Sixers for consecutive years, Sidney Moncrief & Marques Johnson led Bucks (defensive stallions), few random years of competition from Bernard King (dominant MVP level statistical scoring season) where they barely made it out alive, and of course the eventual competition from the late 80s Pistons and Bulls. The Lakers never had to go through that same kind of competition, there were more various contenders out in the eastern conference, in fact you can state that the Lakers never faced a contender on the level of what the eastern conference consisted of throughout their dominance of the western conference.

[drza]

Team Results and Individual Impact: Regular season
’09 LeBron: Cavs 66 – 16 (1st NBA), APM +16 (basketballvalue), Cavs 21 points better/48 on court
’04 Garnett: Wolves 58 – 24 (1st West), APM +16 (Winston), Wolves 20 points better/48 on court

Where did you find APM for 2004?
Or you are talking about this ('03+'04 by Rosenbaum): http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm
?

I used Winston's, because it's the only single-season APM I've seen for 2004. http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=996

Team results and individual impact: Playoffs
’09 LeBron: Cavs lose in 6 games of ECF, Cavs 11.6 points better/48 with LeBron on court
’04 Garnett: Wolves lose in 6 games of ECF, Wolves 25.7 points better/48 with KG on court

Both teams lost in 6 in their conference finals. For the Cavs, it seemed to be about matchups. Orlando’s frontcourt was just too long and productive for the Cavs to stop, and none of LeBron’s teammates seemed to step up to help him on offense. For the Wolves, it was about injury. Both starting point guards were injured, Wally was playing with fractured vertebrae in his back, and KG was having to do EVERYTHING for his team against the Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton Lakers, including running the PG, playing center, and making the popcorn.

Interestingly, despite LeBron’s video game stats in the postseason, his on/off +/- wasn’t as large as it was in previous and future seasons. Garnett, despite his lower box score stats, had a MUCH higher on/off +/- in their respective postseasons. Granted, any one postseason is a relatively small sample size, especially for players that play as much as LeBron and KG. But we are talking 3 full rounds of playoffs (I rarely give much credence to on/off +/- for less than that), and across that kind of time period the numbers can start to show a clear trend. At the least, it’s another data point.

No, it isn't. Too small sample, both of them almost never rest. No conclusion should be made from sample like that.

I mention the sample size in both the snippet that you quote, and in the conclusion section that you removed I reiterate that you take the postseason +/- with a grain of salt and I don't conclude that KG's '04 impact was really more than twice LeBron's as that number would indicate, for exactly the reason you state. The sample size is small. On the other hand, using that same small sample size people will conclude the changes in box score stats over those 15 - 20 games were worthy of note. That's why I say "it's a data point". If you're going to say that the postseason is a significant time period to make 1 set of conclusions, then you have to note all of the data for that time period.

[Baller 24]

As far as Wilt vs Bird. I see Wilt as having just as much Regular & playoff success. but in overall abilty, and impact, I've giving it to Wilt. Put both guys into today's game, and who would be the better player? Is ay Wilt. Again, I also think the 00's guys have passed Bird up to. So really this wasn't a hard choice.

Bird, would still be very good, but I do wonder how he would handle the change in athleticism. Defenders are longer, and quicker, which is the number one issue for a shooter. Team defensive schemes are always very good in the modern era at keying on shooters. Bird was elite at getting his shot off though, I just wonder if it would hamper him. Unlike Dirk, he's not able to shoot over defenders as easily. Forwards are a bit stronger today(especially in the legs), so I wonder if his post game would be hurt too. Like Magic, his court vison and passing would be elite in today's game, and his defense would be a big liability.

Absolutely absurd. Here's what you stated on a debate between Wade v Oscar/West.

Wade simply hasn't proven to be better than West or Oscar. Both West & oscar could still excel in today's era, but I'm not sure how Wade would have done in the 60's considering his style of play, which is to attack the rim.

