RealGM Top 100 List #4

[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.

My vote goes to Wilt Chamberlain. He is little disrespected on this board and I can see why, assuming all these approximations, numbers and SRS, but every time in playoffs with boston and philly/SF on the line in games 7, 1-3 points decided the outcome every time. Think about it. How we would see all the numbers disproportion of Wilt vs Bill if, saying, Wilt won 3 of 6 battles... and if 4? I know, its all "what if" thing, but our approximations and analysis of that era is usually not so much evident because of lack of footage. From what I saw by eye-test in small sample of footage.. Wilt was better

[The Infamous1]

I'm shocked wilt is doing so well.

[E-Balla]

A few questions for the Wilt voters:
Why Wilt and not Shaq? What has Wilt accomplished that the big fella didn't stomp on.

How do you justify someone with Wilt's playoff resume going 4th? He easily is going to have the worst playoff resume of the top 10 when it's all chosen.

How do you value his longevity which wasn't bad but isn't really "good"?

Why Wilt over the Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem trio and Magic? I saw arguments for Wilt but not really arguments for Wilt vs these 4.

[kayess]

To be honest, I thought this was going to be between Hakeem/Duncan/Shaq for me.

My main issue with not including Wilt in that group is this perception I had that his impact was overrated, that his issues overshadowed what he did on the court.

I've been swayed by ardee's/TrueLAfan's posts - the point about Wilt not having great teammates (something KG supporters will constantly point out) really hit it home for me.

Once you're able to contextualize his lack of success (relative to other all-time greats of course), and recognize that for him to even achieve that much considering all the bad luck he had, his godly peak (only MJ/Shaq/Dream/LeBron are in the conversation for top 5), excellent two-way impact, and good enough longevity, I'm voting Wilt Chamberlain for #4.

[Doctor MJ]

So in the end this is about you vs the coaches of the 60s and you believe you're so much ahead of them that your presence would have drastic results?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

With all due respect, Doctor MJ, did this thought come to your mind when others put the purported basketball genius of the legendary Red Auerbach under scrutiny?

You seem like you're alleging a bias on my part by on not actually sure which one.

In regards to coaching though I suppose the common thread here is that I'm urging people not so quickly settle on the categorization of them as geniuses and morons whose ability to succeed/fail can be assumed on faith.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[ceiling raiser]

Just removed the "preliminarily" qualifier from my vote. I am indeed voting for Wilt here (see linked post in this thread for some reasoning):

viewtopic.php?p=40413078#p40413078

[colts18]

I don't know how anyone can say that Wilt's teammates weren't that good. That's true until 1965 but from 66-onwards he consistently had the most loaded cast. In 68 his much more talented team lost to the Celtics. Same deal in 69. In 70 his team was more talented.

[Purch]

I thought everyone was predicting Wilt to fall o.o. Seems like he's actually gonna rise this time around

[JordansBulls]

I don't know how anyone can say that Wilt's teammates weren't that good. That's true until 1965 but from 66-onwards he consistently had the most loaded cast. In 68 his much more talented team lost to the Celtics. Same deal in 69. In 70 his team was more talented.

Exactly from 1966 to 1969 Wilt lost 3 times with a superior team and HCA that is what harmed him in any debate vs Russell.

[E-Balla]

To be honest, I thought this was going to be between Hakeem/Duncan/Shaq for me.

My main issue with not including Wilt in that group is this perception I had that his impact was overrated, that his issues overshadowed what he did on the court.

I've been swayed by ardee's/TrueLAfan's posts - the point about Wilt not having great teammates (something KG supporters will constantly point out) really hit it home for me.

The problem is he didn't have terrible teammates like KG. After leaving the team in 68 the Warriors won 55 games in 69. A 3.1 SRS drop which is significant at that level but it's not like he was playing with scrubs. The team without him was still very good. Basically this is a guy who had bad teams in San Fran, decent to great teams in San Fran (and won a ring), and great teams in LA (where he sabotaged an NBA Finals to lose on the biggest stage and finally won in 72 after years of having one of the best teams ever around him). I'm not seeing this argument.

Once you're able to contextualize his lack of success (relative to other all-time greats of course), and recognize that for him to even achieve that much considering all the bad luck he had, his godly peak (only MJ/Shaq/Dream/LeBron are in the conversation for top 5), excellent two-way impact, and good enough longevity, I'm voting Wilt Chamberlain for #4.

