Most Dominant athlete: Wayne Gretzky vs Wilt Chamberlain

[WingsFan95]

You're right. Being the best player on a team that won 11 rings during his 13 year career and beating Wilt 7 out of 8 times in the playoffs when they guarded each other doesn't matter.

By what margin was Russell the best on his team exactly though? He was the better defensive player, but his offense was consistently 3-5th. His win share lead the team in 10 seasons but that includes some years of 11.3, 11.7, 12.3, 12.9, 13, etc.

He just wasn't as valuable to his teams as Wilt. Arguably ever.

I mentioned Sam Jones earlier. He had win shares of 12.8, 10 and two seasons of 9.6. Several other players had win shares of 7+ during Russell's tenure.

The 63-64 Warriors I mentioned earlier, improving 17 wins from the previous year, here's the win share of that team:

Chamberlain: 25
Meschery: 7.5
Attles: 5.3
Rodgers: 4.0
Hightower : 4.0


The margin of talent between Chamberlain's teams (especially before L.A.) and Russell's is quite significant. In a sport like Basketball, the better TEAM often wins over the one with the better star. Still, often the margins of defeat were small and that's a testament to Wilt basically carrying his teams to contend against a team of all-stars.

Yes, Russell was arguably the best player on a stacked team, while Wilt was the best player on a marginal team. What needs to be understood is the percentages. Those percentages are often cited off win share and team performance. To put it more simply:

Contributions of Team A
Player #1: 28%
Player #2: 22%
Player #3: 19%
Player #4: 18%
Player #5: 13%

Contributions of Team B
Player #1: 55%
Player #2: 18%
Player #3: 11%
Player #4: 8%
Player #5: 8%

Now consider that Team B wins almost as much as Team A. Who is the better #1 player?

 

[Thenameless]

Jordan wasn't too far off where he was as a player on the second three-peat teams by the 1995 playoffs.

The often overlooked key to trouncing Orlando in 1996 was having Rodman, the best rebounder in history, and the Magic not having Grant. All of a sudden the defensive matchups work in Chicago's favour and the Bulls outrebound Orlando by 50%.

The favoured narrative seems to be Jordan was rusty in 1995, but had recovered by 1996 to three-peat by himself. His supporting cast was one of the best in history.

Wilt is the best rebounder in history by quite a margin. Rodman is amazing for his size.

 

[Thenameless]

What about Bird vs. Magic? Who is better?

This one can go back and forth for ages. I'd put it down to what your team needs more. From scratch, it's too even to call.

I'm a Laker fan that dislikes the Celtics.

 

[Thenameless]

I'd say it's pretty much even.

The Lakers were more stacked than the Celtics but it wasn't the margin of Russell/Wilt. It depends how highly you rate Kareem as he was 32 when Magic came in. The 80s Celtics had a 3 headed monster and some nice secondary players, while the Lakers had more depth.

I never like ranking the two but I'd probably go Magic. He could score as well as Bird while being able to setup his teammates. His rebounding wasn't bad either. Basically a triple double threat.

Yup. I think the 80's Lakers were deeper than the 80's Celtics for the most part, but the 86 Celtics were the best team out of all of them. I hate saying it as a Lakers fan, but I still think the 86 Celtics are the best team of all time. They would own the earlier Celtic teams with Russell, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, and Jordan's Bulls. All 5 of their starters were all-stars that year, and they had Bill Walton coming off the bench - sick.

 

[Thenameless]

You're right. Being the best player on a team that won 11 rings during his 13 year career and beating Wilt 7 out of 8 times in the playoffs when they guarded each other doesn't matter.

Wilt outplayed Russell. The Celtics outplayed the Warriors. Or are you also saying that Muller outplayed Gretzky in 93?

 

[Ishdul]

Wilt is the best rebounder in history by quite a margin. Rodman is amazing for his size.

When Rodman played the amount of available rebounds were a lot lower because teams played at a slower pace with higher field goal percentages, but Rodman's rebound rate is the highest of all-time.

 

[Thenameless]

When Rodman played the amount of available rebounds were a lot lower because teams played at a slower pace with higher field goal percentages, but Rodman's rebound rate is the highest of all-time.

I guess we'll never actually know, but if Wilt and Rodman had to go head-to-head on rebounding I'd go with the 7'1" Goliath with an albatross' wingspan that was a college high jumping champion.

 

[Ishdul]

I guess we'll never actually know, but if Wilt and Rodman had to go head-to-head on rebounding I'd go with the 7'1" Goliath with an albatross' wingspan that was a college high jumping champion.

Couldn't you say something similar about Rodman vs. the 7 foot goliaths with ridiculous wingspans who could jump out the gym that he consistently did outrebound? Of course, Rodman himself had a crazy wingspan and phenomenal leaping abilities himself.

 

[Thenameless]

Couldn't you say something similar about Rodman vs. the 7 foot goliaths with ridiculous wingspans who could jump out the gym that he consistently did outrebound? Of course, Rodman himself had a crazy wingspan and phenomenal leaping abilities himself.

