RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Wilt Chamberlain)

[Doctor MJ]

Should we be linking the previous threads in the first post so they don’t get lost? I mean it’s not a big deal now when they’re all so recent but they could be a pain in the ass to find later.

I'm doing this in the project OP.

[Doctor MJ]

What year do folks lean towards for Magic overtaking Kareem?

'81-82 (Year 3) and I'd see this as the natural choice that you'd have to justify going in the other direction.

Played more in both RS & PS.
More WS/VORP in both RS & PS.
Better finish in MVP, won Finals MVP.

[lessthanjake]

Bird was regarded as the best player in the world in a league that included prime Jordan, Magic and Hakeem. Kobe was never the best player in the league. He is a long way from nomination for me. His extra longevity is irrelevant when you factor in the much higher peak of Bird. The lift Bird gives you, as demonstrated in 1980, is something well beyond what Kobe's impact can bring.

Kobe is an ancillary weapon you add to help get a great team over the top. Bird makes a team great, and lets you build a whole system around him.

I’m not sure Bird was ever regarded as the world’s best player in a league that included prime Jordan. He was considered the best in Jordan’s first two years, but that’s basically just Jordan’s rookie season and an injury season (so not exactly Jordan’s “prime”). After that I think Jordan passed him in peoples’ estimation (indeed, he was always behind Jordan in MVP voting after that, for instance). That said, Bird did have a span in the mid-1980’s where was considered the best player in the league—which is a significant thing that very few possible nominees can say. And he also was consistently considered a top 3 player every year for his first 9 seasons—which is super impressive.

The weird thing with Kobe is that I don’t actually think it’s right that Kobe was never at least regarded as the best player in the world. In the mid-late 2000’s, the most commonly-held view at the time was that Kobe was the best player in the NBA. I didn’t agree with it then, and I don’t agree with it now, but I do remember that being the general consensus view.

Anyways, ultimately, it seems to me that Bird vs. Kobe is partially a peak vs. longevity question, but also a question of what one thinks of Kobe’s supporting cast in the two titles in the late 2000’s. If one doesn’t think too highly of them, then Kobe winning two straight titles with them is probably a more impressive achievement than any of Bird’s achievements (though I wouldn’t characterize the 1980-1981 Celtics as complete world-beaters either).

Kobe is easily still the consensus best player in the world in 07 and 08. At the time I'm not sure Lebron was rated higher. Not to say consensus should be utilized here(I certainly won't), but I'm not sure how Bird wins out there. Kobe is compared to lebron and jordan by many

People were widely saying Kobe was the best from like 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. I don’t think he actually was the best in any of those years (with various combinations of Duncan, Garnett, Nash, LeBron, and maybe even Dirk being better in those years). But my recollection is that Kobe did have that 5-year time period where people at the time were widely saying he was the NBA’s best player.

[One_and_Done]

Consensus means near uniform agreement. Winning only 1 MVP, and a token one at that, shows he was nothing like the consensus best player at the time, not even in the media.

[lessthanjake]

If Kobe was ever the consensus best player he would have more than one MVP (which let's be real, was a lifetime achievement award, he arguably shouldn't have been top 3 on the ballot that year). To the casual fan or LA media he was the best, but to informed viewers he clearly was not. The POY project this board did has him as the best player for a given year exactly zero times; and I agree with that assessment. The baton was passed from Duncan to Lebron, with maybe KG or Dirk deserving consideration in the tiny interregnum of 08, depending on how you feel about 08 (and 07) Lebron.

The widespread consensus in 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 was that Kobe was a better player than Nash and Dirk (and everyone else) but simply didn’t get the MVP because his teams were too bad for him to win enough games to actually get the MVP. So then the moment his team actually won a lot of games (i.e. 2007-2008), he got the award. Then he didn’t get the award in 2008-2009, because LeBron’s regular season was incredible and the Cavs won even more games than the Lakers, but the general consensus once the playoffs had concluded was that Kobe was actually the superior player and LeBron wasn’t a winner like Kobe. The same basic story happened the next year as well. So, by the end of that five-year time period, you had a pretty consensus view that Kobe had been the best player in the league for 5 years even despite only getting 1 MVP. I did not agree with this (and actively argued against it at the time), but that is my recollection of what the most commonly-held view was.

[One_and_Done]

I don't agree that was the consensus. Alot of people thought it, but it was highly disputed even in that period. It was also obviously wrong, as we both agree.