Well did Wilt really achieve all that much? If that's how you think about it how can you begin to argue Wilt over Hakeem who did just as much with way less?

[SactoKingsFan]

I mainly looked at Wilt and Shaq for the #4 spot. Both rank higher than the 6-10 (Magic, Duncan, Oscar, LeBron, KG, Hakeem) tier candidates due to their overall physical dominance. Wilt has the better combination of peak, prime, offensive + defensive impact, durability and skill set.

I don’t really see Wilt or Shaq having much of an edge when it comes to peak performance or offense. Prime performance is another story since Wilt was more consistent and healthier due to being in better shape than Shaq. I’d also rate Wilt as a better defender and rebounder. Although Shaq was a high impact defender when he focused on defense, prime Wilt was more consistent due to his superior mobility and shot blocking.

One of Shaq’s well documented weaknesses (conditioning) was never an issue with Wilt. Shaq’s lack of conditioning resulted in nagging injuries that forced him to miss a significant amount of games. Wilt had a reputation for having elite endurance (once averaged 48.5 MPG) and continually maintaining his physical conditioning. With the benefit of modern advances in physical training and nutrition, Wilt would have likely been an even more imposing physical specimen.

VOTE: Wilt Chamberlain

[ardee]

Why Wilt over the Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem trio and Magic? I saw arguments for Wilt but not really arguments for Wilt vs these 4.

Cliffs:

Wilt vs Shaq: Durability, defense and rebounding. Shaq was injured basically every year of his prime except 2000. Wilt is the biggest iron-man in NBA history. Wilt is what happens when you take Shaq's body and give him Kobe's workout ethic. Shaq consistently had the likes of Penny/Kobe/Wade on his team so it didn't hurt his team too bad when he was injured but in a vacuum, it's gotta count against him. Wilt was also definitely superior on consistent defensive effort, and rebounding isn't a debate. Shaq may be the slightly better scorer but the whole package doesn't compare.

Wilt vs Duncan: Wilt is the better player plain and simple. If you look at their combined best seasons, I'd probably take Wilt with 6 of the top 8. Duncan has maybe one or two years that compare to Wilt's '64-'68 prime. Also, durability again, Duncan had injury problems from '04-'06, Wilt never missed games. If post-prime is important to you, '72 and '73 Wilt crush anything post-prime Duncan put together.

Wilt vs. Hakeem: Hardly even close to a debate. I'd take Wilt with 7 out of the top 10 seasons between the two. Wilt was just as efficient on more volume, better rebounder, better passer, and yes, worse as a defender but it's the holistic view that counts. '93-'95 Hakeem was a better defensive, worse offensive and worse rebounding version of Wilt's entire prime.

Wilt vs Magic: Close, to me. Magic is the better offensive player, Wilt has the overall impact. I'd give it to Wilt based on his longevity, basically a top 5 player every year of his career, and the fact that Wilt was able to modify his game multiple times to suit his team while Magic needed a specific playstyle to suit his game.

Not very detailed, but that'd be my brief argument for each one.

I'm mourning Federer's loss right now so I can't commit my full attention to this.

[ceiling raiser]

I think Magic needs to be in the mix really soon, but I won't address him much here since we have been focused mainly on the bigs. But we are talking about a GOAT offensive player, a GOAT winner and one of the very few pure geniuses of basketball.

Yeah, I will be making the case for Magic next thread. Personally, I see the 60s/70s/80s greats a notch higher than the 00 trifecta + LeBron, but that's just me.

Magic has fallen in the eyes of this board quite a bit. Even HOF posters like fplii rank him under a guy like Dirk (one of my favorites as you know) but I still find that a little disrespectful. Though with the surprise of Wilt, who knows, things could change on Magic too.

I understand your concern, and I'm not 100% more comfortable either. Playing around with ElGee's championship odds really forced me to value longevity more highly. Nothing is set in stone for me, so I'll certainly take all arguments into consideration when thinking about my vote.

[colts18]

In 1963 Wilt Chamberlain posted a 31.8 PER. That is an NBA record. His team also had 2 all-stars (one of them led the league in assists per game). His team won just 31 games that season. That is his statistical peak and translated into no impact at all in win-loss column. What other superstar can you say that about? Even KG, T-Mac's, and Kobe's awful teams won more games than that. I'm still not sure if volume scorer Wilt had much of an impact with the exception of 1964.