So Jerry West's game and skill can transcend across eras rather easily at an elite level, but at the same time Larry Bird's cant (a more superior player) ? Meanwhile, D-Wade of the '00s (the era you suggest where players are superior, where Bird's skill is questioned, but Jerry West somehow can so easily transcend?), in terms of superior athletic advantages, has a game that can't transcend across eras, due to his dominant proven style of attacking the rim, and playing in the style of first three-peat Jordan?

Hmm Okay

[ElGee]

So Jerry West's game and skill can transcend across eras rather easily at an elite level, but at the same time Larry Bird's cant (a more superior player) ?

What team did jerry West play for? (And Wilt. And KAJ. And Magic.)

What team did Bird play for?

That's probably why Bird has all these problems and none of them do.

[An Unbiased Fan]

As far as Wilt vs Bird. I see Wilt as having just as much Regular & playoff success. but in overall abilty, and impact, I've giving it to Wilt. Put both guys into today's game, and who would be the better player? Is ay Wilt. Again, I also think the 00's guys have passed Bird up to. So really this wasn't a hard choice.

Bird, would still be very good, but I do wonder how he would handle the change in athleticism. Defenders are longer, and quicker, which is the number one issue for a shooter. Team defensive schemes are always very good in the modern era at keying on shooters. Bird was elite at getting his shot off though, I just wonder if it would hamper him. Unlike Dirk, he's not able to shoot over defenders as easily. Forwards are a bit stronger today(especially in the legs), so I wonder if his post game would be hurt too. Like Magic, his court vison and passing would be elite in today's game, and his defense would be a big liability.

Absolutely absurd. Here's what you stated on a debate between Wade v Oscar/West.

Wade simply hasn't proven to be better than West or Oscar. Both West & oscar could still excel in today's era, but I'm not sure how Wade would have done in the 60's considering his style of play, which is to attack the rim.

So Jerry West's game and skill can transcend across eras rather easily at an elite level, but at the same time Larry Bird's cant (a more superior player) ? Meanwhile, D-Wade of the '00s (the era you suggest where players are superior, where Bird's skill is questioned, but Jerry West somehow can so easily transcend?), in terms of superior athletic advantages, has a game that can't transcend across eras, due to his dominant proven style of attacking the rim, and playing in the style of first three-peat Jordan?

Hmm Okay

West is a PG/SG, and Bird was a SF/PF. I'm not sure why you think their situations are the same. Also, where did I say that 00's player were superior? I said they are longer, and more athletic. You're pulling out an argument I didn't even make. I did reference the 00's guys, as in (Shaq, Kobe, TD), but that wasn't about era.

I specifically looked at aspects of Bird's game, and how they would be affected in today's game. Player's inside are stronger, more athletic now, and that becomes a facotor for a forward much more so than a guard. West is on the perimeter, where he would be closer to the 3pt line than the paint. Defensively, they would face two seperate situations. Would Bird be as good in the post, or as good on the boards? These are legit question. I did say he would still be a very good player, it's just that i think Wilt & Magic translate better to today's game.

My point with Wade was also clear. In the 60's the style of game was very different. If a guard was attacking the rim like Wade, the bigmen would have "put him down". Wilt referenced this many times in regards to MJ. I also said Wade would still be around the 3rd best guard of that era. it's just that the lack of a 3pt line to create spacing, and the congestion in the lane all would have hampered his playing style. Wade likes to get into the paint, and in the 60's he would have to depend more on his jumper.

[Fencer reregistered]

You keep saying "better" when you evidently mean "more productive".

The guy who does things that have a higher degree of difficulty leaves court space for the guy who's an expert at doing easier things.

Some comments:

Wilt is a better scorer -- Yes
Wilt is a better rebounder -- Yes
Wilt is a better defender (by far) -- Even during the same seasons he was at or above Bird's level offensively?
Wilt has a better peak (close) -- Arguable
Wilt has better longevity -- Yes
Bird is a better passer (close) -- Not close. Bird could do everything Wilt could do, but better, plus some things that Wilt didn't consider, or shouldn't have considered given his position.
Bird is a better shooter -- By far
Bird has better team success -- Indeed
Bird had vastly better intangibles -- e.g., his teams had legendary practices, while Wilt's teams' practices were sabotaged by him.

