RealGM Top 100 List #4

[colts18]

1) Why that specific year? (Not his rookie and retirement impacts, not the 76ers SRS dropoff when he left, not how they dropped in '70 when he was injured, then thrived in the playoffs with him back)

More on Wilt.

1965:
Warriors decline by -3.1 points when Wilt leaves
76ers get worse with Wilt by -0.8 points

1968-69:
76ers drop off by -3.17 SRS without Wilt (Luke Jackson goes from 82 to 25 games in 69)
Lakers drop off by -1.15 SRS by adding Wilt

1970:
Lakers only improve by 0.3 with Wilt on court

[colts18]

From Elgee's in/out study. Wilt is 2nd worst among superstars in in/out

Player Years Games MOV Net SIO
Walton 77-78 41 9.3 13.0 11.2
Nash 01, 05-07, 09 36 5.6 9.5 7.5
Duncan 00, 04, 05 37 8.4 6.5 7.5
King 84-85 33 1.8 11.2 6.5
McHale 86, 88, 91 45 7.8 4.3 6.0
Bird 91-92 44 6.3 5.8 6.0
Rodman 93, 95-97 100 7.8 3.5 5.6
Pippen 94, 98 48 7.6 3.3 5.4
Penny 97, 00 55 3.8 6.9 5.3
Garnett 06-11 72 5.7 4.9 5.3
Shaq 96-98, 00-04 142 6.4 4.1 5.3
West 67-69, 71 76 4.7 5.8 5.3
Hakeem 86, 91-92, 95-96 72 3.5 6.3 4.9
Kareem 75, 78 37 3.1 6.7 4.9
Mourning 94, 96-98 74 4.1 5.2 4.7
McGrady 02-04 28 -0.6 9.9 4.7
KJ 90, 93-97 129 4.7 3.7 4.2
Erving 73, 78, 83 29 4.1 4.2 4.1
Kidd 00, 04-05 46 2.9 4.9 3.9
Kobe 00, 04-07, 10 79 3.9 3.5 3.7
Barkley 87, 91, 94-97 100 3.5 3.5 3.5
Odom 05, 07 44 0.3 5.7 3.0
Cowens 75, 77 47 2.8 3.1 3.0
Pierce 07, 10 46 0.1 5.3 2.7
Ewing 87, 94-96 31 -1.1 6.4 2.6
Baylor 61-62, 66 54 2.3 2.4 2.4
Drexler 90, 93, 94, 96 90 2.4 1.0 1.7
Moses 78, 84 36 -1.1 4.2 1.6
Iverson 00-02, 04, 06 89 0.5 2.7 1.6
Webber 95, 97-98, 01-03 104 2.5 0.7 1.6
Wilkins 92-93 51 -0.3 3.1 1.4
Allen 02, 04, 07 66 -0.7 2.6 0.9
Hill 95, 00, 05 35 -2.5 4.2 0.9
Wade 04-08 95 -1.5 3.2 0.8
Wilt 65, 65, 70 156 -0.3 0.8 0.3
Paul 07, 10 55 -1.6 1.2 -0.2

[DHodgkins]

Vote: Magic Johnson

- Won 5 championships in his first 9 NBA seasons... Played in 9 finals in 12 years!
- Some of the best leadership/intangibles ever
- Two triple doubles in Finals clinching games (only person ever)
- Highest APG in league history
- 2nd in career triple doubles (1st in playoffs and finals)
- 4x APG leader ... 2x SPG leader
- Made his FT's ... Shaq, Wilt and Duncan less than 70% ... Magic = 85%

[Greatness]

Anyone have a vote count?

Right now, it's:

Wilt: 11 votes (not including Gregoire's vote because he didn't provide an explanation)
Shaq: 3 votes
Hakeem: 2 votes
Duncan: 2 votes
Magic: 2 votes

[MisterWestside]

Useful information

Yep. Simply put, teams and offenses were not optimized in that era for low-post dominance. The things needed for it (great shooters, floor spacing, proper movement of other players based on the low-post, etc.) were inferior to the elements put in place around players like Olajuwon and O'Neal.

