Whats The Lowest Wilt Can Be Fairly Ranked?

[therealbig3]

I've got Wilt 12th.

[Warspite]

Rank him however you want but if you were an NBA GM you would offer Wilt your max contract or you would draft him #1 over everyone else. If you sat in an old gym on the 2nd floor and watched the top 20 players of all time play in pickup games you and everyone around you would say that #13 kid was the best of the group.

I ask you this: How many teams could reach the NBA Finals with 1967 Wilt Chamberlain as there starting C?

Now do it for the other 10 top players. Thats the impact that Wilt has and thats how great he is.

[colts18]

Rank him however you want but if you were an NBA GM you would offer Wilt your max contract or you would draft him #1 over everyone else. If you sat in an old gym on the 2nd floor and watched the top 20 players of all time play in pickup games you and everyone around you would say that #13 kid was the best of the group.

I ask you this: How many teams could reach the NBA Finals with 1967 Wilt Chamberlain as there starting C?

Now do it for the other 10 top players. Thats the impact that Wilt has and thats how great he is.

How many teams win only 31 games with Prime MJ, or Prime LeBron? None. That's how many wins Wilt won in 1963, the year where he had the highest PER in NBA history.

[Dipper 13]

^^

Sports Illustrated - October 26, 1964

What the Warriors always have lacked is good outside shooting, to keep the defense from collapsing around Wilt



Sports Illustrated - October 29, 1962

SAN FRANCISCO WARRIORS

New town, but no help for Wilt

When a ball club is assured of 50 points in every game from one man it is bound to win more than a few. The Warriors, newly moved to the West, have such a fellow in Wilt Chamberlain, but they don't have much else. Wilt probably will improve on his 50-point average this year and still get his 25 rebounds, presuming he finds he can get along with Bob Feerick as well as he seemed to with Frank McGuire last year and doesn't go into a case of the Stilt sulks. Feerick, meanwhile, has not only had to abandon the tight defensive game he taught his college teams at Santa Clara, but finds himself coaching a squad that was plunged into a tough exhibition schedule with hardly so much as a single practice session. The exhibition games did two things. They proved what nobody guessed about Rookie Hubie White from Villanova—that he just won't do, so Guy Rodgers, Al Attles and Tom Gola are the backcourt once again and not one of them has an acceptable outside shot, and they showed that Wayne Hightower, now in the NBA after a year of barnstorming in Spain, will need some time to become a suitable starting forward. Meanwhile, second year man youngster on the squad and its strongest corner man—broke his wrist and will be sidelined about a month. Consequently, even more than last year, the Warriors area one-man team. Wilt will win some, but he can't beat LA alone.

[JingoWolf]

Well... this is an interesting question.
Wilt like Russell is one of the hardest players to rate fairly.
He was the most dominant individual player in an era/generation far different from todays.

I'll say immediately that Wilt has no place being over Shaq and Kareem who were far more skilled then him and better playoff performers.

I rank Jordan, Shaq, Kareem and Magic over him... after that you can look at
Russell/Hakeem/Duncan and maybe Bird?

So the lowest he should be is probably in the 5-8 Range and the highest he should ever be is 4-5.

His athleticism and skill is overrated, especially his skill.
He was an amazing athlete but some people who say he is the GOAT athlete and no one else is close are overrating him.
His skills and footwork in the post especially with his back to the basket are highly unimpressive.

[Doormatt]

whats unimpressive is his impact when trying to score 2345239 points and not focusing on defense. his athleticism and skill are not overrated at all, he is one of the greatest physical specimens basketball has ever seen, maybe ever.

[GSP]

Lowest 10th, highest 5th.

It's hard to rank him lower than 5th.

Who would be the four above him? Fifth strikes me as a strange spot for him.

I imagine Magic is the fourth.

Hmm...you have Wilt as your picture Id be interested to hear your take.

[Woodsanity]

Probably around 12th. I rank him somewhere around 5-10 myself.

[parapooper]

Who else could average 50 ppg?

LeBron per36 in 09/10 clutch time on 63%TS

[HeterodoxView]

Well... this is an interesting question.
Wilt like Russell is one of the hardest players to rate fairly.
He was the most dominant individual player in an era/generation far different from todays.

I'll say immediately that Wilt has no place being over Shaq and Kareem who were far more skilled then him and better playoff performers.

I rank Jordan, Shaq, Kareem and Magic over him... after that you can look at
Russell/Hakeem/Duncan and maybe Bird?

So the lowest he should be is probably in the 5-8 Range and the highest he should ever be is 4-5.

His athleticism and skill is overrated, especially his skill.
He was an amazing athlete but some people who say he is the GOAT athlete and no one else is close are overrating him.
His skills and footwork in the post especially with his back to the basket are highly unimpressive.

