Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today?

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, PaulieWal, Quotatious, penbeast0

coastalmarker99
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,452
And1: 1,437
Joined: Nov 07, 2019
 

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#21 » by coastalmarker99 » Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:02 am

feyki wrote:I think he wouldn't. He was not the OPOY level offensive player. His defensive impact erodes by offensive inflation and his offensive impact not much great to create a force to be the best in the league with the inflation. I don't think he would be better than Curry or Durant in this circumstances. He would be as good as Giannis or Embiid or even(probably) better.

Basically, his offensive impact not much great to be the best in this league. 115 Ortg league we have for the last few years.


Wilt faced zone defence + 2 handed hand checking + no leniency in physicality.


Even the first rule alone has crippled some of the best players in nba history, in fact, Jordan admitted he wouldn't have been as successful with zone legal.


He also lived in an era with rampant racism, Sonny Hills once talked with a ref who admitted they wouldn't have a game if they called every foul on Wilt.

Wilt being allowed to be as physical he wants on offence would guarantee he averages over 30 points per game even in the modern era.



As he easily would be the best freak athlete in this era as he was in the 1960s

Height: 7'1

Weight: 290-320 pounds (depends on which year)

7'8 wingspan (he was only officiated measured in a suit however. Legend has it that it's likely 2 inches more)

9'7.5 standing reach.

Imagine somebody of that physical profile, that is also a track star, ridiculous vertical leap, gifted passer (lead the league in assists one year) and with a gifted touch around the rim on the offensive end.

Not only that but on defence, a center that is truly capable of guarding 1-5 with his size, length and speed combined.

The only current NBA player that could rival him in terms of athleticism is Giannis. Yet physically, he even towers over him.

Giannis in comparison:

Height: 6'11

Weight: 242 pounds

Wingspan: 7'3

Standing reach: 9'2

I have yet to see any player at his position to come along with his combined strength, size and athleticism.

Let alone the skills Wilt had on offence and defence.
Reggie Jackson is amazing and a killer in the clutch that's all.
User avatar
feyki
Starter
Posts: 2,230
And1: 330
Joined: Aug 08, 2016
     

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#22 » by feyki » Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:16 am

coastalmarker99 wrote:
feyki wrote:I think he wouldn't. He was not the OPOY level offensive player. His defensive impact erodes by offensive inflation and his offensive impact not much great to create a force to be the best in the league with the inflation. I don't think he would be better than Curry or Durant in this circumstances. He would be as good as Giannis or Embiid or even(probably) better.

Basically, his offensive impact not much great to be the best in this league. 115 Ortg league we have for the last few years.


Wilt faced zone defence + 2 handed hand checking + no leniency in physicality.


Even the first rule alone has crippled some of the best players in nba history, in fact, Jordan admitted he wouldn't have been as successful with zone legal.


He also lived in an era with rampant racism, Sonny Hills once talked with a ref who admitted they wouldn't have a game if they called every foul on Wilt.

Wilt being allowed to be as physical he wants on offence would guarantee he averages over 30 points per game even in the modern era.



As he easily would be the best freak athlete in this era as he was in the 1960s

Height: 7'1

Weight: 290-320 pounds (depends on which year)

7'8 wingspan (he was only officiated measured in a suit however. Legend has it that it's likely 2 inches more)

9'7.5 standing reach.

Imagine somebody of that physical profile, that is also a track star, ridiculous vertical leap, gifted passer (lead the league in assists one year) and with a gifted touch around the rim on the offensive end.

Not only that but on defence, a center that is truly capable of guarding 1-5 with his size, length and speed combined.

The only current NBA player that could rival him in terms of athleticism is Giannis. Yet physically, he even towers over him.

Giannis in comparison:

Height: 6'11

Weight: 242 pounds

Wingspan: 7'3

Standing reach: 9'2

I have yet to see any player at his position to come along with his combined strength, size and athleticism.

Let alone the skills Wilt had on offence and defence.


He was not as good as West/Baylor/Pettit, offensively. And he was not even close to Oscar, regarding the offensive impact. Do you see him as would be better Embiid or Giannis, offensively? Even these two are not close to Durant or Curry in todays league.

