RealGM Top 100 #4

[Sedale Threatt]

This is a fantastic post and after all that I have read on Wilt, I fully agree with the points outlined.

Agreed. Only minor quibble is the emphasis on passing being a detriment to his team -- Philly was the best team in basketball both years he had high assist totals -- but otherwise, can't disagree with any of it.

[lorak]

I think those stats are all relative to matchups. Man to Man is only one aspect of defense, and also the most volatile.

West was 31 in 70' & 33 in 72'. Frazier was in his prime years, quicker, and has the size advantage.That was a bad matchup for a Vet with many miles on his leg.

That vet was still top 2 MVP voting, so it's hard to argue that he was past his prime.

And if man to man defense isn't so important so West is completely lost in this case, because games with/without shows that Lakers defense without him was BETTER or stayed the same.

1) I'm not sure how MVP vopting relates to defensive matchups. West was still a great player, but he was 31+ going against a prime Frazier who had the matchup advantages.

It's not about how it relates to defensive matchup but how good was West at this point of his career.
And he rather wasn't past his prime, when he still was top 2 MVP voting, unless he was overrated because of his reputation, what's is very possible and that's why he was outplayed in key matchups.

Kidd was a great defender, but he was burned a few time as he got past 31, by quicker guards.

So Kidd wasn't great defender past 31, simple as that.

2) You keep referring to opposing PPG like it determines defensive prowess. If LA plays at a slower pace due to not having West's offense, then their opponent's ppg will drop too. To equate that to LA being better without West on D, would be wrong. Stats can be a useful tool, but you have to put them into context.

Sure, but usually even games with/without tell a lot (that was often used during POY thread in years, when we can't say what was the pace, for example in case of Walton who's impact according to with/without was GREAT). You dismiss that, because that proves you are wrong, but really you don't have any counterargument, so you assume that pace was lower - but you don't know that, neither do I of course. But these data is all we have and it's coherent with what is fundamental for basketball - small players have the smallest impact on team D.

And one more thing - many prise West's wing span and his ability to steal and block shot, but what if he gambled a lot? It's highly possible, players great at steals often do that (especially these smaller than 6-5) and it's also coherent with these with/without results - without West in the lineup Lakers defense was more fundamentally sound, less gambling, so they played better defense.

[JordansBulls]

I usually had Wilt over Magic on my all time list, however with Wilt's big drop in production from season to the playoffs and in the biggest games (game 7's, series tied, etc when things are at stake, Magic just has less failures as the man on the big stage.)

Vote: Magic
Nominate: West

[lorak]

Oscar Robertson missed the playoffs on three consecutive seasons, despite Jerry Lucas being a very productive player, in the midst of his prime (21/19).

Jerry Lucas was empty stats guy. Bastillon covered it great during POY project.

Something that in the earlier threads, supporters of Robertson were so destructively knocking Garnett for doing.

Not me.

[Gongxi]

Trying not to sound arrogant and condecending but advocating for Wilt Chamberlain over Shaq or Hakeem or Duncan is like trying to argue the sky is blue or that water is wet. If you want to argue that Duncan is better than 45 or 50yr old Wilt then thats a debate. If you think Shaq could can beat Wilt in a 3pt shooting contest thats a debate.

The fact that WIlts detractors attack him for his personality or his intangibles or his leadership skills is for the most part an admission that Wilt aside from the FT line has no weaknesses.

I have to agree. We're seeing these large arguments about Duncan and Magic because they need very strong and supported arguments to even have a case, just to get past the grand jury (in a good way). Wilt's already indicted (in a good way).

I totally disagree with this. Think about the drivers of Wilt Chamberlain for GOAT. Stats. Scoring. Records. Myths of size. All have grown in time.

When you lift up the hood and examine all the nuts and bolts, you see:

(1) Stats: Totally misunderstood and misinterpreted by people. His raw volume scoring wasn't creating offensive dynasties. Pace normalized he doesn't even have one of the top scoring seasons ever. They didn't even keep track of turnovers, which seems to be seriously relevant here from watching him.

(2) Scoring: I'm calling this a separate category, because while volume scoring is important, there ARE instances, like Adrian Dantley, in which it isn't nearly as valuable as people think.

I don't think any serious basketball fan thinks that Wilt's stats are anything incredibly dominant compared to other all-time greats (the "OMG 50!" stance that many take). But his production still speaks for itself, and is still absurd.

