Wilt vs. Duncan?

[Jase]

Wilt.

Better scorer, better rebounder, better passer, and though he was a worse defender for some of his career, when he decided to concentrate on D, like '64, '68 and '72, he was just as good as Duncan.

Unlike Duncan, Wilt didn't get drafted onto a team with another top 20 player. Unlike Duncan, Wilt didn't have a HoF coach right from the start.

- Wilt had less real competition than Duncan. By far. If he wasn't playing against Russell, he had a CLEAR advantage. Like a dad playing against his adolescent boys in the back yard.
- Since when does one year define a career? Robinson was a stud in 97-98, but he wasn't the same player after that. I hardly think Wilt is better based solely off the merit of Duncan playing with a productive Admiral for one year.

[Shot Clock]

Actually i did my research. Notice how your criteria is 1960-1972, rather than individual seasons. Why dont you go ahead and name all the players from 1960-1968, that were 6'10 or taller and were playing a minimum of 2000 minutes per season. Ouch that list would get much smaller.

Nba players that were 6'10 or taller from 1960-1968, criteria is minimum of 2000 minutes played.

1960- 1962: Wilt chamberlain, walter dukes, phil jordon
1963 and 1964: Wilt chamberlain, walt bellamy
1965: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellies, reggie harding, gene wiley
1966: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellis, joe strawder
1967: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellis, darrel imhoff, joe strawder
1968: same as 1967 but also includes the mighty legend clyde lee

So essentially wilt was being guarded by walt bellamy, nate thurmond, 6'9 russell and a bunch of scrubs.

And how many pf's today are 6'11? Not many and irk only added a D to his name later in his career. Duncan's been playing against PF his whole career.

Not to mention, today everyone uses measurements in shoes.

[ushvinder88]

Duncan has been matched up against players his own height his whole career and you can use the shoe measurements bullcrap as much as you want, players nowadays are much taller and there is no player today who is playing against guys 4-5 inches shorter and 30-70 pounds lighter on a nightly basis.

[CBB_Fan]

Wilt is a better player, Duncan is a "winner."

For what it is worth, Wilt would be a better player even today. Don't underestimate his athleticism and size even in the modern game; he was an athletic freak of no small stature. He was a top 5 high jumper in world while he was at KU. With modern training techniques and equipment, Wilt would be even better equipped. His track stats:

Sub-11s 100yd dash
Sub-49s 440 yd run (high school)
Sub-2 min 880yd run (high school)
22ft+ longjump (high school)
50ft+ triple jump (high school)
53ft shotput (high school)

Add his 7'1" frame and 9'6" standing reach to that, and he'd be by far the most physically dominant player today. And while Duncan faced a lot of quality competition in his career, the NBA's crop of big men has never been weaker than it is today. I say that Wilt should be top 5, Duncan top 10, but Wilt is definitely better. People hold his era against him, but he'd be dominant in this era as well.

[ardee]

Duncan has been matched up against players his own height his whole career and you can use the shoe measurements bullcrap as much as you want, players nowadays are much taller and there is no player today who is playing against guys 4-5 inches shorter and 30-70 pounds lighter on a nightly basis.

You know what's bullcrap? Saying that Wilt played against guys shorter then him all the time when YOU YOURSELF said there were 4-5 other guys in the league at that height, and this was an 8 team league!!!

That means he played guys 6'10 or more at least half the time.

And you know something? Height doesn't matter! You know who played Wilt the hardest?

Bill freaking Russell. 6'9.

And the second hardest?

Wayne Embry. 6'8.

If a player is strong and has sound fundamentals, he can be a successful defender regardless.

If you find the 60s height thing to be such an issue, then it would be necessary for you to rank Russell lower as well, because, you know, he played against those same midgets

Wilt is a better player, Duncan is a "winner."

For what it is worth, Wilt would be a better player even today. Don't underestimate his athleticism and size even in the modern game; he was an athletic freak of no small stature. He was a top 5 high jumper in world while he was at KU. With modern training techniques and equipment, Wilt would be even better equipped. His track stats:

Sub-11s 100yd dash
Sub-49s 440 yd run (high school)
Sub-2 min 880yd run (high school)
22ft+ longjump (high school)
50ft+ triple jump (high school)
53ft shotput (high school)

Add his 7'1" frame and 9'6" standing reach to that, and he'd be by far the most physically dominant player today. And while Duncan faced a lot of quality competition in his career, the NBA's crop of big men has never been weaker than it is today. I say that Wilt should be top 5, Duncan top 10, but Wilt is definitely better. People hold his era against him, but he'd be dominant in this era as well.

