RealGM Top 100 #4

[mysticbb]

Read through the thread and I'm a bit shocked that some want to argue that either Bird or Magic would be clearly ahead of the other. For me they are both fairly equal with a rather small advantage for Magic. That's why my vote is: Magic Johnson

Nominantion: Kevin Garnett

[Baller 24]

The difference in opposing PPG, could have also been a result of a slower pace with West out.

The All-Defense teams started in 1969. From 69'-73', West was All-D 1st team 4 times. So people of his era viewed him as a consistently great defender.

Ehh, from the evidence that we have from the opposing PPGs, West hasn't really been that great of a defensive player in limiting his opposing player all that well. Walt Fraizer, the leader of those Knicks teams absolutely humiliated him in the '70 Finals (17.6 /7.7rpg/ 10.4apg/54%). Including a historic performance in game 7, where he had 36 Points, 19 Assists, and 7 Rebounds with West guarding him in a championship clinching game.

Another example, 1972 Finals, Frazier torched him again with 23/8/8/59%, where West was limited to 20/4/9 on 33% shooting (Peak Fraizer) --Lakers won the championship of course, but also the season Willis Reed was out. And '72 Finals Fraizer -- 16.6/6.8/5.0/48% (Knicks championship). Too bad we don't have more information on the composite box scores from other Finals, I'd love to research some more on how West's opponents performed, even with the statement that he was the most superior defensive perimeter player of his decade. Where many can actually vouch that at peak form Fraizer was better by a good margin, defensively that is.

[Gongxi]

Trying not to sound arrogant and condecending but advocating for Wilt Chamberlain over Shaq or Hakeem or Duncan is like trying to argue the sky is blue or that water is wet. If you want to argue that Duncan is better than 45 or 50yr old Wilt then thats a debate. If you think Shaq could can beat Wilt in a 3pt shooting contest thats a debate.

The fact that WIlts detractors attack him for his personality or his intangibles or his leadership skills is for the most part an admission that Wilt aside from the FT line has no weaknesses.

I have to agree. We're seeing these large arguments about Duncan and Magic because they need very strong and supported arguments to even have a case, just to get past the grand jury (in a good way). Wilt's already indicted (in a good way).

[ElGee]

Trying not to sound arrogant and condecending but advocating for Wilt Chamberlain over Shaq or Hakeem or Duncan is like trying to argue the sky is blue or that water is wet. If you want to argue that Duncan is better than 45 or 50yr old Wilt then thats a debate. If you think Shaq could can beat Wilt in a 3pt shooting contest thats a debate.

The fact that WIlts detractors attack him for his personality or his intangibles or his leadership skills is for the most part an admission that Wilt aside from the FT line has no weaknesses.

I have to agree. We're seeing these large arguments about Duncan and Magic because they need very strong and supported arguments to even have a case, just to get past the grand jury (in a good way). Wilt's already indicted (in a good way).

I totally disagree with this. Think about the drivers of Wilt Chamberlain for GOAT. Stats. Scoring. Records. Myths of size. All have grown in time.

When you lift up the hood and examine all the nuts and bolts, you see:

(1) Stats: Totally misunderstood and misinterpreted by people. His raw volume scoring wasn't creating offensive dynasties. Pace normalized he doesn't even have one of the top scoring seasons ever. They didn't even keep track of turnovers, which seems to be seriously relevant here from watching him.

(2) Scoring: I'm calling this a separate category, because while volume scoring is important, there ARE instances, like Adrian Dantley, in which it isn't nearly as valuable as people think. Again, you could basically say the following team's had the best offensive dynasties in NBA history:

Nash, Magic, Oscar, Bird.

Those are 4 of the best passers in NBA history. They use their own scoring as a weapon to *pressure* the defense and create opportunities for teammates. All the evidence suggests that is not what Wilt Chamberlain did for many years he was setting scoring records. (And he was trying to set scoring records, this is a guy who argued about his stats at halftime and cared about him getting his job done over the results of the team in order to alleviate blame.)

