Retro Player of the Year Project

[drza]

Trouble is, you are just plain wrong according to everything I've ever read. Russell's early Celtic teammates were Cousy (weak), Sharman (solid), Sanders/Sam Jones (good/average), and Heinsohn (weak) plus super sixth man Frank Ramsey (average). Wilt's teammates in this period were Rodgers (similar rep to Cousy), Gola (very good), Arizin (solid), and whoever was playing PF that year (usually average) then Attles came in as their sixth man (good).

Late 60s Celtics had a lot more defensive talent around Russell but the Sixers had a lot more around Wilt too. KC Jones (outstanding), Sam Jones (average), Havlicek (outstanding), and Howell (weak) v. Wali Jones (good), Greer (above average), Walker (good), Cunningham (very good), and Luke Jackson (good).

It's not the teammates.

If it's not teammates (and I didn't say it was just teammates, and I certainly wasn't implying that Wilt was better), then would you say that Garnett isn't in Duncan's league defensively? That's actually a more interesting comparison, seeing as how both of those guys had to carry their teams on both ends, whereas Russell didn't have to carry the Celtics offensively the way that Wilt had to carry his teams.

I hadn't seen this post when I posted, but it gets further to the point I was making (I had actually used Duncan as the template for one of my previous hypotheticals): teammates and scheme DO matter. But if I understood Penbeast's post fully, he wasn't saying that teammates don't matter...he was saying that Russell's defensive teammates weren't any better than Wilt's were, so when comparing Wilt and Russell as defensive players it's not their teammates that made the difference in defensive impact.

With Duncan and Garnett the line is more blurred. Arguments can (and have benn) made either way, but even the most ardent Duncan-supporter in these arguments would have to admit that his circumstances were a lot better than Garnett's. You can still believe Duncan to be the better defender if you think he did more even with those better teammates than Garnett could have, but you still have to acknowledge that the difference was there. Again, if I read Penbeast correctly, they were saying that there wasn't this kind of difference between Wilt and Russell's circumstances (on defense).

[Doctor MJ]

Is there that much separation between Bird and Magic?

I don't know if I'd say there was much separation (as in big gap), but there is a clear separation. It's enough that I don't feel the need to rank them together like I did in the past.

Bird had a better 3-year peak, but I'd say that Magic had the best year with his 1986-87 season. As players they're hard to compare because they played different positions and had different roles, but Magic being a PG had a bigger impact on his teams offense, and the Showtime Lakers were probably the best offensive dynasty ever. Magic won 5 championships to Bird's 3, and won 2 out of 3 when the two went head-to-head (and could have easily been 3/3 had the '84 Lakers not choked). Both guys had 9 consecutive All-NBA 1st team selections, and Bird had a couple of All-Defense selections thrown in there. Bird won 3 consecutive MVP's, Magic won 3 in 4 years. Both guys were great leaders, incredibly smart, clutch, and had that "it" factor where you wanted them on the floor with the ball in the closing minutes.

Magic was without question the more consistent/better playoff performer, and to me that's what clearly separates them.

Yeah, I'd echo this post and add some of my own words:

I don't believe Magic's peak impact was clearly bigger than Bird's peak impact, but I also don't think Bird's was clearly bigger than Magic's. Then add in Magic had better flexibility - for example, when things weren't going Bird's way, his efficiency goes in the toilet despite having teammates making shots, we basically never see that with Magic, and I think it's because though Bird was a great passer, he just couldn't bring himself to step away from his scoring role as much as he sometimes should have, meanwhile Magic seems to have zero issues there. Then add in Magic's superior longevity, and his extroverted leadership.

I wouldn't call it a blowout, but all the tiebreakers go Magic's way.

[JordansBulls]

Interesting thing here is that some players would have won more POY while others would have more POY shares.

Examples

Hakeem has more POY than K.Malone, but K.Malone has more POY shares.
Bird has more POY than Magic, but Magic has more POY shares
MJ has more POY than Kareem, but Kareem has more POY shares

Others may have more POY and more POY shares.

Examples

Duncan has more POY and more POY? than Shaq

So when comparing them on an all time list, does that put Duncan automatically ahead of Shaq if he is ahead of him in both the POY and POY shares?

Same thing with Duncan and Bird and Duncan and Hakeem.