No you couldn't. The best centres of the 80's and 90's were not at Wilt's level. Early 70's Kareem at his peak was a little better than guys like Ewing, Robinson, and Olajuwon. A past-his-prime Wilt could give peak Kareem a really hard time.

After he retired from basketball, Wilt became an exceptional volleyball player - being voted to that sport's Hall of Fame as well. It's a sport where height, jumping, and timing are all crucial - all elements of great rebounding.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

No you couldn't. The best centres of the 80's and 90's were not at Wilt's level. Early 70's Kareem at his peak was a little better than guys like Ewing, Robinson, and Olajuwon. A past-his-prime Wilt could give peak Kareem a really hard time. ...

Of course you could. Rodman competed against better athletes than Wilt did. Olujawon and Robinson had footwork and moves that had never been seen before at the center position and that Wilt never faced.

Regarding the points make Wilt better Russell argument, that's similar to saying that Gartner was better than Mario, Messier, and Yzerman, because he scored more goals than them. It's similar to saying that Gervin and Wikins are better than Duncan, Havlicek, Magic, and Stockton, because they scored more points than them.

 

[Voight]

Yup. I think the 80's Lakers were deeper than the 80's Celtics for the most part, but the 86 Celtics were the best team out of all of them. I hate saying it as a Lakers fan, but I still think the 86 Celtics are the best team of all time. They would own the earlier Celtic teams with Russell, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, and Jordan's Bulls. All 5 of their starters were all-stars that year, and they had Bill Walton coming off the bench - sick.

The Bill Walton you mentioned was just an average bench player. He was 36 and averaged 7.6 PPG, 2.1 APG and 7 RPG. At that point he was merely a Robert Parrish-on-the-Bulls type.

I guess we'll never actually know, but if Wilt and Rodman had to go head-to-head on rebounding I'd go with the 7'1" Goliath with an albatross' wingspan that was a college high jumping champion.

He may have the height advantage but Rodman played like a honey badger. He knew he was undersized but he still fight tooth and nail for the rebounds and came away with them a lot of the time. He wouldn't give up and just kept fighting until the ball was in his hands.

No you couldn't. The best centres of the 80's and 90's were not at Wilt's level. Early 70's Kareem at his peak was a little better than guys like Ewing, Robinson, and Olajuwon. A past-his-prime Wilt could give peak Kareem a really hard time.

After he retired from basketball, Wilt became an exceptional volleyball player - being voted to that sport's Hall of Fame as well. It's a sport where height, jumping, and timing are all crucial - all elements of great rebounding.

You're forgetting Rodman also had stiff competition with Barkley, Mutumbo, Mourning and Malone.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

The Bill Walton you mentioned was just an average bench player. He was 36 and averaged 7.6 PPG, 2.1 APG and 7 RPG. At that point he was merely a Robert Parrish-on-the-Bulls type. ...

NBA Finals MVP (1977)
NBA Most Valuable Player (1978)
2× NBA All-Star (1977–1978)
All-NBA First Team (1978)
All-NBA Second Team (1977)
2× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1977–1978)
NBA rebounding leader (1977)
NBA blocks leader (1977)
No. 32 retired by Portland Trail Blazers
2× NCAA champion (1972–1973)
2× NCAA Final Four Most Outstanding Player (1972–1973)
3× National college player of the year (1972–1974)
3× Consensus first-team All-American (1972–1974)
No. 32 retired by UCLA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Walton

Agreed. He was great in Portland from 74-78 plus his legendary college career playing for John Wooden at UCLA is what got him in the Basketball Hall of Fame. There is no NBA Hall of Fame.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Wilt outplayed Russell. The Celtics outplayed the Warriors. Or are you also saying that Muller outplayed Gretzky in 93?

i think it's more accurate to say that guy carbonneau outplayed gretzky in '93.

 

[WingsFan95]

Regarding the points make Wilt better Russell argument, that's similar to saying that Gartner was better than Mario, Messier, and Yzerman, because he scored more goals than them. It's similar to saying that Gervin and Wikins are better than Duncan, Havlicek, Magic, and Stockton, because they scored more points than them.

It's not, because:

Wilt Chamberlain played more games than Russell and averaged significantly higher scoring as well as field goal percentage and even rebounds (which was a focus of Russell).

Chamberlain & Russell both played the same position.

Your examples stem from comparing different positions (Wilkins to Stockton) and accumulative totals. Chamberlain was on average better than Russell in every facet while playing more games, lowering his final averages. On top of that, playing on consistently worse teams, by a margin.

 

[Voight]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Walton

Agreed. He was great in Portland from 74-78 plus his legendary college career playing for John Wooden at UCLA is what got him in the Basketball Hall of Fame. There is no NBA Hall of Fame.

That's taken out of context. I know who Walton is, fantastic player.

But in 1986, he was an average bench player.

 

[Ogopogo*]

there is no argument for gretzky being any lower than second best of all time.
.

There's no valid argument for Gretzky being anything lower than first.

 

[Wrath]

No you couldn't. The best centres of the 80's and 90's were not at Wilt's level. Early 70's Kareem at his peak was a little better than guys like Ewing, Robinson, and Olajuwon. A past-his-prime Wilt could give peak Kareem a really hard time.

