Dirk Nowitzki vs Wilt Chamberlain

[SkyHookFTW]

I voted for Dirk. Thinking about it, question is basically "who would you rather draft as a rookie" and I prefer Nowitzki for career. Beside intangibles, Wilt was too mediocre on offense and too inconsistent on defense, but it is close either way.

Can you explain to me how a player who averaged 30 ppg. on 54% shooting for his career, leading the league nine times in FG% is mediocre on offense?

[drza]

I voted for Dirk. Thinking about it, question is basically "who would you rather draft as a rookie" and I prefer Nowitzki for career. Beside intangibles, Wilt was too mediocre on offense and too inconsistent on defense, but it is close either way.

Can you explain to me how a player who averaged 30 ppg. on 54% shooting for his career, leading the league nine times in FG% is mediocre on offense?

Again, the argument would be based upon his impact on the team's fortunes. It's hard to be very granular in terms of separating player from team back then, but the first pass results would show that during Wilt's biggest volume scoring years, his teams were routinely finishing among the bottom of the league in offense.

One line of logic that has been permeating the boards of late is that individual offense is more important than individual defense because a great offensive player can supposedly lead to a great team offensive rating by himself, regardless of teammate quality, whereas a great individual defender can't have as much effect. I find that line of logic to be garbage, by the way, but it is a prevailing opinion among a growing group of posters. So, for those that believe this, Wilt leading consistent average/poor offenses would be evidence that he couldn't be all that dominant in his offensive impact.

Also, getting more granular, we can look in WOWY-type analysis for some of Wilt's seasons, especially 1965, when his absence/presence for half of the season on two different teams didn't seem to make as much difference in their regular season production as you would expect from a mega star. And since he averaged 35 points on 51% FG in that season, if those are the markers of greatness then he SHOULD have been making more difference.

I've seen references made to teammate accounts from those volume Wilt years saying that they had to subsume their games and run the entire offense based on Wilt's preferences so that he could get his points. If true, this could help account for how he could put up huge numbers but not be making the expected impact

Then, there's the notion that interior big men historically rarely have the offensive impact of a superstar. Generally, perimeter players can have more impact on offense and big men more impact on defense. There are some exceptions, but they're relatively rare. Perhaps Wilt wasn't one of those scoring/impact exceptions in the middle, despite the gaudy numbers

Just some food for thought

[SkyHookFTW]

I voted for Dirk. Thinking about it, question is basically "who would you rather draft as a rookie" and I prefer Nowitzki for career. Beside intangibles, Wilt was too mediocre on offense and too inconsistent on defense, but it is close either way.

Can you explain to me how a player who averaged 30 ppg. on 54% shooting for his career, leading the league nine times in FG% is mediocre on offense?

Again, the argument would be based upon his impact on the team's fortunes. It's hard to be very granular in terms of separating player from team back then, but the first pass results would show that during Wilt's biggest volume scoring years, his teams were routinely finishing among the bottom of the league in offense.

One line of logic that has been permeating the boards of late is that individual offense is more important than individual defense because a great offensive player can supposedly lead to a great team offensive rating by himself, regardless of teammate quality, whereas a great individual defender can't have as much effect. I find that line of logic to be garbage, by the way, but it is a prevailing opinion among a growing group of posters. So, for those that believe this, Wilt leading consistent average/poor offenses would be evidence that he couldn't be all that dominant in his offensive impact.

Also, getting more granular, we can look in WOWY-type analysis for some of Wilt's seasons, especially 1965, when his absence/presence for half of the season on two different teams didn't seem to make as much difference in their regular season production as you would expect from a mega star. And since he averaged 35 points on 51% FG in that season, if those are the markers of greatness then he SHOULD have been making more difference.