Touche.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB43A-ODuLc[/youtube]

This was a pre-NBA Wilt. And he does everything just as well as Timmy. He's got the post-moves, the incredibly strong rebounding, and the shot-blocking is just unreal. To spike a shot to his guard and then finish the resulting fast-break like he does in this video is something I can just watch over and over again and keep marveling at.

On RealGM in 2006, Wilt was the GOAT. Two years later he starts getting discussed with Kareem and Bill Russell. Now Wilt is getting compared with Shaq and Duncan. I'm guessing around 2014 is when we will be seeing our first Wilt vs Patrick Ewing discussions.

+1000.

It'll be a sad day for basketball if that ever happens.

I agree Wilt was not without his flaws but to rank him outside the top 5 is just biased.

[Raaccoonn]

This was a pre-NBA Wilt. And he does everything just as well as Timmy. He's got the post-moves.

Omg...
Comparing Duncan's skill in the post to Wilt's is like comparing an AK47 to a rusty knife.

Wilt has always been absurdly overrated and the fact that certain knowledgeable posters / historians are starting to realize it and rank him more appropriately is not a bad thing.

At one point Cousy was considered the GOAT... same with Oscar they aren't anymore.
At one point EVERYONE thought the world was flat... guess what it turns out they were wrong.

Wilt had poor footwork and little skill in the post compared to other GOAT level C's and he rarely scored on high volume while maintaining decent efficiency.
He was also a terrible passer for the majority of his career except for 1 or 2 years when he focused on padding assists.

Duncan was a better offensive anchor then Wilt.
He actually made players around him better and didn't need to dominate the ball the way Wilt did when he was his teams offensive anchor.
He was also more efficient and when adjusted for pace I doubt the difference in their volume would be significant considering the huge difference in pace between the early 60's and late 00's and considering Wilt played far more MPG.

Defensively Duncan was Grade A from his 1st year till retirement while Wilt barely even played defense during some of his early years when he was focused on padding his ppg and some of his teams were worst in the league defensively.

Again... Wilt is a great rebounder and was a good defender once he focused on it but he always had issues fitting into a team concept and offensively he is probably the most overrated player in league history.
There is a reason he never accomplished anything as an offensive anchor.

Dude looked awkward as hell in his early years even dribbling the ball with his back to the basket.

[TheXFactor]

I'm going with the most dominating player ever Wilt Chamberlain.

Wilt could do it all @ center. I think he can offer more to my offense and defense over Tim. Tim may be a better leader, but he did play with a general in POP who demanded his teams to perform.

[Warspite]

This whole "Duncan is a leader" argument is very new to me. The whole knock on him untill 06 was his bad leadership. I guess winning does cure everything. Wilt played almost half his games vs HoF bigmen. Duncan faced HoF PFs less than 5% of his games.

theres no way you pick Duncan over Wilt in a pickup game, NBA draft, or FA signing.


Who had a better career? Well the record books have Wilt everywhere.

The whole rings argument is weak because Duncan never beat Russell or any of his Celtic teams but Wilt did.

[JordansBulls]

Duncan. He was able to take an organization that never won anything prior to him arriving to multiple titles whereas Wilt had to be traded twice in order to win.

This is the worst arguement ever and you always say this.

Ps: you also used to say the same about losing with HCA but you dropped that the second your boy Derrick rose got bounced in the playoffs with HCA

No, I still use both. Don't matter who lost with HCA I use same argument even if it was MJ.

[D.Brasco]

Actually i did my research. Notice how your criteria is 1960-1972, rather than individual seasons. Why dont you go ahead and name all the players from 1960-1968, that were 6'10 or taller and were playing a minimum of 2000 minutes per season. Ouch that list would get much smaller.

Nba players that were 6'10 or taller from 1960-1968, criteria is minimum of 2000 minutes played.

1960- 1962: Wilt chamberlain, walter dukes, phil jordon
1963 and 1964: Wilt chamberlain, walt bellamy
1965: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellies, reggie harding, gene wiley
1966: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellis, joe strawder
1967: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellis, darrel imhoff, joe strawder
1968: same as 1967 but also includes the mighty legend clyde lee

So essentially wilt was being guarded by walt bellamy, nate thurmond, 6'9 russell and a bunch of scrubs.

How about this list how many players you think are 6'10" and up playing today and i'll post their actual barefoot heights for you.

