What separates Wilt & KG?

[Sharifani_San]

The improvement of the team dwarfed any improvement Wilt was ever a part of except for the time when Hannum convinced Wilt to stop shooting.

Actually that was why they lost the 1968 conference finals. Hannum directed the team to not play through Wilt (indirectly) in the 2nd half and they lost as a result. Wilt had something like 4-6 touches in the entire second half except when he was rebounding.

[Doctor MJ]

If Wilt was playing today, I don't really see any reason to think he'd be better than LeBron.

Even in a league where a healthy Dwight Howard was a MVP candidate? Imo Dwight is one of the worst "best bigs" the league has had in a while too, if that makes sense...in this relatively weak era I think Wilt would shine

I hate to play the "Wilt played against stiffs" card because it's not literally true, but the #2 center in the league before Wilt showed up was Dolph Schayes, who was 6'7" and under 200 pounds. In that league, Wilt was scoring a ton, but spinning his wheels. He wasn't able to make impact then, so why could he now?

The answer, in Wilt's defense, is that we presume he'd play smarter nowadays. When I say I can't really see the argument for Wilt being better than LeBron nowadays, that's not entirely true. I can see that as a possibility, but only with the understanding that you can't look at what Wilt was doing and expect he could have "the same success" today, because he simply wasn't having the success most think he was.

I'm not a tremendous fan of Dwight, but when he's doing his thing he plays consistent elite defense, gets a lot of rebounds, and scores very efficiently rather than scoring at counter-productive volumes. He's an immature pain in the ass of course, but certainly no more so than Wilt was.

Finally, while there's no doubt we lack superstar bigs in this era, that's not the same as having a general weakness of bigs. Scoring is down in bigs from previous eras primarily because teams have realized how stupid it is to make your least accessible player your primary option, a gradual epiphany that first took root in '67 with Wilt's demotion in scoring primacy.

[Doctor MJ]

Could the same be said about KG's Celtics in the East before the Big 3 Heat? Even without KG they pushed the Magic finalists to 7 games for what it's worth....or did I just jump in on this and miss the point that they both played on great teams but Wilt didn't play with the Twolves cast?

The argument I was responding to was about someone saying Wilt constantly made the conference finals while Garnett languished in mediocrity. Obviously, if Garnett had had Boston's level of supporting cast his whole career he'd have many more than 2 titles.

[Doctor MJ]

Wilt was not the most dominant offensive player ever. When he was doing extreme volume scoring, his team's actual offensive success was typically mediocre.Defenses really had no particular problem being successful against him.

KG actually was the best offensive player in the league at his peak by RAPM.

If Wilt was playing today, I don't really see any reason to think he'd be better than LeBron.

And that was not Wilt's fault. It's one thing to say a player can mess up the entire flow of the game due to him hogging the ball the way a Oscar Robertson did, a Lebron James did, an Allen Iverson did or a Rajon Rondo does. Notice however that all of these guys are not centers. Wilt was a center. A center cannot by definition hog the ball. It has to be passed to him. Hence you cannot blame HIM but you can blame the TEAM or the COACH for the way they played ball. You CAN blame him if he played on poor efficiency or he didn't play defense. I think its correct to say that he took some possessions on defense off in his offensive peak because nobody can expect someone to play as hard as they could on both sides of the court playing 48 min/game. Of course when he was at KU he played as hard as he could on both ends of the court. Poor efficiency he was not, he had good efficiency compared to the rest of the league (and recall he shot 62% from the stripe in 1962).

Anyway, newspaper evidence suggests that Wilt and the ballclub knew that it was better for him to primarily focus on defense, which is why his offensive numbers went down and why his team lost by 2 points in both 1960 and 1962. Consider what Cousy said: "If Wilt Chamberlain plays every night like he did in this series, forget about it".

It matters not to whom we attribute the blame, the fact remains that when people trumpet Wilt in the manner that I responded to, they are giving credit to Wilt based on an inept model.

I don't blame an innocent citizens for unwittingly attempting to spend counterfeit money, but that doesn't mean I'm going to mean I'm going to accept the currency out of pity. Wilt doesn't get to be GOAT because his numbers would have been really valuable had they actually been really valuable.

[Doctor MJ]

The improvement of the team dwarfed any improvement Wilt was ever a part of except for the time when Hannum convinced Wilt to stop shooting.

