How good is prime Wilt Chamberlain in today's game?

[justinian]

Just watched this video, and wow, Wilt was absolute beast!

Where would you rank the prime Wilt in today's game ? #2 behind Lebron?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOBX9ikNzEk[/youtube]

[RayBan-Sematra]

He'd probably lead the league in rebounding and he'd be a nice defensive anchor.

Offensively I am sure he'd have plenty of value but I am not sure he'd be good enough to anchor an offense as a high volume scorer.
Both his FG% and TS% in the playoffs (regardless of volume) was typically mediocre compared to more modern elite offensive anchors (and even some from back in his heyday).

Still I would feel comfortable saying he'd be somewhere in the Top 5.
Assuming he can be (and would be willing to be) utilized in an ideal way he has plenty to offer a team and many ways in which he can be a highly impactful player.

[Basketballefan]

Neck and neck with Lbj,

[ardee]

Best player in the game.

Unlike LeBron he'd be up against the weakest field of his position ever. His combination of athleticism and skill would be overpowering.

I would expect a line like 23-24 ppg/14.5-15 rpg/4.5-5 apg/3.5-4 bpg on about 60% from the field.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[SactoKingsFan]

Yeah, Wilt would be #1 since there are no current centers that could contain him. He'd have no problem dominating Dwight, Noah, Hibbert, Gasol, etc.

[MacGill]

Best player in the game.

Unlike LeBron he'd be up against the weakest field of his position ever. His combination of athleticism and skill would be overpowering.

I would expect a line like 23-24 ppg/14.5-15 rpg/4.5-5 apg/3.5-4 bpg on about 60% from the field.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Wilt > LBJ

Please do tell me how WC would be better than LBJ is today's game? If you're going to talk about 'weakest field of his position' well Wilt has already lived some of that earlier in his career and never got close to 60% as the main offensive weapon. Now you want to state that he'd simply play like peak Wilt today where the dude only averaged about 10 FGA/game? C'mon man!

No one is scoring 23/24ppg on 10 FGA's in this league and Wilt wasn't able to get that efficiency in his own league, where he was just as much of a standout, probably more. Wilt would have a lot of adjusting to do in today's game and much where people just think because he was a great athlete he'd automatically adjust which is simply bs.

Even the highlight video stated that it was approx. 2% of the available footage on his career and we have a few full games where big question marks come to mind. What's amazing to me is that it's usually Russell who gets more downgraded because of the 3 point line and era differences for today's game and the fact that he wasn't as offensively minded as Wilt, yet Russell Bball IQ was off the charts.

The problem I see is that posters take where they rank a player all-time and then assert them into a league with the impression that they hold this overall value and it's implied there. Wilt's career was a statistical rollercoaster where he got about 40 touches one year than down to 8, so unless you can tell us the team he lands on, coach and how he'd be utilized (understanding they're be no history on him and his focus would have to have been bball only) it's pretty silly to say he'd be better than a player most likely on his way to GOAT conversation.

[penbeast0]

In terms of physical dominance, he's an in shape Shaq. In terms of mental approach to the game; with Wilt that was a bit of a crap shoot. I agree that you need to know the coach, the system, and for that matter the environment Wilt grew up in.

For example, one thing that surprises people about Wilt is that his go to shot was a fallaway jumper with his main counter move being a finger roll. This is because he felt very self conscious about dunking and using power moves because he wanted to be seen as a skilled player and not just as a physical freak. Today, growing up with ESPN highlight reels and the like, it's quite possible that Wilt turns into a Shaq style offensive player focusing on power moves and highlight reel dunks, but also that he turns into a Chris Webber style player that goes for the highlight reel dunk/block/pass but avoids the dirty work. We don't know. But physically, he and Shaq are the most dominant physical specimens to ever play.

[ardee]

Best player in the game.

Unlike LeBron he'd be up against the weakest field of his position ever. His combination of athleticism and skill would be overpowering.

I would expect a line like 23-24 ppg/14.5-15 rpg/4.5-5 apg/3.5-4 bpg on about 60% from the field.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Wilt > LBJ

Please do tell me how WC would be better than LBJ is today's game? If you're going to talk about 'weakest field of his position' well Wilt has already lived some of that earlier in his career and never got close to 60% as the main offensive weapon. Now you want to state that he'd simply play like peak Wilt today where the dude only averaged about 10 FGA/game? C'mon man!

No one is scoring 23/24ppg on 10 FGA's in this league and Wilt wasn't able to get that efficiency in his own league, where he was just as much of a standout, probably more. Wilt would have a lot of adjusting to do in today's game and much where people just think because he was a great athlete he'd automatically adjust which is simply bs.

Even the highlight video stated that it was approx. 2% of the available footage on his career and we have a few full games where big question marks come to mind. What's amazing to me is that it's usually Russell who gets more downgraded because of the 3 point line and era differences for today's game and the fact that he wasn't as offensively minded as Wilt, yet Russell Bball IQ was off the charts.

The problem I see is that posters take where they rank a player all-time and then assert them into a league with the impression that they hold this overall value and it's implied there. Wilt's career was a statistical rollercoaster where he got about 40 touches one year than down to 8, so unless you can tell us the team he lands on, coach and how he'd be utilized (understanding they're be no history on him and his focus would have to have been bball only) it's pretty silly to say he'd be better than a player most likely on his way to GOAT conversation.