Duncan has more POY and POY shares than Shaq, Bird or Hakeem individually, so does that mean Duncan ranks ahead of those 3 because of it?

[mopper8]

This is the most fun I've had on RealGM in a long time, btw. Great great conversation, and a lot of food for thought on both sides of things.

I have errands to run and I'm finding it very difficult to leave this thread to take care of them!

[bastillon]

Kareem - best 2-way player ever to play the game IMO. Elite defensive impact, elite offensive impact.

[...]

Russell's VORP isn't translatable. His resume is so staggering that its hard to put him too far down, so I go back and forth. But Duncan was a very good scorer in his own right in his prime, not just average but very very good, unlike Russell. I do think that you stick both in the modern game, and even granting that Russell is still better at defense I still think Duncan has a higher VORP. But he doesn't have 11 titles and 5 MVPs, so its tricky.

this is the biggest issue when it comes to ranking Russell. everyone could pump up Wilt or Kareem despite playing in almost the same era, but Russell's impact is always diminished, whether he's below-average offensively as semi-sentient put it, or his value over replacement player (VORP) is high, not his impact, or his impact isn't translatable...

food for thought: whatever Kareem's impact was on defense, he was a joke compared to Russell defensively. however "elite" Kareem's impact may have been, Russell was pretty much twice the defender KAJ was.

typically 60s Celtics had 40-50 DWS.

Kareem:

Code: Select all

year       combined DWS
70             20.7
71             23.7
72             28.8
73             33.3
74             30.6
75             19.4
76             19.1
77             21.8
78             20.0
79             22.7
80             23.6

interesting to note: 76 Bucks had 19.4 DWS, exactly the same as in 75 (w/ KAJ). Lakers 75 had 14.7 (improved +4.4 w/ KAJ).

69 Celtics 41.1 DWS
70 Celtics 22.7 DWS (no Russ, no major changes defensively outside of his retirement)

and that's 35 year old Russell, he was still far more valuable to team defense than the very best absolute peak version of KAJ.

simple as that: Kareem wasn't even in the same stratosphere defensively. whatever Kareem's value was on defense, Bill Russell pretty much doubles that value. don't start with translating crap: KAJ hit his defensive peak couple of years after Russ retired.

edit: this could make you re-think Kareem's value on defense. his teams were hardly dominant on defense... these results pale in comparison to Hakeem, Mutombo, Mourning, Dwight, Ben Wallace, Ewing etc etc. vast majority of his prime his teams were ~average defensively. they had 3 years (72-74) when they really dominated. uninspired results for a guy whose rep is GOAT candidate defensively.

[bastillon]

oh, typical Duncan year - Spurs ~35 DWS. Kareem is nowhere near Timmy on defense.

[mopper8]

I don't really put a lot of weight into Win Shares personally, especially going that far back when you're doing a lot of estimating of Drtg and such.

[mopper8]

oh, typical Duncan year - Spurs ~35 DWS. Kareem is nowhere near Timmy on defense.

This does provide nice support for my contention about Duncan's place in the all-time list, though

[bastillon]

I don't really put a lot of weight into Win Shares personally, especially going that far back when you're doing a lot of estimating of Drtg and such.

I'm combining TEAM DEFENSIVE WIN SHARES. this is basically DRtg relative to league average, but lets you picture it better... as wins. so what we're doing here is estimating how much given team won games with its defense.

60s Celtics won 40+ games (40+ DWS) with their defense year in year out, Spurs 00s typically mid-high 30s (35+ DWS), Celtics 08 won 40.7 games with their defense (40.7 DWS).

by the example of 69 and 70, we can see that Russell ALONE was sometimes responsible for more wins than Kareem and his whole team combined. that should tell you a lot about the gigantic gap between the two.

can't even find modern era comparison, maybe Garnett vs Yao (but actually Yao anchored much better defenses than Kareem so...).

I'd love to see Elgee's breakdown for his +/- in 75. I know it was huge overall but I'm curious where it came from: offense or defense. I'm guessing its offense given how great Kareem's teams were on that end. his defensive rep seems ridiculously overblown though.

[semi-sentient]

Again, if I read Penbeast correctly, they were saying that there wasn't this kind of difference between Wilt and Russell's circumstances (on defense).

Fair enough.

For the record, I never claimed Wilt was a better defender, only that I thought the "massive" gap in impact was blown out of proportion.