Read my post well. I'm not saying he couldn't have better stats, I'm saying his offensive impact was not much great to benefit of the league's offensive infilation and that's why he couldn't be the best player in this league.
Image
“The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot.”
User avatar
KobesScarf
Veteran
Posts: 2,718
And1: 563
Joined: Jul 17, 2016
 

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#23 » by KobesScarf » Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:00 am

67 Wilt is the greatest season in the history of team sports
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 19,172
And1: 14,515
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#24 » by 70sFan » Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:35 am

feyki wrote:He was not as good as West/Baylor/Pettit, offensively.

He's not better than West, but Baylor and Pettit are questionable to say the least. Besides, he had massive defensive advantage over either one, gigantic one.

Do you see him as would be better Embiid or Giannis, offensively?

Not question to me, but I'd take 1967 Wilt over any version of Embiid or Giannis offensively. Much more efficient, much better playmaker and far better offensive rebounder. His inside gravity is also noticeably higher.

Even these two are not close to Durant or Curry in todays league.

Sure, but Wilt's defensive advantage over Durant or Curry is massive. You should take that into account.

Read my post well. I'm not saying he couldn't have better stats, I'm saying his offensive impact was not much great to benefit of the league's offensive infilation and that's why he couldn't be the best player in this league.

Again, you miss the huge part of the game here...
Mazter
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,381
And1: 593
Joined: Nov 04, 2012
       

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#25 » by Mazter » Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:17 pm

Wilt's 66/67 estimates and where it would rank him this season:

20.7 PTS/100poss, 119th
12.2 FGA/100poss, 219th
21.3 TRB%, 6th
6.7 AST/100poss, 57th, 2nd among centers
9.1 BLK%, tied 1st
68.3 eFG%, 4th
44.1 FT%, dead last
63.7 TS%, 16th

Of course, his stats would change, for better or for worse, but nothing of this screams "Best Player of the League" to me. I really don't believe that any NBA coach would give a center with no 3 point shot and such poor FT shot a prominent role in their offense. It does give him much more space to focus on defense however, in which he could be front runner for DPOY. But that's about it.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 19,172
And1: 14,515
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#26 » by 70sFan » Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:40 pm

Mazter wrote:Wilt's 66/67 estimates and where it would rank him this season:

20.7 PTS/100poss, 119th
12.2 FGA/100poss, 219th
21.3 TRB%, 6th
6.7 AST/100poss, 57th, 2nd among centers
9.1 BLK%, tied 1st
68.3 eFG%, 4th
44.1 FT%, dead last
63.7 TS%, 16th

Of course, his stats would change, for better or for worse, but nothing of this screams "Best Player of the League" to me. I really don't believe that any NBA coach would give a center with no 3 point shot and such poor FT shot a prominent role in their offense. It does give him much more space to focus on defense however, in which he could be front runner for DPOY. But that's about it.

I hope you're aware that linear pace adjustment don't work... at all. If you think that Wilt would have taken less than 10 FGA per game in 2021 simply because of less possessions played, then I have to strongly disagree with this take. With higher pace, stars took considerably less shots per possession and roleplayers took far more shots. Even the most absurd volume seasons from the 1960s can't touch the modern stars usage and it's not because they couldn't do that. Basketball was played far differently back then, you can't just make a linear adjustment and say that peak Wilt would average 15 ppg.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 45,381
And1: 14,347
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#27 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:38 pm

Mazter wrote:Wilt's 66/67 estimates and where it would rank him this season:

20.7 PTS/100poss, 119th
12.2 FGA/100poss, 219th
21.3 TRB%, 6th
6.7 AST/100poss, 57th, 2nd among centers
9.1 BLK%, tied 1st
68.3 eFG%, 4th
44.1 FT%, dead last
63.7 TS%, 16th

Of course, his stats would change, for better or for worse, but nothing of this screams "Best Player of the League" to me. I really don't believe that any NBA coach would give a center with no 3 point shot and such poor FT shot a prominent role in their offense. It does give him much more space to focus on defense however, in which he could be front runner for DPOY. But that's about it.


So, speaking as known Wilt skeptic:

Do remember that Wilt had all sorts of obvious stats that screamed "best player in the league" in his earlier years. The whole thing that's so interesting about Wilt's career as a prism through which we can understand basketball as a whole is in realizing that optimizing for individual stat impressiveness and optimizing for team impact are two very, very different things.

