ReaGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #6 (Wilt Chamberlain)

[limbo]

Not convinced by either Wilt or Shaq supporters so far. I think both are impostors.

Wilt:

1.) incredibly dominant offensively!

- Then why was he only a part of 4/14 top three offenses in his career? And two of those came when he was averaging 14 ppg and 4 apg on the Lakers in his final two seasons? Not only that, but he was part of more average/below average offenses in his career than good ones.

2.) but Wilt teammates sucked on offense!

- Ok. Let's forget the fact that Paul Arizin was one of the best offensive players in the league before Wilt joined the Warriors, and Tom Gola was decent as well, yet the Warriors, with Wilt, Arizin, Gola, still managed to finished 7th out of 8 teams in terms of offensive efficiency... Something stinks here, and it's coming from Wilt's locker.

- Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, i'm willing to give Wilt a pass on leading crap-tier offenses for the Warriors. However, Wilt did not lack the sufficient talent when he played for the Sixers or the Lakers, but still had trouble leading dominant offenses outside of 1967 and 1969 (where it was a co-carry job with West). And 1971, 1972 in a 14/4 role on offense...

- Also, if Wilt was the best offensive player in the league, then why did the Sixers not lose a single beat on offense when Wilt left for LA and they brought in Archie Clark and Darrall Imhoff to replace him... I mean, Clark was a very good offensive player, but you'd figure if Wilt was the best in the league on that end, Archie Clark + a role player in Imhoff couldn't fill his shoes over an offseason as easily?

- Finally, both Jerry West and Oscar Robertson had some absolutely horrible offensive casts in the mid 60's, yet, both have been able to carry those casts to the best, second best, or third best offenses in the league pretty much consistently every time... So this clearly signals that ONE single player in the 60's could have such an insane impact that he could lead the best offense (or defense, in Russell's case) by himself, with minimal help. Robertson and West were able to do so, yet Wilt couldn't... He needed more talent and proper coaching, and even then he couldn't be consistent...

3.) Wilt was only losing to the Celtics in the Playoffs!

Well, who else should he be losing to in that era? It was only one dominant team in the entire league... And even with that said, Wilt got swept by Syracuse in 1961. He almost got eliminated by Syracuse again in 1962. And he needed 7 games to beat the Hawks, who were not as good as they were in the late 50's and early 60's. When Jerry West didn't have an absolute garbage team, he was also mostly losing to Boston... That tells us more about the 60's than Wilt.

And this is before going into the fact that Wilt had enough talent and an unprecedented physical advantage over the league through all of his career, yet rarely decide to dominate his competition on the defensive end.

[limbo]

I also find it weird that some of the people who put Duncan ahead of other ATG players, citing his coachability, loyalty, consistency giving him the decisive edge over his competition, seem to NOT value those seem things when it comes to Wilt and Shaq, who were notorious for displaying a lack of those same virtues multiple times throughout their careers.

[eminence]

I generally agree with the sentiment that Wilt never belonged near the conversation for best offensive player in the league. To me most of his argument is focused on his defense for sure.

[mailmp]

Not convinced by either Wilt or Shaq supporters so far. I think both are impostors...

And this is before going into the fact that Wilt had enough talent and an unprecedented physical advantage over the league through all of his career, yet rarely decide to dominate his competition on the defensive end.

Lmao what is this based off. Guy led monstrous defences in the postseason. Way to sweep that under the rug while railing on the strawman of him not literally being Shaq/West/Oscar level on offence.

[ardee]

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Shaquille O'Neal
3. Magic Johnson

I am voting Wilt here. From my part, I am going to use the same post that I made when I voted for him in 2014. I could make a new post but IMO that one was extremely comprehensive and provided a ton of context for all the criticisms leveled by his detractors on this board.

Let's take a look at his year-by-year career.

Early days

1960: Rookie year. This year is villified by many for his efficiency, and admittedly it's not as pretty as it'll be later on, but consider this... He comes onto a team with a terribly inefficient Guy Rodgers, Tom Gola and an aging Paul Arizin as his only decent team-mates. There was NO spacing on that team, and the lane was still narrow. Wilt used to get SWARMED. The team was a -2.3 SRS team the year before, it was +2.8 when Wilt arrived. He turned the second worst team in the league to the second best. His defense was great that year, he was blocking 15 shots a game according to stories. Won the MVP over a prime Russell. Honestly, don't see how this isn't the second best rookie season ever after Kareem. Start of a legendary career.

1961: One of his weaker years. His efficiency from the field improves, gets to work on that fadeaway jumper (which people love to hate on, but it LED THE LEAGUE in FG%, so I guess it worked at the time). Arizin is even older, a rookie Al Attles doesn't help TOO much... But Wilt still gets them to the Playoffs, puts up a 37/23, but his supporting cast flops BADLY. Arizin, Gola and Rodgers combined to shoot 31% from the field. Warriors get swept by the Royals. Can't blame Wilt here, his team stunk it up.

1962: The first glimpse of prime Wilt. Sets all time scoring and rebounding records, absolutely carried a worsening cast. Rodgers was completely awful as an offensive player now, shot 35.6% from the field. All his help is Arizin and Gola. Still no real shooting on the team. Wilt is great on both ends of the court, somehow makes them the second best team in the league, and comes one Sam Jones jumper away from upsetting the greatest dynasty in sports. AGREED Russ did a good job on him in the EDF, but really, if that jumper had missed, Wilt would be hailed as the 33/25 hero who single-handedly defeated the ultimate dynasty. Since he lost, people vilify this year for his scoring dropping somewhat AGAINST THE GOAT DEFENDER. Not saying this year was perfect but it really doesn't get the credit it deserves.

1963: His team dropped off a good bit, but seriously... We're talking a team with no shooting, no defense, had Arizin retire, Gola miss 60 games, and Wilt still has the team make league average offense AND defense? With that kind of supporting cast, blame the guy who goes 45/25, leads the league in FG% and anchors the defense? Where is the logic here?

