Is ESPN at it again? Magic Johnson has the most 25-10-10 games?

[KAJ=GOAT]

With 40 of them?


Can anyone explain how that might be when Oscar Robertson averaged, for a season,

30-12-11.

Surely, he has to have more than 40 games with those numbers. Then you factor in the rest of his career as well, and I would think he has alot more than that.

[SAKOTXA]

I think it was like since 1980...

[KAJ=GOAT]

I think it was like since 1980...

But they don't say that though. They simply make mention of it, and then post a list of players who did it.

It seems as if they are purposely leaving out records of a portion of the leagues history.

[CeoTypeDoe619]

Yup ESPN is at again. The hype machine

[Diesel J]

I saw that and they did mention I believe since the merger

[Glide2keva]

That's BSPN for, all of the stats they post are full of spin

ESPN = Fox News of Sports

[plowking]

Let me guess, Lebron is close to it and that's why it was brought up on ESPN?

[Glide2keva]

Let me guess, Lebron is close to it and that's why it was brought up on ESPN?
Most likely, you know their mouths are surgically attached to lebron's tip

[Desperado]

I saw that and they did mention I believe since the merger


Since the merger? Was there no basketball before 1977?

Did the NBA and ESPN start at the same time?

[chocolatethunder]

Since the merger? Was there no basketball before 1977?

Did the NBA and ESPN start at the same time?

They're referring to the NBA/ABA merger.

[EricForman]

if ESPN didnt mention since the merger or put it in small print then it's bad. but otherwise, i think its better. it's to put things in context, because again, stats from back then were too skewed. i mean come on, we all know magic and lebron would average more rebounds and assists than Big O if they played at the exact same time.

[Hammertime]

How were stats from before 1976 skewed, specifically? Yeah, we all know basketball in the '50s was a very different game compared to basketball now, but how specifically are stats from 1975 skewed compared to stats from 1980? Big O retired only 5 years before Magic played his first NBA game. It's like saying you can't compare Chris Paul's numbers to John Stockton's.

[guy]

ESPN is clearly doing this to promote Magic's Theatres and Starbucks.

[WorldWarriors]

Since the merger? Was there no basketball before 1977?

Did the NBA and ESPN start at the same time?

1. yes- there were two different leagues. The ABA and the NBA. The ABA folded and some of those teams went to the NBA.

[WorldWarriors]

ESPN is clearly doing this to promote Magic's Theatres and Starbucks.

Don't forget Fridays.

[jlauber]

Yeah...we can't count the records of the 60's. They were just too unbelieveable...so they don't count. Let's be honest...no one today is going to average 50 ppg, or 27 rpg, or shoot .727, or average a triple-double for an entire season...so since today's player's can't do it, then those records can't be counted. And we can't count eight straight championships, or 11 in 13 either.

I believe ESPN did some research, and they found that the games before the 80's were played with 8 ft. baskets on 47 ft courts.

[guy]

Yeah...we can't count the records of the 60's. They were just too unbelieveable...so they don't count. Let's be honest...no one today is going to average 50 ppg, or 27 rpg, or shoot .727, or average a triple-double for an entire season...so since today's player's can't do it, then those records can't be counted. And we can't count eight straight championships, or 11 in 13 either.


I'm not trying to excuse ESPN for what they did, but since you're clearly being sarcastic, do you honestly think anyone can seriously average 50 ppg, 27 ppg, or average a triple double in TODAYs LEAGUE?

[jlauber]

I'm not trying to excuse ESPN for what they did, but since you're clearly being sarcastic, do you honestly think anyone can seriously average 50 ppg, 27 ppg, or average a triple double in TODAYs LEAGUE?

Well, ONLY Wilt averaged 50 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .727...and Oscar is the ONLY player to average a triple-double...and Russell is the ONLY player to own 11 rings. It's not like EVERY player in the 60's were achieving those accomplishments. When Wilt averaged 50 ppg, the next highest scorer that season averaged 32.

Would those guys average that in today's game...maybe not...NO ONE knows. But even AT THE TIME, their feats were astonishing.

[gasolina]

It's completely disrespectful to those players. Having achieved those feats just proved that they were wayyy ahead of their time back then.

It seems to me that ESPN likes go way out of their way just to prove a point. Yes we know Lebron is great and all that but you don't need to bring down former players just to do that.

[32jazz]

But they don't say that though. They simply make mention of it, and then post a list of players who did it.

It seems as if they are purposely leaving out records of a portion of the leagues history.

:applause:
Thanks for bringing this to light since Wilt/Big O & other players from the pre 80's have complained about this obvious neglect(especially Wilt) & they are viewed as being bitter/jealous. And people here actually don't believe the media & especially this network engage in revisionist history.:rolleyes: They alone are so arrogant to have decided that pre ESPN/pre 80's/Dream Team Era Basketball is basically irrelevant.

Magic Johnson is my personal favorite player of all time, but the media bias towards he & Dream Team era players sickens me.
2 EXAMPLES:

(1)CHARLES BARKLEY actually (1)spit on an 8(?) year old girl courtside during an actual game once,(2)in a moment of frustration with the media once declared to a reporter on camera "That's why I don't like White People",(3) has been arrested on several occasions for assault/DUI (Those among many countless other bonehead things he has done & said). Despite this Barkley cannot spread his fat sloppy butt cheeks wide enough for fans/media to kiss/slurp.

But just imagine KG/AI/Melo/ spitting on an 8 year old fan, fustratingly declaring their dislike for White People,assaulting fans/getting arrested. :confusedshrug: Just imagine the vitriol that would be spewed for that Player & names they would be called(One of the fan/ media favorite 'Thugs' topping the list).

(2)MAGIC JOHNSON in an autobiography has boasted(to dampen rumors he was GAY) of sleeping with at least 6 women at one time & looses count of the thousands he has slept with. Only a few people took him to task for saying these things, but Wilt's 20,000 claim (which Wilt admits was stupid) is used to mock & define him as a person
(Although Wilt advises all men in that same book that(paraphrase)' it is a far greater accomplishment to have made love to ONE woman a thousand times than a THOUSAND different women').

It's one thing to say something outrageous like Wilt ,but It is another to actually DO something outrageous/wreckless like MAgic who 'possibly' infected unknown dozens of people with HIV. Yet Magic boasts about his sexual escapades & is barely criticized & his behavior basically forgotten/ forgiven:confusedshrug:
Wilt did more than any other star male athlete to promote women's sports & was never accused of being nothing ,but a complete gentleman to women. Never been accused in an out-of-wedlock paternity case/neglect(like Larry Bird), was never married & never knowingly slept with married women ,but he was skewered & still is about that one ridiculous claim.

[guy]

Would those guys average that in today's game...maybe not...NO ONE knows. But even AT THE TIME, their feats were astonishing.

First of all, I'm not denying that that there feats were astonishing even at that time. But sorry, I think we DO know that they wouldn't average those numbers today. Wilt isn't averaging 50 points per game just for the simple fact that no coach is letting him take 40 shots per game or play 48.5 mpg. He's not averaging 27 rpg because there's not that many rebounds to go around. And no 6'5 guard is averaging 10+ rpg.

[Hammertime]

And no 6'5 guard is averaging 10+ rpg.

A 33-year old, 6-4 Jason Kidd averaged 8.2rpg in 36 minutes. Is it really that far of a stretch to imagine that a slightly taller, more athletic player might average 10+ rebounds if given 40-42 minutes per game?

[warriorfan]

why is there all this hate for ESPN?

[32jazz]

why is there all this hate for ESPN?

Not just ESPN all media that engages in revisionist history. That garbage they spew is not 'official' NBA records, but plays into the belief that pre ESPN era/Dream Team Era/Pre 's basketball is irrelevant.

They are basically ignoring decades of B BAll. And people wonder why older (Pre 80's)players at times come off as 'bitter'.

They see themselves if not erased from history(because these are not official records ESPN proffers) ,but at least being erased from the popular imagination.

[juju151111]

:applause:
Thanks for bringing this to light since Wilt/Big O & other players from the pre 80's have complained about this obvious neglect(especially Wilt) & they are viewed as being bitter/jealous. And people here actually don't believe the media & especially this network engage in revisionist history.:rolleyes: They alone are so arrogant to have decided that pre ESPN/pre 80's/Dream Team Era Basketball is basically irrelevant.

Magic Johnson is my personal favorite player of all time, but the media bias towards he & Dream Team era players sickens me.
2 EXAMPLES:

(1)CHARLES BARKLEY actually (1)spit on an 8(?) year old girl courtside during an actual game once,(2)in a moment of frustration with the media once declared to a reporter on camera "That's why I don't like White People",(3) has been arrested on several occasions for assault/DUI (Those among many countless other bonehead things he has done & said). Despite this Barkley cannot spread his fat sloppy butt cheeks wide enough for fans/media to kiss/slurp.

But just imagine KG/AI/Melo/ spitting on an 8 year old fan, fustratingly declaring their dislike for White People,assaulting fans/getting arrested. :confusedshrug: Just imagine the vitriol that would be spewed for that Player & names they would be called(One of the fan/ media favorite 'Thugs' topping the list).

(2)MAGIC JOHNSON in an autobiography has boasted(to dampen rumors he was GAY) of sleeping with at least 6 women at one time & looses count of the thousands he has slept with. Only a few people took him to task for saying these things, but Wilt's 20,000 claim (which Wilt admits was stupid) is used to mock & define him as a person
(Although Wilt advises all men in that same book that(paraphrase)' it is a far greater accomplishment to have made love to ONE woman a thousand times than a THOUSAND different women').

It's one thing to say something outrageous like Wilt ,but It is another to actually DO something outrageous/wreckless like MAgic who 'possibly' infected unknown dozens of people with HIV. Yet Magic boasts about his sexual escapades & is barely criticized & his behavior basically forgotten/ forgiven:confusedshrug:
Wilt did more than any other star male athlete to promote women's sports & was never accused of being nothing ,but a complete gentleman to women. Never been accused in an out-of-wedlock paternity case/neglect(like Larry Bird), was never married & never knowingly slept with married women ,but he was skewered & still is about that one ridiculous claim.
They did say since the merger and whpo are these people criticizing Wilt for sleeping with women. LOLJust because people make a Jk doesn't mean they are criticizing Wilt.

[juju151111]

A 33-year old, 6-4 Jason Kidd averaged 8.2rpg in 36 minutes. Is it really that far of a stretch to imagine that a slightly taller, more athletic player might average 10+ rebounds if given 40-42 minutes per game?
30ppg,10,10 yes its hard to imagine. Just like 50ppg,27rebs is hard.

[guy]

A 33-year old, 6-4 Jason Kidd averaged 8.2rpg in 36 minutes. Is it really that far of a stretch to imagine that a slightly taller, more athletic player might average 10+ rebounds if given 40-42 minutes per game?

If you want to go the per 36 minute route, well Oscar only averaged 10+ rebounds per 36 minutes once in his career at 10.1 and in an era where rebounds were clearly inflated. Like I said, there is no way he's averaging that much in this era.

[G.O.A.T]

They clearly said and had displayed on the graphic that it was SINCE THE MERGER.

Anyone who knows basketball knows Oscar would have far exceeded that number.

Pay attention or shut up.

[guy]

:applause:
Thanks for bringing this to light since Wilt/Big O & other players from the pre 80's have complained about this obvious neglect(especially Wilt) & they are viewed as being bitter/jealous. And people here actually don't believe the media & especially this network engage in revisionist history.:rolleyes: They alone are so arrogant to have decided that pre ESPN/pre 80's/Dream Team Era Basketball is basically irrelevant.

Magic Johnson is my personal favorite player of all time, but the media bias towards he & Dream Team era players sickens me.
2 EXAMPLES:

(1)CHARLES BARKLEY actually (1)spit on an 8(?) year old girl courtside during an actual game once,(2)in a moment of frustration with the media once declared to a reporter on camera "That's why I don't like White People",(3) has been arrested on several occasions for assault/DUI (Those among many countless other bonehead things he has done & said). Despite this Barkley cannot spread his fat sloppy butt cheeks wide enough for fans/media to kiss/slurp.

But just imagine KG/AI/Melo/ spitting on an 8 year old fan, fustratingly declaring their dislike for White People,assaulting fans/getting arrested. :confusedshrug: Just imagine the vitriol that would be spewed for that Player & names they would be called(One of the fan/ media favorite 'Thugs' topping the list).

(2)MAGIC JOHNSON in an autobiography has boasted(to dampen rumors he was GAY) of sleeping with at least 6 women at one time & looses count of the thousands he has slept with. Only a few people took him to task for saying these things, but Wilt's 20,000 claim (which Wilt admits was stupid) is used to mock & define him as a person
(Although Wilt advises all men in that same book that(paraphrase)' it is a far greater accomplishment to have made love to ONE woman a thousand times than a THOUSAND different women').

It's one thing to say something outrageous like Wilt ,but It is another to actually DO something outrageous/wreckless like MAgic who 'possibly' infected unknown dozens of people with HIV. Yet Magic boasts about his sexual escapades & is barely criticized & his behavior basically forgotten/ forgiven:confusedshrug:
Wilt did more than any other star male athlete to promote women's sports & was never accused of being nothing ,but a complete gentleman to women. Never been accused in an out-of-wedlock paternity case/neglect(like Larry Bird), was never married & never knowingly slept with married women ,but he was skewered & still is about that one ridiculous claim.


Barkley has taken s*** from the media for everything he's done, but clearly they let it go it cause its in the past. Yes, if KG/AI/Melo did that, they would get alot of s*** for it. And if Barkley did that stuff TODAY he would get s*** for it too, just like he did back then.

[EricForman]

Well, ONLY Wilt averaged 50 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .727...and Oscar is the ONLY player to average a triple-double...and Russell is the ONLY player to own 11 rings. It's not like EVERY player in the 60's were achieving those accomplishments. When Wilt averaged 50 ppg, the next highest scorer that season averaged 32.

Would those guys average that in today's game...maybe not...NO ONE knows. But even AT THE TIME, their feats were astonishing.


Simple question: do you think Lebron and Magic would average more rebounds and assists than Oscar if they all played together in the same league? I do.

[32jazz]

They did say since the merger and whpo are these people criticizing Wilt for sleeping with women. LOLJust because people make a Jk doesn't mean they are criticizing Wilt.

That's the point we are making knucklehead. Who are they to decide what era is relevant? Just because it is pre ESPN/Dream Team/80's their records are irrelevant? Those aren't even records ESPN spews & it does matter to people like Big O,Rick Barry,(and true fans of basketball) etc... that they are basically being removed from the 'popular' imagination.

Dude. Wilt was roundly criticized/vilainized by the fans & media(Arthur Ashe among other prominent Blacks as well/womens rights groups) for saying this & playing into the stereotype of the Black male & their supposed hypersexuality.

Roundly criticize for carelessly boasting about sexual escapades in the HIV era although he never gave HIV to anyone unlike the media darling MAGIC JOHNSON who 'possibly'/wrecklessy infected dozens & boasted(to dispell rumors he was GAY) about sleeping with 6 women at one time & sleeping with countless others.
What the hell can you do with 6 damn women any way:eek: :confusedshrug:

That one outrageous comment has nearly defined Wilt as a person now.

Keep on believing the media wouldn't villainize post DreamTeam players like MELO/AI/KG if they spit on an 8 year old girl during a game, or get arrested for assaulting fans/DUI, or out of Frustration declare their dislike for White People (Barkley did all of those things).
They would be vilainized but they can't kiss Barkley's fat rear end enough.

Magic boasted about sleeping with 6 women at a single time & possibly infecting them & dozen of others With HIV ,but he just like Barkley /Dream Team era players remained a media darling.

[EricForman]

That's the point we are making knucklehead. Who are they to decide what era is relevant? Just because it is pre ESPN/Dream Team/80's their records are irrelevant? Those aren't even records ESPN spews & it does matter to people like Big O,Rick Barry,(and true fans of basketball) etc... that they are basically being removed from the 'popular' imagination.

Dude. Wilt was roundly criticized/vilainized by the fans & media(Arthur Ashe among other prominent Blacks as well/womens rights groups) for saying this & playing into the stereotype of the Black male & their supposed hypersexuality.

Roundly criticize for carelessly boasting about sexual escapades in the HIV era although he never gave HIV to anyone unlike the media darling MAGIC JOHNSON who 'possibly'/wrecklessy infected dozens & boasted(to dispell rumors he was GAY) about sleeping with 6 women at one time & sleeping with countless others.
What the hell can you do with 6 damn women any way:eek: :confusedshrug:

That one outrageous comment has nearly defined Wilt as a person now.

Keep on believing the media wouldn't villainize post DreamTeam players like MELO/AI/KG if they spit on an 8 year old girl during a game, or get arrested for assaulting fans/DUI, or out of Frustration declare their dislike for White People (Barkley did all of those things).
They would be vilainized but they can't kiss Barkley's fat rear end enough.

Magic boasted about sleeping with 6 women at a single time & possibly infecting them & dozen of others With HIV ,but he just like Barkley /Dream Team era players remained a media darling.

You are really insecure to think ESPN has some reason to kiss Barkleys butt and find everyway to villainize someone like Melo or KG. please.

I agree there is media biase for the brightest of stars --Magic, MJ, Kobe, Lebron. But you're carrying this conspiracy theory too far.

And people love Chuck because he's the most honest and real celebrity in the world. And unlike KG or Kobe or Lebron, he'll actually beat you down if you get aggressive with him on the court. The othre three? They'll give a stare and then walk away becuase they dont want none.

[vert48]

What the hell can you do with 6 damn women any way:eek: :confusedshrug:Don't knock it until you try it :D

[guy]

That's the point we are making knucklehead. Who are they to decide what era is relevant? Just because it is pre ESPN/Dream Team/80's their records are irrelevant? Those aren't even records ESPN spews & it does matter to people like Big O,Rick Barry,(and true fans of basketball) etc... that they are basically being removed from the 'popular' imagination.

Dude. Wilt was roundly criticized/vilainized by the fans & media(Arthur Ashe among other prominent Blacks as well/womens rights groups) for saying this & playing into the stereotype of the Black male & their supposed hypersexuality.

Roundly criticize for carelessly boasting about sexual escapades in the HIV era although he never gave HIV to anyone unlike the media darling MAGIC JOHNSON who 'possibly'/wrecklessy infected dozens & boasted(to dispell rumors he was GAY) about sleeping with 6 women at one time & sleeping with countless others.
What the hell can you do with 6 damn women any way:eek: :confusedshrug:

That one outrageous comment has nearly defined Wilt as a person now.

Keep on believing the media wouldn't villainize post DreamTeam players like MELO/AI/KG if they spit on an 8 year old girl during a game, or get arrested for assaulting fans/DUI, or out of Frustration declare their dislike for White People (Barkley did all of those things).
They would be vilainized but they can't kiss Barkley's fat rear end enough.

Magic boasted about sleeping with 6 women at a single time & possibly infecting them & dozen of others With HIV ,but he just like Barkley /Dream Team era players remained a media darling.

LOL at Barkley not being villainized for the stuff he's done. Dude pretty much lost an MVP because of it.

[guy]

You are really insecure to think ESPN has some reason to kiss Barkleys butt and find everyway to villainize someone like Melo or KG. please.

I agree there is media biase for the brightest of stars --Magic, MJ, Kobe, Lebron. But you're carrying this conspiracy theory too far.

And people love Chuck because he's the most honest and real celebrity in the world. And unlike KG or Kobe or Lebron, he'll actually beat you down if you get aggressive with him on the court. The othre three? They'll give a stare and then walk away becuase they dont want none.

Funny thing is I doubt they really care. They just want to be consistent with the thread about Jordan/Durant. They're changing there stance from "the media is favorable to Jordan" to "the media is favorable to the Dream Team era". Like I said before, there is no reason for ESPN to INTENTIONALLY kiss old athletes asses.

[32jazz]

[QUOTE=guy]LOL at Barkley not being villainized for the stuff he's done. Dude pretty much lost an MVP because of it.[/QUOTE

Does Barkley still dislike White People? Did he marry a White woman to stick it to the Man?

[G.O.A.T]

LOL at Barkley not being villainized for the stuff he's done. Dude pretty much lost an MVP because of it.

Only player to not win the MVP when he recieved the most first place votes

[32jazz]

Don't knock it until you try it :D
:oldlol:

I can imagine ,but like someone surmised that must be hell of a lot of pressure to perform with 6 women in the damn bed.:eek:


Magic is my favorite player ,but the fact is the man boasted about these things(to prove he wasn't GAY) despite the fact that he may have infected dozens or more people directly or indirectly with HIV.Magic's careless indiscretions got less run/criticism than the more harmless stupidity of Wilt's words.

Despite this he still is a media darling from the Dream Team/Golden 80's era.
They can seem to do no wrong.

[EricForman]

Funny thing is I doubt they really care. They just want to be consistent with the thread about Jordan/Durant. They're changing there stance from "the media is favorable to Jordan" to "the media is favorable to the Dream Team era". Like I said before, there is absolutely no reason for ESPN to INTENTIONALLY kiss old athletes asses.


Well, you be insecure all you want. I think ESPN simply left out the older, more crazy stats for context purposes. Again, if you dont know anything about th eleague and just look at the stats. what's your first impression?

"Man the league today sucks, how come no one can even come 60% close to Wilt's numbers?"

This is a reasoning I ALWAYS use and none of the oldtime-defenders have ever addressed/debunked the theory--if Wilts stats are to be taken seriously...then how can we even watch basketball today? How are we supposed to get excited over a 25/24 game if Wilt was literally dropping that in his sleep? Are we supposed to believe that Hakeem wasn't even 2/3 as good as Wilt? Afterall, Hakeem's best statlines would be an off night for Wilt the year he averaged 50/25.

So the reason we all still watcha nd get excited today is because deep down, we all know stats back then were skewed and cant be taken serously. I'm not saying dismiss them completely and think old timers are trash. But CONTEXT is key. There isnt a doubt in my mind both Lebron and Magic would average more rebounds and assists than Oscar if they all played in the same league in the same year. So what does that mean? That means we stop going "OMGZ OSCAR AVERAGED TRIPLE DOUBLEZZZ" and realize that Magic's 21/12/9 and Lebron's 30/9/8 are probably more impressive. That's why both guys will rank higher than Oscar on the all time ranking when it's all said and done (I'm banking on Lebron topping Oscar's epic resume of one title as the second best player)

[guy]

Well, you be insecure all you want. I think ESPN simply left out the older, more crazy stats for context purposes. Again, if you dont know anything about th eleague and just look at the stats. what's your first impression?

"Man the league today sucks, how come no one can even come 60% close to Wilt's numbers?"

This is a reasoning I ALWAYS use and none of the oldtime-defenders have ever addressed/debunked the theory--if Wilts stats are to be taken seriously...then how can we even watch basketball today? How are we supposed to get excited over a 25/24 game if Wilt was literally dropping that in his sleep? Are we supposed to believe that Hakeem wasn't even 2/3 as good as Wilt? Afterall, Hakeem's best statlines would be an off night for Wilt the year he averaged 50/25.

So the reason we all still watcha nd get excited today is because deep down, we all know stats back then were skewed and cant be taken serously. I'm not saying dismiss them completely and think old timers are trash. But CONTEXT is key. There isnt a doubt in my mind both Lebron and Magic would average more rebounds and assists than Oscar if they all played in the same league in the same year. So what does that mean? That means we stop going "OMGZ OSCAR AVERAGED TRIPLE DOUBLEZZZ" and realize that Magic's 21/12/9 and Lebron's 30/9/8 are probably more impressive. That's why both guys will rank higher than Oscar on the all time ranking when it's all said and done (I'm banking on Lebron topping Oscar's epic resume of one title as the second best player)

I completely agree. I think alot of the people complaining about it don't realize that most casual fans that aren't that familiar with the history of the game do not realize some of the significant differences in the way the game is played today and then 30 years ago. If they did, they would think 60s players were twice as good rebounders as they are today and Wilt was literally twice as good as someone like Shaq. They would think "what's so good about guys like Jordan and Lebron when Oscar put up much better numbers?" You cannot really compare the eras. And thats what those "after the merger" stats are for, and even with that being the case, I've still seen ESPN post records including EVERYONE plenty of times.

[guy]

[QUOTE=guy]LOL at Barkley not being villainized for the stuff he's done. Dude pretty much lost an MVP because of it.[/QUOTE

Does Barkley still dislike White People? Did he marry a White woman to stick it to the Man?

What does that have anything to do with anything?

[jlauber]

It just amazes me...

Do I think Oscar would average 10 rpg in today's era? Well, how about this...6-8 Dennis Rodman DOMINATED a league of 7-2+ centers, and a 6-3 GUARD, Fat Lever not only led his team in rebounding in the late 80's, he was among the league leaders.

Wilt averaging 50 ppg in today's game? No way right? Just like there was no way a player would score 81 points in a game just a few short years ago...in a league that averaged less than 100. Or Shaq averaging 38-16 in a Finals just 10 years ago, or even 33-15 against the DPOY Motumbo. If Shaq could post those kinds of numbers, why not Wilt with 40+ or more...especially against the inferior clods that he would face almost nightly?

Today's fans diminish the records of the past, because they can't accept the fact that yesterday's players could possibly be any better than any of today's. It will be interesting 20 years from now, when that generation makes fun of Jordan, and saying that he would be riding the bench in their era.

[G.O.A.T]

It just amazes me...

Do I think Oscar would average 10 rpg in today's era? Well, how about this...6-8 Dennis Rodman DOMINATED a league of 7-2+ centers, and a 6-3 GUARD, Fat Lever not only led his team in rebounding in the late 80's, he was among the league leaders.

Wilt averaging 50 ppg in today's game? No way right? Just like there was no way a player would score 81 points in a game just a few short years ago...in a league that averaged less than 100. Or Shaq averaging 38-16 in a Finals just 10 years ago, or even 33-15 against the DPOY Motumbo. If Shaq could post those kinds of numbers, why not Wilt with 40+ or more...especially against the inferior clods that he would face almost nightly?

Today's fans diminish the records of the past, because they can't accept the fact that yesterday's players could possibly be any better than any of today's. It will be interesting 20 years from now, when that generation makes fun of Jordan, and saying that he would be riding the bench in their era.

While I generally agree with everything here, I will say in regards to Big O's rebounding and assists in todays era. I doubt he can put up the same numbers simply because there are fewer possesions and shots per game, thus fewer chances for rebounds and assists.

[catch24]

Moot comparison. Without Oscar Robertson, there is no Lebron today (or what we see him as). You can't just put him back in that ERA and say "he'd dominate!". In hindsight he would, yes, but is that using perspective? Had Oscar Robertson been born in the 80's he would of benefited from the nutrition and weight programs available today.

[32jazz]

It just amazes me...

Do I think Oscar would average 10 rpg in today's era? Well, how about this...6-8 Dennis Rodman DOMINATED a league of 7-2+ centers, and a 6-3 GUARD, Fat Lever not only led his team in rebounding in the late 80's, he was among the league leaders.

Wilt averaging 50 ppg in today's game? No way right? Just like there was no way a player would score 81 points in a game just a few short years ago...in a league that averaged less than 100. Or Shaq averaging 38-16 in a Finals just 10 years ago, or even 33-15 against the DPOY Motumbo. If Shaq could post those kinds of numbers, why not Wilt with 40+ or more...especially against the inferior clods that he would face almost nightly?

Today's fans diminish the records of the past, because they can't accept the fact that yesterday's players could possibly be any better than any of today's. It will be interesting 20 years from now, when that generation makes fun of Jordan, and saying that he would be riding the bench in their era.
:applause:
Especially thanks for giving FAT LEVER some love. The guy was a 6'3 guard who averaged nearly 10 rebounds a game in the late 80's ,but they think Oscar Roberston couldn't possibly ever do that?:rolleyes:
(Only 4 true 7 footers have even claimed a rebounding title in NBA history so it's more than height/pace that determines rebounding greatness).

Why do people feel that ESPN has the responsiblity of deciding which eras accomplishmnets/achievements are relevant or irrelevant?

Why don't they just post the best damn accomplishments/records & let the fans decide for themselves ?

What ESPN is essentially doing is revisionist history & effectively pushing some great players of the past out of the public imagination for ESPN era icons.

[Psileas]

Well, you be insecure all you want. I think ESPN simply left out the older, more crazy stats for context purposes. Again, if you dont know anything about th eleague and just look at the stats. what's your first impression?

"Man the league today sucks, how come no one can even come 60% close to Wilt's numbers?"

This is a reasoning I ALWAYS use and none of the oldtime-defenders have ever addressed/debunked the theory--if Wilts stats are to be taken seriously...then how can we even watch basketball today? How are we supposed to get excited over a 25/24 game if Wilt was literally dropping that in his sleep? Are we supposed to believe that Hakeem wasn't even 2/3 as good as Wilt? Afterall, Hakeem's best statlines would be an off night for Wilt the year he averaged 50/25.

So the reason we all still watcha nd get excited today is because deep down, we all know stats back then were skewed and cant be taken serously. I'm not saying dismiss them completely and think old timers are trash. But CONTEXT is key. There isnt a doubt in my mind both Lebron and Magic would average more rebounds and assists than Oscar if they all played in the same league in the same year. So what does that mean? That means we stop going "OMGZ OSCAR AVERAGED TRIPLE DOUBLEZZZ" and realize that Magic's 21/12/9 and Lebron's 30/9/8 are probably more impressive. That's why both guys will rank higher than Oscar on the all time ranking when it's all said and done (I'm banking on Lebron topping Oscar's epic resume of one title as the second best player)

A hypothetical question: Suppose the NBA in the future gradually changes its style of play and becomes a much more team-oriented league, with more emphasis being played on defense, easy, open shots and physical play. No more 30 ppg league leaders, no more triple doubles or near-triple doubles every few games, no more 50-point eruptions, etc. Do you think there's the slightest chance that the media will take away what the players of the last 3 decades have done and have been doing because of this? In Europe, the game has already taken this step for more than a decade. In the 1980's, the scoring champion of most leagues would average around 30 ppg and sometimes more. Nowadays, this isn't even happening in Switzerland or Finland anymore. I know of people, mostly Europeans, who don't take any NBA numbers seriously, describing them as overblown and ballhoggish. Most of them don't take seriously older European records, either. Yet, nobody is trying to reset the records or add some fancy date, say, 2000, as a kind of checkpoint.
Adding perspective to records is often the right thing to do (although you have to add perspective from both sides, else you are biased. That is, yes, note that in the 60's there were many more rebounds available, but also note that it was tougher to get assists). But you can't just mention the best record of the last X years while ignoring the all-time one. They mentioned Magic's performance being a record since 1976-77. Why then? Because it was the merger. OK, but why not add the all-time figure, as well? Or the figure since the 1954-55 season when the clock was introduced, which is the single most important addition of the NBA, along with black players? Even with perspective added. Hey, someone can even find perspective for the 80's as well, like note that the game was more past-paced back then and that Magic might have less such games if he played nowadays, etc.

[guy]

It just amazes me...

Do I think Oscar would average 10 rpg in today's era? Well, how about this...6-8 Dennis Rodman DOMINATED a league of 7-2+ centers, and a 6-3 GUARD, Fat Lever not only led his team in rebounding in the late 80's, he was among the league leaders.

Yes, 6-8, not 6-5, Dennis Rodman who played PF, not PG, and also had no responsibility to be a playmaker or score. Sure, if thats all Oscar tried to do, I'm sure he could, but so could many other players.

And Fat Lever played on the very fast-paced Nuggets, but still not as fast-paced as Oscar's teams, and he still didn't average 10+ rebounds. He also was not as great of a scorer or playmaker as Oscar. And like I said, per 36 minutes he only averaged 10+ rebounds once, and in a faster era. Its not like he was way above double digits in rebounding. He had seasons of 10.1, 12.5, and 10.4 in a faster era. He did this in 3 out of 14 seasons. Sorry, I don't see it happening. I could see him putting up Magic or Lebron numbers, but not average a triple double.



Wilt averaging 50 ppg in today's game? No way right? Just like there was no way a player would score 81 points in a game just a few short years ago...in a league that averaged less than 100. Or Shaq averaging 38-16 in a Finals just 10 years ago, or even 33-15 against the DPOY Motumbo. If Shaq could post those kinds of numbers, why not Wilt with 40+ or more...especially against the inferior clods that he would face almost nightly?

Wow. In what world does scoring 81 points in ONE GAME or averaging 33-38 ppg/15-16 rpg over a 5-6 GAME series anywhere remotely close to averaging 50 ppg/27 rpg OVER AN ENTIRE SEASON. What coach today is going to let one player take 40 shots per game and give him 48.5 mpg to do it?



Today's fans diminish the records of the past, because they can't accept the fact that yesterday's players could possibly be any better than any of today's. It will be interesting 20 years from now, when that generation makes fun of Jordan, and saying that he would be riding the bench in their era.

Its not diminishing. Its taken things into context. Let me ask you, would you honestly argue that 62 Wilt > 00 Shaq, because he averaged 50/26 and Shaq only averaged 30/14? Would you say Wilt was 20 ppg/12 rpg better then Shaq? Its cool if you think Wilt was better, but would you actually use that argument to prove it. Cause that would be completely wrong.

[Hammertime]

So the reason we all still watcha nd get excited today is because deep down, we all know stats back then were skewed and cant be taken serously. I'm not saying dismiss them completely and think old timers are trash. But CONTEXT is key. There isnt a doubt in my mind both Lebron and Magic would average more rebounds and assists than Oscar if they all played in the same league in the same year.

Why do you automatically assume that because Oscar's competition is weaker, he must be a weaker player? Even if his stats are skewed, why would LeBron or Magic automatically be better? What stats would he have to have put up in the 60s to be as impressive as Magic or LeBron? 40-20-20 for the season?

The problem is that you're assuming that all stats, and by extension all accomplishments AND all players from the 60s must be seen "within context." If the league was weaker then, which is the context you talk about, then all the players were weaker. Then there's no way that anyone from that era could be the greatest at anything. NBA has been around for 60 years, and during that time, someone had to be the best passer, the best rebounder, the best scorer, the best anything you can possibly measure and judge. Why then, is it hard to believe, that not all of those players just happen to have appeared in the last 25 years? Why would you automatically assume that there is no way that Oscar would've been better than LeBron at anything?

This view of sports as a continuous march of progress is what the British would call the "Whig" view of history. The idea that basketball is constantly progressing and that every year, everything gets better. Players get better, coaching gets better, so that by definition, every generation of players is better than the one before. Hence, the greatest player ever must be from the current generation. It just doesn't work this way, though. It's actually quite, if not completely, random. A player might be born at any given point and be more talented than everyone before and after him.

Take hockey, for example. In a league that's about 80 years old now, the greatest player ever appeared 30 years ago. Like Wilt, he shattered records, redefined the game, put up numbers that would've seemed outlandish 10 years earlier and that seem outlandish now. To draw parallels with what you're saying, Wayne Gretzky put up 215 points in a season. 20 years earlier, Stan Mikita won the Art Ross Trophy(top scorer) with 87. 20 years later, players are still winning it with less than a 100 points.

