Wilt Chamberlain shot charts (and other ATG centers)

[penbeast0]

Your point two was one that I've seen a few times discussing Wilt and Elgin Baylor. They both needed that same left block space for much of their offense supposedly.

[DraymondGold]

Your point two was one that I've seen a few times discussing Wilt and Elgin Baylor. They both needed that same left block space for much of their offense supposedly.

Indeed! I think most right-handed players prefer to drive from the left side of the perimeter going slightly right, right? And vice versa for left0handed players: they prefer to go from the right side driving left. That way, their dominant hand gets to dribble on the far side of their body during the drive.

Assuming I haven't flipped my rights/lefts (quite possible), that would mean centers who prefer the right block might clog the lane less on average compared to players who prefer the left block. If a center is on the right block, that leaves the left side more open for right handed players to drive more comfortably (and right handed players are more common).

Put a different way, there's a slight advantage for a center to have a different handedness from their perimeter star, if the center is going to have a strong preference for one block and if the perimeter star is going to drive. Since Wilt and Baylor were both right handed and thus both preferred the left side (Wilt preferred posting up on the left block, Baylor preferred a left side drive from the perimeter), they got in each others' way slightly more than if one were left handed or if one were more versatile to use both the left and right side.

[tsherkin]

Your point two was one that I've seen a few times discussing Wilt and Elgin Baylor. They both needed that same left block space for much of their offense supposedly.

Indeed! I think most right-handed players prefer to drive from the left side of the perimeter going slightly right, right? And vice versa for left0handed players: they prefer to go from the right side driving left. That way, their dominant hand gets to dribble on the far side of their body during the drive.

Assuming I haven't flipped my rights/lefts (quite possible), that would mean centers who prefer the right block might clog the lane less on average compared to players who prefer the left block. If a center is on the right block, that leaves the left side more open for right handed players to drive more comfortably (and right handed players are more common).

Put a different way, there's a slight advantage for a center to have a different handedness from their perimeter star, if the center is going to have a strong preference for one block and if the perimeter star is going to drive. Since Wilt and Baylor were both right handed and thus both preferred the left side (Wilt preferred posting up on the left block, Baylor preferred a left side drive from the perimeter), they got in each others' way slightly more than if one were left handed or if one were more versatile to use both the left and right side.

It's a comfort thing in a bunch of ways related to handedness, for sure. As far as a back-down guy is concerned on the low block, going into the key from the right side as a right-handed player as you going to your off-hand if you don't use a duck-under or a reverse pivot or something. Kareem was fine because he mostly turned baseline and shot a right skyhook... but likewise he could go middle from the left side for the same. He eventually developed a short J and a fade. And early in his career, he even did some triple-threat drives, which was wild at the time for a dude of his size.

[DraymondGold]

Your point two was one that I've seen a few times discussing Wilt and Elgin Baylor. They both needed that same left block space for much of their offense supposedly.

Indeed! I think most right-handed players prefer to drive from the left side of the perimeter going slightly right, right? And vice versa for left0handed players: they prefer to go from the right side driving left. That way, their dominant hand gets to dribble on the far side of their body during the drive.

Assuming I haven't flipped my rights/lefts (quite possible), that would mean centers who prefer the right block might clog the lane less on average compared to players who prefer the left block. If a center is on the right block, that leaves the left side more open for right handed players to drive more comfortably (and right handed players are more common).

Put a different way, there's a slight advantage for a center to have a different handedness from their perimeter star, if the center is going to have a strong preference for one block and if the perimeter star is going to drive. Since Wilt and Baylor were both right handed and thus both preferred the left side (Wilt preferred posting up on the left block, Baylor preferred a left side drive from the perimeter), they got in each others' way slightly more than if one were left handed or if one were more versatile to use both the left and right side.

It's a comfort thing in a bunch of ways related to handedness, for sure. As far as a back-down guy is concerned on the low block, going into the key from the right side as a right-handed player as you going to your off-hand if you don't use a duck-under or a reverse pivot or something. Kareem was fine because he mostly turned baseline and shot a right skyhook... but likewise he could go middle from the left side for the same. He eventually developed a short J and a fade. And early in his career, he even did some triple-threat drives, which was wild at the time for a dude of his size.

Your point about Kareem is interesting -- even if someone still prefers the same block side, a player could have counters going towards the basket or baseline that could effect the spacing/clogging of the lane.

Going back to Wilt and Baylor, what exactly is it about their fit that didn't work offensively in 1969, that was different from Wilt et al in 1967 or Wilt and West in later years?
-Teammates: Was Elgin more reliant on driving from the left side towards the basket (which brought him into Wilt and his man), while West and the 1967 supporting cast were able to drive more on the right side or use other scoring counters (like West's patented pull-up jumper) to avoid running into Wilt/Wilt's defender ?
-Wilt on/off ball: Was it Wilt playing a different role? For example: in 1967, the film I've seen shows Wilt more often with the ball while players moved off-ball around him, spoke-and-wheel style. In 1969 with Baylor, Baylor more often wanted to drive with the ball in his hand forcing Wilt off-ball. So did off-ball drives with Wilt as a passer work better than the on-ball drives with Wilt as an imperfect off-ball threat in worse position (i.e. not a willing high screener or roll man, and not in good positioning as a weak-side dunker/rebounder)?
-Something else? e.g. Wilt the passer could have preferred slightly different positioning than Wilt the scorer/rebounder, which might change how clogged the lane is for people driving to the basket.

How much does the blame go to Baylor (not good enough driver from the other side) vs Wilt (not good enough setting higher screens or getting to the weak side dunkers position) vs the coach (both players were capable of changing / fitting offensively, but Van Breda Kolff wasn't good enough at diagnosing the problem and addressing it)?