I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here but this is where standards are shifted for Wilt. In 2006 and 2007 people make all kinds of excuses for KG regarding his supporting cast and multiple problems he faced. Yet he NEVER had this kind of situation. This would be the equivalent of the 2015 Heat having Bosh leave, Wade miss 60 games, and then expect LeBron to match his previous season's results. Wilt was depending on Guy Rodgers, who was shooting 38.7% from the field, to be his second option. It is bull to blame Wilt for this season's results, given all he did. This was probably his second best pre-prime year. You can put Russell, Kareem, anyone on that team and the results do not get better. He had one of the worst supporting casts in history.

Prime Wilt

1964: GOAT-level year. This was possibly Wilt at his best. His scoring drops a little bit but the efficiency goes up, and he becomes the consensus second best defender after Russ. The Warriors were a -6 defensive team, the second best mark of the era by any team besides the Russell Celtics (and the same mark people were going gaga over for the Pacers earlier this season). Wilt also becomes a part-time high post facilitator, finishing 6th in the league in assists. He ups his efficiency in the Playoffs, and makes his first Finals, losing to the GOAT defensive team. This is legendary stuff. The load he carried on both ends was ridiculous. His defense this year consistently gets underestimated. He was like a combination of Russell and Shaq, this was domination on another level. 35 ppg on 55% FG in the Playoffs, playing Russell? In that era? My God.

1965: He drops off a bit due to the heart disease. Bad team results in the beginning of the year. If you want to hold that against him, fine. He gets traded to Philly because the SFW management is full of asses. Philly immediately improves, they go 11-3 in the first 14 games with Wilt. Then Greer, Costello and Jackson all get injured in the second half of the season. Wilt still drags them to .500 and then outplays Russ in the EDF, losing because HAVLICEK STOLE THE BALL. This is the second time that one play has decided whether or not Wilt beats Russell.

1966: Start of peak Wilt. He takes his efficiency to a new level... 54% from the field on 25 FGA/game. Continues helping out with playmaking from the high post. He is now the undoubted best player in the league, taking the conch from Russell. The Sixers go 55-25. Wilt has a good supporting cast now but it's not THAT good. Greer was great, the perfect second option for Wilt. Walker was a nice do-it-all guy, but neither of them were particularly efficient. Billy C was too young to be a huge factor, Dolph Schayes refused to give Jackson the mpg he needed to make an impact, and Wali Jones was basically a better defensive version of Guy Rodgers, but even more inefficient. The results were still great though, given what he had. The first of 3 straight MVPs. 30/30 in the Playoffs, and only loses to Boston because his two best team-mates, Greer and Walker, screw up badly, shooting 36% from the floor combined. Shades of what happened with Gola and Arizin in '61. Keep this in mind when talking about his supporting cast this year. Again, GOAT level stuff.

1967: The greatest season anyone has ever played, at the very least in the top 3 with Jordan and Shaq. Sets a FG% record, becomes the first real point-center, is the keynote of Hannum's percusor to the triangle offense, and leads the Sixers to a record 68-13. I don't know how much I need to say about this year, but I'll let you guys take a look at his game-log from the Playoffs:

1967 EDSF vs. Royals

G1 - 41 points, 23 rebounds, 5 assists, 63% FG
G2 - 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists, 67% FG
G3 - 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists, 62% FG
G4 - 18 points, 27 rebounds, 9 assists, 50% FG

Series Average: 28.0 ppg, 26.8 rpg, 11 apg, 61% FG
Oscar Robertson: 24.8 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 11.3 apg, 51.6% FG

He had as many assists as Oscar and killed him everywhere else!

1967 EDF vs. Celtics

G1 - 24 points, 32 rebounds, 12 assists, 12 blocks, 69% FG
G2 - 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks, 45% FG
G3 - 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 blocks, 57% FG
G4 - 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assists, at least 3 blocks, 44% FG
G5 - 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists, 7 blocks, 63% FG

Series Average: 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6+ bpg, 56% FG
Bill Russell: 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 36% FG

1967 NBA Finals vs. Warriors

G1 - 16 points, 33 rebounds, 10 assists, 75% FG (including a game-saving block on Nate)
G2 - 10 points, 38 rebounds (26 in 1st half), 10 assists, 10 blocks, 40% FG
G3 - 26 points, 26 rebounds, 5 assists, 52% FG
G4 - 10 points, 27 rebounds, 8 assists, 11 blocks, 50% FG
G5 - 20 points, 24 rebounds, 4 assists, 60% FG
G6 - 24 points, 23 rebounds, 4 assists, 62% FG

Series Average: 17.6 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg, 56% FG
Nate Thurmond: 14.1 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 3.3 apg, 34% FG

That year, Wilt was fifth in scoring, first in rebounds, third in assists, and first in FG%. He was probably first or second in blocks too. How many players can achieve that level of statistical domination on an ELITE team?

He would get the rebound, either throw an outlet or let Greer bring it up before he got the entry pass at the high post again. Facing the basket, he then hit cutters, used a handoff to a guard to set a screen or either posted up to devastating effect (68% from the field!!!). Wilt was ungodly that year, there has never been anyone as good at basketball as Wilt was in 1967.

1968: Pretty much more of the same. His efficiency from the field dropped to "only" 60%, but for the first time, toppled Russell's Celtics for the best defense in the league.

This was the only time in the 60s Russ didn't anchor the league's best defense. So Wilt was the only guy to beat Russell in the Playoffs, as well as the only guy to have a better defense than him.

In the Playoffs, he dragged an injury ridden team past the Knicks, leading both teams in every major statistical category. He lost a game 7 to Boston by 4 points, in a game where Hannum had his only real failing as a coach. He simply couldn't devise a game-plan to get the ball to Wilt with Embry and Russell swarming him. The series was still so close despite the litany of injuries the Sixers had. Billy C was out of the series, Wilt had a bad calf problem, practically the whole starting 5 was hobbled.

Wilt has an unfair reputation as a 'big-game choker'. Take a look here at his performance in swing games, elimination games and game 7s through the years:

Wilt in do or die games...

