RealGM Top 100 List #4

[Baller2014]

Spoiler:

I don't want to de-rail the discussion, I'll just re-state my firm stance that Shaq left Orlando because they did a poor job of trying to retain him, you don't start the bidding war for the future best player in the game (after Jordan retires) low, imagine if in the current offseason New York tried to lowball Melo (who's nowhere near Shaq in that sense).

What you have to understand is that the CBA was very different back in 96. Salaries were in a constant state of flux. What had been an amazingly generous salary 3-4 years earlier was now a mediocre deal, teams had to negotiate because nobody really understood the market (which was constantly changing every year). The contract Shaq ended up signing (which Orlando also offered) was the biggest contract in NBA history at that point. It wasn't like today, where there's a clear and limited max salary, and when a guy is worth it you just pay it to him. Shaq's 1996 contract in today's dollars amount to a $182 million over 7 years. I don't think, given the uncertain climate of the time, it was unreasonable for Orlando to negotiate with Shaq.

[magicmerl]

We're 6 pages in, and I've asked 3 times now: "What sort of penalty are Shaq/Wilt voters imposing for their long and painful history of antics, which clearly hurt their team's performance?" I don't think anyone has really answered this at all.

I think by factoring in team success this takes care of things which hurt their teams.

Following on from that; Shaq clearly had better talent on his teams during his career than Duncan did, he even had a slightly longer prime, and a higher peak... yet his teams did worse.

Absolutely. Shaq clearly had a better peak, and was a more efficient and better scorer throughout his career. Yet Duncan had a better attitude, was a better leader, better defender, better passer, did a better job of creating 'space' on his team for other people to succeed, better longevity, was a humbler player, accepted a lower salary (which is part of why when he gets to play with more talented teammates, that should be counted in his favour, not against him). Just a better total career.

He won only 4 rings (only 3 as the teams best player) and, on the 5 occasions prime Duncan and prime Shaq played each other in the playoffs, Duncan was the best player for 3/5 series (and arguably tied him in 04, given the much poorer circumstances he faced that series, as discussed in my OP). Shaq was a career underachiever, yet people are acting like he brings you more success. It's pretty weird tbh.

Agreed. The fact that post-Orlando every team that had Shaq basically washed their hands of him counts as a mark against him I think.

[Baller2014]

We're 6 pages in, and I've asked 3 times now: "What sort of penalty are Shaq/Wilt voters imposing for their long and painful history of antics, which clearly hurt their team's performance?" I don't think anyone has really answered this at all.

I think by factoring in team success this takes care of things which hurt their teams.

Following on from that; Shaq clearly had better talent on his teams during his career than Duncan did, he even had a slightly longer prime, and a higher peak... yet his teams did worse.

Absolutely. Shaq clearly had a better peak, and was a more efficient and better scorer throughout his career. Yet Duncan had a better attitude, was a better leader, better defender, better passer, did a better job of creating 'space' on his team for other people to succeed, better longevity, was a humbler player, accepted a lower salary (which is part of why when he gets to play with more talented teammates, that should be counted in his favour, not against him). Just a better total career.

He won only 4 rings (only 3 as the teams best player) and, on the 5 occasions prime Duncan and prime Shaq played each other in the playoffs, Duncan was the best player for 3/5 series (and arguably tied him in 04, given the much poorer circumstances he faced that series, as discussed in my OP). Shaq was a career underachiever, yet people are acting like he brings you more success. It's pretty weird tbh.

Agreed. The fact that post-Orlando every team that had Shaq basically washed their hands of him counts as a mark against him I think.

Yet you're voting for Wilt, who had even less team success than Shaq, and was even more responsible for that than Shaq was.

[magicmerl]

Yet you're voting for Wilt, who had even less team success than Shaq, and was even more responsible for that than Shaq was.

Well, I was impressed by DQuinn1575's post evaluating the 4 bigs:

Spoiler:

It appears that is biggest competition is the 4 big guys -Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq.

I saw WIlt in his last few years, and followed the others since college - Shaq actually high school.

The 4 areas to evaluate are scoring, ball-handling, rebounding, and defense

The ranking below is in each category:


Scoring

In 1993, Shaq took 1304 fga, and made 733.
The league average Effective FG% was .491.
If he had made the league average he would have made 640.2 (.491 * 1304)
So he made 92.8 more than average - which is 185.6 points above average (PAA)


If I had up all of Shaq's seasons I get 3,788 PAA - for 1,207 games I get 3.13 pAA per game

This measures volume and efficiency

Doing it for all 4:


Wilt 5054 PAA 1045 games = 4.84
Shaq 3788 PAA 1207 games = 3.13
Hakeem 485 PAA 1238 games = .39
Duncan 394 PAA 1254 games = .31





Ball-handling

Wilt was a great passing center -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaHmn7qcCaM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWHKZlQ9x7Q


For Career Assists and games you get a pretty good ranking; Wilt 1st, Duncan 2nd, Shaq and Hakeem tie for 3rd.


