Would 1967 Chamberlain Be The Best Player In The League Today?

[DQuinn1575]

But if you take Gobert, give him 2 made baskets and 1 miss a game and 1 missed free throw - you got a guy scoring 18-19 a game.
Then give him 6 more assists a game.
And give him 2 more blocks a game. And leave steals as his. Both are probably conservative.
So you got a19/15/7/1/3 who is the best defender in the league.
If he is on Utah, he gets a lot of support for MVP last year with best record in the league.

I could agree with the points, rebounds, steals and blocks.
Not with the assists though, Not that it wouldn't be possible for him to do so if he was given the ball enough. But I couldn't think of any roster or scenario in which it would be necessary for him to have 7 assists without actually handling the ball. two thirds of the assists are already guard driven, which leaves about 5.9 ast/36min for the other 3 players. I would go with 5 max.

BTW - Is Connie Dierking a one name guy now?

No...just thought it sounded more cool together with Happy

Fair enough on assists, point being if Gobert had that stat line last year with teams record then it’s a split decision on who wins mvp,meaning 67 Wilt has real good case in 2021.

[DQuinn1575]

Without numhers, it's just your guessing game. Bucks won the title only thanks to their defense last year. Strong defensive teams are still the best in the league. The best defenders are ranked among the best players in the league by impact metrics.

Bucks had the 10th best defense in the league last year. Both the Lakers and Clippers held the Suns to a lower offensive rating than the Bucks. The Bucks did NOT win only because of their defense. Obviously they had a good defense, but they won the Finals with the 5th best offense in the league and 10th best defense. And in the Finals, their offense was at their regular season number, their defense was not.
So it was really more offense than defense in the Finals last year.

[trex_8063]

I think there's a good chance. Defensively, he would be a serious problem. Gobert is already anchoring teams with relatively poor defenders like the Jazz to the best defense nearly single handily, I would imagine Chamberlain at a minimum could replicate the same - if not establish even more crushing defense.

Would be hard not to see him being a volume scorer on very high FG%. He can pass too, so he would be able to play in a fluid system if he does get his points.

Hmmm......don't really agree with the bolded statement [the underlined portion especially; at the very least it's a litte....."semantically extreme"]. I don't mean to derail, but I'm going to address this statement.

Preface: I'm as big a Gobert fan as there is on this forum [he's quite plainly the reason/origin of why I'm a Jazz fan the last several seasons]; but that's doing a discredit to his teammates. I've been watching this Jazz team [closely] for a number of years; but for simplicity of illustrative purposes, let's look at his teammates last season in descending order of minutes played.....

Royce O'Neale - Actually #1 on the team in minutes played (ahead of Gobert [who was #3]). Royce only has an NBA contract [just signed a nice 4-year deal in January 2020] because of his defense; he's fairly purely a "3&D" role player (I don't use that term to disparage him: I actually feel people tend to grossly undervalue good role players). Royce is typically deployed to guard whichever of the opposing 2-4 positions is the most potent scoring threat [unless the PF is really oversized] because he does the best job of anyone on the roster at containing them, and does OK on a switch defending a PG too. He's also a good rebounding SF (18.0% DREB%, 8.6 dreb/100--->for historical reference, Scottie Pippen peaked at 8.6 dreb/100 and 19.4% DREB% in '94.....for his career averaged 6.9 dreb/100 and a 15.3% DREB%).

Royce has been playing at least borderline All-D 2nd Team level on that end for 2-3 seasons, and I thought was deserving of an All-D nod last year. Perhaps the only reason he doesn't get it from the media is because he's too low-profile: small market team, doesn't score in double-figures, isn't among the league leaders in steals or other defensive box stat.....so he's overlooked.

He had a super-solid +2.81 DRPM last year (18th in the entire league, 6th among forwards).


Bojan Bogdanovic - #2 on the team in minutes [just marginally behind Royce, marginally ahead of Gobert]. Bogie doesn't get a lot of deflections or otherwise generate turnovers, and he's a weak rebounding forward. His off-ball defense sporadically (not all the time) is suspect, as he'll sometimes get caught ball-watching and be beat backdoor.
But he's actually a VERY engaged on-ball man defender, who is versatile enough to guard 3-4 [or even some of the guards, and the Jazz do tend to switch most of the time time unless it's the center setting the high screen]. He's physical, moves his feet fairly well, again: attentive/engaged/energetic, and gets a hand up [even if he's almost never actually blocking a shot].
I'd have pegged him as a mediocre [average] defender overall. DRPM actually pegged him as a pretty solid +1.49 defender though, fwiw.


