why is Wilt ranked above Oscar and West?

[roriobane]

I would draft Nash over Kobe in a heartbeat based on what I think Nash can do, but I've got Kobe ahead of Nash on my GOAT list because of what they each actually did in this life as a basketball player.

*baiting*

[turk3d]

Speaking of some the challenges he faced, has anyone mentioned (he was always being criticized by the press as well during his career I think unfairly) when he was told he didn't pass enough (or something to that effect) he decided to lead the league in assists one year (something no other Center was able to accomplish) averaging 8.6 per game in 67-68. Also led the league in Per 8 times. He also led the league in minutes played 10X averaging over 45 per game throughout his entire career.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Speaking of some the challenges he faced, has anyone mentioned (he was always being criticized by the press as well during his career I think unfairly) when he was told he didn't pass enough (or something to that effect) he decided to lead the league in assists one year (something no other Center was able to accomplish) averaging 8.6 per game in 67-68

How hard was it to rack up high assist #s with 3 HOF teammates (Greer, Cunningham, & Walker) all in the prime of their careers, and being fixated on assist totals?

That reminds me of Jordan Jockers I've seen praising him racking up a bunch of triple doubles in 88-89 when he was obsessed with checking in with statisticians repeatedly.

In both cases did either of these 'feats' really make a difference? It strikes me that they were both playing a personal game within the game.

Wilt left the Sixers after 67-68 season and in the following season without him and his 8.6 apg.......absolutely nothing changes offensively for the same cast of guys!

The offensive rating and ranking in the NBA is identical to the year they had with him. Starting PG Jackson missed almost the entire year. And they had to deal with a rookie coach that had 0 previous NBA games coached.

[colts18]

There is one thing that makes me hesitant about Wilt's impact. It's his trade to the Lakers. The Lakers had 2 of the 3 best perimeter players of that era. They were in desperate need of a big man. He gets traded to the Lakers and the Lakers become worse as a team. This was a guy coming off 3 straight MVP's who was supposed to be the missing piece. Could you imagine if 2001 Shaq got traded to OKC today and the team got worse? That seems impossible but that is what happened to the 69 Lakers.

[turk3d]

Speaking of some the challenges he faced, has anyone mentioned (he was always being criticized by the press as well during his career I think unfairly) when he was told he didn't pass enough (or something to that effect) he decided to lead the league in assists one year (something no other Center was able to accomplish) averaging 8.6 per game in 67-68

How hard was it to rack up high assist #s with 3 HOF teammates (Greer, Cunningham, & Walker) all in the prime of their careers, and being fixated on assist totals?

That reminds me of Jordan Jockers I've seen praising him racking up a bunch of triple doubles in 88-89 when he was obsessed with checking in with statisticians repeatedly.

In both cases did either of these 'feats' really make a difference? It strikes me that they were both playing a personal game within the game.

Wilt left the Sixers after 67-68 season and in the following season without him and his 8.6 apg.......absolutely nothing changes offensively for the same cast of guys!

The offensive rating and ranking in the NBA is identical to the year they had with him. Starting PG Jackson missed almost the entire year. And they had to deal with a rookie coach that had 0 previous NBA games coached.

Has any other Center ever averaged that man assists? Come close? We rant and rave about Draymond Green (deservedly who's mostly a PF) and he averages a little over 7. I think that was a remarkable feat by Chamberlain among many of his accomplishments. He actually many high assists seasons for a Center throughout his career. I guess for whatever reason people liked to rag on him.I love both the Big "O" and the "Logo" who both are top 10 players in my book but Wilt was unique and a player who I don't think I ever saw dominate the way he did..

[turk3d]

There is one thing that makes me hesitant about Wilt's impact. It's his trade to the Lakers. The Lakers had 2 of the 3 best perimeter players of that era. They were in desperate need of a big man. He gets traded to the Lakers and the Lakers become worse as a team. This was a guy coming off 3 straight MVP's who was supposed to be the missing piece. Could you imagine if 2001 Shaq got traded to OKC today and the team got worse? That seems impossible but that is what happened to the 69 Lakers.

Didn't they eventually win a ring with him (btw their first ever)? And they lost that improbable 7 game series to that great Knick
team. Made the finals that year too. They were perennial losers to the Celtics (if I'm not mistaken) in the finals prior to Wilt coming to LA (as was everyone else during that era), right?

