In your all time list: Wilt or Bird

[Doctor MJ]

Who do you rank over Wilt, MJ? 13 seems too low (I have him in the 8-10 range).

Last ranking:

Russell
Jordan
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Hakeem
Duncan
Garnett
Shaq
Kobe
Erving
Mailman

Tee off where you see fit.

[ElGee]

So you think Bynum can give you similar statistical production to Wilt in any category? Please explain yourself.

Don't get me wrong; I'm more with you in this debate I was simply thinking of what Bunum or Howard would be like if they had Wilt's ability. Can anyone honestly imagine how that player would not help his team today offensively? Especially at the modern-day devoid center position? And with players who know how to shoot the ball?

I read ElGee's posts and learn a lot; I value Doctor MJ's insight on these boards. But I'm not sold on Wilt simply being a taller version of Melo/Iverson, players who actually score at volume by chucking inefficiently and hurt their offenses in the process. And I was one of those people who thought Wilt was overrated before learning statistics

I actually think it's just more instructional to look at Howard and ask yourself if you think he's some awesome offensive player because he puts up ~20 pts/75 on +6-9% TS??

Someone in this thread asked if my "criteria" makes Wilt average. First of all, realize that this is a bit on linguistic nonsense (to put it nicely) -- my "criteria" is who helps teams win. Period. If you don't do that, it doesn't matter what your box stats look like, how good your fadeaway is, or how well you dunk. Ricky Davis was exceptionally "skilled" in many physical departments. He pretty much was a train wreck for most of his career.

But to me, the issue is what makes Chamberlain good to you at basketball? For 99% of people, it's the scoring numbers. Then you find out about the pace, and the scoring becomes a little less impressive. Then you find out about the efficiency (free throws count!), and it becomes a little less impressive. Then you just start to understand that offensive impact extends well beyond individual scoring...and again it becomes less impressive. And no, that doesn't automatically make him a taller version of AI or Melo, but it means like every player in NBA history there is WAY more to judging him than raw box numbers.

Lets' return to Howard. Or what I said earlier about David Robinson (Wilt being a better offensive player in his volume years). Here are three stat lines for you based on scoring and TS%:

Howard (2011) 25.1 pts/75 +7.6% TS
Robinson (1994) 29.4 pts/75 +5.0% TS
Wilt (1962) 28.1 pts/75 +5.7% TS

Is it really hard to believe that such a player isn't having monstrous offensive impact? (Keep in mind that as of right now, I think this version of Wilt was better on offense than that version of Robinson.)

[C-izMe]

I can't see the argument for Malone or Dr. J. I've also been dropping Bird on my list recently and I don't think he's over Wilt (same for Garnett).

[Doctor MJ]

I can't see the argument for Malone or Dr. J. I've also been dropping Bird on my list recently and I don't think he's over Wilt (same for Garnett).

Well, to me it's about Wilt, not about these other guys. Traditional beliefs for Wilt have him ahead of these other guys, so to have that reversed you need to pretty strongly believe the argument that he spent a lot of his time not actually have that much impact.

[ardee]

Who do you rank over Wilt, MJ? 13 seems too low (I have him in the 8-10 range).

Last ranking:

Russell
Jordan
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Hakeem
Duncan
Garnett
Shaq
Kobe
Erving
Mailman

Tee off where you see fit.

Where do you have LeBron, fwiw?

[MisterWestside]

And no, that doesn't automatically make him a taller version of AI or Melo, but it means like every player in NBA history there is WAY more to judging him than raw box numbers.

Sure, and the same is true for +/- numbers as well. Kevin Pelton (always a good read and proponent of +/-) once made a great point about this by using the "modest" adjusted +/- defensive numbers of Anthony Davis as an example: you could point to it and say that he wasn't great as a defensive player, but you'd also be missing much of the picture. (And I'm not using this to knock your work on Wilt in this thread at all; just speaking in general).

I had a more in-depth post in reply to some of the responses here, but I'm still brooding over these posts. I will say in response to your Howard question that I'd take a modern day Wilt-like player over Howard for offensive impact, any day of the week. And I'm not going by the raw box numbers here.

'salright, we'll win you over in time Westside

Heh, well I dropped him a couple spots in my rankings. Does that count?

[MacGill]

Well, to me it's about Wilt, not about these other guys. Traditional beliefs for Wilt have him ahead of these other guys, so to have that reversed you need to pretty strongly believe the argument that he spent a lot of his time not actually have that much impact.

ElGee - Fantastic contribution to this thread! I really wish you'd post in more of them more frequently

Doc - really hits the nail on the head here for me. To me, the traditional beliefs is the boxscore numbers and the newspaper articles making Wilt look like a greek god. And I am certainly sure he was back then but like any great talent in any era others will revisit and reevaluate career and impact made. Sports isn't the only area this happens in either as there are always people challenging theories maybe at first looking like going against the grain.

To me, the questions about Wilt were asked but the evidence against traditional belief just seem more logical to me and match more of what I watch on game tape versus what sport writers wrote about him.

