Most Dominant athlete: Wayne Gretzky vs Wilt Chamberlain

[Passchendaele]

In 1958-1959 the Philadelphia Warriors were a last place team with a 35-37 record. In 1959-1960, Wilt's rookie year, the Warriors finished in 2nd place with a 49-26 record. I'm pretty sure Gretzky's Oilers weren't even a 0.500 team their first years in the league.

When Wilt was traded to the Sixers, they went from being a 0.500 ball club to a league best 55-25. The following year they went 68-13 and won the championship. He won another championship when he was traded to the Lakers.

Gretzky never could win after being traded. You may argue that he still won the MVP, but he still couldn't "dominate" enough to win.

It has been said in this thread already, but you can't hold it against Gretzky that a star player in the NBA has more effect on a team than a star player has on a hockey team. Gretzky probably played 30 minutes AT MOST per game. NBA stars are on the court for 40+ minutes per game.

And the way both games are played, you can't deny that it's easier to "do it all by yourself" in basketball.

 

[Thenameless]

It has been said in this thread already, but you can't hold it against Gretzky that a star player in the NBA has more effect on a team than a star player has on a hockey team. Gretzky probably played 30 minutes AT MOST per game. NBA stars are on the court for 40+ minutes per game.

And the way both games are played, you can't deny that it's easier to "do it all by yourself" in basketball.

I agree. And that is why Wilt is more dominant than Gretzky. Basketball is closer to an individual sport.

 

[blogofmike]

I agree. And that is why Wilt is more dominant than Gretzky. Basketball is closer to an individual sport.

Then Kobe was more dominant than Gretzky, as was 2000s Vince Carter, mid-90s Shawn Kemp, or mid-80s Bernard King.

The more reasonable standard is that Gretzky was able to dominate in a sport where dominance is very difficult to achieve.

Also I'd like a pro-Wilt guy to address Playoff Gretzky vs. Playoff Wilt, because Playoff Wilt wasn't dominant, even in the easier sport to dominate.

 

[Thenameless]

When Sports Illustrated named Gretzky the male athlete of the decade (over Jordan), they developed something called the dominance ratio. Gretzky scored about 6x higher than Jordan (more than 60% vs Jordan's 12% IIRC). Granted, that was for the 80's. Jordan would have done much better in the 90's, of course.

I actually agree with this, even over their whole careers. For both regular season and playoff offensive stats (which is what is being measured here) Gretzky scores way higher than Jordan. He has the best regular seasons ever, and the best playoffs ever. Whereas Jordan's best regular seasons aren't even close to Wilt's.

Yet, I would argue that Jordan was still more dominant than Gretzky because in fewer seasons played, he was able to lead the Bulls to 6 championships (to Gretzky's 4) and was the Finals MVP for all 6 of these championships (to Gretzky's 2 Conn Smythes). Jordan was good on both sides of the ball (Gretzky not known as an exceptional defender, while Jordan actually won a DPoY award). Generally, the most important position in basketball is the centre, yet Jordan was able to carry his team to 6 championships without an all-star centre.

Gretzky had the greater career than either Jordan or Wilt. Gretzky is far and away the best regular season scorer, playoff scorer, and career scorer in the NHL. And he won enough Stanley Cups, and made teammates better. Wilt and Jordan are trumped by Kareem in career scoring, though they both beat Kareem in ppg. Wilt has the better regular seasons than Jordan, but Jordan was better in the playoffs. In basketball, it isn't as clear as it is in hockey statwise.

But one thing Wilt and Jordan could do more than Gretzky was dominate the game.

 

[Thenameless]

Also I'd like a pro-Wilt guy to address Playoff Gretzky vs. Playoff Wilt, because Playoff Wilt wasn't dominant, even in the easier sport to dominate.

Simple. Playoff Gretzky is better than Playoff Wilt. I understand that you can't win everything. Playoff Roy is comparable to Playoff Gretzky, though I'd still put Gretzky ahead. Playoff Russell and playoff Jordan are miles ahead of Gretzky. Yes, I'm going mostly off of Wilt's regular season accomplishments.

Wilt is still more dominant in a basketball game than Gretzky is in a hockey game.

