Wilt vs. Kareem: Who Was Greater (Make Your Case!)

[ty 4191]

I have Wilt higher, but then I have Russell as GOAT so I don't penalize Wilt as much for not beating Russell and the Celtics as most people.

It's hard to beat a team that does this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DRXJdAr15iZmulqF0F_6SnxrB_b_PPFPM543ke30-qM/edit#gid=0

And, has HOFers literally coming off the bench for several years...

Ramsey, Sanders, and KC wouldn't sniff the HOF as players except for the era and the Celtics unprecedented success. They are more like Dell Curry and Tony Allen. Great bench guys for much of their careers but other than Manu, how many other have made the hall as perennial SMOY candidates. So literally true but not really an accurate description of their impact.

No reaction to my spreadsheeet?

[MyUniBroDavis]

It's hard to beat a team that does this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DRXJdAr15iZmulqF0F_6SnxrB_b_PPFPM543ke30-qM/edit#gid=0

And, has HOFers literally coming off the bench for several years...

Ramsey, Sanders, and KC wouldn't sniff the HOF as players except for the era and the Celtics unprecedented success. They are more like Dell Curry and Tony Allen. Great bench guys for much of their careers but other than Manu, how many other have made the hall as perennial SMOY candidates. So literally true but not really an accurate description of their impact.

No reaction to my spreadsheeet?

did you just post a spreadsheet showing how good the Celtics defense was as an argument against the player whose entire thing is how he was good at defense

Might as well put “hard to beat a team that does this” and have a picture of bill Russell smiling lol

[ty 4191]

What is wrong here?

Look at the SRS all time team rankings for 1960-1969 and compare them to 1970-1980:

1. 1971 Bucks: 11.92
2. 1972 Lakers: 11.25
3. 1972 Bucks: 10.70
(Massive Dropoff)
4. 1967 76ers: 8.50
5. 1970 Knicks: 8.42

Of the top 10 in SRS:
-9 are post ABA/League Expanding
-10 of the top 14 are 1970-1974.

Here are the highest SRS for any team prior to Expansion AND ABA for the 1959-1960 through 1966-1967 timeframe:
1. 67 Sixers 8.50
2. 62 Celtics 8.25
3. 65 Celtics 7.46
4. 67 Celtics 7.24
5. 64 Celtics 6.93
6. 63 Celtics 6.38
7. 61 Celtics 4.94
8. 64 Royals 4.43
9. 64 Warriors 4.41
10. 66 Celtics 4.34

And here is 1967-1968 through 1974-1975 (Next 8 seasons):
1. 71 Bucks 11.92
2. 72 Lakers 11.65
3. 72 Bucks 10.70
4. 70 Knicks 8.48
5. 73 Lakers 8.16
6. 68 Sixers 7.96
7. 72 Bulls 7.91
8. 73 Bucks 7.84
9. 74 Bucks 7.34
10. 73 Celtics 7.35

Why is this all very, very important in this discussion?

Because it strongly favors the conclusion that league got a LOT weaker, and had much less parity, the standard deviation of winning percentage went way up (another indicator of league strength, competitive balance, and parity.)

If you (or anyone else here) can/wishes to make a comprehensive case that the 1970's NBA was (anywhere near) the 1960's NBA in parity, average strength of competition, go ahead. I'm all ears.

I've never seen any evidence to support that conclusion. In fact, every bit of statistical evidence points to the fact that the 60's were much, much stronger/deeper, top to bottom.

[70sFan]

What is wrong here?

Look at the SRS all time team rankings for 1960-1969 and compare them to 1970-1980:

1. 1971 Bucks: 11.92
2. 1972 Lakers: 11.25
3. 1972 Bucks: 10.70
(Massive Dropoff)
4. 1967 76ers: 8.50
5. 1970 Knicks: 8.42

Of the top 10 in SRS:
-9 are post ABA/League Expanding
-10 of the top 14 are 1970-1974.