Even when Wilt was putting 50 ppg he was still a vastly superior defender to Bird. He may have not been a top 5 all time defender at that point, but he was still a good to great defender. Bird was above average at best.

Please give me the argument for why Bird's peak is better than Wilt's, I would love to hear it. Statistically it isn't all that close. Wilt's statistical peak is absolutely mind boggling.

Passing is absolutely close. Wilt's peak seasons of passing are actually better than Bird's best. As I said the edge goes to Bird, but just because someone has the talent to do something doesn't mean they are loads better. It is about what actually happens on the court. On the court Bird was a slightly better passer than Wilt, who may be the greatest passing big man of all time.

OK, Bird had the intangibles advantage, but I am not sure I like the idea of Bird diving for lose balls during practice. That just sounds dumb to me, especially considering the guys career ended because of a bad back. What exactly did these legendary practices yield the Celtics? An extra title over Wilt, which is already listed as an advantage in team success, and 7 HCA losses. Great practices are one thing, but once again it is all about results.

And obviously Bird is a better shooter than Wilt, one is a post player the other is a perimeter player. That's like me saying Kobe is by far a better shooter than Wilt. We all know you wouldn't let that stand. It's about the end result, putting the ball in the basket.

[lorak]

Team Results and Individual Impact: Regular season
’09 LeBron: Cavs 66 – 16 (1st NBA), APM +16 (basketballvalue), Cavs 21 points better/48 on court
’04 Garnett: Wolves 58 – 24 (1st West), APM +16 (Winston), Wolves 20 points better/48 on court

Where did you find APM for 2004?
Or you are talking about this ('03+'04 by Rosenbaum): http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm
?

I used Winston's, because it's the only single-season APM I've seen for 2004. http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=996

Thx, I never seen this before.

If you're going to say that the postseason is a significant time period to make 1 set of conclusions, then you have to note all of the data for that time period.

Whole postseason (so for example box score production) is enough sample size. But on/off court isn't because "off" is very small amount of minutes in case of superstars, usually blowouts, or 4th quarters when game is already over. That's why in this case on/off is useless.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Huh!?

Wilt had Jerry West(MVP Candidate), Elgin Baylor(MVP Candidate), Billy Cunningham (MVP Candidate), Chet Walker(All-Star), Hal Greer(MVP Candidate), & Gail Goodrich (MVP Candidate).

Bird came onto a team that won 29 games prior season, turned them into a 61 win team, that's the most significant difference in probably league history, there were no significant injuries, there were no players traded, and there were no players injured the prior season, he simply came in and brought them to relevancy (no McHale OR Parish).

McHale didn't have an elite MVP caliber season until AFTER the Celtics stopped winning championships, and for their first championship run he was a simple 10PPG bench player. As for Parish, he didn't receive his recognition until he arrived in Boston and played with Bird. None of the HOF players Bird played with were established NBA players before their arrival. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar however, was a 5 time MVP, NBA Champion, and a the most effective defensive anchor in the league.

My point was that comparatively, Wilt didn't have the equal support that both Magic & Bird did throughout their careers. West & Baylor were on the other side of their careers, though still great players.

I mean really, I could say Bird had Dave Cowens and Tiny(both 31) on the Celtics when he joined. And had McHale and Parish for most if his, along with DJ, Walton along the way, if we want to play that way.

I don't think it's a leap to say Bird had a better cast at all. And I only made the point in regards to Wilt's team regular season records.

