Lowest reasonable ranking for Wilt

[acrossthecourt]

Bastillon once more--what starting centers in the league today do you think ar better than Wilt? Which ones that have been active in the last 15-20 years?

BTW, I was under the impression there was a code of conduct on this board, yet you disdainfully tell someone they "don't know what you ar talking about." With all due respect, in my opinion that's both rude and arrogant. and that sort of thing is the last resort someone who can't win an argument with reason and logic.

I think--just my opinion--as intelligent as you obviously are, you are often too focused on arcane stats--and if one fails you, you discard it and see if another will stick if you throw it against the wall. Basketball is really a very simple game, unlike baseball, which is much more complex, as is football, which is of amost chesslike complexity. Because of that, I think raw stats such as FG%, FT% PPG, RPG, Assists, blocks, etc in basketball are a better judge of a player's and a teams' effectiveness than the more involved analyses you are fond of. Unlike the other two sport I mentioned, I think it's easy to overthink and overanalyze the game.

You also have an unfortunate tendency to disregard testimony from Wilt's peers, many of them still involved in the NBA in professional positions where their expertise is accepted and valued, about just how good and exceptional Wilt was. Either they are all senile (as I think is your assessment of me) or they are liars. Which is it?

Be that as it may, I would like to--politely--ask you once again to answer my question.

He's not focused on arcane statistics. He's quoting the very basics. How a team does with a player! That's the most important! Who cares how many points you score if it doesn't help the team?

If you look at raw stats you'll think prime Marbury was one of the best point guards in the game. Why isn't he? What are we lacking?

...Look at the box score. It's extremely limited, especially with respect to defense, and you think that's the best way to judge a player, without any other supporting information like, say, how good a team actually performs with the player?

[Dipper 13]

He's quoting the very basics. How a team does with a player! That's the most important! Who cares how many points you score if it doesn't help the team?

According too Dean Oliver's offensive rating estimates he had a huge impact on his team offense. If you are just looking for offense then read the last two posts on page 1 of this thread linked below.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1255357



Below are the offensive and defensive impact on the roster.







Dean Oliver's Basketball On Paper is the source. He is the one who created the offensive and defensive rating formulas as they appear on basketball reference.com. Based on his estimates in the book, Wilt Chamberlain showed his dominance by turning the Sixers into a title contender in the mid-60's. Aside from Wilt himself, the only major roster change during his time there was Billy Cunningham coming in as a rookie & Johnny Kerr leaving after 1965. Also Johnny Green coming in 1968 I'm sure helped them out defensively in the front court.

Sixers Improvement from 1965 relative to league average (Offense + Defense)

1966: +6.2
1967: +10.6
1968: +9.9



Not even Shaq when he went to the Lakers or LeBron going to Miami played on teams that had this kind of improvement with their arrival over several years. In fact none of these players below during the specified years except Jordan have shown anything close to the impact Wilt Chamberlain did during his time with the Sixers, at least by this criteria.





Lakers Improvement from 1996 (Offense + Defense)

1997: -0.2
1998: +3.4
1999: -1.5
2000: +4.3

I'm sure these figures are a bit skewed from '97-'99 due to Shaq's games missed, plus '99 being a lockout year. But even in 2000, while he was dominant, doesn't seem as valuable to his team as Wilt was to the Sixers by looking at the team's overall improvement since their arrival. And Shaq was playing on a far less talented roster than Wilt, which you would think is easier to stand out on in terms of impact (in other words how much the team depends on him). Though to be fair Wilt played in an era where the big man was the center of everything in the sport, before the 3 point line.


Now Shaq did turn the Magic around his rookie year, but according to the vague (estimated) stats used to rank Wilt, you would think Shaq peaked as a rookie.

Orlando Improvement from 1992

1993: +8.4






Heat Improvement from 2010 (Offense + Defense)

2011: +5.7
2012: +3.9
2013: +6.1


Now I know it would be flat out wrong to link the above team results entirely to one player (LeBron), but that is exactly what this entire forum did with Wilt, based on shaky estimated figures.




At least KAJ had a similar impact to Wilt in his 1966 season, though still well below 1967 & 1968.




Lakers Improvement from 1975 (Offense + Defense)

1976: +3.9
1977: +6.3
1978: +6.3
1979: +6.7




At least Jordan was able to play on and lead a team in the ballpark of the 1968 Sixers, though still 1.0 below the '67 Sixers. I will use 1990 as the starting point of improvement, since it was Pippen's first All Star year and Phil's first year as head coach.




