RealGM Top 100 List #4

[microfib4thewin]

Here is how Shaq's team did with and without him.

1996 Magic: 40-14, 7.05 MOV with him. 20-8, 1.96 MOV without him.
1997 Lakers: 38-13, 5.37 MOV with him. 18-13, 3.09 MOV without him.
1998 Lakers: 46-14, 8.51 MOV with him. 15-7, 4.72 MOV without him.
1999 Lakers: Only missed one game
2000 Lakers: Only missed three games
2001 Lakers: 51-23, 3.5 MOV with him. 5-3, 2.25 MOV without him.
2002 Lakers: 51-16, 8.05 MOV with him. 7-8, 5.6 MOV without him.
2003 Lakers: 45-22, 3.58 MOV with him. 5-10, -3.86 MOV without him.
2004 Lakers: 49-18, 4.14 MOV with him. 7-8, 2.8 MOV without him.
2005 Heat: 53-20, 6.83 MOV with him. 6-3, 4 MOV without him.

Note for 2004, Malone missed half the season and some of the games had both Shaq and Kobe MIA, so there is a lot of noise for that year.

[DQuinn1575]

It appears that is biggest competition is the 4 big guys -Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq.

I saw WIlt in his last few years, and followed the others since college - Shaq actually high school.

The 4 areas to evaluate are scoring, ball-handling, rebounding, and defense

The ranking below is in each category:


Scoring

In 1993, Shaq took 1304 fga, and made 733.
The league average Effective FG% was .491.
If he had made the league average he would have made 640.2 (.491 * 1304)
So he made 92.8 more than average - which is 185.6 points above average (PAA)


If I had up all of Shaq's seasons I get 3,788 PAA - for 1,207 games I get 3.13 pAA per game

This measures volume and efficiency

Doing it for all 4:


Wilt 5054 PAA 1045 games = 4.84
Shaq 3788 PAA 1207 games = 3.13
Hakeem 485 PAA 1238 games = .39
Duncan 394 PAA 1254 games = .31





Ball-handling

Wilt was a great passing center -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaHmn7qcCaM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWHKZlQ9x7Q


For Career Assists and games you get a pretty good ranking; Wilt 1st, Duncan 2nd, Shaq and Hakeem tie for 3rd.


Wilt 4643/1045 4.4 a game

Duncan 3832/1254 3.1 a game

Shaq 3026/1207 2.5 a game

Hakeem 3058/1238 2.5 a game


You can argue between the other 3, but Wilt is clearly the best


Rebounding

Wilt last 3 years 19.8%
Duncan 18.5%
Shaq 17.8%
Hakeem 17.2%


Once again Wilt is clearly 1st, and his totals only have the last 3 years of his career.


Defense

Obviously toughest to gauge -

Here are honors won:

Hakeem 5/3 - 2 DPOY
Wilt 2/0 - beat out Thurmond and Jabbar; named in last 2 year. Only had 4 full years with all-defense
Duncan 8/6

Shaq 0/3


Wilt would have won DPOY in 1972 if there was an award. Also since center is the most important defensive position, I'll go with Hakeem,Wilt,Duncan, and Shaq in that order - that is my opinion based on observation, and there is support for that in the honors won




Scoring/ball-handling/rebounding/defense

Wilt 1/1/1/2
Shaq 2/3/3/4
Hakeem 3/4/4/1
Duncan 4/2/2/3


You can weight them how you chose,but I don't see how Wilt is not #1.


I vote for Wilt Chamberlain at #4.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Go back and read my OP. Duncan and Shaq were each others primary covers in 02. Because they were both inside scorers they also had to fend each other plenty of times, or switch onto each other, unlike Kobe who was a perimeter player.

Rose guarded Shaq. Samaki, Horry guarded Duncan.

Kobe put up bigger numbers because he was guarded by worse players, and didn't have to fend with Shaq/Duncan for good chunks of the game. Rather, the presence of Shaq ensured better shots for Kobe, and only single coverage. Duncan had no Shaq/Kobe, so he could frequently get doubled, especially when his shooters couldn't hit anything.

Huh? Kobe was guarded by Bowen most years.

Shaq was mostly guarded by Rose, and Duncan was guarded AC, Slava, Samaki, and so on. A good number of us saw these series firsthand.

