Do we underrate Wilt nowadays?

[countryboy667]

Though I disagree strongly, I can see how you can make some kind of an argument that Wilt wasn't the best basketball player of all time (I think he was.) But I simply can't understand how anyone can with a straight face deny he was the greatest all around athlete to ever play the game--by far!

[ty 4191]

Though I disagree strongly, I can see how you can make some kind of an argument that Wilt wasn't the best basketball player of all time (I think he was.) But I simply can't understand how anyone can with a straight face deny he was the greatest all around athlete to ever play the game--by far!

Exactly.

And to put Russell over him- or, even Kareem- is, to me, truly facile and superficial.

[Dutchball97]

Though I disagree strongly, I can see how you can make some kind of an argument that Wilt wasn't the best basketball player of all time (I think he was.) But I simply can't understand how anyone can with a straight face deny he was the greatest all around athlete to ever play the game--by far!

Exactly.

And to put Russell over him- or, even Kareem- is, to me, truly facile and superficial.

You're using terms like that if someone puts two GOAT candidates slightly ahead of Wilt? Doesn't sound too objective to be honest.

[70sFan]

Though I disagree strongly, I can see how you can make some kind of an argument that Wilt wasn't the best basketball player of all time (I think he was.) But I simply can't understand how anyone can with a straight face deny he was the greatest all around athlete to ever play the game--by far!

Exactly.

And to put Russell over him- or, even Kareem- is, to me, truly facile and superficial.

You're using terms like that if someone puts two GOAT candidates slightly ahead of Wilt? Doesn't sound too objective to be honest.

It's so tough to be Wilt fan at times, believe me...

[ty 4191]

You're using terms like that if someone puts two GOAT candidates slightly ahead of Wilt? Doesn't sound too objective to be honest.

Sorry, should have clarified. People who summarily and reflexively put both Russell and Kareem ahead of Wilt are being facile and tendentious, to be honest.

They almost certainly haven't exhausted the WIlt Chamberlain Archive, they probably haven't read the (very lengthy) biographies....they haven't done "empirical research", in other words.

People like 70s Fan are highly educated Kareem fans, and I respect him tremendously. He's probably watched far more 60''s-70's basketball than any regular here.

I'm sure there are others like them here, but they seem to be the exception, not the rule.

[ty 4191]

It's so tough to be Wilt fan at times, believe me...

I was not and have never indicted you, brother, please see my last post (directly above).

I think Kareem has a case mainly because he played 1,797 games to Wilt's 1,205 games. And, he was excellent for most of 1984-1988, at an age where Wilt was busy dominating beach volleyball, traveling the world, coaching and championing Women's Sports, etc. etc. It wasn't that Wilt couldn't have played after age 36- he was offered 1.8 million to play for the Conquistadors in the ABA after 1973- but it was, obviously, that he simply didn't. By his own admission, basketball was no longer a challenge for him, and Wilt had too many other interests to not indulge them in his late 30's.

I simply don't see the objective case for Russell, at all. WIlt completely destroyed him head to head, and Russell's teammates were about TWICE as valuable as Wilt's.

[Dutchball97]

You're using terms like that if someone puts two GOAT candidates slightly ahead of Wilt? Doesn't sound too objective to be honest.

Sorry, should have clarified. People who summarily and reflexively put both Russell and Kareem ahead of Wilt are being facile and tendentious, to be honest.

They almost certainly haven't exhausted the WIlt Chamberlain Archive, they probably haven't read the (very lengthy) biographies....they haven't done "empirical research", in other words.

People like 70s Fan are highly educated Kareem fans, and I respect him tremendously. He's probably watched far more 60''s-70's basketball than any regular here.

I'm sure there are others like them here, but they seem to be the exception, not the rule.

I don't view myself as a highly qualified judge of talent but I did try to view as much of the available old footage as possible, I've read about as many opinion pieces/narratives from the 60s I could find and I've definitely not disregarded the respective quality of teammates of Russell, Wilt and Kareem. My conclusion is to have Kareem 3rd on my all-time list, Russell 4th and Wilt 5th/6th (I keep flipflopping between him and Duncan as I am slightly more impressed by Duncan's career but Wilt has a better GOAT case).

I could understand not agreeing with my conclusions but I did do my research and I didn't put Russell and Kareem just above Wilt because of personal bias or because I felt obliged to do so reflexively. GOAT lists are always going to contain subjective elements of what attributes and skills you rate higher, whether you value peak or longevity more, how much emphasis do you put on accolades and rings, do you place more value on offense or defense, or even further how do you regard the split between scoring and playmaking on offense or interior and perimeter defense etc. Wilt, Russell and Kareem are all GOAT level players and based on everyone's varying criteria you could rank them in any order without being insincere in your approach.

[70sFan]

1. Wilt didn't destroy Russell h2h. They usually had very close battles. I'd say that Russell outplayed Wilt in 1960, 1966 and 1969. Wilt outplayed Russell in 1964, 1965 and 1967. 1962 and 1968 were close.

2. You shouldn't base everything on raw boxscore numbers. Wilt didn't automatically outplay Russell simply because he scored moee points on better efficiency. Basketball doesn't work like that.

3. There is absolutely no evidence of Russell's teammates being twice as valuable as Wilt's.

[ty 4191]

1. Wilt didn't destroy Russell h2h. They usually had very close battles. I'd say that Russell outplayed Wilt in 1960, 1966 and 1969. Wilt outplayed Russell in 1964, 1965 and 1967. 1962 and 1968 were close.

What are you basing this on, exactly, if you aren't using box score stats?

Wilt's line vs. Russell in their 143 matchups was 28.8/28.1/3.9 on .498 FG% (.493FT%). Russell's line against Wilt HTH was 14.5/23.6/4.6 on .385 FG% (.569 FT%).

2. You shouldn't base everything on raw boxscore numbers. Wilt didn't automatically outplay Russell simply because he scored moee points on better efficiency. Basketball doesn't work like that.

I'm not just basing it on the fact that he scored much, at much higher efficiency. I'm also including rebounds and rebound efficiency.

3. There is absolutely no evidence of Russell's teammates being twice as valuable as Wilt's.

Wilt's teammates accrued almost exactly twice as many Win Shares, and twice as many per season, as Russell's, 1960-1969. I've posted all those numbers twice before.

[70sFan]

What are you basing this on, exactly, if you aren't using box score stats?

Impact metrics (that are highly limited for that era), video analysis and boxscore estimates. You have to include boxscore numbers, but they don't tell the whole story.

Wilt's line vs. Russell in their 143 matchups was 28.8/28.1/3.9 on .498 FG% (.493FT%). Russell's line against Wilt HTH was 14.5/23.6/4.6 on .385 FG% (.569 FT%).

As I said, people are aware of that here.

I'm not just basing it on the fact that he scored much, at much higher efficiency. I'm also including rebounds and rebound efficiency.

The difference in rebounding is rather small. Scoring and rebounding are not the end of the story either.

Wilt's teammates accrued almost exactly twice as many Win Shares, and twice as many per season, as Russell's, 1960-1969. I've posted all those numbers twice before.

I mean, sure - Celtics players have higher WS numbers - they won more games after all. I don't see this as convincing argument though.

[ty 4191]

Impact metrics (that are highly limited for that era), video analysis and boxscore estimates. You have to include boxscore numbers, but they don't tell the whole story.

Which impact metrics? Can you post them for both Wilt and Russell, 1960-1969, including the playoffs? Thanks!

Also, what's missing from the boxscores that you're fully accounting for, that I am/have not?

The difference in rebounding is rather small. Scoring and rebounding are not the end of the story either.

You think averaging 5 more rebounds per game, head to head, across 143 games isn't significant?

I mean, sure - Celtics players have higher WS numbers - they won more games after all. I don't see this as convincing argument though.

Cetlics teammates of Russell's, not "Celtics players". They amassed literally twice as many Win Shares as Wilt's teammates, 1960-1969.

[homecourtloss]

Wilt's teammates accrued almost exactly twice as many Win Shares, and twice as many per season, as Russell's, 1960-1969. I've posted all those numbers twice before.

I mean, sure - Celtics players have higher WS numbers - they won more games after all. I don't see this as convincing argument though.

In addition to this, it’s easier to accrue “Win Shares” (i.e., BKREF’s definition of Win Shares) if you’re shooting the ball more and scoring as the formula likes it. Since Russell didn’t take as many shots as Wilt did, it was easier for his teammates to accrue BKREF Win Shares because they got more shots. On the other hand, of course, these teammates would actually have to make some of these shots. Sam Jones was really the only one who scored efficiently on volume, Sharman early on, Howell and Nelson in Bill’s later years.

Russell overall did have better teammates, but it’s difficult to make the argument that they were twice as good.

[70sFan]

Which impact metrics? Can you post them for both Wilt and Russell, 1960-1969, including the playoffs? Thanks!

We don'thave a lot of them, but different kind of WOWY numbers do see Russell as slightly more impactful.

On top of that, we should look at the team results and Celtics were consistently mediocre (or even bad) offensively during Russell's era. I mean, mid-60s Celtics had exactly one above average scorer in their team - Sam Jones - and they had no quality playmaker. We have some evidences of Celtics defense being far worse without Russell and without their defense, Celtics weren't good at all.

Also, what's missing from the boxscores that you're fully accounting for, that I am/have not?

Defense for starters. Playmaking value. Off-ball game on offense. Non-scoring contribution on offensive end (spacing, setting screens, offensive rebounding, activity without the ball, ball-movement). Transition offense and defense.

Of course not all of these aspects gives Russell advantage, but looking at boxscores alone won't tell you much about all these important things. You have to watch games to get a better picture and impact metrics help to quantify them all.

You think averaging 5 more rebounds per game, head to head, across 143 games isn't significant?

Russell and Wilt played massive amount of minutes in extremely high pace environment. 5 more rebounds in the 1960s with 45+mpg is roughly as much as 2-3 more rebounds in different era. We also don't know how much of them were on offensive end, which also matters a lot.

I think that Wilt proved h2h to be better rebounder overall and it is important. It isn't important enough to use this as a tie breaker in all-time comparison though.

Cetlics teammates of Russell's, not "Celtics players". They amassed literally twice as many Win Shares as Wilt's teammates, 1960-1969.

As homecourtloss said, Celtics won more games than Wilt's teams and Russell produced lesser boxscore stats. This leads us to obvious conclusion - Wilt's teammates would definitely have lower WS numbers by default. It doesn't mean that Russell didn't have better teammates than Wilt (he had, at least on average) - but twice as good? I don't buy that at all and I've seen as much Wilt vs Russell matchups as it is possible in 2021 without the access to NBA archives.

I have a different question to you - why WS are so important in your evaluation? What exactly this stat shows and in what way does it help us to estimate impact?

[ty 4191]

We don'thave a lot of them, but different kind of WOWY numbers do see Russell as slightly more impactful.

I have a different question to you - why WS are so important in your evaluation? What exactly this stat shows and in what way does it help us to estimate impact?

Can you post what "impact metrics' we DO have for Wilt and Russell, for both prime and career, please? Thanks!

Win Shares are the only omnibus player stat going back to 1960 that we have aside from PER. This discrepancy between all of Wilt and Russell's teammates' value as reflected in Win Shares is mirrored in PER, FWIW.

Which 1960's player/team value stats do you believe are more reliable/valid, and why?

[ty 4191]

Considering he played some of the greatest defensive teams ever yearly, his numbers against ATG defenses are actually very good in comparison to other players. He played five -7 or higher relDRtg defenses, most players might play a couple in their entire career.

Can you please repost the data for defenses faced in the playoffs for Wilt? Thank you!

[Mazter]

Considering he played some of the greatest defensive teams ever yearly, his numbers against ATG defenses are actually very good in comparison to other players. He played five -7 or higher relDRtg defenses, most players might play a couple in their entire career.

Can you please repost the data for defenses faced in the playoffs for Wilt? Thank you!

It's not that difficult, anything but the Celtics and maybe the 71 and 72 Bucks isn't worth mentioning. He averaged 23.9/26.4/3.8 in 47.1 mpg against those teams on 50.4FG% and 48.2FT%.

Edit: as a acomparison, he averaged 25/23.7/4.9 in 47.5 mpg on 52.5FG% and 46.3FT% in other play off teams those exaxt seasons.

[70sFan]

Considering he played some of the greatest defensive teams ever yearly, his numbers against ATG defenses are actually very good in comparison to other players. He played five -7 or higher relDRtg defenses, most players might play a couple in their entire career.

Can you please repost the data for defenses faced in the playoffs for Wilt? Thank you!

It's not that difficult, anything but the Celtics and maybe the 71 and 72 Bucks isn't worth mentioning. He averaged 23.9/26.4/3.8 in 47.1 against those teams on 50.4FG% and 48.2FT%.

