RealGM Top 100 List #4

[MacGill]

[quote]Now, it's possible that (as TheRegulator and others) have pointed out, some of Shaq's dominance came from the fact that the other elite centers of his time got old and allowed him to feast on lesser centers. This is a legitimate thing to note, especially when one compares Shaq's crazy postseason and Finals numbers to Wilt's. Clearly, Wilt had (MUCH) more difficult 1-on-1 match-ups in the postseason. And there's also Wilt's iron man advantages vs. Shaq, who missed on the order of 15 games a year for much of his career. These speak in Wilt's favor.[quote]

The only thing I want to add here, as they're obviously valid points, is that I am not really concerned about the center competition at Shaq's peak. Orlando Shaq already faced Ewing, Hakeem, D-Rob, and later Shaq faced Sabonis, Yao etc. Again, if it was just about strength of center then why was it that teams were forced to have others cover him just to prolong their big's strength and limit foul trouble? Or load bigs on their roster? Does anyone doubt that Shaq couldn't have the same success against any other big to ever play the game givwen his style of play?

Did Wilt ever play against a player bigger than him like Shaq did? A 7'5 giant with tree trunks for legs who wasn't afraid to body? What about a 7'3 over 300 pound Sabonis? I don't put as much stock here because Shaq dominated bigger, smaller, longer players so I have no reason to think that playing Hakeem more in the regular season, or D-Rob or Yao etc would change that. In fact, that fuelled him because he wanted to destroy you.

[DQuinn1575]

[eventually ElGee published which showed Wilt's in/out to be towards the lower end of the spectrum:

Player Years Games MOV Net SIO
Walton 77-78 41 9.3 13.0 11.2
.......
Wilt 65, 65, 70 156 -0.3 0.8 0.3
Paul 07, 10 55 -1.6 1.2 -0.2

This merely quantifies the phenomenon that we were noting basketball-wise in the RPoY. But it's clearly a (very) counterintuitive result, so we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what might have been happening and how important it was to our evaluations.

The difference in this chart is that Wilt was traded, and the team supposedly received equal value. Virtually everyone else was either injured or a free agent. In those cases it is an ADD, not an EVEN situation.

If you are injured, there is a good chance your team doesn't have an adequate short term replacement.

If you are a free agent, then you are being added to the team with no replacement.

[Baller2014]

I might not be back before the time elapses for this thread. Interesting to see the different takes on Wilt. My opinion of him has improved, though I'm also looking forward to more discussion of Duncan next thread.

If anyone is curious I have the vote count at 20-16 (assuming Dr MJ either adds some analysis, or we count the analysis he has made in earlier posts on this thread, prior to his vote shift post, as his reasoning). If no new voters arrive before the 24 hour period lapses, then Wilt needs only 1 more vote to get a majority. Quo, DHodg, UBF and JBulls are the 4 previous voters who haven't indicated a new preference. Though D Nice might come back to participate as well I suppose... either way, Wilt might win after all.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

The only thing I want to add here, as they're obviously valid points, is that I am not really concerned about the center competition at Shaq's peak. Orlando Shaq already faced Ewing, Hakeem, D-Rob, and later Shaq faced Sabonis, Yao etc. Again, if it was just about strength of center then why was it that teams were forced to have others cover him just to prolong their big's strength and limit foul trouble? Or load bigs on their roster? Does anyone doubt that Shaq couldn't have the same success against any other big to ever play the game givwen his style of play?

Did Wilt ever play against a player bigger than him like Shaq did? A 7'5 giant with tree trunks for legs who wasn't afraid to body? What about a 7'3 over 300 pound Sabonis? I don't put as much stock here because Shaq dominated bigger, smaller, longer players so I have no reason to think that playing Hakeem more in the regular season, or D-Rob or Yao etc would change that. In fact, that fuelled him because he wanted to destroy you.

Shaq was not forced to play against a big man attacking in the years he built his legend that's true. He faced Yao later and he was often outplayed, while Sabonis didn't have the mobility to put pressure on him.
This just to put in context his unprecedented dominance, even if we must say that the 90s were actually the outlier era in terms of availability of great centers.