You claim Kobe was the best player in 01, 02 and 04. In 01 he was guarded by garbage, so scrub that. In 02 Duncan and Shaq had to guard each other, while Kobe had no such player to wear him out on both ends. Yet his numbers are plainly worse, scoring 26ppg on 486TS% (worse than Shaq). How on earth could you think Kobe, scoring 26ppg plus 5-5 on 486TS% was the best player that series, when Duncan put up 29-17-5-3-1 on 517TS% (while being matched up with freaking Shaq on both ends!). I watched that series, and the games are on youtube (see my OP), Kobe was the 3rd best player that series by a clear margin.

In 04 his numbers are plainly worse than Shaq, and his impact was worse too. Raw numbers don't capture the huge defensive impact guys like Duncan and Shaq have on games, impact that a wing like Kobe could never hope to match (and never came close to on the defensive end). Kobe has no case v.s either of these two. I'm not sure he has a case over KG, K.Malone or Erving tbh, you should focus on preparing arguments v.s those guys IMO, since they're his actual competition.

No one shot well in 2002. I posted the actual boxscores and recaps. Kobe had 3 double digit 2nd half comebacks runs in that series.

I'm also wondering how Shaq matched up with Duncan in 2002, when everyone knows he was injured in that series. Phil put Samaki mostly on TD, and then Horry.

But nevermind, i see that it's pointless when you won't even acknowledge Kobe was the best player in 2001.

[Doctor MJ]

For the record on Hakeem, I've long seen him as ElGEE indicated last time: he's remarkably difficult to place. I can see the GOAT argument, but there's also the matter that his impact wasn't always so clear cut.

It was not considered a give by folks that he was even as good as Robinson until the titles. His typical shooting efficiency makes him look much less like Shaq and more like the more normal centers who nowadays the league doesn't even use to volume score. 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.

I have not ever really made up my mind though and I'm now going to read fatals post in depth and learn a thing.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[ThaRegul8r]

He was an intimidating defender. I think his defense early in his career when he gets less credit for it was pretty impressive from everything I have seen and heard. I think his defense in his last couple of years with the Lakers is overrated; he was a great athlete but wasn't as mobile or active anymore. Still, his defense, while not on the Russell level, or to my mind on the Hakeem/DRobinson level, seems to me to be equal or greater than that of Kareem or Shaq -- with many of the same limitations (disliked chasing smaller jump shooting centers out on the floor; tended to block shots 10 feet into the stands instead of soft blocks like Russell).

Eh... he was inconsistent defensively. Using the DRtgs from basketball-reference, he anchored more good defenses that Shaq, anchored the league’s second-best defense in 1963-64 (–6—second to the Celtics’ GOAT defense [–10.8]) under Alex Hannum, the league’s best defense in ’67-68 (–5.6) under Hannum again, the tied-for-best defense in ’71-72 (–5.3) and the third-best defense in ’72-73 (–5) under Bill Sharman, but it fluctuates. Shaq had the one time in '99-90 (–5.9) which is better than all of Wilt's teams but one, and anchored a –6.6 postseason defense in '01, but he didn't play to the capabilities he demonstrated he could.

Going by contemporary accounts, looking at my notes on Wilt for this project, defense was actually a problem in his early years. He himself said that scorers have to "let down on some phases of the game in order to score." When Alex Hannum got him, he said, “When I coached elsewhere in the NBA, I never thought Chamberlain achieved his full potential as a pro basketball player. As a scorer—yes. But as an all-around player—no. I had a talk with Wilt before the season started and I told him this. I also told him that I wanted him to play more defense […]” (Baltimore Afro-American, Feb. 4, 1964). “Despite his great scoring and rebounding ability, Chamberlain has never [...] played up to his defensive potential” (Lodi News Sentinel, Jan 19, 1965). In Wilt's first season in LA, Seattle SuperSonics center Bob Rule said of Russell, “He’s still one of the toughest in this league. It’s between him and Nate Thurmond of San Francisco. Wilt Chamberlain is great when he wants to play defense” (Reading Eagle, Nov 9, 1968).

You say Wilt's defense in LA was overrated, but that's what actually changed Rick Barry's opinion of him. Barry had some unflattering things to say about Wilt in his book, which I've seen quoted on various boards over the years. I no longer have the exact quote, but he said something to the effect of if Wilt had just been playing defense like that all along things could've been different in his career, and he did a 180 on Wilt.