Can you make the same argument here? What's the point of watching hockey if players are putting up numbers that aren't even HALF of what the Great One did? I mean, how the hell do you explain the fact that the top scorer of the league was scoring half of Wayne's total only 10 years after he put up 215? Or 15 years earlier? Except that somehow, the standard of play must've increased so tremendously between 1985 and 1995 so as to make stats from those two years incomparable. The only issue with that is that Gretzky retired in 1999.

Again, why is it so easy to discount the possibility that Oscar was the greatest rebounder of his size ever, and that there hasn't been anyone better in the past 40 years?

[Abraham Lincoln]

There isnt a doubt in my mind both Lebron and Magic would average more rebounds and assists than Oscar if they all played in the same league in the same year.
Even then, they'd still be inferior ball players in the half court.

[Abraham Lincoln]

This view of sports as a continuous march of progress is what the British would call the "Whig" view of history. The idea that basketball is constantly progressing and that every year, everything gets better. Players get better, coaching gets better, so that by definition, every generation of players is better than the one before. Hence, the greatest player ever must be from the current generation. It just doesn't work this way, though.
This needs to be emphasized more. :applause:

[ThaRegul8r]

With 40 of them?


Can anyone explain how that might be when Oscar Robertson averaged, for a season,

30-12-11.

Surely, he has to have more than 40 games with those numbers. Then you factor in the rest of his career as well, and I would think he has alot more than that.

What we know, is that in '61-62 O averaged a triple double, and that he had an all-time record of 41 exactly, which means he was LITERALLY putting up a triple double EVERY OTHER FREAKING GAME. We know he averaged 30 points that year. So I wouldn't imagine many of those were <30 points. And that's just ONE YEAR.

So, yeah, it'd be BS.

[G.O.A.T]

Why do you automatically assume that because Oscar's competition is weaker, he must be a weaker player? Even if his stats are skewed, why would LeBron or Magic automatically be better? What stats would he have to have put up in the 60s to be as impressive as Magic or LeBron? 40-20-20 for the season?

The problem is that you're assuming that all stats, and by extension all accomplishments AND all players from the 60s must be seen "within context." If the league was weaker then, which is the context you talk about, then all the players were weaker. Then there's no way that anyone from that era could be the greatest at anything. NBA has been around for 60 years, and during that time, someone had to be the best passer, the best rebounder, the best scorer, the best anything you can possibly measure and judge. Why then, is it hard to believe, that not all of those players just happen to have appeared in the last 25 years? Why would you automatically assume that there is no way that Oscar would've been better than LeBron at anything?

This view of sports as a continuous march of progress is what the British would call the "Whig" view of history. The idea that basketball is constantly progressing and that every year, everything gets better. Players get better, coaching gets better, so that by definition, every generation of players is better than the one before. Hence, the greatest player ever must be from the current generation. It just doesn't work this way, though. It's actually quite, if not completely, random. A player might be born at any given point and be more talented than everyone before and after him.

Take hockey, for example. In a league that's about 80 years old now, the greatest player ever appeared 30 years ago. Like Wilt, he shattered records, redefined the game, put up numbers that would've seemed outlandish 10 years earlier and that seem outlandish now. To draw parallels with what you're saying, Wayne Gretzky put up 215 points in a season. 20 years earlier, Stan Mikita won the Art Ross Trophy(top scorer) with 87. 20 years later, players are still winning it with less than a 100 points.

Can you make the same argument here? What's the point of watching hockey if players are putting up numbers that aren't even HALF of what the Great One did? I mean, how the hell do you explain the fact that the top scorer of the league was scoring half of Wayne's total only 10 years after he put up 215? Or 15 years earlier? Except that somehow, the standard of play must've increased so tremendously between 1985 and 1995 so as to make stats from those two years incomparable. The only issue with that is that Gretzky retired in 1999.

Again, why is it so easy to discount the possibility that Oscar was the greatest rebounder of his size ever, and that there hasn't been anyone better in the past 40 years?

Among the best posts I've read here.

I do think the pace argument is a legit one, but I also would point out how few players Oscar's size and position were putting up numbers like his.

Times change, players and the sport evolves, but the spirit of competition, of one player simply proving he is better than another or that his team is better, that has always been the same.

To me judging people based on how they performed relative to their competition is the fairest method.

Yes, Oscar averaged a triple-double in the era where it was most likely to happen statistically. But no one else did...doesn't that count for something?

[gts]

this has been discussed before, the reason is that about the the time merger went down the way an assist is credited was changed to it's current definition.... somewhere on that big old nba.com website is a description of it..
that's why when articles are written they may omit certain players from another era, not a bias, just keeping the article in context

[KAJ=GOAT]

this has been discussed before, the reason is that about the the time merger went down the way an assist is credited was changed to it's current definition.... somewhere on that big old nba.com website is a description of it..
that's why when articles are written they may omit certain players from another era, not a bias, just keeping the article in context


Even then, it doesn't justify telling lies about what the records are.

You don't see reports on baseball saying, "since the advent of the dh, so and so has the record for this", or, "since games in a season changed from 154, to 162, the record for this belongs to so and so".

No, they keep all of their records as they are without trying to fool anyone.

ESPN has a clear agenda, and that is to promote certain players beyond what they've actually accomplished while forgetting the true holders of records.

[G.O.A.T]

There were no lies...

They made it very very very clear that it was a post-merger stat.

[juju151111]

That's the point we are making knucklehead. Who are they to decide what era is relevant? Just because it is pre ESPN/Dream Team/80's their records are irrelevant? Those aren't even records ESPN spews & it does matter to people like Big O,Rick Barry,(and true fans of basketball) etc... that they are basically being removed from the 'popular' imagination.

Dude. Wilt was roundly criticized/vilainized by the fans & media(Arthur Ashe among other prominent Blacks as well/womens rights groups) for saying this & playing into the stereotype of the Black male & their supposed hypersexuality.

Roundly criticize for carelessly boasting about sexual escapades in the HIV era although he never gave HIV to anyone unlike the media darling MAGIC JOHNSON who 'possibly'/wrecklessy infected dozens & boasted(to dispell rumors he was GAY) about sleeping with 6 women at one time & sleeping with countless others.
What the hell can you do with 6 damn women any way:eek: :confusedshrug:

That one outrageous comment has nearly defined Wilt as a person now.

Keep on believing the media wouldn't villainize post DreamTeam players like MELO/AI/KG if they spit on an 8 year old girl during a game, or get arrested for assaulting fans/DUI, or out of Frustration declare their dislike for White People (Barkley did all of those things).
They would be vilainized but they can't kiss Barkley's fat rear end enough.

Magic boasted about sleeping with 6 women at a single time & possibly infecting them & dozen of others With HIV ,but he just like Barkley /Dream Team era players remained a media darling.
Wilt was critized then. Everytime ESPN and nbatv mentions him know all i here is praise. People forget about things and magic was critized. People forget with time. Magic was getting blasted for his HIV and other stuff, but know u think he is a saint. Look at Kobe??? Why do you think these players don't get critized?? Melo got call a ***** by everyone on ESPN when he fought the knicks.

[juju151111]

It just amazes me...

Do I think Oscar would average 10 rpg in today's era? Well, how about this...6-8 Dennis Rodman DOMINATED a league of 7-2+ centers, and a 6-3 GUARD, Fat Lever not only led his team in rebounding in the late 80's, he was among the league leaders.

Wilt averaging 50 ppg in today's game? No way right? Just like there was no way a player would score 81 points in a game just a few short years ago...in a league that averaged less than 100. Or Shaq averaging 38-16 in a Finals just 10 years ago, or even 33-15 against the DPOY Motumbo. If Shaq could post those kinds of numbers, why not Wilt with 40+ or more...especially against the inferior clods that he would face almost nightly?

Today's fans diminish the records of the past, because they can't accept the fact that yesterday's players could possibly be any better than any of today's. It will be interesting 20 years from now, when that generation makes fun of Jordan, and saying that he would be riding the bench in their era.
What a bunch of crap. Rodman concentrated only on rebounding trhough. Oscar had 30ppg,10rebs etc... Wilt isn't avging any 50ppg/27rpg. GTFO We have more teams,longer season,more players, more late night flights, etc... Stop ur BS. Wilt is not so much better then everyone today that he would avg 50.

Scoring 81 and avging 81 us different. I never said Wilt wouldn't ever score 50 or 60.

[EricForman]

It just amazes me...

Do I think Oscar would average 10 rpg in today's era? Well, how about this...6-8 Dennis Rodman DOMINATED a league of 7-2+ centers, and a 6-3 GUARD, Fat Lever not only led his team in rebounding in the late 80's, he was among the league leaders.

Wilt averaging 50 ppg in today's game? No way right? Just like there was no way a player would score 81 points in a game just a few short years ago...in a league that averaged less than 100. Or Shaq averaging 38-16 in a Finals just 10 years ago, or even 33-15 against the DPOY Motumbo. If Shaq could post those kinds of numbers, why not Wilt with 40+ or more...especially against the inferior clods that he would face almost nightly?

Today's fans diminish the records of the past, because they can't accept the fact that yesterday's players could possibly be any better than any of today's. It will be interesting 20 years from now, when that generation makes fun of Jordan, and saying that he would be riding the bench in their era.


if you can't even conceded that Wilt and Oscars numbers would dip even slightly (you're basically implying "why cant they average that today" then there is nothing for us to talk about on this subject anymore.

and you ask why Shaq averaged 38-16 in the finals and wilt cant average 40+ in the season? first of all the nba finals is 7 games max while a season is 82 games. and second, maybe wilt isn't heads and shoulders better than shaq? if at all?

why talk about just wilt and oscar, who were the best players of their generation? what about 6'7 jerry lucas averaging 21-21? who can average 21-21 today? lucas better than all of them?

[Fatal9]

Take hockey, for example. In a league that's about 80 years old now, the greatest player ever appeared 30 years ago. Like Wilt, he shattered records, redefined the game, put up numbers that would've seemed outlandish 10 years earlier and that seem outlandish now. To draw parallels with what you're saying, Wayne Gretzky put up 215 points in a season. 20 years earlier, Stan Mikita won the Art Ross Trophy(top scorer) with 87. 20 years later, players are still winning it with less than a 100 points.

Can you make the same argument here? What's the point of watching hockey if players are putting up numbers that aren't even HALF of what the Great One did? I mean, how the hell do you explain the fact that the top scorer of the league was scoring half of Wayne's total only 10 years after he put up 215? Or 15 years earlier? Except that somehow, the standard of play must've increased so tremendously between 1985 and 1995 so as to make stats from those two years incomparable. The only issue with that is that Gretzky retired in 1999.
There's arguments amongst hockey fans about this btw. The goals per game average used to be much much higher in the 80s (goalie equipment probably has a lot to do with that). Check out the pts leaders totals from mid-80s to now, probably around 4-5X as many players scoring 100+ pts compared to today. Gretzky just dominated so thoroughly that he left no room for debate (no matter how you adjust his stats). I doubt many informed hockey fans think he's putting up 200+ pt seasons nowadays. But yea, there still isn't much debate except the few who would take Lemieux (healthy) and Orr.

[TennesseeFan]

That's BSPN for, all of the stats they post are full of spin

ESPN = Fox News of Sports

What is FSN then? :oldlol:

[Dave3]

Even then, it doesn't justify telling lies about what the records are.

You don't see reports on baseball saying, "since the advent of the dh, so and so has the record for this", or, "since games in a season changed from 154, to 162, the record for this belongs to so and so".

No, they keep all of their records as they are without trying to fool anyone.

ESPN has a clear agenda, and that is to promote certain players beyond what they've actually accomplished while forgetting the true holders of records.
How can there be a lie when it clearly said "Since the Merger" ?
This thread is the lie...

[bisk]

Yea, they just did it again:
http://i42.tinypic.com/wahfra.jpg

But the dude did say that Oscar had like 290 or something like that....:lol

[Desperado]

:oldlol: since the merger


ESPN always acting like basketball didn't exist before it launched

[juju151111]

Yea, they just did it again:
http://i42.tinypic.com/wahfra.jpg

But the dude did say that Oscar had like 290 or something like that....:lol
LOL i told you guys they said it and the guy even mentions Oscar. LMAO stop getting butthurt over nonesense. but but the ESPN hates old players.

[kkling]

Practically everytime announcers bring up triple doubles, Oscar is brought up for doing it an entire season.

[Diesel J]

LOL i told you guys they said it and the guy even mentions Oscar. LMAO stop getting butthurt over nonesense. but but the ESPN hates old players.

:applause:

[jlauber]

Yes, 6-8, not 6-5, Dennis Rodman who played PF, not PG, and also had no responsibility to be a playmaker or score. Sure, if thats all Oscar tried to do, I'm sure he could, but so could many other players.

And Fat Lever played on the very fast-paced Nuggets, but still not as fast-paced as Oscar's teams, and he still didn't average 10+ rebounds. He also was not as great of a scorer or playmaker as Oscar. And like I said, per 36 minutes he only averaged 10+ rebounds once, and in a faster era. Its not like he was way above double digits in rebounding. He had seasons of 10.1, 12.5, and 10.4 in a faster era. He did this in 3 out of 14 seasons. Sorry, I don't see it happening. I could see him putting up Magic or Lebron numbers, but not average a triple double.



Wow. In what world does scoring 81 points in ONE GAME or averaging 33-38 ppg/15-16 rpg over a 5-6 GAME series anywhere remotely close to averaging 50 ppg/27 rpg OVER AN ENTIRE SEASON. What coach today is going to let one player take 40 shots per game and give him 48.5 mpg to do it?



Its not diminishing. Its taken things into context. Let me ask you, would you honestly argue that 62 Wilt > 00 Shaq, because he averaged 50/26 and Shaq only averaged 30/14? Would you say Wilt was 20 ppg/12 rpg better then Shaq? Its cool if you think Wilt was better, but would you actually use that argument to prove it. Cause that would be completely wrong.

Kobe scoring 81, in a league that averaged 98 is significant. Shaq averaging 38, in a FINALS, or 33 ppg against the supposed best defensive player in the league, IS significant. Why? Because they illustrate what players are CAPABLE of.

Would I say Wilt is 20-12 better than Shaq? I would say Wilt, at his PEAK (which was NOT 61-62 BTW), would probably average 40-20, or MORE. Shaq, at his PEAK, was CAPABLE of 38-16. And, at his PEAK (99-00 or so), Shaq averaged 40 mpg in the regular season, and 43.4 mpg in the post-season. Wilt averaged 45.2 mpg for his entire CAREER (and 47.2 mpg in his 160 post-season games!.) So, IMHO, Wilt was probably around 5-3 better than Shaq, when both were playing at their best.

And, one more time, Wilt's PEAK was not 61-62, but rather in the mid-60's. I have mentioned it MANY times, but despite Wilt scoring less (much less), it was not because he could no longer score, but by design. And before anyone jumps on me about that...I have mentioned his 68-69 season several times before. SI ran an article stating that Wilt could no longer score. In the course of about two weeks, Wilt put up a 60 and 66 point game, and averged 32 ppg over 17 straight games. He also had the HIGH game in EVERY season in the decade of the 60's.

I consider Wilt's 66-67 season as the greatest single season ever. He only averaged 24.1 ppg, but it came on only 14 shots per game. He had three perfect games, and scored the HIGH game that year, of 58. He also had the FOUR high games in the following season (games of 52, 53, 53, and 68!)...all in a year in which he only averaged 24.3 ppg.

I have long maintained that Wilt, at his PEAK, circa 1967 or 1968, and being asked to CARRY a team...would have easily averaged 40 ppg, and very likely COULD have averaged 50 ppg...in a league that had several HOF centers. Which is important, since, in today's game, he would probably have no more than 10 games ALL season, in which he would face a quality center.


As for Oscar's incredible season. Would he put up a Triple-Double season in today's game? Probably not enough possessions. The scoring would be no problem, and probably not the assists, since, with any kind of decent coaching, he would handle the ball on nearly every possession. The rebounding is the area that would be questionable. But, it must be remembered (and was pointed out by Foreman), that Jerry Lucas was grabbing 20 rpg for the Royals back in the 60's. Had he not played with Lucas, I suspect that he would have garnered a couple of more rebounds per game back then. And, as I pointed out, if 6-3 170 lb. Fat Lever could average over 9 rpg for a season, in the late 80's...I don't think it would be too much to ask Oscar to average 10. Remember, for those that claim that Magic would have been a better rebounder than Oscar...Lever was a better rebounder than Magic.

[Hammertime]

There's arguments amongst hockey fans about this btw. The goals per game average used to be much much higher in the 80s (goalie equipment probably has a lot to do with that). Check out the pts leaders totals from mid-80s to now, probably around 4-5X as many players scoring 100+ pts compared to today. Gretzky just dominated so thoroughly that he left no room for debate (no matter how you adjust his stats). I doubt many informed hockey fans think he's putting up 200+ pt seasons nowadays. But yea, there still isn't much debate except the few who would take Lemieux (healthy) and Orr.

Oh, I know hockey has changed since the freewheelin' days on the 80s. I know Gretzky would probably not put up such crazy numbers today because it's unlikely we'd see a team scoring 5-6 a game that having 3 platers scoring 100+ for the season would necessitate. But the gap between Gretzky and others still remains and is still astounding.

Perhaps I shouldn't have compared his numbers with the numbers of players who played before and after him. I should've compared the numbers to the players who played at the same time. The 83/84 season, Gretzky had 205 points. The second leading scorer of the league, Paul Coffey, had 126. Seems like a typo, doesn't it? Wayne Gretzky scored 1.6 times as many points as his nearest competitor. To put it into perspective, consider Durant's current scoring average and imagine LeBron scoring 1.6 times as many points per game. He would average 49PPG. Eerily Wilt-like numbers.

And in a situation like this, it's easy to say "Something ain't right here." It's easy, because it feels that way. How the hell can a man be that much above his peers? How can you have a well-established sport, with deeply-rooted popularity and a vast talent pool, and all of a sudden a player appears and is that dominant? The easiest explanation would be that somehow, those numbers are skewed. You could say the league was much weaker before the influx of the former Commies. You could take a different angle and say that playing with Kuri and Messier inflated his numbers. You could say that he padded his stats in garbage time, and a whole myriad of other excuses are possible.

Why? Because human mind likes to equate impossible with improbable. It is highly improbable that I would win the Powerball lottery, so I've never wasted a single dollar on a ticket. However, it's not impossible, which is why I would not dismiss the news that my neighbour won as a lie. Extreme athletic feats work the same way. A player averaging 50ppg in today's NBA is improbable, but people treat it as if it's impossible. I'm sure back in 1959, it would've seemed just as impossible. And because people treat it as impossible, there's a need to somehow dismiss the previous occurence of it. For all the excuses as to how Wilt managed to put up numbers like that, he did put up numbers like that. Sure, he got to play 48.5 minutes a game. Sure, he got to take as many shots as he wanted. Sure, the whole team strategy revolved around getting him the ball and getting the f*ck out of his way. Nevertheless, he did it. Under very specific circumstances, but he did it. And it's no less possible now than it was back then. Put LeBron James in a body of a 7-footer, make him go to college for 4 years, put him on a really bad team in dire financial straits whose main concern would be to put butts in the seats, and give him free reign to shoot. Is it actually impossible that a player like that would score 50 a game? I know it's improbable, but is it impossible? In 60 years of NBA history, couldn't a player like that appear at least once?

[jlauber]

Oh, I know hockey has changed since the freewheelin' days on the 80s. I know Gretzky would probably not put up such crazy numbers today because it's unlikely we'd see a team scoring 5-6 a game that having 3 platers scoring 100+ for the season would necessitate. But the gap between Gretzky and others still remains and is still astounding.

Perhaps I shouldn't have compared his numbers with the numbers of players who played before and after him. I should've compared the numbers to the players who played at the same time. The 83/84 season, Gretzky had 205 points. The second leading scorer of the league, Paul Coffey, had 126. Seems like a typo, doesn't it? Wayne Gretzky scored 1.6 times as many points as his nearest competitor. To put it into perspective, consider Durant's current scoring average and imagine LeBron scoring 1.6 times as many points per game. He would average 49PPG. Eerily Wilt-like numbers.

And in a situation like this, it's easy to say "Something ain't right here." It's easy, because it feels that way. How the hell can a man be that much above his peers? How can you have a well-established sport, with deeply-rooted popularity and a vast talent pool, and all of a sudden a player appears and is that dominant? The easiest explanation would be that somehow, those numbers are skewed. You could say the league was much weaker before the influx of the former Commies. You could take a different angle and say that playing with Kuri and Messier inflated his numbers. You could say that he padded his stats in garbage time, and a whole myriad of other excuses are possible.

Why? Because human mind likes to equate impossible with improbable. It is highly improbable that I would win the Powerball lottery, so I've never wasted a single dollar on a ticket. However, it's not impossible, which is why I would not dismiss the news that my neighbour won as a lie. Extreme athletic feats work the same way. A player averaging 50ppg in today's NBA is improbable, but people treat it as if it's impossible. I'm sure back in 1959, it would've seemed just as impossible. And because people treat it as impossible, there's a need to somehow dismiss the previous occurence of it. For all the excuses as to how Wilt managed to put up numbers like that, he did put up numbers like that. Sure, he got to play 48.5 minutes a game. Sure, he got to take as many shots as he wanted. Sure, the whole team strategy revolved around getting him the ball and getting the f*ck out of his way. Nevertheless, he did it. Under very specific circumstances, but he did it. And it's no less possible now than it was back then. Put LeBron James in a body of a 7-footer, make him go to college for 4 years, put him on a really bad team in dire financial straits whose main concern would be to put butts in the seats, and give him free reign to shoot. Is it actually impossible that a player like that would score 50 a game? I know it's improbable, but is it impossible? In 60 years of NBA history, couldn't a player like that appear at least once?

Just a brilliant post!

[KAJ=GOAT]

How can there be a lie when it clearly said "Since the Merger" ?
This thread is the lie...

Really?

How about when Kobe scored 50 in four straight?

Did they also say, "since the merger?"

No, they included Wilts name among the best as well.

So, why say it sometimes, and not others?

Because they have an agenda to prop up certain players as having these marks.

[Meticode]

But they don't say that though. They simply make mention of it, and then post a list of players who did it.

It seems as if they are purposely leaving out records of a portion of the leagues history.
It was never said, but I saw it posted as a graphic when they brough up the most 25-8-8 games when LeBron got that last night.

[KAJ=GOAT]

It was never said, but I saw it posted as a graphic when they brough up the most 25-8-8 games when LeBron got that last night.


Posted as a graphic, or said outright,

since the merger or not,

the NBA has existed before.


There is no reason to separate.

[Meticode]

Posted as a graphic, or said outright,

since the merger or not,

the NBA has existed before.


There is no reason to separate.

Yea, really don't care honestly about what they do. If you follow the NBA and do your own research you know what the numbers are yourself. Any true fan can do that instead of listing to over-tanned sportscasters on the telly.

[gts]

Posted as a graphic, or said outright,

since the merger or not,

the NBA has existed before.


There is no reason to separate.
depends on which stat you're talking about.. some stats like steals were not even kept at one time. assists are recorded different now then they were in the 60's there were years in the 90's where the 3 point line was closer etc etc... so yes there are times they need to seperate the eras to keep the discussion in the context of the comparrison....

[guy]

Kobe scoring 81, in a league that averaged 98 is significant. Shaq averaging 38, in a FINALS, or 33 ppg against the supposed best defensive player in the league, IS significant. Why? Because they illustrate what players are CAPABLE of.

So what are you saying? That Kobe scoring 81 in one game means he was capable of averaging 81 for a whole entire season? Cause thats completely ridiculous conclusion.



Would I say Wilt is 20-12 better than Shaq? I would say Wilt, at his PEAK (which was NOT 61-62 BTW), would probably average 40-20, or MORE. Shaq, at his PEAK, was CAPABLE of 38-16. And, at his PEAK (99-00 or so), Shaq averaged 40 mpg in the regular season, and 43.4 mpg in the post-season. Wilt averaged 45.2 mpg for his entire CAREER (and 47.2 mpg in his 160 post-season games!.) So, IMHO, Wilt was probably around 5-3 better than Shaq, when both were playing at their best.

You're kidding me? When we talk about PEAK its for one whole season, not one damn series. Could Wilt average 40 ppg? Maybe, I won't say its out of the realm of possibility since both Kobe and Jordan have averaged 35-37 ppg in a season, but not 50. Sorry, I don't buy that. For him to do that, lets say on 60% FG and 50% FT, he would have to take about 35 FGA per game and 16 FTA per game. Thats not happening. No coach today is letting one player take that many shots, cause coaching has evolved to show (and this probably wasn't the case back in the 60s which is why Wilt was able to take that many shots) that thats not a very efficient way for a team to play. And no coach is letting one player play 48.5 MPG, even if the guy can do it, cause they know it risks injury. If a coach did decide to let a guy play that much, I wouldn't be surprised if an owner/GM stepped in to make it stop becasue they don't want to risk the health of their cash cow.

As far as 20 rpg goes, thats laughable. The guy that has gotten closest to that recently is Dennis Rodman at 18.7 and he did NOTHING but rebounding. And Wilt's RPG is not the best indicator of his rebounding ability compared to others, especially of other eras, but his rebound % is. In his best rebounding season where he averaged 27.2 per game, he had 36% of his team's rebounds, who averaged about 75 rpg. Last year, the league average was about 41 rpg, so if you translate those Wilt rebounding numbers to today, it would be about 15 rpg. So, for Wilt to average 20 rpg, he'd have to get nearly 50% of his teams rebounds, even though before he was getting in the mid-30s. Yea, I don't see that happening, sorry, and its a joke to think to it would.



As for Oscar's incredible season. Would he put up a Triple-Double season in today's game? Probably not enough possessions. The scoring would be no problem, and probably not the assists, since, with any kind of decent coaching, he would handle the ball on nearly every possession. The rebounding is the area that would be questionable. But, it must be remembered (and was pointed out by Foreman), that Jerry Lucas was grabbing 20 rpg for the Royals back in the 60's. Had he not played with Lucas, I suspect that he would have garnered a couple of more rebounds per game back then. And, as I pointed out, if 6-3 170 lb. Fat Lever could average over 9 rpg for a season, in the late 80's...I don't think it would be too much to ask Oscar to average 10. Remember, for those that claim that Magic would have been a better rebounder than Oscar...Lever was a better rebounder than Magic.

And here you can apply the same logic. In his best rebounding season, where he averaged 12.5 rpg, he had about 18% of his team's rebounds, who averaged 71 per game. Translate that to today, and he's at about 7 rpg, which is about what Lebron has been doing

Maybe you can't compare scoring averages with pace, but I see no reason you can't do it with rebounds. I'm not saying one would average exactly the same amount of rebounds adjusted for pace, but it wouldn't be that much more or less. And I don't see Wilt or Oscar averaging about 33% more, like they would in order to get the numbers you're talking about.

[Dave3]

Really?

How about when Kobe scored 50 in four straight?

Did they also say, "since the merger?"

No, they included Wilts name among the best as well.

So, why say it sometimes, and not others?

Because they have an agenda to prop up certain players as having these marks.
The premise of this thread is still a lie, therefore the conclusion is a lie lol.

And the reason was because Kobe's was highest since the merger, so they had to go back before it to find something higher. If they were to go before the merger there would be a few more people on that list. Once LeBron gets more than 61, they'll compare to all time instead of just the merger. And like someone already said, a point today is a point in 1960, but an assist today isn't the same as an assist before the merger...hence the "since the merger" disclaimer...common sense really...

[Diesel J]

Really?

How about when Kobe scored 50 in four straight?

Did they also say, "since the merger?"

No, they included Wilts name among the best as well.

So, why say it sometimes, and not others?

Because they have an agenda to prop up certain players as having these marks.

Now we know why KAJ=GOAT is mad. The stats doesn't favor his boy KObe:roll:

[KAJ=GOAT]

Now we know why KAJ=GOAT is mad. The stats doesn't favor his boy KObe:roll:


Good lord you're dumb.

Kobe has nothing to do with it at all.

He was brought up as an example. But, if you're too stupid to see that, blame your parents.

And no dunce, I'm not mad.

I'm just pointing out the inaccuracies made the the nations biggest provider of sports news.

[Diesel J]

I'm just pointing out the inaccuracies made the the nations biggest provider of sports news.

What inaccuracy? They clearly stated since the merger


























And no dunce, I'm not mad.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/496/6a00d4142efd3f3c7f00d41.jpg (http://img405.imageshack.us/i/6a00d4142efd3f3c7f00d41.jpg/)

[EricForman]

Now we know why KAJ=GOAT is mad. The stats doesn't favor his boy KObe:roll:

:oldlol:

jesus, in the end, EVERY one whos takes on that "Jordan aint all that, Wilt, Kareem has done better" angle are really all Kobe fans.

[G.O.A.T]

KAJ=GOAT has been made to look like a fool in this thread.

Got him landed on my ignore list.

[Diesel J]

:oldlol:

jesus, in the end, EVERY one whos takes on that "Jordan aint all that, Wilt, Kareem has done better" angle are really all Kobe fans.

Don't forget the Pippen > Jordan posters:lol

[jlauber]

So what are you saying? That Kobe scoring 81 in one game means he was capable of averaging 81 for a whole entire season? Cause thats completely ridiculous conclusion.



You're kidding me? When we talk about PEAK its for one whole season, not one damn series. Could Wilt average 40 ppg? Maybe, I won't say its out of the realm of possibility since both Kobe and Jordan have averaged 35-37 ppg in a season, but not 50. Sorry, I don't buy that. For him to do that, lets say on 60% FG and 50% FT, he would have to take about 35 FGA per game and 16 FTA per game. Thats not happening. No coach today is letting one player take that many shots, cause coaching has evolved to show (and this probably wasn't the case back in the 60s which is why Wilt was able to take that many shots) that thats not a very efficient way for a team to play. And no coach is letting one player play 48.5 MPG, even if the guy can do it, cause they know it risks injury. If a coach did decide to let a guy play that much, I wouldn't be surprised if an owner/GM stepped in to make it stop becasue they don't want to risk the health of their cash cow.

As far as 20 rpg goes, thats laughable. The guy that has gotten closest to that recently is Dennis Rodman at 18.7 and he did NOTHING but rebounding. And Wilt's RPG is not the best indicator of his rebounding ability compared to others, especially of other eras, but his rebound % is. In his best rebounding season where he averaged 27.2 per game, he had 36% of his team's rebounds, who averaged about 75 rpg. Last year, the league average was about 41 rpg, so if you translate those Wilt rebounding numbers to today, it would be about 15 rpg. So, for Wilt to average 20 rpg, he'd have to get nearly 50% of his teams rebounds, even though before he was getting in the mid-30s. Yea, I don't see that happening, sorry, and its a joke to think to it would.



And here you can apply the same logic. In his best rebounding season, where he averaged 12.5 rpg, he had about 18% of his team's rebounds, who averaged 71 per game. Translate that to today, and he's at about 7 rpg, which is about what Lebron has been doing

Maybe you can't compare scoring averages with pace, but I see no reason you can't do it with rebounds. I'm not saying one would average exactly the same amount of rebounds adjusted for pace, but it wouldn't be that much more or less. And I don't see Wilt or Oscar averaging about 33% more, like they would in order to get the numbers you're talking about.

You are already conceding that Wilt could average 40+ ppg, even in the modern era. I say, at his PEAK, with his incredible FG%, he would do it easily...especially when he would only face a QUALITY opposing center about 10-12 times in a SEASON.

As for rebounding...one more time...Shaq averaged 16 in a series. And, 6-8 Rodman averaged 18.7, in a league in which had the WEAKEST rebounding centers in NBA history.

Throw out those damn "mini stats"...like available rebounds, or rebound rate. Chamberlain DOMINATED his peers. I have mentioned it several times, but in 142 H2H games against arguably the second greatest rebounder in NBA history, Bill Russell, Wilt averaged 28.7 rpg (to Russell's 23.7.) Think about that...nearly 30 rpg in 142 games...against the second greatest rebounder in history (and nearly 30 ppg as well BTW.) He nearly AVERAGED a 30-30 game EACH time he stepped on the floor with Russell.

He also outrebounded 7-2 Kareem by a considerable margin, and Kareem actually led the NBA in rebounding in the mid-70's.

If Rodman were getting 19 rpg in an era when a 6-3 guard was his team's leading rebounder, and in a league where 7-2+ clods could not get 10...sorry, but Wilt would easily surpass 20 rpg.

[EricForman]

You are already conceding that Wilt could average 40+ ppg, even in the modern era. I say, at his PEAK, with his incredible FG%, he would do it easily...especially when he would only face a QUALITY opposing center about 10-12 times in a SEASON.

As for rebounding...one more time...Shaq averaged 16 in a series. And, 6-8 Rodman averaged 18.7, in a league in which had the WEAKEST rebounding centers in NBA history.

Throw out those damn "mini stats"...like available rebounds, or rebound rate. Chamberlain DOMINATED his peers. I have mentioned it several times, but in 142 H2H games against arguably the second greatest rebounder in NBA history, Bill Russell, Wilt averaged 28.7 rpg (to Russell's 23.7.) Think about that...nearly 30 rpg in 142 games...against the second greatest rebounder in history (and nearly 30 ppg as well BTW.) He nearly AVERAGED a 30-30 game EACH time he stepped on the floor with Russell.

He also outrebounded 7-2 Kareem by a considerable margin, and Kareem actually led the NBA in rebounding in the mid-70's.

If Rodman were getting 19 rpg in an era when a 6-3 guard was his team's leading rebounder, and in a league where 7-2+ clods could not get 10...sorry, but Wilt would easily surpass 20 rpg.


fine lauber, wilt would average 40/20 in todays league.

yet somehow, in the final 5 minutes quarter of game 7s, you can bet the kobe/melos (aka guys with that EFF YOU, im taking over and winning this) will outperform Wilt.

[jlauber]

fine lauber, wilt would average 40/20 in todays league.

yet somehow, in the final 5 minutes quarter of game 7s, you can bet the kobe/melos (aka guys with that EFF YOU, im taking over and winning this) will outperform Wilt.

40/20 per game and his team will be outscored by Kobe in the final 5 minutes of every crucial game. :oldlol:

Well, maybe the last TWO minutes of those games. I won't argue with MJ or Kobe over Wilt in the last two minutes.

[KAJ=GOAT]

What inaccuracy? They clearly stated since the merger

























http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/496/6a00d4142efd3f3c7f00d41.jpg (http://img405.imageshack.us/i/6a00d4142efd3f3c7f00d41.jpg/)

Does the merger cover the entire history of the NBA?
No.

Thanks for trying.

Don't be upset with me because ESPN tells lies.

[guy]

You are already conceding that Wilt could average 40+ ppg, even in the modern era. I say, at his PEAK, with his incredible FG%, he would do it easily...especially when he would only face a QUALITY opposing center about 10-12 times in a SEASON.

As for rebounding...one more time...Shaq averaged 16 in a series. And, 6-8 Rodman averaged 18.7, in a league in which had the WEAKEST rebounding centers in NBA history.