Are we not examining conferences here or what? Celtics had to go through Dr. J (MVP level) & Moses Malone and the Sixers for consecutive years, Sidney Moncrief & Marques Johnson led Bucks (defensive stallions), few random years of competition from Bernard King (dominant MVP level statistical scoring season) where they barely made it out alive, and of course the eventual competition from the late 80s Pistons and Bulls. The Lakers never had to go through that same kind of competition, there were more various contenders out in the eastern conference, in fact you can state that the Lakers never faced a contender on the level of what the eastern conference consisted of throughout their dominance of the western conference.

I broke down all three's records against +4 SRS teams with HCA, But let me show the +2 SRS teams too.

Playoff Series Record with HCA against teams with a +2 SRS:
Magic 80-91' 15-2 88.2%
Bird 80-91' 13-5 72.2%
Wilt 60-73' 10-4 71.4%


Playoff Series Record with HCA against teams with a +4 SRS:
Magic 80-91' 6-1 85.7%
Bird 80-91' 6-5 54.5%
Wilt 60-73' 3-3 50%

^
So actually, Magic faced 17 teams that were +2 SRS with HCA, and Bird faced 18, which is nearly equal. Magic's record however is better, no matter how you look at it.

[JordansBulls]

I'm still torn on this because Shaq had one of the greatest peaks ever, but it just doesn't feel right to vote someone in the top 5 with only 1 League MVP where there are three other guys out there with 3 league mvp's and 2 of them that have 3+ league mvp's and multiple titles.

[TMACFORMVP]

he has 4 top 10 apg seasons. yeah. FOUR. all before he was traded to the lakers and "changed his game". 4th, 7th, 3rd, and FIRST! so... yes. the math checks out. he WAS triple teamed and he DID find the open man a lot of the time.

Come on man, read the post. I'm clearly addressing Wilt's first six seasons in the league. Nowhere have I said he didn't find the open man, or wasn't a terrific playmaker in his Sixers and Lakers career. That'd be foolish - I'm SAYING he should have done that earlier in his career unless you'd protest he did find the open man during his Warriors tenure, where I'd vehemently disagree pointing at the low assist numbers, and sheer volume of shots and FT's he attempted.

And similarly with the TS%, nobody is denying he's had some of the most efficient seasons of all time, and numerous top finishes in FG% for his career, but once again, that's moreso through his ridiculous efficiency post 65. Listen, I'll repeat, I'm not saying Chamberlain was a below average, or even average shooter during his first six seasons, he was undoubtedly above average for his time. But I don't want a guy taking nearly half my teams possessions when he's not finding the open man, forcing shots, and not putting all time level efficiency with questionable defensive impact - all of which were the case during Wilt's first couple of seasons in the NBA. Then lead to questionable playoff results where he shot under 50% in his first three seasons (twice roughly 46-47%), including being swept against the Nationals, and a season where they finished 31-49, you can't help but question if a large part of it was Wilt trying to get his stats, especially when we have seen what he was capable of the latter part of his career.

[Fencer reregistered]

Edit: I overlooked the Magic/Kareem ring under Westhead.

One point I haven't seen much is coaching. There's a lot of circularity, to be sure; we regard coaches as outstanding if they win championships, and so championships tend to be won by outstanding coaches. That said, from memory:

Jordan got every ring under Phil Jackson, after Jackson replaced a decent coach in Doug Collins.

Russell got every ring except two under Red Auerbach, except for the two he got playing for himself after Red decreed that the only two coaches who could succeed with Russell were Russell and Red.

Kareem got every ring but one under Pat Riley. Kareem also played for John Wooden in college.

Magic got every ring under Pat Riley.

Shaq got every ring under Jackson or Riley.

Duncan got every ring under Popovich( who is like Auerbach to his Russell),

The outliers there are Bird and Wilt. Bird won for Bill Fitch and K. C. Jones -- not bad coaches, but not Jackson/Riley either. Wilt had a great coach toward the end of his career in Sharman, but wasn't so fortunate before that. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that Wilt had issues with doing what it takes to win on and off the court.