Wilt 4643/1045 4.4 a game

Duncan 3832/1254 3.1 a game

Shaq 3026/1207 2.5 a game

Hakeem 3058/1238 2.5 a game


You can argue between the other 3, but Wilt is clearly the best


Rebounding

Wilt last 3 years 19.8%
Duncan 18.5%
Shaq 17.8%
Hakeem 17.2%


Once again Wilt is clearly 1st, and his totals only have the last 3 years of his career.


Defense

Obviously toughest to gauge -

Here are honors won:

Hakeem 5/3 - 2 DPOY
Wilt 2/0 - beat out Thurmond and Jabbar; named in last 2 year. Only had 4 full years with all-defense
Duncan 8/6

Shaq 0/3


Wilt would have won DPOY in 1972 if there was an award. Also since center is the most important defensive position, I'll go with Hakeem,Wilt,Duncan, and Shaq in that order - that is my opinion based on observation, and there is support for that in the honors won




Scoring/ball-handling/rebounding/defense

Wilt 1/1/1/2
Shaq 2/3/3/4
Hakeem 3/4/4/1
Duncan 4/2/2/3


You can weight them how you chose,but I don't see how Wilt is not #1.


I vote for Wilt Chamberlain at #4.

In addition, I think that Russell is clearly better than Wilt, so I don't penalise Wilt for losing to Russell.

Once you adjust for pace, Wilt is still the most incredible rebounder of the bigs we're considering here, even if his prodigious scoring feats scale back into focus.

[Quotatious]

I'm going with Hakeem Olajuwon as my #4.

Like I've said before, I view him as a better defensively, worse offensively, a bit better in the playoffs, but with worse longevity, version of Kareem. KAJ got voted in at #2 - it's a nice way to prop him up, isn't it?

Basically, to a certain degree, I'm going against what's probably the common notion - that Hakeem was on a whole different level during his dominant 3-year stretch (93-95, or actually even 93-96) - I agree that he was better than ever before these three years, but isn't it like virtually every player has a few seasons that are better than the rest of their career? The only thing that he took to another level in '93 was his passing - sure, it was a big improvement, which basically made him a player without any weaknesses (and along with his religious transformation, helped him become more mature not only as a person, but also on the court).

I could go to great lengths about his unfavorable team situation in Houston in the late 80s, but he's not the only superstar who had to deal with that (KG immediately comes to mind), so I'll just say that I don't see any reason to critcize him for his play in those years - he was a top 5 player basically every year during the most stacked era in league history, talent-wise - that's quite an accomplishment.

Was it Olajuwon's fault that his best teammate Sampson broke down in just his fourth year in the league, and his guards, like Lewis Lloyd, John Lucas and Mitchell Wiggins were cokeheads? Still, Olajuwon's individual performance, or his effort level, was never anything less than great. That's all that matters for me here. He was an amazing force in his younger days as well - more defense/rebounding oriented (but still an excellent scorer, though admittedly not that great efficiency-wise, just solid, but considering how much he had to do in terms of his all-around game, and still take about 18 FGA per game, it's great, and he usually stepped up in the playoffs - he was an outstanding playoff performer even before '93).

So, ultimately, why do I vote for Olajuwon? In my opinion, he has the best combination of high level of play, great two-way play/versatility, outstanding playoff performer (absolutely elite in this regard - his numbers are better pretty much across the board in the postseason), and excellent longevity.

Between 1984-85 to 1998-99 (so 15 seasons), in 1075 RS games, 40250 minutes (37.4 per game), he averaged 23.6 points/11.8 rebounds/2.7 assists/1.8 steals/3.3 blocks, on 24.2 PER, 55.7% TS, 18.4 WS/48

In the playoffs, during the same stretch of time - 140 games (5663 minutes, 40.5 per game) - 26.6 points/11.4 rebounds/3.3 assists/1.7 steals/3.3 blocks, on 25.8 PER, 56.9% TS, 18.9 WS/48.

Also, his USG% goes up from 27.7 to 29.1.

So, there's no doubt in my mind that he was actually a better playoff performer than regular season performer. To me, it's extremely valuable, because it raises the odds of your team performing better in the playoffs, than you would expect based on the RS, raises the chance of upsets occuring, in a series against a stronger opponent, not to mention how much better an average playoff team is, that an average team faced during the RS, so to actually RAISE your level of play, against stronger competition, really shows how great he was.

Why Hakeem over the other candidates for #4? Olajuwon over Magic because of much better two-way play (so a less flawed overall player), and a better playoff performer. Olajuwon over Wilt because of vastly superior playoff career, and likely a more consistent defensive effort ('Keem's highs were also IMO higher than Wilt's highs, defensively), and despite Chamberlain' very impressive volume numbers (and his clear edge as a rebounder and passer), Olajuwon's efficiency was better (sure, Wilt was better relative to the league he played in, but seeing how two players from Wilt's era - Oscar and West, were able to score more efficiently than he did, as GUARDS, I wouldn't praise Wilt too much for being some kind of a hyperefficient scorer, unless we're going to treat Robertson and West as almost Barkley/Dantley level scorers, which would boost their rankings quite a bit, probably making both a really valid option for the top 10).
Why Olajuwon over Duncan? This one is the toughest for me (I have Timmy at #5), but I just think that Keem was a bit better player, more individually dominant (and obviously Duncan playing for Pop his entire career is a huge advantage, also having his minutes limited towards the end of his career helped his longevity - and even then, Duncan's longevity edge isn't that big).
Finally, why Hakeem over Shaq? Much more consistent defensive effort (and simply said - just a much better defender) and slightly better longevity/durability. Also less of a troublemaker, more likely to stay with your franchise (although that's a very marginal factor for me)).

I'm probably going to defer to 90sAllDecade to provide great arguments for Olajuwon, as I think he can do it better than I can.

[Gregoire]

My vote goes to Wilt Chamberlain. Reasoning in the #3 thread.

This vote will not count without analysis. This thread is about discussion, not just counting votes.

[Baller2014]

Yet you're voting for Wilt, who had even less team success than Shaq, and was even more responsible for that than Shaq was.

Well, I was impressed by DQuinn1575's post evaluating the 4 bigs:

Spoiler:

It appears that is biggest competition is the 4 big guys -Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq.

I saw WIlt in his last few years, and followed the others since college - Shaq actually high school.

The 4 areas to evaluate are scoring, ball-handling, rebounding, and defense

The ranking below is in each category:


Scoring

In 1993, Shaq took 1304 fga, and made 733.
The league average Effective FG% was .491.
If he had made the league average he would have made 640.2 (.491 * 1304)
So he made 92.8 more than average - which is 185.6 points above average (PAA)


If I had up all of Shaq's seasons I get 3,788 PAA - for 1,207 games I get 3.13 pAA per game

This measures volume and efficiency

Doing it for all 4:


Wilt 5054 PAA 1045 games = 4.84
Shaq 3788 PAA 1207 games = 3.13
Hakeem 485 PAA 1238 games = .39
Duncan 394 PAA 1254 games = .31





Ball-handling

Wilt was a great passing center -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaHmn7qcCaM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWHKZlQ9x7Q


For Career Assists and games you get a pretty good ranking; Wilt 1st, Duncan 2nd, Shaq and Hakeem tie for 3rd.


Wilt 4643/1045 4.4 a game

Duncan 3832/1254 3.1 a game

Shaq 3026/1207 2.5 a game

Hakeem 3058/1238 2.5 a game


You can argue between the other 3, but Wilt is clearly the best


Rebounding

Wilt last 3 years 19.8%
Duncan 18.5%
Shaq 17.8%
Hakeem 17.2%


Once again Wilt is clearly 1st, and his totals only have the last 3 years of his career.


Defense

Obviously toughest to gauge -

Here are honors won:

Hakeem 5/3 - 2 DPOY
Wilt 2/0 - beat out Thurmond and Jabbar; named in last 2 year. Only had 4 full years with all-defense
Duncan 8/6

Shaq 0/3


Wilt would have won DPOY in 1972 if there was an award. Also since center is the most important defensive position, I'll go with Hakeem,Wilt,Duncan, and Shaq in that order - that is my opinion based on observation, and there is support for that in the honors won




Scoring/ball-handling/rebounding/defense

Wilt 1/1/1/2
Shaq 2/3/3/4
Hakeem 3/4/4/1
Duncan 4/2/2/3


You can weight them how you chose,but I don't see how Wilt is not #1.


I vote for Wilt Chamberlain at #4.

In addition, I think that Russell is clearly better than Wilt, so I don't penalise Wilt for losing to Russell.

Once you adjust for pace, Wilt is still the most incredible rebounder of the bigs we're considering here, even if his prodigious scoring feats scale back into focus.

But he got those stats by padding... playing against the interests of the team. That's why I'm confused, because when I asked you how we account for that you said "the team results will show us how it affected things"... and, like, Wilt's team outcomes suck compared to Duncan or even Shaq.

[magicmerl]

But he got those stats by padding... playing against the interests of the team. That's why I'm confused, because when I asked you how we account for that you said "the team results will show us how it affected things"... and, like, Wilt's team outcomes suck compared to Duncan or even Shaq.

Once you adjust for pace, his most impressive skill/stat is rebounding. Is it even possible to rebound in a way that hurts your team?

I agree that part of his stats should be discounted by running up stats in blowouts. That's why I'm not looking at any per-game or total stats as part of his value. Once you're looking at his contributions on a per-possession basis, how much do you think his 'stat padding' can mislead us about his contribution to basketball?

[Baller2014]

Of course it's possible to rebound at the expense of the team. You can focus on gambling for rebounds instead of playing good, fundamental D, or stealing boards from your team mates, getting yourself out of position and playing garbage minutes to get more boards... like Reggie Evans does, and like Wilt is widely known to have done. You say you're trying to disregard blow outs, but per possession doesn't fix that, because a lot of his possessions will be against the other teams scrubs (in blow out garbage time). Then look at the era he was playing in, most of it was far weaker than it would become in later decades.

[magicmerl]

Of course it's possible to rebound at the expense of the team. You can focus on gambling for rebounds instead of playing good, fundamental D, or stealing boards from your team mates, getting yourself out of position and playing garbage minutes to get more boards... like Reggie Evans does, and like Wilt is widely known to have done. You say you're trying to disregard blow outs, but per possession doesn't fix that, because a lot of his possessions will be against the other teams scrubs (in blow out garbage time). Then look at the era he was playing in, most of it was far weaker than it would become in later decades.

So, how have you discounted Wilt's inflated stats?

If you're thinking that he's inflating his stats just by playing scrubs, I guess you can look at how he performed in the playoffs (since there will be far fewer scrubs and fewer 'dead' minutes). His career playoff TS% is .524. He still shows as an elite rebounder.

Edit: Additionally, I don't think it's fair to penalise him for not being as good as Bill Russell. His career playoff record vs Russell is 17 - 27 (38%). His career playoff record vs everyone else is 69 - 42 (62%). Basically he's as much better than the rest of the league as Russell is better than him.

[Baller2014]

I took a good look at his team results, asked why they don't fit with what his stats say his value should be, and worked on the assumption that the mountain of negatives he brought to a team are likely the primary cause. Wilt could have been one of the GOATs thanks to his talent, but based on the actual career he had he wasn't. It's not like these are small and minor negatives we're talking about either, this is a guy whose stunts would have made him the most hated and criticised player in the modern NBA.

[ardee]

Finally.

My vote is going to be for Wilt Chamberlain here, and I'm going to make his case in detail. Let's take a look at his year-by-year career.

Early days

1960: Rookie year. This year is villified by many for his efficiency, and admittedly it's not as pretty as it'll be later on, but consider this... He comes onto a team with a terribly inefficient Guy Rodgers, Tom Gola and an aging Paul Arizin as his only decent team-mates. There was NO spacing on that team, and the lane was still narrow. Wilt used to get SWARMED. The team was a -2.3 SRS team the year before, it was +2.8 when Wilt arrived. He turned the second worst team in the league to the second best. His defense was great that year, he was blocking 15 shots a game according to stories. Won the MVP over a prime Russell. Honestly, don't see how this isn't the second best rookie season ever after Kareem. Start of a legendary career.

1961: One of his weaker years. His efficiency from the field improves, gets to work on that fadeaway jumper (which people love to hate on, but it LED THE LEAGUE in FG%, so I guess it worked at the time). Arizin is even older, a rookie Al Attles doesn't help TOO much... But Wilt still gets them to the Playoffs, puts up a 37/23, but his supporting cast flops BADLY. Arizin, Gola and Rodgers combined to shoot 31% from the field. Warriors get swept by the Royals. Can't blame Wilt here, his team stunk it up.

1962: The first glimpse of prime Wilt. Sets all time scoring and rebounding records, absolutely carried a worsening cast. Rodgers was completely awful as an offensive player now, shot 35.6% from the field. All his help is Arizin and Gola. Still no real shooting on the team. Wilt is great on both ends of the court, somehow makes them the second best team in the league, and comes one Sam Jones jumper away from upsetting the greatest dynasty in sports. AGREED Russ did a good job on him in the EDF, but really, if that jumper had missed, Wilt would be hailed as the 33/25 hero who single-handedly defeated the ultimate dynasty. Since he lost, people vilify this year for his scoring dropping somewhat AGAINST THE GOAT DEFENDER. Not saying this year was perfect but it really doesn't get the credit it deserves.

1963: His team dropped off a good bit, but seriously... We're talking a team with no shooting, no defense, had Arizin retire, Gola miss 60 games, and Wilt still has the team make league average offense AND defense? With that kind of supporting cast, blame the guy who goes 45/25, leads the league in FG% and anchors the defense? Where is the logic here?

I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here but this is where standards are shifted for Wilt. In 2006 and 2007 people make all kinds of excuses for KG regarding his supporting cast and multiple problems he faced. Yet he NEVER had this kind of situation. This would be the equivalent of the 2015 Heat having Bosh leave, Wade miss 60 games, and then expect LeBron to match his previous season's results. Wilt was depending on Guy Rodgers, who was shooting 38.7% from the field, to be his second option. It is bull to blame Wilt for this season's results, given all he did. This was probably his second best pre-prime year. You can put Russell, Kareem, anyone on that team and the results do not get better. He had one of the worst supporting casts in history.

Prime Wilt

1964: GOAT-level year. This was possibly Wilt at his best. His scoring drops a little bit but the efficiency goes up, and he becomes the consensus second best defender after Russ. The Warriors were a -6 defensive team, the second best mark of the era by any team besides the Russell Celtics (and the same mark people were going gaga over for the Pacers earlier this season). Wilt also becomes a part-time high post facilitator, finishing 6th in the league in assists. He ups his efficiency in the Playoffs, and makes his first Finals, losing to the GOAT defensive team. This is legendary stuff. The load he carried on both ends was ridiculous. His defense this year consistently gets underestimated. He was like a combination of Russell and Shaq, this was domination on another level. 35 ppg on 55% FG in the Playoffs, playing Russell? In that era? My God.

1965: He drops off a bit due to the heart disease. Bad team results in the beginning of the year. If you want to hold that against him, fine. He gets traded to Philly because the SFW management is full of asses. Philly immediately improves, they go 11-3 in the first 14 games with Wilt. Then Greer, Costello and Jackson all get injured in the second half of the season. Wilt still drags them to .500 and then outplays Russ in the EDF, losing because HAVLICEK STOLE THE BALL. This is the second time that one play has decided whether or not Wilt beats Russell.

1966: Start of peak Wilt. He takes his efficiency to a new level... 54% from the field on 25 FGA/game. Continues helping out with playmaking from the high post. He is now the undoubted best player in the league, taking the conch from Russell. The Sixers go 55-25. Wilt has a good supporting cast now but it's not THAT good. Greer was great, the perfect second option for Wilt. Walker was a nice do-it-all guy, but neither of them were particularly efficient. Billy C was too young to be a huge factor, Dolph Schayes refused to give Jackson the mpg he needed to make an impact, and Wali Jones was basically a better defensive version of Guy Rodgers, but even more inefficient. The results were still great though, given what he had. The first of 3 straight MVPs. 30/30 in the Playoffs, and only loses to Boston because his two best team-mates, Greer and Walker, screw up badly, shooting 36% from the floor combined. Shades of what happened with Gola and Arizin in '61. Keep this in mind when talking about his supporting cast this year. Again, GOAT level stuff.

1967: The greatest season anyone has ever played, at the very least in the top 3 with Jordan and Shaq. Sets a FG% record, becomes the first real point-center, is the keynote of Hannum's percusor to the triangle offense, and leads the Sixers to a record 68-13. I don't know how much I need to say about this year, but I'll let you guys take a look at his game-log from the Playoffs:

1967 EDSF vs. Royals

G1 - 41 points, 23 rebounds, 5 assists, 63% FG
G2 - 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists, 67% FG
G3 - 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists, 62% FG
G4 - 18 points, 27 rebounds, 9 assists, 50% FG

Series Average: 28.0 ppg, 26.8 rpg, 11 apg, 61% FG
Oscar Robertson: 24.8 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 11.3 apg, 51.6% FG

He had as many assists as Oscar and killed him everywhere else!

1967 EDF vs. Celtics

G1 - 24 points, 32 rebounds, 12 assists, 12 blocks, 69% FG
G2 - 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks, 45% FG
G3 - 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 blocks, 57% FG
G4 - 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assists, at least 3 blocks, 44% FG
G5 - 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists, 7 blocks, 63% FG

Series Average: 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6+ bpg, 56% FG
Bill Russell: 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 36% FG

1967 NBA Finals vs. Warriors

G1 - 16 points, 33 rebounds, 10 assists, 75% FG (including a game-saving block on Nate)
G2 - 10 points, 38 rebounds (26 in 1st half), 10 assists, 10 blocks, 40% FG
G3 - 26 points, 26 rebounds, 5 assists, 52% FG
G4 - 10 points, 27 rebounds, 8 assists, 11 blocks, 50% FG
G5 - 20 points, 24 rebounds, 4 assists, 60% FG
G6 - 24 points, 23 rebounds, 4 assists, 62% FG

Series Average: 17.6 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg, 56% FG
Nate Thurmond: 14.1 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 3.3 apg, 34% FG

That year, Wilt was fifth in scoring, first in rebounds, third in assists, and first in FG%. He was probably first or second in blocks too. How many players can achieve that level of statistical domination on an ELITE team?

He would get the rebound, either throw an outlet or let Greer bring it up before he got the entry pass at the high post again. Facing the basket, he then hit cutters, used a handoff to a guard to set a screen or either posted up to devastating effect (68% from the field!!!). Wilt was ungodly that year, there has never been anyone as good at basketball as Wilt was in 1967.

1968: Pretty much more of the same. His efficiency from the field dropped to "only" 60%, but for the first time, toppled Russell's Celtics for the best defense in the league.

This was the only time in the 60s Russ didn't anchor the league's best defense. So Wilt was the only guy to beat Russell in the Playoffs, as well as the only guy to have a better defense than him.

In the Playoffs, he dragged an injury ridden team past the Knicks, leading both teams in every major statistical category. He lost a game 7 to Boston by 4 points, in a game where Hannum had his only real failing as a coach. He simply couldn't devise a game-plan to get the ball to Wilt with Embry and Russell swarming him. The series was still so close despite the litany of injuries the Sixers had. Billy C was out of the series, Wilt had a bad calf problem, practically the whole starting 5 was hobbled.

Wilt has an unfair reputation as a 'big-game choker'. Take a look here at his performance in swing games, elimination games and game 7s through the years:

Wilt in do or die games...

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)

He has the highest FG% in game 7s of anyone: .626. Second highest rebounding rate of anyone (besides Russ) in game 7s. So the myth that Wilt is a big-game player really needs to be gotten rid of.

I'll update this with post-prime talk as well.

Needless to say.

Vote: Wilt Chamberlain

[90sAllDecade]

Also I needed to include this:

Wilt played with at least two all stars almost his whole career and had HOF coaching at times.

Supporting Casts:

Wilt
59-60 to 61-62 - P. Arizin HOF, T. Gola HOF
62-63 to 64-65 - T. Meschery, G. Rodger HOF, N. Thurmond HOF
64-65 to 67-68 - H. Greer HOF, C. Walker HOF (B. Cunningham HOF), L. Jackson, L. Costello
68-69 to 73-73 - J. West HOF, E. Baylor HOF, G. Goodrich HOF
HOF Coaches: A. Hannum x4, B. Sharman x2

Total: 13 years with 1+ All Star (10 HOF), 10 w/ 2 All Stars, 1 w/ 3 All Stars, 6 years HOF coach

Hakeem

84-85 to 86-87 - R. Sampson HOF
91-92 - O. Thorpe
94-95 to 97-98 - C. Drexler HOF
96-97 - C. Barkley HOF
01-02 - V. Carter (probable HOF)
HOF Coaches: 0

Total: 8 years with 1+ All Star (4 HOF), 1 year w/ 2 All Stars, 0 HOF coach

(trying to make things a little more entertaining in the comparisons)

Wilt Chamberlain Playoff Scoring:



Hakeem Playoffs Scoring:


http://www.basketball-reference.com/...olajuha01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...chambwi01.html


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_By2-Z3tOms[/youtube]

[ardee]

Also I needed to include this:

Wilt played with at least two all stars almost his whole career and had HOF coaching at times.

Supporting Casts:

Wilt
59-60 to 61-62 - P. Arizin HOF, T. Gola HOF
62-63 to 64-65 - T. Meschery, G. Rodger HOF, N. Thurmond HOF
64-65 to 67-68 - H. Greer HOF, C. Walker HOF (B. Cunningham HOF), L. Jackson, L. Costello
68-69 to 73-73 - J. West HOF, E. Baylor HOF, G. Goodrich HOF
HOF Coaches: A. Hannum x4, B. Sharman x2

Total: 13 years with 1+ All Star (10 HOF), 10 w/ 2 All Stars, 1 w/ 3 All Stars, 6 years HOF coach

Hakeem

84-85 to 86-87 - R. Sampson HOF
91-92 - O. Thorpe
94-95 to 97-98 - C. Drexler HOF
96-97 - C. Barkley HOF
01-02 - V. Carter (probable HOF)
HOF Coaches: 0

Total: 8 years with 1+ All Star (4 HOF), 1 year w/ 2 All Stars, 0 HOF coach

(trying to make things a little more entertaining in the comparisons)

Wilt Chamberlain Playoff Scoring:



Hakeem Playoffs Scoring:


http://www.basketball-reference.com/...olajuha01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...chambwi01.html


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_By2-Z3tOms[/youtube]

This post is intellectually dishonest.

To make Gola, Arizin and Rodgers out to be really valuable teammates based on their HOF status is dishonest. Gola and Arizin were near the end of their primes when they played with Wilt in the early 60s. Rodgers was an awful offensive player. Couldn't shoot or really score in anyway, never cracked 40% from the field.

And Thurmond was in his rookie and sophomore year as Wilt's backup when they played together.

The best teammate Wilt had in his prime was Hal Greer, who is probably about the same level as Sampson and definitely worse than Drexler.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Baller2014]

1) Players say dumb off the cuff stuff about other players all the time, especially when they're senior and especially when it's a goof like Shaq.
2) Shaq's no less eloquent in praising Tim:

The Spurs won because of Tim Duncan, a guy I could never break. I could talk trash to Patrick Ewing, get in David Robinson’s face, get a rise out of Alonzo Mourning, but when I went at Tim he’d look at me like he was bored and then say, “Hey, Shaq, watch this shot right here off the glass.”
You gotta love that. I used to say Duncan and I were like two mafia bosses. I was the loud East Coast boss, taking names, knocking heads. Tim was the laid-back, one-hundred-acre farm don. Nobody knows what he does, he’s the chill mafia guy, but we both know how to carry out a hit. I was jealous of guys like Duncan and Kevin Garnett, who got to do stuff like face up and shimmy...
"I ran into Gregg Popovich in the bathroom in the spring of the 2010–11 season, and I asked how Timmy was doing, and Pop said, “His knee is bone on bone"
Whenever I run into a Tim Duncan fan who will claim Tim Duncan is the goat, I won't disagree with him.

[MacGill]

Happy to see the top 3 hashed out now and conversation move to the next tier.

FTR before coming into this project I had MJ, Russell, Magic, Shaq, Hakeem and Duncan rounding out my top 6. And well, I am hoping Reg or someone could paste some great Magic posts of the past. I don't want to just vote based on where I had them on my list prior, as with KAJ, I can see where he deserves to be much higher based on career than where I had him. That said, a few things: I have very little separation between Shaq/Hakeem/Duncan, so I really wish posters would stop acting as if there is a mile between them. All have their strength and weaknesses in area's but at the end of the day, all were top talents in this league all-time.

Another thing, detracting based on attitude?? WTH is this? Should some of our votes count less because some of us are trying to push the envelope more than others here? These are professional athletes for damn sakes and while we have careers like Duncan, an introvert, why should he be the actual poster child for an alpha male sport of mostly extroverts personalities? Look if some can provide actual evidence of harm this caused, which btw, seems to be conveniently missed over the first 3 players, than please stake your claim here. But if your only argument is that this just had to have caused damage, than I guess we should stop calling them professional athletes. Resiliency is their middle name. If we also deem it as immaturity, which is what I am hearing here, than I will ask each of you how you handled playing for multi-millions in similar situations on the biggest stage of that sport. Let's try to stick to basketball here folks and stop overvaluing/exaggerating things don't really matter as much. And by this I don't mean, don't bring them up....please do, but would this happen if others had the same career path as what we deem as the storybook career with coaches and players teamed with? Look at the debates we have had over the first 3 threads...it's called being human.

[Baller2014]

There's been some pretty extensive examples of how their attitudes hurt the actual on court performance. Like Wilt actively refusing to listen to his coach, even when his coach was clearly right. Or Wilt stat padding, getting himself out of position to do so. Or Wilt staying out and partying all night and taking his team mates with him. Or Wilt missing practises, or limiting the teams ability to have practises and prep sessions, because he didn't feel like living in the city he was playing in (instead commuting in). Ok, it wasn't Wilt's fault in game 7 of the finals when his coach wouldn't sub him in (though maybe some of the stuff he'd done to that point was why his coach was so angry with him), but all the stuff he, like, actually did... that stuff should 100% count against him.

