Chamberlain replacing Nowitzki 1999-2012

[migya]

Chamberlain and Nowitzki are different types of players but both alltime greats. Replace Dirk with Wilt from the start of their careers, so 99 Chamberlain is a rookie and ends his career after 14 years the same in 2012. Same roster, Nash, Finley etc, but replace Dallas' Centers with similar types of PF. So role playing PFs, like PJ Brown.

Do they get championships? How many?

Doo they beat the threepeat Lakers ast all? Is he better than Shaq?

Do they beat the Spurs?

Does Chamberlain win any mvps and other accolades?

Does he rate higher alltime being in the modern era?

Is he the GOAT.

[coastalmarker99]

I think they win titles with Wilt in 2003,2006,2007.

But I don't think Dallas still wins in 2011.

[No-more-rings]

Who voted 0? I get the pieces might need to get tweaked in some of those years, but I can’t imagine he doesn’t bring them 2-3 titles over a 10 year prime there. Facing off against the Spurs, Suns and those other West powerhouses is no cakewalk to be sure but the talent was definitely there to win a few.

[migya]

I can't see how Chamberlain wouldn't dominate everyone. I can see Robinson having some success defending him in 99 but that's older Robinson and he wouldn't be able to handle Wilt for long. Shaq would get out done in every way. Chamberlain was stronger and much more physically skilled, particularly endurance. Amare and Phoenix would get dominated as well. Duncan might be able to score on Wilt a bit but don't think he'd be able to defend him like he was able to with Shaq. I reckon he could get 6-7 championships with some shooters and defenders like Dallas had.

[70sFan]

I can't even imagine how some of these Dallas teams would look like. They wouldn't trade for Chandler, Dampier and any other defensive oriented centers anymore. They wouldn't have the shooting they had either.

You can't play this game for over a decade without adjusting anything else. I think that Wilt was confortably better basketball player than Dirk, but it's impossible to predict how he'd fare here.

[Mazter]

Well, if it's not broken, don't fix it. At their peak the Mavs were a midrange monster. And this was greatly due Nowitzki. Not just that, they were also an excellent FT shooting team. Again, because of Nowitzki. Replace that with limited ranged and poor FT shooting Wilt and the whole dynamic of the offense is changed. I don't think that anything what Wilt had would make up for the loss in efficiency in those two areas. With the rosters and just changing Wilt and a PF for Nowitzki and the centers, they would contend, but not win.

[70sFan]

Well, if it's not broken, don't fix it. At their peak the Mavs were a midrange monster. And this was greatly due Nowitzki. Not just that, they were also an excellent FT shooting team. Again, because of Nowitzki. Replace that with limited ranged and poor FT shooting Wilt and the whole dynamic of the offense is changed. I don't think that anything what Wilt had would make up for the loss in efficiency in those two areas. With the rosters and just changing Wilt and a PF for Nowitzki and the centers, they would contend, but not win.

You don't think gigantic upgrade on defensive end could at least possibly make up the shooting gap?

Also, I think that Wilt would fare better next to Nash than Dirk did.

[migya]

Well, if it's not broken, don't fix it. At their peak the Mavs were a midrange monster. And this was greatly due Nowitzki. Not just that, they were also an excellent FT shooting team. Again, because of Nowitzki. Replace that with limited ranged and poor FT shooting Wilt and the whole dynamic of the offense is changed. I don't think that anything what Wilt had would make up for the loss in efficiency in those two areas. With the rosters and just changing Wilt and a PF for Nowitzki and the centers, they would contend, but not win.

You don't think gigantic upgrade on defensive end could at least possibly make up the shooting gap?

Also, I think that Wilt would fare better next to Nash than Dirk did.

Nash would probably become similar to Phoenix star Nash with Chamberlain, racking up Stockton type assists numbers. Finley was no Kobe but he was damn good, and on both ends, and also becomes more effective with Wilt getting double and triple team more than even Shaq did. Jason Terry and Josh Howard also become more effective with Chamberlain than Nowitzki. They had some nice players on the bench as well.