[penbeast0]

Wow, lot's of posts since I last looked and very interesting ones . . . I see what mopper means about hating to leave the computer. In answer to your question about Duncan and Garnett, it always seemed to me that Duncan was just more a consistent threat so people built their offense more around staying away from him while Garnett was more of an on the ball threat. Just a perception but it seemed that Duncan was more a stay at home guy while Garnett was more all over the court to put it a different way. As such, while Garnett would have more highlight defense and possibly even a better counterpart PER, Duncan would have a stronger impact on team Drtg and on wins as a defensive player -- something that is generally true of top defensive shotblocking bigs who guard the lane as opposed to players who come out on their man leaving the middle open more.


I also agree that Russell wouldn't have nearly as strong a defensive impact today because of the increase use of the 3 point shot and sets that clear a side and limit the impact of a single defensive anchor. I just don't see that as a reason to minimize the actual impact that he did have under the rules he did play in. If he was playing today, he might have an impact similar to prime Ben Wallace defensively (but with more dominant rebounding and much more competent if not outstanding offense) but comparing his actual impact to that of Wallace he dominated to a degree Wallace never approached. It also might be that Michael Jordan in Russell's era would be a weaker version of Oscar Robertson, unable to dominate games because the rules and style of play is stacked against the superathletic highflying wing unless they started from more of a post-up position. I just think that when comparing across eras, unless the question is specifically stated to focus on one particular set of rules or style of play (ie, how would Magic do in a slow-it-down, walk-it-up Mike Fratello offense) that you compare how each player played in the era and style which he faced and how he succeeded and dominated within that framework.

[Doctor MJ]

this is the biggest issue when it comes to ranking Russell. everyone could pump up Wilt or Kareem despite playing in almost the same era, but Russell's impact is always diminished, whether he's below-average offensively as semi-sentient put it, or his value over replacement player (VORP) is high, not his impact, or his impact isn't translatable...

I don't know if I'd look at it as an "issue", so much as something that allows debate to actually happen. Russell contributed more value than anyone in history, the fact that it doesn't totally translate doesn't DQ Russell, it just un-DQs everybody else.

[Dr Positivity]

This project has made Russell fascinating to rank for me. I think compared to his era, he's #1. Those DRTGs... most of which I assume can be attributed to him, means every team he plays on is a contender. He won titles when his team had the worst offense in the whole league... a couple times. KAJ and MJ got nowhere near the title when they had to carry the entire team on their back like that. Russ straight up crushed his era. Imagine if they'd have above average offenses in those years? It'd have been a farce. They'd be in the 70-75 W range

But where it gets tricky is it feels like this is more a fault of the rest of 60s teams, than a credit to Russell. Certainly Russ is an all time great defender. I can't help but feel though that if Dwight or Zo go to the 60s, Boston similarly crushes everyone in DRTGs. Maybe not to Russ level, but enough to contend

So I think Russ is GOAT if we rank relative to player. But I don't know if I can call him the greatest basketball player ever. I feel like there's a large number of players who are better at basketball than him, but were less timely. There is clearly a grand canyon gap between Russ's accomplishments and Mikan's... but I feel both were extremely timely and perhaps now outdated compared to the value of players today. Mikan is like Birth of a Nation (the first and most famous silent movie) and Russ is Gone with the Wind. Mikan/Birth of a Nation are too far back to take seriously, too rudimentary. Nobody watches it. And it's um, racist. Russell/Gone with the Wind is much bigger, much more advanced, and was much more dominant - and deserves much more a place in the film and cultural zeitgeist. Certainly it's still high end compared to average and holds up find watchability wise, just like Russ today would still be a perenniel all-star. But while it's a 'great' movie, it's not an all-time one. As a film I compare it to Titanic. I really like both Gone with the Wind and Titanic. But let's just say they're the top 10 in their league perenniel all-star guys, not the top 10 all time multiple MVP winner ones

I don't think we should say "Our era > Russell's era"... but we shouldn't ignore the fact that the Celtics domination had a lot to do with what other teams didn't have

[ThaRegul8r]

The difference in dRtg is blown way out of proportion. The Celtics had better defensive players than Wilt had as teammates, and their focus on defense was unprecidented, which Red has a hell of a lot to do with. Russell was no doubt the largest reason for that, but even great defensive anchors can have piss poor defensive teams if they don't have the right personnel and schemes implemented (see Garnett).