Did that mean prime, low-post Chamberlain didn't have the skills for it? In the 2nd half of one close Finals game I tracked vs. prime Russell:

17 points, 7-11 from the field, 3-6 from the line, 6 offensive boards, 1 assist, 2 turnovers in 24 minutes

Four of those seven makes were on the glass. In the post, he was 3-5; would have been 4-6 if not for a 3-second violation by one of his teammates. I counted four passes out of a double-team. One of his turnovers came on a pass that one of his teammates should have secured on a cut towards the rim. Another pass out of a double-team went to an open shooter who missed the jumper. And one of Chamberlain's misses in the post was a bunny that rimmed out. He only took one ugly shot, and that was with a couple seconds left in the 3rd quarter. He played well against the best defender of his era.

However, one can easily see the issues of a volume low-post player in that period. The overcrowding of the paint doesn't optimize the skillsets of players who couldn't shoot well from outside, finish in traffic at the rim against rim protectors, or take advantage of the extra point provided by the 3-pointer. In the proper context, these issues would be eliminated, and so would the lack of derived value.

[Doctor MJ]

2 things:

1) I don't get why you think you couldn't thrive in the low post in any era.

For the benefit of the team? Reread the post that I made before this. I went back, watched tons of old-timer game clips, and compared it to games with low-post play in the modern era. Complete with notes.

You entitled to your opinion, and I won't knock your right to it. But I stand my my position with full confidence.

2) Fundamentally part of what every player is supposed to be doing is just doing things that make sense given what's out there on the playing field no matter what sport you're talking about. Yes not all players do that equally well and coaches have to do the best they can with dumb jocks but factoring in field intelligence is an absolute given when it comes to rating any team sport.

This therefore simply must be part if Wilts story. When he played he didn't achieve what he might have because he wasn't good enough at deciding what to do when he was out on the court. The end.

Now does that mean Wilt must rank below X? Nope. Up to you to decide how you factor it in...but Wilt ain't going to become a zen/savant/leader just because he gets to play for Kurt Rambis.

He doesn't have to be, because I will put him in a situation in which he will use his full skillset and the team will succeed. Done.

If this were a historical value rankings, Chamberlain would rank a lot lower (which he actually does on the other set rankings that I keep). But that's, not this.

So in the end this is about you vs the coaches of the 60s and you believe you're so much ahead of them that your presence would have drastic results?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Narigo]

I was going to vote for Tim Duncan but after reading this thread and doing some research of my own. I decided to vote Wilt Chamberlain.

- Wilt had good longevity. When Wilt was past his prime he in 72, At the age of 35, he was the best player on his team and anchored the best defensive team in the leauge.

-Wilt had a top 3 peak ever

Wilt playoff stats is overblown. From 1960- to 1967(most of Wilt's prime), Wilt averaged 30.4ppg, 27.0rpg and 4.5 ast on 52ts%(Still above leauge average dring his time period.)

Wilt was also versatile. He was asked to change his game multiple times for better team success and fit. First as a passing hub and then a defensive anchor.

In Conclusion, Wilt had a better prime and peak than Shaq and Duncan. Duncan may have the better longevity than Wilt but Wilt’s prime was that good. Plus, he is a bit healther and more consistent than Shaq. You will never hear reports of Wilt being out of shape

Vote: Wilt Chamberlain

[RSCD3_]

Ardee's post really helped showed me how wilt is unfairly painted as a choker when he has had a lot of big games in which his supporting cast didn't show up

He proved that he could adjust his game when he was given a solid reason

He had 3 distinct stages of development and was dominant in all of them

His defensive impact while not as good as Russell was still very dominant at rim defense and as he was more mobile in his youth, his potential impact defensively wasa taller young Hakeem

His 1967 was possibly the GOAT peak and his 67 playoffs had an outstanding all around impact

He was very close to consistently knocking off the Celtics teams who had deeper more talented squads and IMO if you replayed his career the way it played out he wins more than two titles 75 percent of the time

When he was at his best he was the most impactful player in nba history


VOTE WILT THE STILT

[E-Balla]

I'm voting Magic Johnson. I haven't been able to read through this thread yet but basically I chose Magic because:

A) No one left is as accomplished as him (9 Finals appearances in 13 years - 5 wins, 3 FMVPs when he should've had 4 because he outplayed Worthy)

B) Outside of Shaq he's the number one Finals performer left (don't have the numbers from 1980 completely added to the advanced numbers but he averaged 22/11/9 on 65 TS so it'll probably raise his career averages) averaging 19.4/7.9/11.7 in 9 Finals appearances over 50 games with a career 130 ORTG and 27 PER. Again this is over 50 games always against the best or second best team in the league.

