Is Michael Jordan really the best player of all time?

[CeoTypeDoe619]

Greatest of course because that takes achievements into count. But best player is a whole another story.
Hypothetically speaking, If there was a draft with all the all-time greats and Gm's knew exactly how all their careers would pan out to how they really did. Who would be the number 1 draft pick? Shaq? Kareem? Jordan? Wilt? I have a hard time believing any GM would pick Jordan over these guys to start a franchise

[chains5000]

http://www.thedaystarisbright.com/gallery/d/549-1/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

[alenleomessi]

http://www.thedaystarisbright.com/gallery/d/549-1/beating-a-dead-horse.gif
This

[madmax]

No he's not...He's probably TOP 10 though

[Collie]

You're having a hard time believing that a GM would pick a guy who won 6 championships, 5 MVPs, 6 Final MVPs, etc etc etc., who dominated the NBA like few ever have, and who many acknowledge as the GOAT, as the first pick in a draft of all players in NBA history? I could see a few GMs picking other people, but to have a hard time even considering that a lot of GMs would pick him?

Really? I mean, really?

[RaceBannana]

No he is not.... But he is the consensus best player. if you ask someone who hasn

[Lebron23]

Yes, He is.

[zizozain]

there is nothing such '' best player of all time ''

[Lebron23]

there is nothing such '' best player of all time ''

http://www.loudsportsshorts.com/basketball/jordan/michael_jordan.jpg

[PurpleChuck]

http://www.loudsportsshorts.com/basketball/jordan/michael_jordan.jpg

GOAT = Best player of all time

So yeah.

[kunk75]

anyone who says he's not is insane.

[jstern]

He's the best player of all time, but I understand how a young person who never saw him play could be confused by the fact. How can a person truly understand something that they've never been exposed to? The major difference in Jordan and let say someone who's dominating like Lebron now is Jordan's mentality. His mind. And I hated Jordan growing up because I'm Knicks fan, but can't denied that he's GOAT.

[jstern]

[QUOTE=RaceBannana]No he is not.... But he is the consensus best player. if you ask someone who hasn

[PurpleChuck]

Their opinions doesn't matter, but if you ask most fans who watched the NBA since the 80s they would pick Jordan, heck if you ask most NBA players who saw him play they would pick Jordan, including Kobe.

That guy wants to BE Jordan. Nuff' said.

[zizozain]

He's the best player of all time, but I understand how a young person who never saw him play could be confused by the fact. How can a person truly understand something that they've never been exposed to? The major difference in Jordan and let say someone who's dominating like Lebron now is Jordan's mentality. His mind. And I hated Jordan growing up because I'm Knicks fan, but can't denied that he's GOAT.
i understand that you saw Russell, Kareem and Wilt ??

[jstern]

i understand that you saw Russell, Kareem and Wilt ??

I've said many times that I only compare players that I saw play. But I would still pick Jordan over them, but not based on my opinion, but on the opinion of players and annalist who did see them play, like Bird and Magic. I do think the 80s and 90s were better than the 60s in terms of skills, but it's all relative and I find Russell's championships more impressive, but then again I really didn't see that era to really have an opinion.

[Leviathon1121]

there is nothing such '' best player of all time ''

Coming from someone who thinks an 8 game sample is enough to crown a player "Best Road Player Ever."

He is the arguable best player of all time with 3-4 other players.

Personally I pick Jordan, however there is nothing wrong with the other choices, you all know who they are.

[kunk75]

no, there is something wrong with the other players.

when wilt played at his peak, it was like shaq v. brian scalabrine most night.

russell was a dominant force but same criticisms as wilt.

larry and magic would be my 4-5.

[lefthook00]

Of course he's the best. All of the other people the OP mentioned are CENTERS. MJ was a GUARD and dominated like that. Craziest sh*t ever. Doesn't even make sense really.

[Blue&Orange]

Who would be the number 1 draft pick? Shaq? Kareem? Jordan? Wilt? I have a hard time believing any GM would pick Jordan over these guys to start a franchise
So no gm would pick jordan over jordan?

have you ever made a post that wasn't dumb?

[KABIRC]

Michael Jordan is one of the biggest icons of ALL TIME, not just in Basketball in the world as well. You could ask anybody in the 90's off the street who Michael Jordan was, and they would ALL know who he was. Of course Wilt, Shaq, Lebron, Kobe, and the list of greats goes on and on and on. Of course they were and are ALL great players but still they can't live up to MJ's status in basketball, no matter how good they are or were.

[asdf1990]

why would'nt they pick jordan over those guys? he proved he could score at a high percentage, his midrange game was one of the best ever, he was good on d, he was very athletic, he could pass/rebound, he loved playing under pressure, and he was one of the greatest playoff performer in nba history. i don't see why they wouldn't, the only reason i could think of is that he isn't a 7 footer.

[artificial]

A legit argument for GOAT can be made for any of Jordan, Wilt, Russell or Kareem.

There's no such thing as "undisputed" GOAT.

[momo]

http://www.dynamicpeanut.com/uploaded_images/MJ_tongue_simplesketch-700896.jpg

[EricForman]

well, although this thread is beating a dead horse and is agenda-fillled, at least respect the OP, who is normally a ridiculous troll, from putting Kobe on that list :oldlol:

And although you have a point that some GMs would take Shaq or Kareem, I think Jordan still gets picked by some.

[ILLsmak]

http://www.dynamicpeanut.com/uploaded_images/MJ_tongue_simplesketch-700896.jpg


I like that... (edit, although a hater could totally draw something to 'complete' that picture.)

But the way I feel about MJ is he isn't the best because he can't do it like Bron or Shaq where they take an absolutely garbage team and turn them into a contender. But once you already have a bit of talent (not a lot, either, just a decent amount) he becomes the best because he knows how to choke people out. He can choke a whole team out.

So, if I was going to build a team I wouldn't say "MJ!" with my first pick, but if it's like... who would I want as my primary scorer I'd say Jordan.

-Smak

[Kellogs4toniee]

Greatest of course because that takes achievements into count. But best player is a whole another story.
Hypothetically speaking, If there was a draft with all the all-time greats and Gm's knew exactly how all their careers would pan out to how they really did. Who would be the number 1 draft pick? Shaq? Kareem? Jordan? Wilt? I have a hard time believing any GM would pick Jordan over these guys to start a franchise


I understand your point, because centers are generally viewed as a better franchise builder than a guard or forward. However, I can't see how you would really have a hard time believing a GM would pick Jordan? Some GM's would surely go for one of those centers you listed above, but theres also so many reasons why one would pick Jordan over them.

The man defied all standards, and my first sentence was just that : a statement of generalization. Jordan defied the general odds. For a guard, he shot above 50% (Center range), played amazing defense, stepped it up in the playoffs unlike any other, proved that you could build a ridiculous franchise without a dominant big, had amazing durability, and did all of these things on an annual basis. Last of all, people are forgetting one of the most important priorities on a GM's list. What are we missing?

Well... lez start with FINANCES. Anywhere he went, stadiums immediately sold out. Can you imagine the immense cash flow GM's and owners would reap from having him on there team? The city itself would generate so much profit, and this would only be magnified if he went to an upbeat city like New York, L.A, or Chicago. Commercials, ads, articles, it would put your team on the map. From a GM's standpoint, this can not be ignored.

So seriously... is it still that hard to believe?

[ProfessorMurder]

Personally I pick Jordan, however there is nothing wrong with the other choices, you all know who they are.

Mo Cheeks? :banana:

[Se]

You could basically pick any of the top 10 players. They all have their case.

Jordan
Russell
Abdul-Jabbar
Chamberlain
Magic
Bird
Robertson
West
O'Neal
Duncan

I don't know if that's the top 10, but those guys all have relevant arguments for GOAT.

[PistonsFan#21]

Anyone GM picking Russel, Duncan or Jerry West over Jordan deserves to lose his job

[kunk75]

I think it is also tough to imagine a 5 as GOAT for younger guys as the 5 spot is so shit right now and the NBA is ruled by 2's.

[dutchguy]

Anyone GM picking Russel, Duncan or Jerry West over Jordan deserves to lose his job

And if they pick Sam Bowie?

Seriously, MJ is the sole reason the nba is so popular right now. They changed the rules to have people (guards) play more like him. can you say Revenue
He won 6 titles that's pretty important for a gm too

And as for best player: as said earlier he's a guard, 6'6. So as for skills, he's the most dominant non-center ever.

[iamgine]

Greatest of course because that takes achievements into count. But best player is a whole another story.
Hypothetically speaking, If there was a draft with all the all-time greats and Gm's knew exactly how all their careers would pan out to how they really did. Who would be the number 1 draft pick? Shaq? Kareem? Jordan? Wilt? I have a hard time believing any GM would pick Jordan over these guys to start a franchise
When picking the #1 guy, a GM need to think about chemistry for the rest of the team. Unfortunately, Jordan as good as he was, was not a good team chemistry player. A lot of his teammates hated him and it's well known that he has a pretty destructive personality to say the least. Pippen and Phil were the counterbalance to his personality. Put him with people like Shaq or Wilt and it's a disaster waiting to happen.

[zORi]

[QUOTE=RaceBannana]No he is not.... But he is the consensus best player. if you ask someone who hasn

[thejumpa]

Yup. Best of his era and best of all time. Then again, with a name like CEOtype619, the OP probably never watched much Jordan (in person or tv) to even have a legitimate argument. I mean, look at his posts. Dude is probably 16-18 years old.

[spoonhoops]

Absolutely the best playa eva (unless you are a Lakers fan, then it's Kobe of course).

[ShaqAttack3234]

Both Jordan and Kareem have a good case, IMO. Right now, I have Jordan ranked number 1 all time, but that's partially because I haven't seen that much of prime Kareem. The following games are the only full games I've watched Kareem play.

1970-1971 regular season game, Milwaukee vs New York
1971-1972 regular season game, Milwaukee vs Los Angeles
1977 playoffs Warriors vs Lakers game 6
1977 playoffs Lakers vs Blazers game 2
1977 playoffs Lakers vs Blazers game 4
1979-1980 Lakers vs Clippers regular season
1979-1980 Lakers vs Celtics regular season
1979-1980 Lakers vs Suns regular season
1980 Finals Lakers vs Sixers Game 1
1980 Finals Lakers vs Sixers Game 5

Maybe when I see every game available of prime Kareem(particularly pre-1980), I'll be able to judge a little better.

[Kellogs4toniee]

I don't understand the argument here anymore. From a GM's standpoint it should be no question when you consider finances. Jordan's track history not only involves numerous championships, but pretty much sell outs at every game, attention where-ever he went. A GM is ultimately a profit-seeking job, and Jordan is the best combination of winning and financial profits.

Is he the best player of all time? I think so, but of course it's arguable.

From a GM's standpoint though, Jordan is the clear winner.

[SRZ66]

anyone who says jordan is the goat clearly hasnt seen jr smith play

[Soundwave]

He's the best of all time because he has a nice piece of pie of all the major categories

- Individual stats/scoring: Obviously all the scoring titles and the highest ppg average in NBA history speaks for itself.

- Championships: Can't argue with 6 rings and 6 NBA Finals MVPs.

- Offense: Obviously he was dominant there.

- Defense: A regular on the NBA All-defense team and won Defensive Player of the Year, so he has a claim there too.

- Team Profile: Besides the 6 rings, Jordan was also on the 95-96 Bulls that won an NBA record 72-10.

- Longevity: Was dominant well into his 30s.

- Clutch Ability: Again obviously one of the greatest clutch performers in NBA history.

If you put Magic/Wilt/Russel/Bird/Oscar against Jordan in all those categories, they may beat him in one or two, but I think Jordan is the only one that comes out as very strong in all categories.

Wilt had the individual stuff, but not as many titles. Magic and Bird had titles and team profile, but weren't as good defensively as Jordan, nor could they score at his ppg. Russell had more titles but wasn't as individually dominant and couldn't score nearly as much.

Jordan is the closest to an NBA player without any weaknesses. He could score at will, defend well, won tons of titles, led the Bulls to a 72 win season (among several other great seasons), there was almost nothing he couldn't do on the basketball court.

[jstern]

Both Jordan and Kareem have a good case, IMO. Right now, I have Jordan ranked number 1 all time, but that's partially because I haven't seen that much of prime Kareem. The following games are the only full games I've watched Kareem play.

1970-1971 regular season game, Milwaukee vs New York
1971-1972 regular season game, Milwaukee vs Los Angeles
1977 playoffs Warriors vs Lakers game 6
1977 playoffs Lakers vs Blazers game 2
1977 playoffs Lakers vs Blazers game 4
1979-1980 Lakers vs Clippers regular season
1979-1980 Lakers vs Celtics regular season
1979-1980 Lakers vs Suns regular season
1980 Finals Lakers vs Sixers Game 1
1980 Finals Lakers vs Sixers Game 5

Maybe when I see every game available of prime Kareem(particularly pre-1980), I'll be able to judge a little better.

It still doesn't do it justice, not following year after year, no knowing what's going to happen. That's the thing younger kids will never know about Jordan, for example Jordan last shot as a bull, a kid who was born now sees that play now, and to them it's just another highlight, but to a person watching it live, following NBA and the playoff it's a much different perspective. 2 minutes left in the game with no idea what's going to happen in such a big stage. A kid watches it now and it could be a pre season game for all they care. It will happen to all players. Look at how Lebron is dominating now. He's so athletic but doesn't have the grace of a Jordan. He's so raw, and I can imagine future 20 year olds talking about how the Lebron Kobe generation was weak and un athletic because of the way James dominated.

[jstern]

He's the best of all time because he has a nice piece of pie of all the major categories

- Individual stats/scoring: Obviously all the scoring titles and the highest ppg average in NBA history speaks for itself.

- Championships: Can't argue with 6 rings and 6 NBA Finals MVPs.

- Offense: Obviously he was dominant there.

- Defense: A regular on the NBA All-defense team and won Defensive Player of the Year, so he has a claim there too.

- Team Profile: Besides the 6 rings, Jordan was also on the 95-96 Bulls that won an NBA record 72-10.

- Longevity: Was dominant well into his 30s.

- Clutch Ability: Again obviously one of the greatest clutch performers in NBA history.

If you put Magic/Wilt/Russel/Bird/Oscar against Jordan in all those categories, they may beat him in one or two, but I think Jordan is the only one that comes out as very strong in all categories.

Wilt had the individual stuff, but not as many titles. Magic and Bird had titles and team profile, but weren't as good defensively as Jordan, nor could they score at his ppg. Russell had more titles but wasn't as individually dominant and couldn't score nearly as much.

Jordan is the closest to an NBA player without any weaknesses. He could score at will, defend well, won tons of titles, led the Bulls to a 72 win season (among several other great seasons), there was almost nothing he couldn't do on the basketball court.

Simple, but best Jordan argument I've heard so far.

[Rashard]

Absolutely the best playa eva (unless you are a Lakers fan, then it's Kobe of course).

I'm a Lakers fan and I dont agree with the above statement at all. Magic will always be the greatest player of all time to me.

[CeoTypeDoe619]

I don't understand the argument here anymore. From a GM's standpoint it should be no question when you consider finances. Jordan's track history not only involves numerous championships, but pretty much sell outs at every game, attention where-ever he went. A GM is ultimately a profit-seeking job, and Jordan is the best combination of winning and financial profits.

Is he the best player of all time? I think so, but of course it's arguable.

From a GM's standpoint though, Jordan is the clear winner.
Just from winning standpoint. Who will bring the most success to your franchise without needing the most stacked team. If we add financial profit your correct its obviously Jordan. The man had kids on welfare saving up 200$ to buy a pair of his shoes.


So no gm would pick jordan over jordan?

have you ever made a post that wasn't dumb?

Lol. You're such a fool. smh


well, although this thread is beating a dead horse and is agenda-fillled, at least respect the OP, who is normally a ridiculous troll, from putting Kobe on that list :oldlol:

And although you have a point that some GMs would take Shaq or Kareem, I think Jordan still gets picked by some.

LOL. What a cute response

[ashbelly]

Their opinions doesn't matter, but if you ask most fans who watched the NBA since the 80s they would pick Jordan, heck if you ask most NBA players who saw him play they would pick Jordan, including Kobe.


That guy wants to BE Jordan. Nuff' said.

:no: :no: :no: :no: :no:


http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/drew/litt0710.gif

[ShaqAttack3234]

It still doesn't do it justice, not following year after year, no knowing what's going to happen. That's the thing younger kids will never know about Jordan, for example Jordan last shot as a bull, a kid who was born now sees that play now, and to them it's just another highlight, but to a person watching it live, following NBA and the playoff it's a much different perspective. 2 minutes left in the game with no idea what's going to happen in such a big stage. A kid watches it now and it could be a pre season game for all they care. It will happen to all players. Look at how Lebron is dominating now. He's so athletic but doesn't have the grace of a Jordan. He's so raw, and I can imagine future 20 year olds talking about how the Lebron Kobe generation was weak and un athletic because of the way James dominated.

I agree, I did watch Jordan from the last title of the first 3peat on, but I was young when I started watching and I admit I don't have as good of a perspective on Jordan as posters like KBlaze do. Though I do know what you're talking about with seeing the flu game in '97 and that 45 point game 6 in '98 live. It did have a different feeling. In '98, watching the game, you knew Jordan was going to hit that shot. Just like I knew Tracy McGrady was going to hit every shot after the first couple in that 13 point in 33 seconds game. But atleast looking at old Kareem games is showing me what Kareem was capable of and what moves were his favorites ect. Even from the limited amount of games I've seen, I was extremely impressed with his body control, agility and defensive presence.

[jdiaby]

I just can't agree with the sentiments of greatest of all time. I think Jordan is easily the greatest shooting guard or guard ever in nba history( i still like mahmoud abdul-rauf better). But the impact of true center like wilt, kareem, shaq, or russell in my opinion slightly outweigh the overall impact of jordan. I saw jordan in the late 80s and 90s, i just believe for starting a team from scratch that a true center will allow a team to become a contender more easily. I just don't believe you can just plug jordan into any situation and the team becomes 20-30 wins better, whereas a great bigman have proved time and time again to make teams title contender( think of shaq going to los angeles or miami).

[Fatal9]

Both Jordan and Kareem have a good case, IMO. Right now, I have Jordan ranked number 1 all time, but that's partially because I haven't seen that much of prime Kareem. The following games are the only full games I've watched Kareem play.

1970-1971 regular season game, Milwaukee vs New York
1971-1972 regular season game, Milwaukee vs Los Angeles
1977 playoffs Warriors vs Lakers game 6
1977 playoffs Lakers vs Blazers game 2
1977 playoffs Lakers vs Blazers game 4
1979-1980 Lakers vs Clippers regular season
1979-1980 Lakers vs Celtics regular season
1979-1980 Lakers vs Suns regular season
1980 Finals Lakers vs Sixers Game 1
1980 Finals Lakers vs Sixers Game 5

Maybe when I see every game available of prime Kareem(particularly pre-1980), I'll be able to judge a little better.
Check out 1980 WCF vs Sonics, those games are out there. He seemed to have 5-7 blocks every night it seems...I edited a game where he had something like 38/12/8/8 but haven't uploaded it for some reason. This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_xZWKVUyaY) is another excellent game from 70s Kareem that is in circulation. You see a lot of his post moves from that video outside of the skyhook too (his touch is simply unbelievable). And there's a couple more games from '78 out there.

[crisoner]

http://www.thedaystarisbright.com/gallery/d/549-1/beating-a-dead-horse.gif


LOL

/Thread

[magnax1]

There are basically three players I see three players having an arguement for GOAT. Wilt, Jordan and Russell. However, I don't have them ranks 1 2 3, but depending on how you make your argument (peak dominance, overall dominance, and winning) those are the only three that make sense too me. Kareem makes a little sense, but there are a couple things that always hold me back on him. He wasn't really a leader, I remember an interview with the Lakers about Magic one of them said something like, before Magic came everyone saw basketball as just business, just doing it for the money, but once Magic came they all wanted to play.
Another is that he didn't win alot in the 70's, even when he had a good team. He lost to teams with seemingly less talent. I really never understood why, though I haven't watched all the series.

[Kellogs4toniee]

There are basically three players I see three players having an arguement for GOAT. Wilt, Jordan and Russell. However, I don't have them ranks 1 2 3, but depending on how you make your argument (peak dominance, overall dominance, and winning) those are the only three that make sense too me. Kareem makes a little sense, but there are a couple things that always hold me back on him. He wasn't really a leader, I remember an interview with the Lakers about Magic one of them said something like, before Magic came everyone saw basketball as just business, just doing it for the money, but once Magic came they all wanted to play.
Another is that he didn't win alot in the 70's, even when he had a good team. He lost to teams with seemingly less talent. I really never understood why, though I haven't watched all the series.


No Kareem? :confusedshrug:

Its all good though, it's an opinion, and its not like that's a bad top three.

[magnax1]

No Kareem? :confusedshrug:

Its all good though, it's an opinion, and its not like that's a bad top three.
I actually have him second, but I don't see how you could put him as GOAT. To me peak play is easily the most important, and Jordan and Wilt are obviously quite a few steps above everyone else. However, I have Kareem as #2 because he gave you 20 years of 25-10, and a still top 5 all time peak, even though his peak wasn't near as good as Wilt or Jordan.

[KAJ=GOAT]

There are basically three players I see three players having an arguement for GOAT. Wilt, Jordan and Russell. However, I don't have them ranks 1 2 3, but depending on how you make your argument (peak dominance, overall dominance, and winning) those are the only three that make sense too me. Kareem makes a little sense, but there are a couple things that always hold me back on him. He wasn't really a leader, I remember an interview with the Lakers about Magic one of them said something like, before Magic came everyone saw basketball as just business, just doing it for the money, but once Magic came they all wanted to play.
Another is that he didn't win alot in the 70's, even when he had a good team. He lost to teams with seemingly less talent. I really never understood why, though I haven't watched all the series.


3 NYC championships
3 NCAA championships
6 NBA championships


Yea, I see how Kareem makes little sense.

I mean, its not like he was dominant at every single level or anything like that.

He was just along for the ride and was used as a freak show attraction to sell tickets.

[Kellogs4toniee]

I actually have him second, but I don't see how you could put him as GOAT. To me peak play is easily the most important, and Jordan and Wilt are obviously quite a few steps above everyone else. However, I have Kareem as #2 because he gave you 20 years of 25-10, and a still top 5 all time peak, even though his peak wasn't near as good as Wilt or Jordan.


So your essentially saying that Russell's peak play was above Kareems peak then?

[KAJ=GOAT]

I actually have him second, but I don't see how you could put him as GOAT. To me peak play is easily the most important, and Jordan and Wilt are obviously quite a few steps above everyone else. However, I have Kareem as #2 because he gave you 20 years of 25-10, and a still top 5 all time peak, even though his peak wasn't near as good as Wilt or Jordan.


27.7 ppg
16.9 rpg
5.0 apg
1.5 spg
4.1 bpg


I don't think you'll find any Jordan line as good as this.