I've seen references made to teammate accounts from those volume Wilt years saying that they had to subsume their games and run the entire offense based on Wilt's preferences so that he could get his points. If true, this could help account for how he could put up huge numbers but not be making the expected impact

Then, there's the notion that interior big men historically rarely have the offensive impact of a superstar. Generally, perimeter players can have more impact on offense and big men more impact on defense. There are some exceptions, but they're relatively rare. Perhaps Wilt wasn't one of those scoring/impact exceptions in the middle, despite the gaudy numbers

Just some food for thought

Saying his offense didn't translate to team win is not the same as saying his offense is mediocre. Mediocre means below average. Does a below average player drag his team to four game sevens? You can say he didn't win those games, but for example, the final game against the Celtics in game seven he shot 80% from the field while the rest of his team shot 38%. Without Wilt, does that team even get to a game seven?

If you want to argue that his numbers on offense didn't always lead to team success, well, I have said the same in the past. But that does not make him a mediocre player on offense. It might make him a mediocre team player for some of those games though.

As for defense....yes, he was inconsistent, but never was he not a good defender.When he was at his best, he was elite on defense. When he wasn't, he was still very good. The man is still one of the best defensive bigs to ever play the game.

Did Wilt always mesh with his team? No. We know that, and it is a black mark against his legacy.

I can't believe some of what I read. This player had to take on the role of offensive focal point AND defensive anchor for years, playing minutes that no man his size has ever played or will ever play. Dirk could never have the defensive impact of Wilt. He could never rebound like him. He could never play both roles on a team and get that team to the finals consistently---I'm not bashing Dirk, as very, very few players could do what I just laid out. But the Wilt bashing is getting to the point where I think that ten years from now, people will have him outside the top 30.

[mischievous]

Good lord. Someone really called Wilt a mediocre offensive player? That's implying he's like a 5/10 on offense or so. I can't see any real justification for that. He's maybe not Shaq or Kareem on offense but he isn't something to sneeze at.

[Warspite]

What is wrong with this board? I am one of the biggest Dirk homers and I have Chamblerain ahead at least 10 if not 15 spots. This is not even funny anymore how this board tries to diminish Wilt.

Lol. I expected you to defend Dirk. I feel Wilt would be a headache to have as your franchise players. Switching through as many coaches as he did along with the ego issues, etc. Not taking Dirk over him, but I expect someone to go with Dirk here.

Will you use the same argument when discussing LBJ who is Wilt on steroids when it comes to being a headache and being coachable?

[mikejames23]

What is wrong with this board? I am one of the biggest Dirk homers and I have Chamblerain ahead at least 10 if not 15 spots. This is not even funny anymore how this board tries to diminish Wilt.

Lol. I expected you to defend Dirk. I feel Wilt would be a headache to have as your franchise players. Switching through as many coaches as he did along with the ego issues, etc. Not taking Dirk over him, but I expect someone to go with Dirk here.

Will you use the same argument when discussing LBJ who is Wilt on steroids when it comes to being a headache and being coachable?

That's not really close. LeBron James has repeatedly made coaches look far better than they really are, while Wilt is directly responsible for teams letting go of coaches an absurd number of times. Comparing LeBron's issue to Wilt's a clear disrespect to the King.

[clyde21]

I think Wilt is the best player ever.

How do you know? He played against like 4 teams.

[rebirthoftheM]

Sadly as time goes on, Dirk is getting massively overrated around these ends. Which troubles me because I like him and don't want to attack his game. But when we get disrespectful comparisions like this, between a legit GOAT candidate and a dude not anywhere near that, it lends itself to increased criticism.

Dirk's a nice player and all but please let's compare him with dudes on his level, not a true GOAT like Wilt.

[Eglend]

Sadly as time goes on, Dirk is getting massively overrated around these ends. Which troubles me because I like him and don't want to attack his game. But when we get disrespectful comparisions like this, between a legit GOAT candidate and a dude not anywhere near that, it lends itself to increased criticism.

Dirk's a nice player and all but please let's compare him with dudes on his level, not a true GOAT like Wilt.