C) The most common knock against him is BS. In the playoffs post 81 (so from 82-96) he performed great against the good teams he did play in the postseason averaging 19/6.5/12 with a 27.4 PER against top 10 defenses.

D)Magic is the least coach dependent player ever. There's no doubt in my mind that no matter what with Magic you're getting the most out of your offense.

E) Amazing impact level. Even after 5 years of retirement Magic showed amazing impact in 96. With Nick Van Exel having an injury late season the Lakers still had a 22-10 record (5.8 MOV) with old man Magic and a 31-19 record (3.6 MOV) without him (that's the difference of a 56/57 win team to a 50 win team). That might not seem like much until you remember that Magic was only playing 30 minutes a game and was retired for most of the decade.

F) Even his pre-prime years were among the best. It's hard to name 2 players who's seasons before they hit their prime (for Magic his prime is 84-91 a solid 8 years) are as good as Magic's. Personally I think if Magic was playing PG in 82 and 83 we'd be looking at his career in an even higher light because he was misused next to Norm Nixon.

[Owly]

Anyone have a vote count?

Wilt Chamberlain: 11
trex_8063, Owly, penbeast0,Warspite, DQuinn1575, Notanoob, magicmerl, fpliii ("I'm going to cast Wilt as my vote for #4 preliminarily"), ardee, DannyNoonan1221, Greatness

Shaquille O'Neal:3
RayBan-Sematra, colts18, therealbig3

Hakeem Olajuwon:2
90sAllDecade, Quotatious

Earvin "Magic" Johnson: 2
Basketballefan, DHodgkins

Tim Duncan: 2
Baller2014, batmana

Kevin Garnett: 1
Doctor MJ

Wilt has 11 of 20 votes, as it stands, a plurality. Though as noted fplii isn't absolutely decided. Gregoire wants to vote Wilt but hasn't provided reasoning in this thread, Texas Chuck is presently "leaning" Duncan.

Just previewed my post and see greatness has basically just done all this. Ah well.

Edit: Narigo, RSCD3_ and TrueLAfan take Wilt to 14, GC Pantalones brings Magic to 3. Wilt now had 14 of 24.

[MisterWestside]

So in the end this is about you vs the coaches of the 60s and you believe you're so much ahead of them that your presence would have drastic results?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

With all due respect, Doctor MJ, did this thought come to your mind when others put the purported basketball genius of the legendary Red Auerbach under scrutiny?

[TrueLAfan]

I give Shaq a bonus that not everyone gives him—but it’s a double edged sword. I don’t necessarily think Shaq peaked in 1999-2002. I think he was close enough to his peak so that you can say his peak was really 10 years long--from 1994 to 2003. That gives Shaq a long peak period for a superelite player.

The two problems this brings up for Shaq, though, are:

1) Conditioning and missed time. Shaq missed 127 games between 1993-4 and 2002-3. That’s over 16% of his team’s games. And he wasn’t always in the best of shape when he was on the court. Supporters point out that he didn’t miss playoff games. I know, but the impact from losing your star player for 13 or 14 games every year and not having him at 100% effectiveness for many others for largely avoidable reasons takes a toll on a team in measurable ways (Season records and HCA) and less obvious ways (What does it do for team morale to have your main player distracted by food, movies, and being a rap mogul?).
2) When he was at his long peak and other Top 20 Cs were at their long peak, there was no consensus that Shaq was the best C. It’s no insult to be at the level of Hakeem and Robinson, obviously. But Shaq missed a lot more time than those players did and for worse reasons. I can see the argument for Shaq’s peak being a little better. But, for a substantial chunk of his top years, he didn’t do as much with it.

The discussion and selection between Shaq and Hakeem is interesting. I think Hakeem has become a little bit overrated; there’s revisionist history going on. I read a lot about how his peak wasn’t in the mid-90s, but started far earlier in his career and lasted longer. This is not what people thought at the time. Between 1986 and 1990, Hakeem was a consensus Top 5-6 player. He got slightly over .20 in MVP win shares in two of those years. That is not commensurate with a Top 3 player. Hakeem was never considered to be as valuable as Magic, Michael, or Larry. He was in a group with Dominique and Barkley and Malone in that period (those other players actually had more MVP win shares than Hakeem in that span.)