Actually that was why they lost the 1968 conference finals. Hannum directed the team to not play through Wilt (indirectly) in the 2nd half and they lost as a result. Wilt had something like 4-6 touches in the entire second half except when he was rebounding.

I speak with casual hyperbole to cut to the quick. Obviously the goal was never to make Wilt refuse to shoot.

[The Infamous1]

The scoring gap is just too large for KG to overcome

Wilt didn't get in the conversation for truly astounding impact on offense until his scoring drops to KG levels.

Wilt was leading his team to the playoffs and finals in his big scoring years only to lose to all time great celtics teams with mutliple hall of famers. He had big "impact" but since he didnt win, it's discounted on this website.

Wilt puts fear in defenses in ways KG never could on offense. KG just isn't in wilts class as an offensive player and that's what I personally value most in superstars.

[Dr Pepper]

If Wilt was playing today, I don't really see any reason to think he'd be better than LeBron.

Even in a league where a healthy Dwight Howard was a MVP candidate? Imo Dwight is one of the worst "best bigs" the league has had in a while too, if that makes sense...in this relatively weak era I think Wilt would shine

I hate to play the "Wilt played against stiffs" card because it's not literally true, but the #2 center in the league before Wilt showed up was Dolph Schayes, who was 6'7" and under 200 pounds. In that league, Wilt was scoring a ton, but spinning his wheels. He wasn't able to make impact then, so why could he now?

The answer, in Wilt's defense, is that we presume he'd play smarter nowadays. When I say I can't really see the argument for Wilt being better than LeBron nowadays, that's not entirely true. I can see that as a possibility, but only with the understanding that you can't look at what Wilt was doing and expect he could have "the same success" today, because he simply wasn't having the success most think he was.

I'm not a tremendous fan of Dwight, but when he's doing his thing he plays consistent elite defense, gets a lot of rebounds, and scores very efficiently rather than scoring at counter-productive volumes. He's an immature pain in the ass of course, but certainly no more so than Wilt was.

Finally, while there's no doubt we lack superstar bigs in this era, that's not the same as having a general weakness of bigs. Scoring is down in bigs from previous eras primarily because teams have realized how stupid it is to make your least accessible player your primary option, a gradual epiphany that first took root in '67 with Wilt's demotion in scoring primacy.

Thanks for the reply and discussion.

I agree Wilt wouldn't be better than LeBron, but like a healthy Dwight Howard he'd have a MVP impact. I don't think Wilt would translate that well, but I do think Wilt would translate enough to rival Dwight's strengths while being an even bigger and smarter player. Wilt could be the ultimate garbage man while being one of the most athletic and big players in the league.

To me Dwight is a stupid and fundamentally unsound player, and his boxscore numbers also come at a price like Wilt's. In a 2010 shotblocking study that spanned for 7 seasons, it showed that 1/4 Dwight's blocks were goaltends and his shotblocking was the least valuable in the league. Dwight in recent years is a player who has set a historically poor foul rate in the playoffs (vs the Bobcats 1st round), got suspended for a game 7 for elbowing the back of a player's head in the 76ers series, and averaged something like 5.5 turnovers and 0.5 assists in a first round exit vs the Hawks.

And in this era of bigs that lack superstars I think Wilt would shine, for example I don't think Dwight would be a MVP candidate in the 90's. But surrounding Wilt with 3 point marksmen could win a lot in this league for what it's worth

[Sharifani_San]

It matters not to whom we attribute the blame, the fact remains that when people trumpet Wilt in the manner that I responded to, they are giving credit to Wilt based on an inept model.

I don't blame an innocent citizens for unwittingly attempting to spend counterfeit money, but that doesn't mean I'm going to mean I'm going to accept the currency out of pity. Wilt doesn't get to be GOAT because his numbers would have been really valuable had they actually been really valuable.

?????

I gave you a good reason why my model is better than your model. The point of giving credit to Wilt is not to say that his and his team's style of play made his team better than anyone elses. The point was that he carried the team given the way they played, which showed his enormous skill and talent. That isn't to say they shouldn't have played a different way. But whether they do or not is a team decision, not an individual one. You're in essence blaming Wilt for something is not responsible for or in control of, unless you can provide direct quotes from the coach or someone on the team from 1959-1962 that Wilt stated that he would not play any other way.