Joe Ingles - #4 in total minutes, solidly behind Gobert at third. Joe is slow ["Slow-Mo Joe"], though his lateral quickness is better than this North-South quickness; also his positioning is generally good, and his anticipation is great. And at 6'8" he's got terrific length for a guard. He consequently has decent versatility because of these characteristics. He's got a certain amount of the dirty player edge to him, also, and is someone who occasionally gets in the opponents' head(s).

He's always struck me as someone who is slightly limited physically, but very savvy on the defensive end. In years past [since you said "teams", I assume you were referring to multiple years past] he's had a positive DRAPM (sometimes solidly positive). Last year he was a marginal negative by DRPM, at -0.22.
Maybe that's accurate; maybe it's just marginally low-balling him. He is getting slightly slower as he ages.


Jordan Clarkson - OK, here [at 5th on the team in minutes] is the first legitimately poor defender on the team. Clarkson's a little hit/miss defensively: he'll have the sporadic really good possession, and then die on the screen or commit a bad foul the next. DRPM pegged him as near rock-bottom of the league at -2.89, though I suspect a little of that is noise [being a frequent piece of the second-group in the way their rotations worked].
He was definitely not a good defender; but imo he's not THAT bad.


Donovan Mitchell - The media [at least the Jazz local media] was beginning to try and create a little All-D buzz for Donovan last year; though speaking for myself, I wasn't seeing it. He does occasionally have a really good play either in transition defense or on the help D (is athletic enough that he'll occasionally erase a shot at the rim [while he doesn't block many shots, I've a suspicion that the majority are "high-value" blocks of this sort]). He'll otherwise have some really good defensive possessions, but like most offensive center pieces, he'll have other possessions where he's clearly just mailing it in [to catch his breath].
He perhaps doesn't slip thru screens as well as I'd like to see either; but on the whole he's a passable defender [mediocre last year, I would have said].
DRPM pegged him at -0.76.


Mike Conley - Mike is small, but aggressive/active, quick, and savvy. He was a good defender [despite his size] for years and years in Memphis [has one All-D 2nd Team nod, fwiw], and that didn't change in Utah. Despite being smaller than Donovan or Clarkson, imo he does a better job than either of getting thru/around high screens. He moves his feet well in general, and has very active hands [led the Jazz in spg, despite being only 5th in mpg].
DRPM pegged him as an elite +3.12 defender (#12 in the entire league, #1 among all PG's). I've no doubt whatsoever that there's some line-up noise in that figure; but I've also little to no doubt that he actually was at least a small positive defender.


Georges Niang - the Minivan is sort of pudgy and slow, but moves his feet laterally fairly well, and always gives solid effort on that end. He's big enough he can defend 3 or 4. As a 3pt specialist himself, he respects the value of that shot and always defends it hard.
DRPM pegged him as a marginally negative at -0.28.


Derrick Favors - DRPM pegged him as a horrible -2.61 defender, but I'm positive there's some line-up noise there [as he pretty much exclusively subbed for Rudy Gobert]. DFavs was a pretty good defensive rebounder and provided more than a modicum of rim protection.
He's not a versatile defender for sure, and his pnr defense is only so-so......but I just didn't see enough "bad" plays to make me believe that figure is accurate.

And that's everyone who was in their regular rotation last year. There are not many "poor" defenders in there, and at least 1 or 2 solidly good ones.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think there's a good chance. Defensively, he would be a serious problem. Gobert is already anchoring teams with relatively poor defenders like the Jazz to the best defense nearly single handily, I would imagine Chamberlain at a minimum could replicate the same - if not establish even more crushing defense.

Would be hard not to see him being a volume scorer on very high FG%. He can pass too, so he would be able to play in a fluid system if he does get his points.

Hmmm......don't really agree with the bolded statement [the underlined portion especially; at the very least it's a litte....."semantically extreme"]. I don't mean to derail, but I'm going to address this statement.

Preface: I'm as big a Gobert fan as there is on this forum [he's quite plainly the reason/origin of why I'm a Jazz fan the last several seasons]; but that's doing a discredit to his teammates. I've been watching this Jazz team [closely] for a number of years; but for simplicity of illustrative purposes, let's look at his teammates last season in descending order of minutes played.....

