What separates Wilt & KG?

[GYBE]

Furthermore, fewer teams means talent is more concentrated. So this argument won't go anywhere.

Assuming all teams had equal talent, Wilt had a 20% chance of making the Finals most years. Early on it was 25%. Simply due to the lack of teams.

At the same time, KG had a 6.66% chance because of expansion.

Now that's before we even consider the talent difference in their supporting casts, which most people would acknowledge as significant. The Spurs, Lakers and Kings dwarfed the Wolves in talent during KG's prime, ignoring that is denying reality.

These are the players drafted by the Wolves in the 1st round since Garnett:

Paul Grant
Rasho Nesterovic
Wally Sczerbiak
William Avery
Ndubi Ebi
Rashad McCants
Corey Brewer

In addition, the Wolves lost two 1st round picks for illegally OVERPAYING Joe Smith.

Garnett's prime was stolen from him, plain and simple. It was wasted on a franchise that didn't deserve him. He was there for 12 years. Wilt was on the Sixers after 6. But even with the talent gap that you ignore and the fact that Wilt sometimes only had to be better than three teams, you think comparing Finals appearances is fair.

The league was horrid during this year, and you can't deny this. You also take out the impact Ray Allen also had on the ballclub, the same with Pierce taking up his game a notch.

Yes, I do deny the league was horrid. The team they beat in the Finals won the next two. I don't think Pierce was demonstrably better that year, his efficiency went up a bit because he wasn't the sole option. Ray Allen was a key guy, but the defense was the biggest reason for the title. And again, Wilt had support like this throughout his Philly and Laker days.

Actually the Warriors/76ers statistician harvey pollack swears that in the 1962 season Wilt averaged double digit blocks and probably did in the prior year as well.

"Swears" and "probably" aren't used when discussing stats. Stats are stats because they are intrinsically true. We don't know how many he really averaged, just as we don't know how many he would have in the modern game (obviously less).

But you ignore what he did during the season and how he got to that point to begin with. Its not like he loses in the 1st round, its not like he misses the playoffs,

Jesus Christ, one team used to miss the playoffs. Now 7 do. You're comparing these eras with no context and it's ridiculous. His Warrior teams were under .500 twice in 6 years.

Now you're starting to become a little more annoying and quite simply WRONG. In 1967 Wilt averaged near a quadruple double vs. the Celtics in the playoffs.

Keep making up block stats, it's very impressive.

when blocked shots for one weren't recorded

Yet you keep using it to make up better lines for Wilt

and of course higher PER's are awarded for usage, if the ball isn't in your hands your PER is lower.

KG still managed to lead the Celtics in PER during their title run by 6 points and he's not exactly a ball dominant player. We'll have to disagree about this one.

I don't even know why I'm continuing this. Rational people agree Wilt is the greater player. But you're so overzealous in your argument.

[pancakes3]

7 Finals and 2 Titles in 14 seasons as opposed to KG's... 2 finals and 1 title in 18 seasons?

Yes, '08 was magical but so was '72.

Wilt had many seasons where he ballhogged the heck out of the ball but he has just as many seasons where he took less than 20 shots a game as more than 20 fga's. What he's always been consistent in - more than his scoring - is his rebounding. The 3 seasons worth of TRB% that we have shows that he's rebounding as well in those 3 years as KG did in his peak years at Minny. Also more consistent than his scoring? His passing (9 seasons of 4+ apg).

[Sharifani_San]

Assuming all teams had equal talent, Wilt had a 20% chance of making the Finals most years. Early on it was 25%. Simply due to the lack of teams.

At the same time, KG had a 6.66% chance because of expansion.

Now that's before we even consider the talent difference in their supporting casts, which most people would acknowledge as significant. The Spurs, Lakers and Kings dwarfed the Wolves in talent during KG's prime, ignoring that is denying reality.

These are the players drafted by the Wolves in the 1st round since Garnett:

Paul Grant
Rasho Nesterovic
Wally Sczerbiak
William Avery
Ndubi Ebi
Rashad McCants
Corey Brewer

In addition, the Wolves lost two 1st round picks for illegally OVERPAYING Joe Smith.

Garnett's prime was stolen from him, plain and simple. It was wasted on a franchise that didn't deserve him. He was there for 12 years. Wilt was on the Sixers after 6. But even with the talent gap that you ignore and the fact that Wilt sometimes only had to be better than three teams, you think comparing Finals appearances is fair.

I think its fair because even when the league expanded later in Wilt's career, he was still making either the conference finals or finals consistently. We can simply agree to disagree here.