1960 G3 vs. Nationals: 53 points, ? rebounds (playoff record at the time for pts)
1962 G5 vs. Nationals: 56 pts, 35 rebs (breaks his own playoff record)
1962 G7 vs Celtics : 22 pts, 21 rebs (7/14 shooting - Warriors were on the verge of pulling off this upset but Sam James hit a clutch shot. Wilt was undoubtedly fronted by the entire Celtics frontline, as was the case for most of his games vs. Celtics in mid-60s, a defensive strategy which would have been illegal in 80s/90s mind you)
1964 G7 vs. Hawks: 39 pts, 26 rebs, 12 blocks (many of which led to 14-0 run…and scored 50 pts a couple of days earlier in the pivotal game 5)
1965 G7 vs. Celtics: 30 pts, 32 rebs (famous game where Havlichek stole the ball, had 30/26 to save team from elimination the game before)
1968 G7 vs Celtics: 14 pts, 34 rebs, (wilt’s role different, but he definitely could have stepped up offensively in the second half)
1969 G7 vs. Celtics: 18 pts, 27 rebs (injured in final 6 minutes of game, attempted to come back, coach held him back...and Lakers end up losing close game on a lucky shot by Don Nelson)
1970 G7 vs. Suns: 30 pts, 27 rebs, 11 blocks (Lakers come back from down 3-1, and Wilt was 34 at the time)
1970 G7 vs. Knicks: 21 pts, 24 rebs (45 pts 27 rebs in the game before this to save Lakers from elimination, and AGAIN, he is 34 years old)

He has the highest FG% in game 7s of anyone: .626. Second highest rebounding rate of anyone (besides Russ) in game 7s. So the myth that Wilt is a big-game player really needs to be gotten rid of.

[Owly]

Is anyone else willing to consider Mikan here or should I leave that one off for a few rounds? He's the last guy left who truly dominated an era imo (with NBL had a run of 7 titles in 8 seasons).

He played 6 seasons... even if his peak is enough to consider him for a top 20... I'm even weighting his peak and prime very high.

I most likely won't vote him for the top 30 players. Don't even know if top 40. 6 years is very low longevity.

Is anyone else willing to consider Mikan here or should I leave that one off for a few rounds? He's the last guy left who truly dominated an era imo (with NBL had a run of 7 titles in 8 seasons).

For me no, even if I valued 48-51 Mikan as much as the best 4 year stretches of any of these players (weighing in era dominance vs weaker era), he still loses on longevity. I view Mikan from 52-54 as "only" being prime Duncan or Hakeem-ish level vs his era (still the best defensive player, but he had been clearly passed on offense), which hurts his case compared to if he had just annihilated the league and then retired. He had already shown to be human in his last 3 prime seasons as the pre shot clock era got better or the rules changed to stop him, rule changes that players like Wilt or Shaq would have eaten without. The Lakers also were really stacked from 52-54 so they didn't need him to be any more than that Duncan level impact to win the title those years.

As noted in the posts these are in response to Mikan has 8 eligible seasons (the former stating 6, the latter seemingly not acknowledging one ['47]).

[Owly]

Sidenote - is that '56 Hawks v Lakers the weirdest series ever? Two 1 pt Hawks wins sandwiching a 58 pt shellacking.

Plus before the series the Lakers win a 2nd/3rd place playoff versus the Hawks, seemingly just for HCA in the series they are about to play. This game is played in St Louis (who also get to host the first game of the actual series). As stated, the Lakers win this.

[70sFan]

Yeah, saying that Wilt rarely dominated on defensive end is not backed up with anything. His teams were amazing defensively in playoffs, even in his worst season (1969). He had some weaker regular seasons like 1963 (when whole Warriors franchise was a mess) but overall I don't see him as inconsistent defender.

I get this criticism for Shaq and this is the reason why I have him lower than most, but Wilt? No, he was top tier defender in NBA history. He was also top tier rebounder in NBA history and thos alone should be enough to put him in this conversarion already. Then nobody, even the biggest Wilt critics, would tell that he wasn't a big positive on offense.

[Owly]

Sidenote - is that '56 Hawks v Lakers the weirdest series ever? Two 1 pt Hawks wins sandwiching a 58 pt shellacking.

Plus before the series the Lakers win a 2nd/3rd place playoff versus the Hawks, seemingly just for HCA in the series they are about to play. This game is played in St Louis (who also get to host the first game of the actual series). As stated, the Lakers win this.

Another weird tidbit, looking at the "boxscore" (in as much as they have one), the Lakers' big win appears to have all ten Lakers as double digit scorers.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/195603190MNL.html

[90sAllDecade]

Also here is a comparison of Wilt vs Hakeem in the playoffs, a career comparison sample.

Wilt was amazing and definitely and all time great, but Olajuwon was a better player overall under pressure and in the playoffs.

This isn't even accounting for the pace and compeitition differences of the era, which can inflate Wilt's numbers.





https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id1_select=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id1=olajuha01&idx=bbr__players&player_id2_select=Wilt+Chamberlain&player_id2=chambwi01&idx=bbr__players

[Joao Saraiva]

Also here is a comparison of Wilt vs Hakeem in the playoffs, a career comparison sample.

Wilt was amazing and definitely and all time great, but Olajuwon was a better player overall under pressure and in the playoffs.

This isn't even accounting for the pace and compeitition differences of the era, which can inflate Wilt's numbers.





https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id1_select=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id1=olajuha01&idx=bbr__players&player_id2_select=Wilt+Chamberlain&player_id2=chambwi01&idx=bbr__players

That is also not accounting for relative ts%. It's not accounting for prime, peak or something like that. Wilt got his averages down his latest years, specially scoring wise.

Career numbers are a bad way to make a comparison between players.

With that said, I have Hakeem ahead of Wilt peak and prime wise. But given Wilt played so many quality minutes and was such an outlier, I give him the edge because I believe he has a case for GOAT while Hakeem does not.

[Owly]

Also here is a comparison of Wilt vs Hakeem in the playoffs, a career comparison sample.

Wilt was amazing and definitely and all time great, but Olajuwon was a better player overall under pressure and in the playoffs.