[70sFan]

There is one thing that makes me hesitant about Wilt's impact. It's his trade to the Lakers. The Lakers had 2 of the 3 best perimeter players of that era. They were in desperate need of a big man. He gets traded to the Lakers and the Lakers become worse as a team. This was a guy coming off 3 straight MVP's who was supposed to be the missing piece. Could you imagine if 2001 Shaq got traded to OKC today and the team got worse? That seems impossible but that is what happened to the 69 Lakers.

Yes, his 1969 season is huge question mark. But Baylor wasn't one of the best perimeter player in 1969 NBA. He's probably not even in top 10. He was old, he still rebounded well but that's it. He wasn't efficient scorer and he was a poor fit with Wilt. Still Baylor decline wasn't as huge that it could destroy Wilt impact compared to 1968 season. This one 1969 is huge black hole for Wilt career. He wasn't even impactful defensively, that's strange because he always was great defender. I don't know what happened to him.

About Shaq and little impact, you can look at 1996 Lakers and then 1997 Lakers. He didn't make them better team, that's also strange. And keep in mind that 1997 Shaq was younger than Wilt.

[spree8]

Not sure if anyone said this, but in regards to Jerry's and Oscar's teams losing without them more, maybe it's because they're pg's? They are responsible for facilitating the entire offense and getting guys their shots. As an extension of the coach on the floor, the other players are missing a huge piece without their star floor general (who again have more impact on the performance of all the other players). A big man, regardless of his impact, can be compensated for a bit easier. With that said, I wouldn't say that Jerry or Oscar are ranked ahead of Wilt.

[Mazter]

Has any other Center ever averaged that man assists? Come close? We rant and rave about Draymond Green (deservedly who's mostly a PF) and he averages a little over 7. I think that was a remarkable feat by Chamberlain among many of his accomplishments. He actually many high assists seasons for a Center throughout his career. I guess for whatever reason people liked to rag on him.I love both the Big "O" and the "Logo" who both are top 10 players in my book but Wilt was unique and a player who I don't think I ever saw dominate the way he did..

Given his team pace Wilt averaged approx. 6.7 and 7.1 ast/100poss as peak. This is no better than passing centers like Divac, Noah, Sam Lacey and Alvan Adams.
He peaked at 20.9 and 20.7 reb/100poss (including team rebounds on missed FTA) which is no better than Drummond and Deandre Jordan.
He peaked at 38.0 and 36.7 pts/100poss which is no better than Shaquille O'Neal or David Robinson.

All his raw numbers are great because of his amount of minutes and possessions, but on average he is not really greater than any other center.

[countryboy667]

Lots of Wilt disrespect, even outright hatred on RealGM--mostly from people who don't know much about him and never saw him play--and even much of they do "know" isn't correct. All I know is that in my sixty plus years he was the most amazing athlete I ever saw in any sport, and for one bad rap he for some reason has had attached to him, was not the team disruptor he is often made out to be. The "sin" he is guilty of to most of the posters here who knock him is that he was intelligent and multi-faceted enough to understand that basketball, in the last analysis, was just a game (and one that in most respects he played better than anyone else, before or since) and didn't allow it to consume his whole life. To some lesser degree, Kareem suffers from the same syndrome, being considered aloof and less than approachable. Actually, that's because, like Wilt was, he's intelligent and pays little attention to people with lesser minds who only value jocks.

[Doctor MJ]

There is one thing that makes me hesitant about Wilt's impact. It's his trade to the Lakers. The Lakers had 2 of the 3 best perimeter players of that era. They were in desperate need of a big man. He gets traded to the Lakers and the Lakers become worse as a team. This was a guy coming off 3 straight MVP's who was supposed to be the missing piece. Could you imagine if 2001 Shaq got traded to OKC today and the team got worse? That seems impossible but that is what happened to the 69 Lakers.

Didn't they eventually win a ring with him (btw their first ever)? And they lost that improbable 7 game series to that great Knick
team. Made the finals that year too. They were perennial losers to the Celtics (if I'm not mistaken) in the finals prior to Wilt coming to LA (as was everyone else during that era), right?

Oh there's no doubt that Wilt had great success in L.A., but Wilt going to the Lakers and not having immediate impact says huge things about any perspective where you think "X just needs better teammates". The reality is that it's very hard to have a truly outlier good team.

As far as how that relates to seeing Wilt, well first there's just the very literal sense: A naive look at '68-69 might see Wilt putting up numbers on a good team and assume he deserved a lot of credit, but in reality he was on a team that could do great things without him and he essentially cannibalized the team instead of actually adding value.

