ReaGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #6 (Wilt Chamberlain)

[DQuinn1575]

Is anyone else willing to consider Mikan here or should I leave that one off for a few rounds? He's the last guy left who truly dominated an era imo (with NBL had a run of 7 titles in 8 seasons).

Im going to have him after Wilt and Shaq but am considering after those two

[Owly]

Those people that try to justify Wilt's impact mostly based on WS... i'll be paying a very close eye to see where they'll be ranking James Harden, David Robinson, Karl Malone, Chris Paul and Adrian Dantley to a lesser extent...

Aren't Robinson and Paul basically monsters across all box-composites and impact metrics?

(Also fwiw, unless they've posted a separate list or their list chimes near exactly with the overall list you don't really know where any one poster ranks a given player after the first couple of rounds. As an absurdly extreme example: your 4th guy on your list could never get your vote so long as your top 3 aren't taken.)

[limbo]

Aren't Robinson and Paul basically monsters across all box-composites and impact metrics?

Wilt has no impact metrics, and he rarely sat on the bench. The most you can go by is him missing games due to injury and switching teams, and i believe drza already questioned his footprint in those scenarios not moving the needle in a way you'd expect from someone who people are claiming had GOAT-level impact. People largely ignored it, i think a few countered it by saying ''Wilt needed time to adjust to a new environment'' or something along those lines... Not that there's not any truth to this, but so far, i've been more convinced with the evidence pointing towards Wilt not having as much impact as his stats suggested than the other way around.

I will admit that i'm also looking at Wilt's offense in terms of portability into more talented/sophisticated eras. If 'run-your-offense-through-Wilt' strategy had more than its fair share of struggles translating into good offenses in the 60's, i have no hope for it working the further along we go in terms of the development curve of basketball/talent. Even if we ignore the NBA in the last 5 years, and go back to say... 2000, the slowest/weakest era of offense in modern NBA history where a lot of teams were still playing post-centric offenses, i don't think Wilt would've been as good as Shaq in that role. Defensively he could and should have more impact than Shaq in the 00's, but based on the fact that Wilt didn't even dominate the 60's consistently on defense (even though some people will argue otherwise, and point towards him raising his effort-level in the Playoffs, which is fair i guess, but then again, he also played 75% of his series against weak offensive teams in a weak era), i can't even be sure about that...

I don't know. Maybe we should have Neil Johnston higher as well. He's 4th all-time in WS/48... I'm sure his impact metrics would've been enormous on some of those 50s teams that had trash around him.

But like i said. If u value Wilt based on all-box composite and suspect he had GOAT-level impact, then you should be putting David Robinson next to him... David Robinson dominated all-box composited and actually had somewhat confirmed top-of-the-league +/- metrics in his prime... So why not have David Robinson next to Wilt? Or does only Wilt get an excuse for having bad teammates in his prime. And David Robinson gets knocked for playing with Duncan, but Wilt doesn't get knocked for playing with Jerry West...

[Owly]

Aren't Robinson and Paul basically monsters across all box-composites and impact metrics?

Wilt has no impact metrics, and he rarely sat on the bench. The most you can go by is him missing games due to injury and switching teams, and i believe drza already questioned his footprint in those scenarios not moving the needle in a way you'd expect from someone who people are claiming had GOAT-level impact. People largely ignored it, i think a few countered it by saying ''Wilt needed time to adjust to a new environment'' or something along those lines... Not that there's not any truth to this, but so far, i've been more convinced with the evidence pointing towards Wilt not having as much impact as his stats suggested than the other way around.