This isn't even accounting for the pace and compeitition differences of the era, which can inflate Wilt's numbers.





https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id1_select=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id1=olajuha01&idx=bbr__players&player_id2_select=Wilt+Chamberlain&player_id2=chambwi01&idx=bbr__players

Though it also isn't accounting for % of career playoff minutes matched up against Bill Russell (or elite defensive centers, to be fairer - of which Hakeem does have some, though Chamberlain's group then expands to include at least Thurmond).

[Dr Positivity]

My argument against Hakeem is I think his offensive game is slightly overrated because people focus on how many moves he has when the most important part is the ball going in. For example not to compare Hakeem to them, but Kyrie and Melo have a lot of moves but we know being a great scorer means more than that. Who's a better post scorer, Jokic or Embiid - I'm taking Jokic. Jokic is amazing post scoring talent not because of moves but because of his feel putting the ball in.

From 85-92 he is a solid 21-24ppg scorer, but on average about .54-.55 TS, and is turnover prone. As a result he doesn't finish top 20 in OWS any of these seasons. He has 2 top 20 finishes in OWS in his career overall (93 and 94) whereas Duncan has 6 and KG has 8 for example.

I would argue up until 92, Hakeem was on track to have more like an Ewing level career than Duncan. Elite level defensive player (better than Ewing to that point), however flawed on offense. Ewing had the best scoring seasons between the two up through the 92 season with his 90 and 91 years. Yes Hakeem had more moves than Ewing, but I believe sometimes was known for trying to do too much with them. I value 00-03 KG more than 80s and early 90s Hakeem offensively pretty easily personally. He is not even worse as a scorer but is more of a playmaker and spacer.

He changes his career in 93 and at this point he becomes a legit top 10 caliber peak player. I won't deny he improved or how well he did in the playoffs, but he did benefit from the Rockets having a revolutionary jump in 3pt shooting for a champion at that time. The previous champions 3PA were 6.6 for Pistons in 90, 5.2 for Bulls in 91, 5.5 for Bulls in 92, 8.2 for Bulls in 93, and then 15.7 for the Rockets in 94, 1.8 more than 2nd place. They averaged just under 18 in the playoffs. To put in perspective you could be a successful team as late as the Grindhouse Grizzlies in early 2010s shooting less 3s than the Rockets did in 94. That's not to say what he did wasn't amazing, I just don't think Hakeem figured out how to be the perfect post player in his 30s or anything. He was very good offensively in those years but once again wasn't a top 5 offensive player in the league, he wasn't as good as Shaq or Barkley on offense in my opinion.

In 95 he goes from winning DPOY the previous year to not finishing on an All D team, and after the Rockets have been a lock for top 5 defense virtually every year, they fall to 12th and are never great again on defense in the Hakeem era. They win the title but he both has a 2nd star in Drexler and his role players come up big in several series that they could have lost easily. No title is luck but if I had to pick one it would be the 95 Rockets. They win game 5 by 4 at Utah when trailing late, and win Game 7 at Phoenix by 1 point, if one Jazz/Suns player had gotten hot there wouldn't have been anything they could do.

Hakeem finishes 21st all time in WS despite having 2nd and 3rd finishes at his peak in 93 and 94, and 20th in MVP shares despite winning one. I'm not going to take either of these stats at face value but what they tell you is that he performed much better in his peak seasons in both categories than he did the rest of his career. Yet despite that he is frequently ranked about the same place on all time peak lists (9th on 2019 list, 6th on 2015) as on this list. If Olajuwon only had the 9th best peak or so I think he should be out of the top 10 overall. However I understand if people have his peak as top 5-6 or even fringing on GOAT level how they might still have him in the conversation at this point. I personally think as great as his peak was, it benefitted from spacing on offense making it still only a fringe top 10 peak, and considering the rest of his career therefore I don't have him in my overall top 10 and I would even consider players like Dirk or Erving against him, it's not like 1976 Erving or 2011 Dirk is less impressive to me than 94 Hakeem for a peak.

[trex_8063]

I’d generally agree that Wilt, Shaq and Hakeem should be the next three in some order. Magic and Bird’s lack of major defensive impact and longevity keep them below those 3 imo. Not trying to knock Bird’s defense, but it’s not in the realm of Wilt/Hakeem and even well below what a focused Shaq could do.

I’ve usually gone with Wilt over Shaq, much better defender, and much more durable.

Why is Shaq, and i’m not sure this has ever been effectively explained, pretty unanimously ranked above Hakeem?

Now let’s think about this, if Hakeem got to play 8 years with Kobe(albeit young but great in a few of those years), plus 3 seasons of Wade basically in his prime that he wouldn’t also have at least 4 rings? Also, let’s not forget Nash+Amare.

Some things going in his favor here:

- Significantly higher defensive value over their careers

- Could shoot and had some range, unlike Oneal which stretched the floor giving teammates some space to operate. I’m not saying it’s as valuable Shaq’s inside gravity, but he’s drawing bigs out of the paint which Shaq didn’t do allowing for guards to attack easier. Or at least i’d assume so.

- Passing probably ain’t a big point for either, neither were special early on then improved, Hakeem was maybe a better passer at their best.

-Shaq really has no longevity edge, and you can arguably even give Hakeem the edge there. Their total minutes in the regular season and playoffs combined are comparable, Hakeem likely gave more game to game effort.

Both are dominant forces in the playoffs, though Hakeem probably had fewer mediocre series. Shaq half the time seemed to struggle against the Spurs, and they were a great defense, so i won’t take too much away but Hakeem just in general seemed a little less likely to be slowed down.

- Hakeem wasn’t a liability at the free throw line

I’m not saying Hakeem should for sure rank ahead, but I’m curious to why so many are confident in that?

For me it's mostly the offense. Where Hakeem has a defensive advantage, Shaq has an offensive one [that's arguably even bigger].

Hakeem was an excellent offensive player; Shaq was a force of nature. I recall entire defenses collapsing on him [and occasionally they'd still get p'wned].