Throw out those damn "mini stats"...like available rebounds, or rebound rate. Chamberlain DOMINATED his peers. I have mentioned it several times, but in 142 H2H games against arguably the second greatest rebounder in NBA history, Bill Russell, Wilt averaged 28.7 rpg (to Russell's 23.7.) Think about that...nearly 30 rpg in 142 games...against the second greatest rebounder in history (and nearly 30 ppg as well BTW.) He nearly AVERAGED a 30-30 game EACH time he stepped on the floor with Russell.

He also outrebounded 7-2 Kareem by a considerable margin, and Kareem actually led the NBA in rebounding in the mid-70's.

If Rodman were getting 19 rpg in an era when a 6-3 guard was his team's leading rebounder, and in a league where 7-2+ clods could not get 10...sorry, but Wilt would easily surpass 20 rpg.

LOL @ "throw out those mini stats". Yes, lets throw out freaking logic. Lets throw out the fact that less available rebounds = less rebounds per player. As if there is not much of a difference when in Wilt's day there were literally years where there were nearly twice as many rebounds as available then today. Sorry, but there's a huge difference between 75 and 41 rebounds. No one is saying Wilt wouldn't still be one of the greatest players ever. No one is saying Wilt wouldn't still be one of the greatest scorers and rebounders ever. Unfortunately, you seem to take it that way and ignore logic cause of you're completely blind homerism.

[jlauber]

Guy,

I think we will both have to agree, to disagree. If you think that Dennis Rodman would have outrebounded a prime Wilt, then I suspect you would be in the minority. And, if Rodman were getting nearly 19 rpg, IMHO, Wilt would easily have topped it.

At least it appears that we agree that Chamberlain, at his peak, and being asked to score, would probably have exceeded 40 ppg.

I really believe, though, that given Chamberlain's phenomenal athleticism, and his exceptional range (yes, he had a Duncan-like bank shot, and a Garnett-like jump shot), along with his Shaq-like power (which admittedly, he seldom intentionally used)...that he would still put up staggering scoring and rebounding games. Geez, if there has ever been a player that could name a number, and exceed it, it was Chamberlain. Even in a higher-paced league...how do explain 55 rebounds in a game (against Russell, no less), or a 100 pt game, or 35 straight made field goal attempts??? I have no idea how many 40 rebound games Wilt had, but I do KNOW that he had seven of them against Russell (including a playoff record of 41.) I KNOW that he had 32 60+ point games, FIVE of which came AFTER the NBA widened the lane, and AFTER Wilt reduced his scoring. Take for example his 78-43 game...what does that translate into in the 00's? Even if you were to reduce it by one-third, that would be the equivalent of a 52-28 game. How many of those have you seen lately!!??

And, even though Illsmak won't like it...Kareem, as the oldest player in the league, hung games of 35, 43, and 46 on a rising Olajuwon in the mid-to-late 80's. And we all know who the best center in the NBA was for most of the 90's. Given the fact that Wilt, 11 years older and one-year removed from major knee surgery, battled Kareem to statistical draw in the 70-71 playoffs. What would have a PRIME Wilt done, then? And, by extension, what would have a PRIME Wilt done against Olajuwon, or carrying it even further...the MANY stumbling goofballs that manned the pivot in the 90's, and into the 00's?

I'll stand by my 40-20, even if I think it is a tad low. Throw in a conservative eight blocks per game, and another 5-6 assists per game...and what do you think that would be worth in today's game????

[Abraham Lincoln]

I don't know about 8 blocks, I doubt many of the shooters today would even approach the paint with a Russell, Chamberlain, Jabbar, Thurmond, etc in the middle. That plus the new defensive 3 sec. rule. But there is little doubt his team would allow the fewest points in the paint. It would be more ideal to predict how he would fare against the top centers today, that is if they could even hang with him. It would be a joke.

[jlauber]

I don't know about 8 blocks, I doubt many of the shooters today would even approach the paint with a Russell, Chamberlain, Jabbar, Thurmond, etc in the middle. That plus the new defensive 3 sec. rule. But there is little doubt his team would allow the fewest points in the paint. It would be more ideal to predict how he would fare against the top centers today, that is if they could even hang with him. It would be a joke.


You hit the nail on the head with that one. Take a look around the league. Has there ever been a period with worse centers, at least post-1960? If Dwight Howard is the best we have now...one can only wonder where he would rank, if he had to face the likes of Reed, Lanier, Bellamy, Thurmond, Cowens, Lucas (yes Lucas played some center), Unseld, Hayes, Gilmore, Kareem, and Wilt...all of whom were playing in the early 70's. Throw Russell in there...and I honestly believe, Howard, at his best, would be near the bottom of that list.

[Abraham Lincoln]

I agree, but at least Howard is a quality defensive man and rebounder. After him it really thins out even more.

[jlauber]

I agree, but at least Howard is a quality defensive man and rebounder. After him it really, really thins out even more.

It is downright pathetic. I remembering reading a post about the season that Andrew Bynum was having. C'MON...Bynum has half the range Wilt had. Is NOWHERE near as strong, nor as fast, nor does he possess anything remotely CLOSE to Wilt's leaping ability. Bynum would have been among the bottom of the centers of the early 70's. Might have even been on the bench.

Sorry, but IMHO, Wilt's WORST game against these stooges would probably be a 30-18 game...and there is no telling what his high end games would be. Needless to say, it would probably be comical to watch.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Not only that but Jackson vs Gasol at the 4 is another mis-match (correct me if I am wrong).

[jlauber]

Not only that but Jackson vs Gasol at the 4 is another mis-match (correct me if I am wrong).

Jackson was certainly stronger. I do happen to believe that Gasol is a marvelous offensive player, though. I can't recall a better player with either hand, than Gasol.

In fact, IMHO, there has never been players like Gasol or Nowitzski in NBA history. Gasol is exceptionally talented with both hands, and Nowitzski has unbelieveable range for a seven-footer.

Having said that, though, Jackson would push them around all game long. They might get their points, but they would feel it the next day.

[Lakas Fan Yo]

BSPN will never change. If you look at when they list most of Jordan's records...........if you look closely at the very bottom of the screen in very small text (almost unreadable) you will see the words "*excluding games played by Wilt Chamberlain."

I saw this so many times when they posted "Jordan's NBA records" that I just stopped paying attention. It's ridiculous some of the crap they pull.

[jlauber]

BSPN will never change. If you look at when they list most of Jordan's records...........if you look closely at the very bottom of the screen in very small text (almost unreadable) you will see the words "*excluding games played by Wilt Chamberlain."

I saw this so many times when they posted "Jordan's NBA records" that I just stopped paying attention. It's ridiculous some of the crap they pull.

In some respects, it is understandable. If they compared everything to what Wilt accomplished...well, ...why bother.

Let's just say...there is the NBA record book, most of which is owned by Chamberlain...then there is ESPN's record book, which are the records that exclude Wilt's records. Basically it opens up their record book to the rest of the players who have played the game.

[Lakas Fan Yo]

A hypothetical question: Suppose the NBA in the future gradually changes its style of play and becomes a much more team-oriented league, with more emphasis being played on defense, easy, open shots and physical play. No more 30 ppg league leaders, no more triple doubles or near-triple doubles every few games, no more 50-point eruptions, etc. Do you think there's the slightest chance that the media will take away what the players of the last 3 decades have done and have been doing because of this? In Europe, the game has already taken this step for more than a decade. In the 1980's, the scoring champion of most leagues would average around 30 ppg and sometimes more. Nowadays, this isn't even happening in Switzerland or Finland anymore. I know of people, mostly Europeans, who don't take any NBA numbers seriously, describing them as overblown and ballhoggish. Most of them don't take seriously older European records, either. Yet, nobody is trying to reset the records or add some fancy date, say, 2000, as a kind of checkpoint.
Adding perspective to records is often the right thing to do (although you have to add perspective from both sides, else you are biased. That is, yes, note that in the 60's there were many more rebounds available, but also note that it was tougher to get assists). But you can't just mention the best record of the last X years while ignoring the all-time one. They mentioned Magic's performance being a record since 1976-77. Why then? Because it was the merger. OK, but why not add the all-time figure, as well? Or the figure since the 1954-55 season when the clock was introduced, which is the single most important addition of the NBA, along with black players? Even with perspective added. Hey, someone can even find perspective for the 80's as well, like note that the game was more past-paced back then and that Magic might have less such games if he played nowadays, etc.


Exactly. I laugh and laugh and how absurd NBA fans comments are when they say "LeBron would average 50 in Europe", "Childress would average 30 in Europe". NO ONE, not one player on earth could average 30 in the Euroleague.

I don't give a damn who it is, NO ONE could average 30 a game in the Euroleague today. To put this in perspective, back in the day, Petrovic and Galis had no problem getting 30 a game. In fact. Galis averaged more than 30 something like 8 seasons in a row in the Euroleague and in his prime he was doing like 37-41 or something unreal like that. Today? I would guess he would average 15-18 a game.

However I have not heard of anyone removing and discrediting Galis's records in Europe. I have not heard of any sports media in Europe overlooking or removing all his scoring records. Schmidt and Galis have most of the FIBA scoring records also. So is ESPN all of a sudden going to start removing Schmidt's and Galis' FIBA records also and justify by it saying "*before the NBA era of FIBA"? Why the hell should this be allowed?

Before the NBA era of FIBA, ALL the great international players stayed in their country and did NOT go to the NBA. So to make a distinction would be dishonest and deceitful. Yet if BSPN does it, all the fans will agree with it and justify it probably. It's ridiculous.

As you say, everyone in Europe considers NBA stats today to be a joke, but they would not discount what today's NBA players are doing if the NBA eventually evolves to a team game (which will probably happen because if it does not Team USA will start losing even with their best players). It is OK to put things in perspective, relating to stats, it is not OK to distort and revise history and basically remove what previous players have done. And that is clearly the objective that BSPN has.

[jlauber]

So MANY of Wilt's records will probably never be broken. Harvey Pollack was on record in 2009 as stating that Chamberlain held 130 NBA records.

We had some fun here a while back with Durant's run at MJ's ESPN record of scoring 25+ points in 40 straight games. Of course, the actual record was 106 games...by Wilt of course. Not to mention that he scored 30+ in 65 straight games. Or 40+ in TWO different 14 game stretches (and he averaged 54 ppg in BOTH of them BTW.) Or his little mark of scoring 351 points over a five game stretch (70 ppg !!!)

Wilt even holds a record that few are probably aware of...NINE straight games with a triple-double. AND, had blocked shots been an official stat when he played, there is a good chance he would not only be the all-time leader in triple-double games...but probably would have HUGE edge in quad-double games over his nearest competitor.

Speaking of triple doubles...how about the only double-triple-double game in NBA history...22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists.

I posted this figure before...I don't know how many 30-30 games Chamberlain had in his career, but I do know that he had 34 of them against Russell. I wonder how many other players have had as many as ten, in their entire careers?

In any case...as you most of you know by now...on almost any trivia question about individual records in the NBA...you have a great chance of getting the answer right, by just answering, "Wilt."

[EricForman]

So MANY of Wilt's records will probably never be broken. Harvey Pollack was on record in 2009 as stating that Chamberlain held 130 NBA records.

We had some fun here a while back with Durant's run at MJ's ESPN record of scoring 25+ points in 40 straight games. Of course, the actual record was 106 games...by Wilt of course. Not to mention that he scored 30+ in 65 straight games. Or 40+ in TWO different 14 game stretches (and he averaged 54 ppg in BOTH of them BTW.) Or his little mark of scoring 351 points over a five game stretch (70 ppg !!!)

Wilt even holds a record that few are probably aware of...NINE straight games with a triple-double. AND, had blocked shots been an official stat when he played, there is a good chance he would not only be the all-time leader in triple-double games...but probably would have HUGE edge in quad-double games over his nearest competitor.

Speaking of triple doubles...how about the only double-triple-double game in NBA history...22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists.

I posted this figure before...I don't know how many 30-30 games Chamberlain had in his career, but I do know that he had 34 of them against Russell. I wonder how many other players have had as many as ten, in their entire careers?

In any case...as you most of you know by now...on almost any trivia question about individual records in the NBA...you have a great chance of getting the answer right, by just answering, "Wilt."


i believe that espn put the merger criteria and leave out wilts records not because of any biase against older players or to "promote everyone from 70s on", its more because they also believe, like i do, that stats back then are just blown and skewed out of proportion.

imagine an 80s Jordan playing in Wilts era. you dont envisioning him holding some ridiculous records like "50 games in a row with at least 8 steals" or having like, the highest blocks per game average for a non-big man? I mean 80s Jordan, with that quickness and explosiveness, would average what, 3.5 blocks a game off chasedowns and weakside help?

they leave out wilt not because they have a thing against wilt, its for context purposes.

[CeoTypeDoe619]

i believe that espn put the merger criteria and leave out wilts records not because of any biase against older players or to "promote everyone from 70s on", its more because they also believe, like i do, that stats back then are just blown and skewed out of proportion.

imagine an 80s Jordan playing in Wilts era. you dont envisioning him holding some ridiculous records like "50 games in a row with at least 8 steals" or having like, the highest blocks per game average for a non-big man? I mean 80s Jordan, with that quickness and explosiveness, would average what, 3.5 blocks a game off chasedowns and weakside help?

they leave out wilt not because they have a thing against wilt, its for context purposes.
Or more like Nobody's close to breaking it. So they show who did it recently so more people watch that certain player in anticipation to break the record. If it was so easy to score. How come Bill russell wasnt averaging 50plus ??points???


That Jordan thing is stupid cuz if you throw Russel Westbrook back their. He would be better then West. But wouldnt be fair cuz of circumstances such as health, nutrition, nature, technology

[EricForman]

Or more like Nobody's close to breaking it. So they show who did it recently so more people watch that certain player in anticipation to break the record. If it was so easy to score. How come Bill russell wasnt averaging 50plus ??points???

because bill russell wasnt a scorer. he put up some flashy numbers in his own right in rebounding

im yawning at wilt and oscars numbers gtting BJs all the time. every great from that era had ridiculous numbers. elgin baylor put up like, 35,18,6 one year while spending half the season in the army. not-so-great jerry lucas put up 21 21 (and around that number) for like a 5 year stretch. see, dropping 21 21 back then was just mediocre.


yawn yawn yawn.

[CeoTypeDoe619]

because bill russell wasnt a scorer. he put up some flashy numbers in his own right in rebounding

im yawning at wilt and oscars numbers gtting BJs all the time. every great from that era had ridiculous numbers. elgin baylor put up like, 35,18,6 one year while spending half the season in the army. not-so-great jerry lucas put up 21 21 (and around that number) for like a 5 year stretch. see, dropping 21 21 back then was just mediocre.


yawn yawn yawn.

But your saying it was so easy to score and rack up stats. Dont you think russell would at least average 30? If David Stern felt the stats were so ridiculous he would just not count everything before the merger. Thats why a lot of older people will say Jordan's the arguable GOAT because people seem to forget what Wilt Did.

[EricForman]

But your saying it was so easy to score and rack up stats. Dont you think russell would at least average 30? If David Stern felt the stats were so ridiculous he would just not count everything before the merger. Thats why a lot of older people will say Jordan's the arguable GOAT because people seem to forget what Wilt Did.


Why would he not count everything? Stern probably does what most of us do, look at it and apply context. I am pretty sure Stern doesnt think Wilt was twice the scorer Shaq or Hakeem was, let alone the Jordans and the Kobes.

And if you told Russell to put up 30 a game he could, his team would suffer though, and Russell didn't play like that. And dont be silly, I'm not saying "its easy to drop 30 back then" as if me and you could go do it. but any modern great, from Jordan to Bird to Hakeem could and would drop 30 if thats the number you want.

[guy]

Guy,

I think we will both have to agree, to disagree. If you think that Dennis Rodman would have outrebounded a prime Wilt, then I suspect you would be in the minority. And, if Rodman were getting nearly 19 rpg, IMHO, Wilt would easily have topped it.

No not all, and I don't think I'm in the minority at all because most people realize that all the statistical evidence, not raw stats but the mini stats you referred to, support that, even in Wilt's case. I don't think he would've topped Rodman not because I think Rodman was a better rebounder, but because Rodman had a completely different situation then Wilt that made it easier for Rodman to average that many rebounds then it would've for Wilt. All Rodman was expected to do was rebound and play elite man defense. Wilt would be expected to score, rebound, play elite man defense, be an elite shotblocker, be a playmaker, etc. You shouldn't be comparing Wilt to Rodman, but to guys like Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, etc, who were asked to do those same things as Wilt did. Those 3 players' career rebounding seasons were 13-14 rpg. Sorry, but there is no way Wilt is averaging 6-7 more rebounds then those guys, while doing all those other things he's expected to do. He's not going to average 43-53% more then those guys. Sorry, he might've been better, but he wasn't that much better, and its complete delusion to think that. If he took on Rodman's role, where all he did was rebound, sure maybe he could've done it.



At least it appears that we agree that Chamberlain, at his peak, and being asked to score, would probably have exceeded 40 ppg.

No. Where does me saying it would've been in the "realm of possibility" equate to him probably exceeding 40 ppg? IMO it most likely does not happen. Lets see here. The most FGAs per game that centers have taken in the 80s-00s are about 20-21. Guys like Kobe, AI, and Jordan have been on those teams where they "asked to score", and the most they ever averaged was 27-28 FGAs per game. Considering centers usually don't get off as many shots as swingmen in the past 30 years due to it naturally being easier for swingmen get more shots off since they are way more ball-dominant, I think its more then generous to say Wilt at the most averages 25 shots per game, all 2-pointers. Since its pretty much a given that teams would apply "Hack-a-Wilt" to Wilt in today's game, and the most Shaq ever averaged was 13 FTAs per game, I think its more then generous to say Wilt at the most averages 15 FTAs per game. I'll say best case scenario he takes 25 shots and 15 FTAs per games, and he does it on 60 FG% and 60 FT%. Even with that being the case he'd be at 39 ppg, not 40 ppg. Still close, and still amazing, but not 40, but since its so close I'll concede that its possible, but I don't think its likely.



Take for example his 78-43 game...what does that translate into in the 00's? Even if you were to reduce it by one-third, that would be the equivalent of a 52-28 game. How many of those have you seen lately!!??

Shaq had a 61/23 and Chris Webber had a 51/26 game earlier in the decade. I don't think anyone is saying Wilt wouldn't have spectacular games that resemble some of the averages he had back in the day, but he wouldn't average those numbers for a whole season. I'm not saying he wouldn't be great, and me saying he wouldn't get those averages today doesn't equate to me saying that.



I'll stand by my 40-20, even if I think it is a tad low. Throw in a conservative eight blocks per game, and another 5-6 assists per game...and what do you think that would be worth in today's game????

Conservative 8 blocks? :rolleyes:

Yes he would average 10-13 ppg/6-7 rpg/1-2 apg/3-4 bpg more then Shaq, Hakeem, and Robinson ever did all in the same season. LOL. Yes he's that much better :roll:. And don't bring up what one of those guys did in a playoff series and equate it to being realistic for Wilt to do that for a whole entire season, cause thats completely idiotic logic.

In today's game he'd lead the league in points, rebounds, and blocks by 10 ppg/7 rpg/5 BPG! over the next guy all while being borderline top 10 in assists. :roll: Yes, he's that much better then everyone. Sorry, thats really a joke. We can agree to disagree because you are completely too delusional and bias to have this argument with.

[guy]

BSPN will never change. If you look at when they list most of Jordan's records...........if you look closely at the very bottom of the screen in very small text (almost unreadable) you will see the words "*excluding games played by Wilt Chamberlain."

I saw this so many times when they posted "Jordan's NBA records" that I just stopped paying attention. It's ridiculous some of the crap they pull.

:rolleyes: Way to exaggerate.

[Duncan21formvp]

With 40 of them?


Can anyone explain how that might be when Oscar Robertson averaged, for a season,

30-12-11.

Surely, he has to have more than 40 games with those numbers. Then you factor in the rest of his career as well, and I would think he has alot more than that.

Dude because they actually keep stats on it. No one cares about Wilt because he isn't alive anymore.

[The GM]

Everyone knows that they just wanna boost Lebron's numbers and slob down Magic Johnson. It drives me nuts though that they totally disrespect Wilt, Russell & Oscar's greatness & accomplishments because they know deep down inside that no one one player will ever win 11 rings again or average 50 ppg & 25 rebounds or drop a triple double for a whole entire season so they totally dismiss it for no vaild reason what so ever because of ESPN's favorite hype machine and boy toy.

[jlauber]

No not all, and I don't think I'm in the minority at all because most people realize that all the statistical evidence, not raw stats but the mini stats you referred to, support that, even in Wilt's case. I don't think he would've topped Rodman not because I think Rodman was a better rebounder, but because Rodman had a completely different situation then Wilt that made it easier for Rodman to average that many rebounds then it would've for Wilt. All Rodman was expected to do was rebound and play elite man defense. Wilt would be expected to score, rebound, play elite man defense, be an elite shotblocker, be a playmaker, etc. You shouldn't be comparing Wilt to Rodman, but to guys like Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, etc, who were asked to do those same things as Wilt did. Those 3 players' career rebounding seasons were 13-14 rpg. Sorry, but there is no way Wilt is averaging 6-7 more rebounds then those guys, while doing all those other things he's expected to do. He's not going to average 43-53% more then those guys. Sorry, he might've been better, but he wasn't that much better, and its complete delusion to think that. If he took on Rodman's role, where all he did was rebound, sure maybe he could've done it.



No. Where does me saying it would've been in the "realm of possibility" equate to him probably exceeding 40 ppg? IMO it most likely does not happen. Lets see here. The most FGAs per game that centers have taken in the 80s-00s are about 20-21. Guys like Kobe, AI, and Jordan have been on those teams where they "asked to score", and the most they ever averaged was 27-28 FGAs per game. Considering centers usually don't get off as many shots as swingmen in the past 30 years due to it naturally being easier for swingmen get more shots off since they are way more ball-dominant, I think its more then generous to say Wilt at the most averages 25 shots per game, all 2-pointers. Since its pretty much a given that teams would apply "Hack-a-Wilt" to Wilt in today's game, and the most Shaq ever averaged was 13 FTAs per game, I think its more then generous to say Wilt at the most averages 15 FTAs per game. I'll say best case scenario he takes 25 shots and 15 FTAs per games, and he does it on 60 FG% and 60 FT%. Even with that being the case he'd be at 39 ppg, not 40 ppg. Still close, and still amazing, but not 40, but since its so close I'll concede that its possible, but I don't think its likely.



Shaq had a 61/23 and Chris Webber had a 51/26 game earlier in the decade. I don't think anyone is saying Wilt wouldn't have spectacular games that resemble some of the averages he had back in the day, but he wouldn't average those numbers for a whole season. I'm not saying he wouldn't be great, and me saying he wouldn't get those averages today doesn't equate to me saying that.



Conservative 8 blocks? :rolleyes:

Yes he would average 10-13 ppg/6-7 rpg/1-2 apg/3-4 bpg more then Shaq, Hakeem, and Robinson ever did all in the same season. LOL. Yes he's that much better :roll:. And don't bring up what one of those guys did in a playoff series and equate it to being realistic for Wilt to do that for a whole entire season, cause thats completely idiotic logic.

In today's game he'd lead the league in points, rebounds, and blocks by 10 ppg/7 rpg/5 BPG! over the next guy all while being borderline top 10 in assists. :roll: Yes, he's that much better then everyone. Sorry, thats really a joke. We can agree to disagree because you are completely too delusional and bias to have this argument with.

If Wilt averaging 20 rpg in the current is unbelieveable...so was Rodman's 19 rpg (on 40 mpg BTW...which was nowhere what Wilt averaged in his career.) Didn't happen. Impossible. Of course, to even suggest a player could grab 27 in ANY season is beyond comprehension...or 55 in one game...or SEVEN 40+ rebound games, just against Russell for cryingoutloud. Let's get real here. (oh, BTW, Rodman averaged 9.9 rpg in his post-season career, while Wilt was at 24.5 in the post-season...if it all really happened.)

If Wilt averaging 40 ppg in today's game is unrealistic...so was Jordan's 37 ppg season. No way Jordan would average 25 in the current NBA.

Wilt shooting .683 (or .727) from the field in a league with 44% shooting? There is no way Shaq shot .599 in a league that averaged 46% either.

Kobe with an 81 point game? C'mon. DAVID ROBINSON with a 71 point game...just laughable. Someone said Kobe took 46 shots in that game, and Robinson took 41. Physically impossible...it has been proven that after 30 shots, the arms fall off. Oh, and BTW, Wilt supposedly scored 100 points inm ONE game...had SIX over 70, and 32 over 60. Just no WAY that ever took place!

Wilt averaging 8 blocks a game...when the premier statistician in NBA history estimates he averaged over TEN in his CAREER?? Did someone say that the clumsy oaf, Mark Eaton, who Wilt terrorized well after retirement, averaged 5.56 per game. Yeah right.

Funny too...there were fans back in the 60's that did not believe Wilt's accomplishments either. There is just no way a player could outscore his nearest competitor by 19 ppg, or outrebound him by over 4 per game, or outshoot him by .162 from the field. And of course, no way a center would ever lead the league in assists, either.

No way a player could average nearly a 30-30 game, in his 142 H2H games with arguably the greatest defensive player ever, and probably the game's second greatest rebounder. Nor average 39-26 against him in a season, either.

I mentioned Wilt having 34 games, out of those 142, in which he posted a MINIMUM of a 30-30 game against Russell. That is against ONE player. I'll let someone else around here do the research, but I would be amazed if any OTHER player, in NBA HISTORY, posted more than TEN, in a CAREER (Russell had three against Wilt BTW.)

Wilt had games of 15-15, 16-16, and 18-18 in his career...no one else has matched any of them. Wilt made 35 straight shots, as well. I doubt anyone else has hit 25, and probably not even 20 in a row.

Wilt played 48.5 mpg one season. He averaged 45.2 mpg for his CAREER. He also averaged a staggering 47.2 mpg, for his ENTIRE post-season CAREER.

Now, you tell me who would ever have believed any one accomplishing just ONE of those feats...much less ALL of them.

I stand by my original point. Take Wilt, in his PRIME (and NOT the Wilt of 61-62)...ask him to CARRY a team...put him in league in which he will probably face a quality center no more than 10-12 games all season...

40 ppg (or more), on as many as 30 shots per game and shooting probably well over .600 from the field. 20+ rebounds a game against the MANY stumbling boobs who are in the CURRENT NBA...(my gawd, SI ran an article a couple of years ago, asking whatever happened to the NBA center)...and handing out 5 apg....with an EASY 8 blocked shots per game.

Why do I believe that...because he did ALL of that, and MUCH more of it, as well. NO ONE ELSE has ever come close! Why would it be any different in an era of uncoordinated seven-foot statutes? This from perhaps the strongest, highest-leaping, and maybe even the fastest NBA player, EVER. Not to mention that his SKILLS dwarf virtually all but perhaps Kareem's...and that would arguable.

Delusional????!!! Just as delusional as all of the fans during Wilt's career...who actually witnessed him accomplishing all of those feats.

[jlauber]

Incidently, I find it fascinating that anyone would suggest that Rodman was a better rebounder than Chamberlain.

True, using the "mini-stat", rebound rate, Rodman was the best. Of course, that stat does not take into account his competition. Rodman played in an era of the weakest rebounding centers in NBA history. Even the best centers were only averaging 13-14 rpg. I have mentioned it before, but it was so bad that 6-3 Fat Lever was among the leaders, while the plethora of seven-footers were struggling to get to double digits.

Before you consider Wilt's OVERWHELMING dominance over HIS peers...does ANYONE actually believe that Rodman was anything close to the athlete that Wilt was???? Wilt was much taller, much stronger, and could leap much higher. Yes, rebounding is about much more than just physical skills, other wise we would not have the 6-7 rebound champs.

BUT, Wilt's track record speaks for itself. He simply outrebounded EVERYONE. THE most important point, and all you need to know, is that Wilt outrebounded Bill Russell, who was a far more gifted athlete than Rodman, by a 29-24 edge, per game, in their 142 H2H games.

And, once again, take a look at their post-seasons. While Rodman dropped from a career 14 rpg in the regular seaon, down to 9.9 in the playoffs...Wilt's average went from 22.9 in the regular season, to 24.5 in the post-season (Russell's was at 24.9 BTW.) Tom Boerwinkle actually had a higher "rebound rate" than Wilt in the early 70's. In the post-season, Chamberlain CRUSHED him two years in a row.

The bottom line...if Rodman could get to 19 rpg, in 40 mpg...Wilt would EASILY have averaged 20+, and probably in at least in 45 mpg. When you factor in that so many of the centers in Rodman's era were statues...who really knows how many more rebounds Wilt would have gotten?

[32jazz]

Everyone knows that they just wanna boost Lebron's numbers and slob down Magic Johnson. It drives me nuts though that they totally disrespect Wilt, Russell & Oscar's greatness & accomplishments because they know deep down inside that no one one player will ever win 11 rings again or average 50 ppg & 25 rebounds or drop a triple double for a whole entire season so they totally dismiss it for no vaild reason what so ever because of ESPN's favorite hype machine and boy toy.

And loser's here claim that they,ESPN & Stern are only putting Big O/Wilt's & peers records into "CONTEXT".:rolleyes:

Why does ESPN still revere players like Ted Williams & don't put their records into CONTEXT?(No Black or Hispanic players even allowed to play then while the NBA was majority Black by 1964) Baseball has changed immensley since 1940 ,but those records are still revered because of the hype/popularity of those guys/that era.

Because that was part of the Golden Era(1920-1960) of Baseball(America's past time). Baseball was King then & the 'MEDIA HYPE' surrounding this era crushed all other sports. Just as the 80's/90's was the Golden era of Basketball.
The World Series was still garnering 20+/30+ television ratings when it was on the decline in the 70'/80's. NBA of the 80's/90's could only muster at best 14/15's during Magic/Bird & 18's during MJ runs at it's peak. But that was still the NBA's Golden Era.

The Wilt/Russell rivals garnered much interest ,but the NBA was & still is a niche League . If ESPN/David Stern thought that they could market Wilt/Big O & peers we would actually grow tired of them & their records. Stern would personally drag Big O/Earl Monroe/Connie Hawkins by their hands to every event & trumpet their greatness at every oppurtunity he could ,but those guys were legends in a niche League. No were near the household names of the 80's/90's like Magic/Bird/MJ.


The NBA just wasn't as popular then(60's/70's) nor subject to as much media hype & today those guys are 'basically' ignored/dismissed in favor of 80's/90's Golden era guys.

While Ted Williams & peers were under immense media scrutiny/hype & they are still revered & their achievements (for the most part) are still revered.

[guy]

Incidently, I find it fascinating that anyone would suggest that Rodman was a better rebounder than Chamberlain.

True, using the "mini-stat", rebound rate, Rodman was the best. Of course, that stat does not take into account his competition. Rodman played in an era of the weakest rebounding centers in NBA history. Even the best centers were only averaging 13-14 rpg. I have mentioned it before, but it was so bad that 6-3 Fat Lever was among the leaders, while the plethora of seven-footers were struggling to get to double digits.

Before you consider Wilt's OVERWHELMING dominance over HIS peers...does ANYONE actually believe that Rodman was anything close to the athlete that Wilt was???? Wilt was much taller, much stronger, and could leap much higher. Yes, rebounding is about much more than just physical skills, other wise we would not have the 6-7 rebound champs.

BUT, Wilt's track record speaks for itself. He simply outrebounded EVERYONE. THE most important point, and all you need to know, is that Wilt outrebounded Bill Russell, who was a far more gifted athlete than Rodman, by a 29-24 edge, per game, in their 142 H2H games.

And, once again, take a look at their post-seasons. While Rodman dropped from a career 14 rpg in the regular seaon, down to 9.9 in the playoffs...Wilt's average went from 22.9 in the regular season, to 24.5 in the post-season (Russell's was at 24.9 BTW.) Tom Boerwinkle actually had a higher "rebound rate" than Wilt in the early 70's. In the post-season, Chamberlain CRUSHED him two years in a row.

The bottom line...if Rodman could get to 19 rpg, in 40 mpg...Wilt would EASILY have averaged 20+, and probably in at least in 45 mpg. When you factor in that so many of the centers in Rodman's era were statues...who really knows how many more rebounds Wilt would have gotten?

Like we both said, lets agree to disagree. I can't have an argument with someone that completely disregards logic. :oldlol: at centers "only" averaging 13-14 rpg. Yes, its cause they sucked, not cause the game changed so much from Wilt's day that there just was not enough rebounds to go around. Do you even grasp the concept of freaking MATH? :oldlol: at you downplaying the 80s by bringing up Fat Lever for rebounding that much, yet praising Oscar Robertson, another short PG, for doing the exact same thing in Wilt's era. And of course you have to call rebound rate a mini-stat since it doesn't promote your bias, when its clear that rebound rate is clearly a better stat then RPG when comparing across eras because the game has changed so much. :oldlol: at you continously bringing up single games and H2H meetings like it means anything. The fact is there is no statistical evidence that suggests Wilt would average that much in today's era OVER A SEASON. Its actually the other way around that suggests almost all the great rebounders of the past 20 years would easily average 20+ in Wilt's era. And do I really need to respond to your claims that Rodman played in a weak era for rebounding? The same player that went up against players like Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Deke, Parish, Barkley, Malone, Oakley, Willis? :rolleyes: Lets also nevermind the fact that the talent pool got much bigger after Wilt's day (and alot of that can be credited to Wilt and the rest from his era.)

Anyway, lets agree to disagree. I can't have an argument with someone that disregards logic, actually thinks there was only one good era of the NBA or just purposely downplays other eras to prove a point, ignores statistical evidence, and uses stupid arguments including the equating of small samples of data (single games or playoff series) with whole seasons.

[jlauber]

When it comes to RECORDS, there is just nothing to compare to what Wilt accomplished. His feats were just so staggering...they actually just numb the mind.

I remember reading a comment by Darrell Imhoff, who was one of the centers who gave up Wilt's 100 point game. He stated that when they played again a few days later, that he (Imhoff) played his heart out. He "held" Wilt to 54 points, and when Imhoff left the court, ...he received a standing ovation.

There is no real actual count on Chamberlain's records. One site lists him with 72. Harvey Pollack was on record in 2009, as stating that Wilt held 130 records at the time.

Part of the problem, is that we don't have access to all of Wilt's (or his peers') games. We know his seasonal stats, but not all of his individual box-scores. I have never read anything that would confirm how many 30-30, 40-40, or 50-30, or 40-30 games he had. Hell, we KNOW he had a 78-43 game for cryingoutloud.

Pollack lists the scoring-rebounding numbers for EVERY Russell-Wilt H2H battle, all 142 of them. And, they are eye-opening. Against arguably the greatest defensive player, and second greatest rebounder ever...Chamberlain had some staggering games.