Would we expect the other left-block-dominant centers tracked by 70sFan (Wilt was 68% left block, Moses was 71%, Hakeem was 73%) to clash with Baylor offensively?

[tsherkin]

Your point about Kareem is interesting -- even if someone still prefers the same block side, a player could have counters going towards the basket or baseline that could effect the spacing/clogging of the lane.

Kareem was insane. His skill, and then the evolution in his skill, was wild. He would be viewed even more differently had the Lakers not been trash-bawlz-garbage around him before that 79 draft that netted them Magic.

Going back to Wilt and Baylor, what exactly is it about their fit that didn't work offensively in 1969, that was different from Wilt et al in 1967 or Wilt and West in later years?

Baylor wasn't a good choice as a volume scoring option. He was fairly inefficient for several years, then marginally efficient, which is a bad look on a hyper-volume scorer. Also, he was a 34 year-old athletic guard taking almost 22 FGA/g as a mid-70s FT shooter. He was like a 34 TSAdd kind of player that year, while West and Wilt were both north of 180 (Wilt north of 200). That isn't a perfect measuring stick, but Baylor was a TS+ 102 guy (+0.9% rTS) as their leading scorer, which was a mistake, particularly with two considerably better options on the team. Wilt and West were both also drawing more fouls on fewer shots per game, and Wilt was considerably superior in terms of raw FG%, while West was also rocking a higher FG% on about 2 fewer FGA/g and much better FT shooting.

It was just a bad idea to keep Baylor shooting that much at that stage in league development, as he never really came along with improvements in the league. Some of that is injuries, of course, and some of that is skill profile/style. It wasn't just that they bumped heads on the floor, it was that Baylor was a bad fit because he was a bleh-efficiency volume scorer taking shots away from two much better scorers.

[70sFan]

Really fascinating stuff!

Thank you!

Besides getting more data on how these players score (which is interesting in its own right!), I've been wondering whether there's any takeaways on how (if at all) this might influence their offensive value.

For example: 1) Does this have any effect on these players' resilience? If a player has a large bias towards one side, does that make their offense more predictable and less versatile, and thus easier for the defense to prepare to defend, compared to if they were the same player but had a more balanced approach?

2) Does this affect any these players' team-building or scalability? If a player has a strong bias toward scoring from one side of the floor, does this clog the lane more in the case a perimeter player prefers to drive on that side (and on the other hand, does this keep the lane more open if the perimeter player prefers to drive on the other side of the floor)? Does having a more one-sided approach to scoring make it harder to pair with another big in a twin tower scheme?

1. I don't think it has a huge effect on players' resilience. Look at Hakeem's tendencies and then look at how he managed to increase his postseason production. I think the perfected go-to move and the variety of reliable counters have the bigger influence on resilience than that.

2. The second question is more interesting. I haven't gone deep into that concept, but from my observations lack of bias for one side increase players off-ball value significantly. It's the main reason why Shaq and Kareem were significantly bigger off-ball threats than the other ones I mentioned. In their cases, you cannot allow them to roam around the paint, because they could just establish deep position quickly and create efficient shot. That's something Hakeem (and to a lesser degree Wilt) lacked in comparison, they were more methodical in work. Of course size helps a lot as well, that's another reason why Hakeem is behind these two behemots (and that's Wilt's main advantage over him as well).

The effects of positioning are usually subtle on each possession, and I would bet hard to measure. For example, for my resilience question above, I would think one's shotmaking ability would have a bigger impact on one's resilience than their positional preference. Still, even if it's subtle, positioning is the kind of ever-present facet to the game that having better or worse positioning can add up over enough possessions.

I think it would require a long study using way more examples than only the best players ever, but we shouldn't ignore the value of positioning himself during the action. I think in recent years people realized how important it is on defense, but it's often just as crucial for offensive players - especially bigs. That's where Shaq's constant pressure and off-ball movement wins against someone like Gilmore, even though I don't think Gilmore lacked the physical tools to do similar things (and he had a better shooting touch than Shaq).

On another note: 70sFan, if you have this data, it would be interested to see how these bigs' average shot distance compares to each other. Obviously it would take a lot of work to compile if you don't have it already, so no worries if not!

Unfortunately, I don't have average post shot distance for them. With that being said, I do have the overall average shot distance for all of them. I will post them when I come back home, if you are interested of course.

[DraymondGold]

Your point about Kareem is interesting -- even if someone still prefers the same block side, a player could have counters going towards the basket or baseline that could effect the spacing/clogging of the lane.

Kareem was insane. His skill, and then the evolution in his skill, was wild. He would be viewed even more differently had the Lakers not been trash-bawlz-garbage around him before that 79 draft that netted them Magic.

Going back to Wilt and Baylor, what exactly is it about their fit that didn't work offensively in 1969, that was different from Wilt et al in 1967 or Wilt and West in later years?

Baylor wasn't a good choice as a volume scoring option. He was fairly inefficient for several years, then marginally efficient, which is a bad look on a hyper-volume scorer. Also, he was a 34 year-old athletic guard taking almost 22 FGA/g as a mid-70s FT shooter. He was like a 34 TSAdd kind of player that year, while West and Wilt were both north of 180 (Wilt north of 200). That isn't a perfect measuring stick, but Baylor was a TS+ 102 guy (+0.9% rTS) as their leading scorer, which was a mistake, particularly with two considerably better options on the team. Wilt and West were both also drawing more fouls on fewer shots per game, and Wilt was considerably superior in terms of raw FG%, while West was also rocking a higher FG% on about 2 fewer FGA/g and much better FT shooting.

