RealGM Top 100 #4

[ElGee]

This is a fairly clear vote for me. I suppose if people's criteria are slightly different, then Bird might be a good slot. Really, the difference between Magic's career and Larry's isn't NEARLY as pronounced as some now make it out to be, based on the nonsensical Rings argument that Magic somehow won out in the end 5 to 3. That's not it at all.

Nonetheless, here are the cliff notes of my blow-by-blow of Magic vs. Larry (actually been working on a blog post on this for 6 months):

1980: Magic is not a primary player for LA. He's a great hybrid of sorts, not running the offense and playing better team D than credited for. He's a huge spark to the team, borderline all-nba level. Bird OTOH is competing to the best guy in the league straight away (he's 3 years older than Magic and has a pretty polished game). He's a good, rugged team defender at this point in this career and doing a LOT, relative to the times, for Boston's balanced offense.

1981: Magic has a serious injury and a bad little fizzle out in the PS. Bird improves and puts out a level-1 type season, just behind KAJ as the best player in the league IMO.

1982: A bit of a down year from Bird based on the way it all ended. He played two of the best D's in the league and his numbers suffered...although it's important to contextual those numbers and remember Bird, like Derrick Rose this year, was still doing a lot ITO of defense and play-making to add value despite diminished shooting/scoring.

Magic is firmly in his hybrid role, with at one point in the playoffs Brent Musberger stating something like "he's creating a new position." His team defense is fairly good, and he delivers a season that is not far behind Bird's now.

1983: Bird is finally the best player in the league IMO. His role is expanded, and on offense if he's not making a ridiculous pass for a layup, forcing help or space-eating off the ball (Bird may have been the GOAT off the ball player), he's scoring, rebounding and defending. He is slightly knocked to me for getting the flu against Milwaukee, but that's really a huge deal. If Boston plays a weaker team than Mil, we've got a classic situation where no one remembers that and Bird probably motors on in the playoffs. As it were, that Boston team was on its last cycle, and changes were coming.

Magic's basically reprising his 1982 season.

1984: This is where it gets fun, as they give Magic the keys to the car in LA. He's running showtime now, and expanding his game (not sure the defense is still as good, but remember Magic was an excellent positional rebounder). Bird comes back a clearly improved shooter, and with Fitch out that unleashes the Beast (peak Bird). That's a GOAT level season from Bird, who is easily the top guy in the NBA...and the team defense is still there at this point.

1985: Slightly worse year for Larry, slightly better year for Magic. Bird gets the edge.

1986: Bird with his peak season. Hope I don't need to say much about it. Meanwhile, Magic's season himself is starting to get into GOAT level territory.

1987: Magic finally passes Bird. They both put up GOAT level seasons, only Magic's is better. It's on the really really short list of best offensive seasons in NBA history.

1988: I voted for Bird over Magic in the RPOY here, athough I think it's basically a coin flip. A clear down year for Magic in this late-peak stretch of offensive brilliance (87-91)

1989-1991: Bye bye Bird. Magic, meanwhile, with another GOAT level season in 89 and 90. A slight drop off to 91, but still an awesome year. Bird has one of those AS type years in 1990 when he comes back, but it's never the same.

It's vital to understand how good these players were on offense: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7225 Top offenses played on, by best offensive player on the team:
1. Steve Nash (6.8 z )
2. Magic Johnson (5.7)
3. Dirk Nowitzki (4.3)
3. Oscar Robertson (4.3)
5. Larry Bird (4.00)

Magic's all-time offensive ranks by z-score (http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6205)
1987 (8th)
1985 (15th)
1986 (23rd)

But note that Bird's Celtics offenses weren't far behind, with the 1988 Celtics posting 12th on that list.
In fact, the year-by-year breakdown from 84:

1984: LAL 110.9 (5th) Bos 110.9 (5th)
1985: LAL 114.1 (1st) Bos 112.8 (2nd)
1986: LAL 113.3 (1st) Bos 11.8 (3rd)
1987: LAL 115.6 (1st all-time) Bos 113.5 (3rd)
1988: LAL 113.1 (2nd) Bos 115.4 (3rd all-time)
1989: LAL 113.8 (1st) Bos 110.8 (8th, No Bird, added Reggie Lewis)
1990: LAL 114.0 (1st) Bos 112.0 (6th)
1991: LAL 112.1 (5th) Bos 112.6 (3rd)
1992: LAL 107.7 (13th) NO MAGIC

So Magic ran the 2nd-best offensive dynasty in NBA history, and he did it with changing players. Once he expanded his scoring game in 1987 and used that as a constant viable threat, the ball being in his hands was a deadly and relentless attack on offense. It's very similar to what Steve Nash did running the greatest offensive dynasty in NBA history.

Bird is slightly marred by playoff "failures." I went over them in depth in the RPOY project, and will summarize here with 2 simple ideas:

(1) When players contribute in a number of areas and carry a huge offensive load, raw shooting numbers declining don't bring down their game as much as many scoring-obsessed people believe.
(2) Bird's problems were injuries more than failures. Flu, broken hand, elbow, etc. Clearly he pushed his body hard and it started break down (broken back in mid 80s).