As such, the idea of trying to knock Wilt statistically for the '66-67 season to me seems rather antithetical to the actual basketball of what was happening.

Beyond that, you can't just map numbers from eras like this. Wilt would be playing less - and thus pacing himself less - and working with better spacing today.

In general my concern with Wilt isn't that he wouldn't be able to get impressive numbers in any era, but more about the nuances of the game.
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
Mazter
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,381
And1: 593
Joined: Nov 04, 2012
       

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#28 » by Mazter » Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:38 pm

70sFan wrote:
Mazter wrote:Of course, his stats would change, for better or for worse, but...

I hope you're aware that linear pace adjustment don't work... at all. If you think that Wilt would have taken less than 10 FGA per game in 2021 simply because of less possessions played, then I have to strongly disagree with this take.

I thought my sentence was very clear. Btw, I actually think he would take less than 10 FGA per game. And probably as many FTA to go with it. I mean, he's a 44.1% FT shooter. Why risk any 50+ FG attempt, when you can combine about 15-20 fouls on him by doubling and fouling schemes?

Doctor MJ wrote:As such, the idea of trying to knock Wilt statistically for the '66-67 season to me seems rather antithetical to the actual basketball of what was happening.

Well, let's just say that I didn't knock anything. I just stated some stats, for each to see what they want to see.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 19,172
And1: 14,515
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#29 » by 70sFan » Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:44 pm

Mazter wrote:Btw, I actually think he would take less than 10 FGA per game. And probably as many FTA to go with it. I mean, he's a 44.1% FT shooter. Why risk any 50+ FG attempt, when you can combine about 15-20 fouls on him by doubling and fouling schemes?

Because it's a dumb strategy? People tried that with Shaq in 2000 when he shot horribly in the playoffs and it didn't work.

If you really think that Wilt would take less shots than Andre Drummond, then all I can do is respectully disagree...
Mazter
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,381
And1: 593
Joined: Nov 04, 2012
       

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#30 » by Mazter » Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:11 pm

70sFan wrote:Because it's a dumb strategy? People tried that with Shaq in 2000 when he shot horribly in the playoffs and it didn't work.

Well, 2000 and 2021 are worlds apart in terms of pace and speed, rules and shot disribution.

Edit: in game 2 of those Finals Shaq went to the line 39 times, but then the Pacers shot 37.5% from the field and 5-from-20 from beyond the arch. They lost by 7. Conclusion: it's dumb and doesn't work.

70sFan wrote:If you really think that Wilt would take less shots than Andre Drummond, then all I can do is respectully disagree...

You make it sound like it should be a shame to take less shots than Drummond. I don't really understand why your getting all worked up about this anyway. It litterally did happen in 1967...Wilt ranked 71st out of 80 in FGA per 36, below Connie and Happy to name some, and he was a perfect 7x out of 7 scoring champ at the time. He was 9th out of 11th on his own team, below Melchionni and Gambee. Hey...at least Drummond was an All NBA, 2x All Star and 4x rebound champ.
DQuinn1575
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,707
And1: 610
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#31 » by DQuinn1575 » Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:06 pm

Mazter wrote:
70sFan wrote:Because it's a dumb strategy? People tried that with Shaq in 2000 when he shot horribly in the playoffs and it didn't work.

Well, 2000 and 2021 are worlds apart in terms of pace and speed, rules and shot disribution.

Edit: in game 2 of those Finals Shaq went to the line 39 times, but then the Pacers shot 37.5% from the field and 5-from-20 from beyond the arch. They lost by 7. Conclusion: it's dumb and doesn't work.

70sFan wrote:If you really think that Wilt would take less shots than Andre Drummond, then all I can do is respectully disagree...

You make it sound like it should be a shame to take less shots than Drummond. I don't really understand why your getting all worked up about this anyway. It litterally did happen in 1967...Wilt ranked 71st out of 80 in FGA per 36, below Connie and Happy to name some, and he was a perfect 7x out of 7 scoring champ at the time. He was 9th out of 11th on his own team, below Melchionni and Gambee. Hey...at least Drummond was an All NBA, 2x All Star and 4x rebound champ.