It was just a bad idea to keep Baylor shooting that much at that stage in league development, as he never really came along with improvements in the league. Some of that is injuries, of course, and some of that is skill profile/style. It wasn't just that they bumped heads on the floor, it was that Baylor was a bad fit because he was a bleh-efficiency volume scorer taking shots away from two much better scorers.

I'm not opposed to this interpretation of Baylor -- indeed, I probably lean towards that interpretation myself. The one thing I'm struggling to understand is the difference in 1968 and 1969 team results.

1967 76ers (with Wilt): +4.7 relative Offensive Rating (1st in 1960s)
1968 76ers (with Wilt): +2.2 relative Offensive Rating (21st in 1960s)
1968 Lakers (with West/Baylor): +4.1 relative Offensive Rating (3rd in 1960s)
1969 Lakers (with Wilt/West/Baylor): +1.1 relative Offensive Rating (32nd in 1960s)

It's quite the drop off for the Lakers adding Wilt (-4.0 rORTG decline in the RS), especially considering the usual culprits for the 1969 Lakers' underperformance (Baylor or van Breda Kolff) were on the 1968 Lakers, and they were the 3rd best offense of the 1960s.

Really this is just an offensive two-year WOWY measurement: it's looking at a team performance with and without a player (Wilt), specifically on the offensive end. This kind of two-year WOWY is *super* noisy. For Top 15/30 players, the noise for overall tow-year WOWY is on average larger than the signal (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=108693994#p108693994), and if we're cutting the signal in half by only looking at the offensive portion, we'd expect that noise to be potentially even worse.

Plus it's just one sample of two-year WOWY... so I suppose I shouldn't put much stock in this, given the uncertainty. Nevertheless, a decline of -4.0 rORTG from 1968 to 1969 is pretty substantial. You would expect there to be some contextual factors that would help explain this.

-Did Baylor decline from 1968 to 1969? His scoring didn't really change much... from 26 pts/game at 50.5 TS% to 24.8 at 50% TS% (101 TS+ to 102 TS+).
-Did the loss of guard Archie Clark (all star in 68) and center Darrall Imhoff hurt more offensively (if less overall) than the addition of Wilt? Naively I wouldn't think so, but maybe I'm underrating one of them or underrating their fit in van Breda Kolff's Princeton offense?
-Did the addition of Wilt hurt West's numbers or other players? 1969 does seem to be a slight down year in West's shooting compared to both earlier years and later years, so it could just be some cold shooting or perhaps an adjustment period for West that took a while but eventually evened out -- e.g. his rhythm or primacy may have been thrown off by trying to make room for Wilt or by trying to help Baylor get going with the addition of Wilt. West's assist numbers go up slightly, so maybe West took to much of a step back to make room for Wilt and Baylor (perhaps too much given Baylor's inefficiency), then it found a better balance over time.
-Or perhaps just a down year for some of the other players?

Like I said earlier, it might just be explained by the noise of this kind of measurement, but I do find it odd. Wilt definitely improved the Lakers overall (especially in the playoff performance), but the 1969 RS offense is a bit disappointing compared to the 1968 RS offense.

[DraymondGold]

Really fascinating stuff!

Thank you!

Besides getting more data on how these players score (which is interesting in its own right!), I've been wondering whether there's any takeaways on how (if at all) this might influence their offensive value.

For example: 1) Does this have any effect on these players' resilience? If a player has a large bias towards one side, does that make their offense more predictable and less versatile, and thus easier for the defense to prepare to defend, compared to if they were the same player but had a more balanced approach?

2) Does this affect any these players' team-building or scalability? If a player has a strong bias toward scoring from one side of the floor, does this clog the lane more in the case a perimeter player prefers to drive on that side (and on the other hand, does this keep the lane more open if the perimeter player prefers to drive on the other side of the floor)? Does having a more one-sided approach to scoring make it harder to pair with another big in a twin tower scheme?

1. I don't think it has a huge effect on players' resilience. Look at Hakeem's tendencies and then look at how he managed to increase his postseason production. I think the perfected go-to move and the variety of reliable counters have the bigger influence on resilience than that.

2. The second question is more interesting. I haven't gone deep into that concept, but from my observations lack of bias for one side increase players off-ball value significantly. It's the main reason why Shaq and Kareem were significantly bigger off-ball threats than the other ones I mentioned. In their cases, you cannot allow them to roam around the paint, because they could just establish deep position quickly and create efficient shot. That's something Hakeem (and to a lesser degree Wilt) lacked in comparison, they were more methodical in work. Of course size helps a lot as well, that's another reason why Hakeem is behind these two behemots (and that's Wilt's main advantage over him as well).

Re: 2, it sounds like the ability to get deep post-up position on both sides parallels perimeter players moving off the ball to get in good shooting position from multiple spots on the floor. Some part of your off-ball scoring threat comes from how often your in a position where you're a scoring threat, so if you're in a position to score on both sides, that threat is more ever-present than if you're primarily in position to score on just one side. Which sounds pretty obvious when you write it out like that, but it's cool to see there's a signal in the film too.

Re: Wilt, Thinking Basketball mentioned in the recent Wilt documentary (or in his podcast about the Wilt documentary?) that he saw flashes of more off-ball potential from Wilt, but that Wilt wouldn't go to it as often as Ben wished. I wonder how much coaching affects this -- maybe off-ball scoring pressure was less understood to valued then compared to say when Shaq was around. Or maybe it was something Wilt himself was just less comfortable prioritizing... hard to know.

Duncan looks right in line with Kareem in terms of his balance on the left/right block -- note quite as balanced as Shaq, but a clear level up from Wilt/Moses/Gilmore/Hakeem. I wonder, does this support the idea that Duncan might similar off-ball scoring value to Kareem and more than those other players?