Overall, you're getting 9 excellent years from Bird and 4 GOAT-level seasons. With Magic ~8 excellent seasons, 3 or so GOAT-level seasons and 3 more really good years. Put Magic on the floor, and I think you're automatically looking at a GOAT-level championship offense (who stopped him in the playoffs). Put Bird on the floor, and a ridiculous offense in which he can fit in in different ways, and certainly for a number of years a GOOD (yes!) team defender and rebounder.

These two were simply basketball geniuses.

Vote: Magic Johnson
Nominate: Kevin Garnett

[lorak]

It's vital to understand how good these players were on offense: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7225 Top offenses played on, by best offensive player on the team:
1. Steve Nash (6.8 z )
2. Magic Johnson (5.7)
3. Dirk Nowitzki (4.3)
3. Oscar Robertson (4.3)
5. Larry Bird (4.00)

You missed Schrempf with 4.8, who is really underrated, but he was great offensive player. Germans know how to play basketball

[drza]

Would like to participate more in the discussion, but for now it's not a great time. I put up an in-depth Magic vs Kareem post last thread, and my arguments for Magic still hold for this vote.

Vote: Magic Johnson
Nominate: Kevin Garnett

[ElGee]

It's vital to understand how good these players were on offense: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7225 Top offenses played on, by best offensive player on the team:
1. Steve Nash (6.8 z )
2. Magic Johnson (5.7)
3. Dirk Nowitzki (4.3)
3. Oscar Robertson (4.3)
5. Larry Bird (4.00)

You missed Schrempf with 4.8, who is really underrated, but he was great offensive player. Germans know how to play basketball

Well, I was nice enough to include Dirk, even though he has overlap with Nash (KAJ has overlap with Magic). To me, the real top-4 in the "which offensive QB had the best offenses" question is Nash, Magic, Oscar and Bird.

[lorak]

I hope we'll discuss this later and take a closer look, because I believe Schrempf should be in top 100, but for now look at this list: from all the players who played with Schrempf he is on the highest place on the list.

[fatal9]

Some of the years I take issue with for Wilt:

'61 - swept by a sub .500 team, and he underperforms in the playoffs (shoots 49 TS%).

'62 - I think the recaps make it pretty clear that Russell outplayed him in more games than Wilt did to him. Half the games, literally read "Celtics take big half time lead, Russell outplays Wilt however Wilt scores after the game was long decided". Personally it feels like to me he was content creating an illusion through stats in these games. Tom Mechery stepped up big for him in the game 7 (led all scorers with 32, shot 11/16 in first half alone), but Wilt's season low point total winds up coming in game 7).

'63 - Leads team to a 31-49 record, is that what the 4th greatest player of all time should be good for in his statistical prime while he was healthy and played all the games? With two other all-star players around him as well. This is just bizarre, how a team can not even win 40% of their games or have an above average offense with a guy averaging 45 ppg. Raises red flags on how effective of a scorer he was within the team setting. I can't imagine Shaq, Duncan, Bird, Magic, Hakeem etc etc ever in this situation. No matter how bad of a team you give them (not even a couple of all-stars like Wilt had), they at least win half or more of the games. This isn't one bad playoff series or one bad game, this is an entire season.

'65 - Traded from the Warriors who were the worst team in the league, their record was 10-27 in games Wilt played despite him averaging close to 40 ppg in his time with them (something about his stats is just not translating to wins). Again, I can't imagine the other legends in this situation. Gets traded to Sixers who were 21-20, they finish the season 40-40. The following season when the same group of players (+ Barry) improved after Wilt left, they is what they had to say:

"The San Francisco fans who were thoroughly disgusted with the biggest name in basketball - Wilt Chamberlain - are now swarming to see the team now without a superstar.

Part of the difference is Rick Barry. He's not the only difference, he's the only personnel change. The other members of this faceless five - Guy Rodgers, Nate Thurmond, Tom Meschery and Paul Neumann - were all around last year.

Last season in a most curious trade, the Warriors threw Chamberlain away, a superstar at the peak of his career. Today the trade does not seem so curious. "Wilt dominated the team," Ferrick said today, "The team played to him. The fans disapproved of it. The fans wanted excitement."

Rodgers has become more exciting, without haveing to pass to Wilt on every play, and Thurmond and Meschery have grown as big men now that they are permitted to strike out on their own."

'66 - Again, underperforms in the playoffs. His team played very poorly but the drama he caused didn't help. Right before the playoff series he was skipping practises, changing team scheduling, causing unnecessary team chemistry issues in the middle of a playoff series. His teammates played very poorly, but what incentive do they have to play balls out when their "leader" is pissing them off. "During the playoffs Chamberlain refused to attend several practice sessions, which reportedly irked other players on the team.” Warriors go down 1-3 hole, with Wilt putting up 23.5 ppg on 48.6 FG%, 46.5 FT% - from a guy who averaged 34 ppg on 54% in the RS (that's while apparently statpadding at the end of game 1 too). Had a great game 5, but the 8/25 shooting from the free throw line kind of takes some of the air out of it.

'68 - Sixers have a 3-1 lead going and two of the three remaining games are about to played on their home court. Wilt in the last two games shoots 10/30 from the field and 14/38 from the line, and in game 6 he got 40 pts from his teammate Hal Greer as well. Sixers blow the series, many years laters Wilt has tried to lie about what happened in interviews (acted like MLK's death happened right when they took the 3-1 lead, instead it happened before it). Then in game 7 he put on a performance in the second half that was "bizarre" and "puzzling" to his coach/players, similar to what I'm assuming we've seen from LBJ in the last couple of years.

