Is Wilt's supporting cast at the start of his career actually worse than Kareem's?

[Dr Positivity]

Arizin is an over 30 star with some gas in the tank like Oscar. His scoring volume wasn't going to be the same playing with Wilt but still put up around 22ppg the 3 years he played with Wilt. I like Bucks Oscar more but it's still a nice 2nd offensive star to play with.

After looking at this era closer I have learned that I was sleeping on Gola. He screams +/- star PC board type of guy, the best defensive, rebounding and passing SG in the league with average scoring, seems like was the perfect 3rd guy for Johnston and Arizin which at that point was the highest powered offensive combo ever. I'd say Gola looks at least as good a 3rd guy as Dandridge. He also plays with Wilt at a good age in his mid-late 20s and half his prime left. Then there is Rodgers who even if one dimensional, is still arguably a top 5 or 6 PG compared to relatively lower statistical standards for PGs in these years.

This doesn't seem that bad for a 2nd/3rd/4th best guys, it's not like he's just playing with Rodgers. I'm not sure how to compare the bottom half of the team's rosters, it's possible the Bucks is better.

The Bucks never had to play a team as stacked as the Celtics who were the ones to beat Wilt in 60 and 62, and in a condensed league everyone had talent around them so Wilt having Arizin, Gola and Rodgers may not stand out as much. Nevertheless the Sixers regular season results don't come close to the Bucks dominance in years like 71 and 72, and Kareem didn't have the elite version of Oscar all those years, his first year he doesn't have him and has young Dandridge and his results (56 Ws, loss to ATG Knicks team) are like 60-62 Sixers, and by 74 Oscar has definitely lost a step statistically and they make it to G7 of the finals. Overall I think the comp is favorable to Kareem. I also think if 60-62 Sixers cast is fine, there isn't that many years where Wilt's supporting cast is bad in the NBA. I only really dislike it in the post Arizin Warriors years, which is why Wilt's 64 season to contention is particularly impressive.

[OhayoKD]

or 6 PG compared to relatively lower statistical standards for PGs in these years.

This doesn't seem that bad for a 2nd/3rd/4th best guys, it's not like he's just playing with Rodgers. I'm not sure how to compare the bottom half of the team's rosters, it's possible the Bucks is better.

The Bucks never had to play a team as stacked as the Celtics who were the ones to beat Wilt in 60 and 62, and in a condensed league everyone had talent around them so Wilt having Arizin, Gola and Rodgers may not stand out as much. Nevertheless the Sixers regular season results don't come close to the Bucks dominance in years like 71 and 72, and Kareem didn't have the elite version of Oscar all those years, his first year he doesn't have him and has young Dandridge and his results (56 Ws, loss to ATG Knicks team) are like 60-62 Sixers, and by 74 Oscar has definitely lost a step statistically and they make it to G7 of the finals. Overall I think the comp is favorable to Kareem. I also think if 60-62 Sixers cast is fine, there isn't that many years where Wilt's supporting cast is bad in the NBA. I only really dislike it in the post Arizin Warriors years, which is why Wilt's 64 season to contention is particularly impressive.

72 Lakers are a comparable team to the 60 or 62 Celtics and the Bucks outscored them in spite of an already shell-of-himself Oscar playing injured:

Spoiler:

In 1972, the Bucks repeated their league-wide dominance when healthy, but Oscar missed 18 games. Without him, they played at a staggering 62-win pace (7.8 SRS)

At full-strength, Milwaukee played at a 70-win clip (again) with an even better point differential (12.4 SRS) than in ’71. They collided with power Los Angeles — a 69-win team themselves — dropping the Western Conference Finals in six games in a battle of titans.

Now let's add some context:



(71 Oscar)




(72 Oscar, Regular Season)




(72 Oscar, Playoffs with a torn groin)

Now tbf, everyone's offense is suffering in what was a bit of a grindfest in the 72 series but this is where I think it's important to look at how the Bucks became so good in the first place:



(Left side is relative offense, right side is relative defense)

The story goes Oscar came and turned the Bucks into goat-tier team by unlocking their offense. But there's a few wrenches here:

-> The Bucks defense improves as much as their offense does and is actually the thing they're better at for most of their "best 1-title team ever" run from 71-74. Don't know about you Doc, but I do not think Oscar's the guy driving that
-> Kareem by box or most film-analysis is himself improving as an offensive-player from 70 to 72 and then polishes his scoring-game after a 2011 lebron equivalent in 1973
-> Oscar is steadily declining by box and most film analysis(at least from what I've seen) over this time period

and also

-> 1974



(RS Oscar)

Now you might be saying "wait, the Bucks were not posting amazing srs in 74!". Here's where we need to apply some context:


mote than 3 srs-points ahead of the next best team is pretty rarified air. Let's compare it to another team that was awsome in the RS and then lost to a significant srs underdog:



Similarities:
-> Both teams are probably way better in the rs than they have any right to be
-> Both teams look all-time dominant through the early rounds
-> Both lose a very competitive game to a sneaky good team
-
Differences:
-> The Celtics are >> the Magic(90 pistions+ by sans standard deviation, won 68 previous season before losing in 7 to one of the better near-dynasties in the Knicks who they beat in 5 to get to Kareem)
-> Bucks are the bigger RS outlier(relative to the league)

Here was what Oscar did those playoffs:



Some other things to consider

-> Oscar did actually have a wierdly good(at least by box) playoff in 1973 with his scoring volume(21 ppg) and effeciency spiking(57%!). Yet it was by far the Bucks worst postseason performance of that stretch with Kareem choking(and while we do not have pace-adjustment, the sub-100 scoring would suggest the Bucks were competitive on defense, not offense
-> Oscar was completely out of the picture in 1977 when Kareem leads a cast I've got at sub-30 to a level of performance I think can legitmately be argued vs those aforementioned Cavaliers.