[magnax1]

So your essentially saying that Russell's peak play was above Kareems peak then?
Yeah, Russell is a little different though because hes more of a player that makes everyone around him better then a guy who could carry a team. He never dominated the ball on offense, he got his team mates involved and made his real "dominant" impact on defense (not that he wasn't a superstar on offense) Hes a different type of player then pretty much any other top 10 player. He made his teams what they were, but in a different way, so its kind of hard to ran him.

27.7 ppg
16.9 rpg
5.0 apg
1.5 spg
4.1 bpg


I don't think you'll find any Jordan line as good as this.
32.5 ppg
8 apg
8 rpg
3 spg
1 bpg

35 ppg
6 apg
6 rpg
3 spg
1.5 bpg
take your pick, both are better.

[Kellogs4toniee]

Yeah, Russell is a little different though because hes more of a player that makes everyone around him better then a guy who could carry a team. He never dominated the ball on offense, he got his team mates involved and made his real "dominant" impact on defense (not that he wasn't a superstar on offense) Hes a different type of player then pretty much any other top 10 player. He made his teams what they were, but in a different way, so its kind of hard to ran him.


Legit enough. I think your under-rating Kareem, and I think he has the closest argument to best player to build your team around outside of Jordan, but the arguments you pose is knowledgeable and 11 rings don't lie.

I agree to disagree then.

[Kellogs4toniee]

27.7 ppg
16.9 rpg
5.0 apg
1.5 spg
4.1 bpg


I don't think you'll find any Jordan line as good as this.


35.0 PPG
5.5 RPG
6 APG
3.2 SPG
1.6 BPG
53.5 % Field Goal

MVP, DPOY.

Kareem shot 52.9% on that stat line season you posted above. Jordan had a better field goal percentage than a center. That's pretty unreal.

I'm not saying Kareem is bad, he's in my top 3, but that line above my Jordan is arguable.

[KAJ=GOAT]

Yeah, Russell is a little different though because hes more of a player that makes everyone around him better then a guy who could carry a team. He never dominated the ball on offense, he got his team mates involved and made his real "dominant" impact on defense (not that he wasn't a superstar on offense) Hes a different type of player then pretty much any other top 10 player. He made his teams what they were, but in a different way, so its kind of hard to ran him.

32.5 ppg
8 apg
8 rpg
3 spg
1 bpg

35 ppg
6 apg
6 rpg
3 spg
1.5 bpg
take your pick, both are better.


How? He got less than half the rebounds and blocks Kareem did.



Barely got more assists, as a guard, over a center.
So, what makes these better again?

[KAJ=GOAT]

35.0 PPG
5.5 RPG
6 APG
3.2 SPG
1.6 BPG
53.5 % Field Goal

MVP, DPOY.

Kareem shot 52.9% on that stat line season you posted above. Jordan had a better field goal percentage than a center. That's pretty unreal.

I'm not saying Kareem is bad, he's in my top 3, but that line above my Jordan is arguable.


This is the thing though,

I didn't even have to pull out Kareems best statistical season,

and it still compares.

Now,

lets see

34.8 ppg
16.6 rpg
4.6 apg
blocks and steals weren't recorded then, but its pretty safe to asssume he had
1.5 spg
3.5 bpg

on 57% shooting.


For the other dude to say Kareem isn't in the top 3 is quite laughable when the kid was a beast at every single level of ball. He not only won, he dominated and made immediate impact, winning an NBA title in his second year and grabbing 4 MVPs in his first 7 years.

[magnax1]

How? He got less than half the rebounds and blocks Kareem did.



Barely got more assists, as a guard, over a center.
So, what makes these better again?
He got 3 more assists, more points on better fg%, more steals on one.

Got 1.5 blocks as a guard (and dpoty) had 8 more points on a higher fg% had more steals and assists on the other. How are they not?
Kareem was great as always that year, but he in prime Shaq range, probably a bit better on D, Not prime Jordan or Wilt range.

[KAJ=GOAT]

He got 3 more assists, more points on better fg%, more steals on one.

Got 1.5 blocks as a guard (and dpoty) had 8 more points on a higher fg% had more steals and assists on the other. How are they not?
Kareem was great as always that year, but he in prime Shaq range, probably a bit better on D, Not prime Jordan or Wilt range.


How about,

they're just about equal when you consider one had considerably more blocks and rebounds?

I'd say thats about fair seeing as how they play much different positions.

Of course Jordan won't get 15 boards a game, just as Cap won't get 10 apg or 10 spg.


No, it can't be that right?

It has to be Jordan.

Right?

[plowking]

How about adjusting for pace... There's no way he'd average those numbers in Jordan's era. You really think Kareem would be dropping 35/17/5 while Shaq was only getting 29/12/2?

[KAJ=GOAT]

How about adjusting for pace... There's no way he'd average those numbers in Jordan's era. You really think Kareem would be dropping 35/17/5 while Shaq was only getting 29/12/2?


Uh yea.

He was much better than Shaq in every aspect.

He was a much harder worker than Shaq who was known to be quite lazy.

lol adjust for pace.

He played in part a of "Jordans era", and even won an finals MVP in that time.

[juju151111]

Uh yea.

He was much better than Shaq in every aspect.

He was a much harder worker than Shaq who was known to be quite lazy.

lol adjust for pace.

He played in part a of "Jordans era", and even won an finals MVP in that time.
Wat does anything you just said have to do with adjusted pace? Kareem or Wilt #s wouldn't look like that today. How is that lazy Shaq still a starting C in the nba at his age?

[magnax1]

How about,

they're just about equal when you consider one had considerably more blocks and rebounds?

I'd say thats about fair seeing as how they play much different positions.

Of course Jordan won't get 15 boards a game, just as Cap won't get 10 apg or 10 spg.


No, it can't be that right?

It has to be Jordan.

Right?
I've already said Prime that I believe prime Jordan was better the prime Kareem.
And I agree that Kareem isn't 35-17 in the modern era. Probably would score 35 points, but definitely not 17 rebounds.

[ukplayer4]

i watched jordan through the 2nd three peat and i wouldnt even consider another player with my top pick. the thing is, you can look at stats and say there are others that compare or are even superiour- wilt/kareem etc but jordan brought that sense that...i dont know how to put it but everyone just felt there was no way he could loose important games, he just wouldnt allow it, ever. it even felt like the other teams knew this. kobe has great clutch ability but he doesnt have jordans accolades nor does he get the quality of shots that mj would get whenever it came to a key moment. mj just always had the ability to get what he wanted at the biggest moments. i cannot ever recall feeling such a sense of impending doom for the opponent- even if they were up late in the game. and then he has all the stats and awards etc that go along with all the greatest. he was more than perfect.

[jstern]

35.0 PPG
5.5 RPG
6 APG
3.2 SPG
1.6 BPG
53.5 % Field Goal

MVP, DPOY.

Kareem shot 52.9% on that stat line season you posted above. Jordan had a better field goal percentage than a center. That's pretty unreal.

I'm not saying Kareem is bad, he's in my top 3, but that line above my Jordan is arguable.

What about in 88? 32.5 Ppg, 8 Assists per game, 8 Rebounds pergame, 53.8 from the field. I never knew Jordan had an 8 assist 8 rebound season.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jordan once average a tripple double for a month where he was playing point guard, while still scoring 30+ ppg?

[jstern]

How? He got less than half the rebounds and blocks Kareem did.



Barely got more assists, as a guard, over a center.
So, what makes these better again?

You have to take into account the different positions when comparing players who don't play the same position.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jordan once average a tripple double for a month where he was playing point guard, while still scoring 30+ ppg?

Jordan averaged 30.4 pts/9.3 reb/11.2 ast/2.5 stl/.9 blk/52% FG over the final 25 games of the 1989 season (6-7 weeks).

[jstern]

Jordan averaged 30.4 pts/9.3 reb/11.2 ast/2.5 stl/.9 blk/52% FG over the final 25 games of the 1989 season (6-7 weeks).

I thought maybe I was just making a mistake, but those stats are amazing.

[Replay32]

Air Jordan is definitely the greatest SG of all time. No one else is even close. But basketball is a team game unlike golf or tennis. So IMO, you can't have 1 player be the greatest when there are 4 other positions and players on the court to help.

We should be debating whose the greatest by Position.

[Dave3]

Air Jordan is definitely the greatest SG of all time. No one else is even close. But basketball is a team game unlike golf or tennis. So IMO, you can't have 1 player be the greatest when there are 4 other positions and players on the court to help.

We should be debating whose the greatest by Position.
:applause: Or at least same relative positions. Point guards, wing players, and post players. You can also make the evaluation that post players are often more valuable than wing players, and wing players are more valuable then point guards.

[Replay32]

:applause: Or at least same relative positions. Point guards, wing players, and post players. You can also make the evaluation that post players are often more valuable than wing players, and wing players are more valuable then point guards.

Exactly. I agree 100%. IMO 1 player being the GOAT isn't even common sense. MJ wouldn't have any rings if it weren't for pax or pip hitting big shots, or rodman getting offensive boards ect. Same goes for shaq and kobe. They needed each other and fisher, horry, fox, shaw, rice and others hit big time shots and got big time rebounds. Basketball is a team game and I don't understand why so many people including Some NBA players think that 1 player can be the Greatest.

Relative positioning is the only way to go about debating whose the greatest.

[AirJordan&Magic]

How about adjusting for pace... There's no way he'd average those numbers in Jordan's era. You really think Kareem would be dropping 35/17/5 while Shaq was only getting 29/12/2?

Are you kidding me?

If you consider the fact that he had a more versatile offensive game than Shaq (better footwork, had a way longer range, a better passer, easily a better overall scorer), yes, he would average those numbers.

Kareem was in his late 30's averaging around 24 ppg 8.5 rpg and about 2.2 bpg against some good centers too (He had a 40 point game and a 30 point game against Hakeem Olajuwon in 1986), and you are implying that he wouldn't be as good?
Nothing stopped Kareem from averaging 25.7 ppg/9.0 rpg/5.2 apg on 60% shooting in the 1985 finals as a freaking 38 YEAR OLD!

[iamgine]

20 years from now, Lebron James will be the consensus GOAT.

[AirJordan&Magic]

The op ask as if Michael Jordan being the greatest is a myth.

In my opinion, Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul Jabbar are 1A and 1B. You can go either way.

Both had dominant primes. (Kareem had the 2nd most dominating prime after Wilt in my opinion)...Both were legendary playoff performers (Michael Jordan being the greatest post season scorer, though Kareem dominated with scoring and his defense as well.)

Both have resounding cases.

I'll tell you one thing though, Kareem is definitely the most accomplished basketball player of all time.

[jlauber]

I get a kick out of those that simply overlook Wilt. Pace and competition they say.

Interesting that when Wilt entered the NBA in the 59-60 season, the scoring record was 29.2 ppg, the rebounding record was 23.0 rpg, and the FG% record was .490. Wilt played for 14 years, and after he left he had SHATTERED ALL of those marks...several times over. 50.4 ppg, 27.2 rpg, and a .727 FG%. He holds the Top-FOUR Highest scoring seasons, (and FIVE of the top-SIX); the top-THREE rebound marks (and SIX of the top-SEVEN), the top-TWO FG% marks (and THREE of the top-5.) AND, after he retired NO ONE has come close since...in ANY of those categories.

Those that argue pace fail to mention that during the 60's, the next highest scoring season (for a full season), OTHER than Wilt, was Rick Barry's 35.6 ppg in 66-67. The next highest during Wilt's career was Kareem at 34.8 ppg in 71-72. And ONLY MJ, with a 37.1 has had a season higher than Kareem's since. So, while WILT was putting up HUGE numbers during his career, his greatest peers had seasons no better than MJ's best season, and only Kobe with a 35.4 ppg in 05-06 has come close to MJ's and Barry's marks...which, speaks VOLUMES about Wilt's SCORING dominance.

Everyone knows about Wilt's 100 point game...which is 20% higher than the next highest game (Kobe's 81), but not only that, Wilt has SIX of the TEN 70 point games in NBA HISTORY! He also scored 60 points, 32 times, which is two more than every other player who has ever played in the history of the NBA...COMBINED (MJ and Kobe are next with five.) Or how about the FACT that Wilt averaged 39.6 ppg in his first seven seasons...COMBINED!

Competition? During Chamberlain's career he faced the likes of Kerr, Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, Lucas, Lanier, Hayes, Unseld, Russell, and Kareem...ALL in the HOF. And, by most all accounts, he dominated them all (except in comparing Russell's rings.) He had a 52 and 58 point game against Reed. He had TWO 60+ point games against Bellamy. He had a 45 point game against Thurmond, as well as a 38-31 game (and a 38 rebound game in the Finals.) He had FIVE 50+ point games against Russell, including a 62 point game. Even later in his career, he gave Kareem all he could handle. And it must be pointed out, that in their first meeting, and before Wilt's leg injury, he thoroughly out played Kareem. Even after his knee injury he battled him to a statistical draw in the 70-71 WCF's. And while Kareem heavily outscored Wilt in the 71-72 season, Wilt held him WAY below his normal FG%, AND, in the clinching game six win over the Bucks in the 71-72 WCF's, he pounded Kareem down the stretch. Not only that, but in his PRIME, Wilt dominated Thurmond...who would generally outplay (or at the very least, neutralize) Kareem later in his career.

Rebounding? All anyone needs to know is that Wilt CRUSHED Russell, who is widely regarded as the second greatest rebounder ever, by a staggering 29-24 edge in their 142 games. The FACT was, Wilt outrebounded EVERY opposing center he faced...and many by HUGE margins. Wilt won 11 rebound titles, and holds virtually every major rebound record. Game, season, career. There have been 28 40+ rebound games in NBA history, and Wilt has 15 of them...or two more than the rest of the NBA...COMBINED!

How about scoring AND rebounding? I posted this stat before, but here goes again. There have been a TOTAL of 61 40-30 or 30-40 games in NBA history...and Wilt has 55 of them! He even has FOUR 50-40 games!

FG%? Only Shaq can compare, with his 10 titles in 18 years, but Wilt won nine in his 14 years, and most certainly would have won his 10th in the 69-70 season, had he not been injured. He holds the highest single season of .727, but his .683 in the 66-67 season may have been even more remarkable. He had that mark against a league average of .441, and won the FG% title by the largest differential in NBA history (beating Bellamy's .521 by a staggering .162 margin.)

Defense? Unforunately for Wilt (and Russell) the NBA did not start all-defensive teams until the 68-69 season. Wilt was voted first team all-defense in his last two seasons (and most certainly would have won the DPOY in 71-72 had they had that award.) As for blocked shots, we will never know how many that Chamberlain actually blocked, but Harvey Pollack who scored MANY of Wilt's games, estimated that Chamberlain averaged double-digit blocks in his CAREER. He even had him with 25 in one game, and there is a documented game in 1969 in which Wilt had 23 blocks.

Wilt even led the NBA in ASSISTS one season...which is something that Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, and so many other greats have never accomplished.

At last glance, Wilt held some 130 NBA records. In many cases he also holds the next best mark, as well (or marks.) And, many of his records will never be approached, much less broken.

How about RULE CHANGES? Wilt was directly responsible for SEVERAL rule changes...most of which had little impact. The NBA outlawed the dunking of FTs, the tapping in of jump balls, offensive goal-tending, the lobbing of the ball over the top of the backboard on an inbounds pass, and then they widened the lane.

If someone wants to argue RINGS...then Russell wins hands-down. Other than that, Wilt is the greatest ever. MJ played on FIVE losing teams. Kareem had several 60+ win teams flop in the post-season, and did not win his second ring until Magic came along. So, neither Kareem, nor Jordan were "miracle-workers." Jordan's 85-86 Bulls were swept by the Celtics in the playoffs, and Boston had FIVE HOFers. Meanwhile, Wilt carried a last-place roster to a game seven, two-point loss to the 60-20 Celtics in 61-62...a Celtic team that had SIX HOFers. AND, in the 64-65 season, Wilt carried a 40-40 76er team to a game seven, one-point loss, to the 62-18 Celtics. Meanwhile, Kareem was on the end of two post-season sweeps, MJ with two, and Shaq had three.

Wilt was THE most dominant player ever. Jordan does not come close.

[plowking]

The op ask as if Michael Jordan being the greatest is a myth.

In my opinion, Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul Jabbar are 1A and 1B. You can go either way.

Both had dominant primes. (Kareem had the 2nd most dominating prime after Wilt in my opinion)...Both were legendary playoff performers (Michael Jordan being the greatest post season scorer, though Kareem dominated with scoring and his defense as well.)

Both have resounding cases.

I'll tell you one thing though, Kareem is definitely the most accomplished basketball player of all time.

No he's not.

[CeoTypeDoe619]

I get a kick out of those that simply overlook Wilt. Pace and competition they say.

Interesting that when Wilt entered the NBA in the 59-60 season, the scoring record was 29.2 ppg, the rebounding record was 23.0 rpg, and the FG% record was .490. Wilt played for 14 years, and after he left he had SHATTERED ALL of those marks...several times over. 50.4 ppg, 27.2 rpg, and a .727 FG%. He holds the Top-FOUR Highest scoring seasons, (and FIVE of the top-SIX); the top-THREE rebound marks (and SIX of the top-SEVEN), the top-TWO FG% marks (and THREE of the top-5.) AND, after he retired NO ONE has come close since...in ANY of those categories.

Those that argue pace fail to mention that during the 60's, the next highest scoring season (for a full season), OTHER than Wilt, was Rick Barry's 35.6 ppg in 66-67. The next highest during Wilt's career was Kareem at 34.8 ppg in 71-72. And ONLY MJ, with a 37.1 has had a season higher than Kareem's since. So, while WILT was putting up HUGE numbers during his career, his greatest peers had seasons no better than MJ's best season, and only Kobe with a 35.4 ppg in 05-06 has come close to MJ's and Barry's marks...which, speaks VOLUMES about Wilt's SCORING dominance.

Everyone knows about Wilt's 100 point game...which is 20% higher than the next highest game (Kobe's 81), but not only that, Wilt has SIX of the TEN 70 point games in NBA HISTORY! He also scored 60 points, 32 times, which is two more than every other player who has ever played in the history of the NBA...COMBINED (MJ and Kobe are next with five.) Or how about the FACT that Wilt averaged 39.6 ppg in his first seven seasons...COMBINED!

Competition? During Chamberlain's career he faced the likes of Kerr, Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, Lucas, Lanier, Hayes, Unseld, Russell, and Kareem...ALL in the HOF. And, by most all accounts, he dominated them all (except in comparing Russell's rings.) He had a 52 and 58 point game against Reed. He had TWO 60+ point games against Bellamy. He had a 45 point game against Thurmond, as well as a 38-31 game (and a 38 rebound game in the Finals.) He had FIVE 50+ point games against Russell, including a 62 point game. Even later in his career, he gave Kareem all he could handle. And it must be pointed out, that in their first meeting, and before Wilt's leg injury, he thoroughly out played Kareem. Even after his knee injury he battled him to a statistical draw in the 70-71 WCF's. And while Kareem heavily outscored Wilt in the 71-72 season, Wilt held him WAY below his normal FG%, AND, in the clinching game six win over the Bucks in the 71-72 WCF's, he pounded Kareem down the stretch. Not only that, but in his PRIME, Wilt dominated Thurmond...who would generally outplay (or at the very least, neutralize) Kareem later in his career.

Rebounding? All anyone needs to know is that Wilt CRUSHED Russell, who is widely regarded as the second greatest rebounder ever, by a staggering 29-24 edge in their 142 games. The FACT was, Wilt outrebounded EVERY opposing center he faced...and many by HUGE margins. Wilt won 11 rebound titles, and holds virtually every major rebound record. Game, season, career. There have been 28 40+ rebound games in NBA history, and Wilt has 15 of them...or two more than the rest of the NBA...COMBINED!

How about scoring AND rebounding? I posted this stat before, but here goes again. There have been a TOTAL of 61 40-30 or 30-40 games in NBA history...and Wilt has 55 of them! He even has FOUR 50-40 games!

FG%? Only Shaq can compare, with his 10 titles in 18 years, but Wilt won nine in his 14 years, and most certainly would have won his 10th in the 69-70 season, had he not been injured. He holds the highest single season of .727, but his .683 in the 66-67 season may have been even more remarkable. He had that mark against a league average of .441, and won the FG% title by the largest differential in NBA history (beating Bellamy's .521 by a staggering .162 margin.)

Defense? Unforunately for Wilt (and Russell) the NBA did not start all-defensive teams until the 68-69 season. Wilt was voted first team all-defense in his last two seasons (and most certainly would have won the DPOY in 71-72 had they had that award.) As for blocked shots, we will never know how many that Chamberlain actually blocked, but Harvey Pollack who scored MANY of Wilt's games, estimated that Chamberlain averaged double-digit blocks in his CAREER. He even had him with 25 in one game, and there is a documented game in 1969 in which Wilt had 23 blocks.

Wilt even led the NBA in ASSISTS one season...which is something that Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, and so many other greats have never accomplished.

At last glance, Wilt held some 130 NBA records. In many cases he also holds the next best mark, as well (or marks.) And, many of his records will never be approached, much less broken.

How about RULE CHANGES? Wilt was directly responsible for SEVERAL rule changes...most of which had little impact. The NBA outlawed the dunking of FTs, the tapping in of jump balls, offensive goal-tending, the lobbing of the ball over the top of the backboard on an inbounds pass, and then they widened the lane.

If someone wants to argue RINGS...then Russell wins hands-down. Other than that, Wilt is the greatest ever. MJ played on FIVE losing teams. Kareem had several 60+ win teams flop in the post-season, and did not win his second ring until Magic came along. So, neither Kareem, nor Jordan were "miracle-workers." Jordan's 85-86 Bulls were swept by the Celtics in the playoffs, and Boston had FIVE HOFers. Meanwhile, Wilt carried a last-place roster to a game seven, two-point loss to the 60-20 Celtics in 61-62...a Celtic team that had SIX HOFers. AND, in the 64-65 season, Wilt carried a 40-40 76er team to a game seven, one-point loss, to the 62-18 Celtics. Meanwhile, Kareem was on the end of two post-season sweeps, MJ with two, and Shaq had three.

Wilt was THE most dominant player ever. Jordan does not come close.
:applause: :applause: Great well thought out post

[AirJordan&Magic]

No he's not.

Why isn't he?

Kareem led his high school team to 3 championships and they were nearly undefeated.
Kareem Abdul Jabbar led UCLA to 3 straight Ncaa championships and they had to change rules because of his dominance and as a freshman, singlehandidly led the Ucla freshman team to defeat the undefeated Varsity team.
He won 3 Ncaa tournament mvp awards, 2 usbwa college player of the year awards, and 2 Naismath college player of the year awards.

He won the 1970 rookie of the year award and took an expansion team to 56 wins and the wcf. He led the Bucks to the franchises only championship in his 2ND SEASON.
Kareem Abdul Jabbar is a 6 time Mvp (most all time), 6 time Nba champion, 2 time Nba finals Mvp, 2 time scoring champion, has 15 All Nba selections (most all time), has 11 All defense team selections, most mvp finishes in NBa history, and the most all star appearances in Nba history.

