Dirk Nowitzki vs Wilt Chamberlain

[SlowPaced]

Wilt was too mediocre on offense and too inconsistent on defense

Holy moly. Sigged.

[Texas Chuck]

drza raising the best points on the Dirk side. I don't do it nearly as well as he can do it, but this is a point I have harped on on the PC board for years now---the goal isn't gaudy individual numbers. The goal is team success. Or it should be--and if its not, then that's an issue.

I'm not here to argue Dirk over Wilt. But at some point the analysis does need to move beyond he scored a whole bunch of points and shot a good percentage. You know who else did that? Kevin Martin. Corey Maggette. In and of itself that only tells us that Wilt was capable of absurd volume and that he played for organizations and coaches who allowed him to do that.

Now I have sympathy for him that his teams had to deal with Bill Russell's Celtics. Clearly his teams have more ultimate success in a world where Bill Russell doesn't exist. So much like we have to understand that Mike and Scottie were taking championships away from the other superstars of their era, Russell was doing that to Wilt.

But some on this board are convinced that most talent equals best player which is mind-boggling to me. Even if its hard for one to understand that when looking from afar at NBA players, I'm assuming most of those with that perspective have played basketball before. And if you have then you should know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the most talented guys aren't always the best players. Obviously the elite players have elite talent plus everything else that goes into being a great player, but there are plenty of really talented guys who don't help you win nearly as much as less talented guys who really understand how to play, how to play to their own strengths while minimizing their flaws, and know how to elevate the play of those around them.

So this concept that Dirk's play could be having more positive impact than Wilt's over the course of a career isn't something to just be blindly dismissed. It doesn't mean you have to reach that conclusion, but frankly if you won't even consider it, you are the one intentionally being ignorant, not the person raising the comparison.

[dhsilv2]

drza raising the best points on the Dirk side. I don't do it nearly as well as he can do it, but this is a point I have harped on on the PC board for years now---the goal isn't gaudy individual numbers. The goal is team success. Or it should be--and if its not, then that's an issue.

I'm not here to argue Dirk over Wilt. But at some point the analysis does need to move beyond he scored a whole bunch of points and shot a good percentage. You know who else did that? Kevin Martin. Corey Maggette. In and of itself that only tells us that Wilt was capable of absurd volume and that he played for organizations and coaches who allowed him to do that.

Now I have sympathy for him that his teams had to deal with Bill Russell's Celtics. Clearly his teams have more ultimate success in a world where Bill Russell doesn't exist. So much like we have to understand that Mike and Scottie were taking championships away from the other superstars of their era, Russell was doing that to Wilt.

But some on this board are convinced that most talent equals best player which is mind-boggling to me. Even if its hard for one to understand that when looking from afar at NBA players, I'm assuming most of those with that perspective have played basketball before. And if you have then you should know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the most talented guys aren't always the best players. Obviously the elite players have elite talent plus everything else that goes into being a great player, but there are plenty of really talented guys who don't help you win nearly as much as less talented guys who really understand how to play, how to play to their own strengths while minimizing their flaws, and know how to elevate the play of those around them.

So this concept that Dirk's play could be having more positive impact than Wilt's over the course of a career isn't something to just be blindly dismissed. It doesn't mean you have to reach that conclusion, but frankly if you won't even consider it, you are the one intentionally being ignorant, not the person raising the comparison.

Great post and this should be echoed very loudly when we are comparing guys were weren't top 3-5 in the league. So often talented scorers get ranked over guys who know what their limits are and maximize their value to their teams. Those guys might not win a one on one game, but if the goal is to win games and that's how we value players, some of those guys are simply more valuable.

[AdagioPace]

Wilt is still surrounded by an aura of untouchability.
Those dozens and dozens of 50 points games are so virile

only recently,and probably only on this board,Bird and Magic started to slip a little bit with Lebron and Duncan entering the top 10.
I saw a couple of posts comparin Kobe to Bird and Magic. Something is moving...
Wilt was voted 6th in the current top 100

at least people are starting to talk about those icons in antropomorphic terms

[Johnny Firpo]

Please, you rank Webber over Dirk, that's a much bigger shake my head than this comparison.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Please, you rank Webber over Dirk, that's a much bigger shake my head than this comparison.