Nah. At the level that Dirk reached, there really isn't that much difference between his tier and GOAT level players. Dirk was a monster at carrying mostly poor rosters/coaches to great regular season success, and he was an absolute monster in the playoffs once he got an actual competent coach as compared to the half retired Nelson, and the incompetent Avery Johnson that he had to suffer with for most of his really long prime. I think it's Wilt, but I don't think arguments for Dirk are as far fetched as people are talking in a board that has strong backers for KG being better than Wilt.

[rebirthoftheM]

Sadly as time goes on, Dirk is getting massively overrated around these ends. Which troubles me because I like him and don't want to attack his game. But when we get disrespectful comparisions like this, between a legit GOAT candidate and a dude not anywhere near that, it lends itself to increased criticism.

Dirk's a nice player and all but please let's compare him with dudes on his level, not a true GOAT like Wilt.

Nah. At the level that Dirk reached, there really isn't that much difference between his tier and GOAT level players. Dirk was a monster at carrying mostly poor rosters/coaches to great regular season success, and he was an absolute monster in the playoffs once he got an actual competent coach as compared to the half retired Nelson, and the incompetent Avery Johnson that he had to suffer with for most of his really long prime. I think it's Wilt, but I don't think arguments for Dirk are as far fetched as people are talking in a board that has strong backers for KG being better than Wilt.

I have Wilt at a minimum two tiers above Dirk. Which by my account makes the gap massive. Wilt is a GOAT candidate to me (and the more I read, the more im incline to say he is dead even with MJ), while no amount of spin (not even a skill-set analysis) could get Dirk close to GOAT level.

But you're right in the sense that if you believe KG is better than Wilt, then the comparision between Wilt and Dirk will become closer. KG is another one of those massively overrated but I just see it as a hipster trend confined to places like this.

And Dirk was a great playoff performer but his best doesn't touch Wilt in 67 for example. Even his famed 11 performance is vastly overrated. Mavs won because they zoned Lebron/Lebron wilted (excuse the pun) and Dirk was a minor factor in achieving that. His production level in 11 PS was not historical at all.

[PCProductions]

The fact that there's a good argument for Dirk here and that people are frustrated at the very notion of it makes this a really interesting comparison. I admire OP for these weird and yet strangely interesting comparisons that he brings to this board.

[D.Brasco]

I think Wilt is the best player ever.

How do you know? He played against like 4 teams.

Well you certainly don't know since you have no clue how many teams were in the league during his playing days.

And if anything team expansions have historically been used as arguments against certain players rankings.

I'll just leave a list of some of the HOF centers Wilt faced off against: Bill Rusell, Nate Thurmond, Wes Unseld, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Dave Cowens.

[Pg81]

Lol. I expected you to defend Dirk. I feel Wilt would be a headache to have as your franchise players. Switching through as many coaches as he did along with the ego issues, etc. Not taking Dirk over him, but I expect someone to go with Dirk here.

Will you use the same argument when discussing LBJ who is Wilt on steroids when it comes to being a headache and being coachable?

That's not really close. LeBron James has repeatedly made coaches look far better than they really are, while Wilt is directly responsible for teams letting go of coaches an absurd number of times. Comparing LeBron's issue to Wilt's a clear disrespect to the King.

Really now? He did so "many" times? Tell me how "many" times did he do so and was he really responsible?

[dhsilv2]

Can you explain to me how a player who averaged 30 ppg. on 54% shooting for his career, leading the league nine times in FG% is mediocre on offense?

Again, the argument would be based upon his impact on the team's fortunes. It's hard to be very granular in terms of separating player from team back then, but the first pass results would show that during Wilt's biggest volume scoring years, his teams were routinely finishing among the bottom of the league in offense.

One line of logic that has been permeating the boards of late is that individual offense is more important than individual defense because a great offensive player can supposedly lead to a great team offensive rating by himself, regardless of teammate quality, whereas a great individual defender can't have as much effect. I find that line of logic to be garbage, by the way, but it is a prevailing opinion among a growing group of posters. So, for those that believe this, Wilt leading consistent average/poor offenses would be evidence that he couldn't be all that dominant in his offensive impact.