'69 - what should have been a dominant Lakers team barely improved after Wilt joined them to fill in the center spot that they had been lacking all throughout the 60s. They improved by 3 games (and West played 10 more games in '69), their SRS actually declines and Wilt's former team meanwhile still finishes with 55 wins and that's with Luke Jackson missing the entire season. Things like this just make me suspicious of his impact, but then again there are also years like '67 and '72. In the playoffs, his production went way down. Lakers were actually in danger of losing in the first round but the Warriors leading scorer (Mullins) got injured after the Warriors went up 2-0 on them (both road wins). Then came the finals, Wilt's production slipped even more. And for anyone who doesn't realize how many games Wilt's free throw shooting blew in the playoffs, look at game 4 for example. Celtics win by one at the buzzer, Wilt shoots 2/11 from the FT line. From 20.5 ppg in the regular season to 13.9 ppg in the playoffs to 11.7 ppg in the finals all on a mediocre 51.8 TS% in the playoffs (especially for that volume, TS% was probably sub 50% in the finals).

LA Times article after the series:

Now that the seventh and perhaps pivotal game of the NBA Finals is in the can, it may be appropriate to pause and reflect for a while. Say five months.

Analysis of whatever technical errors the Lakers may have committed will be left to keener basketball minds. In this period of re-examination, I’d just like to raise one point, one I think can properly be raised by even a casual spectator.

The point is that the past season suggests, if it does not actually prove, that Wilt Chamberlain is not worth $250,000 a year. And if that’s what he’s really getting, his teammates are being insulted.

This is not the intemperate response of an embittered fan. A good friend of mine is connected with the Lakers, but I have had no real emotional attachment to the team, and never have had.

At any rate, the Lakers, with Chamberlain, lost the seventh playoff game by two points — on the Lakers’ floor. So they have come no closer with Wilt than they did without him.

But the intent here is not to charge Chamberlain with unsatisfactory performance. To be sure, there are some things he can’t do. His field goal average, on shots taken from more than a few feet from the hoop, is rotten. His free throw average, on the other hand, is even worse. Nor can he move with the ball the way Bill Russell can.

But you can’t fault a man for not doing things he is physically incapable of doing. Norm Van Brocklin was hardly a great scrambler. But you didn’t rap him for that. The man just couldn’t run. Chamberlain, from any distance, just can’t shoot.

But some say there are things Wilt is capable of doing that he does not do. They say he could play more evenly. They say he loafs.

Since I know nothing of the man’s exhaustion threshold and have not been given access to his mind, I have no business commenting on that.

Neither am I qualified to judge the effect of the animosity between Chamberlain and his coach, nor to say which party is more at fault.

But I can question Chamberlain’s salary. The man has scored 27,000 points and is certainly a considerable force on defense. But is he worth 2½ times as much as Jerry West? Is he worth 2½ times as much as Elgin Baylor (even when Baylor is in a slump)? The answer, of course, is hardly.

Viewed purely as a business investment, Wilt’s $250,000 salary may be defensible. Maybe the Lakers sold enough tickets this season to get their money back.

Further, their situation after eight seasons in Los Angeles was this: They had repeatedly fallen short, sometimes just short, of winning the NBA title. The reason, in the judgment of many, was that they lacked just one thing, a big man. Finally, they were given an opportunity to get him. The price was perhaps much higher than it should have been, but if this was the one piece without which the machine would not run right, should money be any object?

The trouble is there is another dimension to Chamberlain’s salary. When you announce you are giving a man $250,000 a year (or do not deny published reports that that’s what he’s getting), you are telling your fans, in effect, that you have acquired a super force. The magnitude of the sum almost suggests here is a man against whom there can be no defense.

But it can be seen now by every Laker fan that, while Chamberlain may be a great player, he is not the ultimate weapon. The same thing can be seen by his teammates. For the record, they may tell you, “more power to the guy. He’s entitled to anything he can get.” Privately, however, they must deeply resent the fact that Chamberlain is being paid five to 10 times as much as a lot of players he is not five to 10 times greater than. It would be irrational to believe this resentment has not adversely affected the team.

But as the other Lakers would say for publication, Chamberlain cannot be blamed for consenting to sign a $250,000 contract.

But if you can’t knock Chamberlain for taking the money, you can question the wisdom of the people who agreed to give it to him.

His playoff scoring is very very underwhelming when compared to other guys at his position like a Shaq, Hakeem or KAJ. Wilt is by far the least efficient. His free throws were even more of a problem than Shaq's because not only was he worse, he didn't neutralize it enough by shooting close to 60% from the field in his volume years, especially in the playoffs. Compare all their 25+ ppg or 30+ ppg playoff runs, Wilt by far comes out looking the worst (even if you do it relative to league wide TS%). If in the playoffs you need a) a player who scores well in the framework of the team, b) an efficient volume scorer and c) a player who scores for you when it matters, then Wilt might be last out of all the top 10 players (except Russell of course).

I will quote Doctor MJ who made the post in that last thread that summed up his volume scoring issues nicely:

Wilt's TS% was 51, while Kareem's was a 64. Was that a difference between eras? Not at all, Oscar's TS was around 60 around the same time as Wilt while scoring even more than Wilt.

