RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #5

[Outside]

That's fair. I certainly have them close as well. Back in the 2014 project I started voting for Magic at 3, and thought this time around maybe I wouldn't have him quite so high. I've been voting for Duncan since the 3rd spot, but since LeBron got in, I still think very highly of Magic. I might go duncan again here as I value longevity highly, but I have some thinking to do.

That's a perfectly reasonable approach. It's so close between many of these guys. One factor that I use to determine the pecking order is head to head for contemporaries. For example, I give Russell the edge over Wilt, Magic the edge over Bird, and Duncan the edge over LeBron. That at least sets some of the relative order for me. All great players who are in my top 10, and that helps simplify my decision-making, at least a bit.

[THKNKG]

I voted for Duncan last time so I will do it again. After Kareem/Lebron/Jordan, I have a hard time deciding between the next group on just a "who had the best skillset" range and figuring out how to compare the more offensive players to the more defensive ones, that I like choosing between them on longevity and character both of which favor Duncan. His last 5 or 6 years is an advantage over Magic, Bird, etc. and his culture impact on the Spurs more than Wilt and Shaq.

As for KG I can totally see the argument for him being more valuable in the regular season than Duncan or Hakeem. The great defense combined with the floor spacing impact that big men benefit so much from nowadays, is a terrific combo. I'm just not as confident in his scoring skillset in a playoff matchup.

Vote: Tim Duncan

2nd: Larry Bird

If you value longevity so much why not Kobe? He has the longevity of Duncan and beats out Wilt and Shaq in the leadership aspect as well.

Duncan had the better peak, better intangibles, probably better prime, and definitely better post prime career. Kobe's last few years weren't all that useful.

[RCM88x]

That's fair. I certainly have them close as well. Back in the 2014 project I started voting for Magic at 3, and thought this time around maybe I wouldn't have him quite so high. I've been voting for Duncan since the 3rd spot, but since LeBron got in, I still think very highly of Magic. I might go duncan again here as I value longevity highly, but I have some thinking to do.

That's a perfectly reasonable approach. It's so close between many of these guys. One factor that I use to determine the pecking order is head to head for contemporaries. For example, I give Russell the edge over Wilt, Magic the edge over Bird, and Duncan the edge over LeBron. That at least sets some of the relative order for me. All great players who are in my top 10, and that helps simplify my decision-making, at least a bit.

Interesting you consider Duncan and Lebron contemporaries despite the 9 year age difference. The other two pairs you mentioned have a 2-3 year difference. Heck, Jordan is closer in age to Bird than Lebron is to Duncan. I'd say a better duo for Duncan would most certainly be Shaq. Lebron is better in the Wade/Curry/Durant group.

[ThaRegul8r]

Reconsidered

[ardee]

I voted for Duncan last time so I will do it again. After Kareem/Lebron/Jordan, I have a hard time deciding between the next group on just a "who had the best skillset" range and figuring out how to compare the more offensive players to the more defensive ones, that I like choosing between them on longevity and character both of which favor Duncan. His last 5 or 6 years is an advantage over Magic, Bird, etc. and his culture impact on the Spurs more than Wilt and Shaq.

As for KG I can totally see the argument for him being more valuable in the regular season than Duncan or Hakeem. The great defense combined with the floor spacing impact that big men benefit so much from nowadays, is a terrific combo. I'm just not as confident in his scoring skillset in a playoff matchup.

Vote: Tim Duncan

2nd: Larry Bird

If you value longevity so much why not Kobe? He has the longevity of Duncan and beats out Wilt and Shaq in the leadership aspect as well.

Duncan had the better peak, better intangibles, probably better prime, and definitely better post prime career. Kobe's last few years weren't all that useful.

I don't see how better prime is a given. I'm not a big fan of RAPM, I know you are, so according to the 2002-2011 RAPM dataset, Kobe is actually ahead. 6.1 to 5.8 with 4 more mpg played.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-0FsoryZO76bGpCcXRfc0haMDQ/view

And that's not even including one of Kobe's best years, 2001.

[THKNKG]

If you value longevity so much why not Kobe? He has the longevity of Duncan and beats out Wilt and Shaq in the leadership aspect as well.

Duncan had the better peak, better intangibles, probably better prime, and definitely better post prime career. Kobe's last few years weren't all that useful.

I don't see how better prime is a given. I'm not a big fan of RAPM, I know you are, so according to the 2002-2011 RAPM dataset, Kobe is actually ahead. 6.1 to 5.8 with 4 more mpg played.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-0FsoryZO76bGpCcXRfc0haMDQ/view

And that's not even including one of Kobe's best years, 2001.

I mean, I don't disagree, but I'd still give the edge to Duncan. That's why I was saying probably. kobe definitely ranks higher on prime for me than peak.

