RealGM

Walton started off great and injury derailed his career. He returned to be a key bench player for Boston in mid 80s but finished playing just over 450 games. Embiid has always been saddled with injuries. He's 29, was drafted ten years ago and has so far played just under 450 games. Both won one mvp and Walton one championship. So far which one has the better career.

I think this is Embiid and by a lot. Most of those games Walton played were as a bench player later on, while just about all of the games Embiid has played has been as a legit star player.

Walton for peak, Embiid for sustained effort outside that one magic year. Also, I am under the impression (that I am willing to listen to statistical evidence that I am wrong) that today's star players generally take a lot more games off during an average season due to rest/lesser injuries/etc.

Dutchball97 wrote:I think this is Embiid and by a lot. Most of those games Walton played were as a bench player later on, while just about all of the games Embiid has played has been as a legit star player.

That sounds right but Embiid certainly hasn't stepped up in the playoffs which Walton did.

Well its clearly Embiid for the rs and Walton for the ps(even if it was only the two years his team won a title). In terms of vorp, its 21 for Walton and 31 for Embiid. So I think its within reason if someone has a strong emphasis on ps success and peak that you'd go with Walton being higher. Embiid does have way higher availability for the postseason also though which is another argument for him. That's more chances to win but then again, Embiid has generally been so subpar/semi injured in the playoffs that it might not mean much.

migya wrote:Walton started off great and injury derailed his career. He returned to be a key bench player for Boston in mid 80s but finished playing just over 450 games. Embiid has always been saddled with injuries. He's 29, was drafted ten years ago and has so far played just under 450 games. Both won one mvp and Walton one championship. So far which one has the better career.

For me it would be the one who dominated all comers to lead his team to a championship. Until Embiid does better than he's done so far in the playoffs, Walton will likely have the edge.

Doctor MJ wrote:

migya wrote:Walton started off great and injury derailed his career. He returned to be a key bench player for Boston in mid 80s but finished playing just over 450 games. Embiid has always been saddled with injuries. He's 29, was drafted ten years ago and has so far played just under 450 games. Both won one mvp and Walton one championship. So far which one has the better career.

For me it would be the one who dominated all comers to lead his team to a championship. Until Embiid does better than he's done so far in the playoffs, Walton will likely have the edge.

Saying he's "the one" who "dominated" all comers ...

sounds like he gets singular credit for that run.
sounds like he or Portland were dominant.

Against that on an individual level he was outproduced by his positional peer (perhaps outplayed?) in the one round his team was dominant. At a team level, they're the better team in all the others but not to the point where where flipping an outcome and the series (or else sending it to a decider) is particularly wild.

Meanwhile on a box level he's a little diminished versus his RS output whilst his frontcourt starters kick up a gear in that respect
Initials: PER; WS/48; BPM
BW: 19.7; .162; 6.0
ML: 19.0; .169; 4.2
BG: 18.7; .203; 5.6 (Gross plays fewer minutes than the other two)
By the box ... and the box doesn't capture everything, they look more like roughly equals than a one dominant figure.

Now as I say the box doesn't tell everything ... but then that's been the sore spot for playoff Embiid. It's super noisy but if the case for Walton is presented as titles and presumably assumed impact driving them ... Embiid does have an impact signal in the playoffs (career +17.6 playoff on-off). As I say super noisy ...


Idk, but my first glance thought is Embiid gives you more "good enough and healthy enough" seasons to give his teams a chance - obviously not the same chance as if he were healthier but healthy enough to amass some "CORP"/championship probability added/notional ring equity cumulatively. Walton happened to have the right team in the right year that made his clear cut best shot (if one dings him for playoff health in '78, approaches can vary) pay off ... that feels quite fortunate to me, but mileage can differ. I think I may (by instinct, I don't have a thorough methodology) be lower than the norm here on Walton as a pro though fwiw, and am open to being wrong on that.

Owly wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

migya wrote:Walton started off great and injury derailed his career. He returned to be a key bench player for Boston in mid 80s but finished playing just over 450 games. Embiid has always been saddled with injuries. He's 29, was drafted ten years ago and has so far played just under 450 games. Both won one mvp and Walton one championship. So far which one has the better career.

For me it would be the one who dominated all comers to lead his team to a championship. Until Embiid does better than he's done so far in the playoffs, Walton will likely have the edge.

Saying he's "the one" who "dominated" all comers ...

sounds like he gets singular credit for that run.
sounds like he or Portland were dominant.

Against that on an individual level he was outproduced by his positional peer (perhaps outplayed?) in the one round his team was dominant. At a team level, they're the better team in all the others but not to the point where where flipping an outcome and the series (or else sending it to a decider) is particularly wild.

Meanwhile on a box level he's a little diminished versus his RS output whilst his frontcourt starters kick up a gear in that respect
Initials: PER; WS/48; BPM
BW: 19.7; .162; 6.0
ML: 19.0; .169; 4.2
BG: 18.7; .203; 5.6 (Gross plays fewer minutes than the other two)
By the box ... and the box doesn't capture everything, they look more like roughly equals than a one dominant figure.

Now as I say the box doesn't tell everything ... but then that's been the sore spot for playoff Embiid. It's super noisy but if the case for Walton is presented as titles and presumably assumed impact driving them ... Embiid does have an impact signal in the playoffs (career +17.6 playoff on-off). As I say super noisy ...


Idk, but my first glance thought is Embiid gives you more "good enough and healthy enough" seasons to give his teams a chance - obviously not the same chance as if he were healthier but healthy enough to amass some "CORP"/championship probability added/notional ring equity cumulatively. Walton happened to have the right team in the right year that made his clear cut best shot (if one dings him for playoff health in '78, approaches can vary) pay off ... that feels quite fortunate to me, but mileage can differ. I think I may (by instinct, I don't have a thorough methodology) be lower than the norm here on Walton as a pro though fwiw, and am open to being wrong on that.

Not really seeing the value of BPM or WS/48 or PER with a defensive specialist whose best offensive trait was passing.

IIRC, Walton posted the best raw split of anyone between Russell and Lebron that season, in a year where srs was suppressed.

In my opinion a ring as the best player and a FMVP is a better career than never being the conference finals.

Walton peaked higher. Walton won more. Walton shifted roles and became 6MOY later on a dynasty.

Why wouldn’t Embiid would trade his career and hardware for Walton’s?

Owly wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

migya wrote:Walton started off great and injury derailed his career. He returned to be a key bench player for Boston in mid 80s but finished playing just over 450 games. Embiid has always been saddled with injuries. He's 29, was drafted ten years ago and has so far played just under 450 games. Both won one mvp and Walton one championship. So far which one has the better career.

For me it would be the one who dominated all comers to lead his team to a championship. Until Embiid does better than he's done so far in the playoffs, Walton will likely have the edge.

Saying he's "the one" who "dominated" all comers ...

sounds like he gets singular credit for that run.
sounds like he or Portland were dominant.

Against that on an individual level he was outproduced by his positional peer (perhaps outplayed?) in the one round his team was dominant. At a team level, they're the better team in all the others but not to the point where where flipping an outcome and the series (or else sending it to a decider) is particularly wild.

Meanwhile on a box level he's a little diminished versus his RS output whilst his frontcourt starters kick up a gear in that respect
Initials: PER; WS/48; BPM
BW: 19.7; .162; 6.0
ML: 19.0; .169; 4.2
BG: 18.7; .203; 5.6 (Gross plays fewer minutes than the other two)
By the box ... and the box doesn't capture everything, they look more like roughly equals than a one dominant figure.

Now as I say the box doesn't tell everything ... but then that's been the sore spot for playoff Embiid. It's super noisy but if the case for Walton is presented as titles and presumably assumed impact driving them ... Embiid does have an impact signal in the playoffs (career +17.6 playoff on-off). As I say super noisy ...


Idk, but my first glance thought is Embiid gives you more "good enough and healthy enough" seasons to give his teams a chance - obviously not the same chance as if he were healthier but healthy enough to amass some "CORP"/championship probability added/notional ring equity cumulatively. Walton happened to have the right team in the right year that made his clear cut best shot (if one dings him for playoff health in '78, approaches can vary) pay off ... that feels quite fortunate to me, but mileage can differ. I think I may (by instinct, I don't have a thorough methodology) be lower than the norm here on Walton as a pro though fwiw, and am open to being wrong on that.

Fair point specifically with the Kareem comparison. Did he truly dominate Kareem? Probably not and I should have used a less hyperbolic choice of words.

With that said, I do think Walton was the more valuable player in the time period over Kareem, and I think outperforming Kareem is a much bigger deal than anything I've seen from Embiid in the playoffs to this point.

Re: Walton happened to have the right team. I don't think his supporting cast was all that singular, and that might be why we diverge in our assessment of Walton.

Doctor MJ wrote:

Owly wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
For me it would be the one who dominated all comers to lead his team to a championship. Until Embiid does better than he's done so far in the playoffs, Walton will likely have the edge.

Saying he's "the one" who "dominated" all comers ...

sounds like he gets singular credit for that run.
sounds like he or Portland were dominant.

Against that on an individual level he was outproduced by his positional peer (perhaps outplayed?) in the one round his team was dominant. At a team level, they're the better team in all the others but not to the point where where flipping an outcome and the series (or else sending it to a decider) is particularly wild.

Meanwhile on a box level he's a little diminished versus his RS output whilst his frontcourt starters kick up a gear in that respect
Initials: PER; WS/48; BPM
BW: 19.7; .162; 6.0
ML: 19.0; .169; 4.2
BG: 18.7; .203; 5.6 (Gross plays fewer minutes than the other two)
By the box ... and the box doesn't capture everything, they look more like roughly equals than a one dominant figure.

Now as I say the box doesn't tell everything ... but then that's been the sore spot for playoff Embiid. It's super noisy but if the case for Walton is presented as titles and presumably assumed impact driving them ... Embiid does have an impact signal in the playoffs (career +17.6 playoff on-off). As I say super noisy ...


Idk, but my first glance thought is Embiid gives you more "good enough and healthy enough" seasons to give his teams a chance - obviously not the same chance as if he were healthier but healthy enough to amass some "CORP"/championship probability added/notional ring equity cumulatively. Walton happened to have the right team in the right year that made his clear cut best shot (if one dings him for playoff health in '78, approaches can vary) pay off ... that feels quite fortunate to me, but mileage can differ. I think I may (by instinct, I don't have a thorough methodology) be lower than the norm here on Walton as a pro though fwiw, and am open to being wrong on that.

Fair point specifically with the Kareem comparison. Did he truly dominate Kareem? Probably not and I should have used a less hyperbolic choice of words.

With that said, I do think Walton was the more valuable player in the time period over Kareem, and I think outperforming Kareem is a much bigger deal than anything I've seen from Embiid in the playoffs to this point.

Re: Walton happened to have the right team. I don't think his supporting cast was all that singular, and that might be why we diverge in our assessment of Walton.

So ... right now (always, but especially right now) this doesn't seem that important. Walton (RIP) was a great and significant player and spoke out about things he cared about and did keep trying to play on a body that kept failing him ... I don't particularly mythologize sports stars but Walton seemed like a good person ... that's the context, spirit of this.


For me I'm not sure he did outperform Kareem. I haven't watched that series at all closely though. I don't know if other Lakers shoot badly because of Walton (and was Jabbar not protecting on the other end), or because they're not that good or luck.

I don't think that cast was amazing. I do think they're better than the '77 WoWY would suggest (especially versions including the playoffs for the "in", where other Blazers seem to be at an unsustainable level and perhaps inadvertently harming their perception) and a good fit for Walton and played well in those playoffs. I think his peak lining up with a lack of dominant teams helped. I'm not sure peak Walton "works" the same way for the Petrie-Wicks Blazers or for the Clippers teams. Maybe they're bad cultures and he was broadly unfortunate but shifting his healthy peak outside that two year (or 1.X) window I can easily see him without a title (heck per above it doesn't take wild swings to flip or extend the irl series). This isn't to deny the impact signal that's there (though regarding the original debate, to the extent that what was offered was playoff centric, cf the above Embiid's playoff on-off, with the caveats given).

And then without a title ... one possible point of comparison is say ... Thurmond. There's differences but ... Thurmond too has a high WoWY indicator for peak-ish impact. Thurmond sustained closer to his peak for longer and despite missing chunks of seasons was still substantially healthier. Thurmond was somewhat in the shadows of giants ... Walton ... I don't know the detail so I won't get too speculative and I know his politics turned some people off ... there were probably advantages to being the white guy (on a, I think, fairly white team) when the big rival was the taciturn, black Muslim who has dominated the league and to a lesser degree awards. Walton was the higher pick and had the storybook college career. I don't know but my guess is people see them as different tiers for circa apex years and leaving aside narrative and speaking otoh, without close study of numbers and health for specific years ... I don't know I think maybe people perceive a peak gap that I'm less sure of and Walton's circa apex era might get mythologized. I may very well be wrong here.


Fwiw, for '77 whilst Portland undoubtedly significantly missed him when out it seems like their points diff was clearly at its greatest in games he played 20 to 29 minutes. Don't know if he was building leads and the others merely sustaining or what. It's already a noisy measure and I'm just looking at arbitrary minute bin thresholds.
[edit note: changed typo - "player" to "played"]

Owly wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

Owly wrote:Saying he's "the one" who "dominated" all comers ...

sounds like he gets singular credit for that run.
sounds like he or Portland were dominant.

Against that on an individual level he was outproduced by his positional peer (perhaps outplayed?) in the one round his team was dominant. At a team level, they're the better team in all the others but not to the point where where flipping an outcome and the series (or else sending it to a decider) is particularly wild.

Meanwhile on a box level he's a little diminished versus his RS output whilst his frontcourt starters kick up a gear in that respect
Initials: PER; WS/48; BPM
BW: 19.7; .162; 6.0
ML: 19.0; .169; 4.2
BG: 18.7; .203; 5.6 (Gross plays fewer minutes than the other two)
By the box ... and the box doesn't capture everything, they look more like roughly equals than a one dominant figure.

Now as I say the box doesn't tell everything ... but then that's been the sore spot for playoff Embiid. It's super noisy but if the case for Walton is presented as titles and presumably assumed impact driving them ... Embiid does have an impact signal in the playoffs (career +17.6 playoff on-off). As I say super noisy ...


Idk, but my first glance thought is Embiid gives you more "good enough and healthy enough" seasons to give his teams a chance - obviously not the same chance as if he were healthier but healthy enough to amass some "CORP"/championship probability added/notional ring equity cumulatively. Walton happened to have the right team in the right year that made his clear cut best shot (if one dings him for playoff health in '78, approaches can vary) pay off ... that feels quite fortunate to me, but mileage can differ. I think I may (by instinct, I don't have a thorough methodology) be lower than the norm here on Walton as a pro though fwiw, and am open to being wrong on that.

Fair point specifically with the Kareem comparison. Did he truly dominate Kareem? Probably not and I should have used a less hyperbolic choice of words.

With that said, I do think Walton was the more valuable player in the time period over Kareem, and I think outperforming Kareem is a much bigger deal than anything I've seen from Embiid in the playoffs to this point.

Re: Walton happened to have the right team. I don't think his supporting cast was all that singular, and that might be why we diverge in our assessment of Walton.

So ... right now (always, but especially right now) this doesn't seem that important. Walton (RIP) was a great and significant player and spoke out about things he cared about and did keep trying to play on a body that kept failing him ... I don't particularly mythologize sports stars but Walton seemed like a good person ... that's the context, spirit of this.


For me I'm not sure he did outperform Kareem. I haven't watched that series at all closely though. I don't know if other Lakers shoot badly because of Walton (and was Jabbar not protecting on the other end), or because they're not that good or luck.

I don't think that cast was amazing. I do think they're better than the '77 WoWY would suggest (especially versions including the playoffs for the "in", where other Blazers seem to be at an unsustainable level and perhaps inadvertently harming their perception) and a good fit for Walton and played well in those playoffs. I think his peak lining up with a lack of dominant teams helped. I'm not sure peak Walton "works" the same way for the Petrie-Wicks Blazers or for the Clippers teams. Maybe they're bad cultures and he was broadly unfortunate but shifting his healthy peak outside that two year (or 1.X) window I can easily see him without a title (heck per above it doesn't take wild swings to flip or extend the irl series). This isn't to deny the impact signal that's there (though regarding the original debate, to the extent that what was offered was playoff centric, cf the above Embiid's playoff on-off, with the caveats given).

And then without a title ... one possible point of comparison is say ... Thurmond. There's differences but ... Thurmond too has a high WoWY indicator for peak-ish impact. Thurmond sustained closer to his peak for longer and despite missing chunks of seasons was still substantially healthier. Thurmond was somewhat in the shadows of giants ... Walton ... I don't know the detail so I won't get too speculative and I know his politics turned some people off ... there were probably advantages to being the white guy (on a, I think, fairly white team) when the big rival was the taciturn, black Muslim who has dominated the league and to a lesser degree awards. Walton was the higher pick and had the storybook college career. I don't know but my guess is people see them as different tiers for circa apex years and leaving aside narrative and speaking otoh, without close study of numbers and health for specific years ... I don't know I think maybe people perceive a peak gap that I'm less sure of and Walton's circa apex era might get mythologized. I may very well be wrong here.


Fwiw, for '77 whilst Portland undoubtedly significantly missed him when out it seems like their points diff was clearly at its greatest in games he player 20 to 29 minutes. Don't know if he was building leads and the others merely sustaining or what. It's already a noisy measure and I'm just looking at arbitrary minute bin thresholds.

Yeah, RIP to Walton and it's awkward for you that he passed in the middle of this conversation. Wouldn't begrudge leaving the debate for another time, but since you responded:

I think Kareem has a strong argument for being the more impressive player compared to Walton basically always, and in that 1977 series, Kareem was hitting shots at an astonishing level. And yet from an impact perspective, I think Walton was having more impact.

I think the most interesting thing to think about is just about how something like this is possible. In general "fit" is always a significant part of the equation and something I don't think we really reckon with enough as we do player comparisons.

But with Walton there's also the matter of the Blazers playing in an unusual style that allows Walton have profound impact, and this gets all the more interesting imho when you understand the history of it. This wasn't a gimmick style that couldn't be expected to compete more broadly, it's what a pivot DID on the court until Mikan turned pivots into volume scorers, and volume scoring pivots for the most part weren't as successful as contemporaries thought they were after the key was widened. I think you can make the argument that NBA teams should have largely abandoned volume scoring bigs from that point on, but they didn't, and so we now look at Walton as a weird phenomenon even now as we watch Jokic take the style to a new level.

Now, with Kareem's shooting ability, I'm not saying he should have been turned into a Walton-like pivot passer. You go with the outlier star strengths you have access to...thing is, I'd argue that Kareem was more of a weird outlier than Walton. I mean, Kareem is the all-time leader in career TS Add, but who tries to shoot like him today? Absolutely nobody.

All of the offense talk those, as interesting as it is, shouldn't leave us to forget that Walton was another tier as a defender, and that he used his defense to kickstart the offense extremely rapidly. Not saying that should be enough necessarily to elevate him over Kareem, but defense is what makes bigs the most valuable players of that era, and so for Walton to have the edge there is no small thing.

Re: Thurmond. I think Thurmond's impact and longevity gives him a strong career argument, but I also think he hurts your team's offense and lowers your ceiling, and I think the fact that the Warriors moved on to a chip only when they let go of him really makes it hard for me to take the WOWY stats too seriously. It would be one thing if they moved on from him when he was considered far past prime, but that's really not what happened.

Re: Walton possibly overrated as a more palatable choice for fans/writers of the era. I think that's less of Walton-getting-overrated thing and more of a Kareem-getting-underrated thing.

I think that the critical reason why Walton gets singular support on this board has to do with the WOWY and the high peak his team seemed to hit when he was healthy, and while it was start enough that even people at the time had to notice, we here would be noticing this data regardless, and it's pretty amazing data.

For Kareem, I actually think it's less about race or creed and more about personality - taciturn as you say. I consider Kareem the greatest intellectual in NBA history, but he's also remarkably anti-charismatic. And while we can point a finger toward the racist/creedist aspects of culture, we could say the same thing for Muhammed Ali. Charm is a thing, and it tends to involve suffering useful idiots. Kareem was not one for that.

Doctor MJ wrote:

Owly wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
Fair point specifically with the Kareem comparison. Did he truly dominate Kareem? Probably not and I should have used a less hyperbolic choice of words.

With that said, I do think Walton was the more valuable player in the time period over Kareem, and I think outperforming Kareem is a much bigger deal than anything I've seen from Embiid in the playoffs to this point.

Re: Walton happened to have the right team. I don't think his supporting cast was all that singular, and that might be why we diverge in our assessment of Walton.

So ... right now (always, but especially right now) this doesn't seem that important. Walton (RIP) was a great and significant player and spoke out about things he cared about and did keep trying to play on a body that kept failing him ... I don't particularly mythologize sports stars but Walton seemed like a good person ... that's the context, spirit of this.


For me I'm not sure he did outperform Kareem. I haven't watched that series at all closely though. I don't know if other Lakers shoot badly because of Walton (and was Jabbar not protecting on the other end), or because they're not that good or luck.

I don't think that cast was amazing. I do think they're better than the '77 WoWY would suggest (especially versions including the playoffs for the "in", where other Blazers seem to be at an unsustainable level and perhaps inadvertently harming their perception) and a good fit for Walton and played well in those playoffs. I think his peak lining up with a lack of dominant teams helped. I'm not sure peak Walton "works" the same way for the Petrie-Wicks Blazers or for the Clippers teams. Maybe they're bad cultures and he was broadly unfortunate but shifting his healthy peak outside that two year (or 1.X) window I can easily see him without a title (heck per above it doesn't take wild swings to flip or extend the irl series). This isn't to deny the impact signal that's there (though regarding the original debate, to the extent that what was offered was playoff centric, cf the above Embiid's playoff on-off, with the caveats given).

And then without a title ... one possible point of comparison is say ... Thurmond. There's differences but ... Thurmond too has a high WoWY indicator for peak-ish impact. Thurmond sustained closer to his peak for longer and despite missing chunks of seasons was still substantially healthier. Thurmond was somewhat in the shadows of giants ... Walton ... I don't know the detail so I won't get too speculative and I know his politics turned some people off ... there were probably advantages to being the white guy (on a, I think, fairly white team) when the big rival was the taciturn, black Muslim who has dominated the league and to a lesser degree awards. Walton was the higher pick and had the storybook college career. I don't know but my guess is people see them as different tiers for circa apex years and leaving aside narrative and speaking otoh, without close study of numbers and health for specific years ... I don't know I think maybe people perceive a peak gap that I'm less sure of and Walton's circa apex era might get mythologized. I may very well be wrong here.


Fwiw, for '77 whilst Portland undoubtedly significantly missed him when out it seems like their points diff was clearly at its greatest in games he player 20 to 29 minutes. Don't know if he was building leads and the others merely sustaining or what. It's already a noisy measure and I'm just looking at arbitrary minute bin thresholds.

Yeah, RIP to Walton and it's awkward for you that he passed in the middle of this conversation. Wouldn't begrudge leaving the debate for another time, but since you responded:

I think Kareem has a strong argument for being the more impressive player compared to Walton basically always, and in that 1977 series, Kareem was hitting shots at an astonishing level. And yet from an impact perspective, I think Walton was having more impact.

I think the most interesting thing to think about is just about how something like this is possible. In general "fit" is always a significant part of the equation and something I don't think we really reckon with enough as we do player comparisons.

But with Walton there's also the matter of the Blazers playing in an unusual style that allows Walton have profound impact, and this gets all the more interesting imho when you understand the history of it. This wasn't a gimmick style that couldn't be expected to compete more broadly, it's what a pivot DID on the court until Mikan turned pivots into volume scorers, and volume scoring pivots for the most part weren't as successful as contemporaries thought they were after the key was widened. I think you can make the argument that NBA teams should have largely abandoned volume scoring bigs from that point on, but they didn't, and so we now look at Walton as a weird phenomenon even now as we watch Jokic take the style to a new level.

Now, with Kareem's shooting ability, I'm not saying he should have been turned into a Walton-like pivot passer. You go with the outlier star strengths you have access to...thing is, I'd argue that Kareem was more of a weird outlier than Walton. I mean, Kareem is the all-time leader in career TS Add, but who tries to shoot like him today? Absolutely nobody.

All of the offense talk those, as interesting as it is, shouldn't leave us to forget that Walton was another tier as a defender, and that he used his defense to kickstart the offense extremely rapidly. Not saying that should be enough necessarily to elevate him over Kareem, but defense is what makes bigs the most valuable players of that era, and so for Walton to have the edge there is no small thing.

Re: Thurmond. I think Thurmond's impact and longevity gives him a strong career argument, but I also think he hurts your team's offense and lowers your ceiling, and I think the fact that the Warriors moved on to a chip only when they let go of him really makes it hard for me to take the WOWY stats too seriously. It would be one thing if they moved on from him when he was considered far past prime, but that's really not what happened.

Re: Walton possibly overrated as a more palatable choice for fans/writers of the era. I think that's less of Walton-getting-overrated thing and more of a Kareem-getting-underrated thing.

I think that the critical reason why Walton gets singular support on this board has to do with the WOWY and the high peak his team seemed to hit when he was healthy, and while it was start enough that even people at the time had to notice, we here would be noticing this data regardless, and it's pretty amazing data.

For Kareem, I actually think it's less about race or creed and more about personality - taciturn as you say. I consider Kareem the greatest intellectual in NBA history, but he's also remarkably anti-charismatic. And while we can point a finger toward the racist/creedist aspects of culture, we could say the same thing for Muhammed Ali. Charm is a thing, and it tends to involve suffering useful idiots. Kareem was not one for that.

Briefly because I don't want to be even broadly arguing against Walton right now ... though I also believe there can be a sympathy halo effect for guys that pass young (Walton's not "young" but it's a before typical age death).

I'm not too invested in one series.

I don't know because I don't have a ton of older games ... my impression was that the high post pivot didn't exactly die with Mikan and Walton wasn't unique in his league. My impression of Kerr is he was broadly of that ilk (some seem to suggest Russell latterly moved towards this style?). I can't say where all these guys were stationed but they should at least fit passer and non-volume scorer and mostly seem adequate mid-distance shooters (adding that as it makes you more viable away from the basket)
Walton is at 4.8 assist per 100 that RS
Adams is 6.4
Kelley is 6.2
Boerwinkle (fading as a player by this point) is at 8.2
Cowens is at 5.9
Lacey is at 6.7
Unseld is at 5.8
[Jabbar fwiw (who, like Walton, is at a low ebb) is at 4.8]
I'm not saying these guys are all playing as pure "pivots" (or to exactly whatever extent.

Like I say I don't know exactly where they played but (apart from the the thrown in Jabbar) they aren't high percentage, high volume (Cowens perhaps more than others), basket adjacent scorers. IDK.

I think GS's title was pretty lucky (in the sense of run those playoffs again I don't think they win that often), in a post dominant powerhouse landscape, from a year I would say Thurmond was outside his prime (woolly word so ...) the year before if that's the baseline, where there was other turnover that makes a estimating impact even more difficult than normal across years, and I think he was traded for a good player fwiw. Narrative aside I don't think we're getting a good national read on prime Thurmond there and fwiw the SRS doesn't change much, but unfortunately that similar SRS didn't get a playoff birth because of ... mostly luck and a different league landscape.

I do think Portland seem to play what some purists would have liked as team basketball. My guess is having 4 of their top 6 minutes guys (or 4 of the top 8 if you want to extend to the core rotation) with Walton as the top guy ... maybe makes them one of the last "mostly white" champs (but still at a time when more felt fine being ... "open" about say ... playing with the Knicks name ...). Depends how one defines it, Boston '86 have Bird and McHale and Ainge and a lot of the bench. But I think you had teams playing up to racial archetypes (76ers more "talented", athletic, "playground", coach perceived to have been loose, "roll the balls out" approach at that time) that might want to make some writers hype up Portland. And yeah as I said Thurmond has nice WoWY too. And Embiid has monster playoff signal so far as the focus was on playoffs. And other Blazers played above their heads in the playoffs which may inflate Walton's impact. And WoWY is noisy and to the extent you trust such stuff they seem better with him between 20 and 29 minutes.

I agree KAJ wasn't charismatic or "willing" and that didn't help him. On Ali I wonder, beyond being a "draw", what the favorability numbers were on him over his career. Obviously a mythic figure now, (think some suggest more than he was good?) think he got gentler and Parkinson's ... might have changed perceptions/coverage ...idk.

But that's all very tangenty from topic, mostly otoh (apart from looking up some guys I thought of as passing centers from '77) ... and yeah I'll step away at this point.