RealGM

It's driving me absolutely crazy. I'm a huge Chamberlain fan, but I simply can't pick between him and Bird. I'm trying to put together my all time list for an article, but I can't decide between these two. Whom do you pick higher?

I would put chamberlain's impact on the league on par with Babe Ruth for baseball. He's essentially responsible for the modern game based his play and impact on the rules.

I personally have wilt in my top 3. As for sheer impact on the league only michael jordan can come close.

I'm sure people will be pouring in with their take on his flaws but no player has been perfect and wilt as an athlete it is debatable whether he has been matched yet.

Bird fluctuates for me but he's within the top ten closer to top 5.

Debatable.

Wilt to me is someone who was so far ahead of his time... athletically.

People try to portray him as some gentle giant who tried to rely on skill but in truth I don't believe that and the video I have seen of him in full games or extended periods of time show him to be someone with fairly mediocre/ugly footwork in the post and someone who seemed not very comfortable dribbling the ball even with his back to the basket.
I also was not overly impressed by his fluidity.
Keep in mind I am comparing him to GOAT C's here not random scrubs or Dwight Howard on that end so it isn't like he was terrible either in a relative sense.

Combine this with the fact that his offensive efficiency in the playoffs in most of his high scoring seasons was putrid or mediocre and that he obviously needed the ball in his hands ALOT to obtain those averages and my opinions of his offensive ability are lowered tremendously.
His teams also didn't have much success during those years when he was a big time scorer.

Running your offense through someone who is ball dominant and inefficient is simply not a winning strategy.
It wasn't back then and it isn't today.

So really... in this era offensively in terms of effectiveness I think he would be closer to Tim Duncan... or maybe Dwight Howard then to a Shaq or a Hakeem.

Still especially in his later years when he became more of a rebounder/passer/defender he obviously had tremendous impact and value and he had great ability in many areas.

I can see arguments for him over Bird and visa-versa.

Wilt is on a completely different level of dominance than Bird. In his early years, with a fairly weak team around him on the Warriors (Arizin and Gola were good but aging, Attles was a role player, Rodgers and most to all of his PFs bit) he consistently carried them over everyone but Boston where he was up against the GOAT winner, Bill Russell. When he was asked to change his game to be less dominant he did successfully. And, his record against everyone BUT Russell and the Celtics in playoff serieses is slightly superior to that of Michael Jordan (playoff series win % of over 80% except against Boston).

Bird was great; the team around him was great -- in 86 possibly the all time most talented team; but he was never as singlehandedly dominant as Wilt, never as dominant in areas outside scoring, and even with all that still only has one more title than Wilt. It isn't close despite all the Wilt revisionists.

As for not being as efficient offensively as Shaq, he wasn't although he led or was 2nd in the league in efficiency pretty consistently in his highest scoring years despite being asked to carry a higher offensive load (people constantly talk about how it is difficult to scale efficiency up). As for Hakeem, Wilt, despite playing in a league where the average efficiency was appreciably lower, Hakeem's offensive efficiency for his career (ts%) was only .553, Wilt's was .540 which is higher relative to league, and for that matter Duncan's is virtually identical to Hakeem's at .551.

Wilt is on a completely different level of dominance than Bird. In his early years, with a fairly weak team around him on the Warriors (Arizin and Gola were good but aging, Attles was a role player, Rodgers and most to all of his PFs bit) he consistently carried them over everyone but Boston where he was up against the GOAT winner, Bill Russell. When he was asked to change his game to be less dominant he did successfully. And, his record against everyone BUT Russell and the Celtics in playoff serieses is slightly superior to that of Michael Jordan (playoff series win % of over 80% except against Boston).

While Wilt was surely dominant in the era he played in, it isn't enough for me to place him above LB. Wilt's mentally to me is clearly the reason why which I underlined the reason why in the above. LB not only had an exceptional game and utilized all his gifts, he had a very high BBall IQ who could make changes/decisions on the fly the to benefit his team. In all accounts I have read, Wilt could not really do this on his own which is the separator to me. Sure, he did things at a high level when asked but regardless of coaches, players at the time if we are talking top 10-ish here, that goes out the window.

