#4 Greatest Defensive C of All-Time - Top 10 Defense at each position project

[70sFan]

Deke is by far the best defender post Russell. I wish I knew about this project prior to now but here's some RAPM data (now keep in mind we don't have PI numbers from 94-97 when he peaked and we don't have PI numbers from 2001 so we're missing 3 of his DPOY seasons here).

In Doc MJ's regularized RAPM (which runs from 98-14 missing only 01) Deke's 98-00 average DRAPM z-score is 2.92. First off that means over a period of 3 years his DRAPM was in the 99.7th percentile so already he's way better than everyone else ON AVERAGE. Secondly there's only one other single season (Jason Collins in 05) with a z-score over 2.92. That means only one single season we have measured is as good as Deke's average.

Now some years that are missing in that (97 and 01) we have non PI RAPM data for. In 01 Deke was 2nd to Shawn Bradley in RAPM. In 97 he was 2nd to Bo Outlaw.

Basically in the +/- data era there's no one even close to Deke in terms of defensive impact.

Now this isn't separated much from his reputation. He has the most DPOYs ever along with Ben Wallace. He won them on 3 different teams showing it had nothing to do with his teammates, coach, or even really synergy. No matter what Deke was stopping the opposing offense.

Like seriously he's not even close to the competition. I don't understand how anyone but him was voted in at 2 but don't muck this up again, vote him in at 4.

Well, I'd definitely take him in advanced stats era over anyone left, but we don't have stats for Wilt and Thurmond. It's not as easy as you may think honestly.

I'm still slightly on Mutombo side, but I'm not convinced to vote him here.

Thurmond I can see mainly for his man defense but without some type of strong evidence he's as great as Deke I can't see putting him over Deke. Wilt? Not seeing it. He just didn't play defense consistently if you look at his team DRTGs.

In what seasons did Wilt underperformed defensively though? He led some of the best teams ever in terms of defense and he improved his D in playoffs which is rare.

[E-Balla]

Well, I'd definitely take him in advanced stats era over anyone left, but we don't have stats for Wilt and Thurmond. It's not as easy as you may think honestly.

I'm still slightly on Mutombo side, but I'm not convinced to vote him here.

Thurmond I can see mainly for his man defense but without some type of strong evidence he's as great as Deke I can't see putting him over Deke. Wilt? Not seeing it. He just didn't play defense consistently if you look at his team DRTGs.

In what seasons did Wilt underperformed defensively though? He led some of the best teams ever in terms of defense and he improved his D in playoffs which is rare.

He did improve his defense in the playoffs (along with his effort in general) which is a major feather in his cap (if it wasn't Deke and Thurmond he was being compared to) but the 69-71 Lakers massively underachieved defensively (when compared to what he did in Philly) and the 61-63 Warriors did too (especially 63). He was consistently great from 64-68 but that's only a window of his career. Maybe it's not all on him but from what I understand (and have seen watching old NBA Finals series from back then) in the NBA back then your defense was basically as good as your C.

[cecilthesheep]

Deke is by far the best defender post Russell. I wish I knew about this project prior to now but here's some RAPM data (now keep in mind we don't have PI numbers from 94-97 when he peaked and we don't have PI numbers from 2001 so we're missing 3 of his DPOY seasons here).

In Doc MJ's regularized RAPM (which runs from 98-14 missing only 01) Deke's 98-00 average DRAPM z-score is 2.92. First off that means over a period of 3 years his DRAPM was in the 99.7th percentile so already he's way better than everyone else ON AVERAGE. Secondly there's only one other single season (Jason Collins in 05) with a z-score over 2.92. That means only one single season we have measured is as good as Deke's average.

Now some years that are missing in that (97 and 01) we have non PI RAPM data for. In 01 Deke was 2nd to Shawn Bradley in RAPM. In 97 he was 2nd to Bo Outlaw.

Basically in the +/- data era there's no one even close to Deke in terms of defensive impact.