 

[blogofmike]

Simple. Playoff Gretzky is better than Playoff Wilt. I understand that you can't win everything. Playoff Roy is comparable to Playoff Gretzky, though I'd still put Gretzky ahead. Playoff Russell and playoff Jordan are miles ahead of Gretzky. Yes, I'm going mostly off of Wilt's regular season accomplishments.

Wilt is still more dominant in a basketball game than Gretzky is in a hockey game.

That playoff part is a huge part, no?

But again, was Wilt able to dominate against Russell? Because Gretzky seemed to dominate Lemieux. And how can one really be dominant when everyone is dominant, particularly one of the others who defended Wilt very well.

Pitchers in baseball and goaltenders in hockey have a stronger impact on a game's outcome than any one NBA player. But that doesn't mean Roy was more dominant than the Big 4 or that Cy Young was more dominant than Babe Ruth.

 

[elicw10]

I think it's Wilt - although it's close.

It is a fair argument that he wasn't even the best player in the league during his time in the NBA. Bill Russell won as series of MVP's during Wilt's peak years, including consecutive years in which Wilt set the all time single season records for rebounds per game (1960-61) and points per game (1961-1962).

We need to STOP with this championship bias at least for a little bit on this question, and put Wilt's fewer championships into perspective. Can we really fault Wilt for only winning 2 championships?

The Boston Celtics of this NBA era were arguably the most dominant dynasty in Big 4 North American sporting history. The Celtics of this era were unbeatable (or technically beatable: 11 championships in 13 seasons).
The NHL equivalent is criticizing Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito for only winning 2 Cups, despite the fact that the 70's Canadians were as dominant as anything the NHL has ever seen.

 

[Thenameless]

That playoff part is a huge part, no?

But again, was Wilt able to dominate against Russell? Because Gretzky seemed to dominate Lemieux. And how can one really be dominant when everyone is dominant, particularly one of the others who defended Wilt very well.

Pitchers in baseball and goaltenders in hockey have a stronger impact on a game's outcome than any one NBA player. But that doesn't mean Roy was more dominant than the Big 4 or that Cy Young was more dominant than Babe Ruth.

I agree that Russell got it done in the playoffs over Wilt. But if you look more closely, Wilt still generally outplays him (marginally in some cases, and by quite a bit in other cases). It's the Celtics that were better than the Warriors.

It's interesting that I at least make an attempt to address others' points about Gretzky's superiority to Wilt in the playoffs, while conceding that Gretzky is the superior playoff performer. But no one wants to address my points about Wilt's defense vs. Gretzky's. It's that much of a no-contest.

 

[blogofmike]

I agree that Russell got it done in the playoffs over Wilt. But if you look more closely, Wilt still generally outplays him (marginally in some cases, and by quite a bit in other cases). It's the Celtics that were better than the Warriors.

It's interesting that I at least make an attempt to address others' points about Gretzky's superiority to Wilt in the playoffs, while conceding that Gretzky is the superior playoff performer. But no one wants to address my points about Wilt's defense vs. Gretzky's. It's that much of a no-contest.

Wilt's defense did very little to prevent Bill Russell from being effective. In fact, Russell seemed to improve against Wilt. But that makes sense since the NBA had no such thing as defense until the 1990s.

Gretzky on the other hand was able to kill penalties at a very high level.

While Gretzky is the leading goal scorer of all time, he remains the most dangerous offensive player in history with scoring a single goal. Wilt scored field goals and got rebounds, but didn't do so at a pace that outpaced the other teams in the playoffs. Gretzky lapped the field.

 

[Thenameless]

Wilt's defense did very little to prevent Bill Russell from being effective. In fact, Russell seemed to improve against Wilt. But that makes sense since the NBA had no such thing as defense until the 1990s.

Gretzky on the other hand was able to kill penalties at a very high level.

While Gretzky is the leading goal scorer of all time, he remains the most dangerous offensive player in history with scoring a single goal. Wilt scored field goals and got rebounds, but didn't do so at a pace that outpaced the other teams in the playoffs. Gretzky lapped the field.

I'm not sure what you're really trying to say here. Are you implying that Gretzky was better at playing defense in hockey than Wilt was at playing defense in basketball? If that's the case, you should try creating a poll on a neutral site (neither hockey nor basketball focused) and see what kind of results you'll get. I have a feeling it will be pretty lopsided in favour of Wilt.