(3) Records. He would go try and set statistical records, sometimes to the detriment of the team. He become obsessed with passing and took it too far, because he thought it would be neat to lead the league in assists. There were games in Los Angeles when he trying to set the FG% record in which he didn't even shoot.

(4) Put all the myths in a package and go back in time and look at what contemporaries thought. His teammates often complained about him. He had weird trades with little shift to his teams right in his prime. He clashed with literally almost every coach possible. He demanded practice be rescheduled so he could live in NYC. The list goes on...and that's why he was never really considered as good as Russell and why Russ was voted MVP over him over and over. (Three of Wilt's MVP were at the end of Russ's career and after moving to Phillly...and he his rookie MVP wasn't deserved IMO, but was more of a shock factor I suppose.)

Basketball is more than a game of skillset. It's how a player IMPLEMENTS that talent within the context of the team. Otherwise, Ricky Davis would be a superstar. Now Wilt was never a negative -- after all, I have him as a top-10 player all-time boasting roughly 12 healthy seasons -- but it's not the case where you look at a few stats and say "well, he can't go any lower than X, just because. I mean, just because he HAD to be that talented, right?"

You can have all the talent in the world, but if you jack 3's from halfcourt every time at 37%, you won't stand out with your offensive impact. Similarly, Wilt clearly found ways to score the ball a lot, but it wasn't in the overall package of a guy dominating on offense. He isn't even the list of 100 players playing on best offenses ever, and there were times when his impact seemed relatively small for the stats he put up. Then keep in mind his efficiency and output declined in the postseason. (Yes, game recaps suggest many times in which Russ held him down in the first half and Wilt scored in blowouts in the 2nd.)

Finally, the whole Braess Paradox/Chamberlain theory that Doc and I have been linking to is paramount in describing how a guy can score so much and be way less effective than someone like magic Johnson on offense. You want to say "but he scored 50 ppg - that needs no explanation."

But then why in the world did his team get so much better when he stopped shooting the ball? (And note, evidence suggests that his defense also improved in that role...which matters too)

[An Unbiased Fan]

The difference in opposing PPG, could have also been a result of a slower pace with West out.

The All-Defense teams started in 1969. From 69'-73', West was All-D 1st team 4 times. So people of his era viewed him as a consistently great defender.

Ehh, from the evidence that we have from the opposing PPGs, West hasn't really been that great of a defensive player in limiting his opposing player all that well. Walt Fraizer, the leader of those Knicks teams absolutely humiliated him in the '70 Finals (17.6 /7.7rpg/ 10.4apg/54%). Including a historic performance in game 7, where he had 36 Points, 19 Assists, and 7 Rebounds with West guarding him in a championship clinching game.

Another example, 1972 Finals, Frazier torched him again with 23/8/8/59%, where West was limited to 20/4/9 on 33% shooting (Peak Fraizer) --Lakers won the championship of course, but also the season Willis Reed was out. And '72 Finals Fraizer -- 16.6/6.8/5.0/48% (Knicks championship). Too bad we don't have more information on the composite box scores from other Finals, I'd love to research some more on how West's opponents performed, even with the statement that he was the most superior defensive perimeter player of his decade. Where many can actually vouch that at peak form Fraizer was better by a good margin, defensively that is.

I think those stats are all relative to matchups. Man to Man is only one aspect of defense, and also the most volatile.

West was 31 in 70' & 33 in 72'. Frazier was in his prime years, quicker, and has the size advantage.That was a bad matchup for a Vet with many miles on his leg.

Thinks about this, was prime Hakeem an overrated defender because Shaq dropped (28.0ppg/12.5rpg/6.3apg/59.5%)? And how about DPOY Mutumbo, who gave up (33.0ppg/15.8ppg/4.8apg/57.3%)? Or perhaps....man to man defense is heavily dependent on matchups.

After all, that same Prime Hakeem who was torched by Shaq, also did a good job against a guy he matched up well against, just the round before.

