Top 50 All-Time List - Shot Clock Era = #4

[dankok8]

List:

#1 - Michael Jordan
#2 - Lebron James
#3 - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
#4 - VOTING NOW

This is the player pool:

https://i.postimg.cc/VN7jY7Zz/Top-10-Candidates.jpg

For a full player pool see the link (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ARaI3VCNauULLYL1Yu24HIRY768FYQdip56sp6uRFGk/edit?usp=sharing).

Everyone may post in this thread but only votes from serious contributors will be considered. Not everyone has to write an essay but there should be some justification or explanation and some coherent arguments being presented. I encourage people to be open-minded and willing to adjust their rankings in response to strong evidence. Debate and discussion is encouraged.

Opening Vote Tally

Wilt Chamberlain - 4 (coastalmarker99, Thenameless, L. Kizzle, warriorfan)
Bill Russell - 6 (Dbrog, dankok8, Reggie43, jlip, kawhileonard2, Ryoka Narusawa)

[8Ball]

Looks like Bill Russell gonna win this one.

But I like Tim Duncan here.

This is Duncans accomplishments:

5× NBA champion (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2014)
3× NBA Finals MVP (1999, 2003, 2005)
2× NBA Most Valuable Player (2002, 2003)
15× NBA All-Star (1998, 2000–2011, 2013, 2015)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (2000)
10× All-NBA First Team (1998–2005, 2007, 2013)
3× All-NBA Second Team (2006, 2008, 2009)
2× All-NBA Third Team (2010, 2015)
8× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1999–2003, 2005, 2007, 2008)
7× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1998, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2015)


Tim Duncan matches up against Magic, Bird, Wilt, Bill Russell for the #4 spot.

[Jasper]

duncan

[Manny98]

Bill Russell

[Overdrive]

Wilt

[RRR3]

Wilt.

[StrongLurk]

Wilt for 4.

Also why are these the only players to select from? KD deserves a spot on this list over Julius Erving.

[Jasper]

https://www.google.com/search?q=bill+walton+career+stats&sxsrf=AOaemvJccO35nglEXAsB0ujbNRZDjiFwPw%3A1630347 651619&source=hp&ei=gyEtYbeqI9uAoAT9rZPYBA&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYS0vk4sdaIa-f9G1l_UPBkbJfIELeTGa&oq=bill+walton+career+&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgYIABA WEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjoEC CMQJzoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6DgguEIAEELEDEMcBEKMCOggILhC ABBCxAzoICAAQgAQQsQM6CwguEIAEELEDEIMBOgsILhCABBDHA RCjAjoLCC4QgAQQxwEQrwE6BQguEIAEOg4ILhCABBCxAxCDARC TAjoLCC4QgAQQsQMQkwJQ7BdYt0Bg4lRoAHAAeAKAAYAQiAGKS 5IBETAuMi4yLjEuMC41LjIuOS0ymAEAoAEB&sclient=gws-wiz

Giannis - https://www.google.com/search?q=giannis+antetokounmpo+stats&sxsrf=AOaemvKXRah-PbtvLpbNH50jxeOXSVXqaQ%3A1630347728298&source=hp&ei=0CEtYZ3YD-2A1e8PtJ246Ak&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYS0v4MPhRoAakxmV4kn85y0fXgcGSUe1&oq=giannis&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYAzILCC4QgAQQsQMQkwIyBAgAEEM yBAgAEEMyBwgAELEDEEMyBAgAEEMyCAgAEIAEELEDMgUIABCAB DIHCAAQsQMQQzIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEOgQIIxAnOgsILhCABBC xAxCDAToECC4QQzoFCC4QgAQ6BwguELEDEEM6CAgAELEDEIMBO gUIABCxAzoKCC4QsQMQgwEQQzoICC4QgAQQsQNQ_w5Y9hhg-UtoAHAAeACAAZMBiAGjBpIBAzAuN5gBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

nough said

[SaintzFury13]

I'm honestly surprised the top three was put together with no real surprises. Jordan, LeBron and Kareem about as close to the popular consensus as it gets, and is more or less accurate. This is where things will start to get interesting.

Despite what I've said before, I am actually going to go with Wilt Chamberlin on this one. Yes his stats are inflated to an extent, yes he has arguably the most postseason failures of all time for an all time great (with Jerry West taking the number one spot), but there simply was never a player more dominant than him. He is the most athletically gifted player the NBA has ever seen. And on top of it all, he was actually incredibly skilled. He may not have the greatest jumper in the world and that free throw percentage was always an issue for him, but he was just such an incredible force of nature whenever he played the game. I truly believe there will never be another player like him. It's a shame we don't have more footage out there of him, he was such a dominant player and I would love to be able to see more of him.


Wilt for 4.

Also why are these the only players to select from? KD deserves a spot on this list over Julius Erving.

Nah, he honestly doesn't.

[1987_Lakers]

Bill Russell

People always shit on his offense, but keep in mind he is by far the greatest defensive player in NBA history, that will not show on the stat sheet and his 5 league MVPs should give you an idea how highly regarded he was at the time.

People will point out how stacked Russell's teams were, but keep in mind from 1965-69 he and Wilt pretty much had the same amount of talent on their rosters and for the most part he still beat Wilt in those years.

Yes, Wilt was more gifted as a player, but he put himself first over winning, Russell was the complete opposite. If Wilt had Russell's heart and will to win he would have easily been the better player, but Wilt's choke jobs throughout his career are hard to ignore.

I mean, Jerry West... Wilt's own teammate said after the '69 Finals that Russell was the better player, that is pretty telling.

[Magic Is Magic]

Bill Russell

Great progression Danko

[StrongLurk]

I'm honestly surprised the top three was put together with no real surprises. Jordan, LeBron and Kareem about as close to the popular consensus as it gets, and is more or less accurate. This is where things will start to get interesting.

Despite what I've said before, I am actually going to go with Wilt Chamberlin on this one. Yes his stats are inflated to an extent, yes he has arguably the most postseason failures of all time for an all time great (with Jerry West taking the number one spot), but there simply was never a player more dominant than him. He is the most athletically gifted player the NBA has ever seen. And on top of it all, he was actually incredibly skilled. He may not have the greatest jumper in the world and that free throw percentage was always an issue for him, but he was just such an incredible force of nature whenever he played the game. I truly believe there will never be another player like him. It's a shame we don't have more footage out there of him, he was such a dominant player and I would love to be able to see more of him.



Nah, he honestly doesn't.

KD is a Bird-level player, so yes he does. Don't be blinded by bias. Do a deep dive on the eye test along with raw production, advanced stats, winning, portability, etc. for their playoff/finals primes. KD and Bird as pure basketball players are on the same tier, the only real advantage Bird has over KD is probably leadership ability.

[SaintzFury13]

KD is a Bird-level player, so yes he does. Don't be blinded by bias. Do a deep dive on the eye test along with raw production, advanced stats, winning, portability, etc. for their playoff/finals primes. KD and Bird as pure basketball players are on the same tier, the only real advantage Bird has over KD is probably leadership ability.

Bird is a better defensive player and far more skilled. Do not waste my time with such nonsense. KD is not on Bird's level.

[SouBeachTalents]

Wilt

[8Ball]

Wilt for 4.

Also why are these the only players to select from? KD deserves a spot on this list over Julius Erving.

There's a larger player pool to choose from. Look at the link.

[Ryoka Narusawa]

Bill russell

[StrongLurk]

Bird is a better defensive player and far more skilled. Do not waste my time with such nonsense. KD is not on Bird's level.

Far more skilled than KD?

See, your words show your ignorance with such hyperbole. It's clear you've never done a true comparison between the two players, so we can't really continue this conversation until you do.

[ELITEpower23]

Wilt

[SaintzFury13]

Far more skilled than KD?

See, your words show your ignorance with such hyperbole. It's clear you've never done a true comparison between the two players, so we can't really continue this conversation until you do.

Yes, far more skilled than KD.

Thanks for proving you've never watched a Larry Bird game in your life.

[Manny98]

Bird is a better defensive player and far more skilled. Do not waste my time with such nonsense. KD is not on Bird's level.

:roll::roll::roll:

[SaintzFury13]

:roll::roll::roll:

Don't laugh at me like what I'm saying is ridiculous. Your entire reputation on this site revolves around the fact that you say stupid shit on a regular basis. Don't even try to argue on a matter that you lack any basketball knowledge to comprehend. You're better off avoiding another L entirely.

[Bankaii]

Bill Russell

People always shit on his offense, but keep in mind he is by far the greatest defensive player in NBA history, that will not show on the stat sheet and his 5 league MVPs should give you an idea how highly regarded he was at the time.

People will point out how stacked Russell's teams were, but keep in mind from 1965-69 he and Wilt pretty much had the same amount of talent on their rosters and for the most part he still beat Wilt in those years.

Yes, Wilt was more gifted as a player, but he put himself first over winning, Russell was the complete opposite. If Wilt had Russell's heart and will to win he would have easily been the better player, but Wilt's choke jobs throughout his career are hard to ignore.

I mean, Jerry West... Wilt's own teammate said after the '69 Finals that Russell was the better player, that is pretty telling.
When have we ever seen a player with pedestrian offense get ranked so highly?
Russell is the only player that gets excused from having terrible scoring, and having by far the most stacked team in an 8 team league.

If you’re doing an all time draft are you taking Russell top 10? Are you taking him over wilt?

[Dbrog]

You guys don't make sense. Why would Russell or Wilt be #4 on your lists? If you value winning, Russell or Jordan is number 1 (and the other is #2). If you value stats/peak play, either Wilt or Bron is #1 (and the other is #2). Your criteria is inconsistent yo

[coastalmarker99]

For me personally even in Wilt's worst playoff run of his career in 1969 to put up these type of numbers against teams with back to back to back HOF centers (e.g., Thurmond, Beaty, Russell) is insane.


Game 1 26.03.1969 - SFW win 99-94

Wilt 48 min 11 pts (5-11 FG, 1-3 FT), 30 rebs, 3 asts 7 blks


Game 2 28.03.1969 - SFW win 107-101

Wilt 41 min 10 pts (4-10 FG, 2-9 FT), 17 rebs, 1 asts 6 blks


Game 3 31.03.1969 - Lakers win 115-98

Wilt 44 min 22 pts (9-14 FG, 4-13 FT), 28 rebs, 5 asts, 8 blks



Game 4 02.04.1969 - Lakers win 103-88

Wilt 42 min 11 pts (4-10 FG, 3-6 FT), 14 rebs, 3 asts, 9 blks


Game 5 04.04.1969 - Lakers win 103-98

Wilt 48 min 7 pts (3-6 FG, 1-3 FT), 27 rebs, 2 asts, 10 blks


Game 6 05.04.1969 - Lakers win 118-78

Wilt 39 min 11 pts (5-9 FG, 1-3 FT), 25 rebs, 1 ast, 10 blks


1969 NBA FINALS: LOS ANGELES LAKERS VS. BOSTON CELTICS

GAME 1 15 PTS 23 REBS 4 ASTS 12 BLKS 6-11 FG 3-9 FT

GAME 2 4 PTS 19 REBS 4 ASTS 1-6 FG 2-4 FT

GAME 3 16 PTS 26 REBS 2 ASTS 6-11 FG 4-11 FT

GAME 4 8 PTS 31 REBS 1 ASTS 8 blks 3-8 FG 2-11 FT

GAME 5 13 PTS 31 REBS 3 ASTS 10 BLKS 5-9 FG 3-8 FT

GAME 6 8 PTS 18 REBS 4 ASTS 1-5 FG 6-10 FT

GAME 7 18 PTS 27 REBS 3 ASTS 10 BLKS 7-8 FG 4-13 FT





Chamberlain even in the worst playoff run of his career had the highest rebound average (e.g., 24.7 rebounds a game), highest playoff FG% (e.g., .54.5 FG%), highest defensive win shares (e.g., 1.9 WS and the highest average of BPG 8.5

[coastalmarker99]

Coaches and GM's hated and/or totally mismanaged/misunderstood Wilt:

Neil Johnston
Ed Gottlieb
Frank McGuire
Bob Feerick
Dolph Shayes
Butch Van Breda Kolff
Fred Schaus

Coaches who admired him and utilized him properly:

Alex Hannum
Bill Sharman

Here are his team's records those 4 years (when he was properly treated and handled)

68-13 (all-time record)
62-20
69-13 (all-time record, again, with a different franchise)
60-22

[8Ball]

When have we ever seen a player with pedestrian offense get ranked so highly?
Russell is the only player that gets excused from having terrible scoring, and having by far the most stacked team in an 8 team league.

If you’re doing an all time draft are you taking Russell top 10? Are you taking him over wilt?

I agree.

Name me 1 top 10 player that had pedestrian offense?

Maybe Magic but that was because he had great passive ability.

[coastalmarker99]

Can anyone explain what physical (and basketball) skills Russell had that Wilt didn't?



Explain to me what skills Russell had that were superior to Wilt's.





Russell was a better defender than Wilt


But It is a slight gap compared to their offence as Wilt was still, by all accounts of the time anyway, one of the best rim protectors ever.


And Wilt was twice the scorer of Russell on his worst day and a better playmaker.

[coastalmarker99]

I agree.

Name me 1 top 10 player that had pedestrian offense?

Maybe Magic but that was because he had great passive ability.

Here are Russell's offensive stats in all of the games we have footage of him.


Lakers @ Celtics 1962 finals game 7 -part game

4FGA
3FTA
1AST
3TOV


Celtics @ Lakers finals game 6-full game

11FGA
5FTA
7 assists
4TOV


Celtics @ Warriors 1964 finals game 4- second half only.

3FGA
1FTA
1AST


Lakers @ Celtics 1965 finals game 1 -a quarter of the game

2FGA
2FTA
3AST


Celtics @ Royals 1966 EDSF game 4 second half.

2FGA
2FTA
1AST
2TOV


Lakers @ Celtics 1966 finals game 7 part game.

4FGA
1AST
3TOV


76ers @ Celtics 1967 ECF game 4 - second half only

5FGA

5FTA

2AST

1TOV


Celtics @ Knicks 1969 ECF game 1-full game

9FGA

3FTA

7AST

4TOV


Celtics @ Lakers 1969 Finals game 7- fourth quarter only

3FGA

1AST

1TOV



Total AST/TOV Ratio: 24 AST/18 TOV=1.33

100* 18/(43+0.44 * 21+18) =25.6 TOV%




You will notice when watching the footage we have available of Russell that he barely gets the ball on offence.



And that when he gets it he turns it over a lot and most of them are live-ball turnovers.

[jlip]

Bill Russell

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt was putting up monster stat lines on Russell's head when they matched up against each other.