So people need to understand immediately: It was not the case that Wilt was always scoring a the best possible volume & efficiency. Dude was far more raw as a scorer coming out of college than Kareem.

Wilt then improved to be about as efficient of a volume scorer as Oscar, but when Wilt stopped volume scoring, Oscar continued doing his thing until Kareem's rookie season with no real change to his efficiency, which was of course far less than what Kareem would do by his 2nd year.

ftr, Kareem's single season improvement in TS% from his first to his second year was 5.4%, a significantly greater leap while volume scoring than Wilt ever did, despite the fact that he had already starter out at a much higher level than Wilt.

I don't see any reason to say that Wilt was a more efficient volume scorer than the Oscar's of the world, and Oscar was not in Kareem's league there.

Then you've got to factor in Wilt's remarkable inability to create a good offense while volume scoring. Here's how the Warriors did before and during Wilt on offense relative to the median

Code: Select all
Year Relative
'58-59 -3.7% (before Wilt)
'59-60 -2.8% (Wilt rookie)
'60-61 -0.0%
'61-62 +1.1%
'62-63 +0.0%
'63-64 -2.3%
'64-65 -7.4% (Wilt half season)
'65-66 -3.7% (no Wilt)



Here's something similar with the 76ers:

Code: Select all
'63-64 -2.0% (no Wilt)
'64-65 +0.0% (Wilt half season)
'65-66 +0.0%
'66-67 +6.1% (Wilt stops volume scoring)



By comparison, here's what the Bucks' look like:

Code: Select all
'68-69 -1.5% (no Kareem)
'69-70 +4.0% (Kareem rookie)



Note: I don't have full league numbers for the next year, but the Bucks improved more.

I find this data astonishing, and to be clear, it's not Kareem's data that's noteworthy. That 5.5 improvement with Kareem is about what you'd expect when a team gets an offensive superstar. Wilt though basically never led to any great offense or even great offensive improvement until they made him stop scoring so much.

Praise should be given for Wilt being able to thrive in a more distributor role come '66-67 when he wasn't trained to do that, and I do consider him the best in the game at that point. However, that such an improvement occurred tells you there were serious problems when Wilt tried to score like Kareem, and the only way anyone found to solve them was literally make it so that when the starting lineup was on the floor: Wilt Chamberlain was the 5TH OPTION to shoot the ball!

You don't do that to someone who is truly the best ever at helping his team by putting the ball in the bucket.

[lorak]

BTW, we soon will be voting for Olajuwon, so some interesting fact: http://www.youtube.com/v/Diq7iXUCobw?
Gortat is talking about practice with Olajuwon (it take 6 days!) and he said that they played 1on1 and despite his age Hakeem won with him easily

[Sedale Threatt]

I am open to the arguments, but "Magic had some big statistical games" isn't really doing it for me by itself. I'm impressed by Duncan's big games because I watched the series, and my memory backs up all the stats, that he was awesome. Saying "Magic scored 40 twice" isn't really the same... I can't remember how many bad games Kobe's had where he's scored alot.

A. Your obsession with Kobe continues to astound me.

B. Why are you applying one standard to Duncan -- big games in defeat are impressive -- and a different one to Magic -- "'big statistical games' isn't really doing it for me by itself"?

Duncan was far from perfect. His team lost to the Lakers twice, in the span of four seasons, after securing the No. 1 SRS in the league and, in 2001, the best record as well.

I can understand losing to the 01 Lakers. The Spurs clearly overachieved, while the Lakers underachieved. But getting swept, with what I want to say was a historically large margin for defeat? Put up some fight, at least. The Spurs, following Duncan's lead, pretty obviously quit after falling down 0-2.

And 04, the Lakers were NOT clearly better than the Spurs that year. From Payton's whining to all the injuries to Kobe's poor off-the-court decision making, that year was a cluster F from almost start to finish. Yet, with an admittedly massive stroke of luck, they were able to to come back from the 0-2 kiss of death, with Duncan being powerless to stop them.

That's TWO series where they basically rolled over for the Lakers, coinciding with some pretty pedestrian performances from Duncan.

Yet we've got a 90 series for Magic where, as RonnyMac so thoroughly pointed out, he did just about everything he could to subsidize a poor team performance, yet that counts as a clear-cut failure for HIM. As opposed to the Lakers, who were not worthy -- no pun intended -- of his high standards in that series.

About all you did to refute his points -- which were supported by the video he took the time to dig up -- was point out that, because the Lakers still had James Worthy, they couldn't have been THAT bad. They obviously weren't, but that loss was about as far from Magic's fault as possible.

That was the Showtime Lakers on their very last legs. Kareem was gone, Coop was done to the point that he retired after the season and, perhaps most important, they'd had enough of Riley, who also left at year's end. That was an excellent team, and they probably shouldn't have gotten dusted the way they did, but it happens.

Indeed, Duncan and the Spurs shouldn't have gotten dusted like they did in 01, either.

But back to 90 -- who deserves more blame? The guy who went for consecutive 43 point games after L.A. was in must-win mode, or the one who shot 10 for 40 (Worthy)?

And even as bad as 86 was, it's not like they were going to beat the Celtics that year, anyways.

Otherwise, a great post in Duncan's defense -- too early, IMO, but still a very good post.