Bird was great; the team around him was great -- in 86 possibly the all time most talented team; but he was never as singlehandedly dominant as Wilt, never as dominant in areas outside scoring, and even with all that still only has one more title than Wilt. It isn't close despite all the Wilt revisionists.

But you are comparing someone who did a bit of everything in every game at a consistent high level versus someone who basically changed his normal style of play (volume scoring) to become something else? Let's not act like when Wilt came into the league he was going to be known as Wilt 'Magic' Chamberlin. Sure he could pass, but he wasn't doing f/t pg duties so even with that is this a feat that Russell, KAJ, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan or other great bigs could not have accomplished if given the same assignment? Bird never had to alter his game like Wilt. I personally think this detracts from Wilt's greatness rather than adds too it.

As for not being as efficient offensively as Shaq, he wasn't although he led or was 2nd in the league in efficiency pretty consistently in his highest scoring years despite being asked to carry a higher offensive load (people constantly talk about how it is difficult to scale efficiency up). As for Hakeem, Wilt, despite playing in a league where the average efficiency was appreciably lower, Hakeem's offensive efficiency for his career (ts%) was only .553, Wilt's was .540 which is higher relative to league, and for that matter Duncan's is virtually identical to Hakeem's at .551.

I really hope other's will leave Shaq out of this comparision and even the rest of the more modern era to make this most effective. LB was a much smarter player hands down who at position impacted his team on a more positive level without being asked too. I cannot imagine how someone could rank Wilt top 3-5 without incorporating his bballIQ/fragile mentally in comparison to the other all-time greats. Wilt's era dominance alone, is not enough to seperate him here, especially as we continue to find out what those numbers truly mean.

Wilt the Stilt

he had a very high BBall IQ who could make changes/decisions on the fly the to benefit his team. In all accounts I have read, Wilt could not really do this on his own which is the separator to me.

What accounts are these? Other posters from this forum?


There have been countless examples provided of Wilt picking up the slack in certain areas when it was evident the others were not getting the job done. An example would be the fortitude he showed facing elimination vs Russell in his 46 pt outburst in Gm. 5 during the '66 EDF after a heartbreaking G4 loss in OT (which completely contradicts your filthy "mentally weak" comment seeing how a lesser player would have folded under such circumstances) as well as taking the games over during the '68 playoffs vs NY when important teammates were not playing due to injury. During Gm. 7 in the '65 EDF, he became more aggressive late in the 3rd quarter without any assistance or hints from Coach Schayes (will this win any bonus points from you the other RealGM bigots?), nearly willing the Sixers to victory over a better team.






Fond Du Lac Commonwealth Reporter - March 30, 1968

Counting On Wilt

With his team crippled by injuries, 76ers coach Alex Hannum said Friday that he is counting on Chamberlain to carry his club through against the Knicks. For Boston, player-coach Russell must play well for the Celtics to win.

Both teams depend on their big men to lead them to success. In both cases, the chores have been handed to capable men. So it will come as no surprise if the Celtics and 76ers end up in the Eastern Division's final round

But you are comparing someone who did a bit of everything in every game at a consistent high level versus someone who basically changed his normal style of play (volume scoring) to become something else?

Scoring was never the best part of his game, but rather rebounding & interior defense. In the end he held his shot attempts back (some of which went to a rapidly improving 2nd year Cunningham) while maintaining strong play in the other parts of his game. The main difference was his relationship with teammates off the court, & going out of his way to make them feel just as valuable as him on the court. This is what a leader does. Not to give it all to him seeing as the Sixers had a group of high character men & great professionals as well as leaders (Greer being one). But you don't give a **** about any of this do you? No, it's just a Wilt bash fest. Often I wonder why I still post here.



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

When emotions cooled off, Hannum pointed out to Chamberlain that he was on the same page in trying to win a title; but to pull this off, he – like his teammates – had to "act like a man" both on and off the court.[65] Concerning basketball, he persuaded him to change his style of play. Loaded with several other players who could score, such as future Hall-of-Famers Hal Greer and newcomer Billy Cunningham, Hannum wanted Chamberlain to concentrate more on defense.