He is the Nba all time leading scorer, 3rd in blocks (blocks weren't recorded in his first four seasons), and 3rd all time in rebounds.

Who the best player of all time is always up for debate, but please explain to me how he is not the most accomplished basketball player of all time?....

[jlauber]

Kareem dominated Hakeem in the mid-80's (averaging 42 ppg on him in a three game set)...and Kareem was the oldest player in the league. Hakeem generally was regarded as the best center of the 90's (some considered him outplaying Shaq in the 94-95 Finals), and Shaq went on to be the best center of the 00's.

However, Wilt, at 11 years older than a prime Kareem, battled him to a draw in the 70-71 WCF's...and on a surgically repaired knee. And, once again, while Kareem heavily outscored Wilt in the 71-72 WCF's, Wilt blocked 15 of his sky hooks and held him to .457 shooting. Even Nate Thurmond outplayed Kareem in the 70-71, 71-72, and 72-73 playoffs.

Why is that important? Because a PRIME Wilt dominated the NBA, including Thurmond. And, before his knee injury in 1969, Wilt easily outplayed Kareem in their first meeting (he outscored him, he outrebounded him, he outshot him by a huge margin, and outblocked him.)

So, by extension, a PRIME Wilt would have dominated Hakeem, and perhaps Shaq, as well. And most certainly Wilt would have crushed Howard.

[magnax1]

Old big men usually kill younger big men. KG and Duncan got killed by Malone and Barkley usually, Kareem killed Hakeem, Wilt killed Kareem. Shaq never got pooped on by Hakeem or anyone though. 1 on 1 matchup just really don't matter that much.

[ShaqAttack3234]

How about adjusting for pace... There's no way he'd average those numbers in Jordan's era. You really think Kareem would be dropping 35/17/5 while Shaq was only getting 29/12/2?

Shaq had seasons of 29/13/3, 29/11/3, 30/14/4/3 and 29/13/4/3. And I don't think Kareem averages 35/17/5 the last 15-20 years either, partially due to pace and partially due to minutes. I can't see Kareem playing 44 mpg in the 90's and 2000's. Jordan maxed out at 40 mpg. But those numbers in 40 mpg would still be 31.5 ppg, 15 rpg and 4.1 apg. I'm not sure how much pace would affect his offensive numbers, though his rebounding numbers probably would be a bit lower. His shot blocking numbers would be impressive regardless. He was averaging 3.4 bpg as late as 1980.

[AirJordan&Magic]

Shaq had seasons of 29/13/3, 29/11/3, 30/14/4/3 and 29/13/4/3. And I don't think Kareem averages 35/17/5 the last 15-20 years either, partially due to pace and partially due to minutes. I can't see Kareem playing 44 mpg in the 90's and 2000's. Jordan maxed out at 40 mpg. But those numbers in 40 mpg would still be 31.5 ppg, 15 rpg and 4.1 apg. I'm not sure how much pace would affect his offensive numbers, though his rebounding numbers probably would be a bit lower. His shot blocking numbers would be impressive regardless. He was averaging 3.4 bpg as late as 1980.

I don't see how pace would affect his offensive numbers myself.

Imo,the only stat that you can legitimately make a case that would be affected by "pace" is the rebounding, and as you stated, he would still be hovering around 15 rpg with the pace adjusted to that particular era.

I honestly can't see how pace would affect a player whose game mostly consisted in the half court setting. (Paint, high post, and occasionally can make the midrange shot).

I still say Kareem averages his 35 ppg & 5 apg while maintaining his bpg numbers.

[puppychili]

Wait, is this another thread started by a LAKER FAN questioning whether Jordan is the GOAT? And isn't it mostly LAKER FANS in this thread trying to pile on that they think that Jordan isn't the GOAT.

And when someone like myself points out that Jordan is the GOAT it will be mostly LAKER FANS who will tell me to be quiet and stop talking about Jordan.

:confusedshrug:

[Cyclone112]

Wait, is this another thread started by a KOBE FAN questioning whether Jordan is the GOAT? And isn't it mostly KOBE FANS in this thread trying to pile on that they think that Jordan isn't the GOAT.

And when someone like myself points out that Jordan is the GOAT it will be mostly KOBE FANS who will tell me to be quiet and stop talking about Jordan.

:confusedshrug:

Fixed.

[SFMF]

If what people say is not convincing enough, why don't you try researching on him a little bit?

His incredible scoring ability and playing the defense at the highest level (you will notice that not many players who won the defensive player of the year award(s) were as talented in offense as Jordan), able to make many of the many clutch shots when they mattered (in playoffs), he was just pure DOMINATION no matter how you look at him.

He is significantly considered better than other players because of his mentality which enabled him to be Michael Jordan in the playoffs and regular seasons.

[jlauber]

What gets me is that the MJ fans generally state that MJ was the greatest...period. Yet, they ignore the fact that Russell was a FAR greater "winner", that Kareem had as many rings and MVPs, and that Wilt has FAR more records. They also seldom point out about his TEAM "failures" (FIVE "losers"), and that Jordan did not come close to winning a titles until he had a roster that could darn near win a title withOUT him (93-94 Bulls.)

Clearly, MJ was AMONG the greatest. He was the best player in the decade of the 90's, and his post-season offensive numbers were arguably the best ever. BUT, whatever the definition of GOAT is, there were/are other players with just as impressive resumes.

[shawbryant]

He was, but Lebron will replace him in the future.

[Metheny]

What gets me is that the MJ fans generally state that MJ was the greatest...period. Yet, they ignore the fact that Russell was a FAR greater "winner", that Kareem had as many rings and MVPs, and that Wilt has FAR more records. They also seldom point out about his TEAM "failures" (FIVE "losers"), and that Jordan did not come close to winning a titles until he had a roster that could darn near win a title withOUT him (93-94 Bulls.)

Clearly, MJ was AMONG the greatest. He was the best player in the decade of the 90's, and his post-season offensive numbers were arguably the best ever. BUT, whatever the definition of GOAT is, there were/are other players with just as impressive resumes.

LOL your a dumbass if you think so highly of the 93-94 bulls couldn't win crap without jordan.

[zizozain]

Kareem was/is a Muslim .. that explains many things
black + muslim + 60's and 70's = war

[jlauber]

LOL your a dumbass if you think so highly of the 93-94 bulls couldn't win crap without jordan.

This has been discussed before, but for that have not read it...

The 92-93 Bulls, WITH MJ, went 57-25, and won the NBA title. The 93-94 Bulls, withOUT MJ, and basically replacing him with an 11 point scorer in Kukoc, went 55-27, and lost a close game seven to the Knicks in the playoffs...the same Knick team that lost a close game seven in the Finals to the Rockets.

Contrary to what some may believe, MJ's teams did not win every game he played in, nor a championship every year in which he played. Jordan languished on some losing teams in his career. And he played on some teams that were blown out in the playoffs, too. He even struggled against the "Bad Boys" in the post-season.

Other than Russell, you can find flaws in almost every great players' post-seasons. Russell led his Celtics to 27 playoff series wins, in 29 attempts. No one else can come close to matching that.

And as for statistical accomplishments, Wilt DWARFS not only Jordan, but EVERY other player who has EVER played the game. It is not even close. As Oscar Robertson said..."The record book does not lie."

[godofgods]

It's debatable, but one thing for certain: he is better than Kobe.

[Metheny]

This has been discussed before, but for that have not read it...

The 92-93 Bulls, WITH MJ, went 57-25, and won the NBA title. The 93-94 Bulls, withOUT MJ, and basically replacing him with an 11 point scorer in Kukoc, went 55-27, and lost a close game seven to the Knicks in the playoffs...the same Knick team that lost a close game seven in the Finals to the Rockets.

Contrary to what some may believe, MJ's teams did not win every game he played in, nor a championship every year in which he played. Jordan languished on some losing teams in his career. And he played on some teams that were blown out in the playoffs, too. He even struggled against the "Bad Boys" in the post-season.

Other than Russell, you can find flaws in almost every great players' post-seasons. Russell led his Celtics to 27 playoff series wins, in 29 attempts. No one else can come close to matching that.

And as for statistical accomplishments, Wilt DWARFS not only Jordan, but EVERY other player who has EVER played the game. It is not even close. As Oscar Robertson said..."The record book does not lie."

Exactly they lost to the bulls. To many what If's


Wilt is such a great athlete and a phenomenal player but 6 titles of jordan in 6 final appearance really hurts wilt.

Jordan was a guard that dominated when most of the high scorer's were not perimeter player's.

Not to mention shattering wilt scoring titles with 10 by a guard.

Have some respect for the True GOAT basketball player that has ever existed.

[Metheny]

Kareem is right behind him for me as number 2 .

[asdf1990]

What gets me is that the MJ fans generally state that MJ was the greatest...period. Yet, they ignore the fact that Russell was a FAR greater "winner", that Kareem had as many rings and MVPs, and that Wilt has FAR more records. They also seldom point out about his TEAM "failures" (FIVE "losers"), and that Jordan did not come close to winning a titles until he had a roster that could darn near win a title withOUT him (93-94 Bulls.)

Clearly, MJ was AMONG the greatest. He was the best player in the decade of the 90's, and his post-season offensive numbers were arguably the best ever. BUT, whatever the definition of GOAT is, there were/are other players with just as impressive resumes.

Jordan is the GOAT because he had a combination of all three of the guys u mentioned, he was a great winner like Russell, he had more individual awards then Kareem, and he could score like wilt. Jordan is one of those rare wing players who dominated the league scoring 30+ppg on 50+%fg. Don't forget since u talk about records, Jordan has the most playoff records. Jordan always stepped his game up in the playoffs. He also had one of the most unstoppable mid range game in the history of the nba.

[Courtside View]

And once again some idiot Kobe troll starts a thread like this, the subject of which has been beaten to death, just so he can beat off over the posts of the Fatals, Roundballs, jlaubers, etc.

[ShaqAttack3234]

20 years from now, Lebron James will be the consensus GOAT.

Only if he wins some rings. I'm not sure it's fair for that to determine his legacy, but it's obvious it will. Look at these last 2 years, Lebron has clearly been better than Kobe, yet some won't acknowledge that. Why? Because Kobe has won championships and Lebron hasn't.

I don't see how pace would affect his offensive numbers myself.

Imo,the only stat that you can legitimately make a case that would be affected by "pace" is the rebounding, and as you stated, he would still be hovering around 15 rpg with the pace adjusted to that particular era.

I honestly can't see how pace would affect a player whose game mostly consisted in the half court setting. (Paint, high post, and occasionally can make the midrange shot).

I still say Kareem averages his 35 ppg & 5 apg while maintaining his bpg numbers.

Well, a slower pace does give you far less possessions and for Kareem to get quite as many touches as he did while the pace is a lot slower then they'd have to become a one man team, and I'm not sure a team 1 year removed from winning a championship. Particularly with 4 other double digit scorers in Lucius Allen, Jon McGlockin, Oscar Robertson and Bob Dandridge.

I have no doubt Kareem could average 30+ easily in any era if you just dumped the ball into the post consistently and told him to carry you.

But the reason why 35 ppg and 5 apg is out of the question in the 90's and 00's IMO is because I can't see him playing 44+ mpg like he did when he averaged 34.8 ppg and 4.6 apg in 1972.

I think Kareem's peak numbers with Milwaukee would look a lot like Shaq's actually. Their percentage of their team's rebounds is very similar and so is their FG%.

Kareem did play 40 mpg in 1971 and averaged almost 32 ppg, a full 16 rpg and 3.3 apg. He scored at the same efficiency as he did in 1972 and actually rebounded at a better rate per minute. So I see Kareem in the 90's and 00's, provided he got the same touches as his peak, but factoring in that he'd play 40 mpg max, getting 31-32 ppg.

In 1974, the first season blocks were recorded, Kareem averaged 3.5 in 44 mpg. Then 3.3 the following season in 42 mpg, but he was injured. However in his first season as a Laker(1976), he averaged 28/17/5/4 and by that point, the pace wasn't that much different than the late 80's/early 90's. His numbers dropped the following 2 seasons because his minutes were in the 36-37 mpg range, but in 1979, he averaged 24/13 with 5.4 apg and 4 bpg.

He became a better shot blocker and rebounder with the Lakers. I think his passing probably continued to get better as well. The problem is that Kareem's true peak probably isn't as well represented as guys like Shaq and Wilt who peaked in championship seasons. I have a feeling that Kareem's peak was probably 1977, but he held back in the regular season and just dominated the playoffs. Unfortunately, he didn't have a team to win a championship and unfortunately because he didn't go all out in the regular season, his numbers were relatively modest(26/13/4/3).

[dyna]

Greatest of course because that takes achievements into count. But best player is a whole another story.
Hypothetically speaking, If there was a draft with all the all-time greats and Gm's knew exactly how all their careers would pan out to how they really did. Who would be the number 1 draft pick? Shaq? Kareem? Jordan? Wilt? I have a hard time believing any GM would pick Jordan over these guys to start a franchise
Kobe fan??

[alexandreben]

MJ was the best player in the 90's, and he was the best player in the playoffs, a combination of team achivement and individual achivement which's similar to KAJ, Bill Russell had the ultimate team achivement and Wilt Chamberlain had the individual's, therefore, I would have to call these 4 players a tie...

IMO, to pick MJ or KAJ or Russell or Wilt simply depends on what type of person you are and your age...

[Simple Jack]

This has been discussed before, but for that have not read it...

The 92-93 Bulls, WITH MJ, went 57-25, and won the NBA title. The 93-94 Bulls, withOUT MJ, and basically replacing him with an 11 point scorer in Kukoc, went 55-27, and lost a close game seven to the Knicks in the playoffs...the same Knick team that lost a close game seven in the Finals to the Rockets.

Contrary to what some may believe, MJ's teams did not win every game he played in, nor a championship every year in which he played. Jordan languished on some losing teams in his career. And he played on some teams that were blown out in the playoffs, too. He even struggled against the "Bad Boys" in the post-season.

Other than Russell, you can find flaws in almost every great players' post-seasons. Russell led his Celtics to 27 playoff series wins, in 29 attempts. No one else can come close to matching that.

And as for statistical accomplishments, Wilt DWARFS not only Jordan, but EVERY other player who has EVER played the game. It is not even close. As Oscar Robertson said..."The record book does not lie."

The story also goes: the following year the Bulls were struggling to stay at .500 until Jordan finished off the rest of the season with something like a 14-3 record? That Bulls team was good no doubt, but don't overrate them. They weren't going anywhere without Jordan.

You hear it every thread but I'm going to say it again; Wilt wouldn't have put up those numbers/records playing in the mid 80's and 90's.

[CeoTypeDoe619]

Kareem was/is a Muslim .. that explains many things
black + muslim + 60's and 70's = war
Good point. He got no love because of that

[NBASTATMAN]

MJ, KAREEM AND BILL R are the greatest... Pick whomever you want..

[jlauber]

The story also goes: the following year the Bulls were struggling to stay at .500 until Jordan finished off the rest of the season with something like a 14-3 record? That Bulls team was good no doubt, but don't overrate them. They weren't going anywhere without Jordan.

You hear it every thread but I'm going to say it again; Wilt wouldn't have put up those numbers/records playing in the mid 80's and 90's.

First of all, the 94-95 Bulls had lost Horace Grant, too. They were not the same team that they were in 93-94. Secondly, Jordan DID come back, and still could not lead the Bulls to the title that year.

Regarding Wilt in the 80's and 90's...

I have long maintained that Chamberlain was NOT at his peak in his 61-62 season, which was only his third season. IMHO, he hit his peak in the 66-67 season. He was in his physical prime, and was also at his most skilled. That was evidenced by his staggering .683 FG% in a league that shot .441. Furthermore, even after Wilt cut back his scoring (from 66-67 on), he would still put up the high games each year. Even Rick Barry, who led the NBA in scoring in that 66-67 season, "thanked" Wilt for "letting" him win the scoring title. Make no mistake..at that time, EVERYONE knew that Wilt could have easily averaged 40 ppg.

What was comical, was that an SI writer actually had the audacity to question Wilt's ability to score. In late January, in 1969, they ran an article basically stating that Chamberlain could no longer score. True, Wilt was only averaging 17 ppg at the time, but that was more by design (and coaching stupidity.) In any case, when Chamberlain learned about the article, he poured in 60 points...the night before the article hit the newstands. And a few days after that he exploded for 66 points on 29-35 shooting. During a 17 game outburst Chamberlain averaged 31 ppg, including a 35 point game against Russell.

So, when someone suggests that Wilt "wouldn't have posted those records in the 80's and 90's",...how do they REALLY know? ESPECIALLY the 80's, when the LEAGUE FG percentages were at an all-time high. The ENTIRE league shot nearly 50% in the mid-80's. What would have a PRIME Chamberlain had done in a league that shot 50%...maybe .750 or more?

And one more time...why was it ONLY Chamberlain that had those HUGE numbers, in virtually EVERY Category (including FT's MADE...his 61-62 season was better than ANY in Jordan's CAREER)?

We never really witnessed a PRIME Wilt against Kareem (although he clearly outplayed Abdul-Jabbar in their first meeting...which took place before Wilt's knee injury.) BUT, we do KNOW that Kareem dominated Hakeem in the mid-80's. And Hakeem was generally regarded as the best center of the 90's. What would a PRIME Wilt have done to Hakeem?

So, anyone can SPECULATE as to what Wilt MIGHT have done in the 80's, 90's, or 00's. BUT, NO ONE KNOWS for sure what he would have accomplished. IMHO, a PRIME Wilt, and asked to CARRY a team would have been capable of 40 ppg seasons. If Jordan could average 37 ppg on .482 shooting, in a league that averaged 110 ppg, and shot .480...who knows what a PRIME Wilt could have done? He averaged 50 ppg on .506 shooting, in a league that averaged 119 ppg on .426 shooting...and that was well before he hit his physical PRIME. In Wilt's last scoring season, 65-66, he averaged 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting, in a league that averaged 116 ppg on .433 shooting. BUT, even more importantly, in his final game of that season, in game five of the playoffs and against Russell, he put up a 46-34 game. THAT was more indicative of what Chamberlain COULD have done. And, one more time, I still say that Chamberlain's most dominant season was the very next year, when he averaged 24.1 ppg on an eye-popping .683 shooting (in a league that shot .441.) Once again, most EVERYONE knew that Wilt could EASILY have led the league in scoring that year (even Barry, who actually did, and with a 35.6 ppg average.)

In any case, take Wilt's 61-62 season (which, IMHO, was NOT his best season), and reduce his shots from 40 FGA to 33 FGA (the league averaged 108 FGA in 61-62, and 89 FGA in 86-87.) BUT, RAISE Chamberlain's FG% from .506 in a league that shot .426, to what he would have shot in a league that shot .482...orf about .575, and his that would mean that he would have hit 19 FGs per game, or 38 ppg JUST on his FGA's. Then reduce his FTA's by 20% (from a league average of 37 per game in 61-62 down to the 30 FTA per game in 86-87), and that drops Wilt's FTAs down from 1363 down to 1090, and using his .613 FT%, he would have scored 669 points (instead of 835 he actually made) from the FT line, or a little over 8 ppg from the line. 38+8=46 ppg in 86-87.

Of course, the REAL question would still have been...what would a PRIME Wilt, circa 66-68 or so, and asked to SCORE, have done in 86-87?

[guy]

But the way I feel about MJ is he isn't the best because he can't do it like Bron or Shaq where they take an absolutely garbage team and turn them into a contender.
-Smak

When did Shaq ever do that? When did Lebron ever do that, aside from 2007 when the whole Eastern Conference, not just Lebron's supporting cast, was pretty much garbage? You might point to last year, but Lebron's team was definitely not garbage. I have no doubt that they could turn a garbage team to contenders if they were given that for their whole careers, and I'd say the same thing about Jordan. Just because he didn't exactly do that, doesn't mean he couldn't have. Look at Jordan's teams when he wasn't working with much:

1985 - he was a rookie
1986 - he was a sophomore that missed almost the whole season
1987 - he was still young and not in his prime yet
1988 - led a garbage team to 50 wins, and just entered his prime
1989 - led a garbage team to 47 wins, and to the ECF where they took the eventual champs to a a 6-game series.

Do you honestly think that if Jordan kept having a garbage team through the 90s, that they wouldn't have been contenders at all in any year, when they were very close to being contenders in the late 80s?

[NinjaSeal]

When did Shaq ever do that? When did Lebron ever do that, aside from 2007 when the whole Eastern Conference, not just Lebron's supporting cast, was pretty much garbage? You might point to last year, but Lebron's team was definitely not garbage. I have no doubt that they could turn a garbage team to contenders if they were given that for their whole careers, and I'd say the same thing about Jordan. Just because he didn't exactly do that, doesn't mean he couldn't have. Look at Jordan's teams when he wasn't working with much:

1985 - he was a rookie
1986 - he was a sophomore that missed almost the whole season
1987 - he was still young and not in his prime yet
1988 - led a garbage team to 50 wins, and just entered his prime
1989 - led a garbage team to 47 wins, and to the ECF where they took the eventual champs to a a 6-game series.

Do you honestly think that if Jordan kept having a garbage team through the 90s, that they wouldn't have been contenders at all in any year, when they were very close to being contenders in the late 80s?

well put

[guy]

Shaq had seasons of 29/13/3, 29/11/3, 30/14/4/3 and 29/13/4/3. And I don't think Kareem averages 35/17/5 the last 15-20 years either, partially due to pace and partially due to minutes. I can't see Kareem playing 44 mpg in the 90's and 2000's. Jordan maxed out at 40 mpg. But those numbers in 40 mpg would still be 31.5 ppg, 15 rpg and 4.1 apg. I'm not sure how much pace would affect his offensive numbers, though his rebounding numbers probably would be a bit lower. His shot blocking numbers would be impressive regardless. He was averaging 3.4 bpg as late as 1980.

I think this is a big reason why for some reason, Shaq isn't generally considered on the level of Wilt and Kareem when it comes to the great centers. They look at his stats, see that they are not as impressive, not taking into account the pace and minutes. If Shaq had multiple 35-40+ ppg/15-20+ rpg seasons, which he probably would've if he played in the 60s/70s to go along with his 4 championships, I don't think this would be the case.

[jlauber]

I think this is a big reason why for some reason, Shaq isn't generally considered on the level of Wilt and Kareem when it comes to the great centers. They look at his stats, see that they are not as impressive, not taking into account the pace and minutes. If Shaq had multiple 35-40+ ppg/15-20+ rpg seasons, which he probably would've if he played in the 60s/70s to go along with his 4 championships, I don't think this would be the case.

I tend to agree that Shaq could have put up 35-40 ppg seasons in other era's. In fact, IMHO, he SHOULD have been putting them up in HIS era. As for Kareem, at his PEAK, he was certainly capable of 40 ppg seasons. In his 71-72 season he was averaging 40 ppg against several HOF centers. And, of course, regarding Wilt...most point to his 61-62 season, but IMHO, he could have easily averaged 40-50 ppg in the 66-67 season, had he been so inclined.