I was seriously considering Shaq at this spot, but ultimately I cannot separate the two. Shaq's peak is superior to Duncan, but as Reg pointed out, he's got so many other flaws -- the missed games, the inattention to defense/rebounding, etc. Duncan was just so consistently great, and was every bit as successful in an era that Shaq could have easily dominated.

So it looks as if I'm going with Wilt here. He had his flaws, too, but at his best he was probably the best ever. It didn't happen nearly enough, but that deserves merit.

Even as a die-hard Magic fan, my favorite player ever, I'm still not feeling even the very good arguments on his behalf. Can't really pin-point anything, I just don't think of him as being on that level. Probably guilty of linking him too closely with Bird.

[Dr Positivity]

Thanks for the Wilt stuff ThaRegular and Dipper (and edit: fatal). I still have Shaq over Wilt for greater playoff play having a direct correlation with 4 titles vs 2 for me in Shaq vs Wilt. I think Wilt was the better reg season player but I'd rather have Shaq if I had to choose with my life on the line to win titles

Bird, as I mentioned, is below Magic for me because of slightly less years and losing the rubber match

Shaq vs Duncan vs Magic. Let's try to break this down

Shaq vs Duncan:

Regular season: Edge Duncan because of health

Longevity: Duncan loses a step after 10 years but has 3 more top 10 player seasons + decent supporting player after that. Shaq loses a step after 11 years but has 3 more top 10 player seasons + decent supporting player after that. Very minor edge to Shaq.

Playoff performances: Both great virtually all the time. Shaq has some really big highs like his 00-02 Finals but also some lows like G6 and G7 against Portland or getting exploited on the pick and roll numerous times. Duncan can do more when he's not scoring all the time, too - such as the 07 Finals where he probably should've been Finals MVP. Overall tie.

Leadership/Intangibles: Edge Duncan no question

Less important parts:

Versatility: Edge Duncan. He can play PF and C and won with two very different types of teams, playing beside another great C in Robinson and not great perimeter player and with great perimeter play in Manu/Parker and not another great big man. Can play the pnr/space the floor, dominate the post, play inside out, whatever you like according to the matchup. Shaq is Shaq. Nobody will guard him, he won't be a good pnr defender or hit FTs, he's the best inside out player ever. Ultimately, you look at the Magic failures and you have to think Duncan is a better fit because he could play d, do pnrs and be an overall intangibles guy while Penny went Lebron on the offense

Championship Value: Duncan 4, Shaq 3. Shaq 3peated, but overall went 3 for 5 in 99-03, the greatest window in his prime, while Duncan went 3 for 5 from 03-07, his greatest window. Also, 04 and 06 were a lot closer for Duncan than 99 and 03 were for Shaq. Overall, both guys kicked the **** out of a 5 year period, I can't give Shaq more credit for going LWWWL than Duncan's WLWLW. Duncan gets more credit for 99 than Shaq for 06. (not that title count is my biggest thing, though)

Overall: Duncan over Shaqtus

Magic vs Shaq would probably look the same - Both players equally dominant offensively in their peaks, Magic is greater leader and healthier and more versatile and won more.

Duncan vs Magic. FOR ALL ZE MARBLES.

Regular season: Duncan is more of a dominant player early. Magic is still, freaking awesome. Both guys never stopped winning. Magic's 90, 91 proves his value like Duncan's 01 or 02. Let's call this a tie, I don't know how I'd pick between them.

Longevity: Magic has 11 elite years + his rookie season. Duncan has 10 elite years + 3 more very good ones. So Magic has one more elite year and Duncan has one more 'very good all-star' year. Small edge to Magic.

Playoff performances: Magic is less consistent early in his career, earning the (perhaps undeserved) Tragic nicknames. Both players lose a chance to defend a title due to injury (Magic in 89, Duncan in 00). Duncan's 03 and Magic's 87 are equally marvellous. Both guys more valuable than their stats say in 88 and 05. Call 85 and 07 a draw too. Overall slight edge to Duncan for coming up big early on while Magic had some questionable moments, but it's a very small edge

Leadership/intangibles: Like choosing between hospital and airplane food except the complete opposite. Tie.

Less important stuff:

Versatility: Both extremely versatile, Magic obviously more offensively and Duncan more defensively. Tie.

Championship Value: Magic 5, Duncan 4. IMO Duncan's 4 are 100% the man. Magic has 2 where he's 100% the man (87 and 88), 1 where he's 100% not the man (80), and then 82 and 85, 82 Kareem is the best player but Magic the Finals MVP and almost there, 85 vice versa. If 87-91 is Magic's 03-07 Duncan like 5 year window, he won 2 to Duncan's 3. So Duncan gets a little credit here, but it's not Magic's fault he played the first half of his career with **** Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Slight edge to Duncan.

Overall my vote is for Tim Duncan for the sole reason that in the first half of his prime, he's more trustworthy and mentally ready in the playoffs and he gets the tiebreaker as proving him as the clear man on title teams more. But it's an insanely close duel.

Nomination: Jerry West. I had him at 10. Nothing more to say, I think he'll get in this time. Definitely don't agree with like Karl Malone beating him

[koogiking]

Vote Wilt Chamberlain

[Laimbeer]

Wilt is the GOAT in terms of individual ability and productivity. But he didn't translate it into team success, so it nets him fourth instead of first.

