Wilt vs. Duncan?

[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.

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.

Wilt was 36 when he and West had their most successful season together, and was still arguably the best player in the league. Certainly he was the best defensive player. As for giving up all of his offense, Wilt averaged 15-20 on 65% shooting. I'd love to see Duncan approach that kind of efficiency, EVER.

If you want to cherry pick years, we can all play that game. How about RealGM's favored son, Kevin Garnett, who failed to make the Playoffs 3 straight years in a row?

In '63, his supporting cast sucked big time. His second best player, Paul Arizin, retired. Tom Gola and Willie Nauls were eating up a ton of shots on terrible efficiency. It's no coincidence that the very next year, when Wilt's team added Thurmond and gave him a better supporting cast, he rolled off one of the greatest years in basketball history, dominating on a completely different level then Duncan.

If your boy Timmy can ever take an Arizin who was year away from retirement, an aging and inefficient Gola, a role player in Attles and some other average to poor players to within 2 points of toppling the greatest dynasty in sports, lemme know. How's that for not being impactful?

[ardee]

Oh, and to those who were mouthing off on Wilt's competition:

60 (rookie) Beat Dolph Schayes (SYR), Lost to Russell
61 Lost to Schayes ----
62 Beat Schayes, Lost to Russell
63 (missed playoffs -- had forgotten this!)
64 Beat Zelmo Beaty/Bob Pettit (ATL), Lost to Russell
65 (traded to 76ers) Beat Wayne Embry/Jerry Lucas (CIN), lost to Russell
66 Bye in 1st round, lost to Russell
67 Beat Connie Dierking/Jerry Lucas, Beat Russell!, Beat Nate Thurmond
68 Beat Walt Bellamy/Willis Reed (NYK), lost to Russell
69 (traded to LA) Beat Thurmond, Beat Beaty/Bill Bridges, lost to Russell
70 (Russell retires) Beat Fox/Paul Silas, beat Beaty/Bridges, lost to Reed
71 Beat Boerwinkle, lost to Jabbar
72 Beat Boerwinkle, Beat Jabbar, Beat Lucas/Phil Jackson (NYK)
Note -- teams where PFs guarded centers much of the time I listed both

See a trend?
Against Russell he was 1-7
HOF Dolph Schayes 2-1
Zelmo Beaty 3-0
Jerry Lucas 3-0 (F/C with Embry/Dierking/Jackson)
Nate Thurmond 2-0
Walt Bellamy 1-0
Willis Reed 2-1 (one year Reed played PF)
Tom Boerwinkle 2-0
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 1-1

He had a winning record against every center he faced in the playoffs except Russell and Jabbar and he split 2 series with Jabbar. You could say Wilt had trouble facing top centers in the playoffs or you could just say he had trouble with Russell; the rest of the time his results look better than any other center you could name post Mikan (compare to Jabbar, Shaq, Hakeem, Moses, DRob, Ewing, Thurmond, Dwight, etc.)

v. Russell 1-7
v. Everyone Else 16-3

Post by penbeast in the top 100 project. Other then facing the arguable GOAT, Wilt had a better winning ratio then Michael Jordan.

[thebottomline]

From reading this thread you'd think that basketball is a 1 on 1 sport...

[Doctor MJ]

On your all time list, who's higher? I'm torn on it.

Duncan. He brought it every year. The truth about Wilt's career is that more often than not he wasn't actually having that great an impact. A variety of factors involved with it, but they add up to an easy choice here.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Eh, no he's not.

He's far better than Wilt of course, but when people say Duncan "leads by example", that's code for "he follows and does what he's told, and this helps make sure that everyone else does the same". In any normal setting this would not be confused for leadership, but when you're being compared to the Wilts and Shaqs of the world, people confuse you for Gandhi.

Of note: Remember how much leadership impact Duncan had on the '04 Olympics team? Essentially none. He was by far the best player on the team, but the vibe of the team was set by Iverson & Marbury. Being a leader is supposed to prevent that from happening, but if all you're doing is doing what you're told, in any situation like that others will have more impact off the court than you do.