I do not rank Webber over Dirk.

I might rank Webber over Dirk in overall talent, and prime Webber was definitely > young Dirk before CWebb blew out his knee. Oh, and BTW, the ALL NBA voters agreed with me. But that was a long time ago. A dozen more years of accumulated value has a tendency to change things.

[Pg81]

drza raising the best points on the Dirk side. I don't do it nearly as well as he can do it, but this is a point I have harped on on the PC board for years now---the goal isn't gaudy individual numbers. The goal is team success. Or it should be--and if its not, then that's an issue.

I'm not here to argue Dirk over Wilt. But at some point the analysis does need to move beyond he scored a whole bunch of points and shot a good percentage. You know who else did that? Kevin Martin. Corey Maggette. In and of itself that only tells us that Wilt was capable of absurd volume and that he played for organizations and coaches who allowed him to do that.

Now I have sympathy for him that his teams had to deal with Bill Russell's Celtics. Clearly his teams have more ultimate success in a world where Bill Russell doesn't exist. So much like we have to understand that Mike and Scottie were taking championships away from the other superstars of their era, Russell was doing that to Wilt.

But some on this board are convinced that most talent equals best player which is mind-boggling to me. Even if its hard for one to understand that when looking from afar at NBA players, I'm assuming most of those with that perspective have played basketball before. And if you have then you should know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the most talented guys aren't always the best players. Obviously the elite players have elite talent plus everything else that goes into being a great player, but there are plenty of really talented guys who don't help you win nearly as much as less talented guys who really understand how to play, how to play to their own strengths while minimizing their flaws, and know how to elevate the play of those around them.

So this concept that Dirk's play could be having more positive impact than Wilt's over the course of a career isn't something to just be blindly dismissed. It doesn't mean you have to reach that conclusion, but frankly if you won't even consider it, you are the one intentionally being ignorant, not the person raising the comparison.

Why are you so dismissive of his raw stats? The matter of fact is that he dominated all major statistics like no one else before and after. He did so on unprecedented efficiency for his volume and when he was moderating his volume he shattered efficiency records.
It is telling that the NBA did everything in their power including the refs to limit Wilt's dominance. Dirk never was treated that way, not even close.
Furthermore he also broke team records and was the only player to lead a team to crush the Celtics, not just defeat them and if not for the slur of injuries the year after they would have repeated, easily. The year before he came to the 76ers they were a bad team at 32-48 record. He was traded halfyear through the season in 66 and they improved to 40-40 despite ruffling feathers with Goodrich who did not want to relinquish leadership to Wilt. Wilt then led the 76ers to a game 7 loss by 1! point. The next year was the biggest dominance of it's time for a team.
In his scoring heavy years he was able to bring the Celtics to the brink of elimination in his mere third year while his team mates collectively shot sub 35%. I remember you being one of those defending Dirk's lack of team success because the talent around him was at times awful like Terry from 2008 to 2010. Yet you do not seem to extend the same courtesy to Wilt.

Lastly, Wilt had plenty of team impact and is certainly one of the best in league history, despite what the silly detractors want to tell you. Under the same circumstances no one else would have achieved even one title against the Celtics on Wil's team. Not MJ, not Kareem and not Russell either.

[Texas Chuck]

[quote="Pg81
Why are you so dismissive of his raw stats? [/quote]


Not dismissive of them. But not just going to go omg 50 ppg and say we can't compare one of the dozen best players of all-time against him because of his raw totals either.

Feel free to take your own approach, but was just stating mine. I certainly never took the position that Wilt wasn't a great or dominant player--he was. I am questioning that just scoring a bunch of points means all that much in and of itself.

[Pg81]

Not dismissive of them. But not just going to go omg 50 ppg and say we can't compare one of the dozen best players of all-time against him because of his raw totals either.

Feel free to take your own approach, but was just stating mine. I certainly never took the position that Wilt wasn't a great or dominant player--he was. I am questioning that just scoring a bunch of points means all that much in and of itself.