Like tsherkin was saying, Kareem's post moves are pretty impressive and a bit different from Duncan's (e.g. when Kareem's on the right block, I picture him going baseline with the skyhook more than Duncan went baseline when he was on the right block), so that might account for some difference. There's also more to big man off-ball ability than your scoring positioning; offensive rebounding and good screening can be major components, so that might mix things up a bit more (e.g. Wilt/Moses/Shaq probably get the biggest off-ball boost from their offensive rebounding in this group, not sure who gets the biggest boost from screening).

The effects of positioning are usually subtle on each possession, and I would bet hard to measure. For example, for my resilience question above, I would think one's shotmaking ability would have a bigger impact on one's resilience than their positional preference. Still, even if it's subtle, positioning is the kind of ever-present facet to the game that having better or worse positioning can add up over enough possessions.

I think it would require a long study using way more examples than only the best players ever, but we shouldn't ignore the value of positioning himself during the action. I think in recent years people realized how important it is on defense, but it's often just as crucial for offensive players - especially bigs. That's where Shaq's constant pressure and off-ball movement wins against someone like Gilmore, even though I don't think Gilmore lacked the physical tools to do similar things (and he had a better shooting touch than Shaq).

On another note: 70sFan, if you have this data, it would be interested to see how these bigs' average shot distance compares to each other. Obviously it would take a lot of work to compile if you don't have it already, so no worries if not!

Unfortunately, I don't have average post shot distance for them. With that being said, I do have the overall average shot distance for all of them. I will post them when I come back home, if you are interested of course.

Definitely interested! Hope you had a happy holidays!

[tsherkin]

[
1. I don't think it has a huge effect on players' resilience. Look at Hakeem's tendencies and then look at how he managed to increase his postseason production. I think the perfected go-to move and the variety of reliable counters have the bigger influence on resilience than that.

Hakeem practiced high degree-of-difficulty shots that the D couldnt really take away. That wheeling fade, for example, you cant really stop that, a lot like 90s Jordan. It was a meaningful part of why he was able to perform as he did in the postseason.

[70sFan]

Re: 2, it sounds like the ability to get deep post-up position on both sides parallels perimeter players moving off the ball to get in good shooting position from multiple spots on the floor. Some part of your off-ball scoring threat comes from how often your in a position where you're a scoring threat, so if you're in a position to score on both sides, that threat is more ever-present than if you're primarily in position to score on just one side. Which sounds pretty obvious when you write it out like that, but it's cool to see there's a signal in the film too.

Yeah, it's quite similar to shooting versatility vs specialization. Some players are incredibly good shooters from some positions, but their effectiveness is limited in different situations.

Of course in this case, we're talking about the best post players ever, so it's not like Hakeem and Wilt struggled to score on the right block. It's just that they both relied heavily on their baseline fadeaway jumpshot (Moses to a degree as well), which is why they weren't nearly as active on the block without the ball as someone like Shaq.

Re: Wilt, Thinking Basketball mentioned in the recent Wilt documentary (or in his podcast about the Wilt documentary?) that he saw flashes of more off-ball potential from Wilt, but that Wilt wouldn't go to it as often as Ben wished. I wonder how much coaching affects this -- maybe off-ball scoring pressure was less understood to valued then compared to say when Shaq was around. Or maybe it was something Wilt himself was just less comfortable prioritizing... hard to know.

It's very hard to know without more extensive footage from his scoring years and without knowing the details about coaching. It's not like he looks uncomfortable on the right block at all. I think it's a matter of him relying on the baseline fadeaway so much. Hakeem was very similar in that case.

Duncan looks right in line with Kareem in terms of his balance on the left/right block -- note quite as balanced as Shaq, but a clear level up from Wilt/Moses/Gilmore/Hakeem. I wonder, does this support the idea that Duncan might similar off-ball scoring value to Kareem and more than those other players?

Duncan is a bit different as a post player than Shaq or even Kareem. He didn't have a quick go-to move that he could use against any type of coverage and instead, he relied more on counter moves and figuring out defenders. He also liked to faceup more than the two and often attacked from further away.

I don't think Duncan had the same off-ball chops as Shaq/Kareem as a post player, but it's possible that he gave his team more options thanks to that.

Like tsherkin was saying, Kareem's post moves are pretty impressive and a bit different from Duncan's (e.g. when Kareem's on the right block, I picture him going baseline with the skyhook more than Duncan went baseline when he was on the right block), so that might account for some difference.

When Duncan was on the right block, his two go-to moves are either jumphook to the baseline or his famous push shot to the middle. He was quite balanced in his attacks on that side - he went to the baseline with his shots 56% of the time (compared to 72% for Kareem), but if you include drawing fouls, he was basically even (he drew more fouls going to the middle). Kareem also drew more fouls going to the middle, but even accounting for that, Kareem's shooting attempts to the middle contributed to only 34% of his total attempts on that side. Jabbar relied on that baseline skyhook a lot.

There's also more to big man off-ball ability than your scoring positioning; offensive rebounding and good screening can be major components, so that might mix things up a bit more (e.g. Wilt/Moses/Shaq probably get the biggest off-ball boost from their offensive rebounding in this group, not sure who gets the biggest boost from screening).

It's true, I only mentioned off-ball post positioning, but if you include offensive rebounding then these three provided a lot of value. Hakeem also added something by his shooting range (so did Moses, though he moved outside less than Olajuwon).

Definitely interested! Hope you had a happy holidays!

