RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #5

[andrewww]

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon
Alternate: Magic Johnson

As stated previously, Dream is the best combination of peak play/career/offense/defense remaining, and quite honestly I don't think its even close with the exception of Wilt. The real discussion imo is between Wilt and Magic. On one hand, you have Magic who is one of the greatest offensive players of all time. His ability to adapt his role to what the Lakers needed is boost for him over Wilt, who strikes me as the Lebron of the 60s (physical specimen who was dominant but had a few flaws in his game that could be exploited by the right team).

[penbeast0]

Well, Nate was definitely NOT below average passer. He was quite good passer from both high and low post. He contributed well as a Boerwinkle backup in Bulls when he got older.

I don't remember him much in Chicago where he was the starter in his one season (playing 34 minutes a game to Boerwinkle's 14) but Motta did have that center passing hub offense where aging Nate nearly had his highest ever assist average @ 4.1 apg despite scoring only 8 ppg rather than his normal inefficient 15+ so you may be right that he was much more focused on passing there. He was not a good passing center when I remember him in Golden State. I don't remember being impressed with his court vision or awareness of his teammates with the Warriors.

[70sFan]

Well, Nate was definitely NOT below average passer. He was quite good passer from both high and low post. He contributed well as a Boerwinkle backup in Bulls when he got older.

I don't remember him much in Chicago where he was the starter in his one season (playing 34 minutes a game to Boerwinkle's 14) but Motta did have that center passing hub offense where aging Nate nearly had his highest ever assist average @ 4.1 apg despite scoring only 8 ppg rather than his normal inefficient 15+ so you may be right that he was much more focused on passing there. He was not a good passing center when I remember him in Golden State. I don't remember being impressed with his court vision or awareness of his teammates with the Warriors.

You are right, Nate was their starting center. I thought about playoffs where Tom really played more minutes than Thurmond.

I'd not call him elite passer. Tom was on another level as a post playmaker compared to him for example (to be fair, very few centers are so good at passing the ball, Boerwinkle was amazing). He was still above average though. Certainly better than centers compared to him - Mutombo or poor ones like Eaton and Wallace. He was also better than guys like Howard or Moses. Probably around Ewing level, maybe a bit better.

His inefficiency was caused by his love in midrange game. Had he not been as into his jumper, he would be actually good offensively. But he was and that's why he isn't probably top 10 center ever. Instead he's around Mutombo level - worse scorer but better passer. Similar level defensively.

[Gibson22]

Votes count?

[THKNKG]

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.

On a related note. I opened up a thread on Duncan's GOAT candidacy a little while ago, and while there was definitely some highly useful information presented which made me reconsider my own ranking of Duncan (I have him higher now- some of the scalability arguments were really strong), I came to the conclusion that the lack of scrutiny over Duncan's failures, as well as his particularly fortunate circumstances, is strongly informed by folks taking a strong liking for Duncan the man, and what he represented as a person. Everything positive surrounding Duncan is attributed mostly to him, whilst his failures are generally either ignored or contextualized to take away their damning effect. TD and Russell seem to be uniquely approached this way IMO, whilst dudes like Wilt are treated very differently.

In fact, after reading the gushing praises on his salary sacrificing as a +1 for him over dudes who refused to low-ball themselves to save their multi-millionaire/billionaire owners some money, as well as his on-court "sacrifices" (there was a long post about how he allowed himself to be embarrassed by Amare to keep the Suns shooters off the 3 point line in 05, leading to a win, although really he was just following Pop's instructions and still put up massive offensive numbers), there was a distinct feeling that folks were really gravitating to Duncan because they simply liked his unselfish, down- to earth persona.

Admittedly on a personal level, I find what we know of Duncan to be admirable, and he defs. seems like a dude you'd want to work with/under. But as far assessing his GOAT/ATG standing, a lot of these matters that a lot of people put forth to support Duncan's claim, simply doesn't cut it.

Duncan entered into a team culture and setting, which was successful during the 90s when healthy, and which had one of the best players and consummate professionals in the NBA, and a coach who had a wonderful basketball mind. He received excellent tutelage right from day one, particularly D-rob who undoubtedly helped refine TD's D and for several years helped anchor the D with him. He had an excellent FO, who was able to draft excellently over the years (just compare Kupchack/PJ’s record in the 00s v the Spurs FO- night and day), and nab some key free agent signings (like Bowen who was one of the premier defenders prior to joining TD). And unlike other superstars who were compelled to log heavy minutes for most of their primes because of the way their FO structured teams around them, TD by 05 was not cracking more than 34 MPG, a remarkable feat when you think about it, and tells you all you need to know about his fortunate circumstances. The same team then in the very next year after TD's retirement were still the best defensive team in the L, despite lacking a strong rim protector, and having players on their roster who were historically known as average/below average defenders.