[MacGill]

[quote="ardee"]
Cliffs:

Wilt vs Shaq: Durability, defense and rebounding. Shaq was injured basically every year of his prime except 2000. Wilt is the biggest iron-man in NBA history. Wilt is what happens when you take Shaq's body and give him Kobe's workout ethic. Shaq consistently had the likes of Penny/Kobe/Wade on his team so it didn't hurt his team too bad when he was injured but in a vacuum, it's gotta count against him. Wilt was also definitely superior on consistent defensive effort, and rebounding isn't a debate. Shaq may be the slightly better scorer but the whole package doesn't compare.[quote]

Looks like Ardee has all the Wilt supporters on speed-dial for this vote

I just don't have the time for a proper response right now but this is so exaggerated it isn't funny. Shaq's body with Kobe's work ethic....teammates gotta count against him...I'll be coming back to this. Probably too late, but when I look to see who the voters for are here, no real suprises and much of the others panel MIA.

[Basketballefan]

I think Magic needs to be in the mix really soon, but I won't address him much here since we have been focused mainly on the bigs. But we are talking about a GOAT offensive player, a GOAT winner and one of the very few pure geniuses of basketball.

Yeah, I will be making the case for Magic next thread. Personally, I see the 60s/70s/80s greats a notch higher than the 00 trifecta + LeBron, but that's just me.

Magic has fallen in the eyes of this board quite a bit. Even HOF posters like fplii rank him under a guy like Dirk (one of my favorites as you know) but I still find that a little disrespectful. Though with the surprise of Wilt, who knows, things could change on Magic too.

I understand your concern, and I'm not 100% more comfortable either. Playing around with ElGee's championship odds really forced me to value longevity more highly. Nothing is set in stone for me, so I'll certainly take all arguments into consideration when thinking about my vote.

Magic played at an elite/all star caliber level for 12 years, for Dirk it's 13-14, not a huge difference there. Not enough to make up for how much better Magic was in his prime.

[ronnymac2]

Damn, I thought I had another 24 hours. Apologies for not getting to #3. Congrats to Mr. Russell!

Just some preliminary things to say about this thread:

1. Fatal with an amazing post on Page 2 that fleshes out exactly why I don't buy the criticisms of Hakeem Olajuwon. The guy from 1986-1990 put up some of the greatest 2-way season in NBA history. 1990 is the greatest defensive season in NBA History not including Bill Russell seasons, and Dream was still over 20 PPG on 50 percent shooting.

I saw an argument that downplayed Olajuwon because his teams in the 1980s lost to squads that weren't legendary. I honestly don't see how this affects Olajuwon. Sonics and Mavs beat the Rockets. Pretty simple.

1991 and 1992 are down years to me, but they're still great. It's maybe like Shaq in 2005 or something. And then 1993-1996 is insane. So Hakeem's prime is longer than that of Bird/Magic/LBJ with a peak to match. Incredible.

I just want to thank Fatal for explaining Olajuwon's offense pre-1993.

2. I also want to show appreciation for Doctor MJ's Kevin Garnett vote and analysis. First, it takes guts, and second (and more importantly), it makes sense. Sometimes I wonder if KG's GOAT two-way portability (Like, I see him adding to just about any team ever) makes him more valuable than more talented players. And he's got great longevity now, too. It's certainly an interesting case.

3. The two things that make me think Tim Duncan has a shot here are: 1. Longevity 2. Ability to play PF and C for most of his career.

Think about that second point. None of the other Cs save maybe Olajuwon can say that either because of lack of mobility on defense or lack of range on offense. You can play prime Duncan with a stretch 4 or a shot-blocking stiff and get good results. I love having 2 shot-blockers. Play him with a little PF and he's got the defensive rebounding to control the glass for you. Incredible.

4. I'm sympathetic to Wilt's plight here. The beginning of his career was the most gross misuse of a basketball player in history. Score a lot of points and we get money. Nevermind that offensive strategies in general were incredibly stupid in that era. There's a reason West and Robertson anchor the best offensive teams of the era, and it's because of their transcendent ability to use their teammates optimally on offense like LBJ and Magic and Wade and ultimately MJ and Kobe if you've got a smart coach. Wilt, being a C, didn't have control of a team's offense like West and Robertson, so ultimately, he can't make decisions on the fly to the extent they can. He gets thrown the ball and nobody moves...well, I'd shoot, too.