Here they are (in feet):


2000-01 Shaq: 4.2 (5.2 in RS, 4.9 per BBall-Reference)
1973-82 Gilmore: 4.2
1979-83 Moses: 4.6
1962-73 Wilt: 5.0
1971-79 Kareem: 6.0
2002-03 Duncan: 6.9 (7.7 in RS, 8.1 in PS per BBall-Reference)
1993-94 Hakeem: 8.0

As you can see, my estimations are not perfect, so keep in mind that the difference around one feet is not much. Especially in Wilt's case, when some of his game came from the era with narrower paint, which made me hard to estimate distance of some of his shots outside the paint. The better way to look at it is to look at the shooting charts I created - I will post them in the future.

[70sFan]

[
1. I don't think it has a huge effect on players' resilience. Look at Hakeem's tendencies and then look at how he managed to increase his postseason production. I think the perfected go-to move and the variety of reliable counters have the bigger influence on resilience than that.

Hakeem practiced high degree-of-difficulty shots that the D couldnt really take away. That wheeling fade, for example, you cant really stop that, a lot like 90s Jordan. It was a meaningful part of why he was able to perform as he did in the postseason.

Indeed, Hakeem lived off these tough shots he made at respectable percentages and since you can't take them away, he became almost independent of the faced defenses. A drawback of such style is that you cannot reach the heights others did by working this way.

[tsherkin]

[
1. I don't think it has a huge effect on players' resilience. Look at Hakeem's tendencies and then look at how he managed to increase his postseason production. I think the perfected go-to move and the variety of reliable counters have the bigger influence on resilience than that.

Hakeem practiced high degree-of-difficulty shots that the D couldnt really take away. That wheeling fade, for example, you cant really stop that, a lot like 90s Jordan. It was a meaningful part of why he was able to perform as he did in the postseason.

Indeed, Hakeem lived off these tough shots he made at respectable percentages and since you can't take them away, he became almost independent of the faced defenses. A drawback of such style is that you cannot reach the heights others did by working this way.

Agreed, it provided a ceiling to his offensive efficiency, for sure. But in-era, that didn't much matter. And he did also have hella athletic tools he could lean on in a pinch. He did also actually shoot a HIGHER FG% in the playoffs than in the RS, and was +1.6% in TS% in the postseason compared to his RS, which is a little wild.

[homecourtloss]

[
1. I don't think it has a huge effect on players' resilience. Look at Hakeem's tendencies and then look at how he managed to increase his postseason production. I think the perfected go-to move and the variety of reliable counters have the bigger influence on resilience than that.

Hakeem practiced high degree-of-difficulty shots that the D couldnt really take away. That wheeling fade, for example, you cant really stop that, a lot like 90s Jordan. It was a meaningful part of why he was able to perform as he did in the postseason.

Indeed, Hakeem lived off these tough shots he made at respectable percentages and since you can't take them away, he became almost independent of the faced defenses. A drawback of such style is that you cannot reach the heights others did by working this way.

Wilt's post game seems far more oriented to one block than the others, everything is coming from that one side.

It was in that game, but it's not that drastic when I tracked more games. Here is post FGA contribution for all centers I finished tracking by the side of the court:

1993-94 Hakeem (437 FGA):

Left block: 72.8%
Right block: 27.2%

1962-73 Wilt (229 FGA):

Left block: 68.1%
Right block: 31.9%

Notes:

1. Only Shaq showed no clear preference for either side of the block.
2. Kareem and Duncan also were versatile in terms of choosen side, but they prefer the left block like most right handed post players.
3. It's quite normal that players show clear preference for one side over the other and Wilt isn't an outlier in that respect. The most significant difference can be observed in Hakeem's case, whose post game is quite one dimensional despite the reputation (he was extremely effective though and he had plenty of counters).

The bolded here is quite fascinating because it’s true. When Hakeem was on the left block, he was basically going to do only two different things most of the time, but both were highly effective and incredibly difficult to stop.

1) Get the ball and immediately turn towards the baseline for the turnaround -OR- get the ball and go into the Dreamshake sequence, i.e., dribble, a few shakes, turnaround on the baseline.





2) Get the ball, dribble, pick up dribble, fake right towards the baseline and then turn inside for the righty hook, a deadly effective shot.




Both moves were so fluid and beautiful to watch, but they were also not subject to many foul calls, which we saw in Hakeem’s relatively low FTr. I do think he didn’t get a very friendly whistle as there WAS contact that other players would get a whistle for on much less contact on the perimeter, for example, but they’re definitely was a trade-off — it was beautiful to watch, but it wasn’t as efficacious.

3) He also on occasion would go to the up and under after establishing the jump hook in the lane, or he would also sometimes go to the quick spin of the baseline, right off the catch on the block.

When Hakeem was on the right block, he would mostly go to the turnaround fading in the middle of the lane.

[70sFan]

Hakeem practiced high degree-of-difficulty shots that the D couldnt really take away. That wheeling fade, for example, you cant really stop that, a lot like 90s Jordan. It was a meaningful part of why he was able to perform as he did in the postseason.

Indeed, Hakeem lived off these tough shots he made at respectable percentages and since you can't take them away, he became almost independent of the faced defenses. A drawback of such style is that you cannot reach the heights others did by working this way.

Wilt's post game seems far more oriented to one block than the others, everything is coming from that one side.

It was in that game, but it's not that drastic when I tracked more games. Here is post FGA contribution for all centers I finished tracking by the side of the court:

1993-94 Hakeem (437 FGA):

Left block: 72.8%
Right block: 27.2%

1962-73 Wilt (229 FGA):

Left block: 68.1%
Right block: 31.9%

Notes:

1. Only Shaq showed no clear preference for either side of the block.
2. Kareem and Duncan also were versatile in terms of choosen side, but they prefer the left block like most right handed post players.
3. It's quite normal that players show clear preference for one side over the other and Wilt isn't an outlier in that respect. The most significant difference can be observed in Hakeem's case, whose post game is quite one dimensional despite the reputation (he was extremely effective though and he had plenty of counters).