[OhayoKD]

Consensus means near uniform agreement. Winning only 1 MVP, and a token one at that, shows he was nothing like the consensus best player at the time, not even in the media.

more people perceived kobe as the best in the world than bird. MVP voting is a regular season thing

and they were about as obviously wrong about kobe being the best as they were about bird so

[ijspeelman]

The hardest factor for me in deciding between Wilt and KG (no longer Hakeem) is balancing doubt.

I think my doubt for Wilt's offense may have me overcorrecting and underrating him compared to his competition. I've brought my doubts and some of the stats that bring Wilt down for me and some of you have brought meaningful data and anecdotes to challenge those ideas. It has not expelled my doubt for Wilt, but it has dispelled it a little bit.

I like that KG's offenses on the Wolves seem to hold up relative to era as compared to Wilt. I don't think it would be wrong to say KG had less to work with that Wilt did in his pre-Lakers days.

Its odd to see that KG's defenses were pretty much average and occasionally peaking to top 5. I like to attribute this to KG being a guy that fits more in the mold of a disruptor and help defender and being thrust into a post defense role which I think he also exceled at, but that was not backed up by great perimeter defense and help defense. Wilt held defense in the top third nearly his entire career. The center position also held up much better as a generator of defensive impact back in Wilt's era with more primitive spacing and no three point line.

[trex_8063]

What year do folks lean towards for Magic overtaking Kareem?

'81-82 (Year 3) and I'd see this as the natural choice that you'd have to justify going in the other direction.

Played more in both RS & PS.
More WS/VORP in both RS & PS.
Better finish in MVP, won Finals MVP.

I would say Magic was better by '82 as well, with a possible temporary regression in '83: Magic had a marginally down playoff run, while Kareem actually played pretty good through the playoffs (I would say arguably out-played Magic in the Finals, too).

Even if in those years ['82-'85] the difference is small (like LeBron/Wade difference specifically in '11), it's mostly going in Magic's favour, imo.

[OhayoKD]

What year do folks lean towards for Magic overtaking Kareem?

'81-82 (Year 3) and I'd see this as the natural choice that you'd have to justify going in the other direction.

Played more in both RS & PS.
More WS/VORP in both RS & PS.
Better finish in MVP, won Finals MVP.

Not going to pretend I've watched more than a couple games from 82, but an advantage of 2.2 winshares from a much weaker defender(have watched a fair bit of 86 fwiw) doesn't really seem all that impressive to me. Gap does increase in the playoffs and I don't really have an opinion either way but Kareem being competitive in box-aggregates(higher in PER, marginally lower in winshares, significantly lower in vorp) doesn't really hurt his case imo(rs at least)

[One_and_Done]

I don’t understand the argument for Kobe over Durant. Durant was a better scorer, better defender, and a better complementary piece who fit in more easily with others. His longevity is enough that any minor advantage Kobe has is completely negated.

Let’s just look at a peak to peak comparison to start with. Because KD has the consistency of a metronome (when he’s on the court), a number of different years can be advanced as his “peak”. But 2014 seems to have the strongest case. So let’s look at 2014 KD v.s 2008 Kobe (which is often advanced as Kobe’s best year).

KD: 41.8 pp 100, 9.6 rp 100, 7.2 ap 100, 123 Ortg, 104 Drtg, on an insane 635. TS%

Kobe: 36.5 pp 100, 8.1 rp 100, 6.9 ap 100, 115 Ortg, 106 Drtg, on 576. TS%

KD is better in literally every, single category, and not by a small margin. But let’s be fair to them and look at a bigger, more representative sample.

Here’s KD from 2010 to 2023, a 13 year stretch if we exclude 2020.

RS per 100: 38.2, 10, 6.3, 120 Ortg, 106 Drtg, on 631. TS%
PS per 100: 36.9, 9.8, 5.3, 115 Ortg, 108 Drtg 598. TS%

Kobe from 2000 to 2013:

RS per 100: 37.1, 7.6, 6.9, 112 Ortg, 105 Drtg, TS% 556.
PS per 100: 35.3, 6.9, 6.5, 110 Ortg, 106 Drtg, TS% 543.

So again, KD is basically beating him in every single category except for a trivial defensive rating difference, which could just be noise given how close it is and the sample size. He’s scoring more, and scoring more on insane efficiency. Even his assists are similar, despite Kobe’s supposed passing advantage (which FYI isn’t much of an advantage if you don’t like passing). The difference in Ortg is insane. KD is just cooking him.

