ReaGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #6 (Wilt Chamberlain)

[limbo]

There's literal footage out there of what offensive 'tactic' Wilt teams employed early on in his career... His teammates got the ball, sprinted over the half-line and waited for Wilt to slowly make his way into the post and go to work... There was literally no offense. No movement, no cutting, no passing, no transition easy buckets... It was just ''We have Wilt, he is so good... let's just give him the ball on offense every time and watch...''

What footage are you talking about?

Watch on YouTube

You can pick up on a lot of Wilt's flaws in this footage... And this is suppose to be Wilt's peak and the year he won a title...

Just slow as hell in transition both ways compared to the other players on the court. A lot of times his team had to waste most of the shot-clock to wait for him to plant himself in the low block so the can 'run some type of offense' if that's what you called offense in the 60's... Wilt gets the ball in the low post and is not even looking to be a threat to score, no creativity/improvisation. Just looking for someone to pass it back to. There are so many possessions where Wilt does absolutely nothing on offense, for someone who's suppose to be an elite offensive player. He just gets left behind in transition or slowly jogs into the paint and waits there to pick up some straggling pass or 2nd chance rebound put back, which were plentiful in the 60's as most shot were bricks anyway... It's really not surprising at all how Boston managed to dominate this decade while being horrible offensively... You just push the pace, especially against Wilt teams, and you'll score enough points by sheer amount of easy opportunities you get against a defense that's not set...

Also, watch how Russell and Wilt play defense in the footage. Wilt rarely contests anything outside 2ft beyond the rim. Even when players are wide open, he just lets them shoot an uncontested jumper from 5ft away, as long as they don't try any layups... Also, check out Wilt's shot-blocking technique compared to Russell. Wilt is telegraphed as hell... You can see him getting ready to jump 3 seconds before he does... But because this is the 60's and shot-fakes were scarce and finishing around the rim bad, Wilt still managed to block plenty of shots just by jumping super high... Now go watch Russell. His jumps are way less telegraphed and unpredictable.

Watch on YouTube

@ 23:52 - Look at how quickly Russell springs from a defensive stance into an untelegraphed block.

@ 26:30 - Look at Russell defensive awareness. He leaves Wilt and quickly closes on the wide open shooter from mid-range and contests his shot. Wilt rarely did this. Most his blocks were near the rim telegraphed volleyball-esque blocks, trying to be super flashy with it.

And that was one of the problems with Wilt... Dude had low basketball IQ and went for style over substance most of his career. He rather shoot an ugly fadeaway jumper from the post than just work his way inside for an easy bucket, since nobody could challenge him physically... He was often more interesting in blocking shots at the highest point of the ball's trajectory for style points rather than just do what Russell or Duncan do, which is block a lot of shots as the defender is trying to get the shot off.

Wilt was a 7-foot track and field star that was bigger, stronger and more athletic than anyone else. His basketball abilities were not impressive. Even they way he moved on the court was not how you see great 'basketball athletes' move. Yes, there's a certain degree of footwork, coordination, lateral quickness, balance that goes into being a great basketball athlete. It comes with the sport, the same way you can see it in soccer with guys like Messi... Messi isn't a better athlete than Usain Bolt, but put Messi and Usain Bolt on the same soccer pitch, and you'll see a massive difference. And i'm not even talking about skill, dribbling, passing or shooting. I'm taking about pure movement. Usain Bolt will outsprint Messi in a straight line dash, but he will not be able to glide across the pitch, stop/start, change directions as seamlessly, have the gravity Messi does to not get knocked off-balance. That comes from having good soccer athleticism. Wilt was a strong giant that could jump very high. He was not bad in other athletic attributes, but he was definitely not as fluid as Russell... Forget Russell, some of the other players in this footage look far more nimble than Wilt does.

[freethedevil]

I appreciate the earnest response, and of course I am a big fan of ElGee's work.

This is a box-scored-based approximation of a +/- stat though right? Not saying that's not valuable, but I just want to make sure we're not talking past each other when we say "impact".
[b]yeah, you kind of a have to go more on box stuff for stable playoff stats. Fwiw, i recall a realgm poster showing duncan having an edge in raw playoff apm tho its mega unstable for playoff runs.[/b]


My general feeling on playoff +/- data is that I error on the side of not using it to draw dramatic conclusions based on differences from the regular season. .
which is fair. there is also the boxscore difference of a significant source of kg's scoring, free throw attempts, going down, duncan's scoring went up irrc
If you look at Garnett's career on/off in the playoffs it's +14.5. It goes even higher if you chop off his pre-prime years. Basically you're talking a much stronger on/off trend in the playoffs with KG than with Duncan.
i'm pretty religiously against using raw on/off as an induvidual player stat because it really isn't. Without adjusting for lineups you're basically just comparing a semblance of 5 man units.
And as I've said, I'd be very reluctant to actually assert that the +/- data indicates Garnett was clearly more impactful than Duncan for all sorts of reasons you'd imagine...
well i think they're fundementally different, since raw +/- measures lineups while even boc based apm deriatives adjust for them allowing them to, at least some degree, estimate players. Using raw +/- feels like a half step off just using "rings" to measure players.
By that same token, I'm reluctant to reverse my admittedly-regular-season-plus-minus-weighted assessment of their relative impact when I'm seeing playoff data that points in the same direction I was expecting.
which is fair, it is a smll sample size and box based +/- trades of some accuracy for stability
And if that sounds like confirmation bias to you, I appreciate that, but there is a distinction. I'm not saying I'm right because I see evidence backing my opinion, I'm saying it's hard for me to turn 180 against my current assessment when the data that comes in that might convince me I'm wrong doesn't clearly say I'm wrong.
I have a similar opinion in regards to duncan, which is why I haven't put him at #3 or #4 definiteively. But I feel i need to account for the possibility the data is accurate here which means from my view duncan was providing jordan/shaq esque championship equity during his best seasons. That kinda thing would put duncan at #3 for me, and my floor on duncan is maybe a little worse than KG. When considering botht he cieling and the floor then, along with duncan basically getting all of my tiebreakers, it becomes kinda hard to see KG over dunca

The topic of KG's postseason impact is one of my favorites to get into, and I still hope to do that justice at some point. But here, I just want to point out something really quickly for you to marinate on. You say that you don't put much emphasis on team success when evaluating the individual, but that Duncan having the better Augmented +/- profile is "a large reason (you) have duncan over KG."

The thing I'd point you to is the methodology for how AUPM was calculated. Primarily, this line: "Since postseason samples are so small, I examined three-year stretches with a minimum of 1,000 minutes played". Now, that line came from one of the sub-links from where ElGee was explaining his methodology, but unless I'm mistaken I believe that it's the same for the main AUPM 2.0 3-year samples he used in your main link.