I'm inclined to saying that coaching issues, plus the stress of race relations, give Wilt considerable cover vs. Shaq (who anyway wrecked more teams than Wilt did).

However, I don't think they speak for Wilt against Bird. I stand by my Bird vote, and am locking in on Wilt for #6.

[Dr Positivity]

Hannum was a great coach

[An Unbiased Fan]

One point I haven't seen much is coaching. There's a lot of circularity, to be sure; we regard coaches as outstanding if they win championships, and so championships tend to be won by outstanding coaches. That said, from memory:

Jordan got every ring under Phil Jackson, after Jackson replaced a decent coach in Doug Collins.

Russell got every ring except two under Red Auerbach, except for the two he got playing for himself after Red decreed that the only two coaches who could succeed with Russell were Russell and Red.

Kareem got every ring but one under Pat Riley. Kareem also played for John Wooden in college.

Magic got every ring under Pat Riley.

Shaq got every ring under Jackson or Riley.

Duncan got every ring under Popovich( who is like Auerbach to his Russell),

The outliers there are Bird and Wilt. Bird won for Bill Fitch and K. C. Jones -- not bad coaches, but not Jackson/Riley either. Wilt had a great coach toward the end of his career in Sharman, but wasn't so fortunate before that. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that Wilt had issues with doing what it takes to win on and off the court.

I'm inclined to saying that coaching issues, plus the stress of race relations, give Wilt considerable cover vs. Shaq (who anyway wrecked more teams than Wilt did).

However, I don't think they speak for Wilt against Bird. I stand by my Bird vote, and am locking in on Wilt for #6.

Actually, Magic & KAJ won under Westhead in 1980. And To be fair, Fitch came to Boston the same year that Bird did, and they had 60+ wins 3 of the 4 years. He left to Houston the next year, and turned them into WC Champs in 86' over Riles.

[fatal9]

I value multiple year peaks (eg. Shaq '00-'02, Bird '84-'87, Duncan '01-'05, Hakeem '93-'95 etc etc), overall primes and playoff performances a lot more than other things. Allow me to sneak Hakeem into the conversation again...

Shaq vs. Hakeem is interesting because while Shaq is better statistically, I see Hakeem winning more with Shaq's supporting casts. The amount of talent Shaq played with is pretty overwhelming when you compare with Hakeem. When Shaq missed games from '95-'04, his teams were 80-61 without him, when Hakeem missed games from '86-'96, the Rockets were only 33-51. That's not even comparing just the roster personnel, Shaq had Penny/Kobe/Wade, while Hakeem had Sleepy Floyd and Maxwell chucking away. Shaq's been a lot, lot, more fortunate. Any time Hakeem has had a legit cast/coach, he's done pretty well. I originally had Shaq over Hakeem without much though, but now feel like Hakeem in Shaq's situation produces more rings as he almost never underperformed in the playoffs, usually won when he was supposed to and could basically do everything Shaq could do but defend better and play better in crunch time. While Shaq in Hakeem's situation, I see better regular season records but probably no rings, one maybe. I know it's faulty to use what if scenario but their team situations were vastly different.

Not only that, as I mentioned in the case for Hakeem in the last thread, Hakeem went through some extremely tough competition, no one has went through what he did in '95 (beating four best teams in same playoff run). '94 was a pretty difficult road as well, the '93 Sonics were really really good, Magic's Lakers and as a sophomore he took down the Showtime Lakers to get to the finals. He did lose to some weak teams like the '87 Sonics but when you're posting 49/25 on great efficiency in an elimination game, while playing well the whole series, it's tough to blame him. I just respect the teams he beat a bit more than the team's Shaq beat. Hakeem in his extended prime years ('85-'95) averaged 29/12/3/4 on 58 TS% (PER = 26.9). To average that over 10 years in the playoffs is just...disgusting. But the problem with Hakeem is his career from '90-'92, poor regular season team records and playoff performances. Part of me believes Hakeem would have also been a better player had he been drafted 5-6 years later, the slower the pace, the more centered around Hakeem's post game the offense would have been (he didn't just suddenly go from a 22 ppg scorer to a 26-28 ppg scorer overnight, while he improved his decision making, the offense should have been centered around him much much more in the Chaney years).