On the defensive end KD is almost 7 feet tall with crazy long arms, so he can to a limited extent provide rim protection and switch on to bigger guys, all of which was key to his time on the Warriors. KD fits so much better than Kobe in so many situations, needing a lower usage and complementing other guys. KD was also misused to some degree in OKC, with it now being apparent in hindsight that Westbrook was not an optimal co-star for KD (to put it lightly). He often played with poor spacing in OKC, and thrived anyway.

But let’s turn to the one thing Kobe supporters can maybe argue, which is longevity. I don’t buy this, because KD has had enough longevity to score almost 27K points despite playing through several seasons cut short by COVID and lock outs, so at that point I’d say he has “enough” longevity that unless the person he’s being compared to is a comparably good player longevity isn’t enough to move the needle. But then I’m not even sure we can criticise KD’s longevity too much. Kobe has basically 12-13 healthy-ish, prime type seasons. His last few seasons were negative value add, and the early part of his career is mostly not adding too much. If we took out those years Kobe actually only has 28k+ points, so barely different to KD (who isn’t done yet either).

But what of KD? He was healthy from 2010 to 2014. That’s 5 prime seasons right there. 2016 healthy. That’s 6. 2017 and 2018 he was being rested and was out by design basically, I count those as healthy seasons. KD is up to 8 prime seasons. 2019? He was healthy all the way to the finals, then had an injury. I don’t dock him for that because it’s absurd. It would be rewarding guys like Kobe for getting bounced out in the first round, before they had a chance to injure themselves. That’s 9 prime seasons. In my mind that’s enough to overcome Kobe’s longevity easily. But I also feel KD added good value from 2021 to 2023. In those 3 seasons some of the games he missed were for rest, or due to reasons having nothing to do with injury; if he and the team were keen on him playing more, he could have. He was also healthy for the playoffs in 2021 and 2023 when it mattered (which is what he was being rested for).

I just don’t see what Kobe’s argument over KD would be. KD is just flat out better.

[trelos6]

While I'm happy Steph's got the nomination, he doesn't have the complete body of works that some of the other guys do. He might still get there, his playstyle and shooting should keep him in All-NBA contention for a few more seasons. My nomination is Kobe Bryant. Sure his peak isn't quite as high as others, but he still was considered a top 3 NBA player, IMO, for 8 seasons. Plus his longevity, he deserves discussion around the 8-14 range.

Now onto my #7. As I've said previously:

All put up seasons where they were the best player in the NBA. By my estimations, Shaq and KG did it twice, Steph, Wilt, and Magic once.

Looking at all the years where the players were arguably a top 3 player in the NBA, Shaq had 12 seasons, Wilt 11, KG and Magic 9, Steph 8.

All the All-NBA seasons, Shaq had 14, Hakeem 12, Wilt and Magic 10, KG and Steph 9.

All star value seasons, Shaq and KG 15, Wilt 13, Hakeem and Magic 12, Steph 9.

All D level seasons, KG 12, Shaq 3, Wilt 2, Magic and Steph 0.

While I can respect Magic's playmaking and Steph's gravity, I think they both miss out compared to the big men on longevity.

Shaq was mostly an offensive force, peaking at 29.7 pp75 on + 7.3 rTS%, and his 3 year championship run was at 30.3 pp75 on +6.6 rTS%.

Wilt despite his gaudy ppg numbers, only averaged 28.7 pp75 on +5.7 rTS%. Although his peak years, his scoring was more like 16 pp75 on +14 rTS%. His 3 year playoffs best was 24.7 pp75 on +6.7 rTS%. I will add that yes, he was a victim of his own time regarding the officiating, but also, his abysmal FT% meant that even if he was more physical, he'd probably get a few more FT's to shoot at 50%.

KG who I rate the best passer of this group by far, as well as the best shooter, was more offensively focused early career, and then skewed heavily as a defensive player after his 2009 injury. He peaked at 24.9 pp75 on +3.1 rTS%, and due to the horrible Timberwolves teams, and him missing the playoffs for a few seasons, the best 3 yr PS strech is 24 pp75 on +0.4 rTS%

As we can see, when comparing big men to big men, they all should be fairly efficient. Shaq comes out on top as the best offensive force here, while KG is on top defensively. I can't take Wilt too seriously defensively, as he was only locked in for a number of seasons.

Ultimately, it's a toss up between Shaq and KG. Shaq probably had the best peak in 99-00 from a statistical standpoint, however, I don't find his defense that compelling, and his poor FT% hurts him also. KG was the most versatile, both defensively, and offensively with his passing and mid range shooting.