1965 East Conference Finals 76ers VS Celtics

GAME 1 33 PTS 31 REBS 11 BLKS

GAME 2 30 PTS 39 REBS 8 ASTS 8 BLKS

Game 3 24 PTS 37 REBS 1 ASTS 5 BLKS

GAME 4 34 PTS 34 REBS 3 ASTS 7 BLKS

GAME 6 30 PTS 26 REBS 4 ASTS 13 BLKS

Game 7 30 PTS 32 REBS 2 ASTS 1 BLKS (12-15 FG


When Wilt is averaging

30.1 ppg

31.4 rpg

3.3 apg

8 BPG

55.48 FG %

58.33 FT%



To Russell's

15.6 ppg

25.3 rpg

6.7 apg

6.5 BPG

44.67 FG %

47.22 FT %



And still losing how can you blame him for coming up short every single year against the Celtics.



Russell most of the time had another Celtic player to help him guard Wilt.



While Wilt almost always had to guard Russell one one one with no help.

[Reggie43]

If he really was that good he should have willed his team to victory ala Olajuwon with a lesser supporting cast but we all know Wilt is all about his empty era specific stats.

Like I said as much as four guys were going for 20+ rebounds in some years while Russel, Thurmond and Wilt were probably going for 8+ blocks a game if they were ever recorded officially.

I used to be impressed by the tall tales and sped up videos but nowadays the only thing that stands out about him is his godly endurance.

Dont get me wrong he is still a Goat level big but he just doesnt stand out in retrospect. Its easy to look good in the early days of basketball especially not having to face guys as good as Olajuwon, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing etc in your prime night in night out.

[SouBeachTalents]

You guys don't make sense. Why would Russell or Wilt be #4 on your lists? If you value winning, Russell or Jordan is number 1 (and the other is #2). If you value stats/peak play, either Wilt or Bron is #1 (and the other is #2). Your criteria is inconsistent yo
Jordan's stats/peak play are as good as anybody's, why would that disqualify him as #1? And why does it have to be an either or situation, why can't you look at an entire body of work instead of narrowing it down to one criteria

[1987_Lakers]

When have we ever seen a player with pedestrian offense get ranked so highly?
Russell is the only player that gets excused from having terrible scoring, and having by far the most stacked team in an 8 team league.

If you’re doing an all time draft are you taking Russell top 10? Are you taking him over wilt?

Russell's bad offense tends to get overstated, at his peak he was consistently top 15-20 range in the NBA in PPG, and he was considered a very good passer for a big man, I just feel his defensive impact and winning mentality made up for his lack of an elite offense, this is the greatest defensive player ever we are talking about, his defensive impact for his time blows away any other player in history. I do agree, he would probably be less valuable in today's game, but relative to his time, he was a force.

And if Wilt was such an amazing offensive force, why did the Sixers see no drop off whatsoever on offense when he left?

1968 Sixers with Wilt: 98.1 Offensive Rating
1969 Sixers without Wilt: 98.1 Offensive Rating (55-27 record)

Shit, the Sixers were still a 55 win team without Wilt, but for some reason it was only Russell who played on a stacked team. The Celtics in 1970 without Russell were only 34-48 and that was with a peak Havlicek on the team, Russell's impact on winning was higher. Now lets look at the Lakers offense with and without Wlit...

'68 Lakers without Wilt: 101.7 ORTG
'69 Lakers with Wilt: 98.5 ORTG

The Lakers regressed on offense when they added Wilt, that to me tells me his offense is probably a bit overrated. There is a reason why media back then considered Russell the greater player.

[StrongLurk]

Yes, far more skilled than KD.

Thanks for proving you've never watched a Larry Bird game in your life.

Go ahead and compare the 145 game playoff sample that includes their peaks/primes, and then post the raw numbers and advanced stats.

You'll see they are pretty much the same tier of player. Bird is obviously a better passer/playmaker but Durant is a much better scorer.

We are all waiting for you to get back to us.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell's bad offense tends to get overstated, at his peak he was consistently top 15-20 range in the NBA in PPG, and he was considered a very good passer for a big man, I just feel his defensive impact and winning mentality made up for his lack of an elite offense, this is the greatest defensive player ever we are talking about, his defensive impact for his time blows away any other player in history. I do agree, he would probably be less valuable in today's game, but relative to his time, he was a force.

And if Wilt was such an amazing offensive force, why did the Sixers see no drop off whatsoever on offense when he left?

1968 Sixers with Wilt: 98.1 Offensive Rating
1969 Sixers without Wilt: 98.1 Offensive Rating (55-27 record)

Shit, the Sixers were still a 55 win team without Wilt, but for some reason it was only Russell who played on a stacked team. The Celtics in 1970 without Russell were only 34-48 and that was with a peak Havlicek on the team, Russell's impact on winning was higher. Now lets look at the Lakers offense with and without Wlit...

'68 Lakers without Wilt: 101.7 ORTG
'69 Lakers with Wilt: 98.5 ORTG

The Lakers regressed on offense when they added Wilt, that to me tells me his offense is probably a bit overrated. There is a reason why media back then considered Russell the greater player.




The Butch-Wilt feud polarized not only the 1969 Lakers but the town.


Chamberlain used to rip Van Breda Kolff in the Herald Examiner, which became known as “Wilt’s paper.”

VBK used to rip Wilt in The Times, which became known as “Butch’s paper.” Heaven knows what might have been possible if they’d had minicams in those days.

“We were said to be the greatest assemblage of superstars ever,” says Hawkins.

“We were never a team. Wilt and Elgin never blended in their styles of play.

Jerry was imperturbable. He did what he did despite Wilt’s presence.




Chamberlain says in reply to Hawkins comments



“I name those three guys because to me, they were somewhat of the culprits.


When I was with San Francisco, I understand I had a chance to come to the Lakers but the general manager had a private vote and they vetoed it.


And I fully understand that. Because I was the star of the NBA.


Elgin Baylor was maybe second to me, and Jerry West was closing in.


And I don’t think they wanted anybody to top their situation. Plus, monetarily there might have been a difference.

“I was the only one asked and forced to change his game.


They didn’t ask Jerry West to change his game.

They didn’t ask Elgin Baylor to change his game.

“The record books can prove I changed my game. I’m the only guy who could hit a home run who was asked to hit a single because it would help my teammates by not making them look bad.

“They’d say, ‘Elgin drives to the basket, so get Wilt out of the middle.’ What’s the difference who puts the ball in the basket?

If I’m putting the ball in the basket at a higher percentage than anyone in the game, I belong in the middle, not Elgin.

I gave up scoring a lot more points to pass the ball to the likes of Keith Erickson.

And I’m not down on Keith Erickson, I’m just using his name.

“Then they’ve got this . . . idiot of a coach. He wasn’t an idiot as a coach, he was a good coach.
He was just an idiot as far as personalities were concerned. It was just hard for me to look up to a man who’d go out and get drunk every night. I had no respect for the man.”

[sdot_thadon]

Damn very late to voting, missed 3 threads already? Well so far things have gone pretty much how I view things. With Mj, Lebron, and Kareem sharing a tier and swapping spots depending on the questions asked.

I always struggle with these 2 guys and I tend to let Wilt slide down my list, but today I'm voting for him because he was simply a more capable player overall. He had unfathomable scoring seasons that will never be touched by another player it seems. He led the league in assists one year just for the hell of it. Some see it as stat padding, but when these guys pull off these feats you have to ask yourself: who simply achieves these accolades simply because " they want to?" You don't think other players wish they could follow suit? I used to really hate the tall tales way of mythologizing Wilt that fans did in the 90s, but I get it. Using anecdotal evidence was their version of internet proof in those eras. But hell, there's a video floating around of him casually swishing a few 3 point hook shots in a row. Guy was simply capable of reinventing himself and playing drastically different styles of ball. Russell is probably seen as a more all around guy but he never really had to change his role from my admittedly incomplete understanding of his career.

Wilt gets dragged for Russell being a "better winner" but we know he had better teams. And Russell was a better winner than everyone else to ever play so far, so there's that. If we by default put Russell over Wilt for winning more, then it makes sense to also place him over Mj, Lebron , Kareem etc based on the same logic? I feel like maybe Bill had a better understanding and mastery of manipulating the game itself, while Wilt just functioned as a better player overall in a vacuum.

[RRR3]

I agree.

Name me 1 top 10 player that had pedestrian offense?

Maybe Magic but that was because he had great passive ability.
Magic is arguably the GOAT offensive player what the ****

[coastalmarker99]

Russell's bad offense tends to get overstated, at his peak he was consistently top 15-20 range in the NBA in PPG, and he was considered a very good passer for a big man, I just feel his defensive impact and winning mentality made up for his lack of an elite offense, this is the greatest defensive player ever we are talking about, his defensive impact for his time blows away any other player in history. I do agree, he would probably be less valuable in today's game, but relative to his time, he was a force.

And if Wilt was such an amazing offensive force, why did the Sixers see no drop off whatsoever on offense when he left?

1968 Sixers with Wilt: 98.1 Offensive Rating
1969 Sixers without Wilt: 98.1 Offensive Rating (55-27 record)

Shit, the Sixers were still a 55 win team without Wilt, but for some reason it was only Russell who played on a stacked team. The Celtics in 1970 without Russell were only 34-48 and that was with a peak Havlicek on the team, Russell's impact on winning was higher. Now lets look at the Lakers offense with and without Wlit...

'68 Lakers without Wilt: 101.7 ORTG
'69 Lakers with Wilt: 98.5 ORTG

The Lakers regressed on offense when they added Wilt, that to me tells me his offense is probably a bit overrated. There is a reason why media back then considered Russell the greater player.

According to Dean Oliver's offensive rating estimates Wilt had a huge impact on his team offence.

If you are just looking for offence then read the last two posts on page 1 of this thread linked below.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1255357



Sixers Improvement from 1965 relative to league average (Offense + Defense)

1966: +6.2
1967: +10.6
1968: +9.9



Not even Shaq when he went to the Lakers or LeBron going to Miami played on teams that had this kind of improvement with their arrival over several years.


In fact, none of these players below during the specified years except Jordan have shown anything close to the impact Wilt Chamberlain did during his time with the Sixers, at least by this criteria.



Lakers Improvement from 1996 (Offense + Defense)

1997: -0.2
1998: +3.4
1999: -1.5
2000: +4.3

I'm sure these figures are a bit skewed from '97-'99 due to Shaq's games missed, plus '99 being a lockout year. But even in 2000, while he was dominant, doesn't seem as valuable to his team as Wilt was to the Sixers by looking at the team's overall improvement since their arrival.


And Shaq was playing on a far less talented roster than Wilt, which you would think is easier to stand out on in terms of impact (in other words how much the team depends on him). Though to be fair Wilt played in an era where the big man was the center of everything in the sport, before the 3 point line.


Now Shaq did turn the Magic around his rookie year, but according to the vague (estimated) stats used to rank Wilt, you would think Shaq peaked as a rookie. :o

Orlando Improvement from 1992

1993: +8.4





Heat Improvement from 2010 (Offense + Defense)

2011: +5.7
2012: +3.9
2013: +6.1


Now I know it would be flat out wrong to link the above team results entirely to one player (LeBron), but that is exactly what this entire forum did with Wilt, based on shaky estimated figures.




At least KAJ had a similar impact to Wilt in his 1966 season, though still well below 1967 & 1968.



Lakers Improvement from 1975 (Offense + Defense)

1976: +3.9
1977: +6.3
1978: +6.3
1979: +6.7




At least Jordan was able to play on and lead a team in the ballpark of the 1968 Sixers, though still 1.0 below the '67 Sixers. I will use 1990 as the starting point of improvement, since it was Pippen's first All Star year and Phil's first year as head coach.




Bulls Improvement from 1989 (Offense+Defense):

1990: +1.9
1991: +8.0
1992: +9.6



He also had a big impact as a rookie in 1984-85.

Bulls Improvement from 1984

1985: +4.2




Rockets Improvement from 1984

1985: +1.3
1986: +5.4
1987: +3.9 *Sampson played 43 games + drug suspensions

[coastalmarker99]

Here are a few examples of how skilled of a post player Wilt was.


He was a master at getting the defensive player subtly off-balance at the rim.

A few examples below:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBo5AlV8KGM&t=36s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnu5vMfPtbw&t=8m12s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aECiYcdvIE&t=20m9s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Np29MW_XN8&t=1m55s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwCmKvHJNoQ&t=2m57s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phho8i6rj0Y&t=24s




Below are a few examples where Wilt shows quick and graceful footwork.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsvliMTVxS8&t=1m48s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMIFXBZSk9U&t=1m13s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85PQWObHWP4&t=2m45s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNw0c19DhIU&t=8m32s






Nice up and under moves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNw0c19DhIU&t=30m38s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Np29MW_XN8&t=9m19s





baseline spin moves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PcEqa2l5eE&t=4s





In this clip Chick Hearn calls his turnaround shot "beautiful".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9Gbb9_XAtU&t=14m43s



His shot in 1969 footage didn't look this smooth and controlled.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNw0c19DhIU&t=8m12s



As he got bulkier and older it seemed his shot began to look worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNw0c19DhIU&t=24m53s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNw0c19DhIU&t=25m06s


Below is a clip of this attempted trap of Hal Greer by Havlicek and Embry, and Wilt makes himself available to Greer for the pass and dunk

You may have to watch in slow motion to really see the whole play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Np29MW_XN8&t=27m53s


A couple more examples of failed baseline traps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwCmKvHJNoQ&t=17m29s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwCmKvHJNoQ&t=22m13s

[ELITEpower23]

#4 is Wilt. Next question.

[1987_Lakers]

According to Dean Oliver's offensive rating estimates Wilt had a huge impact on his team offence.

If you are just looking for offence then read the last two posts on page 1 of this thread linked below.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1255357



Sixers Improvement from 1965 relative to league average (Offense + Defense)

1966: +6.2
1967: +10.6
1968: +9.9


But you are adding defense into the equation, in Wilt's first full season with the Sixers in 1966 they only ranked 6th (out of 9 teams) in offense which is below average, initially... Wilt didn't improve the Sixers offense at all, they became elite offensively the next year, but they continued to be a very good offensive team in '69 without him.

[coastalmarker99]

But you are adding defense into the equation, in Wilt's first full season with the Sixers in 1966 they only ranked 6th (out of 9 teams) in offense which is below average, initially... Wilt didn't improve the Sixers offense at all, they became elite offensively the next year, but they continued to be a very good offensive team in '69 without him.

Wilt's team offences



Warriors

59-60 3rd in scoring, 6th in FG%.


60-61 2nd in scoring and 2nd in FG%


61-62 1st in scoring, 2nd in FG% (125.4 ppg)


62-63 4th in scoring, 2nd in FG%. Remove Wilt's FG% and dead last at .41.2


63-64 Last in scoring. 5th in FG%.


Traded at mid-season to Sixers.


