RealGM

If 1967 Wilt Chamberlain was inserted into the 2001 Sixers, would they have beaten the Lakers for the title?

Assume that Wilt takes Dikembe Mutombo's spot on the team and gets a full offseason to acclimate to the modern game, plus will have gone through the regular season and playoffs before facing LA.

No, I don't think they would. The series would be much closer because Wilt would be able to contain Shaq to some degree, but the Sixers didn't have enough talent to win it all.

Lakers because Shaq and Wilt are one a similar level yet Kobe is much better than Iverson.

I don't think so. Even though highlights of that series tend to show Shaq mugging Mutombo, Mutombo actually played really well. It's not just that his stats look good, but when I watched those games, I thought his presence was a big part of why Kobe's offense was so bad. So the upgrade to Wilt is at least a little bit less significant than people might think.

If Shaq and Wilt cancel out, we still have:

Kobe > Iverson
Grant << Mutombo
Fox > McKie
Fisher > Snow
Horry >> .....Hill? Jones?

The Sixers' depth was absolutely terrible. They pretty much only had 4 guys.

onedayattatime wrote:I don't think so. Even though highlights of that series tend to show Shaq mugging Mutombo, Mutombo actually played really well. It's not just that his stats look good, but when I watched those games, I thought his presence was a big part of why Kobe's offense was so bad. So the upgrade to Wilt is at least a little bit less significant than people might think.

You'd have to play them a bunch of minutes together. That Sixers team was too thin. They could barely cobble together a 5-man lineup to close.

Matt15 wrote:Lakers because Shaq and Wilt are one a similar level yet Kobe is much better than Iverson.

Not in '01

onedayattatime wrote:I don't think so. Even though highlights of that series tend to show Shaq mugging Mutombo, Mutombo actually played really well. It's not just that his stats look good, but when I watched those games, I thought his presence was a big part of why Kobe's offense was so bad. So the upgrade to Wilt is at least a little bit less significant than people might think.

I agree that Mutombo played really well in that series. I'd argue that he was better than Iverson after the game one explosion.

Not really seeing the personnel to take best advantage of Wilt's post distribution. Though I liked what I saw in Denver, 2001 AI is not a huge offball threat, and when Snow and McKie are your best outside options, things look a bit grim

Also think Shaq is relatively well-equipped to handle Wilt's offence down low. An uptick from Mutombo, to be clear, but not a big needle shifter.

Defensively, can see maybe a small increase in team D based on Wilt's younger, springier frame, but Shaq might have actually done slightly better one-on-one (Though offset by having to work harder on the other end).

Drag and drop, can't see a big change in final outcome.

You could give the Sixers peak LeBron instead of George Lynch and it would still be questionable because Iverson, while a strong floor raiser, isn't that good at anything other then volume scoring. Philly, a team built around his talents, didn't drop off much when they dealt him for Andre Miller. Denver improved when they dealt him for Chauncy Billups.

Remember that Iverson that regular season had a TS Add of only 1.6 despite scoring over 30 ppg (and was strongly negative in 00 and 02 so this wasn't a fluke). That's what happened when you shoot a ton but with a TS% of only .518 And the playoffs were worse. His efficiency plunged to .480. Yes, he'd be helped by shooting less and having LeBron to draw attention but he was never that efficient a scorer (one TS Add season of 100+ in his career) and he was a poor defender to boot though fortunately for Philly, Derek Fischer isn't going to make him pay for it much.

rrravenred wrote:Defensively, can see maybe a small increase in team D based on Wilt's younger, springier frame, but Shaq might have actually done slightly better one-on-one (Though offset by having to work harder on the other end).

Why do you think he'd fare better one on one against Wilt?

rand wrote:If 1967 Wilt Chamberlain was inserted into the 2001 Sixers, would they have beaten the Lakers for the title?

Assume that Wilt takes Dikembe Mutombo's spot on the team and gets a full offseason to acclimate to the modern game, plus will have gone through the regular season and playoffs before facing LA.