Saying he's not top 10 is taking it way too far. He still led a couple of title teams and dominated statistically (although some of his offensive numbers are inflated and in some cases quite empty), and he didn't consistently have the great coaching and/or supporting cast that Russell had. He definitely lacked the intangibles, but how far are you willing to drop him for that? Out of the top 10? That's being way too harsh.

Trouble is, you are just plain wrong according to everything I've ever read. Russell's early Celtic teammates were Cousy (weak), Sharman (solid), Sanders/Sam Jones (good/average), and Heinsohn (weak) plus super sixth man Frank Ramsey (average). Wilt's teammates in this period were Rodgers (similar rep to Cousy), Gola (very good), Arizin (solid), and whoever was playing PF that year (usually average) then Attles came in as their sixth man (good).

Late 60s Celtics had a lot more defensive talent around Russell but the Sixers had a lot more around Wilt too. KC Jones (outstanding), Sam Jones (average), Havlicek (outstanding), and Howell (weak) v. Wali Jones (good), Greer (above average), Walker (good), Cunningham (very good), and Luke Jackson (good).

Led by Wilt Chamberlain (“Mr. Inside”) and Hal Greer (“Mr. Outside”) the fabulous Philadelphians whipped the Cincinnati Royals 134-118 Monday night to establish a new NBA home-court consecutive victory string.

[...]

It was an old story again Monday night as the astounding 7-foot-1 Chamberlain poured in 38 points, handed out 10 assists and took down 32 rebounds.

He hit 16 out of 21 from the floor to boost his league lead in field goal percentage. His season mark is now 346 for 499, over 70 per cent.

An old friend helped Chamberlain—Hal Greer.

The “Mr. Outside” of the 76ers offense scored 35 points from where he does it best—the outside.

In addition, guards Larry Costello and Wally Jones were picture-perfect on defense, bottling up the high-scoring Oscar Robertson of the Royals.

In fact, they were so effective that they held Robertson—the league’s second-highest scorer—to no field goals until the middle of the third period. (Tri City Herald, Dec. 27, 1966)

“All NBA teams win with their defenses now,” Red continues. “They learned its importance from the Celtics and now they all work at it. Even their scouting habits have changed. They still may send a man out to scout a boy because he’s a great shooter. But they also want that man to report on the boy’s quickness, ability to run backward, mental concentration and anticipation on defense.”

As far as the best defensive players in the league, Auerbach says the toughest centers to score against are former Kansas University star Wilt Chamberlain of the Philadelphia 76ers, Bill Russell of the Boston Celtics and Nate Thurmond of the San Francisco Warriors. Luke Jackson of the 76ers and Tom Sanders of Boston are rated as the best defensive forwards in the league. Lennie Wilkens of St. Louis and Wally Jones of the 76ers are Red’s guard picks. (Lawrence Journal-World, Mar. 8, 1968)

“[T]heir defense, with Chamberlain clogging up the middle and Wally Jones pressuring the man with the ball, is outstanding” (Mar. 22, 1968)

“There have been roughly five great defensive guards in the modern history of professional basketball and Lennie has to be one of them. Of the other four only Wally Jones of the Philadelphia 76ers is still active. Larry Costello quit in the middle of the season because of injuries. K.C. Jones retired last year and Slater Martin who always gave Cousy so much trouble stopped playing five or six seasons ago” (Mar. 28, 1968)

“Even when 6ft. 9 in. Luke Jackson of the Philadelphia 76ers has a big scoring game, which is basically not his job, the superlatives invariably go to someone else. [...] This is the best defensive forward in pro basketball” (Apr. 18, 1968)

On Jerry West: “His defense, while not quite on a par with either Wally Jones (Philadelphia) or Lennie Wilkens (St. Louis), nevertheless shows at both ends of the floor” (Apr. 29, 1968).

“[Wally] Jones and New York's Walt Frazier are probably the two best defensive guards in the league” (Nov. 17, 1970).

As you can see, Wali (Wally) Jones was more than just "good." As was Luke Jackson.

“[...] [Hal] Greer can play defense with the best. Often Hannum will send Greer after an Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Rick Barry, or Sam Jones at least” (Apr 2, 1967)

[lorak]

[

interesting to note: 76 Bucks had 19.4 DWS, exactly the same as in 75 (w/ KAJ). Lakers 75 had 14.7 (improved +4.4 w/ KAJ).