They likely would be a bit better than the Shaq Lakers.

[Mazter]

You don't think gigantic upgrade on defensive end could at least possibly make up the shooting gap?

Also, I think that Wilt would fare better next to Nash than Dirk did.

Upgrade, yeah, but why gigantic? He had his moments but it's not like he anchored ATG defenses throughout his career like Russell did. Or that any team jumped of a cliff defensively after he left. I think his impact was kinda limited compared to Russell. And the impact would be even less in Dirk's era with better midrange shooting and a 3-point line. He was the first impactful 7-footer back then and the league didn't know how or couldn't deal with it at first. Now he would "just" be the next Shaq.

Besides that, I'm afraid that him coming into Shaq's era would lead to an ugly offensive slugfest which I don't think would end pretty for Wilt.

[70sFan]

Upgrade, yeah, but why gigantic? He had his moments but it's not like he anchored ATG defenses throughout his career like Russell did. Or that any team jumped of a cliff defensively after he left.

Because Dirk was around average defender at PF and poor defender at C, while Wilt was top 10 defender ever at C?

Wilt did anchor ATG defenses throughout his career. He anchored two ATG Warriors team in 1960 and 1964, then he played on excellent 76ers defenses in 1966-68 period. He finished his career with another two ATG defensive teams in 1972 and 1973. I think he compares favorably to any defensive anchor historically, other than Russell.

I think his impact was kinda limited compared to Russell.

His impact was limited compared to the GOAT defender, not to Dirk Nowitzki though.

And the impact would be even less in Dirk's era with better midrange shooting and a 3-point line. He was the first impactful 7-footer back then and the league didn't know how or couldn't deal with it at first. Now he would "just" be the next Shaq.

At the same time, coaches didn't know how to maximize his defensive impact either. He had to wait 5 years until he got competent coach in his career. Besides, in the early 2000s I don't think teams knew how to take advantage out of this shooting. Wilt would be monstrous defender in the dead ball era.

I wouldn't compare Wilt to Shaq defensively. They were much different in terms of capabilites, mindset and physical profile. Wilt would be comfortably better defender than Shaq.

Besides that, I'm afraid that him coming into Shaq's era would lead to an ugly offensive slugfest which I don't think would end pretty for Wilt.

I'm not sure I understand that part. Why do you think so?

[Texas Chuck]

Well, if it's not broken, don't fix it. At their peak the Mavs were a midrange monster. And this was greatly due Nowitzki. Not just that, they were also an excellent FT shooting team. Again, because of Nowitzki. Replace that with limited ranged and poor FT shooting Wilt and the whole dynamic of the offense is changed. I don't think that anything what Wilt had would make up for the loss in efficiency in those two areas. With the rosters and just changing Wilt and a PF for Nowitzki and the centers, they would contend, but not win.

You don't think gigantic upgrade on defensive end could at least possibly make up the shooting gap?

Also, I think that Wilt would fare better next to Nash than Dirk did.

I mean how the Mavs would do with everything around Wilt being so different than it would be around Dirk is just all of guessing based on basically no information.

But I'd be stunned if Wilt was more compatible on a basketball court with Wilt than Dirk. A PNR guard with the best PNR big of all-time? Yeah I'm not buying that Wilt upgrades that. Nash never had to play with a big post player except for that failed post-prime Shaq experiment that didn't work great.

Maybe the team is better if you find a PNR big who also spaced the floor for Wilt and Wilt understood the offense was going to run through Nash period and not him. But I'd be really surprised if Wilt fared better than Dirk with Nash. Obviously Dirk proved he didn't need Nash and that he got elite PNR play out of Terry or Barea or even like the corpse of Jameer Nelson, Monta has it all, Jose Calderon. But the Dirk/Nash PNR was the most lethal play in basketball while it existed.

[70sFan]

Well, if it's not broken, don't fix it. At their peak the Mavs were a midrange monster. And this was greatly due Nowitzki. Not just that, they were also an excellent FT shooting team. Again, because of Nowitzki. Replace that with limited ranged and poor FT shooting Wilt and the whole dynamic of the offense is changed. I don't think that anything what Wilt had would make up for the loss in efficiency in those two areas. With the rosters and just changing Wilt and a PF for Nowitzki and the centers, they would contend, but not win.

You don't think gigantic upgrade on defensive end could at least possibly make up the shooting gap?

Also, I think that Wilt would fare better next to Nash than Dirk did.

I mean how the Mavs would do with everything around Wilt being so different than it would be around Dirk is just all of guessing based on basically no information.

But I'd be stunned if Wilt was more compatible on a basketball court with Wilt than Dirk. A PNR guard with the best PNR big of all-time? Yeah I'm not buying that Wilt upgrades that. Nash never had to play with a big post player except for that failed post-prime Shaq experiment that didn't work great.

Maybe the team is better if you find a PNR big who also spaced the floor for Wilt and Wilt understood the offense was going to run through Nash period and not him. But I'd be really surprised if Wilt fared better than Dirk with Nash. Obviously Dirk proved he didn't need Nash and that he got elite PNR play out of Terry or Barea or even like the corpse of Jameer Nelson, Monta has it all, Jose Calderon. But the Dirk/Nash PNR was the most lethal play in basketball while it existed.

Wilt didn't need to do as well as Dirk on offense to do better overall. Dallas team simply couldn't afford playing so many mediocre defenders in the lineup together and yes, young Dirk was mediocre defender (he improved later on). Wilt likely wouldn't make them GOAT-level offensive team like Dirk did in 2004, but he'd turn Mavs into strong defensive team and their offense would be still excellent.

I don't think Wilt would struggle to make it Nash show. He was willing to take a step back to Jerry West and he thrived next to Hal Greer - they had outstanding synergy on the court. Nash was a bit different than either, but he demanded scoring touches less than them. Not to mention that Dallas had a lot of shooting which would also help them.

I mean, imagine Duncan being guarded by Wilt in 2003 instead of these poor centers Dirk had next to him. It could change the entire series.

[sp6r=underrated]

Assuming you could simulate Dirk and Wilt's careers a thousand times in Dallas along with similar level roster construction this time built around Wilt's talents not Dirk and that you could somehow keep Wilt in one city for 13 years.

I suspect:

1. Median Dallas season is worse.
2. Mavericks win more titles and produce a random ATG team.
3. Dallas had two fine coaches in Nelly/Carlisle and one so-so one in Avery. I suspect things could go very sideways under Avery due to misusing Wilt as was done on several other coaches.

[Texas Chuck]

Wilt didn't need to do as well as Dirk on offense to do better overall. Dallas team simply couldn't afford playing so many mediocre defenders in the lineup together and yes, young Dirk was mediocre defender (he improved later on). Wilt likely wouldn't make them GOAT-level offensive team like Dirk did in 2004, but he'd turn Mavs into strong defensive team and their offense would be still excellent.

Right but I was responding specifically to your comment that Wilt would fare better next to Nash than Dirk did. And even if the overall team was better I don't see Wilt as symbiotic with Nash as Dirk was. Obviously Wilt was an all-time great player so assuming the team did a smart job building around them, the Mavs should be reasonably successful, but now we are just getting into too much guesswork and no real analysis.

I just think Nash and Dirk do more for each other than court than Wilt could do for Nash. If Nash was interested in playing with a big man who focused primarily on defense, he certainly could have gotten that done, but he gave every indication he was thrilling playing with Dirk and then Amare instead and just trying to out-score teams. I'm just not convinced Nash embraces the slow down game necessary to get the most out of Wilt and I'm not sold Wilt accepts Nash winning MVP's and being the league darling while he's relegated to dirty work.

I mean eventually sure. When both guys are in their early to mid 30's and Nash has made basketball a priority and Wilt is ready to make some individual sacrifices for the good of the team, but in the 00's, I'd be stunned if those guys could stay together long enough to get to that. I mean Nash wasn't even good until his 3rd year in Dallas. Would Wilt have waited on him?

[falcolombardi]

Assuming you could simulate Dirk and Wilt's careers a thousand times in Dallas along with similar level roster construction this time built around Wilt's talents not Dirk and that you could somehow keep Wilt in one city for 13 years.

I suspect:

1. Median Dallas season is worse.
2. Mavericks win more titles and produce a random ATG team.
3. Dallas had two fine coaches in Nelly/Carlisle and one so-so one in Avery. I suspect things could go very sideways under Avery due to misusing Wilt as was done on several other coaches.

one of the funny thinghs about wilt is that he "only" won twice but both teams were All time great champions

his two ring teams were actually better thsn any russel team, but russel teams were so much better in average than he won 11 to wilt 2

just somethingh i always like to note when i think people get overly focused on "peaks" over "average goodness" as the thingh most predictive of success and rings

my other less extreme example is duncan spurs 4 rings in 10 years vs curry warriors 3 in 5

[KobesScarf]

5 chips:

00, 03, 04, 06, 07

[Mazter]

Because Dirk was around average defender at PF and poor defender at C, while Wilt was top 10 defender ever at C?

Wilt did anchor ATG defenses throughout his career. He anchored two ATG Warriors team in 1960 and 1964, then he played on excellent 76ers defenses in 1966-68 period. He finished his career with another two ATG defensive teams in 1972 and 1973. I think he compares favorably to any defensive anchor historically, other than Russell.

His impact was limited compared to the GOAT defender, not to Dirk Nowitzki though.

Like said, he had his moments. There were 5 (60-64-67-72-73) great defensive seasons out of 14, the others were anywhere between average and very good. One could question wether it was a one-man or a team effort in those 5 seasons. Besides that, Dirk wasn't the main (defensive) center on none of those Mavs teams. Defensively you would have to compare Wilt mainlyy with Bradley, Dampier, Diop, Haywood and/or Chandler, not with Dirk. Put all of these together with a more midrange based offense and gigantic is not what I personally would call the upgrade.

I'm not sure I understand that part. Why do you think so?

In the 60's Wilt came in to the league breaking all scoring records in his first 7 seasons before choosing a more succesful defensive minded aproach. In 1998 he would come into a league dominated by another big man who is averaging 28+ppg. What are the odds of young Wilt wanting to do better (=score more) than Shaq. I think he would spent his first 5-6 seasons trying to outscore Shaq just to prove a point. And my point of view still is that Wilt doing too much on offense is not good for team success.

[sp6r=underrated]

Assuming you could simulate Dirk and Wilt's careers a thousand times in Dallas along with similar level roster construction this time built around Wilt's talents not Dirk and that you could somehow keep Wilt in one city for 13 years.

I suspect:

1. Median Dallas season is worse.
2. Mavericks win more titles and produce a random ATG team.
3. Dallas had two fine coaches in Nelly/Carlisle and one so-so one in Avery. I suspect things could go very sideways under Avery due to misusing Wilt as was done on several other coaches.

one of the funny thinghs about wilt is that he "only" won twice but both teams were All time great champions

It goes to show people weren't foolish when they described Wilt as having super human talent. But Chuck Klosterman summed him up well here:

A few weeks ago I was sitting in the terminal of Charles De Gaulle Airport outside of Paris; I was reading "Wilt," the autobiography of Wilt Chamberlain (this is not the 1992 book in which Chamberlain talks about having sex with 20,000 women; this is the 1973 book in which he talks about architecture and Richard Nixon and NCAA high jumping and having sex with maybe 1,300 women). Wilt died in 1999 and quit playing basketball before Mick Taylor quit the Stones, but a middle-aged French guy still recognized him from the cover of the book (this surprised me, since almost nobody over there even seemed particularly interested in Tony Parker).

"Wilt" is an engaging, depressing book; it's really just a monologue about Chamberlain's single-minded obsession with his own greatness, his profound bitterness over his own iconography, and why Bill Russell is a jerk. More than any other figure in sports, Chamberlain illustrates the limitations of achievement: No one has ever dominated anything the way Wilt dominated his chosen field (the only exceptions I can think of are Isaac Newton, John Philip Sousa and Mark Burnett). In 1962, Chamberlain averaged 50.4 points and 25.7 rebounds a game; in 1962, your fantasy basketball league would have been insane. Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak is considered to be an unbreakable record, but it will be broken twice before another person scores 100 points in a single game. I'm not even sure such a performance is still theoretically possible: When Michael Jordan scored 63 points (in double overtime) against Boston in the 1986 playoffs, it seemed like he took every shot on every possession while channeling Frank Lloyd Wright's imagination through the bones in his right wrist -- but at that pace, he still would not have broken Chamberlain's record unless the game had gone into seven additional overtimes.

Yet Chamberlain was not the league's MVP in 1962.

That season, Chamberlain scored over 50 points in 44 different games, but people barely noticed. They were too busy watching Wilt define himself through his most profound failure: He simply did not get it. Wilt was a smart guy and a good businessman, but things that were obvious to everyone else completely escaped his understanding. He could not comprehend why fans and writers would dislike an egocentric superstar (he oddly assumed the world must have been intimidated by his honesty and skill). When he led the league in assists in 1967-68, he thought that accomplishment proved he was unselfish (of course, everyone else immediately recognized that passing for the sole purpose of racking up assists is not that different than trying to score 100 points by yourself). Wilt's defining failure was not that he couldn't win the league championship, because he did that twice; Wilt's defining failure was that he could not see the difference between (a) things that are impressive; and (b) things that are important. That failure is central to the portrait of Chamberlain -- it makes him a misguided, tragic hero. And within the context of contemporary history, it makes him A Great Man.

[70sFan]

Like said, he had his moments. There were 5 (60-64-67-72-73) great defensive seasons out of 14, the others were anywhere between average and very good.

1968 is likely his best defensive season and 1966 isn't far behind it. I'd say it's closer to 7 out of 14 seasons and you included one with him missing the whole year basically. 7 out of 13 is excellent, far better than Hakeem for example - or Gobert for that matter.

One could question wether it was a one-man or a team effort in those 5 seasons.

Sure, but I doubt you can argue that his teams did that despite him. You can also argue that his teams were great "only" in those seasons because his supporting casts underperformed in other seasons.

Realistically, Wilt had quite consistent defensive impact with a few outlier seasons when he didn't put full effort on it.

Besides that, Dirk wasn't the main (defensive) center on none of those Mavs teams. Defensively you would have to compare Wilt mainlyy with Bradley, Dampier, Diop, Haywood and/or Chandler, not with Dirk. Put all of these together with a more midrange based offense and gigantic is not what I personally would call the upgrade.

Dirk played at center full time in 2004 and 2002, he also had significant minutes at center in 2005. Dallas defense in these 3 seasons would be massively better with Wilt instead.

If you don't think there is significant gap between Wilt and Dallas centers on defense, then I think you vastly underestimate Wilt's defensive impact.

In the 60's Wilt came in to the league breaking all scoring records in his first 7 seasons before choosing a more succesful defensive minded aproach. In 1998 he would come into a league dominated by another big man who is averaging 28+ppg. What are the odds of young Wilt wanting to do better (=score more) than Shaq. I think he would spent his first 5-6 seasons trying to outscore Shaq just to prove a point. And my point of view still is that Wilt doing too much on offense is not good for team success.

Sometimes, I wonder why people act like Wilt was mentally disabled or something like that. Seriously, you wouldn't use the same criticism towards any other player in the league history.

Wilt had one of his best defensive seasons in his rookie year. He reached his defensive peak in 1964. I don't know where did you find the idea that he wasn't focused defensively until 1967. Yeah, he scored a lot of points - so did Hakeem in some of his best scoring seasons.

[70sFan]

Assuming you could simulate Dirk and Wilt's careers a thousand times in Dallas along with similar level roster construction this time built around Wilt's talents not Dirk and that you could somehow keep Wilt in one city for 13 years.

I suspect:

1. Median Dallas season is worse.
2. Mavericks win more titles and produce a random ATG team.
3. Dallas had two fine coaches in Nelly/Carlisle and one so-so one in Avery. I suspect things could go very sideways under Avery due to misusing Wilt as was done on several other coaches.

one of the funny thinghs about wilt is that he "only" won twice but both teams were All time great champions

It goes to show people weren't foolish when they described Wilt as having super human talent. But Chuck Klosterman summed him up well here:

A few weeks ago I was sitting in the terminal of Charles De Gaulle Airport outside of Paris; I was reading "Wilt," the autobiography of Wilt Chamberlain (this is not the 1992 book in which Chamberlain talks about having sex with 20,000 women; this is the 1973 book in which he talks about architecture and Richard Nixon and NCAA high jumping and having sex with maybe 1,300 women). Wilt died in 1999 and quit playing basketball before Mick Taylor quit the Stones, but a middle-aged French guy still recognized him from the cover of the book (this surprised me, since almost nobody over there even seemed particularly interested in Tony Parker).

"Wilt" is an engaging, depressing book; it's really just a monologue about Chamberlain's single-minded obsession with his own greatness, his profound bitterness over his own iconography, and why Bill Russell is a jerk. More than any other figure in sports, Chamberlain illustrates the limitations of achievement: No one has ever dominated anything the way Wilt dominated his chosen field (the only exceptions I can think of are Isaac Newton, John Philip Sousa and Mark Burnett). In 1962, Chamberlain averaged 50.4 points and 25.7 rebounds a game; in 1962, your fantasy basketball league would have been insane. Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak is considered to be an unbreakable record, but it will be broken twice before another person scores 100 points in a single game. I'm not even sure such a performance is still theoretically possible: When Michael Jordan scored 63 points (in double overtime) against Boston in the 1986 playoffs, it seemed like he took every shot on every possession while channeling Frank Lloyd Wright's imagination through the bones in his right wrist -- but at that pace, he still would not have broken Chamberlain's record unless the game had gone into seven additional overtimes.

Yet Chamberlain was not the league's MVP in 1962.

That season, Chamberlain scored over 50 points in 44 different games, but people barely noticed. They were too busy watching Wilt define himself through his most profound failure: He simply did not get it. Wilt was a smart guy and a good businessman, but things that were obvious to everyone else completely escaped his understanding. He could not comprehend why fans and writers would dislike an egocentric superstar (he oddly assumed the world must have been intimidated by his honesty and skill). When he led the league in assists in 1967-68, he thought that accomplishment proved he was unselfish (of course, everyone else immediately recognized that passing for the sole purpose of racking up assists is not that different than trying to score 100 points by yourself). Wilt's defining failure was not that he couldn't win the league championship, because he did that twice; Wilt's defining failure was that he could not see the difference between (a) things that are impressive; and (b) things that are important. That failure is central to the portrait of Chamberlain -- it makes him a misguided, tragic hero. And within the context of contemporary history, it makes him A Great Man.

Did he summarize him well?

Wilt's shift towards leading Sixers in assists in 1967/68 turned Philly into clearly 2nd best offensive team in the league. The same approach made Sixers GOAT-level team in 1966/67.

Wilt's usage rate wasn't that absurd in 1962, a lot of players in recent years surpassed that. He had massive volume because of pace and minutes, but the reality is that Wilt wasn't super high usage player by modern standards.