Take a look...they start on page 270 I believe...

http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf

Incidently, I am not diminishing Russell here. Stats meant nothing to him, nor do they do him any justice. If he held Wilt to a 40-30 game, and his team WON, he did his job. It seems like Russell would hold Wilt to a 46-34 game, and Boston would win, or he would hold Wilt to a 22 point game, as he did in game seven of the 62 ECF's, to win. So please, don't take my stats as a slap in the face of Russell. My point is this, though. Wilt didn't just ring up his numbers against average NBA centers...he did so against ALL of the NBA centers he faced.

There are 10 70+ point games in NBA history. Wilt has SIX of them, and no one else has more than one. There have been 62 60+ point games in NBA history...and Wilt has 32 of them (or more than every other player who has ever played...COMBINED.)

There have been 28 known 40 rebound games in NBA history. Wilt has 15 of them...or more than half.

Against Russell, Wilt had FIVE 50+ point games (and his high was 62, on 27-45 shooting.) He had 24 games of 40+ points against Russell. Wilt had SEVEN 40+ rebound games against Russell, including 55 in one of them, and 41 in the playoffs...BOTH are records. He held a 23-4 edge over Russell in 35+ rebound games. He had 17 40-30 games against Russell, and five 30-40 games against him. And he had 34 30-30 games against him. The fact is, in those 142 games, Wilt averaged nearly a 30-30 game (28.7-28.7 to be exact) every time he stepped on the floor against him.

One can only imagine how many other 30-30, 40-30, 40-40, 50-30, 50-40 games he had in his CAREER.

How about those scoring binges? TWO 14 games streaks of 40+ or more, and he averaged 54 ppg in EACH of them. Later that same year, he had five straight games in which he scored a total of 351 points...or 70 ppg!

Remember the buzz over Durant's run of 25+ point games? In the 61-62 season, Wilt scored 25+ in EVERY game. In fact, he only had TWO games of less than 30 (28 and 26...against Russell BTW.) He also had a streak of 65 straight 30+ point games that year.

And before someone brings up the widening of the lane, which occurred before the start of the 65-66 season...in the 64-65 season, Chamberlain averaged 34.7 ppg on .510 shooting. After the lane was widened, he dropped to 33.5 ppg on a then record .540 shooting. Literally no effect at all. I mentioned his 32 games of 60+ points. He had FIVE of them AFTER the lane was widened. And it was not because of the lane, but rather, by design or by coaching philosophy. AND, Wilt's FG% went up DRAMATICALLY, AFTER the league widened the lane. In fact, over the last half of his career, he was over 60% from the floor.

Scoring? MJ may hold the career mark, at 30.12 to Wilt's 30.7. BUT, in Wilt's first SEVEN years, he averaged 39.6 ppg...COMBINED.

Rebounding. 11 titles in 14 years (and had he not been injured in 69-70 he would have won that year, as well.) He holds virtually every rebound mark. Game, season, career...you name it, he owns it.

Shooting. Shaq just past Wilt last year, with his 10th FG% title to Wilt's nine. Still, Wilt holds the top-2 single season marks, and three of the top-5. AND, Wilt was WAY ahead of his peers in that regard. In his 66-67 season, he shot .683, while the league average was 44%. Not only that, but he won the title that year by a record margin of .162 (.683 to Bellamy's .521.) The top three perfect games (15-15, 16-16, and 18-18), and 35 straight made.

AND, not only does Wilt hold so MANY records...he also holds the next mark or marks, in MANY of them. He has the top FOUR highest scoring seasons in NBA history. The top THREE rebounding seasons (and SIX of the top-7.)

Had the NBA officially recorded blocked shots, he would probably have that record, as well. Pollack had him with 25 in one game alone. And the NBA did not start with All-Defensive teams until the 68-69 season. Wilt, in the twi-light of his career, was first-team all defense in his final two seasons.

Triple doubles? Wilt is in the top-5 all-time...and had the NBA counted blocked shots, he would probably be the runaway leader. He holds the only double-triple-double in NBA history, with a 22-25-21 game. AND, once again, had blocked shots been recorded, he would probably have a slew of quad-double games, as well.

ESPN has their record book...and Wilt has his.

[jlauber]

Like we both said, lets agree to disagree. I can't have an argument with someone that completely disregards logic. :oldlol: at centers "only" averaging 13-14 rpg. Yes, its cause they sucked, not cause the game changed so much from Wilt's day that there just was not enough rebounds to go around. Do you even grasp the concept of freaking MATH? :oldlol: at you downplaying the 80s by bringing up Fat Lever for rebounding that much, yet praising Oscar Robertson, another short PG, for doing the exact same thing in Wilt's era. And of course you have to call rebound rate a mini-stat since it doesn't promote your bias, when its clear that rebound rate is clearly a better stat then RPG when comparing across eras because the game has changed so much. :oldlol: at you continously bringing up single games and H2H meetings like it means anything. The fact is there is no statistical evidence that suggests Wilt would average that much in today's era OVER A SEASON. Its actually the other way around that suggests almost all the great rebounders of the past 20 years would easily average 20+ in Wilt's era. And do I really need to respond to your claims that Rodman played in a weak era for rebounding? The same player that went up against players like Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Deke, Parish, Barkley, Malone, Oakley, Willis? :rolleyes: Lets also nevermind the fact that the talent pool got much bigger after Wilt's day (and alot of that can be credited to Wilt and the rest from his era.)

Anyway, lets agree to disagree. I can't have an argument with someone that disregards logic, actually thinks there was only one good era of the NBA or just purposely downplays other eras to prove a point, ignores statistical evidence, and uses stupid arguments including the equating of small samples of data (single games or playoff series) with whole seasons.

Wilt is the ONLY player to have set all those records...and by HUGE margins. If everyone were scoring 40 ppg and grabbing 25 rpg, or shooting .680 back then..yes, we could discount some of it. The FACT is, ONLY Wilt did it.

If you honestly believe 6-8 Rodman would outrebound Wilt, who was taller, stronger, faster, and could jump higher...and who CRUSHED HIS peers, particularly in the post-season (unlike Rodman, who shrunk at playoff time)...where is YOUR LOGIC?

[32jazz]

Let's face it jlauber, Wilt/Big O,etc..., were not apart of the NBA's Golden Era(80's/90's) & will never ever get the respect they deserve like their preceding MLB counterparts like Ted Williams,etc..... who were apart of the MLB Golden Era.

Baseball has changed immensley(minorities not allowed to play/pitching rotations,etc...) ,but ESPN/media, MLB nor do Baseball fans casually dismiss the records/accomplishmets/achievements of Ted Williams,Di Maggio,etc.......... Because of the hype surrounding their play during Baseball's Golden Era.

If Stern/ESPN thought they could market players from the 60's over the 80's they would do it in a heart beat. We would never hear the end of those records from the 60's( besides 100 points ), but unfortunatley it wasn't as popular/media intense era in the NBA.

[Alhazred]

If you honestly believe 6-8 Rodman would outrebound Wilt, who was taller, stronger, faster, and could jump higher...and who CRUSHED HIS peers, particularly in the post-season (unlike Rodman, who shrunk at playoff time)...where is YOUR LOGIC?

:oldlol: He grabbed 19 rebounds in Game 3 of the 1989 Finals while dealing with back spasms. Also check out his numbers from the 1996 Playoff run, where he didn't grab less than 10 rebounds in a single game past the first round. :pimp: Some people even felt he deserved to be Finals MVP.

[Psileas]

Dude because they actually keep stats on it. No one cares about Wilt because he isn't alive anymore.

1st, they have all of Oscar's stats available, except steals and blocks.
2nd, your second phrase is wrong on so many levels there is not even an appropriate emoticon for this.

[jlauber]

Let's face it jlauber, Wilt/Big O,etc..., were not apart of the NBA's Golden Era(80's/90's) & will never ever get the respect they deserve like their preceding MLB counterparts like Ted Williams,etc..... who were apart of the MLB Golden Era.

Baseball has changed immensley(minorities not allowed to play/pitching rotations,etc...) ,but ESPN/media, MLB nor do Baseball fans casually dismiss the records/accomplishmets/achievements of Ted Williams,Di Maggio,etc.......... Because of the hype surrounding their play during Baseball's Golden Era.

If Stern/ESPN thought they could market players from the 60's over the 80's they would do it in a heart beat. We would never hear the end of those records from the 60's( besides 100 points ).

A few years ago ESPN ran their ridiculous "Sports Century." Their "panel of experts" listed MJ at #1 all-time, and Wilt at #13. Babe Ruth deservedly came in at #3. But, as amazing as Ruth's stats were...most all of his records have been broken (albeit some by players using PEDs.) Meanwhile, most all of Chamberlain's records will never be approached, much less broken.

AND, in terms of ATHLETICISM...are you kidding me??? Wilt was a FAR greater ATHLETE than Jordan. Bigger, stronger, faster, and could jump higher (how many high-jump titles did MJ win in college?) While MJ was a mediocre minor league baseball player, Wilt was offered a LEGITIMATE contract to play for the Chiefs in the 60's. He also was offered TWO LEGITIMATE heavy-weight titlke fights with Ali. He would also go on to become an exceptional volleyball player after he retired, as well.

[jlauber]

:oldlol: He grabbed 19 rebounds in Game 3 of the 1989 Finals while dealing with back spasms. Also check out his numbers from the 1996 Playoff run, where he didn't grab less than 10 rebounds in a single game past the first round. :pimp: Some people even felt he deserved to be Finals MVP.

I'm not diminishing Rodman's rebounding. He was clearly the best rebounder of his era. But to think he would outrebound Wilt is ridiculous.

As for Wilt's post-season. He averaged 24.5 rpg in his CAREER. AND, he NEVER had a post-season with less than 20 rpg. He had a couple with over 30! He outrebounded Russell in EVERY H2H post-season. In the 1966-67 ECF's, Wilt outrebounded Russell 32-23 per game...including 41 in game three.

You mentioned Rodman's 10+ rebound game streak. I wonder how many games that Wilt has, in his post-season CAREER, in which he had LESS than 20.

[guy]

Wilt is the ONLY player to have set all those records...and by HUGE margins. If everyone were scoring 40 ppg and grabbing 25 rpg, or shooting .680 back then..yes, we could discount some of it. The FACT is, ONLY Wilt did it.

If you honestly believe 6-8 Rodman would outrebound Wilt, who was taller, stronger, faster, and could jump higher...and who CRUSHED HIS peers, particularly in the post-season (unlike Rodman, who shrunk at playoff time)...where is YOUR LOGIC?

1. Everyone was grabbing 20+ rpg due to enormous amount of rebounds available, so I think we can discount some of it. Actually, we shouldn't discount anything, but just take things into contexts. And I'm pretty sure I have said Wilt's records are amazing regardless of era. However, the FACT is the game has gotten much smaller statistically when it comes to points and rebounds, so LOGICALLYthat would be the case PER PLAYER. Plus there is the fact that coaching has evolved to the point that no coach is going to let one player take 30+ shots per game. Does that mean he wouldn't be great in this era? Of course he would still be. He would still be statistically dominant as well, the stats just wouldn't be the same as they were back then.

2. Umm, Rodman outrebounded Hakeem, Robinson, and a bunch of other players that were taller, stronger, faster, and could jump higher. What is your point? And maybe if you read my post you would've notice that I never said Rodman was a better rebounder then Wilt, but that Rodman's SITUATION is the biggest reason he was able to rebound 18-19 in certain seasons, and while Wilt would not do the same cause his overall responsibilities would be much greater.

[32jazz]

1st, they have all of Oscar's stats available, except steals and blocks.
2nd, your second phrase is wrong on so many levels there is not even an appropriate emoticon for this.

This diminishing of NBA stats & reverence of MLB stats shows you exactly how much 'media hype' & 'fan reverence have to do with modern day perception of past accomplishments.

Many records of the 'golden era' of MLB(20's-60's) will probably never be broken ,but no one dismisses them. Had Big O been part of a Golden Era NBA, the 60's would be held in higher esteem as well.


Didn't understand the Wilt 'isn't alive' bit either:confusedshrug: Neither is Babe Ruth,Di Maggio nor Ted Williams........Their records are still alive as well.

[jlauber]

1. Everyone was grabbing 20+ rpg due to enormous amount of rebounds available, so I think we can discount some of it. Actually, we shouldn't discount anything, but just take things into contexts. And I'm pretty sure I have said Wilt's records are amazing regardless of era. However, the FACT is the game has gotten much smaller statistically when it comes to points and rebounds, so LOGICALLYthat would be the case PER PLAYER. Plus there is the fact that coaching has evolved to the point that no coach is going to let one player take 30+ shots per game. Does that mean he wouldn't be great in this era? Of course he would still be. He would still be statistically dominant as well, the stats just wouldn't be the same as they were back then.

2. Umm, Rodman outrebounded Hakeem, Robinson, and a bunch of other players that were taller, stronger, faster, and could jump higher. What is your point? And maybe if you read my post you would've notice that I never said Rodman was a better rebounder then Wilt, but that Rodman's SITUATION is the biggest reason he was able to rebound 18-19 in certain seasons, and while Wilt would not do the same cause his overall responsibilities would be much greater.

Wilt's responsibilities in his era would be no different than in today's. He would be EXPECTED to score, pass, play defense, and REBOUND...just as he did back then.

[Alhazred]

I'm not diminishing Rodman's rebounding. He was clearly the best rebounder of his era. But to think he would outrebound Wilt is ridiculous.

Assuming Wilt was asked solely to play defense and rebound, I would agree with you, but he was expected to score and act as a playmaker at times, as well. There is just no way Wilt would grab that many rebounds today while also expected to carry an offense.


As for Wilt's post-season. He averaged 24.5 rpg in his CAREER. AND, he NEVER had a post-season with less than 20 rpg. He had a couple with over 30! He outrebounded Russell in EVERY H2H post-season. In the 1966-67 ECF's, Wilt outrebounded Russell 32-23 per game...including 41 in game three.

I'm familiar with Wilt's numbers, you don't need to re-post them.



You mentioned Rodman's 10+ rebound game streak. I wonder how many games that Wilt has, in his post-season CAREER, in which he had LESS than 20.

I know Wilt had some ridiculous rebounding numbers in his time, but they also came in an era much different from Rodman's.

[jlauber]

1. Everyone was grabbing 20+ rpg due to enormous amount of rebounds available, so I think we can discount some of it. Actually, we shouldn't discount anything, but just take things into contexts. And I'm pretty sure I have said Wilt's records are amazing regardless of era. However, the FACT is the game has gotten much smaller statistically when it comes to points and rebounds, so LOGICALLYthat would be the case PER PLAYER. Plus there is the fact that coaching has evolved to the point that no coach is going to let one player take 30+ shots per game. Does that mean he wouldn't be great in this era? Of course he would still be. He would still be statistically dominant as well, the stats just wouldn't be the same as they were back then.
2. Umm, Rodman outrebounded Hakeem, Robinson, and a bunch of other players that were taller, stronger, faster, and could jump higher. What is your point? And maybe if you read my post you would've notice that I never said Rodman was a better rebounder then Wilt, but that Rodman's SITUATION is the biggest reason he was able to rebound 18-19 in certain seasons, and while Wilt would not do the same cause his overall responsibilities would be much greater.


Ok ...what would Wilt's stats be today? We know that Jordan averaged 37 ppg in a season in which the NBA averaged 110, in a league that shot .480...while Wilt averaged 50 ppg in a league that averaged 119 on .426 shooting. And, I am on record as saying that Wilt was NOT at his PEAK in that season. We also KNOW that MJ outscored his nearest rival that year by 8 ppg. Wilt outscored his by 19 ppg.

How about rebounding? Rodman grabbed 19 rpg in 40 mpg in his best season...which is the best season in the post-Wilt era. Wilt not only had a TON of 20+ rpg seasons, he had the three highest...including TWO at 27 rpg.

FG%. Chamberlain RAN AWAY with FG% titles in his era. Against the WORST centers in NBA history (the CURRENT NBA), I suspect that he would do every bit as well.

Assists. We KNOW he was the only center to lead the league at 8.6 in an era when they were harder to come by.

Blocked shots. If an clumsy statue like Eaton could block 5.56 shots per game...what would Wilt do...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=849_WdqJ8o8&NR=1

So, go ahead, give me your take.

[jlauber]

Assuming Wilt was asked solely to play defense and rebound, I would agree with you, but he was expected to score and act as a playmaker at times, as well. There is just no way Wilt would grab that many rebounds today while also expected to carry an offense.



I'm familiar with Wilt's numbers, you don't need to re-post them.




I know Wilt had some ridiculous rebounding numbers in his time, but they also came in an era much different from Rodman's.

Think about this...Wilt had 55 rebounds in one game. He had 40+ in 15. I suspect that he had HUNDREDS of games in the 30's. Even discounting those games for pace...what would a 55 rebound game be in today's game? 40? 30? They wouldl certainly be worth more than 20...and how many players come close to 20 today?

[guy]

1. Everyone was grabbing 20+ rpg due to enormous amount of rebounds available, so I think we can discount some of it. Actually, we shouldn't discount anything, but just take things into contexts. And I'm pretty sure I have said Wilt's records are amazing regardless of era. However, the FACT is the game has gotten much smaller statistically when it comes to points and rebounds, so LOGICALLYthat would be the case PER PLAYER. Plus there is the fact that coaching has evolved to the point that no coach is going to let one player take 30+ shots per game. Does that mean he wouldn't be great in this era? Of course he would still be. He would still be statistically dominant as well, the stats just wouldn't be the same as they were back then.

2. Umm, Rodman outrebounded Hakeem, Robinson, and a bunch of other players that were taller, stronger, faster, and could jump higher. What is your point? And maybe if you read my post you would've notice that I never said Rodman was a better rebounder then Wilt, but that Rodman's SITUATION is the biggest reason he was able to rebound 18-19 in certain seasons, and while Wilt would not do the same cause his overall responsibilities would be much greater.

Wilt's responsibilities in his era would be no different than in today's. He would be EXPECTED to score, pass, play defense, and REBOUND...just as he did back then.

Thats what I said. His responsibilities would be much greater then Rodman's. All Rodman had to focus on was rebounding and defense. Wilt would have to score, rebound, pass, play defense, etcs. Even his defensive responsibilities would be greater since unlike Rodman, he would be an elite shot blocker. If Rodman was taking 20-25 shots per game like Wilt would most likely take instead of the 3-4 he did take (and much of that was off tip-ins from offensive rebounds), there's no way he would've averaged that many rebounds.

[Alhazred]

Think about this...Wilt had 55 rebounds in one game. He had 40+ in 15. I suspect that he had HUNDREDS of games in the 30's. Even discounting those games for pace...what would a 55 rebound game be in today's game? 40? 30? They wouldl certainly be worth more than 20...and how many players come close to 20 today?


There's also the matter of the three point line which is used all the time now, plus the fact that players dunk much more often, as well. Throw in less segregation and a larger talent pool to choose from, and I can see Wilt averaging 30/15/4 at his peak in today's game.

I'm not saying he wouldn't have a few games with 20+ rebounds, just not every game.

[jlauber]

There's also the matter of the three point line which is used all the time now, plus the fact that players dunk much more often, as well. Throw in less segregation and a larger talent pool to choose from, and I can see Wilt averaging 30/15/4 at his peak in today's game.

I'm not saying he wouldn't have a few games with 20+ rebounds, just not every game.

How about this? Take a PRIME Wilt, circa 66-67 or so...bigger, stronger, and more skilled than his 61-62 season...and put him on the 09-10 Nets...and ask him to CARRY that team. What would his numbers be?

[32jazz]

There's also the matter of the three point line which is used all the time now, plus the fact that players dunk much more often, as well. Throw in less segregation and a larger talent pool to choose from, and I can see Wilt averaging 30/15/4 at his peak in today's game.

I'm not saying he wouldn't have a few games with 20+ rebounds, just not every game.

If ESPN/media are taking into account 'segregation':oldlol: & general game changes in 1960's Basketball why does ESPN not dismiss/ignore Ted Williams & company records for more modern players, etc...:confusedshrug:

The NBA unlike MLB was a majority Black League by '64(?)/'65 & that's not considering the well known practice of 'bench quota' White players.

[Alhazred]

How about this? Take a PRIME Wilt, circa 66-67 or so...bigger, stronger, and more skilled than his 61-62 season...and put him on the 09-10 Nets...and ask him to CARRY that team. What would his numbers be?

My guesstimation: 29/17/5 with like four blocks per game. I'm assuming Lopez is still on the team?

[jlauber]

My guesstimation: 29/17/5 with like four blocks per game. I'm assuming Lopez is still on the team?

What difference would that make? He would be riding the bench for all but two minutes of every game.

And remember, he would be abusing the rubes of the current NBA, too. If Dwight Howard would be his most skilled opponent...and with most of the current crop being inept...

what would his numbers be?

[32jazz]

What difference would that make? He would be riding the bench for all but two minutes of every game.

Well one thing I know is that Wilt would probably not play 45 mpg todayin the regular season(Playoffs only perhaps).

He even says looking back on it he was 'stupid' for playing so many minutes.

[Alhazred]

If ESPN/media are taking into account 'segregation':oldlol: & general game changes in 1960's Basketball why does ESPN not dismiss/ignore Ted Williams & company records for more modern players, etc...:confusedshrug:

I didn't say ESPN was taking into account segregation, that is my own reasoning for why I feel Wilt's numbers in todays game wouldn't be as spectacular. When he entered the league, the majority of players were white and not in the best of shape, either. In fact, there was a myth that lifting weights would ruin your shot.


The NBA unlike MLB was a majority Black League by '64(?)/'65 & that's not considering the well known practice of 'bench quota' White players.

Check out the All-Star lineups from 1961 and compare how many white guys there are compared to black guys. Even with more black players entering the league in the mid-60s, how many of them came from overseas or a different country?


What difference would that make? He would be riding the bench for all but two minutes of every game.

Or they would just move him over to power forward or trade him. You really think they would just bench a guy who averages 18/9 and arguably their best current player?


And remember, he would be abusing the rubes of the current NBA, too. If Dwight Howard would be his most skilled opponent...and with most of the current crop being inept...

I'd still take them over the likes of Darrell Imhoff and Walter Dukes. The NBA in the 60s had it's own share of stiffs and clods, too.


what would his numbers be?

29/17/5

[guy]

Ok ...what would Wilt's stats be today? We know that Jordan averaged 37 ppg in a season in which the NBA averaged 110, in a league that shot .480...while Wilt averaged 50 ppg in a league that averaged 119 on .426 shooting. And, I am on record as saying that Wilt was NOT at his PEAK in that season. We also KNOW that MJ outscored his nearest rival that year by 8 ppg. Wilt outscored his by 19 ppg.

Why are we using league averages for them when we already know what there teams averaged? Wilt's team averaged 125 ppg, and Jordan's team averaged 105 ppg. And Jordan wasn't at his peak either. It doesn't really matter much, but I'm just pointing it out cause the situations were not as "close" as you're trying to imply.

For points, I think he would definitely average in the 30s in his prime. I think he might be able to average in the mid 30s, possibly upper 30s. I think he'd be around Shaq's peak numbers, but still better because he had greater stamina and also if he was on a bad team, which Shaq was almost never on.



How about rebounding? Rodman grabbed 19 rpg in 40 mpg in his best season...which is the best season in the post-Wilt era. Wilt not only had a TON of 20+ rpg seasons, he had the three highest...including TWO at 27 rpg.

Wilt was also playing 46-48 mpg. Even though he COULD do that, he wouldn't. No coach would let him do that, and even if they wanted to, a GM/Owner isn't letting that happen to a cash cow like Wilt.

And Wilt was averaging that playing on teams where they were getting 75-79 rpg. Rodman did it on teams averaging 44 rpg. Do you honestly think the fact that Wilt had nearly twice as many rebounds available to him isn't a significant variable to consider? C'mon man.

If you did the math, adjusting for available rebounds from 79 to 44, and then using the per-minute rebound average for Wilt and adjusting his minutes down from 46 to a more realistic 40 MPG, Wilt's averages would come out to about 13 rpg. Of course this isn't the greatest way to do things, but it wouldn't be that much more or less. Since there are so many other variables that can't be captured with stats, I'd say his best seasons would be about 15 rpg, with maybe some years of 16-17 rpg.



FG%. Chamberlain RAN AWAY with FG% titles in his era. Against the WORST centers in NBA history (the CURRENT NBA), I suspect that he would do every bit as well.

I don't disagree. I don't think his FG% would really change.



Assists. We KNOW he was the only center to lead the league at 8.6 in an era when they were harder to come by.

We also know he purposefully went for the assist title that year. Is any coach today actually going to let there center go for that? No of course not.

And the "assists harder to come by" is overstated here. Sure to actually get an assist on a single possession was harder, but there were also way more possessions. Taking that account, the amount of assists available is about the same. Look at the league assist averages per game for a team and how its changed every ten years:

1960: 22.6 apg
1970: 24.7 apg
1980: 25.8 apg
1990: 24.9 apg
2000: 22.3 apg
2010: 21.1 apg

So the amount of assists is actually LESS today then it was back then. Considering that factor and what Wilt was averaging when he wasn't actually trying to get as many assists as he can, I'd say he'd average the 3-5 apg that he always did excluding those two seasons.



Blocked shots. If an clumsy statue like Eaton could block 5.56 shots per game...what would Wilt do...

LOL. Isn't it convenient to just write off a big white guy as a clumsy statue? Mark Eaton was 7'4 and 275 pounds, and just like in the Rodman-Wilt comparison, Eaton had much less responsibility then Wilt would have. And that was the highest BPG average ever since recorded, so I guess if a big "clumsy statue" did it, then the NBA must've really sucked in the past 40 years. I'd say Wilt could get 4-5 blocks per game in his prime.

So as far as career high averages go, I think he'd most likely get something like 35 ppg/16 rpg/5 apg/5 bpg, but NOT all at the same time. I think his peak season overall statistically would be something like 32 ppg/15 rpg/4 apg/4 bpg.

I guess we aren't agreeing to disagree lol.

[jlauber]

I didn't say ESPN was taking into account segregation, that is my own reasoning for why I feel Wilt's numbers in todays game wouldn't be as spectacular. When he entered the league, the majority of players were white and not in the best of shape, either. In fact, there was a myth that lifting weights would ruin your shot.



Check out the All-Star lineups from 1961 and compare how many white guys there are compared to black guys. Even with more black players entering the league in the mid-60s, how many of them came from overseas or a different country?



Or they would just move him over to power forward or trade him. You really think they would just bench a guy who averages 18/9 and arguably their best current player?



I'd still take them over the likes of Darrell Imhoff and Walter Dukes. The NBA in the 60s had it's own share of stiffs and clods, too.



29/17/5

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and it seems like some here want to to diminish what Wilt would do in the current era...because they can't fathom a player averaging 50 ppg or 27 rpg, or shooting .727 from the field (or blocking 10+ shots per game.)

Interesting...Lebron is averaging 29.9 ppg to lead the league this year. Before Wilt arrived in 1959-60, the NBA record stood at 29.2 ppg, which was set in 58-59, and which eclipsed the previous record of 28.4 that was set in 1950-51. Wilt SHATTERED it with a season of 37.6. The next year he edged that mark with a 38.4 ppg mark. Then he SHATTERED that figure with his 50.4 ppg season.

Do you honestly think ANYONE, in 1959, would have envisioned a player averaing 40 ppg in a season, much less 50?

Before Russell arrived in 56-57, the NBA record for rpg was 16.3. Russell easily topped it with a 19.7 season in his rookie year, and then followed that up two years later with a 23.3 mark. In Wilt's FIRST year, he blew that record away with a 27 rpg season, and followed it up the very next year with a 27.2 mark.

I wonder how many basketball fans felt that someone would average 27 rpg before 1957?

Before Wilt arrived, the NBA FG% record was .490. In 1966-67, Wilt SHATTERED his own previous record of .540, with a staggering mark of .683 (in a league that shot .441 BTW)...and a few years later, he SHATTERED that record with a .727 season.

I wonder how many fans felt that a player would ever shoot .727 from the field in 1958?

Having said all of that...

Here is MY opinion. Put a PRIME Wilt on the 09-10 Nets, and ask him to CARRY the team.

40-20 .600 5 apg and 8 blks on 45 mpg. AND, an occasional 60-70 point outburst, as well as several 30+ rebound games.

Sure, it seems outlandish...but it seemed outlandish in 1959 too.

[guy]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and it seems like some here want to to diminish what Wilt would do in the current era...because they can't fathom a player averaging 50 ppg or 27 rpg, or shooting .727 from the field (or blocking 10+ shots per game.)

Interesting...Lebron is averaging 29.9 ppg to lead the league this year. Before Wilt arrived in 1959-60, the NBA record stood at 29.2 ppg, which was set in 58-59, and which eclipsed the previous record of 28.4 that was set in 1950-51. Wilt SHATTERED it with a season of 37.6. The next year he edged that mark with a 38.4 ppg mark. Then he SHATTERED that figure with his 50.4 ppg season.

Do you honestly think ANYONE, in 1959, would have envisioned a player averaing 40 ppg in a season, much less 50?

Before Russell arrived in 56-57, the NBA record for rpg was 16.3. Russell easily topped it with a 19.7 season in his rookie year, and then followed that up two years later with a 23.3 mark. In Wilt's FIRST year, he blew that record away with a 27 rpg season, and followed it up the very next year with a 27.2 mark.

I wonder how many basketball fans felt that someone would average 27 rpg before 1957?

Before Wilt arrived, the NBA FG% record was .490. In 1966-67, Wilt SHATTERED his own previous record of .540, with a staggering mark of .683 (in a league that shot .441 BTW)...and a few years later, he SHATTERED that record with a .727 season.

I wonder how many fans felt that a player would ever shoot .727 from the field in 1958?

Having said all of that...

Here is MY opinion. Put a PRIME Wilt on the 09-10 Nets, and ask him to CARRY the team.

40-20 .600 5 apg and 8 blks on 45 mpg. AND, an occasional 60-70 point outburst, as well as several 30+ rebound games.

Sure, it seems outlandish...but it seemed outlandish in 1959 too.

The league was also like 10 years old in 1959 and the talent pool was smaller and black players (the more athletic race, I don't care if I get criticized for saying that cause its clearly true) had only started playing in the league a few years prior. Now the league is about 60 years old, so we have more education and evidence that supports the way the game works now. Wilt was clearly a freak when he came to the league. He'd still be considered a freak in today's league, but not as much due to the age and talent pool of the league.

[Alhazred]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and it seems like some here want to to diminish what Wilt would do in the current era...because they can't fathom a player averaging 50 ppg or 27 rpg, or shooting .727 from the field (or blocking 10+ shots per game.)

:wtf: I said he would average 29 points, 17 rebounds, five assists and 4 blocks per game. Those numbers would get you an MVP today. It's not like I said he'd be riding the bench. :lol


Interesting...Lebron is averaging 29.9 ppg to lead the league this year. Before Wilt arrived in 1959-60, the NBA record stood at 29.2 ppg, which was set in 58-59, and which eclipsed the previous record of 28.4 that was set in 1950-51. Wilt SHATTERED it with a season of 37.6. The next year he edged that mark with a 38.4 ppg mark. Then he SHATTERED that figure with his 50.4 ppg season.

Do you honestly think ANYONE, in 1959, would have envisioned a player averaing 40 ppg in a season, much less 50?

Before Russell arrived in 56-57, the NBA record for rpg was 16.3. Russell easily topped it with a 19.7 season in his rookie year, and then followed that up two years later with a 23.3 mark. In Wilt's FIRST year, he blew that record away with a 27 rpg season, and followed it up the very next year with a 27.2 mark.

I wonder how many basketball fans felt that someone would average 27 rpg before 1957?

Before Wilt arrived, the NBA FG% record was .490. In 1966-67, Wilt SHATTERED his own previous record of .540, with a staggering mark of .683 (in a league that shot .441 BTW)...and a few years later, he SHATTERED that record with a .727 season.

I wonder how many fans felt that a player would ever shoot .727 from the field in 1958?

Having said all of that...

Here is MY opinion. Put a PRIME Wilt on the 09-10 Nets, and ask him to CARRY the team.

40-20 .600 5 apg and 8 blks on 45 mpg. AND, an occasional 60-70 point outburst, as well as several 30+ rebound games.

Sure, it seems outlandish...but it seemed outlandish in 1959 too.

Sorry, I just don't see that happening nowadays. :confusedshrug:

[jlauber]

Why are we using league averages for them when we already know what there teams averaged? Wilt's team averaged 125 ppg, and Jordan's team averaged 105 ppg. And Jordan wasn't at his peak either. It doesn't really matter much, but I'm just pointing it out cause the situations were not as "close" as you're trying to imply.

For points, I think he would definitely average in the 30s in his prime. I think he might be able to average in the mid 30s, possibly upper 30s. I think he'd be around Shaq's peak numbers, but still better because he had greater stamina and also if he was on a bad team, which Shaq was almost never on.



Wilt was also playing 46-48 mpg. Even though he COULD do that, he wouldn't. No coach would let him do that, and even if they wanted to, a GM/Owner isn't letting that happen to a cash cow like Wilt.

And Wilt was averaging that playing on teams where they were getting 75-79 rpg. Rodman did it on teams averaging 44 rpg. Do you honestly think the fact that Wilt had nearly twice as many rebounds available to him isn't a significant variable to consider? C'mon man.

If you did the math, adjusting for available rebounds from 79 to 44, and then using the per-minute rebound average for Wilt and adjusting his minutes down from 46 to a more realistic 40 MPG, Wilt's averages would come out to about 13 rpg. Of course this isn't the greatest way to do things, but it wouldn't be that much more or less. Since there are so many other variables that can't be captured with stats, I'd say his best seasons would be about 15 rpg, with maybe some years of 16-17 rpg.



I don't disagree. I don't think his FG% would really change.



We also know he purposefully went for the assist title that year. Is any coach today actually going to let there center go for that? No of course not.

And the "assists harder to come by" is overstated here. Sure to actually get an assist on a single possession was harder, but there were also way more possessions. Taking that account, the amount of assists available is about the same. Look at the league assist averages per game for a team and how its changed every ten years:

1960: 22.6 apg
1970: 24.7 apg
1980: 25.8 apg
1990: 24.9 apg
2000: 22.3 apg
2010: 21.1 apg

So the amount of assists is actually LESS today then it was back then. Considering that factor and what Wilt was averaging when he wasn't actually trying to get as many assists as he can, I'd say he'd average the 3-5 apg that he always did excluding those two seasons.



LOL. Isn't it convenient to just write off a big white guy as a clumsy statue? Mark Eaton was 7'4 and 275 pounds, and just like in the Rodman-Wilt comparison, Eaton had much less responsibility then Wilt would have. And that was the highest BPG average ever since recorded, so I guess if a big "clumsy statue" did it, then the NBA must've really sucked in the past 40 years. I'd say Wilt could get 4-5 blocks per game in his prime.

So as far as career high averages go, I think he'd most likely get something like 35 ppg/16 rpg/5 apg/5 bpg, but NOT all at the same time. I think his peak season overall statistically would be something like 32 ppg/15 rpg/4 apg/4 bpg.

I guess we aren't agreeing to disagree lol.