[Baller2014]

No, the logical way to compare them is at the same age, and then factor in bonuses for starting earlier/finishing later. Just as it'd be absurd to compare the support casts of 97 "rookie" Kobe and 98 "rookie" Duncan, I think it's fairer to compare Duncan v.s Shaq at the same age.

So in place of shaq's rookie and sophmore years are we using college duncan

Sent from my SCH-I800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

No, we're trying to compare how they'd have done at the same point in time, and to do that it's sensible to compare them at the same age. Now of course, when doing an overall comparison, longevity will be a factor, so who started earlier/finished later is highly relevant. Duncan has 10 prime years. Shaq has a couple more (I'd say about 12 prime years). So that's to Shaq's advantage. But Duncan was better over his prime as a whole (not his peak though), and then has a tonne of longevity after that prime, including multiple "almost prime" years, while Shaq started to taper off badly after his prime (and within his prime, there is huge variation of how good Shaq was, depending on injuries, attitude, etc), and never had the late resurgence Duncan did.

I should put it out there btw, that I think it's totally fair to pick Shaq over Duncan, they're both in the same tier and it's a very reasonable comparison. But if we're going to play the "how would Duncan have done in Shaq's shoes" game, then we should compare them at the same age so the comparison is actually fair.

[Dipper 13]

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.


viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1330591

On Court DRtg: 103.0

Off Court DRtg: 134.5

Net DRtg: -31.5

[ThaRegul8r]

For the record on Hakeem, I've long seen him as ElGEE indicated last time: he's remarkably difficult to place. I can see the GOAT argument, but there's also the matter that his impact wasn't always so clear cut.

It was not considered a give by folks that he was even as good as Robinson until the titles. His typical shooting efficiency makes him look much less like Shaq and more like the more normal centers who nowadays the league doesn't even use to volume score. 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.

The bolded is a concern of mine.

Some people in previous discussions brought up Wilt's All-NBA lead over Russell. Being consistent and using the same criteria, from 1991 (his second year in the league) to 1996, David Robinson was a four-time All-NBA First Teamer (’91, ’92, ’95, ’96) to Olajuwon’s two (’93, ’94). Then in 1996-97, Robinson missed 74 games with a broken foot. So up until the injury—again, using previously used criteria, Robinson was seen as > Hakeem. Looking at MVP Award Shares, from 1991 to 1996 Robinson had 2.97 MVP Award Shares to Hakeem’s 1.895. Whereas in the Wilt/Russell example, in the years their careers overlapped, the MVP Award shares were 3.771 Wilt/3.883 Russell. So it was a lot closer between those two than between Robinson and Hakeem.

But then '95 happened, and changed everything.

During that period from '91 until his injury, Robinson was a four-time All-Defensive First Teamer (1991, ’92, ’95, ’96) and won a DPOY ('91). Robinson’s career defensive rating is 95.65, sixth all-time, while Olajuwon’s is 97.89, nineteenth. His career blocked-shots-per game average is 2.99, just behind Olajuwon (3.09) for fourth place since they’ve kept track. His career block percentage is 5.69 to Olajuwon’s 5.39. So he didn't separate himself from Robinson there.

[Notanoob]

I'm going to again cast my vote for Wilt Chamberlain. I was hoping that he'd get in ahead of Russel, but I know that people don't evaluate GOATness quite the way I do, so I can't say that I'm disappointed.

However, with Wilt's greatest foe out of the way he's got a chance now.

With regards to the Hakeem arguments, I personally love Hakeem and exploited this board's affection for him in our all time fantasy league (we should do that every year BTW, that was fun), but I think that it's quite clear that peak Hakeem was not significantly better than Shaq in the 95 Finals. They played each other to a draw, but Hakeem's supporting cast showed up to play; Shaq's did not.

1. Each game was very close. Despite technically sweeping the Magic, I don't really view it as a sweep, in the same way that i view the 04 Finals as being a sweep. This was a close series, the 04 series was not. Houston won Game 1 by 2 points in overtime, Game 2 by 11 points, Game 3 by 3 points after being dead even entering the 4th quarter, and Game 4 by 12 points. The Magic could have just as easily been 2-2 not 0-4.

