Doctor MJ wrote:Have you been reading? It's not exactly hard to find sources talking about Wilts ups and downs when it came to putting max energy into defense?
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Are we talking about soucres talking about Chamberlain's "ups and downs when it came to putting max energy into defense", or the impact he had regarding defense? The argument shifts every post. I just want to be clear here.
Besides, I haven't analyzed that side of the court, so I'll let someone else speak on the matter.
Coaches talk about his wavering defensive efforts. As do teammates and opponents. He'll it's even part of his lore the anecdote of completely shutting down rookie Bellamy for part of a game to put him in his place - Wilt tale tellers love to brag about it but it clearly indicates a wavering focus that can't be strategically justified.
And the impact? Well yeah the issues are apparent in the data certainly.
You're acting like I'm moving the goal post here but the reality is that it's all the same story to me. While people see what I'm talking about as historical revisionism, it was all just laying there from the time period. The data, the voices, the decision making of the coaches. The moment these things stop being ignored they start leading to very different conclusions.
therealbig3 wrote:Another example of Shaq's longevity would be MVP voting. Maybe he only won 1 MVP, but consistently finishing in the top 10 or so would be a pretty strong example of what kind of player he was, and what the perception of him was, and just how much missed games affected his status. And this is also despite how many times his teams were accused of underachieving.
Every single year of his prime (93-05...13 years), Shaq finished as a top 10 MVP candidate (top 9, technically). He only finished outside of the top 5 just 5 times, including his rookie year.
So regardless of the flaws...Shaq was someone who was very clearly considered to be a superstar, who was helping his team big time.
I use the mvp voting as a general guideline - since this is the 4th spot how many times was a guy considered in the Top 4 in the league?
I get Wilt, Bird, Magic at 9 Shaq, Duncan at 7 Hakeem at 4
Kind of puts Hakeem out of the picture for me
And if the voters were wrong? if there up and down pavement of Hakeem was simply them being unable to separate player from context?
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
He got dealt a tough hand as the years where he was just out of the Top 4 are 1987-1990. He immediately starts behind Magic and Jordan - add Bird years. Then he has Malone, Barkley, Drexler to deal with.
It's not an end-all, but if 100 guys who are following the league don't think he is in the Top 4, I do consider it a data point. They are not always right, but are probably right at least as often as they are wrong, and usually at least directionally right.
His team defenses were often meh, and the RAPM data we have for him in the late 90s doesn't show a sustained defensive dominance the way we see with Ribinson, Garnett deep into their post-peak career.
He was already in decline. Below we can see his presumed defensive value over a 58 game sample (50 of them being playoff games) from 1993-95. And this may not even be his defensive peak.
These numbers are incredible. So incredible that I wonder if there is some selection bias with what games we have available to sample (or some human error on your part). I'm not saying I won't accept them, I'm just noticing that all of these old samples have ridiculous on/off differences. Am I off base here? Do you have a summary of all your tracked on-offs?
Dr Positivity wrote:It's not just about who you are but how you play. For example if prime KG played with the Kings the last 5 years people could talk just as much about how Isaiah is a 20 PER PG and how Tyreke and Marcus Thornton were talented guards who could put up points and how Jason Thompson and Chuck Hayes could do dirty work. It wouldn't matter if all these "talented" players continued to produce poorly on a team level. There is tons of evidence suggesting the TWolves supporting cast mostly sucked. They put up offensive numbers and gave it back on defense. When KG left, exactly what you'd want to see from a top 5 of all time caliber player leaving a terrible team to join two other stars, happened on both ends.
I just looked over the 2002 Wolves support cast, and there's a tonne of evidence they didn't suck at all. Certainly not compared to the 01-03 Spurs support casts (especially 02, which was just disgusting).
This is where it gets good, and my overall thoughts on the viable candidates:
The general consensus is 1 of these 5: Wilt/Magic/Hakeem/Shaq/Duncan Honourable mention to Bird/Kobe/LeBron/KG
Wilt A hybrid center in the mold of the physical dominance displayed by Shaq, but with the versatility of a Hakeem. If not for the misfortune of playing in the same era as Russell, Wilt would be in the discussion for GOAT as he was outplayed head-to-head in so many championship showdowns against Russell. But as Ardee explained very throughly, Wilt's seeming inability to win more frequently has a direct correlation to missed opportunites by teammates that had a bigger impact on the end results than at first thought.
Magic Arguably the GOAT offensive player ever in terms of impact and the ability to be the main orchestrator of one of the great offenses in NBA history. His versatility speaks for itself, but defense and longevity or the main sticking points for him.
Hakeem Quite possibly the best 2-way center ever, one of the GOAT peaks and a beast on both ends, especially with regards to volume scorng that someone similar to his skillset (Duncan) could never replicate..in other words Hakeem had another gear to him when forced to carry the offense. Dream also never got outplayed in his head-to-head matchups against the other great centers of the modern era (Shaq/Robinson/Ewing).