Absurd enough to garner my vote for this spot.

It's much like Sedale captured: we're now reaching the point where a guy on two championship teams and with a few Game 7 losses by single digits it's being painted as having a game that was non-conducive to winning. That's as tired, in my book, as the "OMG 50!" argument.

Nomination: I initially posted West here, but really...do I think KG was/is better? It's close. Do I think LeBron was/is better? Yeah, probably, do I guess I'll change it to him. Bleh.

[Baller 24]

Ehh---still three consecutive seasons is three consecutive seasons. Point is, it happened for both of them.

[An Unbiased Fan]

And my point about opposing PPG, is that LA probably played at a slower rate when West was out, and that would have yield lower opposing ppg numbers. It doesn't mean they were better defensively.

I should also say that I think Frazier was a better defender than West too, but then again, that's actually reflected in his 7 straight All-D team selections from 69'-75'.

All good points, however I'd still love to take a look at some statistical information from the Finals in the 60s, to see how the opposing players did against West.

I still want to see some arguments from why if West and Oscar are coming up so early, why not the case for LeBron and Wade? LeBron's got 3 solid seasons of GOAT level play (remember this is only on par with maybe 3-4 different players), and outside of that he's got another 3 seasons where he's clearly within the Top 5, and he's clearly the best player if you're comparing the three, there's no doubt about that.

Wade's very similar, he's kind of like a T-Mac in the sense that he's got some very dominant seasons, accolades, but he's got the championship (all-time great performance), and a Finals MVP to his name, which clearly boosts his overall resume.

In terms of accolades for Oscar and West, I'll say it again, there was a big disparity in terms of talent. They were consistently the only two guards in the league that were on tier 1 level talent for guards, maybe towards the end of their career you have a slip-up where Frazier gets the nod (and rightfully so), but with D-Wade, while there's no arguments that he's been a tier 1 level guard talent since '04-'05, and he's continued that.

While despite his 1.5 season injury woes, he's still got about 3 consistent seasons under him ('09, '10, '11) where he's very clearly a Top 3 elite player, and arguments can be made that he's the best SG in the league. Defensively too. And also refer to the RPOY thread, where in '06 he's clearly considered the best player in the league, so that gives him another season where he's clearly a Top 3 player (total of 4), and while '07 was cut early due to his shoulder injury, he's very well in the Top 5. So that's a solid six seasons where he's been elite, and inconsideration as a Top 5 player in the league.

That's with extreme competition in the guards -- Bryant, McGrady, Nash, Paul, Williams, and Rose. Robertson and West only were only dueling with each other in terms of guards, but only with maybe 3 other players in terms of competition for MVP votes. Wade and LeBron have aside from the guards mentioned, you've got competition from Nowitzki, Duncan, Garnett, Howard, Durant, and Anthony.


Just my take and two-cents.

Fair points. I have to ask though, how do you measure peak play? Lebron certainly had amazing regular season box score stats back in Cleveland. But how impactful is it really, to have everything run through one guy. Lebron's numbers against quality teams take a big dropoff in the postseason. From 06'-10', Leborn scored 27.6 ppg, 42.6% FG, 51.7% TS, agaisnt 50-win teams. I need to update the numbers with this year, but I think you get the picture. Much like Wilt, Lebron hasn't risen to the occasion enough. He's tremendous against crap teams, but when the pressure's on, he has come up short many times. I don't put his peak at Top 5, or even Top 10, because I value the playoffs where the competition is much better, higher than the regular season. Guys like Malone, DRob, and KG get called out for this stuff, and so should Bron.

As for Wade. He's actually consistenly good against tough defensive teams, and a great playoff performer. His problem in comparison to guys like Oscar & West, is that he simply doens't have the same number of elite years. He's either the 2nd or 3rd best guard of his era(depending on where you rank Nash), but hasn't consistently put up the seasons that West/Oscar did for an entire decade plus. It's hard to argue that Wade is a better player when West is a Top 5 shooter ever, and great perimeter defenser. Oscar put up crazy stats too, and led great offenses. Wade can potentially catch these guys, but he still has a lot more to prove.

[Doctor MJ]

Hey, really only responding to a couple of your points here. The rest I'm having trouble really taking isssue with.