Now this isn't separated much from his reputation. He has the most DPOYs ever along with Ben Wallace. He won them on 3 different teams showing it had nothing to do with his teammates, coach, or even really synergy. No matter what Deke was stopping the opposing offense.

Like seriously he's not even close to the competition. I don't understand how anyone but him was voted in at 2 but don't muck this up again, vote him in at 4.

Well, I'd definitely take him in advanced stats era over anyone left, but we don't have stats for Wilt and Thurmond. It's not as easy as you may think honestly.

I'm still slightly on Mutombo side, but I'm not convinced to vote him here.

Thurmond I can see mainly for his man defense but without some type of strong evidence he's as great as Deke I can't see putting him over Deke. Wilt? Not seeing it. He just didn't play defense consistently if you look at his team DRTGs.

You're using inconsistent team DRtg as an argument against Wilt, but your guy is Mutombo? By that standard, how do you account for:

1995 Nuggets - Mutombo plays 82 games at 37.8 mpg, team DRtg is 108.2, 14th out of 28
1996 Nuggets - Mutombo plays 74 games at 36.7 mpg, team DRtg is 108.1, 17th out of 29
2000 Hawks - Mutombo plays 82 games at 36.4 mpg, team DRtg is 107.9, 25th out of 29

Team DRtg is a noisy stat and not necessarily indicative of an individual defensive player's ability. That said, if that's your knock on Wilt, Mutombo is a weird candidate to advocate for; I even skipped over some other mediocre-to-bad team defenses of his.

[cecilthesheep]

Vote Dikembe Mutombo
I think Dikembe was better than Nate Thurmond based on eye test. My Thurmond sample size is too small.
I am not awarding 1960s players credit for being ahead of their time. If anything I am detracting points from 1960s players for substandard competition.

The stats say Thurmond was a better defender than Wilt. That helps Dikembe with me because in my eye test it was easier to say Dikembe was better than Thurmond than it was for me to say Dikembe's was better than Wilt.

I replied to you in the other thread, but I want to get my opposing perspective in this one too, so I'm just gonna copy it over:

We're not ranking most advanced defenders here, we're ranking greatest.

Dikembe was probably tougher for opposing teams to score on in absolute terms because he had the benefit of training, medicine, and evolved defensive schemes that Thurmond never did. So yes, if you threw them both into any given year, say 1978, at their peaks, Dikembe would be the better defender. But if Thurmond and Mutombo had both been born in 1957, grown up with access to the same resources, and ended up playing NBA basketball in 1978, I think Thurmond would be the better defender, and I think that comparison is more meaningful.

[cecilthesheep]

Deke is by far the best defender post Russell. I wish I knew about this project prior to now but here's some RAPM data (now keep in mind we don't have PI numbers from 94-97 when he peaked and we don't have PI numbers from 2001 so we're missing 3 of his DPOY seasons here).

In Doc MJ's regularized RAPM (which runs from 98-14 missing only 01) Deke's 98-00 average DRAPM z-score is 2.92. First off that means over a period of 3 years his DRAPM was in the 99.7th percentile so already he's way better than everyone else ON AVERAGE. Secondly there's only one other single season (Jason Collins in 05) with a z-score over 2.92. That means only one single season we have measured is as good as Deke's average.

Now some years that are missing in that (97 and 01) we have non PI RAPM data for. In 01 Deke was 2nd to Shawn Bradley in RAPM. In 97 he was 2nd to Bo Outlaw.

Basically in the +/- data era there's no one even close to Deke in terms of defensive impact.

Now this isn't separated much from his reputation. He has the most DPOYs ever along with Ben Wallace. He won them on 3 different teams showing it had nothing to do with his teammates, coach, or even really synergy. No matter what Deke was stopping the opposing offense.

Like seriously he's not even close to the competition. I don't understand how anyone but him was voted in at 2 but don't muck this up again, vote him in at 4.

Well, I'd definitely take him in advanced stats era over anyone left, but we don't have stats for Wilt and Thurmond. It's not as easy as you may think honestly.

I'm still slightly on Mutombo side, but I'm not convinced to vote him here.

I'm voting for Thurmond, but we do have one advanced stat that covers all three with only minor differences pre-1973. And for honesty's sake, I have to get it out there: Dikembe's WOWYR scores of 8.5 prime and 7.1 career absolutely crush all his remaining competition.

[trex_8063]

The stats say Thurmond was a better defender than Wilt.

I'm not convinced that the stats do say Thurmond was a better defender than Wilt (though I'll allow they certainly put him in Wilt's vicinity defensively). All they say fairly definitively is that Thurmond was the better low-post defender (and he's getting a lot of mileage out of that consideration here).

But if we, for instance, look at the caliber of team defenses anchored, the immediate before/after effects (on the rDRTG) of each of them arriving or leaving a franchise, Wilt very very clearly looks like the more dominant and impactful defender.

I'm not entirely sure how to explain it, given Thurmond appears the better low-post man defender, is a more than solid rim protector in his own right, and does appear more fleet of foot (where it relates to rotations, pnr defense, etc) that Wilt [at least in any season '67 and after].
But I'll suggest two hypotheses: 1) although Nate is a largely elite rim protector, Wilt is even better. And 2) it's apparent [*see below] that Wilt is the easily superior rebounder (so maybe he's closing more possessions in that fashion, too).

*In per 100 possession estimates, Nate's single-season BEST was 19.6 TRebs. Wilt's career average was 19.7.
Or put another way: Nate's career average was 16.8 reb/100 possessions; Wilt's single-season LOWEST was 17.1.


And even if I concluded that Nate was the marginally better defensive anchor while on the court, I think I'll have a hard time coming to the conclusion that it's by enough of a margin to offset the fact that Wilt played nearly 12k more minutes than Thurmond in the same length career. That's massive. And the longevity thing REALLY applies in Wilt's case, given he was MVP in his rookie season, and still an All-NBA level center (who got All-D 1st Team ahead of Nate, fwiw) in his final season.

Speaking for myself, I haven't yet read anything that has convinced me to put Nate over Wilt within the context of this project.

[trex_8063]

I'm voting for Thurmond, but we do have one advanced stat that covers all three with only minor differences pre-1973. And for honesty's sake, I have to get it out there: Dikembe's WOWYR scores of 8.5 prime and 7.1 career absolutely crush all his remaining competition.

They do. Thurmond's is 5.1, Wilt's is 6.1 (for career values). Combined with the DRAPM info that I [in the last thread] provided and what E-Balla posted in this one.....I'm pretty set on Mutombo personally.
But in the interest of the Wilt vs Nate debate, please see my last post, too.

[Samurai]

Voting for Nate Thurmond. As a Warrior fan, I was able to see a lot of Thurmond, both on TV and at both the Oakland Coliseum and the Cow Palace before that. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of those not voting for Thurmond never saw him play live. As someone who had the chance to see Big Nate play live, as well as the others in contention (Kareem, Deke, Wilt, Big Ben, etc.), my view is that Nate was better defensively in his era than the others were in their era. And that is the primary point for me. As I've said before, I have never seen an actual functioning time-machine, so I have no idea how well Nate would do if he were transported to 2003 just as I don't know how Ben Wallace would do if he were transported to the 1960's. And since this is a basketball forum and not a science fiction forum, playing Back to the Future games is not relevant. Looking at these centers and how they played under the conditions they played under, I am comfortable voting for Thurmond.

[trex_8063]

I’m going to again post a limited number of comparisons by several aggregates, including various DVOR (defensive value over replacement) splits, as I had in prior threads.

NOTES (read please):
*For anyone new to this, DVOR is NOT to be confused with DVORP (derived from bbref’s VORP figures). DVOR utilizes (where ever possible) DRAPM [available for ‘97 and after] and minutes played, with “replacement level” being defined as -0.75.
**For ‘94-’96, we have another plus/minus metric available in the form of rs-only APM. This figure is used for those seasons, along with guidance by BPM to estimate the offense:defense splits on the APM number.
***For seasons prior to ‘94, in previous threads I’d been using shutupandjam’s Estimated Impact (EI) defensive splits. However, anyone following this close will know by now that the domain on that site expired, so it is no longer available. I had recorded the numbers for Bill Russell and Hakeem’s pre-’94 seasons before the site went down, so I have them.

But this will prevent me from including other “old-timers” such as Wilt or Thurmond in these comparisons.

****For the pre-’94 seasons of David Robinson and Dikembe Mutombo, I simply used (0.75 * DBPM) as an estimate. I didn’t use the full DBPM value, as I feel that can sometimes overstate things (relative to a typical DRAPM). That might be marginally short-changing them for those years, so bear that in mind.

*****In DVOR per game in best 5 years, it might not be the same five years as in the cumulative avg.

******Where DPOY shares [and All-D pts, for that matter] are concerned, also bear in mind that Robinson, Mutombo, and Hakeem were often in direct competition with each other, probably dragging ALL of their figures down in those categories compared to Ben Wallace (we really didn’t have another great defensive C whose prime overlapped with Ben’s).

*******All shorter seasons (and associated metrics) have been pro-rated to 82-game schedule.


All-Defensive Honors “Points” (awarded 1.5 pts for each 1st team, 1.0 pts for each 2nd)
Hakeem Olajuwon - 11.5
David Robinson - 10.0
Ben Wallace - 8.5
Dikembe Mutombo - 7.5
Bill Russell - 1.5 (*only awarded his final season)
Shawn Bradley - 0


DPOY Shares
Ben Wallace - 3.747
Dikembe Mutombo - 2.146
Hakeem Olajuwon - 1.969
David Robinson - 1.331
Shawn Bradley - 0
**not awarded during Russell’s career

DWS
Bill Russell - 143.9
Hakeem Olajuwon - 94.5
David Robinson - 80.1
Ben Wallace - 70.6
Dikembe Mutombo - 68.5
Shawn Bradley - 30.8

DBPM
Ben Wallace: +5.5
David Robinson: +4.3
Hakeem Olajuwon: +3.8
Dikembe Mutombo: +3.6
Shawn Bradley: +3.4
**not available for Russell’s career

Individual rDRTG
David Robinson: -10.0
Ben Wallace: -9.4
Hakeem Olajuwon: -8.6
Dikembe Mutombo: -6.8
Shawn Bradley: -4.0
**not available for Russell’s career

Cumulative Career DVOR
Bill Russell - 181,196.05
Hakeem Olajuwon - 171,267.8
Dikembe Mutombo - 154.734.3
David Robinson - 151,777.8
Ben Wallace - 108,273.3
Shawn Bradley - 70,643.0

Avg DVOR per Season (full career)
Bill Russell - 13,938.2
David Robinson - 10,841.2
Hakeem Olajuwon - 9,514.9
Dikembe Mutombo - 8,596.4
Ben Wallace - 6,767.1
Shawn Bradley - 5,886.9

Avg DVOR per Season (Best 5 years)
Dikembe Mutombo - 18,417.6
Bill Russell - 16,994.7
Hakeem Olajuwon - 14,663.1
David Robinson - 13,808.6
Ben Wallace - 11,727.7
Shawn Bradley - 9,933.7

Avg DVOR Per Game (Best 5 years)
Dikembe Mutombo - 229.6
Bill Russell - 219.6
Hakeem Olajuwon - 184.2
David Robinson - 176.4
Ben Wallace - 150.4
Shawn Bradley - 141.5

[trex_8063]

For reasons outlined in last three posts itt (and comments made in last thread), as well as alluding to arguments made by another poster, I'm voting Dikembe Mutombo.

An imposing low-post man defender, who owned what I'll call "the vertical space" around the basket: in the 10-year prime ('92-'01) he averaged 12.4 DRebs, 5.0 blk, 4.6 fouls per 100 possessions.
For comparison, the last two guys voted in:
'90-'97 David Robinson: 11.0 DRebs, 4.8 blk, 4.0 fouls.
'86-'96 Hakeem Olajuwon: 11.3 DRebs, 4.7 blk, 4.9 fouls.