But again, I am making my own opinion from the information provided. If we were to go back in careers and see that at a point Russell was asked not to focus as much on defence, KAJ/MJ not to score as much, Magic not to pass etc, would you not look at that and say strange, I wonder why? Correct me if I am wrong here but I believe he is the only player say in the top 12 who was asked to do this for an entire season? This is telling to me especially where other volume scorers may have adjusted their game but no where to the extent that Wilt had to do. ElGee's breakdown to me, confirms the reason why this needed to be done and also the actual impact created by this.

[MisterWestside]

Dipper 13 wrote:
If true, all this tells me is he was born too early, well ahead of his time in terms of physical talent and often underutilized due to the often primitive strategies. He would be much more effective in say the 90's.

Cosign. EDIT: ElGee points about "knowing how to play the game" are all valid, but be honest with yourself: how would you play alongside a 7'1" force who dominated at his position unlike any other player in his time? Just looking at the limited Wilt highlights that are available, there was alot of ball-watching by his teammates. No cutting, spacing, presenting yourself as targets for open shots...just "give the ball to Wilt a couple feet from the rim and he'll score for us!"

For reference purposes, Amare Stoudamire's 10-year oRAPM sits at a not too shabby +2.6 (and for those that love to look at RAPM as the holy grail stat around here; no, I DON'T buy that number for a second. But let's say it's accurate...). If you don't think an effective low-post scorer/rebounder who can pass the ball wouldn't at least match the impact today of a power forward who is allergic to post play and is a black hole on offense, your posts aren't worth a reply. Harsh, yes; but that's the "I've watched several decades of basketball and I know what I've been watching" side of me talking, not the stat side.

[Woodsanity]

Bird. Wilt's statpadding and dominance against far less athletic people doesn't impress me.

[MacGill]

Dipper 13 wrote:
If true, all this tells me is he was born too early, well ahead of his time in terms of physical talent and often underutilized due to the often primitive strategies. He would be much more effective in say the 90's.

Cosign.

For reference purposes, Amare Stoudamire's 10-year oRAPM sits at a not too shabby +2.6 (and for those that love to look at RAPM as the holy grail stat around here; no, I DON'T buy that number for a second. But let's say it's accurate...). If you don't think an effective low-post scorer/rebounder who can pass the ball wouldn't at least match the impact today of a power forward who is allergic to post play and is a black hole on offense, your posts aren't worth a reply. Harsh, yes; but that's the "I've watched several decades of basketball and I know what I've been watching" side of me talking, not the stat side.

Who is saying this in this thread? Dude, Amare isn't even a top 30 player all-time and by all accounts most have Wilt 15 or >.

[MisterWestside]

Who is saying this in this thread?

No one; just ranting. ElGee obviously isn't being literal with his with/without numbers, but to some posters Wilt barely providing a +1 on offense in most seasons would make Amare look like a world-beater. (And while we're at it, Amare has the same impact on offense as Tim Duncan if you blindly accept the oRAPM numbers. Use +/- with a grain of salt, even RAPM).

I think Wilt wouldn't just do better today than back in the 60s, I think he'd dominate. No, I can't "prove" it. But I'll stand by my assertion.

[Narigo]

I prefer Bird playmaking and scoring abilities and consider to be more effective than Wilt. However Wilt's defense makes this a close comparison though imo. So im going with Bird

[C-izMe]

I can't see the argument for Malone or Dr. J. I've also been dropping Bird on my list recently and I don't think he's over Wilt (same for Garnett).

Well, to me it's about Wilt, not about these other guys. Traditional beliefs for Wilt have him ahead of these other guys, so to have that reversed you need to pretty strongly believe the argument that he spent a lot of his time not actually have that much impact.

But what I see went people talk about Wilt's lack of impact is that even when he wasn't impactful he still was up there compared to the rest of the league. He led the third ranked offense in his third year and as early as his second year was impacting the game well (I believe his rookie season is overrated because of raw numbers though). The only issue I have with him is that his offensive impact is high, but not amazingly high and he had very inconsistent effort in defense.

[Dipper 13]

Who is saying this in this thread?

Having trashed Wilt's career portraying it as a bit above average, Elgee is now attempting to do the same to his peak. The exact words he used are "slightly better" in reference to his offensive peak compared to his first 7 seasons. Of course given that his team estimates from the RPOY paint the 76ers as not much better than an average defensive team, this may be spun by him, you, & many others to say Wilt at his peak was nothing special.

Amare isn't even a top 30 player all-time

Will Wilt's peak eventually slip out of the top 30 on this forum? I wonder where this random figure came from in reference to Amare, who ranks well outside the top 100.

[MacGill]

Having trashed Wilt's career portraying it as a bit above average, Elgee is now attempting to do the same to his peak. The exact words he used are "slightly better" in reference to his offensive peak compared to his first 7 seasons. Of course given that his team estimates from the RPOY paint the 76ers as not much better than an average defensive team, this may be spun by him, you, & many others to say Wilt at his peak was nothing special.

Will Wilt's peak eventually slip out of the top 30 on this forum? I wonder where this random figure came from in reference to Amare, who ranks well outside the top 100.