The reason that's important here? As he alluded to in KG's blurb (and as we all know), KG's Minnesota postseason career was full of short-minute runs. In fact, there is only a single 3-year stretch during KG's first 12 seasons when he played more than 1000 minutes in the playoffs. And in that single run from 2002-04, he posted one of the few mega-elite +6 AUPM2 scores on record. Immediately following that run, the Timberwolves missed the next 3 playoffs. KG had another long run in 2008, then was injured for 2009 and played hobbled in 2010 before returning for several good playoffs runs in his later seasons.

The upshot: Duncan doesn't necessarily have more +6 AUPM2 stretches than KG because he played better in the postseason. KG just didn't have enough long playoffs runs during his prime for AUPM2 to evaluate him on the same scale as it did for Duncan. In the literal only 3-year run over 1000 minutes of KG's first 12 seasons, he turned in the same mega-elite AUPM that seems to have changed your mind about Duncan...and he doesn't have any other 3-year opportunities until late in his career. Just some food for thought.

The thing that made me pick duncan was a three year +8 stretch peaking with a +8.8 run in 2003, not him "having more +6 runs". You're right in that small sample sizes denied kg the chance to have as many top tier playoffs, but even KG's 04 did not register comparably. to duncan's best three year stretch, and this comprison favors kg since we're comparing his best year to a three year average. Duncan has multiple three year postseason stretches rating on the same level as KG's best single year run and then at his regular season apex has a three year run significantly higher with a peak season second only to lebron's 09.

Its not impossible, that its all noise, but it does seem unlikely.

[Owly]

I'm still having a hard time with KG getting traction over the likes of Shaq, Magic, Bird and Hakeem. He didn't have much success in his first few years. Then he matched up well against Duncan in 99 and 01, which gives him credibility as someone on his level. In 2002 he got smoked by a 23 year old Dirk though. In 03 and 04 the Timberwolves lost to the Lakers and while KG definitely wasn't much worse than Shaq and Kobe, I'm not really seeing much supporting he was better either. Then we got unmotivated KG who missed the play-offs 3 years in a row. He was great in 08 with the superteam Celtics but that was pretty much his last truely elite season.

Kobe did manage to get the terrible mid 00s Lakers to the play-offs for 2 of the 3 years KG missed the play-offs. Hakeem won a ring in 94 and I'm not sure that Rockets team was mch better than the 03/04 Timberwolves. I'm not getting granting KG the same accolades just because he might've been able to have a GOAT resume on a better team, since he also didn't reach the heights on bad teams that other GOAT candidates who played on bad teams did. He only got past the first round once in his entire Timberwolves run.

I'm not trying to disparage people who are voting or considering KG, everyone has their own criteria after all. As someone who looks at this top 100 as a combination of how well an individual played along with how much success their team enjoyed during a player's peak, I see KG as someone who has the individual accolades but lacks the top end team impact. Players like LeBron are valued not only for their high level of play but also for the impact they have on their teammates' performance. That's why I think we shouldn't simply count rings but at the same time we shouldn't ignore what the players achieved in the post-season either.

I think other people measure "team impact" in a different way to you. Not for me to go into others' methodology, but the impact family of metrics seem to suggest very high impact. At a basic (and noisy) level you can see this in the Timberwolves being more than 20 points better in 03 and 04 regular seasons with him on the court. More complex, larger sample methods attempting to adjust for teammate quality and opponent quality put KG as plausible in this tier, for instance here close to Duncan (and Shaq [from '97 on] and LeBron [through '14]) in terms of "rate" metrics with a gap over Dirk and large one over Kobe.
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/97-14-rapm-2 (rate)
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/97-14-rapm (cumulative models)

Super noisy because of uneven competition but his playoff on-off is even better than his RS version.

Re: Hakeem
Hakeem in limited (RS only) data, whilst perfectly good, Hakeem does not match KG's peak levels of impact or really come close to doing so. For what it's worth I would also suspect contemporary sources would be considerably more bullish on Thorpe, Maxwell, Horry, Smith, Elie, Herrera, Brooks, Cassell, Bullard than Sprewell (even though he was overrated), Cassell, Hassell, Hoiberg, Madsen, Trent, Ervin Johnson, Olowokandi, Szczerbiak.

[70sFan]

What footage are you talking about?

Watch on YouTube

You can pick up on a lot of Wilt's flaws in this footage... And this is suppose to be Wilt's peak and the year he won a title...

Just slow as hell in transition both ways compared to the other players on the court. A lot of times his team had to waste most of the shot-clock to wait for him to plant himself in the low block so the can 'run some type of offense' if that's what you called offense in the 60's... Wilt gets the ball in the low post and is not even looking to be a threat to score, no creativity/improvisation. Just looking for someone to pass it back to. There are so many possessions where Wilt does absolutely nothing on offense, for someone who's suppose to be an elite offensive player. He just gets left behind in transition or slowly jogs into the paint and waits there to pick up some straggling pass or 2nd chance rebound put back, which were plentiful in the 60's as most shot were bricks anyway... It's really not surprising at all how Boston managed to dominate this decade while being horrible offensively... You just push the pace, especially against Wilt teams, and you'll score enough points by sheer amount of easy opportunities you get against a defense that's not set...

You want transition opportunities? Sixers played extremely fast, they didn't slow down everything to put the ball in Wilt's hands. You basically describe offensive system that is opposite to what Sixers tried to do. This is how Sixers possession usually looked like:

Wilt transition baskets:

It's also not true that Wilt didn't do anything else besides standing down low. Here you can see Greer playing P&R with Luke Jackson and at the same time, Wilt set a screen for Wali Jones to the corner which led to open jumpshot:

I mean, this reminds me our Moses debate - we all know that you don't like post game but it doesn't mean that it's useless...

Also, watch how Russell and Wilt play defense in the footage. Wilt rarely contests anything outside 2ft beyond the rim. Even when players are wide open, he just lets them shoot an uncontested jumper from 5ft away, as long as they don't try any layups...

Wilt usually played zone defense in a way that he was strictly a rim protector, but what you describe isn't true. Here you can see Witl switching on Rick Barry on P&R and he went outside the paint to defend him:

Also, check out Wilt's shot-blocking technique compared to Russell. Wilt is telegraphed as hell... You can see him getting ready to jump 3 seconds before he does... But because this is the 60's and shot-fakes were scarce and finishing around the rim bad, Wilt still managed to block plenty of shots just by jumping super high... Now go watch Russell. His jumps are way less telegraphed and unpredictable.

Shot fakes were scarce? What?