This makes sense. The next step for Hakeem supporters is to look at the 1986 Rockets and talk about Hakeem’s teams were more successful. But they weren’t. From 1986 through 1990:

Atlanta Hawks—250-160
Utah Jazz—239-171
Philadelphia 76ers—234-176
Houston Rockets—225-185

Slightly lesser team success. I also often hear that Hakeem had lesser teammates. I find this to be questionable. Rodney McCray, Otis Thorpe, Sleepy Floyd, Ralph Sampson—Hakeem had support. Title winning support? No. But the Rockets didn’t win a title. They won 45 games a year.

There’s also some statistical evidence that Hakeem improved later in his career. Comparing Hakeem from 1993-1996 to Hakeem from 1986-92, you find this:

- Hakeem scored nearly 15% more per minute adjusted for pace, and over 23% more per game in 1993-6. He scored about 13% more per possession.
- Hakeem passed for over 50% more assists per game; over 40% more per minute from 1993-6.
- Despite passing the ball better and scoring more—which means a higher usage rate (more touches)--Hakeem turned the ball over about 3% less per minute from 1993-6.
- Hakeem fouled about 20% less per minute in 1993-6
- Three of Hakeem's top four years in TS% occurred in 1993-6
--Hakeem’s top 2 WS years and WS/48 years happened in 1993-6. His WS/48 is about 8% higher in his later period.

So, there's fairly significant statistical evidence to support the opinions of contemporary observers that Hakeem was better in 1993-6. He also regressed in certain areas; a good 10% in Reb Rate; less so in blocked shots. Overall, you have to think that a guy that is scoring 15-20% more, getting 50% more assists, turning the ball over less, fouling less (allowing him to stay on the court longer), and shooting with greater efficiency is better.

I think Hakeem’s peak is as good as anyone’s—and to me, I’d rather have four seasons of peak Hakeem and 6-7 seasons of Hakeem as a slightly lesser but still great (Top 4-7 player) than the 10 top years of Shaq with toe vacations and the movie career and the distractions. I have Hakeem over Shaq.

I have Wilt over both. My vote is for Wilt Chamberlain.

As I noted in the #3 topic, the big question is how much do we credit or value Wilt’s versatility. This is a player who was asked to change his game in a far greater way than any other superstar has been. Much of that has to do with the fact that Wilt has the sheer talent to do that. Wilt had more bad luck than any other great player. Some--maybe even much-- of that was self-inflicted.

But even with that, Wilt won as many titles as Hakeem. He was the only player to punch through the Celtics’s dominance once Boston had established themselves. He never missed games. He never missed time on the court. He was never out of shape. There were huge problems with Wilt Chamberlain. Some of them actually had to do with Wilt and his ego and his puzzling lack of initiative at times. But during his career he won a lot, in more different ways, than anyone other top 20 player not named Bill Russell. Like Shaq, he’s a borderline cautionary tale. More so than Shaq … had Wilt had the proper mindset for basketball, he would be #1 going away. If Wilt had had just normal luck—if Mendy Rudolph hadn’t called goaltending on him in 1962, or Butch Van Breda Kolff had put him back in in 1969. Wilt would have at least 3 or 4 titles. Those are beyond Wilt’s control, and Wilt had more of those bad breaks, bad bounces, and flat out bad luck than any top 10 player. But rather than focus on what he didn’t do, looking at what he did—especially when he had good coaching—along with that adaptability, makes me comfortable with him at #4.

[Doctor MJ]