[trex_8063]

You got my list correct?

VOTE: Wilt Chamberlain
ALT: Tim Duncan

Yes, I did receive your list, but that's not how this project works. Please visit the sign-up thread stickied to the front page of the forum for procedural details, if it's something you want to be a part of.

If all you are wanting is to submit your list and have it incorporated into some kind of forum consensus, that's what the 2017 Poster Pre-Lists Project (which is also linked in the OP of the list sign-up thread) was about. I will have your list incorporated into the posted results of the Pre-Lists project within the next week or so.

[trex_8063]

I realize your arguments for Wilt likely haven't changed, but I'd like it if you could at least copy your arguments over to this one (so other posters don't have to do the legwork to even see your arguments and debate them). Or alternately, could you perhaps provide some brief arguments for Larry as your second (especially this is nearly the first mention he's had in this project)?

He started out as the most dominating offensive force the game has ever seen. Switching to a more all-around game, he scaled what I consider to be the all-time highest peak and won a championship along the way. Then he changed again to concentrate on defense and rebounding in order to win another ring. And in every incarnation he set new league records.

A little more on Bird later. For now, quite a bit of it has to with the 79-80 season and the fact that he never played with another (in my book) Top 50 player (other than past-their-primes Dave Cowens in '80 and Bill Walton in '86). The only other players in this tier who didn't are Hakeem and George Mikan.

For me, McHale and Parish are both top 50 players, actually. Parish because----as previously stated----I'm really big on meaningful longevity. McHale, imo, has an excellent top 50 case whether longevity is something you value or not (high peak and strong prime, and his longevity is decent enough to not "disqualify" him if you value longevity).

And fwiw, in the 2014 project, McHale was voted in at #44, Parish at #50.
And just as supportive "evidence" that McHale has a good case even without the elite longevity (of if you don't put a premium on longevity): in the 2015 Peaks Project, McHale's peak was voted in at #38.

[wojoaderge]

For me, McHale and Parish are both top 50 players, actually. Parish because----as previously stated----I'm really big on meaningful longevity. McHale, imo, has an excellent top 50 case whether longevity is something you value or not (high peak and strong prime, and his longevity is decent enough to not "disqualify" him if you value longevity).

And fwiw, in the 2014 project, McHale was voted in at #44, Parish at #50.
And just as supportive "evidence" that McHale has a good case even without the elite longevity (of if you don't put a premium on longevity): in the 2015 Peaks Project, McHale's peak was voted in at #38.

Post #22 in this thread illustrates my personal criteria (the second banana<first banana theorem)

[colts18]

Wilt going this high would be a travesty. If you look at their careers objectively, I don't see much separation between Wilt and David Robinson. Go look at their numbers and their team success. Literally the same players.

[Doctor MJ]

Take a look at how the Warriors' record bounced up and down from year to year as Wilt put more or less focus on defense - where he actually contributed massive value.

Outside of 1963, I don't see him as being unimpactful defender. Variations in DRtg is also more than just Wilt focus on defense. He was always good defender and Warriors were consistently in top 3 defensive teams in all but 1963 seasons with Wilt.

When there are 8 teams in the league Top 3 doesn't tell us very much. In '60, the Warriors had a legit great defense. In '61 and '62 they were only a smidge above the typical defense, then worse in '63 better in '64 worse in '65 etc.

I wouldn't be right to character those teams as being consistently dominant on defense, and this is an era where a single defender could make a massive, massive difference, so that's a missed opportunity.



Take a look at how little Wilt's presence seemed to actually help in '65. Yes he was hurt, but he was still putting up numbers that make it easy to think he was accomplishing a lot, and yet he had basically no impact at all with those huge numbers.

As you said, he was hurt. Besides, Warriors without hurt Wilt were even worse, so he still had positive impact.


They were 11-33 before they traded him, during that time Wilt had a PER of 29.8. To me that tells us pretty clearly that if the difference between '64 & '65 on that team was Wilt, then the important difference for Wilt had nothing to do with the box score. And that means anyone viewing Wilt first and foremost by his box score is focusing on the wrong thing.

I imagine you're looking to point to some time without Wilt and say they were even worse without him, but the team was entirely built in strategy around Wilt so you'd expect fall off until they pivot. When they pivoted the next year they were far better than an 11-33 team, so yeah, I think it's a really hard sell to say he was having any major positive impact on the Warriors in '65.





Take a look at how Wilt arrived in LA, who already had the best offense in the league using the Princeton, and basically ended that coach's career.

This is more about coach's unwillingnes to find a spot for Wilt. He didn't want him on his team and he consistantly said that they would have been better without him. Maybe their old system didn't work with Wilt but good coach would try solve this problem, he wouldn't hope that Wilt would got injured.