So I can see why his "impact" doesn't look as good relative to other top-tier stars.

That said, I see his defensive weaknesses being the same as Shaq's, but with an legitimately inferior offensive skillset (in terms of athletically, skills, and decision-making).


OK, I want to get a vote in here. It's really tough. Two front-runners are Olajuwon and O'Neal to me. I think I'll lean towards Olajuwon here.

My case would be that his skillset allows a comparable, albeit different type of impact compared to O'Neal. In 1986, he faced off against the GOAT frontcourt. He shut down prime Robert Parish, set an at-the-time record for blocks in a game with 8, and did a damn good job scoring against double and triple teams with Sampson not providing adequate help. That's comparable with Shaq playing Hakeem in 1995 to a statistical draw.

Next few years, Olajuwon is godly with crap around him. While the offensive moves aren't as sharp as they'd become in the 1990s, they're still effective, and even though his ability to read defense and where the doubles are coming from got better, the creativity, and more importantly the willingness to pass was always there from the start.

Then 1993 and 1994 are GOAT peak years. Maybe not quite the defensive peak of 1990, but still just about as good as prime Duncan/KG, but with superior offense. Drops 27 PPG on 50 percent shooting against a GOAT-defense led by all-time great Patrick Ewing. 1995, his best offensive season ever, certainly comparable to Shaq's best offense (though I'd still probably take O'Neal's peak offense). 1996 and 1997 are still awesome prime seasons. Hell even 1998 and 1999 aren't bad.

Maybe a few arguments change my vote next thread, but for this thread, I'll take Olajuwon.

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon

[Doctor MJ]

So, I feel the tension building. My apologies if people feel insulted.

Do know that it's not that I insist that Wilt would have the same impact across all eras. There are things that would help him today.

I think he'd embrace being Goliath more like Shaq which would be a big deal...but no one made him pussyfoot around in his own era so why should we credit him for the 'greatness' he refused to embrace?

I think he'd still be spotty on defense. It just isn't the glamour part of the game and guys who lack grit always cut corners here.

I think he's still find ways to end up perceiving those there to help him as adversaries because that's just how some people are, then and now.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[MisterWestside]

Just removed the "preliminarily" qualifier from my vote. I am indeed voting for Wilt here (see linked post in this thread for some reasoning):

viewtopic.php?p=40413078#p40413078

Thanks for the video links of the '67 game. Will watch later and make comparisons in my notes.

What I did watch from the first clip, however, was one post-up of Chamberlain in which all five Celtics defenders were in the paint. (I'll upload this later.) Even with the triple-post system in place, it was still rudimentary and limited given the skillsets of players at the time. Could you imagine today's game with that taking place, where the defense is packing the paint? Kickout, open three or pass to an open three, scrambling help defense out to shooter or shooter driving to the rim to take advantage of scrambling defenses? So many possibilities.

[Owly]

My quick responses to a reasonable argument

From Elgee's in/out study. Wilt is 2nd worst among superstars in in/out

Player Years Games MOV Net SIO
Walton 77-78 41 9.3 13.0 11.2
Nash 01, 05-07, 09 36 5.6 9.5 7.5
Duncan 00, 04, 05 37 8.4 6.5 7.5
King 84-85 33 1.8 11.2 6.5
McHale 86, 88, 91 45 7.8 4.3 6.0
Bird 91-92 44 6.3 5.8 6.0
Rodman 93, 95-97 100 7.8 3.5 5.6
Pippen 94, 98 48 7.6 3.3 5.4
Penny 97, 00 55 3.8 6.9 5.3
Garnett 06-11 72 5.7 4.9 5.3
Shaq 96-98, 00-04 142 6.4 4.1 5.3
West 67-69, 71 76 4.7 5.8 5.3
Hakeem 86, 91-92, 95-96 72 3.5 6.3 4.9
Kareem 75, 78 37 3.1 6.7 4.9
Mourning 94, 96-98 74 4.1 5.2 4.7
McGrady 02-04 28 -0.6 9.9 4.7
KJ 90, 93-97 129 4.7 3.7 4.2
Erving 73, 78, 83 29 4.1 4.2 4.1
Kidd 00, 04-05 46 2.9 4.9 3.9
Kobe 00, 04-07, 10 79 3.9 3.5 3.7
Barkley 87, 91, 94-97 100 3.5 3.5 3.5
Odom 05, 07 44 0.3 5.7 3.0
Cowens 75, 77 47 2.8 3.1 3.0
Pierce 07, 10 46 0.1 5.3 2.7
Ewing 87, 94-96 31 -1.1 6.4 2.6
Baylor 61-62, 66 54 2.3 2.4 2.4
Drexler 90, 93, 94, 96 90 2.4 1.0 1.7
Moses 78, 84 36 -1.1 4.2 1.6
Iverson 00-02, 04, 06 89 0.5 2.7 1.6
Webber 95, 97-98, 01-03 104 2.5 0.7 1.6
Wilkins 92-93 51 -0.3 3.1 1.4
Allen 02, 04, 07 66 -0.7 2.6 0.9
Hill 95, 00, 05 35 -2.5 4.2 0.9
Wade 04-08 95 -1.5 3.2 0.8
Wilt 65, 65, 70 156 -0.3 0.8 0.3
Paul 07, 10 55 -1.6 1.2 -0.2

Yup. This is my issue when people say things like "well he lost to Russell and Russell is already in". Russell doesn't deserve to be in first because he won - even casual fans know this is a team sport - he deserves it because he clearly outplayed Wilt when you look at helping his team win.

Is it clear though. Sportwriter accolades went clearly to Wilt at the time. You've got George Kiseda saying 1 in 3 nights, Wilt won, one in three Russell won, and one in three Wilt dominated. Russell has great with/without numbers so long as you're willing to ignore '57 (the largest sample, and one in which the team hadn't built a style around Russell). And you've got the above which seems to suggest Wilt didn't have great impact, except as Colts notes they got significantly worse when he left, and as we will discuss later, Wilt was seriously ill at the time.

And you know who else did? Look at that list.

See above.

I realize that things have progressed since then but basketball had been around over half a century at the time and everyone instantly recognized the physical talent of Wilt. That he wasn't able to do more was a shock to them because as people here suggest, it seems like it should be simple. What Wilt instead proved to be was a bed sheet too small for the bed. You pull one corner to solve one problem and next thing you know it's something else.

Hard to argue with a metaphor. I suppose I'd say you need someone not incompetent at bedmaking in charge, not trying to put him on sidewise. I'd also note his obvious initial impact.

I think in general people have far too much faith in their own superior ability to handle Wilt...and I actually think that makes them a lot like the more problematic people of that time.

I don't think I'd be a good coach for Wilt. I think a decent or better NBA coach (i.e. not a good ex-pro who the owner likes, or whatever, with little or no experience; or an unflexible combatative coach who rigidly abides by one system), would be a good coach for Wilt. And they were.

I think if you aren't awestruck by Hannum's move you aren't seeing things how they were, and if you're not discouraged that even Hannum's struggled to maintain Wilt's focus for what today would be a fraction of the duration of a max deal I really don't know what else to say.

I think if you don't see Chamberlain's immediate impact on D or that teams were successful with Wilt as a low post scorer (see '62) in spite of poor floor spacing, or that Hannum had Wilt in plenty enough focused for the '68 Sixers to be clearly the NBA's best team who got crippled by injuries in the playoffs. Or if reffering to '65 I'd note serious injuries including the possible/suspected heart attack/pancreatitis and weight loss, the fact his team was 1-4 when he arrived. "At times the Warriors look like out-clinic patients at St. Mary's Hostpital" said the SF Chronicles Stu Herman (per The Rivalry p220). Then John Thompson broke his nose on December 4th (in his absence SF lost twice 81-105 to Boston and 93-113 to St Louis both at home). I think Wilt did slip back into scoring Wilt at this time, but partly out of necessity with other players injured and ineffective. And to be honest I do tend to care more what a guy does to a good team rather than to a lousy one. With trade rumours, the team not fully healthy and lousy without him (1-6, with 680 points scored, 748 conceded, a net loss of 68 points, or -9.714285714 per game) ill-health and a broken nose, I think Wilt didn't help as much as he might have. He's probably a poor guy (of these all-time elites) to have in this situation. I don't think anybody really helps make your team relevent here though.