 

[blogofmike]

I'm not sure what you're really trying to say here. Are you implying that Gretzky was better at playing defense in hockey than Wilt was at playing defense in basketball? If that's the case, you should try creating a poll on a neutral site (neither hockey nor basketball focused) and see what kind of results you'll get. I have a feeling it will be pretty lopsided in favour of Wilt.

Watch old basketball clips. No one plays defense.

Wilt averaged 28.7 PPG vs Russell.
Russell averaged 23.7 PPG vs Wilt.

It's a clear 5 point edge for Wilt, but his defense BOOSTED Russell's point totals, and Wilt's offense suffered.

At his peak, Gretzky scored at an Art Ross pace against every team he played against. Mario Lemieux's head-to-head stats show that his production decreased (38 points in 25 games) while Gretzky was Gretzky (60 points in 25 games).

Gretzky was better than the best. Was Wilt better than Russell?

 

[WingsFan95]

I don't know if the problem is the comparison or the question. I think a better comparison would be Pele. You'd have an opportunity to compare total points differential from the greatest (Gretzky and Pele) to their number twos with similar numbers. You could compare international competition. Impact as ambassadors of the game internationally,etc..

Chamberlain is a superstar in his sport, no doubt. But Gretzky has what? 60 records? Could lead the NHL in all-time points just on his assists totals? The true test of defining Gretzky's dominance in his sport is that many examine incidental minutiae as justification why his all-time leading goal totals don't stand under scrutiny. Too slow, too small, over-protected...We can say his goals totals also stand because one player was sick in his career or another too often injured or another didn't have the team around him or whatever else that seems to fit the sub-hobby of diminishing the goals record. But the truth is, we are criticizing a player we likely still don't fully understand and maybe isn't fully understood by his peers.

In order to compare who dominated, we need to examine the distance between first and second in each categorical instance. Take total points scored by the forwards as an initial, primary instance.

NBA:

1) Kareem Abdul Jabar - 38,387
2) Karl Malone - 36,928
------------------------------------
5)Wilt Chamberlain - 31,419


NHL:

1) Wayne Gretzky - 2,857
2) Mark Messier - 1,887

It seems strange that in order to fairly compare Gretzky and Chamberlain we would have to exclude from consideration what best defines asymmetry and thus dominance within fair competition.

When even the arena they are being compared in must be retrofitted just so the other can compete, shouldn't that be yet another reason to comfortably conclude that Gretzky is far and away the more dominant of the two?

Many of Gretzky's records are a product of his era however. He was the best player by a good margin in the highest scoring era of his sport.

Wilt on the other hand was the most dominant of his era by a healthy margins that does not skew over the 50 years of the league from when he came in to present day. Like I touched upon his minutes per game. Only 5 players in the history of the NBA averaged above 40, several in this thread have implied there were a hell of a lot more.

Here's the Top 10:

1. Wilt: 45.8
2. Russell: 42.3
3. Robertson: 42.2
4. Iverson: 41.1
5. Baylor: 40
6. James: 39.3
7. West: 39.2
8. Lucas: 38.8
9. Pettit: 38.7
10. Sprewell: 38.6

Orange=predominantly 21st Century
Blue=predominantly 90s
Purple==predominantly 50s
Green=predominantly 60s

While 6 out of those 10 were in the same time period, extending down to the next 10 you get more representation of the 50s, 70s, 80s and 90s with current star Kevin Durant sitting at 16th.

Now if you go and look at the Top 20 list of NHL PPG career leaders you get 3 active players in Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin who will drop down as they continue to play out the second half of their careers and Jaromir Jagr who was the highest scorer of the DPE at 17, and he had some nice seasons in the early 90s to help him out playing with Mario.

Discounting Crosby who sits at #5 currently, out of the Top 10 only Bobby Orr, Forsberg and Esposito did not play multiple seasons in the 80s with Forsberg having a shortened career and a testament to Orr's greatness. Meanwhile the NBA PPG leaders Top 20:

4 active players (1 is nearing retirement at 10th and James is 3rd having less seasons remaining than played)
7 additional players who started NBA after Wilt retired
3 additional players who came in Wilt's later years


Any way you dice it, Chamberlain transcends eras in a way Gretzky never will. Wilt was the best blocker, scorer, rebounder and only non-guard to lead the league in assists.