[ushvinder88]

In '63, his supporting cast sucked big time. His second best player, Paul Arizin, retired. Tom Gola and Willie Nauls were eating up a ton of shots on terrible efficiency. It's no coincidence that the very next year, when Wilt's team added Thurmond and gave him a better supporting cast, he rolled off one of the greatest years in basketball history, dominating on a completely different level then Duncan.

If your boy Timmy can ever take an Arizin who was year away from retirement, an aging and inefficient Gola, a role player in Attles and some other average to poor players to within 2 points of toppling the greatest dynasty in sports, lemme know. How's that for not being impactful?[/quote]

You want to talk about impact? In the 2003-2004 nba season. The San Antonio Spurs lead the nba with a opponents/ppg of 84.3. However during the 13 games that duncan was out, thier opponents/ppg tanked to 99.7, a complete collapse. Oh my i forgot, duncan is an overrated defender and a product of the system,

The 2005 season, spurs finish with an 88.4 opp/ppg. During the 16 games duncan misses, they have a disastrous opponents/ppg of 104.7. I forgot though, wilt makes a greater impact on the defensive side of the court and there is so much evidence that backs it up, lol.

The 1999-2000 nba season, spurs have the best opponents/ppg of 90.2, when duncan misses 8 games, the team tanks defensively with a rating of 105.7. The vancouver grizzlies and minnesota timberwolves scored at will when duncan was out and injured. But i forgot, this is realgm and according to this site, patrick ewing and wilt are just as good defensively as tim duncan.

The 2008-2009 season, spurs have a opponents/ppg of 93.3. Duncan out for 7 games and they drop to 104.6 and people think wilt is his equal on defense, oh yeah duncan fed off his system so much that they were so awesome defensively during all the games that they missed.

[Shot Clock]

2000 drtg 98.6 and Duncan misses the playoffs and they post a 91.4 drtg. Pop's system relies on funneling guys to the bigs, take out a key piece of his system it can collapse. Or as the wondrous drtg can tell you in it's flawed manner they suddenly improve tremendously.

[Shot Clock]

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.
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

I just noticed you bolded "more efficent" please do explain. Can't wait to hear it.

As for Wilt's game in the post he had multiple fade away jumpers, a sweet finger roll, baby hook, noce spin under with a reverse layup and of course could power in for the dunk. I'm not really sure what was missing from his game.

[bastillon]

lmao @ Wilt with multiple fadeaway jumpshots, everyone knew Wilt could score, rebound, pass the ball, block shots but everyone also knew he was the worst shooter in the league and couldn't handle the ball to save his life. yo can look up articles comparing Russell and Wilt and shooting/ballhandling will get cited notoriously as Russell's adv, even tho Russ was a non shooter himself. when Wilt was shooting fadeaway jumpshots it meant you were gonna win the game. not a coincidence why his efficiency was so weak in the early 60s compared to late 60s. he stopped taking those bad shots.

Duncan has his flaws but in comparison to Wilt they are almost non existent. you know the type of effort and commitment you're gonna get from Duncan. you know he's gonna anchor a great defensive team, you know he's a total team player, you know he will always sacrifice his stats for the good of the team.

Wilt ? everything that won't make his individual performance more impressive is gonna be at the lowest possible level. have you ever seen or heard about Wilt diving for a loose ball ? or making a hustle play getting back on defense ? dude wouldn't even come out to guard pick and rolls. he never set screens for his teammates. he was a mediocre defender for vast portion of his career. in terms of impact he was also a mediocre offensive player for most of his career, despite monstrous stats. years like 61, 63, 65, 69-71 - Duncan would never play so poorly. Wilt was a great talent but he was not a better player than Duncan. talent doesn't win games. players do. effort does. defense does. Wilt reminds me a lot of Artis Gilmore. also a great talent who didn't play up to his potential. Wilt wasted even more talent defensively (horrendous transition and pnr D) than Gilmore but was a much better offensive player.

[ardee]

lmao @ Wilt with multiple fadeaway jumpshots, everyone knew Wilt could score, rebound, pass the ball, block shots but everyone also knew he was the worst shooter in the league and couldn't handle the ball to save his life. yo can look up articles comparing Russell and Wilt and shooting/ballhandling will get cited notoriously as Russell's adv, even tho Russ was a non shooter himself. when Wilt was shooting fadeaway jumpshots it meant you were gonna win the game. not a coincidence why his efficiency was so weak in the early 60s compared to late 60s. he stopped taking those bad shots.