Wilt's skill varied from year to year. When it came to pure offensive skills, he was at his peak during his scoring years. He was actually magnificently skilled at what he did when he did score those points. The problem is this...Wilt never practiced. His only practice was during actual games (russell never practiced either). The problem is, in order to maintain yourself as a great scorer, you have to practice it at some point or another so that it flows naturally and you don't overthink it when your shot is not going in. I think Wilt post 1963's offense became more and more limited due to this fact, and the fact that he had decided to score less meant his later years' offense became even more limited. But honestly, this doesn't mean much. What centers were able to maintain their offensive prowess (here I mean footwork and skill) throughout their careers? Only two come to mind: Kareem and Hakeem.

The problem with Wilt is not that he was from a different generation. The problem is that some rank him highly, but others refuse to do so because he only won two championships. I myself look at the fact that he made every conference finals or finals for 12 out of his 14 years. He had many game 7 losses in those conference finals or finals games...but those losses were each different, and you cannot say the common denominator to all those losses was Wilt choking, that was simply not true.
and FYI, he was the greatest athlete of any generation, bar none. You can't make judgements unless you've done the historical work. If you haven't, you shouldn't comment.

[penbeast0]

Well... this is an interesting question.
Wilt like Russell is one of the hardest players to rate fairly.
He was the most dominant individual player in an era/generation far different from todays.

I'll say immediately that Wilt has no place being over Shaq and Kareem who were far more skilled then him and better playoff performers.

I rank Jordan, Shaq, Kareem and Magic over him... after that you can look at
Russell/Hakeem/Duncan and maybe Bird?

So the lowest he should be is probably in the 5-8 Range and the highest he should ever be is 4-5.

His athleticism and skill is overrated, especially his skill.
He was an amazing athlete but some people who say he is the GOAT athlete and no one else is close are overrating him.
His skills and footwork in the post especially with his back to the basket are highly unimpressive.

Shaq wasn't close enough in time to get a good comp but Kareem played against Wilt for 3 years and an over 30 Wilt held his own against Kareem at the peak of Kareem's athleticism (Kareem's skill level continued to develop a bit as his athleticism declined) and outplayed him head to head while winning as many championships in those years.

Kareem then spent the rest of the 70s being a playoff disappointment and a generally acknowedged poor team leader (as Wilt was not a good one for most of his career but 70s Kareem was even more removed from his teammates and isolated -- both by his personality and by his conversion to the Muslim faith). It was only after Magic joined the Lakers with his outgoing personality that Kareem harnessed his great talents to team success which is one reason Magic is ranked so high.

And, unlike Wilt, Kareem wasn't up against any other top centers for much of the decade. Kareem came into the NBA as a 4 year college player, Moses didn't reach that level until 1979 (and played in the ABA his first two years). Wilt retired after the first 3 years of the decade. Kareem's main competition at center was Bob McAdoo who was a pure offense, no defense outside shooter (basically Dirk playing center), and Dave Cowens, an undersized scrapper (think Chuck Hayes with a good jump shot). Wilt accomplished as much in the 60s as Kareem in the 70s while playing against the GOAT franchise and possibly player in Bill Russell and the Celtics dynasty.

So, while I can see an argument for Kareem being better than Wilt based on his results in the 80s and longevity (which is unparalleled), I think Wilt's 10 year peak was clearly equal to or superior to Kareem's 10 year peak due mainly to Wilt's superior rebounding being even more important than Kareem's superior efficiency (efficiency relative to the league).

[HeterodoxView]

whats unimpressive is his impact when trying to score 2345239 points and not focusing on defense. his athleticism and skill are not overrated at all, he is one of the greatest physical specimens basketball has ever seen, maybe ever.

Those that point to some sort of impact analysis are playing around with statistics that in the grand scheme of things doesn't mean anything to any particular player. It means something with respect to the way the team is playing and how skilled they are together, but it does not mean that you can use it to judge ONE player unless that player works to make others around him better. The fact that wilt was scoring all those points and still taking Boston to 6 or 7 games in the conference finals is a testament to him, but its true that it probably wasn't the best thing for the team (but even this we cannot know for sure). Yet that wasn't Wilt's fault, that was the coach's fault.
The biggest thing Wilt had going against him was the fact that he never had a great coach guiding him. Also, the league was still young back then, and it was because of Wilt that the league at large realized the value of having a great coach. Without it, a team can be lost and be largely unsuccessful even if you have the best player on your team.

and those that point against his defense are simply liars. Even though Wilt didn't do great on pick and rolls, he still tried to block everything in sight every year he was in the league. I think you and everyone else would be surprised to learn that in 1968, when he led the league in assists, he also averaged, according to blocked shots from the games they looked at, at or near double digit blocks per game. In other words, this guy averaged nearly a quadruple double in 1968, and nobody knows it. You wanna talk about skill? Now that, is skill.

[JingoWolf]

Nice post and interesting stuff Penbeast.

Some comments/questions.