[MisterWestside]

Did Wilt ever play against a player bigger than him like Shaq did? A 7'5 giant with tree trunks for legs who wasn't afraid to body? What about a 7'3 over 300 pound Sabonis? I don't put as much stock here because Shaq dominated bigger, smaller, longer players so I have no reason to think that playing Hakeem more in the regular season, or D-Rob or Yao etc would change that. In fact, that fuelled him because he wanted to destroy you.

I'll repost this from earlier in the thread. I'm still rewatching video, so I'll add to these comments:

Yep. Simply put, teams and offenses were not optimized in that era for low-post dominance. The things needed for it (great shooters, floor spacing, proper movement of other players based on the low-post, etc.) were inferior to the elements put in place around players like Olajuwon and O'Neal.

Did that mean prime, low-post Chamberlain didn't have the skills for it? In the 2nd half of one close Finals game I tracked vs. prime Russell:

17 points, 7-11 from the field, 3-6 from the line, 6 offensive boards, 1 assist, 2 turnovers in 24 minutes

Four of those seven makes were on the glass. In the post, he was 3-5; would have been 4-6 if not for a 3-second violation by one of his teammates. I counted four passes out of a double-team. One of his turnovers came on a pass that one of his teammates should have secured on a cut towards the rim. Another kickout pass was deflected by a nearby Celtics help defender. Another pass to a cutter in the lane was secured, and it led to another pass for a layup attempt (the player was fouled on the shot). Another pass out of a double-team went to an open shooter who missed the jumper. And one of Chamberlain's misses in the post was a bunny that rimmed out. He only took one ugly shot, and that was with a couple seconds left in the 3rd quarter. He played well against the best defender of his era.

However, one can easily see the issues of a volume low-post player in that period. The overcrowding of the paint doesn't optimize the skillsets of players who couldn't shoot well from outside, screen for open shooters, finish in traffic at the rim against rim protectors, or take advantage of the extra point provided by the 3-pointer. If you take Chamberlain off the floor, you open up the lane by inserting another player who's not always calling for the ball in the low-post and packing the paint for players who are better suited for freelancing on their drives and shots around the rim (as many players at that time were). However, with the proper context, these issues would be eliminated, and so would the lack of derived value.

Caveats? One game, of course (although the same things can be said for other game footage of Chamberlain). There's not a ton of Chamberlain footage out there. But I did state the issues with comparing players from different eras here:

Can't go wrong with either player here. Some things to remember:
-Wider and more reliable range of stats available for the modern greats. Pure RAPM is much higher up the food chain than the incomplete and just "decent" in-out methods used for the old-timers. You can also use more complete box score, on-off data, shot charts, Synergy, etc. And there's way more game film to use. All of these things are superior to the anecdotes that partly shroud the old-timers in mystery.
-Logical inconsistencies if you translate an old-timers game to the modern game. Some posters simply assume that a player like Russell would dominate the modern era the same way that he did in the '50s, even though he never played in the modern era. Playing well in his time during league expansion =/= playing well in our time (even if you think he'd be successful, it's also a significant possibility that he doesn't enjoy the same success). But he was voted for the spot regardless. Comparing an old-timer to a modern is is not a direct comparison, no matter what stats you use or article clippings you read. The contexts are vastly different.

And this isn't just for Chamberlain. No left-hand dribbling West, Robertson (with plenty of flaws of his own), etc. also have to be considered in the same way.

So, just different things to consider as you vote. O'Neal is a force in the post, and he's deserving of this spot. Wouldn't blame you for that selection.

[HeartBreakKid]

This doesn't make sense... Wilt had a lead of 10 votes, it wasn't like there WASN'T a clear winner. There was no need for a runoff.

It makes perfect sense...you do realize that people who voted for Magic and Hakeem also think Wilt isn't the 4th best player of all time. Hence there is a run off.

