RealGM

Looked at the current top 100 project and as has been consistent on here, Kareem is much more highly rated than Chamberlain. I think a good comparison between them is to look at the years they played at the same time and also of how Chamberlain would perform in place of Kareem for career.


1969-70

Chamberlain age 33 -
RS - 12gms, 42.1mins, 56.8fg%, 5.8ftm, 44.6ft%, 18.4reb, 4.1ast, 27.3pts
24.8per, 55.4ts%, .692ft rate, 14.5ast%, 1.4ows, 1dws, 2.3ws, .221ws/48

PS - 18gms, 47.3mins, 54.9fg%, 4.6ftm, 40.6ft%, 22.2reb, 4.5ast, 22.1pts
20.3per, 52.8ts%, .701ft rate, 13ast%, 1.4ows, 1dws, 2.5ws, .140ws/48


Kareem age 22 -
RS - 82gms, 43.1mins, 51.8fg%, 5.9ftm, 65.3ft%, 14.5reb, 4.1ast, 28.8pts
22.5per, 55.2ts%, .410ft rate, 13.1ast%, 9.3ows, 4.5dws, 13.8ws, .187ws/48

PS - 10gms, 43.5mins, 56.7fg%, 7.4ftm, 73.3ft%, 16.8reb, 4.1ast, 35.2pts
29.4per, 60.8ts%, .412ft rate, 15ast%, 2.3ows, 0.2dws, 2.6ws, .286ws/48



1970-71

Chamberlain age 34 -
RS - 82gms, 44.3mins, 54.5fg%, 4.4ftm, 53.8ft%, 18.2reb, 4.3ast, 20.7pts
20.3per, 55.8ts%, .546ft rate, 18.4reb%, 12.7ast%, 8.2ows, 4.5dws, 12.6ws, .167ws/48

PS - 12gms, 45.5fg%, 4.2ftm, 51.5ft%, 20.2reb, 4.4ast, 18.3pts
19.1per, 47.9ts%, .519ft rate, 21.3reb%, 14.1ast%, 0.4ows, 0.4dws, 0.8ws, .070ws/48


Kareem age 23 -
RS - 82gms, 40.1mins, 57.7fg%, 5.7ftm, 69ft%, 16reb, 3.3ast, 31.7pts
29per, 60.6ts%, .370ft rate, 18.9reb%, 12.2ast%, 17iws, 5.3dws, 22.3ws, .326ws/48

PS - 14gms, 41.2mins, 51.5fg%, 4.9ftm, 67.3ft%, 17reb, 2.5ast, 26.6pts
25.3per, 54.8ts%, .342ft rate, 19.2reb%, 9ast%, 1.9ows, 1.3dws, 3.3ws, .271ws/48



1971-72

Chamberlain age 35 -
RS - 82gms, 42.3mins, 64.9fg%, 2.7ftm, 42.2ft%, 19.2reb, 4ast, 14.8pts
20.3per, 55.8ts%, .546ft rate, 18.4reb%, 12.7ast%, 8.2ows, 4.5dws, 12.6ws, .167ws/48

PS - 15gms, 46.9mins, 56.3fg%, 4ftm, 49.2ft%, 21reb, 3.3ast, 14.7pts
17.8per, 56.2ts%, .859ft rate, 20.2reb%, 9.6ast%, 1.2ows, 1.8dws, 3ws, .205ws/48


Kareem age 24 -
RS - 81gms, 44.2mins, 57.4fg%, 6.2ftm, 68.9ft%, 16.6reb, 4.6ast, 34.8pts
29.9per, 60.3ts%, .363ft rate, 18.1reb%, 16.1ast%, 18.3ows, 7.1dws, 25.4ws, .340ws/48

PS - 11gms, 46.4mins, 43.7fg%, 3.5ftm, 70.4ft%, 18.2reb, 5.1ast, 28.7pts
22.4per, 46.2ts%, .170ft rate, 17reb%, 16.5ast%, 0.1ows, 1.5dws, 1.6ws, .147ws/48



