RealGM Top 100 List #4

[penbeast0]

Wilt Chamberlain - 20 (trex_8063, Owly, penbeast0, Warspite, DQuinn1575, Notanoob, magicmerl, fpliii, ardee, DannyNoonan1221, Greatness, Narigo, RSCD3_, TrueLAfan, Gregoire, kayess, SactoKingsFan, Clyde Frazier, BasketballeFan, rico381 )

Shaquille O'Neal - 16 (RayBan-Sematra, colts18, therealbig3, HeartBreakKid, O_6, PCProductions, MacGill, GC Pantalones, Texas Chuck, Baller 2014, ronnymac2, 90s AllDecade, Dr. Positivity, batmana, JordansBulls)

Anyone wishing to notify a missing vote MUST provide either the page it is on or the number of the post. There are too many pages of thread to go through otherwise. Same for mistakes or if someone changed his vote.

[ardee]

Wilt lost 5 series with Homecourt Advantage, 5 of them. Did the poster know that?

This post indicates to me that you didn't even read the post I made earlier about Wilt in the Playoffs.

Here were the years.

Wilt Chamberlain (lost in ’60-61, ’65-66, ’67-68, ’68-69, ’72-73)

1961: Wilt's 46-33 Warriors are swept by the 38-41 Nationals

Wilt averaged 37/23 on a team with no shooting and no offensive help whatsoever. His two best teammates, Gola and Arizin, combined for 31% shooting from the field. What is he supposed to do with that kind of performance from his teammates? It's like blaming LeBron for the 2009 loss.

1962: Wilt, at the height of his scoring prowess having averaged 50.4 ppg in the regular season, is held to a season-low 22 points in the 7th and deciding game

Yet the Warriors would have won the series if Jones' buzzer beater had rimmed out. In which case you'd be calling Wilt a hero.

1966: Wilt's 55-25 Sixers lose 4-1 to the 54-26 Celtics

His teammates screw up again. He averages 30/30 and puts up 46/34 in the final game but Greer and Walker shoot 30% from the floor.

1968: The same Sixers (with Wilt winning season MVP) go 62-20 and lose to the 54-28 Celtics in 7 games after being up 3-1. In Game 7 Wilt did not attempt a field goal in the 2nd half

Do you know how bad the injury situation was? EVERYONE was injured. Billy C wasn't even playing. Wilt had a calf problem. Yet he still played well and the team collapsed around him in the final 3 games. If you watch what footage is available of game 7, they weren't even getting the ball to Wilt. This loss was on Hannum.

1969: One of the most talented trios ever in Wilt, West, and Baylor go 55-25 and win the regular season series 4-2 against the 48-34 Celtics, proving again Wilt had the talent to beat them. The Lakers were heavily favored against the Celtics in the Finals. But again, Wilt laid another 7th game egg against the Celtics when he "hurt his leg" with 6 minutes to go and did not play the rest of the game

Game 7 egg? You're really pissing me off.

He had 18/27 in the game, 7/8 from the field. He needed a break, not dissimilar to LeBron's cramp in this year's game 1. When he was ready to be put back in, VBK ****ed up and didn't do it. What is Wilt to do? He did all he could while he was playing.

Wilt lost 5 series when his teams were the higher seed. He failed to step up in 4 Game 7s.

Ignorant. Wilt is one of the best game 7 performers ever. He has the highest FG% in game 7s, second highest RPG in game 7s, defense always stellar.

[ceiling raiser]

Wilt Chamberlain - 20 (trex_8063, Owly, penbeast0, Warspite, DQuinn1575, Notanoob, magicmerl, fpliii, ardee, DannyNoonan1221, Greatness, Narigo, RSCD3_, TrueLAfan, Gregoire, kayess, SactoKingsFan, Clyde Frazier, BasketballeFan, rico381 )

Shaquille O'Neal - 16 (RayBan-Sematra, colts18, therealbig3, HeartBreakKid, O_6, PCProductions, MacGill, GC Pantalones, Texas Chuck, Baller 2014, ronnymac2, 90s AllDecade, Dr. Positivity, batmana, JordansBulls)

Anyone wishing to notify a missing vote MUST provide either the page it is on or the number of the post. There are too many pages of thread to go through otherwise. Same for mistakes or if someone changed his vote.