2. Hakeem's supporting cast was scorching hot. Mario Elie, Sam Cassell, Kenny Smith and Robert Horry shot a combine 34-77 from 3, 44.1%. In contrast, Shaq's floor spacers, Anderson, Brian Shaw and Dennis Scot, were a combine 27-87, or 31% from 3. Nick Anderson notably choked hard in Game 1 and struggled to regain his confidence.

3. Their stats look pretty close:
Hakeem got 32.75 on 51.4TS%, 5.5 assist to 2.75 TOs, 11.5 rebounds, 2 blocks and 2 steals per game.
Shaq got 28 on 60.6TS%, 6.25 assist to 5.25 TOs, 12.5 rebounds, 2.5 blocks and .25 steals per game.
Shaq shot less but was vastly more efficient, he hit the glass better and was just as intimidating in the paint. Hakeem avoided TO's better and affected perimeter players more. That's essentially a draw.

We're talking about peak Hakeem here! I imagine that peak Shaq was a better player than peak Hakeem then, just transitively. Therefore, I can't put Hakeem before Shaq. This is simplifying it some, but I think that everyone basically gets it.

I don't honestly rate Duncan's peak that high, certainly nowhere near the levels of Shaq or Hakeem, so I can't put him here. I believe that his longevity is certainly effected by his team. If he had to do what KG did he'd look like he was washed up by now too IMO. Make his longevity and team success advantages go away and I don't think that he gets put up here, although his supporting cast between the 99 and 05 championships was pretty awful. But in any case, to be on topic, I rate peak very heavily and simply don't see him as being in the same stratosphere as those guys and will not be voting for him above them.

So IMO, this comes down to Shaq and Wilt.

Both are pretty similar players. They're both super-human in terms of their strength. Shaq was a total bully on the block, while Wilt was out-lifting Mr. Universe on the set of Conan the Destroyer. Both were very agile for guys of their incredible stature, separating them from other giants like Yao or Mark Eaton. Both were brutal free-throw shooters. Both had some issues with teammates and management and generally underachieved.

However, I believe that Wilt was a better player at his best, and I believe that that is what matters here.

From what I've watched, Wilt appeared to be more mobile than Shaq and would be a better pick and roll defender than Shaq was, to the point where Wilt would not be a liability. However, Wilt looses nothing when it comes to guarding the paint, he was just as intimidating but had an even longer reach IIRC. Wilt further separates himself from Shaq by being a superior rebounder.

On offense, both could be bullies on the block, even though Wilt spent a lot of his career trying to prove that he could do more than just dunk by using finger-rolls and fade-aways to score. Shaq certainly had no jump shot. You could run your offense through either of them, but I like Wilt's vision and passing ability more in the primitive triangle he was a part of in '67. Perhaps this is just highlight bias, as I haven't seen nearly as much footage of Wilt as I have Shaq, but that is my opinion. I believe that while Wilt did not always play to his strengths, peak Wilt certainly would use his power to score when it was called for.

I give Wilt the edge over Shaq here; I think Wilt was simply a better basketball player.

[Baller2014]

Rose guarded Shaq. Samaki, Horry guarded Duncan.

Now see this is annoying. I told you in the post I was replying to that Shaq and Duncan matched up, and referred you back to my OP which included video of the games linked, and the explanation (D.Rob was hurt). Instead you just repeat your claim, which is simply factually false. Malik Rose came off the bench for 26mpg, he was not Shaq's primary cover- it was Duncan... like the video shows... and Duncan outplayed him.

Huh? Kobe was guarded by Bowen most years.

Not in 01 (Kobe's best series by far), not in 99 either. Kobe also only had to contender with Bowen on one end, since Bowen was utterly useless on the other end. Shaq and Duncan wore each other down on both ends of the court, not just one.

No one shot well in 2002. I posted the actual boxscores and recaps. Kobe had 3 double digit 2nd half comebacks runs in that series.

So although I just posted Duncan's plainly superior stats, and noted he (and Shaq) were obviously far more impactful on D too, you've just ignored it because there were a few specific stretches in the game where you thought Kobe played well. I can cherry pick a players performance too- on plays where Duncan scored he was a 100% efficiency scorer... but we're interested in holistic impact, not cherry picked runs, and of course the context of that play (who Duncan had to contend with on both ends, and who Kobe did).