What the hell are you talking about

1960-61 NBA .509 (1)
1961-62 NBA .505 (2)
1962-63 NBA .528 (1)
1963-64 NBA .524 (2)
1964-65 NBA .510 (1)
1965-66 NBA .540 (1)
1966-67 NBA .683 (1)
1967-68 NBA .595 (1)
1968-69 NBA .583 (1)
1970-71 NBA .545 (3)
1971-72 NBA .649 (1)
1972-73 NBA .727 (1)

He was the most efficient scorer in the league for seven of his first nine years.

Are you actually trolling here? How can ANYONE call Wilt inefficient? I've heard people accuse him of MANY things, but INEFFICIENT? That's a new one.

[sportjames23]

Wilt an inefficient scorer? What is this, Inside Hoops?

[TheXFactor]

lbut everyone also knew he was the worst shooter in the league and couldn't handle the ball to save his life

, I guess I will have to exclude myself from everyone.

[The Infamous1]

Duncan. Better body of work.

[Brenice]

Dipper

[Shot Clock]

lmao @ Wilt with multiple fadeaway jumpshots, everyone knew Wilt could score, rebound, pass the ball, block shots but everyone also knew he was the worst shooter in the league couldn't handle the ball to save his life. yo can look up articles comparing Russell and Wilt and shooting/ballhandling will get cited notoriously as Russell's adv, even tho Russ was a non shooter himself. when Wilt was shooting fadeaway jumpshots it meant you were gonna win the game. not a coincidence why his efficiency was so weak in the early 60s compared to late 60s. he stopped taking those bad shots.

Typical Bast, both guns blazing and shooting blanks making claims he hopes no one will challenge.

[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."
--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70


But I'm sure you were much closer to this back in the 60's then Red.

For anyone interest just watch the first few minutes of this video that shows his variety of moves and bank shots.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak[/youtube]

Wilt ? everything that won't make his individual performance more impressive is gonna be at the lowest possible level. have you ever seen or heard about Wilt diving for a loose ball ? or making a hustle play getting back on defense ? dude wouldn't even come out to guard pick and rolls. he never set screens for his teammates. he was a mediocre defender for vast portion of his career.

Now you are suggesting he was a mediocre defender? Didn't put in effort? Didn't get back on D? Never setting screens? Leave while you have a shred of credibility. Any video on Wilt's D will show you at least one clip of him getting back on D.

"Wilt is playing better than I used to -- passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play." - Bill Russell

in terms of impact he was also a mediocre offensive player for most of his career, despite monstrous stats. years like 61, 63, 65, 69-71 -

A mediocre offensive player that lead the league in FG% in almost everyone of those years. He did what was asked of him, in San Fran the owner wanted a scoring machine to sell tickets, he did that. And don't hide behind this ambiguous "impact" term that everyone likes to use when they have nothing to stand on. He was never mediocre.

[ardee]

lmao @ Wilt with multiple fadeaway jumpshots, everyone knew Wilt could score, rebound, pass the ball, block shots but everyone also knew he was the worst shooter in the league and couldn't handle the ball to save his life. yo can look up articles comparing Russell and Wilt and shooting/ballhandling will get cited notoriously as Russell's adv, even tho Russ was a non shooter himself. when Wilt was shooting fadeaway jumpshots it meant you were gonna win the game. not a coincidence why his efficiency was so weak in the early 60s compared to late 60s. he stopped taking those bad shots.

Typical Bast, both guns blazing and shooting blanks making claims he hopes no one will challenge.

[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."
--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70


But I'm sure you were much closer to this back in the 60's then Red.

For anyone interest just watch the first few minutes of this video that shows his variety of moves and bank shots.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak[/youtube]

Wilt ? everything that won't make his individual performance more impressive is gonna be at the lowest possible level. have you ever seen or heard about Wilt diving for a loose ball ? or making a hustle play getting back on defense ? dude wouldn't even come out to guard pick and rolls. he never set screens for his teammates. he was a mediocre defender for vast portion of his career.