Shaq meanwhile had an 11 year stretch from '94-'05 where he was the best player on his team and went to at least the second round every year, won 3 titles, went to 5 finals, 8 conference finals, 50+ wins each year (well, except the lockout year), and he averaged 27/12/3 on 58 TS% in that span, 27/13/3/2 on 57 TS% (PER = 28.3) in the playoffs. He could have been greater but what he gave you wasn't bad.

Bird I've already discussed, main problem I see with him is that Hakeem/Shaq to me individually performed better in the playoffs on a year by year basis (sometimes not entirely in Bird's control). It's between these three. Duncan would be in too but I don't view his prime/peak quite on the level of these guys. Consistency is great, but how good you were matters to me a bit more.

[Fencer reregistered]

Hannum was a great coach

What do you base that on, other than one great season?

[pancakes3]

Come on man, read the post. I'm clearly addressing Wilt's first six seasons in the league. Nowhere have I said he didn't find the open man, or wasn't a terrific playmaker in his Sixers and Lakers career. That'd be foolish - I'm SAYING he should have done that earlier in his career unless you'd protest he did find the open man during his Warriors tenure, where I'd vehemently disagree pointing at the low assist numbers, and sheer volume of shots and FT's he attempted.

well... for the assist numbers you didn't specify a time frame, but if you were to apply the same "first 6-7 seasons" it'd STILL be accurate because Wilt was 4th in the league in assists in his 5th season, and 7th in assists in his 7th season... AS A CENTER. not 4th for Centers mind you... OVERALL. is that not a nutty enough of an achievement?

And similarly with the TS%, nobody is denying he's had some of the most efficient seasons of all time, and numerous top finishes in FG% for his career, but once again, that's moreso through his ridiculous efficiency post 65. Listen, I'll repeat, I'm not saying Chamberlain was a below average, or even average shooter during his first six seasons, he was undoubtedly above average for his time. But I don't want a guy taking nearly half my teams possessions when he's not finding the open man, forcing shots, and not putting all time level efficiency with questionable defensive impact - all of which were the case during Wilt's first couple of seasons in the NBA.

average in the sense that he was in the top 10 of TS% in 4 of his first 5 seasons? average in the sense that he led the league in fg% by his 2nd year in the league? questionable defensive impact in the sense that... he outrebounded Bill Russell in each of his first 4 seasons?

Then lead to questionable playoff results where he shot under 50% in his first three seasons (twice roughly 46-47%), including being swept against the Nationals, and a season where they finished 31-49, you can't help but question if a large part of it was Wilt trying to get his stats, especially when we have seen what he was capable of the latter part of his career.

:/ KAJ had 2 straight postseasons where he shot sub-.500 also. in '72 (against wilt) his PS TS% was .462 and in '73 his PS TS% was .447 (his fg% was even uglier at .428). YET... he was able to be voted in as 3rd best player of all time. if you want to look at the sweep series, you'll note that though Wilt clocked in a sub-Wilt .469, which is still .055 higher than the league average, his #2 guy - an ancient arizin, shot .328. his PF, Tom Gola, alleged NBA all star shot 7-34 that series... good enough for just ~20% shooting. so yeah... Wilt got swept.

ps, i think the most insulting part of that wilt-bash was the "questionable defensive impact" bit.

[Dipper 13]

BTW, in previous thread someone was comparing Wilt's NCAA TS% to Alcindor's, but the same person didn't said a word about that how often Wilt was triple and sometimes even fourth teamed - watch the finals against Kansas, they are available on the internet - while Alcindor had very good team and opposing defenses wasn't able to focus on him like they did on Wilt.

The Evening Independent - Feb 2, 1967





Lawrence Journal-World - Mar 27, 1967