In any case, IMHO, those three players were, at their PEAK, all 35-40 ppg scorers, and Wilt could have easily scored 40+ in ANY era.

[jbot]

i'm not going to comment about him being the best ever, but he is definitely THE most commercialized player ever. i think that leads into alot of the idea of him being the GOAT.

[alexandreben]

i'm not going to comment about him being the best ever, but he is definitely THE most commercialized player ever. i think that leads into alot of the idea of him being the GOAT.
indeed, just like LBJ, another commercialized player.

check out this vid

[jstern]

[QUOTE=alexandreben]indeed, just like LBJ, another commercialized player.

check out this vid

[silentmove1]

Yes, really, he is...
http://moviesoonhk.com/image/michael_jordan.jpg
for many and a one reasons...

[alexandreben]

And after Jordan left, they changed the rules to make perimeter players play more like him, so that there could be another Jordan.
hand check elimination... yes, just like in 1981-82, the league setup rules to make superstars like centers and Jordan to make them easier to dominate games... is NBA weaker and weaker??

[guy]

I tend to agree that Shaq could have put up 35-40 ppg seasons in other era's. In fact, IMHO, he SHOULD have been putting them up in HIS era. As for Kareem, at his PEAK, he was certainly capable of 40 ppg seasons. In his 71-72 season he was averaging 40 ppg against several HOF centers. And, of course, regarding Wilt...most point to his 61-62 season, but IMHO, he could have easily averaged 40-50 ppg in the 66-67 season, had he been so inclined.

In any case, IMHO, those three players were, at their PEAK, all 35-40 ppg scorers, and Wilt could have easily scored 40+ in ANY era.

Umm, no. If Shaq could shoot free throws, he might've been able to do that in his own era, but he couldn't. And no, Wilt couldn't have done that in any year of the past 2 decades, at least not on a team with any sort of success. Like I've said to you before, the game has just changed too much.

[magnax1]

What really bugs me when people criticize Jordan, is that they criticize all the wrong things. The real obvious problems with his game. He gambled to much, he was a ball hog, and didn't win until Phil Jackson implemented the triangle (not when Pippen became a star, or Horace Grant became a good player)
Instead they criticize that he didn't win in his first two seasons, or they over rate Pippen and say he Alone was good enough to make Jordan the best player ever.

[BruceLee]

Mikey mike did more than any other player, and he quit for awhile to play baseball.

AND HE STILL HAS DONE MORE THAN ANY OTHER PLAYER.

[jstern]

What really bugs me when people criticize Jordan, is that they criticize all the wrong things. The real obvious problems with his game. He gambled to much, he was a ball hog, and didn't win until Phil Jackson implemented the triangle (not when Pippen became a star, or Horace Grant became a good player)
Instead they criticize that he didn't win in his first two seasons, or they over rate Pippen and say he Alone was good enough to make Jordan the best player ever.
The new one now is saying that it's all ESPN hype, media hype, and that people can't think for themselves so they just pick Jordan because they heard the media saying it. Completely ignoring all the experts, current and former players who consider Jordan the greatest of all time.

[guy]

What really bugs me when people criticize Jordan, is that they criticize all the wrong things. The real obvious problems with his game. He gambled to much, he was a ball hog, and didn't win until Phil Jackson implemented the triangle (not when Pippen became a star, or Horace Grant became a good player)
Instead they criticize that he didn't win in his first two seasons, or they over rate Pippen and say he Alone was good enough to make Jordan the best player ever.

Gambled too much? You mean for steals right? That was more of a problem earlier in his career, and either way, it still wasn't that big of an issue, i.e. for someone like AI, who at times did it too much it was a net negative effect, which I'm not sure was ever the case for Jordan.

Jordan would've won regardless IMO, with or without the triangle and/or with or without Pippen becoming a star (or a star second option in general.) He was already pretty close to doing that in 1989 without Phil and the triangle or a star Pippen, and was pretty close in 1990 when Phil implemented the triangle but it wasn't being utilized nearly as well due to the players not buying as much into the system, and when Pippen was only a borderline-star (even though he was an all-star, he still wasn't really close to what he became after that.) Would he have won 6 and in the same dominating fashion? Definitely not IMO. But I highly doubt 2-3 is out of the question and maybe even more if he never retires in 93 (which he probably doesn't if they are not winning as much which means he doesn't feel as accomplished.) IMO, if a player is that great, they are going to win eventually regardless of the situation.

[Metheny]

When did Shaq ever do that? When did Lebron ever do that, aside from 2007 when the whole Eastern Conference, not just Lebron's supporting cast, was pretty much garbage? You might point to last year, but Lebron's team was definitely not garbage. I have no doubt that they could turn a garbage team to contenders if they were given that for their whole careers, and I'd say the same thing about Jordan. Just because he didn't exactly do that, doesn't mean he couldn't have. Look at Jordan's teams when he wasn't working with much:

1985 - he was a rookie OF THE YEAR
1986 - he was a sophomore that missed almost the whole season CAME BACK AND DROPPED 67 PLAYOFF RECORD ON THE CELTICS WHO WERE RANKED 1st IN TEAM DEFENCE 'GOD DISGUISED AS MICHEAL JORDAN"
1987 - he was still young and not in his prime yet "I THINK YOU FORGOT HE GOT THESE :NBA Most Valuable Player
NBA Defensive Player of the Year
All-NBA First Team
NBA All-Defensive First Team
NBA All-Star Game MVP NBA All-Star Starter
Slam Dunk Champion"
Not a shabby year.
1988 - led a garbage team to 50 wins, and just entered his prime
1989 - led a garbage team to 47 wins, and to the ECF where they took the eventual champs to a a 6-game series.

Do you honestly think that if Jordan kept having a garbage team through the 90s, that they wouldn't have been contenders at all in any year, when they were very close to being contenders in the late 80s?

Fixed for you.

[ginobli2311]

Stats don't lie. He is the most efficient scorer (that was not a post player) of all time. He put up those amazing numbers as the number 1 option on a team with no post player or really any player that he could toss the ball to on the wing and say "go to work". Pippen was a great player, but he got a lot of his points in the flow of the game. Jordan carried a big load every night....and he did so better than any player in history (kareem is the only other player even in this conversation). Jordan has the best player efficiency rating of all time. He's the most clutch player of all time. He is one of the 5 best defenders of all time.

Now....the kicker.......wait for it....

Jordan dominated and put up his numbers in an era in which defenses were much more difficult to go against for perimeter players. YOU COULD HOLD, GRAB, AND HAND CHECK DURING HIS ERA. It was so much more difficult to get to the rim and ten times harder to get to the foul line than it is now. If Durant can get to the line 12 times a game now that means Jordan would have got to the line 18 times a game if he played today. People forget this all the time. He would have probably shot 55 percent from the field instead of 50% as well because he would have had to take far less difficult shots over the course of his career.

I think anyone that says Kareem is the best ever has a solid argument as well....but its between Jordan and Kareem. They are clearly head and shoulders above the rest.

[ShaqAttack3234]

and Wilt could have easily scored 40+ in ANY era.

I highly doubt ANY player could average 40+ the last couple of decades and if ANY player could the last 5 years it would be a perimeter player because of how the game is played.

[phoenix_bladen]

imagine michael jordan in a run and gun offence ?


hahah

[ginobli2311]

I highly doubt ANY player could average 40+ the last couple of decades and if ANY player could the last 5 years it would be a perimeter player because of how the game is played.

Makes me so happy when people on the boards use logic. Well said.

[RoseCity07]

The only other player that is arguable is Kareem. All time leading scorer of the NBA, and a much better rebounder and shot blocker than Jordan. But Jordan was a shooting guard who could do it all in the clutch.

[alexandreben]

the game has just changed too much.
what are you refering to?

[alexandreben]

I highly doubt ANY player could average 40+ the last couple of decades and if ANY player could the last 5 years it would be a perimeter player because of how the game is played.
based on what if i might ask?

[guy]

what are you refering to?

Compared to the 60s and 70s. What I was mainly referring to is that in the past 20-30 years, the pace of the game has changed so much, and star players play significantly less minutes, making it nearly impossibly to put up some of the amazing statlines that were being put up in the 60-70s. Of course, there's probably alot of other changes, but thats what I was mainly referring to.

[jlauber]

I highly doubt ANY player could average 40+ the last couple of decades and if ANY player could the last 5 years it would be a perimeter player because of how the game is played.

Of course, no one believed that a player could average 40 ppg BEFORE Wilt came into the league, either.

It always fascinates me when those that dismiss what Wilt achieved argue pace and competition. Some even claim that he would only be a 25-15 guy in today's NBA. Just what nonsense is that based upon?

Let's go over PACE again...and include LEAGUE AVERAGE, as well. Wilt averaged 50 ppg on .506 shooting, in a league that averaged 119 ppg on .426. The league averaged 108 FGA's per game, and 37 FTA per game. Transport a 61-62 Wilt to Jordan's 86-87 season, in which MJ averaged 37 ppg on .482 shooting, in a league that averaged 110 ppg on .480 shooting. In 86-87 the average team shot 89 FGA per game, and 30 FTA per game.

So, Wilt's FGAs drop from nearly 40 per game, to 33. BUT, his FG% increases (dramatically), to about .575. So, he is making 19 FGs per game. His FTA's drop from 17 to 14, and his FTs made drop from 10 to 8. That is the equivalent of 46 ppg.

How about 2010? The league averages are 81 FGAs per game, and 25 FTAs per game. The league FG% is at .461. So, Wilt's FGAs drop from 40, to 30. His FG% rises from .506 to about .550, and his FGs MADE drop to 16.5, or 33 ppg. His FTMs drop from 10 to about 6.5, or a scoring average of somewhere between 39-40 ppg.

Now, of course, we hear that Wilt wouldn't get 30 FGAs per game because no other center has gotten to that mark. Here again, DURING Wilt's 61-62 season, the NEXT most FGAs among centers was Walt Bellamy, and he was at 23.7. In fact, during the decade of the 60's, no other center even had 20 per game. So, here was Chamberlain, taking nearly TWICE as many shots, as the other centers of his own era. Only a decade later, Kareem hit a peak of 25 in 71-72, in a league that shot 96 FGAs per game. It is not as if the game changed dramatically from 61-62 to 71-72. The ONLY thing that changed, was that Wilt cut-back his shooting. And, it is not as if Chamberlain's accomplsihment was a "one-hit" wonder, either. From 59-60 to 65-66 (basically Wilt's "scoring" seasons), Chamberlain had seasons of 32, 31, 40, 35, 29, 29, and 25 FGAs per game, or over 30 for a seven-year span! Now, why it ONLY Chamberlain that could get those huge FGAs? The real reason was, because he COULD. He could get the ball from 15 ft., or more, away from the hoop, and get his shots, on a variety of shots and moves...against defenses designed SOLELY to stop him. Don't kid yourself here. Do you think the NBA just decided that they would "let" Wily score 50 ppg? The simple FACT was,...they could not STOP him.

Chamberlain almost unilaterally decided to reduce his shooting. For those that look at his last seven years, and somehow come to a conclusion that he was being contained, or neutralized, or perhaps his skills had diminished...one more time...Wilt put up the high games in the NBA in EVERY season in the decade of the 60's. Granted, his offense suffered after his devastating knee injury early in 1969, but even then, he still had a season in 70-71, in which he averaged 21 ppg.

IMHO, what is an interesting "single" game, was Wilt's first game against Kareem. It was in 1969, and just before Chamberlain would go down that with that knee injury. He outscored Kareem 25-23, outrebounded him 25-20, outassited him, 5-2, outblocked him 3-2, and outshot him 9-14 to 9-21. Granted, this was a young Kareem, but it was also a Chamberlain that was no longer taking 30 shots per game, and was past his "scoring" prime. Of course, they met a number of games AFTER Chamberlain's injury, and while Kareem had an edge in scoring, Wilt outshot, outrebounded, and outblocked him...all at 11 years older, and on a surgically repaired knee.

I have also mentioned that aged Thurmond outplayed Kareem from the 70-71 thru the 72-73 playoffs. What is interesting about that fact, was that Wilt, in his "scoring" prime, was putting up 30-40+ games on Thurmond.

Of course, in tracking Kareem's career, by the mid-80's he was still a dominant center, and despite being the oldest player in the league in 85-86, he had a three game set against Olajuwon of 42 ppg. Olaujwon dominated the 90's. So, by extension, what would a PRIME Chamberlain done, not only against a prime Kareem, but against a prime Olajuwon?

In any case, you can SPECULATE all you want about what Wilt MIGHT have done in the 80's, 90's, and 00's...but what we KNOW is that a Chamberlain, near his prime, was statistically better than ANY center he faced, including Kareem. Now, the Russell supporters will argue Russell's edge in rings...and it is a valid argument. But they can't argue Kareem over Wilt in that regard. H2H, they split in their four years in the league, BUT, Wilt took THREE teams to Finals in those four years, while Kareem only made it once. And, the year in which Kareem's Bucks beat Wilt's Lakers, Wilt was without BOTH Baylor and West. And, despite being a year removed from major knee surgery, he battled Kareem to a statistical draw in that post-season...and in fact, received a standing ovation from the MILWAUKEE crowd as he left the floor in the last game of that series.

And we have debated the rebounding numbers here, as well. Chamberlain, quite simply, was THE greatest rebounder EVER. He CRUSHED EVERY opposing center he faced. AND, he was even MORE dominant in the post-season.

So, for those that come up with these 25-15 seasons for Wilt...just what is that based upon? IMHO, take a PRIME Wilt (not a 61-62 Wilt, but a physically prime Wilt in 66-67, and a more skilled Wilt as well), ask him to score (remember, even after he cut-back his scoring, he had FIVE 60+ games, and a slew of 50 point games, in those last seven seasons)...and he would easily be a 35-18 player, and quite possibly a 40-20 player. And certainly not even close to a 25-15 player.

[Micku]

Michael Jordan is one of the best, and is probably the best player of all time in the NBA. Michael Jordan was a great scorer, defender, and competitor. He won championships as the main guy, won scoring titles, won defensive awards, and he was on the team that had the best record in NBA history. He has a legit case for being the GOAT.

The thing is that basketball is a team sport and sometimes people forget that. GMs should pick a superstar that would generate many mismatch ups that they could for other teams and have players that would work around them.

[Roundball_Rock]

Pippen was a great player, but he got a lot of his points in the flow of the game.

Yeah--since he was directing the flow. Ask Phil Jackson or any of his teammates about that. :pimp:


Jordan dominated and put up his numbers in an era in which defenses were much more difficult to go against for perimeter players

That is a myth. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3974145#post3974145

:oldlol: at how we are hearing Jordan+scrubs would be guaranteed to win championships at some point. This is hilarious since the usual position of Jordanians is that Jordan played in an uber-tough era. Yet he would win with scrubs even though when he had good teams, aside from 91' and 96', his teams never cruised to a championship? That Jordan in 93' would do as well with a team that could win 25 games without him as he did with a team that won 55 games without him?

Regarding the triangle and Jordan being a ballhog, the reason the triangle was implemented in the first place as to force him to pass more. You can't say he became less selfish, by his standards (still lead the league in shots taken every year), and then dismiss the impact of the triangle.


The story also goes: the following year the Bulls were struggling to stay at .500 until Jordan finished off the rest of the season with something like a 14-3 record?

The story also goes:

1) The Bulls declined substantially more after Grant left than after Jordan left (and also when Pippen got hurt in 98').

2) Jordan screwed the 94' Bulls by retiring at the last minute. Had he retired in a normal fashion, the Bulls would have had time to find a legit NBA starter to replace him, not a D-League scrub. Jordan fans act as if the Bulls were given a fair shake with easily the worst SG in the league. Despite that, they finished only 2 games out of the #1 seed in the East and were one horrendous foul call away from likely making the NBA finals (everyone agrees on this--other than Knicks and Jordan fans).

3) The Bulls in 95' went 11-6, the third best mark in the East, after the all-star break. To say Jordan solely made that team competitive is like saying Ropin Lopez getting injured helped the Suns because their record after his injury was better, even though their improvement began while he was there.

4) The Bulls in 95' did slightly worse in the playoffs than in 94'. In other words, Pippen+Grant were more competitive than Pippen+Jordan.

If the claims made about Jordan are accurate why not put all the facts on the table? He easily is the GOAT so why hide things?

[jlauber]

Stats don't lie. He is the most efficient scorer (that was not a post player) of all time. He put up those amazing numbers as the number 1 option on a team with no post player or really any player that he could toss the ball to on the wing and say "go to work". Pippen was a great player, but he got a lot of his points in the flow of the game. Jordan carried a big load every night....and he did so better than any player in history (kareem is the only other player even in this conversation). Jordan has the best player efficiency rating of all time. He's the most clutch player of all time. He is one of the 5 best defenders of all time.

Now....the kicker.......wait for it....

Jordan dominated and put up his numbers in an era in which defenses were much more difficult to go against for perimeter players. YOU COULD HOLD, GRAB, AND HAND CHECK DURING HIS ERA. It was so much more difficult to get to the rim and ten times harder to get to the foul line than it is now. If Durant can get to the line 12 times a game now that means Jordan would have got to the line 18 times a game if he played today. People forget this all the time. He would have probably shot 55 percent from the field instead of 50% as well because he would have had to take far less difficult shots over the course of his career.

I think anyone that says Kareem is the best ever has a solid argument as well....but its between Jordan and Kareem. They are clearly head and shoulders above the rest.

You are RIGHT...the stats don't lie! The greatest scorer in NBA history? MJ may have a slight career edge over Wilt (30.12 to 30.07 ppg), but don't kid yourself...Chamberlain AVERAGED 40 ppg in his first seven seasons...COMBINED! He had SIX of the TEN 70+ point games in NBA history. He has 32 of the 62 60+ point games in NBA history (MJ and Kobe are next with five.) Wilt was asked to change his game after the 65-66 season, and cut back his scoring...but even then he put up as many 60+ point games, from that point on, as did MJ in his entire CAREER.

How about rebounding? While MJ never won a rebounding title, Chamberlain won ELEVEN. AND, Wilt holds virtually EVERY major rebounding record. And while some will argue Rodman, Chamberlain was even MORE dominant in the post-season, while Rodman was no more than ordinary.

Passing? How many assist titles did MJ win? Or how many times did he come in third? Wilt did BOTH. Wilt was a much better passer, for a center, than MJ was for a guard.

Defense? Yes, MJ was a 10 time all-first team defender. Of course, those lists always had two guards on them. And, the NBA did not even have those awards until the 68-69 season. Wilt was first-team all defense in his last two years, and would easily have been DPOY in his 71-72 season. MJ MAY have had more steals...we just don't know. BUT, despite not having any "official" records on his shot-blocking, most "experts" rank Chamberlain as THE greatest shot-blocker...EVER.

FT%? Ok, MJ wins here. BUT, despite being a relatively poor FT shooter, Chamberlain also MADE FTs. In fact, Wilt MADE more FTs, in his best season, than Jordan did in ANY of his. Wilt currently ranks 16th in FTs MADE...all-time.

3pt shooting? Ok, MJ wins again. HOWEVER, teams would have paid MJ to shoot 3's. Take away the three years that the NBA moved in the 3pt line, and MJ was a CAREER .288 shooter.

How about FG%? How many FG% titles did MJ ever win? Wilt was a NINE time winner. He holds the top-two single seasons, and three of the top-five.

Overall dominance? How many 40-30 games did Jordan have in his career? Wilt had 55 of the 61 in NBA history. How many 25 or 23 blocked shot games did MJ have? We know Wilt had at least those two (and probably many other 20+ games.) Perfect games? Wilt had at least FOUR (13-13, 15-15, 16-16, and 18-18.) Triple-doubles? While this stat does NOT include blocks (in which Chamberlain may have had hundreds of double-digit block games)...Chamberlain is #4 All-Time. Factor in blocks, and he is probably #1. How about double-triple-doubles? Wilt has the only known one, a 22-25-21 game.

The record book? Wilt currently holds some 130 NBA records (actually, no one really knows for sure...that is Pollack's number.) AND, not only does Wilt hold THOSE records, in many cases he holds the next greatest mark, as well. In fact, many of his records will never be approached, much less broken.

Stats do not lie...

[jlauber]

And for those that argue that a PRIME Wilt would be nothing more than a 25-15 player in today's game...where does that leave a PRIME Kareem, who couldn't duplicate Wilt's best seasons? Would a PRIME Kareem be an 18-9 guy in today's game?

Truly laughable....

[guy]

:oldlol: at how we are hearing Jordan+scrubs would be guaranteed to win championships at some point. This is hilarious since the usual position of Jordanians is that Jordan played in an uber-tough era. Yet he would win with scrubs even though when he had good teams, aside from 91' and 96', his teams never cruised to a championship? That Jordan in 93' would do as well with a team that could win 25 games without him as he did with a team that won 55 games without him?

I guess this is referring to my posts. When did ever say Jordan+scrubs would be guaranteed to win championships? In my first post, I said even with scrubs, Jordan could've definitely still made his teams CONTEND in certain years, not necessarily win. In my second post, I said even if he never had Phil Jackson or the triangle, or Pippen becoming a star or a star second option in general, that doesn't mean he would've never won. The fact that he was considerably close in 89 and 90 to beating a team that was better then any non-Bulls team from the 90s and with a supporting cast considerably worse then what he had on the championship teams, and the fact that there were lesser star players that did not have Phil/triangle/Pippen/star second option that were close to a championship or actually won a championship in Jordan's era, leads me to believe that. I think its kind of stupid to assume any great player could've only won in 1 certain situation, just because that was the situation he was in.




Regarding the triangle and Jordan being a ballhog, the reason the triangle was implemented in the first place as to force him to pass more. You can't say he became less selfish, by his standards (still lead the league in shots taken every year), and then dismiss the impact of the triangle.

Definitely not dismissing it. I just highly doubt that was the only way he could've won.



1) The Bulls declined substantially more after Grant left than after Jordan left (and also when Pippen got hurt in 98').

LOL yes cause the only thing that changed was Jordan left in 94 and Grant left in 95.

1994: Jordan leaves, but they add other role players, the team as a unit is arguably still more experienced together then any other team in the league, still coached by a HOF coach, Grant is motivated by being in a contract year, and the team has a chip on the shoulder wanting to prove the whole league wrong, who all slept on them and thought they were going to fold. And this was following a season where the Bulls clearly underachieved due to plenty of other factors i.e. Jordan/Pippen being burned out due to 4 straight deep postseasons and the Olympics, Jordan considering retirement throughout the whole season, gambling allegations, etc.

1995: Grant leaves, AND other key role players from the championship teams, Cartwright and Paxson, leave, and more importantly, the season was led into by a tumultous offseason where everyone thought Scottie Pippen was getting traded for Shawn Kemp.

:oldlol: at you continuously trying to equate the impact of anyone from the Bulls with Jordan's.