Looking at PIPM, KG had seasons of 3.1, 3.0. 4.0, 3.6, 5.6, 7.9, 8.1, 3.5, 5.1, 4.8, 6.9, 4.8, 2.3, 5.6, 4.8, 3.2

That's a mean of 4.77 over 16 seasons!

Shaq's streak looks like 4.3, 6.2, 5.7, 3.3, 4.3, 4.7, 4.8, 7.2, 6.5, 6.1, 5.3, 5.3, 4.3, 2.0

A mean of 5 over 14 seasons!

If you ask me to be a GM in a fantasy world, and I can draft either of these 2 for their careers, I'm taking KG. I think he is more versatile, and has a better fit with other players due to his skillset, plus the ability to play the 4 or 5.

However, I think at this stage, I'm going to flip flop from my previous post (Hakeem vote) and say that Shaquille O'Neal is my #7, and Kevin Garnett is my #8.

[Cavsfansince84]

People were widely saying Kobe was the best from like 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. I don’t think he actually was the best in any of those years (with various combinations of Duncan, Garnett, Nash, LeBron, and maybe even Dirk being better in those years). But my recollection is that Kobe did have that 5-year time period where people at the time were widely saying he was the NBA’s best player.

I think what Kobe really had at that time was the biggest and most vocal/diehard fanbase while also playing for the league's marquee franchise which meant the media also loved to talk about him and on top of that he was doing some semi historical things scoring wise after Shaq left which led to a lot of people on message boards and in the media hyping him to absurd levels. I don't think in retrospect that means all that much. I think we all know his defense dropped off so it not like he had a great two way impact and even his scoring in that period wasn't on super efficiency. Not trying to be down on Kobe so much as just say that the idea of him being the best player in that period(not that he has no case some of those years) was and is as much a reflection of his popularity as anything else. The media wanted to crown him best player in the league imo but he wasn't going to get the mvp playing on 34-45 win teams. Then the first year he plays on a contender without Shaq he gets it and the following year I think his best player in the league status is based almost entirely on his overall strong playoffs and fmvp.

[lessthanjake]

While I'm happy Steph's got the nomination, he doesn't have the complete body of works that some of the other guys do. He might still get there, his playstyle and shooting should keep him in All-NBA contention for a few more seasons.

The way I see it is that seasons that aren’t plausibly MVP-level aren’t really worth much at all. Basically, in any given season, there’s really just a handful of guys that are good enough to plausibly lead their team to a title, and it’s quite rare for a title to be won by a team that doesn’t have one of those guys. So it’s those seasons that matter the most, by far. And I think the number of seasons Steph has at that level (9 by my count—basically every healthy season from 2013-2014 onwards) is pretty comparable to the other players left. Though I’d agree Shaq has 2 or 3 more of them.

I think Shaq is close to Steph, because he’s got that longevity at a super high level, as well as an extremely high peak, and we also can’t entirely discount non-MVP-level seasons for him since he did win a title in one of them. But I tend to think Steph’s average level in his MVP-level seasons was higher. Steph won a title with a fairly mediocre supporting cast (by title-winning standards) while not in his peak years and actually having had the worst season of his prime. And it wasn’t even a hugely difficult title (no game 7’s). That goes to show how high his general prime level was. The closest Shaq had to this kind of situation was his first few years with the Lakers, and the Lakers were good but ended up getting destroyed pretty easily in the playoffs (albeit against good teams). Meanwhile, when prime Steph had a good supporting cast, his teams were winning at a 68-win, 10+ SRS pace with him for half a decade. Prime Shaq almost always had a good supporting cast, and, while there were dominant years (particularly at his peak), it wasn’t as common/consistent as it was when Steph had a good supporting cast.

As a sidenote, I actually suspect Steph’s prime probably just ended. People talk about how his shooting can stay good for a long time. But his playstyle requires immense stamina, and I think when that declines (which I think has already started to happen and probably will rapidly occur even more in the next year or two), he won’t be able to exert the same off-ball influence offensively and also probably won’t have the legs to shoot as well. But we’ll see. I’d certainly be happy to be wrong.

[Dooley]

I think these nominees can basically be divided into two different groups. Group A: Two-way players who excel on both sides of the ball but probably aren't good enough to carry a really good offense (Garnett, Chamberlain). Group B: Offensive centerpieces who can carry a good offense but are not super impactful on defense (Steph, Magic, Shaq).

On reasons of general principle, I consider the second group more valuable, because I think offensive centerpieces are rare and because I think they're more valuable in basketball. I tend to think that basketball offense is more of a strongest-link thing, and basketball defense is more of a weakest-link thing. All other things being equal, I think great offensive centerpieces carry more value for their teams. And I don't think the winning imprints of Garnett and Chamberlain really change that.