Yes, I do deny the league was horrid. The team they beat in the Finals won the next two. I don't think Pierce was demonstrably better that year, his efficiency went up a bit because he wasn't the sole option. Ray Allen was a key guy, but the defense was the biggest reason for the title. And again, Wilt had support like this throughout his Philly and Laker days.

I respectfully disagree regarding his Philly and Laker days. Watch game 5 of the finals vs. the Knicks in 1970, the Lakers (including West and Baylor) turn the ball over so many times its no surprise the Knicks caught up and won that game. It literally took Wilt in game 6 to get the series back to New York. 1971 West and Baylor were out, he dragged his team to the conference finals vs. the Bucks, where he put up respectful numbers and was given a standing ovation by the Bucks crowd for his effort after the Bucks had won.

In Philly his team averaged 30% from the court from games 5-7 in 1968 vs. the Celtics, it's no surprise at all that they lost given this. Watch game 4 1967 of the Sixers vs. the Celtics in the conf finals, a game where Wilt's knees were in severe pain due to the incredible effort he had put into game 3. Although Wilt put in his numbers, the rest of the team's dreadful play was the reason Boston even won a game vs. Philly that year. That's what Wilt had to put up with in 1968 when he couldn't count on his team to put in their baskets. The Boston defense had a part to play in this (which is why I think Wilt should have looked to score more himself and why it was his years of not scoring, as opposed to his years of scoring, that should be criticized).

"Swears" and "probably" aren't used when discussing stats. Stats are stats because they are intrinsically true. We don't know how many he really averaged, just as we don't know how many he would have in the modern game (obviously less).

I still told you that this is coming from the official statistician, who has worked in Philly since 1947, when the NBA began!! You act like I'm quoting some random fan who is saying this. And the guy is still alive and kicking.

Jesus Christ, one team used to miss the playoffs. Now 7 do. You're comparing these eras with no context and it's ridiculous. His Warrior teams were under .500 twice in 6 years.

To be fair, one just one of those years (the other year he got traded). Even though I should have provided a little more context, its still fair to say at the end of the day that Wilt always lost to Boston alone, who would be the champion in those years, and that the league's talent was more concentrated.

Keep making up block stats, it's very impressive.

This part is again an area where its obvious you hadn't actually looked at the numbers. Everyone knows that for some odd reason, someone was counting his blocks in that series, if you look it up he averaged something like 7-8 blocks in this series vs. the celtics.

I don't even know why I'm continuing this. Rational people agree Wilt is the greater player. But you're so overzealous in your argument.

Please, so making a matter of fact statement on what happened in the playoffs (that he always lost vs. the Celtics, always took them to game 7, always lost by 1-4 points) to show that Wilt was also more dependable in the playoffs than prevalent opinions state is making an overzealous argument? And telling you what the official statistician of the warriors/76ers stated is being overzealous?

[bastillon]

well obviously the argument for Wilt would be his boxscore stats. but where does that show up in team results ? once that's your concern I don't see how Wilt compares favorably to David Robinson. it's nice to look at his assets seperately and then act as if he had all these traits at the same time. it was never the case.

first of all Wilt's GOAT level scoring is a joke. when Wilt was rocking 30-50 ppg his teams were below average offensively. why would I want someone like Wilt to volume score when in fact that doesn't make my team a lot better ?

second of all, there is a massive gap in their defense. Wilt's style of play was hurting his team on defense in some ways. admittedly he was a strong low post defender but he was outright bad anywhere on the perimeter. watch some Knicks vs Lakers games and see how Reed badly torches Wilt from outside. dude wasn't even stepping out to guard the perimeter cuz he was waiting to get the rebound. the same goes for his pick and roll defense. when your big cares more about getting a rebound than contesting shots and playing actual defense, at some point it becomes destructive for your team. Wilt attacking the offensive glass (admittedly he was a monster on the offensive glass, Moses-like) also didn't help team D because he was always late in transition. not to mention he didn't even put much effort into getting back.

[rrravenred]

For kicks, here's on old fantasy piece Scoop Jackson did on "Wilt in the 21st Century"...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... son/050519

[bastillon]

7 Finals and 2 Titles in 14 seasons as opposed to KG's... 2 finals and 1 title in 18 seasons?

Yes, '08 was magical but so was '72.

name one player in NBA history who played with more stacked supporting cast than Wilt 65-73. no wonder why he won some championships. the problem is that he should've won it almost every year in that period bc his teams were THAT talented. Jackson, Greer, Cunningham, Jones, Walker ? it's like you had Oakley, Reggie, Manu, Derek Harper and Pierce. it's mind boggling Wilt was only capable of winning once with that kinda cast.