So essentially you ARE saying that Jordan, at his PEAK, was a better scorer than Wilt would have been at his PEAK. And that Rodman, at his PEAK, would have been a better rebounder than Wilt, at his PEAK. And that Eaton, at his PEAK, would have been a better shot-blocker than Wilt, at his PEAK.

I guess players like Russell, Thurmond, Oscar, and Kareem would be much worse than the current era then.

[guy]

So essentially you ARE saying that Jordan, at his PEAK, was a better scorer than Wilt would have been at his PEAK. And that Rodman, at his PEAK, would have been a better rebounder than Wilt, at his PEAK. And that Eaton, at his PEAK, would have been a better shot-blocker than Wilt, at his PEAK.

I guess players like Russell, Thurmond, Oscar, and Kareem would be much worse than the current era then.

Where in the world did I say that? I said Wilt would not average as much at his peak due to a number of reasons that have nothing to do with "who's better" which I have already explained to you multiple times. HIGHER STATS do not equal BETTER.

[jlauber]

Where in the world did I say that? I said Wilt would not average as much at his peak due to a number of reasons that have nothing to do with "who's better" which I have already explained to you multiple times. HIGHER STATS do not equal BETTER.

Jordan averaged 37 ppg one season.
Rodman averaged 19 rpg one season.
Eaton averaged 5.6 blks one season.

You are saying that Wilt was a 32-15-4 guy. I am saying, if those guys could do it...Wilt could do it...and then some.

[guy]

Jordan averaged 37 ppg one season.
Rodman averaged 19 rpg one season.
Eaton averaged 5.6 blks one season.

You are saying that Wilt was a 32-15-4 guy. I am saying, if those guys could do it...Wilt could do it...and then some.

If he only focused on one thing, sure. If Wilt was asked to 45 ppg he could do it. I'd say if Jordan was asked to average 45 ppg, he could do it too. But there is no way a coach would let them do that today, cause they know they would lose almost every game playing that way. Same thing goes for rebounds and blocks. Its different asking Rodman and Eaton to focus on one aspect of the game, cause they aren't nearly as great all-around players as someone like Wilt or Jordan, and plus when it comes to rebounds and blocks its not like that takes away from their teammates.

No matter what though, I don't think Wilt could average 40 ppg/20 rpg/6 apg/8 bpg ALL IN THE SAME SEASON with the way the game is played today. He would literally have to be in 5 places at once on almost every play. Sure he'd have games like that, but he wouldn't do that for a whole season.

[Alhazred]

Jordan averaged 37 ppg one season.
Rodman averaged 19 rpg one season.
Eaton averaged 5.6 blks one season.

You are saying that Wilt was a 32-15-4 guy. I am saying, if those guys could do it...Wilt could do it...and then some.

Rodman and Eaton weren't carrying their teams' offence, though. They had fewer responsibilities, which led to them being able to average as much as they did. Would Wilt outrebound and outblock those two while still carrying his team's offence and being a facilitator? I don't see that happening.

[32jazz]

I didn't say ESPN was taking into account segregation, that is my own reasoning for why I feel Wilt's numbers in todays game wouldn't be as spectacular. When he entered the league, the majority of players were white and not in the best of shape, either. In fact, there was a myth that lifting weights would ruin your shot.



Check out the All-Star lineups from 1961 and compare how many white guys there are compared to black guys. Even with more black players entering the league in the mid-60s, how many of them came from overseas or a different country?







29/17/5

What about the Blacks & Hispanics/Asians from overseas entering Major League baseball since it's "Golden era'? :confusedshrug: Do they tarnish Ted Williams,Joe D & others records? If so why won't ESPN/media ignore their records?

Why the hell doesn't someone explain to me why the media/ESPN/ fans don't IGNORE the stats accomplishments of guys like Ted Williams or Joe D. & company, but they do with the Big O/Wilt who played in a far more integrated League? :confusedshrug:

Baseball was completely different then & it was segregated to a much higher degree than the NBA of 60's(League was majority Black with the exception of the White 'bench quotas' & Owners agreements to never start/play over 3 or 4 Black guys at a time.)

That is what the OP is talking about here. The media/ESPN specifically DAMN NEAR
ignoring/dismissing The 60's NBA players . Why?

Why not put 'context' & ignore/dismiss the records of past players of MLB if they do it to the NBA?

[Alhazred]

What about the Blacks & Hispanics/Asians from overseas entering Major League baseball since it's "Golden era'? :confusedshrug: Do they tarnish Ted Williams,Joe D & others records? If so why won't ESPN/media ignore their records?

Why the hell doesn't someone explain to me why the media/ESPN/ fans don't IGNORE the stats accomplishments of guys like Ted Williams or Joe D. & company, but they do with the Big O/Wilt who played in a far more integrated League? :confusedshrug:

Baseball was completely different then & it was segregated to a much higher degree than the NBA of 60's(League was majority Black with the exception of the White 'bench quotas' & Owners agreements to never start/play over 3 or 4 Black guys at a time.)

That is what the OP is talking about here. The media/ESPN specifically DAMN NEAR
ignoring/dismissing The 60's NBA players . Why?

Why not put 'context' & ignore/dismiss the records of past players of MLB if they do it to the NBA?

Because ESPN wasn't taking segregation into consideration, as far as I know. That was my own reason for why I think Wilt wouldn't average 50 points per game in this day and age, along with other reasons that I've already mentioned.

[32jazz]

Because ESPN wasn't taking segregation into consideration, as far as I know. That was my own reason for why I think Wilt wouldn't average 50 points per game in this day and age, along with other reasons that I've already mentioned.




Just what I thought. No one can explain why ESPN/media blatantly ignores/dismisses NBA past achievements/records/accomplishments, but they REVERE Ted Williams or Joe D. numbers.

Because of immense changes in Baseball people/Media/ESPN don't think another player shall ever hit. .406 or average career .367 or get 56 straight hits,etc....... ,but they REVERE these records. I don't see them ignoring/dismissing them.:confusedshrug: Why Not? Why can't I get an answer?:confusedshrug:

So why dismiss Wilt/Big O & company(except for the 100 pts)? Why not just post the 'true' records & let fans figure it out? Isn't that what true sport 'journalist' are supposed to do instead of coming up with some 'made up' achievements ?


But you are basically saying,among other things, that due to integration(though the NBA was majority Black by 1964 even with Bench 'quotas for White players) that there was no other 7 Foot Black guy allowed a chance to stop Wilt?:oldlol:
They don't have that today:oldlol: You do know that less than 1 or 2% of the population is over 6'4 right? Even less when you go 6'6 & over.

In 60 years only two other true 7 Footers have come close to Wilt's athleticism(Shaq/ D Rob). That's why these guys are so special/unique.

[Alhazred]

Just what I thought. No one can explain why ESPN/media blatantly ignores/dismisses NBA past achievements/records/accomplishments, but they REVERE Ted Williams or Joe D. numbers.

Because of immense changes in Baseball people/Media/ESPN don't think another player shall ever hit. .406 or average career .367 or get 56 straight hits,etc....... ,but they REVERE these records. I don't see them ignoring/dismissing them.:confusedshrug: Why Not? Why can't I get an answer?:confusedshrug:

I believe Roger Maris' homerun record had an asterisk on it for several years because he broke Ruth's record in 162 games instead of 154. Let's not pretend as if other sports haven't made attempts to separate records from different eras.


So why dismiss Wilt/Big O & company(except for the 100 pts)? Why not just post the 'true' records & let fans figure it out? Isn't that what true sport 'journalist' are supposed to do instead of coming up with some 'made up' achievements ?

ESPN clearly pointed out that it was only since the ABA/NBA merger and mentioned Wilt's and Oscar's records.


But you are basically saying,among other things, that due to integration(though the NBA was majority Black by 1964 even with Bench 'quotas for White players) that there was no other 7 Foot Black guy allowed a chance to stop Wilt?:oldlol:

No, I said segregation. By 1964 Wilt was no longer averaging 40+ points per game and FYI, in 1961 black players only made up 32% of the league.


They don't have that today:oldlol: You do know that less than 1 or 2% of the population is over 6'4 right? Even less when you go 6'6 & over.

In 60 years only two other true 7 Footers have come close to Wilt's athleticism([Shaq/ D Rob). That's why these guys are so special/unique.

:wtf: Uh, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar might want to have a word with you....

[ProfessorMurder]

:wtf: Uh, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar might want to have a word with you....

+ Hakeem

[Alhazred]

+ Hakeem

Yeah, him too.

[jlauber]

If he only focused on one thing, sure. If Wilt was asked to 45 ppg he could do it. I'd say if Jordan was asked to average 45 ppg, he could do it too. But there is no way a coach would let them do that today, cause they know they would lose almost every game playing that way. Same thing goes for rebounds and blocks. Its different asking Rodman and Eaton to focus on one aspect of the game, cause they aren't nearly as great all-around players as someone like Wilt or Jordan, and plus when it comes to rebounds and blocks its not like that takes away from their teammates.

No matter what though, I don't think Wilt could average 40 ppg/20 rpg/6 apg/8 bpg ALL IN THE SAME SEASON with the way the game is played today. He would literally have to be in 5 places at once on almost every play. Sure he'd have games like that, but he wouldn't do that for a whole season.


Guy,

I actually like this post. My only disagreement would be with you believing that Wilt could not be dominating in all phases of the game. The fact was, he was dominant in ALL phases of the game when he was playing. He never had a high-scoring, low rebounding season. His worst rebounding season was his last, at 18.6 (other than his 18.4 in the year he injured his knee...and had he not returned for the final three games of that season...his first nine game numbers were 32.2 ppg and 21.0 rpg.)

Had for the first half of his career, Chamberlain HAD to be dominant in ALL phases of the game. While I honestly believe Wilt was a BETTER player in the middle of his career...IMHO, there has never been ONE player who CARRIED a team, more than what Wilt did in his 61-62 season. Playing with basically the same last-place roster when he joined them before the 59-60 season, Wilt took that team to a 49-31 record in 61-62...and then led them to a game seven, two-point defeat (a controversial defeat BTW) against the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers.

[EricForman]

Jordan averaged 37 ppg one season.
Rodman averaged 19 rpg one season.
Eaton averaged 5.6 blks one season.

You are saying that Wilt was a 32-15-4 guy. I am saying, if those guys could do it...Wilt could do it...and then some.


Even if Wilt doesn't top all three, it doens't mean he is worse. If he drops 36 a game but grabs 20 rebounds then is he a "worse" scorer than Jordan? If he grabs 17 boards but also carries the offensive load is he "worse" than Rodman at rebounding?

I mean, people are already conceding that wilt would come close to those numbers above, just because we dont think he'd top it doesnt mean we are disrespecting him.

[guy]

Guy,

I actually like this post. My only disagreement would be with you believing that Wilt could not be dominating in all phases of the game. The fact was, he was dominant in ALL phases of the game when he was playing.


What the hell? Is 32 ppg/15 rpg/4 apg/4 bpg not dominating all phases of the game? He'd be leading the league in points, rebounding, and blocks, be close to the top for FG%, and lead all centers in assists. For this era that would be the equivalent, maybe even better, then many of Wilt's seasons in the 60s. It would very arguably be the most statistically dominant season of the past 30 years. What more do you want? If you don't think thats not dominating all phases of the game, has anyone in the past 30 years reached you're standards for "dominating all phases of the game"?

[jlauber]

Even if Wilt doesn't top all three, it doens't mean he is worse. If he drops 36 a game but grabs 20 rebounds then is he a "worse" scorer than Jordan? If he grabs 17 boards but also carries the offensive load is he "worse" than Rodman at rebounding?

I mean, people are already conceding that wilt would come close to those numbers above, just because we dont think he'd top it doesnt mean we are disrespecting him.

Forman,

You are absolutely right. The intelligent posters here, and you are certainly one of them (as is Guy), are conceding Wilt's overall greatness. No question about it...to estimate him even at 35-18 levels is already putting him just underneath the one person who eclipsed them...himself.

But, "experts" have long tried explain what Wilt accomplished. They just can't accept the fact that what Wilt achieved was so monumental (much like the post on Gretsky BTW)...that they HAVE to attempt to dissect it down to some level where they put in a context.

MY argument has been this...

Wilt's staggering 61-62 season was NOT a Chamberlain in his PRIME. And yes, you can make the same argument with MJ and his 37 ppg season. BOTH of them were only in their third season. So, in effect, who knows what kind of numbers Wilt would have put up in say, 66-67 or 67-68, had he been asked to CARRY a team. IMHO, he probably could easily have averaged over 50 in those years.

Obviously, the pace factor of the last 20 years, or so, has reduced scoring, and rebounding. But, the talent at the center position has become ghastly. When Dwight Howard or Andrew Bynum are considered among the better centers in the league...well, I am on record as saying that Howard would be no better than a mid-level center in the early 70's.

So what does all that mean? Chamberlain was MORE of a force in the mid-60's, than he was in the early in the early 60's. He was CAPABLE of perhaps 50-55 ppg games at that time. He had SEASONS (as many as 17 game seasons, including the playoffs) of nearly 40 ppg against Russell!

Take THAT Wilt...probably capable of 50-55 ppg on SEASONAL level...and transport him to 09-10. True, the possessions and shots decline. BUT, on the reverse side of that...his competition becomes weaker, perhaps MUCH weaker.

What does that equal? Say 53 ppg, at a one-third pace, which would equal about 36 ppg...and then add a few points per game because he would be having a field day against the majority of his center opponents. Something close to 40 ppg. Granted, he would probably lose a few points to a reduction in minutes. So maybe he is back at 36 ppg. BUT, think about what I have stated all along. 36 ppg has been achieved by Jordan...and on a much smaller scale, by Shaq (in the Finals.) I would like to believe that Wilt would put up 50-60 maybe even 70 point games. Even that is not unrealistic. Robinson put up a 71 point game. Kobe hit 81. Even Shaq had a 61.

In terms of rebounding. As Guy pointed out, the number of available rebounds drop by about 30-40%. Take two-thirds of Wilt's best season...and he is STILL at 18 rpg. Take away a couple of rebounds due to less minutes. BUT, then add in 3-4, or more, against this WEAK crop of rebounding centers that we have in today's game. Now you are approaching 20. is that unrealistic? Not really. Not when 6-8 Rodman had a 19 rpg season.

Blocked shots. I have posted the video of SOME of Chamberlain's blocks...and most of them were later in his career...and not in his more athletic prime. Once again, Harvey Pollack estimated that Wilt averaged double-digit blocks in his CAREER. All right...once again, subtract 33% from his totals...6.7 bpg. Take away another for less playing time. 5.7 bpg. Then add 1-2 for inferior competition...and what do you have? 6.7-7.7 bpg. Is that unrealistic? Not if Eaton had a season at 5.6.

Wilt was a marvelous passer. He led the NBA in assists, and came in third in another year. Obviously, if he is scoring 40 ppg, as I would project, his assists would drop. But, he would be capable of 4-5, and would probably average around three.

I think we all agree that his FG% would not be affected. So, what we could have...

36-40 ppg, 17-20 rpg, .600 FG%, 7-8 bpg, and 3-4 apg.

I would accept that. And I don't think it is unrealistic. I just can't accept 32-15-4-4. Not for a PRIME Wilt, who would be asked to CARRY a team.

[guy]

In terms of rebounding. As Guy pointed out, the number of available rebounds drop by about 30-40%. Take two-thirds of Wilt's best season...and he is STILL at 18 rpg. Take away a couple of rebounds due to less minutes. BUT, then add in 3-4, or more, against this WEAK crop of rebounding centers that we have in today's game. Now you are approaching 20. is that unrealistic? Not really. Not when 6-8 Rodman had a 19 rpg season.


Not to be picky, but the difference between rebounding for Wilt's teams in the early 60s where he had his highest rebounding numbers and today's league average is like 45%-48%, not 30-40%. Add in the fact that he'd play less minutes, and you should take away alot more then 1/3 of his rebounds. It would be more like taking away half his rebounds. If you want to add more due to weak era of centers, which I do agree about, then I think thats realistic, which is why I said he would average 15-16 rpg in his best rebounding years as opposed to 13-14.

[Fatal9]

I think we all agree that his FG% would not be affected. So, what we could have...

36-40 ppg, 17-20 rpg, .600 FG%, 7-8 bpg, and 3-4 apg.

I would accept that. And I don't think it is unrealistic. I just can't accept 32-15-4-4. Not for a PRIME Wilt, who would be asked to CARRY a team.
......seriously?

Wilt's efficiency would magically jump up 8-10% from his scoring seasons in the 60s? He would average 20 rebounds, which he couldn't even do when the pace slowed down in 70s and he was devoted to only rebounding/defense? And then you add 8 blocks for good measure, when no modern day great shot blockers like Olajuwon, Mutombo, Zo, Robinson etc have even come close to approaching those numbers? Plus the talent, athleticism and skill of perimeter players is a million times better than in the 60s (which makes collecting blocks much much harder). I find it hard to believe anyone thinks Wilt would put up a 40/20/4/8 on 60% statline for an entire season...or really even anything close to it.

I don't see Wilt putting up better numbers than Shaq, who I believe is a more skilled and dominant post up player. I recently watched a couple of 60s Wilt games, including one from 1967. First of all, you notice how many uncontested defensive rebounds centers picked up because of frenetic pace (there were still 6'6 guys averaging 15 rebounds a game btw while playing center at that point, Bill Bridges for example, 6'8 white centers like Lucas averaging 20 boards a game). Secondly, Wilt's footwork with the dribble seemed very awkward and was much less fluid and coordinated than Shaq's, so I have trouble accepting he would be as good at "backing down" his man. I am going by what I've seen with my own eyes, from basically whatever footage of Wilt is available. And Wilt's scoring seasons came before the "golden age of centers" who came into the NBA in early/mid 70s or 60s draftees who reached their primes in early 70s or late 60s. I also don't buy him being a much better athlete than players like Shaq, Howard, Robinson etc, despite whatever articles exist of him pulling mythical feats (like breaking toes by dunking a ball :oldlol:).

the crop of centers in the '62 season...

6'9 Russell
6'9 Johnny "Red" Kerr
6'5 Johnny Green or 6'6 Willie Nauls (no wonder Wilt scored 73 and 100 on these guys)
6'7 Rudy LaRusso
6'8 Wayne Embry
6'9 Ray Scott and 7'0 Walter Dukes
6'11 Walt Bellamy

To act like Wilt would have the same physical advantage over centers today is comical.

I'm not going to guess what statline Wilt would put up today but some things I do know: he would be lucky to get more than half of the block totals you are projecting, there is no way in hell he is averaging 20 rebounds a game while also scoring 40 (which he also isn't doing, especially considering he is a center who needs to be fed the ball and is a shitty foul shooter). I actually like Wilt but the amount of overrating that has gone on lately has been ridiculous.

[EricForman]

my goodness... i agree with a fatal post!

[RazorBaLade]

I think Wilt would avg about 35, 15, 5 and 5 on .550 in todays game on a good team

[RealKnowledge]

......seriously?

Wilt's efficiency would magically jump up 8-10% from his scoring seasons in the 60s? He would average 20 rebounds, which he couldn't even do when the pace slowed down in 70s and he was devoted to only rebounding/defense? And then you add 8 blocks for good measure, when no modern day great shot blockers like Olajuwon, Mutombo, Zo, Robinson etc have even come close to approaching those numbers? Plus the talent, athleticism and skill of perimeter players is a million times better than in the 60s (which makes collecting blocks much much harder). I find it hard to believe anyone thinks Wilt would put up a 40/20/4/8 on 60% statline for an entire season...or really even anything close to it.

I don't see Wilt putting up better numbers than Shaq, who I believe is a more skilled and dominant post up player. I recently watched a couple of 60s Wilt games, including one from 1967. First of all, you notice how many uncontested defensive rebounds centers picked up because of frenetic pace (there were still 6'6 white guys averaging 15 rebounds a game btw while playing center at that point, Bill Bridges for example, 6'8 white centers like Lucas averaging 20 boards a game). Secondly, Wilt's footwork with the dribble seemed very awkward and was much less fluid and coordinated than Shaq's, so I have trouble accepting he would be as good at "backing down" his man. I am going by what I've seen with my own eyes, from basically whatever footage of Wilt is available. And Wilt's scoring seasons came before the "golden age of centers" who came into the NBA in early/mid 70s or 60s draftees who reached their primes in early 70s or late 60s. I also don't buy him being a much better athlete than players like Shaq, Howard, Robinson etc, despite whatever articles exist of him pulling mythical feats (like breaking toes by dunking a ball :oldlol:).

the crop of centers in the '62 season...

6'9 Russell
6'9 Johnny "Red" Kerr
6'5 Johnny Green or 6'6 Willie Nauls (no wonder Wilt scored 73 and 100 on these guys)
6'7 Rudy LaRusso
6'8 Wayne Embry
6'9 Ray Scott and 7'0 Walter Dukes
6'11 Walt Bellamy

To act like Wilt would have the same physical advantage over centers today is comical.

I'm not going to guess what statline Wilt would put up today but some things I do know: he would be lucky to get more than half of the block totals you are projecting, there is no way in hell he is averaging 20 rebounds a game while also scoring 40 (which he also isn't doing, especially considering he is a center who needs to be fed the ball and is a shitty foul shooter). I actually like Wilt but the amount of overrating that has gone on lately has been ridiculous.

Yeah but you can't take anything away from him. Those were the advantages he had. Thats like pointing out the athletic advantage JOrdan had. In 50 years the competition talent and size all have changed drastically. So if you put Jordan in Then Nba in 2040 do you really think he will have the same numbers? HELL NO! His numbers & Efficiency would drop drastically because he wouldnt be athletically Superior to everybody. You cant compare a guy from almost 50 years ago to todays game. Straight blasphemy.

[Fatal9]

I think Wilt would avg about 35, 15, 5 and 5 on .550 in todays game on a good team
He couldn't shoot 55% for any of his scoring seasons in the 60s but could do so now?

People forget...Wilt was not an efficient center at all. He shot in a range of 46-54% in his scoring seasons (usually around 50-52% though) and then when you factor in the number of possessions he was using with FTs included....it's just not very efficient for a center. His TS% during his scoring seasons is lower across the board when compared to other great centers like Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, Robinson and even Ewing in their high scoring seasons. Wilt needed more possessions than all of them to average 30+ ppg.

[32jazz]

I believe Roger Maris' homerun record had an asterisk on it for several years because he broke Ruth's record in 162 games instead of 154. Let's not pretend as if other sports haven't made attempts to separate records from different eras.



ESPN clearly pointed out that it was only since the ABA/NBA merger and mentioned Wilt's and Oscar's records.



No, I said segregation. By 1964 Wilt was no longer averaging 40+ points per game and FYI, in 1961 black players only made up 32% of the league.



:wtf: Uh, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar might want to have a word with you....

Hakeem personally verified he was 6'10 .

I knew I wouldn't get an honest answer. :oldlol: Although you did help make my point about the reverence in which Baseball's Golden era(1920-1960) is held(Maris broke the record outside of what's considered the 'Golden era' anyhow in '61. They tried to put an asterik by it because it was legitimately more games & they were still putting their 'Golden Era' players on a pedestal).

I'm gonna try one more time. Otherwise this is useless. This is not a rhetorical question:

Why does ESPN/Media/fans have no problem in their reverence of Ted Williams/Babe Ruth/Joe D,etc... records in fiercely segregated Baseball? Baseball that is immensley different than today's baseball.

There were 0 Blacks/ 0 Hispanics/0 Asians allowed in baseball when Babe & Ted Williams played ,but I don't see 'most' Media(ESPN specifically) dismissing their achievements/records or putting them into context? Why not?

Why did you completely ignore Ted Williams .406 & the reverence it's held? Joe D 56 hits? .367 career averages,etc....?Why aren't these records put into the same "CONTEXT' as Big O & Wilt records?. Simple questions.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that there were 0 Blacks/0Hispanics/0Asians when Ruth/Williams/Cobbs broke their Revered records?:oldlol:

The NBA had 32% more Blacks in 61(if that's correct) than MLB ever did during Williams/Cobb/Ruth eras. And there were legitimate arguments for better Black players like Satchel Paige/Josh Gibson,etc........

Simple question.:confusedshrug:

You aren't that stupid.:no:
You know the answer & obviously trying not to give any legitimatcy to the OP's observation as to why does ESPN/Media/fans like to seperate Wilt /Big O's records ,but revere the records of racists like Ty Cobbs or Williams/Ruth :confusedshrug: of even decades before these guys.

They hold the NBA's most popular era/ golden era(80's/90's) in as much esteem as they do the MLB from 1920-1960 (Baseball' golden era).

[Psileas]

He couldn't shoot 55% for any of his scoring seasons in the 60s but could do so now?

People forget...Wilt was not an efficient center at all. He shot in a range of 46-54% in his scoring seasons (usually around 50-52% though) and then when you factor in the number of possessions he was using with FTs included....it's just not very efficient for a center. His TS% during his scoring seasons is lower across the board when compared to other great centers like Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, Robinson and even Ewing in their high scoring seasons. Wilt needed more possessions than all of them to average 30+ ppg.

You are usually honest and I agree with many of the things you said about Wilt, even in your previous post, but this isn't an honest answer. Posting unadjusted numbers to show that Wilt wasn't efficient is like posting raw rebounding numbers to show that he was a much better rebounder than Rodman. Wilt was continuously top-10 (and often leader) in the NBA in shooting efficiency %'s, regardless of which one you pick. I don't think Hakeem's, Ewing's and Robinson's adjusted efficiencies are better at all.

Would Wilt shoot 55% nowadays? If he designed his modern game around power rather than finesse, why not? I don't doubt he'd easily do it if he hadn't set out to prove all the time he wasn't a dunking beast.

[32jazz]

With 40 of them?


Can anyone explain how that might be when Oscar Robertson averaged, for a season,

30-12-11.

Surely, he has to have more than 40 games with those numbers. Then you factor in the rest of his career as well, and I would think he has alot more than that.

I had to bump the original post because guys have basically gone off on rants that have nothing to do with the simple question asked;
Why does Oscar Robertson's achievement get overlooked(if he's lucky he get's a minor footnote) in favor of Magic?


ESPN/media, for the most part ,throw out all supposed 'context' :rolleyes: with the far, far more segregated/racist baseball & they still REVERE the numbers of Ted Williams(.406), Joey D(56 hits), Ruth,Cobb,etc,....
Zero Hispanics (who are dominating Baseball but only allowed to paly in Latin Leagues),Blacks (who had arguably/legitimately better players at the same time in the Negro leagues)nor Asians were a part of this League then.:confusedshrug: The single most racist League of the century & the records are REVERED(for the most part).

The NBA has been a majority Black League since '64 & only bench quotas for guys 7-15 gave Whites(especially local White college & HS stars) a majority before then. NBA owners also had agreements not to start 5 Black guys at a single time until Red Auerbach said screw it in 1964:applause: )

Baseball has changed immensely since post Golden Era(1960 & onward) when pitcher's pitched entire games (it is estimated 75%-80% of the time). Now there are relievers,middle relievers, Closers, left handed relievers,etc...........& not as many different pitches I am told.


Why do the so called 'journalist' at ESPN decide that pre NBA merger stats are basically irrelevent(sometimes a mere footnote) ,but pre WWII era(1920-1960) Baseball stats of the most racist sport are the Holy bible?

A simple question.

[EricForman]

I had to bump the original post because guys have basically gone off on rants that have nothing to do with the simple question asked;
Why does Oscar Robertson's achievement get overlooked(if he's lucky he get's a minor footnote) in favor of Magic?



because anyone with the most basic ability to apply logic and context knows magic was a better player and would certainly have higher assists and rebound numbers than Oscar if they played at the same time.

if you think ESPN is so low then dont watch them. as mentioned, for the 100th time, they clearly put up "since the merger" and mentioned it verbally.

[32jazz]

because anyone with the most basic ability to apply logic and context knows magic was a better player and would certainly have higher assists and rebound numbers than Oscar if they played at the same time.

if you think ESPN is so low then dont watch them. as mentioned, for the 100th time, they clearly put up "since the merger" and mentioned it verbally.

Kareem( if you read up on him) , & not some internet loser & so called 'journalist' , actually played & played with both players Magic/Big O) & doesn't believe this.
Kareem thinks it's basically a toss up although he did give the 'impression' that the older more /serious 'scolding' Big O was less fun to play with( I will have to look it up again in his autobiography , but I am almost certain Kareem said that the Big O was the best al around player he evre played with. Even at his advanced age)

Why don't they put up some type of context for Major League baseball before let's say 1950's/Pre Jackie Robinson?

Some can apply logic & 'context':rolleyes: & believe a fat hot dog eating slob like Ruth was any better than most modern hR hitters, but his records are revered.Along with the racist Cobb ,Ted Williams.

Why the double standards for Baseball/Basketball players is the only question.? Why are the racist Ty Cobb/ Ruth/Ted Williams & records of a segregationist League the Holy Bible ,but NBA players are 'footnotes'?
A legit question.

We all know the answer it's okay if you refuse to answer it.


By the way, I have gotten over 95% of my sports news off the internet the past 7/8 years ,but I know how not just ESPN 'most' mainstream media treats pre 1980's NBA as opposed to the segregated/racist pre WWII MLB(The Golden Era-1920-60) .Just like the NBA "Golden Era(1980/90's).

[EricForman]

Kareem( if you read up on him) , & not some internet loser & so called 'journalist' , actually played & played with both players Magic/Big O) & doesn't believe this.
Kareem thinks it's basically a toss up although he did give the 'impression' that the older more /serious 'scolding' Big O was less fun to play with( I will have to look it up again in his autobiography , but I am almost certain Kareem said that the Big O was the best al around player he evre played with. Even at his advanced age)

Why don't they put up some type of context for Major League baseball before let's say 1950's/Pre Jackie Robinson?

Some can apply logic & 'context':rolleyes: & believe a fat hot dog eating slob like Ruth was any better than most modern hR hitters, but his records are revered.Along with the racist Cobb ,Ted Williams.

Why the double standards for Baseball/Basketball players is the only question.? Why are the racist Ty Cobb/ Ruth/Ted Williams & records of a segregationist League the Holy Bible ,but NBA players are 'footnotes'?
A legit question.

We all know the answer it's okay if you refuse to answer it.


By the way, I have gotten over 95% of my sports news off the internet the past 7/8 years ,but I know how not just ESPN 'most' mainstream media treats pre 1980's NBA as opposed to the segregated/racist pre WWII MLB(The Golden Era-1920-60) .Just like the NBA "Golden Era(1980/90's).


i cant answer your queries on baseball because i dont watch baseball.

and enough with the crying. so espn is biased. now stop watching.

[jlauber]

......seriously?

Wilt's efficiency would magically jump up 8-10% from his scoring seasons in the 60s? He would average 20 rebounds, which he couldn't even do when the pace slowed down in 70s and he was devoted to only rebounding/defense? And then you add 8 blocks for good measure, when no modern day great shot blockers like Olajuwon, Mutombo, Zo, Robinson etc have even come close to approaching those numbers? Plus the talent, athleticism and skill of perimeter players is a million times better than in the 60s (which makes collecting blocks much much harder). I find it hard to believe anyone thinks Wilt would put up a 40/20/4/8 on 60% statline for an entire season...or really even anything close to it.

I don't see Wilt putting up better numbers than Shaq, who I believe is a more skilled and dominant post up player. I recently watched a couple of 60s Wilt games, including one from 1967. First of all, you notice how many uncontested defensive rebounds centers picked up because of frenetic pace (there were still 6'6 guys averaging 15 rebounds a game btw while playing center at that point, Bill Bridges for example, 6'8 white centers like Lucas averaging 20 boards a game). Secondly, Wilt's footwork with the dribble seemed very awkward and was much less fluid and coordinated than Shaq's, so I have trouble accepting he would be as good at "backing down" his man. I am going by what I've seen with my own eyes, from basically whatever footage of Wilt is available. And Wilt's scoring seasons came before the "golden age of centers" who came into the NBA in early/mid 70s or 60s draftees who reached their primes in early 70s or late 60s. I also don't buy him being a much better athlete than players like Shaq, Howard, Robinson etc, despite whatever articles exist of him pulling mythical feats (like breaking toes by dunking a ball :oldlol:).

the crop of centers in the '62 season...

6'9 Russell
6'9 Johnny "Red" Kerr
6'5 Johnny Green or 6'6 Willie Nauls (no wonder Wilt scored 73 and 100 on these guys)
6'7 Rudy LaRusso
6'8 Wayne Embry
6'9 Ray Scott and 7'0 Walter Dukes
6'11 Walt Bellamy

To act like Wilt would have the same physical advantage over centers today is comical.

I'm not going to guess what statline Wilt would put up today but some things I do know: he would be lucky to get more than half of the block totals you are projecting, there is no way in hell he is averaging 20 rebounds a game while also scoring 40 (which he also isn't doing, especially considering he is a center who needs to be fed the ball and is a shitty foul shooter). I actually like Wilt but the amount of overrating that has gone on lately has been ridiculous.

First of all, your numbers on the starting centers in 61-62 are off. The Knicks had 6-10 Darrell Imhoff and 6-10 Phil Jordan. The Lakers starting center was 6-11 Ray Felix. The Hawks was 6-9 Clyde Lovelette. The league also had 7-3 Swede Holbrook, as well as other 6-10 and 6-11 players.

Kerr, Lovelette, Bellamy and Russell are in the HOF. AND, Wilt averaged 40 ppg against RUSSELL that year.

Secondly, your take about Wilt's footwork is hilarious. Wilt would run cifrcles around BOTH Shaq and Kareem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6k539HSbXM

Thirdly, as I have said MANY times, Wilt was NOT in his PRIME in 61-62. By the mid-60's, Wilt was bigger, stronger, and more skilled. You mentioned his last great scoring season, which was 65-66. The league had widened the lane to 16 ft, and his scoring dropped from 34.7 ppg on .510 shooting, to 33.5 on a then record .540 shooting.

Who were the centers in the NBA in 65-66? 6-9 Willis Reed, 6-11 Walt Bellamy, 6-9 Zelmo Beatty, 6-10 Connie Dierking, 6-10 Darrell Imhoff, 6-10 Joe Strawder, 6-11 Nate Thurmond, and 6-9 Bill Russell. The league also had 7-0 Mel Counts, 7-0 Henry Finkel, and a few other 6-10 and 6-11 players.

Reed, Bellamy, Russell, and Thurmond are in the HOF. Incidently, Wilt's career high against Reed was 58 points. Against Thurmond it was 62. Against Russell it was 62, and he had TWO 60+ games against Bellamy.

Fourth, Wilt was STILL not in his PRIME in 65-66. I have long said that from 66-67 to 68-69, Chamberlain was at his PEAK. His scoring dropped, but by design, and not by some loss of ability. He had the HIGH point game in EVERY season of the decade of the 60's. And, while the league widened the lane (and as I pointed out, it had little effect), and hi scoring dropped because of several reasons, he had FIVE 60+ point games from 66-69...which is the equal of MJ and Kobe, in their CAREERS.