69 Celtics 41.1 DWS
70 Celtics 22.7 DWS (no Russ, no major changes defensively outside of his retirement)

and that's 35 year old Russell, he was still far more valuable to team defense than the very best absolute peak version of KAJ.

Not really. You have to look at who replaced Russell and KAJ. For example 1970 Celtics had no one at center. Bucks 1976 had Smith, good defensively center. Jabbar's 17 missed games in 1975 are also a factor here.

Besides looking at team DWS we could say that Hakeem also had much, much less impact than Russell: In 1991 he missed 26 games and Rockets had 29.6 DWS. Year earlier 31.7 (HO 82 games) and in 1992 20.4 (HO 70 games).

[Doctor MJ]

Besides looking at team DWS we could say that Hakeem also had much, much less impact than Russell: In 1991 he missed 26 games and Rockets had 29.6 DWS. Year earlier 31.7 (HO 82 games) and in 1992 20.4 (HO 70 games).

I don't think that's the best example. The fact that in the middle of Hakeem's prime, the team did well enough without Hakeem that the Rockets seriously considered trading him rather than deal with his attitude should be a knock against Hakeem.

[penbeast0]

I'm certainly not running down Wali Jones; he was the youth outreach coordinator for the Heat and has been generous enough to come to the school I teach at more than once. He's also a fun speaker and seems to be a classy guy all around.

(I always saw it spelled Wali on the basketball cards I collected as a kid; I see the articles you have spelling it the normal way but until I get corrected by the source, I'm assuming Topps was right).

[mopper8]

Besides looking at team DWS we could say that Hakeem also had much, much less impact than Russell: In 1991 he missed 26 games and Rockets had 29.6 DWS. Year earlier 31.7 (HO 82 games) and in 1992 20.4 (HO 70 games).

I don't think that's the best example. The fact that in the middle of Hakeem's prime, the team did well enough without Hakeem that the Rockets seriously considered trading him rather than deal with his attitude should be a knock against Hakeem.

Curious to hear your thoughts on Win Shares and especially D-Win shares in general. I've never been impressed by it as a stat, seems very much for single players trying to individualize something that can't be easily individualized, and for both players and teams quantifying something that can't really be quantified. I dunno, I've looked at some of the formulas and don't really find them terribly impressive, but maybe I'm wrong.

Also, my understanding is that individual Drtg is something akin to raw +/- in that it does not adjust for teammates, correct? If so, that makes it even less close to the mark. Maybe this is another discussion entirely, for the Stats board...

[semi-sentient]

Trouble is, you are just plain wrong according to everything I've ever read. Russell's early Celtic teammates were Cousy (weak), Sharman (solid), Sanders/Sam Jones (good/average), and Heinsohn (weak) plus super sixth man Frank Ramsey (average). Wilt's teammates in this period were Rodgers (similar rep to Cousy), Gola (very good), Arizin (solid), and whoever was playing PF that year (usually average) then Attles came in as their sixth man (good).

Late 60s Celtics had a lot more defensive talent around Russell but the Sixers had a lot more around Wilt too. KC Jones (outstanding), Sam Jones (average), Havlicek (outstanding), and Howell (weak) v. Wali Jones (good), Greer (above average), Walker (good), Cunningham (very good), and Luke Jackson (good).

A few things about Wilt's good defensive teammates.

The Sixers were actually a pretty good defensive team (with exception to 66-67 and 60-61), so it's not like Wilt was anchoring terrible or below average defensive teams on a regular basis. When he had help, his teams were generally pretty good defensively. In 1959-60, they were 2nd behind only the Celtics (barely), which I find incredible considering Russell had a lot more help. The following two seasons they were 3rd/4th, which is above average and with Wilt having to do everything on offense. In 1965-66, they were again 2nd behind only the Celtics, and in 1967-68, they were the best defensive team in the league. Better than Russell's Celtics. Cunningham was a rookie in 1966, and Jackson was getting 6th man minutes until 1967, so it's not like you can give these guys the bulk of the credit for those early Sixers, and in 1966-67 when they weren't a great defensive team, they still won the championship and trounced the Celtics anway.

Wilt had very little help with the Warriors outside of Attles, and once he received a little more help from a rookie Thurmond the following season, the Warriors were the 2nd best defensive team in the league. I think we can safely say that Russell had WAY more help in the years that Wilt was with the Warriors.