Bulls Improvement from 1989 (Offense+Defense):

1990: +1.9
1991: +8.0
1992: +9.6



He also had a big impact as a rookie in 1984-85.

Bulls Improvement from 1984

1985: +4.2





Rockets Improvement from 1984

1985: +1.3
1986: +5.4
1987: +3.9 *Sampson played 43 games + drug suspensions

[Squeedump]

Bastillon once more--what starting centers in the league today do you think ar better than Wilt? Which ones that have been active in the last 15-20 years?

BTW, I was under the impression there was a code of conduct on this board, yet you disdainfully tell someone they "don't know what you ar talking about." With all due respect, in my opinion that's both rude and arrogant. and that sort of thing is the last resort someone who can't win an argument with reason and logic.

I think--just my opinion--as intelligent as you obviously are, you are often too focused on arcane stats--and if one fails you, you discard it and see if another will stick if you throw it against the wall. Basketball is really a very simple game, unlike baseball, which is much more complex, as is football, which is of amost chesslike complexity. Because of that, I think raw stats such as FG%, FT% PPG, RPG, Assists, blocks, etc in basketball are a better judge of a player's and a teams' effectiveness than the more involved analyses you are fond of. Unlike the other two sport I mentioned, I think it's easy to overthink and overanalyze the game.

You also have an unfortunate tendency to disregard testimony from Wilt's peers, many of them still involved in the NBA in professional positions where their expertise is accepted and valued, about just how good and exceptional Wilt was. Either they are all senile (as I think is your assessment of me) or they are liars. Which is it?

Be that as it may, I would like to--politely--ask you once again to answer my question.

He's not focused on arcane statistics. He's quoting the very basics. How a team does with a player! That's the most important! Who cares how many points you score if it doesn't help the team?

If you look at raw stats you'll think prime Marbury was one of the best point guards in the game. Why isn't he? What are we lacking?

...Look at the box score. It's extremely limited, especially with respect to defense, and you think that's the best way to judge a player, without any other supporting information like, say, how good a team actually performs with the player?

No one player, however talented, can be responsible for team performance, and ALL the other players on the team have a responsibility to adapt to all the other players to maximize results. The fact that Wilt changed his palying style three times in his career to fit different teams and the needs of those teams would indicate to me he was doing HIS part. This is more true in basketball than in some other team sports because every player is a generalist, responsible to greater or lesser extent to do exactly the same things. Baseball players are generalists to a much lesser extent--no-one expects a right-handed shortstop to do the same things a left handed pitcher or a catcher to do. Football players are even more specialized--no-one expects a defensive lineman to do the same things a quarterback or a wide receiver do. So if those teams didn't improve with Wilt on them, or actually seemed worse--and I refuse to believe whatever BS you throw at me that that 67 Sixer team would have been just as good without Wilt--then it's a TEAM paradigm, and not soley because of Wilt.

Defense? I compare defensive evaluations them to employee evaluation systems in the business world. None of them are worth a damn, because they are all totally subjective. Using statistics to measure defensive effectiveness are largely useless--the eye test is the one really effective way of deciding whether someone is a good defender or not. Some things are just not amenable to statisitical analysis, and defensive prowess is one of them.

As I said, compared to the other major team sports, basketball is a simple game, a game played by generalists not specialists. For that reason, the basic stats--the ones you see in the box score--are often the truest and most sufficient for evaluating a player's performance. In my opinion, what Bastillon does to belittle Wilt is the statistical equivalent of picking fly sh*t out of pepper, using statistics like a politician uses them to obfuscate rather than enlighten. To suggest that someone could do the things on a basketball court that Wilt did does not belong among the ultimate top tier of players is nonsense.

Still waiitng for your reply, Bastillon.

[lorak]

Wilt's statpadding approach to the game. he just didn't make as much impact as people think.

So you are of the belief that Dean Oliver's estimates are incorrect and unreliable?

Dipper, Elgee said that his estimations are better (more accurate) than Oliver's.

