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

[limbo]

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
https://backpicks.com/metrics/wowyr/

David Rodinson: 9.1
Dikembe Mutombo: 7.2
Bill Russell: 6.7
Shaquille O'Neal: 6.4
Kevin Garnett: 6.3
Dirk Nowitzki: 6.1
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 5.9
Tim Duncan: 5.7
Hakeem Olajuwon: 5.5
Wilt Chamberlain: 5.2
Patrick Ewing: 5.2
Charles Barkley: 5.2
Bob Lanier: 5.1
Nate Thurmond 4.6
Alonzo Mourning: 4.6
Karl Malone: 3.9
Artis Gilmore: 3.7
Dwight Howard: 3.5
Moses Malone: 3.3

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.

Yeah, you took the average score of all combined versions. I was talking specifically about 10-yr scaled GPM.

Also, interesting you decide to bring this data up, but when i was talking to you months ago about Robinson vs. Hakeem, and how Robinson had easily worse teams in the mid 90's and had to do bigger carry jobs, there was no WOWYR or On/Off cited on your part . Matter of fact, you were trying to argue that it was close.

[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
https://backpicks.com/metrics/wowyr/

David Rodinson: 9.1
Dikembe Mutombo: 7.2
Bill Russell: 6.7
Shaquille O'Neal: 6.4
Kevin Garnett: 6.3
Dirk Nowitzki: 6.1
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 5.9
Tim Duncan: 5.7
Hakeem Olajuwon: 5.5
Wilt Chamberlain: 5.2
Patrick Ewing: 5.2
Charles Barkley: 5.2
Bob Lanier: 5.1
Nate Thurmond 4.6
Alonzo Mourning: 4.6
Karl Malone: 3.9
Artis Gilmore: 3.7
Dwight Howard: 3.5
Moses Malone: 3.3

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.

Yeah, you took the average score of all combined versions. I was talking specifically about 10-yr scaled GPM.

Also, interesting you decide to bring this data up, but when i was talking to you months ago about Robinson vs. Hakeem, and how Robinson had easily worse teams in the mid 90's and had to do bigger carry jobs, there was no WOWYR or On/Off cited on your part . Matter of fact, you were trying to argue that it was close.

I don't use it as argument, I just show the data. I'm not WOWY fan and it's not part of my argument here, so get out with bolded part

I'll edit my post to include 10 years scaled version.

Edit: it's also funny that you hasn't mentioned once how well Shaq looks on all available impact metrics

[LA Bird]

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.

GPM is not another version of WOWY. It is a different metric using a different approach and it was created not by ElGee but one of his readers. It has only been referenced one other time throughout ElGee's blog whereas WOWY/WOWYR is regularly used by him in his impact evaluations. When GPM shows a different result from WOWY (as it does for Wilt and LeBron for example), I tend to trust more the stat that ElGee created and actually uses. You can put all your eggs in the GPM basket if you want but I don't see you voting for Robinson even though none of Garnett/Duncan/Hakeem's GPM is even close to his. (Hakeem's GPM is only 0.5 ahead of Wilt's anyway).

[limbo]

I don't use it as argument, I just show the data. I'm not WOWY fan and it's not part of my argument here, so get out with bolded part

I'll edit my post to include 10 years scaled version.

Edit: it's also funny that you hasn't mentioned once how well Shaq looks on all available impact metrics

My problem with Shaq isn't that he wasn't hugely impactful at his peak, but that i believe his peak to be more heavily dependent on the context of his era than other ATG players. The late 90's/early 00's was just the perfect time for a player like Shaq to maximize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses. To be clear, i still believe Shaq could be a great offensive anchor in the modern NBA, but i think the difference between him and the rest of the field would be smaller than it was in his own era. It's his defense that i'm not bullish on as the league grows in talent/sophistication on offense, as he was already exposed too many times on the defensive end for a guy that people consider perhaps a Top 5 player of all-time.