Shaq A physical force the likes of which the league has rarely seen, but if you examine more closely I'm not one of those who firmly believe that what is perceived as peak Shaq (1999-2002) was a great as portrayed. For starters from a statistical POV, Shaq's peak was never that much greater if at all compared to say 1995 (his Orlando days) with regards to his efficiency and overall raw numbers. The reason people put that peak on such a pedestal is because of the correlation with the 3-peat, but let's take a look at the 3-peat closer. In the real championship round from 2000-2002, which were the Blazers/Spurs/Kings in that order, Shaq had some great series no doubt but one could make a solid argument that just as important was another co-catalyst n Kobe who was probably the slightly more impactful player due to matchups. In the 2 games 7s against the Blazers and Kings, Shaq was honestly somewhat neutralized relative to what is generally percieved of course. One could easily make the argument that the elite wings around him like Kobe/Wade/Penny are historically underrated in their partnerships with Shaq.
Duncan Hakeem-light in many ways, but Duncan was perhaps an even more fundamental defensive player (translation: anchor) that led to greater team success, but you can't discount how much the model organization that Pop and the Spurs exemplify have helped with avoiding any potential chemsitry issues on court, etc. that others like Shaq/Kobe haven't been able to avoid. Even at an advanced age in 2014, his defensive impact as the anchor behind Leonard and Green can't be understated. You couple that with his solid contributions when forced to be a go-to scorer, hence I see no reason KG should be ranked ahead of Duncan (defensively they are a wash although KG was the more versatile defender and Duncan being a traditional anchor). The knock on Duncan is that when forced to score more (see 2005 Finals), his efficiency takes a hit and his team's become much more beatable. While I'll never knock a player for what he did even under favourable circumstances, by the same token it's not like Duncan's team success crushes Hakeem's (same ballpark with regards to MVPs, Finals MVPs, All-NBA nominations, etc) and Duncan has without a doubt been able to play his entire career under a franchise that has maximized everything around him and given optimal team chemistry, etc.
Wilt is the obvious chocie imo, with Hakeem and Magic offering competition. Shaq and Duncan are the next level down for me.
Kobe and Bird are probably the two players that look to drop the most among the top 11 in terms of ranking, but even then I'm not sure it's so clear cut they're clearly below Shaq or Duncan.
KG has great impact as one of the GOAT defensive PFs, but I honestly don't think his impact on the defensive end even supercedes that of true anchors like Hakeem or Duncan, and his offense is obviously not at the level of any of the general consensus top 11 (MJ/KAJ/Russ/Wilt/Magic/Hakeem/Duncan/Shaq/Kobe/Bird/LeBron). If anything, KG's ranking would be more accurately on the same tier as someone like Robinson/KMalone, but that discussion will be due shortly.
Less players in the league means its easier to rank in the top 10. But those first place finishes in 72 and 73 are completely meaningless to me. He was shooting less than Tyson Chandler those seasons. I will have a post up soon on that topic.
Agreed, on less players point, but
1.) Wilt was very high in TS% on incredible volume. I don't think people give him credit for that. 2.) People are claiming Shaq to be all-time great here. He should have more years in Top 5 of league to make a strong claim.
I don't see a definitive case for Shaq over Wilt. His teams averaged about 1 win a season more than Wilt's, despite more years playing with super elite player (Wade and Kobe versus West).
I have scoring and defense slightly for Wilt - even at best, and Wilt a better rebounder and passer. I really like Shaq, but I think Wilt was better.
Baller2014 wrote:I'm interested in an analysis that goes beyond obsessing over plus-minus and other advanced stats.
Baller2014 wrote:Even dubious advanced stats, like win-shares, tell us Brandon was performing at an awesome level
One, if you can't refute why the logic in an argument isn't sound I do not think you have any right to dismiss it as uninteresting. Two, you said not to go over advanced stats and then went into advanced stat as a part of your support. If you are not interested in any evidence that would point out KG's teammates as bad then why bother having a discussion? I am far from a pro-KG guy and the arguments that have popped up in KG's favor make sense. I doubt I will have him in the top 5 but I could see him breaking out of the Erving-Malone-Kobe-West group and put him at the end of top 10 for my own list.
ElGee wrote:with no disrespect to anyone who voted for him, I just haven't seen anything remotely compelling that addresses the analysis of the last few years regarding Chamberlain.
ElGee - I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of the arguments against Wilt:
1) Issues with some of the mechanics of his low post game, and general concerns about his scoring efficiency. 2) Inconsistency defensively. 3) Lack of an understanding of the team concept (pre-64 in particular, though at times later as well); clashing with coaches and teammates fits in here. 4) Poor FT shooting, and general concerns about him late in games.
But I've convinced myself he's the best candidate here. In your honest opinion, am I making a mountain out of a molehill with this lack of spacing/shooters argument? Am I making too much out of generally good defensive performances in the playoffs?
Based on some of the posts in the last couple of pages, I feel like it might appear I'm making a fool out of myself in this thread.
1) It's more of a concern about the general efficacy of his high-volume scoring as it relates to Global Offense. Basketball isn't an individual game, so we have to look at how your actions impact yourself AND your teammates. The concern is that Wilt has a hard time with this balance, and that he almost has an automatic high ranking because of his ppg numbers in the early part of his career (not to mention pace or MPG adjustments).
2) Somewhat, yes. He has some great defensive years though, but he's clearly not a horizontal defender.