The Lakers the previous year had had the single best ORtg in NBA history, and that was despite West's missed time.
When he played they were far better. There was every reason to think that that team in '69 would be the single greatest offense in basketball history to that point if they didn't add Wilt.

They added Wilt and their offense got much worse, and Wilt didn't like his role, and Wilt had issues with Baylor...

Wilt's decisions in '68 & '69 honestly make him impossible to take seriously in any kind of GOAT basketball conversation.

All he had to do was show up and do his very best at rebounding and defense and it's hard to imagine them dominating the league.

But actually acting like a role player is different that turning from a shoot-first to pass-first alpha.
And the Princeton offense, like pretty much all motion offenses, tends to be something that some people get right away (like West) and others find incredibly frustrating. I think it's pretty clear which group Wilt fell into.



Take a look at all the finesse shots that were his trademark. He didn't want to be seen as a gorilla so he decided to showcase skill. He was never as good with finesse shots as he would have been had he focused on a power game, but that wasn't the point. The point was perception.

From what I've seen, he wasn't able to rely on his power all the time. Refs were very strict for him. I watched 1971 Bulls vs Lakers game and Wilt was called for off. foul because he... shot fadeaway. Don't measure him in similar fashion to Shaq because Wilt played in much different times. Besides, some finesse moves are necessary. He needed them to be more dangerous scorer. Can you imagine Shaq without jumphook? Because jumphook and one-handed turnarounds are his finesse moves. Without them he would be much easier to stop. Wilt had many moves down low and many countermoves. Not all of them were as efficient as drop step and dunk, but this option wasn't always available. Players aren't robots - they couldn't just do everytime in what they are the best. James is much better as a slasher than as a shooter, but he has to shoot. Otherwise, he wouldn't be even good offensive player.


Definitely a good response from you here - not saying the others aren't but this is good.

It's generally considered a given in my experience that Wilt made it a point to showcase his finesse, for the same reason that he played the game so stylistically. He was a Globetrotter at heart imho. Thoughts on that?


Take a look at his free throw shooting. Line drive daggers that seemed to be saying "I'm not good at this and I don't like it, and it doesn't count toward FG% any way."

Wilt searched for the way to improve his FT shooting. He was just bad in that period. He spent much more time trying to fix this problem than Shaq for example. I don't see anything about his perception that is bad in this aspect. Blame him for bad shooting, but not for that he didn't try enough. Because he did.

Underhand is always an option, and always was. I frankly damn every single big man who has no mid-range to his game and yet still refuses to go granny style.

It goes beyond that though. Maybe it's just psychological, but with Wilt is seemed like he was somewhere between angry and resigned as he approached the charity stripe.

Regardless though, the numbers are what they are. Wilt was bad. He wasn't Andre Drummond bad.

[Doctor MJ]

I answer all these Wilt criticisms in my big post above, but I'll put them in here one by one as well.

1. Take a look at how little Wilt's presence seemed to actually help in '65. Yes he was hurt, but he was still putting up numbers that make it easy to think he was accomplishing a lot, and yet he had basically no impact at all with those huge numbers.

The Sixers went 11-3 as soon as Wilt arrived in '65. After that, Costello, Jackson and Greer all get injured. You think LeBron is getting the same results of Kyrie, Thompson and JR are all hurt?

I was actually referring to his time on the Warriors.

Take a look at how Wilt lost focus in '68. Obsessed further on obscure stats, daydreamed of LA and actually tried harder against LA to that end.

Lost focus? They won 62 games, statistically he put up a better season than the year before, and most crucially: they had a better defense than BOSTON. 1968 was arguably his best defensive year. Facts state that he was 98% as good as 1967, narratives aren't going to change that.

Dude, we have quotes from Wilt about how his move to LA went down. That's all there is to it.

After winning a single title in Philly, and with all indicators he was in deal shape to begin a dynasty, Wilt was instead thinking about getting to Los Angeles. It is what it is. We talk as if all players agree that they should be motivated primarily to climb up our GOAT list by leading teams to championships. That's just not how Wilt was wired.

Take a look at how Wilt arrived in LA, who already had the best offense in the league using the Princeton, and basically ended that coach's career.

You are really reaching now. They finished 3 wins better and improved 2.1 points on defense. The offense fell of a little bit because the fit was worse: Wilt and Baylor were a bit of a messy combination because Wilt liked posting up on the left block, which is where Baylor liked to drive from. That's the coaches' job to figure out, and he didn't. He was fired because in game 7, he kept the team's best player on the bench in the last few minutes because of ego.

You can't **** on Wilt for asking out due to his injury and not do the same to LeBron for his cramps in 2014. If I recall, anyone who says anything about LeBron's cramps in a negative way is branded as a non-serious poster. Keep things consistent with the Dipper too.