Yeah, 1970 Knicks for sure aren't worth mentioning. Neither are Thurmond Warriors or early 1970s Bulls...

[ty 4191]

It's not that difficult, anything but the Celtics and maybe the 71 and 72 Bucks isn't worth mentioning. He averaged 23.9/26.4/3.8 in 47.1 against those teams on 50.4FG% and 48.2FT%.

I found it.

Hi, I've been collecting stats for a while and I decided to make this post here. I separated some superstars offensive production in playoffs based on defense (RS ORtg) faced. Here are my (random) criteria:

Over +2.0 rDRtg - Bad Defense
From +2.0 to -2.0 rDRtg - Average Defense
From -2.0 to -4.0 rDRtg - Good Defense
From -4.0 to -7.0 rDRtg - Elite Defense
Below -7.0 rDRtg - All-Time Great Defense

I started with centers (my favorite position) and I haven't finished yet, but here are some results:

Centers
Wilt Chamberlain (1960-68):

Against All-Time Great Defenses (23.75% of playoffs games): 47.7 mpg, 28.7 rpg, 2.9 apg, 31.2 ppg on 50.9% FG, 56.8% FT, 53.4% TS (+5.30 rTS%)

Bill Russell (1959-66):

Against All-Time Great Defenses (0.0% of playoffs games):--

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1970-80):

Against All-Time Great Defenses (0.0% of playoffs games): --

SNIP

Vs. -4.0 or better rDRtg defenses ("Elite Defenses"):

Centers
Bill Russell (11.0% of playoffs games): 42.8 mpg, 26.2 rpg, 3.8 apg, 16.4 ppg on 42.7% FG, 60.9% FT, 45.4% TS (-1.90 rTS%)

Wilt Chamberlain (52.50% of playoffs games): 47.5 mpg, 28.5 rpg, 4.3 apg, 28.1 ppg on 50.8% FG, 50.6% FT, 52.2% TS (+3.84 rTS%)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (26.60% of playoffs games): 44.1 mpg, 15.9 rpg, 4.1 apg, 33.3 ppg on 54.5% FG, 72.2% FT, 56.9% TS (+5.28 rTS%)

Tell me what you think about it. I expect good discussion

Looking at the above data.....the discrepancy in % of games played against "Elite" + "All Time Great" Defenses in the playoffs further solidifies the case I've been making with my Head To Head Wilt/Russell/KAJ versus Hall Of Fame Centers Study:

Namely:

1) Wilt played against much, MUCH tougher competition than either Russell or KAJ, in the playoffs- both in his prime, and, career.

2) Wilt still (somehow) thrived/dominated, despite playing a much higher % of his games against the best defenses, ever, and any "inconsistency" or "drop off" in his offensive production is due to A) He stopped shooting and scoring the second half of his career and B) he faced the toughest average competition of any Center in NBA History in the playoffs.

[ty 4191]

We don'thave a lot of them, but different kind of WOWY numbers do see Russell as slightly more impactful.

I have a different question to you - why WS are so important in your evaluation? What exactly this stat shows and in what way does it help us to estimate impact?

Can you post what "impact metrics' we DO have for Wilt and Russell, for both prime and career, please? Thanks!

Win Shares are the only omnibus player stat going back to 1960 that we have aside from PER. This discrepancy between all of Wilt and Russell's teammates' value as reflected in Win Shares is mirrored in PER, FWIW.

Which 1960's player/team value stats do you believe are more reliable/valid, and why?

70's Fan,
Do you have a response to my post (emboldened directly above)? I'd be quite curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

[Mazter]

Can you please repost the data for defenses faced in the playoffs for Wilt? Thank you!

It's not that difficult, anything but the Celtics and maybe the 71 and 72 Bucks isn't worth mentioning. He averaged 23.9/26.4/3.8 in 47.1 against those teams on 50.4FG% and 48.2FT%.

Yeah, 1970 Knicks for sure aren't worth mentioning. Neither are Thurmond Warriors or early 1970s Bulls...

Maybe the term "not worth mentioning" is a bit misplaced but in context of ATG I used a cut off (your cutoffs btw) of around -4.0, and those mentioned teams just didn't make the cut. I mean, should we be talking about the Heat'10 as a memorable defensive team?