I will admit that i'm also looking at Wilt's offense in terms of portability into more talented/sophisticated eras. If 'run-your-offense-through-Wilt' strategy had more than its fair share of struggles translating into good offenses in the 60's, i have no hope for it working the further along we go in terms of the development curve of basketball/talent. Even if we ignore the NBA in the last 5 years, and go back to say... 2000, the slowest/weakest era of offense in modern NBA history where a lot of teams were still playing post-centric offenses, i don't think Wilt would've been as good as Shaq in that role. Defensively he could and should have more impact than Shaq in the 00's, but based on the fact that Wilt didn't even dominate the 60's consistently on defense (even though some people will argue otherwise, and point towards him raising his effort-level in the Playoffs, which is fair i guess, but then again, he also played 75% of his series against weak offensive teams in a weak era), i can't even be sure about that...

I don't know. Maybe we should have Neil Johnston higher as well. He's 4th all-time in WS/48... I'm sure his impact metrics would've been enormous on some of those 50s teams that had trash around him.

But like i said. If u value Wilt based on all-box composite and suspect he had GOAT-level impact, then you should be putting David Robinson next to him... David Robinson dominated all-box composited and actually had somewhat confirmed top-of-the-league +/- metrics in his prime... So why not have David Robinson next to Wilt? Or does only Wilt get an excuse for having bad teammates in his prime. And David Robinson gets knocked for playing with Duncan, but Wilt doesn't get knocked for playing with Jerry West...

You seemed to be cynical on Harden and Wilt and Win Shares. Most are at least somewhat cynical on Dantley versus his box-composites and perhaps especially WS. So I figured that list was a set of guys you thought Win Shares had too high. Robinson and Paul seemed like odd choices for that group given they have other box-composites looking strong and impact metrics looking strong. Because even if you do think they're overrated you don't know that that would be why a voter liked them. So I was confused. I still am. Oh well.

[70sFan]

(even though some people will argue otherwise, and point towards him raising his effort-level in the Playoffs, which is fair i guess, but then again, he also played 75% of his series against weak offensive teams in a weak era)

Why do you keep saying that?

Wilt played 28 series in his career. Here is the list of good offensive teams Wilt faced in playoffs:

Spoiler:

1960 Nationals
1961 Nationals
1964 Hawks
1965 Royals
1967 Royals
1967 Celtics
1968 Knicks
1969 Hawks
1970 Suns
1970 Hawks
1970 Knicks
1971 Bulls
1971 Bucks
1972 Bulls
1972 Bucks
1973 Bulls
1973 Knicks

That's 17 series. I didn't include all positive rORtg teams, so it's not like I tried to misjudge the truth here.

17 out of 28 is not 25%. Or maybe you meant in 1960s only? Then you have 8 such series compared to 18 overall series, still not even close to 75%.

[limbo]

You seemed to be cynical on Harden and Wilt and Win Shares. Most are at least somewhat cynical on Dantley versus his box-composites and perhaps especially WS. So I figured that list was a set of guys you thought Win Shares had too high. Robinson and Paul seemed like odd choices for that group given they have other box-composites looking strong and impact metrics looking strong. Because even if you do think they're overrated you don't know that that would be why a voter liked them. So I was confused. I still am. Oh well.

I, too, am confused as to why people who argue for Wilt being a GOAT candidate (or somewhere around Top 5) based on box-score composites and alleged GOAT-level impact don't seem to hold other players who dominate the same metrics in the same vain. I don't see David Robinsons or Chris Pauls near Wilt. David Robinson didn't seem to have any less team success than Wilt and he played in a tougher era. Also David Robinson, someone who's not argued nowhere close to being one of the best offensive players of all-time, lead Top 5 offenses in a 30-team league with Dale Ellis and Dennis Rodman, but Wilt had trouble doing it with Greer/Walker/Cunningham?

[limbo]

17 out of 28 is not 25%. Or maybe you meant in 1960s only? Then you have 8 such series compared to 18 overall series, still not even close to 75%.

Yes, i meant the 60's only, because more than half of Wilt's Lakers Playoff runs he was attempting less then 10 FGA per game, and averaged less than 3.5 assists... He was a role player offensively in a lot of those series.