2) Jordan screwed the 94' Bulls by retiring at the last minute. Had he retired in a normal fashion, the Bulls would have had time to find a legit NBA starter to replace him, not a D-League scrub. Jordan fans act as if the Bulls were given a fair shake with easily the worst SG in the league. Despite that, they finished only 2 games out of the #1 seed in the East and were one horrendous foul call away from likely making the NBA finals (everyone agrees on this--other than Knicks and Jordan fans).

Yes, he really screwed them by retiring after his father died, and after he made it clear to everyone that he was contemplating retiring throughout the whole previous season and offseason.

So what legit NBA starter are you talking about? Someone like Derek Harper? The guy that got ejected in game 3 and suspended in game 4 from getting into a fight that a scrub named JoJo English started? If it wasn't for that, there's a good chance Bulls could've easily been swept. And there is clearly no guarantee they would've beaten the Pacers, who Miller pretty much had his coming out party in those playoffs.



3) The Bulls in 95' went 11-6, the third best mark in the East, after the all-star break. To say Jordan solely made that team competitive is like saying Ropin Lopez getting injured helped the Suns because their record after his injury was better, even though their improvement began while he was there.


To use a W-L record of a 17 game sample is completely stupid to prove a point, but for whatever reason you continue to use it.



4) The Bulls in 95' did slightly worse in the playoffs than in 94'. In other words, Pippen+Grant were more competitive than Pippen+Jordan.


Right :rolleyes:

[Johnni Gade]

He is the best ever, get over it. This thread is not even worth reading.

[Alhazred]

2) Jordan screwed the 94' Bulls by retiring at the last minute. Had he retired in a normal fashion, the Bulls would have had time to find a legit NBA starter to replace him, not a D-League scrub.

Actually, they did have a chance to get a decent starter. Unfortunately, Krause failed to capitalize on the opportunity to get Derek Harper mid season and waited until the next season to sign a new shooting guard in Ron Harper.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/08/sports/pro-basketball-knicks-are-pining-for-help-from-harper.html



"If people expect the Bulls to contend, we have to have something to go to war with," said SCOTTIE PIPPEN, the Bulls' All-Star forward, in an interview with The Chicago Tribune. "We have a slot that needs to be filled. We need our general manager to bring someone in. Whatever it takes. We have guys with trade value, and if we're going to get better, if we're going to contend, we have to do something." Coach PHIL JACKSON of the Bulls echoed Pippen's sentiments in The Tribune. "We've known ever since Day 1 that there's an ingredient missing that we're not going to be able to cover up," Jackson said.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-01-04/sports/9401040169_1_bulls-knicks-dallas-derek-harper/2



Here's where the Bulls come in: The Knicks' No. 1 choice is Dallas' Derek Harper but the Mavericks would rather deal Harper to the Bulls. And the deal, under which Dallas reportedly would settle for a future No. 1 pick, could be done because the Bulls could put Harper in Michael Jordan's unused $2 million salary slot.

But the Bulls remain noncommittal.

So if you're looking for someone to blame for the Bulls not having a decent starting shooting guard in 94, then here's your man.

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/media/nba/2002/0519/photo/a_krause_i.jpg

[alexandreben]

Compared to the 60s and 70s. What I was mainly referring to is that in the past 20-30 years, the pace of the game has changed so much, and star players play significantly less minutes, making it nearly impossibly to put up some of the amazing statlines that were being put up in the 60-70s. Of course, there's probably alot of other changes, but thats what I was mainly referring to.
comparing with the 70's, nowadays NBA reduces about 14 paces, but pace is not everything. The following example I put shows even there's 16 paces in 73-74 season more than 08-09 season, the margin of points per game is only 5.7 pts, so... 35 years with only 5.7 pts per game difference...
e.g.
Season Pace PTS/G
1973-74 107.8 105.7
--------------------------
2008-09 91.7 100.0

players produce more points with less pace than 35 years ago, what does that tell us? is it easier to score now than the past?

[alexandreben]

Yeah--since he was directing the flow. Ask Phil Jackson or any of his teammates about that. :pimp:



That is a myth. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3974145#post3974145

:oldlol: at how we are hearing Jordan+scrubs would be guaranteed to win championships at some point. This is hilarious since the usual position of Jordanians is that Jordan played in an uber-tough era. Yet he would win with scrubs even though when he had good teams, aside from 91' and 96', his teams never cruised to a championship? That Jordan in 93' would do as well with a team that could win 25 games without him as he did with a team that won 55 games without him?

Regarding the triangle and Jordan being a ballhog, the reason the triangle was implemented in the first place as to force him to pass more. You can't say he became less selfish, by his standards (still lead the league in shots taken every year), and then dismiss the impact of the triangle.



The story also goes:

1) The Bulls declined substantially more after Grant left than after Jordan left (and also when Pippen got hurt in 98').

2) Jordan screwed the 94' Bulls by retiring at the last minute. Had he retired in a normal fashion, the Bulls would have had time to find a legit NBA starter to replace him, not a D-League scrub. Jordan fans act as if the Bulls were given a fair shake with easily the worst SG in the league. Despite that, they finished only 2 games out of the #1 seed in the East and were one horrendous foul call away from likely making the NBA finals (everyone agrees on this--other than Knicks and Jordan fans).

3) The Bulls in 95' went 11-6, the third best mark in the East, after the all-star break. To say Jordan solely made that team competitive is like saying Ropin Lopez getting injured helped the Suns because their record after his injury was better, even though their improvement began while he was there.

4) The Bulls in 95' did slightly worse in the playoffs than in 94'. In other words, Pippen+Grant were more competitive than Pippen+Jordan.

If the claims made about Jordan are accurate why not put all the facts on the table? He easily is the GOAT so why hide things?
I 100% agree with you:applause:
but you've ticked off those Jordan fans...:roll:

[NBASTATMAN]

He is the best ever, get over it. This thread is not even worth reading.



I am not sure that Mj can be solely considered the best ever.. I am a huge MJ fan.. But you have to consider Kareem and Russell as well as MJ for that title... IMO no other perimeter player can be compared to MJ.. Not yet at least.. If Lebron wins with his current squad he has a chance to reach that level but that is premature...


Magic would have had a better career if he didn't get sick..But he wasn't better than MJ...

[Leviathon1121]

I 100% agree with you:applause:
but you've ticked off those Jordan fans...:roll:

Except that he is responding to things nobody even said, using this thread as an excuse to do his usual Jordan bashing. Interesting that you enjoy it though.

[alexandreben]

But you have to consider Kareem and Russell as well as MJ for that title... IMO no other perimeter player can be compared to MJ..
Why Wilt Chamberlain is automatically ignored again? Wilt is not the level as Russell, KAJ and MJ?? KAJ and MJ both has 6 rings and numerous individual awards, but Russell has far more rings than them, and Wilt has far more individual records than them too, I personally will have to call them a tie, the "big four"...

[NBASTATMAN]

Why Wilt Chamberlain is automatically ignored again? Wilt is not the level as Russell, KAJ and MJ?? KAJ and MJ both has 6 rings and numerous individual awards, but Russell has far more rings than them, and Wilt has far more individual records than them too, I personally will have to call them a tie, the "big four"...


I left him out on purpose... He played with great players around him and yet still lost to the Celtics and Knicks... Sorry, this isn't a case of Patrick Ewing who never got to play with another superstar.. He won 2 titles in all his college and pro career..

[alexandreben]

I left him out on purpose... He played with great players around him and yet still lost to the Celtics and Knicks... Sorry, this isn't a case of Patrick Ewing who never got to play with another superstar.. He won 2 titles in all his college and pro career..
so, if KAJ or MJ played in Wilt's era, how many rings do you think they can grab from Celtics? I know Wilt at least got one, and the rest of the 9 rings belonged to Celtics...

[Kiddlovesnets]

umm then who is if he isnt?

[6thManOfTheYear]

6 finals mvp's :applause:

[jlauber]

I left him out on purpose... He played with great players around him and yet still lost to the Celtics and Knicks... Sorry, this isn't a case of Patrick Ewing who never got to play with another superstar.. He won 2 titles in all his college and pro career..

Hmmm...let's see here...

Wilt, taking a team that was in last place just the year before, to a game six, one point defeat against the 59-60 Celtics...and SEVEN HOFers.

Then, two years later, taking that same basic roster to a game seven, two-point defeat against the Celtics, and their SIX HOFers.

Or in the 64-65 ECF's, when he along with HOFer Hal Greer, took a 40-40 team against the 62-18 Celtics and their FIVE HOFers, and lost a game seven by one point.

Even in Wilt's first championship, he led the Sixers, with himself and two other HOFers, to a 4-1 series blowout against the Celtics, and their FIVE HOFers.

Even his 68-69 Lakers, who were considered favorites over the Celtics, were outgunned by HOFers, 4-3.

In the 69-70 Finals, he took a heavy under-dog Laker team, that had gone 46-36, and basically on leg, outplayed NBA MVP Willis Reed and his three other HOFers (along with Cazzie Russell), en route to a game seven loss. Here again, Wilt's team...3 HOFers...his opponent...FOUR.

In the 71-72 Finals, Wilt carried a Laker team that had himself, and two other HOFers (West and Goodrich) to a 4-1 romp over the Knicks, a team that had FIVE HOFers (Lucas, Monroe, Debusschere, Bradley, and Frazier), to a an easy 4-1 romp to a title.

And in the 72-73 Finals, Wilt was on a team that lost four games in the last minute, and had two other HOFers, against a Knick team that had SIX HOFers.

The fact was, in Wilt's first seven seasons, he had mediocre rosters, and still managed to nearly pull off two major upsets. In his last seven seasons, he played on good-to-great teams that won two titles, and lost four other close season ending series, against more loaded teams.

Meanwhile, the "GOAT" Jordan played on FIVE "losers", and was 1-9 in his first three playoff series. He also did not play on a champion until he had the most talented rosters in the league.

As for Kareem...once again, he played on one of the greatest teams in NBA history in the 70-71 season. That team ran roughshod over the NBA, and many believed that they would be a dynasty to rival Boston's run in the 60's. Instead, the very next year the Lakers, behind Chamberlain, beat them eight times in 11 games, and won the title. The very next year Kareem's 60-22 Bucks were upset by Thurmond and the Warriors in the playoffs. The following year his 59-23 Bucks were beaten by the 56-26 Celtics in the Finals. Over the course of the rest of the decade, while Kareem played brilliantly at times, his teams never sniffed the Finals. It wasn't until Magic came along, that Kareem would win another title. He won five titles playing alongside Magic and the most loaded rosters in the league.

So, YES, Wilt SHOULD be included in these "GOAT" discussions. He carried far more mediocre teams, much further than Kareem or MJ carried their lessor rosters. And Wilt's teams routinely went up against the greatest dynasty in NBA history. In fact, his team's lost four game seven's to Russell's Celtics, by a COMBINED TOTAL of NINE points. He was only a few points away from going 5-3 against the greatest "winner" of All-Time.

[NBASTATMAN]

so, if KAJ or MJ played in Wilt's era, how many rings do you think they can grab from Celtics? I know Wilt at least got one, and the rest of the 9 rings belonged to Celtics...


He lost to the knicks as well.. His numbers always went down in the playoffs and he was usually scared of the moment.. JUST MY OPINION..

[NBASTATMAN]

Hmmm...let's see here...

Wilt, taking a team that was in last place just the year before, to a game six, one point defeat against the 59-60 Celtics...and SEVEN HOFers.

Then, two years later, taking that same basic roster to a game seven, two-point defeat against the Celtics, and their SIX HOFers.

Or in the 64-65 ECF's, when he along with HOFer Hal Greer, took a 40-40 team against the 62-18 Celtics and their FIVE HOFers, and lost a game seven by one point.

Even in Wilt's first championship, he led the Sixers, with himself and two other HOFers, to a 4-1 series blowout against the Celtics, and their FIVE HOFers.

Even his 68-69 Lakers, who were considered favorites over the Celtics, were outgunned by HOFers, 4-3.

In the 69-70 Finals, he took a heavy under-dog Laker team, that had gone 46-36, and basically on leg, outplayed NBA MVP Willis Reed and his three other HOFers (along with Cazzie Russell), en route to a game seven loss. Here again, Wilt's team...3 HOFers...his opponent...FOUR.

In the 71-72 Finals, Wilt carried a Laker team that had himself, and two other HOFers (West and Goodrich) to a 4-1 romp over the Knicks, a team that had FIVE HOFers (Lucas, Monroe, Debusschere, Bradley, and Frazier), to a an easy 4-1 romp to a title.

And in the 72-73 Finals, Wilt was on a team that lost four games in the last minute, and had two other HOFers, against a Knick team that had SIX HOFers.

The fact was, in Wilt's first seven seasons, he had mediocre rosters, and still managed to nearly pull off two major upsets. In his last seven seasons, he played on good-to-great teams that won two titles, and lost four other close season ending series, against more loaded teams.

Meanwhile, the "GOAT" Jordan played on FIVE "losers", and was 1-9 in his first three playoff series. He also did not play on a champion until he had the most talented rosters in the league.

As for Kareem...once again, he played on one of the greatest teams in NBA history in the 70-71 season. That team ran roughshod over the NBA, and many believed that they would be a dynasty to rival Boston's run in the 60's. Instead, the very next year the Lakers, behind Chamberlain, beat them eight times in 11 games, and won the title. The very next year Kareem's 60-22 Bucks were upset by Thurmond and the Warriors in the playoffs. The following year his 59-23 Bucks were beaten by the 56-26 Celtics in the Finals. Over the course of the rest of the decade, while Kareem played brilliantly at times, his teams never sniffed the Finals. It wasn't until Magic came along, that Kareem would win another title. He won five titles playing alongside Magic and the most loaded rosters in the league.

So, YES, Wilt SHOULD be included in these "GOAT" discussions. He carried far more mediocre teams, much further than Kareem or MJ carried their lessor rosters. And Wilt's teams routinely went up against the greatest dynasty in NBA history. In fact, his team's lost four game seven's to Russell's Celtics, by a COMBINED TOTAL of NINE points. He was only a few points away from going 5-3 against the greatest "winner" of All-Time.


Dude always lost though... Guy got to play with West and Baylor and lost... I guess it depends on how you judge his character which is where I think he falls short.. I may or may not be wrong.. I will read on Wilt alot more before I come to a final conclusion... OK.. I think that is fair...

[magnax1]

Gambled too much? You mean for steals right? That was more of a problem earlier in his career, and either way, it still wasn't that big of an issue, i.e. for someone like AI, who at times did it too much it was a net negative effect, which I'm not sure was ever the case for Jordan.

Jordan would've won regardless IMO, with or without the triangle and/or with or without Pippen becoming a star (or a star second option in general.) He was already pretty close to doing that in 1989 without Phil and the triangle or a star Pippen, and was pretty close in 1990 when Phil implemented the triangle but it wasn't being utilized nearly as well due to the players not buying as much into the system, and when Pippen was only a borderline-star (even though he was an all-star, he still wasn't really close to what he became after that.) Would he have won 6 and in the same dominating fashion? Definitely not IMO. But I highly doubt 2-3 is out of the question and maybe even more if he never retires in 93 (which he probably doesn't if they are not winning as much which means he doesn't feel as accomplished.) IMO, if a player is that great, they are going to win eventually regardless of the situation.
I meant gambled to much mostly for blocks. Leaving his man open to get blocks. He was actually pretty good for steals, kind of like JKidd or stockton, just played the passing lanes real well. At least usually
I agree he could've won a couple without Pippen, but not without the triangle, or another system that got everyone involved and took the ball out of his hands. No one man team wins. Ever.
EDIT: Why is anybody even arguing with Roundball anymore? All he ever talks about is 94 when Jordan left, and the team supposedly played just a well without him because of the win loss record. Then he ignores or dismisses the substantial improvements in 95, 96 and even the Wizards in 03.

[jlauber]

He lost to the knicks as well.. His numbers always went down in the playoffs and he was usually scared of the moment.. JUST MY OPINION..

More ridiculous "myths"...

His scoring dropped a few points in the post-season, over the course of his career. Meanwhile, his rebounding went UP. With apologies to Russell, Wilt was THE most dominant rebounder, not only in the regular season (which is indisputable), but in the post-season, as well. Yes, Russell had a slightly higher post-season average (24.9 to Wilt's 24.5), BUT, Chamberlain out-rebounded Russell in EVERY H2H post-season series AND, in some, like 66-67 for instance, by HUGE margins (32-23 in that 67 ECF series.)

Wilt averaged a 30-27 against Russell in the 59-60 playoffs (Russell was at 20-26 BTW), and he injured his hand in game two, and was nowhere near his normal play for two games. In a must-win game five, Chamberlain put up a 50-35 game, in a 128-107 win.

In the 61-62 ECF's, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 34-22, and outrebounded him, 29-26 per game. AND, in the series prior to that, and in a clinching game five win, Wilt put up a 56-35 game.

In the 63-64 Finals, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, and outrebounded him, 27-25 per game.

In the 64-65 ECF's, Chamberlain outscored Russell 30-15, per game, and outrebounded him, 30-25, per game. In the game seven one -point loss, Wilt scored eight of Philly's last 10 points. He finished the game with a 30 point, 12-15 shooting, 32 rebound performance. Russell played brilliantly, as well, scoring 15 points, on 7-16 shooting, with 29 rebounds.

In the 65-66 ECF's, Wilt put up a 28-30 series, on .509 shooting, while Russell had a 14-26 series (I could not find FG%.) Included in that, was a 46-34 game in the clinching game five loss. So, if that is "choking", yes, Wilt was guilty as charged.

In the 66-67 ECF's, Chamberlain CRUSHED Russell in EVERY category, and led his Sixers to a near sweep, 4-1 series romp. In that series, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 22-10; outrebounded him, per game, 32-23; outassisted him, per game, 10-6; and outshot him from the field, per game, .556 to .358. In the clinching game five win, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 29-4, outshot him, 10-16 to 2-5, outassisted him, 13-7, and outrebounded him, 36-21. In the Finals, he led the Sixers to a 4-2 win over the Warriors. In that series, he outscored Thurmond, 17-14 per game; outrebounded him, 29-27, per game; and outshot him, .560 to .343, per game.

In the 67-68 playoffs, Wilt led the Sixers to a 4-2 series win over the Knicks, with Reed and Bellamy...and led BOTH teams in scoring, rebounding, AND assists. In the ECF's, he led a Sixer team, withOUT injured HOFer Billy Cunningham, and then an injured Luke Jackson, to a game seven, four point loss to the Celtics. In that series, Wilt outscored Russell per game, 22-15, and outrebounded him, per game, 25-24 per game. In game seven, when he did not attempt a shot in the second half, he still outscored Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded him, 34-26.

In the 68-69 Finals, and playing under an incompetent coach, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 11-9, and outrebounded him, per game, 25-21. In the game seven, two point loss, and sitting on the bench in the last five minutes, Wilt still outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot him, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21.

I have documented the 69-70 Finals many times, but needless to say, Wilt, only four months removed from major knee surgery, outscored MVP Reed, 23.2 to 23.0 per game. He outrebounded him in EVERY game, and by a combined 24-11 margin. And he outshot him, .625 to .483. In the clinching game seven Knick win, Reed, "the hero", scored four points, on 2-5 shooting, with three rebounds. Meanwhile, Wilt "the failure" scored 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds. In the last three games of that series, Reed scored a TOTAL of 11 points, with a TOTAL of THREE rebounds, and shot 4-10 COMBINED. Meanwhile, Wilt "the choker" scored 88 points, on 39-55 shooting, and grabbed 70 rebounds.

In the 70-71 WCF's, Wilt battled Kareem to a statistical draw...and without West, Baylor and Erickson. In the process, after leaving the floor in that game five loss, Chamberlain received a standing ovation...from the Milwaukee crowd!

In the 71-72 playoffs, Wilt held Kareem to 45% shooting, outrebounded him by two per game, and blocked 15 of his sky-hooks. In the last two games, Chamberlain blocked 20 shots, including 11 of Kareem's. AND, in the clinching game six 4th quarter, Chamberlain dominated Kareem down the stretch, and led LA back from a 10 point deficit to a win. In the clinching game five win in the Finals, and playing with two severely swollen wrists, Chamberlain scored 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 10 blocks, and 29 rebounds (while the ENTIRE Knick team only had 39.) For his efforts, Wilt was voted Finals MVP.

And in his Final post-season, Chamberlain played 47 mpg in his 17 playoff games, and averaged 22.5 rpg in the process. In his final game, he scored 23 points on 21 rebounds.

Yep...he was a "choker" and a "failure."

[CavsLebronMo]

wilt so overrated in this thread, put any superstar in that era (kobe lebron dwight wade) and they put up massive stats... you cannot deny that.

[magnax1]

Of course, no one believed that a player could average 40 ppg BEFORE Wilt came into the league, either.

It always fascinates me when those that dismiss what Wilt achieved argue pace and competition. Some even claim that he would only be a 25-15 guy in today's NBA. Just what nonsense is that based upon?

Let's go over PACE again...and include LEAGUE AVERAGE, as well. Wilt averaged 50 ppg on .506 shooting, in a league that averaged 119 ppg on .426. The league averaged 108 FGA's per game, and 37 FTA per game. Transport a 61-62 Wilt to Jordan's 86-87 season, in which MJ averaged 37 ppg on .482 shooting, in a league that averaged 110 ppg on .480 shooting. In 86-87 the average team shot 89 FGA per game, and 30 FTA per game.
Im you point out Wilts 50 ppg season when arguing about his scoring averages, because I think the season overall proves that he couldn't score that in todays league.
In 1962, It wasn't just Wilt's 50 ppg season that was an anomaly there were also two other extremely freakish statistical outbursts.
Oscar robertson's 30-12-11
Baylor's 38-18-5
Could any of those players put up those stats today? Heck no, but I do think that they all get terribly under rated. Whenever I see Wilt or russell lower then 6th on all time rankings, I lose a little respect.

[jlauber]

wilt so overrated in this thread, put any superstar in that era (kobe lebron dwight wade) and they put up massive stats... you cannot deny that.

Exactly! Take Olajuwon for instance...oh wait...Kareem, as the oldest player in the league, smoked him in the 85-86 season, for 42 ppg. Given the fact that Thurmond outplayed, or at the very least equalled Kareem, from the 70-71 playoffs thru the 71-72 and 72-73 playoffs...what does that tell you about Olajuwon? I guess Olajuwon would be a middle-of-the-pack center in the early 70's. AND, given the fact that Wilt abused Kareem before his knee injury, in 1969, and battled him to at, the very least, a draw after the injury (and 11 years older)...AND, given the fact that Chamberlain dominated Thurmond in his PRIME seasons...what does that tell you about a Hakeem vs. a PRIME Wilt matchup?

Not only that, but Wilt was taller, bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled than Dwight Howard (and, by most observers, able to jump higher, as well.) So, how would Howard have fared against a PRIME Wilt?