Doc MJ voted in the runoff (post #530) and his reasoning appears to be in posts #328 (against Wilt) and #409 (for Shaq).

[PaulieWal]

snip....

ardee, I want to say that even though I am not participating in this project I have learned a lot about Wilt from your posts. Thanks, that's the whole point of this project as many others say. The rankings themselves are not that important.

[penbeast0]

...

Anyone wishing to notify a missing vote MUST provide either the page it is on or the number of the post. There are too many pages of thread to go through otherwise. Same for mistakes or if someone changed his vote.

Doc MJ voted in the runoff (post #530) and his reasoning appears to be in posts #328 (against Wilt) and #409 (for Shaq).

Thanks, if it ends in a tie, I will go back and pull those up to break it or if he cuts and pastes those into a post here, I will count it regardless.

[MisterWestside]

Are there really people seriously attempting to suggest that Shaq would not be physically dominant in Wilt's era?

I'd think he'd dominate. Whether his low-post game would be beneficial for the teams of the 50s-60s is another question altogther. He'd probably have to move to the high-post and play more as a passing hub than volume score down low.

By the way, since Chamberlain is often attacked for being selfish and wanting more shots in the low block as a Laker, let's quote what he said about playing in the low block:

If you feed the big dog, he will guard the yard. If you don't feed him, he's just going to walk around and get bored, and he ain't going to do ****. So if I'm getting the ball, I'm going to work. Every time.

But if you're going to hire an assassin, let him go out and kill someone. I can't take six or seven shots.

Yes, he was so selfish. Always about him instead of working with the team and making them better. I think O'Neal would gladly play as a hub instead of a dominant low post scorer instead.

[Texas Chuck]

I guess I now need you to explain to me why Shaq couldn't play in the low post in Wilt's era? I hope it goes beyond the lack of a 3-pt line.

edit: knock Shaq based on those quotes if you want, but he's not really wrong. If you have prime Shaq on your team and you aren't force-feeding him the ball over and over, well you are doing it wrong.

[ardee]

Are there really people seriously attempting to suggest that Shaq would not be physically dominant in Wilt's era?

I'd think he'd dominate. Whether his low-post game would be beneficial for the teams of the 50s-60s is another question altogther. He'd probably have to move to the high-post and play more as a passing hub than volume score down low.

By the way, since Chamberlain is often attacked for being selfish and wanting more shots in the low block as a Laker, let's quote what he said about playing in the low block:

If you feed the big dog, he will guard the yard. If you don't feed him, he's just going to walk around and get bored, and he ain't going to do ****. So if I'm getting the ball, I'm going to work. Every time.

But if you're going to hire an assassin, let him go out and kill someone. I can't take six or seven shots.

Yes, he was so selfish. Always about him instead of working with the team and making them better. I think O'Neal would gladly play as a hub instead of a dominant low post scorer instead.

Pretty sure it was Shaq who made the big dog comment

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Texas Chuck]

Ardee, he's attempting to make a point--he knows Shaq said it.

[tsherkin]

Hmmm. Well, Wilt and Shaq are intrinsically tied together as the only two guys who could really ever feast almost exclusively off of low post isos and be that dominant. Should be very interesting to see how this turns out.

[Owly]

[eventually ElGee published which showed Wilt's in/out to be towards the lower end of the spectrum:

Player Years Games MOV Net SIO
Walton 77-78 41 9.3 13.0 11.2
.......
Wilt 65, 65, 70 156 -0.3 0.8 0.3
Paul 07, 10 55 -1.6 1.2 -0.2

This merely quantifies the phenomenon that we were noting basketball-wise in the RPoY. But it's clearly a (very) counterintuitive result, so we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what might have been happening and how important it was to our evaluations.

The difference in this chart is that Wilt was traded, and the team supposedly received equal value. Virtually everyone else was either injured or a free agent. In those cases it is an ADD, not an EVEN situation.

If you are injured, there is a good chance your team doesn't have an adequate short term replacement.

If you are a free agent, then you are being added to the team with no replacement.