Vote-Wilt
Nominate-Mikan

[Doctor MJ]

Some great discussion here guys. Not sure where to even jump in, but I definitely have a perspective on the RPOY.

It's a mistake to put Wilt this high. I had him in my top 5 too before I looked into his career year by year in detail. May make a post later about it.

Going year by year he's definitely top 5: http://www.dolem.com/poy/

Player POY Shares
1. Bill Russell 10.956
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 10.221
3. Michael Jordan 9.578
4. Wilt Chamberlain 7.818
5. Magic Johnson 7.114

So I'll say up front that my personal POY votes didn't deviate drastically from this. I did had Wilt lower & Magic higher, but like the general voting, I had Wilt in the top 5, and a significant gap between the Top 5 and the next guys down.

So if I had Wilt in my top 5 in the RPOY, why am I doubtful that he's in the top 10 for my GOAT list?

Well most fundamentally, the RPOY was era-blind. It gave equal weight to accomplishments in all eras. Everyone should at the very least take that info, and adjust based on how impressed they were with the competition of the era.

And yes, for me that hurts both Wilt & Russell. I still had Russell at #1 though in this Top 100, how does that work?

Well, first consider: By my personal POY shares, Russell had nearly 12, while Wilt came in just under 7. Huge gap, and so each being dropped a bit for era is going to mean different things.

Getting into more nuance, understand that when I will definitely rank Wilt over West & Oscar in this project, who were the guys he was competing with in the RPOY. Where Wilt slips in my mind is when I compare him with the big men in different eras.

First, I believe it was Regulator who posted the great conversation between Wilt & Firestone about Shaq. I whole-heartedly agree with Wilt here. I think Wilt had the talent to dominate more, but for various reasons he didn't. The overlying them is that Wilt didn't think of himself so much as a basketball player as he did an icon. He was someone who would have been famous even if there was no basketball because he was such an amazing specimen, and so his motivations were more complicated than "how can I get better at basketball".

Watch Wilt against Willis Reed in '70. His movement is gorgeous. Harlem Globetrotter-esque. He has this tendency to hold the ball in his hand with his arm extended and move it around like you would a dog's toy when you're teasing him. It's fun...and against Reed utterly counterproductive. Reed never bites, and sometimes one of the Reed's teammates knocks the ball out of Wilt's hand and starts a fast break.

When he does attack, he often looks like Dr. J, making a graceful sweeping motion ending in a finger roll. However, because Reed established position well, Wilt is far enough form the basket that these aren't gimme shots, and he often misses.

I don't believe Shaq would have had any problem at all destroying Reed. Yes, we can talk about Shaq getting away with murder with his shoulder in the modern game, but the point is that Shaq was trying to be as aggressive as possible with his physical advantage. He never had a pretense of being beautiful. He was just a tank, and proud of it, and it made him a more impactful ball player.

Makes it really hard for me to rank Wilt over Shaq.

The other shoe drops based on my philosophy which hurts both Wilt & Shaq. I ask "If I'm running a franchise, who do I think would give me more?". If a player has a tendency to be moody, to be not fully committed, to cause drama and leave me forced to trade him for less talent, I factor that in.

So while others in this project focus more on peak and reasonable are considering Shaq right now, to me he's not going to come into play until after guys like Hakeem or Duncan. And Wilt then gets in line behind all of these guys.

[ThaRegul8r]

Re: Shaq's lack of rebounding and shot-blocking titles

Shaq was actually second in the league in rebounding in 1992 and 1993. He was third in 1995, despite having an excellent rebounder in Horace Grant on his team. He was second in 1997, though injury prevented him from qualifying. He was second in 2000, and third in 2001.

From 1992 through 1998, Dennis Rodman, the GOAT rebounder going by rebound rate, played the most minutes of his career. He literally rebounded at a rate never before seen in the regular season. David Robinson and Hakeem Olajuwon won their rebounding titles before Rodman became a full-time starter for an entire season. Those two, along with O'Neal and Mutombo, didn't win rebounding titles with Rodman playing those minutes. Shaq came in second to Rodman three times in overall average, and would have won two rebounding titles.

Tim Duncan has never led the league in rebounding. Or shot-blocking.

Duncan has never been mentioned in the same breath as Russell, Wilt and Kareem. Shaq has. Nor is Duncan the most physically imposing player in the history of the league.

Shaq came in second in shot-blocking in his rookie season, third in 1997, second in 2000 and third again in 2001. He has many other top ten finishes in the category.

I'm not even sure why shot-blocking matters though.

Again...

every.
single.
one.
of his fellow Top 5 peers did so. Shaq is the odd man out. When talking about GOAT status, I am going to bring that up. Not to mention the fact that Shaq was capable of playing better defense than he did, but he didn't.

Nobody can prove that Wilt Chamberlain ever led the league in shot-blocking either. You can give an educated guess, you can reasonably assume but if you want to be fair...you cannot prove he ever did it. Wilt really may have never led the league in blocks during his time.