Against SA, he held DRob to these numbers:
G1 - 5 for 17, 9 rebs
G2 - 10 for 18, 12 rebs
G3 - 10 for 15, 9 rebs
G4 - 6 for 16, 16 rebs
G5 - 7 for 15, 12 rebs
G6 - 6 for 17, 10 rebs


There have been plenty of examples showing great defenders like Bowen, Artest, and Battier, getting torched by the likes of Kobe, & Wade. It doesn't mean they are overated, it's just that individual offense > individual defense. However, team defense > team offense.

And my point about opposing PPG, is that LA probably played at a slower rate when West was out, and that would have yield lower opposing ppg numbers. It doesn't mean they were better defensively.

I should also say that I think Frazier was a better defender than West too, but then again, that's actually reflected in his 7 straight All-D team selections from 69'-75'.

[ElGee]

Btw, to put a number on it: If we use the same criteria as the other HOFers I linked to earlier, Wilt's PS drop in performance (any year in top-10 MVP) is astronomical. Wilt scored 3.9 ppg less with a 4.5% drop in TS% in the playoffs. (PS averages of 25.5 ppg, 52.8% TS in those seasons)

David Robinson saw the biggest dip on the list of 15 I posted, dropping 1.8 ppg and 3.8% TS%.

[Baller 24]

And my point about opposing PPG, is that LA probably played at a slower rate when West was out, and that would have yield lower opposing ppg numbers. It doesn't mean they were better defensively.

I should also say that I think Frazier was a better defender than West too, but then again, that's actually reflected in his 7 straight All-D team selections from 69'-75'.

All good points, however I'd still love to take a look at some statistical information from the Finals in the 60s, to see how the opposing players did against West.

I still want to see some arguments from why if West and Oscar are coming up so early, why not the case for LeBron and Wade? LeBron's got 3 solid seasons of GOAT level play (remember this is only on par with maybe 3-4 different players), and outside of that he's got another 3 seasons where he's clearly within the Top 5, and he's clearly the best player if you're comparing the three, there's no doubt about that.

Wade's very similar, he's kind of like a T-Mac in the sense that he's got some very dominant seasons, accolades, but he's got the championship (all-time great performance), and a Finals MVP to his name, which clearly boosts his overall resume.

In terms of accolades for Oscar and West, I'll say it again, there was a big disparity in terms of talent. They were consistently the only two guards in the league that were on tier 1 level talent for guards, maybe towards the end of their career you have a slip-up where Frazier gets the nod (and rightfully so), but with D-Wade, while there's no arguments that he's been a tier 1 level guard talent since '04-'05, and he's continued that.

While despite his 1.5 season injury woes, he's still got about 3 consistent seasons under him ('09, '10, '11) where he's very clearly a Top 3 elite player, and arguments can be made that he's the best SG in the league. Defensively too. And also refer to the RPOY thread, where in '06 he's clearly considered the best player in the league, so that gives him another season where he's clearly a Top 3 player (total of 4), and while '07 was cut early due to his shoulder injury, he's very well in the Top 5. So that's a solid six seasons where he's been elite, and inconsideration as a Top 5 player in the league.

That's with extreme competition in the guards -- Bryant, McGrady, Nash, Paul, Williams, and Rose. Robertson and West only were only dueling with each other in terms of guards, but only with maybe 3 other players in terms of competition for MVP votes. Wade and LeBron have aside from the guards mentioned, you've got competition from Nowitzki, Duncan, Garnett, Howard, Durant, and Anthony.


Just my take and two-cents.

[lorak]

[

Nash, Magic, Oscar, Bird.

Those are 4 of the best passers in NBA history. They use their own scoring as a weapon to *pressure* the defense and create opportunities for teammates. All the evidence suggests that is not what Wilt Chamberlain did for many years he was setting scoring records.(And he was trying to set scoring records,

So was many great players, included my beloved Bird - his 60 pts game is the best example.

I repeat - we can't blame Wilt for that he was scoring a lot, too lot probably. Completely different eras and scoring a lot was expected from him early in his career. What's important that he proved that he could do much more, whatever coaches would like him to do. He was cornerstone of two of ten best teams in history and he did it with two completely different supporting cast. That shows how GREAT his impact was.