So, then, that leaves Magic, Curry and Shaq. And I think these three are really close and hard to separate between. All of them have great offenses, all of them have similiarly stellar winning records and accolades, all of them offer fairly comparable amounts on defense IMO.

Of the three, I'm maybe just ever so slightly lower on Magic.. The consistency of the talent around him was really high. Obviously all 3 of these guys played with all-time-great teammates. But it feels like the Lakers did an incredible job of consistently having talent around Magic, whereas it was more hit or miss with the others, so the team level was maybe a little higher And Magic also wasn't a great volume scorer on the level of Shaq or Curry; having a go-to scoring game as an offensive centerpiece is particularly valuable in the playoffs IMO and Shaq and Curry also have huge team impact as well as scoring. So, given that we have to find a way to differentiate between these three players, I'm probably lower on Magic.

Between Shaq and Curry I think maybe Shaq is a little higher. I don't know. Shaq was a fantastic and unstoppable scorer, he was on some absolutely incredible playoff offenses both with and without Kobe, and the impact he had on games through scoring and through putting the entire opposing team into foul trouble was massive. The argument for Curry is that he was *also* on some amazing offenses and could score really well, plus he was probably a better regular season player than Shaq, plus he's been a really good teammate and locker room guy whereas Shaq was often disruptive. And the way he carried the 2022 Warriors team to the title was incredibly impressive.

As of right now, I'm probably leaning Shaq, but I'm still cogitating away about it.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I strongly disagree with Hakeem's placement at #6, but moving on...

Given the previous vote, it seems like Wilt should take this fairly easily.

My posts in the previous threads outline my arguments for Wilt and for Shaq, both of whom I believe should've ranked higher than Hakeem. But I'm going to take this opportunity to talk about Magic, who I also would take over Hakeem, and who through no fault of his own is probably going to drop at least one spot this time around due to Hakeem's vault up to 6.

Magic is arguably the greatest combination of scoring and playmaking the game has ever seen. For his career in the regular season, Magic averaged:

19.5ppg and 11.2apg on +7.2 rTS in 13 seasons(this includes 1996)
25.4pp100 and 14.5ap100

(At this point I want to say that I fully realize that there's more to playmaking impact than just looking at assists; it's just that it usually involves metrics that don't exist for Magic(or Oscar or the first two-thirds of Stockton's career, two players I'm going to be looking at, for that matter), so I'm just using assists as quick point of comparison).

Compare that to some others in the scoring+playmaking conversation...

LeBron: 27.2ppg and 7.3apg on +4.6 rTS in 20 seasons
LeBron: 36.8pp100 and 10.1ap100

LeBron obviously has a big volume advantage, but 3.9 fewer assists per game and 4.4 fewer assists per 100 possessions. This would be understandable - you only touch the ball so many times - but the real knock here is LeBron's significantly lower efficiency(in fact it's the second lowest of anyone in this post).

Oscar: 25.7ppg and 9.5apg on +6.8 rTS in 14 seasons
(no Per 100 numbers available)

First of all, because Oscar played mostly in the 60s, I felt the need to do the math and adjust for pace, so

Oscar(adjusted for pace): 21.9ppg and 8.1apg on +6.8 rTS in 14 seasons

So, Magic and Oscar are pretty close as scorers, in both volume and efficiency, but Magic still has a big playmaking advantage.

Harden: 24.7ppg and 7apg on +5.7 rTS in 14 seasons
35.1pp100 and 10ap100

Sort of similar numbers to LeBron, and similarly falls short of Magic in efficiency and assist numbers.

Steph: 24.6ppg on 6.5apg on +7 rTS in 14 seasons
34.9pp100 and 9.2ap100

As you'd expect, Steph has the best overall volume+efficiency combination as a scorer, but his assists numbers fall way short.

Nash: 14.3ppg and 8.5apg on +6 rTS(though he had two dramatic outlier years - the 99 lockout season and his final season, and if you removes those, it's +7.3 rTS) in 18 seasons
23.3pp100 and 13.8ap100

Nash falls short on the per game numbers, though it's certainly closer by Per 100...in fact there, Nash gets closer than just about anyone to Magic.

Stockton: 13.1ppg and 10.5apg on 7.3 rTS in 19 seasons.
21pp100 and 16.8ap100

Very similar to Nash, and again, by straight per-game numbers, his points are below, but like Nash, his Per 100 is comparable with Stockton in fact being the only one top Magic in ap100.