3) I would count this as separate from point No. 1 -- he clashes with people a lot. It's a red flag. He also is utterly self-absorbed with how people view him. Records, Stats. Goliath. Etc.
4) I'm not concerned about this.
No. 1 is by far the biggest issue. When people cite raw stats and then ooh and ahhh, it's empty to me. Since you seems to be translating people's game into the modern time, how do you reconcile the following:
-Wilt's love of the fadeaway because of his insistence on not being seen as a brute -Wilt's trouble (portability) meshing with a super team -Wilt's relatively ineffective GLOBAL offensive post game (i.e. he can't just seem to call his own number when necessary but then warp the defense and pass effectively if needed -- I see this in stark contrast to Shaq which is what makes him a GOAT-level offensive player.) -Wilt's inconsistencies
I don't want to harp on the negatives, but I don't have a really sound sense as to why someone as knowledgeable as you is actually valuing him here. The spacing thing is interesting, but how far are you taking it? Are you suggesting that Wilt in modern times would be a master of 1-in-4-out? Based on what? And how is that even an ideal offense in modern times? What about his post game do you think translates so well? Or his defense? How is it superior to Shaq's, for instance?
PS Colts I have Shaq 5th or 6th. Is that "down?"
Yeah I think fundamentally I just see people come at it from two sides.
The conventional side starts with the box score as a kind of proof of ability and then essentially let's impact act as a something to fine tune their opinion.
The impact-oriented side starts from the impact and goes from there. If course I'm simplifying there because one might assume I'm just talking about an idealized +/- for a holistic impact when really the bread and butter is in the details. Where is this payer actually demonstrating the ability to wield his gifts in a way that helps with team efficacy?
And this is why Wilt drops so hard: Because he really never showed the ability to do his scoring thing without major issues. Clearly people think I'm naive or lacking proper abstraction when I express skepticism that Wilt realistically put it all together...but I doubt we'll be hearing them champion Dantley any time soon.
Why? Well I can't help but notice that the call for abstract rebellion against impact-oriented analysis here has driven the voting directly back to the status quo despite the claims that a list focusing in player value would have resulted in a boring predictable list.
Smells like rationalization of norms in the face if contradicting evidence to me, but hey, it ain't the end of the world
Newcomers right now are probably seeing a group if us as old and grumpy and that's no fun. The nature if a community like this is that it can diverge so much that having one list becomes less meaningful. This only makes it that much more important for people to focus on the discussion itself.
Baller2014 wrote:I'm interested in an analysis that goes beyond obsessing over plus-minus and other advanced stats.
Baller2014 wrote:Even dubious advanced stats, like win-shares, tell us Brandon was performing at an awesome level
One, if you can't refute why the logic in an argument isn't sound I do not think you have any right to dismiss it as uninteresting. Two, you said not to go over advanced stats and then went into advanced stat as a part of your support. If you are not interested in any evidence that would point out KG's teammates as bad then why bother having a discussion? I am far from a pro-KG guy and the arguments that have popped up in KG's favor make sense. I doubt I will have him in the top 5 but I could see him breaking out of the Erving-Malone-Kobe-West group and put him at the end of top 10 for my own list.
It's called an argument in the alternative.
I should add, I have him ahead of Malone, Kobe and West, and in the top 12, so I don't think I'm being disrespectful to the guy. But this is a comparison with guys like Duncan, Shaq, Magic, Bird, Lebron, etc. He loses those comparisons handily.
#1. This is completely ignoring the playoffs. Wilt was a far better scorer in the regular-season then he was in the playoffs.
#2. I don't agree with using relative FG% or TS% unless it is accompanied by a good explanation for why it was harder for said player to score in one era compared to different one. Blindly using such a stat gives an unfair advantage to Wilt because he played in a less efficient league but didn't necessarily play in a league that was harder for C's to score in.
If I was to blindly accept relative TS% then I would also have to think that Oscar & West would be having numerous 65+% TS type seasons if they played in today's league. I don't.
Shaq was a far more efficient scorer then Wilt while scoring on equal volume Peak wise and better volume Prime wise. Wilt had 3 playoff runs in his entire career where he scored at significant volume and shot better then 54%TS. Shaq had 11 with 8 of them being above 56%TS.
I went back and forth and back and forth on this one. I was feeling Hakeem's two-way dominance for a bit, then I thought about Magic's uniqueness, then I thought about the completeness of Duncan's body of work, then I thought about how Wilt was the closest thing to Secretariat the NBA has ever seen. So many worthy candidates.
But I somehow just end up coming back to Shaq. I know the downsides with Shaq. I know that his attitude was disappointing, I know that his defensive range was smaller than the other Bigs in contention for this spot, I know that he didn't take care of his body that well and was consistently banged up.
But his Offensive Impact is just so clear and consistent, and his Defensive Impact was always atleast "Good" and had the potential to be great at times. Even if he wasn't a Duncan/Hakeem type of defender, he was a great low post man defender and someone who deterred opposing teams from attacking the rim.
Kareem, Shaq, and Dirk are the 3 greatest offensive bigs in NBA history imo.