The bolded here is quite fascinating because it’s true. When Hakeem was on the left block, he was basically going to do only two different things most of the time, but both were highly effective and incredibly difficult to stop.

1) Get the ball and immediately turn towards the baseline for the turnaround -OR- get the ball and go into the Dreamshake sequence, i.e., dribble, a few shakes, turnaround on the baseline.





2) Get the ball, dribble, pick up dribble, fake right towards the baseline and then turn inside for the righty hook, a deadly effective shot.




Both moves were so fluid and beautiful to watch, but they were also not subject to many foul calls, which we saw in Hakeem’s relatively low FTr. I do think he didn’t get a very friendly whistle as there WAS contact that other players would get a whistle for on much less contact on the perimeter, for example, but they’re definitely was a trade-off — it was beautiful to watch, but it wasn’t as efficacious.

3) He also on occasion would go to the up and under after establishing the jump hook in the lane, or he would also sometimes go to the quick spin of the baseline, right off the catch on the block.

When Hakeem was on the right block, he would mostly go to the turnaround fading in the middle of the lane.

All of that is true, by my tracking work Hakeem faded away to the baseline over 50% of the time when he was on the left block (and 80% of the time he went to the baseline). The second most frequent shot he took from the post was indeed a right handed hook to the middle, but he took it way less than the fadeaway (more than twice as many fadeaways as hooks).

On the right block, Hakeem relied heavily on fadeaway to the middle (again - around 50% of total right block shots). He also had counters to the baseline - mostly a right handed hook, but also fadeaway.

Here are the numbers for all these shots in 35 games I tracked:

Left block fadeaway to the baseline: 68/163, 42%
Left block hook to the middle: 39/77, 51%

Right block fadeaway to the middle: 25/56, 45%
Right block hook to the baseline: 9/2, 41%
Right block fadeaway to the baseline: 7/10, 70%

Another thing common with Wilt is how Hakeem relied heavily on the fadeaway over the right shoulder vs left shoulder:

Over right shoulder: 219 attempts
Over left shoulder: 18 attempts

[DraymondGold]

Bit of a bump, but the recent Hakeem-Robinson discussion brought back memories of this thread! It occurred to me that this data may already exist for the recent players somewhere. Just looking at the data is of course not as educational as the detailed film analysis that 70sFan's doing, nor can we search a database for the historic players, but it does allow us to increase our sample size and add a few recent players to the comparison with less work.

Turns out it's accessible on nba.com! (although the website is organized like a labyrinth).

You can get the 'Shot Zone" (total FGA and FG in each zone of the floor) for any player since 2002 (RS and PS).
1. Go to 'traditional stats' (https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional)
2. Select the year, season type (RS vs PS), etc.
3. Find the player you want, go to their FGA, and click on the blue hyperlink
4. This brings you to their Shot Plot. For the recent players, it also includes all the film of these shots. Then click the 'Shot Zones' and analyze away!
For players from 1997–2001, the data exists, but none of the hyperlinks on the Traditional Stats page work. However, if you're armed with the correct PlayerID, Season, SeasonType, and TeamID, you can manually make the URL to get the data. You can look at other player and team page urls to get the right PlayerID and TeamID, etc.

Left Side vs Right Side Balance for all-time centers

Wilt's post game seems far more oriented to one block than the others, everything is coming from that one side.

It was in that game, but it's not that drastic when I tracked more games. Here is post FGA contribution for all centers I finished tracking by the side of the court:


2000-01 Shaq (678 FGA):

Left block: 50.3%
Right block: 49.7%

1993-94 Hakeem (437 FGA):

Left block: 72.8%
Right block: 27.2%

1971-79 Kareem (390 FGA):

Left block: 59.5%
Right block: 40.5%

1979-83 Moses (353 FGA):

Left block: 70.5%
Right block: 29.5%

2002-03 Duncan (didn't finish yet, 254 FGA):

Left block: 58.3%
Right block: 41.7%

1973-82 Gilmore (279 FGA):

Left block: 30.1%
Right block: 69.9%

1962-73 Wilt (229 FGA):

Left block: 68.1%
Right block: 31.9%


Notes:

1. Only Shaq showed no clear preference for either side of the block.
2. Kareem and Duncan also were versatile in terms of choosen side, but they prefer the left block like most right handed post players.
3. It's quite normal that players show clear preference for one side over the other and Wilt isn't an outlier in that respect. The most significant difference can be observed in Hakeem's case, whose post game is quite one dimensional despite the reputation (he was extremely effective though and he had plenty of counters).

Here's the results of the expanded data. Rather than doing left block and right block, I did full left side and right side (as defined by the NBA zones). So this might include a few e.g. 3 pointers, but it would not differentiate a left layup vs a right layup or a dunk coming from the left dunker's spot vs the right. There's slight difference in methodology from above, but nothing crazy. Filtering out shots in the center so we're only looking at what percentage of shots from the side come from the left vs right, we find:

2022–24 Jokic (RS+PS):

Left side: 42.0%
Right side: 58.0%

2002–04 Garnett (RS+PS):

Left side: 63.4%
Right side: 36.6%

2001–03 Duncan (RS+PS):

Left side: 59.3%
Right side: 40.7%

2000–03 Shaq (RS+PS):

Left side: 54.6%
Right side: 45.3%

1997–99 Robinson (RS+PS):