It's true - Wilt had different shotblocking technique than Russell. I've rarely seen Wilt being faked out or missing block attempt. He was very cautious with jumping for blocks and most of his blocks came from his size and timing - not high jumping ability.

@ 26:30 - Look at Russell defensive awareness. He leaves Wilt and quickly closes on the wide open shooter from mid-range and contests his shot. Wilt rarely did this. Most his blocks were near the rim telegraphed volleyball-esque blocks, trying to be super flashy with it.

Watch some Lakers games available before saying that.

And that was one of the problems with Wilt... Dude had low basketball IQ and went for style over substance most of his career. He rather shoot an ugly fadeaway jumper from the post than just work his way inside for an easy bucket, since nobody could challenge him physically... He was often more interesting in blocking shots at the highest point of the ball's trajectory for style points rather than just do what Russell or Duncan do, which is block a lot of shots as the defender is trying to get the shot off.

This is ugly fadeaway shot?

His "ugly" fadeaway was necessary to shot at the kind of volume Wilt shot in his career, because you need counters when defense doesn't give you inside. The idea that Wilt didn't force shots inside is ridiculous, all shotchart you can make from limited footage paints him as someone who shot the ball from close to the basket nearly as often as Shaq.

Hakeem had similar style of blocking shots. So did Dwight Howard and Ben Wallace. Nobody says that they were bad because of that though.

Wilt was a 7-foot track and field star that was bigger, stronger and more athletic than anyone else. His basketball abilities were not impressive. Even they way he moved on the court was not how you see great 'basketball athletes' move. Yes, there's a certain degree of footwork, coordination, lateral quickness, balance that goes into being a great basketball athlete. It comes with the sport, the same way you can see it in soccer with guys like Messi... Messi isn't a better athlete than Usain Bolt, but put Messi and Usain Bolt on the same soccer pitch, and you'll see a massive difference. And i'm not even talking about skill, dribbling, passing or shooting. I'm taking about pure movement. Usain Bolt will outsprint Messi in a straight line dash, but he will not be able to glide across the pitch, stop/start, change directions as seamlessly, have the gravity Messi does to not get knocked off-balance. That comes from having good soccer athleticism. Wilt was a strong giant that could jump very high. He was not bad in other athletic attributes, but he was definitely not as fluid as Russell... Forget Russell, some of the other players in this footage look far more nimble than Wilt does.

[/quote]
This is just ridiculous... we're going to trash player because he's 7'2 and 300 lbs and he couldn't move like Bill Russell who was GOAT-level athlete while being much smaller. I mean, I don't want to go off here but the idea that Wilt doesn't look coordinated or balanced is just ridiculous to me and I've seen as much Wilt footage as anyone.

[70sFan]

Also, I've never seen any contemporary coach or player calling Wilt a low BBIQ player. It could be true that he didn't have the kind of feel some greats had but most people praised him for his versatility and ability to adapt.

[limbo]

I can pull up clips of isolated examples that would make Joakim Noah look like the greatest Center of all-time... It's pointless. I've posted two games with full 2nd half footage, and you can see Wilt is frequently left behind in transition opportunities of both teams. And you can say ''Wilt needed to battle 48 mpg, of course he needed to conserve energy!''. I don't care. It's not like Wilt is moving much on offense or defense. In both instances he's mostly camping in the low block leaning his body into Russell... Not to mention there's literally free-throw stoppages every 30 seconds in both those games. If Hakeem, KG, Duncan could play 44 mpg in any given series while moving a lot more horizontally around the court there's no excuse for Wilt. If you're tired, sit down and play less, you don't have to stay on the court for the whole game if you're not able to give close to maximum impact.

Shaq didn't need an ugly fadeaway shot. ''BUT SHAQ WAS ALLOW TO BULLY DEFENDERS AND POOR WILT WASN'T''. Shaq developed plenty of moves in and around the paint that allowed him to take high percentage hook shots... Wilt had the ugly front-flip layup and a fadeaway that he often took from a laughably unnecessary distance considering no one could really challenge his shot at the rim in the 60's. Even Russell who was easily the best defender of the era frequently struggled to fight off Wilt's sheer size, length, and general athleticism when he got the ball under the rim.

I didn't say Wilt was a bad defender, that's you putting words in my mouth again... I said Wilt had flaws defensively that are easily recognizable. He was still able to be highly impactful, obviously, a guy with his size, athleticism and jumping ability in the 60's,you can not fail... But all of the things i've mention were flaws of Wilt on the defensive end, in combination with well-documented laziness and lack of effort. Dwight was way more active defensively around the paint than Wilt, more willing to put his body on the line on drives and his jump of the ground was quicker and less telegraphed than Wilt...

[limbo]

Also, I've never seen any contemporary coach or player calling Wilt a low BBIQ player. It could be true that he didn't have the kind of feel some greats had but most people praised him for his versatility and ability to adapt.

Of course you didn't... The same way i never seen any contemporary coach or player calling Iverson a low IQ player... Or Melo for most of his career, until it was undeniable that his style of play was not conducive to winning basketball...

Chris Webber's contemporaries believe he was one of the best players of all-time...

Same way as Wilt believes he played in the greatest era of basketball in history, and that if he played when Jordan did, he would average 70 points or something as dumb as that.

Never listen to coaches/players talk about their contemporaries. They're more biased than anonymous people on this forum. And anonymous people on this forum are extremely biased, but still less biased than former coaches and players who are public figures and have emotional/career investments influencing what they say.

[2klegend]

1. Magic Johnson
2. Wilt
3. Shaq

With the top 5 out of the way, there are very few guys who have a case as a GOAT player. Magic is one of them. Magic dominant as a winning player is incredible. People claim of Lebron 10 Final appearance as crazy. Magic had 9 NBA FINAL appearance in just 12 seasons, A 75% rate! Only Bill Russell has the highest rate. Not to mention, Magic is the offensive GOAT. He can run a half court and full court offense at the elite level that to this day that no other PGs can do. Had Magic not force to retire early, I can easily see Magic pushing his Final record appearance to around 12X and could possibly grab another 1 or two titles.

[70sFan]

I can pull up clips of isolated examples that would make Joakim Noah look like the greatest Center of all-time... It's pointless.

But we have very limited amount of Wilt clips, so these are not cherry picked clips from hundreds of games available. I've made clips from the finals game because:

1. It's the same season as what you showed.
2. It's shorter and I've seen this Sixers vs Celtics enough times and I don't have time to watch it again.