His playoff resume lacks because of the dynasty he could not beat on his own. End of story. He could have joined the Celtics and won 12 titles. He instead chose to dominate and the force of his team and dominate he did.

I think people here get lost in careers and forget the title is DOMINANCE. Both physically and by production, Wilt is head and shoulders above Gretzky.+

 

[Dave is a killer]

Wayne, hands down ... you take away his goal totals & he still leads the league in points

 

[Thenameless]

Gretzky was better than the best. Was Wilt better than Russell?

Yes.

 

[Thenameless]

Have a look at this article:

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/readers/records/indivseason.html

It looks like people have chimed in from all over the world. Gretzky actually has 2 records to Wilt's 1 on a top 10 list of greatest single-season records. People generally place Wilt's on top at number 1.

Here's a completely different list of records that are impossible to break:

http://www.businessinsider.com/sports-records-never-be-broken2011-7?op=1

Wilt shows up twice. Gretzky shows up once. Though these records are not ranked like in the first list.

Again, I'm not arguing about overall greatness or career accomplishments. All I'm saying is that Wilt at his best was more dominant than Wayne at his best.

 

[blogofmike]

Again, I'm not arguing about overall greatness or career accomplishments. All I'm saying is that Wilt at his best was more dominant than Wayne at his best.

When was he at his best? Because he was more easily contained in the playoffs and the story goes that Wilt was told to shoot less and pass and defend more if he wanted to win (which he did).

It's also a knock against your dominance when you can be effectively neutralized via Hack-A-Wilt. The 1968 76ers must have wished Wilt could nail a few more free throws so that they could have finished off Boston rather than lose Games 6 and 7 while Wilt hits a horrid 14 of 37 free throws in two close games.

Wayne Gretzky was gonna score at a top 1 pace whether you liked it or not. Even if you put out the 84-86 Flyers or Habs for all 80 games, he's winning the Art Ross. He's also a far better (or more dominant) playoff performer than Wilt.

 

[WingsFan95]

When was he at his best? Because he was more easily contained in the playoffs and the story goes that Wilt was told to shoot less and pass and defend more if he wanted to win (which he did).

It's also a knock against your dominance when you can be effectively neutralized via Hack-A-Wilt. The 1968 76ers must have wished Wilt could nail a few more free throws so that they could have finished off Boston rather than lose Games 6 and 7 while Wilt hits a horrid 14 of 37 free throws in two close games.

Wayne Gretzky was gonna score at a top 1 pace whether you liked it or not. Even if you put out the 84-86 Flyers or Habs for all 80 games, he's winning the Art Ross. He's also a far better (or more dominant) playoff performer than Wilt.

So you're going to rag on Wilt's free throw percentage? He's the only non-guard to lead the league in assists, along with his rebounding, blocking and scoring obliteration.

What more do you want? A 75% free throw percentage? The guy still holds the record for single-season field goal percentage at 72.7%

Gretzky couldn't knock anyone off their skates. How bout I use that against him? I don't have much video of him attempting to block shots either. Terrible.

 

[Thenameless]

When was he at his best? Because he was more easily contained in the playoffs and the story goes that Wilt was told to shoot less and pass and defend more if he wanted to win (which he did).

It's also a knock against your dominance when you can be effectively neutralized via Hack-A-Wilt. The 1968 76ers must have wished Wilt could nail a few more free throws so that they could have finished off Boston rather than lose Games 6 and 7 while Wilt hits a horrid 14 of 37 free throws in two close games.

Wayne Gretzky was gonna score at a top 1 pace whether you liked it or not. Even if you put out the 84-86 Flyers or Habs for all 80 games, he's winning the Art Ross. He's also a far better (or more dominant) playoff performer than Wilt.

Mentioning the bolded above was a mistake if you really want to compare the history of rule changes that were precipitated by Gretzky and Chamberlain. The NHL changed the offsetting minor penalties rule to eliminate 4-on-4 because Gretzky and Co. were so good with the extra space that they could bury their opponents. If this rule had not been implemented Gretzky would certainly have scored more points.