1972-73

Chamberlain age 36 -
RS - 82gms, 43.2mins, 72.7fg%, 2.8ftm, 51ft%, 18.6reb, 4.5ast, 13.2pts
19.1per, 68.9ts%, .776ft rate, 19.6reb%, 12.5ast%, 10.7ows, 7.5dws, 18.2ws, .247ws/48

PS - 17gms, 47.1mins, 55.2fg%, 2.9ftm, 50ft%, 22.5reb, 3.5ast, 10.4pts
16.7per, 55.6ts%, .845ft rate, 21.7reb%, 9.7ast%, 1.1ows, 1.6dws, 2.7ws, .162ws/48


Kareem age 25 -
RS - 76gms, 42.8mins, 55.4fg%, 4.3ftm, 71.3ft%, 16.1reb, 5ast, 30.2
28.5per, 58ts%, .260ft rate, 18.2reb%, 17.9ast%, 14.4ows, 7.5dws, 21.9ws, .322ws/48

PS -
6gms, 46mins, 42.8fg%, 3.2ftm, 54.3ft%, 16.2reb, 2.8ast, 22.8pts
17.7per, 44.7ts%, .254ft rate, 18.3reb%, 9.6ast%, -0.1ows, 0.5dws, 0.5ws, .080ws/48



Chamberlain from age 33 to 36 when he retired. Wilt didn't get the ball to score much as has been documented involving the coach's view but he rebounded and defended well while still scoring some in these four seasons. Chamberlain does have worse efficiency but Kareem falls mightily in the playoffs. Chamberlain always rebounded more and they are even in assists. It's to note that this is in Kareem's higher end of his prime, which was in the 70s. It's the worst of Chamberlain really.


If Chamberlain was drafted in 1969 by Milwaukee and then went to the Lakers as Kareem did, retiring at age 36 in 1984, Does he have a better career than Kareem did?

It's to note that Kareem's age 32 season, 1980, was his last mvp and his numbers fall markedly from 1981 onwards.

All you need to know.

Instead of comparing post-prime Wilt to early Kareem and saying “he wasn’t that much worse at a much later age”, how about you compare them at the same age? Kareem put up much better numbers from 33-36 than Wilt did, was much healthier and contributed more to winning teams. He also won a Finals MVP at an age where Wilt was retired.

If you compare young Wilt to young Kareem, young Kareem was much more impactful and led the Bucks to a title when Wilt could barely get the Warriors over .500 and consistently led below average offenses before being traded for 30 cents on the dollar and making almost no change when he joined the Sixers.

Wilt’s one of the most overrated players of all-time. He didn’t have the offensive impact to be compared to the elite 2-way superstars. He’s more like a Karl Malone or a Dirk Nowitzki in terms of value than a top 10 all-time great.

iggymcfrack wrote:Instead of comparing post-prime Wilt to early Kareem and saying “he wasn’t that much worse at a much later age”, how about you compare them at the same age? Kareem put up much better numbers from 33-36 than Wilt did, was much healthier and contributed more to winning teams. He also won a Finals MVP at an age where Wilt was retired.

If you compare young Wilt to young Kareem, young Kareem was much more impactful and led the Bucks to a title when Wilt could barely get the Warriors over .500 and consistently led below average offenses before being traded for 30 cents on the dollar and making almost no change when he joined the Sixers.

Wilt’s one of the most overrated players of all-time. He didn’t have the offensive impact to be compared to the elite 2-way superstars. He’s more like a Karl Malone or a Dirk Nowitzki in terms of value than a top 10 all-time great.

When Chamberlain had good teams he contended, which was often. He made the playoffs every season of his career, Kareem didn't. Chamberlain didn't have a star next to him like Oscar or Magic, except West and he won as well, no coincidence. Chamberlain success with the 76ers is probably better than anything Kareem did.

migya wrote:

iggymcfrack wrote:Instead of comparing post-prime Wilt to early Kareem and saying “he wasn’t that much worse at a much later age”, how about you compare them at the same age? Kareem put up much better numbers from 33-36 than Wilt did, was much healthier and contributed more to winning teams. He also won a Finals MVP at an age where Wilt was retired.