The only series in the 60's Wilt played above average offenses was:

'60 Syracuse (2nd/8)
'61 Syracuse (3rd/8)
'64 Hawks (4th/9 - shouldn't really make a cut because garbage expansion team was added that year, so it should be 4th/8)
'65 Royals (1st/9)
'67 Royals (2nd/10)
'67 Celtics (4th/10 - but it's the Celtics, so it's a soft 4)
'68 Knicks (5th/12 - barley above average)
'69 Hawks (5th/14)

So yeah. The percentage is closer to 45%, but when you account for the '64 Hawks, '67 Celtics and '68 Knicks being more average than great, and that Wilt played like bottom-of-the-league or thereabouts defenses when he was battling Boston and San Francisco from '62 to '69, it evens out...)

Or is your argument that Wilt actually had to defend behemoth offensive teams in the 60's? Outside of those Oscar teams that didn't have any depth the rest was largely unimpressive.

[Doctor MJ]

Those people that try to justify Wilt's impact mostly based on WS... i'll be paying a very close eye to see where they'll be ranking James Harden, David Robinson, Karl Malone, Chris Paul and Adrian Dantley to a lesser extent...

Aren't Robinson and Paul basically monsters across all box-composites and impact metrics?

(Also fwiw, unless they've posted a separate list or their list chimes near exactly with the overall list you don't really know where any one poster ranks a given player after the first couple of rounds. As an absurdly extreme example: your 4th guy on your list could never get your vote so long as your top 3 aren't taken.)

Robinson and Paul are guys who tend to be underrated relative to what you'd expect by WS, so he's saying that if WS-type numbers are really what are swaying people for Wilt, they should be for other guys as well.

Impact metrics aren't really relevant here except to point out that there are clear cases where extreme WS doesn't seem to lineup with extreme impact. Dantley is such a player.

I'd argue that Wilt in '64-65 was clearly such a player. Injury was clearly part of the reason he was less effective, but if you go just by his box score, he largely seems like he should have been having close to the same impact he normally did.

[70sFan]

Yes, i meant the 60's only, because more than half of Wilt's Lakers Playoff runs he was attempting less then 10 FGA per game, and averaged less than 3.5 assists... He was a role player offensively in a lot of those series.

Why didn't you count 1970 and 1971 then? He definitely wasn't a roleplayer offensively in any of these series.

The only series in the 60's Wilt played above average offenses was:

'60 Syracuse (2nd/8)
'61 Syracuse (3rd/8)
'64 Hawks (4th/9 - shouldn't really make a cut because garbage expansion team was added that year, so it should be 4th/8)
'65 Royals (1st/9)
'67 Royals (2nd/10)
'67 Celtics (4th/10 - but it's the Celtics, so it's a soft 4)
'68 Knicks (5th/12 - barley above average)
'69 Hawks (5th/14)

So yeah. The percentage is closer to 45%, but when you account for the '64 Hawks, '67 Celtics and '68 Knicks being more average than great, and that Wilt played like bottom-of-the-league or thereabouts defenses when he was battling Boston and San Francisco from '62 to '69, it evens out...)

There was no expansion team in 1964, Bullets were already 2 years in the league and they were above average offensively anyway.

Knicks were strong offensive team since 1966, so I don't see how can you call them weak - they were +1.3 in 1968 so it's not "barely" anyway.

Or is your argument that Wilt actually had to defend behemoth offensive teams in the 60's? Outside of those Oscar teams that didn't have any depth the rest was largely unimpressive.

I never said Wilt had to defend behemots (though he faced some extremely good offensive teams), I just deny your point of Wilt facing weak defensive teams for 75% of the time. Even if you take away whole 1970s (which doesn't make sense), 1964 Hawks (which doesn't make sense as you are wrong about them), 1967 Celtics and 1968 Knicks - Wilt still faced good offensive teams for more than 25% of the time and that's with all these assumptions.