However difference between them is mainly in offense/defense splits. Net ranking is basically the same:

Code: Select all

              ort-drtg      
year   team   Elgee   Oliver   
1959   PHW   -2,5   ---   didn't play
1960   PHW   1,9   1,7   rookie
1961   PHW   0,7   0,7   
1962   PHW   2,1   2,1   
1963   SFW   -1,7   -1,7   
1964   SFW   4,4   4,3   
1965   SFW   -5,1   ---   38G
1966   SFW   -2,1   ---   didn't play
1964   PHI    -3,6   ---   didn't play
1965   PHI    -0,1   ---   35G
1966   PHI    3,8   3,8   
1967   PHI    7,7   7,8   
1968   PHI    6,9   7,1   
1969   PHI    4,3   ---   didn't play
1968   LAL   4,8   ---   didn't play
1969   LAL   3,7   3,7   
1970   LAL   1,7   1,7   12G
1971   LAL   2,7   2,7   
1972   LAL   10,5   10,8   
1973   LAL   7,6   7,8   
1974   LAL   0,8   ---   didn't play



So even rookie and volume scorer Wilt had big impact, he also improved 76ers level of play, but his impact on the Lakers seems to be neutral or even negative - at least at the beginning, because later (missed almost whole 1970 season) it seems to be slightly positive. But not matter how we look at that even at his peak Wilt's overall impact doesn't look GOAT like.

[Dipper 13]

However difference between them is mainly in offense/defense splits

Yes I noticed that. What ElGee's estimates basically are saying is that the 1967 Sixers offense not only became almost 6 times better, but the defense also became nearly 3 times worse.

But not matter how we look at that even at his peak Wilt's overall impact doesn't look GOAT like.

I have also provide some examples of players above with less than "GOAT" impact. The word impact basically means how irreplaceable a player is. To be fair the better the roster (and league) Wilt is a part of, the more difficult it will be to stand out in that respect. Earlier today Sonny Hill on his radio show called Luke Jackson a "dominant" power forward. The caller's question was in regards to the '67 Sixers, and instantly he noted how most of the listeners would not recognize Jackson's value. Hey, maybe some here believe that Cunningham in his rookie season was instantly a +7 player on offense. Or that he improved the Sixers by +10.6 overall in two seasons.

So even rookie and volume scorer Wilt had big impact, he also improved 76ers level of play, but his impact on the Lakers seems to be neutral or even negative - at least at the beginning, because later (missed almost whole 1970 season) it seems to be slightly positive.

I am also of the belief that he never should have went to the Lakers. He left championships on the table when he forced his way out of Philadelphia. He could have won as a player-coach too, since they were ready to give him the coaching job as well. But apparently he also wanted part-ownership of the team, an unwritten agreement between Wilt and Ike Richman (who passed in 1965), that the remaining owner Irv Kosloff was not willing to acknowledge. Below is general manager Jack Ramsay's point of view on what happened that summer.





Dr. Jack's Leadership Lessons Learned From a Lifetime in Basketball - Jack Ramsay

Another "do-over" decision I still think about was more of a delayed decision, but nonetheless had a negative result. It centered on the man I regard as the most talented, intelligent, complex, and interesting of all the players I've known - Wilt Chamberlain. Prior to the 1966-67 season, in Philadelphia, Wilt had set all kinds of scoring records (he had been the league's perennial leader in scoring and rebounding, at one time averaging over 50 points a game for a season), but he had won no championships.

The Boston Celtics ruled then, having won eight titles in a row. Wilt seemed to sense that this Sixers team had the player personnel, in addition to new coach, Alex Hannum, that together could reach that goal. Under Hannum's influence, Wilt became a true team player, scoring a modest - for him - 24 points a game, grabbing 24 rebounds, and dealing just under 8 assists. The Sixers set a league record at the time for most wins with a 68 and 13 mark, and went on to win the 1967 championship, Wilt's first in his eight seasons in the NBA.

I was general manager of that Sixers team and got to know Wilt quite well. When Alex Hannum left the Sixers to coach Oakland in the ABA, I talked with many candidates to replace him. Among them were Frank McGuire, John Kundla, and Earl Lloyd, each of whom could have had the job, but declined it for various reasons. Chamberlain often stopped by the Sixers office to inquire how the coach search was going. When time went by without a selection, he told owner Irv Kosloff and me that he'd be interested in becoming player/coach if I would help him with the Xs and Os. The suggestion took us both by surprise and we said that we'd give it some thought. We agreed to meet again in a week, after Wilt had returned from a trip to the West Coast.

