RealGM

This is for those who attribute team (estimated) results entirely to one player, while deliberately neglecting any context. I have plugged some figures into Dean Oliver's formulas, and in 1967, one of Oscar's dominant years, he was leading a +1.6 offense. That is lower than the 1962 Warriors estimate (+2.4). Were Wayne Embry's screens that important to Oscar? After all his nickname was "The Wall". Below we can see what I came up with using Oliver's estimates. Not once in any single year from 1960-69 did Oscar, West, or Baylor provide more offensive lift than Wilt did from 1965 to 1966. They never even played on teams that equaled the offensive value of Wilt that year (+7.2).

Not only was 1966 his final year of volume scoring, but it was his only year playing in a stable environment as a scorer with the 16 foot lane. Even if the wider paint took him a couple feet further from the hoop, it helped him out too a lot since there was more room in the paint to work with not only for himself but the entire team as well, mainly cutters. This is especially true given how poor the concepts of floor spacing were back then compared to now. If he played with the 16 foot lane for the first five years of his career, I'm sure his team's offensive results would be much higher on average. Look how poor the spacing is on this play for instance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNw0c19DhIU&t=13m48s

A wider paint would reduce the defensive congestion by default. The only way to ignore Wilt's offensive impact on the 76ers is to assume that a 22 year old rookie Billy Cunningham was basically a +6 player on offense the instant he arrived. For comparison, as a rookie in 1960, Wilt improved the Warriors by +4.1 (+3.3 on offense) from the previous year. Even Oscar only improved the Royals offense by +0.8 as a rookie. The issue with Wilt was not flat out incompetence as many here have suggested, but rather inconsistency, much of which has to do with the constant changing of coaches, players, and the narrowed lane until 1965. And of course his inconsistent FT shooting.



Royals ORtg

1960: 89.2 (+1.6)
1961: 94.8 (+2.4) *Oscar first season, offense improves by +0.8
1962: 98.8 (+4.5)
1963: 99.0 (+3.4)
1964: 97.6 (+3.9)
1965: 97.3 (+4.2)
1966: 98.2 (+5.1)
1967: 98.9 (+1.6)
1968: 101.1 (+3.4) *Oscar missed 17 games
1969: 100.1 (+4.0)
1970: 99.2 (-0.9) *Cousy takes over



Lakers ORtg

1958: 84.6 (-1.2)
1959: 87.4 (-0.2) *Elgin first season
1960: 86.3 (-4.4)
1961: 90.8 (-1.6) *West first season
1962: 95.5 (+1.2)
1963: 97.4 (+1.8)
1964: 95.9 (+2.2)
1965: 96.4 (+3.3)
1966: 98.8 (+5.7)
1967: 99.1 (+1.8) *West misses 16 games
1968: 102.9 (+5.2) *West misses 31 games

Actually sort of surprised by Wilt's not having impressive defensive differential according to your numbers in his Laker years where he was supposed to be the equal of prime Russell defensively. Russell's prime 5 year block he puts up -6.4, -7.5, -7.2, -9.2, -8.3, Wilt in LA puts up -0.7, -2.2,+-0.9, -2.9, -3.5. Do you have equivalent numbers for Nate Thurmond?

I've always thought the idea that Wilt wasn't that outstanding an offensive player was laughable although he wasn't always used ideally by his coaches. I still have issues with the idea that you make the leading scorer in NBA history who consistently is the most efficient scorer in the league -- as a 4th or 5th option. I can see sharing the ball to improve team offense but that always seemed like ridiculous overkill even though Wilt was dominant enough to make it work.

penbeast0 wrote:Actually sort of surprised by Wilt's not having impressive defensive differential according to your numbers in his Laker years where he was supposed to be the equal of prime Russell defensively.

Dean Oliver expressed surprise over that as well.

penbeast0 wrote:Actually sort of surprised by Wilt's not having impressive defensive differential according to your numbers in his Laker years where he was supposed to be the equal of prime Russell defensively. Russell's prime 5 year block he puts up -6.4, -7.5, -7.2, -9.2, -8.3, Wilt in LA puts up -0.7, -2.2,+-0.9, -2.9, -3.5. Do you have equivalent numbers for Nate Thurmond?

I've always thought the idea that Wilt wasn't that outstanding an offensive player was laughable although he wasn't always used ideally by his coaches. I still have issues with the idea that you make the leading scorer in NBA history who consistently is the most efficient scorer in the league -- as a 4th or 5th option. I can see sharing the ball to improve team offense but that always seemed like ridiculous overkill even though Wilt was dominant enough to make it work.