Royce O'Neale - Actually #1 on the team in minutes played (ahead of Gobert [who was #3]). Royce only has an NBA contract [just signed a nice 4-year deal in January 2020] because of his defense; he's fairly purely a "3&D" role player (I don't use that term to disparage him: I actually feel people tend to grossly undervalue good role players). Royce is typically deployed to guard whichever of the opposing 2-4 positions is the most potent scoring threat [unless the PF is really oversized] because he does the best job of anyone on the roster at containing them, and does OK on a switch defending a PG too. He's also a good rebounding SF (18.0% DREB%, 8.6 dreb/100--->for historical reference, Scottie Pippen peaked at 8.6 dreb/100 and 19.4% DREB% in '94.....for his career averaged 6.9 dreb/100 and a 15.3% DREB%).

Royce has been playing at least borderline All-D 2nd Team level on that end for 2-3 seasons, and I thought was deserving of an All-D nod last year. Perhaps the only reason he doesn't get it from the media is because he's too low-profile: small market team, doesn't score in double-figures, isn't among the league leaders in steals or other defensive box stat.....so he's overlooked.

He had a super-solid +2.81 DRPM last year (18th in the entire league, 6th among forwards).


Bojan Bogdanovic - #2 on the team in minutes [just marginally behind Royce, marginally ahead of Gobert]. Bogie doesn't get a lot of deflections or otherwise generate turnovers, and he's a weak rebounding forward. His off-ball defense sporadically (not all the time) is suspect, as he'll sometimes get caught ball-watching and be beat backdoor.
But he's actually a VERY engaged on-ball man defender, who is versatile enough to guard 3-4 [or even some of the guards, and the Jazz do tend to switch most of the time time unless it's the center setting the high screen]. He's physical, moves his feet fairly well, again: attentive/engaged/energetic, and gets a hand up [even if he's almost never actually blocking a shot].
I'd have pegged him as a mediocre [average] defender overall. DRPM actually pegged him as a pretty solid +1.49 defender though, fwiw.


Joe Ingles - #4 in total minutes, solidly behind Gobert at third. Joe is slow ["Slow-Mo Joe"], though his lateral quickness is better than this North-South quickness; also his positioning is generally good, and his anticipation is great. And at 6'8" he's got terrific length for a guard. He consequently has decent versatility because of these characteristics. He's got a certain amount of the dirty player edge to him, also, and is someone who occasionally gets in the opponents' head(s).

He's always struck me as someone who is slightly limited physically, but very savvy on the defensive end. In years past [since you said "teams", I assume you were referring to multiple years past] he's had a positive DRAPM (sometimes solidly positive). Last year he was a marginal negative by DRPM, at -0.22.
Maybe that's accurate; maybe it's just marginally low-balling him. He is getting slightly slower as he ages.


Jordan Clarkson - OK, here [at 5th on the team in minutes] is the first legitimately poor defender on the team. Clarkson's a little hit/miss defensively: he'll have the sporadic really good possession, and then die on the screen or commit a bad foul the next. DRPM pegged him as near rock-bottom of the league at -2.89, though I suspect a little of that is noise [being a frequent piece of the second-group in the way their rotations worked].
He was definitely not a good defender; but imo he's not THAT bad.


Donovan Mitchell - The media [at least the Jazz local media] was beginning to try and create a little All-D buzz for Donovan last year; though speaking for myself, I wasn't seeing it. He does occasionally have a really good play either in transition defense or on the help D (is athletic enough that he'll occasionally erase a shot at the rim [while he doesn't block many shots, I've a suspicion that the majority are "high-value" blocks of this sort]). He'll otherwise have some really good defensive possessions, but like most offensive center pieces, he'll have other possessions where he's clearly just mailing it in [to catch his breath].
He perhaps doesn't slip thru screens as well as I'd like to see either; but on the whole he's a passable defender [mediocre last year, I would have said].
DRPM pegged him at -0.76.


Mike Conley - Mike is small, but aggressive/active, quick, and savvy. He was a good defender [despite his size] for years and years in Memphis [has one All-D 2nd Team nod, fwiw], and that didn't change in Utah. Despite being smaller than Donovan or Clarkson, imo he does a better job than either of getting thru/around high screens. He moves his feet well in general, and has very active hands [led the Jazz in spg, despite being only 5th in mpg].
DRPM pegged him as an elite +3.12 defender (#12 in the entire league, #1 among all PG's). I've no doubt whatsoever that there's some line-up noise in that figure; but I've also little to no doubt that he actually was at least a small positive defender.