I liked the idea. I thought that Wilt would play with added intensity knowing his name was on the line, and I was confident that I could help with the technical aspects of the job. Koz and I talked it over and agreed that we'd make a deal with Chamberlain to be the team's coach. But when Wilt returned, he said that he had changed his mind, that he was not going to play in Philadelphia again, and he demanded a trade to a West Coast team - to Seattle, Los Angeles, or San Diego. When we indicated that we weren't interested in trading him, he said that he'd jump to the ABA team in Los Angeles. (The ability of NBA players to leave their existing teams began in 1967 when Rick Barry, a free agent at the time, left the San Francisco Warriors of the NBA to join Oakland of the newly formed ABA. Barry was forced by a court order to sit out a year, but then played for Oakland in 1968-69, and played three more years in the ABA for other teams before returning to the NBA with the Golden State Warriors in 1972. With that precedent established, NBA players who were not under contract looked to enhance their bargaining position by threatening to "jump" to the ABA. Chamberlain knew that he was playing with a strong negotiating chip.)

I could hardly believe what I was hearing. I had come to the meeting brimming with enthusiasm, prepared to fill the coaching void, and suddenly found myself, still without a coach and with the prospect of losing the most powerful player in the game. Koz, who was accustomed to Wilt's negotiating ploys (he only did one-year contracts, had no agent, and did all the negotiating himself), tried to push the discussion aside. But Wilt said that he was serious about his decision and that in now way would he play for Philadelphia again. He walked out of the meeting leaving me with my mouth hanging open.

We eventually worked out a deal with the Lakers - the only team Wilt later said he would go to - and moved on. Had Luke Jackson not torn and Achilles tendon, the deal might not have been so detrimental. (Jackson was a powerhouse rebounder, who could score inside and from the perimeter; but he never regained his ability to run and jump like he once had, and the Sixers started a downward trend.)

Thinking back, I've often wondered what the outcome would have been if I had jumped on Wilt's first offer to coach the team. Might we have finalized a deal before he went to the West Coast? Or, when Wilt visited the Sixers office to ask about the progress in hiring a new coach, could I have suggested become player/coach to him? Or, could the Sixers have kept him if we had not caved in when he threatened to jump to the ABA, and told him instead that he was staying in Philly and that the player/coach opportunity was still open?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

The 1967 76ers might struggle to defeat the 2013 NCAA champion Louisville team playing by 1967 NBA rules except allowing only the Louisville players to play by current travelling and zone rules.

What is this based on? The '67 team would easily defeat any NBA team from the 2000's. Nobody can match that front line, especially college kids.

Most NBA teams in the last 30 years can more than match the 1967 76ers size. They only had 2 players taller than 6' 6". Those 76ers played bad defense. They gave up far to many uncontested 15 footers so NBA teams of the last 30 years would be shooting at ridiculously high field goal percentages against them. They 67 76ers would need to learn how to play help defense but I am not comparing a fantasy improved 76 team to modern teams; I am comparing the team I saw which played in a league that did not utilize help defense except for near the rim.

The Louisville kids were small and were not much better shooters than the 67 76ers but they were fast and understood how to use help defense better than the 76ers did. The 1960s refs call a tight game including offensive fouls therefore Wilt and Lucious Jackson can't just plow through the little Louisville players the way Moses Malone would have in the 1980s or the way Shaq would have in 2000.

I stipulated that the Louisville kids are allowed current traveling rules but Hal Greer and the 76ers don't get any more steps than 1960s refs allow. I think the 76ers back court would have a hard time with Louisville.

I don't doubt that the 76ers would beat Louisville but I think they would struggle.

I believe the better half of the 1980 to present teams would easily defeat the 1967 76ers in a contest where lets say they played 1st and 3rd quarters by current rules and refereeing and 2nd and 4th quarters by 1967 rules and refereeing.

I am going by what I saw. I don't have to watch a whole lot of WNBA games to see in which ways the women are different from the men and i don't have to watch a whole lot of 1960s games to see that the 1960s league and it's stats are not comparable to the last 30 years of NBA ball. I think that all you guys who saw more 1960s ball than I did but can't see the inferiority of that league are just refusing too accept reality for sentimental reasons.

To understand why the 1970s onwards high schools and colleges produced more quality pro basketball per America's population than the 1950s did I would need to understand more about how 1950s America was different from 1970s America. I can see that the 1960s players created in the 1950s and early 1960s were less talented. Steroids and good sneakers can't account for the improvement.

When I was a child in the 1960s in suburban Boston there were not many families with basketball hoops. The nearest school with a hoop was not that close and he court did not seem to be used very much. The kids seem to play more baseball and football. That might have just been Boston. I grew up playing street hockey perhaps because of Bobby Orr. Bill Russell said Boston was racist and that racism affected Pro basketball's popularity in Boston. I think the Celtics had a bad TV contract that did not show enough games.