The early days gets a little bit more hazy because I don't know much about Wilt's teammates as defenders. So much of the conversation has centered around Russell and Wilt that many of these other players have been downright ignored. I do know that Russell had guys like KC Jones and Havlicek even in the early 60's, so I'm not sure why you excluded those guys from the early Celtics you listed. You also neglect to mention Tom Sanders in your 2nd paragraph who was with the Celtics the entire decade and was one of the best defensive forwards in the league along with Luke Jackson (according to Red himself).

Getting back to Wilt's teammates, he did have Arizin and Gola when he entered the league, but Arizin already getting old at that point. Even so, I think it's pretty clear that the early Celtics had more average/good defenders than the early Sixers outside of Russell/Wilt.

Now factor in what Red brought to the Celtics and I think it becomes more clear that the gap isn't as big as some make it out to be. When you have people saying that Russell has twice the impact as Wilt on defense (or Kareem) I can't help but shake my head to those types of comments. Russell's probably the GOAT defensive player, but that doesn't mean we need to start overrating him by making these wild exaggerations.

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to put together the defensive rankings of their respective teams, as well as comparing the good/great defensive players that they've had over the years. People can draw their own conclusions.

Yearly Rankings and Team dRtg Comparison

Code: Select all

Year       Russell (dRtg)    Wilt (dRtg -- team)
===================================================
1968-69    1st (88.4)        8th (95.4) -- Lakers
1967-68    2nd (92.4)        1st (92.1) -- Sixers
1966-67    1st (91.2)        5th (95.1) -- Sixers
1965-66    1st (87.7)        2nd (91.8) -- Sixers
1964-65    1st (83.5)        ----------------------
1963-64    1st (83.0)        2nd (88.6) -- Warriors
1962-63    1st (87.0)        6th (97.1) -- Warriors
1961-62    1st (84.6)        3rd (92.5) -- Sixers
1960-61    1st (83.4)        4th (90.2) -- Sixers
1959-60    1st (84.2)        2nd (85.9) -- Sixers

Russell's Defensive Teammates

Code: Select all

Year       Teammates
========================================================
1968-69    S Jones, Havlicek, Sanders
1967-68    S Jones, KC Jones, Havlicek, Sanders
1966-67    S Jones, KC Jones, Havlicek, Sanders
1965-66    S Jones, KC Jones, Havlicek, Sanders
1964-65    S Jones, KC Jones, Havlicek, Sanders
1963-64    S Jones, KC Jones, Havlicek, Sanders, Ramsey
1962-63    S Jones, KC Jones, Havlicek, Sanders, Ramsey
1961-62    S Jones, KC Jones, Sanders, Ramsey
1960-61    S Jones, KC Jones, Sanders, Ramsey, Sharman
1959-60    S Jones, KC Jones, Ramsey, Sharman

Wilt's Defensive Teammates

Code: Select all

Year       Teammates
========================================================
1968-69    West
1967-68    Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Jones, Jackson
1966-67    Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Jones, Jackson
1965-66    Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Jones, Jackson
1964-65    -----------------------------------------
1963-64    Attles, Thurmond
1962-63    Attles
1961-62    Arizin, Gola, Attles
1960-61    Arizin, Gola, Attles
1959-60    Arizin, Gola

Bonus -- Post-Russell Celtics

Code: Select all

Year       Rank (dRtg)
======================
1972-73    1st (88.2)
1971-72    2nd (93.0)
1970-71    4th (96.6)
1969-70    5th (98.5)

Feel free to add to any of that. I'm really just trying to find a good way to determine how much better Russell was than Wilt on the defensive end while taking team defense (teammates/schemes) into account.

[bastillon]

The difference in dRtg is blown way out of proportion. The Celtics had better defensive players than Wilt had as teammates, and their focus on defense was unprecidented, which Red has a hell of a lot to do with. Russell was no doubt the largest reason for that, but even great defensive anchors can have piss poor defensive teams if they don't have the right personnel and schemes implemented (see Garnett).

Saying he's not top 10 is taking it way too far. He still led a couple of title teams and dominated statistically (although some of his offensive numbers are inflated and in some cases quite empty), and he didn't consistently have the great coaching and/or supporting cast that Russell had. He definitely lacked the intangibles, but how far are you willing to drop him for that? Out of the top 10? That's being way too harsh.