Georges Niang - the Minivan is sort of pudgy and slow, but moves his feet laterally fairly well, and always gives solid effort on that end. He's big enough he can defend 3 or 4. As a 3pt specialist himself, he respects the value of that shot and always defends it hard.
DRPM pegged him as a marginally negative at -0.28.


Derrick Favors - DRPM pegged him as a horrible -2.61 defender, but I'm positive there's some line-up noise there [as he pretty much exclusively subbed for Rudy Gobert]. DFavs was a pretty good defensive rebounder and provided more than a modicum of rim protection.
He's not a versatile defender for sure, and his pnr defense is only so-so......but I just didn't see enough "bad" plays to make me believe that figure is accurate.

And that's everyone who was in their regular rotation last year. There are not many "poor" defenders in there, and at least 1 or 2 solidly good ones.

This seems pretty accurate, and I don't redact what I said really.

I find that it is incredibly common here for people to say "he's not a bad defender, he's mediocre!" or "neutral". It's almost a meme at this point.

If the best case scenario is that they are mediocre, that means they're probably bad. You can replace "relatively poor" with "not good".

Outside of Royce no one else is a convincingly good defender. That is "relatively" poor for a #1 defense, I think. Maybe it's more common than I think.

[picko]

In 1966-67, the NBA was at best semi-professional. It had no global footprint and was still weighed down by the segregation that plagued it throughout the 1950s and first half of the 1960s.

In 2020-21, the NBA is a full professional sport that draws talent from the entire world.

Comparing the two eras is a bit silly - they are practically different sports - but basically no player from that earlier era will be more dominant today than they were within their own era. Players don't become more dominant as the standard of competition rises.

If Wilt was less dominant against his 1966-67 peers (26.5 PER; 0.285 WS/48) than, say, Nikola Jokic (31.3 PER; 0.301 WS/48) in 2020-21, then I don't think you can say with any reasonable certainly that he'd be the best player in the modern NBA. While Wilt's impact metrics in 1966-67 would surely benefit from being more comprehensive (steals, blocks, better analytical techniques), that's partly offset by those impact metrics being normalised by era. That is, a 30 PER or 0.300 WS/48 or any other normalised impact metric, requires a higher quality of play today than it did in 1966-67.

For mine, WIlt wasn't a sufficient enough outlier from an impact standpoint in 1966-67 to simply assume he'd be the best player in the modern NBA. The gap in league quality is just too great for me to make that assumption. For me to elevate a guy from that era above everyone in the modern NBA, they'd need to establish themselves as monumentally better than their peers. I don't think the 1966-67 version of Wilt achieves that.

[HeartBreakKid]

In 1966-67, the NBA was at best semi-professional. It had no global footprint and was still weighed down by the segregation that plagued it throughout the 1950s and first half of the 1960s.

In 2020-21, the NBA is a full professional sport that draws talent from the entire world.

Comparing the two eras is a bit silly - they are practically different sports - but basically no player from that earlier era will be more dominant today than they were within their own era. Players don't become more dominant as the standard of competition rises.

If Wilt was less dominant against his 1966-67 peers (26.5 PER; 0.285 WS/48) than, say, Nikola Jokic (31.3 PER; 0.301 WS/48) in 2020-21, then I don't think you can say with any reasonable certainly that he'd be the best player in the modern NBA. While Wilt's impact metrics in 1966-67 would surely benefit from being more comprehensive (steals, blocks, better analytical techniques), that's partly offset by those impact metrics being normalised by era. That is, a 30 PER or 0.300 WS/48 or any other normalised impact metric, requires a higher quality of play today than it did in 1966-67.

For mine, WIlt wasn't a sufficient enough outlier from an impact standpoint in 1966-67 to simply assume he'd be the best player in the modern NBA. The gap in league quality is just too great for me to make that assumption. For me to elevate a guy from that era above everyone in the modern NBA, they'd need to establish themselves as monumentally better than their peers. I don't think the 1966-67 version of Wilt achieves that.

Saying the NBA was "at best" semi-professional isn't accurate, and I think the typical sports fan doesn't have a good perspective on what "professional sports" entails. The NBA probably had 1/3rd or 1/4th of its league making 6 digits, which in today is higher than what semi professionals make (significantly), and that's not taking into account inflation adjusted.

I compete and follow kickboxing, which is a fully saturated and global sport especially compared to basketball in the 60s - and no one makes 100,000k per year except like two people.

Rugby, one of the most popular sports of the world, as of 2021, tops out at one million dollars...like as in maybe 5 guys make that much.

They're a sport where one of their premier players went into boxing, which you can only make 100,000 dollars per year in boxing if you are a world champion - which is an incredibly global sport, more so than basketball.