Second, I was talking about Winston's list, so far the biggest APM sample available (2000-2009) and Nash isn't on that list. Kobe, dominant scorer, who according to defensive APM is at best average defensively, is on Winston's list so it's safe to assume that he made the list because of his impact on offense, not defense. The same is with Dirk or partly with LeBron and Wade.

Just so the knowledge is out there:

For Nash:
From 2000 to 2009, He isn't in the top 10 overall (not aware of an offense/defense breakdown).
From 2003 to 2009, he is 11th overall, though he is #1 on offense.
From 2005 to 2011, jumps to #2 overall, and becomes #1 on offense by a wider margin.

For Kobe:
From 2000 to 2009, he is 7th overall.
From 2003 to 2009, he is 8th overall, and 3rd on offense.
From 2005 to 2001, he is 6th overall, and 3rd on offense.

The fact is that the offense ran best when Wilt was central point of that offense. At the same time he was dominant scorer AND dominant playmaker. Very unique and in no way his reduced number of shots should be used as argument against him.

I feel like you look at this too much in terms of what a player "deserves". Wilt did amazing things in 1967, does that success make him deserve criticism? Of course not.

However, what I try to do is get as well rounded a picture of someone as I can. If a player is drastically more valuable with he shoots less than his teammates and acts as a distributor, but his reputation is based primarily on his scoring, this is incredibly noteworthy. I can't imagine not being terribly interested in analyzing these facts. One then needs to consider what they think that means.

[Sedale Threatt]

Despite my lingering affection for Wilt, I have to say the many great arguments for Magic seem to have swayed me. I'm more than a little embarrassed to admit that, despite him being my favorite player, I never could have made cases that strong. Frankly, I wasn't even considering it.

But Reg's post pushed me over the edge. How awesome, and dominant, that he finished first among guards in assists per game, fourth in rebounds per game and second in FG%. Add to that the versatility to play just about any position on the court, and the ridiculous intangibles -- he's the anti-Wilt in that department -- and his failings seem pretty much dwarfed in comparison.

So...

Vote: Magic
Nominate: KG

[lorak]

I usually had Wilt over Magic on my all time list, however with Wilt's big drop in production from season to the playoffs and in the biggest games (game 7's, series tied, etc when things are at stake, Magic just has less failures as the man on the big stage.)

C'mon, it was posted before and Wilt was very good during elimination games, for example 46 points, 34 rebounds against Celtics in 1966.
And Magic's biggest failures are bigger than Wilt's (1984 finals, 1981 game winner).


My votes will not matter, but:
vote: Bird
nomination: Robertson

[Doctor MJ]

An Underachiever's Thoughts on Wilt/Shaq

Never thought I'd be baring my soul like this on a project devoted to ranking players, but some of the stuff in this thread resonates with my on a personal level, especially with these two.

First off: I'm an underachiever, perhaps even a slacker. I've followed my passions, but not really lived up to my potential. In high school, I coasted while still keeping a decent GPA and doing well on standardized tests. I went to a good liberal arts school and majored in things that interested me academically (religion and international relations). I've kind of bounced from job to job since then; held one for two years, another for a year and a half, had another couple for about three months each, and am currently working retail (albeit related to one of my interests). My little brother, on the other hand, is at MIT, studying robotics and business. He's taking trips to third-world countries to help them learn programming as part of his summer break. He just naturally goes a hundred miles an hour; he can't help it. But my parents told me once that they think I'm naturally more intelligent than he is. (Not sure about that; I think I'm more well-rounded than he is, but his strengths/weaknesses are more pronounced.)

So what does this have to do with Wilt/Shaq?

Easy: They should, by all rights, have been the debate for number one overall. But here they are, many people bumping them out of the top four--myself included.

What went wrong? What kept them from achieving what they should have, historically? My guess: mindset. Something that Simmons said in The Book Of Basketball about Shaq that kind of stuck with me:

My theory: basketball was never as much fun for Shaq as everything else happening in his life. Officials allowed opponents to defend him differently, shove him out ofo position and pull his shoulders on dunks. Teams fouled him in key moments and flashed a giant spotlight on his one weakness. The loathsome Hack-a-Shaq tactics were insulting and maybe even a little humiliating. Even when he kicked everyone's asses (like from 2000 to 2002), he received a decent amount of credit... but not really. The guy couldn't win. And so Shaq could have earned a top-five Pyramid spot and multiple MVPs, but he happily settled for No. 11, some top-five records, three Finals MVPs and a fantastically fun ride.