I am no expert on Kareem/Wilt H2H history but from what I remember Wilt held his own when they first began to play eachother and perhaps even had the edge in a few games and in a playoff series but after a short time Jabbar ended up having a decisive edge in their matchups and began to dominate Wilt

Overall (from what I remember) I felt Kareem got the better of Wilt although in terms of rebounding and FG% Wilt often held the edge even as his body and athleticism began to decline steeply.

I will say Wilt's absolute dedication to rebounding is amazing and he is probably the GOAT rebounder.

I agree that the 70's competition was pretty weak and when Kareem did go up against players like very early 70's Wilt and Thurmond his level of play tended to plummet and he had some really bad series against those two.
Even in the 80's people make a big deal out of him having a good series or two against Hakeem but Hakeem didn't have the height to contest 7,3 Jabbars skyhook and he was obviously helped by Magic who would get him the ball in the right position everytime.

Wilt may have had better competition but like Jabbar he rarely faced defenders who were tall enough or strong enough or athletic enough to stop him from using his athletic advantages into getting easy shots.
I'd also add that defenses in general seemed weaker back then, the level of athleticism overall was lesser and they double/triple teamed far less then they did in future eras.

Still the top heavy teams were stronger in the 60's and going up against Russell/Thurmond was not easy so that gives me some reason to pause and possibly accept why his level of play and efficiency. in the post season always tended to be so much worse then his regular season play.

[TheKingOfVa360]

Lowest 10th, highest 5th.

It's hard to rank him lower than 5th.

Who would be the four above him? Fifth strikes me as a strange spot for him.

Keep in mind this is just my opinion.

In no order

Magic, Jordan, Kareem, Russell. Then I have Wilt and Bird.

[JingoWolf]

Lowest 10th, highest 5th.

It's hard to rank him lower than 5th.

Who would be the four above him? Fifth strikes me as a strange spot for him.

Keep in mind this is just my opinion.

In no order

Magic, Jordan, Kareem, Russell. Then I have Wilt and Bird.

Where you have Shaq?

[TheKingOfVa360]

Where you have Shaq?

I have Shaq and Duncan right after Bird.

[The Infamous1]

Outside of inflated box score statistics, what's Wilt's arguement over Shaq? Or Duncan for that matter?

[HeterodoxView]

Outside of inflated box score statistics, what's Wilt's arguement over Shaq? Or Duncan for that matter?

Was a better player than both using any statistic you want (and if they had counted blocks, this would be even more obvious). More durable, took his team to 12/14 conference finals or finals (well I wouldn't say he "took" his team anywhere in 1969). He was just a BETTER PLAYER than either Duncan or Shaq. He was as fundamental as Duncan and as powerful as Shaq (even if he didn't use that power).

The fact is, Duncan had good teams and faced relatively poor teams (in 2003 I'll give him credit, he played really well) in his title runs. The same could be said for this year, where his team is EXCELLENT and where he is just one of many contributers, of course many will want to give him all the credit just because he's the big body on the team, but nothing could be further from the truth: if the spurs win as I think they will, it shows what good coaching and good team play can do. They're about to face a team that is all about strong individual players, and they will show, as russell and the celtics showed Wilt, why team play always wins in the end.

[JingoWolf]

He was just a BETTER PLAYER than either Duncan or Shaq.

Based on what?
Shaq may have had some annoying nagging injurys (mostly towards the end of his career) but was healthy and playoff ready almost every year.
Shaq had far better footwork and more skill in the post and had a far more impressive playoff career.
He made the players around him better and everyone wanted to play beside him during his Prime and Young years because he just made life easier on his supporting casts.
He was also one of the best "big game" players ever and Finals performers.

I cannot see any reason why Wilt would be ranked over Shaq, I don't even think its close.

Duncan and especially Shaq also have better longevity over him.

I think you can make a case for Wilt over Duncan but not Shaq.
Shaq was just a better and more skilled player.

[TheKingOfVa360]

Outside of inflated box score statistics, what's Wilt's arguement over Shaq? Or Duncan for that matter?

Was a better player than both using any statistic you want (and if they had counted blocks, this would be even more obvious). More durable, took his team to 12/14 conference finals or finals (well I wouldn't say he "took" his team anywhere in 1969). He was just a BETTER PLAYER than either Duncan or Shaq. He was as fundamental as Duncan and as powerful as Shaq (even if he didn't use that power).

The fact is, Duncan had good teams and faced relatively poor teams (in 2003 I'll give him credit, he played really well) in his title runs. The same could be said for this year, where his team is EXCELLENT and where he is just one of many contributers, of course many will want to give him all the credit just because he's the big body on the team, but nothing could be further from the truth: if the spurs win as I think they will, it shows what good coaching and good team play can do. They're about to face a team that is all about strong individual players, and they will show, as russell and the celtics showed Wilt, why team play always wins in the end.

I concur, I feel Wilt was just flat out better than Shaq or Duncan. Shaq has a better argument than Duncan imo.