To be fair, they didn't get anything like fair value. They wanted rid of Wilt's salary and got money and a couple of bodies.

The bigger issue with '65 is if it's just team record whilst Wilt was on the roster or whether it factors in games when he was on court. Because the Warriors were 1-6 in games he missed, scoring 680 points, conceding 748, a net loss of 68 points, or -9.714285714 per game, 4 home games, 3 road games. That team wasn't great healthy, but it seems like they weren't healthy at the start of the year. So based on an admittedly tiny sample, you might suggest theres still signs of a signifcant Wilt impact.

Regarding a percieved lack of impact on arrival at the 76ers, Ardee has has already covered injuries, notably to Greer, which reversed an upward trend on Wilt's arrival (Greer, injured around 23rd Feb, played through 6 of the last 14 games), Costello (injured around 28th Feb), missed all of the last twelve games (note here Greer and Costello are the floor spacers required for an optimal use of Wilt's talents), and Chet Walker missed one game (his only absence of the season) during that spell too.

If these factors are accounted for, that's fine. If not it shows the danger of with/without numbers without context (especially if Wilt's own injury absences weren't factored in).


Given Shaq's play/numbers versus the prior generation of centers (Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing) in the mid-nineties, I don't see a big problem for him in terms of theorising on what he might do against great bigs in his prime. I guess you can factor it into perhaps slightly inflated playoff numbers.

Spoiler:

[eventually ElGee published which showed Wilt's in/out to be towards the lower end of the spectrum:

Player Years Games MOV Net SIO
Walton 77-78 41 9.3 13.0 11.2
.......
Wilt 65, 65, 70 156 -0.3 0.8 0.3
Paul 07, 10 55 -1.6 1.2 -0.2

This merely quantifies the phenomenon that we were noting basketball-wise in the RPoY. But it's clearly a (very) counterintuitive result, so we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what might have been happening and how important it was to our evaluations.

The difference in this chart is that Wilt was traded, and the team supposedly received equal value. Virtually everyone else was either injured or a free agent. In those cases it is an ADD, not an EVEN situation.

If you are injured, there is a good chance your team doesn't have an adequate short term replacement.

If you are a free agent, then you are being added to the team with no replacement.

For those of you who are questioning Shaq's center competition. What good defensive centers 6' 10+ was Wilt facing during his scoring prime (60-66)? Look at his competition and it won't be a surprise why he was scoring 50+ PPG. The only center of his consequence during his era was Russell.

The notable centers Wilt faced over his career:

Bill Russell
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Nate Thurmond
Willis Reed
Walt Bellamy
Wayne Embry

I'll give you Thurmond but he was Wilt's backup for some of that time. Wilt only faced him 1.5 years during his scoring years. Bellamy and Embry were never noted as good defensive centers. Embry gets trashed for his defense. Wilt didn't face Kareem until he stop volume scoring. By the time Kareem came in, Wilt's usage% was similar to Tyson Chandler.

Don't know about the background here but I'm guessing the Royals get trashed for team level defense (and Embry certainly wasn't a defensive anchor). But I'd be surprised if anyone had enough evidence to draw strong conclusions on his man defense (which is what you're discussing here). Now Embry isn't on the level of the other guys on the list.

[MacGill]

Are there really people seriously attempting to suggest that Shaq would not be physically dominant in Wilt's era?

I'd think he'd dominate. Whether his low-post game would be beneficial for the teams of the 50s-60s is another question altogther. He'd probably have to move to the high-post and play more as a passing hub than volume score down low.

By the way, since Chamberlain is often attacked for being selfish and wanting more shots in the low block as a Laker, let's quote what he said about playing in the low block:

If you feed the big dog, he will guard the yard. If you don't feed him, he's just going to walk around and get bored, and he ain't going to do ****. So if I'm getting the ball, I'm going to work. Every time.

But if you're going to hire an assassin, let him go out and kill someone. I can't take six or seven shots.

Yes, he was so selfish. Always about him instead of working with the team and making them better[u]. I think O'Neal would gladly play as a hub instead of a dominant low post scorer instead.