And out of those 3 consistently epic offensive Bigs, Shaq was the toughest to contain. Dirk had some problems against elite quickness/length SF types in his younger days, Kareem ended up having some problems with massive strong-men like Wilt and Thurmond. Yes, you can point out that Thurmond and Wilt are two of the greatest defenders ever. But Shaq went up against Hakeem/Robinson/Deke and you never saw him struggle to maintain a dominant offensive level. There was no "prototype" defender to throw at Shaq. Stopping Shaq involved the entire team. So while I still believe that Kareem is the GOAT offensive big overall due to longevity, I think Shaq was the GOAT offensive big when we are simply talking Primes. There's a reason why the man almost never had a bad offensive game in the playoffs.
And yes, I don't believe Hakeem or Wilt belong on that list with the other 3 great offensive bigs. My concerns about Wilt's offensive ability are the same as most of Wilt's doubters. I believe his volume production overstated his offensive impact. Others have made the argument for me earlier in the thread so I'm not going to get into it any further since it looks like he has this won. So I'll focus on Hakeem's offense...
I just don't buy Hakeem's offensive impact through '92 as epic.
'85-'92: 50 playoff games ------ epic Kareem/Shaq/Dirk levels on offense '85-'92: 594 reg. season games ----- worse than Patrick Ewing on offense
From '85-'92, Ewing averaged 23.6 PPG on a .575 TS% while Hakeem averaged 22.9 PPG on a .553 TS%.
I understand valuing playoff performance more than regular season performance. That makes perfect sense. But REGULAR SEASON PERFORMANCE STILL MATTERS. And it just feels incredibly hard for me to call '85-'92 Hakeem a consistently dominant offensive player when he had contemporaries who are considered very good but not great offensive players like Ewing putting up better numbers than him. And I'm not even going to get started on the regular season offensive disparity between pre-93 Hakeem and David Robinson. Those 50 playoff games are incredible, but that simply does not give him a pass for 594 regular season games.
I DO think Hakeem's offense took a major jump around '93 due to smarter passing and better volume scoring capability, which is why I have Hakeem's peak incredibly high. But I simply don't think his consistent offensive impact rivaled that of Shaq. Sure Hakeem did have the clearcut defensive advantage, but overall I just think Shaq produced more often at a Top 5 GOAT level.
Duncan and Magic are right there in my eyes, I'll get to them on another thread. But I just feel like Shaq was the superior player in terms of pure impact.
ElGee wrote:with no disrespect to anyone who voted for him, I just haven't seen anything remotely compelling that addresses the analysis of the last few years regarding Chamberlain.
ElGee - I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of the arguments against Wilt:
1) Issues with some of the mechanics of his low post game, and general concerns about his scoring efficiency. 2) Inconsistency defensively. 3) Lack of an understanding of the team concept (pre-64 in particular, though at times later as well); clashing with coaches and teammates fits in here. 4) Poor FT shooting, and general concerns about him late in games.
But I've convinced myself he's the best candidate here. In your honest opinion, am I making a mountain out of a molehill with this lack of spacing/shooters argument? Am I making too much out of generally good defensive performances in the playoffs?
Based on some of the posts in the last couple of pages, I feel like it might appear I'm making a fool out of myself in this thread.
1) It's more of a concern about the general efficacy of his high-volume scoring as it relates to Global Offense. Basketball isn't an individual game, so we have to look at how your actions impact yourself AND your teammates. The concern is that Wilt has a hard time with this balance, and that he almost has an automatic high ranking because of his ppg numbers in the early part of his career (not to mention pace or MPG adjustments).
2) Somewhat, yes. He has some great defensive years though, but he's clearly not a horizontal defender.
3) I would count this as separate from point No. 1 -- he clashes with people a lot. It's a red flag. He also is utterly self-absorbed with how people view him. Records, Stats. Goliath. Etc.
4) I'm not concerned about this.
No. 1 is by far the biggest issue. When people cite raw stats and then ooh and ahhh, it's empty to me. Since you seems to be translating people's game into the modern time, how do you reconcile the following:
-Wilt's love of the fadeaway because of his insistence on not being seen as a brute -Wilt's trouble (portability) meshing with a super team -Wilt's relatively ineffective GLOBAL offensive post game (i.e. he can't just seem to call his own number when necessary but then warp the defense and pass effectively if needed -- I see this in stark contrast to Shaq which is what makes him a GOAT-level offensive player.) -Wilt's inconsistencies
I don't want to harp on the negatives, but I don't have a really sound sense as to why someone as knowledgeable as you is actually valuing him here. The spacing thing is interesting, but how far are you taking it? Are you suggesting that Wilt in modern times would be a master of 1-in-4-out? Based on what? And how is that even an ideal offense in modern times? What about his post game do you think translates so well? Or his defense? How is it superior to Shaq's, for instance?
PS Colts I have Shaq 5th or 6th. Is that "down?"
The things you are knocking Wilt for seem to be social/customs. Kind of like calling George Washington an idiot for dieing because of his Dr instead of just taking an antiobiotic.
Wilt trying to be Goliath and trying to physically dominate people most certainly could have ended his career early. I can see Wilt doing to Beatty what Shaq did to Smits and after the game 500 members of the KKK fully armed are standing between him and the bus.
I just dont recall people telling Shaq that if he hurts any player he will either be arrested or lynched after the game. Wilt however had to ease up on players for fear of hurting them and putting his own safety in jeopardy.