You don't have a "model" anyway, you're providing readers with misconceptions about who controls what and changing the very definition of how we define great players. and if you want to say that Wilt should have known better, that he should have played a different way to the benefit of his team, well, HE DID IN THE PLAYOFFS, which is something he then gets criticized for because his numbers were lower. Let me give you full Cousy quote:

"Chamberlain didn't shoot a lot (15 field goals tried compared to average 30 in earlier games) but he played a terrific game defensively," said Cousy, who hit for nine of his 21 points and half of his eight assists in the final minutes. "If Chamberlain played like that every game--forget it. Philadelphia played a better game as a team here than it has in several years."

The newspaper also reported: "Sam Jones has saved the Boston Celtics against Philadelphia "in the toughest series we ever played." Jones fired the winning basket over giant Wilt Chamberlain with two seconds left for the 109-107 victory last night.
Auerbach: "This was the toughest seven-game series we've ever played. It was harder physically and took a lot out of us. We almost blew this game."
Russell: "toughest series I've ever had to play in...Sam Jones got the shot of the night. Cousy played a great game. He got those baskets when we needed them."

This was also the game with the controversial goaltending call against Wilt with less than 2 minutes remaining. and...of all of Chamberlain's losses in game 7s, this one still hurt him the most.

BTW...throwing analogies at me or anyone else is the ultimate copout.

[Sharifani_San]

The improvement of the team dwarfed any improvement Wilt was ever a part of except for the time when Hannum convinced Wilt to stop shooting.

Actually that was why they lost the 1968 conference finals. Hannum directed the team to not play through Wilt (indirectly) in the 2nd half and they lost as a result. Wilt had something like 4-6 touches in the entire second half except when he was rebounding.

I speak with casual hyperbole to cut to the quick. Obviously the goal was never to make Wilt refuse to shoot.

he wasn't given the ball to shoot. Then again he didn't exactly demand it either, but neither did anyone else try to give it to him.

as to saying Chamberlain wouldn't be better than Lebron...I would say its a close contest, at least Lebron and KD wouldn't be in a field by themselves anymore. Then again people would probably be so amazed at Chamberlain's blocks and rebounds that that alone would put him over Lebron in the minds of many.

[Doctor MJ]

The scoring gap is just too large for KG to overcome

Wilt didn't get in the conversation for truly astounding impact on offense until his scoring drops to KG levels.

Wilt was leading his team to the playoffs and finals in his big scoring years only to lose to all time great celtics teams with mutliple hall of famers. He had big "impact" but since he didnt win, it's discounted on this website.

Wilt puts fear in defenses in ways KG never could on offense. KG just isn't in wilts class as an offensive player and that's what I personally value most in superstars.

This is where the small league size becomes so huge. Wilt's teams were typically not all that far above league average in those earlier years, but he could still earn the privilege of losing to Boston because there wasn't really anyone in the way.

The Warriors only had one year with an SRS north of 3 with Wilt. Do you know what we call a 2 SRS team nowadays? A treadmill team. In other circumstances you might be able to point out that SRS deviation in different leagues aren't constant, but those circumstances didn't stop the Celtics from dominating competition like we'd expect an elite team to do.

This is the thing to understand: Wilt came to the Warriors and really just didn't help that much. It was mediocrity mixed with "that time we almost pulled the upset in the playoffs" until Hannum showed up, and even with Hannum the results weren't utterly astounding until they re-united on the 76ers.

Re: Wilt puts fear into defense. Wilt's team Offensive Ratings were not impressive while he volume scored. How can that not mean anything to you? Who cares if he had a bark if there was no bite?

[Sharifani_San]

Going from 32-40 to 49-26 isn't improvement when he first came into the league, huh?

BTW, their SRS was 2nd in the league in his rookie year and in 1961-1962. In the season you like to tout, 1963-1964, on the other hand, their SRS was over 4 but they were 3rd best in the league.

[Doctor MJ]

Thanks for the reply and discussion.

I appreciate your courtesy. I dove into this thread knowing it would be combative, and questioning whether I really wanted to go there - in part because I know that I'll escalate when others escalate. Courtesy from others keeps me better behaved and happier.

I agree Wilt wouldn't be better than LeBron, but like a healthy Dwight Howard he'd have a MVP impact. I don't think Wilt would translate that well, but I do think Wilt would translate enough to rival Dwight's strengths while being an even bigger and smarter player. Wilt could be the ultimate garbage man while being one of the most athletic and big players in the league.

