RealGM Top 100 List #4

[DQuinn1575]

Many regular players back then didn't make the salaries they could now to live on, so many had second jobs and had to practice on weekends.

This is an untrue statement.

Players in the 60s weren't making big money, but the average salary was better than an average salary
The average salary in 1967 was $13,000 (http://www.apbr.org/apbr-faq.html); almost double the average household income of $7,200 (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-062.pdf)

Some players may have had off-season jobs, like selling insurance, but there weren't any players were working second jobs like this.

These guys were full-time professionals.

Good objective evidence, I have no problem agreeing with this. But do you have information if the top earners were skewing that average upwards? Did they pay travel or other expenses out of pocket?

I don't know for sure and have to research, but just so you know here is where I got my information from (a book about Russell):

Earnings

During his career, Russell was one of the first big earners in NBA basketball. His 1956 rookie contract was worth $24,000, only fractionally smaller than the $25,000 of top earner Bob Cousy.[27] In contrast to other Celtics, who had to work in the offseason to maintain their standard of living (Heinsohn sold insurance, Gene Guarilia was a professional guitar player, Cousy ran a basketball camp, and Auerbach invested in plastics and a Chinese restaurant),[83] Russell never had to work part-time. When Wilt Chamberlain became the first NBA player to earn $100,000 in salary in 1965, Russell went to Auerbach and demanded a $100,001 salary, which he promptly received.[84]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell


I did some digging and this book lists the minimum NBA salary at around $5,000 in 1962.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QaCrl_F_5cMC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=nba+minimum+salary+1960&source=bl&ots=I_5aUQv-G5&sig=npiZKlxjSJza71NmPoFa_BFN2yo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BeC4U8K-EcSMqAaonoCwDw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=nba%20minimum%20salary%201960&f=false

This also says median income for families is estimated at $6,000 in 1962.

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-040.pdf

So I'm wondering if the top guys were pros and heavily paid, but the bottom guys had to work second jobs? I'll revisit this, but I have no problems being wrong or learning.

Okay, some of the bottom guys worked second jobs in the offseason in all the major sports - baseball,football, basketball,hockey up until the mid 60s. But their jobs were sales related, owning restaurants, running basketball camps. They weren't working in the factory 9-5.

The minimum was still about what the average family made. Remember that is the guy who barely makes the team,, and really doesn't have any impact on the league. With a relatively short career many guys were making sure they had something to go to after basketball.

I was in offices different times when Bernie Parent (Flyers goalie), Tom Boerwinkle (Bulls center) and Stan Mikita (Blackhawks center) were there. Each of the 3 times the whole place was abuzz as each of them did work, but mostly were there to attract clients who were sports fans.

There are exceptions I'm sure, but the players could make their own schedules, and had plenty of time to stay in shape and work out as much as they wanted.

Now that amount may not compare to what people do today.

[MisterWestside]

2 things:

1) I don't get why you think you couldn't thrive in the low post in any era.

For the benefit of the team? Reread the post that I made before this. I went back, watched tons of old-timer game clips, and compared it to games with low-post play in the modern era. Complete with notes.

You entitled to your opinion, and I won't knock your right to it. But I stand my my position with full confidence.

2) Fundamentally part of what every player is supposed to be doing is just doing things that make sense given what's out there on the playing field no matter what sport you're talking about. Yes not all players do that equally well and coaches have to do the best they can with dumb jocks but factoring in field intelligence is an absolute given when it comes to rating any team sport.

This therefore simply must be part if Wilts story. When he played he didn't achieve what he might have because he wasn't good enough at deciding what to do when he was out on the court. The end.

Now does that mean Wilt must rank below X? Nope. Up to you to decide how you factor it in...but Wilt ain't going to become a zen/savant/leader just because he gets to play for Kurt Rambis.

He doesn't have to be, because I will put him in a situation in which he will use his full skillset and the team will succeed. Done.

If this were a historical value rankings, Chamberlain would rank a lot lower (which he actually does on the other set rankings that I keep). But that's, not this.

[MacGill]

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?