You bring up Kareem's "efficiency" in 70-71 and 71-72, and I have always agreed...ALTHOUGH, against Wilt and Thurmond, his FG% dropped DRAMATICALLY, and it was even WORSE in 72-73 when Wilt held him below 40% during the regular season, and Thurmond and the Warriors knocked the heavily-favored Bucks out in the playoffs. AND, how do explain this "efficient" Kareem shooting .529, .539, and even a .513 within the next few years after those great seasons?

Wilt's EFFICIENCY was staggering. His 66-67 season, in a league filled with HOF centers, whom he faced NINE games a year, he shot an eye-popping .683, and had three perfect games of 15-15, 16-16, and 18-18. His high game that year was 58 points (and in the next season, he had the FOUR high games of 52, 53, 53, and 68.)

There is NO doubt in my mind, that had Wilt CARRIED that Sixer team, which he clearly did not have to do, that he could have scored 50 points a night. And believe me, there would not have been ONE player in the league who would have argued that.

As for YOUR Kareem, Wilt more than held his own, at 11 years older, and with bad knees. By MOST accounts, he outplayed him.

And your take that Wilt was not averaging 20 rpg in the 70's. True...he was well past his prime. BUT, in his last two years he averaged 19.2 and 18.6. How about the post-season, though? 21.0 in 71-72 and 22.5 in 72-73 ...his LAST season. In fact, he averaged over 20 in EVERY post-season, as is only behind Russell in career post-season rebounding at 24.5 (Russell is at 24.9)...AND, even that stat is deceptive, as Wilt outrebounded Russell in EVERY post-season series (as well as Kareem BTW.)

Your take on his blocked shots is laughable. He was swatting FIVE of Kareem's sky-hooks ALONE in their H2H matchups. That was against ONE PLAYER, and arguably one of the greatest ever. To think that he would only average 4-5 today is ridiculous. If Eaton was blocking 5.6 shots per game in a season, Wilt would EASILY have done considerably more (as would Russell.)

In terms if SKILL and ATHLETICISM...NO ONE, not Kareem, Shaq, or Howard, CAN COMPARE. Wilt was hitting 15 ft fallaway bank shots, 15. ft. JUMP shots, 15 ft. HOOK shots, along with a wide assortment of post moves with a quickness unequaled by Shaq or Kareem.

In terms of strength and leaping ability...here again...NEITHER Shaq, nor Kareem would have a chance.

Hope that clears up some confusion on this topic.

[32jazz]

i cant answer your queries on baseball because i dont watch baseball.

and enough with the crying. so espn is biased. now stop watching.

This from a guy who can't keep his nose out of any MJ discussion without slobbering on his knob & actually thinks/whines about how Fatal9 is singelehandedly trying to take downs MJ's legacy on a messageboard:oldlol:

Unlike you I really, really appreciate the sacrifice of NBA players & their contributions & hate to see them dismissed as footnotes to more media favorite/hyped players & double standards.


But thanks for being the Mr message boards guy who 'thinks' he knows more than Kareem who played with BOTH the Big O & Magic , but really can't pick the greatest of the two(I'm gonna try to find the quote were Kareem eventually relents & alludes to the Big O being the best all around player he's ever played with ).

But it is 'clear' to you Mr internet guy:rolleyes: ( although you have never seen the Big O nor Magic probaly considering some of your ages here) that Magic(my favorite player) is easily better than the Big O?:no:

Has your mother ever told you that jerking off to Space Jam will drive you mad? Obviously you haven't listened.

[EricForman]

This from a guy who can't keep his nose out of any MJ discussion without slobbering on his knob & actually thinks/whines about how Fatal9 is singelehandedly trying to take downs MJ's legacy on a messageboard:oldlol:

Unlike you I really, really appreciate the sacrifice of NBA players & their contributions & hate to see them dismissed as footnotes to more media favorite/hyped players & double standards.


But thanks for being the Mr message boards guy who 'thinks' he knows more than Kareem who played with BOTH the Big O & Magic , but really can't pick the greatest of the two(I'm gonna try to find the quote were Kareem eventually relents & alludes to the Big O being the best all around player he's ever played with ).

But it is 'clear' to you Mr internet guy:rolleyes: ( although you have never seen the Big O nor Magic probaly considering some of your ages here) that Magic(my favorite player) is easily better than the Big O?:no:

Has your mother ever told you that jerking off to Space Jam will drive you mad? Obviously you haven't listened.

ive started many times before why I think someone like magic or lebron would top oscar's numbers. if you disagree, that's okay. im tired of arguing what if. i dont necessarily believe that wilt would average 40/20/5 with 8 blocks on 60% shooting as lauber suggested too, but its his opinion and he backed it up with a solid argument.

i dont know why you're so offended i think magic would top oscar's rebounds and assists numbers. is it a huge insult to Oscar to think Magic was an even better all around player? or are you just being a petty fool? but anyway, your personal attacks doesnt bother me because you're a goon.

at the end of the day, all of you guys complain about this and that becuase you guys are angry/annoyed/bitter that Jordan is considered GOAT by the majority. it's okay, I think Jordan's final two playoff series as a Bull (playing on tired legs and with a subpar/injured/aging cast) showed exactly why he is the greatest--the combination of skill with will power and clutchness--and is more impressive than anything Wilt has ever done as a basketball player. Most people believe Jordan is GOAT for those same reasons. Only insecure bitter people like you think we just like Jordan because we're told.

[Alhazred]

Hakeem personally verified he was 6'10 .

I knew I wouldn't get an honest answer. :oldlol: Although you did help make my point about the reverence in which Baseball's Golden era(1920-1960) is held(Maris broke the record outside of what's considered the 'Golden era' anyhow in '61. They tried to put an asterik by it because it was legitimately more games & they were still putting their 'Golden Era' players on a pedestal).

I'm gonna try one more time. Otherwise this is useless. This is not a rhetorical question:

Why does ESPN/Media/fans have no problem in their reverence of Ted Williams/Babe Ruth/Joe D,etc... records in fiercely segregated Baseball? Baseball that is immensley different than today's baseball.

There were 0 Blacks/ 0 Hispanics/0 Asians allowed in baseball when Babe & Ted Williams played ,but I don't see 'most' Media(ESPN specifically) dismissing their achievements/records or putting them into context? Why not?

Why did you completely ignore Ted Williams .406 & the reverence it's held? Joe D 56 hits? .367 career averages,etc....?Why aren't these records put into the same "CONTEXT' as Big O & Wilt records?. Simple questions.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that there were 0 Blacks/0Hispanics/0Asians when Ruth/Williams/Cobbs broke their Revered records?:oldlol:

The NBA had 32% more Blacks in 61(if that's correct) than MLB ever did during Williams/Cobb/Ruth eras. And there were legitimate arguments for better Black players like Satchel Paige/Josh Gibson,etc........

Simple question.:confusedshrug:

You aren't that stupid.:no:
You know the answer & obviously trying not to give any legitimatcy to the OP's observation as to why does ESPN/Media/fans like to seperate Wilt /Big O's records ,but revere the records of racists like Ty Cobbs or Williams/Ruth :confusedshrug: of even decades before these guys.

Where did I say that Major League Baseball's records from past eras shouldn't be given context? I doubt Babe Ruth, Ted Williams or any other star players from that era would dominate baseball today the way they did in the past, and I'm sure a number of other people feel the same way.

Also, you're crazy if you think people still don't revere Wilt's 100 point game.


They hold the NBA's most popular era/ golden era(80's/90's) in as much esteem as they do the MLB from 1920-1960 (Baseball' golden era).

Mind actually posting a video of these ESPN clips so we can judge them for themselves, particularly the ones regarding MLB statistics?

[Abraham Lincoln]

He couldn't shoot 55% for any of his scoring seasons in the 60s but could do so now?

People forget...Wilt was not an efficient center at all. He shot in a range of 46-54% in his scoring seasons (usually around 50-52% though) and then when you factor in the number of possessions he was using with FTs included....it's just not very efficient for a center. His TS% during his scoring seasons is lower across the board when compared to other great centers like Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, Robinson and even Ewing in their high scoring seasons. Wilt needed more possessions than all of them to average 30+ ppg.

What a horrible implication. :roll:

[Fatal9]

You are usually honest and I agree with many of the things you said about Wilt, even in your previous post, but this isn't an honest answer. Posting unadjusted numbers to show that Wilt wasn't efficient is like posting raw rebounding numbers to show that he was a much better rebounder than Rodman. Wilt was continuously top-10 (and often leader) in the NBA in shooting efficiency %'s, regardless of which one you pick. I don't think Hakeem's, Ewing's and Robinson's adjusted efficiencies are better at all.

Would Wilt shoot 55% nowadays? If he designed his modern game around power rather than finesse, why not? I don't doubt he'd easily do it if he hadn't set out to prove all the time he wasn't a dunking beast.

I think the lower FG% has more to do with the league being slightly offensively challenged to go along with bad shot selection than defense. You watch a 60s game and guys are throwing wild hook shots, players taking quick shots without any regard for patience, point guards with no jump shooting ability, centers with a less developed post game etc. I don't know how you would go about adjusting efficiencies. Kareem for example somewhat crossed over with Wilt but didn't have any trouble destroying an even better, more athletic league with 30+ ppg seasons on sky high efficiency. You might be right though about Wilt adjusting to a more "power" and modern style scoring wise (though like I mentioned, his long legs and very high center of gravity might not be conducive to a back down style like a Shaq, and he didn't have the finesse/touch of Kareem, Hakeem etc). No team is winning anything with him scoring that much because he just won't be efficient enough to provide a good return on all those possessions.

My respect for Wilt's game is for his all around ability, not his scoring ability, which I think is very overrated. I don't believe him to be a better scorer than Kareem, Shaq and couple of other centers (or more "skilled" scoring wise either). What puts Wilt in the GOAT conversation is that he was a monster defensively, he was an excellent passer in half court and to start fast breaks, one of the top 2-3 greatest rebounders ever to go along with his good scoring ability. This is shown by his ability to change up his game as his career went on. Could you see any other center being the type of defensive anchor and rebounder that Wilt was in his mid-30s? Or switching up their game completely to become a "point-center"? That's the reason he was great for me, because he could do anything requested of him. His post game? I just don't think it was as elite as other great centers based on what I've seen and how I see it translating in the modern game. Lets just say if he comes on the scene even 15 years later, those scoring seasons would not have been possible. If I had to project a statline for him today, I would think more along the lines of 25/16/5/4 on around 55% (provided he is with a solid playmaker too) than the ridiculous assertion of him pulling off 40/20/4/8 on 60%.

[guy]

Would Wilt shoot 55% nowadays? If he designed his modern game around power rather than finesse, why not? I don't doubt he'd easily do it if he hadn't set out to prove all the time he wasn't a dunking beast.

Why would he though? Didn't Wilt make it a point to show his skills so people didn't think he was just this giant relying on power and didn't have any finesse as opposed to Shaq who really didn't give a sh*t if he had to dunk on someone's head for every point he got? I'm not sure he'd be as efficient as Shaq was for that reason.

[97 bulls]

i think j is just being stubborn. guy pointing out that wilt had double the rebounding chances of centers today is true. and as with anything it must be taken in context. for example

if 1 guy makes 50 bucks and hour and the other makes 50 bucks a day who makes more money? thats all guy and fatal are trying to say. you can never use plain stats when comparing eras. theres too many variables. hell ive even heard that on that night that wilt scored 100. even the opposing teams were calling timeouts to get him the ball. wilt putting up 40 and 20 wouldnt happen.

[Abraham Lincoln]

You might be right though about Wilt adjusting to a more "power" and modern style scoring wise (though like I mentioned, his long legs and very high center of gravity might not be conducive to a back down style like a Shaq, and he didn't have the finesse/touch of Kareem, Hakeem etc). No team is winning anything with him scoring that much because he just won't be efficient enough to provide a good return on all those possessions. My respect for Wilt's game is for his all around ability, not his scoring ability, which I think is very overrated. I don't believe him to be a better scorer than Kareem, Shaq and couple of other centers (or more "skilled" scoring wise either).
He was the perfect blend of power and grace. Rather than relying on blurred black/white game footage from his time under coach Hannum as a primary passer, it would be nice to look at games from his top scoring seasons, if they were made available. His legs were indeed skinny for someone of that strength, as he got stronger in the lower body in his days with 76ers & Lakers, and his feet were small for someone of his size (size 15 shoe according to Vince Miller, I have heard as small as size 13), wearing flattop Converse shoes on a hardwood floor with dead spots (did Luke Jackson mishandle the basketball this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWNzHgG94XM#t=9m50s) poorly?) that did not have the luxurious under layers of padding (http://www.nba.com/media/pistons/dirtyjobs_256_001.jpg), but rather merely the top layer of hardwood over concrete. How is the footwork of Wilt Chamberlain who suffered from excruciating shin splints going to appear under these circumstances with digitally altered & lagging poor quality video.



That's the reason he was great for me, because he could do anything requested of him. Truth should be spoken freely rather than intertwined with fiction. :applause:


His post game? I just don't think it was as elite as other great centers based on what I've seen and how I see it translating in the modern game.

His baseline spin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dd89mkHoy4#t=0m26s) move that many attribute to Shaq was at least as good. His finger roll shot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAaaWpt3qDc#t=2m8s) was the best in league history from the position and while his footwork was exceptional if need be, performing moves that I have never seen from any other great center, even a nice fake move (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRpS5fq4GVo#t=0m19s) never before seen from most other top post players as well as a fake pass quick baseline spin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8#t=0m21s). O'Neal indeed was quicker on his feet at his size and Jabbar's step move into the hooking motion is more aesthetically pleasing to most people than Wilt Chamberlain's footwork. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAaaWpt3qDc#t=2m47s) what appears to be a rebound drop step into the middle with a fake pass and lay-in.




Just look at this fat stiff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdVS5bcBIqs#t=4m50s) or this skinny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VguaYh5Gofk#t=1m55s), weak, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VguaYh5Gofk#t=2m45s) bum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VguaYh5Gofk#t=6m50s).



If there was brief footage of merely these sorts of plays that was made available by the NBA in a full game format for these two players, then I'm sure I would not think very highly of them either.




25/16/5/4 on around 55%
Not sure how this works but in comparing this with his top season, where he averaged 24 points on 68% shooting, his shooting efficiency would drop by that much against far inferior centers?




Why would he though? Didn't Wilt make it a point to show his skills so people didn't think he was just this giant relying on power and didn't have any finesse as opposed to Shaq who really didn't give a sh*t if he had to dunk on someone's head for every point he got? I'm not sure he'd be as efficient as Shaq was for that reason.
I am sure he would not be as concerned in the latter eras of basketball of being too reliant on size and strength and he wouldn't be afraid of injuring or killing his defender unintentionally as the strength disparity would go down.

[jlauber]

One of the most ridiculous assertions regarding Chamberlain's dominance was this fallacy of him playing against 6-6 centers. Fatal9 TRIED to make that implication. The average starting center in 1962 was 6-10. Yes, Wilt had a height advantage for most of his career. Just as Kareem did for the majority of him.

Having said that, though...what is the significance of it? The FOUR most dominant centers, in NBA history (excluding 6-10 Mikan) were 6-9 Russell, 7-1 Shaq, 7-1 Wilt, and 7-2 Kareem. However, there have been a TON of other 7-2+ centers. Wilt played against a 7-3 stiff by the name of Swede Holbrook. He also held his own against Kareem (more on that later), as well as outplaying 7-2 Gilmore in a brief stint against him.

In any case, as I have pointed out before, take Wilt out of the rebounding equation, and we have 7-2 Motumbo with two rebounding titles, 7-2 Kareem with one, 7-1 David Robinson with one, and 7-2 Gilmore with one (he won three while in the ABA, but in two of them his average was less than the NBA leader.) That is FIVE rebound titles in the HISTORY of the NBA. AND, NONE by a 7-3+ center.

Yet, we have had 6-7 Truck Robinson win one. And 6-8 Rodman won seven. 6-9 Russell won several (although only two after Wilt arrived.)

Incidently, Shaq faced 6-9 Ben Wallace (who some say was 6-8 or shorter BTW), as well as many sub-seven-footers. Geez, the Rockets have been using 6-6 Chuck Hayes at center, for cryingoutloud.

Fatal9 mentioned Wilt's competition in 61-62 (and was wrong on several of them BTW.) I brought up what he faced in 65-66. How about this interesting point, though? After LA fired the incompetent Butch Van Breda Kolf, for completely misusing Chamberlain in the 68-69 season (Wilt averaged 20.5 BTW that year...and 13.9 ppg in the post-season)...the Lakers hired Joe Mullaney. The FIRST thing Mullaney did was approach Wilt about increasing his offense. Wilt responded with a 32.2 ppg average in the first nine games, including games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 points.) He blew out his knee in that ninth game (in a game in which he scored 33 points on 13-13 from the field), and while virtually EVERY medical opinion ranged from out for the season, to perhaps his career being over...Wilt returned to play limited minutes in his last three games...which lowered his season average to 27.3 ppg.

In any case, for those that honestly believed that Wilt could no longer score (his averages had dipped from 33.5 ppg in 65-66, to 24.1, 24.3 and 20.5 ppg)...he PROVED that he could continue to dominant offensively. I have mentioned the SI article in 1969 which essentially stated that Chamberlain was no longer a force on offense...and he IMMEDIATELY responded with a 60 point game, and followed that up a few days later with a 66 point game (on a phenomenal 29-35 shooting BTW.) Anyway, I have often wondered what he would have done in the 69-70 season, had he not blown out his knee.

Who were the centers in that 69-70 season? True, Russell had retired, but he was basically replaced by Kareem. Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Nate Thurmond, ...all in the HOF. Then there were 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle, 7-0 Hank Finkle, 7-0 Rich Niemann, 7-0 Mel Counts, and a slew of 6-10+ centers. Here again, Chamberlain was on his way to DOMINATING them all before he was injured. AND, in the post-season that season, and despite only four months being removed from major knee surgery, he averaged 22.1 ppg, 22.5 rpg, shot .549 from the field, and played a staggering 47.3 mpg. He also put up the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 from the field)...all on basically one leg.

Fatal9 continually brings up Kareem's 71-72 season, and particularly Kareem outscoring Wilt 33-11 in the WCF's. However, Wilt held Kareem to .457 shooting in that series, and blocked some 15 sky-hooks alone. Not only that, but in the first round of the playoffs, Nate Thurmond outscored Kareem and held him to .405 from the floor. BOTH Wilt and Thurmond were even more stifling the very next year., as well.

But the Thurmond example is an important one. Why? Because I have long maintained that Wilt, in his PRIME, would have been much better against Kareem. We don't have that matchup, BUT, we do have a transitory comparison. In the 66 season, Wilt hung a 62 point game on Thurmond (on 26-39 shooting, with 37 rebounds.) Even more importantly, in the 66-67 Finals, while Wilt cutback his scoring (more on that later), he still outscored Thurmond in the Finals, 17.5 to 14.3 ppg. He also outrebounded him, 28.5 to 26.7 rpg, AND, how about this...he outshot Thurmond, .560 - .343 ???!!!

So, while Kareem struggled against Thurmond in his post-season battles, Wilt DOMINATED Thurmond. What a difference that a few years made.

Continuing...how about against Russell...who is almost universally regarded as the greatest defensive center, and probably defensive player, ever. In 61-62, and in 19 games, Wilt averaged 40 ppg game against Russell. In Wilt's rookie season (59-60) he averaged 38 ppg against Russell. In fact, in Wilt's first seven seasons, COMBINED, he averaged 34 ppg against Russell...and nearly 40 ppg as a whole against the entire league!!!

How dominant was Wilt in 66-67? First of all, in Wilt's final game of the 65-66 playoffs against Russell, he hung a 46-34 game against Russell...and his team still lost (and for those that have mentioned the widened lane...that game also took place AFTER it.) Well, Wilt did not put that kind of game against Russell in 66-67. Why? Because he had quality teammates, and did not need to. Instead, he outscored him 22-10 per game, outrebounded him 32-23 per game, outassisted him 10-6 per game,...and outshot him from the field by another HUGE margin of .556 - .358.

THAT is just how dominant Wilt was in 66-67. True, his scoring was at 24.1 ppg...well below his previous best of 33.5 ppg. BUT, he COULD have scored so MUCH more. He had the high game that year, of 58 points (and would have games of 52, 53, 53, and 68 the very next year...despite "only" averaging 24.3 ppg.) The most telling stat for Wilt in that 66-67 season, was his .683 FG%, which shattered his previous record of .540...and which was a still-record .162 ahead of his nearest competitor, Walt Bellamy, at .521. In that remarkable season, he had the three highest "perfect games" in NBA history, with games of 15-15, 16-16, and 18-18...as well as an amazing record of 35 straight made.

Wilt was at his physical peak in 66-67, as well as probably at the height of his skills. There is NO doubt that Wilt could have scored MUCH more that year. I have maintained that he would EASILY topped 50 ppg had he had a mind to do so.

Now, thanks to Fatal, we KNOW that Kareem dominated Hakeem in the late 80's and well past his prime. Hakeem went on to become the best center of the 90's. And while I believe Shaq was better, especially from the late 90's into the mid 00's...he was not SIGNIFICANTLY greater. AND, I don't think anyone would suggest that Dwight Howard is better today, than what Olajuwon was at his peak. And yet, Howard is considered the best "big man" in the game today.

What does all of that mean. We had Wilt scoring 40 ppg in his first seven seasons...COMBINED...including that staggering 50 ppg season in 61-62. BUT, he was NOT even at his PEAK when he did so. At his BEST, in 66-67 (and probably 67-68 as well), he CRUSHED players like Russell, Reed, Bellamy,...and Thurmond. AND, Thurmond would go to generally outplay Kareem in two consecutive post-seasons in the early 70's.

You can follow the logic from there, but the end result is that Wilt, in his PRIME, would be OVERWHELMINGLY better than Howard. Not only that, but Wilt was taller, bigger, stronger, faster, could jump higher, and was FAR more skilled than Howard.

If Jordan could average 37 ppg, and if Rodman could average 19 rpg, and if Eaton could average 5.6 bpg...

40-20 .600 4 and 8...at his PEAK, and playing in TODAY's era...against TODAY's center...and being asked to CARRY a team.

I don't think ANY of those figures are out of the realm of possibility...especially given the FACT that he DID accomplish ALL of them.

[jlauber]

He was the perfect blend of power and grace. Rather than relying on blurred black/white game footage from his time under coach Hannum as a primary passer, it would be nice to look at games from his top scoring seasons, if they were made available. His legs were indeed skinny for someone of that strength, as he got stronger in the lower body in his days with 76ers & Lakers, and his feet were small for someone of his size (size 15 shoe according to Vince Miller, I have heard as small as size 13), wearing flattop Converse shoes on a hardwood floor with dead spots (did Luke Jackson mishandle the basketball this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWNzHgG94XM#t=9m50s) poorly?) that did not have the luxurious under layers of padding (http://www.nba.com/media/pistons/dirtyjobs_256_001.jpg), but rather merely the top layer of hardwood over concrete. How is the footwork of Wilt Chamberlain who suffered from excruciating shin splints going to appear under these circumstances with digitally altered & lagging poor quality video.


Truth should be spoken freely rather than intertwined with fiction. :applause:



His baseline spin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dd89mkHoy4#t=0m26s) move that many attribute to Shaq was at least as good. His finger roll shot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAaaWpt3qDc#t=2m8s) was the best in league history from the position and while his footwork was exceptional if need be, performing moves that I have never seen from any other great center, even a nice fake move (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRpS5fq4GVo#t=0m19s) never before seen from most other top post players as well as a fake pass quick baseline spin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8#t=0m21s). O'Neal indeed was quicker on his feet at his size and Jabbar's step move into the hooking motion is more aesthetically pleasing to most people than Wilt Chamberlain's footwork. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAaaWpt3qDc#t=2m47s) what appears to be a rebound drop step into the middle with a fake pass and lay-in.




Just look at this fat stiff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdVS5bcBIqs#t=4m50s) or this skinny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VguaYh5Gofk#t=1m55s), weak, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VguaYh5Gofk#t=2m45s) bum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VguaYh5Gofk#t=6m50s).



If there was brief footage of merely these sorts of plays that was made available by the NBA in a full game format for these two players, then I'm sure I would not think very highly of them either.




Not sure how this works but in comparing this with his top season, where he averaged 24 points on 68% shooting, his shooting efficiency would drop by that much against far inferior centers?



I am sure he would not be as concerned in the latter eras of basketball of being too reliant on size and strength and he wouldn't be afraid of injuring or killing his defender unintentionally as the strength disparity would go down.

EXCELLENT footage Abe!

Kareem and Shaq looked AWFUL in those.

Don't get me wrong. I have long maintained the greatness of Kareem and Shaq. BUT for Fatal to say that Kareem was more EFFICIENT or SKILLED than Wilt is laughable. Kareem had several .513-.539 seasons in his career. Against Wilt it was MUCH lower. Wilt has the TWO highest FG% seasons in NBA HISTORY, and three of the top-five. His 66-67 season, in which he was hitting fadeaway bank shots, jump shots, hook shots, and all kinds of post moves is, IMHO, THE most dominant season in history.

And, once again, I have SEEN Kareem, Shaq, Olajuwon, Robinson, Moses, Gilmore, Russell, AND Wilt. I have SEEN them all. No question in MY mind, Wilt, at his PEAK, and playing his BEST, was BETTER than ALL of them. Granted, he did not play at his best every year...and that is why I rank Russell ahead of him. But, when he really wanted to dominate, there was no one better.

[Abraham Lincoln]

and he IMMEDIATELY responded with a 60 point game, and followed that up a few days later with a 66 point game (on a phenomenal 29-35 shooting BTW.)
What an inefficient center that Wilt is...



So, while Kareem struggled against Thurmond in his post-season battles, Wilt DOMINATED Thurmond. What a difference that a few years made.

In the 66 season, Wilt hung a 62 point game on Thurmond (on 26-39 shooting, with 37 rebounds.)
Now that is one of the games I would love to see. While it is true that Wilt Chamberlain was playing his best basketball under Coach Hannum in Philadelphia, one can only wonder if he was as good or better as an individual ball player in say 1965 (after the trade) or 1966. Younger legs don't hurt.

Edit: Nate was actually sitting out that game... Still a monster performance.

[jlauber]

What an inefficient center that Wilt is...



Now that is one of the games I would love to see. While it is true that Wilt Chamberlain was playing his best basketball under Coach Hannum in Philadelphia, one can only wonder if he was as good or better as an individual ball player in say 1965 (after the trade) or 1966. Younger legs don't hurt.

In terms of pure SCORING...why do some here believe Wilt was incapable of it in the modern era? Wilt had a high game of 62 against Russell, and another FOUR of 50+, including a 50-35 game in the playoffs. He had 32 60+ games in his career, which is more than the rest of the entire NBA...COMBINED. I have mentioned the fact that Wilt had FIVE of them AFTER the league widened the lane (and as Abe and I have pointed out...which had NO effect on Wilt's scoring.)

Some question his rebounding...Fatal ranks him in the top 2-3 (?????). Chamberlain CRUSHED EVEYONE on the glass. Rodman dominated a league which had the WORST rebounding centers in history. Incidently, I have read some here who question Jerry Lucas' 20-20 seasons (TWO BTW.) Lucas was GIFTED athlete, who could shoot as well as Larry Bird from long range. One-on-one against Rodman would be no contest. Rodman would probably not score a point (probably couldn't score against me either), while Lucas would be scoring from all over the floor. In fact, I have long maintained that Rodman probably would not have been in the NBA in the 60's and 70's, since the players of that era were expected to score and pass, as well as rebound and play defense.

As for blocked shots...C'MON. Wilt probably averaged FIVE blocks, per game, just against Kareem. I have posted the footage before, but he was WAY better than Eaton ever was. If Eaton could get nearly six blocks a game, Wilt would have EASILY blocked eight (and probably much more.)

These RIDICULOUS 25-15-4-4 numbers are just that...UTTER NONSENSE. Wilt, at his PEAK, and being asked to CARRY a team...would have DWARFED the best seasons of Kareem and Shaq...both of whom were much more dominant that 25-15-4-4...at least in terms of scoring.

[stephanieg]

Now, thanks to Fatal, we KNOW that Kareem dominated Hakeem in the late 80's and well past his prime.

Head to head stats. (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=abdulka01&p2=olajuha01)

Hakeem was less efficient by a lot, Kareem got way less rebounds, less blocks, steals, and assists, although he didn't play as much. Do we have the playoff stats from '86 in a handy link anywhere?

I think of ancient Kareem as not being very consistent. One game he may explode for 25-13, then he may go 3-9 with 4 boards or something. That's expected given how old he was, and it was impressive he was still capable of such eruptions at an advanced age, but I dunno if saying he dominated Hakeem is realistic.

As an aside, I love to cite Kareem in any era argument. Dude played forever at approximately the same level. What a freak, but also a great comparison tool. Kinda like a standard candle from astronomy.

[Fatal9]

FYI, Wilt did not score 62 on Thurmond. Thurmond was out with a back injury that game and Wilt was guarded by 6'8 rookie scrub Fred Hetzel.

And some of the "centers" you mentioned as being incorrect, I didn't list because they seem like backups who played like 15 minutes a game. In the case of the Knicks, I went with the leading rebounders who were listed at F/C...seems like the logical thing to do.

[jlauber]

Head to head stats. (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=abdulka01&p2=olajuha01)

Hakeem was less efficient by a lot, Kareem got way less rebounds, less blocks, steals, and assists, although he didn't play as much. Do we have the playoff stats from '86 in a handy link anywhere?

I think of ancient Kareem as not being very consistent. One game he may explode for 25-13, then he may go 3-9 with 4 boards or something. That's expected given how old he was, and it was impressive he was still capable of such eruptions at an advanced age, but I dunno if saying he dominated Hakeem is realistic.

As an aside, I love to cite Kareem in any era argument. Dude played forever at approximately the same level. What a freak, but also a great comparison tool. Kinda like a standard candle from astronomy.


Interesting. I rememer trying to find those box scores, too. Perhaps those 35, 43, 46 point games took place in 84-85? Maybe Fatal can get us the dates. I do recall Kareem hanging a huge game on the "Towers" one year.

[Fatal9]

Head to head stats. (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=abdulka01&p2=olajuha01)

Hakeem was less efficient by a lot, Kareem got way less rebounds, less blocks, steals, and assists, although he didn't play as much. Do we have the playoff stats from '86 in a handy link anywhere?

I think of ancient Kareem as not being very consistent. One game he may explode for 25-13, then he may go 3-9 with 4 boards or something. That's expected given how old he was, and it was impressive he was still capable of such eruptions at an advanced age, but I dunno if saying he dominated Hakeem is realistic.

As an aside, I love to cite Kareem in any era argument. Dude played forever at approximately the same level. What a freak, but also a great comparison tool. Kinda like a standard candle from astronomy.

We're referring to the '86 season. Stats for that aren't up on bball reference though. He gave Sampson/Hakeem 36, 43, 46 in consecutive matchups (I have boxscore from all three games) and in the playoff series averaged something like 27 ppg on 50-52%. He was probably outrebounded though, Kareem was too slow and old to keep up with rebounding AND be the #1 option in the half court. Keep in mind Kareem did this to them when he was the oldest player in the entire league and touching 40.

[Abraham Lincoln]

In terms of pure SCORING...why do some here believe Wilt was incapable of it in the modern era? Wilt had a high game of 62 against Russell, and another FOUR of 50+, including a 50-35 game in the playoffs. He had 32 60+ games in his career, which is more than the rest of the entire NBA...COMBINED. I have mentioned the fact that Wilt had FIVE of them AFTER the league widened the lane (and as Abe and I have pointed out...which had NO effect on Wilt's scoring.)

Some question his rebounding...Fatal ranks him in the top 2-3 (?????). Chamberlain CRUSHED EVEYONE on the glass. Rodman dominated a league which had the WORST rebounding centers in history. Incidently, I have read some here who question Jerry Lucas' 20-20 seasons (TWO BTW.) Lucas was GIFTED athlete, who could shoot as well as Larry Bird from long range. One-on-one against Rodman would be no contest. Rodman would probably not score a point (probably couldn't score against me either), while Lucas would be scoring from all over the floor. In fact, I have long maintained that Rodman probably would not have been in the NBA in the 60's and 70's, since the players of that era were expected to score and pass, as well as rebound and play defense.

As for blocked shots...C'MON. Wilt probably averaged FIVE blocks, per game, just against Kareem. I have posted the footage before, but he was WAY better than Eaton ever was. If Eaton could get nearly six blocks a game, Wilt would have EASILY blocked eight (and probably much more.)

These RIDICULOUS 25-15-4-4 numbers are just that...UTTER NONSENSE. Wilt, at his PEAK, and being asked to CARRY a team...would have DWARFED the best seasons of Kareem and Shaq...both of whom were much more dominant that 25-15-4-4...at least in terms of scoring.

While you were incorrect on the Thurmond/Chamberlain 62 pt. game (Nate was sitting out), he did infact give Russell's Celtics a near 40/40 game during that '66 season (37/41), and just one month later against Detroit had an actual 40-40 night (41/42) to pass Bob Pettit as the all time leading scorer. Note he only scored 10 points the first half of the record breaking night, content as a playmaker. Wilt did not go after the record until the 2nd half with the Sixers up 70-51. After three quarters they were up 110-78 largely due to Chamberlain and Greer.


"I wasn't going after the record early in the game. We looked so bad in our last couple games, that we wanted to shake the offense loose, and this was the best way to do it. Oh sure, I went after it in the 4th quarter when I knew I could get it and we were way ahead. The boys started feeding it to me then."

-post game locker room interview


Apparently impossible in accordance to the creedence of Boston Celtic fan Bill Simmons and all his sheep.


http://i40.tinypic.com/2mnesfr.jpg

[jlauber]

FYI, Wilt did not score 62 on Thurmond. Thurmond was out with a back injury that game and Wilt was guarded by 6'8 rookie scrub Fred Hetzel.

And some of the "centers" you mentioned as being incorrect, I didn't list because they seem like backups who played like 15 minutes a game. In the case of the Knicks, I went with the leading rebounders who were listed at F/C...seems like the logical thing to do.

I was misinformed on that Warrior game. In any case, Wilt DID outshoot Thurmond by a .560 - .343 margin the '66-67 Finals (and outshot Russell .556 to .358 in the series before.)

As for the Knicks of 61-62...6-10 Imhoff and 6-10 Phil Jordan split time at the center position...and 6-9 Cleveland Buckner moved to center at times as well. Wilt seldom, if ever, played against a 6-6 center (maybe Unseld who was listed at 6-7...and was a BEAST...his legs were probably bigger than Shaq's.)

[stephanieg]

We're referring to the '86 season. Stats for that aren't up on bball reference though. He gave Sampson/Hakeem 36, 43, 46 in consecutive matchups (I have boxscore from all three games) and in the playoff series averaged something like 27 ppg on 50-52%. He was probably outrebounded though, Kareem was too slow and old to keep up with rebounding AND be the #1 option in the half court. Keep in mind Kareem did this to them when he was the oldest player in the entire league and touching 40.