63-64 Sixers 4th in scoring and 8th in FG%


64-65 and with Wilt 4th in scoring and 5th in FG%


65-66 4th in scoring and 2nd in FG%


66-67 1st in scoring and 1st in FG%


67-68 1st in scoring and 2nd in FG%


68-69 Wilt is traded to LA


67-68 Lakers without Wilt 2nd in scoring and 1st in FG%


68-69 with Wilt. 6th in scoring and 1st in FG%


68-69 Sixers without Wilt 1st in scoring and 4th in eFG%


69-70 Wilt is injured and misses 73 games 12th in scoring and 8th in FG%


70-71 No Baylor and West misses the last 1/4th of season 7th in scoring and 2nd in FG%


71-72 1st in scoring and 2nd in FG%


72-73 4th in scoring and 2nd in FG% a



73-74 Lakers without Wilt 3rd in scoring and 12th in FG%


Some interesting facts...


He joined a last-place team that was the worst offensive team in the league.


By his second season, they were the 2nd best scoring and 2nd most efficient team in the league.


In his third season, his team was first in scoring and 2nd in eFG%. Not only that, but they averaged 125.4 ppg.., the highest-scoring team in the decade of the 1960s.




In those three seasons from '66 thru '68, Wilt's teams were 4th, 1st, and 1st in scoring, and 2nd, 1st, and 2nd in eFG%.

His '67 Sixer team had the second-highest scoring average in the decade of the 1960s, at 125.2 ppg, and was by FAR, the highest FG% (.48.3) in the decade of the 1960s.



Wilt basically missed the entire '69-70 season, and his Lakers went from sixth in scoring and 1st in FG%, to 12th in scoring and 8th in FG%.

He came back in '70-71, and with Baylor missing the entire season, and West missing the last fourth of it...

they went from 12th in scoring and 8th in FG%, to 7th in scoring, and 2nd in FG%.


His '71-72 Lakers were 1st in scoring and 2nd in FG% and their 121.0 ppg average was the highest-scoring team in the decade of the 1970's.


In his last season in the league, his team was 4th in scoring, and 2nd in FG%.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell's bad offense tends to get overstated, at his peak he was consistently top 15-20 range in the NBA in PPG, and he was considered a very good passer for a big man, I just feel his defensive impact and winning mentality made up for his lack of an elite offense, this is the greatest defensive player ever we are talking about, his defensive impact for his time blows away any other player in history. I do agree, he would probably be less valuable in today's game, but relative to his time, he was a force.

And if Wilt was such an amazing offensive force, why did the Sixers see no drop off whatsoever on offense when he left?

1968 Sixers with Wilt: 98.1 Offensive Rating
1969 Sixers without Wilt: 98.1 Offensive Rating (55-27 record)

Shit, the Sixers were still a 55 win team without Wilt, but for some reason it was only Russell who played on a stacked team. The Celtics in 1970 without Russell were only 34-48 and that was with a peak Havlicek on the team, Russell's impact on winning was higher. Now lets look at the Lakers offense with and without Wlit...

'68 Lakers without Wilt: 101.7 ORTG
'69 Lakers with Wilt: 98.5 ORTG

The Lakers regressed on offense when they added Wilt, that to me tells me his offense is probably a bit overrated. There is a reason why media back then considered Russell the greater player.



Here are stats on how bad the Warriors offence was when they didn’t involve Wilt.


So far in 4 games of Warriors Wilt footage that I have watched


I have




With Wilt 56 possessions, 50 FGA, 28 FGM, 6 turnovers.


I have 76 possessions without Wilt 66 FGA, 19 FGM, 10 turnovers.



It was a small sample size, so the more games I get of Wilt's Warriors days the more accurate it will be.



I think that looking at how players (especially bigs) impacted an offence by simply plugging them onto the roster and seeing how much better they were in ORTG the next season is not fully taking into account the playstyle and era of the 50s/60s.

In modern play, players can impact an offence drastically because they are touching the ball more. In the halfcourt, bigs weren't getting the ball as often while guards and wings controlled the ball more from the perimeter due to the lack of spacing, antiquated offensive schemes, and no enforcement of the zone defence rule.

Essentially: impacting an offence as a big was harder in general in the 1960s due to a combination of teams spreading shots around, fewer touches in the halfcourt, and a defensively focused era.

[coastalmarker99]

Bill Russell

People always shit on his offense, but keep in mind he is by far the greatest defensive player in NBA history, that will not show on the stat sheet and his 5 league MVPs should give you an idea how highly regarded he was at the time.

People will point out how stacked Russell's teams were, but keep in mind from 1965-69 he and Wilt pretty much had the same amount of talent on their rosters and for the most part he still beat Wilt in those years.

Yes, Wilt was more gifted as a player, but he put himself first over winning, Russell was the complete opposite. If Wilt had Russell's heart and will to win he would have easily been the better player, but Wilt's choke jobs throughout his career are hard to ignore.

I mean, Jerry West... Wilt's own teammate said after the '69 Finals that Russell was the better player, that is pretty telling.

That 1967 Philly team was insane. ALL-NBA level combo guard, one of the best C's ever, an all-star SF, an all-star C playing PF, and a guy talented enough to eventually be an all-time great SF coming off the bench. Not to mention a defensive stopper in Wali Jones.

And remember, this team played during a time when teams didn't have big, powerful power forwards.


It was more like today except without the 3-point shot. So that incredible size gave them a monster advantage over everybody else.

What's crazy is that if Philly faced a different league in a different time, they could make Jackson a sixth man and make Cunningham a starter and pretty much adapt to any style that way.


Just a sick squad.



It should be noted that the 1967 76ers first 50 games are 96 Bulls/16 Warriors like with 46-4 record and a MOV around +11.

Beating the then-record of 62 Ws was a cinch at that point so taking the foot off the gas pedal and ending at "only" 68 Ws and +9.5 MOV is still impressive.



I am of the belief that Wilt should have never gone to the Lakers.



He left 3 to 4 championships on the table when he forced his way out of Philadelphia.


He could have won as a player-coach too since they were ready to give him the coaching job as well.


But apparently, he also wanted part-ownership of the team, an unwritten agreement between Wilt and Ike Richman (who passed in 1965), that the remaining owner Irv Kosloff was not willing to acknowledge.

[1987_Lakers]

For people who want to know how insane Russell's defensive impact was just take a look at this...

'57 Celtics: 84.0 DRTG - #1
'58 Celtics: 83.6 DRTG - #1
'59 Celtics: 84.5 DRTG - #1
'60 Celtics: 84.9 DRTG - #1
'61 Celtics: 84.5 DRTG - #1
'62 Celtics: 85.1 DRTG - #1
'63 Celtics: 87.4 DRTG - #1
'64 Celtics: 83.8 DRTG - #1
'65 Celtics: 84.2 DRTG -#1
'66 Celtics: 88.3 DRTG - #1
'67 Celtics: 91 DRTG - #1

Celtics were the best defensive team in the NBA for 11 seasons straight. The league average defensive rating around that time hovered around 91-95, so there were seasons where Boston was 8+ above league average, to put that into prospective the best defensive teams in today's era are usually around +5 - +7 above league average. So basically, Russell was anchoring a '04 Pistons & '08 Celtics level defense year in and year out. And relative to competition, we have yet to see a better defensive team than the '64 Celtics, in terms of DRTG they were 10.8 points above league average, they also had the worst offense in the NBA that year, but they still won a title. :lol

[coastalmarker99]

Bill Russell

People always shit on his offense, but keep in mind he is by far the greatest defensive player in NBA history, that will not show on the stat sheet and his 5 league MVPs should give you an idea how highly regarded he was at the time.

People will point out how stacked Russell's teams were, but keep in mind from 1965-69 he and Wilt pretty much had the same amount of talent on their rosters and for the most part he still beat Wilt in those years.

Yes, Wilt was more gifted as a player, but he put himself first over winning, Russell was the complete opposite. If Wilt had Russell's heart and will to win he would have easily been the better player, but Wilt's choke jobs throughout his career are hard to ignore.

I mean, Jerry West... Wilt's own teammate said after the '69 Finals that Russell was the better player, that is pretty telling.

In the 1966 playoffs Wilt was excellent and arguably outplayed Russell in the last 3 games. Based on the recaps, Russell decisively outplayed him in the first two games, while Wilt decisively outplayed him in Games 3 & 5.



Game 4 was a wash, and many observers were calling it his best game of the series to that point for his defensive work (despite only scoring 15).



Plus the Celtics defence was denying him the ball, full-court pressing as much as possible while illegally shading the post to hinder entry passes.

Below we can see the Celtics defence is shifted to Wilt's preferred (left) side of the floor, leaving Wali Jones wide open for the shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngg3owcJl1g&t=17m18s

But prior to Game 5 there were reports that he had skipped foul shooting practice, and went on to score 46 points on 19/34 FG, but only 8/25 from the line. This while none of the Sixers were even able to shoot 25% from the floor in the first half. Clearly they had not played anywhere near their potential.




It's one thing to hold Wilt accountable for his poor FT shooting, but blaming him for that loss would be like blaming Shaq for losing to the Sixers in 2001 due to his missed free throws. It completely ignores context and how the rest of the team shot.

Looking at the recaps, it appears Game 2 was easily his (and the Sixers) worst showing of the series.



In Game 3 he grabbed 27 of the Sixers 69 rebounds and they won because Greer got hot down the stretch and Wilt finally got some help on the boards from Luke Jackson (15 rebounds).


It may sound strange that a player averaging 30 boards needs help on the glass until you note how exceptionally poor the Sixers outside shooting was.


Game 1 - 25 points, 32 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 foul, 9/17 FG
Game 2 - 23 points, 25 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 foul, 9/23 FG
Game 3 - 31 points, 27 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 fouls, 12/22 FG
Game 4 - 15 points, 33 rebounds, 3 assists, 1 foul, 7/14 FG
Game 5 - 46 points, 34 rebounds, 1 assist, 5 fouls, 19/34 FG


Averages in Gm. 1 & Gm. 4 - 20 ppg, 32.5 rpg, 4 apg, 52% FG (16/31)

Averages in Gm. 3 & Gm. 5 - 38.5 ppg, 30.5 rpg, 2.5 apg, 55% FG (31/56)


Some have stated that Wilt was the main reason for the loss in '66, that the Sixers would have won had he statistically performed up to par.


In the 1st half of Gm. 5, Coach Schayes noted that Chamberlain was the only player to shoot 25% or better from the field on his way to a 46 point night.




Game 1:

Sixers hit with the flu + 2 week layoff = 19 turnovers in a 19 point loss.

Wilt Chamberlain did his work under the boards, taking 32 rebounds for the 76ers. But his mates couldn't get the ball into him often and he made only nine field goals in scoring 25 points.


https://i.imgur.com/8uXLZ.png




Game 3:

Their defence was the barbed wire. Every time they needed a key basket, Wilt Chamberlain poured through the lane and got it for them. That was how the Philadelphia 76ers got back into contention in the Eastern Division playoffs with a 111-105 victory over the Boston Celtics Thursday night at Convention Hall.




Game 4: Chamberlain with the block at the end of regulation to force OT.



Game 5:

Christian Science Monitor - Apr 14, 1966

Wilt took 34 shots, hitting on 19. But he was only eight for 25 with his free throws. Chamberlain scored 46 points, no small since Russell played him tight and with a maximum amount of contact. But Wilt could have gone to 63 with Bill Sharman's touch at the foul line.

Boston's cornermen excelled, not only, but also on offense. John Havlicek played the full 48 minutes and scored 32 points.

Tom Sanders probably had his best game of the series with 11 points and 16 rebounds.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Kawhi 2014-2021 VS Larry Bird 1981-1985

Both won two championships during this time. 3636 minutes for Kawhi and 3256 minutes for Bird.

Kawhi: 10.3 VORP, 9.2 BPM, 24% win share per 48, 26.3 PER

Bird: 7.9 VORP, 7.6 BPM, 19% win share per 48, 22.2 PER

Damn, bird is getting his ass kicked during this stretch. Bird only has 3 prime years after this as well. I even counted Kawhi's 2014 playoff run to take it easy on Bird and he still got embarrassed.

[1987_Lakers]

Also, '56 Celtics before Russell joined, 6th ranked defense (out of 8 teams). They were #1 with Russell in '57.

'70 Celtics without Russell, 8th ranked defense (out of 14 teams). They were #1 with Russell in '69.

Just more evidence as to why Russell's defense was far more valuable than Wilt's offense.

[coastalmarker99]

Also, '56 Celtics before Russell joined, 6th ranked defense (out of 8 teams). They were #1 with Russell in '57.

'70 Celtics without Russell, 8th ranked defense (out of 14 teams). They were #1 with Russell in '69.

Just more evidence as to why Russell's defense was far more valuable than Wilt's offense.

I have read those that use the argument that Boston flopped the year after Russell retired.


The reality was, the Celtics had no idea that Russell was going to retire, and they didn't draft a center.

Furthermore, the 68-69 Celtics were on their last legs.



Sam Jones retired right after the final game, too, which no one seems to remember.

This was a Celtic team that had slowly declined from its peak in the mid-'60s.

And yes, they fell to 34-48 (down from 48-34 in '69) in '70.

But here again, Henry Finkel was their center.


They drafted Cowens in '71, and he immediately led them to a 44-38 record.

In '72 Boston surged to 56-26.

In '73 they set a new team record, which still stands, of 68-14.

In '74 they won an NBA title. And they would go on to win one more in '76.


So the loss of Russell was really only felt for one season.


And had Boston been better prepared, who knows.

In any case, they became an elite team within two years, a record-breaking team in three, and a two time champion in four.

[1987_Lakers]

I have read those that use the argument that Boston flopped the year after Russell retired.


The reality was, the Celtics had no idea that Russell was going to retire, and they didn't draft a center.

Furthermore, the 68-69 Celtics were on their last legs.



Sam Jones retired right after the final game, too, which no one seems to remember.

This was a Celtic team that had slowly declined from its peak in the mid-'60s.

And yes, they fell to 34-48 (down from 48-34 in '69) in '70.

But here again, Henry Finkel was their center.


They drafted Cowens in '71, and he immediately led them to a 44-38 record.

In '72 Boston surged to 56-26.

In '73 they set a new team record, which still stands, of 68-14.

In '74 they won an NBA title. And they would go on to win one more in '76.


So the loss of Russell was really only felt for one season.


And had Boston been better prepared, who knows.

In any case, they became an elite team within two years, a record-breaking team in three, and a two time champion in four.

I recommend you watch this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCKSvjBnCRQ

[coastalmarker99]

I recommend you watch this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCKSvjBnCRQ

I really like Taylor's work in general, but I think some of his write-ups such as Wilt's are really intentionally misleading.

For example, one of his main points is the idea that Wilt’s offences got worse the more he shot, but he just doesn’t mention that the Warriors’ offensive rating relative to the league was 100% positively correlated with him taking more shots during his six years there.

He can be “Mr. context”, but when talking about how Wilt shooting less made the Sixers better offensively in 67, he fails to mention that Wilt shot 16% better than anyone else in the league from the field (crazy outlier season.

Or the remarkable internal improvement for what had been a young and mediocre Sixers team when Wilt joined them.

He claims that the Warriors “weren’t that much worse” when Wilt left, even though they won 4 of their next 33 games after he was traded and the Warriors offence dropped by nearly 9 pts/100.

In the Bill Russell write up, he compares Wilt’s scoring against Russell (would have led the league in scoring in five of his first seven years on that alone) to David Lee and Roy Tarpley (in a 19 game season no less, doesn’t mention this), and these are just some of my gripes.

One can find legitimate critiques in Wilt’s game without trying to mislead the reader, but in my mind, Taylor chooses not to do this for the most part.

[coastalmarker99]

I recommend you watch this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCKSvjBnCRQ



1:52-on: Ben claims Wilt’s 1962 is not in the best 100 seasons of all-time.

But Ben never tells his viewers that Wilt’s 1962 ranks in the TOP 4 ALL TIME in WS, OWS, and PER.

If that's not a top-100 offensive season, then where does it rank? Ben never says.

2:48-on: By ignoring era/context, Ben misleads his viewers about Wilt’s scoring rate per possession

Ben says that Wilt's PTS/poss would rank only 7th in the league in 2020.

But Ben TOTALLY IGNORES CONTEXT, the difference in league scoring efficiency (ORTG) between 1962 & 2020

CONTEXT: PTS/100 possessions (ORtg/DRtg) were 17% higher per possession in 2020 vs. 1962.

Adjusted to 2020 ORtg from 1962, Wilt’s 1962 would be: 45.0 PTS/100 poss, or 33.8/75.

That's not "7th in 2020"; that's 2nd after adjusting!

And it's 4th HIGHEST ALL TIME!


Ben focuses on Wilt’s scoring volume (without adjusting for era). Ben mentions Iverson as another volume scorer.

But Ben ignores that Wilt--unlike Iverson--combined very high efficiency with volume: 113 career TS+, including 110 TS+ in his high-scoring Warrior years.


3:21-on: Ben’s focuses on Wilt's unadjusted PTS/poss numbers.

But he never mentions that other great players of Wilt's era--Baylor, Oscar, and West--had lower numbers unadjusted for context than Wilt’s.

Thus, Ben never mentions that young Wilt was THE GREATEST SCORER OF HIS ERA


3:21-on: Ben claims that Wilt was a "black hole." To support this, he shows a graph of TSA/poss and AST/poss.

This graph is misleading bc--once again--Ben does NOT adjust for context: League average AST/poss were 28% LOWER in 1962 compared to 2020, so Wilt's AST should be adjusted up 28% to make 1962 equivalent with 2020.

Thus, by not adjusting for era, Ben is underestimating Wilt's AST/TSA by 28% in his misleading graph.

Ben also does not supply context by comparing Wilt to other "finishers," as Wilt was early in his career.

Wilt's best comparison is Shaq.

Adjusted for context and MP/G, Wilt’s first 7 years and Shaq’s first 7 are almost identical in TS%, TSA/AST, PTS/36, AST/36, and REB/36.

Regarding AST/TSA, Ben ignores most of Wilt's career.

Wilt was a “black hole” for his first 3 years.

But for 8 straight years afterwards, he was in the TOP-3 among all NBA centers in AST/MP (note: his high MP didn’t help him in this stat). And he was in the top-6 all 11 years.


Ben claims that Wilt was “an outlier of outliers” when it comes to being a “black hole.”

The reality: Wilt had 3 "black hole years, first 3. He had 4 years that were high scoring and higher than average AST for a center (next 4). He had 7 other years that were HIGH AST/LOW TSA

In fact, adjusted for era, Wilt—even during his high TSA first 7 years—was LESS of a “black hole” (based on AST/TSA) than:

Moses Malone Mourning Stoudemire Hayes Ewing Parish Howard McAdoo McHale Aldridge (among the top 40 or so big men)

Plus, Wilt’s adjusted TSA/AST for his first 7 high TSA years is not much worse than Hakeem's, Reed's, or Shaq's.

Furthermore, when we examine his WHOLE 14-YEAR CAREER, Wilt was one of the LEAST “black holes” (LOWEST TSA/AST) of top 40 big men (all stats adjusted for era):


5:10-on: Ben criticizes Wilt for his teams’ average/slightly-above-average ORtg.

But Ben never examines Wilt’s teammates. If he had, he would have discovered that Wilt had poor offensive teammates his first 6 years with the Warriors.


5:28: Ben criticizes Wilt’s 1965 Warriors for being last in ORtg.

Yet he never mentions that Wilt was trade mid-1965.

Warriors went from 108.0 P/G with Wilt to 103.1 (4.9 FEWER) without Wilt.

Similarly, 76ers went from 111.4 P/G without Wilt to 113.9 (2.5 MORE) with Wilt.


6:21-on: Ben reverses causation by claiming that Wilt’s increased passing improved his teams’ ORtg by allowing his teammates to score more.

The causation is the reverse: Once Wilt got better teammates with the 76ers and Lakers, Wilt had good offensive players he could pass to.

Ben concedes that the 1967 76ers had a high ORTg. (In fact, it was the highest in NBA history to that point--not mentioned by Ben, of course.)

But Ben omits that Wilt’s increased efficiency in 1967 (129 TS+ !!) was the main factor that led to his teams’ improved ORtg that year.


7:36-on: Ben misleads by focusing on Bill Russell’s All-Star teammates from 1959-66.

In the early NBA, All-Stars are VERY MISLEADING. In an 8-team league, each team typically got an average of 3 players per year.

Ben never mentions Hall of Fame or All-NBAs. Thus, he omits that Russell played with TWICE as many top players per yr.

Russell played with: 67 HOF player-seasons (5.2/yr) 22 All-NBAs (1.7/yr)

Wilt with: 36 HOF seasons (2.6/yr, HALF as many) 10 All-NBAs (0.7/yr, LESS than HALF)


8:46-on: Ben focuses on the Celtics improvement in DRtg with Russell beginning in his rookie year.

Ben is (mostly) right about Russell's great defensive impact.

But Ben never mentions that in Russell's rookie year, 1956-57, Celtics’ opponents averaged: 100.6 PTS without Russell (in 24 games) 100.0 PTS with him his rookie year (in 48 games)

Thus, getting rid of Macauley at center helped Celtics’ D before Russell even played one game.

Also, Ben never mentions that Celtics averaged: 54 wins and 5.6 PTS/100 better than average in DRtg his Russell's last four years.

In 1973, after Russell had retired, Celtics had: 68 wins and 5.8 PTS/100 better than average DRtg.


11:04-on: Ben talks about Russell impact on Wilt’s regular-season stats.


But Ben never informs viewers of the following: Head-to-head in the playoffs (8 POS, 1960-69), Wilt’s stats were nearly the same vs. Russell as vs. other playoff centers. Russell’s were considerably worse.


Ben claims to be "comparing" Wilt and Russell, yet he never analyzes Russell’s offence or Wilt’s defence.

[coastalmarker99]

Also, '56 Celtics before Russell joined, 6th ranked defense (out of 8 teams). They were #1 with Russell in '57.

'70 Celtics without Russell, 8th ranked defense (out of 14 teams). They were #1 with Russell in '69.

Just more evidence as to why Russell's defense was far more valuable than Wilt's offense.


You never mention that in Russell's rookie year, 1956-57, Celtics’ opponents averaged: 100.6 PTS without Russell (in 24 games) 100.0 PTS with him his rookie year (in 48 games)


Thus, getting rid of Macauley at center helped Celtics’ D before Russell even played one game.


Also, you never mention that the Celtics averaged: 54 wins and 5.6 PTS/100 better than average in DRtg in Russell's last four years.


In 1973, after Russell had retired the Celtics had: 68 wins and 5.8 PTS/100 better than average DRtg.


Auerbach had the entire Celtics team playing hard on defense, that's why they were the best team in the league before Russell arrived.

Auerbach's coaching also significantly improved the defensive abilities of his players, it seems. KC Jones praises him in his own book and mentions how Tom Sanders didn't join the team as a defensive player but Auerbach helped mold him into one.

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt absolutely had many examples of improving players on his team.

Gail Goodrich, West, Happy Hairston, Jim McMillan, Hal Greer, Cunningham, Tom Meschery, Chet, Luke Jackson all put up career highs with Wilt Chamberlain.


Chet Walker shot his then career-high (2nd)FG% with Wilt.


Hal Greer had his most productive and efficient scoring seasons with Wilt Chamberlain (1968).




The notion that Wilt was selfish is nonsense.


I call Wilt Chamberlain a very honest workman. By that, I mean he always did what his employer wanted. No star athlete has ever given his boss more for their money than Wilt did during his career.

Eddie Gottlieb owner of the Warriors wanted Wilt to score like no man ever had, so Wilt did.



Alex Hannum and some of his other coaches wanted him to pass and play defence, so he did that and he played 48 minutes a night.


Those who criticized Wilt -- first for his scoring, then for not scoring more -- really should have criticized his employer."

--Leonard Koppett, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 329


The point.


Wilt proved himself unusually adaptable. He was willing to be a massive focal point of offence at the level of no other player in history with the Warriors.


(people often talk about Wilt's 50 point season as though it was Wilt's idea; it wasn't.)



He was willing to be a mid-post passing center that ran the offence with the 76ers


He was willing to be a super high-efficiency scorer/defensive standout with the Lakers. Basically, I think Wilt did whatever was asked of him by his coaches throughout his career.

[kawhileonard2]

Bill Russell

[coastalmarker99]

Bill Russell vs Wilt Chamberlain



Is Like KD vs Lebron when KD was on the Warriors.


Sure Lebron had two all-stars and Hall of Famers alongside him in Kyrie Love.


But did anyone really expect Lebron to beat them the answer to that question is hell no.



Now think about had the Warriors with a fully healthy Durant stayed together after 2019.



That Lebron right now would be sitting on only 3 rings in 18 seasons.



And Durant would be sitting on 4 to 5 rings along with 4 to 5 FMVP




People such as 3ball would call him a loser and say KD is better than Lebron due to having more rings than Lebron.



With no context to how outmatched Lebron was when he faced that Warriors dynasty.

[1987_Lakers]

Bill Russell vs Wilt Chamberlain



Is Like KD vs Lebron when KD was on the Warriors.





Sure Lebron had two all-stars and Hall of Famers along side him in Kyrie Love.


But did anyone really expect Lebron to beat them the answer is no.


Everyone sure as hell expected Wilt to beat the Celtics in '69.

[coastalmarker99]

Everyone sure as hell expected Wilt to beat the Celtics in '69.



Wilt was only expected to beat the Celtics in 67 68 69


And the 68 team was not the same as the 1967 team.

Here is the list of injuries the Sixers had that were recorded in an article by the Philly AP before Game 4 of that series:

-Wilt Chamberlain (partial tear of the calf muscle in his right leg, a strain in his right thigh and an injured right toe)

-Wally Jones (injured knee cartilage)

-Luke Jackson (pulled hamstring muscle)

-Hal Greer (bursitus in his right knee)

-Billy Cunningham (broken right wrist)

Cunningham didn't play at all.

Philly was also missing Reid and Costello because of injuries.


The 1968 76ers managed one more win in that series but the rest of the team's injuries worsened as the series went on and Boston wore them out.

The Sixers were also only playing an 8-man rotation compared to Boston's 12.

Chamberlain was limping in every game and his leg had gotten so bad to the point that he couldn't turn around and in Game 6 he could only shoot 6 for 21 from the field.


1969 was a choke i will give you that.



But the 1969 Celtics had finished with a Higher SRS than the Lakers that year and had also dealt with injuries in the regular season as well.

[coastalmarker99]

Everyone sure as hell expected Wilt to beat the Celtics in '69.



Chamberlain was asked to play the high post in the 69 Finals on offence more.

So his teammates could attempt more shots from the baseline, which took him farther from the basket.

He only got to average 8 shots in the 1969 Finals compared to 14 in the regular season.


As West averaged over 25 FGA per game in the series and Baylor averaged over 18 FGA per game.


In-game 3 of the 1969 finals despite Chamberlain scoring 16 points on 6 of 11 shooting and grabbing 26 rebounds


http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1969.htm


The Lakers lost that game in large part due to Jerry West & Elgin Baylor shooting a combined 1-14 from the floor in the fourth quarter.



Furthermore..how about Baylor in that game three? He shot 4-18 from the field...in a six-point loss.

So, because of both Baylor and West's horrific shooting and refusing to pass the ball to Wilt.


the Lakers lost a game that they should have won, and that would have given them an insurmountable 3-0 series lead.



VBK used Chamberlain the wrong way in those finals.


However despite Chamberlain shooting .50.0 on a terrible strategy that made his scoring and shooting drop.

He still led all players in the entire 69 Finals in shooting percentage and rebounding along with blocked shots (imagine that!)


As he averaged 7.7 BPG in the 1969 finals.

[coastalmarker99]

Everyone sure as hell expected Wilt to beat the Celtics in '69.

Watch this video of Baylor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8DOIbbOcwk

At the 1 minute 11 second part of the video, you will see Wilt playing the high post in the 1969 finals so that Baylor could use the baseline to score.



Baylor in the 1969 finals had four games of 4-18, 2-14 (and 1-5 from the line...in a one-point loss), 4-13, and then a game seven of 8-22 from the field.

In those four games, three of them losses, Baylor shot a combined 18-67, or .26.9 percent!

For the entire series, Baylor shot .39.7 percent.



Wilt showed his anger at VBK's game plan in the 1969 finals with this quote.


“He’d say, ‘Elgin drives to the basket, so Wilt get out of the middle.’ What’s the difference between who puts the ball in the basket?

If I’m putting the ball in the basket at a higher percentage than anyone in the game, I belong in the middle, not Elgin.

[coastalmarker99]

I recommend you watch this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCKSvjBnCRQ

Wilt’s scoring efficiency was rarely ever a mere “above average.“

Wilt Chamberlain was top-7 in the league ts% for 5 of the 7 consecutive years he led the league in PPG.

In those years alone, he led the league in fg% 4 times over, 3 of which set the record.


But the Playoffs are the games that matter most.


And if Wilt’s high volume efficiency on teams with limited scoring options suffers in those games, then that’d be a knock on him.

So let’s look this over.

1960, Wilt’s rookie year -

League postseason average: 45.6%ts

Wilt vs Nationals:

38.7ppg on 48.6%ts

Wilt vs Celtics: 30.5ppg on 51%ts vs the Celtics

1961 -

League postseason average: 46.5%ts

Wilt vs Nationals: 37ppg on 49%ts


1962 -

League postseason average: 47%ts

Wilt vs Nationals: 37ppg on 50%ts

Wilt vs Celtics: 33.6ppg on 51.5%ts


1964 -

League postseason average: 47.5%ts

Wilt vs Nationals: 38.6ppg on 56.3%ts

Wilt vs Celtics: 29.2 on 50.9%ts

And that’s every single series he played as a Warrior.

Wilt’s average scoring efficiency would be about 4.5 percentage points higher than the league average and about 5.5 percentage points higher than his opponents’ in any given series.



That’s comparable to a one-man offence averaging 62%ts in the 2020 playoffs.


Playing this role on the Warriors, Wilt Chamberlain averaged 34.6ppg over 4 postseasons, scoring 31.85% of his team’s points.


Doing that over 4 postseasons is pretty darn impactful and only the greatest scorers in history can compare.

[coastalmarker99]

Ben Taylor is a very clearly biased person in some of his analyses.


Like it's kinda clear in both his backpicks, greatest peaks and tweets that he doesn't think too highly of KD, Kobe, Jordan (relatively), and Wilt.




And a lot of his evidence comes off as contextual, but it's not. Like I said with Wilt's AST%. Comparing to modern standards is just disingenuous.



He does do research and takes it seriously, but in some cases he can drop the ball due to his own bias (or to be contrarian?).





For example, he insinuated that the Lakers in the mid 2000's (05-07) were actually not that bad which is absurd.



and even his own metrics showed that they were very poor teams and his justification is a number of games that Kobe missed where the Lakers played a close to playoff level team- completely ignoring strength of schedule.


Said Jordan was an all NBA caliber defender, but not an all-time great defensive wing.


His research on Kobe's defense also is suspect as well.

He also said Kobe's longevity wasn't outstanding- which I find laughable.

Completely ignoring context regarding defensive quality.


Simply using rTS% isnt sufficient when comparing scoring eras because it largely ignores spacing and offensive support.


This also ties into the issue of not accounting for the strength of era



I believe he used data from KD's worst year (2014) to basically support the notion that his efficiency drops off a cliff without Russ or another elite PG.



Without realising that 2014 had a massive influence on the data there.


Outside of that, there is little statistical change in his efficiency with WB/ Curry on or off.


2014 is a clear outlier that skews the data in a way that's deceiving.

He had a bad playoffs with Westbrook off- in 2014.



2016 he was relatively the same efficiency-wise with Russ both off and on.


In 2014, he was 17% less efficient with Russ off.


That's a massive drop that influences the data and makes it seem like KD on the whole gets so much less efficient. It's misleading.

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt in the post would often hold the ball straight up or horizontal to protect it from the swarming defence, just as numerous other great big men have done.

There are a few criticisms that can be applied to Wilt's offensive game but excessive turnovers are not one of them.

None of the game footage in his prime years indicates a high turnover player, it actually indicates the opposite.

1967 Playoffs vs Celtics (2nd Half)

24 Halfcourt Touches for Wilt
4 assists for Wilt
1 turnover for Wilt
56 offensive possessions for team

By all accounts, this (Gm. 4) was a very lethargic & inefficient game played by the Sixers compared to their usual standard.

Even if we assume that they played their worst game for every single night of the season, the above stats suggest that Wilt averaged roughly 8 assists per game that year (which is true), & only 2 turnovers.

An average of 8 assists & only 2 turnovers is excellent for a big man.

1964 NBA Finals Warriors vs. Celtics (2nd Half)

-16 Halfcourt Touches for Wilt
-1 assist for Wilt
-1* turnover for Wilt (which came from what was clearly an incorrect travelling call, even by the textbook 60's standards)
-52 offensive possessions for the team

This is against the '64 Celtics, perhaps the top defensive team ever, from KC Jones on down to MVP Bill Russell.

They featured aggressive full-court pressing and swarmed Wilt in the half-court denying him the ball.

[SaintzFury13]

You guys don't make sense. Why would Russell or Wilt be #4 on your lists? If you value winning, Russell or Jordan is number 1 (and the other is #2). If you value stats/peak play, either Wilt or Bron is #1 (and the other is #2). Your criteria is inconsistent yo

Most of us value both. Sometimes it helps to use your brain and take context into account.

[dankok8]

Official Vote Tally

Wilt Chamberlain - 11 (coastalmarker99, Thenameless, L. Kizzle, warriorfan, Overdrive, RRR3, StrongLurk, SaintzFury, SouBeachTalents, ELITEpower23, sdot_thadon)
Bill Russell - 10 (Dbrog, dankok8, Reggie43, jlip, kawhileonard2, Ryoka Narusawa, Manny98, 1987_Lakers, Magic is Magic, kawhileonard2)
Tim Duncan - 2 (8Ball, Jasper)

This is mighty close. I'd like a few more votes before we call this one.

I hope all the Russell naysayers are not voting strategically for Wilt... I mean maybe this isn't the case but I feel it may be happening. This project should be collaborative so whoever has the largest plurality of the support should win. It's a bit weird seeing only 2 votes apart from Wilt and Russell. Surely it can't be that unanimous?

[dankok8]

Anyways here is a post for why Russell should be #4 over Wilt. It speaks to his enormous defensive impact and on the other hand how Wilt's offensive impact is rather poor.

https://i.postimg.cc/CLfbqsL3/Wilt-vs-Russell-Defense-2.png


Notice how much better Russell's team defensive ratings were during Wilt's prime years when they were both in the league:

1960: -1.9
1961: -6.0
1962: -7.3
1963: -9.4
1964: -4.8
1965: -9.1
1966: -3.2
1967: -2.9
1968: +1.2 (Wilt led a better defense...)
1969: -5.8

AVERAGE: -4.92

These are some massive gaps in team defense and we know that both Russell and Wilt were by far the biggest factors in their teams' defenses. Firstly due to the era where most shots were near the basket so dominant shot-blockers >>> everyone else. Second, they played super high minutes and rarely sat much. And third, we know that Russell's Celtics fell off the map defensively when he sat on the bench so it was he who led that defensive dynasty with his teammates having nothing to do with it.

All in all, this data shows without much doubt that Russell's defense was on average 5 points per 100 possessions better than Wilt's. This is a pretty MASSIVE difference. Wilt outplayed Russell in terms of box scores in terms of ON/OFF impact it's actually Russell who looks better. And this is largely because of defense.

And then when looking at their offense, Wilt's stats look bonkers but there is more to the story. The impact of those stats is questionable especially in his scoring years. For instance, the Warriors' offense only got 2 points per 100 possessions better when Wilt joined them. Then it got 1 point per 100 possession worse when he left in 1965. The Sixers' offense got 1 point per 100 possessions better when Wilt arrived. The Lakers' offense got 2 points per 100 possessions worse when Wilt arrived in 1968. These are very modest improvements/slight declines when adding Wilt. It's also worth noting that Wilt's teams for his entire scoring prime had very unimpressive offenses:

Wilt's Team ORTg

1960 Warriors: 88.7 (7th of 8)
1961 Warriors: 91.2 (6th of 8)
1962 Warriors: 94.5 (4th of 9)
1963 Warriors: 95.2 (5th of 9)
1964 Warriors : 93.0 (7th of 9)
1965 Warriors: 88.6 (7th of 9) - before Wilt got traded
1965 Sixers: 94.2 (5th of 9) - after Wilt got traded
1966 Sixers: 95.3 (6th of 9)
1967 Sixers: 101.5 (1st of 10)
1968 Sixers: 98.1 (4th of 12)

Outside of 1967 his offenses look very mediocre... in fact below league average more than half the time!

Was it his teammates? Maybe... but Oscar led a worse cast of teammates in Cincinnati to a #1 ORtg for five straight seasons from 1961 to 1965. And the Lakers led by Jerry West were much better offensively than Wilt's teams almost every year. Oscar looks like an offensive GOAT, Wilt doesn't.

[SaintzFury13]

Official Vote Tally

Wilt Chamberlain - 11 (coastalmarker99, Thenameless, L. Kizzle, warriorfan, Overdrive, RRR3, StrongLurk, SaintzFury, SouBeachTalents, ELITEpower23, sdot_thadon)
Bill Russell - 10 (Dbrog, dankok8, Reggie43, jlip, kawhileonard2, Ryoka Narusawa, Manny98, 1987_Lakers, Magic is Magic, kawhileonard2)
Tim Duncan - 2 (8Ball, Jasper)

This is mighty close. I'd like a few more votes before we call this one.

I hope all the Russell naysayers are not voting strategically for Wilt... I mean maybe this isn't the case but I feel it may be happening. This project should be collaborative so whoever has the largest plurality of the support should win. It's a bit weird seeing only 2 votes apart from Wilt and Russell. Surely it can't be that unanimous?

To me it sounds like the amount of votes for Russell are in response to the amount of votes for Wilt if anything. Wilt has always been ranked higher above Russell because whether people want to admit it or not, Wilt was the better player. Russell always had the better team. He's the greatest defensive player of all time and no one is disputing this, but he's not a better player than Wilt and it's laughable to try to argue otherwise. You can try to dismiss the offensive impact Wilt had, you can try to downplay his performances in the playoffs, you can bring up Russell having more rings all you want. Bill Russell himself admitted that Wilt was a better player than him. If championships are the only thing that stick out in Bill's favor, then the argument simply does not exist. Bill was the better defender. This is true. But Wilt was the better offensive player by a much wider margin. He was more skilled. Hell he even led the league in assists at one point. Wilt could simply do a lot more out there than Bill could. There is no argument here.

[dankok8]

^

A lot of wrong in this post.


Wilt has always been ranked higher above Russell because whether people want to admit it or not

This is completely false. The NBA ranked Russell as the GOAT in 1980. Most of their contemporaries put Russell above Wilt.


Russell always had the better team.

False. Russell's teams were less talented and clear underdogs to Wilt's teams in 1967, 1968 and 1969 and still won two out of three times. And in 1966 it was a wash and Celtics won.


but he's not a better player than Wilt and it's laughable to try to argue otherwise.

Better as in more talented? No way. But better as in doing more to help his team win? That's very debatable.


You can try to dismiss the offensive impact Wilt had

I didn't dismiss anything. I posted the data showing Wilt's offensive impact. It's not my fault the numbers are what they are. His contemporaries Oscar and West were better offensive players than Wilt particularly in the years Wilt was in his scoring prime which is 1960-1966. Wilt scored a lot of points but did little to improve his teams' offenses.


you can try to downplay his performances in the playoffs

I didn't bring it up in this thread but Wilt did have some terrible or at least underwhelming performances in the playoffs. 1966 EDF, 1968 EDF, 1969 Finals...


Bill was the better defender. This is true. But Wilt was the better offensive player by a much wider margin.

True but it comes down to value. How valuable was Wilt compared to Russell? When he played his optimal game in 1967, he was more valuable but in general for their career I think not. Russell's impact overall (offense + defense) still puts him among the all-time best ever. For instance, Ben Taylor on Backpicks ranked Russell as the 4th best player of all time based of his complete two-way impact and his criteria completely ignores rings.

[Manny98]

Wilt is the most overrated player of all time

I never understand how a player that consistently underperforms on the big stage gets ranked so high

[RRR3]

Wilt is the most overrated player of all time

I never understand how a player that consistently underperforms on the big stage gets ranked so high
You do know he was great at defense too right?

[1987_Lakers]

Another thing I'd like to point out, despite Boston winning all those championships, they were always ranked near the bottom in offense, in fact they won 3 championships ('61, '63, & 64) when they had the worst offense in the NBA, that is pretty insane, that should give you an idea how dominant Russell's defense was, Boston was so good defensively they didn't need much fire power to win.

[Manny98]

You do know he was great at defense too right?
His defense was the best part of his game.

On offense he was a empty statpadder in the regular season and come playoff time his numbers went down
Never averaged over 30ppg in the finals despite having multiple seasons averaging 35+ pgg

Averaged under 20ppg in 3/6 finals

Was a worse free throw shooter than Ben Simmons

Never made his teammates better like Russell did

[jlip]

To me it sounds like the amount of votes for Russell are in response to the amount of votes for Wilt if anything. Wilt has always been ranked higher above Russell because whether people want to admit it or not, Wilt was the better player. Russell always had the better team. He's the greatest defensive player of all time and no one is disputing this, but he's not a better player than Wilt and it's laughable to try to argue otherwise. You can try to dismiss the offensive impact Wilt had, you can try to downplay his performances in the playoffs, you can bring up Russell having more rings all you want. Bill Russell himself admitted that Wilt was a better player than him. If championships are the only thing that stick out in Bill's favor, then the argument simply does not exist. Bill was the better defender. This is true. But Wilt was the better offensive player by a much wider margin. He was more skilled. Hell he even led the league in assists at one point. Wilt could simply do a lot more out there than Bill could. There is no argument here.


I've enjoyed most of your posts as they've been a breath of fresh air in the midst of this cesspool of trolls on here, but much of what you've been saying about Russell in these all time ranking threads seems to be just parroting uninformed folk misunderstanding. I don't have much of a problem with people ranking Wilt over Russell as it's like a Magic v. Bird situation to me, although I prefer Russell. With that being said, the notion that Wilt has always been ranked higher than Russell is objectively false.

In 1969 (Russell's final season) an anonymous coaches' poll picked Russell over every other player in the league including Wilt, Thurmond, Robertson, West, Reed, Hayes, etc. as the league’s best player and the one to have on their team if they had to win one game.

Until the 1980’s, the players voted for the league’s MVP instead of the media. From 1961 to 1965 the players that Russell faced anywhere from 8-13 times each a season voted him the league’s MVP 4 times over Wilt. In two of those seasons he was voted 1st team over Wilt by the media.


Then in 1970 Bill Russell, was named basketball’s Player of the Decade. He won the honor by a landslide in a special Associated Press poll.

He polled 375½ votes in the balloting by 635 sports writers and broadcasters. Far behind in second place with 122 votes was Wilt Chamberlain.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=WsNFAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tb0MAAAAIBAJ&pg=5875,4760286&dq=bill+russell+voted+player+of+the+decade+1970&hl=en

In 1980 Russell was voted Greatest Player in the History of the NBA by the Professional Basketball Writers Association of America. What is so amazing about the media's praise of Russell is that he didn’t get along with the media that well. He was viewed throughout much of his career as a bitter, cocky, militant Black man who refused to sign autographs and spoke his mind.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1979&dat=19801031&id=AJUiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u6kFAAAAIBAJ&pg=996,10535444


Yes, Russell had a great team. Every dynasty has to have great players relative to their league. That is expected, but the obsession over Russell only winning due to being on a great team is overstated and often contrary to what was being said during the 60's while he was winning. I'm headed out now but will explain later when I return.

[coastalmarker99]

^

A lot of wrong in this post.



This is completely false. The NBA ranked Russell as the GOAT in 1980. Most of their contemporaries put Russell above Wilt.



False. Russell's teams were less talented and clear underdogs to Wilt's teams in 1967, 1968 and 1969 and still won two out of three times. And in 1966 it was a wash and Celtics won.



Better as in more talented? No way. But better as in doing more to help his team win? That's very debatable.



I didn't dismiss anything. I posted the data showing Wilt's offensive impact. It's not my fault the numbers are what they are. His contemporaries Oscar and West were better offensive players than Wilt particularly in the years Wilt was in his scoring prime which is 1960-1966. Wilt scored a lot of points but did little to improve his teams' offenses.



I didn't bring it up in this thread but Wilt did have some terrible or at least underwhelming performances in the playoffs. 1966 EDF, 1968 EDF, 1969 Finals...



True but it comes down to value. How valuable was Wilt compared to Russell? When he played his optimal game in 1967, he was more valuable but in general for their career I think not. Russell's impact overall (offense + defense) still puts him among the all-time best ever. For instance, Ben Taylor on Backpicks ranked Russell as the 4th best player of all time based of his complete two-way impact and his criteria completely ignores rings.

Statistics about Wilt's team's offences should be used with context, so I will dive a little deeper here:

It's important to not just look at Wilt but the teammates around him, especially in an era like the 60s where usage was shared more among the starters. Besides Wilt joining the team in 1960, let's take a look at who else was on this roster in '60:

Woody Sauldsberry regressed from a 83 TS+ to a 75 TS+. He played fewer minutes but was significantly worse.

This season was the 3rd worst NBA history by TS Added (unsurprisingly, Woody also holds the worst in history for his '61 season.) Now, why can we not attribute his awful play to Wilt?

Well, he was awful before Wilt got there and was awful after him. He was a poor scorer being given quite a bit of shots in an antiquated era for offence.

Guy Rodgers received 1000 more minutes and became a starter. I know some might claim Guy Rodgers was a plus--but he was a massive negative.

Rodgers has the worst career TS Added in NBA history, he was a very poor offensive player that took way too many shots.

Regardless of his passing ability, Guy Rodgers was so far below the rest of the league in TS Added that he was no doubt hurting the spacing and offensive ability of the team.

Paul Arizin was older this season and on the downturn of his career, he regressed from his '59 season which hurt the offensive capabilities of the team.

The next year he improved but was never back at his prime levels.

Secondly, this leads me to believe Wilt's usage isn't as high as people seem to believe as 1960's offences were primarily not being run through bigs but rather guards.

In fact, A good chunk of Wilt's shots were coming off missed shots from his teammates, rather than getting the ball in the halfcourt and the offence functioning around him as we might see in later eras.

The '64 Finals Warriors film is a good example of this, where players are passing the ball around and jacking up shots rather than running it through Wilt in the post like the Lakers did with Shaq.

Also - for all this talk about how bad volume shooting Wilt was for his team's offences it's quite ironic that the best Warriors offence Wilt played in was when he took the most shots and averaged 50 points a game.

The 1962 Warriors were a good offensive team, despite not having that good offensive roster - outside of old Arizin and rookie Meschery, they were bad period.

And for the record, nobody questions MJ offensive impact when he led mediocre team offences in 1987 and 1988.

He gets excuses because of a weak team and poor team structure. Why can't we use the same criteria for Wilt?

To me, personally, The Warriors being good offensively despite having a terrible offensive system and an incredibly weak offensive roster is a big plus for Wilt, not a minus.

Also, you have to remember that an ORTG of +0.9 above average in 1962 for a team was actually good.

People keep calling their offence this season when Wilt averaged 50 points a game "about average"

but in reality, they were only 0.5 below the Lakers for 3rd and 0.7 below the Hawks for 2nd. Both the Lakers and Hawks had "above average" offences that season yet were top 3.

It was harder to score efficiently in this era due to the rules limiting offence and the strong defensive presence of the Celtics.

I would also like to point out that the 1962 Warriors offence was probably even better than what their ORTG says because 1. Tom Gola missed 20 games and 2. They had to play the Celtics three more times than Western teams such as the Lakers and Hawks.

Michael Jordan had above average offensive teams early on in his career, and it's no surprise--his teammates were quite poor.

Wilt's were even worse. And he played in an era that didn't fully utilize superstars and instead spread the shots around more.

[coastalmarker99]

His defense was the best part of his game.

On offense he was a empty statpadder in the regular season and come playoff time his numbers went down
Never averaged over 30ppg in the finals despite having multiple seasons averaging 35+ pgg

Averaged under 20ppg in 3/6 finals

Was a worse free throw shooter than Ben Simmons

Never made his teammates better like Russell did

Wilt's scoring dropped in the postseason because he played in his prime over half of his games against teams with -4.0 rDRtg.

That's an absurd number of games played against absolutely elite defences.

That's more than any superstar center ever Yet he still put up elite numbers:

47.5 mpg, 28.5 rpg, 4.3 apg, 28.1 ppg on 50.8% FG, 50.6% FT, 52.2% TS (+3.84 rTS%)


Compare this to other greats:

Kareem: 44.1 mpg, 15.9 rpg, 4.1 apg, 33.3 ppg on 54.5% FG, 72.2% FT, 56.9% TS (+5.28 rTS%)


Shaq: 41.1 mpg, 13.3 rpg, 2.9 apg, 3.3 tov, 26.9 ppg on 55.8% FG, 53.5% FT and 56.9% TS (+4.59% rTS)


Hakeem: 42.0 mpg, 10.2 rpg, 3.1 apg, 3.4 tov, 24.1 ppg on 48.9% FG, 75.2% FT and 53.9% TS (+0.30% rTS)


Duncan: 41.7 mpg, 13.7 rpg, 3.2 apg, 3.0 tov, 23.6 ppg on 47.8% FG, 68.0% FT and 52.7% TS (+0.50% rTS)


Kareem played 26% of his playoffs games against elite defenses in his prime, Shaq played 31%, Hakeem 15%, Duncan 17%.



Wilt? 52% and he looks better here than Hakeem and Duncan, only worse than two GOAT offensive centers in Kareem and Shaq (and not by much).


He's a better rebounder and defender than Kareem and Shaq though, so overall I'm not even sure he's a worse playoffs performer than them.

[Manny98]

2000 Shaq > any version of Wilt

[coastalmarker99]

His defense was the best part of his game.

On offense he was a empty statpadder in the regular season and come playoff time his numbers went down
Never averaged over 30ppg in the finals despite having multiple seasons averaging 35+ pgg

Averaged under 20ppg in 3/6 finals

Was a worse free throw shooter than Ben Simmons

Never made his teammates better like Russell did

You bring up the drop in scoring average for Wilt, yet fail to add the context that is always needed.

This being that he had fewer shots from the amount of doubles and triples he was facing in the playoffs due to the refs allowing illegal defence.


blatant illegal defence by KC Jones (25) in the 1966 ECF before the ball is even thrown in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngg3owcJl1g&t=3m1s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Vtw7fbktc&t=7m55s



Not just that, but it's important to remember he was going up against some of the greatest defensive teams in NBA history each playoff run.

Wilt Regular Season TS% '62-'68: 54.8%

Wilt Playoffs TS% '62-'68: 52.8%

That is a 2-percentage drop off versus all-time level defences each year. A dip in efficiency is expected, but couple that with a decrease in FGAs from being denied the ball and that explains his PPG.

It's hardly a drop off at all--but just for the hell of it let's compare him to other greats vs top defences sorted.

Jordan

1993: vs. Knicks = 32.2 ppg on .52.2 %TS [-1.4 rTS] (-8.3 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)

1997: vs. Heat = 30.2 ppg on .47.5 %TS [-6.1 rTS] (-6.1 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)

1996: vs. Sonics = 27.3 ppg on .53.8 %TS [-0.4 rTS] (-5.5 rDRtg, 2nd ranked defense)

1989: vs. Cavaliers = 39.8 ppg on .59.8 %TS [+6.1 rTS] (-4.9 rDRtg, 2nd ranked defense)

1986: vs. Celtics = 47.3 ppg on .58.4 %TS [+4.3 rTS] (-4.6 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)

LeBron
2008: vs. Celtics = 26.7 ppg on .48.0 %TS [-6.0 rTS] (-8.6 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)

2014: vs. Pacers = 22.8 ppg on .63.7 %TS [+9.6 rTS] (-7.4 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)

2011: vs. Celtics = 28.0 ppg on .55.3 %TS [+1.2 rTS] (-7.0 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)

2011: vs. Bulls = 25.8 ppg on .56.9 %TS [+2.8 rTS] (-7.0 rDRtg, 2nd ranked defense)

2007: vs. Spurs = 22 ppg on .42.8 %TS [-11.3 rTS] (-6.6 rDRtg, 2nd ranked defense)

Kareem
1970: vs Knicks = 34.2 on .58.5 %TS [+7.4 rTS] (-6.6 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)

1972: vs Lakers = 33.7 on .43.2 %TS [-2.2 rTS] (-5.3 rDRtg, 2nd ranked defense)

1980: vs Sixers = 33.4 on .57.8 %TS [+4.7 rTS] (-5.3 rDRtg, 2nd ranked defense)

1980: vs Sonics = 30.6 on .59.9 %TS [+6.8 rTS] (-5.1 rDRtg, 3rd ranked defense)

1982: vs Suns = 31.8 on .66.3 %TS [+13.2 rTS] (-4.5 rDRtg, 4th ranked defense)

Wilt
1964: vs Celtics = 29.2 ppg on .50.9 %TS [+2.4 rTS] (-10.8 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)

1965: vs Celtics = 30.1 ppg on .57.5 %TS [+9.6 rTS] (-9.4 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)

1962: vs Celtics = 33.6 ppg on .51.5 %TS [+3.6 rTS] (-8.5 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)

1966: vs Celtics = 28.0 ppg on .50.0 %TS [+1.3 rTS] (-6.6 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)

1960: vs Celtics = 30.5 ppg on .51.0 %TS [+4.7 rTS] (-6.2 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)

Toughest competition. Still efficient.

The biggest reason he wasn't dropping 40 to 50 points anymore is that he went from playing against awful-to-average defences for most of the regular season to all-time great level defences for an entire series. Of course, it's going to be harder. I'd say he did quite well given the circumstances.




Also, it is interesting that Wilt played in 160 playoff games, and in 49 of those games he went up against Russell.

That means he played 30% of his playoff games against the GOAT defender.

[coastalmarker99]

In the 1966 ECF in each game recap the one common thing that I noticed was the mention of poor floor spacing, with the Celtics sagging back in the paint to contain Wilt.



That and the horrible outside shooting.

Here is an example below (Chamberlain off. rebound + dunk) showing just how poor the Sixers shooting was.

Wali barely hits the backboard on a 15 foot jumper.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngg3owcJl1g&t=18m33s


It should also be noted how the Celtics pressed full court to keep the ball out of Wilt's hands as much as possible.

And at the 17:25 mark off the opening jump ball how the entire defence was shifted to Wilt's preferred (left) side of the floor before he even set up, leaving Wali unguarded for a shot.


Also, a blatant illegal defence by KC Jones (25) before the ball is even thrown in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngg3owcJl1g&t=3m1s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Vtw7fbktc&t=7m55s

On average, Wilt would get 15 post touches a quarter, or 60 per game.


In the 2nd half of that game 7 in 1968 Wilt got only 7 touches total, and 2 in the 4th quarter.

They lost that series for the same reason they lost in 1966.

Boston defence collapsed on Wilt, denying him the ball while the perimeter guys kept missing.

[1987_Lakers]

I've enjoyed most of your posts as they've been a breath of fresh air in the midst of this cesspool of trolls on here, but much of what you've been saying about Russell in these all time ranking threads seems to be just parroting uninformed folk misunderstanding. I don't have much of a problem with people ranking Wilt over Russell as it's like a Magic v. Bird situation to me, although I prefer Russell. With that being said, the notion that Wilt has always been ranked higher than Russell is objectively false.

In 1969 (Russell's final season) an anonymous coaches' poll picked Russell over every other player in the league including Wilt, Thurmond, Robertson, West, Reed, Hayes, etc. as the league’s best player and the one to have on their team if they had to win one game.

Until the 1980’s, the players voted for the league’s MVP instead of the media. From 1961 to 1965 the players that Russell faced anywhere from 8-13 times each a season voted him the league’s MVP 4 times over Wilt. In two of those seasons he was voted 1st team over Wilt by the media.


Then in 1970 Bill Russell, was named basketball’s Player of the Decade. He won the honor by a landslide in a special Associated Press poll.

He polled 375½ votes in the balloting by 635 sports writers and broadcasters. Far behind in second place with 122 votes was Wilt Chamberlain.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=WsNFAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tb0MAAAAIBAJ&pg=5875,4760286&dq=bill+russell+voted+player+of+the+decade+1970&hl=en

In 1980 Russell was voted Greatest Player in the History of the NBA by the Professional Basketball Writers Association of America. What is so amazing about the media's praise of Russell is that he didn’t get along with the media that well. He was viewed throughout much of his career as a bitter, cocky, militant Black man who refused to sign autographs and spoke his mind.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1979&dat=19801031&id=AJUiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u6kFAAAAIBAJ&pg=996,10535444


Yes, Russell had a great team. Every dynasty has to have great players relative to their league. That is expected, but the obsession over Russell only winning due to being on a great team is overstated and often contrary to what was being said during the 60's while he was winning. I'm headed out now but will explain later when I return.

:applause:

[coastalmarker99]

His defense was the best part of his game.

On offense he was a empty statpadder in the regular season and come playoff time his numbers went down
Never averaged over 30ppg in the finals despite having multiple seasons averaging 35+ pgg

Averaged under 20ppg in 3/6 finals

Was a worse free throw shooter than Ben Simmons

Never made his teammates better like Russell did

Gail Goodrich and Hal Greer both had their best scoring seasons in terms of production and efficiency with Wilt Chamberlain on their team.


Once Wilt left you can see their efficiency decrease by a significant margin.

So can we really say Wilt didn't make his teammates better.


Happy Hairston had his highest-scoring averages next to Wilt Chamberlain but when Wilt retires his scoring dips.


Happy Hairston never broke 13 rebounds a game despite playing in the faster pace league in the early 60s.

But playing next to Wilt, Wilt showed him how to rebound and boom he was averaging 13 boards per game for 3 seasons straight.


Look at Elgin Baylor's Fg%, out of his five most efficient seasons #1, #3 and #5 came playing with Wilt he also had his highest back to back assist per game seasons with Wilt.


Jerry West in his five years with Wilt he averaged 26.6 ppg on 48.4% with 8.5 assists, however, his career without Wilt was 27.7 PPG on 46.8% with 5.5 Assists.

[coastalmarker99]

His defense was the best part of his game.

On offense he was a empty statpadder in the regular season and come playoff time his numbers went down
Never averaged over 30ppg in the finals despite having multiple seasons averaging 35+ pgg

Averaged under 20ppg in 3/6 finals

Was a worse free throw shooter than Ben Simmons

Never made his teammates better like Russell did





Wilt played over half of his RS games as a 30 ppg scorer (1960-66), he played only 32.5% of his playoff games in that period.

His 24.9 points per 36 minutes in the 1960-66 period ranks higher than Duncan and identical to Shaq and Hakeem who are known as a great playoff scorers.


It's true that Wilt's scoring average dropped in playoffs but the degree of that was overblown and it's important to note that he played 80% of his games against elite, all-time great defences.



In 1962, for example, Tom Meschery averaged 13.7 PPG during the season but 20.1 PPG during the playoffs as defences swarmed Wilt and the Warriors went to Meshery instead. Even Wilt's assists climbed considerably.


Plus the pace was considerably slower.


In Philly's 7 game series v. Boston, the Sixers scored only 106.5 ppg rather than the 125.4 ppg they scored in the regular season.


In their 3-2 win over Syracuse, they scored only 105.4 ppg.


So there were fewer points to go around as well.



And despite this lower scoring volume Wilt actually improved his raw rebounding numbers!




Also including the playoffs, Wilt played 146 games against the Celtics from 1960-1969 alone.


Elgin Baylor is the only notable player close to that, with 112 games played against the Celtics during that span.

Nobody has ever faced a Dynasty 20% of their games over a 10-year span.

Not even remotely close.



Wilt played by far the biggest amount of playoffs games against GOAT-tier defences among top 15 players ever.


For some reason you don't include this in your analysis when talking about his drop in playoff scoring.

[DevBooker'sMask]

VOTE for BULL RUSSELL

[coastalmarker99]

2000 Shaq > any version of Wilt

1967 Wilt is The greatest season anyone has ever played, at the very least in the top 3 with Jordan and Shaq.

Sets an FG% record, becomes the first real point-centre, is the keynote of Hannum's precursor to the triangle offence, and leads the Sixers to a record 68-13.


I don't know how much I need to say about this year, but I'll let you take a look at his game-log from the Playoffs:

1967 EDSF vs. Royals

G1 - 41 points, 23 rebounds, 5 assists, 63% FG

G2 - 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists, 67% FG

G3 - 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists, 62% FG

G4 - 18 points, 27 rebounds, 9 assists, 50% FG


Series Average: 28.0 ppg, 26.8 rpg, 11 apg, 61% FG

Oscar Robertson: 24.8 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 11.3 apg, 51.6% FG

He had as many assists as Oscar and killed him everywhere else!


1967 EDF vs. Celtics

G1 - 24 points, 32 rebounds, 12 assists, 12 blocks, 69% FG

G2 - 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks, 45% FG

G3 - 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 blocks, 57% FG

G4 - 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assists, at least 3 blocks, 44% FG

G5 - 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists 17 blocks, 63% FG


Series Average: 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6+ bpg, 56% FG

Bill Russell: 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 36% FG


1967 NBA Finals vs. Warriors

G1 - 16 points, 33 rebounds, 10 assists, 75% FG (including a game-saving block on Nate)

G2 - 10 points, 38 rebounds (26 in 1st half), 10 assists, 10 blocks, 40% FG

G3 - 26 points, 26 rebounds, 5 assists, 52% FG

G4 - 10 points, 27 rebounds, 8 assists, 11 blocks, 50% FG

G5 - 20 points, 24 rebounds, 4 assists, 60% FG

G6 - 24 points, 23 rebounds, 4 assists, 62% FG


Series Average: 17.6 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg, 56% FG

Nate Thurmond: 14.1 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 3.3 apg, 34% FG





That year, Wilt was fifth in scoring, first in rebounds, third in assists, and first in FG%. He was first in blocks too.

How many players can achieve that level of statistical domination on an elite team?

He would get the rebound, either throw an outlet or let Greer bring it up before he got the entry pass at the high post again. Facing the basket, he then hit cutters, used a handoff to a guard to set a screen or either posted up to devastating effect (68% from the field!!!).

Wilt was ungodly that year, there has never been anyone as good at basketball as Wilt was in 1967.

[1987_Lakers]

Looks like we are tied.

[1987_Lakers]

Here are what ISH legends Fatal9 & ShaqAttack3234 said about Wilt as a scorer


In context of the team, I don't find Wilt to be that great of a scorer. When your teams and offenses are best with you literally being the last option on the floor, it speaks to something (and Wilt literally was one of the last options on the floor of his best teams if you look at everyone's shot attempts per minute....and it's the opposite in Kareem's situation). I just get the feeling Wilt really really bogged down the offenses. It's not like I'm the only one who says this, when he got traded from the Warriors, his teammates were saying how happy they were that they finally had freedom on offense. For all his great scoring, his teams weren't even that great offensively year in year out, which is weird considering truly great volume scorers almost always elevate their team into a good offensive team. He might put up pretty numbers but makes everyone worse while doing it.

KAJ's playoff scoring runs are also much better. He scores in context of the team better (has a better balance), has a deadlier go to move, is more efficient when volume scoring (the difference is even larger than it appears due to FT shooting) and doesn't have a flaw like poor FT shooting hurting his teams. Much better player in the post as well, Wilt's advantage when it comes to scoring comes from offensive rebounding and being a better/stronger finisher down low...but in terms of scoring when it matters, scoring in a team setting, go to moves in the post...I don't think this is all that close.


I agree 100%. Wilt's scoring numbers(particularly early 60's) were largely a product of their era. I don't know why the 39.5 FGA and 17 FTA aren't brought up every time the 50.4 ppg are. Not to mention the 48.5 mpg which included him playing every minute of 40, even 50 point blowouts. And then dropping to 35 ppg on Iverson-esque TS% in the playoffs.

Along with the pace of the game rapidly slowing, the lane widening and starting centers(rotation players getting bigger), his scoring numbers started coming down to earth, and they always did in the playoffs.

Not to mention that in his his 2 high scoring seasons(post lane-widening), he averaged 34.7 ppg on 51 FG%/51.3 TS% and 33.5 ppg on 54 FG%/54.7 TS%.

Kareem averaged 34.8 ppg on 57.4 FG%/60.3 TS% in 1972 and he said himself that he was better later which showed how deceiving stats are.

Another important point is how defensive strategies changed. Kareem mentioned in a '77 interview that he was pretty much played one on one during his first few years in Milwaukee, but that he was constantly doubled and tripled by the late 70's.

In most of the Wilt footage available, he seems to face far more single coverage than double teams, and I've heard many from that era mention that double teaming was rare.

By the time Kareem got stronger and improved his repertoire with the left hand sky hook and turnaround, he had no real weakness offensively, which makes him the greatest offensive center ever, imo.

His greater team success as a high scorer and Kareem's edge as far as go to moves and counters seals it for me.

From the footage I've seen, I don't see their footwork or touch as comparable, and Wilt's strength advantage isn't that big of a factor for me because he didn't seem to use it like a true power player. Part of that may have been that his lower body strength wasn't as great as people might think(just speculation, but it makes sense) and the fact that he looked awkward dribbling the ball while backing in. As well as Wilt's own claim that he didn't want to overpower people and wanted to prove he was skilled.

[Manny98]

1967 Wilt is The greatest season anyone has ever played, at the very least in the top 3 with Jordan and Shaq.

Sets an FG% record, becomes the first real point-centre, is the keynote of Hannum's precursor to the triangle offence, and leads the Sixers to a record 68-13.


I don't know how much I need to say about this year, but I'll let you take a look at his game-log from the Playoffs:

1967 EDSF vs. Royals

G1 - 41 points, 23 rebounds, 5 assists, 63% FG

G2 - 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists, 67% FG

G3 - 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists, 62% FG

G4 - 18 points, 27 rebounds, 9 assists, 50% FG


Series Average: 28.0 ppg, 26.8 rpg, 11 apg, 61% FG

Oscar Robertson: 24.8 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 11.3 apg, 51.6% FG

He had as many assists as Oscar and killed him everywhere else!


1967 EDF vs. Celtics

G1 - 24 points, 32 rebounds, 12 assists, 12 blocks, 69% FG

G2 - 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks, 45% FG

G3 - 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 blocks, 57% FG

G4 - 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assists, at least 3 blocks, 44% FG

G5 - 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists 17 blocks, 63% FG


Series Average: 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6+ bpg, 56% FG

Bill Russell: 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 36% FG


1967 NBA Finals vs. Warriors

G1 - 16 points, 33 rebounds, 10 assists, 75% FG (including a game-saving block on Nate)

G2 - 10 points, 38 rebounds (26 in 1st half), 10 assists, 10 blocks, 40% FG

G3 - 26 points, 26 rebounds, 5 assists, 52% FG

G4 - 10 points, 27 rebounds, 8 assists, 11 blocks, 50% FG

G5 - 20 points, 24 rebounds, 4 assists, 60% FG

G6 - 24 points, 23 rebounds, 4 assists, 62% FG


Series Average: 17.6 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg, 56% FG

Nate Thurmond: 14.1 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 3.3 apg, 34% FG





That year, Wilt was fifth in scoring, first in rebounds, third in assists, and first in FG%. He was first in blocks too.

How many players can achieve that level of statistical domination on an elite team?

He would get the rebound, either throw an outlet or let Greer bring it up before he got the entry pass at the high post again. Facing the basket, he then hit cutters, used a handoff to a guard to set a screen or either posted up to devastating effect (68% from the field!!!).

Wilt was ungodly that year, there has never been anyone as good at basketball as Wilt was in 1967.

:roll:

First his stats are massively inflated due to the style of that era and the fact that he literally played 48 minutes a game so he's not close to putting up those numbers in today's NBA

2. He wasn't even the number 1 scoring option in that team, averaged 17ppg in the finals and a 25 PER for the playoffs which is good but a tier below Jordan and LeBrons best seasons

Wilt per 36 numbers in the 67 season

19 points 19 rebounds 6 assists with elite defense
16 points 22 rebounds 6 assists

Compare that to Nikola Jokics per 36 for this season

27 points 11 rebounds 9 assists

Take away the inflation and Wilts numbers start to look less impressive but I agree that 67 Wilt was the best all around Center ever if you combine offense + defense

[dankok8]

Wilt fans come with all sorts of excuses blaming injuries, coaches etc. for losses. Imagine if we gave other players that same treatment.

Kareem won 6 rings but could have won 10 rings if it wasn't for bad luck with injuries in the playoffs and finals. Oscar and McGlocklin hurt in 1972, Allen hurt in 1974, Kermit hurt in 1977, Magic hurt in 1981 + Magic/Nixon issues, Worthy and McAdoo hurt in 1983, Tragic Magic in 1984, Magic and Scott hurt in 1989. That's at least 2-3 more rings those injuries and teammate blunders cost him.

Jordan also won 6 rings and could have won like 9 rings with better luck. Pippen migraine in 1990 and then his father assassinated in 1993. If that never happened MJ never retires and wins 9 straight rings from 1990 to 1998.

Anyone can play the ridiculous game of hypotheticals. Wilt won 2 rings in 14 seasons. His fans should just own up to it. The man didn't play the game to the best of his ability. Is he the only one to blame? Of course not but to try and make excuses is ridiculous.

[SouBeachTalents]

Wilt fans come with all sorts of excuses blaming injuries, coaches etc. for losses. Imagine if we gave other players that same treatment.

Kareem won 6 rings but could have won 10 rings if it wasn't for bad luck with injuries in the playoffs and finals. Oscar and McGlocklin hurt in 1972, Allen hurt in 1974, Kermit hurt in 1977, Magic hurt in 1981 + Magic/Nixon issues, Worthy and McAdoo hurt in 1983, Tragic Magic in 1984, Magic and Scott hurt in 1989. That's at least 2-3 more rings those injuries and teammate blunders cost him.

Jordan also won 6 rings and could have won like 9 rings with better luck. Pippen migraine in 1990 and then his father assassinated in 1993. If that never happened MJ never retires and wins 9 straight rings from 1990 to 1998.

Anyone can play the ridiculous game of hypotheticals. Wilt won 2 rings in 14 seasons. His fans should just own up to it. The man didn't play the game to the best of his ability. Is he the only one to blame? Of course not but to try and make excuses is ridiculous.
Personally, I don't give Wilt too much shit for losing to the Celtics early on in his career. His team was completely overmatched and he came within literally 3 points of pulling off two colossal upsets against them. The true black mark on his career, arguably the worst of any top 10 player, was not winning a single title between 1968-70.

He was on the defending champs in '68, had a 3-1 lead against the Celtics in the ECF with HCA, and proceeds to blow the first 3-1 lead in NBA history. In Game 6 he scores 20 points on 6/21 & 8/22 from the FT line in an 8 point loss. Then in Game 7, Wilt scores just 14 points and goes 6/15 from the FT line, and in a game the Sixers would lose by just 4 points, he astonishingly doesn't attempt a single shot in the entire 2nd half.

The following season he once again finds himself with HCA against the Celtics, this time with West & Baylor on the Lakers. In the midst of West having a literal GOAT level Finals, Wilt has a 2011 LeBron like drop off in ppg, going from averaging 21 in the regular season to 12 in the Finals. In Game 4 with a chance to go up 3-1, Wilt scores 8 points & goes 2/11 from the FT line in a 1 point loss. Then in Game 7 with West having a 40 point triple double, Wilt goes 4/13 from the FT line in a game the Lakers lose by 2.

The following year the Lakers are back in the Finals, and after splitting the first 2 games Reed injures himself in Game 5. The Lakers proceed to blow a 13 point 2nd half lead, with Wilt attempting just 3 shots in the 2nd half despite going up against the Knicks backup center. After dropping 45 points to stave off elimination in Game 6, despite Wilt going up against a severely hampered Reed, Wilt attempts 11 less shots than he did in Game 6, scoring less than half his point total from the previous game while going 1/11 from the FT line.

Those could have EASILY been 3 additional titles, and Wilt incredibly didn't win once.

[dankok8]

Personally, I don't give Wilt too much shit for losing to the Celtics early on in his career. His team was completely overmatched and he came within literally 3 points of pulling off two colossal upsets against them. The true black mark on his career, arguably the worst of any top 10 player, was not winning a single title between 1968-70.

He was on the defending champs in '68, had a 3-1 lead against the Celtics in the ECF with HCA, and proceeds to blow the first 3-1 lead in NBA history. In Game 6 he scores 20 points on 6/21 & 8/22 from the FT line in an 8 point loss. Then in Game 7, Wilt scores just 14 points and goes 6/15 from the FT line, and in a game the Sixers would lose by just 4 points, he astonishingly doesn't attempt a single shot in the entire 2nd half.

The following season he once again finds himself with HCA against the Celtics, this time with West & Baylor on the Lakers. In the midst of West having a literal GOAT level Finals, Wilt has a 2011 LeBron like drop off in ppg, going from averaging 21 in the regular season to 12 in the Finals. In Game 4 with a chance to go up 3-1, Wilt scores 8 points & goes 2/11 from the FT line in a 1 point loss. Then in Game 7 with West having a 40 point triple double, Wilt goes 4/13 from the FT line in a game the Lakers lose by 2.

The following year the Lakers are back in the Finals, and after splitting the first 2 games Reed injures himself in Game 5. The Lakers proceed to blow a 13 point 2nd half lead, with Wilt attempting just 3 shots in the 2nd half despite going up against the Knicks backup center. After dropping 45 points to stave off elimination in Game 6, despite Wilt going up against a severely hampered Reed, Wilt attempts 11 less shots than he did in Game 6, scoring less than half his point total from the previous game while going 1/11 from the FT line.

Those could have EASILY been 3 additional titles, and Wilt incredibly didn't win once.

I totally agree. LIke I said numeous times before the 1968 to 1970 stretch is the serious black mark on Wilt's career.

[1987_Lakers]

What happens if it's tied?

[dankok8]

What happens if it's tied?

Hmm... let's get more votes to break the deadlock!

[SaintzFury13]

Jordan also won 6 rings and could have won like 9 rings with better luck. Pippen migraine in 1990 and then his father assassinated in 1993. If that never happened MJ never retires and wins 9 straight rings from 1990 to 1998.

Are we really so sure Jordan would have won 9 straight rings? I mean I'll give you 94 since Grant was still on the team, but Jordan was back already with the Bulls before the 95 playoffs and showed no real signs of rust by the time the playoffs were there. Perhaps Grant stays on the Bulls if Jordan's still there? Fine, but that's a hypothetical that we have no real way of knowing. At the most, we have to just assume that Grant still leaves and decides to go to Orlando, and Chicago without a Grant type of player simply is not a championship caliber team (something a lot of people tend to ignore).

[8Ball]

#4 is tied from Wilt vs Russell?

Give it to duncan, Duncan is just as great as they are.

[ClipperRevival]

https://c.tenor.com/-uKWiG9YwiYAAAAM/bill-russell.gif

[1987_Lakers]

https://c.tenor.com/-uKWiG9YwiYAAAAM/bill-russell.gif

Is this a vote?

[ClipperRevival]

Is this a vote?

Of course it is. Wilt's a choking little biatch.

[dankok8]

Are we really so sure Jordan would have won 9 straight rings? I mean I'll give you 94 since Grant was still on the team, but Jordan was back already with the Bulls before the 95 playoffs and showed no real signs of rust by the time the playoffs were there. Perhaps Grant stays on the Bulls if Jordan's still there? Fine, but that's a hypothetical that we have no real way of knowing. At the most, we have to just assume that Grant still leaves and decides to go to Orlando, and Chicago without a Grant type of player simply is not a championship caliber team (something a lot of people tend to ignore).

Of course we're not sure and that's why we don't engage in hypotheticals. Jordan won 6 titles and that's it. My point with that post is that there are no excuses and players are judged on what they actually accomplished.

I've spent this thread explaining why Russell is better (not more talented) than Wilt. Russell's impact primarily through defense often surpassed Wilt's overall impact. For all his gaudy numbers, Wilt often barely moved the needle on offense. I'm still waiting for a proper response to those points from anyone on this thread. coastalmarker99 just responded with excuses for Wilt. I can make excuses for every other pantheon member.

By the way Wilt also had instances of clearly good luck... Willis Reed going down early in Game 5 of the 1970 Finals was a fortunate break except he couldn't take advantage of it. The Bucks' Oscar and McGlocklin playing hurt in 1972 and Reed being out all year with injury were a fortunate break for Wilt's Lakers which that time they did take advantage of. Havlicek going down in the 1973 playoffs meant Wilt didn't have to face the juggernaut 68-win Celtics in the Finals... of course the Knicks beat Wilt's Lakers anyways. Those are just a few instances that come to mind.

[coastalmarker99]

Of course we're not sure and that's why we don't engage in hypotheticals. Jordan won 6 titles and that's it. My point with that post is that there are no excuses and players are judged on what they actually accomplished.

I've spent this thread explaining why Russell is better (not more talented) than Wilt. Russell's impact primarily through defense often surpassed Wilt's overall impact. For all his gaudy numbers, Wilt often barely moved the needle on offense. I'm still waiting for a proper response to those points from anyone on this thread. coastalmarker99 just responded with excuses for Wilt. I can make excuses for every other pantheon member.

By the way Wilt also had instances of clearly good luck... Willis Reed going down early in Game 5 of the 1970 Finals was a fortunate break except he couldn't take advantage of it. The Bucks' Oscar and McGlocklin playing hurt in 1972 and Reed being out all year with injury were a fortunate break for Wilt's Lakers which that time they did take advantage of. Havlicek going down in the 1973 playoffs meant Wilt didn't have to face the juggernaut 68-win Celtics in the Finals... of course the Knicks beat Wilt's Lakers anyways. Those are just a few instances that come to mind.


In Wilt's last seven years of his career in which he won two titles.


He missed two titles by one play ('69,'70) and three ('1968 1971 1973) because of injuries to key starters such as (West Baylor Hairston McMillan Cunningham Jackson )

[coastalmarker99]

Of course we're not sure and that's why we don't engage in hypotheticals. Jordan won 6 titles and that's it. My point with that post is that there are no excuses and players are judged on what they actually accomplished.

I've spent this thread explaining why Russell is better (not more talented) than Wilt. Russell's impact primarily through defense often surpassed Wilt's overall impact. For all his gaudy numbers, Wilt often barely moved the needle on offense. I'm still waiting for a proper response to those points from anyone on this thread. coastalmarker99 just responded with excuses for Wilt. I can make excuses for every other pantheon member.

By the way Wilt also had instances of clearly good luck... Willis Reed going down early in Game 5 of the 1970 Finals was a fortunate break except he couldn't take advantage of it. The Bucks' Oscar and McGlocklin playing hurt in 1972 and Reed being out all year with injury were a fortunate break for Wilt's Lakers which that time they did take advantage of. Havlicek going down in the 1973 playoffs meant Wilt didn't have to face the juggernaut 68-win Celtics in the Finals... of course the Knicks beat Wilt's Lakers anyways. Those are just a few instances that come to mind.

What is perhaps forgotten about the 1973 Lakers is that they were down a man.


Happy Hairston, who had put up 13ppg and 13rpg as their starting PF during their title-winning 1972 season, had gone down 28 games into the 72-73 season with a knee injury, having averaged 16ppg and 13rpg to that point.



He missed the remainder of the regular season and most of the post-season; he returned for limited minutes in the last game of the conference finals and two games in the finals, but he wasn't himself.



In the 28 RS games with Hairston, the team had gone 24-4(.85.7) with a MOV of +9.679, while without him they went 36-18(.66.6) with a MOV of +7.388.




You have to wonder, given three of the Lakers' four losses in the finals were by a margin of only 4-5 points, if the Lakers would've won back to titles had Hairston been 100% or West had been 100%



One more thing I would add was that 1973 Wilt, statistically speaking, is not significantly different than 1972 Wilt.

In fact, in a lot of areas, Wilt's stats are better in 1973.

He scored more efficiently in 1973, with the aforementioned +19.1% rTS and 72.7% FG compared with +10.6% rTS and 64.9% FG in 1972.

His .247 WS/48 in 1973 also tops his .219 from 1972.

His 1972 playoff performance is maybe a bit stronger,

[SaintzFury13]

Looks like Bill Russell won the tie breaker.

[Manny98]

Of course it is. Wilt's a choking little biatch.

:applause:

[dankok8]

In Wilt's last seven years of his career in which he won two titles.


He missed two titles by one play ('69,'70) and three ('1968 1971 1973) because of injuries to key starters such as (West Baylor Hairston McMillan Cunningham Jackson )

Yea but what about when opponents had injuries... Like Reed going down in Game 5 in 1970? Oscar and McGlocklin injured in 1972 as well as Kareem himself? Havlicek getting injured and Lakers avoid a monster Celtics team? Wilt also got plenty of breaks in his favor as did every other player in history.

[dankok8]

Official Vote Tally

Bill Russell - 12 (Dbrog, dankok8, Reggie43, jlip, kawhileonard2, Ryoka Narusawa, Manny98, 1987_Lakers, Magic is Magic, kawhileonard2, DevBooker'sMask, ClipperRevival)
Wilt Chamberlain - 11 (coastalmarker99, Thenameless, L. Kizzle, warriorfan, Overdrive, RRR3, StrongLurk, SaintzFury, SouBeachTalents, ELITEpower23, sdot_thadon)
Tim Duncan - 2 (8Ball, Jasper)

Russell wins. Thread #5 is now open.

[Wally450]

Bill Russell.

Edit: Didn't realize it was done.

[sdot_thadon]

I don't know why it feels like this thread stayed open until Russell won lol.

[coastalmarker99]

Of course it is. Wilt's a choking little biatch.

Wilt was not a choker


As here is Wilt's game seven averages

4- 5 W-L record


24.4 ppg (Regular season career average was 30.1 ppg)

26.7 rpg(Regular season career average was 22.9 rpg)

4.1 APG(Regular season career average was 4.4 APG)

62.6 FG%,(Regular season career average was .54.0 FG%)

45.1 FT%(Regular season career average was .51.1 FT%)

57.9 TS%.Regular season career average was 54.9 TS%)



And also here are Wilt's numbers in 23 of his elimination games in the postseason...13 of which came against HOF starting centers.



12-11 W-L record

31.1 ppg (Regular season career average was 30.1 ppg)

26.1 rpg (Regular season career average was 22.9 rpg)

3.4 APG (Regular season career average was 4.4 APG)

54.0 FG% (Regular season career average was .54.0 FG%)

BTW, that .54.0 came against post-season NBA's that averaged an FG% of .43.5... or over 10% higher than the post-season league average!

3 games of 50+ points

5 games of 40+ points (including a Finals 40+ elimination game)

13 games of 30+ points

6 games of 30+ rebounds

20 games of 20+ rebounds

BTW, that 31.1 ppg ranks just behind MJ (31.3 ppg) all-time

[dankok8]

I don't know why it feels like this thread stayed open until Russell won lol.

I didn't mind keeping it open longer but it was tied 11-11 for ages and then a vote came for Russell. I counted Wally450's vote as well so Russell won 13-11.

[coastalmarker99]

Yea but what about when opponents had injuries... Like Reed going down in Game 5 in 1970? Oscar and McGlocklin injured in 1972 as well as Kareem himself? Havlicek getting injured and Lakers avoid a monster Celtics team? Wilt also got plenty of breaks in his favor as did every other player in history.



The 1973 Lakers fully healthy could have beaten the 1973 Celtics in the finals.


They played them very closely in the regular season without one or Goodrich and Happy in four of the games they played against each other.



The Lakers in that finals matchup would have had the edge over the Celtics when it comes to the guards and rebounding.

[dankok8]

The 1973 Lakers fully healthy could have beaten the 1973 Celtics in the finals.


They played them very closely in the regular season without one or Goodrich and Happy in four of the games they played against each other.

The 1973 Celtics are on the short list of best teams never to win the title. Honestly I think the Lakers could have gotten swept. The much weaker Knicks beat them in 5 games. We'll never know I guess but at least on paper Hondo getting hurt was a major boon to both the Knicks and Lakers' chances that year.

[ELITEpower23]

I don't know why it feels like this thread stayed open until Russell won lol.

Yep. Dankok8 kept the LeBron voting thread open when everyone in existence damn well knows LeBron is #1 or #2 but he was trying to get more votes for other players even when LBJ was up like 10 to 4 :oldlol: He is trying to manipulate his own voting.

[outofstomach]

Yep. Dankok8 kept the LeBron voting thread open when everyone in existence damn well knows LeBron is #1 or #2 but he was trying to get more votes for other players even when LBJ was up like 10 to 4 :oldlol: He is trying to manipulate his own voting.more like you morons are upset he didn’t close it as soon as lebron secured more votes than MJ :lol go cry in the closet :lol

[ELITEpower23]

more like you morons are upset he didn’t close it as soon as lebron secured more votes than MJ :lol go cry in the closet :lol

Dankok8 alt spotted :oldlol:

[coastalmarker99]

The 1973 Celtics are on the short list of best teams never to win the title. Honestly I think the Lakers could have gotten swept. The much weaker Knicks beat them in 5 games. We'll never know I guess but at least on paper Hondo getting hurt was a major boon to both the Knicks and Lakers' chances that year.

In the regular season, the 1973 Lakers posted the highest SRS in the league and won the two seed.



In the first round they struggled a bit with the Bulls, taking 7 games to beat a +3.4 SRS team, and winning by only +2.9 points per game.


The Lakers shot below league average and only Wilt shot above +2% (on a 12/25/3 series). However, the Lakers’ excellent defence smothered the Bulls’ attack, forcing the team as a whole to shoot at -4.5%.

In the next series the Lakers would face the Golden State Warriors (led by Rick Barry and Nate Thurmond) who had just upset the Bucks in the first round. It is this series where the Lakers would shine, and it is largely the cause of their ranking.


The Lakers’ offense played well, with Jerry West posting a 26/5/8 (on +3.6%), Jim McMillian posting a 22/4/2 (on smoking +10.1% shooting) and Wilt posting a 7/24/4 (on +17.7% efficiency). But the Warriors’ offence was shut down, scoring ten less points a game than in the regular season.




Rick Barry shot -7.6%, Nate Thurmond shot -7.0%; only one starter shot above league average. The Lakers won the series by +14.2 points a game, which is a ton normally, but against a very good team (who had just beat the Bucks don’t forget) this is an exceptional showing.


But waiting for them in the Finals was the New York Knicks.

It didn’t go great. It was a brutal defensive battle with both offences struggling.


New York was unable to post any dominant performances but it was a capable team effort


(Clyde Frazier put up a 17/7/5 on +1%, Bill Bradley put up a 19/5/3 on -1.4%, Willis Reed put up a 16/9/3 on +2% and Earl Monroe put up a 16/3/4 on +5.8%).




But the Lakers couldn’t get anything going. an injured Jerry West was held to a 21/3/5 on -1.1%, while a hurt Jim McMillian struggled on a 20/5/2 on -7.2%; of the starting roster only Gail Goodrich shot above league average (+1.9%).




In the final game West shot a putrid -17% and the Knicks ran away with it in five (3.8 points per game). It was a sad end to a great team.



But their whipping of the Warriors in the Conference Finals were a testament to how good they were capable of being.