I get it, Big Aristotle. You were living it up in LA, you made movies (even if we kinda wish you hadn't), you were a national figure, you could claim to be the Most Dominant Ever... and you should have been! But you weren't.

I'm with ThaRegul8r when he says "Shaq’s career highs in rebounding (13.9) and blocked shots (3.53) both came in his first year in the league, and he declined every year after that." To the people who keep harping on "Focus on what he did, not what he didn't!"... the two are intricately linked. I'm struggling to think of other players who had their highest statistical points as a rookie, and I can only think of one: Shane Battier and points. Who realized that he's not a great scorer, and that it was in the team's best interests for him to do other things. Can anyone really claim with a straight face that Shaq's teams were better off with him not rebounding/blocking as much?

Here's the big red flag, in my mind, for both Wilt and Shaq: Free throws. It's an open shot exactly 15 feet from the basket. I'm not saying that they should have been perfect from the line (no one is), but they should have been a damn sight better than they were. If they shot FTs at the same percentage as Dikembe (.682, hardly a stellar rate), Wilt would have averaged two more points a game; Shaq nearly a point and a half more. Shaq is now the 11th greatest scorer; Wilt is easily #1.

I don't have the time or energy to analyze Shaq's rebound or block numbers to see where he "should" have been there, but free throws are such a fundamental part of the game that their reputations are irreparably tarnished, in my eyes, due to their failings at such a simple task.

I can't vote for Wilt or Shaq this high in the same way that I can't claim that I'm going to be more successful than my brother. We both had all the tools, but he put it together at a younger age. I coast. Still do. A vote for Wilt/Shaq is a vote for myself. I can't.

Vote: Magic
Nominate: West

Thanks for sharing OP.

I too use my own failings to better understand athletes who don't do exactly what we want them to do. I know I come across as crucifying Wilt here, but looking at him as a person, for the most part I totally sympathize with the guy. There's more to the world than basketball, and this was the same era where Jim Brown retired early because he could make more money as an actor without nearly as much pain, and Muhammad Ali became an icon less for his boxing than his behavior out of the ring.

[ElGee]

It's much like Sedale captured: we're now reaching the point where a guy on two championship teams and with a few Game 7 losses by single digits it's being painted as having a game that was non-conducive to winning. That's as tired, in my book, as the "OMG 50!" argument.

Absolutely -- that's why I've never mentioned it once. Very tired to say Wilt was a loser, or non-conducive to "winning," or even that he Wilt-ed in big games.

But when you say his "production is absurd," what do you mean? His team results (offensive and defensive ratings) weren't absurd during his scoring years. And the differences with him and without him, the weird trades with little change in both teams, those weren't absurd. Quick thought experiment -- what if they tracked TOV and Wilt averaged 6.0 per game? What if they tracked Opportunities Created per touch, and Wilt had the lowest ratio ever? Does that change his "production?" We need to evaluate players beyond the available raw box stats THEN and now.

Did you catch the link I posted about the playoffs? Wilt doesn't really look much better than the other great scorers of the time. And that's just offensively speaking...and that is supposed to be bailiwick.

[fatal9]

A. One-point loss in Game 7, 1965, when the Sixers pushed the Celtics to the limit despite finishing some 20 games back in the standings. Chamberlain scores the last eight points to make a game of it, Hal Greer can't make a simple inbounds pass for a shot at the winning bucket.

B. Four-point loss in Game 7, 1968, when his teammates and Hannum inexplicably refuse to get him the ball (nine touches in the second half, two in the fourth quarter). Cunningham and Jackson, two of their six best players, are injured.

C. Two-point loss in Game 7, 1969, in which his dumb-ass coach -- who never coached another playoff team again -- decides the last seven minutes of a championship game is the perfect time to extend a grudge. Might not have made a difference, but it sure as isht couldn't have helped.

The what-ifs go both ways.

A. What if Hal Greer doesn't make a miracle 35 footer to send the game 4 in to overtime (Sixers won)? What if that doesn't happen? Sixers likely lose in 5. Havlicek stole the ball in game 7, but the Sixers got their own miracle earlier in the series for them to even get to that point.

