THE GREAT DEBATE: The #2 Greatest Player of All-Time

[Gotterdammerung]

Yup. Best argument takes the spot, so naturally that player isn't eligible for the next spot.

Then why the hell am I arguing for Russell?

And why wouldn't anyone simply re-post their choice until that player wins that slot?

ISH logic defeats even rational arguments.

[Owl]

Then why the hell am I arguing for Russell?

And why wouldn't anyone simply re-post their choice until that player wins that slot?

ISH logic defeats even rational arguments.

OP has posted about the format in his initial thread, and has suggested somewhere that you can re-enter your previous posts.
Thread: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=277257
Though if he's given feedback suggesting specific arguments are not persuasive you might wish to revise your arguments, or alternatively stop posting in the threads depending on your opinion of OP and your own mood at the time.

[DatAsh]

Then why the hell am I arguing for Russell?

And why wouldn't anyone simply re-post their choice until that player wins that slot?

ISH logic defeats even rational arguments.

His logic is correct. Who do you feel should be ranked at number 1?

[DatAsh]

OP has posted about the format in his initial thread, and has suggested somewhere that you can re-enter your previous posts.
Thread: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=277257
Though if he's given feedback suggesting specific arguments are not persuasive you might wish to revise your arguments, or alternatively stop posting in the threads depending on your opinion of OP and your own mood at the time.

I'd actually really like to hear a good argument for Wilt. He's without a doubt one of the hardest all time greats to make a good case for(I don't mean that in a bad way) because of the eratic nature of his career, and the drastically different roles he played. You really have to know the ins and outs of Chamberlain's career to be able to accurately discern what was going on at the time to undestand why he won/lost when he did.

I have him ranked #3 all time after Jordan and Russell, so I'll probably be attempting to put forth a case for him in the next thread, but I do feel like theres other people out there that haven't spoken up yet that are more capable than myself. Where's JLauber when you need him?

[Owl]

The case for Wilton Norman Chamberlain (posited as somewhat as a

[DatAsh]

The case for Wilton Norman Chamberlain (posited as somewhat as a “versus Russell” because there have been multiple Russell advocates, though personally I think Chamberlain over Jabbar is closer and a tougher argument)

The most dominant player ever.
He was arguably the most dominant scorer leading by an extra 32% (approx) on the next top scorer twice (or 60% in ’62 if you don’t count Elgin Baylor who played 48 games). Michael’s greatest lead was 28% more than Nique in ’87, his next biggest lead 14% (again over Nique in ’88) is a smaller advantage than four of Wilt’s seasons. So adjusting for pace and minutes he might not be at Jordan’s level but then again he might. Chamberlain was also consistently in the top 10 in true shooting %, something Jordan only achieved once (in 1989).

He’s the most dominant rebounder who wasn’t a specialist and has 2,304 rebounds more than any other player ever collected.

He led the league in assists (though not apg), and still stands as not only the only center, but the only non-point guard to do so.

To be at the top on the pantheon you need to have no substantial areas of your game that are only middling. Bill Russell’s offensive game was, bluntly, middling. Unexceptional points per game, slightly low points per minute, spent several years below the league average field goal percentage despite being a center, and a low usage one (took less than one shot every 3 minutes), good passer, a lousy free throw shooter, though a little better than Wilt, and a good offensive rebounder. In total his offensive game was okay but not remarkable enough to warrant being ranked over Wilt (or indeed Jabbar) even though he was the greatest defender ever.
Russell has the MVP edge. But in the years they were both in the league it’s 4 each. And that’s just the player vote for MVP (Wilt might have irritated a few of his peers). Wilt made the all-league team 7 times during that period, Russell just twice. Wilt had two other claims for MVPs. In’64 it went to Oscar Robertson, but Wilt claimed the U.S. Basketball Writers’ Association MVP (we don’t have full records for this), and in 1962 (when Russell claimed the MVP) Wilt won the Metropolitan Sportwriters Sam Davis Memorial Award [NBA MVP] (again records are incomplete). But in no cases did any other player win any MVP type award (of those we are aware of), or take the center spot on the all-NBA First Team when Wilt won his official MVPs. When Wilt won the MVP he was the clear cut best. In the Wilt era Russell was only decisively superior in ’63 and ’65, wheras Wilt has four such years.
Ah but surely Russell outplayed Wilt in the playoffs.
Well head to head their numbers were
Chamberlain: 25.7ppg, 28.4 rpg
Russell: 14.9 ppg, 25.4rpg
And though I don’t have the numbers I’d be willing to bet Wilt shot better (his career playoff fg% is 52.2% to Russell’s 43%). But surely Russell raised his game, his points increased etc. Well some years, his productivity didn’t shift that much though as his career points per36 is the same in the playoffs as in the regular season (12.8). This in itself is an achievement against tougher competition. But the much hyped Russell extra scoring gear for the playoffs seems to be at least partially a mirage based on extra minutes.

There’s a suggestion that Russell did what he needed to, or what he was asked to do to win. This is true. But there is sometimes the implication that Russell could have done more, that Russell had the unique ability that if he had chosen to he could have defied Dean Oliver Skill curve and gone from (slightly?) below average usage, average efficiency (lowish for a center) to scoring superstar if that were what was required. Simply put, he could not, or he would have done so. Russell was certainly integral to the Celtics but this was not a one way street, the low roster turnover, the elite coaching, the elite talent that the Celtics provided a culture (to which Russell undoubtedly contributed significantly) that enabled the Celtics to win.

There is the myth that Wilt was a greedy stat padder, but he too was fulfilling the roles asked of him by his coaches. He was just required to do more. If his numbers had been empty would the Warriors have won 49 games and lost only 31 in Wilt’s 50ppg team, or carry a team to four seasons winning at least 58% of their games.

Goliath could not win alone, but he won two titles in a dominant fashion going through two dominant defending champs (the Celtics who added Bailey Howell and actually improved their record six games going 60-21 despite their new powerhouse competitors) and the Milwaukee Bucks (who compiled the greatest single season SRS in ’71 and the greatest non-title winning SRS in ’72). Had the Warriors retained their full core healthy core (especially Cunningham but also a healthy Jackson, Wilt and maybe even Costello from the prior year) I believe they would have bested the Celtics and perhaps stayed together. With a team of quality and a team that fit (Wilt was beyond his apex anyway, but the Laker teams with Baylor and Wilt did not represent a team with synchronicity, and coach van Breda Kolff made it worse in his year as coach by insisting on wedging Wilt into his motion offense, rather than accommodating his new star).

Was Wilt easy to “handle”? No. He was complex, and if he didn’t respect his coach (i.e. usually ex-pros popular with the fanbase but no prior coaching experience and no later coaching success, or an inflexible system coach who didn’t want Wilt) then your team might not be too harmonious. But with a respected/good coach he nearly unseated the Celtics with what had been a losing team prior to his arrival and with talented and balanced squads he could (and did) play a large role in overcoming truly great teams. His team accolades aren’t what they might have been if he had landed in a Celtics-like environment (coaching, talent, balance, low turnover), but in some cases the stats, accolades and awards even the amount teams were willing to pay him show must show that Wilt was if not the greatest player at least the greatest center and a worthy claimant to the number two spot on the all time list.

Overall, great post.

One thing that often get's misconstrued in my opinion about Wilt's scoring is the reason behind his often drastic ppg drops from RS to PS. I can't find the quote I'm looking for right now, but I'm sure I've read at least several quotes that attribute that drop to a general post season coaching strategy. Maybe someone else can chime in with the quote I'm looking for. I have a database of Wilt quotes, but I don't have that one.

To me, one of Wilt's greatest strengths is his absolutely monolithic peak in 67'. I see 67' Wilt as an almost guaranteed championship barring him being on an absolutely bottom of the barrell team.

I've decided to start working on another Russell argument, not as a counter argument to this, but just in general. Hopefully I can get it in on time.

[Gotterdammerung]

OP has posted about the format in his initial thread, and has suggested somewhere that you can re-enter your previous posts.
Thread: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=277257
Though if he's given feedback suggesting specific arguments are not persuasive you might wish to revise your arguments, or alternatively stop posting in the threads depending on your opinion of OP and your own mood at the time.

Actually, I won't repost my post in the other thread, cuz that argument was for Wilt at #1.