The other thing is that that's a situation where it's just totally insane the way Wilt behaved. He had just basically forced his way to LA not because he wanted to win, but because he wanted to live in LA. He went to a team that when healthy had been better at offense than any other team in history, and who had no dominant big man. It should have been really, really simple. Just go there, do what the smart coach says, and add value where no one else can. You'll win championships easily. But Wilt somehow couldn't do that.

I think it's basically impossible to look at Wilt's behavior in late '68 and '69 and not say "This guy had issues." Those issues didn't keep him from doing amazing things at various times in his career, but at times they had a quite large effect.

[Doctor MJ]

Lots of Wilt disrespect, even outright hatred on RealGM--mostly from people who don't know much about him and never saw him play--and even much of they do "know" isn't correct. All I know is that in my sixty plus years he was the most amazing athlete I ever saw in any sport, and for one bad rap he for some reason has had attached to him, was not the team disruptor he is often made out to be. The "sin" he is guilty of to most of the posters here who knock him is that he was intelligent and multi-faceted enough to understand that basketball, in the last analysis, was just a game (and one that in most respects he played better than anyone else, before or since) and didn't allow it to consume his whole life. To some lesser degree, Kareem suffers from the same syndrome, being considered aloof and less than approachable. Actually, that's because, like Wilt was, he's intelligent and pays little attention to people with lesser minds who only value jocks.

I'm really glad you brought up that particular "sin". It's something I like to emphasize as well:

In one sense, Wilt had worse issues than any modern superstar.

But he also played in an era where it was utterly reasonable for him to think himself bigger than the game, and totally understandable that he was always concerned with promoting his brand beyond simply winning on the basketball court.

This doesn't change what happened out there, and it doesn't explain every single struggle we can point to, but it is pretty dang reasonable to ask: If Wilt were here today, would he be the best in the world?, even if you're someone like me who doesn't consider him a serious GOAT candidate based on his actual basketball play.

I like you do consider him the most talented athlete in modern history, and it's great when we can remember that without using it to try to ignore his failings. To paraphrase a great man: When you label Wilt, you negate him. Wilt played basketball, but that did not mean he defined himself as a basketball player.

[turk3d]

I'm not really sure that he was so terrible. As for him wanting to go to LA, imo it was mostly ring chasing (otherwise he would have lobbied to go to NY where he owned a bar and frequently frequented and probably was more comfortable considering his Philly days. And as far as that go, how many times have we seen the same in the modern day?

Guys forcing their way out of the franchise to go somewhere they'd think would be more lucrative for them? And look at Shaq, who forced his way out of Orlando into LA? That seems more egregious to me. Players didn't have free agency back then. and of course Wilt really had no allegiances, having been trade by his original team (the Warriors) and having already won a ring with Philly. In addition, one of Wilt's negatives criticisms (which unfortunately still exists today) is his lack of rings.

Shaq left the team that drafted him to go to first the Lakers and then to Miami. As far as the numbers are concerned (using pace as an example) I'd like to see the players who some claim are/were better pllay 48 minutes a game put up the same numbers as Wilt did. Pretty weak argument as far as I'm concerned. Those players probably wouldn't make it through one season, let alone an entire career. Even Lebron so far has only won two rings. Does that diminish the impact and domination he's shown throughout his career. I don't think so. Need to put things in perspective when you're comparing players number wise.

[bastillon]

Are you stating that wilt's ideal role is a garbage man like deandre jordan? With more passing maybe? Because that's what fifth option sort of implies and looking at hiis team in his prime I dont really see one were there should be 4 guys with higher usage. Him post prime scoring much less and making his bones on defense doesnt limit his ideal role on offense to me which when building a team is either a strong second option or a super elite 3rd option

Actually if you look at Sixers 67, Wilt is the one who takes the least shot attempts per-minute on his team. He is in fact fifth scoring option on that team. Basically, if you watch 67 Sixers, Wilt is least likely to take a shot of all players on the court at a given time. That is not even my opinion, it's just a matter of numbers.

[bastillon]

There is one thing that makes me hesitant about Wilt's impact. It's his trade to the Lakers. The Lakers had 2 of the 3 best perimeter players of that era. They were in desperate need of a big man. He gets traded to the Lakers and the Lakers become worse as a team. This was a guy coming off 3 straight MVP's who was supposed to be the missing piece. Could you imagine if 2001 Shaq got traded to OKC today and the team got worse? That seems impossible but that is what happened to the 69 Lakers.