Also, getting more granular, we can look in WOWY-type analysis for some of Wilt's seasons, especially 1965, when his absence/presence for half of the season on two different teams didn't seem to make as much difference in their regular season production as you would expect from a mega star. And since he averaged 35 points on 51% FG in that season, if those are the markers of greatness then he SHOULD have been making more difference.

I've seen references made to teammate accounts from those volume Wilt years saying that they had to subsume their games and run the entire offense based on Wilt's preferences so that he could get his points. If true, this could help account for how he could put up huge numbers but not be making the expected impact

Then, there's the notion that interior big men historically rarely have the offensive impact of a superstar. Generally, perimeter players can have more impact on offense and big men more impact on defense. There are some exceptions, but they're relatively rare. Perhaps Wilt wasn't one of those scoring/impact exceptions in the middle, despite the gaudy numbers

Just some food for thought

Saying his offense didn't translate to team win is not the same as saying his offense is mediocre. Mediocre means below average.

No it doesn't. The best definition I could think of would be "average".

"of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate:"

That is the first definition on dictionary.com

Now the secondary one does paint a bit lessor light on it, but that doesn't seem to be the common usage.

[dhsilv2]

Really comes down to how you rate/rank GOAT tiers I guess. I tend to look at a player vs their peers, their accolades, team successes, teammates, and then I do adjust a bit for era and how well their skills translate.

So for me Wilt has a good lead though this isn't an absurd question.

Now if you focus on portability and abiltiy to translate to different eras, then I think dirk gets a bit of a boost. If you are thinking about it from "if I were to draft this guy", well if that were the measure I'd take Dirk over Wilt pretty easily. But then I'd also take Dirk over Shaq and likely a few more top their guys because if I'm an owner Dirk is a top 10 draft pick. Wilt would be that insanely talented guy, who after the interview I black balled. That said that's getting awfully subjective which is why I wouldn't put as much weight on that.

[Takes5]

Love Dirk but he's battling to be top 20 AT while Wilt is firmly top 10 AT entrenched.

[Warspite]

Lol. I expected you to defend Dirk. I feel Wilt would be a headache to have as your franchise players. Switching through as many coaches as he did along with the ego issues, etc. Not taking Dirk over him, but I expect someone to go with Dirk here.

Will you use the same argument when discussing LBJ who is Wilt on steroids when it comes to being a headache and being coachable?

That's not really close. LeBron James has repeatedly made coaches look far better than they really are, while Wilt is directly responsible for teams letting go of coaches an absurd number of times. Comparing LeBron's issue to Wilt's a clear disrespect to the King.

You forgot to use green font. Everything you said in this post is without merit and not based on facts.

[mikejames23]

You forgot to use green font. Everything you said in this post is without merit and not based on facts.

??

No, no green font involved. Michael Jordan doesn't compare. I would say he even makes Dwight Howard look okay in comparison.

Let's not make Wilt to be something he's not here. LeBron James would basically be okay with Tyronne Lue coming in as coach, with no experience, and winning the title anyway.

Wilt Chamberlain needed a guy like Hannum to see what was going wrong with the team offensive flow to really figure out Wilt's strengths and produce his peak year/title season. And we're comparing him to LeBron James? Physical dominance, sure. Raw numbers, sure. Chemistry issues? Not even close.

LeBron played in the databall era where his every tweet is scrutinized and overblown. Despite the clear differences in the level of knowledge and information, there is no dearth of material posting Wilt as a complete and utter chemistry killer.

This is a good thread question, relatively speaking. Even if Dirk isn't as dominant, it's about time everyone woke up to the reality of Wilt, rather than overblowing tales from an archaic era that makes him look roughly like Chuck Norris.

[Warspite]

You forgot to use green font. Everything you said in this post is without merit and not based on facts.

??

No, no green font involved. Michael Jordan doesn't compare. I would say he even makes Dwight Howard look okay in comparison.