He's already fallen enough because of his flaws. Several years ago it was between him and MJ about who is GOAT. But we found out that he had some flaws so he fall down. But that's enough, Magic, Bird and Duncan all have serious flaws on their own.

(Yes, game recaps suggest many times in which Russ held him down in the first half and Wilt scored in blowouts in the 2nd.)

Which games?
BTW, game never is over at the half time.

[Optimism Prime]

An Underachiever's Thoughts on Wilt/Shaq

Never thought I'd be baring my soul like this on a project devoted to ranking players, but some of the stuff in this thread resonates with my on a personal level, especially with these two.

First off: I'm an underachiever, perhaps even a slacker. I've followed my passions, but not really lived up to my potential. In high school, I coasted while still keeping a decent GPA and doing well on standardized tests. I went to a good liberal arts school and majored in things that interested me academically (religion and international relations). I've kind of bounced from job to job since then; held one for two years, another for a year and a half, had another couple for about three months each, and am currently working retail (albeit related to one of my interests). My little brother, on the other hand, is at MIT, studying robotics and business. He's taking trips to third-world countries to help them learn programming as part of his summer break. He just naturally goes a hundred miles an hour; he can't help it. But my parents told me once that they think I'm naturally more intelligent than he is. (Not sure about that; I think I'm more well-rounded than he is, but his strengths/weaknesses are more pronounced.)

So what does this have to do with Wilt/Shaq?

Easy: They should, by all rights, have been the debate for number one overall. But here they are, many people bumping them out of the top four--myself included.

What went wrong? What kept them from achieving what they should have, historically? My guess: mindset. Something that Simmons said in The Book Of Basketball about Shaq that kind of stuck with me:

My theory: basketball was never as much fun for Shaq as everything else happening in his life. Officials allowed opponents to defend him differently, shove him out ofo position and pull his shoulders on dunks. Teams fouled him in key moments and flashed a giant spotlight on his one weakness. The loathsome Hack-a-Shaq tactics were insulting and maybe even a little humiliating. Even when he kicked everyone's asses (like from 2000 to 2002), he received a decent amount of credit... but not really. The guy couldn't win. And so Shaq could have earned a top-five Pyramid spot and multiple MVPs, but he happily settled for No. 11, some top-five records, three Finals MVPs and a fantastically fun ride.

I get it, Big Aristotle. You were living it up in LA, you made movies (even if we kinda wish you hadn't), you were a national figure, you could claim to be the Most Dominant Ever... and you should have been! But you weren't.

I'm with ThaRegul8r when he says "Shaq’s career highs in rebounding (13.9) and blocked shots (3.53) both came in his first year in the league, and he declined every year after that." To the people who keep harping on "Focus on what he did, not what he didn't!"... the two are intricately linked. I'm struggling to think of other players who had their highest statistical points as a rookie, and I can only think of one: Shane Battier and points. Who realized that he's not a great scorer, and that it was in the team's best interests for him to do other things. Can anyone really claim with a straight face that Shaq's teams were better off with him not rebounding/blocking as much?

Here's the big red flag, in my mind, for both Wilt and Shaq: Free throws. It's an open shot exactly 15 feet from the basket. I'm not saying that they should have been perfect from the line (no one is), but they should have been a damn sight better than they were. If they shot FTs at the same percentage as Dikembe (.682, hardly a stellar rate), Wilt would have averaged two more points a game; Shaq nearly a point and a half more. Shaq is now the 11th greatest scorer; Wilt is easily #1.

I don't have the time or energy to analyze Shaq's rebound or block numbers to see where he "should" have been there, but free throws are such a fundamental part of the game that their reputations are irreparably tarnished, in my eyes, due to their failings at such a simple task.

I can't vote for Wilt or Shaq this high in the same way that I can't claim that I'm going to be more successful than my brother. We both had all the tools, but he put it together at a younger age. I coast. Still do. A vote for Wilt/Shaq is a vote for myself. I can't.

Vote: Magic
Nominate: West

[lorak]

I think those stats are all relative to matchups. Man to Man is only one aspect of defense, and also the most volatile.

West was 31 in 70' & 33 in 72'. Frazier was in his prime years, quicker, and has the size advantage.That was a bad matchup for a Vet with many miles on his leg.

That vet was still top 2 MVP voting, so it's hard to argue that he was past his prime.

And if man to man defense isn't so important so West is completely lost in this case, because games with/without shows that Lakers defense without him was BETTER or stayed the same.

[ElGee]

[

Nash, Magic, Oscar, Bird.

Those are 4 of the best passers in NBA history. They use their own scoring as a weapon to *pressure* the defense and create opportunities for teammates. All the evidence suggests that is not what Wilt Chamberlain did for many years he was setting scoring records.(And he was trying to set scoring records,

So was many great players, included my beloved Bird - his 60 pts game is the best example.

I repeat - we can't blame Wilt for that he was scoring a lot, too lot probably. Completely different eras and scoring a lot was expected from him early in his career. What's important that he proved that he could do much more, whatever coaches would like him to do. He was cornerstone of two of ten best teams in history and he did it with two completely different supporting cast. That shows how GREAT his impact was.

He's already fallen enough because of his flaws. Several years ago it was between him and MJ about who is GOAT. But we found out that he had some flaws so he fall down. But that's enough, Magic, Bird and Duncan all have serious flaws on their own.

(Yes, game recaps suggest many times in which Russ held him down in the first half and Wilt scored in blowouts in the 2nd.)

Which games?
BTW, game never is over at the half time.

Please don't do that. You snipped the rest of the sentence, which notes the intention. He as setting records at the *detriment of the team.* What other GOAT-level player did this???

Go read through the RPOY threads for the recaps. And the idea about "between him and MJ for GOAT for years" has no bearing now. The "arguments" years ago were ignorant, and it just sounds like resistance to change. It's like saying "several years ago we were really arguing about the world being flat, and NOW you want to tell me it's not even the center of the universe??"

[MacGill]

Trying not to sound arrogant and condecending but advocating for Wilt Chamberlain over Shaq or Hakeem or Duncan is like trying to argue the sky is blue or that water is wet. If you want to argue that Duncan is better than 45 or 50yr old Wilt then thats a debate. If you think Shaq could can beat Wilt in a 3pt shooting contest thats a debate.

The fact that WIlts detractors attack him for his personality or his intangibles or his leadership skills is for the most part an admission that Wilt aside from the FT line has no weaknesses.

I have to agree. We're seeing these large arguments about Duncan and Magic because they need very strong and supported arguments to even have a case, just to get past the grand jury (in a good way). Wilt's already indicted (in a good way).

I totally disagree with this. Think about the drivers of Wilt Chamberlain for GOAT. Stats. Scoring. Records. Myths of size. All have grown in time.

When you lift up the hood and examine all the nuts and bolts, you see:

(1) Stats: Totally misunderstood and misinterpreted by people. His raw volume scoring wasn't creating offensive dynasties. Pace normalized he doesn't even have one of the top scoring seasons ever. They didn't even keep track of turnovers, which seems to be seriously relevant here from watching him.

(2) Scoring: I'm calling this a separate category, because while volume scoring is important, there ARE instances, like Adrian Dantley, in which it isn't nearly as valuable as people think. Again, you could basically say the following team's had the best offensive dynasties in NBA history:

Nash, Magic, Oscar, Bird.

Those are 4 of the best passers in NBA history. They use their own scoring as a weapon to *pressure* the defense and create opportunities for teammates. All the evidence suggests that is not what Wilt Chamberlain did for many years he was setting scoring records. (And he was trying to set scoring records, this is a guy who argued about his stats at halftime and cared about him getting his job done over the results of the team in order to alleviate blame.)

(3) Records. He would go try and set statistical records, sometimes to the detriment of the team. He become obsessed with passing and took it too far, because he thought it would be neat to lead the league in assists. There were games in Los Angeles when he trying to set the FG% record in which he didn't even shoot.

(4) Put all the myths in a package and go back in time and look at what contemporaries thought. His teammates often complained about him. He had weird trades with little shift to his teams right in his prime. He clashed with literally almost every coach possible. He demanded practice be rescheduled so he could live in NYC. The list goes on...and that's why he was never really considered as good as Russell and why Russ was voted MVP over him over and over. (Three of Wilt's MVP were at the end of Russ's career and after moving to Phillly...and he his rookie MVP wasn't deserved IMO, but was more of a shock factor I suppose.)

Basketball is more than a game of skillset. It's how a player IMPLEMENTS that talent within the context of the team. Otherwise, Ricky Davis would be a superstar. Now Wilt was never a negative -- after all, I have him as a top-10 player all-time boasting roughly 12 healthy seasons -- but it's not the case where you look at a few stats and say "well, he can't go any lower than X, just because. I mean, just because he HAD to be that talented, right?"

You can have all the talent in the world, but if you jack 3's from halfcourt every time at 37%, you won't stand out with your offensive impact. Similarly, Wilt clearly found ways to score the ball a lot, but it wasn't in the overall package of a guy dominating on offense. He isn't even the list of 100 players playing on best offenses ever, and there were times when his impact seemed relatively small for the stats he put up. Then keep in mind his efficiency and output declined in the postseason. (Yes, game recaps suggest many times in which Russ held him down in the first half and Wilt scored in blowouts in the 2nd.)

Finally, the whole Braess Paradox/Chamberlain theory that Doc and I have been linking to is paramount in describing how a guy can score so much and be way less effective than someone like magic Johnson on offense. You want to say "but he scored 50 ppg - that needs no explanation."

But then why in the world did his team get so much better when he stopped shooting the ball? (And note, evidence suggests that his defense also improved in that role...which matters too)

This is a fantastic post and after all that I have read on Wilt, I fully agree with the points outlined. I am a huge Shaq>Wilt advocate but I always try to keep an open mind to new information brought forward and these threads have done just that.

However, and no disrespect to Wilt, but they truly did break his career down beyond his phenominal records and stats and opened my eyes to more rational facts for me to judge. If a player happens to be ranked somewhere lower than previously, or where they feel he should be, this should not be taken as an insult but more as a fact of how the game continues to grow and great players continue to leave their mark on it. I for one am fine with new talent being entered or even dicussed at this level because I am a firm believer that records and accomplishments are meant to be broken and it is exciting that we can actually name current players who can rival All-Time Greats from the past, especially with convincing points. 50 years from now, we could have a completely brand new Top 10 and that is just fine with me, especially done in this sort of fashion.

I did have a question though around something mentioned that I had not yet heard of. Does anyone have any further information regarding 'Wilt and the fixed playoff series' that someone mentioned a few pages back? Very curious here. Keep the great debate going, and RonnyMac - keep the Shaq support coming, I'm listening

[lorak]

Btw, to put a number on it: If we use the same criteria as the other HOFers I linked to earlier, Wilt's PS drop in performance (any year in top-10 MVP) is astronomical. Wilt scored 3.9 ppg less with a 4.5% drop in TS% in the playoffs. (PS averages of 25.5 ppg, 52.8% TS in those seasons)

David Robinson saw the biggest dip on the list of 15 I posted, dropping 1.8 ppg and 3.8% TS%.

Wasn't you one of these who said that we should judge players based on what they actually did on the court?
So who cares about size of drop off if what's really matters is that even after drop off player X played better than most other players.

[lorak]

[

Nash, Magic, Oscar, Bird.

Those are 4 of the best passers in NBA history. They use their own scoring as a weapon to *pressure* the defense and create opportunities for teammates. All the evidence suggests that is not what Wilt Chamberlain did for many years he was setting scoring records.(And he was trying to set scoring records,

So was many great players, included my beloved Bird - his 60 pts game is the best example.

I repeat - we can't blame Wilt for that he was scoring a lot, too lot probably. Completely different eras and scoring a lot was expected from him early in his career. What's important that he proved that he could do much more, whatever coaches would like him to do. He was cornerstone of two of ten best teams in history and he did it with two completely different supporting cast. That shows how GREAT his impact was.