Paul: 17.9ppg and 9.5apg on +3.2 rTS
26.7p100 and 14.1ap00

CP3's per-game numbers are fairly comparable, and his Per 100 numbers even moreso, much like Nash and Stockton, but his rTS is well below anyone else I've looked at here, and his constant injury issues don't help his case either.

Here's how these players rank in career TS Add:

Oscar: 212.7(pace adjusted)
Steph: 187.1
Magic(w/1996 removed): 170.4
Harden 169.4
Magic: 161.4
LeBron: 142.0
Stockton: 129.8
Nash: 118.2
CP3: 72.3

The broad point is that among these types of players, Magic ranks near the top as a scorer(with only Oscar and Steph clearly ahead by TS Add) and pretty much at the top as an assist-maker on a per-game basis(though Stockton and Nash have a strong Per 100 case there). His offensive impact, when looking at the volume and efficiency of his scoring combined with the volume and consistency of his playmaking, is GOAT tier. To the point where I'm not sure how much his defensive deficiencies matter.

In terms of actual impact signals, I look at two.

One, in his second season, 1980-81, he played only 37 games. The Lakers' overall SRS that year was 3.27. By my calculations, their SRS in the 37 games Magic played was 6.30.

Two, in 1990-91, the Lakers had a 6.73 SRS and +7.1 Net Rtg. Following Magic's retirement, in 1991-92, they had a -0.95 SRS and -1.2 Net Rtg. Now, I acknowledge that James Worthy also missed 28 games and that Vlade Divac also missed 46 games that season, and I'm sure that contributed to the team's precipitous fall, but I have to think Magic's absence was the biggest factor. Frankly, the following season, 1992-93, when Worthy and Divac were healthy, the numbers were even worse - -1.2 SRS and -1.3 Net Rtg.

(And FWIW, they fell from #5 in Def Rtg in 91 to #17 in 92 and #16 in 93, make of that what you will).

I said two, but I thought of a couple more that are less definitive imo but still worth mentioning. The 1989 Lakers swept through the playoffs, didn't lose a single game, and then got swept in the Finals after Magic went down. I know, Byron Scott was also out, and Magic in fact played the first game and most of the second game they lost. Still something to consider.

The 1996 Lakers' SRS was 4.21 but, by my calculations, their SRS in the 32 games Magic played was 5.81(and none of the other major pieces of that team missed any significant amount of time). Maybe it doesn't mean much, but again, worth mentioning.

Finally, with regards to his (lack of) longevity:

Look, I'm not a big longevity guy to begin with. But to hold it against a guy who was literally forced into his retirement seems particularly wrong-headed to me.

First off, compare his numbers from 1986-87 - usually held as his peak year - and 1990-91 - his last year:

1986-87: 23.9ppg, 12.2apg, 6.3rpg on +6.4 rTS, 9.4 BPM, .263 WS/48 in 36.3mpg over 80 games
1990-91: 19.4ppg, 12.5apg, 7.0rpg on +8.9 rTS, 9.0 BPM, .251 WS/48 in 37.1mpg over 79 games

Not a whole heck of a lot of drop there. You commonly hear this argument(usually from people trying to discredit MJ) that Magic was old or washed-up or done in 1991, and it's just nonsense. Magic was All-NBA 1st Team and #2 in MVP voting that year behind MJ, and I showed above what happened to that Lakers team the following two seasons after he retired.

He never wanted to retire, he had to. Then he came back, won the 1992 ASG MVP, played well for the Dream Team that summer, thought people were ready to accept him, launched a comeback in the preseason that fall, and was forced out AGAIN.

When he made an ill-advised attempt at coaching in 1994, it was quite obviously the decision of a man who desperately wanted to still be in the league.

And when he finally did come back in 1996, guys like Ceballos and Van Exel were acting like punks, giving him attitude, and just generally disrespecting him(while he was putting up pretty damn decent numbers for a 36 year old who hadn't played in 3.5 years[14.6ppg, 6.9apg, 5.7rpg on +7 rTS, 5.2 BPM, .181 WS/48 in 29.9mpg over 32 games], suggesting he would've been productive into the mid-90s if he'd had the chance), so it's no wonder he didn't come back for 96-97.

His body didn't break down. He didn't burn out. He was forced out. To hold it against him is in a maddening injustice to me.

I probably still take Wilt and Shaq over him(though it's debatable imo), but I ABSOLUTELY would take him over Hakeem.

He was the heart and soul of one of the three greatest dynasties in NBA history.

[70sFan]

Similar to a past PC board project, how would you all rank the best 12 years played by Wilt and Shaq?