Yet according to TD's supporters, TD uniquely (maybe alongside Russell) contributed to this culture in ways that other ATG/GOAT candidates who also had very similar team success did not contribute to their teams. TD is seemingly an exception to the rule that we shouldn't judge dudes by their team success, because supposedly with TD, there is no distinction between the two.

Of course this position is mostly hyperbole. TD, like many other players in history benefited from, and benefited his team. He did not enter into an abyss like KG in Minny, or MJ in Chicago, or Kareem in his post-Oscar days in MIL and Pre-magic days in LA, and therefore we don't see team failures from him as much as we do with other dudes. TD was very fortunate and IMO this is too easily dismissed in these conversations.

What is also dismissed is the 'anti' side- arguments that would normally be used against other dudes, but are seemingly ignored/contextualized/undermined with respect to TD. In the same breath, his achievements are magnified to divine levels. Some examples:

The 2001 WCF- His team had HCA and were healthy minus Derek Anderson, but got demolished in the WCF by the Lakers. TD was in his prime, and was simply awful in games 3 and 4, with his team losing by 39 in game 3 and 29 in game 4. His interior D was not all hot that series, which was meant to be his forte. This is rarely raised because “Kobe and Shaq”, but I wonder whether another candidate would get a pass given the circumstances and his individual play.

Or the 2002 WCSF when the Spurs kept on blowing leads in the 4th quarter/losing games in the 4th, as TD shot something like 35% in 4th quarters on high volume as his team’s offense completely collapsed. He was the MVP that year yet continuously came up short. Again, I wonder whether this would be readily dismissed if it was another dude who came up short like this.

Or 2004 WCSF series when he put up a 21 PPG, 53% TS series being primarily guarded by a 40 year old Karl Malone. In the series clincher, he was at 46.5%. Again, his team had HCA yet he came up short on offense once again.

Or the 2005 playoffs, when it was debatable whether he was the best player on his team- something that is usually used as a downer against other players (see Kareem earlier on). His D was excellent, but a 47.1% TS as the lead offensive generator in the finals is something that would haunt other players.

Or the fact that his team’s offense went to new heights when they abandoned a TD centric offense.

And there’s the undeserved magnification of his admittedly impressive successes. His 03 Run is treated as divine like (and yes it was great) in large part because of the path he took/the lack of help. Apparently beating the Lakers in 03 was a crowning achievement, while in reality, the Lakers were a broken team with zero depth (actually awful depth- terrible GM work post-Jerry West here), and with Bowen keeping Kobe somewhat in check, the Spurs undoubtedly were the better squad. Then again, the Spurs beat the Mavericks minus Dirk for the last 3 games, and then the New Jersey Nets. Again, TD was awesome... but why do we pretend that he took down great teams like Hakeem in 95?

Or the magnification of his role in increasing the productivity of his supporting cast. Here I believe is the most egregious example of where it appears people are uniquely crediting TD for things because they gravitate to his persona. TD did what any other reasonable leader did (and yes, many ATGs did this, and their supporting cast improved as a result)- get his guys to up their play via positive leadership. Nothing remotely special here that should be used as a distinction.

IMO there are a lot of parallels in how TD and Russell are approached. Folks like their unselfish, silent killer, substance of style approach to the game, which is fair enough. But for this to feed into beneficial interpretations of their careers, whilst not giving other dudes the same leeway, just seems biased.

Many decry folks relying on "narratives" to form conclusions, but IMO this equally applies to TD and indeed Russell.

It feels like you're decrying those who minimize his failures and exalt his successes, while minimizing his successes and exalting his failures. The Lakers were a better team 00-02, and potentially 03-04, but Shaq missed a billion games (~40 total if I remember correctly, but could be off). Shaq + Kobe was the better team, but when you're missing your best player for chunks of the RS, it looks like the "superior" team lost to the "inferior" team. I won't deny he played bad games, but in 01-05 he didn't lose to a vastly inferior team. In fact, there could be an argument either way for either team during those years.

[70sFan]

...