B. Wilt controlled his own destiny here. His team was up 3-1, his teammate Hal Greer had 40 pts on 15/24 FG and 10/13 FT in game 6. Meanwhile Wilt goes 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the foul line (same game!) in a game they lost by single digits. Can you possibly gag harder than that? Then there's what happened in game 7. Hannum after the game said he was puzzled by Wilt not shooting/calling for the ball as he made no indication to his team that Wilt was not to get any touches.

C. Again, maybe the series would have been won earlier by the Lakers. What if Wilt doesn't shoot 2/11 from the line in the same game Sam Jones makes a game winner for the Celtics to win by 1? What if Wilt plays up to par in the finals? And Lakers continued to cut the lead with Wilt out, Russell began forcing shots on Counts (and announcers also noted that Counts was defending screens much better than Wilt was). There is no way to assume that had Wilt been in the Lakers would have won, the possessions Russell wasted would have gone somewhere else. And again, the what-ifs go both ways, Lakers were in danger of an even more embarrassing playoff exit in the first round (dropped first two home games) when Mullins, the leading scorer of the Warriors got injured.

What if Wilt doesn't have his season low point total during his 50 ppg season in the game 7 (in a game where he got more than adequate offensive help from his teammates as well)? What if he goes out and dominates a limping Reed?

The what ifs exist because Wilt allowed them to exist. I feel much worse for someone like West who usually played extremely well in the 60s when it mattered but didn't get rewarded for his efforts. Losing that many close games isn't necessarily a good thing, it's a problem, especially if it comes with a player underperforming routinely. Playoffs aside, I have problems with some of his regular seasons too, particularly in his volume scoring years. I really want someone to explain to me how a player putting up these stats with a couple of all-star players around him, can possibly only lead them to 31 wins (while playing every game), and a couple of years later how a player so statistically dominant can lead a team to the worst record in the league before getting traded. None of the other top 10 players have been in such a situation. Then there's other interesting cases of teams not improving as much as expected or declining as much as expected whenever he'd join or leave teams.

I usually had Wilt over Magic on my all time list, however with Wilt's big drop in production from season to the playoffs and in the biggest games (game 7's, series tied, etc when things are at stake, Magic just has less failures as the man on the big stage.)

C'mon, it was posted before and Wilt was very good during elimination games, for example 46 points, 34 rebounds against Celtics in 1966.

The Sixers went in a 1-3 hole, and Wilt averaged 23.5 ppg on 49 TS% in those games. And despite what seems to be a brilliant game 5 by Wilt, he shot 8/25 from the line. All I'm saying is if Shaq had a 40/20 game and shot that poorly from the line in a game he lost, it would hardly receive praise (especially in a series where he hadn't played well offensively, and it was reported that he was angering his teammates by skipping/rescheduling practices around his schedule).

[Sedale Threatt]

The what-ifs go both ways.

Good points.

[Dr Positivity]

Wilt's playoff questions compared to a Magic or Duncan or Bird or Shaq, is enough for me that I'd need Wilt to clearly make up for it elsewhere. He doesn't. In fact he loses ground in leadership/intangibles/chemistry fit with teammates, loses ground in that he doesn't make teammates better like they do, and at best for me, is a draw in regular season kudos. It's hard to give Wilt more credit in the regular season when those two were winning 58+ every season even in questionable talent years like 01, 02 and 90, 91 and Wilt has low points like 63 or 65, doesn't give his teams huge boosts when he's traded. I'm not putting Wilt as a level above them in the regular season when his massive PPG didn't translate

It's not an insult to Wilt's fabulous career to say he's not #4 all time, it's just this is tough sledding, you have guys on here like Magic, Bird, Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem that have nearly perfect resumes complete with doing as much as they could with talent at all times and rising in the playoffs, and frankly, it's hard to imagine West or Oscar doing more than they did at the G spots in their times and they're not even in the conversation

[Gongxi]

Magic has a "perfect resume" and no "playoff questions"?

I think things might be remembered a bit differently if some of those things in Sedale's post go a little differently- with Wilt having no control of them.

I mean, in total I can't believe someone would say Shaq (swept how many times?), Duncan (defeated how many times in the decade that included his titles?), and Hakeem (how many first round exits in between Finals appearanes?) have 'perfect resumes' compared to Wilt Chamberlain without a least a little of their tongue firmly in cheek.