[colts18]

7 Finals and 2 Titles in 14 seasons as opposed to KG's... 2 finals and 1 title in 18 seasons?

Yes, '08 was magical but so was '72.

name one player in NBA history who played with more stacked supporting cast than Wilt 65-73. no wonder why he won some championships. the problem is that he should've won it almost every year in that period bc his teams were THAT talented. Jackson, Greer, Cunningham, Jones, Walker ? it's like you had Oakley, Reggie, Manu, Derek Harper and Pierce. it's mind boggling Wilt was only capable of winning once with that kinda cast.

He won no titles with West/Baylor and just 1 title with West/Goodrich. It makes no sense to me why he was shooting less in the 70's than Tyson Chandler.

[bastillon]

I think the most obvious and era-proof points are that 1) Wilt was a monstrous 7'2 and 2) played with his back to the basket.

Yea, Wilt's combination of phsyical talent and basketball skills is nearly unrivaled.

KG is listed at 220 pounds on basketballreference, and that's what a 6'9" Bill Russell was listed at. The physical differences between KG and many other great bigs are profound, KG is more of a wiry, mobile finesee forward player than someone who would abuse you (physically that is, KG would definitely abuse anyone verbally ). IIRC KG's game doesn't draw as many fouls as other greats either FWIW

if you believe KG is 6'11, 220 then just stop posting in this thread bc clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Bill Russell being 6'9 furthermore proves it - you should educate yourself before writing this crap.

KG is 7'1 with shoes and 250. Bill Russell was 6'11 in shoes (pretty much the same as Hakeem) and also about 240-250. Bill Russell dominated Wilt in terms of his impact. Wilt may have outscored him but Russell's team defense s so much more dominant that Wilt outscoring him didn't matter since everyone else was contained. Wilt's team D was never on that level.

[bastillon]

name one player in NBA history who played with more stacked supporting cast than Wilt 65-73. no wonder why he won some championships. the problem is that he should've won it almost every year in that period bc his teams were THAT talented. Jackson, Greer, Cunningham, Jones, Walker ? it's like you had Oakley, Reggie, Manu, Derek Harper and Pierce. it's mind boggling Wilt was only capable of winning once with that kinda cast.

He won no titles with West/Baylor and just 1 title with West/Goodrich. It makes no sense to me why he was shooting less in the 70's than Tyson Chandler.

there was 1 game at the end of 72 or 73 when Lakers were playing vs Bucks and Wilt stopped shooting bc he wanted to maintain his efficiency. it cost them #1 seed iirc. it was brought up by the regulator during the RPOY project. Wilt was shooting much less than Tyson Chandler (consider the mins!) bc he wanted to be in record books. now after 40 years people forget wtf happened during those years and think Wilt was some sort of efficiency monster. dude had major weaknesses in his post game and it showed during the playoffs. his playoff scoring efficiency was a lot worse for a reason. there is no case for Wilt's offense being better than Oscar or West. Wilt is a joke compared to these 2 as an offensive player.

[E-Balla]

Well for one thing KG is better...

He's more consistent, has higher longevity and his prime is better than Wilt's prime.

[Texas Chuck]

w it's nice to look at his assets seperately and then act as if he had all these traits at the same time. it was never the case.

if we are being fair tho the same must be said for KG. People look at the ridic stats he put up in Minny and try and add that to the legit defensive anchor he became in Boston. He was never the guy putting up 25/13/5 type lines and having the defensive impact he had in Boston. He was a terrific individual defender in Minny obviously but he wasnt a true anchor as is seen by Minny's team defense. He also didnt have nearly the range that he has now.

I dont think either side is doing it on purpose but Boston KG and Minny KG are really significantly different players.

[Dr Pepper]

I think the most obvious and era-proof points are that 1) Wilt was a monstrous 7'2 and 2) played with his back to the basket.

Yea, Wilt's combination of phsyical talent and basketball skills is nearly unrivaled.

KG is listed at 220 pounds on basketballreference, and that's what a 6'9" Bill Russell was listed at. The physical differences between KG and many other great bigs are profound, KG is more of a wiry, mobile finesee forward player than someone who would abuse you (physically that is, KG would definitely abuse anyone verbally ). IIRC KG's game doesn't draw as many fouls as other greats either FWIW

if you believe KG is 6'11, 220 then just stop posting in this thread bc clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Bill Russell being 6'9 furthermore proves it - you should educate yourself before writing this crap.

KG is 7'1 with shoes and 250. Bill Russell was 6'11 in shoes (pretty much the same as Hakeem) and also about 240-250. Bill Russell dominated Wilt in terms of his impact. Wilt may have outscored him but Russell's team defense s so much more dominant that Wilt outscoring him didn't matter since everyone else was contained. Wilt's team D was never on that level.