I'm not reaching, but let me just point out the key thing here:

You just tried to defend Wilt's honor by pointing out that the net effect of adding Wilt to the Lakers was not negative.

Can you imagine saying that about anyone else we've debating so far?

And that's why he doesn't deserve a spot yet imho. Because there are years when he was still considered in his prime where his impact fell off a cliff and his psychology contributed to this. When you're up against competition as tough as he is, it's tough.

As an example, everyone knows I'm higher than most on KG. One of the things about him that I can say in bitesized form is that from my analysis of his impact, he was having superstar level impact straight on through from his 3rd to his 17th season. (Forget for a minute that I'm talking about KG if that's possible, I'm not actually trying to convince anyone of KG right now.)

How am I supposed to rank a guy who would go haywire in some way every 3rd or 4th year and was prone to leaving teams entirely based on things that had nothing to do with basketball, over a guy who consistently had massive impact and a good attitude for well over a decade?

I mean you'd have to say the peaks of the mercurial player were so high they justify it, but consider it from a franchise perspective.
Who would you rather try to build around?

Take a look at all the finesse shots that were his trademark. He didn't want to be seen as a gorilla so he decided to showcase skill. He was never as good with finesse shots as he would have been had he focused on a power game, but that wasn't the point. The point was perception.

You do realize you're criticizing the shot selection of a guy who led the league in field goal percentage 9 out of 13 full seasons he played?

Great counterpoint.

And if he didn't want to be seen as a gorilla, it was the 60s. Read John Taylor's The Rivalry, fans weren't ready for black players yet. They faced a ton of racism. If he just overpowered people, he'd have been labeled the "big black brute injuring white players" or some nonsense like that. It's a very different thing for someone caring how they're perceived in 2017 for petty reasons vs. doing the same in the 60s to spare themselves racism. Holding that against him is cruel.

Context.

Whoa!

Let me apologize. I can't believe I typed that. That's offensive.

I don't know what to say. I meant to say Goliath.

Take a look at his free throw shooting. Line drive daggers that seemed to be saying "I'm not good at this and I don't like it, and it doesn't count toward FG% any way."

You're voting Shaq over him when he literally said he didn't care about free throws "me hitting 40% is God's way of saying no one's perfect" versus you just performing some kind of amateur psychoanalysis on Wilt's free throw form to make it seem like he didn't care?

I think I've been quite clear that Shaq's not getting any kind favor from me when it comes to intangibles.

The thing between the two of them boils down to the fact that Shaq was just more effective on the court.

[Outside]

That's fair. I certainly have them close as well. Back in the 2014 project I started voting for Magic at 3, and thought this time around maybe I wouldn't have him quite so high. I've been voting for Duncan since the 3rd spot, but since LeBron got in, I still think very highly of Magic. I might go duncan again here as I value longevity highly, but I have some thinking to do.

That's a perfectly reasonable approach. It's so close between many of these guys. One factor that I use to determine the pecking order is head to head for contemporaries. For example, I give Russell the edge over Wilt, Magic the edge over Bird, and Duncan the edge over LeBron. That at least sets some of the relative order for me. All great players who are in my top 10, and that helps simplify my decision-making, at least a bit.

Interesting you consider Duncan and Lebron contemporaries despite the 9 year age difference. The other two pairs you mentioned have a 2-3 year difference. Heck, Jordan is closer in age to Bird than Lebron is to Duncan. I'd say a better duo for Duncan would most certainly be Shaq. Lebron is better in the Wade/Curry/Durant group.

I don't think age difference is the best comparison for Duncan and LeBron. Duncan entered the league six years before LeBron, which is more relevant than their age difference. LeBron was in the league for 13 of Duncan's 18 seasons, and Duncan was in the league for 13 of LeBron's 14 seasons so far, and they played each other three times in the finals, so it works as a comparison for me.

Shaq is in my top 10, and you're right that Duncan and Shaq are another pair of contemporaries, and I give Duncan the edge there. Yet another way to determine my ranking within that group.

All I'm saying is that I use these head-to-head matchups to simplify the process for players who are near each other in the rankings. Wade, Curry, and Durant aren't in this top tier of guys for me, but I'll absolutely consider them head-to-head when we get to that point. Others may choose to pair different guys up or have a different result than I do in those comparisons (LeBron over Duncan, for example, or Bird over Magic), but considering how close these guys are too each other in the ranking metrics, it's one way for me to make these decisions. I need all the help I can get.

[Joao Saraiva]

1st vote - Wilt Chamberlain

I think Wilt has the best peak and prime from the guys left.

Longevity wise I think he's underrated.