To me Dwight is a stupid and fundamentally unsound player, and his boxscore numbers also come at a price like Wilt's. In a 2010 shotblocking study that spanned for 7 seasons, it showed that 1/4 Dwight's blocks were goaltends and his shotblocking was the least valuable in the league. Dwight in recent years is a player who has set a historically poor foul rate in the playoffs (vs the Bobcats 1st round), got suspended for a game 7 for elbowing the back of a player's head in the 76ers series, and averaged something like 5.5 turnovers and 0.5 assists in a first round exit vs the Hawks.

I've got some similar feelings. Howard is not smart. Seems you could make a great case that whatever the counterproductive nature of Wilt's actual play, there's every reason to expect Howard would fall to the lowest common denominator whenever he played. I'd have to pick Wilt over Dwight.

And in this era of bigs that lack superstars I think Wilt would shine, for example I don't think Dwight would be a MVP candidate in the 90's. But surrounding Wilt with 3 point marksmen could win a lot in this league for what it's worth

To clarify: What I'm saying about the current bigs is that I think they are actually quite solid, there's just a lack of superstars. This means I could easily see Wilt as the best big in the land, but I don't think it's appropriate to act as if he'd be going up against scrubs. The guys who are out there now have earned there place not simply by being big, but by doing less glamorous things than their ancestors. These guys play defense in a team context very well. As good as Russell or Thurmond? No. Not saying Wilt would be overmatched if he played right, but anyone imagining Wilt feasting on individual matchups is off the mark.

[Doctor MJ]

BTW...throwing analogies at me or anyone else is the ultimate copout.

I can think of at least one greater: Failing to ask when you don't understand analogies.

I'm not hiding behind abstracting, I'm being succinct. If you get confused, you can ask for me to clarify.

[Doctor MJ]

as to saying Chamberlain wouldn't be better than Lebron...I would say its a close contest, at least Lebron and KD wouldn't be in a field by themselves anymore. Then again people would probably be so amazed at Chamberlain's blocks and rebounds that that alone would put him over Lebron in the minds of many.

It's a very different game now. I don't know if Russell would even lead the league in blocks today despite clearly outclassing everyone on D. It's often now just smarter to alter the shot.

And with rebounding, Wilt's great on the boards, but it's unreasonable to expect him to get beyond what someone like Kevin Love's peak was unless he's chasing the stats...in which case we might indeed see him with some huge blocking totals for the wrong reasons.

[Doctor MJ]

Going from 32-40 to 49-26 isn't improvement when he first came into the league, huh?

BTW, their SRS was 2nd in the league in his rookie year and in 1961-1962. In the season you like to tout, 1963-1964, on the other hand, their SRS was over 4 but they were 3rd best in the league.

His rookie impact was primarily on defense. I've been teeing off on his offense, or at least at the posts I perceive to be buying in to his offensive impact. There was never any question that Wilt could be a great defender. The only issue there was his inconsistency.

2nd in SRS in a tiny league is nothing. The Celtics were elite, everyone else was in the pack. If you want to brag about Wilt's team's deep playoff performance, you're doing so to say he made his team's elite. He didn't, or at least he didn't as an absolute rule. There were great years, and there were not so great years.

That you knock the SRS because they were only 3rd is telling. Look, in the end we're talking about Wilt was making his team dominate or not. In general, by any type of universal standards, Wilt's glamorous Warrior days weren't dominant from a team perspective. The partial exception where the Warriors started to separate themselves from the pack was '64, where incidentally their defense was phenomenal.

[Sharifani_San]

I don't think its unreasonable to think Wilt would have a higher peak than Kevin Love and be higher than Love's peak every year. First of all, Wilt was taller. He had a huge wingspan. He had huge hands (big enough to palm 16 lb bowling balls..just sayin'). He was more athletic. And finally, rebounding is about effort. Wilt made it his mission to go after the rebound, not quite in the same sense Rodman did, but close. Wilt had big rebounding games even when the pace was slow/points scored was low. So i have ever reason to believe that he'd be the best rebounder since Rodman. Not saying he'd achieve Rodman levels of TRB%, but he'd be the closest.

[Warspite]

What seperated Wilts from KG?

About 20ppg and 10rpg

[Carmelofan]

This has to be a troll thread...

[Gregoire]

Peak Wilt in terms of impact is right there in 2 spot of all time after MJ. He shared these spot with peak Shaq and maybe current Lebron. Garnett is not even close.