In addition, the formerly egotistical Chamberlain began to praise his teammates, lauding hardworking Luke Jackson as the "ultimate power forward", calling Hal Greer a deadly jumpshooter, and point guard Wali Jones an excellent defender and outsider scorer.[65] Off the court, the center invited the team to restaurants and paid the entire bill, knowing he earned 10 times more than all the others.[65] Greer, who was considered a consummate professional and often clashed with the center because of his attitude, spoke positively of the new Chamberlain: "You knew in a minute the Big Fella [Chamberlain] was ready to go... and everybody would follow."

Let's not act like when Wilt came into the league he was going to be known as Wilt 'Magic' Chamberlin. Sure he could pass, but he wasn't doing f/t pg duties so even with that is this a feat that Russell, KAJ, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan or other great bigs could not have accomplished if given the same assignment? Bird never had to alter his game like Wilt. I personally think this detracts from Wilt's greatness rather than adds too it.

Russell & TD could & more importantly actually would. Remember, Russell was the team's main playmaker after Cousy retired. The other three, I'm not so sure. In their best years they have never played with so many capable big scorers. Often zero, or one in Shaq's case. I have no reason to believe they would be able to or even be willing to make that adjustment, let alone embrace it as Wilt did.

He also understood the effects of your actions off the court affecting how you play on the court.



Wilt: Just Like Any Other 7-Foot Black Millionaire who Lives Next Door - Wilt Chamberlain (1973)

San Diego was the worst team in the league that year, and they'd lost 17 straight when we came to town. That tied the league record San Francisco had set in 1965 — when Alex was coaching the Warriors. If we could beat San Diego, which seemed a cinch, Alex would "lose" that record — happily! We had had a tough game in Los Angeles the night before — winning 135-134 in double overtime — and a lot of the guys had partied all night afterwards. Hal got stinking drunk, and Billy and a couple of the other guys had too much beer, too. My folks lived in Los Angeles then, in a 40-unit apartment building I'd built, and I spent the night with them. When I got to San Diego the next day, a couple of the 76ers looked like they were still hung over.

But they weren't resting, trying to shake it off. They were out playing golf — something you should never do on the day of a game, drunk or sober. I got real pissed at them, but they didn't take me too seriously. "It's the Wilt Chamberlain Memorial Golf Tournment," Billy told me. Well, we got our asses kicked in San Diego that night. Late in the third quarter, we were behind 86-68 — the best team in basketball was behind the worst team in basketball by 18 points! The guys started to feel ashamed then, and tried to pull themselves together. We put on a helluva rally. But the booze and partying and golf were too much. We lost 111-106.

What accounts are these? Other posters from this forum?


There have been countless provided of Wilt picking up the slack in certain areas when it was evident the others were not getting the job done. An example would be the fortitude he showed facing elimination vs Russell in his 46 pt outburst in Gm. 5 during the '66 EDF after a heartbreaking G4 loss in OT (which completely contradicts your filthy "mentally weak" comment seeing how a lesser player would have folded under such circumstances) as well as taking the games over during the '68 playoffs vs NY when important teammates were not playing due to injury. During Gm. 7 in the '65 EDF, he became more aggressive late in the 3rd quarter without any assistance or hints from Coach Schayes (will this win any bonus points from you the other RealGM bigots?), nearly willing the Sixers to victory over a better team.

Why yes, in fact they are. Information provided in discussion by knowledgeable poster's like yourself. Or are you saying all the information you post here should be taken with a grain of salt as well?

And let's not get butthurt here Dipper13, we've been down this road before and you should know I am not here to Wilt bash or provide filthy comments. I certainly respect what he did for the game, what he accomplished and hold him at a high level all-time. Can't we discuss Wilt without someone having an agenda? So what, I place LB above Wilt based on my own collected information, some from you, and come to my own conclusion. Yes, in terms of GOAT candiates, my opinion is just that, mentally weaker than the rest. I am certainly not alone here and I don't have to go to game performances to show this. I have read articles on here indicating that basketball wasn't his true passion, that he cared how he was perceived and wanted to be known as 7'1 center with a fade away, if you will. Is this now not true? Russell exploited this.