However, a far more significant rule change happened in the NBA because of Wilt. You see, Wilt is just about the only player in history that can dunk from the freethrow line starting in the half-circle. Others like Dr. J and Jordan can do it with a running start, but then it's not a legal free throw; and I think no modern player is capable of this feat. The NBA had to make dunking a free throw illegal because of Wilt. Compound this with the fact that Wilt was a poor free throw shooter without dunking, and you really hurt him with the Hack-a-Wilt strategy that you mention above. Basically, this one rule change was implemented so that one man would no longer be unstoppable.

Without the NHL rule change, Gretzky would surely have scored more. Without the NBA rule change, I honestly can't tell you how much better Wilt gets because he's already so good - he definitely has more outlandish scoring numbers, maybe he wins more championships. But, it is for sure a rule change that:

1. Targets only him (as opposed to the NHL one which targets the Oilers, and other teams with great top end players)

2. Without question hurts Wilt significantly more than the 4-on-4 rule hurts Wayne. Apart from being able to dunk the free throw, Wilt is probably the most fouled NBA player in history.


Edit: You've basically taken one of the best NBA players of all-time, who could have had close to a 100% free throw percentage (how many dunks are missed), and turned him into a ~50% free throw shooter with one rule change. And again, it only affects him - no one else. Now, that is dominance.

 

[habsfanatics*]

Both Orr and Lemieux were superior athletes to Gretzky. Gretzky was average at just about everything other than his superior hockey IQ and below average in athletic ability.

Funny, you say this, but he beat Lemieux head to head in the puck control relay, perhaps you missed that one

 

[Canadiens1958]

Average

Watch old basketball clips. No one plays defense.

Wilt averaged 28.7 PPG vs Russell.
Russell averaged 23.7 PPG vs Wilt.

It's a clear 5 point edge for Wilt, but his defense BOOSTED Russell's point totals, and Wilt's offense suffered.

At his peak, Gretzky scored at an Art Ross pace against every team he played against. Mario Lemieux's head-to-head stats show that his production decreased (38 points in 25 games) while Gretzky was Gretzky (60 points in 25 games).

Gretzky was better than the best. Was Wilt better than Russell?

Regular season career Chamberlain averaged 30.1 PPG vs the NBA. Russell averaged 15.1 PPG vs the NBA so Russell kept Chamberlain below his average while surpassing his own average offence by 8.6 PPG

Russell

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russebi01.html

Chamberlain

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambwi01.html

Reduce it to prime Chamberlain 1960-66 vs championship Celtics with Russell where Chamberlain averaged between 33.5 to 50.4PPG usually in the thirties and the swing in points in head to head games is even more striking.

 

[drganon]

Gretzky.

 

[tazzy19]

Funny, you say this, but he beat Lemieux head to head in the puck control relay, perhaps you missed that one

And here it is at the 29 second mark:
http://youtu.be/9D0Bb_rwzJ4

 

[blogofmike]

Mentioning the bolded above was a mistake if you really want to compare the history of rule changes that were precipitated by Gretzky and Chamberlain. The NHL changed the offsetting minor penalties rule to eliminate 4-on-4 because Gretzky and Co. were so good with the extra space that they could bury their opponents. If this rule had not been implemented Gretzky would certainly have scored more points.


However, a far more significant rule change happened in the NBA because of Wilt. You see, Wilt is just about the only player in history that can dunk from the freethrow line starting in the half-circle. Others like Dr. J and Jordan can do it with a running start, but then it's not a legal free throw; and I think no modern player is capable of this feat. The NBA had to make dunking a free throw illegal because of Wilt. Compound this with the fact that Wilt was a poor free throw shooter without dunking, and you really hurt him with the Hack-a-Wilt strategy that you mention above. Basically, this one rule change was implemented so that one man would no longer be unstoppable.

Without the NHL rule change, Gretzky would surely have scored more. Without the NBA rule change, I honestly can't tell you how much better Wilt gets because he's already so good - he definitely has more outlandish scoring numbers, maybe he wins more championships. But, it is for sure a rule change that:

1. Targets only him (as opposed to the NHL one which targets the Oilers, and other teams with great top end players)

2. Without question hurts Wilt significantly more than the 4-on-4 rule hurts Wayne. Apart from being able to dunk the free throw, Wilt is probably the most fouled NBA player in history.