Part of the reason Indiana shot poorly was because their 2 best FG% shooter from the starters - Smits and Davis, had limited playing time, combined just about 5 minutes in a close 4th quarter, because of fouls. So they wind up playing a 38 yo Sam Perkins, who is a -11 in the plus/minus, while Smits is a +6 in the 15 minutes he does play.

But if you take Gobert, give him 2 made baskets and 1 miss a game and 1 missed free throw - you got a guy scoring 18-19 a game.
Then give him 6 more assists a game.
And give him 2 more blocks a game. And leave steals as his. Both are probably conservative.
So you got a19/15/7/1/3 who is the best defender in the league.
If he is on Utah, he gets a lot of support for MVP last year with best record in the league.

BTW - Is Connie Dierking a one name guy now?
:D
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 19,172
And1: 14,515
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#32 » by 70sFan » Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:35 pm

Mazter wrote:Edit: in game 2 of those Finals Shaq went to the line 39 times, but then the Pacers shot 37.5% from the field and 5-from-20 from beyond the arch. They lost by 7. Conclusion: it's dumb and doesn't work.

Well, if you use so many fouls intentionally, then you can't play your best lineups. You can't play effective basketball with fouling out all of your players on the court.

70sFan wrote:If you really think that Wilt would take less shots than Andre Drummond, then all I can do is respectully disagree...

You make it sound like it should be a shame to take less shots than Drummond. I don't really understand why your getting all worked up about this anyway. It litterally did happen in 1967...Wilt ranked 71st out of 80 in FGA per 36, below Connie and Happy to name some, and he was a perfect 7x out of 7 scoring champ at the time. He was 9th out of 11th on his own team, below Melchionni and Gambee. Hey...at least Drummond was an All NBA, 2x All Star and 4x rebound champ.[/quote]
Wilt shot more than any of these players mentioned, you just use his per minute number and call it a day. People really should stop using linear models to everything, because some phenomenon simply aren't linear. I'm sure you don't believe that 2020 Giannis would average 40 ppg with 40+mpg average, but you make the linear adjustment in different direction without any problems.
User avatar
KobesScarf
Veteran
Posts: 2,718
And1: 563
Joined: Jul 17, 2016
 

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#33 » by KobesScarf » Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:38 pm

Mazter wrote:Wilt's 66/67 estimates and where it would rank him this season:

20.7 PTS/100poss, 119th
12.2 FGA/100poss, 219th
21.3 TRB%, 6th
6.7 AST/100poss, 57th, 2nd among centers
9.1 BLK%, tied 1st
68.3 eFG%, 4th
44.1 FT%, dead last
63.7 TS%, 16th

Of course, his stats would change, for better or for worse, but nothing of this screams "Best Player of the League" to me. I really don't believe that any NBA coach would give a center with no 3 point shot and such poor FT shot a prominent role in their offense. It does give him much more space to focus on defense however, in which he could be front runner for DPOY. But that's about it.


I might get banned for this but these are the kind of mind numbingly stupid post that make me never want look at Real GM again.
Mazter
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,381
And1: 593
Joined: Nov 04, 2012
       

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#34 » by Mazter » Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:08 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:But if you take Gobert, give him 2 made baskets and 1 miss a game and 1 missed free throw - you got a guy scoring 18-19 a game.
Then give him 6 more assists a game.
And give him 2 more blocks a game. And leave steals as his. Both are probably conservative.
So you got a19/15/7/1/3 who is the best defender in the league.
If he is on Utah, he gets a lot of support for MVP last year with best record in the league.

I could agree with the points, rebounds, steals and blocks.
Not with the assists though, Not that it wouldn't be possible for him to do so if he was given the ball enough. But I couldn't think of any roster or scenario in which it would be necessary for him to have 7 assists without actually handling the ball. two thirds of the assists are already guard driven, which leaves about 5.9 ast/36min for the other 3 players. I would go with 5 max.

DQuinn1575 wrote:BTW - Is Connie Dierking a one name guy now?
:D

No...just thought it sounded more cool together with Happy :) :)
User avatar
feyki
Starter
Posts: 2,230
And1: 330
Joined: Aug 08, 2016
     

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#35 » by feyki » Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:04 am

70sFan wrote:
feyki wrote:He was not as good as West/Baylor/Pettit, offensively.