After eliminating all of those, what about repeating the exercise for the next 12?

They both stand out akin to one another in the sense of higher, but shorter-lived apex points with some questions (though perhaps overblown) as it pertains to playoff translation. Out of their very best, I’d say 00 > 67 > 64 > 01 - but there’s a lot of grey area for me after that which I’m currently not sure on and where clarification would impact my 7/8 vote split. Longevity, even unadjusted to era, would help Wilt imo. He served as a key-cog through anchoring an elite defense while play-finishing well off of Goodrich / West at age 35/36 on two all time great teams for example. I’d say that impresses me more than anything Shaq did post 2003, despite only being only 31? at the conclusion of that campaign.

Wilt's best seasons:

Spoiler:

1967
1964
1968
1962
1965
1966
1963
1960
1961
1972
1973
1969
1971

Top Shaq seasons:

Spoiler:

2000
2001
2002
1998
1999
2003
1995
1994
1996
2004
1997
1993
2005

My list in tiers:

Spoiler:

Tier 1: 1964, 1967, 2000
Tier 2: 1962, 1968, 2001, 2002
Tier 3: 1965, 1966, 1998, 1999, 2003
Tier 4: 1960, 1963, 1994, 1995
Tier 5: 1961, 1972, 1973, 1996, 2004
Tier 6: 1969, 1971, 1997, 2005

List in order:

1967
1964
2000

2001
1968
2002
1962

1998
1965
1966
1999
2003

1995
1963
1994
1960

1961
1972
1973
1996
2004

1997
1969
2005
1971

[cupcakesnake]

Vote: Wilt
Alternate: Shaq
Nom: Bird

Wilt is the most polarizing player in the history of the sport. His game is confusing on so many levels, and any new NBA fan has so much to learn before they can being to understand what Wilt's game was. It's harder to understand players from older eras in general but learning Wilt specifically feels like such a roller coaster ride:
- Wilt scored 100 in a game. Averaged 50ppg in a season. He is off the charts and must be the best player of all-time!
- Wilt didn't win very much? Some guy named Bill beat him every year. Maybe he is overrated.
- I heard he slept with 1 billion women and hung out with Andre the Giant and Arnold!
- Wilt once led the league in assists. The numbers on this guy are too cool!
- I saw my first Wilt footage. He doesn't dunk on guys like Shaq. He played against plumbers.
- Apparently, Wilt was a garbage person. Kareem told me so.
- I just learned about 60s basketball offensive foul officiating. I get how Wilt was held back physically.
- Wilt's scoring numbers are inflated for all kinds of reasons? Why did I ever think he was good? I've been tricked!
- Oh Wilt's one of the best rim-protecting bigs ever? He probably had quadruple doubles before they recorded blocks?

Does anyone else have a similar early fan experience of Wilt and this slow back-and-forth development of your understanding? I don't think any other historical player has this going on quite like The Big Dipper. It makes it confusing to form an opinion on him and rank him against all-time greats. I probably did have him at #1 when I was a teenager. I've probably dropped him as low as 10 or 11 on days of new negative Wilt discoveries.

For me, watching Wilt footage over the years and learning how to place that in context has led me to the following personal opinion on Wilt: I don't love his game or playstyle, but I recognize I'm looking at one of the true forces of nature in the sport.

I'm not a fan in general of how watching 60s bigs play offense. Taking away the ability to back people down in the post removes a core aesthetic of the game that made me fall in love with the sport. It's painful to watch Wilt shackled in his upright position, protecting the ball with his height, and looking terrified that if he breathes wrong, he'll be whistled for an offensive foul. It deprives us of the ability to compare and contrast him honestly with Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan. We can compare him a bit with Kareem, but it's wild how much better built Kareem's offense was for those rules. Modern Wilt would be initiating a ton of contact, where Kareem is the god of creating separation. 60s rules mandated separation and so Wilt played in purgatory.

I don't enjoy Wilt's decision making. It's overly deliberate. Not much court awareness. There's no movement. He stands 1 spot, instructed before hand to look to score or look to pass and so he does. The finger roll shot looks weird to me. I don't like Wilt's skillset either. Zero handles. Really basic passing reads. Shooting touch is meh. But there was no defending him despite knowing exactly what he was going to do. Great defenders would try to chip away at his efficiency and hope for the best. Wilt was like a monolithic video game boss that is invulnerable for 95% of the fight, and the player character has to correctly identify the 5% opportunities to do damage. As much as Shaq's physical dominance was much more fun and inspiring to watch, it's hard to watch extensive Wilt footage and not see how inevitable his impact is, regardless of opponent.