Wilt had an extended prime: at least 9 superb years.

However, not all seasons weight the same. Wilt accumulated so many quality minutes during that time that I certainly value those minutes as an edge for him longevity wise.

Wilt has 550 more minutes played than Shaq in the RS. And considerably more minutes as a prime player. Playoffs of course had less rounds... so that has to come into consideration.

I'd definitely say Wilt > Shaq overall, and Wilt > Shaq in longevity.

Wilt has also got more minutes played in the RS than Tim Duncan. And again, with a better peak and more prime minutes, I certainly give the edge to Wilt against Duncan longevity wise, as crazy as it seems! Also because after his prime, Wilt still was an impactful player on a different role, just like Tim.

No way I can vote for another guy. Wilt has a great case for GOAT or top 3. I hope he's at least put on the top 5 guys ever in this project!

2nd vote - Tim Duncan

[Joao Saraiva]

Wilt going this high would be a travesty. If you look at their careers objectively, I don't see much separation between Wilt and David Robinson. Go look at their numbers and their team success. Literally the same players.

I respectfully disagree with that.

Wilt's numbers are full of all time records. The same doesn't apply to David Robinson.

Also Wilt has something like 14000 more minutes played in the RS. That's a ton of minutes, especially for a guy who was in his prime for most of those minutes. Damn, Wilt has even more minutes played in the RS than Tim Duncan.

[colts18]

A good post on Wilt vs Robinson

Wilt Chamberlain is universally considered better than David Robinson, to an extent where people don't even see it as debatable, which is pretty baffling to me.

Per 100 possessions

Spoiler:

1st year (1960 Chamberlain/1990 Robinson):

Wilt: 29.2 ppg, 20.9 rpg, 1.8 apg (51.9 total points, rebounds and assists), 49.3% TS (3.0% above league average)
David: 32.4 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 2.7 apg (51.1 total), 59.7% TS (6.1% above league average)

2nd year (1961 Chamberlain/1991 Robinson):

Wilt: 29.2 ppg, 20.7 rpg, 1.4 apg (51.3 total), 51.9% TS (5.0% above league average)
David: 33.1 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 3.3 apg (53.1 total), 61.5% TS (8.1% above league average)

3rd year (1962 Chamberlain/1992 Robinson):

Wilt: 38.0 ppg, 19.4 rpg, 1.8 apg (59.2 total), 53.6% TS (5.7% above league average)
David: 30.7 ppg, 16.1 rpg, 3.5 apg (50.3 total), 59.7% TS (6.5% above league average)

4th year (1963 Chamberlain/1993 Robinson):

Wilt: 36.7 ppg, 19.9 rpg, 2.8 apg (59.4 total), 55.0% TS (5.7% above league average)
David: 30.0 ppg, 15.0 rpg, 4.7 apg (49.7 total), 56.9% TS (3.3% above league average)

5th year (1964 Chamberlain/1994 Robinson):

Wilt: 33.3 ppg, 20.2 rpg, 4.6 apg (58.1 total), 53.7% TS (5.2% above league average)
David: 39.2 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 6.3 apg (59.6 total), 57.7% TS (4.9% above league average)

6th year (1965 Chamberlain/1995 Robinson):

Wilt: 30.8 ppg, 20.4 rpg, 3.0 apg (54.2 total), 51.3% TS (3.4% above league average)
David: 36.9 ppg, 14.5 rpg, 3.9 apg (55.3 total), 60.2% TS (5.9% above league average)

7th year (1966 Chamberlain/1996 Robinson):

Wilt: 27.7 ppg, 20.3 rpg, 4.3 apg (52.3 total), 54.7% TS (6.0% above league average)
David: 34.9 ppg, 17.0 rpg, 4.2 apg (56.1 total), 58.9% TS (4.7% above league average)

9th year (1968 Chamberlain vs 1998 Robinson):

Wilt: 20.1 ppg, 19.7 rpg, 7.1 apg (46.9 total), 55.7% TS (5.9% above league average)
David: 34.8 ppg, 17.1 rpg, 4.4 apg (56.3 total), 58.1% TS (5.7% above league average)

10th year (1969 Chamberlain vs 1999 Robinson):

Wilt: 19.3 ppg, 19.9 rpg, 4.3 apg (43.5 total), 56.4% TS (7.3% above league average)
David: 27.0 ppg, 17.1 rpg, 3.6 apg (47.7 total), 56.4% TS (5.3% above league average)

12th year (1971 Chamberlain vs 2001 Robinson):

Wilt: 19.4 ppg, 17.1 rpg, 4.0 apg (40.5 total), 55.8% TS (5.8% above league average)
David: 26.0 ppg, 15.6 rpg, 2.6 apg (44.2 total), 55.9% TS (4.1% above league average)