He's not better than West, but Baylor and Pettit are questionable to say the least. Besides, he had massive defensive advantage over either one, gigantic one.

Do you see him as would be better Embiid or Giannis, offensively?

Not question to me, but I'd take 1967 Wilt over any version of Embiid or Giannis offensively. Much more efficient, much better playmaker and far better offensive rebounder. His inside gravity is also noticeably higher.

Even these two are not close to Durant or Curry in todays league.

Sure, but Wilt's defensive advantage over Durant or Curry is massive. You should take that into account.

Read my post well. I'm not saying he couldn't have better stats, I'm saying his offensive impact was not much great to benefit of the league's offensive infilation and that's why he couldn't be the best player in this league.

Again, you miss the huge part of the game here...


Baylor was bigger offensive force than West in his peak and Pettit was comparable to him. West was probably the worst offensive player of the three. Massive advantage in the 60's? Yes, but not in these days. There's small difference between DPOY and above average defender now.

Wilt was. But Wilt also was much lower at volume scoring and creation and also don't trust his playmaking much when we don't have the turnovers numbers.

Giannis had the dpoy, but had he massive difference over KD when they faced in the playoffs?


Huge part of the game not more than %33 of it's anymore.
Image
“The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot.”
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 19,172
And1: 14,515
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#36 » by 70sFan » Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:38 am

feyki wrote:Baylor was bigger offensive force than West in his peak and Pettit was comparable to him. West was probably the worst offensive player of the three.

Baylor was the most productive offensive player of these three in terms of boxscore stats, it doesn't mean he was the best. Baylor never anchored a good offensive team until West arrives. As Baylor got older and more injured, West started to take the lead in LA and Lakers offense got considerably better. West was simply considerably more efficient offensive player, who provided better spacing and slightly better playmaking as well.

Does it mean that Baylor wasn't a great offensive player? Far from it! I love watching Baylor so much, he's a true marvel on the court but he never reached 1965-69 West level on offensive end.

Don't see any case for Pettit over West offensively, at all. It seems that all you do is compare their volume scoring stats and we got past this kind of analysis almost a decade ago.

Massive advantage in the 60's? Yes, but not in these days. There's small difference between DPOY and above average defender now.

Where did you get that from? There is a massive difference between Rudy Gobert or Draymond Green and an abive average defender.

Do you have any data to back up your quite controversial statement?

Wilt was. But Wilt also was much lower at volume scoring and creation and also don't trust his playmaking much when we don't have the turnovers numbers.

So you trust others playmaking impact without turnovers, but you didn't with Wilt?

Giannis had the dpoy, but had he massive difference over KD when they faced in the playoffs?

Well, he outplayed KD h2h and over the course of the season so I'd say there is a difference between them.


Huge part of the game not more than %33 of it's anymore.

Without numhers, it's just your guessing game. Bucks won the title only thanks to their defense last year. Strong defensive teams are still the best in the league. The best defenders are ranked among the best players in the league by impact metrics.
User avatar
feyki
Starter
Posts: 2,230
And1: 330
Joined: Aug 08, 2016
     

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#37 » by feyki » Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:08 am

70sFan wrote:
feyki wrote:Baylor was bigger offensive force than West in his peak and Pettit was comparable to him. West was probably the worst offensive player of the three.

Baylor was the most productive offensive player of these three in terms of boxscore stats, it doesn't mean he was the best. Baylor never anchored a good offensive team until West arrives. As Baylor got older and more injured, West started to take the lead in LA and Lakers offense got considerably better. West was simply considerably more efficient offensive player, who provided better spacing and slightly better playmaking as well.

Does it mean that Baylor wasn't a great offensive player? Far from it! I love watching Baylor so much, he's a true marvel on the court but he never reached 1965-69 West level on offensive end.

Don't see any case for Pettit over West offensively, at all. It seems that all you do is compare their volume scoring stats and we got past this kind of analysis almost a decade ago.

Massive advantage in the 60's? Yes, but not in these days. There's small difference between DPOY and above average defender now.

Where did you get that from? There is a massive difference between Rudy Gobert or Draymond Green and an abive average defender.