Edit: You've basically taken one of the best NBA players of all-time, who could have had close to a 100% free throw percentage (how many dunks are missed), and turned him into a ~50% free throw shooter with one rule change. And again, it only affects him - no one else. Now, that is dominance.

Like the Lew Alcindor Rule (no dunking) the 4-on-4 rule was withdrawn after Kareem left the NCAA and post-Suter Gretzky was no longer a 200 point player. Because they were nonsense rules to target one player/team. (Edmonton was the only team to vote against the rule change. Everyone else thought it was a fine idea.)

The FT rule was a sensible rule change, like Jack Dempsey not being allowed to stand over a fallen opponent or early NHL snipers being forced to be onsides. They made sense. They stayed in place through the years.

As for Wilt specifically:
A) Wilt was about a 62% FT shooter in college before and after the change. He didn't dunk the majority of his FT attempts, or if he did, was not quite "100%" as you claim he would be.
B) Wilt also took a 3-step running start according to newspapers
C) He didn't adapt. Kareem was still the best NCAA player. Gretzky still scored 200 points, largely at ES since Edmonton had the lowest number of PP opportunities in the NHL. For Gretzky and kareem they temporarily changed the rules - and they were so good that it didn't even work.

The FT argument is mentioned because he was notably weak and this tactic was used to make him less effective. If he hits FTs at a reasonable rate, they beat Boston. Gretzky's non-physicality is not unique among skilled forwards and didn't cost his team championships that they shoud have won.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

But no one wants to address my points about Wilt's defense vs. Gretzky's. It's that much of a no-contest.

Is that a relevant point? Basketball and hockey have very different dimensions. Can it be reasonably expected for a forward to dominate in both ends simultaneously in hockey to the extent that is possible in basketball?

I mean, in basketball, you essentially get a free pass to the offensive zone most of the time. So the penalty to a player's offensive output for coming back deep to defend is reduced. And I think the large dimensions and speed of the defense-to-offense transition make it much more difficult to be dominant at both ends in hockey. Bobby Orr, of course, got around this problem by starting the offense from deep in his own zone.

It was Wilt Chamberlain's job to play significant defense. It was not Gretzky's job to be a major defensive contributor. So yes, Chamberlain's defensive play was likely better than Gretzky's. But that's about as relevant as saying that Gretzky is more dominant than Joe Montana because Gretzky played better defense.

 

[Thenameless]

Is that a relevant point? Basketball and hockey have very different dimensions. Can it be reasonably expected for a forward to dominate in both ends simultaneously in hockey to the extent that is possible in basketball?

I mean, in basketball, you essentially get a free pass to the offensive zone most of the time. So the penalty to a player's offensive output for coming back deep to defend is reduced. And I think the large dimensions and speed of the defense-to-offense transition make it much more difficult to be dominant at both ends in hockey. Bobby Orr, of course, got around this problem by starting the offense from deep in his own zone.

It was Wilt Chamberlain's job to play significant defense. It was not Gretzky's job to be a major defensive contributor. So yes, Chamberlain's defensive play was likely better than Gretzky's. But that's about as relevant as saying that Gretzky is more dominant than Joe Montana because Gretzky played better defense.

This is a very good answer that I'm inclined to agree with.

Now, let's pose the hypothetical question to show that a well-rounded game still helps one to dominate. With equal goalies, would 5 Gretzkys beat 5 Orrs? I'm inclined to go with the Orrs on this one. The Gretzky team would have a definite advantage in offensive ability, but I believe the Orr team would overcome this with superior defense and physical play. The Orr team could better handle a Gretzky team attack, but a Gretzky team would have quite a bit of trouble in its own end. I believe the gap would widen in power play situations.

Depending on which era the game was played in, 5 Howes might even beat 5 Gretzkys. Gretzky would get roughed up pretty badly, and Howe is the superior defensive player by quite a bit.

I wouldn't want to put 5 Russells or 5 Jordans up against 5 Wilts. The Wilts would dominate either team.