Scoring was never the best part of his game, but rather rebounding & interior defense. In the end he held his shot attempts back (some of which went to a rapidly improving 2nd year Cunningham) while maintaining strong play in the other parts of his game. The main difference was his relationship with teammates off the court, & going out of his way to make them feel just as valuable as him on the court. This is what a leader does. Not to give it all to him seeing as the Sixers had a group of high character men & great professionals as well as leaders (Greer being one). But you don't give a **** about any of this do you? No, it's just a Wilt bash fest. Often I wonder why I still post here.

LOL, you are talking to a Shaq fan here if you want to talk bash Dipper13, I try to stay away from that. Wilt was the 8th wonder of the world back then, the nba trying to get the game on the map, of course they are going to highly promote this incredible athlete. I think the scoring aspect became the 2nd part of his game as you mention after coaches realized that it still wasn't enough to win overall. I mean you don't average 50ppg in a season by taking third string to rebounding and defence first, especially the touches needed to be involved. Seriously man, you make it seem like I am labelling him a scrub or by your reaction LB is a scrub and shouldn't be compared to him.

Russell & TD could & more importantly actually would. Remember, Russell was the team's main playmaker after Cousy retired. The other three, I'm not so sure. In their best years they have never played with so many capable big scorers. Often zero, or one in Shaq's case. I have no reason to believe they would be able to or even be willing to make that adjustment, let alone embrace it as Wilt did.

Yep, it's fine when you see no reason to assume something but look out when someone does the same about Wilt, right? Dude, I've watched lots of footage on Wilt, and everytime you attach something, he wasn't making passess that would make Magic shiver in his shoes or anything like that. The game was played a big man's game back then. Look at your own video, Wilt normally the only guy under the rim for a defensive rebound, many because players instead of trying to make him a poster, stop and pull a 10-15 foot jumper. Offensively, limited boxing out etc. So why is it that when I read a newspaper article from you but watch the actual video footage the two do not always line up?

Do you have footage and an article from the same game? Let's see how accurate it is.

Dipper 13 wrote:

he had a very high BBall IQ who could make changes/decisions on the fly the to benefit his team. In all accounts I have read, Wilt could not really do this on his own which is the separator to me.

What accounts are these? Other posters from this forum?


There have been countless examples provided of Wilt picking up the slack in certain areas when it was evident the others were not getting the job done. An example would be the fortitude he showed facing elimination vs Russell in his 46 pt outburst in Gm. 5 during the '66 EDF after a heartbreaking G4 loss in OT (which completely contradicts your filthy "mentally weak" comment seeing how a lesser player would have folded under such circumstances) as well as taking the games over during the '68 playoffs vs NY when important teammates were not playing due to injury. During Gm. 7 in the '65 EDF, he became more aggressive late in the 3rd quarter without any assistance or hints from Coach Schayes (will this win any bonus points from you the other RealGM bigots?), nearly willing the Sixers to victory over a better team.






Fond Du Lac Commonwealth Reporter - March 30, 1968

Counting On Wilt

With his team crippled by injuries, 76ers coach Alex Hannum said Friday that he is counting on Chamberlain to carry his club through against the Knicks. For Boston, player-coach Russell must play well for the Celtics to win.

Both teams depend on their big men to lead them to success. In both cases, the chores have been handed to capable men. So it will come as no surprise if the Celtics and 76ers end up in the Eastern Division's final round

But you are comparing someone who did a bit of everything in every game at a consistent high level versus someone who basically changed his normal style of play (volume scoring) to become something else?

Scoring was never the best part of his game, but rather rebounding & interior defense. In the end he held his shot attempts back (some of which went to a rapidly improving 2nd year Cunningham) while maintaining strong play in the other parts of his game. The main difference was his relationship with teammates off the court, & going out of his way to make them feel just as valuable as him on the court. This is what a leader does. Not to give it all to him seeing as the Sixers had a group of high character men & great professionals as well as leaders (Greer being one). But you don't give a **** about any of this do you? No, it's just a Wilt bash fest. Often I wonder why I still post here.



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

When emotions cooled off, Hannum pointed out to Chamberlain that he was on the same page in trying to win a title; but to pull this off, he – like his teammates – had to "act like a man" both on and off the court.[65] Concerning basketball, he persuaded him to change his style of play. Loaded with several other players who could score, such as future Hall-of-Famers Hal Greer and newcomer Billy Cunningham, Hannum wanted Chamberlain to concentrate more on defense.