Now you are suggesting he was a mediocre defender? Didn't put in effort? Didn't get back on D? Never setting screens? Leave while you have a shred of credibility. Any video on Wilt's D will show you at least one clip of him getting back on D.

"Wilt is playing better than I used to -- passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play." - Bill Russell

in terms of impact he was also a mediocre offensive player for most of his career, despite monstrous stats. years like 61, 63, 65, 69-71 -

A mediocre offensive player that lead the league in FG% in almost everyone of those years. He did what was asked of him, in San Fran the owner wanted a scoring machine to sell tickets, he did that. And don't hide behind this ambiguous "impact" term that everyone likes to use when they have nothing to stand on. He was never mediocre.

Thank God there's someone else out there who has some common sense. The posts on this thread were actually beginning to freak me out. Wilt, an inefficient scorer and mediocre offensive player? Someone who posts that is either outright trolling, or, if they actually believe it, has a very different way of analyzing basketball players then the rest of us.

I mean, there is LITERALLY no proof to back up what bastillion said. If a 30+ ppg, 50%+ FG center is a 'mediocre' offensive player, what does that make Kareem, Shaq and Hakeem?!

The day its accepted that Wilt was an inefficient scorer and 'mediocre offensive player' is the day I question the very molecules that compose us and the purpose of our lives.

[ardee]

Wilt ? everything that won't make his individual performance more impressive is gonna be at the lowest possible level. have you ever seen or heard about Wilt diving for a loose ball ? or making a hustle play getting back on defense ? dude wouldn't even come out to guard pick and rolls. he never set screens for his teammates. he was a mediocre defender for vast portion of his career.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaXHYlPECcc[/youtube]

Go to 12:25. If your boy Hakeem ever had that foot speed getting down the floor to block a shot, I'd love to see it.

Just stop posting about Wilt, one would think you have a personal agenda against him with the kind of statements you've made in this thread.

[ushvinder88]

2000 drtg 98.6 and Duncan misses the playoffs and they post a 91.4 drtg. Pop's system relies on funneling guys to the bigs, take out a key piece of his system it can collapse. Or as the wondrous drtg can tell you in it's flawed manner they suddenly improve tremendously.

This comparison would only work if duncan played games in that playoff run and they played better d in the games without him. Remind me again what happened in the 2000 playoffs? Robinson was asked to step up and be the man and he shoots 38% from the field and the spurs get knocked out in the first round, gotcha.

16 missed games in the 2005 season and all of a sudden the spurs during that 16 game run go from best to worst defensive team and allow crappy teams to score over 110 points. There is nothing flawed about that, thier defense lived and breathed off the health of tim duncan and he anchored one of the greatest defensive dynasty ever. In 2000 the vancouver grizzlies, best team ever the might grizzlies scored at will when duncan wasnt there. Despite the fact that david robinson was still better than any player the grizzlies had.

[penbeast0]

Bastillon . . . Wilt's go to post move was his fadeaway with the finger roll as his primary counter move; he hated to be thought of as purely a physical specimen wanting props for his skills. So, unlike Shaq, he didn't generally try to overpower opps and shoot everything within 5 feet of the rim. His percentages aren't great early in his career because the league was different -- everyone's fg% was appreciably lower before the early 60s when there was a massive jump in efficiency which Wilt mirrored. Of course Wilt started as the most efficient player in the league and stayed that way.

As for refusing to dive on the floor and hustling back on defense, Wilt was a little better at it than Kareem, not as impressive as Russell or Duncan. How many times have you seen any 7footer dive on the floor for loose balls? . . . it's a long way down there, lol. Where he didn't hustle down the floor was OFFENSE. If you watch his early Warrior days, you will see him walk up the court using up 10-15 seconds fo the 24 second clock while Guy Rodgers sort of dribbles around or they pass it around the perimeter which is part of why his offenses back then weren't as efficient as his personal dominance would indicate. Again, though, a large part of that is that the Warriors (unlike the Celtics) tended to have thin underpaid benches leaving Wilt to play pretty much 48 minutes a game so he needed to conserve energy to carry the load he did. It is true also that he didn't like to chase perimeter shooting centers like Zelmo Beaty or Clyde Lovellette out away from the basket -- like Dennis Rodman, he stayed under for rebounding (and unlike Rodman, to cut off driving lanes with his shotblocking).