I think I did the same calculations as Dipper 13 (correct me if I'm wrong). Here's GSW (I believe column 'DRtg Diff' has the numbers you're looking for):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv? ... erpage=250

to see his CHI/CLE numbers, just change the franchise from the drop-down menu.

penbeast0 wrote:Nate Thurmond

1966: 95.8 DRtg (+2.7), 93.7 ORtg (+0.6) *missed 7 games
1967: 95.7 DRtg (-2.0), 98.0 ORtg (+0.7) *missed 16 games
1968: 96.1 DRtg (-1.6), 95.6 ORtg (-2.1) *missed 31 games
1969: 93.9 DRtg (-2.2), 92.6 ORtg (-1.3) *missed 11 games
1970: 99.3 DRtg (-0.8), 95.5 ORtg (-4.6) *missed 39 games
1971: 93.6 DRtg (-4.2), 96.8 ORtg (-1.0)
1972: 95.0 DRtg (-3.1), 96.3 ORtg (-1.8)
1973: 94.5 DRtg (-2.4), 97.7 ORtg (+0.8)

Also the 1970 Knicks were dominant defensively.


1970 Knicks: 100.8 ORtg (+0.7), 92.9 DRtg (-7.2)




In looking at the early 70's Bucks, KAJ and Dandridge had a huge impact offensively (+11.8) in Milwaukee from the previous year, but the defense also got a lot worse (3.1). But then in 1971 the defense got 10.4 points better when Oscar arrived? Is that a reflection of his leadership by intimidation getting them to play better defense? I almost cannot believe that kind of shift. It could also be because I used the opponent stats from basketball reference in the formula from 1971 onward, which doesn't exist on record before that year.

Bucks Offense + Defense

1969: -2.3 ORtg, +2.1 DRtg
1970: +9.5 ORtg, +5.2 DRtg
1971: +8.5 ORtg, -5.2 DRtg
1972: +6.5 ORtg, -6.1 DRtg
1973: +2.2 ORtg, -6.9 DRtg
1974: +3.5 ORtg, -4.1 DRtg

Dipper 13 wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Nate Thurmond

1966: 95.8 DRtg (+2.7), 93.7 ORtg (+0.6) *missed 7 games
1967: 95.7 DRtg (-2.0), 98.0 ORtg (+0.7) *missed 16 games
1968: 96.1 DRtg (-1.6), 95.6 ORtg (-2.1) *missed 31 games
1969: 93.9 DRtg (-2.2), 92.6 ORtg (-1.3) *missed 11 games
1970: 99.3 DRtg (-0.8), 95.5 ORtg (-4.6) *missed 39 games
1971: 93.6 DRtg (-4.2), 96.8 ORtg (-1.0)
1972: 95.0 DRtg (-3.1), 96.3 ORtg (-1.8)
1973: 94.5 DRtg (-2.4), 97.7 ORtg (+0.8)

A little more consistent than Wilt for a 5 year prime though comparable (positive in the other 3 years outside that prime!) but again, pretty small numbers compared to Russell -- which I believed but didn't have numbers to back up. Negative offensive impact every year after his rookie year which I also believed but didn't have numbers to back up.

THANKS.

Dipper 13 wrote:Also the 1970 Knicks were dominant defensively.


1970 Knicks: 100.8 ORtg (+0.7), 92.9 DRtg (-7.2)




In looking at the early 70's Bucks, KAJ and Dandridge had a huge impact offensively (+11.8) in Milwaukee from the previous year, but the defense also got a lot worse (3.1). But then in 1971 the defense got 10.4 points better when Oscar arrived? Is that a reflection of his leadership by intimidation getting them to play better defense? I almost cannot believe that kind of shift. It could also be because I used the opponent stats from basketball reference in the formula from 1971 onward, which doesn't exist on record before that year.

Bucks Offense + Defense

1969: -2.3 ORtg, +2.1 DRtg
1970: +9.5 ORtg, +5.2 DRtg
1971: +8.5 ORtg, -5.2 DRtg
1972: +6.5 ORtg, -6.1 DRtg
1973: +2.2 ORtg, -6.9 DRtg
1974: +3.5 ORtg, -4.1 DRtg

Have you tried it using a consistent formula just to compare? Not asking you to do it, but just for your own prurient interest.

penbeast0 wrote:Have you tried it using a consistent formula just to compare? Not asking you to do it, but just for your own prurient interest.

This is actually Dean Oliver's formula from his book, assuming I did it correctly. Based on the formulas, the 1974 Bucks had roughly 1617 TO's, and 1145 ORB's. In reality those figures were 1694 TO's and 1133 ORB's. I don't know how accurate the actual possessions formula is though (FGA - OREB + TOV + 0.4 x FTA) but there is only so much that can be done. Basketball reference doesn't even have the opponent stats before 1971, so I'm sure that has skewed these defensive results alot.

offensive value of Wilt that year (+5.8)

This is probably wrong since the 1965 figure is combining the Warriors & Sixers. When I plugged in the numbers for the 1965 Sixers offense, excluding Wilt's stats entirely (since he was the only player they received in trade), and the Sixers ORtg without his contribution that year was 89.3, or -3.8 below league average. In 1966 they were +3.4 on offense. So him and Cunningham boosted the Sixers offense by +7.2. Defense however is almost impossible to do since the box scores are incomplete and there aren't even opponent stats before 1971.


I also did this for the Warriors offense based on Dean Oliver's formula, correct me if I'm wrong:


1965 Warriors (Entire Season): 87.7 ORtg (-5.4)


Without Wilt: 81.0 ORtg (-12.1)


Difference: 6.7