Why not "omg 50 ppg"? It is a jawdropping feat. He is not the first player to get the green light on his team to gun to his hearts contend. Even if you take that and the pace and try to construct an argument against him, to be able to score 50 ppg at good efficiency relative to the league average is an incredible feat, like it or not. This is far more than a matter of pace and coaching. It is a testament of Wilt's scoring prowess and his otherwordly stamina.

[Texas Chuck]

[quote="Pg81]

Why not "omg 50 ppg"? It is a jawdropping feat. He is not the first player to get the green light on his team to gun to his hearts contend. Even if you take that and the pace and try to construct an argument against him, to be able to score 50 ppg at good efficiency relative to the league average is an incredible feat, like it or not. This is far more than a matter of pace and coaching. It is a testament of Wilt's scoring prowess and his otherwordly stamina.[/quote]

Sure its an impressive individual feat. No doubt about that.

[Sublime187]

drza raising the best points on the Dirk side. I don't do it nearly as well as he can do it, but this is a point I have harped on on the PC board for years now---the goal isn't gaudy individual numbers. The goal is team success. Or it should be--and if its not, then that's an issue.

I'm not here to argue Dirk over Wilt. But at some point the analysis does need to move beyond he scored a whole bunch of points and shot a good percentage. You know who else did that? Kevin Martin. Corey Maggette. In and of itself that only tells us that Wilt was capable of absurd volume and that he played for organizations and coaches who allowed him to do that.

Now I have sympathy for him that his teams had to deal with Bill Russell's Celtics. Clearly his teams have more ultimate success in a world where Bill Russell doesn't exist. So much like we have to understand that Mike and Scottie were taking championships away from the other superstars of their era, Russell was doing that to Wilt.

But some on this board are convinced that most talent equals best player which is mind-boggling to me. Even if its hard for one to understand that when looking from afar at NBA players, I'm assuming most of those with that perspective have played basketball before. And if you have then you should know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the most talented guys aren't always the best players. Obviously the elite players have elite talent plus everything else that goes into being a great player, but there are plenty of really talented guys who don't help you win nearly as much as less talented guys who really understand how to play, how to play to their own strengths while minimizing their flaws, and know how to elevate the play of those around them.

So this concept that Dirk's play could be having more positive impact than Wilt's over the course of a career isn't something to just be blindly dismissed. It doesn't mean you have to reach that conclusion, but frankly if you won't even consider it, you are the one intentionally being ignorant, not the person raising the comparison.

Outstanding post. Another example is Dantley who was at nearly 27-28 PPG at about 63% TS for a 7 year span. Not many people championing him as a top 10 offensive player of all time.

[Drylick]

Dirk has no argument over Wilt.

[JordansBulls]

Dirk has no argument over Wilt.

This.

[DidUSaySometing]

My initial, gut reaction is Wilt, but I will say that I have hardened my stance on Wilt slightly while softening my stance on Dirk. I haven't changed enough to switch, but I wouldn't call it implausible.

According to my tiering:

Jordan/Kareem/Duncan/Russell/Lebron/KG

Magic/Shaq/Hakeem/Wilt/Oscar

and Dirk is knocking on that Magic tier, so it's closer than one would think.

shaq is better than all the players on the 1st tier. he's WAY better than KG, not even close. only kareem and duncan are up there with shaq. dirk is top 20

[bledredwine]

Why if it isn't another terrible thread with era bias. Color me surprised. I really didn't see this coming from the PC board, which somehow surpassed the general board in incorrect basketball opinion percentage. You guys make two out of every ten opinion attempts. I applaud that. It's an impressive feat.

[PaulieWal]

Why if it isn't another terrible thread with era bias. Color me surprised. I really didn't see this coming from the PC board, which somehow surpassed the general board in incorrect basketball opinion percentage. You guys make two out of every ten opinion attempts. I applaud that. It's an impressive feat.

You know what they say.....if you have nothing nice to say might not say anything at all.

[THKNKG]

Why if it isn't another terrible thread with era bias. Color me surprised. I really didn't see this coming from the PC board, which somehow surpassed the general board in incorrect basketball opinion percentage. You guys make two out of every ten opinion attempts. I applaud that. It's an impressive feat.

So... why post here?