In addition, the formerly egotistical Chamberlain began to praise his teammates, lauding hardworking Luke Jackson as the "ultimate power forward", calling Hal Greer a deadly jumpshooter, and point guard Wali Jones an excellent defender and outsider scorer.[65] Off the court, the center invited the team to restaurants and paid the entire bill, knowing he earned 10 times more than all the others.[65] Greer, who was considered a consummate professional and often clashed with the center because of his attitude, spoke positively of the new Chamberlain: "You knew in a minute the Big Fella [Chamberlain] was ready to go... and everybody would follow."

Let's not act like when Wilt came into the league he was going to be known as Wilt 'Magic' Chamberlin. Sure he could pass, but he wasn't doing f/t pg duties so even with that is this a feat that Russell, KAJ, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan or other great bigs could not have accomplished if given the same assignment? Bird never had to alter his game like Wilt. I personally think this detracts from Wilt's greatness rather than adds too it.

Russell & TD could & more importantly actually would. Remember, Russell was the team's main playmaker after Cousy retired. The other three, I'm not so sure. In their best years they have never played with so many capable big scorers. Often zero, or one in Shaq's case. I have no reason to believe they would be able to or even be willing to make that adjustment, let alone embrace it as Wilt did.

Dipper 13, I feel you are the most knowledgeable and insightful poster regarding Chamberlain on this site.

That being said, where do you rank him in your all time list? I've never seen a top 10 list of yours, would be very interested to do so.

penbeast0 wrote:Wilt is on a completely different level of dominance than Bird. In his early years, with a fairly weak team around him on the Warriors (Arizin and Gola were good but aging, Attles was a role player, Rodgers and most to all of his PFs bit) he consistently carried them over everyone but Boston where he was up against the GOAT winner, Bill Russell. When he was asked to change his game to be less dominant he did successfully. And, his record against everyone BUT Russell and the Celtics in playoff serieses is slightly superior to that of Michael Jordan (playoff series win % of over 80% except against Boston).

Bird was great; the team around him was great -- in 86 possibly the all time most talented team; but he was never as singlehandedly dominant as Wilt, never as dominant in areas outside scoring, and even with all that still only has one more title than Wilt. It isn't close despite all the Wilt revisionists.

As for not being as efficient offensively as Shaq, he wasn't although he led or was 2nd in the league in efficiency pretty consistently in his highest scoring years despite being asked to carry a higher offensive load (people constantly talk about how it is difficult to scale efficiency up). As for Hakeem, Wilt, despite playing in a league where the average efficiency was appreciably lower, Hakeem's offensive efficiency for his career (ts%) was only .553, Wilt's was .540 which is higher relative to league, and for that matter Duncan's is virtually identical to Hakeem's at .551.

Beast, I think many of your intuitive principles for ranking players all-time are better than most. Certainly better than mine last summer. Specifically, valuing longevity, lesser seasons from players (who still impact the team) and perhaps most importantly, how well these guys translate to strong teams (portability). That's really what I'm thinking about these days when I evaluate a player, both for single seasons, and then the summation of a career.

But here I disagree with your assessment of Chamberlain's offense. He's the first poster child for the "Raw Box" way of looking at basketball. As in, "OMG! Wilt averaged 50! He must be dominant!"

Of course this is not really how "goodness" in basketball works. These stats correlate to, but don't *cause* the Global Impact on offense and defense that makes someone good at this team sport. As in, how well can you raise the probability of your entire team unit scoring per possession (including your own offense), and how how well can you prevent the other team from from doing so (including your own man).

We KNOW Chamberlain can do this quite well for himself. How? His scoring volume and shooting efficiency. We also DON'T KNOW about his

(1) Turnovers
(2) "Ball Stoppers" (which we should just call "Dantley's" or something)
(3) Creation

Those are three ENORMOUS elements of basketball. I don't view turnovers as a separate part of "offensive efficiency," as they are worse than missed field goals and PART of what a player is doing when he has the ball on offense. Dantleys are anytime a player doesn't get credited for anything in the classic box because he passed to a teammate after killing clock or an offensive advantage. The teammate is credited with the TOV or missed FGA and the ball-stopper still looks good to the statistics that are scooped. The final element is probably the biggest, which is that a player in basketball isn't simply creating his own shot, but he can create the shot of four other players, which is an enormous weapon.