[PCProductions]

I've already voted for Shaq, but I'd like to submit a teeny-tiny example of Shaq's passing ability:

In the 2002 playoffs--I've mentioned that the post season is where we tend to see the real Shaq--the Lakers were an 87.8 ORtg team without Shaq and an 109.9 team ORtg with him on the court. Obviously the FG% skyrocketed as a result of him playing, but besides that, there was only one stark difference: AST%. It went from 45.6% Shaq-Off to 56.2 Shaq-On. Everything else (ORB%, TOV%) largely remained the same. They were more efficient and generated much more off passes. Shaq's assist numbers look pretty pedestrian, but don't let that fool you into thinking that he wasn't a great passer. He made good reads and knew how to play offensively in ways that didn't just involve slamming it in Vlade's face.

[DQuinn1575]

I've already voted for Shaq, but I'd like to submit a teeny-tiny example of Shaq's passing ability:

In the 2002 playoffs--I've mentioned that the post season is where we tend to see the real Shaq--the Lakers were an 87.8 ORtg team without Shaq and an 109.9 team ORtg with him on the court. Obviously the FG% skyrocketed as a result of him playing, but besides that, there was only one stark difference: AST%. It went from 45.6% Shaq-Off to 56.2 Shaq-On. Everything else (ORB%, TOV%) largely remained the same. They were more efficient and generated much more off passes. Shaq's assist numbers look pretty pedestrian, but don't let that fool you into thinking that he wasn't a great passer. He made good reads and knew how to play offensively in ways that didn't just involve slamming it in Vlade's face.

Besides a small sample size, isn't the reason the AST% went up when Shaq was on the floor because people were feeding the ball to Shaq and getting assists? Shaq was assisted on 59.1% of his FGs.

[PCProductions]

I've already voted for Shaq, but I'd like to submit a teeny-tiny example of Shaq's passing ability:

In the 2002 playoffs--I've mentioned that the post season is where we tend to see the real Shaq--the Lakers were an 87.8 ORtg team without Shaq and an 109.9 team ORtg with him on the court. Obviously the FG% skyrocketed as a result of him playing, but besides that, there was only one stark difference: AST%. It went from 45.6% Shaq-Off to 56.2 Shaq-On. Everything else (ORB%, TOV%) largely remained the same. They were more efficient and generated much more off passes. Shaq's assist numbers look pretty pedestrian, but don't let that fool you into thinking that he wasn't a great passer. He made good reads and knew how to play offensively in ways that didn't just involve slamming it in Vlade's face.

Besides a small sample size, isn't the reason the AST% went up when Shaq was on the floor because people were feeding the ball to Shaq and getting assists? Shaq was assisted on 59.1% of his FGs.

That certainly is a large part, but his USG% is still just around 30%, so that jump can only account for less than a third of the difference. He created space for others and would help the ball get there.

[JordansBulls]

If the vote is between Shaq and Wilt I would take Shaq, but not sure I agree with the logic that others have to change there vote between two players.

VOTE: Shaq

Wilt 13-5 with HCA
Shaq 24-5 with HCA

Code: Select all

 vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Wilt:     4-3 (57%)/   9-2 (82%)
Shaq:     11-3 (79%)/  13-2 (87%)


Code: Select all

Road(50+)/non-50
Shaq:         8-6 / 0-0
Wilt:         1-7 / 2-0


Shaq stepped up more so when it mattered in the playoffs than Wilt did.

Wilt lost 5 series with Homecourt Advantage, 5 of them. Did the poster know that?

Here were the years.

Wilt Chamberlain (lost in ’60-61, ’65-66, ’67-68, ’68-69, ’72-73)

Now I know what you are going to say that Jordan never played the Celtics. Well how about why did Wilt lose with Homecourt Advantage to the Syracuse Nationals in Round 1 when the Nationals were 38-41. Not only did he lose but he got swept.