I've posted two games with full 2nd half footage, and you can see Wilt is frequently left behind in transition opportunities of both teams. And you can say ''Wilt needed to battle 48 mpg, of course he needed to conserve energy!''. I don't care. It's not like Wilt is moving much on offense or defense. In both instances he's mostly camping in the low block leaning his body into Russell... Not to mention there's literally free-throw stoppages every 30 seconds in both those games. If Hakeem, KG, Duncan could play 44 mpg in any given series while moving a lot more horizontally around the court there's no excuse for Wilt. If you're tired, sit down and play less, you don't have to stay on the court for the whole game if you're not able to give close to maximum impact.

So you want the best rebounder and your paint protector to run in transition? It's not smart strategy and I don't understand why you want to make it look bad. Wilt crashed defensive glass and made outlet passes for quick transition opportunities, nothing wrong with that.

Besides, we have a lot of examples of Wilt running in transition, even some in this game you posted.

Shaq didn't need an ugly fadeaway shot.

Then why he used it quite often? His one handed turnaround is nothing else than a fadeaway shot and he relied on it quite often.

''BUT SHAQ WAS ALLOW TO BULLY DEFENDERS AND POOR WILT WASN'T''.

That's another debate, as offensive players didn't have the same freedom in attacking defenders. I don't get your sarcasm here - this is a fact.

Shaq developed plenty of moves in and around the paint that allowed him to take high percentage hook shots... Wilt had the ugly front-flip layup and a fadeaway that he often took from a laughably unnecessary distance considering no one could really challenge his shot at the rim in the 60's. Even Russell who was easily the best defender of the era frequently struggled to fight off Wilt's sheer size, length, and general athleticism when he got the ball under the rim.

You have very limited knowledge of Wilt's post repertoire if you think that all Wilt did was fadeaways and finger rolls. Again, I can post tons of examples of Wilt using the same types of moves Shaq used, but you already said it's irrelevant to you...

I didn't say Wilt was a bad defender, that's you putting words in my mouth again... I said Wilt had flaws defensively that are easily recognizable. He was still able to be highly impactful, obviously, a guy with his size, athleticism and jumping ability in the 60's,you can not fail... But all of the things i've mention were flaws of Wilt on the defensive end, in combination with well-documented laziness and lack of effort. Dwight was way more active defensively around the paint than Wilt, more willing to put his body on the line on drives and his jump of the ground was quicker and less telegraphed than Wilt...

No, Dwigth wasn't more willing to put his body on the line on drives and he wasn't "way more active". Wilt just could get away with moving less because he was a freaking giant compared to Dwight.

[70sFan]

Also, I've never seen any contemporary coach or player calling Wilt a low BBIQ player. It could be true that he didn't have the kind of feel some greats had but most people praised him for his versatility and ability to adapt.

Of course you didn't... The same way i never seen any contemporary coach or player calling Iverson a low IQ player... Or Melo for most of his career, until it was undeniable that his style of play was not conducive to winning basketball...

Chris Webber's contemporaries believe he was one of the best players of all-time...

Same way as Wilt believes he played in the greatest era of basketball in history, and that if he played when Jordan did, he would average 70 points or something as dumb as that.

Never listen to coaches/players talk about their contemporaries. They're more biased than anonymous people on this forum. And anonymous people on this forum are extremely biased, but still less biased than former coaches and players who are public figures and have emotional/career investments influencing what they say.

Fair enough, although when someone like Russell praises your BBIQ, I think you shouldn't dismiss his opinion in a second.

We don't have enough proofs to call Wilt bad BBIQ player and he certainly was versatile and could adapt to various roles.

[KPT1867]

There's literal footage out there of what offensive 'tactic' Wilt teams employed early on in his career... His teammates got the ball, sprinted over the half-line and waited for Wilt to slowly make his way into the post and go to work... There was literally no offense. No movement, no cutting, no passing, no transition easy buckets... It was just ''We have Wilt, he is so good... let's just give him the ball on offense every time and watch...''

What footage are you talking about?

Watch on YouTube

You can pick up on a lot of Wilt's flaws in this footage... And this is suppose to be Wilt's peak and the year he won a title...

Just slow as hell in transition both ways compared to the other players on the court. A lot of times his team had to waste most of the shot-clock to wait for him to plant himself in the low block so the can 'run some type of offense' if that's what you called offense in the 60's... Wilt gets the ball in the low post and is not even looking to be a threat to score, no creativity/improvisation. Just looking for someone to pass it back to. There are so many possessions where Wilt does absolutely nothing on offense, for someone who's suppose to be an elite offensive player. He just gets left behind in transition or slowly jogs into the paint and waits there to pick up some straggling pass or 2nd chance rebound put back, which were plentiful in the 60's as most shot were bricks anyway... It's really not surprising at all how Boston managed to dominate this decade while being horrible offensively... You just push the pace, especially against Wilt teams, and you'll score enough points by sheer amount of easy opportunities you get against a defense that's not set...

Also, watch how Russell and Wilt play defense in the footage. Wilt rarely contests anything outside 2ft beyond the rim. Even when players are wide open, he just lets them shoot an uncontested jumper from 5ft away, as long as they don't try any layups... Also, check out Wilt's shot-blocking technique compared to Russell. Wilt is telegraphed as hell... You can see him getting ready to jump 3 seconds before he does... But because this is the 60's and shot-fakes were scarce and finishing around the rim bad, Wilt still managed to block plenty of shots just by jumping super high... Now go watch Russell. His jumps are way less telegraphed and unpredictable.

Watch on YouTube

@ 23:52 - Look at how quickly Russell springs from a defensive stance into an untelegraphed block.

@ 26:30 - Look at Russell defensive awareness. He leaves Wilt and quickly closes on the wide open shooter from mid-range and contests his shot. Wilt rarely did this. Most his blocks were near the rim telegraphed volleyball-esque blocks, trying to be super flashy with it.

And that was one of the problems with Wilt... Dude had low basketball IQ and went for style over substance most of his career. He rather shoot an ugly fadeaway jumper from the post than just work his way inside for an easy bucket, since nobody could challenge him physically... He was often more interesting in blocking shots at the highest point of the ball's trajectory for style points rather than just do what Russell or Duncan do, which is block a lot of shots as the defender is trying to get the shot off.

Wilt was a 7-foot track and field star that was bigger, stronger and more athletic than anyone else. His basketball abilities were not impressive. Even they way he moved on the court was not how you see great 'basketball athletes' move. Yes, there's a certain degree of footwork, coordination, lateral quickness, balance that goes into being a great basketball athlete. It comes with the sport, the same way you can see it in soccer with guys like Messi... Messi isn't a better athlete than Usain Bolt, but put Messi and Usain Bolt on the same soccer pitch, and you'll see a massive difference. And i'm not even talking about skill, dribbling, passing or shooting. I'm taking about pure movement. Usain Bolt will outsprint Messi in a straight line dash, but he will not be able to glide across the pitch, stop/start, change directions as seamlessly, have the gravity Messi does to not get knocked off-balance. That comes from having good soccer athleticism. Wilt was a strong giant that could jump very high. He was not bad in other athletic attributes, but he was definitely not as fluid as Russell... Forget Russell, some of the other players in this footage look far more nimble than Wilt does.