That's pretty awesome. I guess I'll have to watch the rest of that series besides game 5 then. For some reason I thought Kareem had a big dropoff and a change in the magnitude of his role after '85 when he smacked Boston. I thought the Houston twin towers were able to feast and beast on poor elderly Kareem which is why LA lost. Guess not then.

[jlauber]

While you were incorrect on the Thurmond/Chamberlain 62 pt. game (Nate was sitting out), he did infact give Russell's Celtics a near 40/40 game during that '66 season (37/41), and just one month later against Detroit had an actual 40-40 night (41/42) to pass Bob Pettit as the all time leading scorer. Note he only scored 10 points the first half of the record breaking night, content as a playmaker. Wilt did not go after the record until the 2nd half with the Sixers up 70-51. After three quarters they were up 110-78 largely due to Chamberlain and Greer.


"I wasn't going after the record early in the game. We looked so bad in our last couple games, that we wanted to shake the offense loose, and this was the best way to do it. Oh sure, I went after it in the 4th quarter when I knew I could get it and we were way ahead. The boys started feeding it to me then."

-post game locker room interview


Apparently impossible in accordance to the creedence of Boston Celtic fan Bill Simmons and all his sheep.


http://i40.tinypic.com/2mnesfr.jpg

Wilt had 34 30-30 games against Russell. And 10 of them came in the playoffs, as well. He also had FIVE games of 50+ points, and a high of 62 (although his team lost.) One of those 50 point games (a 50-35 game BTW) came in a 1960 playoff win. In addition, he had 24 40+ games against Russell.

I won't look them up now, but I believe he had 17 40-30 games, and four 30-40 games against Russell, as well.

Here are all 142 H2H games in case anyone is interested...which begin on page 269.

http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf

[Fatal9]

That's pretty awesome. I guess I'll have to watch the rest of that series besides game 5 then. For some reason I thought Kareem had a big dropoff and a change in the magnitude of his role after '85 when he smacked Boston. I thought the Houston twin towers were able to feast and beast on poor elderly Kareem which is why LA lost. Guess not then.
Kareem's best game was game 1 IIRC (the only game they won). Make no mistake, Olajuwon was easily the best player in the playoff series and him and Sampson literally had a block party at Kareem's expense in game 2 (I watched the game and counted 12 blocks by them combined). Kareem still had a good series offensively and destroyed them in the regular season, the wider point is that Kareem as the oldest player in the league was still able to torch modern/athletic centers like Sampson and Hakeem over and over again.

As for the series, Lakers lost for many reasons. One was that the Rockets matched to exploit their main weakness...lack of athleticism/rebounding on the frontline. Kareem was great offensively but by that age he could not be a defensive anchor and reliable rebounding guy while also carrying the scoring load. Secondly, Rockets were playing out of their mind. You could say they were even beating LA at their own game (by running with them). They hit every timely shot, made every timely fourth quarter run in the series. I've never seen even the Celtics stand up to some of those devastating Magic led runs of the Lakers (which could put you down double digit in a couple of minutes) like those Rockets did. It makes no sense that such an inexperienced team had the mental toughness to never get rattled in a series against the defending champs. I think they came back twice in the second half during that series AT the Forum to win games...that's incredibly difficult to do and I'd like to find out how many teams can say they've done that to the Showtime Lakers. I don't know if they were mentally tough or just didn't give a fck because they were a pretty young team...but their style of play led by two BEASTS in Hakeem/Sampson was entertaining as hell.

[jlauber]

Kareem's best game was game 1 IIRC (the only game they won). Make no mistake, Olajuwon was easily the best player in the playoff series and him and Sampson literally had a block party at Kareem's expense in game 2 (I watched the game and counted 12 blocks by them combined). Kareem still had a good series offensively and destroyed them in the regular season, the wider point is that Kareem as the oldest player in the league was still able to torch modern/athletic centers like Sampson and Hakeem over and over again.

As for the series, Lakers lost for many reasons. One was that the Rockets matched to exploit their main weakness...lack of athleticism/rebounding on the frontline. Kareem was great offensively but by that age he could not be a defensive anchor and reliable rebounding guy while also carrying the scoring load. Secondly, Rockets were playing out of their mind. You could say they were even beating LA at their own game (by running with them). They hit every timely shot, made every timely fourth quarter run in the series. I've never seen even the Celtics stand up to some of those devastating Magic led runs of the Lakers (which could put you down double digit in a couple of minutes) like those Rockets did. It makes no sense that such an inexperienced team had the mental toughness to never get rattled in a series against the defending champs. I think they came back twice in the second half during that series AT the Forum to win games...that's incredibly difficult to do and I'd like to find out how many teams can say they've done that to the Showtime Lakers. I don't know if they were mentally tough or just didn't give a fck because they were a pretty young team...but their style of play led by two BEASTS in Hakeem/Sampson was entertaining as hell.


Interesting point about age. Kareem, at age 36, averaged 21.5 ppg, 7.3 rpg, and shot .578 from the field. And second team all defense. Wilt, at age 36, averaged 13.2 ppg, led the NBA in rebounding at 18.6 rpg, shot a record .727 from the field, and was voted first-team all-defense. In his final NBA game, in game five of the Finals, he scored 21 points with 23 rebounds.

[Abraham Lincoln]

I think Jordan's final two playoff series as a Bull (playing on tired legs and with a subpar/injured/aging cast) showed exactly why he is the greatest--the combination of skill with will power and clutchness--and is more impressive than anything Wilt has ever done as a basketball player.
And Bill Russell's final two seasons (playing on tired legs and with a subpar/injured/aging cast) show exactly why he is the greatest--the combination of skill with will power and clutchness defeating two much superior teams--and is more impressive than anything Jordan has ever done as a basketball player.




I am under the impression that you would deliberately select a Rik Smits or even Andrew Bynum type over Chamberlain.


Note that it was the Dipper who not only put the Captain & the Diesel in their proper place, but Air Jordan as well.

"They changed the rules to help you. They changed them to stop me."


http://i47.tinypic.com/jui8tu.jpg

[Abraham Lincoln]

"For years now, I've said nothing but good things about Kareem, not one negative thing, and he's never said anything nice about me. I just don't think he's this great defensive center he's supposed to be. It's just unreal, look at all the guys dunking over him. I look back over my career and recall only a few times anyone dunked over me. I still remember the time Elgin Baylor did. I still lose sleep over it to this day. I particularly resent what Kareem said the other day in a newspaper article. He said the centers of today in the NBA are much better athletes than when I played. Well I disagree with him 100%. I don't think he knows what the hell he's talking about. I played against him for four years. Does he not consider himself a good athlete? I'm not here to discredit Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, I believe he's a great talent that has had too many subpar years defensively. I just want to set the record straight. There were some damn good centers when I played. What about Bill Russell? Does Kareem consider him a good athlete? What about Nate Thurmond? Or Willis Reed? Or Walt Bellamy?"

-1979




"It's a run up and down the court and dunk the ball game now. These are speed merchants and jumping fools. That's why their shooting percentages are going way up. I led the league 11 times in field goal percentage and my lifetime average was 54%. There are now five billion guys shooting over 54%. Can you imagine playing when your hands are so cold and the ball is as hard as a brick? I can remember going to Detroit and playing the old Detroit Arena and there's about 3000 people in this big old huge thing. Every time they opened the door, the wind blows through. I can vividly remember Paul Arizin blowing into his hands and the smoke was blowing out of his nose. Guys were shooting 37%, these were great shooting. People look at that any say, 'Is that a basketball player or was he on a blind team?' They don't know how to out that into perspective."

-1985






"All that faking Hakeem does, if you're Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain or Nate Thurmond, that bleep don't mean nothin'. You just don't leave your deer. You would see Robinson fall for every god-damn fakes, and Hakeem would dip around or under him for an easy basket."

-1995




"The best team I ever saw was the 1967 Sixers. Everything today is geared for the offensive player. Open the middle so he can drive. You can't put your hand on a guy's back. Can you imagine me in the paint with only one guy on me and he can't put his hands on me and nobody's beside me? Michael Jordan is a bit older and he walks all the time, but the referees allow it. He's not going to come through dunking the basketball on Luke Jackson. He's going to get slammed to the floor. I'd like to see Wali Jones playing defense on him, driving him into me. I'd be more than happy to see that."

-1996





"He's 6'6, 196 lbs. Coming into our domain, the pivot, would not have been very wise of Michael. I don't think, I know he would have been crushed back then. During my time, if you did a 360 dunk you would either be on knocked on you ass or benched. It was called hot-dogging back then."

-1997






"If Shaq has been chosen as the team leader then he need to do it more by example. He needs to get down the court and play defense instead of cherry picking by the basket for all those dunks. Too often the other team is on offense and Sha is not even at half court. Everybody talks about his points when we should be looking closer at his rebounds and blocked shots and defense."

-1999






"People ask whether I like Allen (Iverson) as a player, I couldn't wait for him to get out of Georgetown. I didn't want him to leave early, but I wanted him in the NBA. I knew he'd be incredible, totally exciting, even more so than Pete Maravich because of his quickness and his desire. I haven't seen anything on the court since then that would change my mind. I don't think the MVP is viewed correctly. It always tends to go to a guy on a winning team, but that shouldn't necessarily be the case. A guy who will probably get overlooked this season is [Seattle's] Gary Payton - he's having a wonderful year but his team didn't make the playoffs."

"Iverson lends himself to something like that. I mean, the Sixers have role players around him. But look at Indiana, New York, the Lakers, the talent they have. I hear Shaq mentioned, but I see a guy averaging 10 rebounds. A guy his size, just by being out there in the center of things, should get six or seven rebounds without moving.

"I watch Allen, his scoring is a marvel. He shoots a low percentage, but he doesn't get too many easy shots, either. Michael Jordan won all those scoring titles [10] and had good percentages, but he got a lot of dunks and fastbreak layups. His percentage on other shots wasn't that good.

What I like about Allen is his drives to the basket. He gets thrown up against the pads, brushes himself off and goes in there again. He's one of the few players I truly enjoy watching. I hear stories about him off the court, but everybody can't be what you want them to be. Everybody knows I was no saint. These guys today are under a microscope I couldn't have stood. Everywhere they go, everything they do, it's a tough life for celebrities. When we played, it was more about movie stars. Now, it's sports.

If I were to talk to him, I'd tell him not to lose sight of what he's doing, but sometimes when you're free to do what you want it can cause problems. As long as he's primarily following the rules, I would have no problem. I'd have more of a problem with a Dennis Rodman, not practicing, not wanting to warm up with his teammates. That's bull. And for his team to accept that, that's double bull. "If he were to be the first Sixer since me to lead the league in scoring, I would feel very, very good about it," Chamberlain said. "But when you win something like that, it comes with some responsibility. Maybe that's a role he'll take on.

"You know, Philly's my hometown for me, but I can't just root for all the hometown teams. I cheer for individuals. Allen is one."


-1999


From one Sixer legend to another. :applause:

[EricForman]

And Bill Russell's final two seasons (playing on tired legs and with a subpar/injured/aging cast) show exactly why he is the greatest--the combination of skill with will power and clutchness defeating two much superior teams--and is more impressive than anything Jordan has ever done as a basketball player.




I am under the impression that you would deliberately select a Rik Smits or even Andrew Bynum type over Chamberlain.


Note that it was the Dipper who not only put the Captain & the Diesel in their proper place, but Air Jordan as well.

"They changed the rules to help you. They changed them to stop me."


http://i47.tinypic.com/jui8tu.jpg

Why put you old timer-fans so defensive and blow things out of proportion? Just because I said Jordan's final two playoff series is better than anything Wilt's ever done on the court (certainly not a minority opinion, considering Jordan's reputation as the most clutch ever and Wilt the opposite) means that I think Rik Smits and Bynum is better than Wilt?

Here's a little secret... although I dont think Wilt would put up the 40/20/5/8 60% shooting today as Lauber suggested, I don't think he would be a mediocre role player either. He'd be a superstar. I'm not gonna bother estimating numbers because it will get into a long debate. I simply dont think Wilt was better than Jordan, period.

If you think that's such a big diss to the dipper, well too bad.

And pulling a Wilt quote and then posting a picture of Wilt looking at Jordan proves what? :confusedshrug: Yeah they did change the rules for Wilt, but only because the rules were stupid back then. You could interfere your own teammates shot attempts and guide it into the hoop, what? KG would get an extra 12 ppg if that was allowed in 2004, no?

And someone like Charles Barkley can say "they changed the rules to stop me" (5 second back down rule) and someone from Pat Riley's Heat/SVG's Knicks can say "they changed the rules to stop me" too , since the league made plenty of rule changes to free up the game after the ugly Knicks/Heat series of the late 90s and early 2000s turned the game into a drag-out tug of war.

[Desperado]

Jordan wouldn't have made it in Wilt's era.


if Jordan had played in Wilt's era, he would eventually be out of the league because he couldn't stop the following infractions:

-traveling
-offensive fouls
-cursing the refs (he would not have lasted in that era with this; he only "got better" in his career because he received more and more respect from refs)
-palming the ball (he'd turn the ball over on VIRTUALLY EVERY possession; if he corrected this, he wouldn't be as effective ball handler)
-no shot clock, meaning other teams could get the lead and stall, and Jordan's numbers would DECREASE VASTLY-15ppg maybe?
-likely not as much hero worship, so not as many calls
-hand check allowed, meaning other players could defend him better
-no advanced physical therapy for Jordan during his career- meaning his body breaks down sooner, more injuries, less production in his career
-making a meager salary playing, many players of that time worked another during job the off season; if Jordan had to work like everyone else, his game would NOT BE HALF WHAT IT WAS, EASY, due to not being able to train in the off-season.



These differences would render Jordan a very different player- not the one you remember.

Not to mention Jordan wouldn't have benefited from all the media hype, ESPN, 24/7 cable, NIKE, Gatorade commercials, Wheaties cereal boxes, Space Jam, Ball Park Franks, McDonalds, etc. etc. etc.

Nobody would view him like they do today and when Jordan played.


In essence, put Wilt in this era, with his former limitations, he's not the same player. Give him Jordan's advantages in this era, he would be the same player he was during his time.

Put Jordan in Wilt's era, with Wilt's limitations, he's not the same player.

But based on everyone playing in their own eras, Wilt > MJ.

[nycelt84]

Jordan wouldn't have made it in Wilt's era.


if Jordan had played in Wilt's era, he would eventually be out of the league because he couldn't stop the following infractions:

-traveling
-offensive fouls
-cursing the refs (he would not have lasted in that era with this; he only "got better" in his career because he received more and more respect from refs)
-palming the ball (he'd turn the ball over on VIRTUALLY EVERY possession; if he corrected this, he wouldn't be as effective ball handler)
-no shot clock, meaning other teams could get the lead and stall, and Jordan's numbers would DECREASE VASTLY-15ppg maybe?
-likely not as much hero worship, so not as many calls
-hand check allowed, meaning other players could defend him better
-no advanced physical therapy for Jordan during his career- meaning his body breaks down sooner, more injuries, less production in his career
-making a meager salary playing, many players of that time worked another during job the off season; if Jordan had to work like everyone else, his game would NOT BE HALF WHAT IT WAS, EASY, due to not being able to train in the off-season.



These differences would render Jordan a very different player- not the one you remember.

Not to mention Jordan wouldn't have benefited from all the media hype, ESPN, 24/7 cable, NIKE, Gatorade commercials, Wheaties cereal boxes, Space Jam, Ball Park Franks, McDonalds, etc. etc. etc.

Nobody would view him like they do today and when Jordan played.


In essence, put Wilt in this era, with his former limitations, he's not the same player. Give him Jordan's advantages in this era, he would be the same player he was during his time.

Put Jordan in Wilt's era, with Wilt's limitations, he's not the same player.

But based on everyone playing in their own eras, Wilt > MJ.

Apparently you're unaware that Wilt played with a shot clock his entire NBA career. The shot clock has been around since 1954.

[jlauber]

Say whatever you want about Chamberlain...he statistically dominated his era like no player in NBA history...like no professional team sport athlete in history.

And given the fact that we have a solid transitory comparison with "the Bridge" Kareem, who outplayed Hakeem, despite being the oldest player in the NBA, in the 80's...we also know that Wilt, Thurmond, Reed, Russell, and Oscar would have been, at the very least, among the best players in the league today.

My point about Wilt averaging 40-20-.600 4 8 is that those numbers were actually SURPASSED by him, in real life. Yes, he accomplished them in a different era. But the best players of his era were every bit as great as the best players of this era. Kareem proves that.

IMHO, Wilt was every bit the scorer that Jordan was...so 37 ppg is not out of the realm of possibility (incidently, I believe Kareem could PROBABLY have scored that much in the Jordan era, as well.) And, if Rodman was getting as many as 19 rpg in game...I just have to believe that Wilt and Russell would have done it in Rodman's era, as well. And if Mark Eaton could get nearly six blocks a game, over the course of a season...well, we already know that Chamberlain was getting double-digit blocks in his era, and that Russell was considered the greatest shot-blocker ever...how could anyone suggest that Wilt or Russell would not have done it?

In any case, I respect Forman's comments. I also agree about Jordan in the post-season...aside from perhaps Russell, Jordan was the greatest post-season player that I ever saw. Wilt COULD have been, as evidenced by his 66-67 season, when he led his team to a title, and crushed Russell and Thurmond in the post-season. But, for whatever reasons...injuries, bad luck, mediocre teammates...many of which were legitimate excuses...you just can't accept that he was better than Russell, in what is a TEAM game. At his BEST...none better. Just not enough of it IMO. Meanwhile, Jordan siezed the opportunities, and was the best player of his generation.

I think most all of the intelligent posters here will acknowledge that despite what ever numbers we may disagree on...Oscar, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, and others...would be great today. Maybe not better than the best of today, but certainly among them.

[32jazz]

Say whatever you want about Chamberlain...he statistically dominated his era like no player in NBA history...like no professional team sport athlete in history.

And given the fact that we have a solid transitory comparison with "the Bridge" Kareem, who outplayed Hakeem, despite being the oldest player in the NBA, in the 80's...we also know that Wilt, Thurmond, Reed, Russell, and Oscar would have been, at the very least, among the best players in the league today.



I think most all of the intelligent posters here will acknowledge that despite what ever numbers we may disagree on...Oscar, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, and others...would be great today. Maybe not better than the best of today, but certainly among them.


Despite the evidence that great players from the 60's were just as great as those of the 80's & beyond we still have some dismissing people like Big O & claiming him 'clearly' or 'easily' inferior to Magic(Despite Kareem,who played with both, being up in the air really about who is the best & Kareem isn't afraid to speak his mind).

Despite the fact that Elvin Hayes was a NBA All Star in the 60's,70's & at an advanced age in the 80's at 34 plus years & still averaging 23/12 only down by about -5 in ppg/rpg from his average peak of the 60's of roughly 27/16.(And the older Hayes was actually playing less minutes by the 80's)

These same people would be saying the same stuff about how Wilt 'clearly' doesn't belong on the same court/class with players like Kareem,Hakeem,:rolleyes: etc......if their was no evidence of an aging Wilt (34-37) playing on a barbarically repaired(by today's sports surgery standards) knee against KAreem. Wilt more than held his own & even outplayed Kareem in many instances & was 'clearly' STILL the League's best Rebounder/Defender in the early 70's among Big men(only ahead of or on par with another 60's 'stiff' Nate Thurmond who was thought very highly of as well).

Unfortunately guards from the 60's like Big O ,West, Dave Bing,Earl Monroe, Walt Frazier, SAm Jones,etc.... did not have the luxury of being able to legally palm/carry the ball nor travel so it is understandable their ball handling looks inferior by today's rules were guards carry EVERY SINGLE possession. Nor did they benefit from the gratuitous media hype machine of today's players.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Just because I said Jordan's final two playoff series is better than anything Wilt's ever done on the court (certainly not a minority opinion, considering Jordan's reputation as the most clutch ever and Wilt the opposite)
Mr. Simmons must have screwed your mind up (and many others). The impression is what I got after quite a few of your posts here, particularly 'conceding' that inferior players to Chamberlain have 'a case' over Jordan, as if he is up there by himself in the first place.

[KAJ=GOAT]

Why are these young dudes so mad that people are telling them the truth about being lied to?

They should be mad at the reporting that goes on over at ESPN,

not the people bringing you the facts.

Records,

are records and can't ever be changed to suit your agenda.

Whether it be since the advent of the 24 second clock, or the merger,

the NBA,

has a history.

ESPN, no matter how hard they try,

can never change that.

[EricForman]

Mr. Simmons must have screwed your mind up (and many others). The impression is what I got after quite a few of your posts here, particularly 'conceding' that inferior players to Chamberlain have 'a case' over Jordan, as if he is up there by himself in the first place.

you're just turning into a troll now. i see everyone has a soft spot? Jordan has been considered goat by many before simmons book came out. why bring simmons into this? because you're not a fan and i am? when will you realize if a serious fan rank jordan 1st, its because of his own analysis after watching games/seeing stats/reading material/watching old footages? its not "because we were told to", or because "we believe everything nike and espn says".

i could easily spin you old timers agenda too. i can accuse you guys of being bitter old men who always claimed things were better back then so you wouldnt feel so irrelevant in the world. or i can accuse you guys of being one of those cynical guys who likes to bash all thigns "mainstream" because it's "cool to do so" (people bash apple, or bash green day, or bash nike for this reason).

but i dont, right? i just take it you're a huge fan of the old timers and you have your own opinion. but trying to DENY THE FACT that most people (including former players, coaches, sportswriters) think Jordan is #1 makes you look silly. Trying to deny the fact that Jordan's reputation is exactly the opposite of wilt's reputation is silly.

you have an issue with me "conceding" that wilt/kareem/magic/bird/russell have a case for goat? what, thats still not giving enough credit?

the problem here is, when im arguing against the wilts and oscars. im simply critiquing THEM, not your background or your agenda or your judgement as a fan. whereas you, and most anti-Jordan guys, take it to insult our very intelligence as if we're all dumb sheeps who only started watching ball in 1992 after we saw a gatorade commercial.

get off your high horse.

[Abraham Lincoln]

you're just turning into a troll now. i see everyone has a soft spot? Jordan has been considered goat by many before simmons book came out. why bring simmons into this? because you're not a fan and i am? when will you realize if a serious fan rank jordan 1st, its because of his own analysis after watching games/seeing stats/reading material/watching old footages? its not "because we were told to", or because "we believe everything nike and espn says".
Don't confuse me with the new Jabbar "fans" on the board lately.



you have an issue with me "conceding" that wilt/kareem/magic/bird/russell have a case for goat because you're insulted that im implying jordan has the best case, but the others have one as well???
The fact that you have the best player of those names as inferior to all of them. Conceding that Jabbar or Russell has an argument over Jordan but not Wilt is foolish talk. I have stated on this board quite a few times that the top 4 centers are interchangeable depending on values and preference and that the top 7-8 can be in any order all things considered.




if thats not enough for you then too bad. btw, why quote and reply to only one paragraph of my post? what about the rest? is it cause you agree?
Offensive goaltending was banned in 1958, Wilt joined the league in '59. The rest of the post is mere opinion that you may not care enough to back up as much as let your feelings against a certain player be known.

[EricForman]

The fact that you have the best player of those names as inferior to all of them. Conceding that Jabbar or Russell has an argument over Jordan but not Wilt is foolish talk.




Not if you factor in rings and "seizing the moment/stepping up when it matters", which are two major factors for me. Going by that, I have Magic/Bird/Kareem/Russell over Wilt. Not too ridiculous.

You're arguing that Wilt was, according to skills, the best. That's like saying chris Webber was the best big man of the recent generation because he was the most skilled and physically fit. which is true--he's definitely built better than duncan. could hit the J, had post up games. led the league in rebounding once. stronger than KG. he's muscular and faster than just about every big that played in the last 15 years.

can i say Webber should be ranked above KG and Duncan? That's kinda like putting Wilt over Kareem and Russell there.

BTW I love how most of you old-timers-defenders immediately speak up if anyone ranks Jordan over Kareem, or Wilt, or Russell. But then when you guys disrespect those same players with someone else other than Jordan, you guys dont speak up. I dont see KAJ=GOAT throwing a fit over you implying that Wilt was clearly better than KAJ. :confusedshrug:

[Abraham Lincoln]

Not if you factor in rings and "seizing the moment/stepping up when it matters", which are two major factors for me. Going by that, I have Magic/Bird/Kareem/Russell over Wilt. Not too ridiculous.
A lot of that is luck that I have explained numerous times here. It sounds bad but that's what it is. Never mind the numerous 'chokes' by Wilt Chamberlain standards for the likes of Tragic Johnson, or Kareem 'choking' against inferior competition to the 60's Celtics in a weaker more dilluted decade of basketball. I'm sure Wilt would love to be winning rings making millions as an aged defensive liability.

Wilt did indeed step his game up in elimination games as noted here (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165643).


You're arguing that Wilt was, according to skills, the best.
No I am saying that Wilt had the best season of any of the above and was the top player at his peak in 1967. That plus he was the most physically versatile player and the easiest (maybe after Russell) to build a team around & utilize into a game plan for any competent executive and/or coach.



can i say Webber should be ranked above KG and Duncan? That's kinda like putting Wilt over Kareem and Russell there. man... :banghead:

Of course this is no surprise for one (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4090221&postcount=57) who takes statistics at face value. I believe you also once said you would draft him in the top 5 among today's players.



BTW I love how most of you old-timers-defenders immediately speak up if anyone ranks Jordan over Kareem, or Wilt, or Russell. But then when you guys disrespect those same players with someone else other than Jordan, you guys dont speak up. I dont see KAJ=GOAT throwing a fit over you implying that Wilt was clearly better than KAJ. :confusedshrug:
I'm sure he would throw a fit if he was actually a Jabbar fan.

[guy]

My point about Wilt averaging 40-20-.600 4 8 is that those numbers were actually SURPASSED by him, in real life. Yes, he accomplished them in a different era. But the best players of his era were every bit as great as the best players of this era. Kareem proves that.


You don't seem to get it. It doesn't matter that Wilt surpassed it BACK THEN. It doesn't matter if the players of the past are just as great as the players today. Those aren't the reasons why Wilt wouldn't average that much. The real reason is that ITS A DIFFERENT GAME TODAY.

There is only a little over half of the same amount of rebounds available today.
There are significantly less possessions today meaning less scoring opportunities.
There is no way anyone today would be playing 45-48 minutes per game.
No coach today is letting ONE player, regardless of how bad the team is, take 30-40 shots per game.
No coach today is letting anyone chase insignificant achievements like a center winning an assist title.

I might be missing something, but the point is this doesn't have much to do with the quality of the eras nor does it matter what Wilt did back then. Fact is 40-20-6-8 IN THIS ERA would be way more impressive then anything done in the 60s. The bottom line is the game is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT today.

[97 bulls]

You don't seem to get it. It doesn't matter that Wilt surpassed it BACK THEN. It doesn't matter if the players of the past are just as great as the players today. Those aren't the reasons why Wilt wouldn't average that much. The real reason is that ITS A DIFFERENT GAME TODAY.

There is only a little over half of the same amount of rebounds available today.
There are significantly less possessions today meaning less scoring opportunities.
There is no way anyone today would be playing 45-48 minutes per game.
No coach today is letting ONE player, regardless of how bad the team is, take 30-40 shots per game.
No coach today is letting anyone chase insignificant achievements like a center winning an assist title.

I might be missing something, but the point is this doesn't have much to do with the quality of the eras nor does it matter what Wilt did back then. Fact is 40-20-6-8 IN THIS ERA would be way more impressive then anything done in the 60s. The bottom line is the game is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT today.
i think jlauber saying that wilt is the best ever solely on statistical dominance is similar to a person saying that the 96 bulls is the best team ever cuz they have the best record ever.

[97 bulls]

id like to ask jlauber a question, how many rebounds do you think rodman would get in the 60s?

and what would michael jordans statline look like in the 60s?

[Abraham Lincoln]

Here's a hint of what the perceptions of some of the other top tier greats might be if they were held to Wilt Chamberlain standards. Hopefully you all will see the flaws in many of the remarks against Wilt, even by his own bitter contemporaries. I may be wrong, but I cannot recall a former Warrior or Sixer teammate bad mouthing him at all.


http://wiltfan.tripod.com/bird.html

[Desperado]

id like to ask jlauber a question, how many rebounds do you think rodman would get in the 60s?

and what would michael jordans statline look like in the 60s?

If Jordan played in the 60's (which means he would have grew up during the 1940's) he wouldn't have been the same player he was 2 decades ago.


Its not like you can go back and put prime Jordan in a time machine so he can play in the 60's.....and even if we pretend Jordan could go back in time and put him from his playing days in the 60's he wouldn't have made it.

[EricForman]

id like to ask jlauber a question, how many rebounds do you think rodman would get in the 60s?

and what would michael jordans statline look like in the 60s?

i see footage of the guards and their speed, dribbling ability, etc, and there isnt a doubt in my mind Jordan would average like 8 steals a game. and he could average 50 if he was gunning for it too.

[Desperado]

if Jordan had played in the 60's, he would eventually be out of the league because he couldn't stop the following infractions:

-traveling
-offensive fouls
-cursing the refs (he would not have lasted in that era with this; he only "got better" in his career because he received more and more respect from refs)
-palming the ball (he'd turn the ball over on VIRTUALLY EVERY possession; if he corrected this, he wouldn't be as effective ball handler)
-no shot clock, meaning other teams could get the lead and stall, and Jordan's numbers would DECREASE VASTLY-15ppg maybe?
-likely not as much hero worship, so not as many calls
-hand check allowed, meaning other players could defend him better
-no advanced physical therapy for Jordan during his career- meaning his body breaks down sooner, more injuries, less production in his career
-making a meager salary playing, many players of that time worked another during job the off season; if Jordan had to work like everyone else, his game would NOT BE HALF WHAT IT WAS, EASY, due to not being able to train in the off-season.



These differences would render Jordan a very different player- not the one you remember.

Also not to mention Jordan wouldn't have benefited from all the media hype, ESPN, 24/7 cable, NIKE, Gatorade commercials, Wheaties cereal boxes, Space Jam, Ball Park Franks, McDonalds, etc. etc. etc. Nobody would view him like they do today or 2 decades ago.


Not just that but Jordan wouldn't have had any of the perks from when he played if he played in the 60's i.e. private planes, first class hotels, more nights off between games, etc.

[EricForman]

if Jordan had played in the 60's, he would eventually be out of the league because he couldn't stop the following infractions:

-traveling
-offensive fouls
-cursing the refs (he would not have lasted in that era with this; he only "got better" in his career because he received more and more respect from refs)
-palming the ball (he'd turn the ball over on VIRTUALLY EVERY possession; if he corrected this, he wouldn't be as effective ball handler)
-no shot clock, meaning other teams could get the lead and stall, and Jordan's numbers would DECREASE VASTLY-15ppg maybe?
-likely not as much hero worship, so not as many calls
-hand check allowed, meaning other players could defend him better
-no advanced physical therapy for Jordan during his career- meaning his body breaks down sooner, more injuries, less production in his career
-making a meager salary playing, many players of that time worked another during job the off season; if Jordan had to work like everyone else, his game would NOT BE HALF WHAT IT WAS, EASY, due to not being able to train in the off-season.



These differences would render Jordan a very different player- not the one you remember.

Also not to mention Jordan wouldn't have benefited from all the media hype, ESPN, 24/7 cable, NIKE, Gatorade commercials, Wheaties cereal boxes, Space Jam, Ball Park Franks, McDonalds, etc. etc. etc. Nobody would view him like they do today or 2 decades ago.


Not just that but Jordan wouldn't have had any of the perks from when he played if he played in the 60's i.e. private planes, first class hotels, more nights off between games, etc.


you reposted this because no one replied the first time. :oldlol: no one takes you seriously. go play halo 3.

[Desperado]

you reposted this because no one replied the first time. :oldlol: no one takes you seriously. go play halo 3.


http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/10/8/128679892870251417.jpg

[Fatal9]

i see footage of the guards and their speed, dribbling ability, etc, and there isnt a doubt in my mind Jordan would average like 8 steals a game. and he could average 50 if he was gunning for it too.
I don't have much respect for 60s perimeter players. the athleticism needed to be an elite perimeter player (6'6 or lower) nowadays is through the roof in comparison to the 60s. skill sets for perimeter players also change more across eras. for Cs/PFs, I think the progress remains somewhat static, maybe a bit more size and athleticism now, but skills don't really change that much. that's why most of the examples of cross era longevity come from centers (like Kareem, Parish etc) and not perimeter players.

[97 bulls]

i see footage of the guards and their speed, dribbling ability, etc, and there isnt a doubt in my mind Jordan would average like 8 steals a game. and he could average 50 if he was gunning for it too.
i would tend to agree. someone posted a vid of michael jordans brother dunking at 5'8. and he literally looked like nate robinson. i guess what im saying is that the physical ability is in his genes.

[jlauber]

id like to ask jlauber a question, how many rebounds do you think rodman would get in the 60s?

and what would michael jordans statline look like in the 60s?

Alright...I'll bite. I have been on record as saying Rodman would not even have made an NBA roster in the 60's, and probably not in the 70's either. Why? The players of that era were generally ALL-AROUND players. The starters were double-digit rebounders AND scorers.

Jerry Lucas' name has been mentioned here as a reason why the players of the 60's were not really that great. After all, how could a 6-8 white guy have TWO 20-20 seasons??? Well, before I get started, how about Larry Bird? Tom Chambers? Bill Walton? Pete Maravich? The fact is, Lucas was a GIFTED basketball player which range that would rival Bird's. Look up the term "Lucas Layup"...coined for his "25 ft." layups. And yet, he was banging with taller players for 20+ rebound games (including a 40 rebound game.) Rodman was no more physically blessed than Lucas...and was one-tenth as SKILLED.

As for Jordan...as other's here have pointed out. Traveling and palming calls would reduce his effectiveness...as would the same brutality he faced with the "Bad Boys." Not only that, but when he would driving into the lane, instead of Ostertag or Breuer, or even Laimbeer...he would be facing TRUE shot-blockers like Russell, Thurmond, and Wilt. Go into the early 70's, and he would driving against the likes of Kareem, Gilmore...and yes, Unseld, a 6-7 block of granite.

He would be capable of 40-50 games. But don't kid yourself for one minute if you think he would be scoring something like 60 or 70. Not only that, but as he proved in his career...on bad teams, he was hardly a savior. And, on the good-to-great teams of the 60's and 70's...the other surrounding teammates would not stand by and let him shoot 40 times a game. He would have a choice...be a 40 pt player on bad teams, and never be considered any better than Oscar...or be a 25-30 pt scorer on good-to-great teams, and be ONE of several great players.

[jlauber]

i think jlauber saying that wilt is the best ever solely on statistical dominance is similar to a person saying that the 96 bulls is the best team ever cuz they have the best record ever.