Here's 6'11" giant Dwight howard next to 6'9" mitch kupchak



6'10" Kevin Love and 6'8" Derrick Williams:

[ushvinder88]

Actually i did my research. Notice how your criteria is 1960-1972, rather than individual seasons. Why dont you go ahead and name all the players from 1960-1968, that were 6'10 or taller and were playing a minimum of 2000 minutes per season. Ouch that list would get much smaller.

Nba players that were 6'10 or taller from 1960-1968, criteria is minimum of 2000 minutes played.

1960- 1962: Wilt chamberlain, walter dukes, phil jordon
1963 and 1964: Wilt chamberlain, walt bellamy
1965: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellies, reggie harding, gene wiley
1966: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellis, joe strawder
1967: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellis, darrel imhoff, joe strawder
1968: same as 1967 but also includes the mighty legend clyde lee

So essentially wilt was being guarded by walt bellamy, nate thurmond, 6'9 russell and a bunch of scrubs.

How about this list how many players you think are 6'10" and up playing today and i'll post their actual barefoot heights for you.

Here's 6'11" giant Dwight howard next to 6'9" mitch kupchak



6'10" Kevin Love and 6'8" Derrick Williams:

How about u mention how many superstar big men the nba had during the first five years of wilt's career.

Not to mention that when dwight and bill russell stood next to one another, russell looked 3 inches shorter. Did he all of a sudden shrink in height while kareem still remains a giant?

[D.Brasco]

Yeah that's definitely 3 inches shorter...



This is bill in his mid 70's mind-you he was likely taller than dwight in his prime.

Sorry you're the one to to drag height into all of this as your main argument. The reason players had a spike in height in the late 70's is the fact they started to be listed mostly in their shoes.

Wilt would probably stand as tall next to todays centers and pf as he did in his time.

[Jase]

Actually i did my research. Notice how your criteria is 1960-1972, rather than individual seasons. Why dont you go ahead and name all the players from 1960-1968, that were 6'10 or taller and were playing a minimum of 2000 minutes per season. Ouch that list would get much smaller.

Nba players that were 6'10 or taller from 1960-1968, criteria is minimum of 2000 minutes played.

1960- 1962: Wilt chamberlain, walter dukes, phil jordon
1963 and 1964: Wilt chamberlain, walt bellamy
1965: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellies, reggie harding, gene wiley
1966: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellis, joe strawder

Because that's the extent of Wilt's career as a star?

If height is so important to you, look at today's NBA. How many star players would be taller then Wilt's 7'1?

Go ahead, check.

I'm waiting, it's cool.

Yeah, the answer is 0. Bynum, Marc, Pau and Nowitzki are all 7'0. Howard and Garnett are 6'11. Love is 6'10.

So even in today's NBA, Wilt would be facing players mostly shorter then him. So it's not just in the 60s.

You sure are cocky for not being much of a fact-checker, yourself.

The answer is zero? Huh.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/roy_hibbert/

First name that popped into my head. You didn't even reference him.

[ushvinder88]

Yeah that's definitely 3 inches shorter...



This is bill in his mid 70's mind-you he was likely taller than dwight in his prime.

Sorry you're the one to to drag height into all of this as your main argument. The reason players had a spike in height in the late 70's is the fact they started to be listed mostly in their shoes.

Wilt would probably stand as tall next to todays centers and pf as he did in his time.

Wilt would have 3-5 inch height advantage over every big man in tim duncan's era? Hah. Duncan would have a field day playing against those giant from 1960-1964.

[Raaccoonn]

Wilt faced no competition at his position in the early 60's when he was a scorer.

Russell and who else?
Bellamy was the only other one worth mentioning and he was talented but he didn't last long and he was only good on the offensive side of the ball.

Even in the late 60's / 70's when he became a rebounding/defensive specialist he was rarely going up against great scorers that would really challenge him in his new role.

The fact is Duncan was better than Wilt at basically everything except rebounding.

also lol @ Warspite.
Duncan's leadership was never questioned by anyone.
He is one of the greatest leaders in league history and was already the leader on 2 Title teams prior to 06.

[ushvinder88]

Yea i also laughed about duncan's lack of leadership nonsense, isnt there a youtube video where bill russell praises duncan because he says duncan was so similar to him with great leadership? Yea i doubt russell formed that opinion strictly based on the end of duncan's career. Wilt isnt winning championships with manu and parker, he will only win scoring titles and pad his stats.