The NBA was fully professional by 1967. Yes, it was not as big or global as it is today, not even close, but that's very far from being "semi professional at best". Lacrosse is semi-professional at best, that's quite different from basketball in the late 60s.


According to this article from 1973, the average wage is 65,000 USD, which is a decent wage for today (an incredible wage if you live outside USA). Inflation adjusted that is comparable to 400,000 USD - which to say is a ton of money, and CERTAINLY very professional. With that type of wage you could have a major league Rugby league in today's climate.

Now granted this is 5 years after 67 Chamberlain, and perhaps the ABA spiked the prices up, but it's pretty obvious these guys were professional athletes in very sense of the word.

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/03/11/archives/in-pro-salaries-nba-is-no1.html



Anyway, I do agree this is still during segregation times and basketball is not that popular. But the level of competition is still going to be good, tall athletes do not have many options professionally. If we took away all of the international talent in today's NBA the league would certainly be worse, but it would still be the best basketball league in the world easily.

[70sFan]

It's almost a meme when picko decides to talk about this "amateur 1960s NBA" at this point. There has been countless debates about this with him and yet he always brings up the same over and over again.

[countryboy667]

For pure enjoyment of the game and entertainment, the 60s game was far superior to the circle, circle, circle then chuck up a three game we have today. Watching the giants get physical in the post was worth the price of admission alone. He may be a wonderful player and athlete, but guys like Curry are just plain boring. The irony is he and the other threesters like him have taken Reggie Miller's exciting game and somehow managed to make it that way.

It was a pleasure to watch Wilt, Oscar, the Logo, Russ, Gus Johnson, Unseld, Elgin, Clyde, Pettit and others. Worth the price of admission. I haven't been to a live NBA game in a few years now--used to make a point of seeing three or four a year, even though that was expensive for a guy like me on a limited budget. From what I see now on TV, I wouldn't go to one these days if it was free. Like I said, for all the talent involved, it is B-O-R-I-N-G, wussified. The only way I would be tempted to come back again is if somehow prime Wilt could be reincarnated and watch the millennials' jaws drop as he totally destroyed Jokic and any of the others who pretend to be real fives in today's game.

[Mazter]

The NBA was fully professional by 1967. Yes, it was not as big or global as it is today, not even close, but that's very far from being "semi professional at best". Lacrosse is semi-professional at best, that's quite different from basketball in the late 60s.

According to this article from 1973, the average wage is 65,000 USD, which is a decent wage for today (an incredible wage if you live outside USA). Inflation adjusted that is comparable to 400,000 USD - which to say is a ton of money, and CERTAINLY very professional. With that type of wage you could have a major league Rugby league in today's climate.

Now granted this is 5 years after 67 Chamberlain, and perhaps the ABA spiked the prices up, but it's pretty obvious these guys were professional athletes in very sense of the word.

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/03/11/archives/in-pro-salaries-nba-is-no1.html

Article is from 1973, saying that salaries rose after the start of the ABA in 1966. Article also says that at least 50 out of 200 made six digits in 1973, this would probbly be less in 1967. There is also an article that says that the average salary was 15k early 60's, and another that it went from 35k in 1970 to 180k in 1980. At last, there is an article with what day job the championship Celtics had around 1960.

Heinsohn retired in 1965 making 28.5k at most, we are talking about a 5x All Star and 4x All NBA. Although that was a lot more than the average salary of 7k in the US, it's not close enough to compensate for a 40 year social career against 7+k. And NBA contracts did not include a pension plan until the late 60's. Most players (I would say 80-90%) were still forced to work extra to invest in their retirement in the 60's, which could be called...semi pro.

All this considered, for me at best the NBA was in a transition stage to being fully proffesional in 1967. That is totally different today, where even development, minor or foreign league players can get around 100k to even 7 digits, just trying to get (back) into the NBA.

http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2010/09/nba-in-1970s-spencer-haywood-jumps.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-jun-02-sp-oldceltics2-story.html

[countryboy667]

I've made clear my total contempt for today's NBA game, and I stand by it--it simply isn't much fun to watch, despite the admittedly really good athletes playing it. The rules have been bastardized to such an extent (steps, palming, etc., etc.) that looked at objectively it isn't even real basketball anymore. "Evolved?" More like "Devolved."