[RayBan-Sematra]

Scoring

In 1993, Shaq took 1304 fga, and made 733.
The league average Effective FG% was .491.
If he had made the league average he would have made 640.2 (.491 * 1304)
So he made 92.8 more than average - which is 185.6 points above average (PAA)

If I had up all of Shaq's seasons I get 3,788 PAA - for 1,207 games I get 3.13 pAA per game

This measures volume and efficiency

Doing it for all 4:

Wilt 5054 PAA 1045 games = 4.84
Shaq 3788 PAA 1207 games = 3.13
Hakeem 485 PAA 1238 games = .39
Duncan 394 PAA 1254 games = .31
[

This gives Wilt an unfair advantage based on the fact that he played in a less efficient league.
Unless you can prove to me that it was harder for Wilt to score back then compared to Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq or Duncan in the future then I don't agree with such a method.

Also I am a guy who heavily values the playoffs so if I were to compare stats I would use their playoff stats.
Wilt was a much more effective scorer in the regular-season then he was in the playoffs.

Wilt was a great passing center -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaHmn7qcCaM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWHKZlQ9x7Q


For Career Assists and games you get a pretty good ranking; Wilt 1st, Duncan 2nd, Shaq and Hakeem tie for 3rd.

This gives Wilt an unfair advantage since he played many more minutes and in a faster paced era.
Young Wilt averaging 2-3apg is less impressive then Shaq or Duncan averaging 2-3apg in 10+ less minutes in a much slower paced league.
While judging passing ability is hard to do using simple stats I would prefer AST% to raw APG.

If we go by AST% then Wilt is clearly a worse passer then Shaq or Duncan except for his 1-2 year passing Peak which is arguably the best.

Rebounding

Wilt last 3 years 19.8%
Duncan 18.5%
Shaq 17.8%
Hakeem 17.2%


Once again Wilt is clearly 1st, and his totals only have the last 3 years of his career.

I wouldn't argue with that.

Defense

Wilt would have won DPOY in 1972 if there was an award. Also since center is the most important defensive position, I'll go with Hakeem,Wilt,Duncan, and Shaq in that order - that is my opinion based on observation, and there is support for that in the honors won

Shaq should have won DPOY in 2000.
Defensively I would rank them like this.
Hakeem > Duncan > Wilt/Shaq

You can weight them how you chose,but I don't see how Wilt is not #1.

Shaq was a better scorer and an equal defender. Wilt was a better rebounder
Hakeem was a better scorer and a better defender. Wilt was a better rebounder/passer.
Duncan was a better defender. Wilt was a better rebounder.

[An Unbiased Fan]

2001 was pretty clearly Kobe.

2002 had Kobe leading 3 double digit 2nd half comebacks. Not sure where you get Kobe was "stinky". http://www.nba.com/playoffs2002/west_round2_02.html

2004 was Kobe again.

Not sure I would say pretty clearly for 01.
Kobe had the best box score stats and in fairness he was spectacular but Shaq put up great numbers himself while being the main focus of the Spurs defense and while anchoring the LAL defense.
He also played a big part in shutting down Duncan in the final 2 games.
So taking the bolded into account one could still say Shaq was the MVP for the Lakers in that series. Not saying I do or don't but I think it is debatable.

Kobe had 45/10 in game 1, and dismantled the Spurs in their own home. In game 2 he had 28 as LA won the game int he 4th quarter.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n84rPMGcrGg[/youtube]

Also, go watch the games and you'll see alot of Horry on TD, and DRob on Shaq. Series was over by game 2.

Regarding 02.
Why do you think the Lakers had to make so many comebacks?
Part of it was Kobe struggling to turn it on until late in the game.
I am not gonna say Kobe was better then Duncan simply because he played better down the stretch of games.
Overall Duncan had much better production, efficiency and impact.
If you switched Kobe onto the Spurs and Duncan onto the Lakers do you think Kobe would still win that series?

Duncan had more rebounds, but he also had a 9-30 game, and a 9-26 game. In 4th quarters he was MIA.

I don't know anyone back in 2002 who thought Duncan had a better series. Even SA fans were calling for big changes, and he was getting blowback at the time. That's why I posted the recap from 2002.