If you compare young Wilt to young Kareem, young Kareem was much more impactful and led the Bucks to a title when Wilt could barely get the Warriors over .500 and consistently led below average offenses before being traded for 30 cents on the dollar and making almost no change when he joined the Sixers.

Wilt’s one of the most overrated players of all-time. He didn’t have the offensive impact to be compared to the elite 2-way superstars. He’s more like a Karl Malone or a Dirk Nowitzki in terms of value than a top 10 all-time great.

When Chamberlain had good teams he contended, which was often. He made the playoffs every season of his career, Kareem didn't. Chamberlain didn't have a star next to him like Oscar or Magic, except West and he won as well, no coincidence. Chamberlain success with the 76ers is probably better than anything Kareem did.

Wilt missed the playoffs in 1963.

iggymcfrack wrote:Wilt could barely get the Warriors over .500

Here are the winning percentages for all Warriors seasons with Wilt:

1960: 65%
1961: 58%
1962: 61%
1963: 39%
1964: 60%

I wouldn't call that "barely over .500".

before being traded for 30 cents on the dollar and making almost no change when he joined the Sixers.

Sixers record and SRS:

1964: 34-46, -3.75
1965: 40-40, -0.13
1966: 55-25, +4.14

In his first season with the Sixers, Wilt led them to the best record in the league. Of course I don't need to talk about 1967.

Again, this is extremely biased way to look at things. You can do the same thing against Kareem:

- Wilt was leading the greatest team in the league history up to that point during the heart of his career, while Kareem was missing playoffs,
- Wilt eliminated young Kareem as an old man, while Kareem was outplayed by Moses Malone at the same age.

This is not an objective analysis, you are cherry picking what supports your bias against Wilt.

Wilt’s one of the most overrated players of all-time. He didn’t have the offensive impact to be compared to the elite 2-way superstars. He’s more like a Karl Malone or a Dirk Nowitzki in terms of value than a top 10 all-time great.

Unfortunately, no impact signals show Dirk to be even close to Wilt in terms of impact, so you are likely wrong.

70sFan wrote:

iggymcfrack wrote:Wilt could barely get the Warriors over .500

Here are the winning percentages for all Warriors seasons with Wilt:

1960: 65%
1961: 58%
1962: 61%
1963: 39%
1964: 60%

I wouldn't call that "barely over .500".

That's because you missed a season. This is how it should look:

1960: 65%
1961: 58%
1962: 61%
1963: 39%
1964: 60%
1965: 25%

before being traded for 30 cents on the dollar and making almost no change when he joined the Sixers.

Sixers record and SRS:

1964: 34-46, -3.75
1965: 40-40, -0.13
1966: 55-25, +4.14

In his first season with the Sixers, Wilt led them to the best record in the league. Of course I don't need to talk about 1967.

No, Wilt's first season with the Sixers, he joined a team that was 22-23 when he joined them. They finished the season 40-40. Hence "almost no change".

Again, this is extremely biased way to look at things. You can do the same thing against Kareem:

- Wilt was leading the greatest team in the league history up to that point during the heart of his career, while Kareem was missing playoffs,
- Wilt eliminated young Kareem as an old man, while Kareem was outplayed by Moses Malone at the same age.

This is not an objective analysis, you are cherry picking what supports your bias against Wilt.

I was just bringing up the time frames the original poster brought up (young Kareem and old Wilt) and showing how Kareem was clearly better in both of those age frames.

Wilt’s one of the most overrated players of all-time. He didn’t have the offensive impact to be compared to the elite 2-way superstars. He’s more like a Karl Malone or a Dirk Nowitzki in terms of value than a top 10 all-time great.

Unfortunately, no impact signals show Dirk to be even close to Wilt in terms of impact, so you are likely wrong.