Left side: 34.9%
Right side: 65.1%

1997 Hakeem (RS+PS):

Left side: 27.1%
Right side: 72.9%

So from most balanced in their preferred side to most one-sided, combining with 70sFan's earlier (partial historical) data, we get the following Full list:
-Shaq (54.6% left side)
-Jokic (58.0% right side)
-Duncan (59.3% left side)
-Kareem (59.5% left side)
-Garnett (63.4% left side)
-Robinson (65.1% right side)
-Wilt (68.1% left side)
-Gilmore (69.9% right side)
-Moses (70.5% left side)
-Hakeem (72.9% left side)

-Compared to before: most of the new data for Shaq, Duncan, and Hakeem is consistent with the earlier hand-tracking data.
-Shaq is still the most balanced in his side preference, while Hakeem is still the least balanced.
-The new data for Jokic puts him in the next most balanced tier with Duncan and Kareem, while Garnett and Robinson slip in between them and the next tier of Wilt, Gilmore, and Moses.
-Most players prefer the left side, as expected from their hand. Only Jokic, Robinson, and Gilmore prefer the right side. One wonders if this makes it easier for these players to fit next to other right-handed stars.

The raw data (csv format) is here:

Spoiler:

Player,Year,RS/PS,R Midrange FGA,R Midrange FG,L Midrange FGA,L Midrange FG,R 3 FGA,R 3 FG,L 3 FGA,L 3 FG,C Rim FGA,C Midrange FGA,C 3 FGA,C Rim FG,C Midrange FG,C 3 FG,,Link
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Jokic,2024,RS,79,41,50,28,65,24,48,20,847,204,118,572,98,39,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=203999&Season=2023-24&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612743&flag=3&sct=plot&section=game
,2023,,58,37,28,12,40,15,32,10,671,116,77,470,70,32,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=203999&Season=2022-23&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612743&flag=3&sct=plot&section=game
,2022,,54,32,38,22,70,21,66,24,804,127,143,549,64,52,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=203999&Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612743&flag=3&sct=plot&section=game
,2024,PS,10,4,8,4,15,2,11,5,143,30,27,97,14,7,,
,2023,,16,4,17,7,20,8,13,9,244,61,43,149,32,18,,
,2022,,13,5,3,2,4,2,8,1,56,16,6,37,12,2,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,Total,,230,123,144,75,214,72,178,69,2765,554,414,1874,290,150,,
,Avg %,,5.11,,3.2,,4.76,,3.96,,61.46,12.31,9.2,,,,,
,Avg % (no C),,30.03,,18.8,,27.94,,23.24,,,,,,,,,
,Right/left,Right:,57.97,Left:,42.04,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Shaq,2000,RS,157,57,139,54,1,0,0,0,1297,71,0,815,30,0,,
,2001,,118,34,146,60,0,0,0,0,1031,125,0,667,42,2,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=406&Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612747&flag=2&sct=plot&section=game
,2002,,69,20,110,36,1,0,0,0,984,65,0,631,25,0,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=406&Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612747&flag=2&sct=plot&section=game
,2003,,70,21,93,28,0,0,0,0,997,50,0,634,12,0,,
,2000,PS,46,15,49,18,0,0,0,0,385,25,0,242,11,0,,
,2001,,24,10,34,11,0,0,0,0,276,10,0,167,3,0,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=406&Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&TeamID=1610612747&flag=2&sct=plot&section=game
,2002,,24,9,43,17,0,0,0,0,299,18,0,173,4,0,,
,2003,,19,6,23,7,0,0,0,0,173,11,0,104,4,0,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,Total,,527,172,637,231,2,0,0,0,5442,375,0,3433,131,2,,
,Avg %,,7.55,,9.12,,0.03,,0,,77.93,5.37,0,,,,,
,Avg % (no C),,45.2,,54.63,,0.17,,0,,,,,,,,,
,Right/left,Right:,45.37,Left:,54.63,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Garnett,2002,RS,233,99,400,180,33,14,31,9,498,154,52,275,68,14,,
,2003,,288,131,441,212,19,7,22,5,516,165,90,309,71,8,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=708&Season=2002-03&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612750&flag=2&sct=plot&section=game
,2004,,252,114,556,241,9,1,19,5,573,187,15,349,89,5,,
,2002,PS,9,4,10,4,0,0,2,1,31,4,0,14,1,0,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=708&Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&TeamID=1610612750&flag=2&sct=plot&section=game
,2003,,39,19,44,19,2,1,4,1,28,18,3,19,11,1,,
,2004,,66,29,115,45,4,2,5,1,144,31,7,74,15,2,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,Total,,887,396,1566,701,67,25,83,22,1790,559,167,1040,255,30,,
,Avg %,,17.33,,30.59,,1.31,,1.62,,34.97,10.92,3.26,,,,,
,Avg % (no C),,34.08,,60.16,,2.57,,3.19,,,,,,,,,
,Right/left,Right:,36.65,Left:,63.35,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Hakeem!,1997,RS,154,69,421,188,3,1,6,3,746,95,1,428,38,0,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=165&Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612745&flag=2&sct=plot&section=game
,,PS,24,12,58,26,0,0,2,0,150,15,0,101,8,0,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=165&Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&TeamID=1610612745&flag=2&sct=plot&section=game
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,Total,,178,81,479,214,3,1,8,3,896,110,1,529,46,0,,
,Avg %,,10.63,,28.6,,0.18,,0.48,,53.49,6.57,0.06,,,,,
,Avg % (no C),,26.65,,71.71,,0.45,,1.2,,,,,,,,,
,Right/left,Right:,27.1,Left:,72.91,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
David Robinson,1997,RS,11,3,8,3,0,0,0,0,50,3,0,29,1,0,,
,1998,,228,82,133,59,0,0,4,1,632,68,0,381,21,0,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=764&Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612759&flag=2&sct=plot&section=game
,1999,,127,42,45,22,1,0,0,0,295,59,0,183,21,0,,
,1998,PS,24,8,23,9,0,0,0,0,83,4,0,38,2,0,,
,1999,,40,10,18,12,0,0,0,0,108,14,0,60,7,0,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=764&Season=1998-99&SeasonType=Playoffs&TeamID=1610612759&flag=2&sct=plot&section=game
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,Total,,430,145,227,105,1,0,4,1,1168,148,0,691,52,0,,
,Avg %,,21.74,,11.48,,0.05,,0.2,,59.05,7.48,0,,,,,
,Avg % (no C),,64.95,,34.29,,0.15,,0.6,,,,,,,,,
,Right/left,Right:,65.1,Left:,34.89,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Duncan,2001,RS,230,93,323,135,11,3,7,2,684,142,9,399,68,2,,
,2002,,215,86,349,153,4,0,4,1,811,119,2,478,46,0,,
,2003,,177,64,260,117,4,2,4,2,801,132,14,467,60,2,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=1495&Season=2002-03&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612759&flag=2&sct=plot&section=game
,2001,PS,27,9,45,16,0,0,0,0,154,19,1,86,8,1,,
,2002,,30,7,38,15,1,0,1,0,93,17,1,55,4,1,,
,2003,,63,26,80,32,1,0,2,0,228,34,4,142,18,0,,https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&ContextMeasure=FGA&GameID=&PlayerID=1495&Season=2002-03&SeasonType=Playoffs&TeamID=1610612759&flag=2&sct=plot&section=game
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,Total,,742,285,1095,468,21,5,18,5,2771,463,31,1627,204,6,,
,Avg %,,14.43,,21.3,,0.41,,0.35,,53.9,9.01,0.6,,,,,
,Avg % (no C),,39.55,,58.37,,1.12,,0.96,,,,,,,,,
,Right/left,Right:,40.67,Left:,59.33,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Shot Distance for all-time centers