I often group stars into having "active" and/or "passive" value. On-ball attacking is the most active value category and always get the most widespread credit and acclaim. Jordan/Kobe/Iverson iso scoring, Shaq drop step dunks, or Magic/Nash/Jokic decision-making with the ball in their hands. The passive value things (Curry/Miller/Kobe movement, Bird/Jokic quick passing, Shaq off-ball positioning) take longer to learn for fans and often cause confusion because they can't SEE the impact as easily. But any long-time bball nerd knows all this stuff well.

I bring this up because I think Wilt is a monster passive-value guy. As soon as he walks onto the court (does he ever leave the court?), the whole game is just about him. He is Unicron from Transformers, a planet-sized being that eats other planets while defenders swarm around him like flies. It didn't really look fun to be Wilt, as weird as that sounds since it should be pretty fun to be the biggest and the strongest. But he was so shackled by rules designed to take away his advantages. His value had to come from just how big and mobile he was, and how much that messed up defenses by him just existing.

I dunno, to me Wilt is no fun at all despite how fun the idea of him sounds. Watching him I feel like I'm watching a titan that's eternal chained to a rock or something. Not just the rules, but Wilt was really jerked around by weird coaching experiments too in an era where there wasn't enough basketball data to not still just try crazy things (Wilt... what if you took every shot!). But we got nice eras of Wilt and got to watch him adapt seamlessly. For all the griping about his ego (watching 1 interview confirms that most of it is true lol), he seemed pretty darn malleable and coachable. I always want to focus on Wilt's weaknesses and drag him down in any head-to-head comparison with other stars. But there's just no getting around how inevitable he was, and how long he remained this way. 11-years of different forms of uninterrupted offensive dominance. Elite paint protection his entire career.

Ultimately his defense keeps him above Shaq for me. Both were monster obstacles on defense but Wilt was a bigger, quicker obstacle, especially relative to eras. Wilt's defensive effort is just so much better than Shaq's too. Shaq has a similar amount of monster offensive seasons, but while Wilt got to spend his final chapter as a defensive force, Shaq had to keep finding a way to do it on offense while his defense dropped off a cliff and he became a bigger liability every year.

[ijspeelman]

I think these nominees can basically be divided into two different groups. Group A: Two-way players who excel on both sides of the ball but probably aren't good enough to carry a really good offense (Garnett, Chamberlain). Group B: Offensive centerpieces who can carry a good offense but are not super impactful on defense (Steph, Magic, Shaq).

On reasons of general principle, I consider the second group more valuable, because I think offensive centerpieces are rare and because I think they're more valuable in basketball. I tend to think that basketball offense is more of a strongest-link thing, and basketball defense is more of a weakest-link thing. All other things being equal, I think great offensive centerpieces carry more value for their teams. And I don't think the winning imprints of Garnett and Chamberlain really change that.

I think its funny because I agree with everything you've said besides that I find the first group more valuable to winning. Comparing each groups historical winning would tend to support your favoring, but if you include some past entries (Hakeem, Russell, Duncan) then I think there is an argument that the two way guys have a lot more impact even if their offense doesn't reach their insane defense.

[rk2023]

I like that KG's offenses on the Wolves seem to hold up relative to era as compared to Wilt. I don't think it would be wrong to say KG had less to work with that Wilt did in his pre-Lakers days.

Its odd to see that KG's defenses were pretty much average and occasionally peaking to top 5. I like to attribute this to KG being a guy that fits more in the mold of a disruptor and help defender and being thrust into a post defense role which I think he also exceled at, but that was not backed up by great perimeter defense and help defense. Wilt held defense in the top third nearly his entire career. The center position also held up much better as a generator of defensive impact back in Wilt's era with more primitive spacing and no three point line.

I think all of this is well said, regarding Garnett. Sort of like Hakeem when it comes to not anchoring an “all-time” level of elite team defense (at least pre Boston), I would attribute this to situation more-so than KG in himself. I also agree regarding how he was deployed - sort of having a defensive situation where his role was “save us Kevin” and having to muck up everything on defense. I question how even Russell or Hakeem (my sure-fire top 2 defenders, era relative and in a vacuum) would be able to fare in such a situation.

Another thing about Garnett is , for better or worse , he might have been the most unique big-man of the 3-Point Line era. I don’t think he was in the most optimal era (Garnett today would be a monster) for someone with as advanced his offensive arsenal / connective ability and more rotation / reaction oriented defense.