There's limited film, but Wilt Chamberlain doesn't look strong in these areas to me. When Wilt said himself "The Celtics would be worse with me because I'd take away from what they do," I think he was very much thinking of offense in basketball as a zero-sum game. It's not. That his coach shifted someone averaging record scoring totals into an offensive hub and the team offense FINALLY EXPLODED should indicate to people there was something the box score was not capturing that was limiting Chamberlain's offense.

Now, people rightly point what he was doing early in his career on marginal teams, at best. But helping poor teams doesn't matter much if you have strong diminishing returns on good teams. In other words, here are two scenarios:

Team A: Terrible offense. Say -5 ORtg. Wilt joins and they jump to average because he "carries" them.
Team B: Average offense. Say 0. Wilt joins, they just give Wilt more shots, and the team offense remains close to average.

This kind of player will not increase a team's odds of a winning a title very much.

In other words, I think there's ample evidence that Wilt Chamberlain, the volume scorer, had pretty strong diminishing returns. Consider the big "shifts" we can look at with Wilt.

(1) Rookie season.

1959 Estimated team ORtg: -3.9
1960 Estimated team ORtg: -2.5

This right away should be a giant red flag for everyone assuming that ppg + TS% must equate to dominant offense. Wilt scored 21.5 pts per 75 pos that year, on +3.0% TS. For a relevant comparison, Bird was 21.4 and +1.9% in 1982. Sam Jones was 21.3 +3.4% in 1966 and Scottie Pippen was 21.4 +1.8%. Although not a perfect comparison because of pace, people should realize, on a per possession basis/as a share of the team's offense, what Chamberlain was doing statistically hasn't been shown to automatically have enormous impact on offense.

So perhaps the most important thing to spot right away is that Wilt's sexy box score numbers did NOT automatically create a GOOD offense, even if the team around him stunk.

Did they? What other significant roster changes occurred that year?

(a) The 1960 Warriors had much better roster continuity within the season
(b) 2 of their best players, Gola and Rodgers, played way more (health) in 1960
(c) Sauldsberry played 1000 fewer minutes
(d) 30 year old Jack George left the team

Otherwise, they had excellent roster similarity from 59 to 60. Neil Johnston did coach the team, although I have no idea what impact that had. Arizin was definitely a year older. But there isn't even evidence that they would have been some horrific, -6 or -7 offensive team and Wilt got them all the way to...-2.5

(2) 1965 -- Trade No. 1

Let's note, before we examine Philadelphia and San Francisco in these years, that 1962 was the apex of Wilt's volume scoring, at over 28 pts/75 and +5.7% TS. Great numbers by any standard. Similarly, in 1963 he was 27.2 +5.8%. Incredibly similar numbers again.

Estimated Team ORtg 1962: +1.7
Estimated team ORtg 1963: -0.1

Again, simply placing a scorer like this on a team doesn't mean they have some huge offensive explosion. Now, the contention is that the team around Chamberlain was weak so he was carrying them up to around average. Well, the key players on the 63 team were:

1963 Warriors
-Rodgers
-Al Attles
-Tom Meschery
-Willie Nauls

1965 Warriors
-Thurmond
-Rodgers
-Attles
-Meschery
-McCoy McLemore

That team, with Wilt Chamberlain averaging 39 points per game (+1.6% TS) had an offensive rating in the -5 range. (I once attempted to parse out the two halves of the season, and the difference was something like -4 to -5 with Wilt and closer to -7 without him).

When Wilt arrives in Philadelphia, the 76er offense in the second half of the season seems to function...exactly the same. They were an average offense before he arrived and an average offense after he arrived.

Let me say that again: For the second time, Wilt Chamberlain joins a team in which he volume scores quite well, and for the second time (a) not much happens, and (b) the offense isn't very good. The Philadelphia offense was AGAIN average in 1966.

So Wilt Chamberlain joining an average offense did not make them elite. It didn't even make them good.