Wilt OWNS the RECORD BOOK...and his records were achieved against the likes of Bellamy, Reed, Kerr, Lovellette, Thurmond, Lanier, Hayes, Unseld, Cowens, Russell, and Kareem...ALL in the HOF. And sorry, but at his BEST, he was BETTER than all of them.

I loved Kareem. I rooted for him at UCLA. One of the greatest scorers ever. BUT, an aged Wilt, on one surgically repaired knee, and arthritis in the other, by virtually every account (including MINE..I watched every game between the two) outplayed him. True Kareem put up some big games on Wilt, but in the majority of games between the two, Kareem was throwing up hopeless shots, and many of them were getting spiked by Wilt. Not only that, but Nate Thurmond, again, by most accounts, outplayed Kareem in two consecutive post-seasons. Meanwhile, when Wilt was in his prime, in 66-67, he thoroughly outplayed Thurmond...outscoring him, outrebounding him, and brutally out-shooting him by a staggering .560 - .343 margin. AND, in the series before that, he crushed Russell in every facet of the game, as well. THAT was the Chamberlain that was invinceable. NO ONE ever played better than Chamberlain did in that season.

[EricForman]

Alright...I'll bite. I have been on record as saying Rodman would not even have made an NBA roster in the 60's, and probably not in the 70's either. Why? The players of that era were generally ALL-AROUND players. The starters were double-digit rebounders AND scorers.

Jerry Lucas' name has been mentioned here as a reason why the players of the 60's were not really that great. After all, how could a 6-8 white guy have TWO 20-20 seasons??? Well, before I get started, how about Larry Bird? Tom Chambers? Bill Walton? Pete Maravich? The fact is, Lucas was a GIFTED basketball player which range that would rival Bird's. Look up the term "Lucas Layup"...coined for his "25 ft." layups. And yet, he was banging with taller players for 20+ rebound games (including a 40 rebound game.) Rodman was no more physically blessed than Lucas...and was one-tenth as SKILLED.

As for Jordan...as other's here have pointed out. Traveling and palming calls would reduce his effectiveness...as would the same brutality he faced with the "Bad Boys." Not only that, but when he would driving into the lane, instead of Ostertag or Breuer, or even Laimbeer...he would be facing TRUE shot-blockers like Russell, Thurmond, and Wilt. Go into the early 70's, and he would driving against the likes of Kareem, Gilmore...and yes, Unseld, a 6-7 block of granite.

He would be capable of 40-50 games. But don't kid yourself for one minute if you think he would be scoring something like 60 or 70. Not only that, but as he proved in his career...on bad teams, he was hardly a savior. And, on the good-to-great teams of the 60's and 70's...the other surrounding teammates would not stand by and let him shoot 40 times a game. He would have a choice...be a 40 pt player on bad teams, and never be considered any better than Oscar...or be a 25-30 pt scorer on good-to-great teams, and be ONE of several great players.

You talk Jordan as if he was a Jamal Crawford/JR Smith/Stackhouse (explosive one dimensional scorer) type. Jordan was a very fundamentally sound player. you dont think he'd adjust to the palming/traveling rules?

You also failed to talk about his impact on the defensive end. 80s Jordan's explosiveness was unheard of for guards back in those days. Do you not agree he would be stripping/ripping/picking ball handlers and eating up passing lanes left and right?

[jlauber]

You don't seem to get it. It doesn't matter that Wilt surpassed it BACK THEN. It doesn't matter if the players of the past are just as great as the players today. Those aren't the reasons why Wilt wouldn't average that much. The real reason is that ITS A DIFFERENT GAME TODAY.

There is only a little over half of the same amount of rebounds available today.
There are significantly less possessions today meaning less scoring opportunities.
There is no way anyone today would be playing 45-48 minutes per game.
No coach today is letting ONE player, regardless of how bad the team is, take 30-40 shots per game.
No coach today is letting anyone chase insignificant achievements like a center winning an assist title.

I might be missing something, but the point is this doesn't have much to do with the quality of the eras nor does it matter what Wilt did back then. Fact is 40-20-6-8 IN THIS ERA would be way more impressive then anything done in the 60s. The bottom line is the game is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT today.

If Rodman were getting 19 rpg in a season, WILT would have gotten MORE.

Wilt averaged 45.2 mpg in his CAREER. Even more remarkably, he averaged 47.2 in his 160 game post-season CAREER. One of the reasons Wilt averaged that, (aside from the fact that he ran marathons in high school, and even into his 60's)...was that he would stiffen up after sitting. He told his coaches to play him, or bench him, but once benched, he wasn't going back in. No wonder he averaged 45 mpg. No coach would choose the later option.

Wilt, at 60% shooting, would only need 30 shots per game, and a few made FTs a game, to average 40 ppg. Jordan averaged 28, and Kobe has had 27 seasons.

As far as your comment about INSIGNIFICANT assist titles...you are the second person I have ever read that has made that comment. Reminds of Bill Simmons' blasting Wilt for that. I guess when a player leads the league in assists, and leads his TEAM to a runaway best record in the league (62-20...while second-place Boston was at 54-28)...it is INSIGNIFICANT.

I notice you also did not mention my theory on Wilt's blocks. Thanks to ronnymac for this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Qw1-ssViw&feature=related

Wilt OVERPOWERING and DUNKING on Eaton...at age 50+!!!!

And, as for blocked shots...show me anything close to this...(and remember there is only a limited amount of footage of Wilt available)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=849_WdqJ8o8&NR=1

[BlueandGold]

if ESPN didnt mention since the merger or put it in small print then it's bad. but otherwise, i think its better. it's to put things in context, because again, stats from back then were too skewed. i mean come on, we all know magic and lebron would average more rebounds and assists than Big O if they played at the exact same time.

you serious brah?

fail

[jlauber]

A lot of that is luck that I have explained numerous times here. It sounds bad but that's what it is. Never mind the numerous 'chokes' by Wilt Chamberlain standards for the likes of Tragic Johnson, or Kareem 'choking' against inferior competition to the 60's Celtics in a weaker more dilluted decade of basketball. I'm sure Wilt would love to be winning rings making millions as an aged defensive liability.

Wilt did indeed step his game up in elimination games as noted here (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165643).


No I am saying that Wilt had the best season of any of the above and was the top player at his peak in 1967. That plus he was the most physically versatile player and the easiest (maybe after Russell) to build a team around & utilize into a game plan for any competent executive and/or coach.


man... :banghead:

Of course this is no surprise for one (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4090221&postcount=57) who takes statistics at face value. I believe you also once said you would draft him in the top 5 among today's players.



I'm sure he would throw a fit if he was actually a Jabbar fan.

Wilt was labeled a "loser" and a "failure" even by his own generation. Simmons jumps on Wilt about this, and unfairly blames Wilt for much of it. The FACTS were, Wilt labored on mediocre teams in the first half of his career. He was drafted by a last-place team (while in High School BTW)...and that roster basically remained the same in his first four years. Despite that, he took that group of clowns to a game seven, two-point defeat at the hands of the 60-20 Celtics, and their SIX HOFers, in his magical 61-62 season.

Then in the 64-65 season, Chamberlain carried a 40-40 team past the 48-32 Royals in the first round of the playoffs. Following that, he takes that team to a game seven, ONE-POINT loss, against the 62-18 Celtics.

His 67-68 76er team was CLEARLY the best team in the league. However, they lost HOFer Billy Cunningham before the Celtic series even started, and despite that huge loss, they still forged a 3-1 series lead. Then, Luke Jackson suffered an injury in game five, and was worthless the rest of the series. Wilt, himself, was nursing a variety of injuries. Combine all of that, with Chamberlain's remaining teammates firing blanks in game seven, which resulted in a FOUR point loss...and it was actually remarkable that they nearly won that series. A healthy Sixer squads blows out Boston in five games. AND, reverse their fortunes...and have a healthy Philly team facing a depleted Celtic roster, say sans Havlicek and Howell...and with an injured Russell fighting nagging injuries...and just how bad a blowout would that series have been?

Of course, Wilt's COACH cost Wilt, and the city of LA, a title in the 68-69 season. He reduced the game's greatest scorer, and post-player, to a 20 ppg scorer with his offensive philosophy...and let a washed-up Baylor shoot .385 in the post-season. AND, then, he leaves Wilt on the bench, in a game seven, and watches as his team loses that game by TWO points. Not only that, but Boston hit TWO miracle game-winning shots in that series.

Wilt a basket, here-or-there, or a play, here-or-there, or an opponent miss, here-or-there, or just an ounce LESS of bad luck, or a slightly less stupid head coach...

and Wilt wins FOUR more rings.

[jlauber]

You talk Jordan as if he was a Jamal Crawford/JR Smith/Stackhouse (explosive one dimensional scorer) type. Jordan was a very fundamentally sound player. you dont think he'd adjust to the palming/traveling rules?

You also failed to talk about his impact on the defensive end. 80s Jordan's explosiveness was unheard of for guards back in those days. Do you not agree he would be stripping/ripping/picking ball handlers and eating up passing lanes left and right?

Here again, you are getting as defensive with Jordan, as I am with Wilt. I was speaking about Jordan's offense. His impact would have been all over the court, to be sure, but I seriously doubt he would be taking five step dunks on the majority of centers of the 60's and 70's. He would have to rely more on his outside shooting, which, after all, was not that good. For those that point out his 3pt percentage...take away the seasons in which the NBA moved in the 3pt line (95-97), and MJ's career 3pt percentage drops to .288. Even his mid-range shots were below average...

This was written in 2009...and from Harvey Pollack, who is considered the greatest sports' statistician in NBA history...

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/03/08/Harvey.Pollack.20090308/

"NBA.com: You were close to Wilt after he retired. How often would you talk to him?

Harvey Pollack: All the time. Wilt was big on stats. One time he called me up and said, 'You know, Harvey, Michael Jordan can't hit a shot beyond 15 feet?'

I said, 'How do you know that?'

He said to me, 'Don't you watch the games?'

I said, 'I don't watch stuff like that. How do you know?'

He said, 'I watch it.'

So, during the height of Michael's career, I got the play-by-play of the first 20 Bulls games and I checked the distance of every shot Jordan took during the season and sure enough, he was shooting under 40 percent from 15 feet back.

Then Wilt said, 'Jordan doesn't take any shots from seven feet in, all of those shots are drives to the basket. He doesn't take five or six footers. He goes right to the hoop.'

I tried 20 more games and ended up looking at the entire season and got the same results. Wilt's analysis held up.

Wilt was a student of the game. People don't know that. He knew everything that was going on.

Another season, Wilt said that the refs never called any traveling violations on Jordan. Wilt was after Jordan for some reason. I checked the play by plays and Wilt was right. Jordan was called only for four traveling violations."

[OldSchoolBBall]

As for Jordan...as other's here have pointed out. Traveling and palming calls would reduce his effectiveness...as would the same brutality he faced with the "Bad Boys." Not only that, but when he would driving into the lane, instead of Ostertag or Breuer, or even Laimbeer...he would be facing TRUE shot-blockers like Russell, Thurmond, and Wilt. Go into the early 70's, and he would driving against the likes of Kareem, Gilmore...and yes, Unseld, a 6-7 block of granite.

He would be capable of 40-50 games. But don't kid yourself for one minute if you think he would be scoring something like 60 or 70. Not only that, but as he proved in his career...on bad teams, he was hardly a savior. And, on the good-to-great teams of the 60's and 70's...the other surrounding teammates would not stand by and let him shoot 40 times a game. He would have a choice...be a 40 pt player on bad teams, and never be considered any better than Oscar...or be a 25-30 pt scorer on good-to-great teams, and be ONE of several great players.

LMAO :oldlol:

Jordan would without question average 38-42 ppg/9+ reb/8 ast/4 stl/2 blk. I'm being conservative here. He would undoubtedly be considered better than Oscar because he'd have better numbers and a ton more defensive impact.

EDIT: LMAO #2 @ jlauber. What a hater. This is the same dude that has MJ ranked like 4th all time (behind Magic, too) and has Kobe ahead of guys like Shaq/Duncan at #8. But we're supposed to listen to his opinion.

[juju151111]

Alright...I'll bite. I have been on record as saying Rodman would not even have made an NBA roster in the 60's, and probably not in the 70's either. Why? The players of that era were generally ALL-AROUND players. The starters were double-digit rebounders AND scorers.

Jerry Lucas' name has been mentioned here as a reason why the players of the 60's were not really that great. After all, how could a 6-8 white guy have TWO 20-20 seasons??? Well, before I get started, how about Larry Bird? Tom Chambers? Bill Walton? Pete Maravich? The fact is, Lucas was a GIFTED basketball player which range that would rival Bird's. Look up the term "Lucas Layup"...coined for his "25 ft." layups. And yet, he was banging with taller players for 20+ rebound games (including a 40 rebound game.) Rodman was no more physically blessed than Lucas...and was one-tenth as SKILLED.

As for Jordan...as other's here have pointed out. Traveling and palming calls would reduce his effectiveness...as would the same brutality he faced with the "Bad Boys." Not only that, but when he would driving into the lane, instead of Ostertag or Breuer, or even Laimbeer...he would be facing TRUE shot-blockers like Russell, Thurmond, and Wilt. Go into the early 70's, and he would driving against the likes of Kareem, Gilmore...and yes, Unseld, a 6-7 block of granite.

He would be capable of 40-50 games. But don't kid yourself for one minute if you think he would be scoring something like 60 or 70. Not only that, but as he proved in his career...on bad teams, he was hardly a savior. And, on the good-to-great teams of the 60's and 70's...the other surrounding teammates would not stand by and let him shoot 40 times a game. He would have a choice...be a 40 pt player on bad teams, and never be considered any better than Oscar...or be a 25-30 pt scorer on good-to-great teams, and be ONE of several great players.
Are you ****ing kidding me???????:wtf: :wtf: You claim to be a historian??? Mj is not some bum like SG today and Mj played gainst great shot blockers like hakeem. Mj is not a one demensional player. He can post you up,take you off the dribble, and all of his moves will destroy them. Also Please their is no guard back in he 60s keeping up with MJ speed. (NOONE)

You want to give me that BS about Mj not scoring 60 or 70 in that inflated era with slow ass guards. Look at elgin baylor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur2qAApCtD4 :wtf: that was the playoffs for god sakres. he was moving like a goddamn snail and they barley could keep up with him. Please get your BS about Mj stats wouldn't skyrocket in that era. Baylor was avging like 16 rebs a game.

I know you like to protect your precious 60s BB, but stop posting BS.

[G.O.A.T]

Are you ****ing kidding me???????:wtf: :wtf: You claim to be a historian??? Mj is not some bum like SG today and Mj played gainst great shot blockers like hakeem. Mj is not a one demensional player. He can post you up,take you off the dribble, and all of his moves will destroy them. Also Please their is no guard back in he 60s keeping up with MJ speed. (NOONE)

You want to give me that BS about Mj not scoring 60 or 70 in that inflated era with slow ass guards. Look at elgin baylor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur2qAApCtD4 :wtf: that was the playoffs for god sakres. he was moving like a goddamn snail and they barley could keep up with him. Please get your BS about Mj stats wouldn't skyrocket in that era. Baylor was avging like 16 rebs a game.

I know you like to protect your precious 60s BB, but stop posting BS.

If the players were slower, why was the game played at a faster pace?

[Psileas]

Are you ****ing kidding me???????:wtf: :wtf: You claim to be a historian??? Mj is not some bum like SG today and Mj played gainst great shot blockers like hakeem. Mj is not a one demensional player. He can post you up,take you off the dribble, and all of his moves will destroy them. Also Please their is no guard back in he 60s keeping up with MJ speed. (NOONE)

You want to give me that BS about Mj not scoring 60 or 70 in that inflated era with slow ass guards. Look at elgin baylor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur2qAApCtD4 :wtf: that was the playoffs for god sakres. he was moving like a goddamn snail and they barley could keep up with him. Please get your BS about Mj stats wouldn't skyrocket in that era. Baylor was avging like 16 rebs a game.

I know you like to protect your precious 60s BB, but stop posting BS.

And you seem unable to distinguish the speed of a slowed-down video like the one you posted and the speed of a normal video like the ones after the 1st minute in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okfp5T1SUg8&feature=related

Watch the very first play of the following video and tell us whether Baylor, especially at his size, really was a "snail":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEpS_5Fz19E

[jlauber]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paex9-VxPbA

Psileas,

What is your take on what Wilt would average in rebounding in the Rodman era?

[Psileas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paex9-VxPbA

Psileas,

What is your take on what Wilt would average in rebounding in the Rodman era?

Jlauber (BTW, I had read posts of yours before you came here, you were posting for some board about a stat simulator, right?), I'm among the ones who rank Wilt as the #1 player ever, at least individually.
However, I find your estimations about Wilt's numbers to be inflated, at least if you think that he'd achieve all these numbers at the same time. Not because his competition would be on a higher level compared to what he faced, which it wouldn't, but because the game is too slow. I have no doubt that Wilt would have 40-20 seasons (or close to this) if he was playing today's players at a pace comparable to the 60's, but not at today's pace.

Rebounding-wise alone, there's simply no room for 20 rpg guys, especially for players who excel statistically at many things. Consider this: Rodman himself started getting insane rebounding numbers when he started really concentrating on this. Before the 90's, Rodman was a player who still had a natural talent to grab rebounds with ease, but not at huge rates. Rodman from 1988 to 1990 had a rebounding % of about 19.0 (already very high). In 1992, he climbed to an unnatural 26.2%. Did he suddenly become that much more capable a rebounder? I don't think so.
I think Wilt would average 15 rpg without really caring about padding his rebounding numbers. I also think that his numbers would remain at a very high level from the beginning to the end of his career, since his conditioning and stamina were huge. He'd have great battles with Rodman for the rebounding titles. If their careers overlapsed, probably Wilt would get all the rebounding titles from '87 to '91, Rodman might overtake him in 1992-95, then Wilt might have the upper hand in most of the late 90's, though it would be close. Wilt would certainly average more rpg than Rodman in most post-seasons.
Wilt would have even more rebounding titles if he played like Rodman, but why should he cut down 70% of the rest of his game just to increase his rebounding by 10-15%?

[jlauber]

Jlauber (BTW, I had read posts of yours before you came here, you were posting for some board about a stat simulator, right?), I'm among the ones who rank Wilt as the #1 player ever, at least individually.
However, I find your estimations about Wilt's numbers to be inflated, at least if you think that he'd achieve all these numbers at the same time. Not because his competition would be on a higher level compared to what he faced, which it wouldn't, but because the game is too slow. I have no doubt that Wilt would have 40-20 seasons (or close to this) if he was playing today's players at a pace comparable to the 60's, but not at today's pace.

Rebounding-wise alone, there's simply no room for 20 rpg guys, especially for players who excel statistically at many things. Consider this: Rodman himself started getting insane rebounding numbers when he started really concentrating on this. Before the 90's, Rodman was a player who still had a natural talent to grab rebounds with ease, but not at huge rates. Rodman from 1988 to 1990 had a rebounding % of about 19.0 (already very high). In 1992, he climbed to an unnatural 26.2%. Did he suddenly become that much more capable a rebounder? I don't think so.
I think Wilt would average 15 rpg without really caring about padding his rebounding numbers. I also think that his numbers would remain at a very high level from the beginning to the end of his career, since his conditioning and stamina were huge. He'd have great battles with Rodman for the rebounding titles. If their careers overlapsed, probably Wilt would get all the rebounding titles from '87 to '91, Rodman might overtake him in 1992-95, then Wilt might have the upper hand in most of the late 90's, though it would be close. Wilt would certainly average more rpg than Rodman in most post-seasons.
Wilt would have even more rebounding titles if he played like Rodman, but why should he cut down 70% of the rest of his game just to increase his rebounding by 10-15%?

Psileas,

The reason that I asked you is that you are one of several posters here, whom I have a great deal of respect for.

Incidently, your opinion on this topic would be shared by the vast majority of knowledgeable sports fans. I disagree with it, but I respect it.

IMHO, Wilt DOMINATED his peers in rebounding like no player in NBA history. True, Rodman had a higher "rebound rate", but as I have countered, his rebounding came in an era of very weak rebounding centers. And, while I am sure the numbers exist, does anyone actually know (or even care) who was the better H2H rebounders between Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Duncan, and Motumbo? Those players only faced each other 3-4 times a year (and then perhaps in the post-season), and in many cases, they didn't even guard each other.

HOWEVER, Wilt outrebounded EVERYBODY...and in MANY cases, by HUGE margins. I don't think anyone would diminish Russell's rebounding. Personally, put Russell in the 90's, on those Bull's teams, and have him play the same role that he did with HIS Celtics...and he would have been an even better rebounder than Rodman. He was certainly a better athlete, and few would argue with his timing. Which makes my case for Wilt so much more convincing. Chamberlain just CRUSHED Russell on the glass, H2H (although, to Russell's credit, it was closer in the post-season...and when it mattered most.) I have mentioned it before, but Chamberlain nearly averaged a 30-30 game against Russell in his CAREER (28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg.) He outrebounded Russell, in their 142 H2H games, by a 28.7-23.7 margin. AND, while Russell is the career post-season leader, at 24.9 rpg (Wilt is 2nd at 24.5 BTW)...Wilt outrebounded Russell in EVERY post-season series.

And, in the post-season, while Rodman's numbers shrunk dramatically (from 13.8 rpg during the regular season, down to 9.9 in the post-season), Wilt's increased, from 22.9 to 24.5. In fact, Wilt never had a post-season in which he failed to average at least 20 rpg. In his final year in the NBA, at age 36, Wilt averaged 18.6 rpg during the regular season...BUT, he averaged 22.5 rpg in the post-season.

BOTH, Rodman and Wilt had seasons in which they just ran away with the rebounding titles, as well. And, contrary to popular opinion, Rodman was playing 40 mpg in his best season. Of course Wilt was averaing nearly 48 mpg in his.

Granted, rebounding is more about desire and timing, than pure height or athletic ability, but clearly, Wilt was not only taller, bigger, and stronger, but he was also FAR more athletic than Rodman. H2H, I just can't see Rodman coming close to Wilt in rebounding.

As for this argument that Wilt couldn't accomplish EVERYTHING in the current era...once again, he DID it in HIS era...at least for the majority of it. I think it is incorrect to think that Wilt would have to sacrifice something to be dominant in other areas...with the exception of assists, of course. If he was going to shoot 25-30 times a game, he would not be getting eight assists a game. But, why would his offense suffer if he were dominating defensively, and in rebounding? They never suffered during the majority of his career.

Anyway...I will stand by my main point...at his PEAK (around 66-68), and asked to CARRY a team (which he did not have to do at that time)...and playing in today's era... 40-20- .600 4 8 (blks.) Those numbers would require super-human efforts, but then, that is pretty much what he brought to the table in almost every game he played. The bottom line, IMHO, is that it nwould require 25-30 FGAs (which has been even in today's era.) We have seen MJ average 37 ppg in his era, and Kobe at 35 ppg in an era of 98 point games. Wilt would be more efficient, and while his FT shooting would not be close to their's, he would still get them. In terms of rebounding. If Rodman could get 19, playing 40 mpg...Wilt, playing against so many weak rebounding centers, would surpass it in his 45+ mpg. And, given what I have witnessed in my lifetime...if Eaton could get nearly six blocks a game...well Wilt (and Russell) would easily surpass that number.

In any case...I do respect your take...and much like Guy...we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Alhazred]

Alright...I'll bite. I have been on record as saying Rodman would not even have made an NBA roster in the 60's, and probably not in the 70's either. Why? The players of that era were generally ALL-AROUND players. The starters were double-digit rebounders AND scorers.

There is no way Dennis would have been left out of the league in the 60s, and if no one signed him it definitely wouldn't be because they thought he wasn't talented enough. He has faced off against numerous legends, from Bird, Magic and MJ to Barkley, Karl Malone and Shaquille O' Neal. If you think teams would have cut him to make room for a bum like Darrell Imhoff or some stiff like Mel Counts or Red Kerr, then you're nuts.


Jerry Lucas' name has been mentioned here as a reason why the players of the 60's were not really that great. After all, how could a 6-8 white guy have TWO 20-20 seasons??? Well, before I get started, how about Larry Bird? Tom Chambers? Bill Walton? Pete Maravich? The fact is, Lucas was a GIFTED basketball player which range that would rival Bird's. Look up the term "Lucas Layup"...coined for his "25 ft." layups. And yet, he was banging with taller players for 20+ rebound games (including a 40 rebound game.) Rodman was no more physically blessed than Lucas...and was one-tenth as SKILLED.

Lucas was also known for being a notorious stat padder. As for Rodman being "less skilled"? He was an excellent passer in the post, could defend guards, forwards, and centers and was the GOAT rebounder of his era along with Barkley. Isiah Thomas even said Dennis saw the game in ways he himself never could have imagined. The only thing Jerry Lucas had over Rodman was being able to score a few more points.


As for Jordan...as other's here have pointed out. Traveling and palming calls would reduce his effectiveness...as would the same brutality he faced with the "Bad Boys." Not only that, but when he would driving into the lane, instead of Ostertag or Breuer, or even Laimbeer...he would be facing TRUE shot-blockers like Russell, Thurmond, and Wilt. Go into the early 70's, and he would driving against the likes of Kareem, Gilmore...and yes, Unseld, a 6-7 block of granite.

Mark Eaton, Dikembe Mutombo, Hakeem Olajuwan, Patrick Ewing, Alonzo Mourning, Shaquille O' Neal, David Robinson....? Do I need to go on?

Also, Gilmore was in the ABA in the early 70s. Michael would have only faced him for an occasional exhibition game between leagues.


He would be capable of 40-50 games. But don't kid yourself for one minute if you think he would be scoring something like 60 or 70. Not only that, but as he proved in his career...on bad teams, he was hardly a savior. And, on the good-to-great teams of the 60's and 70's...the other surrounding teammates would not stand by and let him shoot 40 times a game. He would have a choice...be a 40 pt player on bad teams, and never be considered any better than Oscar...or be a 25-30 pt scorer on good-to-great teams, and be ONE of several great players.

Wilt's teammates let him shoot 40 times a game in 62, though. Plus Rick Barry and Elgin Baylor were both able to average 35+ points in multiple seasons, and Barry even averaged 40 points per game in the Finals against the 1967 76ers. Is it outrageous to think Michael would have at least been capable of outscoring Elgin Baylor or Rick Barry?

Also, Jordan has never averaged over 28 shot attempts a game in a single season, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that he would want to be shooting as many as 40 times a game.

[juju151111]

And you seem unable to distinguish the speed of a slowed-down video like the one you posted and the speed of a normal video like the ones after the 1st minute in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okfp5T1SUg8&feature=related

Watch the very first play of the following video and tell us whether Baylor, especially at his size, really was a "snail":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEpS_5Fz19E
and wat part of those vids were surpose to change my mind?? They still were moving slow. I have seen most of Boston matches on youtube and nba classics. They wasn't even contesting his shot. Once again their is no way MJ stats don't skyrocket.

[juju151111]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paex9-VxPbA

Psileas,

What is your take on what Wilt would average in rebounding in the Rodman era?
Less rebounds. We are talking about a slower pace, different rules, more overnight trips, back to backs. Wilt isn't avging 27 rpg in the 90s. Shaq would if u think because he was athelethic??

[32jazz]

......seriously?


the crop of centers in the '62 season...

6'9 Russell
6'9 Johnny "Red" Kerr
6'5 Johnny Green or 6'6 Willie Nauls (no wonder Wilt scored 73 and 100 on these guys)
6'7 Rudy LaRusso
6'8 Wayne Embry
6'9 Ray Scott and 7'0 Walter Dukes
6'11 Walt Bellamy

To act like Wilt would have the same physical advantage over centers today is comical.



Yet no one brings up the crop of Guards during the roughly 87/88 seasons when Magic(6'9)/MJ(6'6)/Drexler(6'7) put up their best numbers, shot back to back 50% plus seasons & had as much or actually greater size advantages than Wilt did in the 60's.

By teams & minutes played:

M Adams 5'10
F Lever 6'3

J Dawkins 6'2
A Robertson 6'3

A Leavall 6'1
S Floyd/World B Free(6'3/6'2)

Doc Rivers 6'4
J Battle 6'2
W Garland 6'2

I Thomas 6'1
J Dumars 6'3
V Johnson 6'2


J Lucas 6'2
Moncrief 6'3
R Pierce 6'4

D Ainge 6'3
DJ 6'4

M Cheeks 6'0
Andrew Toney/G Henderson(6'3/6'2)

M Bogues 5'3
J malone 6'4/S Colter 6'3

L drew 6'1
Q Dailey 6'3

J Hornacek 6'3
W davis 6'6

M Jackson 6'4
G Wilkins 6'5

Bagley 6'0
O birdsong 6'3

Price 6'0
Harper/Ehlo (6'6)

Harper 6'4
Blackman 6'6

V Fleming 6'4
Miller 6'7

K Smith 6'3
R theus 6'7

Stockton 6'1
Griffith 6'4

McMillan 6'5
D Ellis 6'7


I bet big guards/tweeners today like Kobe, Wade, B Roy, Tyreke Evans, V Carter, T Mac, JR Smith,D Willams , Kidd,etc.... would be pissing their pants at the prospects of facing 80's gurads the likes of World B Free/A Toney/Cheeks/ Otis Birdsong, Q Dailey, L Drew, etc..... on a nightly basis:rolleyes:
The 90's was a transition period to big athletic guards ,but nothing like the guys playing today.



No sympathy for guards of the 80's whom Magic dwarfed some by nearly a foot & MJ/Drexler pushed around:confusedshrug: Overall these guys had a larger size advantage at guard. The Center position has been roughly 6'10 since the 60's & even today with the fudging of heights it remains the same. The average guard of the 80's was barely 6'3 & mostly jump shooting specialist.

(Plus they were allowed to ISO on them, because of illegal defenses, which damn near brought the League offenses to a screeching halt during the 90's until the League finally went to zones)

But the 80's/90's are the NBA's(by the numbers) 'Golden Era' so I doubt if the media/fans who lived through & hyped this era would ever allow that to be mentioned.

[Psileas]

and wat part of those vids were surpose to change my mind?? They still were moving slow. I have seen most of Boston matches on youtube and nba classics. They wasn't even contesting his shot. Once again their is no way MJ stats don't skyrocket.

I've watched more Jordan games than most people here and a lot of his shots weren't contested, either. Most guards weren't quick enough to follow him, anyway. Jordan didn't enjoy less physical advantages over his opponents compared to Baylor.

[32jazz]

I've watched more Jordan games than most people here and a lot of his shots weren't contested, either. Most guards weren't quick enough to follow him, anyway. Jordan didn't enjoy less physical advantages over his opponents compared to Baylor.

Even if they were quick enough(many were) they simply didn't have the length of most Guards today. Most people simply ignore the fact that MJ/Magic/Drexler dwarfed guards for most of their careers on a level greater than Wilt did centers(especially the 80's before the transitional period in which the NBA started preferring bigger guard).

[97 bulls]

Yet no one brings up the crop of Guards during the roughly 87/88 seasons when Magic(6'9)/MJ(6'6)/Drexler(6'7) put up their best numbers, shot back to back 50% plus seasons & had as much or actually greater size advantages than Wilt did in the 60's.

By teams & minutes played:

M Adams 5'10
F Lever 6'3

J Dawkins 6'2
A Robertson 6'3

A Leavall 6'1
S Floyd/World B Free(6'3/6'2)

Doc Rivers 6'4
J Battle 6'2
W Garland 6'2

I Thomas 6'1
J Dumars 6'3
V Johnson 6'2


J Lucas 6'2
Moncrief 6'3
R Pierce 6'4

D Ainge 6'3
DJ 6'4

M Cheeks 6'0
Andrew Toney/G Henderson(6'3/6'2)

M Bogues 5'3
J malone 6'4/S Colter 6'3

L drew 6'1
Q Dailey 6'3

J Hornacek 6'3
W davis 6'6

M Jackson 6'4
G Wilkins 6'5

Bagley 6'0
O birdsong 6'3

Price 6'0
Harper/Ehlo (6'6)

Harper 6'4
Blackman 6'6

V Fleming 6'4
Miller 6'7

K Smith 6'3
R theus 6'7

Stockton 6'1
Griffith 6'4

McMillan 6'5
D Ellis 6'7


I bet big guards/tweeners today like Kobe, Wade, B Roy, Tyreke Evans, V Carter, T Mac, JR Smith,D Willams , Kidd,etc.... would be pissing their pants at the prospects of facing 80's gurads the likes of World B Free/A Toney/Cheeks/ Otis Birdsong, Q Dailey, L Drew, etc..... on a nightly basis:rolleyes:
The 90's was a transition period to big athletic guards ,but nothing like the guys playing today.



No sympathy for guards of the 80's whom Magic dwarfed some by nearly a foot & MJ/Drexler pushed around:confusedshrug: Overall these guys had a larger size advantage at guard. The Center position has been roughly 6'10 since the 60's & even today with the fudging of heights it remains the same. The average guard of the 80's was barely 6'3 & mostly jump shooting specialist.

(Plus they were allowed to ISO on them, because of illegal defenses, which damn near brought the League offenses to a screeching halt during the 90's until the League finally went to zones)

But the 80's/90's are the NBA's(by the numbers) 'Golden Era' so I doubt if the media/fans who lived through & hyped this era would ever allow that to be mentioned.
the SGs you listed arent "short". just by looking, id say the averge height was about 6'5. and the short ones were pretty damn good by any standard.

and the pgs look about average too.

[Duncan21formvp]

With 40 of them?


Can anyone explain how that might be when Oscar Robertson averaged, for a season,

30-12-11.

Surely, he has to have more than 40 games with those numbers. Then you factor in the rest of his career as well, and I would think he has alot more than that.

Maybe it has something to do with the shot clock era.

[Alhazred]

Maybe it has something to do with the shot clock era.

The shot clock was already around when Oscar averaged a triple-double.

[jlauber]

LMAO :oldlol:

Jordan would without question average 38-42 ppg/9+ reb/8 ast/4 stl/2 blk. I'm being conservative here. He would undoubtedly be considered better than Oscar because he'd have better numbers and a ton more defensive impact.
EDIT: LMAO #2 @ jlauber. What a hater. This is the same dude that has MJ ranked like 4th all time (behind Magic, too) and has Kobe ahead of guys like Shaq/Duncan at #8. But we're supposed to listen to his opinion.

Oldschool...

I would probably agree with those numbers. Geez, MJ was averaging 37 and 35 in the late 80's...over 40 in the 60's would be very realistic. My point was, I don't believe MJ would be averaging 60 or 70.

As for ranking Kobe over Duncan and Shaq...maybe over Duncan in terms of individual greatness, but I have Duncan at #6 and Shaq at #7 on my "newest" list..in which I ranked Magic much higher...and even dropped Wilt to #5 (behind Russell, Magic, Kareem, and MJ.) In terms of individual greatness...Wilt, Shaq (at his peak), Kareem, MJ, and either Russell or Magic.

I have learned a lot here...and when it comes to TOTAL IMPACT...IMHO...Russell and Magic are 1-2. Sure, you can argue those picks...but really, you can argue positioning of all of the top-10 players of all-time.