13th year (1972 Chamberlain vs 2002 Robinson):

Wilt: 14.4 ppg, 18.6 rpg, 3.9 apg (36.9 total), 61.0% TS (10.6% above league average)
David: 22.0 ppg, 15.0 rpg, 2.2 apg (39.2 total), 56.2% TS (4.2% above league average)

14th year (1973 Chamberlain vs 2003 Robinson):

Wilt: 13.1 ppg, 18.5 rpg, 4.4 apg (36.0 total), 68.9% TS (19.1% above league average)
David: 17.4 ppg, 16.2 apg, 1.9 apg (35.5 total), 53.1% TS (1.2% above league average)

I didn't include 1967 vs 1997 (because Robinson barely played) and 1970 vs 2000 (because Chamberlain barely played).

Robinson averaged more combined points, rebounds and assists in 8 of these 12 seasons that I mentioned.

Wilt was basically always the better rebounder, David was usually the better playmaker, and a higher volume scorer. Admittedly, Robinson never stood out compared to league average nearly as much as Chamberlain in 1967 (+14.4% above league average), 1972 and 1973, but the league was far less efficient/advanced/developed during Wilt's career, compared to David's career, and '72/'73 Wilt was playing a role pretty much like Tyson Chandler or DeAndre Jordan, he was mostly just a finisher on offense.

Comparing team success doesn't make much sense, because the league was so much smaller during Chamberlain's career. It's much more likely that you'll make the finals in a 10-15 team league than it is in a 25-30-team league. Anyway, Wilt's team missed the playoffs with 31-49 record when Chamberlain was putting up peak level stats and played all 80 available games, in 1963. Robinson's team never missed the playoffs or had a losing record (except for 1997 when D-Rob missed basically the entire season). Actually, the Spurs won less than 50 games only twice during D-Rob's career (again, not taking 1997 into account) - they won 47 and 49 games in 1992 and 1993.

Chamberlain and Robinson had the same problem - neither was able to sustain his regular season offensive production and efficiency in the playoffs.

Looking at their career metrics like PER and WS/48, they are extremely close:

Regular season:

Spoiler:

PER:

Chamberlain: 26.1
Robinson: 26.2

WS/48:

Chamberlain: 24.8
Robinson: 25.0

Playoffs:

Spoiler:

PER:

Chamberlain: 22.7
Robinson: 23.0

WS/48:

Chamberlain: 20.0
Robinson: 19.9

PER and WS/48 adjust for era-relative factors, and they put Wilt and David on the very same level. Obviously the ways those stats are calculated, are different for the 60s and 90s, because not every stat necessary to calculate those metrics the modern way, is available in the 60s, but it still shows that relative to the era they played in, Wilt and David were comparable.

So, I actually think the only reason why Chamberlain is considered clearly better than Robinson, is that Wilt played during an era where it was possible to put up video game like numbers, and there was no other center capable of producing the kind of volume that Wilt was capable of, in terms of all-around game (except for Kareem, but when KAJ entered the league, Wilt was no longer a stat machine the way he was in the early/mid 60s). Meanwhile, there were guys like Olajuwon, Shaq and even Ewing, during Robinson's career. All those guys very likely would've been statistical monsters in the 60s, at least that's what per 100 possessions numbers suggest.

Obviously we don't have any box-score defensive stats for the 60s (except for DWS), but it would be hard to argue Chamberlain as a much better defender than Robinson. Actually, most of you guys would probably give the edge to Admiral, as far as defense is concerned.

Considering that adjusted for pace, Wilt's 1961-62 season, when he averaged 50/26, is arguably worse than David's 1993-94 season, when he averaged 30/11, that should give everybody an idea of how inflated Wilt's numbers were, due to insanely high pace, far more opportunities for rebounds, and the poor understanding of strategy (pound the ball to Wilt and let him isolate 1 on 1 against the other center on most possessions).

For what it's worth, ElGee's WOWY is way more favorable to Robinson than it is to Chamberlain.

Thoughts?

[rebirthoftheM]

A good post on Wilt vs Robinson

Thoughts?

This adjustment for pace requires some context, which I'm sure someone can provide. How much was Wilt's scoring benefiting from the higher pace, when it seems the higher pace was being fuelled by transition baskets off defensive boards- something Wilt was providing? If he wasn't really benefiting from it, then adjusting for PPG per 100 doesn't seem sensible. Rebounding of course is another issue altogether.

[trex_8063]

Just throwing it out there: what's the argument for wilt over magic?

Somewhat multi-factorial, but it'd probably go something like this:

Statistical footprint - Wilt definitively holds the high-ground here (by a decent margin, actually). We sometimes tend to presume that impact roughly parallels statistical production (part of the reason we cite stats), which isn't always the case (though sometimes it is). otoh, I've also already in this project played devil's advocate in suggesting maybe there's something to filling the stat-sheet for the sake of it.