[The Infamous1]

For the record on Hakeem, I've long seen him as ElGEE indicated last time: he's remarkably difficult to place. I can see the GOAT argument, but there's also the matter that his impact wasn't always so clear cut.

It was not considered a give by folks that he was even as good as Robinson until the titles. His typical shooting efficiency makes him look much less like Shaq and more like the more normal centers who nowadays the league doesn't even use to volume score. 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.

The bolded is a concern of mine.

Some people in previous discussions brought up Wilt's All-NBA lead over Russell. Being consistent and using the same criteria, from 1991 (his second year in the league) to 1996, David Robinson was a four-time All-NBA First Teamer (’91, ’92, ’95, ’96) to Olajuwon’s two (’93, ’94). Then in 1996-97, Robinson missed 74 games with a broken foot. So up until the injury—again, using previously used criteria, Robinson was seen as > Hakeem. Looking at MVP Award Shares, from 1991 to 1996 Robinson had 2.97 MVP Award Shares to Hakeem’s 1.895. Whereas in the Wilt/Russell example, in the years their careers overlapped, the MVP Award shares were 3.771 Wilt/3.883 Russell. So it was a lot closer between those two than between Robinson and Hakeem.

But then '95 happened, and changed everything.

Not just drob, at many points during his career guys like Ewing,Barkley, a Malone were all considered better or at worst on par with Hakeem.

It wasn't until the 94 and 95 playoffs that he seperated himself from them historically

[Baller2014]

Scoring/ball-handling/rebounding/defense

Wilt 1/1/1/2
Shaq 2/3/3/4
Hakeem 3/4/4/1
Duncan 4/2/2/3


You can weight them how you chose,but I don't see how Wilt is not #1.

This is a dangerous way to compare players. All we should care about is impact, not artificial categories which try to weight that impact like "attack power- 100", "defensive power 98", "leadership 65", etc. Go back and read my OP on page 1, the part where I refer to pokemon. A guy could excel at only one "skill" and still be the GOAT, provided it was the right skill (and the other abilities were not too horrible).

[ThaRegul8r]

For the record on Hakeem, I've long seen him as ElGEE indicated last time: he's remarkably difficult to place. I can see the GOAT argument, but there's also the matter that his impact wasn't always so clear cut.

It was not considered a give by folks that he was even as good as Robinson until the titles. His typical shooting efficiency makes him look much less like Shaq and more like the more normal centers who nowadays the league doesn't even use to volume score. 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.

The bolded is a concern of mine.

Some people in previous discussions brought up Wilt's All-NBA lead over Russell. Being consistent and using the same criteria, from 1991 (his second year in the league) to 1996, David Robinson was a four-time All-NBA First Teamer (’91, ’92, ’95, ’96) to Olajuwon’s two (’93, ’94). Then in 1996-97, Robinson missed 74 games with a broken foot. So up until the injury—again, using previously used criteria, Robinson was seen as > Hakeem. Looking at MVP Award Shares, from 1991 to 1996 Robinson had 2.97 MVP Award Shares to Hakeem’s 1.895. Whereas in the Wilt/Russell example, in the years their careers overlapped, the MVP Award shares were 3.771 Wilt/3.883 Russell. So it was a lot closer between those two than between Robinson and Hakeem.

But then '95 happened, and changed everything.

Not just drob, at many points during his career guys like Ewing,Barkley, a Malone were all considered better or at worst on par with Hakeem.

It wasn't until the 94 and 95 playoffs that he seperated himself from them historically

Exactly.

It seems some revisionism has occurred with time, and those rings have caused people to see him differently from how he actually was. That's why—as I said earlier—I want to cut through the hyperbole in order to see where to properly place him.

Now, if someone wants to separate rankings into Peak and Career like Bill James does for baseball, then fine. But Hakeem's peak has elevated his entire career to where perhaps it shouldn't be.

[magicmerl]

It appears that is biggest competition is the 4 big guys -Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq.

Yep, although I think that Magic has an outside chance.