If you wanna say Russell beat him out every single year when he was in the league, but if you're intimating Wilt didn't lead the league in blocks, then I have a hard time taking you seriously on this subject. I remember someone actually mentioned block totals before, but I'll have to see if I can find it. But... have you actually taken a look at the '71-72 season yourself? As a matter of fact, I will personally go through the '71-72 season game-by-game and chronicle as many blocks as I am able to find, to put to rest this utterly ridiculous notion that Wilt never led the league in blocks one time in his career, which I have literally never heard anyone say before until now. And we know (or, at least those who have bothered to look into it) that Wilt capped up the season by averaging 7.4 blocked shots per game in the NBA Finals against the Knicks, and that he had a 24-point, 29-rebound, 10-block triple double in the deciding Game 6. You're letting your fandom of Shaq cloud your objectivity, and are sounding like the Associated Press, who had this gem to say after San Antonio Spurs center George Johnson blocked 13 shots in a 131-126 win over the Golden State Warriors in the 1980-81 season:

“Johnson’s latest rejection performance was his sixth time with 10 or more blocks in a game. In contrast, the legendary Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain never had a 10-block game” (Daily News, Feb 23, 1981).

[Sedale Threatt]

I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Shaq put as much consistent effort into rebounding and shot blocking/defense as he did other facets, namely scoring.

The 99/00 season is the smoking gun. He was never that good before or since that season, despite being only 28 at the time. That, as well as the fact his motivation noticeably waned with every team he ever played for, are pretty big black marks.

[ronnymac2]

Can you absolutely prove he led the league in shot-blocking one year in his career? Can you seriously dig up the numbers of every player in the league- not just Wilt's. I'm talking about the stats- not some anecdotes.

Wilt played with Russell for ten years. After Russell retired, Nate Thurmond and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar played for the remainder of Wilt's career.

You can't just go around assuming Wilt led the league in blocked shots one year and champion it as an advantage over another player here, when the fact is he never actually led the league in blocks. He might have. He might not have. If I personally had to bet on it, I'd assume he did.

But I'm not going to assert it as a fact.

[Doctor MJ]

What Rosen also neglected to mention was that when Reed went down in game 5, the Lakers collapsed on Chamberlain and Rosen's idol Jerry West took only 2 shots the 2nd half, missing both, while the Lakers committed 30 turnovers, trying to force the ball into Wilt, rather than taking the open shot.

Interesting, here's what I saw:

I've watched game 7 of the finals through half time (by which time it was over), and the bits of game 5 i could find on youtube. What I saw:

In game 5, the glaring trend is that with Reed out the Knicks work to double team and trap the Lakers like crazy, and it works amazingly well. Desperate bad passes all over the place. The biggest question in my mind was whether modern players could be rattled like this. Wilt seems passive, not moving around a lot to make it easier for the Lakers to pass to him - but I'd still be inclined to put more blame on the perimeter players.

Game 7 was completely different. The Knicks still have active hands, but they are staying at home more, and the Lakers have some breathing room. One might ask why the Knicks went with such different strategies, but seeing as how they both worked fantastically, I think Red Holzman deserves credit as a very smart dude.

Now, what I was most in was watching Wilt and the Lakers on offense, but before I get into that: The Knicks were just on fire this day. Hitting jump shot after jump shot - with Frazier being the big guy: 15/4/4 in the first quarter, 23 points by half time. This was not a normal day for the Knicks, and even the best teams in the world lose more than 10% of the time - much of what happened there then, is just terribly bad luck for the Lakers.

However, Wilt Chamberlain was terrible.

The strategy very clear was to get the ball into Wilt and have him dominate. The announcers even commented that it was a continuation of their game 6 strategy. So here are the numbers, of getting the ball into Wilt:

Times the ball was passed into Wilt in the post in the first half: 21
Made field goals: 2
Missed field goals: 5
Fouled: 4 times, 1-8 shooting
Turnovers: 3

So the tally: 5 points in 14 used possessions.

The other 7 passes into Wilt, resulted in Wilt making another pass. To break this down: 1 time it was an instant double team, Wilt had to pass. 1 time, Wilt made a great pass to a guy cutting to the hoop. 5 times though, Wilt worked with the ball, and then just gave up and passed the ball out essentially re-booting the possession, without re-booting the shot clock.

Also to be clear, I'm not counting other times when Wilt touched the ball in this tally. Defensive rebounds, touches at the top of the key, offensive rebounds, not mentioned here. Now, Wilt also scored 6 points off of offensive rebounds, which is why he had a double double by half time. I'm not saying Wilt's rebounding was terrible, but Wilt's effectiveness when working to score against a set defense was non-existent.

Getting into the nuances of Wilt's offensive strategy. Typically, he's one on one vs Reed, and he's 5+ feet from the basket. He tends to keep the ball in one hand and move it all around trying to throw his man off, this normally has no effect, but it did result in a couple turnovers when men who weren't on him saw the ball in front of them, and just knocked it out of his hand. He doesn't dribble, and thus couldn't back Reed down even if he'd have otherwise been able to. Announcers comment about how Reed's strength was forcing Wilt to set up shop further from the basket than normal. Tell you what though, Wilt was still getting looks that weren't that terrible - they just didn't go in.

I end up saying with some confidence: The Lakers would have had a better chance if Reed had been healthy. Reed's injury led the Lakers to change their strategy to have Wilt be their first scoring option - and even with an injured Reed, that proved a significantly worse strategy that what they normally were capable of achieving against the healthy Knicks.

[Baller 24]

Let's see, after reading all of this, I'm going to go ahead and rethink this through. The next 5 spots come down to Chamberlain, O'neal, Duncan, Bird, and Magic, very easily for me. I consider Chamberlain's to be the best player of the bunch, '67 Wilt is arguably the greatest player we've ever seen in all of basketball, RonnyMac put it perfectly, he was a machine capable of doing anything.