Do you have any data to back up your quite controversial statement?

Wilt was. But Wilt also was much lower at volume scoring and creation and also don't trust his playmaking much when we don't have the turnovers numbers.

So you trust others playmaking impact without turnovers, but you didn't with Wilt?

Giannis had the dpoy, but had he massive difference over KD when they faced in the playoffs?

Well, he outplayed KD h2h and over the course of the season so I'd say there is a difference between them.


Huge part of the game not more than %33 of it's anymore.

Without numhers, it's just your guessing game. Bucks won the title only thanks to their defense last year. Strong defensive teams are still the best in the league. The best defenders are ranked among the best players in the league by impact metrics.


Baylor turned second worst offensive team in the nba to over average with his arrive. 60 and 61 seasons seems not good, but he led his teams offence over the average against the Hawks in the 1960 Playoffs and then led incredible +9 offence against the Hawks the very next playoffs in the 1961, with rookie West. He also led the best offence when West missed the half of the seasons in the 1968.

Pettit led one of the best offences in his prime, why do you keep saying volume scoring stuff?

Gobert might have that gap only, but think about his game in the early 00's. Just look at tracking data, team stats and some impact metrics. Even Defensive Win shares of DPOY's lower than an average year of Bird's.

Yes, because he was a type of guy to pad his numbers and of course proving point is team stats. Till the 1967, his offensive impact not seems added much on his teams offence. His assists numbers was still high. And when he left Sixers offence did not have any big drop.


Where he outplayed KD? KD played with higher defensive impact than him in the series.
Image
“The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot.”
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 19,172
And1: 14,515
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#38 » by 70sFan » Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:22 am

feyki wrote:Baylor turned second worst offensive team in the nba to over average with his arrive. 60 and 61 seasons seems not good, but he led his teams offence over the average against the Hawks in the 1960 Playoffs and then led incredible +9 offence against the Hawks the very next playoffs in the 1961, with rookie West. He also led the best offence when West missed the half of the seasons in the 1968.

1. The shift in Lakers offense with Baylor arrival is +1.4 - from -0.8 to +0.6. It's not insignificant, but it's not some kind of massive turnaround.

2. You focus on 1960 and 1961 playoffs sample, which includes total of 2 series against one opponent (and 2 game vs bad Detroit team), instead of RS numbers? Also, Lakers didn't have above average offense in 1960 playoffs:

1959 Lakers: +0.6 rORtg in RS, +1.9 rORtg in playoffs
1960 Lakers: -3.4 rORtg in RS, -0.7 rORtg in playoffs
1961 Lakers: -1.7 rORtg in RS, +6.9 rORtg in playoffs

Sure, Lakers noticeably improved on offensive end with Baylor arrival and his postseason resiliency certainly was a big factor for postseason improvement, but we're comparing him here to one of the best offensive players ever. West was on different tier offensively than Baylor.

Pettit led one of the best offences in his prime, why do you keep saying volume scoring stuff?


Indeed, Hawks were the best offensive team in the league in 1959 and 1960. Again, I don't call Pettit a weak offensive player or anything like that. I'll share some data for perspective:

1958 Hawks: +0.9 rORtg in RS, +5.9 rORtg in playoffs
1959 Hawks: +3.1 rORtg in RS, +4.8 rORtg in playoffs
1960 Hawks: +2.9 rORtg in RS, +5.3 rORtg in playoffs
1961 Hawks: -0.7 rORtg in RS, +0.8 rORtg in playoffs

It does seem that Pettit has a stronger case based on team success, but we have to remember that Hawks had talented rosters during that time. Based on what I've seen, I'd have to get a very strong evidences of Pettit's offensive impact to call him a better offensive player than West. Despite amazing postseason offenses, Pettit wasn't very resiliant player in the playoffs. I think that a lot of Hawks success was related as much to Pettit as to Cliff Hagan.

Gobert might have that gap only, but think about his game in the early 00's. Just look at tracking data, team stats and some impact metrics. Even Defensive Win shares of DPOY's lower than an average year of Bird's.

DWS isn't a strong argument, because it doesn't really capture defensive impact. Again, I'm waiting for the data that would support your claim that the best defensive players in the league had less than 30% of impact of the best offensive players. RAPM studies certainly disagrees with that.