Shaq's as bad as Wilt probably. I just bought a copy of 11 rings, and it's pretty chock full of Shaq (and especially Kobe) hurting the team with this antics.

[MacGill]

There's been some pretty extensive examples of how their attitudes hurt the actual on court performance. Like Wilt actively refusing to listen to his coach, even when his coach was clearly right. Or Wilt stat padding, getting himself out of position to do so. Or Wilt staying out and partying all night and taking his team mates with him. Or Wilt missing practises, or limiting the teams ability to have practises and prep sessions, because he didn't feel like living in the city he was playing in (instead commuting in). Ok, it wasn't Wilt's fault in game 7 of the finals when his coach wouldn't sub him in (though maybe some of the stuff he'd done to that point was why his coach was so angry with him), but all the stuff he, like, actually did... that stuff should 100% count against him.

Shaq's as bad as Wilt probably. I just bought a copy of 11 rings, and it's pretty chock full of Shaq (and especially Kobe) hurting the team with this antics.

Or Jordan punching his teammates, gambling, asking to sleep with Pippen's gf, or Russell smoking as a player/coach refusing to practice etc... What's the point and where were you at those times in discussion? What's the difference with this set other than Duncan isn't a top GOAT candidate? MJ never played with an arguable top 10 talent with an attitude the same as his, so how do you reevaluate for that? What do you think he would have done? You think Duncan would have been the same with Kobe chucking shot after shot trying to not be the sidekick? You mention, hurt the teams, yet Shaq/Kobe/Wilt all had very good team success. Singers, actors, even posters on this board...they all share the same human traits here and all act accordingly when they feel they are a tier above (some not all). Mel Gibson was a putz in real life but I am not going to criticize Braveheart because of all his online rants.

Again, it seems that you're trying to use attitude now to paint a picture of 'look you wouldn't want to build around these guys' when all things aren't alike here. Duncan not only had the best player to receive the torch from..he never had anyone close in his talent level to even provide such a situation. Maybe LA should have known that before Kobe made his way to the team of Hollywood since Shaq had this track record of burning bridges and leaving as a free agent, his own choice, before joining LA. We've never seen anything like that before. People overrate loyalty when this is a job.

[MacGill]

Before voting, I'd really like to see more Magic in the conversation here, especially against the bigs being mentioned. Dude, was incredible and even though was forced to leave the game early, his later comeback proved that barring injury he would have still had many great years of ball left, so I don't hold longevity really against him here.

[Baller2014]

Or Jordan punching his teammates, gambling, asking to sleep with Pippen's gf, or Russell smoking as a player/coach refusing to practice etc... What's the point and where were you at those times in discussion? What's the difference with this set other than Duncan isn't a top GOAT candidate? MJ never played with an arguable top 10 talent with an attitude the same as his, so how do you reevaluate for that? What do you think he would have done? You think Duncan would have been the same with Kobe chucking shot after shot trying to not be the sidekick? You mention, hurt the teams, yet Shaq/Kobe/Wilt all had very good team success. Singers, actors, even posters on this board...they all share the same human traits here and all act accordingly when they feel they are a tier above (some not all). Mel Gibson was a putz in real life but I am not going to criticize Braveheart because of all his online rants.

Again, it seems that you're trying to use attitude now to paint a picture of 'look you wouldn't want to build around these guys' when all things aren't alike here. Duncan not only had the best player to receive the torch from..he never had anyone close in his talent level to even provide such a situation. Maybe LA should have known that before Kobe made his way to the team of Hollywood since Shaq had this track record of burning bridges and leaving as a free agent, his own choice, before joining LA. We've never seen anything like that before. People overrate loyalty when this is a job.

The first thing I said about this aspect was that I was loathe to judge guys on negative externalities like attitude, because they're hard to determine, and I don't care if a guy was a douchebag as long as it didn't affect on the court performance. Jordan was an ass, but I don't see much evidence it effected the team negatively. Jordan punching Kerr for instance actually left the two men closer together, and they became best buddies. In 11 Rings Phil Jackson claims it was a turning point that made Michael realise he had to be a better leader, so it's a weird example to cite Jordan doing dumb stuff and responding to it positively immediately after. Shaq and Wilt's feuds never played out like that, they often festered for years, poisoning the team dynamics. I mentioned some of my problems with Kareem in the Kareem thread, and I didn't vote for Russell (I voted for Duncan) so I think I've been pretty consistent on this. Karl Malone is a good case in point of a guy who was an A$$@!$%, but I don't factor it in because it never seemed to affect on the court business. How can anyone familiar with the facts say Wilt and Shaq's off the court problems didn't affect on the court results?