Can you elaborate further here? Just because O'Neal made some silly immature comments (and context of situation needs to be understood here) how didn't he help his teams get better?

[colts18]

Shaq came into the league in 1993 and improved the Magic by 8 SRS points to a 1.35 SRS team. That was with a bad roster. In 1963 Wilt had the greatest PER in history yet his team won only 31 games despite having 2 other all-stars on his roster and another one who played 21 games that season. There is no way a guy who is supposed to have impact as the #4 player of all-time should win 31 games at his peak during a relatively weak era. There is no chance that peak Shaq wins 31 games while his team had a HOF in his prime and another decent role player.

[ardee]

Ardee, he's attempting to make a point--he knows Shaq said it.

Ah my mistake. It read like he was crediting that quote to the Dipper.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[ardee]

Shaq came into the league in 1993 and improved the Magic by 8 SRS points to a 1.35 SRS team. That was with a bad roster. In 1963 Wilt had the greatest PER in history yet his team won only 31 games despite having 2 other all-stars on his roster and another one who played 21 games that season. There is no way a guy who is supposed to have impact as the #4 player of all-time should win 31 games at his peak during a relatively weak era. There is no chance that peak Shaq wins 31 games while his team had a HOF in his prime and another decent role player.

You know if you're going to keep parroting this same point without bothering to address what I wrote about the 1963 season earlier I think it's best I stop addressing this argument...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[MisterWestside]

Can you elaborate further here? Just because O'Neal made some silly immature comments (and context of situation needs to be understood here) how didn't he help his teams get better?

He helped those modern era Lakers teams get better. But, as I've stressed before on previous pages, the strategy for the teams of the 60s would perhaps require a different brand of play than the dominant low-post player. Would O'Neal willingly reduce his volume scoring role? Maybe. But it isn't always a given, and it's something to think about especially when he enjoyed his entire prime as the volume focal point of a team. (And, as those quotes show, he definitely cared about being the man.)

Also, those quotes weren't both from the Lakers era. The second quote was made in Phoenix.

Spoiler:

I've also stressed on previous pages that I don't focus on the psyches or anecdotes when it comes to building teams. If you are looking to build the optimal team, and you use these players in a way that takes full advantage of their skills, then things work as they should.

[colts18]

The difference in this chart is that Wilt was traded, and the team supposedly received equal value. Virtually everyone else was either injured or a free agent. In those cases it is an ADD, not an EVEN situation.

If you are injured, there is a good chance your team doesn't have an adequate short term replacement.

If you are a free agent, then you are being added to the team with no replacement.
To be fair, they didn't get anything like fair value. They wanted rid of Wilt's salary and got money and a couple of bodies.

The bigger issue with '65 is if it's just team record whilst Wilt was on the roster or whether it factors in games when he was on court. Because the Warriors were 1-6 in games he missed, scoring 680 points, conceding 748, a net loss of 68 points, or -9.714285714 per game, 4 home games, 3 road games. That team wasn't great healthy, but it seems like they weren't healthy at the start of the year. So based on an admittedly tiny sample, you might suggest theres still signs of a signifcant Wilt impact.

Regarding a percieved lack of impact on arrival at the 76ers, Ardee has has already covered injuries, notably to Greer, which reversed an upward trend on Wilt's arrival (Greer, injured around 23rd Feb, played through 6 of the last 14 games), Costello (injured around 28th Feb), missed all of the last twelve games (note here Greer and Costello are the floor spacers required for an optimal use of Wilt's talents), and Chet Walker missed one game (his only absence of the season) during that spell too.

If these factors are accounted for, that's fine. If not it shows the danger of with/without numbers without context (especially if Wilt's own injury absences weren't factored in).


Given Shaq's play/numbers versus the prior generation of centers (Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing) in the mid-nineties, I don't see a big problem for him in terms of theorising on what he might do against great bigs in his prime. I guess you can factor it into perhaps slightly inflated playoff numbers.