All of these flaws aside, it does not change how much he did for his teams. I have said this a number of times on this thread advocating for Wilt. He led the league in win shares 8x. Including some of the highest WS in a regular season. That is not just a testament to his offense, as we can easily point out is flawed. He was a very impressive defensive player. He improved his teams defensively significantly. He dominated the boards, even against other great rebounders. His teams were still good 67 win%. He also had a number of coaching changes. It made it difficult to develop as a player.

[Doctor MJ]

Also, I've never seen any contemporary coach or player calling Wilt a low BBIQ player. It could be true that he didn't have the kind of feel some greats had but most people praised him for his versatility and ability to adapt.

Of course you didn't... The same way i never seen any contemporary coach or player calling Iverson a low IQ player... Or Melo for most of his career, until it was undeniable that his style of play was not conducive to winning basketball...

Chris Webber's contemporaries believe he was one of the best players of all-time...

Same way as Wilt believes he played in the greatest era of basketball in history, and that if he played when Jordan did, he would average 70 points or something as dumb as that.

Never listen to coaches/players talk about their contemporaries. They're more biased than anonymous people on this forum. And anonymous people on this forum are extremely biased, but still less biased than former coaches and players who are public figures and have emotional/career investments influencing what they say.

Fair enough, although when someone like Russell praises your BBIQ, I think you shouldn't dismiss his opinion in a second.

We don't have enough proofs to call Wilt bad BBIQ player and he certainly was versatile and could adapt to various roles.

Russell was smart enough to lie though.

2 things I think are crystal clear:

1. Russell was outsmarting Wilt on the regular.

2. Russell was careful not to "wake the beast". He wanted Wilt to feel like Wilt was winning while Wilt's team was continuing to lose.

Does this mean Wilt was "dumb" in some absolute scale? I don't know, but Wilt was naive enough to be manipulated by what was being said around him, and Russell knew that.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah, saying that Wilt rarely dominated on defensive end is not backed up with anything. His teams were amazing defensively in playoffs, even in his worst season (1969). He had some weaker regular seasons like 1963 (when whole Warriors franchise was a mess) but overall I don't see him as inconsistent defender.

I could do the work myself, but the way you state this makes me think you have his playoff defenses (rDRTG relative to offense faced) already documented somewhere. Would you be able to share them?

Here are rORtg and rDRtg numbers for all Wilt teams in playoffs (source: Taylor's backpicks.com):

1960 Warriors: +1.0 rORtg, -5.3 rDRtg
1961 Warriors: -5.7 rORtg, -4.2 rDRtg
1962 Warriors: -3.1 rORtg, -7.4 rDRtg
1964 Warriors: +4.3 rORtg, -0.2 rDRtg
1965 Sixers: +5.8 rORtg, +0.6 rDRtg
1966 Sixers: -2.7 rORtg, +1.2 rDRtg
1967 Sixers: +3.3 rORtg, -7.2 rDRtg
1968 Sixers: +0.9 rORtg, -2.3 rDRtg
1969 Lakers: +0.6 rORtg, -5.4 rDRtg
1970 Lakers: +5.1 rORtg, -1.0 rDRtg
1971 Lakers: +0.5 rORtg, -2.5 rDRtg
1972 Lakers: +2.3 rORtg, -7.4 rDRtg
1973 Lakers: +4.4 rORtg, -3.6 rDRtg

Overall: 2.1 rORtg, -3.7 rDRtg

Would you mind just posting the link? I've got Patreon access to all ElGee's stuff but I'm not not sure where this is at present.

I will say:

1. There are a lot of impressive numbers here, but...

2. There's also a lot of unevenness. Basically between 1962 & 1967, he doesn't put up any strong playoff rDRtg numbers. I don't want to say that that's necessarily damning in the sense of hurting my opinion of him, but it's not what I was imagining when people were saying he was consistently leading elite playoff defenses. It is instead something more like what I was imagining when I was talking about his spotty defensive effort.

Last thing I will note:

I've always thought it was interesting that Wilt came right into the NBA and had a big defensive impact - both in the RS and PS. This wasn't a guy who had to learn how to be effective on defense, yet he still has these years in the middle of his career where it just doesn't seem like it's a focus for him.

And while that lack of defensive focus is something I tend to criticize him for I want to be clear that slacking on defense is something I consider to be normal. It's just particularly important when evaluating Wilt because it turns out semi-secretly that's where he had most of his ability to impact the game.

[limbo]

So, i got to put my vote in before i forget...

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. Magic Johnson

It's still Garnett in the lead for me. I think some of the posters like drza and Doc already exhausted pretty much every side of the argument to a minute level when it comes to Garnett, so there's really not much to add to it that wasn't already said. Duncan was voted for the #5 spot, which is fine by me, as i don't see Duncan and Garnett all that different as players. Both have well-endowed claims of being among the Top 5 greatest defensive players of all-time. I think Duncan had a little bit more defensive longevity, but also better defensive teammates and coaching for most of his career. Garnett's defensive skillset is probably better suited in this new generation of basketball we've seen gradually rising in the last 5-8 years, where that's a lot more emphasis on defending outside the paint. Not that i think Duncan or Hakeem wouldn't have been great in this environment either, but i give KG a slight edge. Offensively Garnett's versatility really makes him one of the best booster cards at the C/PF position in the modern era. Hakeem is in the same mold as a player, so it's no surprise he's next in line for me. Again, a Top 5 defender of all-time, offensively, he'd be similar to Duncan. I wouldn't really want to build my offense around Hakeem ideally. If i could get some perimeter talent to pair up with him, he could be a very efficient 20 ppg scorer, great roll man, could also hit the occasional shot from outside, i think his shooting form was good enough to develop into something more reliable if he worked on it. If my team doesn't have enough perimeter talent, Hakeem can shoulder a larger scoring role as an isolation post scorer/passer. The offense would not be other-worldly, but maybe it could have been good enough to still contend for a title in some years. Anyway, the flexibility in this case is a blessing not a cure. For 3rd nomination i'm looking at a couple of guys here. Magic for now has the pole position.