[jlauber]

Im you point out Wilts 50 ppg season when arguing about his scoring averages, because I think the season overall proves that he couldn't score that in todays league.
In 1962, It wasn't just Wilt's 50 ppg season that was an anomaly there were also two other extremely freakish statistical outbursts.
Oscar robertson's 30-12-11
Baylor's 38-18-5
Could any of those players put up those stats today? Heck no, but I do think that they all get terribly under rated. Whenever I see Wilt or russell lower then 6th on all time rankings, I lose a little respect.

Baylor's season was in 48 games. And, yes, Baylor was a great player BTW. In any case, I already addressed that point with logical comparsions using pace. Using the PACE factor, and including LEAGUE AVERAGE, Wilt would have been a 46 ppg scorer, on .575 shooting in 86-87...AND a 39-40 ppg scorer on .550 shooting in 09-10. AND, that was Wilt's 61-62 season...which I maintain was not Wilt at his best. It was only his third season, and by the mid-60's, Chamberlain was bigger, stronger, and more skilled. His 66-67 season was just staggering, and those that witnessed his play that season, conceded the fact that he could easily have led the league in scoring...which would have meant at least 36 ppg, and more reasonably, well over 40.

Incidently, before someone rips Baylor's numbers, Charles Barkley, ay 6-5, led the NBA in rebounding in 86-87. Even Ben Wallace, who was an actual 6-7, led the more current NBA in rebounding.

As for Oscar's numbers. PACE reduces his overall game to around 23-8-8 in today's NBA. Wilt's 61-62 season "drops" to 39-18 in today's game.

[magnax1]

Baylor's season was in 48 games. And, yes, Baylor was a great player BTW. In any case, I already addressed that point with logical comparsions using pace. Using the PACE factor, and including LEAGUE AVERAGE, Wilt would have been a 46 ppg scorer, on .575 shooting in 86-87...AND a 39-40 ppg scorer on .550 shooting in 09-10. AND, that was Wilt's 61-62 season...which I maintain was not Wilt at his best. It was only his third season, and by the mid-60's, Chamberlain was bigger, stronger, and more skilled. His 66-67 season was just staggering, and those that witnessed his play that season, conceded the fact that he could easily have led the league in scoring...which would have meant at least 36 ppg, and more reasonably, well over 40.
You sure you did that math right, because I did Wilt in Michael Jordan's 37 ppg pace, and it ended up almost exactly 37 ppg.

[jlauber]

You sure you did that math right, because I did Wilt in Michael Jordan's 37 ppg pace, and it ended up almost exactly 37 ppg.

The 61-62 averaged 108 FGAs per game, and 37 FTA per game...on .426 shooting. The 86-87 NBA averaged 89 FGAs and 30 FTAs per game...on .480 shooting. That reduces Wilt's FGAs down to 33 from 40 (82% of 40.) BUT, Wilt's FG% would jump dramatically, AGAINST LEAGUE AVERAGE, going from .506 to .575, so he would still make 19 FGs per game. His FTAs and FTMs would drop by the same rate BTW, so he woujld ultimately drop two FTMs made per game down to eight. 38+8=46 points per game.

[guy]

comparing with the 70's, nowadays NBA reduces about 14 paces, but pace is not everything. The following example I put shows even there's 16 paces in 73-74 season more than 08-09 season, the margin of points per game is only 5.7 pts, so... 35 years with only 5.7 pts per game difference...
e.g.
Season Pace PTS/G
1973-74 107.8 105.7
--------------------------
2008-09 91.7 100.0

players produce more points with less pace than 35 years ago, what does that tell us? is it easier to score now than the past?

That mainly has to do with 3 point shooting, which wasn't around back then and wouldn't have helped big men anyway, and either way, pace, PTS/G are still up and more importantly, superstars were playing more minutes. Maybe pace/PTS per game is not that big of a difference in the 70s, but it clearly was in the 60s.

I just have my doubts that Shaq's career highs in ppg and rpg being 20/13 less than Wilt's, and to a lesser extent 5/3 less than Kareem's, has nothing to do with the those factors.

[jlauber]

That mainly has to do with 3 point shooting, which wasn't around back then and wouldn't have helped big men anyway, and either way, pace, PTS/G are still up and more importantly, superstars were playing more minutes. Maybe pace/PTS per game is not that big of a difference in the 70s, but it clearly was in the 60s.

I just have my doubts that Shaq's career highs in ppg and rpg being 20/13 less than Wilt's, and to a lesser extent 5/3 less than Kareem's, has nothing to do with the those factors.

Guy,

IMHO, Wilt would NOT have had a 20-13 edge over Shaq. AND, A PRIME Kareem, circa 71-72, against a PRIME Shaq, circa 99-00, would be very similar...no matter which way you go (either transport Kareem to 2000, or Shaq to 1972.)

The problem with using Wilt's numbers, is that, for one...I don't believe that Wilt was anywhere near his PRIME in 61-62. But, if you transport Wilt's 61-62 season to 71-72, or 99-00, he would still be somewhere around a 40 point scorer. As for rebounding...his numbers drop to about 22 in 71-72 and 18 in 99-00.

And, as I have stated several times, Kareem could easily have scored 40 ppg in 71-72, and I honestly believe that Shaq SHOULD have scored 35 ppg in 99-00. Shaq and Kareem would have shot a higher FG% than Wilt, as well.

HOWEVER, the real question is...how would a PRIME Wilt, circa 66-67, and once again, being asked to score, have fared in ANY era? IMHO, Wilt could easily have averaged 40+ ppg in 66-67, and perhaps even as much as 50. His FG% might have dropped some, but IMHO, he would STILL have been around .600. Now, transport THAT Wilt to any era, and what would he have done?

And, as far as rebounding goes, Wilt averaged 30 rpg in the post-season in that 66-67 year...against the likes of Russell and Thurmond. What would have THAT Wilt averaged in ANY era?

In any case, transport Wilt to 99-00, and he would have been around a 40-18 player, ot about 10-5 better than Shaq. And, as I have alluded to, Shaq SHOULD have probably been a 35 ppg scorer. Ultimately, Wilt would have enjoyed a slight scoring edge, and a solid rebounding margin.

[guy]

The 61-62 averaged 108 FGAs per game, and 37 FTA per game...on .426 shooting. The 86-87 NBA averaged 89 FGAs and 30 FTAs per game...on .480 shooting. That reduces Wilt's FGAs down to 33 from 40 (82% of 40.) BUT, Wilt's FG% would jump dramatically, AGAINST LEAGUE AVERAGE, going from .506 to .575, so he would still make 19 FGs per game. His FTAs and FTMs would drop by the same rate BTW, so he woujld ultimately drop two FTMs made per game down to eight. 38+8=46 points per game.

You're completely disregarding the fact that no coach would let Wilt play 48.5 mpg. He's more likely playing about 40 mpg, meaning his ppg would drop alot more then that.

[jlauber]

All of which brings me back to my original point...

how can ANYONE dismiss Wilt in these "GOAT" discussions?

No player DOMINATED his peers like Wilt did to his. Furthermore, Wilt played against the likes of Kerr, Reed, Bellamy, Hayes, Lanier, Unseld, Thurmond, Lucas, Cowens, Russell, and Thurmond...all in the HOF.

[jlauber]

You're completely disregarding the fact that no coach would let Wilt play 48.5 mpg. He's more likely playing about 40 mpg, meaning his ppg would drop alot more then that.

That is debatable, of course. Wilt averaged 45 mpg in his CAREER. AND, in the post-season, in 160 games, he averaged a mind-boggling 47.2 mpg. Kareem had seasons as high as 43 mpg, and even Iverson was playing 42 mpg in the 00's. Based on that, and once again, we are talking about PRIME players. Kareem played 43 mpg, at his peak, while Olajuwon played 41, and Shaq was at 40. So, clearly, the most indefatigable player in NBA history, would be playing more than 40. Even in his greatest season, in 66-67, in which he was able to "rest" more often, he averaged 45. I suspect that he woujld get 44-45 mpg even in the 00's.

In any case, in his LAST season, he averaged 43 mpg, and played 47.1 mpg in his post-season. All of which occured well past his PRIME.

[jlauber]

You're completely disregarding the fact that no coach would let Wilt play 48.5 mpg. He's more likely playing about 40 mpg, meaning his ppg would drop alot more then that.

Guy,

I am curious...what do you think a PRIME Chamberlain would do, in today's game? Here again, a Wilt, circa 66-67, who COULD have scored 40-50 ppg in that season (he proved it so MANY times with HUGE games even into the late 60's.)

IMHO...and CONSERVATIVELY estimating...a 35-18 .600 season. Clearly, he would have been far greater than a 25-15 .550 player. AND, what of a PRIME Kareem, circa 71-72, in TODAY's game? I suspect a 30-13 .575 player...or more like a 99-00 Shaq.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'm not going to bother responding to all of JLauber's essay, but that's not how it works. I'll bring up all of the most important points

1.Minutes- Wilt isn't playing 48 mpg in the 80's, 90's or 00's. Jordan and Shaq maxed out at 40 mpg, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe and Robinson at around 40-41 mpg, I don't even think Ewing averaged 40 mpg. And don't give me that "well nobody else played 48 mpg in Wilt's era" because look at what some other stars were playing, Tiny Archibald played 46 mpg one season, Russell played over 45 mpg several seasons, Kareem played 44 mpg ect. That's clearly something that was done in that era, but not recent years. So you have to consider that Wilt would be averaging in the low 40's for mpg. Probably close to 40 even actually.

2.Shot attempts- Look at Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Duncan, Howard, Mourning, Yao ect., any superstar center/big man. None of them came close to 25 FGA per game much less, 30. EVEN IF Wilt shot at the same rate he did in 1962 at the 2000 Lakers pace, he'd average 28.4 shot attempts per game in his 48.5 mpg. Now of course give him a much more realistic 40 mpg and that's down to 23.4 shots per game. So it's safe to assume that's the MAX he be getting up per game.

This isn't a knock on Wilt. The game is just different today and it's reflected in the stats.

Edit: Regarding a 35/18/60% season. Well, look at his FG% when he was over 30 ppg, he was never over 54% from the field. And yes, he had the one 68% season with 24 ppg, but who is to say he keeps that up while shooting a lot more? And that can be regarded as anomaly because the following season he averaged 24 ppg again, but on 59.5% from the field. And 18 rpg? His rebounds when adjusted for pace and particularly minutes don't even equal that.

[juju151111]

That is debatable, of course. Wilt averaged 45 mpg in his CAREER. AND, in the post-season, in 160 games, he averaged a mind-boggling 47.2 mpg. Kareem had seasons as high as 43 mpg, and even Iverson was playing 42 mpg in the 00's. Based on that, and once again, we are talking about PRIME players. Kareem played 43 mpg, at his peak, while Olajuwon played 41, and Shaq was at 40. So, clearly, the most indefatigable player in NBA history, would be playing more than 40. Even in his greatest season, in 66-67, in which he was able to "rest" more often, he averaged 45. I suspect that he woujld get 44-45 mpg even in the 00's.

In any case, in his LAST season, he averaged 43 mpg, and played 47.1 mpg in his post-season. All of which occured well past his PRIME.
I am tired of your BS. It's not debatable at all.. Their is more teams and more back to backs. Players being stronger because thier is more weight training today.(I am not saying Wilt was weak, but he is going to bang every night). Thier is no fing way he is avging 50ppg or 48 MPG.

[jlauber]

I'm not going to bother responding to all of JLauber's essay, but that's not how it works. I'll bring up all of the most important points

1.Minutes- Wilt isn't playing 48 mpg in the 80's, 90's or 00's. Jordan and Shaq maxed out at 40 mpg, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe and Robinson at around 40-41 mpg, I don't even think Ewing averaged 40 mpg. And don't give me that "well nobody else played 48 mpg in Wilt's era" because look at what some other stars were playing, Tiny Archibald played 46 mpg one season, Russell played over 45 mpg several seasons, Kareem played 44 mpg ect. That's clearly something that was done in that era, but not recent years. So you have to consider that Wilt would be averaging in the low 40's for mpg. Probably close to 40 even actually.

2.Shot attempts- Look at Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Duncan, Howard, Mourning, Yao ect., any superstar center/big man. None of them came close to 25 FGA per game much less, 30. EVEN IF Wilt shot at the same rate he did in 1962 at the 2000 Lakers pace, he'd average 28.4 shot attempts per game in his 48.5 mpg. Now of course give him a much more realistic 40 mpg and that's down to 23.4 shots per game. So it's safe to assume that's the MAX he be getting up per game.

This isn't a knock on Wilt. The game is just different today and it's reflected in the stats.

Of course, once again, Bellamy had ONE season in which he averaged over 20 FGAs per game, DURING the Chamberlain era. That was the ONLY other center, and in only ONE season, DURING the 60's, who got more than 20 FGAs per game. And, Kareem got 25 in his peak season of 71-72, which came in season that the NBA averaged about 10 shots less per game than in 61-62. So, that was clearly not BIG difference. YET, Chamberlain AVERAGED over 30 FGAs in his first SEVEN seasons...COMBINED! Chamberlain was getting TWICE as many shots as any other center, DURING his that decade. How did ONLY Wilt do it? Because he could start his offense from 15+ ft away, and he had an array of shots and moves. Do you honestly believe the rest of the NBA just "let" Chamberlain shoot 30-40 times per game (in addition to 10-15 FTAs per game, as well)?

Once again, why would a PEAK Chamberlain "only" play 40 mpg, when Kareem, at his PEAK was playing 43 (and Wilt was doing the same in the SAME season BTW...and near the end of his career), or Iverson at 44 mpg in 01-02, or Olajuwon at 41 in 93-94, or even Shaq at 40 in 99-00. Chamberlain AVERAGED 45 in his career, and led the NBA in that stat NINE times. Why would he "only" play 40 in 99-00 when other players were playing 42?

Once again, we are talking PEAK seasons.

[jlauber]

I'm not going to bother responding to all of JLauber's essay, but that's not how it works. I'll bring up all of the most important points

1.Minutes- Wilt isn't playing 48 mpg in the 80's, 90's or 00's. Jordan and Shaq maxed out at 40 mpg, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe and Robinson at around 40-41 mpg, I don't even think Ewing averaged 40 mpg. And don't give me that "well nobody else played 48 mpg in Wilt's era" because look at what some other stars were playing, Tiny Archibald played 46 mpg one season, Russell played over 45 mpg several seasons, Kareem played 44 mpg ect. That's clearly something that was done in that era, but not recent years. So you have to consider that Wilt would be averaging in the low 40's for mpg. Probably close to 40 even actually.

2.Shot attempts- Look at Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Duncan, Howard, Mourning, Yao ect., any superstar center/big man. None of them came close to 25 FGA per game much less, 30. EVEN IF Wilt shot at the same rate he did in 1962 at the 2000 Lakers pace, he'd average 28.4 shot attempts per game in his 48.5 mpg. Now of course give him a much more realistic 40 mpg and that's down to 23.4 shots per game. So it's safe to assume that's the MAX he be getting up per game.

This isn't a knock on Wilt. The game is just different today and it's reflected in the stats.

Edit: Regarding a 35/18/60% season. Well, look at his FG% when he was over 30 ppg, he was never over 54% from the field. And yes, he had the one 68% season with 24 ppg, but who is to say he keeps that up while shooting a lot more? And that can be regarded as anomaly because the following season he averaged 24 ppg again, but on 59.5% from the field. And 18 rpg? His rebounds when adjusted for pace and particularly minutes don't even equal that.


That is an estimate...based on what I consider that Wilt WOULD have done, using his 66-67 season...and being asked to CARRY an offense that season. And yes, that 66-67 may have been an "anomaly"...but it occurred. It was so FAR off the charts, that there is simply nothing to measure it against. AND, one more time, no one would have questioned Wilt scoring over 40 ppg game that season. As for rebounding, the 66-67 NBA averaged 60 rpg, (throw out the "team rebounds" which were counted back then, but not after 73-74 in the team's totals)...as compared to 42 rpg in 99-00. Wilt averaged 24.2 rpg in 66-67, on 45 mpg, which would translate to 17 rpg in 99-00. In his greatest rebounding season, 60-61, the league averaged 66 rpg, so Wilt would drop to about 18 in 99-00. Of course, however, we all KNOW that Chamberlain was a MONSTER in the post-season, in which he elevated his rebounding. While Shaq's best post-season was 15.4 rpg, Wilt had several over 27, and a high of 30 rpg. No matter what numbers you use, Chamberlain DOMINATED the glass like NO OTHER player in NBA history.

[6thManOfTheYear]

ya'll done got jlauber mad :oldlol:

[jlauber]

I am tired of your BS. It's not debatable at all.. Their is more teams and more back to backs. Players being stronger because thier is more weight training today.(I am not saying Wilt was weak, but he is going to bang every night). Thier is no fing way he is avging 50ppg or 48 MPG.

I have already agreed. IMHO, and using PACE and LEAGUE AVERAGE, Wilt would be a 40-18 player in today's game. Even dropping his minutes to say, 45 mpg, his scoring would drop down to about 36 and rebounding down to 16.

NOW, that was a 61-62 Wilt...and NOT a PRIME Chamberlain. IMHO, a PRIME Wilt COULD have EXCEEDED those numbers.

[jlauber]

In any case...there is simply NO WAY a PRIME Chamberlain, and asked to CARRY a team, "only" puts up a 25-15 season. If that is his best, then what of a PRIME Kareem...an 18-9 season?

[jlauber]

ya'll done got jlauber mad :oldlol:

LOL! It just amazes me, though, that so MANY here just dismiss what Chamberlain accomplished. They use PACE and COMPETITION against him, and never include LEAGUE AVERAGE. And, then they use his two rings against him, as well, despite the fact that Chamberlain carried mediocre rosters much further than ANY other great player has. And, even on his best teams, his teams were generally outgunned in the HOF department.

And very few here bring up all of Jordan's TEAM failures, or Kareem's, or even Shaq's (who was involved in SEVERAL post-season sweeps.)

How can ANYONE overlook the most DOMINANT player in NBA history. Just take a look at the Record Book for cryingoutloud. It is not even CLOSE.

[guy]

Guy,

I am curious...what do you think a PRIME Chamberlain would do, in today's game? Here again, a Wilt, circa 66-67, who COULD have scored 40-50 ppg in that season (he proved it so MANY times with HUGE games even into the late 60's.)

IMHO...and CONSERVATIVELY estimating...a 35-18 .600 season. Clearly, he would have been far greater than a 25-15 .550 player. AND, what of a PRIME Kareem, circa 71-72, in TODAY's game? I suspect a 30-13 .575 player...or more like a 99-00 Shaq.

I believe we've went through this before. I'd say about 30/15.

[guy]

I agree he could've won a couple without Pippen, but not without the triangle, or another system that got everyone involved and took the ball out of his hands. No one man team wins. Ever.

Okay well I agree with that. But its not like his shot attempts really changed much after Phil came on board.

[Carbine]

One thing that needs to be remembered in that in todays league, the zoneish type rules have effected big men scoring. True big men that is.

It's very difficult to back your man down and score nowadays with all the length around the court, the specific gameplans installed on how to double and so on.... since the zone rule came into effect, true big men scoring has gone down considerably.

[jlauber]

I believe we've went through this before. I'd say about 30/15.

I will give you credit...that is somewhat more realistic than a 25-15 season. Still, a tad low, particularly in the rebounding department...at least IMHO. I'll conservatively go with a 35-18 season. And, if Rodman was getting 19 rpg, at his peak, then Wilt would have bettered it.

[6thManOfTheYear]

I believe we've went through this before. I'd say about 30/15.

i'd say this is realistic

[ShaqAttack3234]

Of course, once again, Bellamy had ONE season in which he averaged over 20 FGAs per game, DURING the Chamberlain era. That was the ONLY other center, and in only ONE season, DURING the 60's, who got more than 20 FGAs per game. And, Kareem got 25 in his peak season of 71-72, which came in season that the NBA averaged about 10 shots less per game than in 61-62. So, that was clearly not BIG difference. YET, Chamberlain AVERAGED over 30 FGAs in his first SEVEN seasons...COMBINED! Chamberlain was getting TWICE as many shots as any other center, DURING his that decade. How did ONLY Wilt do it? Because he could start his offense from 15+ ft away, and he had an array of shots and moves. Do you honestly believe the rest of the NBA just "let" Chamberlain shoot 30-40 times per game (in addition to 10-15 FTAs per game, as well)?

Once again, why would a PEAK Chamberlain "only" play 40 mpg, when Kareem, at his PEAK was playing 43 (and Wilt was doing the same in the SAME season BTW...and near the end of his career), or Iverson at 44 mpg in 01-02, or Olajuwon at 41 in 93-94, or even Shaq at 40 in 99-00. Chamberlain AVERAGED 45 in his career, and led the NBA in that stat NINE times. Why would he "only" play 40 in 99-00 when other players were playing 42?

Once again, we are talking PEAK seasons.

The only thing that tells me about centers averaging over 20 FGA is that it was a weak era for offensive centers, I mean look at their shooting percentages. And the league average argument doesn't work because those centers weren't taking quick pull up jumpers in transition. Plus, the perimeter players didn't attack the basket nearly as much as they do today. Centers scored in the post primarily like they always did back then.

And :oldlol: at the Iverson example, first of all, he played what? 60 games that year. More importantly, Iverson was a 6'0", 170 pound man. A man of normal size, not some 7+ foot freak of nature or even a 6'6" giant. Most importantly, Iverson WAS that team's ENTIRE OFFENSE. Kareem played 43-44 mpg in the 70's which I acknowledged was still different from more recent years as far as the minutes stars received. Just look at Tiny Archibald who averaged 46 mpg in the early 70's.

And no, Wilt couldn't average 30 shots per game. Even playing 48.5 mpg(which he wouldn't) at the 2000 Lakers pace while taking the same rate of shots, he'd average about 28 shots per game. Once again, shooting at the rate on the 2000 Lakers in a more realistic 40 mpg(which would still be among the league leaders), he'd average about 23 shots per game. And in none of the game footage I've seen did Chamberlain shoot 15 footers. I saw him make a of 10 foot bank shot(in actual game footage not a highlight mix) and I saw him miss a 12 foot bank shot in that '67 game. If Wilt was good from 15 feet out(the distance of the free throw line), then he wouldn't have shot 51% for his career at the foul line.

[jlauber]

One thing that needs to be remembered in that in todays league, the zoneish type rules have effected big men scoring. True big men that is.

It's very difficult to back your man down and score nowadays with all the length around the court, the specific gameplans installed on how to double and so on.... since the zone rule came into effect, true big men scoring has gone down considerably.

Those are good points of course, but those that actually SAW Chamberlain play, would argue that they would affect him LESS than Shaq. Wilt operated from further away, and had more range. Many thought that widening the lane would limit Chamberlain's dominance. How much did it affect him? In the first half of that season, his scoring went UP...to 39 ppg (from 36.9 ppg in 63-64), and it only dropped after he was traded to a better team (he finished at 34.7 ppg.) And, in the very next season, he averaged 33.5 on a then-record .540 FG% (against a league average of .433.)