From Elgee's in/out study. Wilt is 2nd worst among superstars in in/out

Player Years Games MOV Net SIO
Walton 77-78 41 9.3 13.0 11.2
Nash 01, 05-07, 09 36 5.6 9.5 7.5
Duncan 00, 04, 05 37 8.4 6.5 7.5
King 84-85 33 1.8 11.2 6.5
McHale 86, 88, 91 45 7.8 4.3 6.0
Bird 91-92 44 6.3 5.8 6.0
Rodman 93, 95-97 100 7.8 3.5 5.6
Pippen 94, 98 48 7.6 3.3 5.4
Penny 97, 00 55 3.8 6.9 5.3
Garnett 06-11 72 5.7 4.9 5.3
Shaq 96-98, 00-04 142 6.4 4.1 5.3
West 67-69, 71 76 4.7 5.8 5.3
Hakeem 86, 91-92, 95-96 72 3.5 6.3 4.9
Kareem 75, 78 37 3.1 6.7 4.9
Mourning 94, 96-98 74 4.1 5.2 4.7
McGrady 02-04 28 -0.6 9.9 4.7
KJ 90, 93-97 129 4.7 3.7 4.2
Erving 73, 78, 83 29 4.1 4.2 4.1
Kidd 00, 04-05 46 2.9 4.9 3.9
Kobe 00, 04-07, 10 79 3.9 3.5 3.7
Barkley 87, 91, 94-97 100 3.5 3.5 3.5
Odom 05, 07 44 0.3 5.7 3.0
Cowens 75, 77 47 2.8 3.1 3.0
Pierce 07, 10 46 0.1 5.3 2.7
Ewing 87, 94-96 31 -1.1 6.4 2.6
Baylor 61-62, 66 54 2.3 2.4 2.4
Drexler 90, 93, 94, 96 90 2.4 1.0 1.7
Moses 78, 84 36 -1.1 4.2 1.6
Iverson 00-02, 04, 06 89 0.5 2.7 1.6
Webber 95, 97-98, 01-03 104 2.5 0.7 1.6
Wilkins 92-93 51 -0.3 3.1 1.4
Allen 02, 04, 07 66 -0.7 2.6 0.9
Hill 95, 00, 05 35 -2.5 4.2 0.9
Wade 04-08 95 -1.5 3.2 0.8
Wilt 65, 65, 70 156 -0.3 0.8 0.3
Paul 07, 10 55 -1.6 1.2 -0.2

Yup. This is my issue when people say things like "well he lost to Russell and Russell is already in". Russell doesn't deserve to be in first because he won - even casual fans know this is a team sport - he deserves it because he clearly outplayed Wilt when you look at helping his team win.

And you know who else did? Look at that list.

I realize that things have progressed since then but basketball had been around over half a century at the time and everyone instantly recognized the physical talent of Wilt. That he wasn't able to do more was a shock to them because as people here suggest, it seems like it should be simple. What Wilt instead proved to be was a bed sheet too small for the bed. You pull one corner to solve one problem and next thing you know it's something else.

I think in general people have far too much faith in their own superior ability to handle Wilt...and I actually think that makes them a lot like the more problematic people of that time.

I think if you aren't awestruck by Hannum's move you aren't seeing things how they were, and if you're not discouraged that even Hannum's struggled to maintain Wilt's focus for what today would be a fraction of the duration of a max deal I really don't know what else to say.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[ardee]

Looks like Wilt is going to take this. :grin::grin:

Stick that up the illogical pipes of the hipsters who rank him out of the top 10.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[MisterWestside]

I think in general people have far too much faith in their own superior ability to handle Wilt...and I actually think that makes them a lot like the more problematic people of that time.
I think if you aren't awestruck by Hannum's move you aren't seeing things how they were, and if you're not discouraged that even Hannum's struggled to maintain Wilt's focus for what today would be a fraction of the duration of a max deal I really don't know what else to say.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

The failure of posters to think abstractly about the game instead of simply looking at impact numbers is what's problematic.

We'll see the undeniable force of this argument when Stephen John Nash is analyzed. But, for those who want current, modern examples of this at work; see Monta Ellis and Al Jefferson.

But, to reiterate:

In one of our conversations, Wilt said, “You know, I can pass the ball as well as anyone in basketball.”

I said, “Fine, let’s see it.”

This led to a decision made by both Wilt and myself to play him at the high post. Early in his career, Wilt was always near the basket so he could catch the ball in position to score. But he also clogged the middle so that it was hard for his teammates to drive. With all the talent we had, I wanted to give the other guys room to go to the basket. And Wilt wanted to get them the ball so they could score. That was our game plan, and we stuck to it.

Again:

Fired up actual game footage of prime Chamberlain vs. Russell, courtesy of Dipper13. And I'll say that it's the main issue with posting-up anyone from the era in the low block. When Chamberlain posted up, double-teams and help defenders were readily available, since the other Celtics weren't pulled far enough away from the paint. This caused the lane to be clogged for cutters to the basket. Chamberlain was more than willing to find his open teammates when doubled in the low-post, but I wouldn't call anyone snipers from that era. Indeed, when they got the ball from a Chamberlain double-team, they always looked to drive to the basket; the issue, however, was that the rim protector and help defenders guarding Chamberlain were usually there to alter the shot, deflect the pass or dribble, etc. Hannum shifting Chamberlain to the high-post was the key; Chamberlain naturally couldn't shoot as much being further away from the rim (he wasn't a jumpshooter by trade), but he pulled away defenders and rim protectors a few feet away from the basket. That can make a difference for teammates scoring underneath.