Finally, as someone said, he won over 80% of his playoff series EXCEPT when he played the unquestionably most dominant player in any era -- Bill Russell (you can question the era but looking at team numbers it's hard to question that his impact on it even tops the impact of prime Jordan or Shaq). You can see the effects of double and triple teamming on his teammates scoring in those serieses where Wilt is slammed for not scoring more. Or is there someone who really thinks Tom Meschery was a playoff mensch who went from 10+ppg to 20+ppg because he was the early incarnation of Big Game James Worthy?

[MacGill]

OK, wow. It would be nice to be able to actually discuss these comparisons without the need for extreme hyperbole. Anyhow, read through the first few pages and have a few things to add in.

First point is around height. I am not sure what advantage poster's are trying to gain from this regarding Wilt's competition to current. Wilt was both tall and long so he'd be just as freaky in today's game. If I were going to make an argument around size of competition I would start with the length of players versus the height.

Simply put, you are scouted much harder today and length has become just as or even more important then overall height. If I am not mistaken, Dwight's standing reach is only a few inches shorter than Wilt's, who would be noticably shorter standing back to back which is also part of the reason why Russell was so effective. Great athlete, long arms. However, the league then from all the film I watched and even shown in this thread wasn't filled with players per position who could play taller than their height.

Many players well under 7' have very impressive wingspans which allow them to compensate for any inches lost in total height. I don't believe it is fair to blame Wilt for this though, as this is the progression of the game after him and which arguably he started the trend, but if comparing the two, it is a definate factor to consider.

As for thread question on who I would choose. I've been watching a lot more film regarding Wilt but the more I watch, the more unsure I am with him playing in today's game. In Wilt's era, I'd choose him over Duncan during that period because the rules and how the game was played then was perfectly suited for Wilt. I would choose Duncan for today's game, pretty confidently.

The problem is, there isn't enough footage on him but from what I watched on Wilt highlight video's or the cut & pasted games I think today's length per position would really bother Wilt and limit his 2 way effectiveness. I view Wilt as this well ahead of his time athlete who truly was a unique specimen. Outstanding size & length providing 2 way impact. However, I just haven't seen enough, especially regular ol games, not just highlight or select playoff games to trust how effective he'd be over Duncan, especially given the teams Duncan has competited against.

I actually have developed an appreciation for Wilt and what he has done to the game but to me, it shouldn't cross into the current nba model. I've really thought long and hard about this and for me to be able to say Wilt would mean I'd have to bet on him basically being able to modify so much of what he did and play style back in the 60's etc. And because of that, much of what he gets praised for during his era, he wouldn't be able to execute today so I need to go with the proven competitor.

I think Wilt was an incredible shotblocker for his day, fantastic timing and we can see footage of this. You also see that he was a good rebounder, and what I liked is that he boxed out his opposing player to gain more of an advantage. Duncan was also a very good rebounder & shot blocker and did this in a league where he wasn't considered the best athlete and one where Wilt wouldn't be head and shoulders above the competition like he was.

If I am being honest here, Wilt's fingerroll to the basket move would be eaten alive today and he'd be stript an awful lot trying to execute in the post. He'd most likely develop his fadeaway jumper but he'd be in a world where almost all players play above the rim which just wasn't what he played in. Duncan is not an offensive anchor but he is capable of carrying a large portion of the scoring load and increasing this into the post season. His defense, rebounding is pretty elite and he has a very good basketball IQ. He had a great coach in Pops from the start, but his poise and execution are very high level.

I think Wilt and all his great accomplishments and records deserve recognition and praise but should be left in his own time. Too many what if's that I am not sold on when comparing to more modern day players, too little full game coverage (he wasn't a highlight in every play, neither was MJ) and just way too many differences in how the game was played.

I also think the Wilt supporter's should be open minded to the idea that he's been away from the game now for over 40 years and you can't stay on top forever. I mean, as the game continues to progress, I would hope newer and better players come along utilizing all this information of past greats to help make others better. One simply cannot assume that a pioneer would excel if given the same tools, especially when they already played at such a high level to begin with. Personally, 40 years from now, I hope the consenus top 10 list looks completely different, hell imagine MJ barely making top 10 .