Baseball is good on radio but not fun to watch on TV. The 1950s was a time of transition from radio to TV.

There might have been less kids putting in hours on playground courts in the 1950s. The colleges might not have been granting basketball scholarships to high school students with bad grades so much in the 1960s. Somehow less quality ball players were being produced by the colleges and jumping straight from high school to the pros was not allowed.

I can see that the 1960s defensive coaching philosophies were undeveloped or restricted by the referees. I don't understand how the no zone rule was enforced in the 1960s because I never saw the refs have any reason to call an illegal defense. The players were playing man to man, not helping, not switching well after picks, not sagging and rarely doubling. Players were guarding players 20 feet from the basket even though they knew those players could not shoot beyond 15 feet; they simply did not want to lose their man or the rules required them to be close to their man.

With no help defense from your teammates I can understand why losing sight of your man could be a costly mistake. Nobody was helping therefore anybody who does try to provide help defense is making a mistake by letting their man get be unguarded. By the 1980s playoff teams played a modern looking zonish man to man. In the 1990s coaches created extreme isolations to either force the refs to call illegal defense or get a one on one match-up.

[Dipper 13]

The 1960s refs call a tight game including offensive fouls therefore Wilt and Lucious Jackson can't just plow through the little Louisville players the way Moses Malone would have in the 1980s or the way Shaq would have in 2000.

Their games were never based on illegally plowing through the defense. They knew how to play as a team. This idea that the Louisville college team can compete with the 1967 Sixers is nothing but an opinion on your part. Even giving them charted flights would help them recover and play better on the road. Did you know the Sixers from 1965-66 to 1966-67 had a 36 game winning streak at home? A lot of that is not having to travel on regular planes at odd hours and check into some old motel, with a designated roommate since the owners wanted to save money.

The players were playing man to man, not helping, not switching well after picks, not sagging and rarely doubling.

I have seen plenty of sagging defense on Wilt, even before the ball went inside. The Sixers lost two playoff series (1966, 1968) primarily because they couldn't get the ball into him in the post. Boston's defense did a tremendous job in sharply cutting down his touches. Even Royals coach Jack McMahon was complaining in the 1967 playoff series that the Sixers were getting away with playing "zone" defense.

Players were guarding players 20 feet from the basket even though they knew those players could not shoot beyond 15 feet

Nobody had range beyond the FT line? You are acting as if they played with the peach baskets. It appears the difference in the sport back then was to try and get shots in the paint, nowadays teams seem to try and get three point shots. I'm sure what the Suns did in the mid-2000's revolutionized the game, but not for the better since almost every team tries to emulate that style of play, but not every team can emulate those results. And then there's the rule changes the NBA put in around that same period, giving the guards more freedom than ever offensively.

[trex_8063]

Anything lower than 4 or maybe 5 seems unreasonable to me.

[Top10alltime]

High end evaluation: Top 5 all-time behind Lebron, Jordan, Kareem, and Russell (Top 4-5 defensively, and top 13-15 offensively).

Mid-end evaluation: Top 7-9 all-time behind Lebron, Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Hakeem, Duncan, and possibly Shaq, and KG. (Top 5-8 defensively, and top 22-28 offensively).

Low-end evaluation: Top 12-15 all-time behind Lebron, Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, KG, Steph, Magic, Kobe, and possibly Jokic, KD, and Oscar. (Top 8-12 defensively, and top 36-50 offensively)

[One_and_Done]

Hard ro know just how low to put him. Certainly outside the top 30.

[migya]

Wilt was the most dominant force ever in the nba. He excelled in scoring and in passing, really unmatched in history as a whole. Add to that his case for best rebounder and shotblocker ever, certainly top 10, I think top 5, defender ever and he has case for best player ever.

[70sFan]

Hard ro know just how low to put him. Certainly outside the top 30.

Such a shame Kareem didn't have you back then to say him that Wilt was just an amateur. Maybe with that knowledge he wouldn't have struggled so much against him.

[eminence]

Mikan
Russell
KAJ
DrJ
Magic
Bird
MJ
Hakeem
K. Malone
Shaq
Duncan
KG
Kobe
Dirk
LeBron
Curry

I find it very difficult to drop him below 2nd in his own era. If you're relatively low on his era you can get a couple guys from each other era past him. Maybe I could add a couple more modernish guys and get him to around ~20th - KD/CP3/Harden come to mind.