Here are the highest SRS for any team prior to Expansion AND ABA for the 1959-1960 through 1966-1967 timeframe:
1. 67 Sixers 8.50
2. 62 Celtics 8.25
3. 65 Celtics 7.46
4. 67 Celtics 7.24
5. 64 Celtics 6.93
6. 63 Celtics 6.38
7. 61 Celtics 4.94
8. 64 Royals 4.43
9. 64 Warriors 4.41
10. 66 Celtics 4.34

And here is 1967-1968 through 1974-1975 (Next 8 seasons):
1. 71 Bucks 11.92
2. 72 Lakers 11.65
3. 72 Bucks 10.70
4. 70 Knicks 8.48
5. 73 Lakers 8.16
6. 68 Sixers 7.96
7. 72 Bulls 7.91
8. 73 Bucks 7.84
9. 74 Bucks 7.34
10. 73 Celtics 7.35

Why is this all very, very important in this discussion?

Because it strongly favors the conclusion that league got a LOT weaker, and had much less parity, the standard deviation of winning percentage went way up (another indicator of league strength, competitive balance, and parity.)

If you (or anyone else here) can/wishes to make a comprehensive case that the 1970's NBA was (anywhere near) the 1960's NBA in parity, average strength of competition, go ahead. I'm all ears.

I've never seen any evidence to support that conclusion. In fact, every bit of statistical evidence points to the fact that the 60's were much, much stronger/deeper, top to bottom.

If you're talking about the parity, then why do you ignore post-merger 1970s NBA, which was more balanced than ever before or since? Kareem arguably peaked after the merger after all.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Not to mention that display by Wilt in the 1969 Finals is THE worst individual playoff series in NBA history as far as I'm concerned.

You mean when Wilt- already playing on a severely frayed knee (which collapsed the next year), tore is patellar tendor, and still begged to come back into Game 7 in the fourth quarter, and Butch Van Breda Kolff, who hated and treated Wilt like garbage said "We're playing better without you." And put Mel Counts in?

That injury is just a excuse thrown around by the pro-Wilt supporters for the 69 Finals debacle. He was having a underwhelming series even before that injury in Game 7. He couldn't hit his free throws (not an issue with Kareem)

In game 6 he played 48 minutes and made only 1 FG.

Even if the Lakers had won that series it'd have had more to do with West's outstanding individual play.

Until he reached his 40s.....coach or no coach I can't see Kareem scoring ONE FG while playing all 48 minutes of a Finals game.

[ty 4191]

If you're talking about the parity, then why do you ignore post-merger 1970s NBA, which was more balanced than ever before or since? Kareem arguably peaked after the merger after all.

I'm not just talking about parity. I'm talking primarily about league strength top to bottom.

Kareem won 0 scoring titles and 0 boards titles after the merger. Also, the league had 24 teams the first year of the merger. That’s still a ton more than 8-9 during Wilt’s peak.

[ty 4191]

That injury is just a excuse thrown around by the pro-Wilt supporters for the 69 Finals debacle. He was having a underwhelming series even before that injury in Game 7.

1. Kareem never had a bad playoff series from ages 22-36? That's factually incorrect. And what was Wilt's role on that team, by the way? Do you know how Van Breda Kolff used him, compared to the dozen plus coaches Wilt had in 14 years?

2. Kareem didn't miss the entire playoffs two years in his absolute prime? With his teams winning nothing and never coming remotely close from 1974-1975 through 1978-1979? What did Kareem ever win without a first ballot HOF ATG PG at the helm?

3. Since you haven't read what I have on Wilt, you don't understand that his knee was already arthritic and crumbling BEFORE Game 7 of the 69' Finals. That's why it collapsed without severe contact in the 69' Finals, and then, completely, in November 1969.

[RTG HD]

Wilt in his prime was the better player but Kareem had a longer career. Both top 3 legends imo with strong cases for being the greatest of all time.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Kareem. I really am not impressed as others by Wilt as high volume scoring Center. And none of those seasons led to titles. Kareem was more impressive offensively in the playoffs.