Definitely interested [in average shot distance]! Hope you had a happy holidays!

Here they are (in feet):


2000-01 Shaq: 4.2 (5.2 in RS, 4.9 per BBall-Reference)
1973-82 Gilmore: 4.2
1979-83 Moses: 4.6
1962-73 Wilt: 5.0
1971-79 Kareem: 6.0
2002-03 Duncan: 6.9 (7.7 in RS, 8.1 in PS per BBall-Reference)
1993-94 Hakeem: 8.0

As you can see, my estimations are not perfect, so keep in mind that the difference around one feet is not much. Especially in Wilt's case, when some of his game came from the era with narrower paint, which made me hard to estimate distance of some of his shots outside the paint. The better way to look at it is to look at the shooting charts I created - I will post them in the future.

As for average shooting distance, here's the list with the new players added:

1973-82 Gilmore: 4.2
2000-03 Shaq: 4.5
1979-83 Moses: 4.6
1962-73 Wilt: 5.0
1971-79 Kareem: 6.0
2001-03 Duncan: 7.9
1997-99 Robinson: 8.0
1994/97 Hakeem: 9.0
2022–24 Jokic: 9.7
2002–04 Garnett: 11.3
(source: BBR since 1997, 70sFan tracking pre-97)

This is mostly as expected:
- Gilmore, Shaq, Moses, and Wilt are closest to the basket.
-Kareem, Duncan, and Robinson fall in the middle. Kareem's closest, although relative to era, he likely has more midrange spacing than the raw value suggests. Hakeem comes next
-Jokic and Garnett provide the most spacing, which makes sense given their 3 point volume in the modern era.

Cool stuff!

[tsherkin]

Bit of a bump, but the recent Hakeem-Robinson discussion brought back memories of this thread! It occurred to me that this data may already exist for the recent players somewhere. Just looking at the data is of course not as educational as the detailed film analysis that 70sFan's doing, nor can we search a database for the historic players, but it does allow us to increase our sample size and add a few recent players to the comparison with less work.

Turns out it's accessible on nba.com! (although the website is organized like a labyrinth).

You can get the 'Shot Zone" (total FGA and FG in each zone of the floor) for any player since 2002 (RS and PS).
1. Go to 'traditional stats' (https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional)
2. Select the year, season type (RS vs PS), etc.
3. Find the player you want, go to their FGA, and click on the blue hyperlink
4. This brings you to their Shot Plot. For the recent players, it also includes all the film of these shots. Then click the 'Shot Zones' and analyze away!
For players from 1997–2001, the data exists, but none of the hyperlinks on the Traditional Stats page work. However, if you're armed with the correct PlayerID, Season, SeasonType, and TeamID, you can manually make the URL to get the data. You can look at other player and team page urls to get the right PlayerID and TeamID, etc.

Nice, thanks for finding and posting this!

[Dr Positivity]

I think Moses finesse skillset may be underrated with strong turnaround jumper game.

[tsherkin]

I think Moses finesse skillset may be underrated with strong turnaround jumper game.

Does that count as finesse? What else besides the turnaround did he have which would flesh him out as having more than having one finesse move?

[migya]

I think Moses finesse skillset may be underrated with strong turnaround jumper game.

Does that count as finesse? What else besides the turnaround did he have which would flesh him out as having more than having one finesse move?

Moses used crafty fingerrolls as well. Off of broken plays he gathered the ball and scored in versatile ways.

[tsherkin]

I think Moses finesse skillset may be underrated with strong turnaround jumper game.

Does that count as finesse? What else besides the turnaround did he have which would flesh him out as having more than having one finesse move?

Moses used crafty fingerrolls as well. Off of broken plays he gathered the ball and scored in versatile ways.

Fair enough. I don't remember Moses well enough, I just remember him bulling around for offensive rebounds. But his highest-scoring seasons were before I was born and I think the first time I saw him was when he became a Hawk, so my knowledge of his scoring specifics is weak.