Yes, because he was a type of guy to pad his numbers and of course proving point is team stats. Till the 1967, his offensive impact not seems added much on his teams offence. His assists numbers was still high. And when he left Sixers offence did not have any big drop.


I see a very strong inconsistency here in your argumentation. You praised Baylor for improving Lakers offense from bad to average one (+1.4 shift), but you don't give any credit for Wilt, who was in similar situation early on and made a similar impact on Warriors (+0.9 shift, from -3.5 to -2.4). On top of that, Warriors teams don't look that much worse than Baylor-led Lakers by your criteria:

1960 Warriors: -2.4 rORtg in RS, +0.9 rORtg in playoffs
1961 Warriors: -0.9 rORtg in RS, -7.6 rORtg in playoffs
1962 Warriors: +0.9 rORtg in RS, +0.8 rORtg in playoffs
1964 Warriors: -1.6 rORtg in RS, +0.8 rORtg in playoffs

1965 Sixers: +0.5 rORtg in RS, +7.5 rORtg in playoffs
1966 Sixers: +0.4 rORtg in RS, -1.6 rORtg in playoffs
1967 Sixers: +5.4 rORtg in RS, +2.5 rORtg in playoffs
1968 Sixers: +1.3 rORtg in RS, -0.3 rORtg in playoffs

You also failed to mention that Warriors came from below average to WOAT level offense without Wilt in 1965 and even the addition of rookie Rick Barry didn't help them much.

Where he outplayed KD? KD played with higher defensive impact than him in the series.

We had this discussion before, nobody outside of you believes that Durant was better defensively than Giannis in that series (or at any other point of the season).
User avatar
feyki
Starter
Posts: 2,230
And1: 330
Joined: Aug 08, 2016
     

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#39 » by feyki » Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:26 am

70sFan wrote:
feyki wrote:Baylor turned second worst offensive team in the nba to over average with his arrive. 60 and 61 seasons seems not good, but he led his teams offence over the average against the Hawks in the 1960 Playoffs and then led incredible +9 offence against the Hawks the very next playoffs in the 1961, with rookie West. He also led the best offence when West missed the half of the seasons in the 1968.

1. The shift in Lakers offense with Baylor arrival is +1.4 - from -0.8 to +0.6. It's not insignificant, but it's not some kind of massive turnaround.

2. You focus on 1960 and 1961 playoffs sample, which includes total of 2 series against one opponent (and 2 game vs bad Detroit team), instead of RS numbers? Also, Lakers didn't have above average offense in 1960 playoffs:

1959 Lakers: +0.6 rORtg in RS, +1.9 rORtg in playoffs
1960 Lakers: -3.4 rORtg in RS, -0.7 rORtg in playoffs
1961 Lakers: -1.7 rORtg in RS, +6.9 rORtg in playoffs

Sure, Lakers noticeably improved on offensive end with Baylor arrival and his postseason resiliency certainly was a big factor for postseason improvement, but we're comparing him here to one of the best offensive players ever. West was on different tier offensively than Baylor.

Pettit led one of the best offences in his prime, why do you keep saying volume scoring stuff?


Indeed, Hawks were the best offensive team in the league in 1959 and 1960. Again, I don't call Pettit a weak offensive player or anything like that. I'll share some data for perspective:

1958 Hawks: +0.9 rORtg in RS, +5.9 rORtg in playoffs
1959 Hawks: +3.1 rORtg in RS, +4.8 rORtg in playoffs
1960 Hawks: +2.9 rORtg in RS, +5.3 rORtg in playoffs
1961 Hawks: -0.7 rORtg in RS, +0.8 rORtg in playoffs

It does seem that Pettit has a stronger case based on team success, but we have to remember that Hawks had talented rosters during that time. Based on what I've seen, I'd have to get a very strong evidences of Pettit's offensive impact to call him a better offensive player than West. Despite amazing postseason offenses, Pettit wasn't very resiliant player in the playoffs. I think that a lot of Hawks success was related as much to Pettit as to Cliff Hagan.

Gobert might have that gap only, but think about his game in the early 00's. Just look at tracking data, team stats and some impact metrics. Even Defensive Win shares of DPOY's lower than an average year of Bird's.