You and I would change our customs and guard our words if we were in a primitive culture why do we blame Wilt for doing the same?
HomoSapien wrote:Warspite, the greatest poster in the history of realgm.
Doctor MJ wrote:And the impact? Well yeah the issues are apparent in the data certainly.
Kindly link them for my own use, thanks.
Edit: Used flpiii's post on Chamberlain's defense.
Yeah I think fundamentally I just see people come at it from two sides. The conventional side starts with the box score as a kind of proof of ability and then essentially let's impact act as a something to fine tune their opinion.
Broad generalization. There's many on the conventional side who don't even use the box score.
The impact-oriented side starts from the impact and goes from there. If course I'm simplifying there because one might assume I'm just talking about an idealized +/- for a holistic impact when really the bread and butter is in the details. Where is this payer actually demonstrating the ability to wield his gifts in a way that helps with team efficacy?
Except that's not even what +/- answers, as such. The only question it answers is "Did your team outscore your your opponent when you are on the court?" That. Is. It. (You can adjust for teammates and opponents to put it into context, but the fundamental basis for +/- doesn't change.) It makes no other claims. Any other claims about player ability, "demonstrating the ability to wield his gifts...", etc., are not questions that are answered by +/-, as such. None of these things. These are things that must be explored outside the data, and you fail to explore them as it pertains to the on-court play of Chamberlain.
And this is why Wilt drops so hard: Because he really never showed the ability to do his scoring thing without major issues. Clearly people think I'm naive or lacking proper abstraction when I express skepticism that Wilt realistically put it all together...but I doubt we'll be hearing them champion Dantley any time soon.
Who's talking about Dantley? Can you stick with Chamberlain?
And I'll guess that the "issues" you lament about pertain to his impact. Right? Well, that's what we're discussing. Read my previous posts (and posts by others) if you dare to learn more.
Why? Well I can't help but notice that the call for abstract rebellion against impact-oriented analysis here has driven the voting directly back to the status quo despite the claims that a list focusing in player value would have resulted in a boring predictable list.
Coming from you, this is a disappointing comment. Are you letting your agenda show here? "Rebellion"? It's simply voting on an online forum. No one here is saying vote for Chamberlain or any other particular player; these posters are free to choose for themselves. They are simply presented with other evidence to consider. If they don't want to consider it (which, apparently, you don't), then that's their prerogative.
And since you want to take what I said out of context, let me clarify for you: it's a fact that player value as such doesn't speak to the goodness of a basketball player, and goodness is what this discussion is about. Just making this about value will yield a rankings that posters won't argue much about, but it also doesn't actually answer the question. Is that the rankings you want? Don't think so.
Smells like rationalization of norms in the face if contradicting evidence to me, but hey, it ain't the end of the world
The ironing! Speaking of evidence, you have yet to address the contradicting evidence that I and others have presented.
Doctor MJ wrote:Coaches talk about his wavering defensive efforts. As do teammates and opponents. He'll it's even part of his lore the anecdote of completely shutting down rookie Bellamy for part of a game to put him in his place - Wilt tale tellers love to brag about it but it clearly indicates a wavering focus that can't be strategically justified.
Norm Drucker: Probably the greatest defensive game played by a big man was the game in which Walt Bellamy made his debut with the Chicago team against Wilt Chamberlain. I guess Wilt took it as a personal challenge. Bellamy, who went on to become a good player, received a lot of hype and there was a big crowd in Chicago. Well. Chamberlain blocks about eight straight hook shots and on offense, as usually was the case, scored with ease. Chamberlain blocked a few more in the second period and Bellamy stopped attempting shots. Of course, Chamberlain was making a point that no rookie was equal to the king.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
Back to the actual discussion, the game film I reviewed of Chamberlain in the post (a couple of games) shows him to be a 42% shooter in the low-block. The best in today's game are around 50% (with players like LeBron James at 50+%). But keep these things in mind:
-Chamberlain's post-ups were exclusively against Russell, the crowd favorite for GOAT defensive player. No cross-matches took place. -Floor-spacing! Lack of it made it a challenge to execute on the low block, both from a scoring and passing standpoint. (I tracked just couple of turnovers from post-up plays.) Often, Chamberlain had to create a shot himself because his teammates didn't get open on spot-ups or lane cuts. The outside shooters of the period were also maddeningly inconsistent. They didn't shoot from deep range, and you're almost surprised to watch guards miss wide-open jump shots so often; even airballing looks or hitting the side of the backboard. -Even in his volume-scoring heyday, Chamberlain looked to pass the ball often, especially when doubled.
careful study of available film and how the fundamentals of the sport manifests itself on the court
Team defense may have been simpler than today, however man to man defense may have been even better (especially considering the rule changes). I have seen too many clips of Wilt threading the needle to hit players as they cut by him, ala Bill Walton. Almost his entire Warriors career was played with a 12 foot lane, which would only increase the spacing issues.
-Wilt's relatively ineffective GLOBAL offensive post game (i.e. he can't just seem to call his own number when necessary but then warp the defense and pass effectively if needed -- I see this in stark contrast to Shaq which is what makes him a GOAT-level offensive player.)