I don't usually agree with mooncheese's posts regarding LeBron James, but he makes a valid point with regards to floor spacing. It's such a fundamental part of the game; check out flpiii's floorspacing thread for more info viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1330890

Courtesy of mooncheese:

Which one of these is harder to score in the paint?


3-pt shooters spacing the floor + defensive 3 seconds = an open paint and no at-rim protection.

Again:

Yep. Simply put, teams and offenses were not optimized in that era for low-post dominance. The things needed for it (great shooters, floor spacing, proper movement of other players based on the low-post, etc.) were inferior to the elements put in place around players like Olajuwon and O'Neal.

Did that mean prime, low-post Chamberlain didn't have the skills for it? In the 2nd half of one close Finals game I tracked vs. prime Russell:

17 points, 7-11 from the field, 3-6 from the line, 6 offensive boards, 1 assist, 2 turnovers in 24 minutes

Four of those seven makes were on the glass. In the post, he was 3-5; would have been 4-6 if not for a 3-second violation by one of his teammates. I counted four passes out of a double-team. One of his turnovers came on a pass that one of his teammates should have secured on a cut towards the rim. Another pass out of a double-team went to an open shooter who missed the jumper. And one of Chamberlain's misses in the post was a bunny that rimmed out. He only took one ugly shot, and that was with a couple seconds left in the 3rd quarter. He played well against the best defender of his era.

However, one can easily see the issues of a volume low-post player in that period. The overcrowding of the paint doesn't optimize the skillsets of players who couldn't shoot well from outside, finish in traffic at the rim against rim protectors, or take advantage of the extra point provided by the 3-pointer. However, with the proper context, these issues would be eliminated, and so would the lack of derived value.

And, again;

He doesn't have to be [put in a role that doesn't use his skills properly and make him unhappy], because I will put him in a situation in which he will use his full skillset and the team will succeed. Done.

Think about rosters, and how players work within them. Posters want to go full-on hypothetical mode about an unknown Russell's play in a superior NBA? It's Chamberlain's turn.

[Quotatious]

Basically 14 votes for Wilt (12 confirmed, fpliii still isn't sure but leans towards Wilt, and Gregoire is another poster who votes for him, and his vote will count once he provides some reasoning for it), and no one else has more than 3 votes...Damn, that's very surprising - ThaRegul8r was right about Russell dropping below Kareem, but him saying that Wilt could possibly even fall out of the top 10 is way off...Honestly, I thought he wouldn't fall out of the top ten, but would slide towards the bottom of it, to the 8-10 range.

Great job arguing for Wilt, ardee. It seems like you've swayed a lot of people to support him as well. I used to have Wilt as a lock for the top 5 (even had him as my GOAT several years ago, common sense told me that he simply had to be, at the very worst, a top 5 player), but then I've been getting increasingly lower on him, since I've started to read RealGM, and now it seems very possible that I'll have Chamberlain in the top 5 again...Just not yet, I'm not entirely convinced. Not having nearly as much free time as I thought I'd have, before starting the project, also really sucks...

I wonder if Bastillon will come in to defend Hakeem?

[Owly]

1) Why that specific year? (Not his rookie and retirement impacts, not the 76ers SRS dropoff when he left, not how they dropped in '70 when he was injured, then thrived in the playoffs with him back)

More on Wilt.

1965:
Warriors decline by -3.1 points when Wilt leaves
76ers get worse with Wilt by -0.8 points

1968-69:
76ers drop off by -3.17 SRS without Wilt (Luke Jackson goes from 82 to 25 games in 69 [let's ignore that the 76ers actually recieved players for Wilt])
Lakers drop off by -1.15 SRS by adding Wilt

1970:
Lakers only improve by 0.3 with Wilt on court

Again without context. '70 missing the largest sample size with Wilt, i.e. the playoffs (versus tougher competition) or the next and prior seasons (roster turnover, aging etc as ever would have to be looked at here) would be better than 12 (early regular season, new coach, then easing back in after injury in preparation for the playoffs) games.