I don’t think their defense gets better because Dikembe’s defense in the late 1990s/early 2000s is some of the most impactful we have on record. Since he didn’t play that many games in the regular season after being acquired, they would have a better regular season record with 1967 Wilt, i.e., the number one defense and likely a top 10 offense. But Dikembe was by far the most impactful player in the playoffs, a playoffs that if you ran back multiple times, they probably don’t make the finals more than half the time if that. so replacing him with wealth while improving. The offense doesn’t do much more for the defense and doesn’t put them in a position to be better than the juggernaut Lakers team.

Also, I’m not sure a year is enough for wilt to acclimate, and I’m not sure how they would actually use him and how wilt would react to playing with someone like Iversen. I don’t think Philadelphia would have the foresight to use Wilt as a supercharged Rudy Gobert Who can also pass

homecourtloss wrote:I don’t think their defense gets better because Dikembe’s defense in the late 1990s/early 2000s is some of the most impactful we have on record. Since he didn’t play that many games in the regular season after being acquired, they would have a better regular season record with 1967 Wilt, i.e., the number one defense and likely a top 10 offense. But Dikembe was by far the most impactful player in the playoffs, a playoffs that if you ran back multiple times, they probably don’t make the finals more than half the time if that. so replacing him with wealth while improving. The offense doesn’t do much more for the defense and doesn’t put them in a position to be better than the juggernaut Lakers team.

Their defense overall likely wouldn't be better, but in specific situation against the Lakers, Wilt's strength would be a pretty significant advantage over Mutombo.

Also, I’m not sure a year is enough for wilt to acclimate, and I’m not sure how they would actually use him and how wilt would react to playing with someone like Iversen. I don’t think Philadelphia would have the foresight to use Wilt as a supercharged Rudy Gobert Who can also pass

Wilt wasn't used as a supercharged Gobert who can pass in 1967 though.

70sFan wrote:

homecourtloss wrote:I don’t think their defense gets better because Dikembe’s defense in the late 1990s/early 2000s is some of the most impactful we have on record. Since he didn’t play that many games in the regular season after being acquired, they would have a better regular season record with 1967 Wilt, i.e., the number one defense and likely a top 10 offense. But Dikembe was by far the most impactful player in the playoffs, a playoffs that if you ran back multiple times, they probably don’t make the finals more than half the time if that. so replacing him with wealth while improving. The offense doesn’t do much more for the defense and doesn’t put them in a position to be better than the juggernaut Lakers team.

Their defense overall likely wouldn't be better, but in specific situation against the Lakers, Wilt's strength would be a pretty significant advantage over Mutombo.

Also, I’m not sure a year is enough for wilt to acclimate, and I’m not sure how they would actually use him and how wilt would react to playing with someone like Iversen. I don’t think Philadelphia would have the foresight to use Wilt as a supercharged Rudy Gobert Who can also pass

Wilt wasn't used as a supercharged Gobert who can pass in 1967 though.

It would be better in the regular season since we’re assuming good health for Wilt though. I’m not sure if he still plays 3600+ minutes, though (likely not). Does he play the entire game in the postseason? If he’s going to be out there against O’Neal, it’s likely that he gets in the foul trouble so probably not.

No, he Wilt wasn’t used like that, but since we are talking about time travel and acclimating to an environment, and also talking now in hindsight from 2023, I think used in that way would likely yield the best results far is creating winning margin, but still not enough to beat the Lakers I think.

homecourtloss wrote:

70sFan wrote:

homecourtloss wrote:I don’t think their defense gets better because Dikembe’s defense in the late 1990s/early 2000s is some of the most impactful we have on record. Since he didn’t play that many games in the regular season after being acquired, they would have a better regular season record with 1967 Wilt, i.e., the number one defense and likely a top 10 offense. But Dikembe was by far the most impactful player in the playoffs, a playoffs that if you ran back multiple times, they probably don’t make the finals more than half the time if that. so replacing him with wealth while improving. The offense doesn’t do much more for the defense and doesn’t put them in a position to be better than the juggernaut Lakers team.

Their defense overall likely wouldn't be better, but in specific situation against the Lakers, Wilt's strength would be a pretty significant advantage over Mutombo.