So what I am getting here is that if Shaq/Kobe 5-peated, this wouldn't be as much of a problem than right? And what if MJ and team didn't win as much? You would then be saying it was because of Jordan being a douchebag. Look what I am getting at here is this is supposed to be individual rankings and if you want to say that Shaq's/Wilt's/Hakeem's attitude affected the team in the following ways: then state how and what was the outcome. Example, Kobe's poor 04 performance, may have well been on ego, yet we don't have to go there to say this is how his play, not attitude, affected the game. So again, we've seen both sides, douchebag who wins, one who win but are perceived to should have won more, and one who steadily wins but never back to back. All I am saying here is let's not blow attitude out of proportion here because Shaq wasn't an a$$ like MJ or even Kobe to a lesser extent but he wasn't as poised as Duncan either. But like MJ, he has the game play to back up his amazing ability and still won as the man like MJ 3 times. The way people speak about this it is like you couldn't build a team around him This is part of nba luck and Shaq never asked to play with him in the first place. The other part is why aren't you touting all the great work Shaq did for the communities he was involved with? This builds on court relations, doesn't it? He didn't isolate himself like others in public and was very popular to want around. It just seems more and more to me it was the mix of ego's versus who he really is as a person. I used to turn into the All-Star games just to see what he was gonna do next. I just don't think that is a douchebag characteristic, but just my opinion. Anyway, I've made my responses on this.

How do you feel Magic fairs against Duncan?

[Notanoob]

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 most curious about this comparison. Consider that a very young Shaq was able to play peak Hakeem to a draw at best, and perhaps outdid him in their Finals series. Consider then that Shaq got significantly better as a player, peaking in 2000. Given this, how can you possibly have Hakeem as being better than Shaq, when Shaq was just as good as him in 95 and only got better?

I rate Hakeem highly generally, but I can't see myself putting him ahead of Shaq.

[Baller2014]

What I'm saying is that Shaq and Wilt's off the court issues clearly affected on the court play. Is there anyone who really claims otherwise with a straight face? It's so well documented it's not some speculative, imaginary thing.

I also said I'd put Shaq in my top 5, and that he's a worthy choice here too, so it's not like I'm just ignoring Shaq's value because of off the court stuff... but like, that stuff did happen, and it's part of the explanation for "why did Shaq, with a longer prime and better peak, and so much more help than Duncan, have less team success than him?" Magic would also be in my top 5-6 players (and obviously has no real attitude issues). Clearly though I'd take Duncan, and I covered some of the reasons why on my OP on page 1.

[Notanoob]

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 that the answer is right here:

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

Essentially, for all of his issues, Wilt still had exceptional success. Put in an ideal situation like say, Jordan was, and he would have done even better. The negatives of his attitude did not hurt his team's success nearly as much as his reputation suggested, and he was still doing incredible things on the court.

[DQuinn1575]

Thanks for the insight.

Scoring



This gives Wilt an unfair advantage based on the fact that he played in a less efficient league.
Unless you can prove to me that it was harder for Wilt to score back then compared to Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq or Duncan in the future then I don't agree with such a method.



Also I am a guy who heavily values the playoffs so if I were to compare stats I would use their playoff stats.
Wilt was a much more effective scorer in the regular-season then he was in the playoffs.

Well,
1. Wilt has a pretty big gap over Hakeem and Duncan here - if your conclusion is this is unfair to Wilt, then I can see you giving this to Shaq, but it doesn't make up the gap Wilt has here over Hakeem and Duncan.
2. If you want to adjust for pace, you should also take into account the fact the pace affected fg%. If everyone is rushing shots and shooting 41%, then 50% is outstanding.
3. Wilt shot better than the league average every year, something Hakeem and Duncan did not.
4. Playoffs are only 10-20% of any of these guys career. So I don't overweigh them. Wilt faced Russell in a large % of his games, and still shot over 50% and averaged over 25 ppg against him. Russell didn't outplay Wilt, he neutralized him and let his better teammates win. It worked, and Russell deserves credit. Wilt only lost once to a non championship team.

Passing

This gives Wilt an unfair advantage since he played many more minutes and in a faster paced era.
Young Wilt averaging 2-3apg is less impressive then Shaq or Duncan averaging 2-3apg in 10+ less minutes in a much slower paced league.
While judging passing ability is hard to do using simple stats I would prefer AST% to raw APG.

If we go by AST% then Wilt is clearly a worse passer then Shaq or Duncan except for his 1-2 year passing Peak which is arguably the best.

Well, if you want to adjust for era (pace), then adjust for official scorers. When Wilt entered the league players were only given assists on 50% of the baskets. In Wilt's career it went up to 57%, but the average was 52.3%. The ratio was 60% in 1985 when Hakeem entered the league, and has averaged 59.8% since. So, Wilt should get a (59.8 -52.3)/52.3, or 14% in his assist rate.