[spoiler]

[eventually ElGee published which showed Wilt's in/out to be towards the lower end of the spectrum:

Player Years Games MOV Net SIO
Walton 77-78 41 9.3 13.0 11.2
.......
Wilt 65, 65, 70 156 -0.3 0.8 0.3
Paul 07, 10 55 -1.6 1.2 -0.2

This merely quantifies the phenomenon that we were noting basketball-wise in the RPoY. But it's clearly a (very) counterintuitive result, so we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what might have been happening and how important it was to our evaluations.

The difference in this chart is that Wilt was traded, and the team supposedly received equal value. Virtually everyone else was either injured or a free agent. In those cases it is an ADD, not an EVEN situation.

If you are injured, there is a good chance your team doesn't have an adequate short term replacement.

If you are a free agent, then you are being added to the team with no replacement.

The same thing happened to Wilt when he was traded to the Lakers (they certainly didn't get equal value back for Wilt). The lakers got worse that year with Wilt. How often do stars who get traded in their primes make a team worse? Usually the teams get better (KG, Moses, Oscar, etc. ). Shaq was traded for 2 all-star caliber players and he was able to improve the Heat by 6 SRS points.

[colts18]

You know if you're going to keep parroting this same point without bothering to address what I wrote about the 1963 season earlier I think it's best I stop addressing this argument...

Kg won 33 games with an awful roster. Kobe won 42 games with an awful roster. T-Mac was around .500 with an awful roster. Same with Wade. Why was Wilt's team at his peak winning 31 games while he had a HOF in his prime (Rodgers) who led the NBA in assists (60's equivalent of Rajon Rondo)? Show me a superstar that won 31 games at their peak?

[MacGill]

Can you elaborate further here? Just because O'Neal made some silly immature comments (and context of situation needs to be understood here) how didn't he help his teams get better?

He helped those modern era Lakers teams get better. But, as I've stressed before on previous pages, the strategy for the teams of the 60s would perhaps require a different brand of play than the dominant low-post player. Would O'Neal willingly reduce his volume scoring role? Maybe. But it isn't always a given, and it's something to think about especially when he enjoyed his entire prime as the volume focal point of a team. (And, as those quotes show, he definitely cared about being the man.)

Also, those quotes weren't both from the Lakers era. The second quote was made in Phoenix.

Ok, I don't recall anyone trying to state that Shaq didn't say those things or that he didn't care about being the man. Most alpha male athletes do? So I guess the question is...would it be easier for Shaq to play Wilt's role or Wilt, Shaq's?

Again, and this is my opinion, What did Wilt do on the basketball court that you believe Shaq couldn't do based on ability? Even if it looked different, I still believe that Shaq could volume score like he had done because he'd find his niche and stick to it. Regardless of attitudes, poor at times by both of them, Wilt cared much more what people thought of him and wanted to be perceived as more then a giant. What doesn't chnage is Shaq not caring about that.

I mean, we can really stretch these hypothecticals as far as we like but we need to set a boundary limit somewhere, right? What can't be argued is that Shaq dominanted a more athletic, advanced league than in Wilt's time. He also faced greater 2 way talents through their respective careers and much more strategic strategies on offense and defense.

This isn't Wilt's fault, I know this....but with him almost everything is based on what he could have been if he played today (not saying these are your arguments) when there are more than enough questions about his impact made in his time. There is nothing wrong with players being better than previous greats, I love it and we are watching it with LBJ right now. With Wilt versus Shaq, how do you soften, decrease Shaq's game to the level Wilt played at and account for these differences? You just have much more of a sample of Shaq's dominance from video, competition and size of player faced. That'smy honest thoughts here.

[Notanoob]

You know if you're going to keep parroting this same point without bothering to address what I wrote about the 1963 season earlier I think it's best I stop addressing this argument...

Kg won 33 games with an awful roster. Kobe won 42 games with an awful roster. T-Mac was around .500 with an awful roster. Same with Wade. Why was Wilt's team at his peak winning 31 games while he had a HOF in his prime (Rodgers) who led the NBA in assists (60's equivalent of Rajon Rondo)? Show me a superstar that won 31 games at their peak?

I'm pretty sure that Rodgers didn't play defense like Rondo did. And I don't know if Rodgers is a 'legit' hall of fame guy or a BS one a la KC Jones, who was basically a defensive role-player. You can overstate how good a number of players were by calling them hall of famers.