Kareem was more impressive offensively in the playoffs for two reasons:

1. Played in a much weaker league than Wilt did in his scoring years. (See OP for a 50+ hour study proving this between 70's Fan and I, with complete results for both, full career for each). Kareem especially faced much weaker defenses, overall, in the playoffs, but also, weaker overall teams, too.

2. Kareem wasn't essentially forced to reinvent his game and focus on defense and passing mid career, which he focused on the entire second half of his career. He went from 41/25/3 first half and 21/21/5.5 the second half of his career. Had his teams asked him (or demanded of him) that he keep scoring at ridiculous volume and high relative efficiency, he would have, and could have, in his own words "If I knew Kareem was going to hang around forever and break my scoring record? I would have put that records waaaay outta sight." Wilt could easily have scored 40,000 points in the RS.

3. Do you wonder why none of WIlt's teams won 1960-1965? Look at his teammates and coaches, for one:

I don't think you comprehend how bad Wilt's teammates and coaches (teams) were 1960-1965.

Consider Wilt played his first three/formative years with coaches that 1) had little to no experience 2) were lousy and 3) totally misused and misunderstood Wilt.

--Neil Johnston: Coached only 2 years in the NBA, was fired after 1961.

--Frank McGuire: Coached 1 year in the NBA, resigned (rather than be fired) after 1962.

--Bill Feerick: 2 years NBA experience, total, when he took over. Was fired after 1 year.

And, Wilt also had total garbage teammates on the Warriors.

I ran a study removing Wilt and Kareem from their team's TS Added awhile ago. Here are the results.

I ran another study. "Teammates' True Shooting Added.". Since TS Added is already adjusted for Era/Offensive Context, I though it might be instructive/useful to look at the quality of teammates, offensively, for Kareem and Wilt.

Here are the results. I committed the offensive contributions of all three, for every season, from the team offensive output. Summed up teammates' TS Added. 0 would be league average offensive teammates, negative, poor offensive teammates, etc.

Code: Select all

Kareem Teammates' TS Added

1970   182
1971   405
1972   154
1973   271
1974   153
1975   -85
1976   -126
1977   -276
1978   -3.1
1979   197
1980   289
1981   -46
1982   -1
1983   256
1984   337
1985   513
1986   380
1987   520
1988   395
1989   587

Sum   +4102

Code: Select all

Wilt Teammates' TS Added

1960   -404
1961   -407
1962   -295
1963   -435
1964   -419
1965   -377
1966   -221
1967   226
1968   -14
1969   145
1970   13
1971   182
1972   385
1973   77

Sum   -1544

Wilt gets great coaching that uses him properly, great teammates, and then (in his old age, for that era), suddenly wins .718 of his games during the entire second half of his career. His teams set the record for wins twice (two *different* teams, no less).

Coaches and GMs who either overtly disliked/hated and/or totally mismanaged Wilt.

-Neil Johnston
-Ed Gottlieb
-Frank McGuire
-Bob Feerick
-Dolph Schayes
-Butch Van Breda Kolff
-Fred Schaus

Coaches who understood him well, treated him well, and used him properly/to his full potential:

-Alex Hannum
-Bill Sharman

In 14 years he only had two coaches that ever understood him, and that he could count on. That's only 6 of his 14 seasons.

Here are his team’s records for 4 of those years:

1. 68-13 (all time record for wins)
2. 62-20
3. 69-13 (all time record for wins, different team)
4..60-22

That's a .793 winning percentage for 4 years. On two different teams!!!! Has anyone else in NBA history done that? I think not...

The guy still has 68 records to himself on the books, 50 years after he retied. How many does Kareem have?

1. Other than Mikan, Russell, Robinson and Shaq.....Kareem faced a who's who of HOF big men throughout his career. Wilt never faced anything like what Kareem had to deal with in the 86 WCF vs Olajuwon/Sampson I'll tell you that for sure!

2. Oh don't make me laugh....Wilt says he woulda had 40,000 points? Well guess what? Then he'd have ended up like Karl Malone....over 36,000 points scored and no title to show for it.