He's already fallen enough because of his flaws. Several years ago it was between him and MJ about who is GOAT. But we found out that he had some flaws so he fall down. But that's enough, Magic, Bird and Duncan all have serious flaws on their own.

(Yes, game recaps suggest many times in which Russ held him down in the first half and Wilt scored in blowouts in the 2nd.)

Which games?
BTW, game never is over at the half time.

Please don't do that. You snipped the rest of the sentence, which notes the intention. He as setting records at the *detriment of the team.* What other GOAT-level player did this???

Go read through the RPOY threads for the recaps. And the idea about "between him and MJ for GOAT for years" has no bearing now. The "arguments" years ago were ignorant, and it just sounds like resistance to change. It's like saying "several years ago we were really arguing about the world being flat, and NOW you want to tell me it's not even the center of the universe??"

The point with flat world is good one, but still you are ignoring other things - like different eras or that he proved that he had great impact and was the best player on two of ten the best teams in history..

[ElGee]

@Stern - I've already noted Wilt's 67 season. He has some tremendous high-points (68 too!) That's part of what makes him one of the greatest basketball players in NBA history. But there's no default line about what that means (No. 30, No. 8, No. 1). In comparing him to the other players, I clearly have him below five guys, and I'll take a sixth over him too. You, nor anyone, should be bound by some notion of (well, he just can't go THAT low). It reminds me of the RPOY votes to "recognize" a player at No. 5. As if, we ranked 20 spots the same player would be No. 20 for "recognition."

You are 100% right about quality of play wrt stats. But let me be stupidly clear here (since it's so often misunderstood)...stats measure something. That don't always measure the same thing. They are a tool. The first thing I'm doing, with Karl Malone (big decline) or Wilt (bigger decline) is presenting that to people to think about. In some cases, yes, it's a reflection of a big deal (if you think Wilt's value is volume scoring on good efficiency in a nutshell, and the dude falls off a cliff, that might matter). Sometimes, guys do things (creating, defense) that aren't measured at all and the statistical dropoff, while still in play, might not reflect an equally negative change in play.

So, the stupidly clear part: Knowing information is relevant, and it's not always a perfect reflection of play, but we CAN analyze it, and it never hurts to know it.

Do you think Wilt supporters were aware of his PS numbers? Do you think they know from 60-66 he averaged 32.8 ppg in the playoffs on 52% TS? http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _by=ts_pct This guy was good then -- he was excellent then, even -- but he wasn't moving worlds by effortlessly dropping 40 a night and leading his team's offense to great heights. Heck, he wasn't even separating himself *in the scoring department alone* from the other offensive greats at the time.

[Brenice]

Let's eliminate every players playing year after age 32. Now look at Wilt playing with Philly. Were his Philly teams stacked like Russell's Celtics?

I vote Wilt because he seems to be judged most by his stats as a Laker(highlights) more so than his prime.

I don't know and a lot of my arguement is not factual, but just wonder what Wilt's winning record with be on a better team.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I think those stats are all relative to matchups. Man to Man is only one aspect of defense, and also the most volatile.

West was 31 in 70' & 33 in 72'. Frazier was in his prime years, quicker, and has the size advantage.That was a bad matchup for a Vet with many miles on his leg.

That vet was still top 2 MVP voting, so it's hard to argue that he was past his prime.

And if man to man defense isn't so important so West is completely lost in this case, because games with/without shows that Lakers defense without him was BETTER or stayed the same.

1) I'm not sure how MVP vopting relates to defensive matchups. West was still a great player, but he was 31+ going against a prime Frazier who had the matchup advantages.

Kidd was a great defender, but he was burned a few time as he got past 31, by quicker guards.

2) You keep referring to opposing PPG like it determines defensive prowess. If LA plays at a slower pace due to not having West's offense, then their opponent's ppg will drop too. To equate that to LA being better without West on D, would be wrong. Stats can be a useful tool, but you have to put them into context.