[Dr Positivity]

Nearly perfect and I didn't write Magic has no playoff questions, I said Wilt has them (in much more abundance than Magic)

[fatal9]

(Yes, game recaps suggest many times in which Russ held him down in the first half and Wilt scored in blowouts in the 2nd.)

Which games?
BTW, game never is over at the half time.

Here for example is the '62 series...

Game 1:



Warriors lost by 28, Wilt winds up top scorer after scoring most of his points when "the issue was no longer in doubt".

Game 3:


Celtics led by 28 after three quarters (109-81). Russell outplays Wilt when the game was a contest but then Wilt catches up/exceeds Russell's stats when it was "too late to matter". Again, Wilt winds up top scorer due to the points he scored after the game was a blowout.

Game 5:

"Russell scored 29 points to Chamberlain's 30. Bill blanketed Wilt so well that the NBA scoring king had only four of 13 field goal tries, 11 points and was out-rebounded 11-9 by his tormentor in the crucial first half. Russell also contributed numerous blocked shots and assists to the decision."- http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9z ... 76,2892610

Celtics led by 23 at the half and yet again most of Wilt's points end up coming after the Celtics had already blown out the Warriors while playing poorly in the first half, so he got the top scoring honors over Russell again.

Yes, the game is never over by half time but if a majority of your points are coming after you're already down 25+ points, when the outcome is basically decided and the opposing team eases up, that's not a good trend. Playing 48 minutes in games like this and using those garbage minutes to actually pad your stats (while not playing well when the game was actually on the line), then sorry I'm going to respect your stats a lot less.

It's not to say Wilt couldn't play well with the game on the line, he had a couple of truly great games in that series where he significantly outplayed Russell, but it shows how much the box score/averages can be manipulated if you're stat conscious enough and get heavy minutes in games like this. It's also scary to think how much more of a dropoff we might have seen in the playoffs from Wilt if he wasn't doing this. There's three cases in seven games where Russell outplayed him when it mattered, but Wilt got his stats in garbage time to come out on top statistically. A player doing this in a playoff series today would lose a lot of credibility. LeBron/Kobe for example take couple of shots during blowouts and instantly get accused of statpadding, this is that and then some. Also, aren't there stories of Russell sometimes purposely letting Wilt score at the end of blowouts so Wilt comes out thinking he actually played well? I actually considered that to be nonsense until I looked deeper into these games.

[Baller 24]

Fair points. I have to ask though, how do you measure peak play? Lebron certainly had amazing regular season box score stats back in Cleveland. But how impactful is it really, to have everything run through one guy. I need to update the numbers with this year, but I think you get the picture. Much like Wilt, Lebron hasn't risen to the occasion enough. He's tremendous against crap teams, but when the pressure's on, he has come up short many times. I don't put his peak at Top 5, or even Top 10, because I value the playoffs where the competition is much better, higher than the regular season. Guys like Malone, DRob, and KG get called out for this stuff, and so should Bron.

You value playoffs a lot, but to take your team there you have to be great in the regular season, obviously the sample size is larger. The way LeBron led the '09 Cavs is arguably on par with any GOAT season. Especially with the crap talent the team consisted of, it's beyond many how with a team so focused on LeBron's style of play dominated in a fashion so well that it equated a 66 win season.

Though when the playoffs came, match-ups with that team became exploited and evident. And I honestly think you're one of the 2% of people on the planet that don't consider LeBron's level of play dominant and on par with the likes of Jordan, KAJ, Bird, Magic ETC. it's very clear statistically that at peak form he's had the most dominant season for any perimeter player within the last decade.

Now you say playoff teams, but his overall playoff dominance doesn't drop anywhere near the level of how Malone, Robinson (especially Robinson), & Garnett's do for an entire playoff campaign, his numbers are actually more consistent, especially the past 3 seasons amongst PER, TS%, FG%, scoring, assist, rebounds ETC. The fact is entire playoff campaign, you can't just nitpick utterly dominant teams. The three guys you mentioned, no matter how crap or how good the teams were they faced, their entire playoff camp gin took significant dips (save Malone).

Lebron's numbers against quality teams take a big drop-off in the postseason. From 06'-10', Leborn scored 27.6 ppg, 42.6% FG, 51.7% TS, agaisnt 50-win teams.