So

Wilt 18.1% adjusted - (15.8% unadjusted)
Duncan 16.4%
Shaq 13.9%
Hakeem 12.1%

http://bkref.com/tiny/p18ME

Even unadjusted he is higher than Shaq or Hakeem.

Defensively I would rank them like this.
Hakeem > Duncan > Wilt/Shaq

I think Duncan has a good case for defense over Wilt, but Wilt is definitely better than Shaq.
I think a fair career rating is:

Hakeem
Duncan
Wilt

Shaq

with Shaq definitely 4th.

For peak

Hakeem
Wilt
Duncan
Shaq

Shaq was a better scorer and an equal defender. Wilt was a better rebounder
Hakeem was a better scorer and a better defender. Wilt was a better rebounder/passer.
Duncan was a better defender. Wilt was a better rebounder.

I agree with Hakeem being a better defender.
Shaq in scoring and Duncan on defense - I think both are pretty close and debatable. I respect the opinion of anyone who thinks so, and agree you have valid points- and may be correct.

I have Wilt > Shaq on defense
Wilt > Hakeem on scoring

[colts18]

I'm still questioning whether Wilt had a great impact.

In 1968 the Lakers had a 4.99 SRS without Wilt.

In 1969, the Lakers, a team in desperate need of Center help, acquired Wilt (winner of the 3 previous MVP) and had Jerry West play 10 more games than the previous season. Did the Lakers get better? No. In fact their SRS declined to 3.84 SRS. That's an indictment on Wilt. Could you imagine if the Thunder acquired Peak Shaq (2001) and had Westbrook play more games. Would they become a worse team? Absolutely not.

[Owly]

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

Particularly so because it it compares accolades without the context of league size (and particularly All-Stars whereby there was a maximum of three all-stars per team which for much of the 60s meant you were depending on your conference guaranteed 3 players, or once the Chicago-Baltimore franchise arrived in the east merely likely to get 2 or 3) whilst ignoring the more representative all-NBA teams.

I wouldn't deny Hakeem didn't have the supporting casts to succeed in the late 80s, but to imply Wilt did based on HOF (Rodgers long, long after the fact, Gola based on HS/college, Arizin based primarily on his 50s, though still effective in the early 60s) is misguided.

[DannyNoonan1221]

As to the Shaq and Wilt voters, what sort of penalty are you giving them for their continuous antics which hurt on court play?

I am voting for Wilt for the same reasons I voted for him in the last spot. As for my penalty for Wilt- He was arguably the GOAT had it not been for his antics- which is why I dropped him to #3 on my list, #4 here. But I also, again, believe that supports Wilt's case. He was so gifted athletically that even with his well-documented antics he was still able to avg 30.1-22.9-4.4 for a career in 45+ minutes a game. I believe his 24.3-23.8-8.6, as a center, for an entire year is pretty close to untouchable. He won two titles. Averaged OVER 48 minutes a game for a season. The list goes on and on for him.

I truly believe he gets a bad rap because there is a negative stigma to his legacy- which I believe is a combination of losing to Russell and his inabilities to keep his frustration regarding his teammates in house and not spitting them out to the media. Had there not been a counter part (Russell) who did everything the opposite of Wilt and won, I think Wilt's legacy would carry on in a much brighter light than it does. Had he lost all those finals and playoff series to different teams and players rather than to Russell as much as he did, things would be different.

As far as shaq goes, this might be a little biased so I am interested to see what you guys think. But when it comes to these lists, I like to think people with the most basketball skills will end up at the top of the list. While obviously I understand that shaq had tremendous basketball skills, I don't think his skills can be attributed to 100% of his gaudy number/titles/awards. In my mind a good portion of his game can be attributed to his size alone. While size is a major role in the game of basketball, it is not a basketball-specific characteristic. In his 2006 championship season, he shot 41% from 3ft-10ft and 77% at the rim. That means 58.1% of his attempts were taken at the rim at a 77% clip, and 41.9% of his shots were at a 41% clip. That is an unbelievable drop off in %s in my mind from basically being on top of the hoop to being just a step away. I liken it to the big bruising RB or FB who rarely gets carries until they are down on the goal line. He runs straight and hard and pushes forward. Great tool to have on your team, effective, efficient, but just because he might score 7-10 touchdowns in a season doesn't mean he's a good Running back. I only found statistics on this from 2000-2001 and on, and never in that time period did shaq shoot better than 43% from more than step outside the basket. I understand his impact on the game, his dominance, all of that, i get it. But that stat alone makes it difficult for me to rank him in the top 5, 6 or 7 spots. In my head I just can't get over how a guy who basically can't be efficient in anything but dunks can be an all time great.