[Doctor MJ]

Elgee said his teams’ rDRTG improved by two points in the postseason over his career, “far more than any other all-timer.” Here you can see seasons of -8.7 and -8.2 in his two title years, and also seasons of -6.8, -5.9, -5.2, -4.9, -4.4, -4.2, -3.9...

Thank you mailmp.

To mailmp or anyone else: Is there a more player-oriented version of this spreadsheet or have people just been mining this?

[70sFan]

I could do the work myself, but the way you state this makes me think you have his playoff defenses (rDRTG relative to offense faced) already documented somewhere. Would you be able to share them?

Here are rORtg and rDRtg numbers for all Wilt teams in playoffs (source: Taylor's backpicks.com):

1960 Warriors: +1.0 rORtg, -5.3 rDRtg
1961 Warriors: -5.7 rORtg, -4.2 rDRtg
1962 Warriors: -3.1 rORtg, -7.4 rDRtg
1964 Warriors: +4.3 rORtg, -0.2 rDRtg
1965 Sixers: +5.8 rORtg, +0.6 rDRtg
1966 Sixers: -2.7 rORtg, +1.2 rDRtg
1967 Sixers: +3.3 rORtg, -7.2 rDRtg
1968 Sixers: +0.9 rORtg, -2.3 rDRtg
1969 Lakers: +0.6 rORtg, -5.4 rDRtg
1970 Lakers: +5.1 rORtg, -1.0 rDRtg
1971 Lakers: +0.5 rORtg, -2.5 rDRtg
1972 Lakers: +2.3 rORtg, -7.4 rDRtg
1973 Lakers: +4.4 rORtg, -3.6 rDRtg

Overall: 2.1 rORtg, -3.7 rDRtg

Would you mind just posting the link? I've got Patreon access to all ElGee's stuff but I'm not not sure where this is at present.

Sure, here it is:

https://backpicks.com/metrics/teams-1955-2019/

I will say:

1. There are a lot of impressive numbers here, but...

2. There's also a lot of unevenness. Basically between 1962 & 1967, he doesn't put up any strong playoff rDRtg numbers. I don't want to say that that's necessarily damning in the sense of hurting my opinion of him, but it's not what I was imagining when people were saying he was consistently leading elite playoff defenses. It is instead something more like what I was imagining when I was talking about his spotty defensive effort.

Well, that's only total of 5 series. It's fair to make conclusions from this sample, but I wouldn't do that personally. I think that Celtics series screw this a bit, because Celtics underachieved in 1964-66 RS on offense - they played on terrible level during that period but we know they weren't that bad.

Last thing I will note:

I've always thought it was interesting that Wilt came right into the NBA and had a big defensive impact - both in the RS and PS. This wasn't a guy who had to learn how to be effective on defense, yet he still has these years in the middle of his career where it just doesn't seem like it's a focus for him.

And while that lack of defensive focus is something I tend to criticize him for I want to be clear that slacking on defense is something I consider to be normal. It's just particularly important when evaluating Wilt because it turns out semi-secretly that's where he had most of his ability to impact the game.

To me the only questionable seasons in terms of Wilt's defensive impact are 1963 (when he probably lost his focus due to off-court things, so we can definitely blame him for that) and in 1965 (but this season without better data is incredibly tough to evaluate, as we don't even know how big of a difference Wilt made on Sixers defense).

[limbo]

All of these flaws aside, it does not change how much he did for his teams. I have said this a number of times on this thread advocating for Wilt. He led the league in win shares 8x. Including some of the highest WS in a regular season. That is not just a testament to his offense, as we can easily point out is flawed. He was a very impressive defensive player. He improved his teams defensively significantly. He dominated the boards, even against other great rebounders. His teams were still good 67 win%. He also had a number of coaching changes. It made it difficult to develop as a player.

James Harden has led the NBA in WS in 5 out of the last 6 season... A league with prime LeBron, Durant, Curry, CP3, Kawhi, Giannis etc...

Win shares is a culminative stat, and Wilt played 48.5 MPG for his team and probably had an insane usage rate...

Those people that try to justify Wilt's impact mostly based on WS... i'll be paying a very close eye to see where they'll be ranking James Harden, David Robinson, Karl Malone, Chris Paul and Adrian Dantley to a lesser extent...

Ultimately, you got to realize we're comparing the absolute upper echelon of NBA players right now... We've only just voted in the Top 5... I'm not saying Wilt is a scrub, i'm saying there are more than 5 players in NBA history i think had better careers and bigger impact on winning than Wilt. You might disagree and that's fine. After all, Wilt is probably the most polarizing player in NBA history, and certainly one of the hardest players of all-time to accurately measure due very minimal footage/data and his career having so many ups and downs and him completely reinventing himself as a player stylistically every couple of years...

[Doctor MJ]

As someone who also doesn't put much weight on team success, here's a large reason I have duncan over KG:
https://backpicks.com/2018/06/10/aupm-2-0-the-top-playoff-performers-of-the-databall-era/
In terms of impact, duncan goes from fringe top 10 to shaq+ in the playoffs while kg goes from finge goat level to fringe top 10.

Now this isn't a large sample, but its hard to dismiss duncan being shaq+ for three straight postseasons, at least in term sf raw value.

I appreciate the earnest response, and of course I am a big fan of ElGee's work.

This is a box-scored-based approximation of a +/- stat though right? Not saying that's not valuable, but I just want to make sure we're not talking past each other when we say "impact".
[b]yeah, you kind of a have to go more on box stuff for stable playoff stats. Fwiw, i recall a realgm poster showing duncan having an edge in raw playoff apm tho its mega unstable for playoff runs.[/b]


My general feeling on playoff +/- data is that I error on the side of not using it to draw dramatic conclusions based on differences from the regular season. .
which is fair. there is also the boxscore difference of a significant source of kg's scoring, free throw attempts, going down, duncan's scoring went up irrc
If you look at Garnett's career on/off in the playoffs it's +14.5. It goes even higher if you chop off his pre-prime years. Basically you're talking a much stronger on/off trend in the playoffs with KG than with Duncan.
i'm pretty religiously against using raw on/off as an induvidual player stat because it really isn't. Without adjusting for lineups you're basically just comparing a semblance of 5 man units.
And as I've said, I'd be very reluctant to actually assert that the +/- data indicates Garnett was clearly more impactful than Duncan for all sorts of reasons you'd imagine...
well i think they're fundementally different, since raw +/- measures lineups while even boc based apm deriatives adjust for them allowing them to, at least some degree, estimate players. Using raw +/- feels like a half step off just using "rings" to measure players.
By that same token, I'm reluctant to reverse my admittedly-regular-season-plus-minus-weighted assessment of their relative impact when I'm seeing playoff data that points in the same direction I was expecting.
which is fair, it is a smll sample size and box based +/- trades of some accuracy for stability
And if that sounds like confirmation bias to you, I appreciate that, but there is a distinction. I'm not saying I'm right because I see evidence backing my opinion, I'm saying it's hard for me to turn 180 against my current assessment when the data that comes in that might convince me I'm wrong doesn't clearly say I'm wrong.
I have a similar opinion in regards to duncan, which is why I haven't put him at #3 or #4 definiteively. But I feel i need to account for the possibility the data is accurate here which means from my view duncan was providing jordan/shaq esque championship equity during his best seasons. That kinda thing would put duncan at #3 for me, and my floor on duncan is maybe a little worse than KG. When considering botht he cieling and the floor then, along with duncan basically getting all of my tiebreakers, it becomes kinda hard to see KG over dunca

Okay let me clarify something I see as important about raw +/-.