His usage and scoring had to come.....DOWN......for him to win a title are you forgetting that? Kareem didn't need to radically change his role because his high volume scoring worked much better than within the framework of a team.

Who on earth would tell Kareem in his prime to stop scoring in the first place? That coach would be shot on the spot. Kareem only stopped being a high volume go to scorer when he was too old to do so at 39 yrs old and had the misfortune of dealing with Houstons much younger Twin Towers

With Wilt Hannum....must've seen glaring flaws which forced him to alter Wilts role.

3. So guys like Paul Arizin, Nate Thurmond and Meschery were "garbage" teammates during Wilts Warriors tenure accoring to you?

4. Some of these aforementioned coaches were critical of Wilts questionable practice habits and leadership skills. It wasn't restricted to just one HC so it's quite obvious Wilt had issues as well in terms of coachabilty.

Not an issue with Kareem.

[penbeast0]

It's hard to beat a team that does this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DRXJdAr15iZmulqF0F_6SnxrB_b_PPFPM543ke30-qM/edit#gid=0

And, has HOFers literally coming off the bench for several years...

Ramsey, Sanders, and KC wouldn't sniff the HOF as players except for the era and the Celtics unprecedented success. They are more like Dell Curry and Tony Allen. Great bench guys for much of their careers but other than Manu, how many other have made the hall as perennial SMOY candidates. So literally true but not really an accurate description of their impact.

No reaction to my spreadsheeet?

For Ramsey, he wasn't known as a defender but rather an instant offense guy like Dell Curry or Vinnie Johnson. Satch Sanders and KC Jones were terrific defenders, but even if you assume KC Jones was equal to the most impactful defensive PG of all time (probably Jason Kidd though that includes Kidd's outstanding defensive rebounding), it's hard to see a PG in the HOF that has a Chris Duhon caliber offensive game with neither above average playmaking nor above average shooting for a PG. Sanders was never a big minute guy and provided very little offensively as well; and when you say HOF player, he didn't go in as a player, he went in as a "contributor."

I'm not saying that those two, and Havlicek for that matter, weren't very good defenders, they were. But it you look at the Russell teams before they all starting getting big minutes, those were ALSO elite defensive teams so it's hard to believe those two defenders made a HOF type defensive impact enough to make up for their offensive weakness. So again, think the Celtic strength around Russell is usually overrated.

Cousy and Sharman were great 50s players but by the Russell years, they were both falling off relative to league average (the league was making enormous strides in the 57-61 period) and Cousy's playoff scoring was extremely non-resilient once the Russell years started (without much attempt to shoot less). And, though Cousy's assist totals stayed high (partially due to very high pace), it's hard to credit him with great playmaking when the offense he ran was so inefficient. Heinsohn and Ramsey were instant offense guys; unfortunately they were both inefficient instant offense guys though both had some good playoff runs. Sam Jones and Havlicek were the two best complements to Russell in this era. Jones was the only above average efficiency scorer between Sharman (good early) and Howell (good late), while Havlicek took over for Sharman as one of the guys with both scoring volume and defensive rep (though again inefficient for his era, he got much better when he was used more on-ball at the end of the Russell run and into the 70s). Howell was a very good offensive player, maybe the best Russell played with, but had never been on very good defenses until Boston. Lovellette may have been a HOF player but he was nothing but a deep bench insurance policy with Boston. Good deep team around Russell, but not the Showtime Lakers or Durant Warrior type team that people make them out to be by just counting HOF players without context.

[Ginoboleee]

This is a classic Apples and Oranges comparison thread - looks like this board specializes in them!

I am fascinated by any argument that doesn't have all 3 of Russell, Wilt, and Kareem in the GOAT Top 10.

I am relatively uninspired by passionate intransitive/circular hair-splitting about which of them should necessarily be ahead of the other. I like to think in tiers. They are all top tier.

Now, having said that, the emphasis in recent posts on League Strength is interesting, and probably quite important. Assuming it can be established, and presumably has been established (at least on a preliminary basis), then that factor should be added to the Apples and Oranges Master Ledger, fair enough.

But there are so many different things on both sides of the Master Ledger that any conclusion is plausible and respectable. I would hope we can all agree on that!

Of course, we all have our favorites too, which surely is the driving motivation for a lot the notes that might be a tad less friendly, less calm, less nuanced, less balanced, less fair.

My favorite is the guy who
(a) led the best college team ever - and for whom they had to change the rules of college basketball!
(b) had the absolutely all-time most unstoppable offensive shot (or at least all-time Top 2 along with a ShaqDunk)
(c) had a glorious late (3rd Chapter) career as a key contributor to The Team of my youth.
(d) has become an important public commentator/writer (granted, his politics might be too edgy at times, but they are certainly thoughtful, reflective, insightful).
(e) has always had a prickly personality - famously so until Magic jumped into his arms for the first RS win of Showtime - but his autobiographies (the first is great, the later one is ok) reveal an amazing introspective hero. I wonder if Kareem and/or Duncan sometimes don't get more passionate support due to this quiet distant manner.
(f) didn't brag about his sexual conquests, but instead has tried to make the world a better place. Really.
(g) playfully went toe-to-toe with Bruce Lee, not Arnold Schwarzenegger.
(h) is my hero (obviously lol). Oh, and he was nice to my mom when she made him dinner while they were both in college - bit of a story there (that is just barely corroborated in the main autobiography).
(i) had the better career (obviously?!).

Of course, your mileage may vary.
As grandpa used to say, that's why they build Fords and Chevys.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

That injury is just a excuse thrown around by the pro-Wilt supporters for the 69 Finals debacle. He was having a underwhelming series even before that injury in Game 7.

1. Kareem never had a bad playoff series from ages 22-36? That's factually incorrect. And what was Wilt's role on that team, by the way? Do you know how Van Breda Kolff used him, compared to the dozen plus coaches Wilt had in 14 years?

2. Kareem didn't miss the entire playoffs two years in his absolute prime? With his teams winning nothing and never coming remotely close from 1974-1975 through 1978-1979? What did Kareem ever win without a first ballot HOF ATG PG at the helm?

3. Since you haven't read what I have on Wilt, you don't understand that his knee was already arthritic and crumbling BEFORE Game 7 of the 69' Finals. That's why it collapsed without severe contact in the 69' Finals, and then, completely, in November 1969.

1. You won't find a Kareem series individually as bad as the 1969 Finals from Wilt from the ages of 22-36. Probably the worst was vs the Warriors in 73....but still not as bad. Wilt was supposed to fill the gap that the Lakers had suffered the entire 60s decade at Center.

2. I like how you don't add that one of those years Kareem missed 17 games (although to be honest it was his own fault he was out injured). And the other year they went 40-42 which was average. Oscar was NOT at the level of one of the top 2 PGs ever after they won in 71 so I don't know why this would be brought up. Kareem carried Oscar on his back his Final season in 73-74.

A far cry from the 11-27 record Wilt led the Warriors to before he got lucky to be traded to the Sixers. Oh he had "trash" like Nate Thurmond alongside him says you.

3. So lemme guess his knee was the reason he was so lousy at the FT line in the 69 Finals? Oh wait he wasn't even any good at the FT line in the playoffs when he won his first title either. He was healthy enough to lead the 69 Finals in rebounding but somehow his offensive struggles where he couldn't even once reach his 20ppg regular season average are attributed to his knee?

Excuses

[70sFan]

It's getting very toxic at this point, I don't want to have anything to do with this topic anymore.

[capfan33]

This is a classic Apples and Oranges comparison thread - looks like this board specializes in them!

I am fascinated by any argument that doesn't have all 3 of Russell, Wilt, and Kareem in the GOAT Top 10.

I am relatively uninspired by passionate intransitive/circular hair-splitting about which of them should necessarily be ahead of the other. I like to think in tiers. They are all top tier.

Now, having said that, the emphasis in recent posts on League Strength is interesting, and probably quite important. Assuming it can be established, and presumably has been established (at least on a preliminary basis), then that factor should be added to the Apples and Oranges Master Ledger, fair enough.

But there are so many different things on both sides of the Master Ledger that any conclusion is plausible and respectable. I would hope we can all agree on that!

Of course, we all have our favorites too, which surely is the driving motivation for a lot the notes that might be a tad less friendly, less calm, less nuanced, less balanced, less fair.

My favorite is the guy who
(a) led the best college team ever - and for whom they had to change the rules of college basketball!
(b) had the absolutely all-time most unstoppable offensive shot (or at least all-time Top 2 along with a ShaqDunk)
(c) had a glorious late (3rd Chapter) career as a key contributor to The Team of my youth.
(d) has become an important public commentator/writer (granted, his politics might be too edgy at times, but they are certainly thoughtful, reflective, insightful).
(e) has always had a prickly personality - famously so until Magic jumped into his arms for the first RS win of Showtime - but his autobiographies (the first is great, the later one is ok) reveal an amazing introspective hero. I wonder if Kareem and/or Duncan sometimes don't get more passionate support due to this quiet distant manner.
(f) didn't brag about his sexual conquests, but instead has tried to make the world a better place. Really.
(g) playfully went toe-to-toe with Bruce Lee, not Arnold Schwarzenegger.
(h) is my hero (obviously lol). Oh, and he was nice to my mom when she made him dinner while they were both in college - bit of a story there (that is just barely corroborated in the main autobiography).
(i) had the better career (obviously?!).

Of course, your mileage may vary.
As grandpa used to say, that's why they build Fords and Chevys.

I do think this thread is a good example of people talking past each other. If you go by box score stats, Wilt is probably the GOAT but most people on this forum are using more nuanced methods to evaluate players, and those methods call into question the actual impact Wilt was having on his teams despite the stats he put up.

Ditto for the whole level of competition/using hall of famers as a proxy for level of competition, which I find dubious at best. With that being said, the 70s were a weaker era than the 60s by a margin.

[Ginoboleee]

Hi CapFan,
I'm a CapFan too. Hope you enjoyed some of what I wrote when I shifted that post towards my Cap-Fandom.

Thanks for the concise summation of the thread's internal disconnect (probably much more effective than my rambling style).

Hey, you wrote "With that being said, the 70s were a weaker era than the 60s by a margin."
Plausibly true - and I gather a widely held view. But why are we sure?
What would you suggest as evidence/proof? Or is this question less amenable to that sort of evaluation?

In general, what are the recommended methods/measures to compare the varrying levels of competitiveness/quality across seasons even decades/eras?

Thanks,
G.

[capfan33]

I don't feel like going through all the evidence but I'm sure you're aware of most of it. The league expanded at a ridiculous pace from 68-73 and there's little to suggest that the talent pool increased in line with this expansion. Moreover, the talent was increasingly split between the ABA and NBA furthering the dilution, and a lot of the best players such as Gilmore, Barry and Erving were in the ABA.

With that being said, there are a few major counters to this as it pertains to Kareem. 1st, he was the best player in the NBA/ABA by a country mile in the 70s, and moreover I think further ahead of #2 than any other player in modern NBA history. Even when the leagues joined together, he was still the best by a country mile and probably had his best year in 1977 despite the increased competition.

Also, while the teams were generally weaker, the center pool was arguably the deepest ever with Wilt, Thurmond, Cowens, Lanier, Bellamy, Unseld and a host of other excellent centers, which he thoroughly dominated outside of Thurmond and Wilt. He also faced some ATG teams in the playoffs such as the 69 Knicks and 72 Lakers as well as probably the toughest stretch of 1on1 defenders ever from 71-73. So even with the weakness of the 70s, I still think there's plenty of merit to Kareem's goat argument regardless.

[LakerLegend]

What are wilts career numbers after they widened the lane?

[70sFan]

What are wilts career numbers after they widened the lane?

23.1/21.5/5.3 on 58.1 FG% and 56.9 TS%. That includes his post injury seasons (1970-73). Without them:

27.3/23.3/6.0 on 56.9 FG% and 55.7 TS%