Longevity - To some degree I feel like this is bad luck/timing for Magic (I've spoken about this elsewhere) that his longevity ends up lacking, and I can actually see giving him a partial pass on the mediocre longevity as semi-reasonable. But as it stands, Wilt holds a semi-small, but very clear, edge.

Two-way play - Wilt's got several seasons of significant two-way impact. Magic, otoh, is pretty clearly a one-way player. GOAT-level on that one end, perhaps, but a neutral at best on the other end throughout his career.

Peak - Debatable, I suppose, but consensus would probably lean a little in Wilt's direction here.


That's my off-the-cuff 2c....

[Joao Saraiva]

A good post on Wilt vs Robinson

Wilt Chamberlain is universally considered better than David Robinson, to an extent where people don't even see it as debatable, which is pretty baffling to me.

Per 100 possessions

Spoiler:

1st year (1960 Chamberlain/1990 Robinson):

Wilt: 29.2 ppg, 20.9 rpg, 1.8 apg (51.9 total points, rebounds and assists), 49.3% TS (3.0% above league average)
David: 32.4 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 2.7 apg (51.1 total), 59.7% TS (6.1% above league average)

2nd year (1961 Chamberlain/1991 Robinson):

Wilt: 29.2 ppg, 20.7 rpg, 1.4 apg (51.3 total), 51.9% TS (5.0% above league average)
David: 33.1 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 3.3 apg (53.1 total), 61.5% TS (8.1% above league average)

3rd year (1962 Chamberlain/1992 Robinson):

Wilt: 38.0 ppg, 19.4 rpg, 1.8 apg (59.2 total), 53.6% TS (5.7% above league average)
David: 30.7 ppg, 16.1 rpg, 3.5 apg (50.3 total), 59.7% TS (6.5% above league average)

4th year (1963 Chamberlain/1993 Robinson):

Wilt: 36.7 ppg, 19.9 rpg, 2.8 apg (59.4 total), 55.0% TS (5.7% above league average)
David: 30.0 ppg, 15.0 rpg, 4.7 apg (49.7 total), 56.9% TS (3.3% above league average)

5th year (1964 Chamberlain/1994 Robinson):

Wilt: 33.3 ppg, 20.2 rpg, 4.6 apg (58.1 total), 53.7% TS (5.2% above league average)
David: 39.2 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 6.3 apg (59.6 total), 57.7% TS (4.9% above league average)

6th year (1965 Chamberlain/1995 Robinson):

Wilt: 30.8 ppg, 20.4 rpg, 3.0 apg (54.2 total), 51.3% TS (3.4% above league average)
David: 36.9 ppg, 14.5 rpg, 3.9 apg (55.3 total), 60.2% TS (5.9% above league average)

7th year (1966 Chamberlain/1996 Robinson):

Wilt: 27.7 ppg, 20.3 rpg, 4.3 apg (52.3 total), 54.7% TS (6.0% above league average)
David: 34.9 ppg, 17.0 rpg, 4.2 apg (56.1 total), 58.9% TS (4.7% above league average)

9th year (1968 Chamberlain vs 1998 Robinson):

Wilt: 20.1 ppg, 19.7 rpg, 7.1 apg (46.9 total), 55.7% TS (5.9% above league average)
David: 34.8 ppg, 17.1 rpg, 4.4 apg (56.3 total), 58.1% TS (5.7% above league average)

10th year (1969 Chamberlain vs 1999 Robinson):

Wilt: 19.3 ppg, 19.9 rpg, 4.3 apg (43.5 total), 56.4% TS (7.3% above league average)
David: 27.0 ppg, 17.1 rpg, 3.6 apg (47.7 total), 56.4% TS (5.3% above league average)

12th year (1971 Chamberlain vs 2001 Robinson):

Wilt: 19.4 ppg, 17.1 rpg, 4.0 apg (40.5 total), 55.8% TS (5.8% above league average)
David: 26.0 ppg, 15.6 rpg, 2.6 apg (44.2 total), 55.9% TS (4.1% above league average)

13th year (1972 Chamberlain vs 2002 Robinson):

Wilt: 14.4 ppg, 18.6 rpg, 3.9 apg (36.9 total), 61.0% TS (10.6% above league average)
David: 22.0 ppg, 15.0 rpg, 2.2 apg (39.2 total), 56.2% TS (4.2% above league average)

14th year (1973 Chamberlain vs 2003 Robinson):

Wilt: 13.1 ppg, 18.5 rpg, 4.4 apg (36.0 total), 68.9% TS (19.1% above league average)
David: 17.4 ppg, 16.2 apg, 1.9 apg (35.5 total), 53.1% TS (1.2% above league average)

I didn't include 1967 vs 1997 (because Robinson barely played) and 1970 vs 2000 (because Chamberlain barely played).