I have not seen these numbers for Wilt, Olajuwon, etc. But I think they did other things on the court that showed basketball skill- Wilt average 8.6 assists a game for an entire season. Maybe I am wrong and someone can show me something that shows Wilt is just as one dimensional as Shaq and completely dependent on his size for his advantage, but at this point I don't know that it exists, which is why I rank Wilt ahead of Shaq.

[ardee]

I'm still questioning whether Wilt had a great impact.

In 1968 the Lakers had a 4.99 SRS without Wilt.

In 1969, the Lakers, a team in desperate need of Center help, acquired Wilt (winner of the 3 previous MVP) and had Jerry West play 10 more games than the previous season. Did the Lakers get better? No. In fact their SRS declined to 3.84 SRS. That's an indictment on Wilt. Could you imagine if the Thunder acquired Peak Shaq (2001) and had Westbrook play more games. Would they become a worse team? Absolutely not.

You don't understand the circumstances of the time, obviously.

Wilt was used perfectly in Philadelphia, alternately as a low-post scorer and facilitator. In any case, the ball went into him every time.

Van Brenda Kloff, idiot that he was, moved Wilt out to the high post to accomodate an aging Baylor. For whatever reason, he acquired the best player in the league and decided to take him out of his best spot. This caused a season long feud between Wilt and VBK that caused difficulties within the team, through no real fault of Wilt's.

Now tell me, a guy like Shaq, with no range at all: if you put him in the high post, would his impact be worsened? Hell yes it would.

Your post smacks of a guy who looks at BBRef without considering the circumstances at all.

[ardee]

You claim Kobe was the best player in 01, 02 and 04. In 01 he was guarded by garbage, so scrub that.

'Scrub that?' You want to 'scrub' a series in which he averaged 34-7-7 on 58% TS?

Duncan was great in the 2002 first round against Seattle, yet he was guarded by Jermone James and Predrag Drobjnak. Let's 'scrub' that series, shall we?

How about the '07 WCSF? He was pretty dominant against the Suns, but he was matched up with Amare Stoudemire, who as you know, is a horrible defender. 'Scrub' that.

Shaq's 2000 Finals? The one he averaged 38/17? Rik Smits in his final year! Horrible! 'Scrub' that too!

Jordan in 1991? An aging James Worthy? 'Scrub' that.

GTFO with that ****. Posts like these directly lower the high level of debate we see in threads like these.

[Baller2014]

Kobe's was defended by the worst back court on any contender I can remember. He could have averaged 40 and it wouldn't matter that much, it was that bad, not least of all because Shaq was demanding so much attention that Kobe could enjoy single coverage (or open looks) all the time. Nobody is invoking Duncan's play in the 2002 Sonics series as an example for why he's better than Shaq or Kobe, and it's even sillier to try and claim Kobe's performance against Antonio Daniels, old man Ferry, etc, stands as some kind of meaningful evidence of his superiority to Duncan/Shaq (who had each other to contend with in the post). Other names you gave, like James Worthy or Rik Smits, are good players. They are not a comparison for the backcourt of scrubbiness that the Spurs had in the 01 WCFs. I covered this in some depth on page 1.

[DQuinn1575]

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.

This is a dangerous way to compare players. All we should care about is impact, not artificial categories which try to weight that impact like "attack power- 100", "defensive power 98", "leadership 65", etc. Go back and read my OP on page 1, the part where I refer to pokemon. A guy could excel at only one "skill" and still be the GOAT, provided it was the right skill (and the other abilities were not too horrible).

I don't think scoring, rebounding, defense, and ballhandling are artificial categories - for one thing they line up with DeanO's four factors. I tried to be objective and number based.
Now, attack power, leadership, low post ability -those are artificial.

I didn't weight these categories, and never yet have. I was just trying in my own mind see where the four of them stacked up and if I was missing something - I never sat down and ran the numbers on the 4 of them together until this exercise - I wanted to see if the numbers supported my opinions -

In the end Shaq and Duncan were Finals MVP 3 times, Hakeem twice, and Wilt twice (with an asterisk for 1967),
Throw Kareem, Magic, Bird, Kobe, and LeBron and you have 9 guys with 2-3 finals MVP, and pretty similar cases for playoff success.

All below MJ and Russell - but the 9 other guys all are in the same ballpark for leading teams to championships. We will argue teammates, era, opponents, etc. but there isn't a HUGE gap between the 9.

