Comments on: The Top 10 Centers of All Time (*according to statistical +/-)

By: John Saucedo

John Saucedo — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:14:36 +0000

#22,

Please explain how a center who was most often "posterized" was able to post statistics that Hall of Fame centers were not able to match or exceed.

Your comment implies that you believe he had no talent.

How does a center with no talent produce 22 points, 22 rebounds, & go 10 for 10 from the free throw line when no other center in the last 24 seasons has been able to do it? Notice that I did not even mention the 13 blocked shots he had that game.

Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning, Shaq... None of those All-Star centers posted a game which matched or exceeded those numbers. No center did.

Many of them came close. So it is not like they did not try.

Hakeem posted 2 quadruple doubles and Robinson one. Apparently 22 points, 22 rebounds, and 10 for 10 from the line was more challenging for them than a quadruple double.

Please do not insult everyone by saying that he was just lucky.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 03:58:20 +0000

All I can say about #21 without giving away the answer is that I wish we had "times posterized" in the Play Index, because that guy was the all-time leader.

By: John Saucedo

John Saucedo — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 01:50:08 +0000

One center has not been mentioned by any of the previous posters.

The center that I am referring to is the only center, over the last 24 seasons, to post 22 points, 22 rebounds, and shoot 10 for 10 from the free throw line.

On another occassion he posted 28 points, 9 offensive rebounds, 13 defensive rebounds, and 9 blocked shots.

He also recorded six triple doubles, which is more than Shaq, Ewing, and Mourning combined.

Three of his triple doubles included shooting perfect from the free throw line.

One of his triple doubles was one of only two 20, 20, 10 triple doubles recorded by a center in the last 24 seasons.

Who was this center?

By: Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 05:47:02 +0000

Having listened to or watched over 60 of the Lakers' 1971-1972 games, I would guesstimate that Wilt's blocks per game that season was between 5 and 6. The Lakers played a high tempo fast break game which gave the opponents a large number of possessions. Also, when you get to Jerry West's Steals per Game, you are severely underestimating him. In his mostly injured final season, he averaged 3 per game according to the official count, so it's likely that a couple of years earlier he was averaging around 4.

By: rlee

rlee — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:19:18 +0000

Ok, I'll expand. I've been following the NBA since the 50's. I don't denigrate the "modern" players: Dream, Shaq,Robinson - no dispute as to their greatness. I don't see any way to say that Russell, Thurmond et al are inferior based on having seen them play many times. My real point was that most people who make the "inferior" comp argument say that there were only a few outstanding centers back then - what they overlook is that, in a given season, Wilt was going up against the best 10 times each not 3 times each as the "modern" superstars faced each other. It has always been clear to me that that fact is generally overlooked. I don't see any circularity in that refutation.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:54:47 +0000

I'm not saying I buy the "inferior competition" argument, but isn't that kind of a circular argument? You're basically using Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, Embry and Beaty as evidence that Wilt's competition was strong -- and simultaneously using Wilt as evidence that their competition was strong... But to play devil's advocate, how do we know those guys weren't inferior as well? It's a bit like those folks who advocated Hawaii for the National Championship Game in 2007 (before the bowls). They were the only undefeated team! They beat Boise State, who had been 11-1! Of course, they were sheltered in their own little mid-major bubble the whole time, and when they faced a legitimate team in Georgia, they got destroyed. To advocates of the "Wilt faced inferior competition" argument, he's Hawaii -- yes, he dominated everyone else, they argue, but he was sheltered in the bubble of the 1960s. Put him against Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, etc., and see how he fares. Unfortunately, while Hawaii got their one shot against a big-time foe, we'll never know how Wilt would do against today's stars. And, I repeat, I do not necessarily buy into the "weak competition" argument against Wilt (I used to, but that's another story). But for what it's worth, that's the rebuttal against your comment.

By: rlee

rlee — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:52:01 +0000

How can we best put the canard of Wilt facing "inferior" opposition to rest? We can pick any of his great years. For example, let's look at 1965-66. In a nine team league, each team played each other team ten times. So playing 50 games against Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, Nate Thurmond, Wayne Embry and Zelmo Beaty is playing against "inferior competition"? You can pick just about any other year and the inference would be the same. Compare this to the "modern era" centers who played in leagues with many more teams (and thus faced the premier centers each far less frequently) and it is clear that Wilt faced "superior" not "inferior" opposition.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:42:59 +0000

All the stats they neglected to track are estimates based a regression that uses the player's height and whatever stats they did keep as inputs. It's obviously going to drag everything toward the mean, but it does it for everybody and since the +/- is comparing players to their in-season peers, it doesn't really serve to penalize guys who played before the numbers were kept.

By: MyArvydas

MyArvydas — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:01:51 +0000

Just being curious...how did you evaluate the blocks for pre-1974 players? I've got a hard time believing Russell did not block more shots than Shaq (especially since the pace of the game was higher then, so there were more shots to block).

By: Raj

Raj — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:15:23 +0000

I know it's a smaller sample size and with significantly less data available, but it seems that looking at Robinson and Hakeem's playoff numbers I guess would also lay out the case for Hakeem as the "better" player. While not having run WS/3000 (i probably should be working), I would note that it appears Hakeem has a higher rate and that his PER of 25.7 is greater than Robinson's 23.0. From all appearances it would seem Neil that using your question of whom you would build a franchise around, the Admiral would win for the regular season, but come playoff time, you'd rather have Dream. I know this raises the dilemma of whether it's better to get a higher seed and have an easier route in the playoffs with Robinson or whether it's better to simply have the better playoff performer in Hakeem, but I guess (and I should note I grew up in Houston and am a complete homer in this debate) I always come up wanting the better player and willing to take my chances on the road, which I know has only worked for Houston in 1995. Also, what do you think the huge difference in the Admiral's regular season and playoff PER says about his performance against higher quality opponents? Was he just easier to gameplan over a 7-game series than others like Duncan or Olajuwon, or maybe he just performed better against worse competition (the 71 point game was against the Clippers). Also, in the original regression, are the original per 40 minute numbers adjusted for pace? Naturally someone like Duncan playing at 90 possessions is going to have lower per 40 numbers than someone like Kareem or Wilt, and it seems that could unfairly skew his numbers. In general, when giving per minute numbers wouldn't it be better to scale them all to some per 40 minute per 100 possession basis?