Wilt's scoring from regular season to playoffs went down every single year of his career (sometimes by a lot) on lower efficiency (.547 to .523). Obviously facing better teams and facing Russell (who held Wilt to 5.7 ppg under his career average in their 147 meetings) had something to do with it, but Wilt failed to step up his game and it didn't help his teams in the playoffs.

In the regular season , Wilt was on some of the best teams in his era. Most seem to assume that Wilt just didn't have the supporting cast to contend with the greatest dynasty ever. This is not the case. His 1967 Sixers were named the best team ever in 1980, and he had that team's core (Wilt, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Jackson) for 3 years straight, and also had the best SG in West and best SF in Baylor (up to that point) for a couple years after, forming a trio that Wilt himself said he thought could go down as the greatest team of all time. Talented rosters that won a lot in the regular season and had high expectations in the playoffs.

When the playoffs arrived, however, it was a different story. Wilt's failures:

1961: Wilt's 46-33 Warriors are swept by the 38-41 Nationals

1962: Wilt, at the height of his scoring prowess having averaged 50.4 ppg in the regular season, is held to a season-low 22 points in the 7th and deciding game

1966: Wilt's 55-25 Sixers lose 4-1 to the 54-26 Celtics

1967: Wilt's single impressive playoff run, nearly averaging a triple double. The 68-13 Sixers soundly beat the Celtics 4-1, proving that this was a championship caliber core

1968: The same Sixers (with Wilt winning season MVP) go 62-20 and lose to the 54-28 Celtics in 7 games after being up 3-1. In Game 7 Wilt did not attempt a field goal in the 2nd half

1969: One of the most talented trios ever in Wilt, West, and Baylor go 55-25 and win the regular season series 4-2 against the 48-34 Celtics, proving again Wilt had the talent to beat them. The Lakers were heavily favored against the Celtics in the Finals. But again, Wilt laid another 7th game egg against the Celtics when he "hurt his leg" with 6 minutes to go and did not play the rest of the game

1970: Wilt's Lakers return to the Finals, this time against the Knicks. Reed missed game 6 due to injury and Wilt demolished the Knicks to send it to a 7th game. So what happened in Game 7? You guessed it: another stinker by Wilt's 21 points (1-11 from the line) against a hobbling, injured Reed and his backups.

And let's be real about something: In the 1970 Finals, the Lakers were up 20 points in Game 5 and Willis Reed was hurt and the Knicks still won that game. Game 6, Willis Reed missed that game and the Lakers won and in game 7 Willis Reed was still hurt and he came in to play in the game. He only scored like 4 points in it and thus that is why his stats were down. So don't give me this mess about how good Wilt was when he couldn't dominate a player that was injured.
Frazier took over Game 7 and that's why the Knicks won. Thus what was Wilt doing in Game 7 in the Finals? He couldn't even dominate a hubbled Willis Reed.

1973: Wilt's 60-22 Lakers lose 4-1 to the 57-25 Knicks


Wilt lost 5 series when his teams were the higher seed. He failed to step up in 4 Game 7s.

Also what about this what Bill Russell even noticed.

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1969.htm

The Lakers were heavily favored to win the 1969 NBA Finals against the old, battered Celtics, but then Chamberlain became the victim of one of the most controversial coaching decisions in NBA history. In Game 7, Wilt hurt his leg with six minutes left to play, with the Lakers trailing by nine points. The Celtics won, 108-106. When Chamberlain had asked out of the game, the Lakers had been trailing by nine points, but then mounted a comeback to pull within one by the time he asked back in; this caused some to assume that Chamberlain had not really been injured, but instead had given up and "copped out" of the game when it looked as though the Lakers would lose. Because of this, some branded him a scapegoat and a quitter. Even Bill Russell ridiculed him, which almost caused Chamberlain to end their friendship..