Lakers 68 with West: 8.5 SRS
Lakers 69 with West AND Wilt: 5.7 SRS

Also look at what happened in 65 midseason. Warriors were 10-28 with Wilt (that's a 20W pace, imagine LeBron playing on a 20W team). They finished the season a little worse but not that worse. Philly was like 22-23 without Wilt, 18-17 with Wilt. Imagine KG, D-Rob or Duncan joining a .500 team in need of a big man. Would that team be still hovering around .500 after the trade? I don't think so. Warriors went on to post 35W season in 66 (after 10-28 start to 65 season with Wilt).

Philly of course went on to have some great years. Another argument against Wilt (which has been totally & remarkably ignored on this board) is that Philly went on to post a 55W season in 69, after Wilt went to the Lakers. Now consider this: Sixers lost Luke Jackson who was their key piece. He only played 25 games that year. In those games Sixers were on pace for 59W season. So losing Wilt really meant just a couple of wins less. People don't realize that Sixers 66-68 were a 55-60W team even without Wilt. Wilt gets too much credit for their record.

This story goes on and on. Wilt just didn't make the same impact that his numbers suggest. You can't use that argument against West or Oscar because both of them caused tremendous difference.

[countryboy667]

Lots of Wilt disrespect, even outright hatred on RealGM--mostly from people who don't know much about him and never saw him play--and even much of they do "know" isn't correct. All I know is that in my sixty plus years he was the most amazing athlete I ever saw in any sport, and for one bad rap he for some reason has had attached to him, was not the team disruptor he is often made out to be. The "sin" he is guilty of to most of the posters here who knock him is that he was intelligent and multi-faceted enough to understand that basketball, in the last analysis, was just a game (and one that in most respects he played better than anyone else, before or since) and didn't allow it to consume his whole life. To some lesser degree, Kareem suffers from the same syndrome, being considered aloof and less than approachable. Actually, that's because, like Wilt was, he's intelligent and pays little attention to people with lesser minds who only value jocks.

I'm really glad you brought up that particular "sin". It's something I like to emphasize as well:

In one sense, Wilt had worse issues than any modern superstar.

But he also played in an era where it was utterly reasonable for him to think himself bigger than the game, and totally understandable that he was always concerned with promoting his brand beyond simply winning on the basketball court.

This doesn't change what happened out there, and it doesn't explain every single struggle we can point to, but it is pretty dang reasonable to ask: If Wilt were here today, would he be the best in the world?, even if you're someone like me who doesn't consider him a serious GOAT candidate based on his actual basketball play.

I like you do consider him the most talented athlete in modern history, and it's great when we can remember that without using it to try to ignore his failings. To paraphrase a great man: When you label Wilt, you negate him. Wilt played basketball, but that did not mean he defined himself as a basketball player.

A nice, thoughtful post...I sometimes wonder if Bastillon is an older guy like me and maybe Wilt stole a girlfriend from him or something...no disrespect...just my feeble attempt at humor.

Very interesting interview with Rick Barry on Fox Sports talk show tonight...Barry is full of opinions, but he's also a straight shooter (no pun intended.) When asked if he would be a star in today's NBA in his prime, he stated he would actually be better today than back in his era, with the clear implication that many of the other stars of his era would be as well, given the advantages in training, medicine, nutrition, travel, and equipment players enjoy today. He also said that players today depend far too much on athleticism that they often don't temper with solid fundamentals and don't emphasize the fundamentals and philosophy of team ball.

Assuming Barry is correct...and he's a pretty sharp and perceptive guy with no obvious axes to grind in his analysis, you have to wonder just how good a prime Wilt would be in today's game where the money is absolutely insane.

One point Barry made, although obliquely, is one of my own pet peeves that is seldom mentioned here on RealGM and by today's fans—what absolutely putrid free-throw shooters all too many of today's players are. There is absolutely no excuse for a professional player shooting less than 70% from the line, and yes, that's a legitimate criticism of Wilt, unlike some of the others I've seen posted here.

[RSCD3_]

Are you stating that wilt's ideal role is a garbage man like deandre jordan? With more passing maybe? Because that's what fifth option sort of implies and looking at hiis team in his prime I dont really see one were there should be 4 guys with higher usage. Him post prime scoring much less and making his bones on defense doesnt limit his ideal role on offense to me which when building a team is either a strong second option or a super elite 3rd option

Actually if you look at Sixers 67, Wilt is the one who takes the least shot attempts per-minute on his team. He is in fact fifth scoring option on that team. Basically, if you watch 67 Sixers, Wilt is least likely to take a shot of all players on the court at a given time. That is not even my opinion, it's just a matter of numbers.