I'm all for discussions like what we had so far, but don't use false informations to make players you don't like look worse. There was no expansion in 1964, Wilt wasn't a roleplayer in 1970 or 1971 and Wilt didn't face weak offensive teams for 75% of the time. That's already three false informations in one post and for posters who don't have the time to check all these things, it could be very suggestive.

[trex_8063]

Yeah, saying that Wilt rarely dominated on defensive end is not backed up with anything. His teams were amazing defensively in playoffs, even in his worst season (1969). He had some weaker regular seasons like 1963 (when whole Warriors franchise was a mess) but overall I don't see him as inconsistent defender.

I could do the work myself, but the way you state this makes me think you have his playoff defenses (rDRTG relative to offense faced) already documented somewhere. Would you be able to share them?

Here are rORtg and rDRtg numbers for all Wilt teams in playoffs (source: Taylor's backpicks.com):

1960 Warriors: +1.0 rORtg, -5.3 rDRtg
1961 Warriors: -5.7 rORtg, -4.2 rDRtg
1962 Warriors: -3.1 rORtg, -7.4 rDRtg
1964 Warriors: +4.3 rORtg, -0.2 rDRtg
1965 Sixers: +5.8 rORtg, +0.6 rDRtg
1966 Sixers: -2.7 rORtg, +1.2 rDRtg
1967 Sixers: +3.3 rORtg, -7.2 rDRtg
1968 Sixers: +0.9 rORtg, -2.3 rDRtg
1969 Lakers: +0.6 rORtg, -5.4 rDRtg
1970 Lakers: +5.1 rORtg, -1.0 rDRtg
1971 Lakers: +0.5 rORtg, -2.5 rDRtg
1972 Lakers: +2.3 rORtg, -7.4 rDRtg
1973 Lakers: +4.4 rORtg, -3.6 rDRtg

Overall: 2.1 rORtg, -3.7 rDRtg

Are these relative to league average ORtg? I ask because they're different from the values depicted on the spreadsheet mailmp linked [which was also sourced to Elgee].

[70sFan]

I could do the work myself, but the way you state this makes me think you have his playoff defenses (rDRTG relative to offense faced) already documented somewhere. Would you be able to share them?

Here are rORtg and rDRtg numbers for all Wilt teams in playoffs (source: Taylor's backpicks.com):

1960 Warriors: +1.0 rORtg, -5.3 rDRtg
1961 Warriors: -5.7 rORtg, -4.2 rDRtg
1962 Warriors: -3.1 rORtg, -7.4 rDRtg
1964 Warriors: +4.3 rORtg, -0.2 rDRtg
1965 Sixers: +5.8 rORtg, +0.6 rDRtg
1966 Sixers: -2.7 rORtg, +1.2 rDRtg
1967 Sixers: +3.3 rORtg, -7.2 rDRtg
1968 Sixers: +0.9 rORtg, -2.3 rDRtg
1969 Lakers: +0.6 rORtg, -5.4 rDRtg
1970 Lakers: +5.1 rORtg, -1.0 rDRtg
1971 Lakers: +0.5 rORtg, -2.5 rDRtg
1972 Lakers: +2.3 rORtg, -7.4 rDRtg
1973 Lakers: +4.4 rORtg, -3.6 rDRtg

Overall: 2.1 rORtg, -3.7 rDRtg

Are these relative to league average ORtg? I ask because they're different from the values depicted on the spreadsheet mailmp linked [which was also sourced to Elgee].

These are relative to opponents faced in playoffs, not to RS average. I can calculate the second one as well if you wish.

[trex_8063]

These are relative to opponents faced in playoffs, not to RS average. I can calculate the second one as well if you wish.

Just curious what the difference was.

[Odinn21]

By the way, here are Shaq's and Hakeem's teams relative offenses and defenses in playoffs:

Hakeem

1985 Rockets: -3.1 rORtg, -2.8 rDRtg
1986 Rockets: +5.4 rORtg, -2.4 rDRtg
1987 Rockets: +1.2 rORtg, -1.4 rDRtg
1988 Rockets: +1.8 rORtg, +0.8 rDRtg
1989 Rockets: +0.1 rORtg, -2.6 rDRtg
1990 Rockets: -1.0 rORtg, +0.4 rDRtg
1991 Rockets: -0.9 rORtg, -1.5 rDRtg
1993 Rockets: +1.2 rORtg, -4.4 rDRtg
1994 Rockets: +4.7 rORtg, -3.6 rDRtg
1995 Rockets: +8.1 rORtg, -1.0 rDRtg
1996 Rockets: -0.9 rORtg, -1.9 rDRtg
1997 Rockets: +9.3 rORtg, +1.2 rDRtg
1998 Rockets: -9.6 rORtg, -8.3 rDRtg
1999 Rockets: +2.8 rORtg, +2.5 rDRtg


Shaq:

1994 Magic: +1.2 rORtg, +4.0 rDRtg
1995 Magic: +8.3 rORtg, +4.0 rDRtg
1996 Magic: +10.0 rORtg, +2.4 rDRtg
1997 Lakers: +5.8 rORtg, -2.1 rDRtg
1998 Lakers: +10.1 rORtg, +3.5 rDRtg
1999 Lakers: +4.7 rORtg, +3.1 rDRtg
2000 Lakers: +9.3 rORtg, +1.6 rDRtg
2001 Lakers: +13.6 rORtg, -7.1 rDRtg
2002 Lakers: +6.4 rORtg, -4.1 rDRtg
2003 Lakers: +6.2 rORtg, +1.7 rDRtg
2004 Lakers: +4.5 rORtg, -2.6 rDRtg
2005 Heat: +4.1 rORtg, -1.3 rDRtg
2006 Heat: +3.5 rORtg, -4.9 rDRtg


Overall: +7.1 rORtg, -0.7 rDRtg

Shaq's offensive numbers are out of world, but his defense was suspect to say the least (and I gave him credit for Miami years, which I probably shouldn't).

I'm all for looking at postseason performances. Also, Rtg numbers are decent ways to determine how efficient the production of a superstar player was.
But I'd like to remind that looking at consistency among those numbers is more important than mean averages.

From 1995 to 2003, the only times O'Neal led offense fell short of +6.0 rORtg is 1997 (which was off by 0.2) and 1999.

Looking at rORtg and rDRtg numbers Olajuwon led, he didn't have that kind of consistency that O'Neal had on offense.

Surely, O'Neal's rDRtg numbers shaky, very shaky. But the rORtg consistency, also considering the volume that he had that consistency, makes up more than that.

I think I'm going to use these numbers when we talk about O'Neal vs. Olajuwon and make a cross comparison as O'Neal's offense vs. Olajuwon's defense, 70sFan.

---

I was away for the weekend. I'll be editing this post in a couple of hours. I have Chamberlain and O'Neal for my first 2 votes for this ballot but I'm yet to decide for the 3rd.

I usually had Bird for that spot. I also rate Bird higher than Magic. But I guess Magic's overall career value is a bit ahead of Bird's.
Bird's career was basically from 1979-80 to 1987-88. Looking at Magic's career, from 1982-83 to 1990-91 time frame is similar for him. I have Bird ahead of Magic. And it's a considerable gap at that for me. Though Magic's 3 seasons before that time frame are more valuable than Bird's last 3 seasons. And the gap between them is bigger.

[Owly]

Those people that try to justify Wilt's impact mostly based on WS... i'll be paying a very close eye to see where they'll be ranking James Harden, David Robinson, Karl Malone, Chris Paul and Adrian Dantley to a lesser extent...

Aren't Robinson and Paul basically monsters across all box-composites and impact metrics?

(Also fwiw, unless they've posted a separate list or their list chimes near exactly with the overall list you don't really know where any one poster ranks a given player after the first couple of rounds. As an absurdly extreme example: your 4th guy on your list could never get your vote so long as your top 3 aren't taken.)

Robinson and Paul are guys who tend to be underrated relative to what you'd expect by WS, so he's saying that if WS-type numbers are really what are swaying people for Wilt, they should be for other guys as well.

Impact metrics aren't really relevant here except to point out that there are clear cases where extreme WS doesn't seem to lineup with extreme impact. Dantley is such a player.

I'd argue that Wilt in '64-65 was clearly such a player. Injury was clearly part of the reason he was less effective, but if you go just by his box score, he largely seems like he should have been having close to the same impact he normally did.

But surely if those guys have other evidence for them being great then you don't know whether people are being consistent in voting for them - mainstream underrating seems more a thing that shouldn't matter - unless anyone's making a case based on where Bill Simmons or ESPN ranked a guy ... unless I suppose you think some/many/the specific poster are anchored to the mainstream. In any case it seemed like a Gilmore, Issel, Reggie (unless those up on his playoff resilience have really moved up on him) or Pau might be more obvious markers of whether someone apparently genuinely wedded to WS as the primary means of evaluating players was committed to such (weaker or very little/no impact data, weaker in other box-composites and, fwiw, bigger gaps to mainstream rankings).

And I'm guessing we'd all like voters to be consistent with their methodology. I mean if/when you see that people actually are (or appear) inconsistent then absolutely they should be questioned.


On Dantley whilst there is certainly a gap between box-production and impact, his impact might have got a bum rap. His prime WoWYR (which goes through to '89) comes out even with Pippen, and above Dwight, Gilmore and Bird (though Bird's numbers ... well his prime is listed as his career but the numbers are different ... maybe I'm missing something). Mind you, it's noisy anyway.

[LA Bird]

Wilt has no impact metrics, and he rarely sat on the bench. The most you can go by is him missing games due to injury and switching teams, and i believe drza already questioned his footprint in those scenarios not moving the needle in a way you'd expect from someone who people are claiming had GOAT-level impact. People largely ignored it, i think a few countered it by saying ''Wilt needed time to adjust to a new environment'' or something along those lines... Not that there's not any truth to this, but so far, i've been more convinced with the evidence pointing towards Wilt not having as much impact as his stats suggested than the other way around.

1. Wilt has impact metrics, just not +/- metrics. Besides, if he really doesn't have any, neither does anyone else before the 90s so singling him out for criticism wouldn't make sense.
2. The type of impact metric from missed games you described is basically WOWY and Wilt looks fine compared to the other GOAT big men. From ElGee's blogs:

Prime WOWYR
6.7 Shaq
6.4 Russell
6.2 Kareem
6.2 Garnett
6.0 Wilt
5.7 Duncan
5.7 Hakeem

Career WOWYR
6.2 Russell
6.1 Wilt
5.5 Hakeem
5.2 Shaq
4.7 Duncan
4.4 Garnett
4.1 Kareem

[trex_8063]

Thru post #115:

Wilt Chamberlain - 7 (ardee, Dr Positivity, Dutchball97, Joao Saraiva, penbeast0, ZeppelinPage, mailmp)
Kevin Garnett - 3 (Doctor MJ, Blackmill, limbo)
Shaquille O’Neal - 1 (freethedevil)
Hakeem Olauwon - 1 (90sAllDecade)
Magic Johnson - 1 (2klegend)


Personally, I’m having a helluva time deciding between Wilt and Shaq. I may end up abstaining again, out of indecision.
Anyway, this thread will most likely be open for ~21-22 more hours (till 2-3pm EST tomorrow).

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[70sFan]

Does anyone want me to go deeper through Wilt's post repertoire? A lot of people think he didn't try to go inside or that he couldn't shoot hooks, or even that his footwork was terrible. I don't think Wilt was either dumb or limited post player at all, so I can try to convince someone with many clips and some of my scouting stats

[70sFan]

Wilt has no impact metrics, and he rarely sat on the bench. The most you can go by is him missing games due to injury and switching teams, and i believe drza already questioned his footprint in those scenarios not moving the needle in a way you'd expect from someone who people are claiming had GOAT-level impact. People largely ignored it, i think a few countered it by saying ''Wilt needed time to adjust to a new environment'' or something along those lines... Not that there's not any truth to this, but so far, i've been more convinced with the evidence pointing towards Wilt not having as much impact as his stats suggested than the other way around.

1. Wilt has impact metrics, just not +/- metrics. Besides, if he really doesn't have any, neither does anyone else before the 90s so singling him out for criticism wouldn't make sense.
2. The type of impact metric from missed games you described is basically WOWY and Wilt looks fine compared to the other GOAT big men. From ElGee's blogs:

Prime WOWYR
6.7 Shaq
6.4 Russell
6.2 Kareem
6.2 Garnett
6.0 Wilt
5.7 Duncan
5.7 Hakeem

Career WOWYR
6.2 Russell
6.1 Wilt
5.5 Hakeem
5.2 Shaq
4.7 Duncan
4.4 Garnett
4.1 Kareem

Well, he doesn't look any worse when you look at this. As I said, I don't like WOWY because it's not nuanced enough but it doesn't show Wilt's impact in infavorable light. For all this talk of how KG is much better than raw boxscores and how Wilt's boxscores are empty, I'm very surprised that they finish at identical level prime-wise.

[limbo]

1. Wilt has impact metrics, just not +/- metrics. Besides, if he really doesn't have any, neither does anyone else before the 90s so singling him out for criticism wouldn't make sense.

To an extent, though most players before the 90's at least have decent amounts of footage you can view and come up with your own conclusions. Wilt has a couple of full games and some scattered excerpts at best.

2. The type of impact metric from missed games you described is basically WOWY and Wilt looks fine compared to the other GOAT big men. From ElGee's blogs:

Prime WOWYR
6.7 Shaq
6.4 Russell
6.2 Kareem
6.2 Garnett
6.0 Wilt
5.7 Duncan
5.7 Hakeem

Career WOWYR
6.2 Russell
6.1 Wilt
5.5 Hakeem
5.2 Shaq
4.7 Duncan
4.4 Garnett
4.1 Kareem

ElGee also wrote that Wilt's score likely suffers from some inflation due to a decent-sized chunk of data coming during the expansion. Also the GPM version of WOWYR that tries to adjust for era differences and other variability doesn't rank Wilt's best 10-year prime in the same boat as Russell, Shaq, Kareem, KG, Duncan... and not even Ewing or Mutombo.

[70sFan]

Also the GPM version of WOWYR that tries to adjust for era differences and other variability doesn't rank Wilt's best 10-year prime in the same boat as Russell, Shaq, Kareem, KG, Duncan... and not even Ewing or Mutombo.

WOWYR - GPM/average
https://backpicks.com/metrics/wowyr/

David Robinson: 9.4/9.1
Bill Russell: 9.4/6.7
Tim Duncan: 6.9/5.7
Kevin Garnett: 6.8/6.3
Shaquille O'Neal: 6.7/6.4
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 6.2/5.9
Charles Barkley: 6.0/5.2
Patrick Ewing: 5.7/5.2
Dikembe Mutombo: 5.5/7.2
Bob Lanier: 5.1/5.1
Dirk Nowitzki: 4.9/6.1
Alonzo Mourning: 4.8/4.6
Hakeem Olajuwon: 4.7/5.5
Nate Thurmond 4.7/4.6
Wilt Chamberlain: 4.2/5.2
Karl Malone: 4.2/3.9
Artis Gilmore: 4.1/3.7
Moses Malone: 4.0/3.3
Dwight Howard: 2.1/3.5

I don't see Wilt being out of place compared to the rest of top tier bigs. Wilt is also on the same level as Larry Bird and higher than Chris Paul in this adjusted WOWY - two players which are known for being very high impact players.

Edit: added GPM for 10 years primes.