[Texas Chuck]

You guys arent making this any easier for me. I had Duncan,Shaq, Magic all really close leaning towards Duncan now I find myself giving Wilt more consideration than I expected to.

Partial case for Tim Duncan:

Better defender than given credit for. I get the concepts of horizontal and vertical defending and concede he's not the athlete Russell,Wilt, Dream, and KG are. But again for me I'm mainly interested in physical gifts in how they translate to production and helping your team win games. And Tim Duncan defensively is one of the best of all time.

Let me start with some caveats: he begins his career playing next to another near GOAT-level defender in David Robinson. He plays for a really smart coach in Pop with sound defensive systems. He had some other useful defensive teammates including Avery, Bowen, Manu, Capt Jack. So he had some help--defense is never a solo operation anyway.

San Antonio has had an elite defense essentially every year of his career save 2010-12 which are past Duncan's prime and coincide directly with the worst years of Duncan's career. Every single year of his prime they had an elite defense and even in the last 2 years with his amazing resurgance they are right back to a top 3 defense. Their offense is getting all the credit right now because of the clinic they put on against the Heat and they do deserve a lot of credit for their great offense, but their defense was great as well.

So while Duncan isnt going to get everywhere on the court some of those other guys get, it's okay because he is still having tremendous defensive impact. We of course see this is more than possible with other elite big defenders like Ewing and Deke.

Offensively, you simply can't make the same accusations against him that were made against Russell. While never the best offensive player in the league, in his peak years he was one of the most feared weapons outside of Shaq. Obviously he wasn't the scorer or offensive player Shaq and Dream were, but he was an anchor of the best team in basketball at both ends for a long time. Again effectiveness for me means more than skillset. If Shaq can simply overpower guys and dunk it every time down he loses no points from me, same with Wilt physically dominate guys. Do I love watching Dream do his thing in the most more, sure. But Im looking for effectiveness and Duncan was plenty effective as well.

When I combine his offense and defense and leadership and loyalty and willingness to be coached in whatever manner Pop felt best its hard to ignore that total package. And he did it from day one, and he's still doing it only in less minutes

And while again today the Pop lpvefest is going strong, and rightfully so for what a tremendous job he did this year(and last) I still am hestitant to say the credit should go more to him than Timmy. I just don't know that it all works the same without arguably the least selfish superstar of all-time.

Individual play at both ends? Check. Great team success his entire career? Check. Elite performances in the playoffs? Check. Longevity? Check. The only thing he lacks in comparison with the other 3(not counting KG yet--sorry Doc) bigs getting consideration here is that outlier peak.

Anyway I wanted to lay out some of what my case for Duncan would have been, but I am not yet voting for him because there are some really compelling arguments being made for other guys.

[ardee]

Anyone have a vote count?

[colts18]

Here are the stats of elite superstars during their prime in elimination games.

Code: Select all

Player    G    PTS    TRB    AST    TOV    TS%    GmSc
Charles Barkley    12   25.9   13.8   4.6   1.8   0.574   23.9
Dirk Nowitzki    20   28.6   11.7   2.7   1.8   0.612   23.4
Michael Jordan    3   31.3   8   6.3   4.3   0.524   23.4
Hakeem Olajuwon    15   27.2   12.3   4.4   3.3   0.569   22.7
LeBron James    7   31   10.1   7.6   5   0.515   21.3
Shaquille O’Neal    13   27.8   11.3   2.5   2.8   0.588   21.2
Tim Duncan    7   27.9   12.7   3   3.4   0.543   21.1
Dwyane Wade    6   32.2   4.5   5.8   4.8   0.578   20.8
Karl Malone    24   26.2   11   3.9   2.6   0.522   19.6
Kevin Garnett    11   21.5   14.2   4.7   2.7   0.511   18.3
David Robinson    7   21.1   12.3   3.4   3.1   0.497   17.5
Kobe Bryant    11   24.8   7   3.5   3.4   0.504   15.3


Shaq and Duncan do well by that standard. Kobe Bryant is the worst by a decent margin. Not a surprise. To me, Kobe is the least clutch superstar of his generation.