[D.Brasco]

Yeah that's definitely 3 inches shorter...



This is bill in his mid 70's mind-you he was likely taller than dwight in his prime.

Sorry you're the one to to drag height into all of this as your main argument. The reason players had a spike in height in the late 70's is the fact they started to be listed mostly in their shoes.

Wilt would probably stand as tall next to todays centers and pf as he did in his time.

Wilt would have 3-5 inch height advantage over every big man in tim duncan's era? Hah. Duncan would have a field day playing against those giant from 1960-1964.

Wilt was a legit 7'1" and as I've proven (and you've been unable to disprove) you can barely find any legit over 6'10" players these days, so yes he would have a height advantage. Shaq was one of the few actual giants to play over the last 15 years.

btw that whole size advantage non-sense goes for the guards as well...

That tiny 6'2" jerry west would also be dwarfed today...







Yes we've been through these whole "so and so would dominate in the 60's" discussions...Yawn. Go build a time machine and save us the hassle...

[ardee]

Actually i did my research. Notice how your criteria is 1960-1972, rather than individual seasons. Why dont you go ahead and name all the players from 1960-1968, that were 6'10 or taller and were playing a minimum of 2000 minutes per season. Ouch that list would get much smaller.

Nba players that were 6'10 or taller from 1960-1968, criteria is minimum of 2000 minutes played.

1960- 1962: Wilt chamberlain, walter dukes, phil jordon
1963 and 1964: Wilt chamberlain, walt bellamy
1965: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellies, reggie harding, gene wiley
1966: Wilt, walt bellamy, nate thurmond, leroy ellis, joe strawder

Because that's the extent of Wilt's career as a star?

If height is so important to you, look at today's NBA. How many star players would be taller then Wilt's 7'1?

Go ahead, check.

I'm waiting, it's cool.

Yeah, the answer is 0. Bynum, Marc, Pau and Nowitzki are all 7'0. Howard and Garnett are 6'11. Love is 6'10.

So even in today's NBA, Wilt would be facing players mostly shorter then him. So it's not just in the 60s.

You sure are cocky for not being much of a fact-checker, yourself.

The answer is zero? Huh.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/roy_hibbert/

First name that popped into my head. You didn't even reference him.

Roy Hibbert is not a star. He's improved drastically, but certainly not a star right now. There's a reason Simmons and other sports writers love to use him in their jokes all the time.

[ardee]

Yea i also laughed about duncan's lack of leadership nonsense, isnt there a youtube video where bill russell praises duncan because he says duncan was so similar to him with great leadership? Yea i doubt russell formed that opinion strictly based on the end of duncan's career. Wilt isnt winning championships with manu and parker, he will only win scoring titles and pad his stats.

The '05 or '07 Spurs would resemble his '67 Sixers quite a bit. Efficient scoring/playmaking guard in Parker/Greer, good perimeter defender in Jones/Bowen, amazing bench spark in Manu/Cunningham. Wilt on those Spurs teams instead of an end-of-his-prime Duncan would probably win 65+ games AND the title.

[ushvinder88]

Yea i also laughed about duncan's lack of leadership nonsense, isnt there a youtube video where bill russell praises duncan because he says duncan was so similar to him with great leadership? Yea i doubt russell formed that opinion strictly based on the end of duncan's career. Wilt isnt winning championships with manu and parker, he will only win scoring titles and pad his stats.

The '05 or '07 Spurs would resemble his '67 Sixers quite a bit. Efficient scoring/playmaking guard in Parker/Greer, good perimeter defender in Jones/Bowen, amazing bench spark in Manu/Cunningham. Wilt on those Spurs teams instead of an end-of-his-prime Duncan would probably win 65+ games AND the title.

LOL sure he would, believe what you want. Wilt had west and baylor and produced the biggest drop off ever from regular season to playoff performance in the history of the nba. I dont need to prove that, espn has mentioned it many times. Sure I could hypothetically say any good BIG Man in the history of the nba would win rings with manu and parker, but reality is most wouldnt. Wilt's legacy is what it is, stat sheets and playoff failures with low impact. Could have, would have should have, but didnt.

Duncan with jerry west and other all stars in the diluted 70's would win more than 1 ring, and he wouldnt have to give up all of his offense in order to be effective in a team game.

Wilt had no competition in the early 60's and his teams were aweful defensively, completely meaningless stats against midgets. In the completely diluted 1963 season he couldnt even bring his team into the playoffs over the mighty detriot pistons, goat impact player he sure was.