Every bit of footage from that era shows how easy it was to swarm the post player. Because of the poor spacing and constant movement from the players, there may have been a larger number of possible options for Wilt as a passer, but also a lot more potential help defenders who could pressure him without fully committing. It just wasn't as simple as drawing a double team and kicking it to an open player.
Just about every clip I have seen of him drawing a hard double results in him punishing the defense with his passing, like this below. Gus Johnson unsuccessfully tries to sneak up on Wilt from behind, like Jordan did to Malone:
Here is another Hakeem article dating back to the end of 1993 when the '94 Rockets went to a 14-0 start and visited the Knicks in New York(http://www.si.com/vault/1993/12/13/2113 ... ork-knicks). Here is the part that interests me the most:
Spoiler:
"A lot of it has to do with their maturity," Milwaukee Buck coach Mike Dunleavy says of the Rockets' success. "In the past when they got leads, you always felt you could come back on them. This year they're different." They are different largely because of an unrelenting team defense that was giving up a scant 92.1 points per game at week's end and didn't allow an opponent to score 100 points until the Hawk rout. All of which makes it easy to understand why Olajuwon, in his 10th NBA season, feels much better about his supporting cast than he did as recently as 1 1/2 years ago, when he was itching to be traded.
Before a game against the Bucks in Houston earlier last week, Olajuwon leaned his chair back into his locker room stall, extended his arm before him and made a long, graceful sweep, as if to say, Behold my teammates, with whom I am well pleased. "I look around this room, and many of the faces I see are the same, but there is something different in the eyes," he says. "We are changed somehow. What is the word I'm looking for? Transformed, that's it. We have been transformed."
Nothing much changed from what was an ordinary team two years ago, not until the Rockets endured a seven-game losing streak early last season. In retrospect that slide was the beginning of the metamorphosis, the darkness before the light. "In a way it was probably the best thing that could have happened to a new coach," Tomjanovich says. "After seven straight losses it's not hard to get players to commit to a little different way of doing things." Since the end of that skid the Rockets have gone 57-12, with two 15-game winning streaks and another string of 10 straight victories.
The dramatic change in the team's fortunes was not the result of drastic changes by Tomjanovich. He simply began to emphasize defense and soon had his team defusing the opposition's transition game, contesting every shot and helping out more--especially when Olajuwon went for a block, which used to leave the stationary Rockets vulnerable to layups. "Now if I force a man to go baseline, I know I'm getting help," Smith says. "Every time. [Tomjanovich] has helped us get to the point where each guy completely trusts every other guy to be where he has to be on defense."
So the historical narrative from this article suggests there is mental maturity involved that helped reshaped the Rockets in '93.
Thanks for the response. Let me also reaffirm that I'm not taking into account raw/box score stats when making my decision. I also definitely do not advocate any of the bush league (no disrespect) strategy utilized in 61-62. Some quotes from Coach Frank McGuire:
Spoiler:
"We aren't as good as Boston—not with you scoring 37, 38 points a game like you did your first two years. We can't get enough scoring out of the rest of our guys to equal them. But if you can score 50, I think the rest of the guys can make up the difference to get us even with Boston."
"I had meetings with each of the players. We talked about their careers and about the team. I said that Wilt was the most dominant force in basketball history and I wanted him to get the ball two-thirds of the time."
"During our first day of training camp in Hershey, I said, 'Wilt, how long do you want to play?"
He said, "Coach, when you take me out, I sit on the bench and I look at you. I don't get any rebounds. I don't get any points. You keep me out for three minutes, then put me back in and it takes me about five minutes to get loose again—so you lose eight minutes.'
I asked, 'Can you play all the time?'
He said, 'That's what I want to do.'"
Obviously from the last quote, Wilt was complicit in the 48 minutes thing. I think it's safe to say that he also didn't have a huge problem aiming for 50 points a night:
Wilt wrote:"I just wish that I could have played for more than one year for Frank McGuire. He and Alex Hannum were my favorite coaches."
ElGee wrote:No. 1 is by far the biggest issue. When people cite raw stats and then ooh and ahhh, it's empty to me. Since you seems to be translating people's game into the modern time, how do you reconcile the following:
-Wilt's love of the fadeaway because of his insistence on not being seen as a brute
I can't really, and as I've said, I think it was a lousy shot by and large. Same with the finger roll. So I posted the quotes above by Nate Thurmond, suggesting that Wilt went to his fadeaway 60% or 70% of the time:
Spoiler:
SLAM: Who was the toughest center for you to guard? NT: Kareem had more of a repertoire and was harder to stop. He had a little more versatility when he set up on the floor. Wilt liked the left side, but Jabbar set up on either side. Wilt would rely on the fade-away 70 percent of time; Kareem’s hook was in the same range. I couldn’t stop him from shooting the hook; I could make him take awkward hooks or baseline jumpers. You really couldn’t keep Wilt from taking the fade-away, but you could try to him shoot it a step further out. He was a great fade-away shooter. If you got in close, and he had you out of position, then you could foul him and save yourself one point.
“Wilt was a giant. But 60 percent of his points came on fadeaways. He was a powerful man who didn't always play that way,” said Thurmond, who does community-relations work for the Warriors and owns a barbecue restaurant in San Francisco.