[Baller 24]

Oscar Robertson missed the playoffs on three consecutive seasons, despite Jerry Lucas being a very productive player, in the midst of his prime (21/19). Something that in the earlier threads, supporters of Robertson were so destructively knocking Garnett for doing. And this is during a league where four out of six teams in each conference were capable of making the playoffs.

[Baller 24]

Jerry West during his only championship run performed horrendously in the playoffs. It's evident that Chamberlain was the most valuable player to the team, but in the playoffs was West's impact even worth noted to be top three even on his own team? His TS% took a tip by 10%+ and we can clearly see his defense was ineffective against Fraizer. At least Garnett was clearly the best player on his team in '08, and with Wade I don't even have to mention.

[Sedale Threatt]

drza, I don't think anyone's read the darn post, or much of the theoretical ideas about Wilt. I've asked if any of the people who voted for him read it (bc the number of links to my post from this thread was like 4) and no one responded.

For the record I've had 10 hits from these threads to the Chamberlain Theory article. I felt like that was pretty encouraging, though I have no idea what those people thought of it. Would be nice to get rebuttals.

OK, I waded through it -- Google search, so a hit might not record -- and I have to commend you both on the work. Very thorough, leading to a totally logical conclusion.

I'm afraid that I can't offer much of a rebuttal, however. Just like that 99-00 season was the smoking gun for Shaq's lack of effort relating to rebounding and defense, so is the 66-67 season the smoking gun for Wilt's ultimately flawed approach to the game.

The results speak for themselves -- Wilt quit shooting so much, focused on other things, his teammates benefited, the Sixers had one of the most successful seasons in NBA history.

I will offer a few thoughts:

I don't know if ignorance is ever a legitimate excuse, but I do feel the urge to defend Chamberlain for the fact that people are only now scraping the surface that a style like his wasn't always conducive to success, let alone 40 or 50 years ago.

I mean, obviously Hannum picked it out, and I vaguely remember comments from various Celtics (with the benefit of hindsight) in various books I've read about the same paradox -- sometimes less is much, much more.

But even today a lot of really smart, skilled basketball minds resist the notion, so I can only imagine what it was like back then. (Look at the fuss you allude to regarding Skinner's presentation.) Especially when the owners are expecting Wilt to put on a statistical freak show.

Even though it's a pointless exercise -- the results were what they were -- but I can never help but wonder what Chamberlain's legacy would look like but for a total of about seven points. I'd go over all the details, but you know them already:

A. One-point loss in Game 7, 1965, when the Sixers pushed the Celtics to the limit despite finishing some 20 games back in the standings. Chamberlain scores the last eight points to make a game of it, Hal Greer can't make a simple inbounds pass for a shot at the winning bucket.

B. Four-point loss in Game 7, 1968, when his teammates and Hannum inexplicably refuse to get him the ball (nine touches in the second half, two in the fourth quarter). Cunningham and Jackson, two of their six best players, are injured.

C. Two-point loss in Game 7, 1969, in which his dumb-ass coach -- who never coached another playoff team again -- decides the last seven minutes of a championship game is the perfect time to extend a grudge. Might not have made a difference, but it sure as isht couldn't have helped.

Again, I know it's pointless to run through the "what-if" game. There isn't a player in NBA history, besides Bill Russell, who couldn't benefit immensely from such an exercise. But has there ever been an NBA player whose legacy suffered more from the breaks of the game?

Obviously, a lot of that wasn't just dumb luck. I've come to recognize that Wilt had massive intangible flaws, most notably his ego and selfishness. It took me a long time, but I finally got the point that I could no longer avoid the fact that Russell, despite being an inferior specimen than Chamberlain, was a better player.

But damn...how awesome was Wilt that you could ask him to be more of a distributor, and all he did was put up the best assists seasons any center will ever have, to the immense benefit of his team? While leading the league in rebounds and being no worse than the second-best defensive player in the league?

Probably a little too stat-driven there, especially with the subject at hand. And the big thing is, Wilt wasn't in that spot nearly enough. But as I said in a previous post, when he did get there how great was he? Pretty high praise that he was the anchor of the two most successful teams in NBA history, including a 33-game winning streak, before Jordan came along.