You think Shaq is the 3rd best player of all time, and I find THAT I don't see how your sentiment is more true than a fact that pretty much most people other than fanboys would consider to be true (mine).

1. Wilt never lived in the 'weakest era for centers'. During his prime in an 8 team league, 3 of the other starting centers were Bill Russell, Willis Reed and Nate Thurmond. That means 3 out of the 7 guys Wilt matched up with were among the top 50 players in history. Among the other guys he played: Jerry Lucas, Wayne Embry (physical monster, nightmare to play against), Zelmo Beaty, Walt Bellamy. Would you take Noah, Cousins, and Jordan over that crop of guys?

Wilt lived in one of the strongest eras for centers. That top end is ridiculous... Wilt, Russell and Thurmond would be a better 1-2-3 center lineup than in any era in history.

2. Wilt averaged 68% from the field in '67 as the focal point of the offense. Try again.

And if his scoring that year did not impress you, here's his prime work from '62 to '68:

'62: +8 FG% over league average
'63: + 8.7
'64: +9.4
'65: +8.4
'66: +10.7
'67: +24.2 (!!!)
'68: +14.9

That's an average of 12.04% over league average through his prime. The league average today is 45.4 FG%. Do you really think it's inconceivable Wilt wouldn't at least shoot the 58% that is calculated when you adjust for era, ESPECIALLY considering the fact that the game today doesn't have players shooting 6-7 seconds into the shotclock for well over 110-120 possessions per game? And considering a 7'1 center who is as fast as Derrick Rose is next to an impossible cover in today's league?

3. Wilt is just as adept a scoring threat around the rim as LeBron. LeBron's perimeter based offensive game is better but Wilt's jumper was wet for a big man, I don't think any center in the league today had a better jumper than Wilt.

LeBron's playmaking is better but honestly it's not been much of a factor with LeBron this season especially. Spo plays him off ball so much that his offensive utility is almost completely scoring, he doesn't get as much of an opportunity to make a concerted effort to set his teammates up. Given that reduced capacity, the rate at which Wilt would be hitting cutters and shooters out of doubles would leave the playmaking gap not as large as you'd like to think.

Finally, defense. A rim protector as mobile as Wilt: well, game over for the league. ROY HIBBERT looked like a monster for much of the season in that role... And he is a guy who can't stay out of foul trouble, close to 4 fouls per game in the POs. Wilt, a guy who stayed out of foul trouble so well (in a time the refs called it stricter), given the verticality rule? No perimeter player can have that kind of defensive impact, not even close.

These combination of factors make it pretty clear for me that a super efficient playmaking center who would lead the league in rebounding easily and also be the best defender in the league is going to be the best in the league.

You're probably not even going to address these arguments in your reply, but fine, I'm used to it. Your crusade against Wilt (and Kobe, and ironically, all things that you think are a threat to Shaq) is getting a little tiresome. You say Wilt can't be better than a guy who's in the GOAT conversation.... Well, what is Wilt ? The only people who think Wilt is not as much in the GOAT conversation as ANYONE besides Jordan are those with pre-conceived notions and close-minded ideals about basketball, like you.

I'm getting tired of this, if you want to have a productive debate then fine, but if you're going to keep launching potshots with no real substance at players I like, then I'm done.

[MacGill]

Lol, typical whining response....bring in Shaq when you stated Wilt would be better than LBJ in today's league. Man, do you ever get insecure over this guy?? You'd think you could just have a normal discussion. I didn't even mention Shaq nor did I say he'd even be better than today's LBJ. But that's what you imply when someone challenges your hero and how you prop him up on ridiculous accusations. Better than Lebron....wow!

Newflash: Ardee, guess what, many here don't have Wilt as a GOAT candidate. Now start a thread blasting all of them and bring in their favorite player saying how silly it sounds. Funny thing is, most of those players LBJ is better than as well. Lighten up, life's too short.

Off to work, I'll address your post later while trying to keep the 'S' word out of it.

[MacGill]

You think Shaq is the 3rd best player of all time, and I find THAT I don't see how your sentiment is more true than a fact that pretty much most people other than fanboys would consider to be true (mine).

I have him 4th Ardee. You're the one who has Wilt 3rd. And what does this point have to do with why Wilt is better than LBJ? LOL, all you have done is brought Shaq into a conversation where he doesn't belong.

1. Wilt never lived in the 'weakest era for centers'. During his prime in an 8 team league, 3 of the other starting centers were Bill Russell, Willis Reed and Nate Thurmond. That means 3 out of the 7 guys Wilt matched up with were among the top 50 players in history. Among the other guys he played: Jerry Lucas, Wayne Embry (physical monster, nightmare to play against), Zelmo Beaty, Walt Bellamy. Would you take Noah, Cousins, and Jordan over that crop of guys?

I was implying overall field....competition and with the way the defenses are played today there is no way in hell Wilt would ever be utilized like he was in 67. He would be smothered and the turnovers would be unreal. I was referring to early Wilt, you know the one getting between 30-40 touches a game. Hey, tell me again how many 60% seasons he had before his shot reduction entered over 55%?? Basketball isn't a one on one game Ardee, and again for a guy that ranks Wilt 3rd all-time, a top 50 player on him must be an insult......wouldn't it be Ardee? Regardless of what you say....Wilt still the size advantage over all, much like the gut you love to hate but always bring up his name. So again, I'll wait for an actual educated response on how Wilt will average 23/24PPG @ 60% when it takes a player of much higher overall ability in scoring and ball handling, speed and agility to do that.

