Wembanyama will be the GOAT

[Uncontroversial]

He'll surpass MJ sooner than you think, and people will forget lebron ever existed since he was simply a marketing experiment and was never close to being the actual GOAT.

[LeBronMonsterDunk]

Blake Griffin will be the GOAT

He'll surpass MJ sooner than you think, and people will forget lebron ever existed since he was simply a marketing experiment and was never close to being the actual GOAT.

[Alex_Murphy]

he kinda looks like a young Wilt Chamberlain with some of his facial features

[Uncontroversial]

[Robceltsfan]

Jesus, Sadmess….at least let him get a few games in before you give him your patented kiss of death…

[Havlicekstealsit]

Jesus, Sadmess….at least let him get a few games in before you give him your patented kiss of death…

Kenyon Martin went off on these so-called experts ranking Wemby & Scoot over Russell Westbrook. I get Russ has lost a step but the man just had a triple dub season in '21. Yet these "experts" are ranking 19 year olds over him who haven't even played a minute in the league.

[Uncontroversial]

Jesus, Sadmess….at least let him get a few games in before you give him your patented kiss of death…

Kenyon Martin went off on these so-called experts ranking Wemby & Scoot over Russell Westbrook. I get Russ has lost a step but the man just had a triple dub season in '21. Yet these "experts" are ranking 19 year olds over him who haven't even played a minute in the league.

Westbrook has no winning impact. Wemby is going to win a shitload of championships and will need very little help

[thedangerouskitchen]

Too bad they didn't change the rules to let Wilt shoot FT's from 5 feet out... he probably wins a couple/few more rings if that were the case.



And I'm curious what rules they changed to make the game "easier" for MJ to dominate, considering he was already a Top 5 player in the game in his rookie season.



Wilt was just a bitter man, is all.

[Uncontroversial]

Too bad they didn't change the rules to let Wilt shoot FT's from 5 feet out... he probably wins a couple/few more rings if that were the case.



And I'm curious what rules they changed to make the game "easier" for MJ to dominate, considering he was already a Top 5 player in the game in his rookie season.



Wilt was just a bitter man, is all.

MJ never responded to what Wilt said. He knew it was true.

[xer0]

I consider Wilt Chamberlain the best player of all time, you can only rank players on how well they performed in their particular era, and for his era, Wilt was far more dominant than any other player since his time. He had entire teams game planning to neutralize him and he still dominated most of the time, people make way too big a deal of his dropped playoff numbers, it's not that big of a sample and it's a bullshit argument to prop up the vastly inferior player bill Russell. I can't think of another player that commanded that kind of respect in history vs his peers. Pro basketball is way past it's peak and it's only gonna get worse from here.

[CleveTown™]

He'll be lucky to be as good as Duncan.

[Robceltsfan]

I consider Wilt Chamberlain the best player of all time, you can only rank players on how well they performed in their particular era, and for his era, Wilt was far more dominant than any other player since his time. He had entire teams game planning to neutralize him and he still dominated most of the time, people make way too big a deal of his dropped playoff numbers, it's not that big of a sample and it's a bullshit argument to prop up the vastly inferior player bill Russell. I can't think of another player that commanded that kind of respect in history vs his peers. Pro basketball is way past it's peak and it's only gonna get worse from here.

The older I’ve gotten, the lower I’ve ranked Wilt. Inflated statistics from an inflated era.

[PhutureDynasty]

I consider Wilt Chamberlain the best player of all time, you can only rank players on how well they performed in their particular era, and for his era, Wilt was far more dominant than any other player since his time. He had entire teams game planning to neutralize him and he still dominated most of the time, people make way too big a deal of his dropped playoff numbers, it's not that big of a sample and it's a bullshit argument to prop up the vastly inferior player bill Russell. I can't think of another player that commanded that kind of respect in history vs his peers. Pro basketball is way past it's peak and it's only gonna get worse from here.

Based.

[PhutureDynasty]

I consider Wilt Chamberlain the best player of all time, you can only rank players on how well they performed in their particular era, and for his era, Wilt was far more dominant than any other player since his time. He had entire teams game planning to neutralize him and he still dominated most of the time, people make way too big a deal of his dropped playoff numbers, it's not that big of a sample and it's a bullshit argument to prop up the vastly inferior player bill Russell. I can't think of another player that commanded that kind of respect in history vs his peers. Pro basketball is way past it's peak and it's only gonna get worse from here.

The older I’ve gotten, the lower I’ve ranked Wilt. Inflated statistics from an inflated era.

By that logic, Russell should drop on your list as far as you drop Wilt.

After all, same era and same opportunity for said stats.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Bush4Ever.]

I don't think anyone really denies that neither Wilt nor Russell would be grabbing 20-25 rebounds a game or blocking eight shots a game in the modern NBA or even any post-merger era.

The disconnect with Wilt mostly relates to understand how his personal offense didn't influence team offense in the manner a casual reading of his statistics would imply. Without getting *too* deep in the weeds right now, consider two adjacent seasons, one where Wilt played "as Wilt" and one where he played "as Russell" (roughly). The main offensive teammates were the same in both years:

1966: 25.2 shots/game, 54 percent shooting, 33.5 ppg, team offense = 95.3 points/100 possessions and 6th/9 in NBA.
1967: 14.2 shots/game, 68 percent shooting, 24.1 ppg, team offense = 101.5 points/100 possessions and 1st/10 in NBA.

The playoff factor is also a real factor, spread over 160 games, and constant at a within-year level of analysis as well. There is a context to apply (going against better defenses, probably having to play Russell a disproportionate percentage of the time, etc....) but the within-year results were consistent and meaningful.:

Drop in PPG RS vs. Playoffs, 1960-1973:

1960: 12% drop
1961: 4% drop
1962: 31% drop
1963: NA
1964: 6% drop
1965: 16% drop
1966: 16% drop
1967: 10% drop
1968: 2% drop
1969: 32% drop
1970: 19% drop
1971: 12% drop
1972: 1% drop
1973: 21% drop

Difference in FG/FT percentage RS vs. Playoffs, 1960-1973 (negative = lower in playoffs vs. RS):
FG FT
1960: 7.6% -23.5%
1961: -7.9% 9.7%
1962: -7.7% 3.8%
1964: 3.6% -10.5%
1965: 3.9% 20.5%
1966: -5.7% -19.7%
1967: -15.2% -12.0%
1968: -10.3% 0.0%
1969: -6.5% -12.1%
1970: -3.3% -9.0%
1971: -16.5% -4.3%
1972: -13.3% 16.6%
1973: -24.1% -2.0%

The interesting thing is that Wilt is probably *underrated* historically in terms of how much his defensive impacted winning. Wilt was an all-time level defensive player. Not on Russell's level (or Hakeem), but absolutely in the next tier down from that. Most analytics showed a consistent, strong positive impact in his career on that front, ditto with being a monster rebounder. Wilt time-machined to the modern day would still have phenomenal impact defensively (hopefully he wouldn't gain too much muscle mass and stay relatively lithe and quick like he was earlier in his career), but his offensive game would be obsolete.

Of course, this is all on the margins. Whatever his flaws were, they took him from being an A+++ player to an A+ player...at the end of the day the guy is a legend and top 10 player all-time (although at the back end of the top 10 IMO).

[PhutureDynasty]

Make sure you find some napkins.

Spoiler:

For the record, I agree with you.

[Robceltsfan]

I consider Wilt Chamberlain the best player of all time, you can only rank players on how well they performed in their particular era, and for his era, Wilt was far more dominant than any other player since his time. He had entire teams game planning to neutralize him and he still dominated most of the time, people make way too big a deal of his dropped playoff numbers, it's not that big of a sample and it's a bullshit argument to prop up the vastly inferior player bill Russell. I can't think of another player that commanded that kind of respect in history vs his peers. Pro basketball is way past it's peak and it's only gonna get worse from here.

The older I’ve gotten, the lower I’ve ranked Wilt. Inflated statistics from an inflated era.

By that logic, Russell should drop on your list as far as you drop Wilt.

After all, same era and same opportunity for said stats.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Stats can be inflated.

MVP’s and championships cannot.

[AlaskaHawks]

The older I’ve gotten, the lower I’ve ranked Wilt. Inflated statistics from an inflated era.

By that logic, Russell should drop on your list as far as you drop Wilt.

After all, same era and same opportunity for said stats.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Stats can be inflated.

MVP’s and championships cannot.

By virtue of having 6/8 teams in the league and having far more talent than any other team, I'd argue otherwise. His title count is massively inflated due to era.

[PhutureDynasty]

By that logic, Russell should drop on your list as far as you drop Wilt.

After all, same era and same opportunity for said stats.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Stats can be inflated.

MVP’s and championships cannot.

By virtue of having 6/8 teams in the league and having far more talent than any other team, I'd argue otherwise. His title count is massively inflated due to era.

Absolute truth bomb of epic proportions.

[Bush4Ever.]

The idea of ring inflation is offset to some degree by the fact that his series winning percentage is so high (93% at 27-2, and he missed a chunk of the first series loss), and that he won towards the end of his career with worse teams than his opposition (the 69 Celtics had to play against HCA in *each* playoff series and still won).

Just for my own curiosity, I calculated the average winning percentage (RS) of Russell's playoff opponents.

It was 59.9 percent (little more than a 49 win pace).

That's slightly better than the opponent's winning percentage for the 1991 Bulls (58.2 percent). Probably worse than others for the Bulls when the East had a good team to face in the ECSFs.

The Nuggets last year won a title playing teams that ranged from 42 to 45 wins. In a 30 team league.

It would be interesting to study that year-over-year to see how the RS winning percentages of Russell opponents fared vs. Jordan vs. Magic and Bird and whoever else.

Russell:
11 Rings. 59.9 percent opponent RS winning percentage. 27-2 overall playoff record.