It's not just the sick numbers Shaq put up, it's the gravity effect he had for his teammates, too.....and it's the tangible offensive impact all this produced. Starting with some coarse team-based stuff [not necessarily implying TOTAL credit belongs to Shaq, obv]:

*The arrival of rookie Shaq in Orlando "coincided" with a +5.2 jump to their rORTG (with basically the same cast as the year before otherwise).

**The THREE best rORTG's in Magic franchise history all occurred while Shaq was there.

***His departure (they got Rony Seikaly as replacement, fwiw) "coincided" with a -6.4 decline in their rORTG with mostly the same cast otherwise [though Penny banged up a little].

****While his offensive imprint isn't immediately noted in LA's numbers, I'll note that 3 of the top 10 rORTG's in Laker franchise history [a history that also includes the Magic Showtime Lakers, Kobe/Pau, Jerry/Wilt, and most recently a season of Lebron/AD] occurred while Shaq was there (two of them occurring BEFORE Kobe hit his prime).


For something more granular, let's take look at his league rank in ORAPM by year (PI where available, from sources that DO include the playoffs in the figure):
'98 - 3rd (behind only Karl Malone and Charles Barkley)
'99 - 2nd (behind only Barkley)
'00 - 1st
'01 - 1st (NPI, but 1st by a silly margin: he was +5.8; 2nd was a peak Ray Allen at +3.7)
'02 - 1st
'03 - 1st
'04 - 2nd (behind only peak Kevin Garnett)
'05 - 4th (behind only Nash, Ginobili, and Dirk)
'06 (likely out of his prime by this point) - 8th

*and while his defense obviously had some weaknesses [particularly when compared to someone like Hakeem], it's important to note that he had at least a small positive DRAPM in each of these years as well. Even if his pnr defense was exploitable, he was still a solid rebounding presence and a very good rim protector thru most of these years.


In Doctor MJ's scaled RAPM studies (covers 14 seasons: '98-'12 [minus '01]), Shaq has 4 of the top 33 scaled ORAPM's in that span. The only player with more seasons in the top 33 is Steve Nash (and Wade and Kobe are tied with 4 each as well). Though whereas basically ALL of the primes of those players are captured in the sample, this is missing a few years of Shaq's prime.

In '97 (an injury year for Shaq, probably last year of prime for Hakeem), Shaq has the better NPI ORAPM (+2.07 vs +1.43) and better DRAPM (+2.11 vs +1.93).

For '94-'96 we have rs-only pseudo-APM (no offensive/defensive splits, but I'll cite the figures anyway):
In '94 (Hakeem's presumed peak), Dream ranks 4th in the league (at +5.10), 2nd-year Shaq is 8th (+4.09).
In '95 Shaq ranks 2nd [to David Robinson] at +5.80; Hakeem is 6th (+4.47).
In '96 (injury year for Shaq, downslope of prime for Hakeem) Shaq is 7th (+4.31) while Hakeem is 11th (+3.38).

Shaq's simply one of the impact juggernauts of the data-ball era, in the same tier as Duncan and Garnett, and it's reflected in his team success, too.

And wrt the latter, there's a consideration that sort of pertains to something you'd previously alluded to ["what if's"]: if to some degree it has to come down to what ACTUALLY happened [and not what MIGHT HAVE happened in better circumstances], there's little question as to who had the "better" career from a team success standpoint.

[Owly]

In 95 he goes from winning DPOY the previous year to not finishing on an All D team

To be fair to him on this (and I lean cynical versus the norm on Hakeem overall), he's behind Robinson (1st team) and Mutombo (2nd). He finishes third (and very slightly ahead of Robinson) in DPoY voting.

[Dr Positivity]

Is anyone else willing to consider Mikan here or should I leave that one off for a few rounds? He's the last guy left who truly dominated an era imo (with NBL had a run of 7 titles in 8 seasons).

He played 6 seasons... even if his peak is enough to consider him for a top 20... I'm even weighting his peak and prime very high.

I most likely won't vote him for the top 30 players. Don't even know if top 40. 6 years is very low longevity.

Is anyone else willing to consider Mikan here or should I leave that one off for a few rounds? He's the last guy left who truly dominated an era imo (with NBL had a run of 7 titles in 8 seasons).

For me no, even if I valued 48-51 Mikan as much as the best 4 year stretches of any of these players (weighing in era dominance vs weaker era), he still loses on longevity. I view Mikan from 52-54 as "only" being prime Duncan or Hakeem-ish level vs his era (still the best defensive player, but he had been clearly passed on offense), which hurts his case compared to if he had just annihilated the league and then retired. He had already shown to be human in his last 3 prime seasons as the pre shot clock era got better or the rules changed to stop him, rule changes that players like Wilt or Shaq would have eaten without. The Lakers also were really stacked from 52-54 so they didn't need him to be any more than that Duncan level impact to win the title those years.

As noted in the posts these are in response to Mikan has 8 eligible seasons (the former stating 6, the latter seemingly not acknowledging one ['47]).

I didn't include 47 as part of his 48-51 stretch in value, because he joins the team later in the season (plays 25/44 games) and as a rookie I believe wasn't as dominant at 48-51 stretch, although still good enough to lead the team to the title. It's not a valueless season or anything I just don't put it in the same category as 48-51 in terms of "Most Dominant Ever vs His Era".

[limbo]

I HATE Shaq on a personal level, but he deserves a bit of a pass for his below-average 05 playoffs. They were poor because he was battling a really bad thigh injury suffered just before the playoffs that never went away until the off-season.

That's a fair point, but keep in mind that other all-time greats have probably suffered similar problems in their careers, as a good chunk of players usually enter the postseason banged up in some shape or form anyway.

LeBron had back and knee problems coming into the 2015 PS that affected his play. If you're out there, you're treated like everyone else.

He only missed 7 games in the RS (a great achievement given how injury-prone he was) due to being in tremendous shape; he was only 325 pounds, which helped his mobility on defense (Heat were the # 5 ranked defense in the NBA that year with him anchoring it) and helped him stay healthy until right before the playoffs.

2005 was a great season for Shaq. You can definitely count it towards his prime in terms of regular season output, but it was incomplete due to not having great impact in the Playoffs.. It sucks, but Shaq's not the only player that had great RS followed by poor Playoff runs.