Kobe's stats in the finals:
26-6-5, 41 FG%, 31 3P%, .508 TS%

Kobe was very inefficient in the finals

Here are his stats in the finals in clutch situations (4th quarter):
23-4-3, 37 FG%, 24 3P%, .508 TS%, -4.4 plus/minus

Those are disaster numbers. Very few stars have dropped off like that in the clutch. He shot 29 FG% in the 4th during the 2010 finals (no wonder that series went to 7). Shot 30% vs the Magic. Shot 41 FG% vs 08 Celtics and 04 Pistons. Shot 35 FG% against the 76ers. Shot 20 FG% against the Pacers. I can't vote for him in the top 10 because of his deficiencies in clutch time situations. Kobe was the guy who would pad his stats in the regular season against mediocre defenses (Raptors) and vs mediocre playoff defenses (Suns) but struggled when he faced good defensive competition.

Prime Kobe vs Karl Malone in elimination games:

[Greatness]

Vote: Wilt Chamberlain

This is a tough one, there's quite a few guys who can be argued for this spot (Magic, Duncan, Shaq) but ultimately I had to go with Wilt for his statistical dominance of his era. If we're going to reward Russell for having the success he did during his era (rightfully so), we should also credit Wilt the same for his GOAT statistics during that time. His numbers and achievements are downright laughable.

-6 straight scoring titles to start his career, 7 overall
-11 time rebounding per game leader
-9 time FG% leader
-8 time PER leader
-8 time WS/48 leader
-9 time eFG% leader

-Holds the top 4 FG in single season records
-Holds the top 7 rebounds in single season records
-Holds 4 out of the top 5 points in single season records (his 4029 in 61-62 is nearly 1000 over 3rd place MJ)
-Holds the top 2 FG% in single season records
-Holds the top 4 PPG in single season records
-Holds 6 out of the top 7 RPG single season records
-Holds the top 2 single season PER records

The records and statistics go on and on. He's the most dominant force in NBA history compared to his era (yes more than Shaq). People will point to his playoff failures but he was a dominant playoff performer as well but ran into some great teams (especially Russell's Celtics) in the playoffs.

[microfib4thewin]

I don't like Shaq and even then I have a hard time putting him down from his off-court issues. The thing here is his teams have been successful despite all the dramas, and I cannot pinpoint any year where his team vastly underperformed to expectation. I guess his destruction of the Lakers would be a negative. I consider the trio breaking up in 2004 to be just as damaging as the Brawl for the Pacers, and if it hadn't been for the miraculous Pau trade the Lakers would have sunk to irrelevance a lot sooner.

[Owly]

I'm still questioning whether Wilt had a great impact.

In 1968 the Lakers had a 4.99 SRS without Wilt.

In 1969, the Lakers, a team in desperate need of Center help, acquired Wilt (winner of the 3 previous MVP) and had Jerry West play 10 more games than the previous season. Did the Lakers get better? No. In fact their SRS declined to 3.84 SRS. That's an indictment on Wilt. Could you imagine if the Thunder acquired Peak Shaq (2001) and had Westbrook play more games. Would they become a worse team? Absolutely not.

1) Why that specific year? (Not his rookie and retirement impacts, not the 76ers SRS dropoff when he left, not how they dropped in '70 when he was injured, then thrived in the playoffs with him back)
2) Why have you noted only one personel change? Archie Clark had been an all-star that season (albeit that probably overstates his impact) and was sent out in the trade. Gail Goodrich was lost to expansion.
3) In light of the personel changes above (losing two, mobile, versatile, high IQ guards) and gaining a 32 year old center (who he didn't want, and knew didn't fit with his offense) van Breda Kolff did what? Stick with his (Princeton, motion) offense. Would you not factor in coaching here at all?

And not all the differences with/without Chamberlain are as clear as I would like (insofar as I am a Chamberlain fan), and that LA team more than any other can be held against him. '69 was a bad situation and Chamberlain was part of that. But that simply isn't representative of the value he brought over his career.


The Thunder analogy? 32 year old Shaq (like Wilt at 32 in '69) would be '05 Shaq (or if you prefer wear and tear, Wilt had 33044 minutes on him prior to his first season on LA, Shaq had 32985 after '05, so you could have '06 Shaq). Baylor at that point had lost his explosiveness and doesn't compare to Durant or Westbrook (see below). And if they had lost their third and fourth best players (giving Baylor the benefit of the doubt on the fact he was a negative on D by then and that his low efficiency, high volume shot creation doesn't rate out well by some metrics e.g. .127 WS/48). And if the coach told that Shaq to play away from the basket in a system that emphasizes mobility and outside shooting?

I can absolutely believe that OKC would be a worse team under such a scenario. Not that such a scenario should be our be all and end all tool for evaluating players. But I can buy that in such a scenario adding Shaq at that sort of cost, in that sort of system would be detrimental to a team.