Estimated SF ORtg 1965: -5.9
Estimated SF ORtg 1966: -2.4 (added volume scorer Rick Barry)

Estimated Phi ORtg 1965: 0.2
Estimated Phi ORtg 1966: 0.4

(3)1969 - Trade No. 2

Before we get to the second trade, it's important to note that in 1967 Wilt stopped volume scoring and changed his role to an offensive hub. The result was an enormous jump in his team's performance, putting out the best statistical offense in NBA history up to that point. This was with near perfect roster continuity between the two seasons. It was almost like it was set up for an NBA experiment.

In 68, the non-volume Wilt offense was still good, although it regressed. Some of this could have been due to Chamberlain's bizarre infatuation with the assist title. Nonetheless, it's important to note that coming off what many feel was a GOAT-level season, and his absolute apex (on the two best teams he'd ever been on), a a THREE-TIME DEFENDING MVP (!) Chamberlain went to Los Angeles and...

Nothing happened again!

In fact, the team got worse on offense. This may have been less concerning if he switched back to volume scoring, but that he continued his newly effective "facilitator" role and couldn't help the mini-offensive dynasty Jerry West cornerstoned in LA should raise another red flag.

Meanwhile, what happens in Philadelphia to the offense?

1968 76ers
-Greer
-Walker
-Cunningham
-Jones
-Jackson
-Guokas

Imhoff comes in at center for Wilt and they slide up Billy C who now plays 40 minutes a game. The offense improves back to ~+3. Jackson misses most of the year and Guokas has a smaller role. Archie Clark comes in.

So again, it seems unlikely that the team Chamberlain left was a below average offensive team. Indeed, it seems like simply redistributing the offensive focal point away from Wilt resulted in an above average offensive team.


So in 1969, the "new" version of Wilt left an above average offensive team and joined an above average offensive team...and neither team seemed to mind very much. If anything, the Lakers regressed with Wilt, unless Jerry West was having a large defensive impact (the team was much better with West in the lineup).

Wilt Chamberlain didn't seem to have a large impact on above average to elite offensive teams...who did just fine without him.

Estimated Phi ORtg 1968: +1.3
Estimated Phi ORtg 1969: +2.7

Estimated LA ORtg 1968: +5.3 (Jerry West missing 30 games)
Estimated LA ORtg 1969: +3.6 (Jerry West missing 20 games)

Wilt joins an average team and the offense is average.
Wilt joins a good team and the offense is good.
Wilt leaves said teams and they don't seem to decline much at all.
This happens with different "versions" of Wilt.

All told, at EVERY step of the way we see evidence that continues to suggest that Chamberlain, despite putting up big Raw Box numbers, was not helping the team's offense to a large degree. We know WHY this possible. The film suggests it. The stats suggest it. And Wilt would be one of many, many players in NBA history who did this.

Wilt is my 4th greatest player
he's rebounding was amazing
he's defense was only second to Russell
and of course an amazing offensive player

All told, at EVERY step of the way we see evidence that continues to suggest that Chamberlain, despite putting up big Raw Box numbers, was not helping the team's offense to a large degree.

I always enjoy reading your posts, but do you think that this is necessarily a flaw with Wilt, or team strategy and construct?

I could be a good basketball player. But if I play alongside someone who at least appears to be a better scorer than I am, I'd probably feed him the ball more often too, and tend to do more ball-watching instead of playing as I usually would. In a world of perfect game theory, this should allow other players to pick their spots on the floor and become more efficient (and there's ample evidence for that), but of course the ways in which teams work with their stars can be a factor in offensive output.

Walls of text are unnecessary. Simple answer is Bird.

ahonui06 wrote:Walls of text are unnecessary. Simple answer is Bird.

Actually your answer has more weight if you provide reasoning as compared to a flat statement.

ardee wrote:

ahonui06 wrote:Walls of text are unnecessary. Simple answer is Bird.

Actually your answer has more weight if you provide reasoning as compared to a flat statement.

This. One-liners are always inferior to providing insight to your choice. It shows you've actually thought about the matter. Many people don't, and so their answers are always simple.

ThaRegul8r wrote:

ardee wrote:

ahonui06 wrote:Walls of text are unnecessary. Simple answer is Bird.

Actually your answer has more weight if you provide reasoning as compared to a flat statement.

This. One-liners are always inferior to providing insight to your choice. It shows you've actually thought about the matter. Many people don't, and so their answers are always simple.