I have Wilt top 12 all-time, I have told you this before, so I am not sure where all this hostility is coming from. ElGee presented an argument 'against' on information presented in this thread and answered Bird as well.

When did I say his peak was nothing special? I gave my era bias and how the game was played but I have never said Wilt was not a fantastic talent. Why not rebut on what ElGee presented then?

As for the Amare comment, I was referring to Westside's comment about some thinking that Wilt would not be more impactful then him in today's game. I disagreed and think Wilt would have great impact today far greater than Amare, hence the not even a top 30 player. As in, you are using someone not in Wilt's hemisphere by comparison.

Lighten up man.

[Doctor MJ]

I can't see the argument for Malone or Dr. J. I've also been dropping Bird on my list recently and I don't think he's over Wilt (same for Garnett).

Well, to me it's about Wilt, not about these other guys. Traditional beliefs for Wilt have him ahead of these other guys, so to have that reversed you need to pretty strongly believe the argument that he spent a lot of his time not actually have that much impact.

But what I see went people talk about Wilt's lack of impact is that even when he wasn't impactful he still was up there compared to the rest of the league. He led the third ranked offense in his third year and as early as his second year was impacting the game well (I believe his rookie season is overrated because of raw numbers though). The only issue I have with him is that his offensive impact is high, but not amazingly high and he had very inconsistent effort in defense.

Well, my first thought is that when you're quoting "third ranked offense", this is where the "8 team league" criticism becomes so relevant it's vital to any analysis. I don't have the rankings in front of me, but what I do know is that if you go by actually rating relative to league average, Wilt's team's offenses never rose above mediocrity in his volume days.

By contrast, while Russell's defense also exists in that same league, the rating relative to league average is incredible. So when people say "Oh, it's easy to get X far toward a championship in an 8 team league", to me this is a criticism to level at the mediocrities who happen to place 3rd, not to actual outstanding teams.

So this is key to my philosophy here. If all signs pointed to Wilt having elite impact that just didn't quite match Russell, then he'd be in the same ballpark as Russell in my rankings. The signs of mediocrity we see though make it not appropriate to just talk about Wilt saying "oh, people just overreact to him losing to Russell".

Getting into "offensive impact is high but inconsistent", I totally disagree. To me that's his DEFENSE. Wilt remains the #2 player of the '60s in my book because I can say that about his defense, but his offense isn't nearly so impressive.

To put it in perspective: The gap between Oscar Robertson and scoring-Wilt on offense is significantly bigger than the gap between Bill Russell and trying-Wilt on defense. Wilt just surpasses Oscar because I'd rather having trying-Wilt on defense than ANY offensive player in the '60s.

[Doctor MJ]

For reference purposes, Amare Stoudamire's 10-year oRAPM sits at a not too shabby +2.6 (and for those that love to look at RAPM as the holy grail stat around here; no, I DON'T buy that number for a second. But let's say it's accurate...). If you don't think an effective low-post scorer/rebounder who can pass the ball wouldn't at least match the impact today of a power forward who is allergic to post play and is a black hole on offense, your posts aren't worth a reply. Harsh, yes; but that's the "I've watched several decades of basketball and I know what I've been watching" side of me talking, not the stat side.

Just feel obligated to say that I could substitute Mike Conley's name in for Amare, and the numbers would still work (except Conley's numbers just a touch even less shabby). I'm not one to say Wilt couldn't perform in the modern game, but there +2.6 here is not "not too shabby" for an offensive star like Amare.

[kasino]

Wilt significantly improved the offense and defense of his teams
Warriors he never had significant help but improved their defense and offense all throughout his stint there. Mostly improving their offense, middling or pushing their defense above average(similar to Shaq's impact)
In Philly he brought his scoring down and focused on defense/post passing improving their offense mostly but greatly improving their defense...he also got to play with Hal Greer, although a point guard in today's era a reliable 20 point scorer
as a Laker mostly improved their defense but towards his retirement the team went towards being more offensively focused

[MisterWestside]

Just feel obligated to say that I could substitute Mike Conley's name in for Amare, and the numbers would still work (except Conley's numbers just a touch even less shabby). I'm not one to say Wilt couldn't perform in the modern game, but there +2.6 here is not "not too shabby" for an offensive star like Amare.

Fair point.

The "not too shabby" part was in comparison to other successful pivot players (well, if you'd even call Amare a proper "pivot" player) who had similar numbers. Then again, I also expressed my skepticism - I'd rather run my offense through Duncan, Garnett, etc. than Amare.

[Doctor MJ]

Wilt significantly improved the offense and defense of his teams
Warriors he never had significant help but improved their defense and offense all throughout his stint there. Mostly improving their offense, middling or pushing their defense above average(similar to Shaq's impact)

I don't know who you think you're responding to here. If someone asked your opinion on his offense vs defense contributions at the different stages of his career that'd be one thing, but so far as I can tell, you're just jumping in here because others have already discussed it, and without seeming to understand that those of us who have already discussed it in ways that contradict you are actually speaking to what actually happened according to the team stats.

Put it simply: No, the offenses didn't significantly improve with Wilt for most of his career. That's the conundrum. People would assume that he did, but the numbers don't bear it out.