Let's not make Wilt to be something he's not here. LeBron James would basically be okay with Tyronne Lue coming in as coach, with no experience, and winning the title anyway.

Wilt Chamberlain needed a guy like Hannum to see what was going wrong with the team offensive flow to really figure out Wilt's strengths and produce his peak year/title season. And we're comparing him to LeBron James? Physical dominance, sure. Raw numbers, sure. Chemistry issues? Not even close.

LeBron played in the databall era where his every tweet is scrutinized and overblown. Despite the clear differences in the level of knowledge and information, there is no dearth of material posting Wilt as a complete and utter chemistry killer.

This is a good thread question, relatively speaking. Even if Dirk isn't as dominant, it's about time everyone woke up to the reality of Wilt, rather than overblowing tales from an archaic era that makes him look roughly like Chuck Norris.

The material about Wilt killing chemistry is a result of Wilt doing what his coaches asked him to do. No matter what Wilt did or what style he played his teams were always successful. Do you know that Wilt only lost 4 playoff series in his career to teams outside of Boston?

He lost to the Nationals in 61
the Knicks in the 1970 Finals
KAJs Bucks in 71 WCF
Knicks in the Finals in his last year in 73

Bill Russells Celtics were the only team to win a series against Wilts teams from 1962-1969.

LBJ is ok with Lue coaching him because he picked him and demanded he be hired. Wilt had legit gripes about playing for bad coaches. LBJ demands to pick the coach and to control the front office. LBJ wouldn't play for a good coach while Wilt doesn't like playing for bad coaches. These things are not similar.

[dhsilv2]

You forgot to use green font. Everything you said in this post is without merit and not based on facts.

??

No, no green font involved. Michael Jordan doesn't compare. I would say he even makes Dwight Howard look okay in comparison.

Let's not make Wilt to be something he's not here. LeBron James would basically be okay with Tyronne Lue coming in as coach, with no experience, and winning the title anyway.

Wilt Chamberlain needed a guy like Hannum to see what was going wrong with the team offensive flow to really figure out Wilt's strengths and produce his peak year/title season. And we're comparing him to LeBron James? Physical dominance, sure. Raw numbers, sure. Chemistry issues? Not even close.

LeBron played in the databall era where his every tweet is scrutinized and overblown. Despite the clear differences in the level of knowledge and information, there is no dearth of material posting Wilt as a complete and utter chemistry killer.

This is a good thread question, relatively speaking. Even if Dirk isn't as dominant, it's about time everyone woke up to the reality of Wilt, rather than overblowing tales from an archaic era that makes him look roughly like Chuck Norris.

The material about Wilt killing chemistry is a result of Wilt doing what his coaches asked him to do. No matter what Wilt did or what style he played his teams were always successful. Do you know that Wilt only lost 4 playoff series in his career to teams outside of Boston?

He lost to the Nationals in 61
the Knicks in the 1970 Finals
KAJs Bucks in 71 WCF
Knicks in the Finals in his last year in 73

Bill Russells Celtics were the only team to win a series against Wilts teams from 1962-1969.

LBJ is ok with Lue coaching him because he picked him and demanded he be hired. Wilt had legit gripes about playing for bad coaches. LBJ demands to pick the coach and to control the front office. LBJ wouldn't play for a good coach while Wilt doesn't like playing for bad coaches. These things are not similar.

That 4 losses is so so so misleading. He was in an era that at a point had as many teams in the league as we have in the playoffs today.

And i guess that's what wilt will ultimately be remembered as. A guy who's fans struggle to explain him and detractors have anecdotes. Wilt was always his worst enemy when it came to his modern perception for me at least. The guy just came off as an bad guy who I wanted to hate and the way he talked about himself was so outlandish I wondered if he actually thought he was bad at the game.

With virtually no decent game footage available and all the highlights of him being made to tell a story about his greatness and not a story about who he was, it is all the more difficult for there to be those who can even make fair statements.