Then you add his questionable loyalty, leadership, his insecurity, laziness, missed regular season games on top of that, and his resume starts looking far less impressive outside his concentrated peak playing with a star-studded roster and HOF coach in the early 00's...

[70sFan]

I don't use it as argument, I just show the data. I'm not WOWY fan and it's not part of my argument here, so get out with bolded part

I'll edit my post to include 10 years scaled version.

Edit: it's also funny that you hasn't mentioned once how well Shaq looks on all available impact metrics

My problem with Shaq isn't that he wasn't hugely impactful at his peak, but that i believe his peak to be more heavily dependent on the context of his era than other ATG players. The late 90's/early 00's was just the perfect time for a player like Shaq to maximize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses.

So he should be blamed because he played in perfect way to maximize his impact in given circumstances?
Funny that you don't use that logic for your favorite, who would be much less impressive without 5 out offense, modern spacing and gather step rule

[limbo]

GPM is not another version of WOWY. It is a different metric using a different approach and it was created not by ElGee but one of his readers. It has only been referenced one other time throughout ElGee's blog whereas WOWY/WOWYR is regularly used by him in his impact evaluations. When GPM shows a different result from WOWY (as it does for Wilt and LeBron for example), I tend to trust more the stat that ElGee created and actually uses. You can put all your eggs in the GPM basket if you want but I don't see you voting for Robinson even though none of Garnett/Duncan/Hakeem's GPM is even close to his. (Hakeem's GPM is only 0.5 ahead of Wilt's anyway).

You're right, it's a adjusted plus minus regression using a different method of cross-validation.

I don't use WOWYR or GPM (especially one playing with data based 60 years ago) as gospel.

That said, i'm probably higher on Robinson than most people here, based on what i've read over the years. The reason i'm not comfortable in putting him in the KG/Duncan/Hakeem tier is mainly due to his longevity and his drop offs in offensive production during his prime in the Playoffs... And even though Garnett has had his fair share of offensive struggles in the PS, i believe that Garnett's impact wasn't as frontloaded in his ability to score as Robinson. I think Garnett had more value outside of scoring and had better foresight on how to impact the game outside trying to score in isolation which Robinson kind of lacked, understandably, as he didn't have as reliable of a perimeter game as KG and wasn't as creative of a passer.

[limbo]

[
So he should be blamed because he played in perfect way to maximize his impact in given circumstances?
Funny that you don't use that logic for your favorite, who would be much less impressive without 5 out offense, modern spacing and gather step rule

You always use words like 'blame', lol, as if my goal here is to blame players for some reason... I'm trying to figure out which players impact i believe to be most independent of context. That's all.

Do you have Ginobili in your Top 20? Why? It's not his fault that he didn't need to play more than 28 mpg to have more impact on the scoring margin than Jason Kidd. Manu maximized his impact given his circumstances and won 4 rings. Why are you blaming him?

If David Robinson could average 30 ppg without 5-out offense, modern spacing and gather step rule, so could Giannis... Also Giannis gets even better defensively if we scale back, as he's not required to defend as much beyond the 3pt line, so he can stay closer to the paint and influence shots there with his speed/length

[70sFan]

[
So he should be blamed because he played in perfect way to maximize his impact in given circumstances?
Funny that you don't use that logic for your favorite, who would be much less impressive without 5 out offense, modern spacing and gather step rule

You always use words like 'blame', lol, as if my goal here is to blame players for some reason... I'm trying to figure out which players impact i believe to be most independent of context. That's all.

Do you have Ginobili in your Top 20? Why? It's not his fault that he didn't need to play more than 28 mpg to have more impact on the scoring margin than Jason Kidd. Manu maximized his impact given his circumstances and won 4 rings. Why are you blaming him?