Even when Wilt cut back his scoring, it was estimated that in the 66-67 and 67-68 seasons, that Wilt TOUCHED the ball on the offensive end, 60 times per game. That he only shot the ball 14 and 17 times per game in those two seasons, was by design, and not by any other factor.

[Alhazred]

Exactly! Take Olajuwon for instance...oh wait...Kareem, as the oldest player in the league, smoked him in the 85-86 season, for 42 ppg. Given the fact that Thurmond outplayed, or at the very least equalled Kareem, from the 70-71 playoffs thru the 71-72 and 72-73 playoffs...what does that tell you about Olajuwon? I guess Olajuwon would be a middle-of-the-pack center in the early 70's. AND, given the fact that Wilt abused Kareem before his knee injury, in 1969, and battled him to at, the very least, a draw after the injury (and 11 years older)...AND, given the fact that Chamberlain dominated Thurmond in his PRIME seasons...what does that tell you about a Hakeem vs. a PRIME Wilt matchup?


Yeah, over three games. Hakeem then outplayed Jabbar in the WCF that very same season. What Kareem did was impressive, especially considering his age, but to claim he dominated Hakeem that whole season based solely on those three games that year is illogical.

I do think that Wilt, Kareem and Russell would be dominant players in any era, though and would match up fine with Hakeem, Shaq and pretty much any other center you can think of.

[Carbine]

It still doesn't change the fact that Wilt played with his back to the basket the majority of the time and showcased next to no face up ability, something he would have to have in todays game if he wanted to dominate to the tune of 30-18.

Shaq put up the best scoring numbers from a big men since the rule change and he put up 27 or something like that... Wilt wasn't a more dominant offensive player to my eyes than Shaq was.

[6thManOfTheYear]

im pretty sure ralph sampson was on kaj mainly. not hakeem.

[jlauber]

The only thing that tells me about centers averaging over 20 FGA is that it was a weak era for offensive centers, I mean look at their shooting percentages. And the league average argument doesn't work because those centers weren't taking quick pull up jumpers in transition. Plus, the perimeter players didn't attack the basket nearly as much as they do today. Centers scored in the post primarily like they always did back then.
And :oldlol: at the Iverson example, first of all, he played what? 60 games that year. More importantly, Iverson was a 6'0", 170 pound man. A man of normal size, not some 7+ foot freak of nature or even a 6'6" giant. Most importantly, Iverson WAS that team's ENTIRE OFFENSE. Kareem played 43-44 mpg in the 70's which I acknowledged was still different from more recent years as far as the minutes stars received. Just look at Tiny Archibald who averaged 46 mpg in the early 70's.

And no, Wilt couldn't average 30 shots per game. Even playing 48.5 mpg(which he wouldn't) at the 2000 Lakers pace while taking the same rate of shots, he'd average about 28 shots per game. Once again, shooting at the rate on the 2000 Lakers in a more realistic 40 mpg(which would still be among the league leaders), he'd average about 23 shots per game. And in none of the game footage I've seen did Chamberlain shoot 15 footers. I saw him make a of 10 foot bank shot(in actual game footage not a highlight mix) and I saw him miss a 12 foot bank shot in that '67 game. If Wilt was good from 15 feet out(the distance of the free throw line), then he wouldn't have shot 51% for his career at the foul line.


First of all, you better take a look at the centers of the 60's, Reed, Bellamy, Kerr, Beatty, and Lucas (yes, he played center at times, partcularly in the 70's)...and later Lanier, McAdoo, and Hayes. ALL of them had 15+ ft range. Even Thurmond would shoot 10-12 ft. You have also seen footage of Russell, and tell me he was some stiff. True, their shooting percentages were lower...but using that argument, then the players of the 90's and 00's were not as skilled as the players of the 80's either.

Regarding the Iverson comparison...so Iverson was carrying his offense, and a 61-62 Wilt was NOT????

As for your "game" footage...Wilt played in over 1000 games in his career. How many have you seen? Did you see any of his 32 60+ point games? Or his 118 50+ point games? Or his 55 40-30 games? Or his several "perfect" games? Maybe his 66 point game in 1969, in which he shot 29-35?

[magnax1]

The 61-62 averaged 108 FGAs per game, and 37 FTA per game...on .426 shooting. The 86-87 NBA averaged 89 FGAs and 30 FTAs per game...on .480 shooting. That reduces Wilt's FGAs down to 33 from 40 (82% of 40.) BUT, Wilt's FG% would jump dramatically, AGAINST LEAGUE AVERAGE, going from .506 to .575, so he would still make 19 FGs per game. His FTAs and FTMs would drop by the same rate BTW, so he woujld ultimately drop two FTMs made per game down to eight. 38+8=46 points per game.
You can't adjust for FG%, that makes absolutely no sense.
:hammerhead:

[jlauber]

It still doesn't change the fact that Wilt played with his back to the basket the majority of the time and showcased next to no face up ability, something he would have to have in todays game if he wanted to dominate to the tune of 30-18.

Shaq put up the best scoring numbers from a big men since the rule change and he put up 27 or something like that... Wilt wasn't a more dominant offensive player to my eyes than Shaq was.

ShaqAttack will argue this "highlight" film, but IMHO, it does depict Chamberlain's versatility...

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

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq put up the best scoring numbers from a big men since the rule change and he put up 27 or something like that... Wilt wasn't a more dominant offensive player to my eyes than Shaq was.

I honestly don't think the rule changes affected Shaq much, if at all.

2000- 29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3 bpg, 2.8topg, 57.4 FG%, 52.4 FT%, 21.1 FGA, 40 mpg
2001- 28.7 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.7 apg, 2.8 bpg, 2.9 topg, 57.2 FG%, 51.3 FT%, 19.2 FGA, 39.5 mpg

Zone defense/defensive 3 second/illegal defense rule changes

2002- 27.2 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 3 apg, 2 bpg, 2.7 topg, 57.9 FG%, 55.5 FT%, 18.3 FGA, 36.1 mpg
2003- 27.5 ppg, 11.1 rpg, 3.1 apg, 2.4 bpg, 2.9 topg, 57.4 FG%, 62.2 FT%, 18.1 FGA, 37.8 mpg

The real difference is that Shaq started playing noticeably fewer minutes in 2002. He turned 30 that year, weighed in at 382 during the playoffs and he had been in the league a decade. He was started to become noticeably less mobile and athletic, yet he still scored at the same rate when he was on the floor. Because he was becoming less durable and he wasn't in as good of shape(he weighed 340 in training camp in 2000 compared to 382 in the '02 playoffs) he couldn't play as many minutes and as a result his scoring dropped a bit.

But the 2 seasons before the defensive rule changes, Shaq averaged 29-30 ppg, 13-14 rpg, 4 apg and 3 bpg on 57% shooting in 39-40 mpg. The 2 seasons after, he averaged 27-28 ppg, 11 rpg, 3 apg and 2-2.5 bpg on 57-58% shooting in 36-38 mpg.

[jlauber]

You can't adjust for FG%, that makes absolutely no sense.
:hammerhead:

So you are basically saying then, that the players of the 80's were much better shooters than those of not only the 60' and 70's, but the 90's and 00's, as well?

And I guess Kareem, in his mid-to-late 30's was a much better shooter than he was in his 20's? And while Kareem IMPROVED late in his career, Jordan dropped dramatically in the 90's?

[magnax1]

Okay well I agree with that. But its not like his shot attempts really changed much after Phil came on board.
No, but the way he got the shots did. Played more off the ball, and the ball was played through the post much more often.

[magnax1]

So you are basically saying then, that the players of the 80's were much better shooters than those of not only the 60' and 70's, but the 90's and 00's, as well?
Maybe, its really impossible to tell, its not like its impossible
Different eras have different FG% because of different ways the game was played. You can't adjust for FG% because you can't say anybody would be the same player if playing in a different era. Jerry West would probably be a better player today because of the 3 pt line and Zone and Hand checking. His FG% might drop though because he might have an incentive to take more long range shots. FG% really doesn't mean anything anyway.

[ShaqAttack3234]

First of all, you better take a look at the centers of the 60's, Reed, Bellamy, Kerr, Beatty, and Lucas (yes, he played center at times, partcularly in the 70's)...and later Lanier, McAdoo, and Hayes. ALL of them had 15+ ft range. Even Thurmond would shoot 10-12 ft. You have also seen footage of Russell, and tell me he was some stiff. True, their shooting percentages were lower...but using that argument, then the players of the 90's and 00's were not as skilled as the players of the 80's either.

Of course Russell was not a stiff, but he was not a great scorer. Russell's greatness came in his defense, rebounding and basetball IQ. But he simply wasn't the type of scorer who could handle 20+ shots per game, in fact, even in his best scoring seasons, he was quite inefficient. That simply wasn't his game.


Regarding the Iverson comparison...so Iverson was carrying his offense, and a 61-62 Wilt was NOT????

Look at the roster, Wilt had another hall of famer and 22 ppg scorer, Paul Arizin, a man Wilt always raved about as a player. The 76ers team was built with tough defensive-minded role players around Iverson. This allowed Iverson to shoot as much as he needed to get hot, in fact they relied on it because they didn't really have other guys who you could look to for a lot of scoring. And once again, a 6'0", 170 pound guy is a normal sized man, a 7'1", 275 pound is NOT, not even close.


As for your "game" footage...Wilt played in over 1000 games in his career. How many have you seen? Did you see any of his 32 60+ point games? Or his 118 50+ point games? Or his 55 40-30 games? Or his several "perfect" games? Maybe his 66 point game in 1969, in which he shot 29-35?

I can't assume he had moves that I didn't see him use. But logic tells me that a 51% career FT shooter isn't going to be a good 15 foot shooter, and logic also tells me that a 7'1", 275 pound center with Wilt's strength shouldn't be shooting 15 foot fadeaways. I also have always thought the finger roll was a dumb go to move in the post. It exposes the ball and I don't think it'd be particularly effective today. Why not just shoot a jump hook? It's easier and much tougher to block.

[magnax1]

I can't assume he had moves that I didn't see him use. But logic tells me that a 51% career FT shooter isn't going to be a good 15 foot shooter, and logic also tells me that a 7'1", 275 pound center with Wilt's strength shouldn't be shooting 15 foot fadeaways. I also have always thought the finger roll was a dumb go to move in the post. It exposes the ball and I don't think it'd be particularly effective today. Why not just shoot a jump hook? It's easier and much tougher to block.
Antwan Walker tells you otherwise

[ShaqAttack3234]

So you are basically saying then, that the players of the 80's were much better shooters than those of not only the 60' and 70's, but the 90's and 00's, as well?

And I guess Kareem, in his mid-to-late 30's was a much better shooter than he was in his 20's? And while Kareem IMPROVED late in his career, Jordan dropped dramatically in the 90's?

Look at how many more 3's teams attempt now and how many fewer post players there are. There's your answer for FG% compared to the 80s. More long range attempts= a lower FG%, that's why you're awarded 3 points after a certain distance, because it's a tougher shot and now teams shoot a hell of a lot more of them than they did in the 80's.

[jlauber]

Of course Russell was not a stiff, but he was not a great scorer. Russell's greatness came in his defense, rebounding and basetball IQ. But he simply wasn't the type of scorer who could handle 20+ shots per game, in fact, even in his best scoring seasons, he was quite inefficient. That simply wasn't his game.



Look at the roster, Wilt had another hall of famer and 22 ppg scorer, Paul Arizin, a man Wilt always raved about as a player. The 76ers team was built with tough defensive-minded role players around Iverson. This allowed Iverson to shoot as much as he needed to get hot, in fact they relied on it because they didn't really have other guys who you could look to for a lot of scoring. And once again, a 6'0", 170 pound guy is a normal sized man, a 7'1", 275 pound is NOT, not even close.



I can't assume he had moves that I didn't see him use. But logic tells me that a 51% career FT shooter isn't going to be a good 15 foot shooter, and logic also tells me that a 7'1", 275 pound center with Wilt's strength shouldn't be shooting 15 foot fadeaways. I also have always thought the finger roll was a dumb go to move in the post. It exposes the ball and I don't think it'd be particularly effective today. Why not just shoot a jump hook? It's easier and much tougher to block.

Wilt AVERAGED 45 mpg in his CAREER. How is this even debateable? In his LAST season, at age 36, he averaged 43 mpg (same as a PRIME Kareem BTW), AND then averaged 47.2 mpg in the playoffs. And, he was doing so in a more fast-paced game, too. And, as a side-note, I would like to have seen a young Wilt run against an prime Iverson in a footrace.

As for his "finger-roll"...yep, crappy shot...even though you see very few that were ever blocked in his career. Regarding his FT%...he was a much better shooter than his FT% showed. Jerry West said that Wilt routinely won their "horse contests." Aside from that, he did shoot over 61% early in his career. And, another side-note, some players, like Bruce Bowen, for instance, shot better from not only the field (in some seasons), than from the FT line...but even from the 3pt line.

We can go on about this forever...but the facts are the facts...Wilt dominated his peers, (and even outplayed Kareem before his leg injury, in every category)...more than any other player did to their's.

If there are those that are going to claim that Kareem was the greatest ever, they had better take a closer look at what Chamberlain did in his career.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Wilt AVERAGED 45 mpg in his CAREER. How is this even debateable? In his LAST season, at age 36, he averaged 43 mpg (same as a PRIME Kareem BTW), AND then averaged 47.2 mpg in the playoffs. And, he was doing so in a more fast-paced game, too. And, as a side-note, I would like to have seen a young Wilt run against an prime Iverson in a footrace.

It's debatable because OTHER players were playing minutes WELL BEYOND what stars do today! It's NOT THAT COMPLICATED. Why would Wilt be THE ONLY player playing anywhere near that many minutes today?!!


As for his "finger-roll"...yep, crappy shot...even though you see very few that were ever blocked in his career.

How do you know this? You're 55, meaning your 4 when Wilt was drafted and games weren't televised nearly as much then as they are now. They most certainly didn't keep track of how many of Wilt's shots were blocked. In the limited amount of footage I've seen, I've seen Russell block one of his finger roll attempts(1964 finals footage on youtube).


Regarding his FT%...he was a much better shooter than his FT% showed. Jerry West said that Wilt routinely won their "horse contests." Aside from that, he did shoot over 61% early in his career. And, another side-note, some players, like Bruce Bowen, for instance, shot better from not only the field (in some seasons), than from the FT line...but even from the 3pt line.

That's much different. Bowen didn't come into the league with that 3 point shot and he almost exclusively shot them from the corner which is a completely different angle than the free throw line. Plus, Bowen probably didn't practice his free throw shooting much because he rarely got fouled. And how is shooting 61% early in his career something of note? Shaq shot 62% in '03, 65% in the '02 playoffs and he had 2 other 59-60% seasons, but that's still poor and we all know Shaq didn't have 15 foot range. Hell, look at Dwight Howard, he shoots 59-60% every year and his free throw shooting is considered a major weakness.

[Abraham Lincoln]

So you are basically saying then, that the players of the 80's were much better shooters than those of not only the 60' and 70's, but the 90's and 00's, as well?

And I guess Kareem, in his mid-to-late 30's was a much better shooter than he was in his 20's? And while Kareem IMPROVED late in his career, Jordan dropped dramatically in the 90's?
'"How many layups do you think there were in the last Laker game? Forty-eight. People will tell you guys shoot better now. No doubt they shoot a little better, but not like you'd think from looking at the percentages. Mike Cooper is shooting 59 percent. You want to bet some money he'd outshoot Jerry West? I'll bet my house against him (Cooper) on Dolph Schayes. I'll take Larry Costello and give you any Laker with the exception of Wilkes. Players just get to the basket (layups) more. It ups their percentage. There's no defense inside. When I played, if the other team ran a fast break two or three times, the coach would assign a forward to break back on defense as soon as the ball went up. I never see a coach doing that now. There were no uncontested layups. My last two or three years I shot 69 to 73 percent. You think I was a better shooter? No, the defenses got worse and I was able to dunk every damn ball I wanted to. It was easier to get there. When I played against guys like Johnny Kerr . . . He was 6-10 and couldn't jump, but I'll tell you, you didn't get to the basket on him."'

-1982



"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 shooters. People look at that any say, 'Is that a basketball player or was he on a blind team?' They don't know how to put that into perspective."

-1985

[Abraham Lincoln]

One thing that needs to be remembered in that in todays league, the zoneish type rules have effected big men scoring. True big men that is.

It's very difficult to back your man down and score nowadays with all the length around the court, the specific gameplans installed on how to double and so on.... since the zone rule came into effect, true big men scoring has gone down considerably.

Teams did indeed sag defensive men on the pivot man in the 60's and 70's as I don't believe there was 'illegal defense'. There was no three point line therefore the game was played closer to the basket with more movement and players cutting off the big man.


http://i48.tinypic.com/2vtxytu.jpg

[Abraham Lincoln]

It's debatable because OTHER players were playing minutes WELL BEYOND what stars do today! It's NOT THAT COMPLICATED. Why would Wilt be THE ONLY player playing anywhere near that many minutes today?!!
Why not? Assuming he had the same team and coach around him as well as specialized trainers, proper shoes, & private jets. All with the privilege of playing on today's luxurious (http://www.nba.com/media/pistons/dirtyjobs_256_001.jpg) multi-layered padded floor as opposed to the rock hard courts with dead spots and nails sticking out.

[jlauber]

I SAW a TON of Chamberlain's games from about 1963, on. The Russell-Wilt battles were amost a weekly event back in the 60's.

And that is why I am convinced that Wilt was a more skilled, and more athletic player than Shaq.

Regarding Wilt's finger-roll...we are talking about a shot that is extended several feet from the basket...not a point blank dunk. And, I personally witnessed Kareem's "sky hook" getting blocked far more often than Wilt's finger roll.

Chamberlain was a pathetic free-throw shooter, but a far more skilled 15 ft bank shooter and jump shooter. Incidently he was shooting nearly 50% from the FT line, late in his career, from about 17 ft., and not the 15 ft line. And, he was a better FT shooter earlier in his career as well in college (62% in his college career.)

As for Wilt playing 40 minutes per game...he NEVER had a season that low. He has the SEVEN highest single seasons. He also, of course is a runaway CAREER leader. Furthermore, even in the 00's, the league leader has been around 42 mpg (or higher...once again, Iverson was at 44 mpg one season.) I just can't fathom the all-time leader, playing less than the league leader does today.

Of course, most fans just can't fathom most of Wilt's accomplishments. How could ONE player ever average 50 ppg (or 45, or 39)? How could ONE player grab 27 rpg TWICE in his career (and have MULTIPLE post-seasons OVER that)? Or shoot .727 from the field (or .683)? Or score 100 points in a game? Or grab 55 rebounds in a game? Or average 48.5 mpg in a season (or 47.2 in his post-season career)? Or putting up 55 of the 61 40-30 games in NBA history? Or 32 60+ point games? Or blocking 25 shots in one game (or a documented 23 in another in 1969)? Or averaging double digit blocks in his career? Or being the ONLY center to ever lead the league in assists? Or making 35 straight FGs? Or, despite not including blocked shots, a center having the 4th most career triple-doubles in NBA history (and, if blocked shots had been "officially kept, he would not only probably be the career leader, he would be the runaway leader in quad-doubles)?

AND, not only that, but he set these records against a plethora of HOF centers...most all whom he dominated.

[AK47DR91]

He was/is the greatest player in my lifetime.

[Abraham Lincoln]

And that can be regarded as anomaly
That 'anomaly' would be the top season of any individual in the history of professional basketball, featuring such feats like Chamberlain hitting on 35 consecutive field goals over 4 games. Or perhaps 42 points on 18/18 shooting from the floor as well as 58 points on 26-34 shooting. He had six perfect games that year alone without a missed field goal all within a two month stretch after the all star break. All of this while averaging 8 assists per night.

[alexandreben]

Regarding to those argue that Shaq played in a more difficult rules than Wilt Chamberlain, I found some rules changes that definetly favor Shaq:

[I]1966-67

[alexandreben]

BTW, how amazed that we turned another thread into a "Fight For Wilt" ......

Let's get back to Michael "the greatest of 90's" Jordan, shall we?

[jlauber]

BTW, how amazed that we turned another thread into a "Fight For Wilt" ......

Let's get back to Michael "the greatest of 90's" Jordan, shall we?

The OP was ...is MJ the greatest of all-time? The simple answer is..."No" he was not. ONE of the greatest...sure.

And yes, he was the best player of the 90's.

As you have stated, a case could be made for MJ, Kareem, Russell...AND yes, Wilt. How anyone can keep the game's greatest individual player out of the conversation for "GOAT" is just incomprehensible. Especially IF they are going to include Kareem, who was not even the "winner" Wilt was while the two bucked heads up until 1973 (and would only have one ring until Magic came along.)

As for Wilt getting 23 FGAs per game, at his PEAK, ...he was the ONLY center getting over 30 while he played, other than Bellamy getting 24 in 61-62, and then Kareem with 24-25 for a few years in the 70's. He was getting nearly TWICE as many shots as the next center for almost every season in the first half of the decade of the 60's. Why would it be any different in today's game, when it wasn't any different in his own era?

Regarding his minutes...he had arthritic knees, and did not want to leave the game, unless he was not going back in. Even while the "star" players played a few more minutes per game back then...Wilt played WAY more almost every season. You can find ONE other season, in NBA history, in which a player played over 46 mpg (Archibald in 72-73...at 46.1)...while Wilt did it SEVEN times obviously the top seven of all-time.) The FACT was, Wilt was consistently playing 3-4 mpg over the next guy almost every season in which he played. And, as I mentioned before, he played as many mpg in his LAST season, as a PRIME Kareem did. Clearly, if Wilt wanted to play 45 mpg in today's game, he would be playing it. And 45 in a PEAK season would be like a vacation for him.

The reality was, Wilt's accomplishments just can't be logically explained. Try as hard as many have, his peak scoring, rebounding, and shooting seasons were so FAR ahead of EVERYONE else whoever played the game, that many just can't believe it happened. I have shown these "pace" and "competition" arguments to be ridiculous. No matter what criteria you use, he would have been nearly a 40 ppg scorer, at his peak, and at the very least, a 17 rpg player, in ANY era. And there is just no justification for someone to cite a 25-15 season as his PEAK season in today's game (or any other era.)

He did things that no one else did BEFORE he arrived, and no one else has come close to since he left. And he accomplished them against a host of HOF centers. Just accept the fact that he was the single most unstoppable force to ever have played the game. If you want to argue rings...then Russell is a runaway winner. I can accept that. But if you are going to argue anything else....well, you will have to show me those pages in the record book before I will believe it.

[Psileas]

No, there's not a player who is "really" the best player of all time. There is the upper echelon, which includes about 5-6 players, and everyone has unique combinations that can make him "the greatest". Especially when it comes to overall basketball career, things become even more complicated. My usual estimation is that Kareem is the greatest "overall" basketball player, Wilt is the greatest NBA player and Jordan the greatest NBA playoff player.