[iggymcfrack]

Mikan
Russell
KAJ
DrJ
Magic
Bird
MJ
Hakeem
K. Malone
Shaq
Duncan
KG
Kobe
Dirk
LeBron
Curry

I find it very difficult to drop him below 2nd in his own era. If you're relatively low on his era you can get a couple guys from each other era past him. Maybe I could add a couple more modernish guys and get him to around ~20th - KD/CP3/Harden come to mind.

Given how he failed to improve the Sixers and Lakers after getting traded cheaply to them and how he only won 2 titles despite playing with tons of talent in an era where the rules were slanted toward centers, I find it very questionable whether Wilt was better than Oscar or West.

You’re also missing Jokic, Robinson, CP3, Giannis, and Stockton, all of whom I would actually put above Wilt. I think you could put him 30th or so pretty easily.

[70sFan]

Mikan
Russell
KAJ
DrJ
Magic
Bird
MJ
Hakeem
K. Malone
Shaq
Duncan
KG
Kobe
Dirk
LeBron
Curry

I find it very difficult to drop him below 2nd in his own era. If you're relatively low on his era you can get a couple guys from each other era past him. Maybe I could add a couple more modernish guys and get him to around ~20th - KD/CP3/Harden come to mind.

Given how he failed to improve the Sixers and Lakers after getting traded cheaply to them and how he only won 2 titles despite playing with tons of talent in an era where the rules were slanted toward centers, I find it very questionable whether Wilt was better than Oscar or West.

You’re also missing Jokic, Robinson, CP3, Giannis, and Stockton, all of whom I would actually put above Wilt. I think you could put him 30th or so pretty easily.

Wilt didn't improve the Sixers? That's ridiculous statement.

[iggymcfrack]

Mikan
Russell
KAJ
DrJ
Magic
Bird
MJ
Hakeem
K. Malone
Shaq
Duncan
KG
Kobe
Dirk
LeBron
Curry

I find it very difficult to drop him below 2nd in his own era. If you're relatively low on his era you can get a couple guys from each other era past him. Maybe I could add a couple more modernish guys and get him to around ~20th - KD/CP3/Harden come to mind.

Given how he failed to improve the Sixers and Lakers after getting traded cheaply to them and how he only won 2 titles despite playing with tons of talent in an era where the rules were slanted toward centers, I find it very questionable whether Wilt was better than Oscar or West.

You’re also missing Jokic, Robinson, CP3, Giannis, and Stockton, all of whom I would actually put above Wilt. I think you could put him 30th or so pretty easily.

Wilt didn't improve the Sixers? That's ridiculous statement.

In the season that he got traded, the Sixers were 18-17 when he played and 22-23 when he didn't. That's not showing much impact. Now the next year when Billy Cunningham joined the team, sure they got a lot better, but not the first season.

[70sFan]

Given how he failed to improve the Sixers and Lakers after getting traded cheaply to them and how he only won 2 titles despite playing with tons of talent in an era where the rules were slanted toward centers, I find it very questionable whether Wilt was better than Oscar or West.

You’re also missing Jokic, Robinson, CP3, Giannis, and Stockton, all of whom I would actually put above Wilt. I think you could put him 30th or so pretty easily.

Wilt didn't improve the Sixers? That's ridiculous statement.

In the season that he got traded, the Sixers were 18-17 when he played and 22-23 when he didn't. That's not showing much impact. Now the next year when Billy Cunningham joined the team, sure they got a lot better, but not the first season.

Yes, but you don't take into account that the Sixers starting guards missed a lot of games during that period with Wilt. Greer missed 9 games (15-11 record with him) and Costello missed 15 games (12-8 record with him). They basically didn't miss any games before Wilt's trade either. With the 3 playing the Sixers played only 18 games and went 11-7.

Of course you ignore the fact that the Sixers were 1st round exit team before they got Wilt and they dominated the Royals with him and almost beat the Celtics, then going on having the best 3 years RS stretch of the 1960s.

[Djoker]

Wilt also had heart issues in 1965. Health is not an excuse but when you use the 1965 season as evidence that he didn't have impact, then it's valuable context. It's also worth noting that the Warriors completely fell into the dumpster even when the ailing Wilt was traded and despite having a really good backup who immediately became a starter in Thurmond.

[MacGill]

He's just outside my personal top 10 at #12. He's an ATG for sure who requires a ton of context when evaluating.