DWS isn't a strong argument, because it doesn't really capture defensive impact. Again, I'm waiting for the data that would support your claim that the best defensive players in the league had less than 30% of impact of the best offensive players. RAPM studies certainly disagrees with that.

Yes, because he was a type of guy to pad his numbers and of course proving point is team stats. Till the 1967, his offensive impact not seems added much on his teams offence. His assists numbers was still high. And when he left Sixers offence did not have any big drop.


I see a very strong inconsistency here in your argumentation. You praised Baylor for improving Lakers offense from bad to average one (+1.4 shift), but you don't give any credit for Wilt, who was in similar situation early on and made a similar impact on Warriors (+0.9 shift, from -3.5 to -2.4). On top of that, Warriors teams don't look that much worse than Baylor-led Lakers by your criteria:

1960 Warriors: -2.4 rORtg in RS, +0.9 rORtg in playoffs
1961 Warriors: -0.9 rORtg in RS, -7.6 rORtg in playoffs
1962 Warriors: +0.9 rORtg in RS, +0.8 rORtg in playoffs
1964 Warriors: -1.6 rORtg in RS, +0.8 rORtg in playoffs

1965 Sixers: +0.5 rORtg in RS, +7.5 rORtg in playoffs
1966 Sixers: +0.4 rORtg in RS, -1.6 rORtg in playoffs
1967 Sixers: +5.4 rORtg in RS, +2.5 rORtg in playoffs
1968 Sixers: +1.3 rORtg in RS, -0.3 rORtg in playoffs

You also failed to mention that Warriors came from below average to WOAT level offense without Wilt in 1965 and even the addition of rookie Rick Barry didn't help them much.

Where he outplayed KD? KD played with higher defensive impact than him in the series.

We had this discussion before, nobody outside of you believes that Durant was better defensively than Giannis in that series (or at any other point of the season).


I don't have any issue with Wilt's offensive impact. But his offensive impact couldn't much improved from his rookie year, that's why I evaluate his playmaking impact low. And also, Pettit and Baylor were a tier above offensive players. West is not one of the best offensive players ever, though.


Why defensive win shares can't? Have you look detailed Dean Oliver's methods? Both Defensive Ratings and Defensive Win Shares good metrics, to me. And they're also good mathematically. Post 2016, There are 4/5 times more offensive players as +3 or +4 compared to 70's in the DPIPM.

Thank god to Galileo had not your vision. I'd care about physics, not talks. Durant had the all; tracking defence, Drtg, steals and blocks%, plus minus defensive rating(103,8 Giannis with Tucker,Lopez,Middleton,Jrue line and 105,5 Durant with Bruce Brown,Griffin and Joe Harris line :D).
Image
“The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot.”
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 19,172
And1: 14,515
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today? 

Post#40 » by 70sFan » Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:49 am

feyki wrote:I don't have any issue with Wilt's offensive impact. But his offensive impact couldn't much improved from his rookie year, that's why I evaluate his playmaking impact low.

This is wrong though and I already showed the numbers...

And also, Pettit and Baylor were a tier above offensive players.

You didn't prove it, you just said so.

West is not one of the best offensive players ever, though.

He has everything to call him so - strong team success, GOAT-level resiliency, amazing WOWY numbers, excellent scoring numbers (top 5 scorer ever), high off-ball value along with portability across era and strong playmaking impact.

Why defensive win shares can't? Have you look detailed Dean Oliver's methods? Both Defensive Ratings and Defensive Win Shares good metrics, to me. And they're also good mathematically

Defensive win shares is simply a very crude estimation of how big impact a given player has on his team results. By DRtg you mean the Bballrefence one that is an estimation from boxscore stats? They have next to no value to me to be honest.

Thank god to Galileo had not your vision. I'd care about physics, not talks.

Galileo didn't base his opinions on old, outdated models like you do. I don't see this comparison here at all.


Durant had the all; tracking defence, Drtg, steals and blocks%, plus minus defensive rating (103,8 Giannis with Tucker,Lopez,Middleton,Jrue line and 105,5 Durant with Bruce Brown,Griffin and Joe Harris line :D).

I'm not going to start this debate again. Create another thread if you'd like to do so.

Return to Player Comparisons