His peak was insane (00-02) and he had many other awesome offensive seasons. His only bad years from 93-05 were 97 (too many missed games and a lousy performance against Utah in the playoffs) and 99 (horrific defense, terrible in the playoffs and a disappointing RS record).

Don't disagree, but i'd personally add '94, '98 and '05 to the list...

I know Shaq was only 21 in 1994, but people count that as his prime, as such the 0-3 sweep against the Pacers (who weren't some super dominant team) with Shaq performing poorly should not be glossed over.

I don't know how you counted 1997 but not 1998. Shaq was on a team that won 62 games in the regular season, despite him missing 20 games, and got swept by the Jazz again in the Playoffs... I know Shaq averaged over 30 points that series, but his ast/to ratio was terrible and his defense was the main reason the Lakers got embarrassed.

'05 is unfortunate, but you can't ignore the Playoffs where he failed to produced based on what was expected from him.

So that puts the list at '94, '97, '98, '99, '05...

And there's more dirt you could dig up, but it gets forgotten because Shaq's team advanced at the end, but...

Indiana almost eliminated him again in 1995... That series was super close despite Orlando being a much better team during RS and a higher seed. But i don't blame Shaq solely because the whole Orlando squad was terrible on defense and Shaq was at least dominant offensively...

1996... Why is Shaq averaging 21/6/5 on 50%TS against the Pistons in the 1st round. There's a good argument Shaq was the 5th best player on his team in that series... I mean, i know the Pistons weren't a serious threat to eliminate the Magic, but when we're talking about the Top 10 best players of all-time, these types of performances don't get swept under the rug when it comes to KG, Dirk and some of these guys

2004... Again 1st round against the Rockets... Shaq finishes the series averaging 16/11/3.5 on 47%TS and 95 ORtg... At least Shaq was able to have a good defensive series, but that does not surprise me against a grotesquely bad Rockets offense that finished 25th out of 29 teams in ORtg that year...

He would be thought of more fondly if he had retired sooner and didn't become a ring-chaser and a journeyman.

Well, if it helps, those ring-chasing years by Shaq don't really move the needle for me in either way. If he retired in 2007, i'd still think of him as the same as now, but maybe some people prefer a career like Bill Russell or Magic, where their portfolio looks a lot cleaner front to back, then having some excess seasons at the tail end.

I think he gets under-rated these days because of how ugly and lengthy his decline was which overshadows what a monster he was from 94-05.

Could be, but from a personal standpoint, all of my criticism against Shaq is centered around his prime, not when he was in Phoenix, Cleveland or Boston.

His peak was Top 5 of all time, his longevity is under-rated, but he didn't age gracefully at all and it was- as I just mentioned - tough to watch.

My problem with Shaq is that his peak stretch of three/four seasons built a force field around integral flaws he had as a player that prevented him and his team from being even more successful.

Secondly, i think Shaq's peak is more dependent on a perfect storm scenario that he was able to achieve in the early 00's, with the slow pace and weak offensive era playing into his hands both offensively and as a defender. Not to mention playing with an elite coach and supporting cast. There's also something to be said about Shaq taking advantage of the fact that the Jazz/Sonics were on the decline, the Bulls collapsed... Also Duncan was injured in 2000 and the Spurs aging core around him was gradually deteriorating. Garnett played on a mediocre team and Dallas was still too young and horrible defensively...

Shaq's toughest opponents during the threepeat were Portland and Sacramento... Very good deep teams, but kind of lacked essential star power. And even then it took 7 games for LA to beat Portland in 2000, and they should've lost to the Kings in 2002 if not for Robert Horry being in the right place at the right time and then some dubious officiating in Game 7.

[Owly]

For '94-'96 we have rs-only APM (no offensive/defensive splits, but I'll cite the figures anyway):
In '94 (Hakeem's presumed peak), Dream ranks 4th in the league (at +5.10), 2nd-year Shaq is 8th (+4.09).
In '95 Shaq ranks 2nd [to David Robinson] at +5.80; Hakeem is 6th (+4.47).
In '96 (injury year for Shaq, downslope of prime for Hakeem) Shaq is 7th (+4.31) while Hakeem is 11th (+3.38).

I may not be right on this but ...

Isn't this more "faux-APM" or "approximated APM"? My understanding was that we only had the player +/- data (via Pollack) not the play-by-play so anything from it (I've saved spreadsheets from here titling itself "Regressed RAPM" - I think this is what you're looking at, from the "variance adjusted" column) could only be approximates.

[drza]

Alright, I'm a bit busier today so don't have time to really do anything fun. But, it seems like Wilt's getting traction this thread and in the past I did some interesting comps between Wilt and other ATGs. I'll re-post them here, starting with this one:

Wilt vs Shaq
(on my blog, w/ pictures: https://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/163011568256/impact-comp-of-the-giants-wilt-vs-shaq

Stylistically, Wilt and Shaq are the two giants of their time. Both had the reputations as Goliaths, but there were differences. Wilt seemed to be the more skilled of the two, able to develop more finesse moves and to focus (when he chose to) on different aspects of the game. Shaq was much more athletic and explosive than he’s often given credit for, especially as a younger player, and he had excellent footwork and even ball-handling ability. But, unlike Wilt, he never tried to maximize his talents that weren’t in his wheelhouse. Shaq worked the paint on offense and defense, he would use moves as needed, but his goal was to dunk if he could on every possession. If he couldn’t, then he would work the jump hooks or drop steps to get as easy of a shot as possible. But there were no finger rolls or other finesse displays for Shaq. Of course, one could argue that Wilt had more upside because he could do more things than Shaq (in addition to his own awesome physical size), but the flip side that’s often argued around here is that Shaq made more effective use of his power than Wilt did. Is that true? Well, let’s look a bit further.