For #2, even though Owl already posted a great argument for Wilton Norman Chamberlain, here's mine, which is an argument AGAINST the common criticisms of Wilt playing in an "inflated era":

I don't give much credit to "pace," or the balderdash espoused by paceologists like most ISH posters here. Why?

1. There's no accurate way to adjust for the relative competition that the guys in the 60s or 70s and the modern players faced. Since the 60s/70s was a smaller league with fewer players per team, then it follows to reason that they played against tougher competition. Then again, the counterpoint is that the modern player is blessed with superior knowledge about nutrition, training, and he faces more players from different countries due to the global expansion, so he faces stiffer competition. Now, one can argue for either side, but the best position is neither one. Moreover, neither position can account for the possibility whether the best athletes were more likely to play professional basketball in the 60s/70s as opposed to the modern era.

2. As for the concept of pace itself - people are not robots. Making more field goals and more free throws over 80-82 game season requires more energy and increases the likelihood of fatigue and injury. Therefore, the capability of a Kobe Bryant scoring 35 points per game in 2006 tells us exactly zippo about his ability to score 45 or 55 in 1962 at a faster pace, even without factoring in the difference of competition and diet, nutrition, travel/schedule/equipment/gyms/etc.

3. The NBA has been here since 1947, but nobody has even come with a spitting distance of Chamberlain's statistics - not just in scoring but also rebounding and passing. If pace was the only factor, then it stands to reason that during higher pace eras, there would be far more examples of other guys competing with Chamberlain in the 60s. The fact is that Chamberlain exceeded 40 points per game in 4 different years, but nobody has even come close to averaging 40 ppg once.

Conclusion: Pace is not a sufficient explanation for how far ahead Chamberlain's accomplishments are of other players, but also how much more dominant his performances are than the record setting performances of the very greatest ever in other sports. Example: Gretsky scored 92 goals in 1982. In order to exceed Gretzky by Chamberlain margins (36% over Jordan's highest scoring season), a NHL player would have to score 125 goals.

Incidentally, the average height of NBA players over the past 40 years has pretty much remained consistent. If you take the height of guys on the 1972 Lakers and the 2006 Miami Heat, there were indistinguishable.

[Legends66NBA7]

Great posts by Owl and Gotterdammerung, although:

The most dominant player ever.

I only exempt that and reserve it for Michael Jordan. Jordan dominated all forms in the regular season, playoffs, and finals than Chamberlain did.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Outscored by Sam Jones in all 4 game 7s vs Boston. 2-4 in the Finals with massive chokes. That's what you call "Most dominant"

[Asukal]

It's kind of funny how we see people arguing for Russell or Wilt but we don't see anyone talking about Mikan or Petit or Sharman and etc. What makes those 50s guys inferior? Skin color? Earliest era? No one alive has seen them play?

[DatAsh]

It's kind of funny how we see people arguing for Russell or Wilt but we don't see anyone talking about Mikan or Petit or Sharman and etc. What makes those 50s guys inferior? Skin color? Earliest era? No one alive has seen them play?

It wasn't as if there eras were that far apart, and it was pretty clear at the time that Russell and Wilt were in a completely different league than those guys.

[DatAsh]

Does anyone know if I can straight up post into this forum from a text editor? Or will I need to do significant post paste editing to make it come out right?

[jlip]

It's kind of funny how we see people arguing for Russell or Wilt but we don't see anyone talking about Mikan or Petit or Sharman and etc. What makes those 50s guys inferior? Skin color? Earliest era? No one alive has seen them play?

Of those mentioned only Mikan IMO would have a legitimate case for top 5 all time. The knock against him is definitely the fact that his period of dominance was before the shot clock and very short lived.

[SyRyanYang]

Wow this is so original.

[Deuce Bigalow]

It wasn't as if there eras were that far apart, and it was pretty clear at the time that Russell and Wilt were in a completely different league than those guys.

Mikan won 5 Championships in the NBA, 2 in another league before there was such thing as the NBA, so how is exactly are they in a different league?
Mikan dominated more than Wilt when it mattered, rings are proof of that, and don't use the teammates excuses because Wilt played with 13 HOFers, and in 12/14 seasons had at least 2 HOFers on his team.