[/quote]

Think 71 Oscar might by overhyped as is(bucks defense improves as much as their offense and Kareem sees his numbers jump), but think any concept of Oscar being some sort of superstar should be as of 72. All the more impressive then that
a. The Bucks with oscar were better in 72 than 71(kareem's numbers go up oscar while kareem's plummet)
b. the Bucks without Oscar were a 62-win without oscar
c. The Bucks outscore one of the best teams ever with Oscar injured

[70sFan]

So, a few things:

1. Arizin was a nice 2nd option indeed (though he started to decline after 1959/60 season) but as you noted, Oscar was on a different level.

2. I don't think equaling Dandridge to Gola is fair. Gola was indeed a really good roleplayer who could be a sneaky impact guy, but he was also a notorious postseason dropper. Even though his defense and passing certainly was important for his team, he averaged 9.5 ppg on 33 FG% in 1960-62 period in the playoffs. Dandridge offense wasn't at his peak during his Milwaukee run either, but he was quite reliable for a third scoring option and I think he was a better defender as well (though that one is not a sure thing).

3. Rodgers is actually one of the most overrated players in the league history in my opinion. As the main playmaker on his team, he never anchored a good offensive team (maybe except 1962 Warriors) and in most cases, offenses he run were terrible. Rodgers is one of the worst scoring guards ever among all-star level players and he's another playoff dropper. I don't think there is any reason to believe that Rodgers was a good option for your team even as the 4th best player.

4. About botton half of the roster - that's where Bucks have a clear edge to me. They had very solid depth with McGlocklin, Smith, Boozer and Allen. Warriors had Attles and Mescherey, but not for all years and after that, Warriors bench was absolutely horrible. If we compare their rosters without starting centers, we get:

Oscar/Dandridge/McGlocklin/Boozer/Allen/Smith vs Arizin/Gola/Rodgers/Attles/Meschery/Johnson(?)

I do think that Wilt had a better cast than 1970 Kareem in most years, but after they added Oscar it's not a contest.

[penbeast0]

I agree that Oscar and the rest of the Bucks were better from 71-74. 75 without Oscar missed the playoffs as Kareem missed some time though not dropping nearly to the depths of the worst in league 65 Warriors who traded Wilt mid-season.

Philly had been bad the year before as their big men shot in the .300s (Grabowski and Saulsberry) and they had no settled PG with Rodgers taking over the role from the likes of Jack George. Even the formerly great Neil Johnston shot .329 at the tail end of his career. Arizin and Gola were still the players they had been in the 50s but the league evolving rapidly and they ended up last in the league offensively. Wilt came in and was inefficient by the standards of the rest of the league.
Arizin and Gola still scored at roughly the same volume (surprisingly) but with Rodgers at PG and the continued poor shooting of Saulsberry and Grabowski, they were still 7th out of 8 offensively (but moved from 3rd to 2nd in league defensively). Again, it is my contention that the league was improving at a rate similar to the mid 2010s where pace and space took over so teams had to improve to keep up.

Kareem came into a league where Russell retired and the Celtics cratered. They were instantly 2nd in the league in offense (6th/14 in defense) in only their 2nd year as a franchise (previous year 9th offense, 10th defense). MCGlocklin and Flynn Robinson were both solid shooters, Dandridge was a rookie, and Greg Smith was a defensive specialist. I'd give the edge to Milwaukee at PG (yes, I dislike Rodgers's game) and PF (weakest position for each), aging Arizin v. pre-prime Dandridge not a strong choice, and Gola over McGlocklin at SG for his playmaking and defense. Bench I don't know enough to call without more work. Larry Costello over Neil Johnston coaching too. So, even as rookies although it's close, I'd say Kareem had a bit more help.

[eminence]

I'd take Kareem's group pretty easily, largely due to expansion. The early 70's Bucks were one of the better casts once Oscar arrived, the 60s Warriors one of the worst.

[Dr Positivity]

After doing some mini research to get a feel for the post shotclock pre Wilt era (admittedly not the period this thread is about but the overlap is decent) my rough estimate on the figurative All-D teams

PG - 1st: Slater Martin, 2nd: Larry Costello
SG- 1st: Tom Gola, 2nd: Jack McMahon
SF - 1st: Jim Loscutoff, 2nd: Earl Lloyd
PF - 1st: Maurice Stokes, 2nd: Mel Hutchins
C - 1st: Bill Russell, 2nd: Walter Dukes (don't love picks here)

I like Gola's status as the rare wing sized D star who's giving you some offense while my other picks for all-D SG/SFs all are bad on that end like Loscutoff. Sharman seems better than some of the other 20ppg scoring wings and could have snuck out some All-Ds like Bird if they existed but even he is really more PG/SG sized.

I'd take Kareem's group pretty easily, largely due to expansion. The early 70's Bucks were one of the better casts once Oscar arrived, the 60s Warriors one of the worst.

I'd put Celtics and Nationals supporting casts ahead for sure, the aging St Louis is not really that much more talented but probably a bit deeper. I don't see a reason to put the Sixers supporting cast lower than any of the other teams except for Lakers once West enters prime in 62. But yes it's a fair point that expansion means similar talent can make a team more stacked compared to everyone else in early 70s than early 60s and help the Bucks get those crazy regular seasons.