It’s hard to compare boxscore volume numbers across this many eras, because the pace was DRAMATICALLY different and the way that the game was played was way different, as well. Wilt playing every minute of the game and racking up huge numbers in categories that he chose is worthy of attention, certainly. But it’s not a 1-to-1 comp, because the environment, coaching and style of play around the 2000s era simply does not allow the same opportunity to get those numbers. And more…I’m one that believes that accumulating boxscore stats for the sake of them (as Trex alluded to) is not the goal anyway. The boxscores tell us a bit about how a player might be having his particular impact, but a) the boxscores only cover part of the game and b) it’s clearly possible to load up on boxscore statistics without those boxscore stats helping the team. A decade or so ago, this phenomenon was called “empty stats”, and dealt a lot with players on bad teams that wanted to put up big numbers to attract a contract. With the rise of analytics, +/- data and hyper-scouting, I don’t hear the term “empty stats” nearly as often anymore. But, clearly, it can be done. One of the big arguments often used against WIlt, in fact, is that his boxscore stats footprint doesn’t allign with his impact on his team’s fortunes. Let’s look at that a bit.

Impact footprint analysis, regular seasons
70s Fan made the argument (in 2017), that Wilt was criticized for emptier stats in the regular season, but that he modified his play in the playoffs, resulting in lower boxscores but, in his opinion, better playoff results than expected. So, in light of that, I figured we should treat regular season and playoffs as separately.

Obviously there were no +/- stats in Wilt’s day, and he hardly ever sat so they wouldn’t have been easy to get stats anyway. However, due to trade and injury, WIlt did have a few extended absences on his given team to allow WOWY to have some data to work with. Shaq, on the other hand, missed significant numbers of games several times i his career, so he’s got a WOWY footprint as well. Per ElGee’s WOWY spreadsheet:

Wilt prominent WOWY runs
1965 Warriors: SRS w/ WIlt: -4.4 SRS
SRS improvement = +2.2 w/ Wilt (42 “missed” games)

1965 76ers: SRS w/ Wilt: 2.4 SRS
SRS improovement = +2.8 w/ Wilt (43 “missed” games)

(Note, ElGee’s spreadsheet says, under sample controls, “Greer, Costello in (61)” before giving a WOWY score that was a pedestrian 2.0. I say that not to focus on the WOWY score, which I don’t have the greatest handle on, but instead to point out that he did attempt to adjust for injured teammates).

1970 Lakers: SRS w/ Wilt: +3.9 SRS
SRS improvement = -0.3 w/ Wilt (he sat most of year)

Shaq prominent WOWY runs

1996 Magic: SRS w/ Shaq: +9.0 SRS
SRS improvement = +6.1 w/ Shaq (23 games missed)

1997 & 1998 Lakers w/ Shaq +6.2 SRS
SRS improvement= +3.7 w/ Shaq (48 games missed)

2002 Lakers: SRS w/ Shaq: 8.9 SRS
SRS improvement +7.5 w/ Shaq (15 games missed)

Thoughts: Because of the 1965 trade in mid-season, we get to see how Wilt’s presence/absence for half a season changed two different teams. This is the year that Wilt is said to have been having heart issues. However, he did play major minutes without much discernible difference in his boxscore stats. From this, Ive seen it concluded that regardless of the shape of his heart, the lack of apparent impact here suggests at the very least that his monster boxscore production didn’t translate to much impact in that year. And that argument seems to have merit.

Ardee said (in 2017) that the 65 Sixers started 11 - 3 with Wilt, then injuries to other players derailed their momentum and thus may be the culprit for the only modest change in SRS that Philly experienced. So, no conclusion here, but just note it as a datapoint.

But in 1970, the Lakers also didn’t experience much change in effectiveness with or without Wilt. This is now 3 different teams, three different sets of circumstances, 3 different calibers of team (weak, average and good) with Wilt having heavy extended absences for all three, without much correlation between his presence and very positive changes to his team’s scoring margins.

Meanwhile, with Shaq it’s the opposite. His absence made larger differences than Wilt in each case, and some of his measured impacts were significantly larger than anything we saw from Wilt. This matches well with the often-espoused argument that, for all of Wilt’s boxscore dominance, Shaq just had a much bigger impact on the game.

Impact footprint analysis, playoffs
This is, clearly, a much more difficult thing to quantify for Wilt in the playoffs, because (again) there is no +/- data, and WOWY doesn’t really apply for the playoffs. I thought I might start by looking at the results of Wilt’s playoff teams, vs expectation. If his approach shifted to a bigger impact in the playoffs than in the regular season, I hoped I might find something there.

I can’t say that I did. 1965 was actually a good year for Wilt, in this respect, because his 76ers in the playoffs did beat up on Oscar’s Royals, despite those Royals having 8 more wins and an SRS more than 2 points higher. They then went on to lose a nailbiter to Russell’s Celtics in 7 games, despite the Celtics having 22 more wins and an SRS almost 8 points higher. I could definitely see using this as a support of the notion that Wilt improved the 76ers more than the 2 or so SRS points suggested by ElGee’s WOWY calculation.

But outside of 1965, I couldn’t find much else in the way of overachieving in the postseason for Wilt’s teams. He did win two titles, which is outstanding, but there wasn’t a noticable uptick in the quality of those teams from the regular season that could be traced to Wilt, that I could tell. Outside of those three instances, probably the most impressive part of Wilt’s postseason resume is that he often led teams that made the dynasty Celtics work in the playoffs…but the matchups weren’t taking place because Wilt’s teams overachieved in their match-ups with other opponents, and the Celtics matchups (though close) almost always ended in a loss. Plus, in three seasons, Wilt’s team had better regular season records than the Celtics (in 1968 and 69, significantly so) and they still lost.

All told, I could be convinced that playoff Wilt was either better or worse than regular season Wilt, based on this level of analysis. Considering that regular season WIlt seemingly had clearly less impact than regular season Shaq, he needed a solid win here to change my view. Instead…

While Wilt’s playoff impact is ambiguous, Shaq’s is not. Especially in his LA peak, he was utterly devastating in the playoffs. Between 2000 and 2004, Shaq led his team in playoffs on/off +/- in 2000 (+32.4, 2nd on team +0.3), 2002 (+22.9, 2nd +8.4) and 2004 (+25.3, 2nd + 13.6). His playoffs on/off from 2000 - 2004 was around +20. These are HUGE numbers, the kind that have proven extremely rare in the years we have that data for (since 1997). Duncan, LeBron and Garnett are the only other players in the 2000s with multi-year playoff runs of extended length that I’ve seen with on/off +/- scores over 20. If you extend it to the last few years of last millenium, Jordan was close from 1997 and 1998, and David Robinson achieved it from 1999 - 2001. But it’s very rare, and only the best-of-the-best of the last 25 years have breathed that air.