He was a well above average to top of the league defender, very clearly. Is he better than Russell? Probably not, but he's not that far from him either. He's got the scoring ability of a SF/PF, the body and strength of a C, and the ball handling and play-making skills of PG, all wrapped into an athlete that seems superhuman (maybe I overstated that, but it's close to the perception).

I don't think he choked and I don't think he was a quitter to say the very least, the coaching aspect played a very big role, Butch and Wilt clashed multiple times, and he clearly wasn't himself while playing aside him. We've seen Wilt be one of the greatest defensive forces in the history of the league in '72, while grabbing his Finals MVP.

Chamberlain had is chances IMHO to win multiple championships, and while I don't consider Russell's Celtics to have a substantial advantage between the two, it's very clear he underachieved. However, do all of his positives give him the clear advantage? That's what I'm unsure of.

Bird's got the 3-4 season peak where he's very clearly the greatest basketball player on the plant, and a few seasons where he's probably the 2nd greatest, while in the early midst you can clearly state that he's most definitely a top 5 player. Magic's got the early advantages of being a top 5 player, continuing it possibly the most lethal offensive peak in league history, while being the best player for the next 3 or so seasons. In the end however, I don't think either of them were better than Wilt at his best.

Duncan and Shaq are interesting, Shaq's got the clear advantage in peak, but Duncan's kind of got those few seasons where he's clearly the best player in the league, but a consistent 8-9 year stretch where he's also CLEARLY top 5. I don't know who to go with between the two, but I don't think either belong here. And with Bird and Magic included into the mix, I STILL don't think I know where I want to rank these 4. Tough one, I'm gonna keep reading though, see what I can come up with.

[Sedale Threatt]

First, I believe it was Regulator who posted the great conversation between Wilt & Firestone about Shaq. I whole-heartedly agree with Wilt here. I think Wilt had the talent to dominate more, but for various reasons he didn't. The overlying them is that Wilt didn't think of himself so much as a basketball player as he did an icon. He was someone who would have been famous even if there was no basketball because he was such an amazing specimen, and so his motivations were more complicated than "how can I get better at basketball".

That's a sick thought that the guy who averaged 50 could have been more dominant, but I tend to agree with you. Personally, I think the biggest reason he didn't play to his strengths were more along the lines of ego and insecurity, and those were his fatal flaws.

Wilt just couldn't handle any notion that his success was strictly the result of his massive genetic gifts. I doubt he realized what he was doing -- and it didn't help that he rarely had a coach who could show the way -- but in hungering for acceptance as a complete player, he screwed himself out of being what he should have been.

By contrast, Russell's limitations, and the fact he was a late bloomer who didn't have even one percent of the attention Wilt got in development, could actually be seen as his ultimate blessings.

He figured out what he was good at, in almost total anonymity, and worked with tireless effort to develop it, instead of being the mixed bag that Wilt was, always changing his game every few years. Wilt could do that because he was so gifted, but also because I don't think he had true confidence in himself and his abilities.

With all of that said, I think Wilt's '67 season could be the best individual campaign in basketball history, just by the numbers alone. It doesn't surprise me that Wilt, for all his failures, was also the cornerstone of the two most successful teams in NBA history before Jordan's Bulls.

It didn't happen as much as it should have. But when Wilt got it right, he really got it right. For that reason alone he deserves to be in the Top 5, let alone Top 10. (With all due respect, as one of the two or three most knowledgeable posters we have, you're really over-thinking that one.)

[Sedale Threatt]

Can you absolutely prove he led the league in shot-blocking one year in his career? Can you seriously dig up the numbers of every player in the league- not just Wilt's. I'm talking about the stats- not some anecdotes.

Wilt played with Russell for ten years. After Russell retired, Nate Thurmond and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar played for the remainder of Wilt's career.

You can't just go around assuming Wilt led the league in blocked shots one year and champion it as an advantage over another player here, when the fact is he never actually led the league in blocks. He might have. He might not have. If I personally had to bet on it, I'd assume he did.

But I'm not going to assert it as a fact.

If he didn't technically lead the league, I think it's still pretty safe to assume, from the absolute mountain of evidence -- anecdotal or otherwise -- that Wilt was one of the most active shot blockers in league history. As opposed to Shaq, who not-so-vaguely threatened his teammates that he wouldn't defend the paint with much vigor if he didn't start seeing the ball more.

[ronnymac2]

He couldn't take advantage of a guy who couldn't feel his own leg...

I remember watching that game. Willis Reed's on-court impact was more than just his two famous jumpers. He played about 20 minutes in that IIRC, and he played strong post defense on a Wilt who didn't look particularly aggressive when it came to establishing post position. He also did a decent job on the glass, boxing out, etc. And he kept Wilt away from the paint. I recorded 1 block in the game by Wilt.



After all this, I'm still probably voting for Chamberlain here (not official yet though). I just wanted to put Shaq's name in there. It's absurd to not have his name up here at this point, especially since he probably has the best mix of accolades/titles and peak play here, and he's a dominant playoff performer.

I also think Hakeem deserves more mention here. He also was one of the GOAT playoff performers, always delivering individually when it mattered the most.