Numbers aside, the point you missed was that KG has been undersized for his height throughout his career and was evident when comparing him to more bulkier forwards and especially centers. The 220 number doesn't seem too far off for a young KG but it probably is underrated, and even an older KG would benefit from being light too. Furthermore KG being a legit 250 seems on the high end

KG was the more mobile and finesse player, but really can't abuse players physically like Wilt did who was a much more impressive athlete with skills to match. But yea sorry this comparison doesn't seem to hold much ground for KG, all crap aside (like claiming Top 5 GOAT is within KG's reach, but we all have our biases and crap numbers.....)

[JordansBulls]

Wilt was more dominant than KG on both ends of the floor. KG had better heart and never gave up in the course of a game like Wilt did.

[Doctor MJ]

So I'll chime in here and just note that I pick KG over Wilt, so I'm not one to respond to the OP, but I'm likely to respond to the first responders.

Wilt Chamberlain was probably the most dominant offensive player ever. He was clearly the best offensive player during his peak. KG, while a good offensive player has never been the best offensive player. If Wilt Chamberlain at his peak was playing in this era, he would easily be the best player in the league. KG at his peak would be ONE of the best players, but clearly THE best player.

Wilt was not the most dominant offensive player ever. When he was doing extreme volume scoring, his team's actual offensive success was typically mediocre. Defenses really had no particular problem being successful against him.

KG actually was the best offensive player in the league at his peak by RAPM.

If Wilt was playing today, I don't really see any reason to think he'd be better than LeBron.

[Doctor MJ]

]
making his team a contender (and don't bring up 1969 either) immediately.

This is funny. The implication here is that it's simply unreasonable to point out that there are all sorts of questionable findings about Wilt's translation to impact through his career but that any team failure with Garnett is proof that he's vastly inferior.

Garnett changed teams once. The improvement of the team dwarfed any improvement Wilt was ever a part of except for the time when Hannum convinced Wilt to stop shooting.

[Doctor MJ]

The scoring gap is just too large for KG to overcome

Wilt didn't get in the conversation for truly astounding impact on offense until his scoring drops to KG levels.

[Dr Pepper]

If Wilt was playing today, I don't really see any reason to think he'd be better than LeBron.

Even in a league where a healthy Dwight Howard was a MVP candidate? Imo Dwight is one of the worst "best bigs" the league has had in a while too, if that makes sense...in this relatively weak era I think Wilt would shine

[Doctor MJ]

I think its fair because even when the league expanded later in Wilt's career, he was still making either the conference finals or finals consistently. We can simply agree to disagree here.

Was there was a single one of those successful later seasons where Wilt's supporting cast wasn't one of the top 2 in the league?

[Dr Pepper]

I think its fair because even when the league expanded later in Wilt's career, he was still making either the conference finals or finals consistently. We can simply agree to disagree here.

Was there was a single one of those successful later seasons where Wilt's supporting cast wasn't one of the top 2 in the league?

Could the same be said about KG's Celtics in the East before the Big 3 Heat? Even without KG they pushed the Magic finalists to 7 games for what it's worth....or did I just jump in on this and miss the point that they both played on great teams but Wilt didn't play with the Twolves cast?

[Sharifani_San]

Wilt was not the most dominant offensive player ever. When he was doing extreme volume scoring, his team's actual offensive success was typically mediocre.Defenses really had no particular problem being successful against him.

KG actually was the best offensive player in the league at his peak by RAPM.

If Wilt was playing today, I don't really see any reason to think he'd be better than LeBron.

And that was not Wilt's fault. It's one thing to say a player can mess up the entire flow of the game due to him hogging the ball the way a Oscar Robertson did, a Lebron James did, an Allen Iverson did or a Rajon Rondo does. Notice however that all of these guys are not centers. Wilt was a center. A center cannot by definition hog the ball. It has to be passed to him. Hence you cannot blame HIM but you can blame the TEAM or the COACH for the way they played ball. You CAN blame him if he played on poor efficiency or he didn't play defense. I think its correct to say that he took some possessions on defense off in his offensive peak because nobody can expect someone to play as hard as they could on both sides of the court playing 48 min/game. Of course when he was at KU he played as hard as he could on both ends of the court. Poor efficiency he was not, he had good efficiency compared to the rest of the league (and recall he shot 62% from the stripe in 1962).

Anyway, newspaper evidence suggests that Wilt and the ballclub knew that it was better for him to primarily focus on defense, which is why his offensive numbers went down and why his team lost by 2 points in both 1960 and 1962. Consider what Cousy said: "If Wilt Chamberlain plays every night like he did in this series, forget about it".