OP asked who do you pick higher?

My personal preference is Bird because 1) I am a Celtics fan and 2) because Bird led his team to more titles than Wilt.

Both were great players, but Bird was more of a team player throughout his entire career and understood that team basketball was more beneficial than hero ball.

That being said, where do you rank him in your all time list? I've never seen a top 10 list of yours, would be very interested to do so.

All I am certain of is Russell & Jordan being at the top of the list.

This kind of player will not increase a team's odds of a winning a title very much.

Based on the footage from his prime, turnovers were not a problem (as shown in this thread). It does seem that he was not always a proper creator. Clearly in the early years the offensive flow revolved around him too much. In '65 & '66, there was an adjustment (like Lakers in '69) the team needed to make to a traditional low post center. His floor positioning hindered some of the forwards at first, but helped Greer out a great deal with his excellent outside touch. Eventually they learned how to feed the post & cut by him, using him as a screen & playmaker. In '65 they suffered numerous injuries after the Wilt trade. In '66 his playmaking was improved as well, but the efficiency difference between this year & '67 is magnified due to a rule change where teams would intentionally foul Wilt off the ball to send him to the line (two missed FT's is like a turnover). This was banned in '67. To me the biggest factor here is his bad foul shooting. There is little doubt his impact would be much better in this era.


-Teams understand the concept of floor spacing much better

-The team would hire a special FT coach to work on shooting mechanics instead of sending him to a psychologist. He would practice for hours with little results, but in this era he would be practicing them the right way.





Sports Illustrated - November 25, 1968

Wilt Chamberlain has been criticized for many things in his 10 turbulent years of professional basketball, but never—until this, his first season with the Los Angeles Lakers—for not being high enough. Or, more specifically, for not playing a high-enough post.

The Lakers, now employing three superstars, have risen, as expected (SI, Oct. 14 and Oct. 21), to the leadership of the NBA's Western Division. But they have not been nearly the juggernaut they oughta. The trouble—not completely unforeseen—is that Elgin Baylor and Jerry West have always played with centers who work on or around the foul line—the high post. The high-post center's job is to pass to, and then screen for, men moving past him toward the basket, or to turn and shoot from near the line. Chamberlain, however, is the prototype low-post center. He likes to station himself near the basket, where he can either pass to teammates revolving around him or take one giant step to the basket for dunks, and where he can also get plenty of offensive rebounds. In that area he creates too much congestion for Baylor or West to drive through handily.

Coach Bill van Breda Kolff hasn't resolved the issue for good, but so far he has been asking Wilt, rather than the others, to give. Reluctantly, Wilt has spent more and more time in the high post. "If the coach wants it that way, that's what I'm willing to do," he says. "But it definitely hurts my rebounding game. My feeling is negative, but I fight it down in the best interest of the team. I must go along until I feel that I can't."

ahonui06 wrote:OP asked who do you pick higher?

I'm quite aware of that, thank you. I just recently defended people's right to choice in subjective questions, so I hardly need you to parrot my own words back at me. I never said anything about who anyone chooses, as it doesn't particularly matter to me. I have no vested interest in the matter.

What I did comment on was the "walls of text are unnecessary." Aside from the ridiculousness of anything posted on an internet message board being "a wall of text" if one reads actual books, people giving their insight as to why their choice is their choice is always more interesting than a one-liner. The choice itself isn't as interesting as the reasoning behind it. It was the entire point of the Top 100 project. But you were saying that people should skip it and just spit out an answer.

To me, I like to group players by tier.

Tier 1 is GOAT.
Tier 2 is completely dominant, or once GOAT.
Tier 3 is filled with superstars that changed the game by themselves.
Tier 4 is for incredible players that could lead a team to a championship, but not necessarily change the way the game is played outside of their team.

So, going by those definitions, my list without current players would be:

T1: MJ
T2: Russell/Kareem
T3: Wilt/Magic/Shaq
T4: Bird/Hakeem/Oscar

If I included current players, Lebron would be a 3, and Kobe and Tim Duncan would be 4s. Dirk and KG would likely land in the lower tiers I didn't list, and Durant would be the young player most likely to land in the top 4 tiers.