And as I and E-Balla have tried to illustrate, he's somewhat an outlier among his contemporaries in impact metrics. idk, for me it's a little hard to vote for anyone else (given Russell/Olajuwon/Robinson are already off the table).

[70sFan]

Dikembe seems to be the best choice here, but I have to ask - why some of his teans were so terrible defensively? 2000 Hawks are particularly interesting, but also his last two seasons with Nuggets.

I'm not saying that it's his fault, I'd like to understand more context here though. E-Balla blaims Wilt for some underachievements, but here they are even more obvious.

Warriors in 1961 and 1962 were good defensively, definitely not dominant but not very disapointing either. 1963 is certainly a black mark on his resume, though given context it can be explained. He didn't play at all in 1970, 1969 is another weak year but he stepped up in playoffs (Lakers were actually better defensively than Celtics in that PS). 1971 is nothing to worry about, Lakers weren't great but still better than average and this team had tons of health problems.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

The stats say Thurmond was a better defender than Wilt.

I'm not convinced that the stats do say Thurmond was a better defender than Wilt (though I'll allow they certainly put him in Wilt's vicinity defensively). All they say fairly definitively is that Thurmond was the better low-post defender (and he's getting a lot of mileage out of that consideration here).

But if we, for instance, look at the caliber of team defenses anchored, the immediate before/after effects (on the rDRTG) of each of them arriving or leaving a franchise, Wilt very very clearly looks like the more dominant and impactful defender.

I'm not entirely sure how to explain it, given Thurmond appears the better low-post man defender, is a more than solid rim protector in his own right, and does appear more fleet of foot (where it relates to rotations, pnr defense, etc) that Wilt [at least in any season '67 and after].
But I'll suggest two hypotheses: 1) although Nate is a largely elite rim protector, Wilt is even better. And 2) it's apparent [*see below] that Wilt is the easily superior rebounder (so maybe he's closing more possessions in that fashion, too).

*In per 100 possession estimates, Nate's single-season BEST was 19.6 TRebs. Wilt's career average was 19.7.
Or put another way: Nate's career average was 16.8 reb/100 possessions; Wilt's single-season LOWEST was 17.1.


And even if I concluded that Nate was the marginally better defensive anchor while on the court, I think I'll have a hard time coming to the conclusion that it's by enough of a margin to offset the fact that Wilt played nearly 12k more minutes than Thurmond in the same length career. That's massive. And the longevity thing REALLY applies in Wilt's case, given he was MVP in his rookie season, and still an All-NBA level center (who got All-D 1st Team ahead of Nate, fwiw) in his final season.

Speaking for myself, I haven't yet read anything that has convinced me to put Nate over Wilt within the context of this project.

The reason Wilt's team's played better defense could have something to with the teammates. Also winning more motivates teammates to play better defense. Then again maybe Wilt was a better help defender.

When Wilt leaves the 76ers they also loose Luke Jackson to injury. Also Archie Clark gets minutes in the back court. Maybe Archie Clark was a bad defender.

Missed shots create more rebounds. Improved shooting by the league decreases rebounds. The league averaged 67 rebounds per game in 1965 and averaged 47 rebounds per game in 1975. Maybe Thurmond was sacrificing rebounds and team defense for man to man defense. I felt like 1980s Kareem had a tendency to sacrifice rebounding in order to provide more help defense.

Thurmond joined a very good Bulls defense that was probably already in decline. It would probably be better to look at younger Thurmond's injury periods, but then you need to know something about Thurmond's back up center.

The stats say Thurmond was a better defender than Wilt.

I'm not convinced that the stats do say Thurmond was a better defender than Wilt (though I'll allow they certainly put him in Wilt's vicinity defensively). All they say fairly definitively is that Thurmond was the better low-post defender (and he's getting a lot of mileage out of that

Without on on off stats I don't see stats better than the effect on other centers.
Of course with Wilt never going off the court the on off stats would not be so useful even if they existed.

Wills Reed matters less as an indicator because he shot jump shots. Kareem never faced young Wilt.

That leaves Bellamy and Russell out of the comparisons that were presented. Better defense on Russel does say something.
On help defense I can't separate Wilt and Nate from their teammates using stats.

My video Sample of Thurmond is bad. I have rookie Thurmand, the end of a meaningless blow out and old Thurmond. My memory had Thurmond being comparable to Dikembe but not as good; but I forgot how bad my sample of Nate was.

My video sample of younger than 1967 Wilt is also small. Young Wilt reminded me of Robinson athletically.

Maybe I am overreacting to Thurmond having a bigger impact on opposing centers fg%. My alternative is to try to guess from eye test which is exactly what I am doing with Dikembe and Thurmond. Now that I realize how bad my video sample of Nate was it seems wrong for me to compare Nate to to Dikembe based on eye test or worse rembered ideas about an eye test. I don't want to defer to who has the more passionate fan club.

Comparing Thurmond to anybody is going to be somewhat random. We know there were more rebounds in the 1960s and I think the size gap between power forwards and Centers was bigger in the 1960s.

I was looking at lists of 1960s NBA TV broadcasts. There was not much NBA on TV. People actually needed to go to the games. I don't entirely trust the 1960s fans opinions. I think they have nostalgia goggles but young fans today don't entirely trust 1980s fans like me and they think I have nostalgia goggles. At least with the 1980s I can watch the game film and check myself.

[SkyHookFTW]

I'm going Wilt Chamberlain here for what I pointed out in my previous post (for #3 center) and also because he is the best combination of help defense, man defense, rim protection, defensive rebounding, and post play that we have. Nate may be the best man defender but he is behind Wilt in the other categories.

Also, another thing to consider. Wilt had no drop off defensively up to and including his last year. When Deke leaves the Sixers his impact drops considerably, as his last seven years are very ordinary and show his decline; Nate's last four years sees the same decline. The stats don't lie here. Wilt has no drop off defensively except for a loss of some lateral mobility--expected of a guy playing at 310-315 with a serious knee injury. He still had enough vertical to block Kareem's skyhook at age 35-36 as video proof shows. He was still unmovable in the post. He still played crazy minutes, still had the rebounding numbers that show he was a true banger in the post. Deke and Nate's rebounding numbers fall off a cliff; Wilt wins rebounding titles his last years.

Playoffs: This may be his biggest testament. During his last two years, both times in the playoffs, he played insane minutes per game (46.9, 47.1) and his rebounding totals increased from his regular season game average.

For anyone who wants to bring up the argument that Deke and Nate played more seasons, let's put this to rest right now.

Minutes played:
Wilt--47859
Nate Thurmond--35881
Deke--36791

Why was Wilt still playing heavy minutes even when he purposely stopped being an offensive hub (last three years averaging about 43 MPG)? It's because he was still a stud defender up to his last game. Dream, D-Rob, Deke, Nate, Big Ben, even Bill Russell can't say that.

Edit: Bill Russell can say that. Got carried away.

Fun fact: Kareem shot +50% playing against every center for his career with two exceptions: Wilt and Nate. And for what it's worth, I'm probably one of the very few who has seen all these players play live multiple times--shout out to Samurai, old guys rule, lol!

Vote: Wilt Chamberlain

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

In a 17 team league the Bulls go from 8th in opponent Fg% to 4th when Thurmond joins the team. The team goes from 1st in turnover's forced to 13th; what did Motta change his philosophy?

Then Thurmand and Chet Walker leave. Sloan and Love are getting older and the opposing team fg% drops to 15th.
All 3 years the Bulls have the slowest or 2nd slowest pace and that makes their defense look better than it was.

[E-Balla]

Well, I'd definitely take him in advanced stats era over anyone left, but we don't have stats for Wilt and Thurmond. It's not as easy as you may think honestly.

I'm still slightly on Mutombo side, but I'm not convinced to vote him here.

Thurmond I can see mainly for his man defense but without some type of strong evidence he's as great as Deke I can't see putting him over Deke. Wilt? Not seeing it. He just didn't play defense consistently if you look at his team DRTGs.

You're using inconsistent team DRtg as an argument against Wilt, but your guy is Mutombo? By that standard, how do you account for:

1995 Nuggets - Mutombo plays 82 games at 37.8 mpg, team DRtg is 108.2, 14th out of 28
1996 Nuggets - Mutombo plays 74 games at 36.7 mpg, team DRtg is 108.1, 17th out of 29
2000 Hawks - Mutombo plays 82 games at 36.4 mpg, team DRtg is 107.9, 25th out of 29

Team DRtg is a noisy stat and not necessarily indicative of an individual defensive player's ability. That said, if that's your knock on Wilt, Mutombo is a weird candidate to advocate for; I even skipped over some other mediocre-to-bad team defenses of his.

1. The 90s NBA and the 60s NBA are totally different. Bill Russell's defensive impact is completely impossible in the modern NBA. One player was much more important defensively back then.

2. We have numbers clearly proving even with those horrible defenses Deke was spectacular. Like miles ahead of every other defender in the league. We can accurately say 2000 Deke has THE BEST single season defensive +/- numbers ever. With that in mind overall team numbers matter way less.

3. We know Wilt slacked in other ways multiple times through his career. He's famous for never fouling out for example. Either he's the GOAT or he purposefully avoided fouling once he had 5. Which is more likely?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Dikembe leaves Denver and opposing team fg% goes from 13th to 22nd
A few years earlier the Nuggets opposing team fg% was 2nd in the NBA. They had a heathy Laphonso Ellis and Reggie Williams that year in addition to Dikembe. They knocked a good Sonics team out of the playoffs.

The Hawks are 20th in opposing team fg% the year before Dikembe and 3rd in opposing team fg% the year Dikembe joins them.
Opposing fg% gets worse some the next year, gets worse a bunch more when Blaylock leaves and Dikembe is 33 and then it gets worse when Dikembe leaves.

76ers opposing fg% drops from 5th with old Dikembe to 23rd without Dikembe.

Nuggets go from 27th before Dikembe to 19th with rookie Dikembe to 5th and the to 3rd the next year when they beat the Sonics

I have not looked at the other teams. The knicks were the last team I looked at. 37 year old Dikembe played 23 minutes a game for 65 games. Knicks go from 26th before Dikembe to 8th with Dikembe to 28th after Dikembe in opposing team fg%. Obviously Dikembe is only part of that.

[E-Balla]

Dikembe seems to be the best choice here, but I have to ask - why some of his teans were so terrible defensively? 2000 Hawks are particularly interesting, but also his last two seasons with Nuggets.

I'm not saying that it's his fault, I'd like to understand more context here though. E-Balla blaims Wilt for some underachievements, but here they are even more obvious.

Warriors in 1961 and 1962 were good defensively, definitely not dominant but not very disapointing either. 1963 is certainly a black mark on his resume, though given context it can be explained. He didn't play at all in 1970, 1969 is another weak year but he stepped up in playoffs (Lakers were actually better defensively than Celtics in that PS). 1971 is nothing to worry about, Lakers weren't great but still better than average and this team had tons of health problems.

Deke in 2000 had a 6.61 DRAPM. 2nd had a 5.04. That's a 31% difference. To this day it's the highest defensive (or offensive for that matter) RAPM z-score ever (in the 99.9th percentile). Literally the best +/- season on either side of the ball since 1997. That's why their defense sucked. They'd probably be the worst ever without him.

EDIT: He also led the league in TS%. It's easily his best season IMO.

[ThaRegul8r]

Deke is by far the best defender post Russell.

I recall Dean Oliver saying something to this effect while he was discussing the work he was doing for his book Basketball on Paper, which would be published in a couple of years from that time. And we have more information since then than was available at that time, and I've seen a couple of other basketball writers say words to that effect.

Dikembe was probably tougher for opposing teams to score on in absolute terms because he had the benefit of training, medicine, and evolved defensive schemes that Thurmond never did. So yes, if you threw them both into any given year, say 1978, at their peaks, Dikembe would be the better defender. But if Thurmond and Mutombo had both been born in 1957, grown up with access to the same resources, and ended up playing NBA basketball in 1978, I think Thurmond would be the better defender, and I think that comparison is more meaningful.

I've queried in the past how people in cross-era comparisons control for technology (which most don't). Because when people say modern players are better than past players due to technology, that goes beyond how good a player is and into when they happened to exist, because what technology is available to a player is solely contingent on what point in time they exist. The further forward in time you go, the better the technology will be, but that's something beyond a player's control that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

[SkyHookFTW]

3. We know Wilt slacked in other ways multiple times through his career. He's famous for never fouling out for example. Either he's the GOAT or he purposefully avoided fouling once he had 5. Which is more likely?

Wilt averaged 2.0 fouls per game. Ben Wallace averaged 1.9 fouls per game. Mean anything?

I'm sure Wilt didn't become the all-time rebounding leader by avoiding contact half the game. If you look at the all-time foul leaders there aren't many from the 60's. Hell, Wilt slammed Gus Johnson to the ground so hard he separated Gus' shoulder and didn't get called for a foul.

[kendogg]

First things first are my pool of candidates for this round (ordered by era): Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Dikembe Mutombo, Ben Wallace. Guys like Ewing, Zo and Shaq will fight over the remaining spots in my opinion, but maybe one of them or another dark horse sneaks in.

One thing to note is that the 60's had a lot of good centers and not just Russ, Wilt and Nate. There was also Walt Bellamy, Willis Reed and Zelmo Beaty who are also all HOF centers. When it comes to centers, the 60's and 90's have the most stars. So despite the fact that the league has evolved into having more skilled players each year, outliers are still outliers. the skill of the 12th man in 1960 vs today is massive but there is no skill difference between the best few players of each era, in my opinion. they evolved their play to match how basketball was played in their era.

Wallace is perhaps the weakest candidate here because all his best performances came on a team already stacked with great defenders. At the very least he has some major red flags in his career. Also the shortest peak of the pool.

Kareem has perhaps the lowest defensive peak here, but not by much, and has the highest longevity. He'll slot in somewhere but not yet in my opinion.

Mutombo is a great defender, but of the remaining pool, he and Nate got to rest on offense for the most part (they average like 8 shots a game in their primes). Mutombo has good advanced stats but half the players in the pool don't have any advanced stats to compare. And for all of his advanced stats, he was on 3 50-win teams in his prime and lost in the first round one of those times. So very few big playoff performances under his belt. Not necessarily his fault, but if we are judging career impact I feel like it is only fair to those who did win a lot to point out those who did not.

Nate Thurmond is in a similar situation to Mutombo. Great body of work, but largely got to rest on offense and not a lot of playoff success. He played in a time before players other than Wilt had any real control over who they played for, however. Nate might be the best man to man defender of the remaining pool, however, but I think the extra rim protection the longer guys provide evens things out at the very least.

Which brings me back to Wilt, my vote last round. Has the most physical tools of the pool, and is likely the best rebounder and shotblocker, though in fairness to Nate nobody went back and tried to count his blocks from available game tape and we have so little available of that era (like 2% at most). And Wilt blocked more shots than Russ (from available game tape), so I find Nate's claim that he has more to be very dubious. People often cite Wilt's inconsistency on the defensive end, but I think it is overstate and he stepped up when it mattered. He made deep playoff runs in 12 of his 14 seasons, with 2 rings and 10 losses to the eventual champion, 1 early exit and 1 playoff miss (which both came very early in his career). Of the current pool, he has by far the most playoff value earned outside of Kareem. And I feel one of the best arguments for Wilt, is that outside of his ridiculous stats his presence was beyond that, as he was so scary strong that he scared people out of the paint, like Shaq. In an era where paint scoring was more important than ever, this is pretty impactful.

My vote for this round remains Wilt Chamberlain.