I did a per100poss analysis of them on the previous page. If we want look at what they did in the playoffs, here's their regular season and playoff Win Shares, as well as WS/48

Wilt..... RS 247.3WS .248 Playoffs 31.5WS .200
Duncan. RS 191.6WS .211 Playoffs 36.3WS .196
Shaq.... RS 181.4WS .208 Playoffs 31.1WS .184
Magic... RS 155.8WS .225 Playoffs 32.5WS .208
Hakeem RS 162.8WS .177 Playoffs 22.6WS .189

So Wilt has a dominating advantage in terms of regular season win shares, and while his bugaboo is that he can't win in the playoffs (or more accurately, he kept running into Bill Russell), he still pans out as basically the equivalent of Duncan and Shaq in the playoffs, despite the lack of extra playoff rounds that got added as the league expanded. Almost everybody suffers from a dropoff in WS/48 in the playoffs, perhaps due to the higher quality of opposition. The notable exception is Hakeem, but I feel his 'stepping up in the playoffs' narrative has already been fully factored into his narrative, which is why he's in the top10 at all.

My vote is for Wilt

[ceiling raiser]

1. 1960 - Arizin was a good shooter, Gola a fairly good one. Guy Rodgers, who played with Wilt a lot, was a terrible shooter, but a fantastic ball-handler - rivaled Cousy for dribbling and ball-handling.
1961 Arizin slowed down some, Gola still there as well as Rodgers. Al Attles other guard was not a good shooter, he was a defensive stopper
1962 - same as 61, Arizin another year old, Tom Meschery forward was okay shooter.
Backcourt of Attles and Rodgers are two lousy shooters
1963 - Lost Arizin, Gola minutes down - lousy shooting team- Top FT shooters in top 6 players were 72%- Meschery, and Rodgers, and Rodgers shot underhand. No one capable of hitting 15 footer with Arizin gone.
1964- Needing a shooter they bring in Nate Thurmond? No outside shooter again.

Most of his career he had a backcourt of Attles and Rodgers. Attles was a 63% career ft shooter. Rodgers shot 54% and 61% from the line his first two years, and then switched to shooting underhand.

2. Wilt went to the ABA as player-coach. The Lakers blocked him from playing for a year, He coached for a year and left the ABA. The way contracts worked at the time, the Lakers still owned his NBA rights. He received offers as late as 1979-80 from Cleveland for 2 years, as well as the Bulls in 1978-79 (Chicago Tribune 11/16/79).
He played 2 years at ages 35 and 36, and those are the 2 highest win share seasons for players 35 and over.
The Bulls seriously thought he could play in the league 6 years later, and Cleveland offered him a deal for the 2 years after that.

3. I only saw Wilt after his knee injury. He blocked a lot of shots on help defense the time I saw him. I don't know how much his mobility declined; but he was a threat to block any shot within 6-8 feet of the basket.

Thanks for the response!

I'm going to cast Wilt as my vote for #4.

Even though he was inconsistent on that end, I feel confident in Wilt's defensive ability. In addition to the regular season DRtg numbers (which seem to paint him as the best big man defender of his era other than Russell and Thurmond), Wilt turned in 6 very good defensive postseasons:



In terms of his offense, I really do think the lack of shooters was a severe problem early on, especially in SF. Without proper spacing, it becomes exceedingly difficult to run a low-post isolation-heavy offense.

He had two postseasons as a volume scorer with great shooters (65 and 66) in his prime, and produced terrific offense in one of those two runs (65). Not so much the second time, but I'll get back to that later.

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.”

Possessions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs

4:10
5:45
7:28
8:51
9:24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiVAFBZzTac

2:14
2:42
3:14
3:35
5:04
5:42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9RJXAdZYw

2:08
4:58
6:59
8:50
9:09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHXG3koetzA

2:02
8:02
9:05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1myFngKMeb4

0:58
3:11
3:44
4:52
7:14

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMYCEg9GK5Q

0:25
0:49
1:22
1:40
2:05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zda_xvx1eU

0:01
0:16
0:32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjVjBP78BZw

0:10
0:36
0:58
1:16

I'm not high on Wilt prior to 63-64, but I do believe that Hannum really planted the seed that season, convincing him to pass off/play within a team concept, and commit to defense again after two poor years on that end:

http://www.si.com/vault/1964/03/02/6086 ... hamberlain

Wilt by his own admission felt he came into the league as primarily a defensive player, though obviously it was decided that the offense would commit to Wilt as its first, second, third, etc. offensive option. Some quotes from Coach Frank McGuire:

"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:

"I just wish that I could have played for more than one year for Frank McGuire. He and Alex Hannum were my favorite coaches."

so he gets some of the blame for the farce that year. But since it was by design, I'm not judging him too negatively for it.

