kendogg wrote:Frazier is saying that Wilt is easier to drive against because he's a bit less mobile than Nate or Russ. That is an agreed upon fact. That is a bit different than stopping Frazier at the rim with Wilt already in position. And I already ceded that Wilt chased blocks at times early in his career, but so did many centers until they settled in. Wilt had 4 coaches in his first 5 seasons, so that didn't help things for him. I still feel like Wilt is the best rim protector after Russ and perhaps even equal to Russ later in his career. But eyeball test unfortunately only takes you so far in a debate.
Actually neither quote mention Thurmond, but instead compare Wilt to Russell who was a very different player. I looked through Tall Tales and a couple of my other basketball books looking for contemporaries comparing Wilt to Nate but didn't find anything, all the comps were to Russell.
CeciltheSheep wrote:Sticking with Nate Thurmond. He was known in his time as being better than his contemporary Chamberlain, his head-to-head results make him a demonstrably superior post defender at the very least, and his WOWYR score is only one below Chamberlain's despite the extra offense Chamberlain provided.
Let's break that down a little. The post defense against top individuals show both as dominant man defenders with a slight edge to Thurmond . . . countered by Wilt's edge in rebounding and larger edge in minutes. But is it true that he was known as better when they were contemporaneous? I don't remember that as true at all (Russell yes, Thurmond not clear).
64, 65 Wilt was certainly the primary defender on the Warriors, playing the center position with Nate more a rich man's Clyde Lee role at PF.
66, 67, 68 Wilt left SF in 65 with the 64 Warriors having been the 2nd best defensive team to join Philly, the 7th best (out of 9). That season everyone was very impressed with Nate's transition to C but it was certainly not consensus that Nate was the better defender. Ignoring 65 where Wilt played half the season in SF and Nate half at C, the next 3 seasons, Wilt pushed Philly to be a better defensive team than Nate pushed SF. Wilt was the man, with the established stardom, and was getting credit for being a greater defensive force than ever before (or playing more like Russell) in Alex Hannum's offense. Hard to imagine that there was a strong consensus that Nate was better. I will say that both were getting a lot of recognition for being the two other great defensive forces in the league behind Russell.
69 The Warriors defense slipped a little to 5th (out of 14). Wilt's move to the Lakers was very controversial and the Lakers defense wasn't impressive (8/14) as everyone was more worried about Wilt fitting with the new team. This is the 1st year I can see Thurmond's defense being consensus better than Wilt.
70 Wilt only played 12 games due to injury, Nate only played 43. This year, like 65, didn't cement either of their reputations.
71 Wilt's last year as a 20 ppg scorer, the two teams were 5th (SF) and 8th (LA) in defensive rating. I would see Nate as probably having the rep as having passed Wilt defensively although with Russell out, new heros like Willis Reed were emerging and getting a lot of the spotlight.
72 Wilt gave up scoring to focus solely on defense. Elgin Baylor goes down and yet the Lakers dominate the league winning the title easily with Wilt almost certainly getting the credit for the much improved defense (2/17) while GS has a good year in their shadow but not as good (4/17). I'm not suggest the defensive ratings informed the popular opinion all that much but they do show a bit of how effective the actual defense was and that tended to carry over into the media accounts. I would guess that there are a lot of articles about Wilt's defensive style and how he is again the best defender in the league but this wouldn't be nearly as strong an opinion as many now make it; I would guess the popular opinion is again split.
73 Lakers again better defensively than the Warriors; Wilt again focusing almost all his attention on defense. Popular opinion (as I remember it and thinking about their respective narratives) again split.
74 Wilt agrees to go to the ABA (never ended up playing there). Warriors slip back to mediocre defense though with Rick Barry and Cazzie Russell on the wings, not a lot of perimeter defense being played (interior defense has not only Nate but also Clyde Lee and George Johnson, both with excellent defensive reps). Warriors felt Thurmond was slipping enough (his scoring was down to 13.0 from 20.0 in 71) that they were willing to send him to Chicago after the season for Cliff Ray, he was 32 and this was probably the last year he was really thought of as a dominant defender, especially when his new teams were disappointing (for various reasons).
So, I have it as
Thurmond's rookie year 64, certainly Wilt
65 and 71 wasted seasons in terms of comparing the two.
66-68 Wilt still probably has the bigger defensive rep although Thurmond challenging him, especially with 67.
70 Thurmond takes over as the acknowledge best defensive center in the league with Russell retiring and Wilt moving to LA
72-73 Wilt's defensive resurgence. A lot of argument, very little consensus on who is better defensively although team stats may imply Wilt.
74 Wilt retires, Thurmond's late year of defensive prime (post offensive prime).
75+ Thurmond seen as disappointing though still a strong defender.
I don't see the statement that Thurmond was seen as better when the two were contemporaries as accurate. You might compare each player's first 5 years and say Thurmond had a better rep his first 5 years but you would have to acknowledge Wilt's better rep his last few. Wilt was also always the better rebounder (by numbers) and played the bigger minutes.