Wilt lived in one of the strongest eras for centers. That top end is ridiculous... Wilt, Russell and Thurmond would be a better 1-2-3 center lineup than in any era in history.

Oh yeah for sure. But just for laughs, I think we could find a decent trio with say Shaq/Hakeem/D-Rob or Deke/Wallace/Zo/Dwight/Yao etc... What's the point?

2. Wilt averaged 68% from the field in '67 as the focal point of the offense. Try again.

Haha, yup and how many FG's did he attempt? Still waiting for how he'd score 23/24 on 10FGA's in today's league. Look, you're a good guy and like numbers but you seem to lack the ability to actually translate them into the real game. Nothing about what Wilt did in his time would be the same outside of his ability. Different, rules, teammates etc. Just like MJ wouldn't have his same peak or chips if you brought him today.

You want to say he was the focal point of the offense...fine...I disagree. His individual offense was scaled back and had an all-time great team who could convert. Funny how Bosh can become a 3 point threat when you have a team that can score at will when they choose. What he did was fantastic but to not use context and realize that not even older KAJ/Duncan/Shaq were used this way shows that it was more of a luxury that the team had versus....it was a brilliant suggestion by Wilt. He bought in and excelled...but how do you think his older teams would have faired doing this? I'll wait for this one.

And if his scoring that year did not impress you, here's his prime work from '62 to '68:

'62: +8 FG% over league average
'63: + 8.7
'64: +9.4
'65: +8.4
'66: +10.7
'67: +24.2 (!!!)
'68: +14.9

When your team is giving you that many looks per game and you're an ATG...what is this proving. Hey, MJ/KAJ all scored above league average....really? Context man! Problem is....Wilt is like the X-Files....you just have to believe. I guess Hakeem's 95 finals taking 30FGA's has your mind blown as well. Early Wilt has underwhelming FG% and who cares about league avergae when the league is taking 15 foot jump shots as a regular. This is about Wilt utilizing his advantages that would make him better than LBJ today, like how LBJ has done currently.


[/quote]That's an average of 12.04% over league average through his prime. The league average today is 45.4 FG%. Do you really think it's inconceivable Wilt wouldn't at least shoot the 58% that is calculated when you adjust for era, ESPECIALLY considering the fact that the game today doesn't have players shooting 6-7 seconds into the shotclock for well over 110-120 possessions per game? And considering a 7'1 center who is as fast as Derrick Rose is next to an impossible cover in today's league? [/quote]


Not when you say he is going to average 23/24 15 boards on 60% given today's era. Adjust all you want….fact is Wilt's FG% rose as the ball came out of his hands and he picked and chose when and where to shot. I would luv to hear a modern #1 option doing that from the 5 spot today.

[/quote]3. Wilt is just as adept a scoring threat around the rim as LeBron. LeBron's perimeter based offensive game is better but Wilt's jumper was wet for a big man, I don't think any center in the league today had a better jumper than Wilt. [/quote]

This is soooo laughable. Again, get your nose out of the excel sheet and think about the real world game here. I know the highlight video's want you to believe this but unless you can provide another explanation….this is exactly why he shot under .500 for many seasons early on. His form doesn't indicate anything of the sort and his dribbling was less then desired. He'd be stripped today a lot more and forced to play back to the basket. He'd have a nice touch around the rim sure…..but to me, lacked the fundamentals in his own era. Not sure how that translates.

[/quote]LeBron's playmaking is better but honestly it's not been much of a factor with LeBron this season especially. Spo plays him off ball so much that his offensive utility is almost completely scoring, he doesn't get as much of an opportunity to make a concerted effort to set his teammates up. Given that reduced capacity, the rate at which Wilt would be hitting cutters and shooters out of doubles would leave the playmaking gap not as large as you'd like to think. [/quote]

HAHAHA…..keeps getting better. Case and Point….LBJ reduces his scoring to 17-18ppg….picks up a few more rebounds and assists and now is the modern day Oscar. GOAT peak ever…right…? You're kidding yourself in today's league with the 3 point shot and perimeter game that they try to go through Wilt. Ardee 67 is over bro. LBJ can turn on almost all faucets of his game including defensively covering almost 1-5 for stretches. I've seen too many centers get shutdown by aggressive double teams etc. Wilt would still get his but not close to the clip you believe. This wouldn't be highlight Wilt going the league. It's full game Wilt…like the full footage games show you. Where he gets stripped, makes bad passess, misses easy layups with his fingeroll etc. Real World Ardee.

[/quote] Finally, defense. A rim protector as mobile as Wilt: well, game over for the league. ROY HIBBERT looked like a monster for much of the season in that role... And he is a guy who can't stay out of foul trouble, close to 4 fouls per game in the POs. Wilt, a guy who stayed out of foul trouble so well (in a time the refs called it stricter), given the verticality rule? No perimeter player can have that kind of defensive impact, not even close. [/quote]

Yep again….here you go thinking the league is the same etc. Wilt would be a defensive monster…this I agree with….but his minutes would be reduced…his paint presence reduced and the 3 point shot would also disrupt what you read about of him playing. I think he is defensive player of the year for sure. But he was still big and vulnerable to the same things that all bigs are vulnerable too.

[/quote]These combination of factors make it pretty clear for me that a super-efficient playmaking center who would lead the league in rebounding easily and also be the best defender in the league is going to be the best in the league. [/quote]

So basically….I think that Wilt would replicate what he did in his era in today? Good?


[/quote]You're probably not even going to address these arguments in your reply, but fine, I'm used to it. Your crusade against Wilt (and Kobe, and ironically, all things that you think are a threat to Shaq) is getting a little tiresome. You say Wilt can't be better than a guy who's in the GOAT conversation.... Well, what is Wilt ? The only people who think Wilt is not as much in the GOAT conversation as ANYONE besides Jordan are those with pre-conceived notions and close-minded ideals about basketball, like you.

I'm getting tired of this, if you want to have a productive debate then fine, but if you're going to keep launching potshots with no real substance at players I like, then I'm done.[/quote]

Look at Pen's response. Don't get your feathers in a knot.

[Texas Chuck]

Best guess: he'd be the best center in the league. I'm not going to try and compare him with Lebron.

[ardee]

1. Wilt never lived in the 'weakest era for centers'. During his prime in an 8 team league, 3 of the other starting centers were Bill Russell, Willis Reed and Nate Thurmond. That means 3 out of the 7 guys Wilt matched up with were among the top 50 players in history. Among the other guys he played: Jerry Lucas, Wayne Embry (physical monster, nightmare to play against), Zelmo Beaty, Walt Bellamy. Would you take Noah, Cousins, and Jordan over that crop of guys?

I was implying overall field....competition and with the way the defenses are played today there is no way in hell Wilt would ever be utilized like he was in 67. He would be smothered and the turnovers would be unreal. I was referring to early Wilt, you know the one getting between 30-40 touches a game. Hey, tell me again how many 60% seasons he had before his shot reduction entered over 55%?? Basketball isn't a one on one game Ardee, and again for a guy that ranks Wilt 3rd all-time, a top 50 player on him must be an insult......wouldn't it be Ardee? Regardless of what you say....Wilt still the size advantage over all, much like the gut you love to hate but always bring up his name. So again, I'll wait for an actual educated response on how Wilt will average 23/24PPG @ 60% when it takes a player of much higher overall ability in scoring and ball handling, speed and agility to do that.

What exactly are you trying to imply here.....

In his high-volume years, '62-'66, he averaged 52% from the field, on 31.4 FG/game. With the average pace at 122.4 back then, you're looking at possessions ending in an average of 11.7 seconds.

Do you have any idea how fast that is? That's less than HALF THE SHOT CLOCK.

Is it that hard to believe that some of the shots he missed were simply a product of quick shots taken as a product of the times he played in?

Today, with everything slowed down considerably, he'd have a LOT more time to work in the post. Check Dipper 13's work with the shot charts, he shot 60% or thereabouts on post-ups. Shaun Livsington topped the league on post-ups with 60.7.... And he's obviously shooting far less than Wilt.

I think that with reduced pace and thereby reduced quick shots, there shouldn't be any reason he couldn't average 60% from the field on say 15-18 shot attempts.

You don't. I can't do anything to convince you, it seems, so agree to disagree.

2. Wilt averaged 68% from the field in '67 as the focal point of the offense. Try again.

Haha, yup and how many FG's did he attempt? Still waiting for how he'd score 23/24 on 10FGA's in today's league. Look, you're a good guy and like numbers but you seem to lack the ability to actually translate them into the real game. Nothing about what Wilt did in his time would be the same outside of his ability. Different, rules, teammates etc. Just like MJ wouldn't have his same peak or chips if you brought him today.

You want to say he was the focal point of the offense...fine...I disagree. His individual offense was scaled back and had an all-time great team who could convert. Funny how Bosh can become a 3 point threat when you have a team that can score at will when they choose. What he did was fantastic but to not use context and realize that not even older KAJ/Duncan/Shaq were used this way shows that it was more of a luxury that the team had versus....it was a brilliant suggestion by Wilt. He bought in and excelled...but how do you think his older teams would have faired doing this? I'll wait for this one.

When did I say he'd take 10 FGA?

You said that. Don't accuse me of idiotic assertions I didn't make

I'm a little lost here. You think a guy who led the team in scoring, FGA AND assists isn't the focal point of the offense? Who do you think would be the focal point of that offense, I'm curious. Hal Greer? Luke Jackson? I'm going to dig up a quote for you.

To me it is clear that Wilt's team offenses in the early years were playing below capabilities in part due to his foul shooting, but also because they didn't get the ball into him enough. The culture back then was to push the tempo and get up as many shots as possible. We all know what Coach Hannum told Wilt in 1967, but what did he tell the others? The ball goes inside every single time.

You're hearing this from a guy who knows more about Wilt than anyone. Does this sound like a guy who's not the focal point?

Oh, and +1 to the pace argument, which you seem to be conveniently arguing.

And if his scoring that year did not impress you, here's his prime work from '62 to '68:

'62: +8 FG% over league average
'63: + 8.7
'64: +9.4
'65: +8.4
'66: +10.7
'67: +24.2 (!!!)
'68: +14.9

When your team is giving you that many looks per game and you're an ATG...what is this proving. Hey, MJ/KAJ all scored above league average....really? Context man! Problem is....Wilt is like the X-Files....you just have to believe. I guess Hakeem's 95 finals taking 30FGA's has your mind blown as well. Early Wilt has underwhelming FG% and who cares about league avergae when the league is taking 15 foot jump shots as a regular. This is about Wilt utilizing his advantages that would make him better than LBJ today, like how LBJ has done currently.

What are you saying.... Exactly? I genuinely don't understand this segment.

I talk about his efficiency, and you bring up his FGA? It should be impressive that he was this efficiency GIVEN his FGA. You lost me here.

And how was early Wilt 'underwhelming from the field'? His rookie year he shot 46%. If you want to hold that against him, be my guest. He never shot under 51% from the field from his sophomore year on.

Explain this part to me again, I don't understand your point.

That's an average of 12.04% over league average through his prime. The league average today is 45.4 FG%. Do you really think it's inconceivable Wilt wouldn't at least shoot the 58% that is calculated when you adjust for era, ESPECIALLY considering the fact that the game today doesn't have players shooting 6-7 seconds into the shotclock for well over 110-120 possessions per game? And considering a 7'1 center who is as fast as Derrick Rose is next to an impossible cover in today's league?

Not when you say he is going to average 23/24 15 boards on 60% given today's era. Adjust all you want….fact is Wilt's FG% rose as the ball came out of his hands and he picked and chose when and where to shot. I would luv to hear a modern #1 option doing that from the 5 spot today.

1. Ball came out of his hands: As I showed you earlier, from Dipper's footage analysis the ball didn't really come out of his hands... He was essentially a point-center, the ball went into the post every time.

2. FG% went up when he picked and chose when he shot: Umm... Wouldn't that happen for anyone? Isn't that what LeBron does right now vs his Cleveland days?

You think a modern 5 can't average 24/15 on 60%? Well, which 5 in the league right now is remotely close to Wilt? FWIW, the closest we've seen in the last 10 years is Dwight, and he averaged 21/14 on 59.3% during his 4 year prime.

Now if you don't agree that Wilt is considerably superior to Howard in every faucet of the game, I don't know where this discussion is going.
[/quote]

3. Wilt is just as adept a scoring threat around the rim as LeBron. LeBron's perimeter based offensive game is better but Wilt's jumper was wet for a big man, I don't think any center in the league today had a better jumper than Wilt.

This is soooo laughable. Again, get your nose out of the excel sheet and think about the real world game here. I know the highlight video's want you to believe this but unless you can provide another explanation….this is exactly why he shot under .500 for many seasons early on. His form doesn't indicate anything of the sort and his dribbling was less then desired. He'd be stripped today a lot more and forced to play back to the basket. He'd have a nice touch around the rim sure…..but to me, lacked the fundamentals in his own era. Not sure how that translates.

Ok now this is making me angry.

He shot under .500 for many seasons early on?

He shot under .500 for ONE year, his ROOKIE year. Since then he never dipped below 51%.

How can you make those kinds of comments on his dribbling and shooting form? What footage have you seen that the rest of us haven't?

And what suggests he'd get stripped a lot? Again, see Dipper's numbers, everything suggests he'd have one of the lowest turnover rates for an offensive centerpiece in history.

[/quote]

LeBron's playmaking is better but honestly it's not been much of a factor with LeBron this season especially. Spo plays him off ball so much that his offensive utility is almost completely scoring, he doesn't get as much of an opportunity to make a concerted effort to set his teammates up. Given that reduced capacity, the rate at which Wilt would be hitting cutters and shooters out of doubles would leave the playmaking gap not as large as you'd like to think.

HAHAHA…..keeps getting better. Case and Point….LBJ reduces his scoring to 17-18ppg….picks up a few more rebounds and assists and now is the modern day Oscar. GOAT peak ever…right…? You're kidding yourself in today's league with the 3 point shot and perimeter game that they try to go through Wilt. Ardee 67 is over bro. LBJ can turn on almost all faucets of his game including defensively covering almost 1-5 for stretches. I've seen too many centers get shutdown by aggressive double teams etc. Wilt would still get his but not close to the clip you believe. This wouldn't be highlight Wilt going the league. It's full game Wilt…like the full footage games show you. Where he gets stripped, makes bad passess, misses easy layups with his fingeroll etc. Real World Ardee.

Again, you're losing me.

From what I can gather you think that the modern game means point-centers can't exist...

Umm, did you watch a single Bulls game this year? Joakim Noah did a poor man's Wilt impersonation and was first team All-NBA for it (deservedly).

Sure, he'd get doubled a lot. So did Dwight in his Orlando days and he got 22-23 ppg on close to 60% easily. And Wilt was a VASTLY superior passer.

This IS the real world. You're the one who's ignoring real life examples of vastly inferior players doing pretty much close to what I think Wilt would do.[/quote]

Finally, defense. A rim protector as mobile as Wilt: well, game over for the league. ROY HIBBERT looked like a monster for much of the season in that role... And he is a guy who can't stay out of foul trouble, close to 4 fouls per game in the POs. Wilt, a guy who stayed out of foul trouble so well (in a time the refs called it stricter), given the verticality rule? No perimeter player can have that kind of defensive impact, not even close.

Yep again….here you go thinking the league is the same etc. Wilt would be a defensive monster…this I agree with….but his minutes would be reduced…his paint presence reduced and the 3 point shot would also disrupt what you read about of him playing. I think he is defensive player of the year for sure. But he was still big and vulnerable to the same things that all bigs are vulnerable too.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me here? If he's DPOY in 2014, that means he far surpasses LeBron's defensive impact, which is the point I'm making.

These combination of factors make it pretty clear for me that a super-efficient playmaking center who would lead the league in rebounding easily and also be the best defender in the league is going to be the best in the league.

So basically….I think that Wilt would replicate what he did in his era in today? Good?

There's nothing to suggest he couldn't....

1. He could easily do a semi rich man's prime Dwight impersonation from the scoring side of things.
2. Noah did a very successful point-center job, and he's not half the player Wilt was.
3. Best rebounder in the league by far, best defender in the league by far (you said that too).

Sounds to me like someone worthy of being best in the league. If it doesn't to you, well, nothing more I can say to convince you.

[JordansBulls]

Probably the best player in the game with Durant 2nd in 2014 and Lebron 3rd.

[ceiling raiser]

It's really hard for me to judge Wilt. I've gone through Newell's book on post play, and have taken some notes. Still have to give it another few reads/skims, to get a better idea behind some of the fundamentals.

As far as his defense is concerned, Wilt is potentially one of the GOAT rim protectors, but I have a few concerns regarding his lateral quickness, recovery speed, willingness to venture far from the basket, and propensity to bite on pump fakes. Some of these might be exaggerated, but I'd need to very closely watch the tape to get a better idea.

The two things that bother me about Wilt's low post scoring arsenal are the two shots for which he's the most noted...the finger roll and the fadeaway. The finger roll is fine at times if there are no defenders nearby, but in general you're better off with a reverse layup, or finishing with a dunk, to prevent it from being blocked.

Now, the fadeaway...even if these two quotes by Nate are an exaggeration, I can't imagine they're very far off. Wilt went to this shot too much:

SLAM: Who was the toughest center for you to guard?
NT: Kareem had more of a repertoire and was harder to stop. He had a little more versatility when he set up on the floor. Wilt liked the left side, but Jabbar set up on either side. Wilt would rely on the fade-away 70 percent of time; Kareem’s hook was in the same range. I couldn’t stop him from shooting the hook; I could make him take awkward hooks or baseline jumpers. You really couldn’t keep Wilt from taking the fade-away, but you could try to him shoot it a step further out. He was a great fade-away shooter. If you got in close, and he had you out of position, then you could foul him and save yourself one point.

source: http://www.slamonline.com/nba/original- ... defense/2/

“Wilt was a giant. But 60 percent of his points came on fadeaways. He was a powerful man who didn't always play that way,” said Thurmond, who does community-relations work for the Warriors and owns a barbecue restaurant in San Francisco.

source: https://www.toledoblade.com/Opinion/200 ... -Wilt.html

Mechanically, my main issue with Wilt's fadeaway is he seems to release the shot after he's reached the apex of his jump. What does this mean? Well, the release point isn't as high as possible, obviously. Also, the more you drift from your stance, the more off balance you're going to be with your shot, and the more you need to adjust in midair.

Now, the problem is, Wilt's FG% numbers weren't incredibly high (at or near the top of the league, but not at the same level of some other all-time low post centers). So at least one of these shots was ineffective. Possibly both, since they comprised the lion's share of his attempts from the field.

lorak did some research on Wilt's playoff scoring vs Boston and other teams, when compared to the other dominant offensive talents of his era:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1270141

I have to do more research certainly, but I think the lack of shooters to space the floor before he was traded was a huge issue. This leaves us with 5 seasons to evaluate him, that I'll consider his "prime" for the purpose of the thread:

1965 (post-trade) & 1966 - These are the only two seasons (well, really a season of a half) we have of Wilt playing in a volume scoring role with shooters. More floor spacing opened up the floor.

1967 & 1968 - Hannum installs a primitive triple post offense:

Code: Select all

Possessions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs

4:10
5:45
7:28
8:51
9:24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiVAFBZzTac

2:14
2:42
3:14
3:35
5:04
5:42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9RJXAdZYw

2:08
4:58
6:59
8:50
9:09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHXG3koetzA

2:02
8:02
9:05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1myFngKMeb4

0:58
3:11
3:44
4:52
7:14

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMYCEg9GK5Q

0:25
0:49
1:22
1:40
2:05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zda_xvx1eU

0:01
0:16
0:32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjVjBP78BZw

0:10
0:36
0:58
1:16

Obviously not as sophisticated as the Triangle, but here's a quote from Wayne Lynch's Season of the 76ers:

In fact, Dr. Jack Ramsay— now a popular ESPN TV and Radio NBA basketball analyst —says the 76ers’ offense was very similar to the triangle style perfected by the Bulls.

“It was basically a low post offense, had a lot of ball movement , not unlike what the Bulls did,” explained Dr. Jack.

“Set up the triangle with your post player high or low,” Ramsay explained. “So you have a post player, a wing player, and a perimeter player in the triangle on one side and the other two players on the weak side.

“The ball gets moved to the reverse side, and a new triangle is set over there. Ball goes to the post, gets action as the two perimeter players work off the post man.

“Larry Costello used it in Milwaukee with Alcindor and Oscar.”

1969 - VbK and the high post experiment failed miserably. Not sure how somebody didn't see it (though I guess VbK did, because he wasn't in favor of the trade), but a low post isolation player (Wilt) and a guy who drives to the basket from anywhere on the floor (Baylor) won't do well together, unless you're especially creative.

Now, here are the relative ORtg/DRtg numbers for those seasons (from B-R, unless otherwise noted; more negative is better for defense):

65: 0.9 / 0.7 after trade (0.6 / 1.1 prior to trade) *both of these calculations based on splits from schedules*
66: 0.4 / -3.4
67: 5.4 / -2.2
68: 1.3 / -5.6 (2.6 / -1.6 the year after)
69: 3.0 / -0.6 (4.9 / 0.2 the year before)

In the playoffs, calculating pace using same methodology on B-R; for Wilt's teams in these five years:

Code: Select all

Year   Pace   lgOD   PTS/G   OPP/G   ORtg   avgD   DRtg   avgO   nO   nD
1965   114.3   93.6   111.8   111.6   4.2   -5.1   4.0   -0.1   9.3   4.2
1966   117.5   94.9   104.0   113.6   -6.4   -6.6   1.8   -2.6   0.2   4.4
1967   125.5   96.1   121.7   112.3   0.9   -2.2   -6.6   0.8   3.1   -7.4
1968   119.2   96.8   113.7   112.8   -1.4   -2.5   -2.2   0.0   1.1   -2.2
1969   110.6   95.5   103.7   99.1   -1.7   -3.2   -5.9   0.8   1.4   -6.7

Most columns should be obvious, but of the rest: avgD is the average relative defense faced, avgO is the average relative offense faced, and the last two columns are just the differences ORtg-avgD and DRtg-avgO respectively.

What do these columns tell us about these five playoff runs?

65 - Great offensively, poor defensively.
66 - Average offensively, poor defensively.
67 - Good offensively, great defensively.
68 - Above average offensively, above average defensively.
69 - Above average offensively, great defensively.

Now, weird things happened during three of those playoffs runs:

66 - Down 1-2 to Boston, Wilt skips the practice before game 4 because he's too tired, and disappeared before the practice in game 5.
68 - The MLK assassination occurred, so this was a weird series. Wilt didn't get many touches in the second half of game 7, and didn't take a single shot. From my understanding, there's speculation that both Wilt and Hannum knew they weren't going to still be in Philly the next year, and mailed in the series.
69 - The last few minutes of the game are on YouTube so you can judge for yourself, but for whatever reason, Wilt left the game, and was never put back in. Whether this was his decision of VbK's, we'll never know.

Even though 69 is talked about the most, I think 66 and 68 are much bigger problems, since they persisted throughout the postseason, as opposed to just an isolated event (again, the 69 Lakers were a very good playoff defense). nO and nD are makeshift stats, but I think they paint a pretty accurate picture from the recaps.

Some other notes:

1) By all accounts a very good passer, extremely capable of hitting cutters. I need to see more tape of him kicking out of double teams to shooters, though.

2) Very durable in his prime. He's going to play a ton of games. Coaches won't play him as many minutes, obviously, but he's going to be a workhorse for sure.

3) Lastly, there's the free throw thing. Definitely a massive issue. You don't want Wilt to be in a position to be fouled, so you probably need someone else to close out games.

My conclusion? Well, I need to read more from Newell and take more notes, and watch the video in the OP several more times. I also need to watch more tape of Kareem (and rewatch as much as I can of Shaq/Hakeem/Duncan).

He could very well be in the conversation for or the clear cut best player in the game. On the other hand, his low post scoring might not translate, his passing out of doubles to shooters might not be where it needs to be, and defensively, the issues I brought up might be legitimate problems instead of hearsay/speculation. Either way though, this isn't something where you split the difference...I think it's one extreme or another.

Sorry for the rant, just my $.02.

[RayBan-Sematra]

For example, one thing that surprises people about Wilt is that his go to shot was a fallaway jumper with his main counter move being a finger roll. This is because he felt very self conscious about dunking and using power moves because he wanted to be seen as a skilled player and not just as a physical freak. Today, growing up with ESPN highlight reels and the like, it's quite possible that Wilt turns into a Shaq style offensive player focusing on power moves and highlight reel dunks.

I don't discount your hypothesis but I also don't think it is logical to assume that Wilt could play the power game at anywhere near the same effectiveness as Shaq.
Playing the power game as effectively as O'neal did requires one to be highly proficient in a huge number of skills. Some are obvious ones like footwork & ball handling and then countless other small/minute skills which most people don't even recognize.
Just because a guy may be a physical freak and displays some semblance of a handle does not mean he can utilize a power game like Shaq did. I mean if Javalle McGee started showing a handle and some ok looking footwork would we expect him to start dominating offensively like Shaq?

1. Wilt never lived in the 'weakest era for centers'. During his prime in an 8 team league, 3 of the other starting centers were Bill Russell, Willis Reed and Nate Thurmond. That means 3 out of the 7 guys Wilt matched up with were among the top 50 players in history.

In the very early 60's when Wilt was a volume scorer his competition was not so diverse.
Sure he had Russell but who else? Rookie Thurmond came in around 63 (another defensive specialist) and Reed not until years later. Great as Russell and Thurmond were I still view the early 60's (with Wilt excluded) as one of the weakest times ever for great C's.
Plus some rule changes that hamper offensive C's were not yet in place until the mid 60's which is a bonus for volume scoring Wilt.

In his high-volume years, '62-'66, he averaged 52% from the field, on 31.4 FG/game. With the average pace at 122.4 back then, you're looking at possessions ending in an average of 11.7 seconds.

From 60-66 his average FG% in the playoffs was 50% and his TS% 52%.
Hardly impressive. He really only had one great scoring year (64).

Even in the late 60's / early 70's when he was focused on his FG% and tried to take only high percentage shots his FG% only rose to 54% in the playoffs.
Hardly impressive for a guy who was at that point scoring at such a slow pace.
Can you imagine Prime Shaq shooting 54% from the floor when he is only being asked to score around 20ppg or even only around 11-12ppg?
Hardly acceptable given how bad his FT shooting was which is why his average TS% was below 53% over those years.

In regards to Wilt being less efficient due to pace. I find it hard to agree.
I see no video evidence showing that Wilt would throw up quick or ill advised shots. All the video shows him slowly and methodically posting up or him simply quickly finishing after getting good position under the basket.
Plus from accounts by some of Wilts coaches the general stategy for some of his early 60's teams was to simply throw the ball down in the post everytime and let Wilt work. They didn't make it sound like they were a running/chuck it team like Boston was.

And if his scoring that year did not impress you, here's his prime work from '62 to '68:

'62: +8 FG% over league average
'63: + 8.7
'64: +9.4
'65: +8.4
'66: +10.7
'67: +24.2 (!!!)
'68: +14.9

The fact that Wilt played in an inefficient league does not excuse his own inefficiency.
Maybe if EVERY star from back then was as inefficient then you'd have a stone to stand on but guys like Oscar and West had no problem maintaining elite efficiency even back in the 60's.

This is about Wilt utilizing his advantages that would make him better than LBJ today, like how LBJ has done currently.

When we watch highlights of Wilt he at times can look very skilled and he at times makes nice looking shots but that is not proof enough that he'd be capable of anything we can imagine.
I mean I can find video of Iverson making countless skilled shots in a row and like Wilt he could certainly volume score but that doesn't change the fact that in this generation he was an inefficient volume scorer.
I am not saying Wilt could or couldn't do anything but I just feel I need more evidence and data before I come to any sort of opinion. I also need to do more research and watch more video.

And how was early Wilt 'underwhelming from the field'? His rookie year he shot 46%. If you want to hold that against him, be my guest. He never shot under 51% from the field from his sophomore year on.

From 60-66 in the playoffs he shot below 50% three times and 51% once.
He then had 2 years where he shot 53 & 54% from the field which is decent/good but hardly elite for a volume scoring C who can't hit FT's very well.

There's nothing to suggest he couldn't....

1. He could easily do a semi rich man's prime Dwight impersonation from the scoring side of things.
2. Noah did a very successful point-center job, and he's not half the player Wilt was.
3. Best rebounder in the league by far, best defender in the league by far (you said that too).

1. He couldn't do it in the playoffs back in his own day and I don't think it would be easier for him to do it in ours.

2. Noah is a much better ball handler and passer.

3. Best rebounder? Probably. Best defender only if he was trying his hardest on that (like he did in 67) end but yes I think he is capable of it.

[GetItDone]

2nd after LeBron.


Wilt is the only player IMO from that era that would translate to an NBA caliber player in today's game.

[The Infamous1]

2nd after LeBron.


Wilt is the only player IMO from that era that would translate to an NBA caliber player in today's game.

Oscar?

[Texas Chuck]

Wilt is the only player IMO from that era that would translate to an NBA caliber player in today's game.

What exactly are you basing this one? Because on its surface it seems absurd. Bill Russell, Oscar, Jerry West just to start would all seem to translate just fine into being star-level players today much less simply sitting at the end of a bench. Plenty of other guys could easily make rosters today.

[Dr Pepper]

Wilt would be MVP and probably the best player in the game. No matchup would be able to compete with Wilt's combination of athleticism, size, and stamina/durability. His presence in the paint on both ends of the court would be His screens alone would be a game changer. Teams would have no choice but to hack him, but if Wilt doesn't have help on the perimeter then you could try and deny the ball or use stretch-4's to make Wilt run to the 3pt line

[G35]

He'd probably lead the league in rebounding and he'd be a nice defensive anchor.

Offensively I am sure he'd have plenty of value but I am not sure he'd be good enough to anchor an offense as a high volume scorer.
Both his FG% and TS% in the playoffs (regardless of volume) was typically mediocre compared to more modern elite offensive anchors (and even some from back in his heyday).

Still I would feel comfortable saying he'd be somewhere in the Top 5.
Assuming he can be (and would be willing to be) utilized in an ideal way he has plenty to offer a team and many ways in which he can be a highly impactful player.

Another reason why I think going off stats paints an incorrect picture of a player. In Wilts era, he was criticized for being the biggest, strongest player, and dunking over smaller guys. So Wilt, hearing these criticisms, incorrectly decided to show he had a well rounded game by shooting "skill shots" instead of just dunking over people a la Shaq.

If Wilt came up anytime in the 90's or later he wouldn't be doing fadeaways, he would play similar to Shaq and dunk over everyone and his shooting numbers would rise. The media was critical and painted Wilt as Goliath and without any skill.....