Let me guess '08 Celtics (historically dominant defense that the league MVP Bryant had piss-poor performances against), '09 Magic (where Big Z couldn't guard Dwight Howard and let him unleash for a ridiculous 30+/18Reb performance?/while recording ridiculous highs in terms of advanced statistics? also against the best defensive team in the league?), and the '10 Celtics. Aside from that the '07 Pistons and '07 Spurs, along with the '06 Pistons?

As for Wade. He's actually consistently good against tough defensive teams, and a great playoff performer. His problem in comparison to guys like Oscar & West, is that he simply doesn't have the same number of elite years.

What's considered elite in your opinion though? And does competition not play a significant role in accolades? For example, take this into consideration, in the 60s, when Robertson and the Royals failed to make the playoffs on three consecutive seasons ('68, '69, '70) he was 5th in MVP voting in '68, and he was All-NBA First team in '68 & '69, while being All-NBA Second team in '70. I've seen players with bad teams get recognition, but Robertson clearly while being elite talent, wasn't playing at an elite level for those three consecutive seasons, though he still got elite recognition.

He's either the 2nd or 3rd best guard of his era(depending on where you rank Nash), but hasn't consistently put up the seasons that West/Oscar did for an entire decade plus.

Umm, the past three season you can clearly argue that he's the best overall and defensive SG in the entire league, he's statistically had a season ('09) more dominant than any SG this decade (save the exploding season '03 McGrady had). He's clearly been elite for 6 solid seasons, with heavy competition in both MVP voting, and guard play. Again I'll argue, West and Robertson never had that kind of competition.

It's hard to argue that Wade is a better player when West is a Top 5 shooter ever, and great perimeter defense. Oscar put up crazy stats too, and led great offenses.

Where's the evidence behind this claim? He wasn't a particularly amazing FT shooter, we don't have a list of statistics complied of anything regarding the three point shot.

Also what "great" offenses did either of these guys exactly lead? Oscar Robertson even during his statistical peak didn't lead any "great" offenses, nor did West.

Wade can potentially catch these guys, but he still has a lot more to prove.

Prove? What more does he have to prove, he's continuing to gaining consistent accolades since '05, he's been dominant in a two-way fashion, he's statistically proved he's better. Robertson and West have also never had season where they took their respective teams on their shoulder and took them for a championship ride---Wade's done it, in an all-time dominant fashion.

West has won a championship where his playoff campaign suggests he might not even be the third best player on that team throughout their championship run in the playoffs (TS% takes a 10%+ dip), and while you knock LeBron for not fully dominating in the playoffs. you're at the same time praising West for his short comings in the playoffs and his horrendous championship run in '72.

[Dr Positivity]

Magic has a "perfect resume" and no "playoff questions"?

I think things might be remembered a bit differently if some of those things in Sedale's post go a little differently- with Wilt having no control of them.

I mean, in total I can't believe someone would say Shaq (swept how many times?), Duncan (defeated how many times in the decade that included his titles?), and Hakeem (how many first round exits in between Finals appearanes?) have 'perfect resumes' compared to Wilt Chamberlain without a least a little of their tongue firmly in cheek.

Like I said, nearly perfect resumes, not perfect. How many times can you specifically point at these losses and say they lost because they weren't mentally clocked in or ready to go. I still trust Magic, Shaq, Duncan after losses like that because they showed up, they were aggressive, and most of the time, they produced. Those guys are ready to go. Wilt is a greater question mark. He might bring it, or he might have 3 single digit games in a series and drop 2 for 11s at the FT line in series deciders

I suppose it depends how much value you put in a player's consistently showing up aggresiveness wise in a series. I put a LOT of value in it. I just watched Lebron arguably cost his team the title by turtling and being afraid to take jumpshots. Karl Malone got punched in the face by Hakeem the last 5 minutes of their 95 series, Hakeem won the title and Malone lost his best chance in a post MJ year. Shaq needed to win Game 6 and Game 7 against Sacramento to clinch a 3peat and change his legacy forever and he came up with two of the greatest playoff efforts. My specific belief is Shaq has twice as many titles as Wilt because he came up big in the playoffs and was ready to go, when Wilt came up short and was ready to choke. There was some good points made about Wilt's defense and rebounding being better, but I like Shaq's offensive game more