Do you have SRS for 1970 Lakers before Wilt's injury? I know he came back at the end of the season and his comeback was quite rough. I think it would be nice to see Lakers SRS differential with pre-injury Chamberlain, not post-injury.

[colts18]

1968 Lakers: 52 wins, 4.99 SRS (No Wilt)
1969 Lakers: 55 wins, 3.84 SRS (With Wilt, +10 extra games from West, -1 games from Baylor)

The Lakers were only missing a center to complete their team. They replaced a 9/11/3 Center with the 3 time defending MVP who played 45 MPG and averaged 21/21/5 and the team declined. That's insane. Thats a huge question mark on Wilt's impact. How could a team that desperately needed Big man help add an MVP big in his prime but still doesn't improve? Could you imagine a team like the Clippers who need a SF adding a player like Durant or LeBron, but declining at the same time? Or the Spurs adding Stephen Curry then stay at the same level? That's impossible to imagine. There is no precedent for something like this.

[THKNKG]

How much lesser do you guys view Duncan's peak than Shaq's?

[urnoggin]

How much lesser do you guys view Duncan's peak than Shaq's?

1) '91 MJ
2) '00 Shaq
3) '13/'16 LeBron
4) '67 Wilt
5) '94 Hakeem
6) '03 Duncan
7) '77 Kareem
8) '04 KG

Shaq at 2 and Duncan at 6 for me, not a huge difference.

[ardee]

How much lesser do you guys view Duncan's peak than Shaq's?

1. 1967 Wilt
2/3. 1991 Jordan/2017 LeBron
4. 2000 Shaq
5. 1993 Hakeem
6. 1986 Bird
6. 1977 Kareem
7. 1987 Magic
8. 2003 Duncan

So about 4 spots.

[trex_8063]

I'm sure you would consider Hakeem the better offensive player (especially when called upon to score in volume), which the stats support

Yes, I agree when called upon to "carry the load" and score in volume, I've more faith in Hakeem's ability there (especially as it pertains to scaling up in the playoffs as needed). I often object to the implied gap, though.
As to the "stats supporting" this, in part this is in relation to what you later mentioned regarding Duncan being called upon less to score in extreme volume (so naturally his scoring "stats" will look a pinch lower as a result).

Perhaps you couldn't construct an elite offense with Duncan taking up large volumes of the scoring.....but on the flip-side there's evidence to suggest you couldn't with Hakeem in that position either. The best offense the Rockets ever managed prior to a post-prime Charles Barkley's arrival was +1.7 rORTG. fwiw, the '02 and '03 Spurs (outstanding defensive supporting cast, somewhat average offensive supporting cast, and Duncan carrying 28-29% usage both years) had a +2.0 rORTG both years.

, and the better defender.

I think Hakeem's defensive peak was a little higher; for whole careers......I might still go with Hakeem, but it's close. His defensive effectiveness was slipping at the end, whereas Duncan managed to be a valuable defensive player right up to the very end.

Hakeem had the ultra-athleticism to interrupt passing lanes and create turnovers better; that same athleticism allowed him to block more shots, too. However, Hakeem would sometimes go for the grand-standing swat, or was sometimes coming from away from the play (again: that athleticism) to where a block out of bounds was the only thing he could do. Not saying he swatted all of them out of bounds; but I am saying I suspect his team recovered a smaller proportion of them than Duncan's.

Duncan is probably the best of his generation at keeping the block in play (see if I can find the article about his later). He's more of the Bill Russell model in shot-blocking (except much less athletic) in that he did so by being smart, moving his feet to stay with a guy, and timing the jump (not needing to come far of the ground to simply tap the shot back; never really the kind of guy to catch a shot near the top of its arc). Between that and his extreme high team defensive IQ, sound rotational sense, etc, I'm not sure he challenged any fewer shots than Hakeem.

I also kind of like Tim's pnr defense slightly better (I always thought Hakeem was lesser in this regard than some of his contemporaries, such as Ewing or Robinson), though Hakeem is more versatile if caught on a perimeter switch (again: the athleticism).

I think Duncan's defensive impact persisted into the twilight of his career better than did Hakeem's (I suspect because his was never as reliant on athleticism as Hakeem's). So while I think Hakeem's peaked higher defensively, defensive value over entire careers is very very close, imo. I might still go with Hakeem, but it's by a near-negligible margin.


Basically, the nut-shell summary for me would be something like:
Better scorer: Hakeem, small margin
Better defender: Hakeem??? (negligible margin for whole careers)
Better passer/facilitator: Duncan, small margin (I think maybe the best I've ever seen at passing out of a double-team from the low-block)
Better rebounder: Duncan, tiny margin
Other on-court intangibles (screen-setting, floor spacing, etc, bearing in mind I'm already considering things like rotational defense and shot challenging in "defender" category above): a wash (like Timmy's screens better, Hakeem spaces the floor slightly better)
Off-court intangibles/leadership: Duncan comfortably
Longevity: small edge to Duncan

And on a side note of "career accomplishment": clear edge to Duncan. Obviously he had more favorable circumstances. I do try to "grade on a curve" by keeping in mind context, though there's only so far down the "he would've done this if that" rabbit-hole I'm willing to go.


Otherwise, with regards to suggestions of people (like me, potentially) putting "narrative blinders" on where Duncan is concerned.....your concerns are valid, and I'll try to be conscientious about this. I'm going to reflect and respond more to that point in response to rebirthoftheM later.

[drza]

How much lesser do you guys view Duncan's peak than Shaq's?

If you're interested in trying to quantify their impact through +/-, here's some info:

Full season (e.g. reg + playoffs), scaled PI-RAPM (from Doc MJ's spreadsheet, but modified w/ new info (e.g. full season 2002 added, 1998 error accounted for)):

1999: Shaq +9.7, Duncan +6.6
2000: Shaq + 10.7, Duncan +6.6
2001: (don't have PI-RAPM)
2002: Shaq +9.5, Duncan +9.6
2003: Shaq +9.0, Duncan +9.2
2004: Shaq +8.7, Duncan +7.8
2005: Shaq +8.3, Duncan +9.2
2006: Shaq +5.8, Duncan +8.2

This catches Shaq from the year leading up to his peak until his fall-off begins (his 1998 score is actually his highest in DocMJ's spreadsheet, but there was an error in the scaling estimate for 1998 so I didn't use it), and catches Duncan rolling up towards his peak and then stops while still in his prime (his 2007 PI-RAPM, actually, is his biggest on record, but isn't generally considered his peak so didn't use it either)

From this, it'd seem that Shaq peaked slightly higher in terms of his on-court impact, but it's close enough to almost blur together. Rank ordered, for the top-5 rankings in this span, Shaq tended to have an ~0.7 advantage per year. I would argue that could almost be in the noise, but it's consistent for 5 years here (but, again, it doesn't include 2007 Duncan and 1998 Shaq, which were high scores for each) so perhaps there is a real difference there. But if so, it's small, and slightly in Shaq's favor.

Playoffs, on/off +/-

Shaq
2000: +32.4 (2nd on team +0.3)
2002: +22.9 (2nd on team +8.4)
2004: +25.3 (2nd on team +13.6)

Duncan
2001: +38.8 (2nd on team +24.9)
2002: +23.3 (only two rounds, 9 games total)
2003: +23.1 (2nd on team -4.8??!!)

Not much difference to see, here. Playoffs on/off +/- isn't universally accepted as valid around here due to the small "off" sample size, but I do tend to note it for playoff runs extending to at least the conference finals and more cumulative time periods. But I also note that the absolute number doesn't give an estimate of actual impact, the way the scaled RAPM does. But there does seem to be a hierarchy among great seasons that only the best-of-the best seem to hit (e.g. leading team, on/off +/- > ~15, difference from 1st to 2nd on team > ~10), and Shaq and Duncan both hit those marks repeatedly during their peak playoff runs.

Conclusion: All told, the consensus using other evaluation methods is that Shaq had a small, but distinct, advantage over Duncan at their peaks. This impact-style quantitative approach supports that each were among the very best we have data for (only two players rank higher, in the databall era) and that Shaq may have a slight advantage, but if so it's a small one.

[ardee]

1968 Lakers: 52 wins, 4.99 SRS (No Wilt)
1969 Lakers: 55 wins, 3.84 SRS (With Wilt, +10 extra games from West, -1 games from Baylor)

The Lakers were only missing a center to complete their team. They replaced a 9/11/3 Center with the 3 time defending MVP who played 45 MPG and averaged 21/21/5 and the team declined. That's insane. Thats a huge question mark on Wilt's impact. How could a team that desperately needed Big man help add an MVP big in his prime but still doesn't improve? Could you imagine a team like the Clippers who need a SF adding a player like Durant or LeBron, but declining at the same time? Or the Spurs adding Stephen Curry then stay at the same level? That's impossible to imagine. There is no precedent for something like this.