1. It is a problem to place a player on a particular level because of raw +/- for the reasons you say.

2. However the raw serves as great sanity check in my opinion when people use other factors to try to assert something based on impact. If a guy has HUGE on/off, then while we can't definitively say he was causing huge impact, what we can say is that the on/off is doing basically what we'd expect if he were having huge impact.

To put more scientifically: The issue with plus minus stats is their reliability, their susceptibility to noise. But what this translates to is essentially an unpleasantly large uncertainty range. That large uncertainty makes it hard to draw precise conclusions from them...but I would suggest that their uncertainty often serves as something of a limit to our certainty of impact regardless of what other data suggests.

I see your arguments here as essentially "I see data that indicates that Garnett is one of the greatest positive outliers in recent playoff history, but other guys are greater outliers still."

And what I would say is more appropriate is look at that AuPM list, to the extent it's your favored metric, as a "best estimate" of impact with an uncertainty range that is not explicitly addressed. If that uncertainty range is larger than the gap between players, then you need to be very careful about flipping your opinion based on that stat.

I'm suggesting that I think the proper uncertainty to put around this stat is quite large. If it weren't, wouldn't Duncan's actual +/- numbers in the playoffs be definitively better than Garnett's instead of in some aspects the opposite perhaps seeming to be true?

Let me finish off with one last point:

I think it's likely that most people, to the extent they were looking at data like this to make a final call between Duncan & Garnett, probably go in with Duncan in the lead. As a result, I would not expect Garnett to take the lead simply because he has a better on/off in the playoffs despite having a quite massive lead over Duncan in that stat.

I just think that the playoff data I'm seeing is still within the uncertainty range for me, and since the story of the regular season gives Garnett the edge for me, he maintains his lead down the stretch.

[70sFan]

By the way, here are Shaq's and Hakeem's teams relative offenses and defenses in playoffs:

Hakeem

1985 Rockets: -3.1 rORtg, -2.8 rDRtg
1986 Rockets: +5.4 rORtg, -2.4 rDRtg
1987 Rockets: +1.2 rORtg, -1.4 rDRtg
1988 Rockets: +1.8 rORtg, +0.8 rDRtg
1989 Rockets: +0.1 rORtg, -2.6 rDRtg
1990 Rockets: -1.0 rORtg, +0.4 rDRtg
1991 Rockets: -0.9 rORtg, -1.5 rDRtg
1993 Rockets: +1.2 rORtg, -4.4 rDRtg
1994 Rockets: +4.7 rORtg, -3.6 rDRtg
1995 Rockets: +8.1 rORtg, -1.0 rDRtg
1996 Rockets: -0.9 rORtg, -1.9 rDRtg
1997 Rockets: +9.3 rORtg, +1.2 rDRtg
1998 Rockets: -9.6 rORtg, -8.3 rDRtg
1999 Rockets: +2.8 rORtg, +2.5 rDRtg


Shaq:

1994 Magic: +1.2 rORtg, +4.0 rDRtg
1995 Magic: +8.3 rORtg, +4.0 rDRtg
1996 Magic: +10.0 rORtg, +2.4 rDRtg
1997 Lakers: +5.8 rORtg, -2.1 rDRtg
1998 Lakers: +10.1 rORtg, +3.5 rDRtg
1999 Lakers: +4.7 rORtg, +3.1 rDRtg
2000 Lakers: +9.3 rORtg, +1.6 rDRtg
2001 Lakers: +13.6 rORtg, -7.1 rDRtg
2002 Lakers: +6.4 rORtg, -4.1 rDRtg
2003 Lakers: +6.2 rORtg, +1.7 rDRtg
2004 Lakers: +4.5 rORtg, -2.6 rDRtg
2005 Heat: +4.1 rORtg, -1.3 rDRtg
2006 Heat: +3.5 rORtg, -4.9 rDRtg


Overall: +7.1 rORtg, -0.7 rDRtg

Shaq's offensive numbers are out of world, but his defense was suspect to say the least (and I gave him credit for Miami years, which I probably shouldn't).

[90sAllDecade]

Also here is a comparison of Wilt vs Hakeem in the playoffs, a career comparison sample.

Wilt was amazing and definitely and all time great, but Olajuwon was a better player overall under pressure and in the playoffs.

This isn't even accounting for the pace and compeitition differences of the era, which can inflate Wilt's numbers.





https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id1_select=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id1=olajuha01&idx=bbr__players&player_id2_select=Wilt+Chamberlain&player_id2=chambwi01&idx=bbr__players

That is also not accounting for relative ts%. It's not accounting for prime, peak or something like that. Wilt got his averages down his latest years, specially scoring wise.

Career numbers are a bad way to make a comparison between players.

With that said, I have Hakeem ahead of Wilt peak and prime wise. But given Wilt played so many quality minutes and was such an outlier, I give him the edge because I believe he has a case for GOAT while Hakeem does not.

Wilt won a championship at 35 when he was scoring 14.7 a game and he was praised for his defense, I disagree with rewarding players when they play well with longevity but not when they play worse. If his scoring doesn't count in that year why does his defense and championship?

For that same reason we can agree to disagree about career comparisons, I think you should look at everything, peak, prime, career, team support, era rules, competition, offense, defense and coaching.

I also value playoffs more than RS due to increased difficulty on average and value peak and longevity equally. Not looking at everything that doesn't fit a decision is bad imo. I don't evaluate individual players on team success, otherwise you are ranking teams most of the time.

Looking at everything, Hakeem definitely has a strong case for GOAT center and top 5 all time depending what you value.

Lastly, relative to to league average or rTS% is going to depend on how good the league or competition is. I think many know that the league on average wasn't true professional athletes until the modern era.

Here are some things that would aid to help skew Wilt to league averages based on the general compeition:

Black Player Quota

The NBA had a black players quota in the 50s which was slow to fall away in the 60s:

With the emergence of African-American players by the 1960s, the NBA game was stylistically being played faster and above the rim. Many of the league's great players were black. At that time, African Americans believed they were limited by an unofficial league quota of four black players per team.[17]

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_NBA

OSCAR ROBERTSON (Point Guard, Cincinnati Royals/Milwaukee Bucks; 14-Time NBA All-Star; 1964 NBA MVP): I was the No. 1 draft choice in 1960. We had three black guys on the team. When they had a room report, they’d put an asterisk next to the black guys’ names.

BILL RUSSELL (Center, Boston Celtics; 5-Time NBA MVP): Every single team in the NBA had three black players. And I called them out. I said, “Is there a quota or is this an accident or what?” And I get a call from the commissioner, Walter Kennedy, who said, “What are you trying to do to us?” I said, “Listen, if you catch me in a lie, you should kick me out of the league. But as long as I’m telling the truth, you can go to hell.”

https://theundefeated.com/features/excerpt-basketball-a-love-story-battle-for-racial-equality/

Low salary and Amatuer Players
Many players didn't make much and worked second jobs in the summer or part time on the weekends. They were not dedicated professionals we see today and the talent would be drawn elsewhere for wages:

It wasn’t about rings

By BARRY STAVRO
JUNE 2, 200812 AM
TIMES STAFF WRITER
The titles were easier to win than the rings.

Frank Ramsey was a Hall of Fame forward on the Boston Celtics in the 1950s and ‘60s, an era when Bill Russell ruled in the paint and the Celtics won 11 NBA titles in 13 years.

Ramsey played on seven Celtics title teams -- he got only one championship ring.

“There wasn’t enough money to buy them,” he said.

For most of this period, the Celtics gave out rings only to players winning their first championship. The rest of the squad got cuff links, goblets, captain’s chairs, or pendants with a shamrock and a little diamond. “My wife and daughter wore the pendants,” Ramsey said.

When the Celtics won their first title in 1957, Ramsey’s playoff check was $1,500. “That helped you get through the summer and buy groceries,” he recalled.

Forty or 50 years ago, even players on championship teams had to take summer jobs to pay their bills. Contrast that to last year’s Spurs championship team that received $2.5 million in bonus money for its players and support staff. This season the average NBA player salary is $5.4 million, which means after a week or two off they can train all summer.

Ramsey, 76, now a bank president in Dixon, Ky., has a businessman’s eye and knows that when he played in the NBA it was merely a secondary league and the owners were a threadbare lot.

Red Auerbach, the Celtics’ coach and general manager, drafted Ramsey and offered him a $6,000 rookie contract. Ramsey wanted $8,500 and said he’d rather go in the Army. Auerbach offered $8,000 and Ramsey signed.

“We didn’t have many sellouts till the playoffs started because Boston was a hockey town,” Ramsey said.

After his rookie season, Ramsey would sign a blank contract before leaving town and the owner would later tell him what he was going to make the next season.

Back then the NBA was an eight-team league, with teams in Syracuse, St. Louis and a club in Minneapolis called the Lakers. To draw extra fans, sometimes there were doubleheaders: two out-of-town teams played the first game, then the Celtics played another team in the nightcap. Rival teams flew on the same commercial flights. Players shared hotel rooms and their meal money was $7 a day.

Tom Heinsohn, a Hall of Fame forward, played nine seasons and won eight titles. His top salary was $28,500. He quit at 30 because he had nagging injuries and took over an insurance agency.

With the Celtics, the mantra was titles first, money second.

Larry Siegfried was a shooting guard on five Celtics title teams, including Russell’s last year in 1969 when they beat the Lakers and Jerry West at the Forum in Game 7.

“Red’s theory was there was not any kind of individual incentive program or bonuses in contracts. Your bonus was your playoff check,” Siegfried said.

Even though the Celtics were usually the last team standing when their season ended in April or May, the players had to find summer jobs. Ramsey worked on a farm or in construction. Heinsohn sold insurance. Bob Cousy ran basketball camps for kids. Jim Loscutoff, a burly Celtics forward, was a golf pro.

Of all the Celtics, Gene Conley, a 6-8 backup forward and center who played on three championship teams, had the most unusual summer job: He pitched in the big leagues.

Conley’s first year in the majors was 1952, when he pitched for the Braves. That fall he joined the Celtics for the ’52-'53 season, but his rookie pay was only $4,500. Walter Brown, the Celtics owner, told him the Celtics’ entire payroll the previous season had been $87,000, Conley remembers.

After one NBA season, Conley gave up on the new league because it didn’t pay enough.

By 1958 his baseball salary was $20,000. That fall he and his wife were building a house in Wisconsin, but they had three kids and were short of cash. So after five years out of the NBA, Conley decided, “basketball wasn’t a bad idea.”

Conley tried out for the Celtics and thought he’d struck a deal with the owner to match his baseball salary.

Auerbach said they wanted him, but they couldn’t afford him and sent him home. A few days later Auerbach offered him $10,000 to play. Conley took it. That ’58-'59 season the Celtics swept the Minneapolis Lakers in the NBA Finals, and Conley got his one ring. He played two more seasons for the Celtics and his annual salary rose to $20,000, still less than the $25,000 he was earning by then with the Boston Red Sox.

Each spring the turnaround between his two sports was frantic. “When we were in the playoffs and I was running around in my shorts, the Red Sox had already finished spring training and were about 10 or 15 games into the season,” Conley said.

After the Celtics won another title he’d rush to Florida, put on his spikes “and work out with some old players and play pepper for eight or 10 days. Then I’d call the Red Sox and tell them I was ready to go, and as soon as I got here they’d pitch me,” he said.

At least Conley was playing.

Ramsey said he didn’t touch a basketball after the Celtics season ended till training camp in September.

“I had a job on a farm or construction. I got up at 4 a.m., I worked and I went to bed early. I had three kids. I was just trying to survive. I didn’t have time to play ball,” he said.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-jun-02-sp-oldceltics2-story.html

No Three Point Line for Guard Scoring
Lastly, there was no three point line for guard spacing or scoring. This would have altered his scoring relative to league average as guard would have been able to score more and benefit from spacing to drive the lane. Not even mentioning the other modern rule changes that would hurt later bigs in comparision.

NBA Rules History
1978-79
• The three-point field goal is tried in pre-season.

1979-80
• Three-point line established 22 feet in the corners extending to 23 feet, nine inches at the top of the key.

Against Worse Competition A Player Looks Better
If you have worse competition,you look great in comparision. For example Yao Ming dominated the Chinese Basketball League, he put up Wilt Chamberlain like numbers.