Well that's ignoring the large playmaking role he had, he wasnt just staying out of the way I mean. As an aside I have always felt like Wilt Never had a an optimal balance of scoring and playmaking, I see no reason why he should be fifth most in shot attempts on a well constructed team, he has too much talent for scoring to ideally be the garbage man. I mean dwight is probably a good example of what I think wilt would have been capable at least, aka a pretty strong #2, and a great #3 on offense. I mean 08-09 dwight had the 4th most shots/36 out of his starter but it doesnt mean he was the 4th option, and case in point his usage was the highest. And keep in mind this was at his most smart year offensively. I cant see wilt falling short of that as he was more skilled in an era of so much physicality.

If he's a rich man's dwight howard on offense I dont see how that can be classified as 5th option offensively. Basically my point is his offensive role goes beyond how much he shot and I personally also believe that in 67 he should have shot more as he went from chucking to being kind of gun shy for all his size/ability he had.

[ThaRegul8r]

I personally also believe that in 67 he should have shot more as he went from chucking to being kind of gun shy for all his size/ability he had.

They won the title with the best single-season record in NBA history at the time, and were voted the best single-season team in NBA history in 1980. Why on earth would you do anything different?

The object of the game is to help your team win. Period. Just like the job of any employee is to help the company they work for (in whatever it is that that respective company does). If "Player X should have done _________" is for any reason other than "it would have helped the team win" then it's irrelevant to the ultimate objective.

[ThaRegul8r]

If he was coached by Pop (or Red in the 60s), how much better would Wilt have been?

Popovich has been able to do what he has though because his best player had his back and empowered him, enabling him to coach.

When a coach can push and prod even his big-money stars without fear of revolt, he establishes a culture of accountability that is rare in the NBA.

[...]

A culture of accountability is a fluid, unofficial locker room contract that develops over time or arrives with a coach who owns a certain glorified stature (see, Phil Jackson Effect). A coach establishes a level of competence the players trust and respect, and they therefore agree to honor his authority, even if it means suffering through a few spittle-laced harangues or curious substitution patterns.

"No question, Pop has it," [Nate] McMillan said. "I want to get there. When you're there, everybody is on the same page. Success is needed to get that. And longevity. It takes time to get there. I'm working on it."

[...]

Howling at Duncan [...] sends a powerful message that Popovich is an equal-opportunity ball buster.

"A lot of times, superstars don't get yelled at by their coach," said Sonics guard Antonio Daniels, a former Spur.

"But when you see Tim get yelled at when he goes off the court, that sets the tone for everybody else. It's like, 'God, if this guy's the MVP and he's getting yelled at like that, I better do my job.' "

And by respectfully honoring the coach-player relationship -- even though he makes $10 million more a season -- Duncan maintains Popovich's authority with the rest of the team.

"Pop refers to it all the time about guys having a corporate knowledge about playing the game," said Brent Barry, who left the Sonics for the Spurs this season. "Tim, I guess, would be referred to as the CEO of that corporation. Everybody sort of falls in line behind him, and that puts everybody in their place."

Duncan was his best player and got no special treatment. That sent a message that everyone else had no choice but to fall in line.

Duncan, Parker, and Manu Ginobili will catch more hell from me than anybody else out there. You know the obvious effect of that. If you do that and they respond in the right way, everyone else follows suit. The worst thing you can do is let it go when someone has been egregious in some sort of way. The young kids see that and you lose respect and the fiber of your team gets frayed a bit. I think it has to be that way. They have to be willing to set that example and take that hit so everybody else will fall in line. It’s a big thing for us and that’s how we do it.

If he'd ever told him to eff off, he'd be gone. When there's a problem, teams fire coaches, not players. That'd never fly with Wilt. Just as Pop wouldn't have done as well with the Shaq and Kobe Lakers as Phil Jackson did.

[countryboy667]

A simple answer to your question, bastillon--Wilt was better because back then they hadn't established a lot of rules specifically designed to give wings and guards totally artificial advantages and to hobble and restrict the giants. In that environment, a Wilt or Nate or Russell or Bellamy was much more important than even the best perimeter players, who had as yet not been allowed to ignore the rules against steps and palming that are routinely ignored today. Wilt also did something even West and Oscar and other premiere perimeter players were not able to do on a consistent basis if the NBA were to become a major sport--he put butts in the seats, lots and lots of them. If there had been no Wilt and no Wilt and Russell rivalry, there would be no NBA on the level we know it today--and it's not impossible to believe that the NBA might never have caught on at all as an important player in the realm of big time sports.