This is not true at all.

Prime WOWYR: Dirk 7.1, Wilt 6.0
Prime WOWY score: Dirk +1.8, Wilt +1.2

I don't have any bias against Wilt at all. At one time, I even used to argue he was the GOAT before I learned better. It's really the impact data and the comparison of how little he's helped new teams upon joining that has convinced me he belongs in the Dirk/Malone tier instead of the Jordan/Kareem tier.

iggymcfrack wrote:That's because you missed a season. This is how it should look:

1960: 65%
1961: 58%
1962: 61%
1963: 39%
1964: 60%
1965: 25%

I didn't miss the last season, Wilt didn't even play half of the season in 1965 Warriors team.

Still, 3 out of 5 full seasons above 60% and another one that was almost at 60% is hardly "barely over .500).

No, Wilt's first season with the Sixers, he joined a team that was 22-23 when he joined them. They finished the season 40-40. Hence "almost no change".

You participate in top 100 project, but it seems that you miss context in this situation that was deeply analyzed and explained by ZeppelinPage (in quotes that were responses to your post actually):



Wilt's team started strong after the trade, but then 3 of 5 starting players missed substantial amount of time, so the team regressed. How is such situation can be applied to conclude that Wilt had no impact? Especially when you look at how they did in the postseason?

I was just bringing up the time frames the original poster brought up (young Kareem and old Wilt) and showing how Kareem was clearly better in both of those age frames.

But your "showing" that old Kareem was better than old Wilt was far from objective. In reality, early 1970s Wilt and early 1980s Kareem are comparable players with comparable amount of success and impact.

This is not true at all.

Prime WOWYR: Dirk 7.1, Wilt 6.0
Prime WOWY score: Dirk +1.8, Wilt +1.2

Again, missing context that was already presented to you:

I don't have any bias against Wilt at all. At one time, I even used to argue he was the GOAT before I learned better. It's really the impact data and the comparison of how little he's helped new teams upon joining that has convinced me he belongs in the Dirk/Malone tier instead of the Jordan/Kareem tier.

If you ignore posts like ZeppelinPage ones that were presented as the response to your post in a project you are very engaged in... then I think we can see that you are selective in what "impact data" you consider and what not.

The same thing applies to "how he helped new teams". We had this discussion before - you always ignore 1960 Warriors in this situation (huge jump from rookie Wilt's impact), you ignore the massive difference between 1964 and 1966 Sixers and of course you ignore how Lakers stopped being relevant with Wilt's retirement.

You also ignore that Wilt led two of the greatest teams in the league history as the clear best player (something Dirk or Malone never achieved even once).

You ignore that we have plenty of impact signals showing Wilt to be in top 10 tier easily.

You ignore boxscore numbers you use very often in most situations.

You ignore that Wilt's teams usually overperformed in the playoffs, despite him being a "choker".

If you don't have any bias against Wilt, then it's a very strange coincidence...

iggymcfrack wrote:Instead of comparing post-prime Wilt to early Kareem and saying “he wasn’t that much worse at a much later age”, how about you compare them at the same age? Kareem put up much better numbers from 33-36 than Wilt did, was much healthier and contributed more to winning teams. He also won a Finals MVP at an age where Wilt was retired.

If you compare young Wilt to young Kareem, young Kareem was much more impactful and led the Bucks to a title when Wilt could barely get the Warriors over .500 and consistently led below average offenses before being traded for 30 cents on the dollar and making almost no change when he joined the Sixers.

Wilt’s one of the most overrated players of all-time. He didn’t have the offensive impact to be compared to the elite 2-way superstars. He’s more like a Karl Malone or a Dirk Nowitzki in terms of value than a top 10 all-time great.

What better numbers?

All Kareem had better than Chamberlain at the same ages was ts%. He scored more points at age 33-36 but Chamberlain is better everywhere else. Rebound difference is a joke and from the stats kept by some statisticians, blocks as well for Wilt. Assists better for Chamberlain.