Now, you might very fairly point out that we don’t have that data for Wilt, making it hard to directly compare. And you’d be right. BUT. The data that we DO have for Wilt indicates that he wasn’t having anywhere near Shaq’s impact in the regular season, and there’s nothing about his playoffs results that suggest that he suddenly jumped up to all-time impact levels there compared to what he was doing in the regular season.

Bottom line
Wilt accomplished some amazing things. His iron man status, both with health and minutes played, is a big advantage over Shaq, who was notorious for his weight and his attitude towards rehab and missed games. Wilt could also do a lot more things than Shaq could on the court, and neither were known as great leaders. And Wilt’s boxscore achievements are noteworthy. But with that said, from what I can tell, it certainly looks like Shaq was having a SIGNIFICANTLY larger positive impact on his team’s ability to win games than Wilt was. And that, to me, is the defining difference in this comp. I’m interested to see what rebuttals, if any, this post receives. But at the moment, I’ve got Shaq over Wilt and it’s not a terribly tough decision.

[drza]

This is a comp that I hardly ever see done, but one that generated some interesting stuff when I did it back in 2017.

Wilt Chamberlain vs Dirk Nowitzki
(Link to my blog: https://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/165184284801/wilt-chamberlain-vs-dirk-nowitzki )

Here’s another historical comparison that you just don’t see every day. This thread came up over on the RealGM message board, and the poll went to Wilt Chamberlain in a landslide. While it’s reasonable for Wilt, with his historic greatness as a game pioneer, to win a comp with Dirk Nowitzki, I’m not sure that everyone in that poll (or really, in the general public) give enough credence to the idea that it’s also legitimate to take Nowitzki in this debate as well. Nowitzki, too, is an inner-circle Hall of Famer-to-be and he’s produced some of the greatest impact in NBA history. So, let’s take a look at Dirk’s case based upon a couple of my posts in that thread.

Thoughts
The argument for Dirk would be that he played in such a way that maximized his team’s ability to win, in a way that Wilt didn’t always do, and that Dirk played that way for a much longer time period than Wilt did.

Wilt was better at almost all of the individual elements of basketball than Dirk…he was bigger, stronger, faster, had a better low-post scoring game, was a more dominant rebounder, a more dominant shot-blocker, demonstrated that he could operate as a high-post offensive hub, demonstrated that he could operate as a defense-first monster, etc. When it came down to it, Wilt could choose to dominate in just about any given way.

However, the criticism of Wilt was that he often seemed to choose to dominate for a particular statistic, as opposed to putting his ridiculous toolbox together in ways that helped his team win. Obviously, it’s a much debated and contested idea around here. But, for the sake of this thread, if one buys into the concept that WIlt’s video game numbers (especially his scoring) didn’t translate to tangibly improving his team’s offense and/or overall team strength the way that other all-time greats did, then it leaves an opening for players that aren’t/weren’t as individually talented but that DID play in more effective ways.

Dirk’s high efficiency scoring style, with the unique style of a 7-footer that could operate in the paint but could just as easily face-up and operate from behind the arc off the dribble (more like a traditional wing) gives him mechanisms of offensive impact that Wilt, despite his gaudy scoring numbers, could never really replicate. Even at much lower volumes of individual scoring, Dirk’s offensive presence had a huge positive impact on his teammates. Teammates could operate at relatively high individual capacity, because Dirk’s style wasn’t ball dominant nor did it require that the offense be structured completely around his strengths. And, his ability to space the floor and create gravity that pulled opponents away from both the rim and his teammates allowed Dirk to influence his team’s offensive efficiency in a very positive way on every possession he was in the game, whether he was directly involved in the play or not.

Wilt, at his best, was clearly better than Dirk. Especially when he put together dominant defensive seasons and channeled his incredible gifts into offensive feats that allowed his teammates to thrive as well. But, the argument for Dirk would rest on his impact maintaining that expected superstar level year-in and year-out for a very long career, while Wilt had incredible impact peaks but also had too many years where his gaudy stats didn’t seem to move the needle for his team as much as one would have expected.

Why Wilt’s gaudy scoring numbers <> elite offense

Again, the argument would be based upon his impact on the team’s fortunes. It’s hard to be very granular in terms of separating player from team back then, but the first pass results would show that during Wilt’s biggest volume scoring years, his teams were routinely finishing among the bottom of the league in offense.

One line of logic that has been permeating the boards of late is that individual offense is more important than individual defense because a great offensive player can supposedly lead to a great team offensive rating by himself, regardless of teammate quality, whereas a great individual defender can’t have as much effect. I find that line of logic to be garbage, by the way, but it is a prevailing opinion among a growing group of posters. So, for those that believe this, Wilt leading consistent average/poor offenses would be evidence that he couldn’t be all that dominant in his offensive impact.

Also, getting more granular, we can look in WOWY-type analysis for some of Wilt’s seasons, especially 1965, when his absence/presence for half of the season on two different teams didn’t seem to make as much difference in their regular season production as you would expect from a mega star. And since he averaged 35 points on 51% FG in that season, if those are the markers of greatness then he SHOULD have been making more difference.

I’ve seen references made to teammate accounts from those volume Wilt years saying that they had to subsume their games and run the entire offense based on Wilt’s preferences so that he could get his points. If true, this could help account for how he could put up huge numbers but not be making the expected impact

Then, there’s the notion that interior big men historically rarely have the offensive impact of a superstar. Generally, perimeter players can have more impact on offense and big men more impact on defense. There are some exceptions, but they’re relatively rare. Perhaps Wilt wasn’t one of those scoring/impact exceptions in the middle, despite the gaudy numbers

Just some food for thought