After he retired from basketball, Wilt became an exceptional volleyball player - being voted to that sport's Hall of Fame as well. It's a sport where height, jumping, and timing are all crucial - all elements of great rebounding.

The 90s was considered the golden age of centers.

Natural that the statheads of HFB would flock to Wilt though, not surprised at all.

 

[Ogopogo*]

The 90s was considered the golden age of centers.

Natural that the statheads of HFB would flock to Wilt though, not surprised at all.

The main criticism of Wilt is that he focused on his own personal stats and breaking personal records - often at the expense of team success. So, are his records impressive or just the result of selfish play?

 

[Thenameless]

The Bill Walton you mentioned was just an average bench player. He was 36 and averaged 7.6 PPG, 2.1 APG and 7 RPG. At that point he was merely a Robert Parrish-on-the-Bulls type.

Bill Walton was already far removed from his days of dominating the NBA - agreed. But he was from an average bench player. He won the NBA's 6th Man of the Year award in the 86 season, which makes him the very best of all the bench players.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Add Babe Ruth to the discussion.

Going from a great pitcher to hitting more home runs than any other team did combined is certainly a feat.

Ruth
Gretzky
Chamberlain
Brown

For the top 4 NA sports.

 

[WingsInRed]

If we're just talking about pure statistical dominance it's this cricket player:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bradman

I read somewhere that the difference between his test batting average and the second place guys is equal to if Gretzky had 4,000 points instead of 2,857..

 

[MLSE]

Wilts numbers are inflated like no other. Things like wilts usage and pace of the league have to be considered.

 

[simon bedford]

There is something wrong with all of the top 4 athelets picked above

Ruth is the most obvious, he played in a small segregated league at a time when other leagues held almost as much talent ( he came from the orioles who sold him for much needed cash ,but they still had mlb level pitching talent even after Ruth left).saying Ruth was the best baseball player ever suggests that baseball did not increase by leaps in bounds in the decades that followed. Statically against the field of competitors at his time , Ruth was the best of all time,same with Gretzky ( though not sure you can make the same claims for the other two listed) but if you adjust the sport to a different era how would they fair? How did Wayne do in the clutch and grabby mid to late90s? How would ruth do in the astro turf happy 70s? drug happy 80s? hard to imagine either of them being as dominant in a more modern game.

 

[Thenameless]

There is something wrong with all of the top 4 athelets picked above

Ruth is the most obvious, he played in a small segregated league at a time when other leagues held almost as much talent ( he came from the orioles who sold him for much needed cash ,but they still had mlb level pitching talent even after Ruth left).saying Ruth was the best baseball player ever suggests that baseball did not increase by leaps in bounds in the decades that followed. Statically against the field of competitors at his time , Ruth was the best of all time,same with Gretzky ( though not sure you can make the same claims for the other two listed) but if you adjust the sport to a different era how would they fair? How did Wayne do in the clutch and grabby mid to late90s? How would ruth do in the astro turf happy 70s? drug happy 80s? hard to imagine either of them being as dominant in a more modern game.

I thought Ruth came from the Boston Red Sox. Anyway, Ruth is outstanding by all measures. Pure numbers, dominance vs peers, championships, "The Call", etc. Apart from legendary batting prowess, also a superior pitcher. Unheard of in today's game. Pure, walking talent. I agree that many things work in Ruth's favour like the segregated league, and particularly specialized pitching in today's game. But you also need to consider things that make it harder for him such as lack of modern training/conditioning, no steroids, and the use of softer balls that don't travel as far during his time.

Wayne Gretzky still did very well in the clutch and grab era, well past his prime. No problem there. I agree that he'd be less dominant now (not reaching 200 pts), but he'd still very easily be the best player by leaps and bounds.

 

[simon bedford]

Ruth went to Boston from the Orioles ,an independent team who produced stars in their own leauge, like Lefty Grove...Boston bought him when the Orioles were facing one of their many finical crisis.
As for the "balls" in Ruths time,things happened that worked very much in Ruths favor, he first started getting dingers in a very small park, Fenway was even smaller back in 1919 than it was today.In 1920 something massive happened that changed the game forever , a player was struck by a ball and died. Now Ray Chapmans death maybe overlooked today ,but this and the 1919 black sox scandal changed everything in baseball. For the first time ,new balls came into play ,and no scuffing , emery balls, or anything else was allowed. Pitchers *****ed mightly about this, but the hitters went hog wild,batting averages climbed to the high .300s and beyond, and Ruths uppercut knocked a bazillion of the 'new balls" out of the park. The league tried to make some rule changes to even the score, like allowing the balls to be rubbed down before the game,but pitchers took a decade to catch up,in the 20s only one pitcher managed to strike out 200 in a season,Dazzy Vance.So yeah Ruth had lots of things go his way.
As for Gretzky,his speed was a defining factor in the 80s.i dont think it would be so noticable in todays game. He still would have been great ,but perhaps not the greatest. Personally I would rather have a modern Gordie Howe than an updated Gretzky.