Also, I’m not sure a year is enough for wilt to acclimate, and I’m not sure how they would actually use him and how wilt would react to playing with someone like Iversen. I don’t think Philadelphia would have the foresight to use Wilt as a supercharged Rudy Gobert Who can also pass

Wilt wasn't used as a supercharged Gobert who can pass in 1967 though.

It would be better in the regular season since we’re assuming good health for Wilt though. I’m not sure if he still plays 3600+ minutes, though (likely not). Does he play the entire game in the postseason? If he’s going to be out there against O’Neal, it’s likely that he gets in the foul trouble so probably not.

No, he Wilt wasn’t used like that, but since we are talking about time travel and acclimating to an environment, and also talking now in hindsight from 2023, I think used in that way would likely yield the best results far is creating winning margin, but still not enough to beat the Lakers I think.

For foul trouble - keep in mind that Wilt was one of the best ever at avoiding fouls, while playing strong defense. It would be fascinating to see him against someone as physical as Shaq. I also think that Wilt's reputation would earn him a bit more favorable whistles than Mutombo.

About playing Gobert role - I am afraid that the Sixers didn't have playmakers to make the full use of Wilt in Gobert role. I think Wilt would have to attack Shaq on the other end and he had the tools to do that.

70sFan wrote:

homecourtloss wrote:

70sFan wrote:Their defense overall likely wouldn't be better, but in specific situation against the Lakers, Wilt's strength would be a pretty significant advantage over Mutombo.


Wilt wasn't used as a supercharged Gobert who can pass in 1967 though.

It would be better in the regular season since we’re assuming good health for Wilt though. I’m not sure if he still plays 3600+ minutes, though (likely not). Does he play the entire game in the postseason? If he’s going to be out there against O’Neal, it’s likely that he gets in the foul trouble so probably not.

No, he Wilt wasn’t used like that, but since we are talking about time travel and acclimating to an environment, and also talking now in hindsight from 2023, I think used in that way would likely yield the best results far is creating winning margin, but still not enough to beat the Lakers I think.

For foul trouble - keep in mind that Wilt was one of the best ever at avoiding fouls, while playing strong defense. It would be fascinating to see him against someone as physical as Shaq. I also think that Wilt's reputation would earn him a bit more favorable whistles than Mutombo.

About playing Gobert role - I am afraid that the Sixers didn't have playmakers to make the full use of Wilt in Gobert role. I think Wilt would have to attack Shaq on the other end and he had the tools to do that.

Also, theoretically possible that wilt could get Shaq into foul trouble.

No, the Sixers really didn’t, but if you’re looking at this from a standpoint of time travel, reworking how Iverson operated having foreknowledge of how to put Shaquille O’Neal into the worst defensive spots you can possibly see this happening. Obviously Iverson himself didn’t operate optimally, but I think a lot of his relative inefficiency would be ameliorated for enough heavy screen roll game with Wilt

You are talking about combining the 67 and 01 sixers vs just the 01 Lakers right?

So you have
Wilt
Cunningham
Chet Walker
Iverson
Greer
With Luke Jackson, Costello, and Mutombo off the bench.

prolific passer wrote:You are talking about combining the 67 and 01 sixers vs just the 01 Lakers right?

So you have
Wilt
Cunningham
Chet Walker
Iverson
Greer
With Luke Jackson, Costello, and Mutombo off the bench.

How did you get that when the title and the OP both say adding Wilt? lol

og15 wrote:

prolific passer wrote:You are talking about combining the 67 and 01 sixers vs just the 01 Lakers right?

So you have
Wilt
Cunningham
Chet Walker
Iverson
Greer
With Luke Jackson, Costello, and Mutombo off the bench.

How did you get that when the title and the OP both say adding Wilt? lol

My bad.

prolific passer wrote:

og15 wrote:

prolific passer wrote:You are talking about combining the 67 and 01 sixers vs just the 01 Lakers right?

So you have
Wilt
Cunningham
Chet Walker
Iverson
Greer
With Luke Jackson, Costello, and Mutombo off the bench.

How did you get that when the title and the OP both say adding Wilt? lol

My bad.

It's all good, I think adding a whole team would wild because then the whole Sixers starters except Iverson become bench depth.