But that entirely aside, while clearly there are players today more suited to today's (I'll say it again) bastardized game, name me even one player--just one--who can match Wilt's combination of size, strength, agility, stamina, leaping ability, speed, quickness, intelligence, sheer all-around athleticism, and ability to adapt his game (amply and unarguably demonstrated more than once in the course of his career.)

Just one. Looked at objectively, I'll bet you can't come up with even one. Closest in the league among bigs are maybe Embiid and Jokic, and neither are really even close.

I'm sure some will say Durant or prime Lebron, but neither are as big or as strong as prime (1967) Wilt was, and in terms of the other attributes I listed they are not demonstrably superior in any of them, nor are any others I can think of. Maybe you can...

I'm Waiting...

[VanWest82]

Wilt shot 44% from the line on 10+ FTAs in 67. It's just hard to see teams not giving him the hack-a-shaq treatment.

[70sFan]

Wilt shot 44% from the line on 10+ FTAs in 67. It's just hard to see teams not giving him the hack-a-shaq treatment.

Wilt got hack-a-shaq treatment in the 1960s.

[VanWest82]

Wilt shot 44% from the line on 10+ FTAs in 67. It's just hard to see teams not giving him the hack-a-shaq treatment.

Wilt got hack-a-shaq treatment in the 1960s.

And it limited his effectiveness which would be even more pronounced in the more efficient modern era.

Edit: you could make a decent case earlier versions of Wilt would fare better when he was making 60% from the FT line.

[70sFan]

Wilt shot 44% from the line on 10+ FTAs in 67. It's just hard to see teams not giving him the hack-a-shaq treatment.

Wilt got hack-a-shaq treatment in the 1960s.

And it limited his effectiveness which would be even more pronounced in the more efficient modern era.

Edit: you could make a decent case earlier versions of Wilt would fare better when he was making 60% from the FT line.

Do you have the same concerns with Shaq?

[VanWest82]

Wilt got hack-a-shaq treatment in the 1960s.

And it limited his effectiveness which would be even more pronounced in the more efficient modern era.

Edit: you could make a decent case earlier versions of Wilt would fare better when he was making 60% from the FT line.

Do you have the same concerns with Shaq?

Yes

[70sFan]

And it limited his effectiveness which would be even more pronounced in the more efficient modern era.

Edit: you could make a decent case earlier versions of Wilt would fare better when he was making 60% from the FT line.

Do you have the same concerns with Shaq?

Yes

To what degree do you think it'd hurt them? Would they still be MVP candidates?

[VanWest82]

Do you have the same concerns with Shaq?

Yes

To what degree do you think it'd hurt them? Would they still be MVP candidates?

Hard to say. Probably no. It's so much easier now to slow down post guys. Embiid has issues and he's a much more skilled version of them even though less physically imposing.

Giannis is similar to young Wilt in a lot of ways. Imagine how much less effective he'd be if he only shot 45% from the line instead of 68%. It'd probably change the way he plays.

[70sFan]

Hard to say. Probably no. It's so much easier now to slow down post guys. Embiid has issues and he's a much more skilled version of them even though less physically imposing.

I wouldn't call Embiid more skilled post player than Shaq or Wilt, he's much worse passer than them. Besides, Embiid doesn't struggle with scoring from the post, the only reason why he struggles to make the finals is his health.

Giannis is similar to young Wilt in a lot of ways. Imagine how much less effective he'd be if he only shot 45% from the line instead of 68%. It'd probably change the way he plays.

Giannis won the title last year with shooting 58% from the FT line in the last 3 rounds. I know it's not 44%, but it's still bad and teams couldn't consistently take advantage of that.

[NRSV]

This is tough. It might take him half the season to figure out the new style of play and how he fits in. Once he did, I think the answer is yes.

[Mazter]

But that entirely aside, while clearly there are players today more suited to today's (I'll say it again) bastardized game, name me even one player--just one--who can match Wilt's combination of size, strength, agility, stamina, leaping ability, speed, quickness, intelligence, sheer all-around athleticism, and ability to adapt his game (amply and unarguably demonstrated more than once in the course of his career.)

Wayde van Niekerk was the most versatile sprinter of alltime, world record holder on 400m and only one run under 10-20-44 on the 100-200-400m combi. He would beat each member of the Trinidadian 4x100 relay team (slowest on the last Olympics) by a landslide on the 400m, easily on the 200m and at least 3 out of 4 on the 100m. Yet the 4 of them together would beat him on the 400m even on their worst day.

Wilt and Russell went toe to toe with eachother. But today Wilt is not going to play anyone 1-on-1 so it doesn't really matter if he is stronger or faster.