The 1994 Chicago Bulls replaced a 3 time defending Finals MVP who played 40 MPG and averaged 33/7/6 SG with a 7/2/3 center and the team declined by only 2 wins. That's insane. That's a huge question mark on MJ's impact. How could a team that desperately depended on an SG lose an MVP SG and still barely falls off? Could you imagine a team like the Clippers who depend on a PG losing a player like CP3 and barely declining at the same time? Or the Warriors losing Steph Curry then staying at the same level? That's impossible to imagine. There is no precendent for something like this.

[Jaivl]

1968 Lakers: 52 wins, 4.99 SRS (No Wilt)
1969 Lakers: 55 wins, 3.84 SRS (With Wilt, +10 extra games from West, -1 games from Baylor)

The Lakers were only missing a center to complete their team. They replaced a 9/11/3 Center with the 3 time defending MVP who played 45 MPG and averaged 21/21/5 and the team declined. That's insane. Thats a huge question mark on Wilt's impact. How could a team that desperately needed Big man help add an MVP big in his prime but still doesn't improve? Could you imagine a team like the Clippers who need a SF adding a player like Durant or LeBron, but declining at the same time? Or the Spurs adding Stephen Curry then stay at the same level? That's impossible to imagine. There is no precedent for something like this.

The 1994 Chicago Bulls replaced a 3 time defending Finals MVP who played 40 MPG and averaged 33/7/6 SG with a 7/2/3 center and the team declined by only 2 wins. That's insane. That's a huge question mark on MJ's impact. How could a team that desperately depended on an SG lose an MVP SG and still barely falls off? Could you imagine a team like the Clippers who depend on a PG losing a player like CP3 and barely declining at the same time? Or the Warriors losing Steph Curry then staying at the same level? That's impossible to imagine. There is no precendent for something like this.

That would be a good counter-argument if it wasn't false.

The regular season SRS went "only" from +6.19 to +2.87, but that was essentially the same team that put a +10.07 SRS in 1992, and in the 1993 playoffs they played as a more than +10 SRS team (so I would guess they LeCoasted in the RS). So about a 6-7 SRS drop without Michael, seems quite impactful for me. you also "forgot" Kukoc

I'd love to see that same kind of context for Wilt.

[Outside]

I understand the concept that guys with a supersized shooting or usage rate can hurt team goals, but It seems like Wilt gets the short end of these judgments far more often than other dominant scorers.

But those other players (examples: Jordan, Kobe, Kareem...) benefitted their team's offense with that play. Wilt didn't. Offenses got quite better with Wilt on a secondary role.

ElGee did a great job at adressing my main concern about Wilt:

Well, that's a fun little graphic, but I'm hoping there's something more substantial than putting hot takes on an oscilloscope wave.

Nate Thurmond is my favorite player, and his jersey is my avatar. In my view, he is severely underappreciated, and I'll fight for him to be included far higher in the rankings than 67th, which is where he is in the 2014 top 100 list.

How about top 35?

I've got him at 30, so I could live with that

[ardee]

1968 Lakers: 52 wins, 4.99 SRS (No Wilt)
1969 Lakers: 55 wins, 3.84 SRS (With Wilt, +10 extra games from West, -1 games from Baylor)

The Lakers were only missing a center to complete their team. They replaced a 9/11/3 Center with the 3 time defending MVP who played 45 MPG and averaged 21/21/5 and the team declined. That's insane. Thats a huge question mark on Wilt's impact. How could a team that desperately needed Big man help add an MVP big in his prime but still doesn't improve? Could you imagine a team like the Clippers who need a SF adding a player like Durant or LeBron, but declining at the same time? Or the Spurs adding Stephen Curry then stay at the same level? That's impossible to imagine. There is no precedent for something like this.

The 1994 Chicago Bulls replaced a 3 time defending Finals MVP who played 40 MPG and averaged 33/7/6 SG with a 7/2/3 center and the team declined by only 2 wins. That's insane. That's a huge question mark on MJ's impact. How could a team that desperately depended on an SG lose an MVP SG and still barely falls off? Could you imagine a team like the Clippers who depend on a PG losing a player like CP3 and barely declining at the same time? Or the Warriors losing Steph Curry then staying at the same level? That's impossible to imagine. There is no precendent for something like this.

That would be a good counter-argument if it wasn't false.