'65: See Ardee post 132

1965: He drops off a bit due to the heart disease. Bad team results in the beginning of the year. If you want to hold that against him, fine. He gets traded to Philly because the SFW management is full of asses. Philly immediately improves, they go 11-3 in the first 14 games with Wilt. Then Greer, Costello and Jackson all get injured in the second half of the season. Wilt still drags them to .500 and then outplays Russ in the EDF, losing because HAVLICEK STOLE THE BALL. This is the second time that one play has decided whether or not Wilt beats Russell.

See also for instance coverage of Wilt and his new supporting cast, http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/21990302/ . Note finally that Greer scores just ten points versus the Knicks on February 23rd (suggesting injury in this game, though I'm not particularly useful with what's left of googles newspaper search and don't have access to other newspaper archives, needless to say he was absent the next game). Then finally look at two season turning points, the first in mid-January, the second in mid-late February. Look at a clear victory over Cincinnati and running the dominant Celtics reasonably close. Look at all that and say the '65 Philadelphia 76ers get worse with Wilt Chamberlain. They don't improve as much as I'd like to believe they would. But seriously, go ahead and claim that Wilt made that team worse.

And

76ers drop off by -3.17 SRS without Wilt (Luke Jackson goes from 82 to 25 games in 69 )

Well let's ignore that the 76ers actually recieved players for Wilt (and indeed internal player growth from a young core whose best two - or probably two out of their best 3 depending on how you like Greer - players in historical terms peaked in the 70s). Let's not note that Cunningham plays many more minutes (Greer and Walker slightly more) and that Imhoff replaces much of Jackson's production (and is better by boxscore metrics). Nope, just note that Jackson is injured.

[Texas Chuck]

Its a throw-away vote perhaps, but Im sticking with Tim Duncan

The case for Wilt is an impressive one, but some of the points raised against him seem valid as well. And again ultimately Im concerned with how a player helps his team win games not how a player helps his own resume. I realize this is impossible to completely isolate and get correct, but there is enough smoke here re: Wilt for me to avoid him this early.

I fail to see a case for Dream here at all tbh. He had an amazing couple year run and to his credit he turned it into 2 fairly surprising championships. A lot of respect for what he did there, but when we compare his entire career to Wilt, Shaq, Duncan he just doesnt measure up.

Shaq is really the closest of the bigs for me. At his absolute best he was better than Duncan, there is no question in my mind about that. His defense wasnt elite, but he was still having a big impact at that end and of course offensively he just wrecked the league during his peak and dominated it during his prime. In the end Im choosing the consistency and stability that Duncan brings and its hard to argue with any of his individual or team accomplishments.

I think Magic needs to be in the mix really soon, but I won't address him much here since we have been focused mainly on the bigs. But we are talking about a GOAT offensive player, a GOAT winner and one of the very few pure geniuses of basketball.

[ardee]

Kobe's was defended by the worst back court on any contender I can remember. He could have averaged 40 and it wouldn't matter that much, it was that bad, not least of all because Shaq was demanding so much attention that Kobe could enjoy single coverage (or open looks) all the time. Nobody is invoking Duncan's play in the 2002 Sonics series as an example for why he's better than Shaq or Kobe, and it's even sillier to try and claim Kobe's performance against Antonio Daniels, old man Ferry, etc, stands as some kind of meaningful evidence of his superiority to Duncan/Shaq (who had each other to contend with in the post). Other names you gave, like James Worthy or Rik Smits, are good players. They are not a comparison for the backcourt of scrubbiness that the Spurs had in the 01 WCFs. I covered this in some depth on page 1.

If the Spurs backcourt were so bad, why didn't Terrell Brandon erupt on them like Kobe did in the first round? He had KG taking attention too didn't he?

Or what about Michael Finley? Antonio Daniels and old man Ferry with Dirk taking attention, he should've killed the 'scrubbiness'.

Oh wait, I forgot. It's Kobe, so 'scrub' common sense, agendas and inane statements like 'scrub a 34/7/7 series' are all that matter.

[ardee]

I think Magic needs to be in the mix really soon, but I won't address him much here since we have been focused mainly on the bigs. But we are talking about a GOAT offensive player, a GOAT winner and one of the very few pure geniuses of basketball.

Yeah, I will be making the case for Magic next thread. Personally, I see the 60s/70s/80s greats a notch higher than the 00 trifecta + LeBron, but that's just me.

Magic has fallen in the eyes of this board quite a bit. Even HOF posters like fplii rank him under a guy like Dirk (one of my favorites as you know) but I still find that a little disrespectful. Though with the surprise of Wilt, who knows, things could change on Magic too.