Trouble is, you are just plain wrong according to everything I've ever read. Russell's early Celtic teammates were Cousy (weak), Sharman (solid), Sanders/Sam Jones (good/average), and Heinsohn (weak) plus super sixth man Frank Ramsey (average). Wilt's teammates in this period were Rodgers (similar rep to Cousy), Gola (very good), Arizin (solid), and whoever was playing PF that year (usually average) then Attles came in as their sixth man (good).

Late 60s Celtics had a lot more defensive talent around Russell but the Sixers had a lot more around Wilt too. KC Jones (outstanding), Sam Jones (average), Havlicek (outstanding), and Howell (weak) v. Wali Jones (good), Greer (above average), Walker (good), Cunningham (very good), and Luke Jackson (good).

Led by Wilt Chamberlain (“Mr. Inside”) and Hal Greer (“Mr. Outside”) the fabulous Philadelphians whipped the Cincinnati Royals 134-118 Monday night to establish a new NBA home-court consecutive victory string.

[...]

It was an old story again Monday night as the astounding 7-foot-1 Chamberlain poured in 38 points, handed out 10 assists and took down 32 rebounds.

He hit 16 out of 21 from the floor to boost his league lead in field goal percentage. His season mark is now 346 for 499, over 70 per cent.

An old friend helped Chamberlain—Hal Greer.

The “Mr. Outside” of the 76ers offense scored 35 points from where he does it best—the outside.

In addition, guards Larry Costello and Wally Jones were picture-perfect on defense, bottling up the high-scoring Oscar Robertson of the Royals.

In fact, they were so effective that they held Robertson—the league’s second-highest scorer—to no field goals until the middle of the third period. (Tri City Herald, Dec. 27, 1966)

“All NBA teams win with their defenses now,” Red continues. “They learned its importance from the Celtics and now they all work at it. Even their scouting habits have changed. They still may send a man out to scout a boy because he’s a great shooter. But they also want that man to report on the boy’s quickness, ability to run backward, mental concentration and anticipation on defense.”

As far as the best defensive players in the league, Auerbach says the toughest centers to score against are former Kansas University star Wilt Chamberlain of the Philadelphia 76ers, Bill Russell of the Boston Celtics and Nate Thurmond of the San Francisco Warriors. Luke Jackson of the 76ers and Tom Sanders of Boston are rated as the best defensive forwards in the league. Lennie Wilkens of St. Louis and Wally Jones of the 76ers are Red’s guard picks. (Lawrence Journal-World, Mar. 8, 1968)

“[T]heir defense, with Chamberlain clogging up the middle and Wally Jones pressuring the man with the ball, is outstanding” (Mar. 22, 1968)

“There have been roughly five great defensive guards in the modern history of professional basketball and Lennie has to be one of them. Of the other four only Wally Jones of the Philadelphia 76ers is still active. Larry Costello quit in the middle of the season because of injuries. K.C. Jones retired last year and Slater Martin who always gave Cousy so much trouble stopped playing five or six seasons ago” (Mar. 28, 1968)

“Even when 6ft. 9 in. Luke Jackson of the Philadelphia 76ers has a big scoring game, which is basically not his job, the superlatives invariably go to someone else. [...] This is the best defensive forward in pro basketball” (Apr. 18, 1968)

On Jerry West: “His defense, while not quite on a par with either Wally Jones (Philadelphia) or Lennie Wilkens (St. Louis), nevertheless shows at both ends of the floor” (Apr. 29, 1968).

“[Wally] Jones and New York's Walt Frazier are probably the two best defensive guards in the league” (Nov. 17, 1970).

As you can see, Wali (Wally) Jones was more than just "good." As was Luke Jackson.

“[...] [Hal] Greer can play defense with the best. Often Hannum will send Greer after an Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Rick Barry, or Sam Jones at least” (Apr 2, 1967)

wow, I thought Wally was kind of a scrub. I knew Luke Jackson was great defensively bc just by watching couple of games it seemed quite obvious. but the article says Jerry West wasn't on par with Jones defensively and that he is on Frazier's level. just wow.

so Wilt's Sixers teammates:
best defensive forward in Luke Jackson, top3 defensive guard in Wally Jones, glue guy in Greer, good def in Walker, good defender in Cunningham. one of the best defensive supporting casts of all-time ?