The regular season SRS went "only" from +6.19 to +2.87, but that was essentially the same team that put a +10.07 SRS in 1992, and in the 1993 playoffs they played as a more than +10 SRS team (so I would guess they LeCoasted in the RS). So about a 6-7 SRS drop without Michael, seems quite impactful for me. you also "forgot" Kukoc

I'd love to see that same kind of context for Wilt.

Good thing we're not talking about '92 Jordan but '93 Jordan here. Coasting is not a valid argument here, fact was they were a 6 SRS team in the RS and dropped to a 3 SRS team in 1994.

[Jaivl]

Well, that's a fun little graphic, but I'm hoping there's something more substantial than putting hot takes on an oscilloscope wave.

Of course it is intended as a joke and not as a meaningful argument in any sort of way,

Good thing we're not talking about '92 Jordan but '93 Jordan here. Coasting is not a valid argument here, fact was they were a 6 SRS team in the RS and dropped to a 3 SRS team in 1994.

So you don't have context for Wilt, huh?

[ardee]

Well, that's a fun little graphic, but I'm hoping there's something more substantial than putting hot takes on an oscilloscope wave.

Of course it is intended as a joke and not as a meaningful argument in any sort of way,

Good thing we're not talking about '92 Jordan but '93 Jordan here. Coasting is not a valid argument here, fact was they were a 6 SRS team in the RS and dropped to a 3 SRS team in 1994.

So you don't have context for Wilt, huh?

I do. If you read any of my previous posts you'd see it. But **** it, let's go again.

The 1969 Lakers were coached by an idiot. Wilt Chamberlain is one of the top 2 centers of all time, and 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.

The team also lost two star guards in Archie Clark and Gail Goodrich.

And incidentally the team was still very good when West and Wilt were both playing. 6 SRS.

[70sFan]

Lakers were terribly coached and constructed in 1969. Wilt deserved some blame but so did VBK and Baylor. Coach wanted to win despite Wilt, not with Wilt. That isn't a good coaching in any way. Can you imagine Spoelstra not giving James the ball in 2011 because he didn't like him? This would make LeBron look terrible, even worse than in the finals against Dallas.

But yeah I agree. He should be blamed. I don't deny that. He should have find the way to impact the offense and he didn't. In fact, he had negative impact on Lakers offensive strategy. But both Baylor and VBK had as well, it was a combination of bad coaching, unwillingnes to adapt by Baylor and lack of high post skills by Wilt.

On the other hand, let's be fair. Wilt improved Lakers defense drasticaly. No, not in regular season, but in playoffs they were dominant. In fact 1969 Lakers were more dominant in PS defensively than Celtics.



He made Lakers better overall. It's just a matter of size of upgrade, which should have been higher. Still, I've seen too much evidences that Wilt could and did impact on teams in GOAT way. After all, two of the top 10 teams ever were anchored by Chamberlain.

Does anyone have similar data for Shaq playoffs teams? I'd like to see how his teams performed defensively. Because Wilt's teams were consistently elite defensively in playoffs. Look how much 1962 Warriors improved defensively for example. Yet people call his performance bad...

[ardee]

Lakers were terribly coached and constructed in 1969. Wilt deserved some blame but so did VBK and Baylor. Coach wanted to win despite Wilt, not with Wilt. That isn't a good coaching in any way. Can you imagine Spoelstra not giving James the ball in 2011 because he didn't like him? This would make LeBron look terrible, even worse than in the finals against Dallas.

But yeah I agree. He should be blamed. I don't deny that. He should have find the way to impact the offense and he didn't. In fact, he had negative impact on Lakers offensive strategy. But both Baylor and VBK had as well, it was a combination of bad coaching, unwillingnes to adapt by Baylor and lack of high post skills by Wilt.

On the other hand, let's be fair. Wilt improved Lakers defense drasticaly. No, not in regular season, but in playoffs they were dominant. In fact 1969 Lakers were more dominant in PS defensively than Celtics.



He made Lakers better overall. It's just a matter of size of upgrade, which should have been higher. Still, I've seen too much evidences that Wilt could and did impact on teams in GOAT way. After all, two of the top 10 teams ever were anchored by Chamberlain.

Does anyone have similar data for Shaq playoffs teams? I'd like to see how his teams performed defensively. Because Wilt's teams were consistently elite defensively in playoffs. Look how much 1962 Warriors improved defensively for example. Yet people call his performance bad...

That chart impresses me more and more every time I see it. I might consider him in contention to be top 5 defensive player now, behind only Russ, Robinson, Hakeem and Duncan, on par with Mutombo, Ewing and Garnett.