[ardee]

Why has nobody replies to this about KG's playoff performances:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1204941&start=150

and this about Wilt's Playoff performances:

1960 G3 vs. Nationals: 53 points, ? rebounds (playoff record at the time for pts)
1962 G5 vs. Nationals: 56 pts, 35 rebs (breaks his own playoff record)
1962 G7 vs Celtics : 22 pts, 21 rebs (7/14 shooting - Warriors were on the verge of pulling off this upset but Sam James hit a clutch shot. Wilt was undoubtedly fronted by the entire Celtics frontline, as was the case for most of his games vs. Celtics in mid-60s, a defensive strategy which would have been illegal in 80s/90s mind you)
1964 G7 vs. Hawks: 39 pts, 26 rebs, 12 blocks (many of which led to 14-0 run…and scored 50 pts a couple of days earlier in the pivotal game 5)
1965 G7 vs. Celtics: 30 pts, 32 rebs (famous game where Havlichek stole the ball, had 30/26 to save team from elimination the game before)
1968 G7 vs Celtics: 14 pts, 34 rebs, (wilt’s role different, but he definitely could have stepped up offensively in the second half)
1969 G7 vs. Celtics: 18 pts, 27 rebs (injured in final 6 minutes of game, attempted to come back, coach held him back...and Lakers end up losing close game on a lucky shot by Don Nelson)
1970 G7 vs. Suns: 30 pts, 27 rebs, 11 blocks (Lakers come back from down 3-1, and Wilt was 34 at the time)
1970 G7 vs. Knicks: 21 pts, 24 rebs (45 pts 27 rebs in the game before this to save Lakers from elimination, and AGAIN, he is 34 years old)
1966 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 46 points, 34 rebounds in an 8 point loss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgEmNgfscIg#t=3m34s
1968 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 25 points, 27 rebounds in an 18 point win. Little known fact is that Chamberlain led BOTH TEAM in points, rebounds, and assists for the entire series, whilst nursing an assortment of injuries, including his annual shin splints. This against two Hall Of Fame bigs Walt Bellamy & Willis Reed.
1970 Game 5 vs. Suns: 36 points, 14 rebounds in a 17 point win
1971 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 25 points, 18 rebounds in an 11 point win
1973 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 21 points, 28 rebounds in a 3 point win (Bulls had the ball and a one point lead with 30 or so seconds left in the 4th. Norm Van Lier goes up for the shot only to have it rejected by Wilt down court right to Gail Goodrich for the go ahead basket.

Listen, people can say it's 'just box score impact' but that's absurd. The OP is a Shaq fan. What's Shaq's biggest favorable point? His amazing Playoff performances. When you talk about Shaq, the first thing you do is list how many times he's dropped 30-15 on some unsuspecting sucker. That's 'box score impact'. Shaq got the opposing team in foul trouble? Well so did Wilt. On days Wilt shot 25 FT, can you imagine how many players he forced to not play defense?

Here's another thing: Wilt played a HOF center in over 70% of the series he played in. In series not counting Russell, he had a better win% than MJ. So Wilt DID dominate elite competition, both on a team level as I showed here, and on an individual level as I demonstrated above.

Look at that '62 team. Here's a secret: it wasn't very good. He had Attles as the only guy who could shoot above 50% TS. He took them to the third best offense in the league. That supporting cast was really bad. Tell me, how many players ever could manage to take that team to within ONE BASKET of beating the greatest dynasty ever? Hint: KG isn't one of them.

'04 KG was his peak, and he had a better cast than Wilt ever did before he moved to the Sixers. He played an old and dysfunctional Laker team and didn't put up a single performance on Chamberlain's standard even in the early 60s. It wasn't close. Wilt was 9 points away from being a five time champion and the universally lauded GOAT. KG was a fringe top 5 player of his era.

When Wilt finally had a supporting cast that didn't necessitate him to score as much as possible just to keep the team afloat, he did a better Russell impression than Russell himself. And Russell is the player some say KG is cut from. So don't bring up '08, '67 and '72 laugh at it.

Really, the Playoffs end this discussion. People can harp on his volume scoring hurting the team, but the offenses represent the performance of his team. Wilt can't be the coach, best player and GM all in one. Here's a fun fact, when MJ scored 37 a game, his Bulls offense was +0.3. If a player has to score that much, it's usually because his team-mates are very good.