Now, if Wilt could have played a few more years, it doesn't changed that he ceased playing after 72-73. Nonetheless, DQuinn's account supports my belief that he was not on his last legs, and could have played for more seasons. He wasn't just hanging on at that point. It would seem he could've produced a few more years at that level.

Now, I do have some concerns about Wilt:

1) I think the fadeaway and finger roll were lousy shots that he went to far too often (Thurmond estimated that the fade comprised 60 or 70 percent of Wilt's shots, and I believe I've heard at least a couple of opponents state that they were happy when he took that shot). He didn't shoot the fadeaway at the apex of his jump, and the finger roll can be blocked. A reverse layup or dunk is much safer at the rim. I also don't like the double clutch Wilt does after a drop step towards the basket. I'm sure he was fouled a ton that way. Sure, it gets the opponents in foul trouble, but it can't help too much if you aren't hitting your free throws at a passable rate.

Just a note...just because I believe that spacing would help Wilt out offensively in today's game, I'm not suggesting that he would go away from the finesse style as well. Even though Wilt was playing at ~290-310lbs from 63-64 on, he still went to the fadeaway and finger roll too much when he was looking to score. I don't think that attitude changes today.

2) So we have five years of Wilt in his prime with good casts of shooters:

65: Great offense, but the defense was poor.
66: Average offense, poor defense.
67: Good offense, great defense.
68: Okay offense, decent defense.
69: Okay offense, great defense.

65 and 67 are fine IMO, though I would've liked if he played well defensively in 65 to show him dominating on both ends (though in 60, 61, 67, 69, 72, 73, he produced good playoff defense).

66 is problematic. Wilt allegedly skipped practices before the final two games of the series, which ended up as a 5 game series win for Boston. After all the progress he made from 63-64, this doesn't sit well with me. Yeah, I get that he didn't like the coach, but you're spiting your teammates as well, which is not a good indication of positive leadership.

68 Wilt takes two shots in the second half of game 7, and I believe none in the fourth. Doesn't sit well with me either. I'd need to watch the tape (which doesn't exist) to comment on this with any confidence, but either Wilt or Hannum quit on the team it seems. Probably both.

69 isn't an issue for me. There's the stuff at the end of the series, but I do think it was the result of a pissing contest between Wilt and VBK. Wilt wasn't a good match for a high-post offensive role, and the two didn't get along. I would blame him more, but they were terrific defensively during this run.

3) I still would like to hear more about Wilt's "horizontal game" defensively. Tremendous shot blocker and rim protector in general, but by several accounts he didn't like to venture far from the rim, and he had to bend to his knees, telegraphing when he'd go to contest a shot (which puts you in foul trouble if you bite for fakes and the shooter creates contact).

[microfib4thewin]

For Duncan:

2000: 48-26, 5.95 MOV with him. 5-3, 5.75 MOV without him.
2004: 51-18, 7.79 MOV with him. 6-7, 3.30 MOV without him.
2005: 50-16, 9.86 MOV with him. 9-7, -.68 MOV without him.

Not much to look at for Duncan since he didn't miss a lot of games during his prime.

[Notanoob]

Rebounding

Wilt last 3 years 19.8%
Duncan 18.5%
Shaq 17.8%
Hakeem 17.2%


Once again Wilt is clearly 1st, and his totals only have the last 3 years of his career.

Not that the point needs it, but I figured that I'd further reenforce Wilt's rebounding advantage here. Taken from here: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=955514
Wilt's TRB%, and rank in the league
1960: 20.28(1st)
1961: 20.68 (2nd)
1962: 19.96 (1st)
1963: 20.58 (1st)
1964: 19.84 (2nd)
1965: 20.25 (2nd)
1966: 20.42 (2nd)
1967: 21.28 (1st)
1968: 20.11 (1st)
1969: 20.35 (1st)

[Baller2014]

I don't think I've seen a single Wilt fan address his many off the court issues, which in turn spilled into on the court negatives. His stat padding, his partying all night before games with team mates, his refusal to live in the same city he was playing for (screwing teams practices and prep), his clashes with players/coaches, etc. Can someone explain to me why I should be ignoring all this?