If David Robinson could average 30 ppg without 5-out offense, modern spacing and gather step rule, so could Giannis... Also Giannis gets even better defensively if we scale back, as he's not required to defend as much beyond the 3pt line, so he can stay closer to the paint and influence shots there with his speed/length

The word "blame" is just a mental shortcut, I'm not native speaker and sometimes my feeling about word choice isn't the best. You know what I mean though.

Your Manu analogy isn't a good one so I won't even touch it.

If David Robinson is your estimation of Giannis offense in the 1990s, then he wouldn't fare too well at all - especially compared to Shaq. That's even without mentioning that Admiral was bigger physically and for all talk about his terrible post game, he proved himself more into that role.

Giannis in the 1990s would have to change his defensive style and I doubt he'd touch the most impactful defenders like Hakeem, Robinson or Mutombo. His strengths on defense are better used in modern era than they would be in the 1990s - he's good, but not all-time great shotblocker and he's not the best man defender.

[70sFan]

Random fact - 1960-68 Wilt upped his scoring average in late games:

Games 1-4: 26.8 ppg
Games 5-7: 30.2 ppg

What can we take from it? Not much, but I find it interesting nevertheless.

[limbo]

If David Robinson is your estimation of Giannis offense in the 1990s, then he wouldn't fare too well at all - especially compared to Shaq. That's even without mentioning that Admiral was bigger physically and for all talk about his terrible post game, he proved himself more into that role.

Giannis in the 1990s would have to change his defensive style and I doubt he'd touch the most impactful defenders like Hakeem, Robinson or Mutombo. His strengths on defense are better used in modern era than they would be in the 1990s - he's good, but not all-time great shotblocker and he's not the best man defender.

The Manu analogy was perfect, because people pick and choose whether they want to evaluate players independently off context or not.

If people don't care about how Shaq would've done against teams that had the resources to expose him defensively (of which there were very few to none during 1999-2004), then why should i care about Manu not playing over 30 mpg and not having enough longevity? Isn't the goal to help your team win titles? Manu has had more impact in his limited minutes than a bunch of other players, and he helped his team won 4 titles... What happened outside that specific context doesn't matter. Doesn't matter how good would Manu have been on a random team in a 1st option role.

He'd probably develop some post moves, but i imagine he'd look closer to Robinson than he would to Hakeem or Shaq, yes. Would take make him worse than Shaq? I don't know, probably. In an era that uses less potential of the half-court with worse shooting, Shaq likely has an advantage, yes. But Robinson was able to do just fine, and i believe Giannis has some advantages over him in terms of dribbling/passing and the way he uses his feet on his drives (though you will say that's a travel).

Also, i would have love to see how Shaq would've done playing with Avery/Del Negro/Elliot and Rodman instead of Penny/Anderson/3D/Grant or Fisher/Kobe/Horry... The worst offensive cast Shaq had in his career was 1997 with NVE/Jones/Horry and Shaq didn't do too hot there against the Jazz in the Playoffs... despite shooting almost 57% from the FT line, which could be considered an outlier for Shaq (as his average that season was 48%)...


Giannis is like an inch shorter than Robinson with about the same weight, likely longer wingspan, and he would've probably added some more weight if the era called for bumping and grinding. He'd be fine...

[mailmp]

“Perfect” analogy: Shaq would be really bad at defending modern offensive schemes, and that is the same as Manu perpetually playing low minutes.

Good one.

[eminence]

KG will be my top pick here, kind of picking through the rest of my thoughts on guys by era that I at least thought about.

Mikan - MDE. 7/8 titles, best player in the league all 8 seasons by my estimation. Arguably the most physical player in the league in his time, a title I'm not sure any other MVP type players ever really held. You were going to feel a game against Mikan. No holes in his game as far as I can tell. Strong, reasonably mobile, very skilled, great touch/passing, drive through the roof. Maybe the most similar to MJ in terms of his drive and how it manifested (bit of an ass on court). Negatives - competition, longevity. Longevity isn't quite as bad as it looks absolutely but does still hold him back. Think he would've been an MVP candidate in almost any era in league history (80's the worst era for him in my estimation).