So let's look at buckets for 70% and 80%. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to call all shots not taken at the rim fadeaways, since we don't have much reason to believe Wilt took other types of shots at a nontrivial frequency.
70% at-rim FG%, 70% of shots taken were fadeaways:
Spoiler:
70% at-rim FG%, 60% of shots taken were fadeaways:
Spoiler:
70% at-rim FG%, 50% of shots taken were fadeaways:
Spoiler:
80% at-rim FG%, 70% of shots taken were fadeaways:
Spoiler:
80% at-rim FG%, 60% of shots taken were fadeaways:
Spoiler:
80% at-rim FG%, 50% of shots taken were fadeaways:
Spoiler:
I think it's a lousy shot in general, not sure which bucket is accurate, but in general I'd say it was probably one he'd make 35%-40% of the time. I'm also not at all convinced he'd shy away from it today. I've seen a few quotes saying he stopped using it in 66-67:
“He’s doing a lot of things he didn’t do before,” said Al Bianchi, who played with Wilt in Philadelphia for a season and a half before retiring at the end of the 1965-66 campaign and going on to coach the Seattle Supersonics. “He’s pitching the ball out on fast breaks , blocking shots, and he’s not taking the fallaway jumper. That’s the shot you’re willing to give him. He’s not scoring so much anymore, and I don’t know if it’s good, but they’re winning. When I was with Syracuse, he’d get 70 points and we’d win by 30. If he had played the way he’s playing now, well, maybe he wouldn’t have won, but the games would have been a lot closer. Right now he’s playing a more complete game every night. The name of the game is not scoring, it’s rebounding and defense , and that’s what he’s doing now.”
I know there are others, I'll let you know if I find them. But from Dipper's analysis, he didn't use it as much in his sample, which was Lakers-era Wilt heavy. So I'm not sure if the use of the fadeaway was linked to his volume-scoring role, or if he was explicitly told not to use it by Hannum, and that left an impression.
-Wilt's trouble (portability) meshing with a super team
I don't know if this is a massive issue in general. Wilt was willing to change his role, though he did clash with coaches over it.
Now, one think I opined about, while talking with ThaRegul8r earlier in this thread, is whether he had a specific problem with one particular player prototype: the one-on-one scoring forward:
So Wilt's issues with Baylor's playstyle are well-documented (i.e. Wilt liked to set up on the block, Baylor liked to drive). There was a compatibility problem with Wilt in the high post since he wasn't a good jumpshooter, like a Walton, or Hakeem, or Kareem. Now, I've seen a quote posted recently (I can't seem to find it) that Wilt didn't like to pass to Walker because he isolated, and dribbled a ton, since that would been scorekeepers back then wouldn't credit him with an assist back in the day. But what if it was deeper than that? Did Walker like driving to the basket a lot with the ball (as opposed to cutting without it)?
I don't think Wilt would have an issue with a superstar passer. From all accounts, he loved Rodgers, because he was able to feed him an entry pass on the block, get him the ball in transition, or hit him inside for an easy basket. He functioned well with West, who was pretty much a point guard at that point in his career. I don't think he had much of a problem with Greer either, who while not the passer that West was from my understanding, was a great shooter. Thurmond wasn't a perfect fit, but both guys were natural centers.
So the only issue I'm seeing here is with guys who liked driving to the basket with the ball (unless I'm wrong about Walker), and other Centers.
-Wilt's relatively ineffective GLOBAL offensive post game (i.e. he can't just seem to call his own number when necessary but then warp the defense and pass effectively if needed -- I see this in stark contrast to Shaq which is what makes him a GOAT-level offensive player.)
Isn't this linked to spacing? When he played in 67 and 68, he seemed to be making that decision:
Spoiler:
The next two years in Philly, Hannum ran a primitive triple-post offense. From Wayne Lynch's Season of the 76ers
In fact, Dr. Jack Ramsay— now a popular ESPN TV and Radio NBA basketball analyst —says the 76ers’ offense was very similar to the triangle style perfected by the Bulls.
“It was basically a low post offense, had a lot of ball movement , not unlike what the Bulls did,” explained Dr. Jack.
“Set up the triangle with your post player high or low,” Ramsay explained. “So you have a post player, a wing player, and a perimeter player in the triangle on one side and the other two players on the weak side.
“The ball gets moved to the reverse side, and a new triangle is set over there. Ball goes to the post, gets action as the two perimeter players work off the post man.
“Larry Costello used it in Milwaukee with Alcindor and Oscar.”
Now, Shaq obviously looked to score first, and Wilt looked to pass first. I don't necessarily think we can assume the fact that Wilt was looking to pass first, and score later means that he couldn't have succeeded the other way around, rather than acting as a feeder/decoy. Did he? Not as often as Shaq. Could he? I don't know if we can say he couldn't, or use this as evidence against Wilt as a volume scorer when surrounded by shooters.