http://www.barrystickets.com/lakers/lak ... erlain.php

In 1970, the acquisition of the sharpshooting guard Gail Goodrich helped with the Lakers' offensive firepower with the loss of Baylor. In the NBA Finals, the Lakers were matched up against the New York Knicks, one of the best defensive teams of the post-Russell-Celtics era. Both teams fought a hard, grueling series, but in Game 5, Chamberlain's opposing center Willis Reed suffered a serious thigh injury. The Knicks won that game, but they were demolished in Game 6 with Chamberlain's strong offense, and they looked doomed in Game 7 without their starting center. However, Reed limped onto the court, won the opening tip-off against Chamberlain, and scored the first four points, inspiring his team to one of the most famous playoff upsets of all time. Although Reed was able to play only a fraction of the game, and could hardly move when he did play, Chamberlain still scored only 21 points (his season average had been 27.3) on only 16 shots, quite few in a Game 7. Further, he shot an abysmal 1-of-11 from the foul line, making the game perhaps his greatest on-court failure.

[MacGill]

The only thing I want to add here, as they're obviously valid points, is that I am not really concerned about the center competition at Shaq's peak. Orlando Shaq already faced Ewing, Hakeem, D-Rob, and later Shaq faced Sabonis, Yao etc. Again, if it was just about strength of center then why was it that teams were forced to have others cover him just to prolong their big's strength and limit foul trouble? Or load bigs on their roster? Does anyone doubt that Shaq couldn't have the same success against any other big to ever play the game givwen his style of play?

Did Wilt ever play against a player bigger than him like Shaq did? A 7'5 giant with tree trunks for legs who wasn't afraid to body? What about a 7'3 over 300 pound Sabonis? I don't put as much stock here because Shaq dominated bigger, smaller, longer players so I have no reason to think that playing Hakeem more in the regular season, or D-Rob or Yao etc would change that. In fact, that fuelled him because he wanted to destroy you.

Shaq was not forced to play against a big man attacking in the years he built his legend that's true. He faced Yao later and he was often outplayed, while Sabonis didn't have the mobility to put pressure on him.
This just to put in context his unprecedented dominance, even if we must say that the 90s were actually the outlier era in terms of availability of great centers.

You're missing the entire point here. Not going to go too deep into it but they all had much more mass than anyone Wilt ever faced and outside of KAJ, were longer than anyone Wilt ever faced, yet early KAJ didn't have any real mass to put on Wilt. So my point again, laying a body is laying a body, and when you combine this with length I fail to see again, how you wouldn't be convinced of how Shaq would do against anyone in the paint. Why...because that player hasn't been created yet. Only Wilt himself could do that against O'Neal but Shaq was far greater in the post than anyone Wilt ever faced (much different than how KAJ played him with range). As for your outcomes versus Yao/Sabonis....you should read Shaqattack's posts there. You are greatly underestimating both outcomes here.

[colts18]

For those of you who are questioning Shaq's center competition. What good defensive centers 6' 10+ was Wilt facing during his scoring prime (60-66)? Look at his competition and it won't be a surprise why he was scoring 50+ PPG. The only center of his consequence during his era was Russell.

[ardee]

For those of you who are questioning Shaq's center competition. What good defensive centers 6' 10+ was Wilt facing during his scoring prime (60-66)? Look at his competition and it won't be a surprise why he was scoring 50+ PPG. The only center of his consequence during his era was Russell.

The notable centers Wilt faced over his career:

Bill Russell
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Nate Thurmond
Willis Reed
Walt Bellamy
Wayne Embry

These were the guys he played literally every Playoff series against. LITERALLY every series had a HOF opponent for Wilt. And these guys aren't Mickey Mouse HOFs like Gola or KC Jones, we're talking legitimately great players.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[MacGill]

For those of you who are questioning Shaq's center competition. What good defensive centers 6' 10+ was Wilt facing during his scoring prime (60-66)? Look at his competition and it won't be a surprise why he was scoring 50+ PPG. The only center of his consequence during his era was Russell.

I would add that made him work on both ends. We have footage of Shaq against Ewing, D-Rob, Hakeem, Yao among others who were 2 way center's (offense and defense) again, this needs to be considered. Imagine Shaq in his youth/prime/peak facing Dwight Howard offensively??? when he played these type of centers..he usually crushed them.

If you're being honest, there is no one really outside of KAJ of a center who made Wilt work the way the above could. All could hit from the outside, all had good size and length and all were good/great defensively. No one should be able to question Shaq versus anyone. Sorry I don't see it.

[ceiling raiser]

For those of you who are questioning Shaq's center competition. What good defensive centers 6' 10+ was Wilt facing during his scoring prime (60-66)? Look at his competition and it won't be a surprise why he was scoring 50+ PPG. The only center of his consequence during his era was Russell.

The notable centers Wilt faced over his career:

Bill Russell
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Nate Thurmond
Willis Reed
Walt Bellamy
Wayne Embry

These were the guys he played literally every Playoff series against. LITERALLY every series had a HOF opponent for Wilt. And these guys aren't Mickey Mouse HOFs like Gola or KC Jones, we're talking legitimately great players.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

He faced Swede Halbrook in the 61 playoffs I believe. He was big, but I believe he was largely a stiff. From reading articles in the Syracuse paper archives, Swede blocked a ton of shots. Dude had some major issues though. Played in the AAU after college, and only lasted in the NBA for two seasons, before his issues got out of hand (apparently he just disappeared one day, no explanation) and he was cut by the team.

There's actually some tape of him facing Russell in college out there on YouTube, I believe. Not a groundbreaking talent, but he was huge.

[Texas Chuck]

Somebody please help me understand this current argument? Are there really people seriously attempting to suggest that Shaq would not be physically dominant in Wilt's era?

I think its pretty clear that both guys are physically dominant forces who would be such in any era yet seen. We've seen a few other guys as big as those two, tho not many. And we've seen other guys as athletic as those two guys, but we certainly haven't seen anybody who combined the two like Wilt and Shaq. Wilt probably the better "pure athlete", Shaq the more powerful(or at least translated it to basketball better).

[MacGill]

Why are we assuming that Wilt could have been as dominant defensively if say KAJ came into the league earlier instead Russell? How would Wilt have done if he faced a player like KAJ while he was anchoring the offense as well? Remember, Wilt wasn't volume scoring Wilt by the time they met, so how good would he have been if he was needed to take over 30+ FGA's/game and guard a player who could score at will? His pace.

This is what Shaq did so well but some criticize him for because they expecting him to be more defensively. Obvious physical limitations as compared to smaller, lighter bigs, but his offense was so good they never needed to devert from it. Obviously, I give Wilt credit for keeping himself in great shape later on but the sample size we have of Shaq is 14 years of fantastic play. Shaq's play gave all his attributes at the same time (offense + defense), no matter what you grade them, whereas with Wilt scaling back your offense certainly always you more energy for defense adding assists.

I guess some think that all minutes are played equally. Being able to relax defensively is just as much of a benefit as when you cause your guard big to have to work harder to keep you from getting position.

[colts18]

For those of you who are questioning Shaq's center competition. What good defensive centers 6' 10+ was Wilt facing during his scoring prime (60-66)? Look at his competition and it won't be a surprise why he was scoring 50+ PPG. The only center of his consequence during his era was Russell.

The notable centers Wilt faced over his career:

Bill Russell
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Nate Thurmond
Willis Reed
Walt Bellamy
Wayne Embry

I'll give you Thurmond but he was Wilt's backup for some of that time. Wilt only faced him 1.5 years during his scoring years. Bellamy and Embry were never noted as good defensive centers. Embry gets trashed for his defense. Wilt didn't face Kareem until he stop volume scoring. By the time Kareem came in, Wilt's usage% was similar to Tyson Chandler.

[Greatness]

If the vote is between Shaq and Wilt I would take Shaq, but not sure I agree with the logic that others have to change there vote between two players.

Yeah I don't understand why anyone should have to change their vote just to make it a closer race between Wilt and Shaq. Wilt had a clear lead and I don't get the idea of the runoff vote.

[penbeast0]

Thanks drza; if the best posters here don't provide analysis, where is the role model for the new guys or guys less confident of their abilities.