Robinson averaged more combined points, rebounds and assists in 8 of these 12 seasons that I mentioned.

Wilt was basically always the better rebounder, David was usually the better playmaker, and a higher volume scorer. Admittedly, Robinson never stood out compared to league average nearly as much as Chamberlain in 1967 (+14.4% above league average), 1972 and 1973, but the league was far less efficient/advanced/developed during Wilt's career, compared to David's career, and '72/'73 Wilt was playing a role pretty much like Tyson Chandler or DeAndre Jordan, he was mostly just a finisher on offense.

Comparing team success doesn't make much sense, because the league was so much smaller during Chamberlain's career. It's much more likely that you'll make the finals in a 10-15 team league than it is in a 25-30-team league. Anyway, Wilt's team missed the playoffs with 31-49 record when Chamberlain was putting up peak level stats and played all 80 available games, in 1963. Robinson's team never missed the playoffs or had a losing record (except for 1997 when D-Rob missed basically the entire season). Actually, the Spurs won less than 50 games only twice during D-Rob's career (again, not taking 1997 into account) - they won 47 and 49 games in 1992 and 1993.

Chamberlain and Robinson had the same problem - neither was able to sustain his regular season offensive production and efficiency in the playoffs.

Looking at their career metrics like PER and WS/48, they are extremely close:

Regular season:

Spoiler:

PER:

Chamberlain: 26.1
Robinson: 26.2

WS/48:

Chamberlain: 24.8
Robinson: 25.0

Playoffs:

Spoiler:

PER:

Chamberlain: 22.7
Robinson: 23.0

WS/48:

Chamberlain: 20.0
Robinson: 19.9

PER and WS/48 adjust for era-relative factors, and they put Wilt and David on the very same level. Obviously the ways those stats are calculated, are different for the 60s and 90s, because not every stat necessary to calculate those metrics the modern way, is available in the 60s, but it still shows that relative to the era they played in, Wilt and David were comparable.

So, I actually think the only reason why Chamberlain is considered clearly better than Robinson, is that Wilt played during an era where it was possible to put up video game like numbers, and there was no other center capable of producing the kind of volume that Wilt was capable of, in terms of all-around game (except for Kareem, but when KAJ entered the league, Wilt was no longer a stat machine the way he was in the early/mid 60s). Meanwhile, there were guys like Olajuwon, Shaq and even Ewing, during Robinson's career. All those guys very likely would've been statistical monsters in the 60s, at least that's what per 100 possessions numbers suggest.

Obviously we don't have any box-score defensive stats for the 60s (except for DWS), but it would be hard to argue Chamberlain as a much better defender than Robinson. Actually, most of you guys would probably give the edge to Admiral, as far as defense is concerned.

Considering that adjusted for pace, Wilt's 1961-62 season, when he averaged 50/26, is arguably worse than David's 1993-94 season, when he averaged 30/11, that should give everybody an idea of how inflated Wilt's numbers were, due to insanely high pace, far more opportunities for rebounds, and the poor understanding of strategy (pound the ball to Wilt and let him isolate 1 on 1 against the other center on most possessions).

For what it's worth, ElGee's WOWY is way more favorable to Robinson than it is to Chamberlain.

Thoughts?

The love for the per 100 to play it against Wilt amazes me. Dude played entire games after entire games. Having the same values as another player per 100 certainly makes Wilt much more valuable, since he's carrying a lot more load on a per game basis. It's not the same producing that trough 40 minutes or trough 48 minutes.

That's almost an extra quarter of basketball, so it's certainly a big plus for Wilt.

Wilt's numbers are inflated a bit by era? Yes. He's still a tremendous outllier against his own era.

Are we also going to take into account Wilt played 14000 more minutes than Robinson in the RS? That's a lot of minutes and most of them are prime minutes!

I really don't see it as close as that post is implying.

[Texas Chuck]

5th. Tim Duncan

6th. Magic Johnson

This is the one I feel strongest about so far (Duncan outside the Top 5 would be a blight on the list, imo). Even though I'm really busy, I'll do my best to get a good argument for Duncan posted in time for some of you to actually read it.

IMO it's a bigger reach to have Duncan in the top 5 than out of it. Jordan, LBJ, Kareem, Russell and Wilt were all clearly more dominant players.

IDK, Duncan's defensive dominance is pretty substantial and its not like he was any kind of slouch as an offensive player. Trying to figure out how 02 and 03 Duncan don't match well with your list of names, particularly Kareem and Wilt in terms of dominance?