-Wilt's inconsistencies
These are a big concern. Here are the playoff off/def numbers by my calculation (O = playoff ORtg - avg opponent DRtg, D = playoff DRtg - avg opponent ORtg):
Spoiler:
and here are estimates for the numbers for 65:
Spoiler:
Offensive inconsistencies: Was he unable to maintain a passing/scoring balance? Was there a struggle to fit with players like Baylor/Walker? I don't know if either is true, but the fact stands that Wilt was asked to change his role over the years. Maybe if this is Shaq or Kareem or Hakeem the coaches don't try and mess around, but there's no way of knowing. I can say though, that the way both Hannum and Wilt seemingly quit/forced their way out of Philly in 68, which seemed like a great fit for both of them, doesn't sit well with me, and is the biggest knock I have on Wilt.
Defensive inconsistencies: Wilt's regular season relative defenses over the years:
60: -4.3 (good in the playoffs) 61: -1.6 (improved in the playoffs) 62: -1.2 (about the same in the playoffs) 63: +0.9 (missed the playoffs) 64: -6.0 (not as good in the playoffs) 65 SFW: +10.3 (appendix issue, though I don't know how long it affected him, especially since he was poor on D in Philly this year as well) 65 PHI: +6.5 (still bad in the playoffs, though not as bad) 66: -3.4 (bad in the playoffs) 67: -2.2 (terrific in the playoffs) 68: -5.6 (not as good in the playoffs) 69: -0.6 (terrific in the playoffs) 70: -1.6 (played 12 games) 71: -1.1 (improved in the playoffs) 72: -5.3 (terrific in the playoffs) 73: -5.0 (terrific in the playoffs)
I agree he was inconsistent. The one thing that is a red flag to me is, the fact that his two volume scoring postseasons when he had good shooters, were his worst two seasons defensively. I want to say that he simply couldn't maintain high levels of offensive/defensive performances, but in earlier years even with poor shooters when he was asked to score, he still played D in the playoffs. I need to learn more about what happened to him defensively these years, and what exactly happened with his relationship with Coach Schayes.
I don't want to harp on the negatives, but I don't have a really sound sense as to why someone as knowledgeable as you is actually valuing him here. The spacing thing is interesting, but how far are you taking it? Are you suggesting that Wilt in modern times would be a master of 1-in-4-out? Based on what?
Not necessarily a master, but I do think that's the best way to utilize him as a volume scorer since demonstrated the ability to draw some double teams (hard to judge how often when he had good spacing, but he wasn't single covered most of the time from some of the footage and quotes). I do think his passing is overstated by his assist totals (which were contrived), but I don't think the triangle would've collapsed if he looked to score more and feed less (though maybe the fact that it had to be broken down to him like that when presented by Hannum is an indictment in and of itself?).
For two seasons though, the Sixers played with Wilt as its primary scoring option the first year, though not so much in the second year. Using the above, as well as B-R (off/def):
I like the team offense in 65, but the defense suffered. Obviously the wheels fell off in the 66 playoffs, but even during the season they were mediocre defensively. I would've preferred to see a larger sample for sure.
And how is that even an ideal offense in modern times?
It is predictable, but I think it's more effective today with three point shooters. Perhaps not ideal (I think a high post big man who can pass and hit a jumper like Walton is ideal today, and perhaps in any era), but if you surround him with three or four shooters, even if Wilt's staying on the block for the most part (though by ThaRegul8r's quote: viewtopic.php?p=40413618#p40413618 Hannum played Wilt in the high post as well), conceptually and theoretically, I think you'd be well off.
It's entirely possible, and perhaps likely that the triangle (based on the success he had in the primitive triple post in 67 and 68) would be a better fit for him as your offensive anchor. Even if we don't know what the optimal balance would be in terms of passing/scoring for him in that system, and even if his assist numbers belie his passing talent, I haven't seen or read anything to suggest that he couldn't pass to cutters/hand off/kick out well enough to function in the offense.
What about his post game do you think translates so well? Or his defense? How is it superior to Shaq's, for instance?
Well, I envision him as a Mutombo type defensively (based purely on speculating regarding his rebounding/shotblocking rate numbers, though again, I don't like to get into box score stats). Maybe not as effective, but Deke rated pretty well in RAPM, so that prototype definitely can succeed. He didn't have a terrific horizontal game by most accounts, and he did telegraph his jump (so he'd bite for some fakes, though I think some video was posted of Wilt having some success against Frazier's pump fakes), and he might rate as a guy who looked to block more blockable shots and not contest every shot possible (like Ibaka), but I think the defensive rebounding (even adjusting for pace/era, he's more consistent than Shaq) is extremely valuable.
I was hoping for more discussion of Wilt's defense in this thread to be honest, particularly regarding how mobile he was on that end before the injury in 69-70 that by most accounts ended his prime. I posted the playoff defensive numbers above. Just looking quickly, Shaq's defenses (playoff numbers adjusted for opponent):
Spoiler:
were good in 97, great in 00, good in 02, pretty good in 05 during the season, great in 97, outstanding in 01, very good in 02, very good in 04, very good in 06 (Mourning played this year, but I won't hold it against him since Wilt had Nate in 64).
I feel like they're comparable across eras because both guys liked to stay near the rim defensively.
---
Apologies for the super long post, just trying to think out loud here. Thanks again for the response.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
It's simply voting on an online forum. No one here is saying vote for Chamberlain or any other particular player; these posters are free to choose for themselves. They are simply presented with other evidence to consider. If they don't want to consider it (which, apparently, you don't), then that's their prerogative.
Thanks again for the response.