Wilt - Best athlete ever imo. Several phases of his development. Not super impressed by his Warriors time, Sixers time pretty darn impressive, Lakers he wasn't quite the player he once was (mobility tanked) but showed he could make it work in a different role. Offensively I'm not a fan, skilled enough, but rarely seemed to apply his physical advantages consistently. Overall led to more flash than substance. Defensively probably underrated if anything, capable of elevating to an elite level in the playoffs, problems with RS consistency.

Oscar - Best offensive player of the first ~1/2 of league history, and kept himself consistently near that level for a decade. Took a half step back with KAJ to win more, still the offensive lead of those teams imo. Much better health than West gives him the edge there. Bit of a prickly personality from most accounts. West/Hondo/KAJ have all called him the best ever at various points. Think his handle is pretty underrated, I have it as just sub elite. Generally see him as a giant CP3 with better health. Not the defensive dog CP3 is or quite the shooter. Give all 3 of the guys I've mentioned so far a bit more longevity credit than the technically have, as they all went out at a pretty solid level, which players (other than MJ) don't really do any more due to financial incentive.

Dr.J - Great longevity, transition demon, but overall not quite there for me, more limited in the halfcourt due to handle/shooting/passing limitations. Not as impressive in the NBA.

Bird - I'm high on Bird's defense relative to most. I think he was a very strong defender until his last few seasons. Probably rate his defense higher than any of the other guys I think of as offense first outside of LeBron. Offensively though probably lower on him than a lot of guys. Great shooter/great passer, value in being able to do pretty much anything on the court. Bit of the Kobe problem of not always making things the as easy on himself as they could be offensively. Highlight reel GOAT. Some playoff consistency issues. Not a guy I give credit to for shorter longevity, those injuries were his own fault.

Magic - The name fits. Arguable offensive GOAT, picked him as my best passer ever in another current thread. More mediocre than terrible on defense by my estimation. Passing vision/size combined to make him unlike anything else we've ever seen, as great as LeBron has been I still don't think he's all that close to Magic. A more efficient/consistent scorer statistically than I sometimes think of him as. Added a decent shot by the end of his career, always had good touch it seemed. A guy I do give credit for more longevity than he actually has. Went out relatively on top and was forced out.

Hakeem - Most similar to KG in comparison to the other great bigs in my estimation. Defensively a contender for #2 imo, one of the best playoff performers ever, though that pairs with being a bit of a RS underperformer. Contender for best big man scorer ever (I'd go Dirk). Passing gets overrated imo, I'd put him in the bottom half of the alltime elite bigs in terms of passing (guys mentioned here and already voted in). Longevity solid.

Shaq - MDE pt 2. Scary scary man when he was on. Offensively the best ever traditional big man, just devastating down low. Pretty solid touch around the rim. Underrated passer, I'd have him clearly over Hakeem/Wilt. Motivation problems kept him out of shape at times, but when engaged still a strong defender, dominating the post. I keep him out of my GOAT tier peaks due to what I feel was a clear weakness he got lucky to avoid (his PnR defense) vs other more balanced great picks. Not very high on his later career, don't think his time after Miami really does anything for me. Overall longevity alright to me, maybe very slightly below average due to missing so many RS games (almost Kawhi-esque). He and Wilt both had a notable FT problem.

Kobe - Has the accolades to compete, but I'm not high enough on him to get him in this high. Generally think his defensive accolades are fraudulent and while great offensively didn't quite separate from the rest of the league in the way earlier great guards (Oscar/Magic) did.

Dirk - Offensively the best big ever. Early had a crazy good face up game, later turned into a post up monster. Always a GOAT shooter. Longevity pretty dang impressive, around as a star for almost as long as anyone. Unfortunately just not a fan of his D at all. Decent rebounder who put in some effort, but just not a guy I ever got around to considering any sort of positive on that end.

So there were a couple guys mentioned I'm not seriously considering - Mikan (longevity), DrJ (NBA play), Bird (longevity), Kobe (peak/prime), Dirk (defense/prime). That leaves Wilt, Oscar, Magic, Hakeem, Shaq for this slot imo. I'll have to think on it a bit more.

[penbeast0]

LIMBO and 70sFAN, I am going to ask you to disengage with each other. There is way too much in their about prior interactions and the other poster. Focus on content and for now, specifically content posted by anyone other than the other poster. IF either of you can't handle this, I will give you a 1 day suspension because I don't want to lock this topic since this is a board wide long term project.

Thank you

[DQuinn1575]

But outside of 1965, I couldn’t find much else in the way of overachieving in the postseason for Wilt’s teams.

You're missing 1971, with West and Baylor both hurt, Wilt led team over Bulls, who had better regular season record. He then played Jabbar to a standstill in 1971:
Jabbar -25.0/17.2/48.1 fg%
Wilt - 22.0/18.8/48.9 fg%

The series before, Jabbar scored 27.8 against Thurmond, who Jabbar said was his best defender. The Bucks, with Oscar and Dandridge, were way better than the Lakers, and so the Lakers lost. But Wilt played very well in the 1971 playoffs.

He did win two titles, which is outstanding, but there wasn’t a noticable uptick in the quality of those teams from the regular season

They were probably 2 of the 5 best regular season teams ever - it's hard to drastically improve over that great a regular season.
Wilt led two of the greatest teams of all-time; which were completely different teams - no one else can say that. He lost a lot to Russell.
Hakeem and Shaq each led the same team to multiple titles.



1. Wilt
2. Shaq
3. Larry Bird

[DQuinn1575]

[

I can pull up clips of isolated examples that would make Joakim Noah look like the greatest Center of all-time... It's pointless. I've posted two games with full 2nd half footage, and you can see Wilt is frequently left behind in transition opportunities of both teams. .

How does he take by far the most shots and get by far the most rebounds if he is frequently out of the play?

[

Shaq didn't need an ugly fadeaway shot. ''BUT SHAQ WAS ALLOW TO BULLY DEFENDERS AND POOR WILT WASN'T''. Shaq developed plenty of moves in and around the paint that allowed him to take high percentage hook shots... Wilt had the ugly front-flip layup and a fadeaway that he often took from a laughably unnecessary distance considering no one could really challenge his shot at the rim in the 60's. Even Russell who was easily the best defender of the era frequently struggled to fight off Wilt's sheer size, length, and general athleticism when he got the ball under the rim. .

Shaq never took more than 19.6 shots a game - For better or worse Wilt had 7 seasons where he took at least 25. I don't know if at his peak Wilt dunked or muscled in more or less than Shaq - he obviously got a lot more offensive rebounds than Shaq and muscled those in. Wilt took the fadeaway bank shot in order to get off 30 shots a game - and he was always making shots at way above average for the league. When he scored a lot less towards the end of his career, he took very few fadeaways.

[SHAQ32]

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Larry Bird

3. Kevin Durant
I might get killed here but his longevity at this point is adequate when considering all of the proverbial boxes he checks. My highlights for KD are career playoff performances and portability.

And when you think playoff performances and portability, one name you think of is Dirk Nowitzki.

A very brief look at KD vs Dirk:

All-NBA Teams
KD - 9
Dirk - 12

Top 2 MVP Award Share Finishes
KD - 4
Dirk - 1


Also, does Dirk's extra few seasons of all-star level play hold more gravity than KD's considerable defensive edge? For me the answer is no.

[70sFan]

I don't think Durant has considerable defensive advantage over Dirk. Neither is anything special defensively, especially when we talk about their whole careers, not separated years.

What makes you pick Bird, but not Magic over KD?

[Odinn21]

6. Wilt Chamberlain
#5 for me was a battle between Duncan and Chamberlain. Duncan's intangibles and postseason rise made me go with him, but Chamberlain also had it all. Peak, prime, longevity. His average prime level is just superior to Duncan's. Heck, maybe even superior to Russell and Abdul-Jabbar as well.

7. Shaquille O'Neal
Well, he definitely had the potential to be a proper goat candidate. Though his demeanor was a problem. It led to him being a lazy defender. Even with that, he was still among the goat offensive players.
I think his longevity is somewhat underrated. He was 33 in 2005 playoffs. That's the same age as Duncan's in 2009 playoffs.
Though he definitely earned some of the criticism for it. I mean, when his scoring power wasn't there any more it was very obvious that how exploitable he was ('06 Finals). And all of the players voted in before him kept adding to their respective careers, O'Neal almost stopped.

8. Larry Bird
I initially had Magic Johnson for his spot this time around. It was between Bird and Magic.
This is what I wrote earlier in the thread;

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.

But I decided to revert back to Bird because right now, I don't think Magic's edge on those 3 seasons make him superior to Bird because while Bird to battle through arguably the toughest conference ever, both in regular season and especially in playoffs, Magic's prime mostly overlapped with the weakest conference ever, and it's not that arguably as well.
People likes to point out Bird's performance issues in the playoffs, especially in his comparison against Magic. But when you think of the great teams of the '80s, every single one of them except the Lakers were the Eastern teams. The Celtics, the Sixers, the Bucks, the Pistons. If you look at SoS numbers, the Lakers in the 2nd half of the '80s pretty much tops the worst values.
Surely, as the West got tougher, Magic kept his level and kept performing great. Though, I very much doubt he could have made that many NBA Finals and won that many rings in more competitive conference.

[eminence]

I like KD more as a defender than Dirk, but I'm not sure I'd say considerable, and at this point the longevity edge is pretty significant for me. Anywho, voting time.

1. Kevin Garnett - Great defender, great longevity, solid offense, great portability, great passion for the game. For me there's just not a lot of question marks with KG.

2. Magic Johnson - Came around on Magic as I looked more. His longevity doesn't wind up that poor and is a guy I give the benefit of the doubt there due to how his career ended. Just an absurd offensive force in his prime, and even in his pre-prime years a ridiculous all around talent that probably wasn't utilized quite as quickly as he would be today. The vision/passing talent really do combine to make a unique offensive force. Had a leadership style that got the best out of a lot of people and I certainly love watching as a fan (as opposed to the Mikans/MJs of the world).

3. Hakeem Olajuwon - This one got tricky, it basically came down to the 3 bigs of Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem (couldn't justify to myself putting Oscar over Wilt). At the end of the day Hakeem had fewer holes in his game for me, fewer motivation questions, higher skilled, fewer leadership issues. Very close though as he didn't have the same physical domination as the other two. Obviously still a great great athlete, who was dominant in ways that weren't quite as visually raw. I'll keep my mind open to arguments for others going forward for this slot (and maybe the Magic one too).

[Ambrose]

I've been waiting and reading through the votes because I think this and #7 are going to be the hardest for me. Magic, Hakeem, Wilt, and Shaq are all about even for me.

1. Magic Johnson-My backup pick for #5 and the only guy who hasn't really had any questions about him brought up in this thread. Longevity is a concern but the reason why is a pretty fluky. As I said for #5, he's the greatest offensive player in NBA history, and he was able to find the perfect balance between scoring and playmaking to do whatever his team needed most. I also tend to believe that he's a much better leader than the other three. When you factor in that Shaq/Wilt had consistency issues and Hakeem didn't really put everything all together at once and peaked late I'm okay sticking with Magic.

2. Shaquille O'Neal-The third time I've switched this pick and don't feel good about it. I guess when it comes down to it I'll take the pure dominance/offensive gravity of Shaq over anything else Hakeem or Wilt provides. Again, these three are all remarkably close for me.

3. Wilt Chamberlain-He's probably going to win this anyway so I might as well put him here before he's gone.