And in none of the game footage I've seen did Chamberlain shoot 15 footers. I saw him make a of 10 foot bank shot(in actual game footage not a highlight mix) and I saw him miss a 12 foot bank shot in that '67 game. If Wilt was good from 15 feet out(the distance of the free throw line), then he wouldn't have shot 51% for his career at the foul line.

80% of Wilt's available games are with the Lakers, when he took short range shots, so that's expected. However, there has to be a reason why he shot below 55% FG in the years he won his scoring titles. Even if you haven't watched enough footage of him, you have to strongly suspect that he took quite a few shots from "non-center" range.

[Math2]

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He lived in a big media era. What if Wilt scored 100 today......


The best stats is Wilt
Best winner is Russell....take your pick

[puppychili]

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He lived in a big media era. What if Wilt scored 100 today......


The best stats is Wilt
Best winner is Russell....take your pick

Best stats + best winner = Jordan

That's why he's the GOAT

[ShaqAttack3234]

Why not? Assuming he had the same team and coach around him as well as specialized trainers, proper shoes, & private jets. All with the privilege of playing on today's luxurious (http://www.nba.com/media/pistons/dirtyjobs_256_001.jpg) multi-layered padded floor as opposed to the rock hard courts with dead spots and nails sticking out.

Because teams are much more careful with their stars these days. The last 2 seasons, only 2 players(Monta Ellis and Gerald Wallace) have averaged over 40 mpg. A player, much less a 7 footer averaging 45+ mpg in this era, sounds absurd to me.

Plus, Wilt's minutes would drop noticeably if he was playing on teams as good as the '67 and '68 Sixers or '72 Lakers for example. To play as many minutes as he did on those teams, he'd have to be playing quite a few minutes in blowout games.



Regarding Wilt's finger-roll...we are talking about a shot that is extended several feet from the basket...not a point blank dunk. And, I personally witnessed Kareem's "sky hook" getting blocked far more often than Wilt's finger roll.

But my question is, why not just shoot a jump hook? It's an easier shot to make and a tougher shot to block? I'm convinced this is because of Wilt's Goliath complex where he was always trying to prove that he wasn't only good because of his size. Something Wilt cited as a weakness of his. Wilt admitted in 1993 that he wished he played more like Shaq.


As for Wilt playing 40 minutes per game...he NEVER had a season that low. He has the SEVEN highest single seasons. He also, of course is a runaway CAREER leader. Furthermore, even in the 00's, the league leader has been around 42 mpg (or higher...once again, Iverson was at 44 mpg one season.) I just can't fathom the all-time leader, playing less than the league leader does today.

Once again, Iverson is a normal sized man by any standards, not some freak of nature like Wilt, Shaq, Kareem ect. This is a different era. And Iverson in his best season, averaged 41 mpg. But once again, that was a different situation in 2002.

I'll concede that Wilt could have been in the 40-42 mpg range(which is a ton of minutes) for his prime EXCEPT if he was playing on teams as good as the '67 and '68 Sixers who blew out a lot of teams.

But playing a ton of minutes is different today. It's all relative. Phil Jackson told Shaq before the 1999-2000 season that the Lakers didn't have a backup center and they were going to need him to play the entire game. That ended up meaning Shaq had to play 40 mpg which was considered a heavy load. That Laker team won by an average of 8.5 points per game. Wilt's '67 Sixers won by an average of 9.4 points per game yet Wilt played 45.5 mpg. Factoring in losses and close games, that means he was playing in a good amount of blowouts, yet he was still playing all but 2.5 mpg.

Even when Jordan was asked to carry his entire team, he was only playing 40 mpg, and those weren't dominant teams.

We also have to factor in that Wilt would likely be in foul trouble more often. Perimeter players drive to the basket and look to finish strong a lot more often these days. There are 2 reasons for that, 1 is that the looser traveling rules make it easier for players to go in full force and gather the ball. And I've also read that it was considered disrespectful to dunk back then for anyone other than Wilt and Russell.

Whatever the reason is, look at footage back then and you'll seldom if ever see perimeter players driving in to big men and looking for contact to get to the line. Not to mention flopping which didn't go on back in Wilt's era. Players like Vlade Divac and other European players made this an art.

In any case, when Wilt was looking to score, his FG% was so much lower than his '67 season, '72 season and '73 season because he wasn't picking his spots. In those seasons, I doubt he was shooting many fadeaways or tough shots. He was likely getting a lot of baskets off of offensive rebounds and open dunks running the floor. And even so, that was his only 20+ ppg season where he shot more than 60%.

I mean look at Dwight Howard, why do you think he shot 61%? It's because he didn't take that many shots and a good percentage of them were off of offensive rebounds, lobs and dunks/good position he got running the floor. He averaged about 18 ppg, but the previous season when he shot more and created more, he averaged 21 ppg, but on 57% shooting. Same with Shaq, he shot 61% last season with Phoenix while averaging 18 ppg, but back in his actual prime, never shot that high when he was regularly averaging 27-30 ppg. He was always in the 57-60% range.

I just think that because Wilt at age 28 and 29 averaged 33.5 and 34.8 ppg on 54 and 51% shooting, respectively, 35 ppg on 60% shooting is completely out of the question. That's not a knock on Wilt either, Kareem(who I consider the greatest center ever), never shot a full 58% when he averaged 30+ or when he averaged 25+ for that matter.

And while I've said that I wasn't blown away with what I saw out of his post moves, I'll say this. He'd definitely get his points in any era because of his strength and regardless of how athletic you actually believe he was, he was clearly one of the most athletic 7 footers to play the game. And I don't mean to say he had no offensive skills at all, because I do believe he was more skilled than Dwight Howard who has averaged 21 ppg.

But what stuck to me about Wilt's skillset in the '67 game I saw and the Laker games I've seen was his defensive presence, shot blocking, rebounding and incredible passing ability.

[Soothsayer]

Greatest of course because that takes achievements into count. But best player is a whole another story.
Hypothetically speaking, If there was a draft with all the all-time greats and Gm's knew exactly how all their careers would pan out to how they really did. Who would be the number 1 draft pick? Shaq? Kareem? Jordan? Wilt? I have a hard time believing any GM would pick Jordan over these guys to start a franchise


No, it is not a myth. Jordan is the GOAT because he has the best combination of skill, versatility, contribution to team success, stats, accomplishments, records, rings he LED his team to, and impact on the game of anyone who ever played.

[alexandreben]

That mainly has to do with 3 point shooting, which wasn't around back then and wouldn't have helped big men anyway, and either way, pace, PTS/G are still up and more importantly, superstars were playing more minutes. Maybe pace/PTS per game is not that big of a difference in the 70s, but it clearly was in the 60s.

I just have my doubts that Shaq's career highs in ppg and rpg being 20/13 less than Wilt's, and to a lesser extent 5/3 less than Kareem's, has nothing to do with the those factors.
It has nothing to do with the 3 point line, I've tracked the data myself, check out the difference of the ORtg before and after the three-point line establishment:

Year ORtg Pace
1978-79 103.8 105.8
--------------------------
1979-80 105.3 103.1

ORtg
Offensive Rating - an estimates of points produced (players) or scores (teams) per 100 possessions.

Which means without 3 point line, players/teams in the 70's scores more efficiently, in other words, the deffense in 70's was weaker than the 60's.

In 2009, the ORtg is 108.3 btw. (the deffense is weaker than the 70's)

[Mentally_Pretty]

i made a thread a couple months back asking if Jordan is a top 7 player of all time but then a couple poster assholes started leaking from being butthurt.



i dont think hes the Greatest but he is at least top 10 no doubt imo.

[Soothsayer]

i made a thread a couple months back asking if Jordan is a top 7 player of all time but then a couple poster assholes started leaking from being butthurt.



i dont think hes the Greatest but he is at least top 10 no doubt imo.


It is so patently obvious that Jordan is a top 7 player all time that the very act of asking that question either labels you a troll or an ignoramus.

[Math2]

Best stats + best winner = Jordan

That's why he's the GOAT


no....also more media helps

[Mentally_Pretty]

It is so patently obvious that Jordan is a top 7 player all time that the very act of asking that question either labels you a troll or an ignoramus.
so im a troll because i want to know everone's opinion?

ive already stated that i think he is a top player so you cant say im hating or trolling.

[Soothsayer]

so im a troll because i want to know everone's opinion?

ive already stated that i think he is a top player so you cant say im hating or trolling.


I understand you wanting to get everyone's opinion, but nobody will take you seriously if you phrase it that way. That's like me asking, "Is Karl Malone a top 50 player of all time"? Well of course he is. What's the point of asking a question like that, where the answer is so obvious?

[Soothsayer]

no....also more media helps

Irrelevant. You can completely factor out Jordan's "media" and simply look at his accomplishments, and still easily determine that he is GOAT.

[MagicalLA]

Most repeated thread in the history of ISH forums.

This is the main reason there will be a third world war, people just dont f*cking learn.

[alexandreben]

Most repeated thread in the history of ISH forums.

This is the main reason there will be a third world war, people just dont f*cking learn.
LOL:lol I didn't know that this topic is an "MC" thread...

"MC"="Menstrual Cycle :roll:

[jlauber]

ShaqAttack,

As always, you bring a TON of inteliigence and rationality to your posts.

We will obviously never know what PRIME Wilt, asked to "carry the load" would do in the current NBA (or the 80's and 90's.) My point all along was that we never really witnessed it WHILE he played, either. IMHO, Chamberlain's best season (among so many) was in the middle of his career...in the 66-67 season. There are several strong arguments for that, but the BEST one, at least IMHO, was that he led his TEAM to a convincing title. Much like Russell, you could throw out Wilt's stats that year...and just let the TEAM results speak for themselves. What was interesting was that, very early on (game five I believe), they destroyed the Celtics, 138-96, and never looked back. By mid-season when they were something like 46-4, it was almost a foregone conclusion that they were going to win the championship (although the pundits, of course, figured that Wilt and Co. would "fold" in the post-season.)

But, unlike Russell, who never seemed to post any spectacular stats (other than some great rebounding numbers), Chamberlain DID have some amazing stats. His 24.1 ppg came on 14 FGAs per game. His .683 FG% shattered the records he had set on three separate occasions (and just one year before his .540 was the most recent one.) That mark, which of course he would shatter again in 72-73, came in a league that shot .441...AND, it was an astonishing .162 higher than the next runner-up, Walt Bellamy, at .521...which is STILL the largest differential in NBA history.

And, before I continue, here is a good time to explain MY theory of LEAGUE AVERAGE. Of course both football and baseball have them, as well. Basically, you compare the individual numbers of that season, against the league average, and then you can get some kind of a cross-era comparison. For instance, a player batting .330 in the 1930 season, was probably not close to a player batting .300 in 1968. Or a QB throwing for 4000 yards in 1988 vs a QB throwing for 3000 yards in 1961. The same theory applies to basketball. As Chamberlain, himself, mentioned (thanks to Abe) players in the 50's and 60's were shooting much lower percentages than those of the 80's. Why? There were probably several reasons, but I personally believe that the league defense, and rules, were responsible for much of it. Take a look at footage and photographs of Chamberlain in the 60's. He was swarmed. Not only that, but he took a pounding, too. Tom Heinsohn was on record as saying that the Celtics DELIBERATELY beat on him all game long. They figured that the refs were not going to call everything, and two, Wilt was not a great FT shooter. Furthermore, Wilt faced quality centers on almost every team...and far more often during the course of the season. Unlike the NBA from the 80's to current, Wilt faced opposing centers 6-10 times (or more) each season.

In any case, it must also be noted that the NBA FG% were going up almost every year during Wilt's career. His own FG% were on a steady rise. In the 65-66 season, his last "scoring season" he topped his previous FG% mark of
.528, with a .540 mark. One can probably safely assume that, had Wilt continued to put up huge scoring seasons, his FG% would have continued to rise (just as the entire league's did as well.) In Wilt's 61-62 seaon, the league FG% was .426. In his 65-66 season, it was .433. And, then, in his staggering 66-67 season, it went up to .441. The bottom line, though, is that, for whatever reasons, FG% went up almost every season, albeit slowly, until the 80's, when they skyrocketed.

As ShaqAttack said, Shaq's best FG% season was in 2008-2009, at .610...but was he really a better, more skilled player that season, than his .574 in 99-00? Same with Kareem. His PEAK seasons were in the early 70's. However, his FG% started a decline for several seasons after the 71-72 season. However, by the 80's, he was shooting nearly 60% almost every season. There was simply no way Kareem was better offensive player in the 80's, than what he was in the 70's. Kareem's FG% on the 80's, while statistically higher, was no better than his .570 percentages achieved against the much lower league FG%'s of the early 70's.

Back to Wilt's 66-67 season, though. Here again, ShaqAttack mentioned Chamberlain's 67-68 season, in which Wilt averaged 24.3, on .595 shooting. Chamberlain's 66-67 season just blows his 67-68 season away (and, BTW, Wilt's 67-68 season is STILL one of the greatest ever...he dominated a slew of statistical categories that year.) The fact was, Wilt COULD have scored 40+ ppg, or more, in that 66-67 season. Even Rick Barry, who led the league at 35.6 "thanked" Wilt for "letting" him win the title. The question, of course, would have been, how much would his FG% have dropped? IMHO, had Wilt just maintained his 33.5 ppg in 66-67, and in a NORMAL season, it would have probably risen to over .550...just based on his, and the league's, annual increase. However, Wilt's 66-67 season, was, ShaqAttack himself mentioned, an anomoly. I personally believe that Wilt could have probably averaged 35-40 ppg, and still shot over .600. And remember, while the league's FG% was rising, it was still only at .441. Transport THAT Wilt, to the mid-80's, when the leahue average was nearly 50%, and his FG% would be off the charts. His actual .683 would equate to about .740.

And while Wilt's scoring dropped considerably in the last half of his career, he would still put up several HUGE games each season. CLEARLY, Wilt COULD have scored MUCH more in his career.


As for minutes played...here again, he played WAY more than his peers. And, he was such a remarkable athlete (he was marathoner in high school...and ran marathons even into his early 60's...as well as a sprinter, 440, 880, high-jumper, longer jumper, and shot-putter)...that 48 mpg was nothing to him. And he was logging 43+ mpg in his LAST season. Would he play 45 mpg in today's NBA? I don't know...but I do know that he would easily be capable of it.

Shot attempts? I agree that, due to pace, that he would be getting a maximum of 30 FGAs per game. And many coaches would probably not allow ONE player to take 1/3 of the team's shots. It would just not be good for team morale. Still, MJ, Kobe, and Iverson were taking 27-28 FGAs in their highest seasons...so it is not as if it couldn't be done. Even Shaq and Hakeem took 30+ FGAs in some post-season games, and Kareem took as many as 40 in the post-season.

Realistically, though, Wilt would probably get somewhere around 25. If he could shoot around .600, he would be scoring 30 ppg on FGAs, and then add another 5-6 from the FT line. That would equate to about 35 ppg. Cut his minutes back a little, and it could drop to 30...but remember, we are talking about a PEAK season here.

I'll meet ShaqAttack and Guy halfway...and say this much...in today's game, a PEAK Wilt would probably average about 30-32 ppg. BUT, he would be capable of HUGE games, as well. Wilt was putting up a slew of 50-60 point games in his "non-scoring" seasons the last half of his career. What would a PRIME Wilt be capable of, and being asked to score more frequently...especially against such a weak crop of centers, in today's game?

Anyway, the bottom line, is once again, I guess ShaqAttack and I will just have to respectively agree to disagree.

Still, no matter what criteria is used, Wilt HAS to rank right there with MJ, Russell, and Kareem (and Magic, BTW) for the GOAT.

[puppychili]

Wilt does rank right up there without a doubt. Saying that Jordan is the GOAT doesn't mean that Jordan far superior than Russell, Wilt, Magic, etc. It just means he's the best. Whether it's by a hair or by a mile it doesn't matter. Jordan is the GOAT. This thread can go on for 25 more pages and it won't change that.

[Soothsayer]

Wilt does rank right up there without a doubt. Saying that Jordan is the GOAT doesn't mean that Jordan far superior than Russell, Wilt, Magic, etc. It just means he's the best. Whether it's by a hair or by a mile it doesn't matter. Jordan is the GOAT. This thread can go on for 25 more pages and it won't change that.


Exactly. Other players have cases for GOAT, Jordan just has the best case.

[juju151111]

ShaqAttack,

As always, you bring a TON of inteliigence and rationality to your posts.

We will obviously never know what PRIME Wilt, asked to "carry the load" would do in the current NBA (or the 80's and 90's.) My point all along was that we never really witnessed it WHILE he played, either. IMHO, Chamberlain's best season (among so many) was in the middle of his career...in the 66-67 season. There are several strong arguments for that, but the BEST one, at least IMHO, was that he led his TEAM to a convincing title. Much like Russell, you could throw out Wilt's stats that year...and just let the TEAM results speak for themselves. What was interesting was that, very early on (game five I believe), they destroyed the Celtics, 138-96, and never looked back. By mid-season when they were something like 46-4, it was almost a foregone conclusion that they were going to win the championship (although the pundits, of course, figured that Wilt and Co. would "fold" in the post-season.)

But, unlike Russell, who never seemed to post any spectacular stats (other than some great rebounding numbers), Chamberlain DID have some amazing stats. His 24.1 ppg came on 14 FGAs per game. His .683 FG% shattered the records he had set on three separate occasions (and just one year before his .540 was the most recent one.) That mark, which of course he would shatter again in 72-73, came in a league that shot .441...AND, it was an astonishing .162 higher than the next runner-up, Walt Bellamy, at .521...which is STILL the largest differential in NBA history.

And, before I continue, here is a good time to explain MY theory of LEAGUE AVERAGE. Of course both football and baseball have them, as well. Basically, you compare the individual numbers of that season, against the league average, and then you can get some kind of a cross-era comparison. For instance, a player batting .330 in the 1930 season, was probably not close to a player batting .300 in 1968. Or a QB throwing for 4000 yards in 1988 vs a QB throwing for 3000 yards in 1961. The same theory applies to basketball. As Chamberlain, himself, mentioned (thanks to Abe) players in the 50's and 60's were shooting much lower percentages than those of the 80's. Why? There were probably several reasons, but I personally believe that the league defense, and rules, were responsible for much of it. Take a look at footage and photographs of Chamberlain in the 60's. He was swarmed. Not only that, but he took a pounding, too. Tom Heinsohn was on record as saying that the Celtics DELIBERATELY beat on him all game long. They figured that the refs were not going to call everything, and two, Wilt was not a great FT shooter. Furthermore, Wilt faced quality centers on almost every team...and far more often during the course of the season. Unlike the NBA from the 80's to current, Wilt faced opposing centers 6-10 times (or more) each season.

In any case, it must also be noted that the NBA FG% were going up almost every year during Wilt's career. His own FG% were on a steady rise. In the 65-66 season, his last "scoring season" he topped his previous FG% mark of
.528, with a .540 mark. One can probably safely assume that, had Wilt continued to put up huge scoring seasons, his FG% would have continued to rise (just as the entire league's did as well.) In Wilt's 61-62 seaon, the league FG% was .426. In his 65-66 season, it was .433. And, then, in his staggering 66-67 season, it went up to .441. The bottom line, though, is that, for whatever reasons, FG% went up almost every season, albeit slowly, until the 80's, when they skyrocketed.

As ShaqAttack said, Shaq's best FG% season was in 2008-2009, at .610...but was he really a better, more skilled player that season, than his .574 in 99-00? Same with Kareem. His PEAK seasons were in the early 70's. However, his FG% started a decline for several seasons after the 71-72 season. However, by the 80's, he was shooting nearly 60% almost every season. There was simply no way Kareem was better offensive player in the 80's, than what he was in the 70's. Kareem's FG% on the 80's, while statistically higher, was no better than his .570 percentages achieved against the much lower league FG%'s of the early 70's.

Back to Wilt's 66-67 season, though. Here again, ShaqAttack mentioned Chamberlain's 67-68 season, in which Wilt averaged 24.3, on .595 shooting. Chamberlain's 66-67 season just blows his 67-68 season away (and, BTW, Wilt's 67-68 season is STILL one of the greatest ever...he dominated a slew of statistical categories that year.) The fact was, Wilt COULD have scored 40+ ppg, or more, in that 66-67 season. Even Rick Barry, who led the league at 35.6 "thanked" Wilt for "letting" him win the title. The question, of course, would have been, how much would his FG% have dropped? IMHO, had Wilt just maintained his 33.5 ppg in 66-67, and in a NORMAL season, it would have probably risen to over .550...just based on his, and the league's, annual increase. However, Wilt's 66-67 season, was, ShaqAttack himself mentioned, an anomoly. I personally believe that Wilt could have probably averaged 35-40 ppg, and still shot over .600. And remember, while the league's FG% was rising, it was still only at .441. Transport THAT Wilt, to the mid-80's, when the leahue average was nearly 50%, and his FG% would be off the charts. His actual .683 would equate to about .740.

And while Wilt's scoring dropped considerably in the last half of his career, he would still put up several HUGE games each season. CLEARLY, Wilt COULD have scored MUCH more in his career.


As for minutes played...here again, he played WAY more than his peers. And, he was such a remarkable athlete (he was marathoner in high school...and ran marathons even into his early 60's...as well as a sprinter, 440, 880, high-jumper, longer jumper, and shot-putter)...that 48 mpg was nothing to him. And he was logging 43+ mpg in his LAST season. Would he play 45 mpg in today's NBA? I don't know...but I do know that he would easily be capable of it.

Shot attempts? I agree that, due to pace, that he would be getting a maximum of 30 FGAs per game. And many coaches would probably not allow ONE player to take 1/3 of the team's shots. It would just not be good for team morale. Still, MJ, Kobe, and Iverson were taking 27-28 FGAs in their highest seasons...so it is not as if it couldn't be done. Even Shaq and Hakeem took 30+ FGAs in some post-season games, and Kareem took as many as 40 in the post-season.

Realistically, though, Wilt would probably get somewhere around 25. If he could shoot around .600, he would be scoring 30 ppg on FGAs, and then add another 5-6 from the FT line. That would equate to about 35 ppg. Cut his minutes back a little, and it could drop to 30...but remember, we are talking about a PEAK season here.

I'll meet ShaqAttack and Guy halfway...and say this much...in today's game, a PEAK Wilt would probably average about 30-32 ppg. BUT, he would be capable of HUGE games, as well. Wilt was putting up a slew of 50-60 point games in his "non-scoring" seasons the last half of his career. What would a PRIME Wilt be capable of, and being asked to score more frequently...especially against such a weak crop of centers, in today's game?

Anyway, the bottom line, is once again, I guess ShaqAttack and I will just have to respectively agree to disagree.

Still, no matter what criteria is used, Wilt HAS to rank right there with MJ, Russell, and Kareem (and Magic, BTW) for the GOAT.
Wilt will obviously have his 40+ 50+ games and can still avg 32-35 ppg. Kobe,Wade,Mj, etc... all avg 32,but had like 10 40+ gms in those seasons.

[LBJFTW]

So how much of an impact did Pippen have on Jordan's ability to become the GOAT? :confusedshrug: