How much would Kobe average in Wilt's era? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

L.Kizzle

08-26-2011, 07:48 PM

Assists were not counted they was they are now. Cousy was getting 8-9 a game on teams scoring 120ppg and running all day. Under todays definition he might have been around 12-15 a game.

Kobe in the 60s would score pretty much whatever his coach decided. But not much over 50ppg. At some point it stops being practical to have one guy shoot every time. He would get wild baskets on the break, have no motivation to shoot 3s, and be able to rebound his ass off in most games.

38 points, 10-12 rebounds, and 5-6 assists on 50-55% shooting wouldnt surprise me. I know nobody back then shot that well..but I just cant see Kobe really being stopped. Plus I think he could be brought under control and not just gun away the way some of the old guys did to lower their percentages. Kobe knowing what he knows now...in 06 form...his numbers are what he decides to make them.

If he dropped around 28-30ppg he might shoot 60%. And its not that hes THAT much better a shooter than everyone then....but guys didnt make the same effort to take good shots guys these days have to. Wilt might take 2 fadeaways get the rebounds then dunk it...when he could just overpower and dunk on guys to begin with if he put his mind to it.

That lack of a free for all mentality I think would help a modern guy like Kobe.
Why would Kobe be shootin %60. No guards in that era shot above %50. Baylor was under %45 for his career. Oscar and West were 48 and 47 percent for their career.

Hal Greer was considered the best shooter in that era, his high is right under %48. A second tier star in Richie Guerin shot a Gilbert Arenas/Allen Iverson like %41 for his career.

Kobe would be in the 45 percent range, which was normal back then.

ThaSwagg3r

08-26-2011, 07:52 PM

If there was a magic time machine? I would have a hard time believing he would score anything less than 80 ppg. He would be the only dude that would know how to use his weak hand. He would put up ridiculous numbers because he would be far more advanced than those 60s players would be.

Unfortunately, this magic time machine does not exist.

Kblaze8855

08-26-2011, 08:32 PM

Why would Kobe be shootin %60. No guards in that era shot above %50. Baylor was under %45 for his career. Oscar and West were 48 and 47 percent for their career.

Hal Greer was considered the best shooter in that era, his high is right under %48. A second tier star in Richie Guerin shot a Gilbert Arenas/Allen Iverson like %41 for his career.

Kobe would be in the 45 percent range, which was normal back then.

I think the difference is the kinds of shots they took compared to those Kobe would take. Drop Kobe in his prime into 1962 hes not taking the sweeping across the lane low percentage hook shots ive seen out of Baylor. Guys back then were getting up shots that are just...garbage. Its as if they set out to shoot regardless of the defense or the situation just for the sake of getting a shot up quickly. As much as hes hated on for it by modern standards....by 1962 standards Kobe is meticulous. He has clearly worked on every aspect of how to score to the point that everything from his footwork to release is carefully planned. Kobe isnt gonna just start coming down on the break and taking contested 15 footers.

Kobe might shoot 45% if he plays 60s ball. hes not shooting 45% vs those defenses with all the extra fast break baskets if hes playing the way he plays today. You arent putting a 6'5'' slower guy on Kobe at 18 feet and let him go one on one as they did the great majority of the time and have him miss 70% of the time as he likely needs to to make up for the extra fast break chances shooting percentage wise.

When you watch those old games and Elgin, Oscar, or Jerry face up and really take a moment to attack they are shredding guys. Watch Wilt back down one on one its hard to imagine him missing over half of his shots as he did one year(46%). But he did. ITs not because he couldnt get easy shots when he wanted. Its because he didnt try. He put up garbage went and got the misses and put it back. He would catch it and throw up hooks from 12-14 feet. He could back a guy down and score 90% of the time I bet. But he chose not to do it. He was allowed to play that way because its how they league was. Shoot quickly. Not shoot the best shot you can get.

Put 2000 Shaq in Wilts body he might have shot 75% in 1962. Put Kobe or Lebrons one on one attacking mentality into Elgin Baylor in 1962...hes not shooting 43%.

Plenty of those guys had great one on one ability that they didnt show to its full extent because the name of the game was get the first half decent shot up.

Kobe...03-08 Kobe?

Dude is gonna post up and punish those guys. Hes gonna gradually work himself into position for midrange jumpers. Hes gonna dunk on the break at every chance. Hes playing like guys have to play today to get good shots against defenses that try to stretch out the posession and make you take shots against the shot clock.

Kobe going one on one at the rate he would be able to back in the 60s before players got doubled outside much....isnt shooting 45%.

Not with 40 fast break points up for grabs.

Kblaze8855

08-26-2011, 08:46 PM

And what is funny to me....

If al lthis happened? If Kobe were moved to the 60s and nobody knew it happened? Just drop 01 Kobe into 1958 to begin his career and have him play to like 1972?

Kids here would have like 10 minutes of footage of him making uncontested layups and dunks on the break, barely off the ground fadeaways, putting up 40ppg in largely unimpressive fasion(couldnt do flashy dunks and be allowed t oplay...no lobs thrown...he cant do much to show off) and shutting down 6'4'' white guys. And we would be asking if Kobe could score like Lebron in todays NBA and anyone who said yes would be laughed at by all but the oldest posters.

Kobe would have probably stayed pretty skinny. There would be a picture like this of him:

http://sportspressnw.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Elgin-Baylor-rebounding-e1304883743464.jpg

Or like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lF7wBVgGr9E/RdH4Cn-cXkI/AAAAAAAAAAM/DIPQEupo53Y/s320/oscar+robertson+ncaa.jpg

And it would be about it.

The same people asking how great he could do back then would be saying he couldnt stand toe to toe with Wade.

Shit for all we know we could be living in an altered timeline where the best center of the 90s was moved back in time by a childs wish....he became Wilt...dropped 50ppg and 27 rebounds and won rings....and all we do now is act like how much he would suck if he played in the 90s.

If Wilt doing the things he did gets laughed at by modern kids....Kobe wouldnt be any different. He would be numbers on a website being laughed at by people pretending that since he couldnt do them today hes actually worse than people think.

Kobe goes back in time...he would have better numbers...and be less respected by the same people acting like hes a monster now.

L.Kizzle

08-26-2011, 08:57 PM

Kblaze8855

08-26-2011, 09:03 PM

True about Oscar and some others. But Oscar and Elgin are pretty normal sized guys who just filled out with age. Kobe is a stick figure that lifts weights. Minus weight training I dont think he fills in much at all.

Jacks3

08-26-2011, 09:40 PM

A

Kobe goes back in time...he would have better numbers...and be less respected by the same people acting like hes a monster now.
Acting? He is a monster. SMH. :facepalm

oolalaa

08-26-2011, 09:55 PM

If prime kobe (06 - 08) was shooting the ball 27 times per game in wilts era...

45 ppg on 60% (who would stop him getting to the rim time after time??)

5 apg (no reason they would increase in an era that was harder to get assists)

12 rpg (It depends on how much effort he put into rebounding. he could conceivably average 20 rpg if he really wanted)

3 spg (they would likely double)

2 bpg (quadruple)

and just for fun, how about we put prime wilt (assuming he would play almost identically, without the hindsight of former eras and play a normal number of minutes) into kobes era...

15 ppg on 45%

5 apg

12 rpg

3 bpg

and for even more fun, bill russell...

5 ppg on 35%

5 apg

10 rpg

2 bpg

oolalaa

08-26-2011, 09:56 PM

Coaches had more power back then so I think they would have forced him to play with the team system rather than let him chuck poor shots all game long.

:roll: :roll:

fail

PHILA

08-26-2011, 10:07 PM

he could conceivably average 20 rpg if he really wanted

http://i.imgur.com/vgVGC.jpg

Hondo

08-26-2011, 10:23 PM

I'd like to throw prime T-Mac in the Eastern conference in 1962 and prime Kobe in the Western conference in 1962. Both players knowing what they know now.

That would make for some very interesting games.

OldSchoolBBall

08-26-2011, 10:30 PM

38-44 pts/10-12 reb/6-7 ast/46-48% FG.

Jacks3

08-26-2011, 10:33 PM

38-44 pts/10-12 reb/6-7 ast/46-48% FG.
:applause:

oolalaa

08-26-2011, 10:33 PM

http://i.imgur.com/vgVGC.jpg

:facepalm

It's no secret that 6"6 baylor averaged 20 rpg in a season....

L.Kizzle

08-26-2011, 10:36 PM

:facepalm

It's no secret that 6"6 baylor averaged 20 rpg in one season....
Baylor was a small forward sometime power forward who played in the paint just as much as the perimeter.

Gus Johnson was also a 6'6 player (forward/center) who's high was 17 boards.

Jack Twyman was 6'6, his boards high was 9.

TheLogo

08-26-2011, 10:37 PM

To answer the OP's question......

A shit load.

oolalaa

08-26-2011, 10:40 PM

Baylor was a small forward sometime power forward who played in the paint just as much as the perimeter.

Gus Johnson was also a 6'6 player (forward/center) who's high was 17 boards.

Jack Twyman was 6'6, his boards high was 9.

I hope you noticed my previous post where i said kobe could conceivably average 20 rpg if he really wanted but would likely get around 12 rpg.

transport kobe back to wilts time and he too would likely play sf.

L.Kizzle

08-26-2011, 10:42 PM

I hope you noticed my previous thread where i said kobe could conceivably average 20 rpg if he really wanted but would likely get around 12 rpg.
If he wanted to? What if someone wanted to stop him? :no:

oolalaa

08-26-2011, 10:44 PM

If he wanted to? What if someone wanted to stop him? :no:

:lol and who would stop him?

L.Kizzle

08-26-2011, 10:49 PM

:lol and who would stop him?
A Time Machine muhphugga or the civil rights movement.

Psileas

08-26-2011, 10:55 PM

It's no secret that 6"6 baylor averaged 20 rpg in one season....

Because height is the only thing that matters...So, I guess Tom Sanders would be able to grab 18 rpg in he played in the 90's. If Rodman could, why not Sanders? Not to mention that they played in pretty much the same positions, while Baylor and Kobe didn't.
Seems like only extreme examples like this can provide a few glimpses of logic to some people, but, alas, only to argue these examples and not in order to re-think their own ones.

Then again, you think Wilt would average less ppg than Zach Randolph or prime Ilgauskas or a bit more than a rookie Yao Ming and Russell less rebounds than Kris Humphries, so your other """"""estimations"""""" come as no surprise.

PHILA

08-26-2011, 10:56 PM

and who would stop him? http://i.imgur.com/RCSYT.jpg

bond10

08-26-2011, 10:57 PM

Kobe that grew up in the 90s and played in the 2000s? Probably something like 40-8-8 50%

Kobe that grows up in Wilt's era? Probably something like 20-4-4 45% FG (this is without the three point line and assuming that Jordan never existed).

oolalaa

08-26-2011, 11:16 PM

Because height is the only thing that matters...So, I guess Tom Sanders would be able to grab 18 rpg in he played in the 90's. If Rodman could, why not Sanders? Not to mention that they played in pretty much the same positions, while Baylor and Kobe didn't.
Seems like only extreme examples like this can provide a few glimpses of logic to some people, but, alas, only to argue these examples and not in order to re-think their own ones.

Then again, you think Wilt would average less ppg than Zach Randolph or prime Ilgauskas or a bit more than a rookie Yao Ming and Russell less rebounds than Kris Humphries, so your other """"""estimations"""""" come as no surprise.

If you don't think it is at least possible for kobe to avg 20 rpg for a season (if he made a point of crashing the boards on a nightly basis) then i pity you.

guys like you make me laugh. you are clearly stuck in the past and don't want to admit how much basketball has progressed since the 60s...

remember, i said "assuming he would play almost identically, without the hindsight of former eras and play a normal number of minutes". if wilt was born in the 80s he would be approaching shaqs numbers im sure...

L.Kizzle

08-26-2011, 11:20 PM

If you don't think it is at least possible for kobe to avg 20 rpg for a season (if he made a point of crashing the boards on a nightly basis) then i pity you.
What if Baylor made a point to crash the boards ever night, he'd have Wilt numbers. And what if Wilt did every night, He'd average about 35 boards a game.

oolalaa

08-26-2011, 11:29 PM

What if Baylor made a point to crash the boards ever night, he'd have Wilt numbers. And what if Wilt did every night, He'd average about 35 boards a game.

35 boards a game? :D

By all accounts, baylor was a tenacious rebounder. you're telling me me that he wasn't really 'trying' or crashing the boards when he averaged 20 rpg? :facepalm

and wilt was PLANTED UNDER THE BOARDS EVERY NIGHT!!!!!!!!!!! 'crashing' was hardly required :lol

LBJDWADE63

08-26-2011, 11:34 PM

50 ppg

dunksby

08-26-2011, 11:36 PM

Did not know we had so many seniors posting on ISH...

oolalaa

08-26-2011, 11:37 PM

http://i.imgur.com/RCSYT.jpg

i was thinking more of who would guard him off the dribble? no doubt russell would have made it tough for him to score once he got to the rim...

sundizz

08-26-2011, 11:41 PM

He'd average 46 ppg, 11 rpg, 9.4 apg, on 53%

His high school stats were 30.8 points, 12 rebounds, 6.5 assists, 4.0 steals, and 3.8 blocked shots

Sarcastic

08-26-2011, 11:46 PM

Is this a joke?

100/100/100 without breaking a sweat.

Dizzle-2k7

08-27-2011, 12:14 AM

Like Kobe would have listened.:oldlol:

THIS .

Im saying: you get a time machine and put Kobe back in the 50s 60s 70s, dude is putting up Wilt numbers with more points..

He doesnt get Wilts insane boards or blocks.. I think once Kobe comes in, the players will adjust to his style and eventually catch on to provide atleast SOME defense

But he probably averages 65 ppgs / 8 rb/ 11 ass... maybe 70 ppg. .defintely a few 90 and PROBABLY a 100 pt game just so Kobe could match Wilt the way he tries to match Shaq.

PHILA

08-27-2011, 12:16 AM

i was thinking more of who would guard him off the dribble? no doubt russell would have made it tough for him to score once he got to the rim...

Russell never wore #16. Tom Sanders is among the top defensive forwards in NBA history.

"He's the best, no question about it. A lot of guys are down on that end of the court just killing time. But defense is bread and butter to Satch, and he never forgets it for a second. I have a real hard time getting free from him to get the ball. One reason is because he plays me with his hands. His hands are always on me, feeling so he knows where I am. At the same time, his eyes are on the ball."

-Chet Walker

Tri City Herald - Apr 20, 1965 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2GEhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=k4cFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1119,3060277)

http://i.imgur.com/3KVrU.png

However if we are referring to a younger Kobe then other options may be K.C Jones and my favorite, Wali Jones. :applause:

http://i.imgur.com/mxwKp.jpg

NumberSix

08-27-2011, 02:56 AM

Hmmm........ 972 PPG, 347 RPG & .05 APG

Clearly as a perimeter player he would would have had a GIANT advantage. Guards ruled the league at the time. 32 foot 2 point jumpers all day son.

TheLogo

08-27-2011, 03:28 AM

Let me give you an example of how much Kobe would score...

Go rent that movie Teen Wolf....he will be wolfing like that beast in wilts era.

http://youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=RMyuv3wkTJs

lilgodfather1

08-27-2011, 04:29 AM

at least doubt his highest ppg season. It would be rediculous, Wilt would cry, children would have fantasies of Kobe's children in them. White bitches wouldn't be able to leave their Colorado homes, and Bill Russell would retire because Kobe would have all of the rings.

D-Wade316

08-27-2011, 05:28 AM

22.8 ppg
8.4 rpg
3.5 apg
42.9 fg%

Psileas

08-27-2011, 10:07 AM

If you don't think it is at least possible for kobe to avg 20 rpg for a season (if he made a point of crashing the boards on a nightly basis) then i pity you.

guys like you make me laugh. you are clearly stuck in the past and don't want to admit how much basketball has progressed since the 60s...

remember, i said "assuming he would play almost identically, without the hindsight of former eras and play a normal number of minutes". if wilt was born in the 80s he would be approaching shaqs numbers im sure...

No, Kobe would not be grabbing 20 rpg, maybe unless he made it his sole purpose for the whole season, which of course would be stupid. He's simply not shown to be as inclined to crush boards anywhere near like Baylor or his modern rebounding equivalent, S.Marion, so I have no reason to believe that he would. Great rebounding isn't only a matter of jumping high, not even a matter of jumping high and possessing strength combined (else, Amare would be among the rebounding leaders). It's a matter of determination to hunt the loose ball, hustle and managing to correctly predict the trajectory of the ball. How often does Kobe do this? How often do you hear people admire Kobe for this exact trait? Whether you like it or not, 60's players were not ape-men nor females. A lot of them were better at some of these things than Kobe. If Bill Russell, an inside player, with some of the best reflexes and defensive footwork ever for a big man, was "only" able to grab a little more than 20 rpg per year, how the hell Kobe would be able to almost match him? Even Elgin Baylor had only 1 season at (almost) 20 rpg and only 1 more season at close to this number, and Baylor was a lot more of an inside player than Kobe. But, yeah, Kobe as a peripheral player, would really manage to grab 20 rpg. :rolleyes: Well, maybe he would, if, along with this miraculous "time machine", he also brought with him a teleportation machine to instantly transport him wherever the ball went.

Sakkreth

08-27-2011, 10:10 AM

12.5 Towels a game.

Unstoppabull

08-27-2011, 10:45 AM

I expect an improvement, all the players in the past are nowhere as conditioned as Modern players

jlauber

08-27-2011, 11:04 AM

No, Kobe would not be grabbing 20 rpg, maybe unless he made it his sole purpose for the whole season, which of course would be stupid. He's simply not shown to be as inclined to crush boards anywhere near like Baylor or his modern rebounding equivalent, S.Marion, so I have no reason to believe that he would. Great rebounding isn't only a matter of jumping high, not even a matter of jumping high and possessing strength combined (else, Amare would be among the rebounding leaders). It's a matter of determination to hunt the loose ball, hustle and managing to correctly predict the trajectory of the ball. How often does Kobe do this? How often do you hear people admire Kobe for this exact trait? Whether you like it or not, 60's players were not ape-men nor females. A lot of them were better at some of these things than Kobe. If Bill Russell, an inside player, with some of the best reflexes and defensive footwork ever for a big man, was "only" able to grab a little more than 20 rpg per year, how the hell Kobe would be able to almost match him? Even Elgin Baylor had only 1 season at (almost) 20 rpg and only 1 more season at close to this number, and Baylor was a lot more of an inside player than Kobe. But, yeah, Kobe as a peripheral player, would really manage to grab 20 rpg. :rolleyes: Well, maybe he would, if, along with this miraculous "time machine", he also brought with him a teleportation machine to instantly transport him wherever the ball went.

I got a kick out of Dickwad's post in another thread. He laughed at the thought of a 6-5 Baylor snagging nearly 20 rpg one season. YET, we had 6-5 Charles Barkley WINNING a rebounding title in the '87 season (as well as outrebounding teammate Hakeem by FOUR rpg in the '97 season), AND 6-7 Ben Wallace winning TWO rebound titles in the 00's. Of course, 6-8 Dennis Rodman was CRUSHING players like Robinson, Hakeem, Ewing, and Shaq, too. And who would ever have imagined a 6-9 WHITE guy easily leading the NBA in rebounding...in 2011?

Oh, and BTW, Dickwad also challenged my take on Ben Wallaces' height. He claims it was 6-9. What was his REAL height?

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

Ben Wallace plays the center position and has been lauded as a prime defensive presence in his career.[10] He has been voted as the NBA Defensive Player of the Year four times. He is somewhat undersized for a center, being listed at 6 ft 9 in (2.06 m), 240 lb., a frame statistically resembling more of a forward; he himself admits his actual height is 6 ft 7 in (2.01 m).[10] His scoring is typically well below average for an NBA starter. Perhaps his most problematic area is his free throw shooting. Much like fellow center Shaquille O'Neal his free throw shooting is typically in the low to mid 40% range. This has often led teams to foul him much like the Hack-a-Shaq defense.[11] His career free throw percentage is just 41.7% (as of the end of the 2009-10 season), and he has never had a season with more than 49% made

And we had players like Hakeem, who was listed at 7-0, but was probably not even 6-10 (again by his OWN admission); or Dwight Howard, who is listed at 6-11, but is closer to 6-9; and even Kevin Love who is listed at 6-11, but measured a little over 6-9.

Here again, using the measuring methods of the CURRENT NBA, you could add an inch or more to nearly every player in the 60's and 70's. Not only that, but there were players in the 60's and 70's who were actually listed at SHORTER than their ACTUAL heights. Wilt was "only" listed at 7-1, but those that knew and played against him claimed he was at least 7-2 Kareem was listed at 7-2, but was as tall as 7-4 Ralph Sampson. Bill Russell was 6-10 in college, and for some reason was listed at 6-9 in his pro career (and he himself claimed he was 6-10), and Bill Walton was listed at 6-11, but was over 7-0.

So, all of those 6-11 players that Chamberlain faced, e.g Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, and Bob Lanier to list a few, would all have been listed at over 7-0 in TODAY's NBA. And, Wilt himself, would have probably been at 7-3.

caved

08-27-2011, 11:07 AM

Great question and i dont know

jlauber

08-27-2011, 11:15 AM

I think another good question would be...what would Chamberlain average in TODAY's NBA? Instead of routinely facing a HOF center on a nightly basis (players like Bellamy, Thurmond, Reed, and Russell), Wilt would be challenged by only one GOOD center, Howard (who would be considerably smaller, shorter, and weaker), about 2-4 games per season. The rest of his 82 games would be against players like Turiaf, Lee, Chuck Hayes, Kamen, Dampier, et. al. Chamberlain would be scoring at will against these inept clowns.

Psileas

08-27-2011, 11:26 AM

I think Big Ben had claimed himself that he's closer to 6'7, and I agree with this, having seen him close to other guys. But it's secondary. My point is that rebounding takes certain skills that Kobe may have at a pretty high level for a perimeter player, but not overall that high to make him anything close to a rebounding leader at any league from the mid-50's and on, in the same way that Noah would never be a scoring or passing leader, despite being an adequate scorer or not a bad passer for his position.

Kobe has a career rebounding rate of 8.2 and a career-high of 9.3, which are good for a perimeter player, but totally unimpressive overall, since the average rebouding rate of a player is 10.0 (=100%/10 players present). Yet, I'm supposed to believe that a below average rebounder, who was still below average at his physical peak, while being more athletic overall than around 90-95% of the rest of the league, would be able to be in the same category with prime Thurmond and Lucas and a notch below Wilt and Russell?

-23-

08-27-2011, 11:33 AM

D-Wade316

08-27-2011, 11:34 AM

jlauber

08-27-2011, 12:36 PM

[QUOTE=-23-]Here

All Net

08-27-2011, 12:44 PM

Impossible to say but certainly higher than what he ever averaged in this era.

imlmf

08-27-2011, 12:55 PM

28-29

jlauber

08-27-2011, 12:57 PM

A peak Kobe would have been at 40+, as would a peak Jordan (IF they played on POOR teams that had no surrounding talent.) BUT, both of them would have shot a considerably lower percentage. Kareem shot .518 in his 69-70 season, and .599 at age 37, and in '85 (as well as .604 in 1980.) The ENTIRE NBA shot between .410 to .450 in the decade of the 60's. Once again, the CONDITIONS were MUCH worse back then. The lanes were much more compacted back then, too, AND, there was NO 3pt shot. Furthermore, IF we are to ASSUME that the players were generally worse back then (which, IMHO, was only MARGINALLY the case, on average), Kobe's and MJ's TEAMMATES would have been worse, as well. Opposing teams would have geared their entire defensive philosophy to stopping those two (as they did to Wilt BTW.) My god, Chamberlain's 62-63 roster collectively shot .412...and that was with Wilt be swarmed. And Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354 in his '61-62 post-season, in which he took that team to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and with the greatest defensive center to ever play the game. AND, Chamberlain was BRUTALIZED early in his career, too. And if opposing teams were willing to pound on a 7-1 275 lb player, one can only imagine what Kobe and MJ would have had to absorb.

Also, how about medical technology back then? It was considerably worse, AND, on top of that, players were EXPECTED to PLAY (even injured.)

So, ultimately, it would come down to one of two conclusions. Either Kobe and MJ would be clearly the best players, and on poor rosters,...in which they would probably score 42 ppg, but on considerably worse shooting...OR, they would be part of very good rosters, like the Celtics, and not get nearly as many shots, and thus, would "only" have averaged around 25-30 ppg.

D-Wade316

08-27-2011, 01:05 PM

First of all, not a bad post. However, those were PRIME "Shaq-like" numbers in the early 00's, when the NBA had a few more quality centers than they do today. Secondly, Chamberlain shot .540 over the course of his entire career (including .461 in his rookie season), in league's that shot FAR worse than what they do today. And there were solid reasons for that, too. One, the BALL was not uniform until around 1970. Secondly, the arenas were often chilly and even breezy. But one of the biggest reasons was that the SCHEDULE was BRUTAL back then. Most all here have probably read my take on Wilt's '62 season, in which he only missed eight minutes of the entire season. The man played in a TON of B2B games. But not only that, he played in six separate THREE-games-in-a-row, another separate four FOUR-games-in-a-row, and even one other separate stretch of FIVE-games-in-a-row (and none of the home games were B2B either.) Combine that scheduling with much worse traveling conditions, and it was no wonder that tired players were shooting as poorly as they did. My god, Jerry West, who had perhaps the most perfect jump shot, shot .419 and .445 in his first two seasons. All of that contributed to worse overall shooting. Also, when Wilt came into the league, he possessed a very good outside shot (and yes, we have VISUAL evidence which confirms that), which ultimately did lower his overall FG% somewhat. He probably would be more selective in today's NBA.

But not only that, for those that claim that Chamberlain would not be playing 48 mpg in today's NBA...one, he obviously was CAPABLE of doing it. The game was played at a slightly faster rate than today's game, and he STILL had the SEVEN highest mpg seasons in NBA history. He was even averaging 43 mpg in his LAST season, and at age 36. Two, Wilt was almost ALWAYS the league leader in mpg. There is simply no way that ANY other player in today's game would play more minutes. And we had players like Lebron and Iverson playing 43 mpg in the last few years, so Chamberlain would certainly be playing more than that. And then think about this...if Wilt's playing time would be reduced, to say "only" 43 mpg, the natural assumption would HAVE to be that his EFFICIENCY would go UP. Not only that, but instead of 47-48 mpg, year-after-year, it would have been 43 mpg, year-after-year...which would have also contributed to a better effiiciency over the long haul.

As for 15 mpg. Just NO WAY. If 6-9 Kevin Love can grab that in TODAY's NBA, Chamberlain, who was a PROVEN rebounder, and was bigger, taller, stronger, and more athletic, would easily be WAY above that. I would contend that 6-8 Jerry Lucas, playing in TODAY's NBA would approach Love's 15 rpg. The two were nearly indentical players. And once again, who among the centers of TODAY are anywhere near as talented rebounders? Only Howard would be capable of challenging Chamberlain, and he was shorter, smaller, weaker, didn't have Wilt's 7-8 wingspan, was no quicker, and could jump no higher.

And once again, a PRIME Chamberlain could start his offense from 10-15 ft. He would not have to have planted himself near the bottom of the key. He was capable of hitting shots from 15 ft. (even late in his career he was hitting BANK shots from nearly that distance.) There was a REASON why ONLY Wilt was capable of getting 30-39 FGAs per season in the first half of his career (and was STILL hanging 60+ point games LATE in his career.) The man was amazingly quick, and very SKILLED.

So, given all of that, I think a REASONABLE assumption would be Wilt at around 30-35 ppg, 17-18 rpg (and higher had he been challenged...he had post-seasons series, and against RUSSELL, of 31 rpg and 32 rpg), and anywhere on .575 to .600 shooting. Along with somewhere around 4 apg, and perhaps as many as 5 bpg. AND, yes, he would STILL be hanging 50-60 point games, too. Especially against these inept clods that man the pivot in TODAY's NBA.
I think you might have to revise that number. 35-40 PPG, 16 RPG, 5 APG, 5 BPG, 62 FG%, 66 eFG%, and 61 TS% seems reasonable.
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

jlauber

08-27-2011, 01:06 PM

I think you might have to revise that number. 35-40 PPG, 16 RPG, 5 APG, 5 BPG, 62 FG%, 66 eFG%, and 61 TS% seems reasonable.
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Possibly. And I think your rebounding number is low. The scoring is not as impausible as it might seem at first. Kobe averaged 35.4 ppg in '06 in a league that averaged 97 ppg. Chamberlain, routinely facing the average center of today, would certainly be capable of it. Of course, much of it would depend on his teammates. With a poor roster (like he had for half of his career, or as in what Kobe had in '06) he would have HAD to score more. BUT, with a quality supporting cast, and it would realistically be around 30.

Kblaze8855

08-27-2011, 01:08 PM

Wilt isnt putting up 35/18 today. just wouldnt happen. And has little to do with him. He just wouldnt play the minutes. Wilts minutes always threw off his numbers. People often mock his opponents due to his production but ignore that he played absurd minutes. Spread over wilts minutes jordan scoring rate at his peak season was equal to 44ppg.

Wilt playing the minutes dwight played the last 3 seasons? In his prime(philly)? 24/18 partial season, 25/19, 19/19, and 18/18. And his team took 2000 more shots in 68 than Dwights did in 2011. But hes gonna get the same rebounds with literally thousands less to grab?

I dont think its as simple as Love gets 15 so Wilt would get 18. Kevin Love doesnt do anything on defense but hunt boards and half the time on offense hes waiting to try to rebound. Wilt is a far more talented scorer and would be a bigtime defender who has things to do.

And while he is no doubt capable of playing big minutes and likely not having Dwights foul problems...doesnt mean anyone would play him big(42-48) minutes. Plenty of players...can...play 48 minutes. Jordan no doubt could have. Iverson never sat down because he was tired. A guy like KG whe nhe was young wasnt getting to otired to continue. Guys sit because of the rotation and keeping them fresh for a long season and playoffs. Plus wilt played up 20 or down 20. Today a coach isnt playing him 45 minutes in a 20 point game as they would all the time back then.

Its just a different league. If Wilt were exactly as effective as he was in 67...he just wont play the same minutes, have as many rebounds to grab, or likely even get to play for assists as much as he did. He was passing up dunks and layups to pass offensive rebounds back out for assists. Multiple posessions in a row. Ive seen it. The greatest scorer of his era wasnt putting up 24ppg because he couldnt do better. He set out not to score as much as pass. He mostly shot the ones he couldnt possibly pass up. Which is why he shot like 68%. No coach is gonna stand by while he makes it a numbers game chasing an assist title today.

Its a different world. In 71 wilt averaged 18 rebounds a game....per minute...less than Kevin Love did last season. And he did it in a league with every single team taking more shots than the Warriors who led the league in 2011.

It just doesnt seem likely that you remove a few thousand rebounds from the league and he gets just as many. Especially when he has more responsibilities than a guy like Love who doesnt have his all around game.

It wouldnt shock me if a prime Wilt moved to today put up 23-28 and 12-14. I just think he might be one of those guys who plays better than his numbers capture.

Kinda like how prime Jordan today isnt doing much if any more than Lebrons 31/7/7 from a few years ago. But hes still a good bit better. At some point there is just a cap on what you can produce.

And I suspect for bigmen...Shaq reached it for this era. 30/14? Thats about all anyone can expect. And it wouldnt be easy to reproduce.

D-Wade316

08-27-2011, 01:16 PM

Possibly. And I think your rebounding number is low. The scoring is not as impausible as it might seem at first. Kobe averaged 35.4 ppg in '06 in a league that averaged 97 ppg. Chamberlain, routinely facing the average center of today, would certainly be capable of it. Of course, much of it would depend on his teammates. With a poor roster (like he had for half of his career, or as in what Kobe had in '06) he would have HAD to score more. BUT, with a quality supporting cast, and it would realistically be around 30.
I think its reasonable as Rodman is a step ahead of him in rebounding. Pace really has no effect on a player's PPG. Just compare MJ's FGAs to West's, Baylor's, Kareem's, and many others. I guess you already knew this. Agree on your other points.

Big164

08-27-2011, 01:57 PM

Wilt would average 40 if he played in Kobe's era and Im being modest. He purposely didnt attack the basket because he didnt want to look like a freak.

listen to what Wilt says about Shaq. Its really scary how good Wilt wouldve been.
http://youtu.be/YkPqId3v0-k?t=12m6s (http://youtu.be/YkPqId3v0-k?t=12m2s)

-23-

08-27-2011, 02:00 PM

Possibly. And I think your rebounding number is low. The scoring is not as impausible as it might seem at first. Kobe averaged 35.4 ppg in '06 in a league that averaged 97 ppg. Chamberlain, routinely facing the average center of today, would certainly be capable of it. Of course, much of it would depend on his teammates. With a poor roster (like he had for half of his career, or as in what Kobe had in '06) he would have HAD to score more. BUT, with a quality supporting cast, and it would realistically be around 30.

The thing with centers is they foul out. Especially with today

jlauber

08-27-2011, 02:26 PM

[QUOTE=-23-]The thing with centers is they foul out. Especially with today

millwad

08-27-2011, 03:06 PM

jlauber

08-27-2011, 03:14 PM

Jbieber still thinking that Kobe would shoot at a much lower FG%:hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:...

The thing is that Kobe is way more skilled than any freaking guard of that era and it's not even close, in an era where some guards even had problems with dribbling with the "wrong" hand..

If Elgin Baylor could average 38 points, 18 rebounds and 4.5 assists per game, then we can surely believe that Kobe would even dominate more. And Baylor wasn't even playing on a bad team, his team almost won against the Celtics that year..

And haha, Jbieber still spamming about Wilt and his amazing outside shot.. We are talking about a guy who only made 51% of his FT's during his career as an average and in the playoffs he only made a pathetic 46% of his FT's as an average.

And while we at it, just look at Wilt's horrific technique from the FT-line, it's just pathetic, the dude hade zero technique: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITxDdnzpnU8

And Jbieiber calls Wilt's outside shot great..

As always, a trash post. But yes, Kobe would have shot far worse in the 60's. A PRIME Kareem facing a Wilt and Thurmond who were well past their primes, barely shot 45% in some 80 H2H games against them (and MANY were BELOW 40% BTW), and yet, from age 38 to 41 he shot an unbelievable .599 against Hakeem in 22 games, including an ENTIRE season of 33 ppg on get this... .634 shooting, and at age 38! Hell, his coach had to finally give up and put Sampson on Kareem, and even then, with Hakeem doubling him, he still hung games of 33 and 31 in the playoffs against them that season.

D-Wade316

08-27-2011, 03:16 PM

Jbieber still thinking that Kobe would shoot at a much lower FG%:hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:...

The thing is that Kobe is way more skilled than any freaking guard of that era and it's not even close, in an era where some guards even had problems with dribbling with the "wrong" hand..

If Elgin Baylor could average 38 points, 18 rebounds and 4.5 assists per game, then we can surely believe that Kobe would even dominate more. And Baylor wasn't even playing on a bad team, his team almost won against the Celtics that year..

And haha, Jbieber still spamming about Wilt and his amazing outside shot.. We are talking about a guy who only made 51% of his FT's during his career as an average and in the playoffs he only made a pathetic 46% of his FT's as an average.

And while we at it, just look at Wilt's horrific technique from the FT-line, it's just pathetic, the dude hade zero technique: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITxDdnzpnU8

And Jbieiber calls Wilt's outside shot great..
LMFAO @ this idiot. First of all, Kobe is highly inefficient. Second, hand-checking was far worse in the '60s. Imagine him taking head-scratching, long range shots. He'd be a poor man's Jerry West.

millwad

08-27-2011, 03:36 PM

As always, a trash post. But yes, Kobe would have shot far worse in the 60's. A PRIME Kareem facing a Wilt and Thurmond who were well past their primes, barely shot 45% in some 80 H2H games against them (and MANY were BELOW 40% BTW), and yet, from age 38 to 41 he shot an unbelievable .599 against Hakeem in 22 games, including an ENTIRE season of 33 ppg on get this... .634 shooting, and at age 38! Hell, his coach had to finally give up and put Sampson on Kareem, and even then, with Hakeem doubling him, he still hung games of 33 and 31 in the playoffs against them that season.

Talking about trash, why are you comparing Kareem facing the twoe best defensive centers of that era to Kobe facing more unskilled and less athletic guards of that era. Jerry West even had a season where he made more than 50% of his shots.

And this bullshit about Hakeem again.. Kareem averaged 40 points on 51% shooting during the whole regular season of '72 on Wilt's ass which is by far greater than Kareem scoring 46 on 2nd year pro Hakeem and then get crushed by him in the playoffs. And you should learn the difference between help defense and double teaming a player..

But on the other side, I'm not surprised because you only watch old games and how many times did you ever see Wilt get crazy double and triple-teams on him?

millwad

08-27-2011, 03:38 PM

LMFAO @ this idiot. First of all, Kobe is highly inefficient. Second, hand-checking was far worse in the '60s. Imagine him taking head-scratching, long range shots. He'd be a poor man's Jerry West.

Yeah, he'd have such a hard time going by the freaky athletic and tall guards of the 60's when guys like Jerry West had 30+ point seasons..

jlauber

08-27-2011, 03:41 PM

Once again, there have only been a few players who PROVED that they could score 35 ppg (with Baylor at 34.8 ppg, Kareem at 34.8, and McAdoo at 34.5 ppg.) Kobe, MJ, Barry, and Chamberlain have all done it. And only Chamberlain averaged over 40 ppg (44.8 ppg and 50.4 ppg.) I would say, that under the ideal set of circumstances (playing with a poor roster), they would all have been capable of close to 40 ppg (although Kareem had that opportunity in '76 with the Lakers, and in fact, had one of his WORST seasons at "only" 27.7 ppg and on .529 shooting.)

But let's get real here. The opposing teams (and individual players and their own pride) would be going all out to stop them. The fact is, most defensive schemes, aimed at stopping SINGLE players usually reduce them to much worse scoring AND shooting. Only the truly GREAT offensive players could consistently overcome those efforts. One thing is clear, only the very greatest pure scorers were capable of scoring 34-35 ppg (and over the course of a FULL season.)

Now, realistically, a great scorer, surrounded by quality teammates, is not going to HAVE to score. NOR would a decent coach ALLOW them to score 35 ppg.

Soothing Layup

08-27-2011, 03:41 PM

These Threads Don't Make Any Goddamn Sense You ****ing Moronic Fools!!

s T O P Making These Pointless And Confusing Threads!!

jlauber

08-27-2011, 03:56 PM

These Threads Don't Make Any Goddamn Sense You ****ing Moronic Fools!!

s T O P Making These Pointless And Confusing Threads!!

I actually agree with this. They are pointless because we just have no way of knowing. However, what we do KNOW is that there has NEVER been a PARTICULAR season since Wilt joined the NBA, in which all of a sudden, the numbers SUDDENLY became skewed (except perhaps the jump in league-wide FG% from 77-78, at .469, to .485 in 78-79.) So, in other words, we NEVER, all of a sudden, saw the best players of a previous season, reduced to significantly lower numbers in that ONE season. Kareem will ALWAYS be the best "bridge." He came into the league in 1969, and averaged 28.8 ppg on .518 shooting. He was STILL averaging 23.4 ppg on .564 shooting at age 38 in the 86-87 season. In between he had three seasons of 30+ ppg, with a high of 34.8 ppg. He wasn't any more dominant in '69, than in '79, and was nearly as dominant in '86 (granted, he could no longer grab a rebound, though.)

millwad

08-27-2011, 04:01 PM

I actually agree with this. They are pointless because we just have no way of knowing. However, what we do KNOW is that there has NEVER been a PARTICULAR season since Wilt joined the NBA, in which all of a sudden, the numbers SUDDENLY became skewed (except perhaps the jump in league-wide FG% from 77-78, at .469, to .485 in 78-79.) So, in other words, we NEVER, all of a sudden, saw the best players of a previous season, reduced to significantly lower numbers in that ONE season. Kareem will ALWAYS be the best "bridge." He came into the league in 1969, and averaged 28.8 ppg on .518 shooting. He was STILL averaging 23.4 ppg on .564 shooting at age 38 in the 86-87 season. In between he had three seasons of 30+ ppg, with a high of 34.8 ppg. He wasn't any more dominant in '69, than in '79, and was nearly as dominant in '86 (granted, he could no longer grab a rebound, though.)

Still, bridges crap doesn't work for a bit.. Just because one of the greatest players of all-time was able to play for so long and against different era's doesn't mean that every player and their games would translate as well as Kareem's in the later eras.

It's a fact that ball handlers weren't as skilled back in the days and there's enough footage where you without any bias can see that some guards had troubles with dribbling with their "wrong" hand. Hell, I've even seen all-star games where a guy shot a jumpshot without even jumping and he did it with 2 hands.

And this is really getting silly since you even yourself admitted before, that the players of Wilt's era didn't have the same skillset as the players of today's era.

Soothing Layup

08-27-2011, 04:23 PM

Still, bridges crap doesn't work for a bit.. Just because one of the greatest players of all-time was able to play for so long and against different era's doesn't mean that every player and their games would translate as well as Kareem's in the later eras.

It's a fact that ball handlers weren't as skilled back in the days and there's enough footage where you without any bias can see that some guards had troubles with dribbling with their "wrong" hand. Hell, I've even seen all-star games where a guy shot a jumpshot without even jumping and he did it with 2 hands.

And this is really getting silly since you even yourself admitted before, that the players of Wilt's era didn't have the same skill set as the players of today's era.

But this is all irrelevant millwad, the norm for how good you have to be to make it in today's NBA is much different, and vice versa. You need to respect the people like wilt and bill russell who made the sport what it is today, not bash them because they played 60 years ago and aren't as good as their predecessors 60 years later with all the new steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, hell even Gatorade is like nothing back in wilts day.

What I'm trying to say is, People adapt, if wilt was reincarnated today he would be the equivalent to of what he was back in his day, not counting all the drugs, better medicines, better exercises, better food/diet, better EVERYTHING!

Wilt could even be the GOAT today maybe even average 45 ppg in today's league. who are you to say? If you were born in wilts day you would of probably died by age 50. A lot of things have changed in this world and until you realize this you're going to be saying a lot of dumb ass shit.

EDIT: Kobe would probably average around 15-20 ppg, you think kobe would be born in the '50s and know all these tricks and dodads that nobody could teach him? nobody even knew what a through the legs dunk was until the mid 70s...

jlauber

08-27-2011, 04:41 PM

But this is all irrelevant millwad, the norm for how good you have to be to make it in today's NBA is much different, and vice versa. You need to respect the people like wilt and bill russell who made the sport what it is today, not bash them because they played 60 years ago and aren't as good as their predecessors 60 years later with all the new steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, hell even Gatorade is like nothing back in wilts day.

What I'm trying to say is, People adapt, if wilt was reincarnated today he would be the equivalent to of what he was back in his day, not counting all the drugs, better medicines, better exercises, better food/diet, better EVERYTHING!

Wilt could even be the GOAT today maybe even average 45 ppg in today's league. who are you to say? If you were born in wilts day you would of probably died by age 50. A lot of things have changed in this world and until you realize this you're going to be saying a lot of dumb ass shit.

EDIT: Kobe would probably average around 15-20 ppg, you think kobe would be born in the '50s and know all these tricks and dodads that nobody could teach him? nobody even knew what a through the legs dunk was until the mid 70s...

As good a post on the topic as possible. We can SPECULATE all we want. However, had Kobe been born in the 40's, genetically, he probably wouldn't have been as tall; he would have had a much worse diet; weight-lifting was frowned upon (Chamberlain was a fore-runner); he would not have had the benefit of 50 years of experience to draw upon, (although, let's get real, players like Maravich, Kareem, Gus Johnson, Thurmond, Russell, West, Oscar, Dr. J, Gilmore, McAdoo, and Chamberlain were every bit as physically talented and skilled as anyone in today's NBA); he would have not had the medical technology (so knee injuries, at the best, severely limited careers, and often ended them); he would have been asked to PLAY, even when badly hurt, and quite possibly to a career detriment; and he might very well have had to endure the racial hatred that both Russell and Oscar had to deal with. And, on top of all of that, the CONDITIONS were much worse. Scheduling, equipment, traveling, and even the venues...all considerably worse.

On the reverse...put a Chamberlain, born in the mid-80's, into THIS NBA, and he would more-than-likely, been genetically even TALLER, (perhaps somewhere around 7-4), and bigger. He would have been even stronger, based upon the existing knowledge of the body, as compared to 50 years ago. He would have been much better trained. He would certainly have been much better coached (my god, no other player probably ever had lazier, or more incompetent coaching.) And, he would have begun his training at an earlier age (kids are already been groomed in the 8th grades now.) Medical technology is much better today, and perhaps his horrible knee injury in '69 would have even been PREVENTED. And, he would have 50 years of NBA experience to draw upon.

That, of course, applies to ALL of the greats in the last 50 years.

Kblaze8855

08-27-2011, 05:30 PM

As for these ridiculous claims of Wilt only averaging 23-28 ppg and 12-14 rpg...what in the hell is that based on?

Common sense and a lack of blinding love for the player in question.

Chamberlain had SEASONS of 50 ppg and 27 rpg. Are we supposed to believe that Wilt would be HALF the player today.

If you are stupid enough to believe that producing half the numbers makes a guy half the player....

But as a totally unreasonable clown of a cheerleader for wilt...you just might

I have pointed it out before, but these "paceologists" are WAY off the mark. In Wilt's era, the HIGHEST season was at 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs per game, and 62 rpg (AFTER deducting TEAM rebounds, which were kept until the '71-72 season) per team, AND, and this is important, the league shot .426. In MJ's '87 season, it was 89 FGAS and 31 FTAs, 44 rpg, per game, per team, and again, in a league that shot .480. In Kobe's '06 season, it was 79 FGAs, 26 FTAs, and 41 rpg, per team, in a league that shot .454. In 2011, it was 81 FGAs, 24 FTAs, and 41 rpg per team, in a league that shot .459.

Nowhere does Wilt's '62 season translate to HALF. My god, even using SIMPLE math, MJ's '87 season, in which the league averaged 109.9 ppg is at 92.5% of Chamberlain's '62 season in which the league averaged 118.8 ppg. Multiply Wilt's '62 season by MJ's rate, and he STILL would have scored 46 ppg.

And regarding Wilt's rebounding...he ELEVATED his rebounding against the BEST centers of his era, and particularly in the post-season. In his 142 H2H meetings against Russell, he nearly averaged 29 rpg (28.7 to Russell's 23.7), and had a TON of games of over (he had 23 of 35+, and SEVEN of 40+, including one game in which he outrebounded Russell, 55-19.) He POUNDED the likes of Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, and Kareem, too. In his last season, and at age 36, and playing on a surgically repaired knee, he averaged 18.6 rpg, in a league that averaged 51.6 rpg, per team. THEN, in that post-season, covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg (including a five game series against Thurmond in which he outrebounded him, per game, 23.6 to 17.2) Think about this. In Wilt's LAST post-season, he averaged that 22.5 rpg. And not only has there not been a 20 rpg post-season turned in by ANYONE else since, the next best post-season mark was Kareem's 17.3 rpg in the '77 post-season!

A PRIME Chamberlain, and motivated against the best, was just CRUSHING his peers. He would do the same against the clowns of today, too.

Really dude...it took em a while to see it...but you might be one of the 2-3 worst posters here. All you do is post numbers from games you mostly dont remember or didnt see, act like numbers alone show performance regardless of the situation, and attack anyone you feel is disrespecting Wilt...no matter what it is they are saying. i say...if Wilt is the same player...exactly as effective...he would do worse numbers...you take that to mean hes half the player?

I tell you Wilt averaged 18 rebounds a game on a team that took 2000 more shots....so clearly hes not going to average the same number playing less minutes(as anyone with a brain knows he would) with less shots taken and missed.

And you respond giving me irrelevant numbers that arent in question.

Wilt rebounded less per minute in 71 than Kevin Love did this year....despite more shots being taken and missed in 71. but its a fact hes gonna average more rebounds now? And not just more...hes gonna pull down 18 a game? with a much bigger workload than Love has on offense and defense?

He got 33.9% of his teams rebounds in the year you mentioned that he got 18.6. 18.6 out of 56 for his team vs Dwights 14 of 43. Its the equal of Dwight getting 14.5 on the Magic.

Wilt and nate both got over 30 rebounds one finals game. Well guess what? 256 shots were taken. The Warriors missed 85 shots the 76ers missed 56. With 141 rebounds bouncing around Dwights usual 32-33% would have been 45 rebounds. And the very next game...

The warriors missed 91 shots. 150 total missed shots. So wilt had 38 rebounds.

Why wouldnt he?

Hes the bigges most athletic player on the floor and he had a passion for rebounding. 150 shots miss...how is he NOT going to have a huge total?

The numbers are irrelevant. Wilt having anything but 30-40 rebounds in that situation would have been unacceptable.

Im not gonna pretend rebounds are grabbed at the same rate when there is a difference of thousands of shots just because you are a tantrum throwing Wilt obsessed adult child.

It does not matter how many rebounds Wilt got in 1962 or 1966 when the issue is what he would get...NOW. We cant know...but if he performed as well...with thousands less to grab...in a league that wont let him play 45 minutes a game...

That you come on here acting like hes being disrespected by a assumption he could get about the same rate he did in some yeatrs is just an ever growing joke.

All you are doing is making young people who should probably take the time to learn more about the people who built the game see these guys as jokes being propped up by old idiots out of touch with reality. If you really wanted Wilt to be more respected you would leave defending him to people with a drop of objectivity who arent gonna get him mocked by pretending nothing changed in the last 50 years.

You do the man a great disservice. And its starting to annoy me because ive always liked wilt and found him underrated. But you are hurting his cause by making the support of him seem like a numbers game trotted out by angry bitter fans who cant see what is in front of their eyes.

And you dont change a bit. You just keep on with irrelevant almanac material ive known for 20 years, your bold fonts, and caps lock as if you have something to teach.

You dont. you have something to copy and paste.

And im a basketball addict. You arent showing me anything I didnt know. And you seem to rarely have any insight beyond the numbers because as I pointed out...most of these games arent availiable to watch, many were not televised even then,and if they were I wouldnt trust your memory of minor details from 45 years ago anyway.

You have nothing to give me but numbers, articles, and quotes al of which fail to account for the fact that even if wilt is EXACTLY as effective its in a vastly different situation that just wont allow him to do the same things he did in the 60s or even cose to them.

Greatness is not numbers. Its not calling Wilt less great to say he would do about half the numbers he did in 1962. Its calling 2011 a different situation than 1962. you can see that when you point out Kobe could score 40+ a game in the 60s...as the same player he is now...but act lost when its pointed out that Wilt wouldnt be able to do what he did then now...even if he is the same player.

You really need to find a new subject to run into the ground. All you have done for the last year is make wilt lose respect in the eyes of many by creating a group of people annoyed to see you gushing and acting an ass in his defense.

And its sad to see.

Wilt deserves better.

millwad

08-27-2011, 05:31 PM

But this is all irrelevant millwad, the norm for how good you have to be to make it in today's NBA is much different, and vice versa. You need to respect the people like wilt and bill russell who made the sport what it is today, not bash them because they played 60 years ago and aren't as good as their predecessors 60 years later with all the new steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, hell even Gatorade is like nothing back in wilts day.

What I'm trying to say is, People adapt, if wilt was reincarnated today he would be the equivalent to of what he was back in his day, not counting all the drugs, better medicines, better exercises, better food/diet, better EVERYTHING!

Wilt could even be the GOAT today maybe even average 45 ppg in today's league. who are you to say? If you were born in wilts day you would of probably died by age 50. A lot of things have changed in this world and until you realize this you're going to be saying a lot of dumb ass shit.

EDIT: Kobe would probably average around 15-20 ppg, you think kobe would be born in the '50s and know all these tricks and dodads that nobody could teach him? nobody even knew what a through the legs dunk was until the mid 70s...

This is what I tried to say to Jlauber but his not getting it. I'm not bashing the player of the 60's and the only reason to why I'm analyzing their skills compared to the guys of today is that Jlauber claims that the players of the 60's are just as good or even better than the players of today.

And you got me wrong, I didn't mean that Kobe being raised and trained in that era would dominate like crazy, what I meant was that the Kobe of today would dominate that league which only a fool wouldn't believe he would.

I never even put up any kind of possible stats for him in that era, I only wrote that he would dominate and if players like Baylor were able to average 38 points per game, then I have a hard time seeing Kobe not being able to do so.

This shouldn't even be a discussion, what Jlauber is doing is messing with Wilt's and the players of the 60's legacies. It's a joke to actually claim that the players of Wilt's era were just as good or even better than the players of today.

I wouldn't even compare their skills with the players of today if it wasn't for Jlauber spamming about that the 60's being just as good or better than the players of today. No one even expect them to be..

And last but not least, I think that alot of the players of the 60's would have been amazing NBA players today as well if they would have been kids of the 80's, at least the athletic one's, no doubt. If Wilt would have been born in the early 80's I have no doubt that he would have been absolutely amazing and really dominant in this era. But I don't think it's fair to actually compare the skillset of the players of the 60's to the skillset of the players today.

jlauber

08-27-2011, 10:28 PM

Common sense and a lack of blinding love for the player in question.

If you are stupid enough to believe that producing half the numbers makes a guy half the player....

But as a totally unreasonable clown of a cheerleader for wilt...you just might

Really dude...it took em a while to see it...but you might be one of the 2-3 worst posters here. All you do is post numbers from games you mostly dont remember or didnt see, act like numbers alone show performance regardless of the situation, and attack anyone you feel is disrespecting Wilt...no matter what it is they are saying. i say...if Wilt is the same player...exactly as effective...he would do worse numbers...you take that to mean hes half the player?

I tell you Wilt averaged 18 rebounds a game on a team that took 2000 more shots....so clearly hes not going to average the same number playing less minutes(as anyone with a brain knows he would) with less shots taken and missed.

And you respond giving me irrelevant numbers that arent in question.

Wilt rebounded less per minute in 71 than Kevin Love did this year....despite more shots being taken and missed in 71. but its a fact hes gonna average more rebounds now? And not just more...hes gonna pull down 18 a game? with a much bigger workload than Love has on offense and defense?

He got 33.9% of his teams rebounds in the year you mentioned that he got 18.6. 18.6 out of 56 for his team vs Dwights 14 of 43. Its the equal of Dwight getting 14.5 on the Magic.

Wilt and nate both got over 30 rebounds one finals game. Well guess what? 256 shots were taken. The Warriors missed 85 shots the 76ers missed 56. With 141 rebounds bouncing around Dwights usual 32-33% would have been 45 rebounds. And the very next game...

The warriors missed 91 shots. 150 total missed shots. So wilt had 38 rebounds.

Why wouldnt he?

Hes the bigges most athletic player on the floor and he had a passion for rebounding. 150 shots miss...how is he NOT going to have a huge total?

The numbers are irrelevant. Wilt having anything but 30-40 rebounds in that situation would have been unacceptable.

Im not gonna pretend rebounds are grabbed at the same rate when there is a difference of thousands of shots just because you are a tantrum throwing Wilt obsessed adult child.

It does not matter how many rebounds Wilt got in 1962 or 1966 when the issue is what he would get...NOW. We cant know...but if he performed as well...with thousands less to grab...in a league that wont let him play 45 minutes a game...

That you come on here acting like hes being disrespected by a assumption he could get about the same rate he did in some yeatrs is just an ever growing joke.

All you are doing is making young people who should probably take the time to learn more about the people who built the game see these guys as jokes being propped up by old idiots out of touch with reality. If you really wanted Wilt to be more respected you would leave defending him to people with a drop of objectivity who arent gonna get him mocked by pretending nothing changed in the last 50 years.

You do the man a great disservice. And its starting to annoy me because ive always liked wilt and found him underrated. But you are hurting his cause by making the support of him seem like a numbers game trotted out by angry bitter fans who cant see what is in front of their eyes.

And you dont change a bit. You just keep on with irrelevant almanac material ive known for 20 years, your bold fonts, and caps lock as if you have something to teach.

You dont. you have something to copy and paste.

And im a basketball addict. You arent showing me anything I didnt know. And you seem to rarely have any insight beyond the numbers because as I pointed out...most of these games arent availiable to watch, many were not televised even then,and if they were I wouldnt trust your memory of minor details from 45 years ago anyway.

You have nothing to give me but numbers, articles, and quotes al of which fail to account for the fact that even if wilt is EXACTLY as effective its in a vastly different situation that just wont allow him to do the same things he did in the 60s or even cose to them.

Greatness is not numbers. Its not calling Wilt less great to say he would do about half the numbers he did in 1962. Its calling 2011 a different situation than 1962. you can see that when you point out Kobe could score 40+ a game in the 60s...as the same player he is now...but act lost when its pointed out that Wilt wouldnt be able to do what he did then now...even if he is the same player.

You really need to find a new subject to run into the ground. All you have done for the last year is make wilt lose respect in the eyes of many by creating a group of people annoyed to see you gushing and acting an ass in his defense.

And its sad to see.

Wilt deserves better.

How about this then... in the '67 ECF's, and against RUSSELL:

In game one, Chamberlain grabbed 32 of the TOTAL AVAILABLE 120 rebounds (while Russell had 15.) In game five, Wilt picked off 36 of the 128 AVAILABLE rebounds (Russell had 21.) And, in game three, all Chamberlain did was yank down 41 of the 134 TOTAL AVAILABLE (Russell had a great game of 29...and was outrebounded by 12.)So, as even a complete MORON like yourself SHOULD be able to comprehend...Chamberlain was getting nearly 30% of ALL of the rebounds in those three games (and a clean 30% in game three.)

Even in the clinching game five of the '72 Finals, at age 35, and with BOTH hands heavily-wrapped, all he did was pull down 29 of the TOTAL of 106 rebounds (this with one badly sprained wrist, and the other, FRACTURED)...and the ENTIRE Knick team only had 39.

AND, you continually bring up Wilt's LAST season, at age 36, in which he "only" averaged 18.6 rpg (in a league that averaged 51.6 rpg per team)...which is bad enough. BUT, at least you could also bring up the FACT that Chamberlain then averaged 22.5 rpg in that post-season, including just murdering Thurmond with a 23.6 rpg to 17.2 rpg series. Here was Wilt, at age 36, LEADING the NBA in rebounding, and then putting up a 22.5 rpg post-season. How were Shaq, Kareem, and Hakeem doing in the rebounding department at age 36????

I could go on, but no, it was NOT just about the pure numbers, but the OVERWHELMING domination that Chamberlain had on his peers...including HOFers like Bellamy, Reed, Thurmond, Lanier, Hayes, Unseld, Lucas, Cowens, Russell, and Kareem. He was CRUSHING those players.

Continuing...

jlauber

08-27-2011, 10:28 PM

Continuing...

And BTW, you are NOT showing me anything I didn't already know...including the fact that you can't comprehend anything remotely CLOSE about Wilt's absolute obliteration of his peers. Chamberlain not only won scoring titles...he won them by nearly 20 ppg. He not only won rebounding titles, he won them by nearly five per game. And he not only won FG% titles, he won them by as much as margins of .162. He outshot entire leagues by as much as .271, too.

Furthermore, we simply don't know how much more that he could have scored, either. We do KNOW that in the '67 season, when he averaged 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting, Rick Barry, who won the scoring title "thanked" Wilt for "letting him (Barry)" win it. We also KNOW that, while he "only" averaged 24.3 ppg the very next season, he hung the FOUR highest games on the league (games of 52, 53, 53, and 62.) And then, we KNOW that in his 68-69 season, he had cut back his shooting so much, that SI ran an article claiming that he could no longer score. How well did that go over? Chamberlain responded with a 60 point game (in fact it came the night before the story broke), and he followed that up with a 66 point game a few nights later (and on 29-35 shooting BTW) Over the course of 17 straight games, all he did was average 31.1 ppg (including a 35 point game on Russell, which was his highest against him since game five of the '66 ECF's, when he had a 46-34 game.) THEN, his new coach in the following season, Joe Mullaney, asked Chamberlain to become the focal point of the offense. In his first nine games, all he did was average 32.2 ppg (including games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43.) Now, who knows if he could have sustained that pace, but it would not have been implausible.

AND, you want scoring domination? A PRIME Chamberlain had an entire season of over 40 ppg against HOFer Willis Reed, with THREE games of 50+ and a HIGH game of 58. He had an entire season of 55 ppg game against 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy, with THREE of 60+, and a HIGH game of 73. A PRIME "scoring" Chamberlain only faced HOFer Thurmond in a handful of games, but he STILL hung several 30+ games, and even pounded him in one, by a 45-13 margin. And, as YOU well know, Chamberlain had 24 games against Russell, of over 40+ points, including FIVE of 50+, and even one of 62. Furthermore, I already mentioned Chamberlain's two 60+ point games in his 68-69 season (in a league which averaged 112 ppg...and in a season in which Wilt averaged 13.7 FGAs per game.) Now, aside from Russell, Kareem faced ALL of those centers, and most past their prime by the time he got them...and he NEVER came CLOSE to producing those kinds of numbers against ANY of them.

So, if a PRIME Kareem could average 35 ppg in the early 70's, and hang THREE games of 40+ on Hakeem in the mid-80's, and at ages 37 and 38...just what would a PRIME Chamberlain, who actually played FOUR years with Kareem (albeit, it was all after his surgery, and when he was in the twi-light of his career), have hung on those leagues in which Kareem dominated? My god, at age 34, and a year removed from major knee surgery, and probably in the worst season of his career (70-71), he matched a statistically PRIME Kareem, point-for-point, shot-for-shot, and rebound-for-rebound in TEN H2H games (five regular season, and five post-season.) However, what we NEVER were fortunate enough to witness, was a PRIME, "scoring" Chamberlain, circa 64-67, against Kareem.

Given all of the above...the FACT that he ROUTINELY had 30+ rebound games, in post-seasons in which there were 120-130 TOTAL rebounds available; and given the FACT that he was outshootint entire leagues by .244 in his prime, and .271 later on; and given the FACT that he not only PROVED that he could average 40 and even 50 ppg in his career, but that he could pour in games of 60+ LATE in his career, and in leagues with centers that Kareem would face multiple times, andyet Kareem never approached those numbers...

30-35 ppg, 17-18 rpg, and .575-.600 shooting would not be unreasonable at all. Now, maybe Wilt would not HAVE to SCORE that much, but given what he DID accomplish, he would certainly be capable of it.

BUT, only a complete IDIOT would make the statement that Chamberlain would have been a 23-12 guy in today's NBA. Even a 28-14 player would be absurd. Chamberlain was not averaging 18 rpp in his PRIME. He was averaging 27 rpg (and even 24.2 in 45 mpg in a league that averaged about 58 in '67.) And a PRIME 'scoring" Chamberlain WAS scoring 33.5 to 50.4 ppg, and AVERAGING 40 ppg over SEVEN consecutive seasons...COMBINED! A PRIME Chamberlain is NOT going to be HALF the player he was in TODAY's NBA. There is virtually no LOGICAL reasoning behind that thinking.

eliteballer

08-27-2011, 11:18 PM

jlauber

08-27-2011, 11:29 PM

Look lauber, BOTTOMLINE.

Wilt played in a time when the league had 10 teams, and the caliber of competition was NOWHERE near what it is now. The NBA was a BUSH LEAGUE practically. Thats not to say these guys were all 6 footers who could barely dribble a ball, but its an inescapable FACT. The popularity of the game and training techniques, hell even dedication to the game(ie guys back then having other jobs etc. because basketball wasnt a way to earn a living).

He played in a higher paced league with inferior competiton.

Just look at the footage of when he played. Guys taking sloppy shots all over the place. With that much chaos I could average 10 boards back then.

Not even to mention that from 1968 to the end of Wilt's career the ABA was siphoning off half the professional talent in the country.

It really comes down to this, Wilt wasnt the only one putting up HUGE stats. you have guys like Oscar and Baylor who are inferior to guys like Magic and Kobe in just about every way possible(not that they still arent great players) doing things like 30/10/10 and 35/20 seasons.

Hell Bellamy has a 31/19 season.

I think Wilt would still be a great player. It's true. He didnt play in the 1860's. He was a 7 footer with skills and athleticism which is still rare today. But putting up these absurd numbers? Not by any stretch of the imagination

You can spout the tall tales all you want...but if your going to sit there and tell us Wilt had a good outside shot when the guy could barely hit a free-throw, well...

Chamberlain played from 1960 THRU 1973. He played in leagues with as many as SEVENTEEN teams. The uneducated posters just look at 1962. Chamberlain was STILL putting up TWO 60+ point games in 1969, in a league that averaged 112 ppg, and in a season in which he shot 13.7 FGAs per game. In his 71-72 season, at age 35, he hung TWO 30-30 games (and one of those was a 31-32 game against 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier.) Kareem played FOUR years in the SAME league as Chamberlain, and NEVER had one 60+ point game, and he faced some of the same centers that Chamberlain was abusing to the tune of 50-60-and even 70 point games. AND, Kareem played 20 seasons, and only had ONE 30-30 game (and that was AFTER Chamberlain retired.) Of course, a 30-30 game was the NORM for Wilt in his PRIME.

In Wilt's LAST season, at age 36, in a league that had Bellamy, Reed, Lucas, Cowens, Unseld, Thurmond, Hayes, McAdoo, and Kareem...ALL in the HOF...he LED the NBA in rebounding; he was voted FIRST-TEAM all-defense; and he shot a mind-numbing .727 from the field, which is a mark that will probably never be approached. And, once again, in that post-season, covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg...which was the LAST time ANY player EVER averaged 20+ rpg in the post-season. In fact, Kareem's 17.3 rpg mark in the '77 post-season is the next highest.

No, Wilt would not average 50-27 in today's NBA. But a PRIME Chamberlain wouldn't be a 23-12 guy, either...unless you are going to tell me that a PRIME Kareem would be around a 17-8 guy in today's NBA, as well.

Kblaze8855

08-27-2011, 11:34 PM

eliteballer

08-27-2011, 11:38 PM

Chamberlain played from 1960 THRU 1973. He played in leagues with as many as SEVENTEEN teams. The uneducated posters just look at 1962. Chamberlain was STILL putting up TWO 60+ point games in 1969, in a league that averaged 112 ppg, and in a season in which he shot 13.7 FGAs per game. In his 71-72 season, at age 35, he hung TWO 30-30 games (and one of those was a 31-32 game against 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier.) Kareem played FOUR years in the SAME league as Chamberlain, and NEVER had one 60+ point game, and he faced some of the same centers that Chamberlain was abusing to the tune of 50-60-and even 70 point games. AND, Kareem played 20 seasons, and only had ONE 30-30 game (and that was AFTER Chamberlain retired.) Of course, a 30-30 game was the NORM for Wilt in his PRIME.

In Wilt's LAST season, at age 36, in a league that had Bellamy, Reed, Lucas, Cowens, Unseld, Thurmond, Hayes, McAdoo, and Kareem...ALL in the HOF...he LED the NBA in rebounding; he was voted FIRST-TEAM all-defense; and he shot a mind-numbing .727 from the field, which is a mark that will probably never be approached. And, once again, in that post-season, covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg...which was the LAST time ANY player EVER averaged 20+ rpg in the post-season. In fact, Kareem's 17.3 rpg mark in the '77 post-season is the next highest.

No, Wilt would not average 50-27 in today's NBA. But a PRIME Chamberlain wouldn't be a 23-12 guy, either...unless you are going to tell me that a PRIME Kareem would be around a 17-8 guy in today's NBA, as well.

Do you know WHY the NBA expanded to 17 teams from 10 so quickly? Because the ABA became a threat and they had to expand to new cities to establish themselves. They were adding BAD teams diluting the talent pool before it was ready.

Sure, Wilt led the league in rebounding in his later years...because rebounding and defense were ALL he was told to do. yet its not like he was doing it by some huge margin and averaging 15 more rebounds then the next guy.

ALL of these guys were averaging close to or around 20 boards a game. I can see Wilt leading the league in rebounding today, but sure as hell not by some ridiculous margin.

This stuff about Wilt holding his own against a YOUNG Kareem doesnt mean in his prime he would be blowing him out of the water. In Wilts own interviews he shows A LOT of respect for Kareems talent and abilities. Kareem embarassed him a bit too, theres more than one clip of him giving Wilt nasty facials. When Ho Grant and Malone joined the Lakers they were holding down all time great PF's in their primes defensively(Webber, Duncan, Garnett etc), but that doesnt mean they would obliterate them in their youth.

and you can BET Kareem could have averaged more points if he wanted, but those Milwaukee teams had A LOT of weapons. He didnt need to have these huge scoring outburts. By Wilts own admission those Laker teams of his did not have much outside of the big 3.

catch24

08-27-2011, 11:49 PM

We have to stop reasoning with him. He doesnt care about reality and doesnt even absorb the messages sent his way. I tell him all he does is give me numbers I already know...so he gives me numbers I already know. I tell him Wilt getting half the numbers today doesnt make him half the player...he tells me its absurd to say Wilt would be half the player today.

The guy is either a total nut or a 14 year old who is playing an extended joke only funny to him. There is no evidence he actually knows anything about the game or even Wilt. He has no insights I couldnt spew when I was 12.

He just repeats numbers. Even when the whole point is...I dont care about the numbers.

Hes an idiot or hes joking. Either way...hes probably best disregarded.

If hes serious I really hope he notices just how much of the hate wilt gets...is because of his idiocy.

Pretty much word for word what I've been saying the last few weeks here. I'm starting to think it's just a sock account looking for his "troll thrills".

jlauber

08-27-2011, 11:52 PM

Do you know WHY the NBA expanded to 17 teams from 10 so quickly? Because the ABA became a threat and they had to expand to new cities to establish themselves. They were adding BAD teams diluting the talent pool before it was ready.

Sure, Wilt led the league in rebounding in his later years...because rebounding and defense were ALL he was told to do. yet its not like he was doing it by some huge margin and averaging 15 more rebounds then the next guy.

ALL of these guys were averaging close to or around 20 boards a game. I can see Wilt leading the league in rebounding today, but sure as hell not by some ridiculous margin.

This stuff about Wilt holding his own against a YOUNG Kareem doesnt mean in his prime he would be blowing him out of the water. In Wilts own interviews he shows A LOT of respect for Kareems talent and abilities. Kareem embarassed him a bit too, theres more than one clip of him giving Wilt nasty facials. When Ho Grant and Malone joined the Lakers they were holding down all time great PF's in their primes defensively(Webber, Duncan, Garnett etc), but that doesnt mean they would obliterate them in their youth.

and you can BET Kareem could have averaged more points if he wanted, but those Milwaukee teams had A LOT of weapons. He didnt need to have these huge scoring outburts. By Wilts own admission those Laker teams of his did not have much outside of the big 3.

Here is just ANOTHER great example. Kareem averaged a career high 44.2 mpg on that 71-72 Bucks team. He averaged a career high 34.8 ppg, as well as shooting .574, and grabbing 16.6 rpg. On a team that went 63-19, and outscored their opposition by a +11.1 ppg margin. Ok, so Kareem is traded to an average Laker team in the 75-76 season. Did he ELEVATE his game when it was clearly obvious that he NEEDED to? Hell, no. He played 41.2 mpg. He scored 27.7 ppg. And he shot .529 from the floor. He did lead the league in rebounding, at 16.9 rpg (the ONLY time he would ever do that), and he barely beat out 6-9 Dave Cowens, with 6-7 Unseld coming in third, and 6-7 Silas in fourth. Why didn't he score 40+ THAT season?

jlauber

08-27-2011, 11:56 PM

We have to stop reasoning with him. He doesnt care about reality and doesnt even absorb the messages sent his way. I tell him all he does is give me numbers I already know...so he gives me numbers I already know. I tell him Wilt getting half the numbers today doesnt make him half the player...he tells me its absurd to say Wilt would be half the player today.

The guy is either a total nut or a 14 year old who is playing an extended joke only funny to him. There is no evidence he actually knows anything about the game or even Wilt. He has no insights I couldnt spew when I was 12.

He just repeats numbers. Even when the whole point is...I dont care about the numbers.

Hes an idiot or hes joking. Either way...hes probably best disregarded.

If hes serious I really hope he notices just how much of the hate wilt gets...is because of his idiocy.

And you are a clueless clown. I gave you DOMINATION, not just "numbers." Forget the damn "numbers." Chamberlain was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his peers. He won scoring titles by HUGE margins. He won rebounding titles, by HUGE margins. And he won FG% titles, by HUGE margins. He even did ALL THREE in the SAME season...THREE times! The NBA created RULES in a feeble attempt to curtail his dominance, and he STILL crushed his peers.

jlauber

08-28-2011, 12:08 AM

One more time...if a PRIME Chamberlain would be a 23-12 guy in today's NBA, then I guess a PRIME Kareem would be a 17-8 player in today's NBA, as well.

Kblaze8855

08-28-2011, 01:12 AM

And you are a clueless clown. I gave you DOMINATION, not just "numbers."

You have no idea what the difference between the two is.

Forget the damn "numbers."

I would. If only you could make a point that didnt include a numerical symbol.

Chamberlain was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his peers. He won scoring titles by HUGE margins.

Irrelevant.

He won rebounding titles, by HUGE margins.

Ditto.

And he won FG% titles, by HUGE margins.

More of the same.

He even did ALL THREE in the SAME season...THREE times!

Irrelevant to the third power.

The NBA created RULES in a feeble attempt to curtail his dominance, and he STILL crushed his peers.

And against all the odds you managed to pull it off. Complete post with no relevance whatsoever. Didnt even allow a fleeting glance at pertinent information. This feat has only been managed 4 times in the modern era.

I hope the younger posters appreciate just how amazing your level of immaterial content is. It only comes along once in a generation or so.

But on the other hand if one of them thinks too highly of it he might come back in 50 years to talk up just how insignificant the great jlauber was and how modern idiots cant compete. He was CRUSHING his peers afterall. His peers which have nothing to do with a hypothetical based 50 years later and considering massive changes in the posting game that might make him appear less insignificant than he really is(at least to people who judge it by the numbers).

So perhaps...we are better off letting your feat go unnoticed. All the future homers on your side would be doing is making you more disrespected than you would be otherwise thus defeating their own purpose.

And how I hate to see self defeating nutjobs flop around in misery...

So ill stop calling attention to your epic performance for now and just hope none of the youth is too impacted.

fos

08-28-2011, 01:18 AM

48 ppg on 45% shooting.

jlauber

08-28-2011, 01:46 AM

You have no idea what the difference between the two is.

I would. If only you could make a point that didnt include a numerical symbol.

Irrelevant.

Ditto.

More of the same.

Irrelevant to the third power.

And against all the odds you managed to pull it off. Complete post with no relevance whatsoever. Didnt even allow a fleeting glance at pertinent information. This feat has only been managed 4 times in the modern era.

I hope the younger posters appreciate just how amazing your level of immaterial content is. It only comes along once in a generation or so.

But on the other hand if one of them thinks too highly of it he might come back in 50 years to talk up just how insignificant the great jlauber was and how modern idiots cant compete. He was CRUSHING his peers afterall. His peers which have nothing to do with a hypothetical based 50 years later and considering massive changes in the posting game that might make him appear less insignificant than he really is(at least to people who judge it by the numbers).

So perhaps...we are better off letting your feat go unnoticed. All the future homers on your side would be doing is making you more disrespected than you would be otherwise thus defeating their own purpose.

And how I hate to see self defeating nutjobs flop around in misery...

So ill stop calling attention to your epic performance for now and just hope none of the youth is too impacted.

I didn't glean ONE intelligent sentence in all of that rambling. And once again, you can't back up your own stupidity with even ONE pertinent FACT. You mindlessly throw out a 23-12 number for arguably the greatest force the game has ever seen, and we are just supposed to accept that? What in the name of hell are those ridculous NUMBERS based on? And yet, you then vomit up the nonsense that Shaq's 30-14 is the best we have ever seen (?) How about MJ? What would HIS NUMBERS look like in this MODERN era? It has been 15 years since his last meaningful game...so surely the game has changed SIGNIFICANTLY since then, right? Bird and Magic? In their primes, maybe role players in today's game? Moses and Kareem? It has been over 25 years since either of them were among the best players of their eras (and Kareem certainly wasn't in his PRIME, either.) What of them? In their PRIMES...bench players in today's NBA?

Look, YOU might believe that the game has changed DRAMATICALLY, since Wilt's heyday, but I sure can't seem to find much evidence of it. I recall Pistol Pete's magic even in the 60's at LSU. He was doing things with the ball that even Jason Williams couldn't duplicate in THIS era. AND, yet, did ANYONE think that Maravich was a better basketball player than Oscar or West? The game is STILL played with the same size baskets, same size courts, same size ball, with the same number of players, and with basically the same rules (with the 3 pt shot being about the only exception) since Chamberlain first stepped onto an NBA court. I haven't seen ANYTHING in TODAY's era, that I didn't see in the 60's. Hell, the Harlem Globetrotters of the 60's were doing EVERYTHING that we have seen in TODAY's game. Gus Johnson was shattering backboards in the 60's. Jerry Lucas had deadly 3pt range, despite the NBA not even having that rule in place. And even I wasn't around to see Bill Sharman shooting .932 from the FT line in the 50's. Connie Hawkins was swooping in for incredibly athletic baskets in the late 60's. And by the early 70's, and when Wilt was STILL dominating the world of basketball, I witnessed the high-flying dunks of Dr. J and David Thompson. And, then Bob McAdoo went ballistic from all over the court in the mid-70's. Finally, I was fortunate enough to have seen a PRIME Kareem, struggling against a way-past his prime Chamberlain, and even being outplayed by him...and yet, some 15 years later, and at age 38, he was effortlessly hanging 40+ point games on Hakeem and Ewing.

My god, the actual PLAYERS are not SIGNIFICANTLY taller TODAY, than they were in Wilt's era. And the NUMBERS? The HIGHEST scoring season in Wilt's CAREER, was in a league that averaged 118.8 ppg. He also played in leagues that scored as few as 107.6 ppg. How about TODAY's NBA? 100 ppg. So, based on that you just ARBITRARILY throw out a 23-12 seasonal average for a PEAK Chamberlain? When he was scoring 50 ppg and getting 27 rpg in those leagues? Maybe they taught you a different math in your schools...but I just don't see a 50-27 player, playing in leagues that were scoring at about 85%, and rebounding at levels around 70% of what they were at his peak...being a 23-12 player.

And once again, I have NEVER claimed that Wilt would be a 50-25 player in TODAY's NBA, either...despite the FACT that he did in FACT, accomplish those feats. BUT, there is simply no logical explanation as to a PRIME Chamberlain being a 23-12 player in TODAY's NBA...especially given the horrible centers who TRY to play the game today. You will NEVER convince me that a 6-9 Kevin Love, who had nowhere NEAR the size, strength, speed, leaping ability, or pure tenacity to grab a rebound that Chamberlain had...would be outrebounding the 7-2 Wilt, at 275 lbs, and with a 7-8 wingspan, by THREE rebounds per game. NOR will you convince me that today's centers and even team defenses, would have limited a PRIME Wilt, and being asked to carry a team offensively, to a measley 23 ppg.

When you can actually introduce some logical, factual evidence into your garbage posts, then get back to me. A 23-12 guy???!!! Yep, and a PRIME Kareem would be a 17-8 player; a PRIME West would be a 15-5 guy; a PRIME Oscar would be a 15-7-7 guy; A PRIME Russell would be an 8-11 guy; and players like Barry and McAdoo would be 17 ppg scorers at their best. Yep, using YOUR baseless analogies...that is what we are to presume.

Fatal9

08-28-2011, 03:04 AM

Really dude...it took em a while to see it...but you might be one of the 2-3 worst posters here. All you do is post numbers from games you mostly dont remember or didnt see, act like numbers alone show performance regardless of the situation, and attack anyone you feel is disrespecting Wilt...no matter what it is they are saying. i say...if Wilt is the same player...exactly as effective...he would do worse numbers...you take that to mean hes half the player?

I tell you Wilt averaged 18 rebounds a game on a team that took 2000 more shots....so clearly hes not going to average the same number playing less minutes(as anyone with a brain knows he would) with less shots taken and missed.

And you respond giving me irrelevant numbers that arent in question.

Wilt rebounded less per minute in 71 than Kevin Love did this year....despite more shots being taken and missed in 71. but its a fact hes gonna average more rebounds now? And not just more...hes gonna pull down 18 a game? with a much bigger workload than Love has on offense and defense?

He got 33.9% of his teams rebounds in the year you mentioned that he got 18.6. 18.6 out of 56 for his team vs Dwights 14 of 43. Its the equal of Dwight getting 14.5 on the Magic.

Wilt and nate both got over 30 rebounds one finals game. Well guess what? 256 shots were taken. The Warriors missed 85 shots the 76ers missed 56. With 141 rebounds bouncing around Dwights usual 32-33% would have been 45 rebounds. And the very next game...

The warriors missed 91 shots. 150 total missed shots. So wilt had 38 rebounds.

Why wouldnt he?

Hes the bigges most athletic player on the floor and he had a passion for rebounding. 150 shots miss...how is he NOT going to have a huge total?

The numbers are irrelevant. Wilt having anything but 30-40 rebounds in that situation would have been unacceptable.

Im not gonna pretend rebounds are grabbed at the same rate when there is a difference of thousands of shots just because you are a tantrum throwing Wilt obsessed adult child.

It does not matter how many rebounds Wilt got in 1962 or 1966 when the issue is what he would get...NOW. We cant know...but if he performed as well...with thousands less to grab...in a league that wont let him play 45 minutes a game...

That you come on here acting like hes being disrespected by a assumption he could get about the same rate he did in some yeatrs is just an ever growing joke.

All you are doing is making young people who should probably take the time to learn more about the people who built the game see these guys as jokes being propped up by old idiots out of touch with reality. If you really wanted Wilt to be more respected you would leave defending him to people with a drop of objectivity who arent gonna get him mocked by pretending nothing changed in the last 50 years.

You do the man a great disservice. And its starting to annoy me because ive always liked wilt and found him underrated. But you are hurting his cause by making the support of him seem like a numbers game trotted out by angry bitter fans who cant see what is in front of their eyes.

And you dont change a bit. You just keep on with irrelevant almanac material ive known for 20 years, your bold fonts, and caps lock as if you have something to teach.

You dont. you have something to copy and paste.

And im a basketball addict. You arent showing me anything I didnt know. And you seem to rarely have any insight beyond the numbers because as I pointed out...most of these games arent availiable to watch, many were not televised even then,and if they were I wouldnt trust your memory of minor details from 45 years ago anyway.

You have nothing to give me but numbers, articles, and quotes al of which fail to account for the fact that even if wilt is EXACTLY as effective its in a vastly different situation that just wont allow him to do the same things he did in the 60s or even cose to them.

Greatness is not numbers. Its not calling Wilt less great to say he would do about half the numbers he did in 1962. Its calling 2011 a different situation than 1962. you can see that when you point out Kobe could score 40+ a game in the 60s...as the same player he is now...but act lost when its pointed out that Wilt wouldnt be able to do what he did then now...even if he is the same player.

You really need to find a new subject to run into the ground. All you have done for the last year is make wilt lose respect in the eyes of many by creating a group of people annoyed to see you gushing and acting an ass in his defense.

And its sad to see.

Wilt deserves better.

This.

jlauber

08-28-2011, 03:10 AM

This.

No surprise here.

millwad

08-28-2011, 06:23 AM

No surprise here.

Why don't you get it? No one appreciates your crappy posts without any insight, all you do is posting numbers and copying and pasting from wikipedia and other sites..

Alot of guys exposed you and your crap already and ThaRegul8r and Fatal being two of them.
You are the same idiot who wrote posts like this a while ago:

[QUOTE][B]Originally Posted by jlauber

RRR3

08-28-2011, 06:25 AM

EricForman

08-28-2011, 06:41 AM

dude Eliteballer, your last two posts were very good. Sorry, but I've known you since 2004 or so as a Kobe stans on this board, i guess you either grew up or the Kobe stans on ISH got so much worse that other "hardcore Kobe homers" don't look bad anymore.

Nick Young

08-28-2011, 06:47 AM

Different eras, though. It really depends IMO. If Kobe invented a time machine and traveled back as he is now (let's assume he's in his peak, actually) he'd most likely shit on the rest of the league. However, if Kobe with the same ability he has now was born around Wilt's time and had the same access to technology and training as Wilt and others did, then he'd probably be about as good as he is now in terms of the era. Hard to say what his stats would be like though.
not to mention GOAT is one of the most highly intelligent players in the league, him inventing a time machine is not out of the question

jlauber

08-28-2011, 08:16 AM

Why don't you get it? No one appreciates your crappy posts without any insight, all you do is posting numbers and copying and pasting from wikipedia and other sites..

Alot of guys exposed you and your crap already and ThaRegul8r and Fatal being two of them.
You are the same idiot who wrote posts like this a while ago:

I'd get it if those posts would be written by some youngster but you were older than 50 years when you wrote those posts and according to you, you had basically already seen all the Wilt games you've seen to this date by that time. So why are you the one calling people "clowns" when you're the biggest clown on this site.

You are not doing Wilt's legacy any favour by being a fool and spamming about him 24/7. You single-handedly made Wilt unpopular on this site, great job!

Dickwad,

It amazes me that the SAME "anti-Wilt" posters like YOURSELF, and of course Fecal9 (who at one time PRAISED Chamberlain as among the most clutch players of all-time, and backed it up with a volumnous post, just a little over a year ago), continually go out of your way to disparage not only Wilt, but the players of 40-50 years ago.

Regarding my above comments, please post their ENTIRE context for me, and not what was edited.

Once again, I could not care less what a few uneducated posters, like YOURSELF, have to say about Chamberlain. And if I'M doing Chamberlain a disservice, as KBlaze suggests, just what has he done? In one ridiculous post he claims that Wilt did not care about winning, using a quote that was OBVIOUSLY taken out of context, and probably at a moment when, once again, his teammates let him down (and yet, he can't find ONE game in the playoffs in which he could prove that Wilt wasn't going all out to WIN.) And then, in this topic, he ARBITRARILY throws out a "23-12" season as something that HE would expect from a PRIME Chamberlain. And to make it even more laughable, he uses Wilt's LAST season as some kind of an example as to what rebounding NUMBERS he would be putting up in today's game. In other words, Chamberlain, who OVERWHELMED his peers, including a TON of HOF players, would somehow merely be a GOOD player in today's game. I'm supposed to believe that a Chamberlain, who was winning rebounding titles in nearly EVERY season he played, and who outrebounded the great Russell by FIVE per game over the course of 142 H2H games, and a Chamberlain who was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series (most of which came against HOF centers)...would be outrebounded by players like the 6-9 Love, the 6-10 Howard, the 6-9 Randolph, and the 6-8 Griffin (and in Love's case, by THREE per game!)?

And, of course, by EXTENSION then, that means that players like a PRIME Russell would be somewhere around an 8-11 player; a PRIME Oscar would be a 15-7-7 guy. And, of course, Kareem, who never came close to dominating MANY of the SAME players in the fashion that a PRIME Chamberlain did...would now be around a 17-8 guy in today's NBA.

Which begs the question...just what would a PRIME Hakeem be then, in TODAY's NBA? My god, a 38 year old Kareem took an even bigger dump on him that a PRIME Shaq did, and he did it multiple times, and on a FAR greater efficiency, as well. Shaq's all-time high game against Hakeem, (who was washed up at the time BTW) was 37 points. In fact, in that particular playoff series, while Shaq did thoroughly outplay the has-been, by a solid margin (29 ppg to 13 ppg, and .516 to .426 shooting)...those numbers PALED in comparison to what the old Kareem dropped on a 23 year-old Hakeem (who would be first team all-defense the very next year), when he poured in 33 ppg on .634 shooting in five H2H games (including one game of 46 points on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.) A PRIME Kareem, in his BEST regular season, and against a 35 year-old Wilt, only shot .510. BUT, even that is deceptive, since Chamberlain's Lakers PUMMELED his Bucks that season, 4-1 (and Kareem's 50 point outburst came in a blowout loss, and in which he was outrebounded 25-8.) THEN, in the playoffs that SAME season, the WAY past-his-prime Chamberlain reduced Kareem to a .457 shooter, including a horrible .414 over the course of the last four pivotal games of that series. AND, once again, in a series in which virtually EVERYONE who witnessed it (and not just myself) claimed that Wilt outplayed Kareem in that SERIES...includingTIME magazine, which proclaimed Wilt as DECISIVELY outplaying Kareem in that SERIES. Not only that, but a year later...in Wilt's LAST season, and in six regular season games, he held Kareem to .450 shooting, while shooting .737 (yes, .737) himself. This from a 36 year-old Chamberlain playing on a surgically repaired knee.

So, we KNOW that a 34 year-old Chamberlain, and again, only a year removed from major knee surgery, and playing arguably his WORST season, battled a PRIME Kareem (who, at 23 won the scoring title at 31.7 ppg, on .577 shooting, as well as winning the MVP and the Finals MVP), to a virtually statistical draw. We also KNOW that a Wilt, at age 33, and just BEFORE that knee injury, absolutely POUNDED rookie Kareem in the ONE game before that injury in EVERY aspect of the game (outscoring, outrebounding, outassisting, outblocking, and horribly outshooting him.)

So, from all of the above...and according to Kblaze's bizzare NUMBERS, we are to believe that a PRIME Wilt would be less than HALF the player today, that he was in his dominating peak. Which, of course means that Kareem would also be HALF the player he was at HIS peak...which BTW, actually came IN the Chamberlain-era (and once again, Kareem NEVER came CLOSE to dominating the SAME league that a PRIME Wilt just ravished the league ina just a few years earlier.) And since we KNOW that a 38 year old Kareem could score at will against a 23 year old Hakeem, and in fact, from ages 38 thru 41 shoot an eye-popping .599 against him...combined (and yet, in 28 H2H games, and in his PRIME, he could only shoot .464 against a Chamberlain in the twilight of his career)...so that begs three questions. One, just what a 23 year-old Kareem would have reigned on ANY Hakeem? And two, given what we know with a PRIME Kareem being battled to a statistical draw over the course of 10 games in '71 by a Chamberlain in arguably his WORST season...just what a PRIME Wilt have hung on ANY version of Kareem? And three, then, just what a PRIME Chamberlain have dumped on ANY version of Hakeem?

We'll never know, of course, but where, from anything that Wilt did in his career, and considering how much more dominant he was against MANY of the SAME players that Kareem faced...where would he come up with a "23-12" set of NUMBERS in TODAY's NBA? Unless, of course, he is once again going to assume that a PRIME Kareem would be a good secondary player on a team today, by putting up something along the lines of a 17-8 season.

BTW, I could play this "fantasy" game, too. I could argue that if you took a PRIME Shaq, and threw back into the 60's, that he would have been a complete bust. Why? Because he would have fouled out within the first few minutes of every game with his blatant charging and elbowing (I have posted the YouTube footage of Shaq doing exactly that against Motumbo.) Or the same with MJ. Jordan would have been reduced to standing in one spot on the floor, given the fact that traveling and palming were actually called back then. Of course I am being facetious, but in any of these "cross-era" discussions, it is pure SPECULATION. However, it is one thing to make an educated assumption, and quite another to just mindlessly throw out a "23-12" set of NUMBERS, without even one molecule of supporting evidence to back up those NUMBERS.

The only "disservice" being done here are by those that continually disparage Wilt's legacy. The SAME posters who, at EVERY turn, SLIGHT Chamberlain's accomplishments. They can't even disguise their disdain for him either, because I have seen lists in which they put Chamberlain at the bottom of an all-time top-10 (and usually right next to Russell.)

I have read YOU, Dickwad, claiming that Hakeem had a better CAREER than Chamberlain (and once again, ranking Hakeem over Wilt.) Yet, there is not one shred of evidence that supports that view. Individual records, accolades, and team success...Wilt just blows him away. It is posters like yourself, Kblaze, Fecal9 and a few others that have basically labeled Chamberlain as a "loser", a "choker", a "stats-padder", and a "failure." But, you and these few other idiots are claiming that I'M doing a disservice to Wilt. Yeah right.

rodman91

08-28-2011, 08:24 AM

Jlauber strikes again!
http://ingridsnotes.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/thick-book.jpg

D-Wade316

08-28-2011, 09:17 AM

I didn't glean ONE intelligent sentence in all of that rambling. And once again, you can't back up your own stupidity with even ONE pertinent FACT. You mindlessly throw out a 23-12 number for arguably the greatest force the game has ever seen, and we are just supposed to accept that? What in the name of hell are those ridculous NUMBERS based on? And yet, you then vomit up the nonsense that Shaq's 30-14 is the best we have ever seen (?) How about MJ? What would HIS NUMBERS look like in this MODERN era? It has been 15 years since his last meaningful game...so surely the game has changed SIGNIFICANTLY since then, right? Bird and Magic? In their primes, maybe role players in today's game? Moses and Kareem? It has been over 25 years since either of them were among the best players of their eras (and Kareem certainly wasn't in his PRIME, either.) What of them? In their PRIMES...bench players in today's NBA?

Look, YOU might believe that the game has changed DRAMATICALLY, since Wilt's heyday, but I sure can't seem to find much evidence of it. I recall Pistol Pete's magic even in the 60's at LSU. He was doing things with the ball that even Jason Williams couldn't duplicate in THIS era. AND, yet, did ANYONE think that Maravich was a better basketball player than Oscar or West? The game is STILL played with the same size baskets, same size courts, same size ball, with the same number of players, and with basically the same rules (with the 3 pt shot being about the only exception) since Chamberlain first stepped onto an NBA court. I haven't seen ANYTHING in TODAY's era, that I didn't see in the 60's. Hell, the Harlem Globetrotters of the 60's were doing EVERYTHING that we have seen in TODAY's game. Gus Johnson was shattering backboards in the 60's. Jerry Lucas had deadly 3pt range, despite the NBA not even having that rule in place. And even I wasn't around to see Bill Sharman shooting .932 from the FT line in the 50's. Connie Hawkins was swooping in for incredibly athletic baskets in the late 60's. And by the early 70's, and when Wilt was STILL dominating the world of basketball, I witnessed the high-flying dunks of Dr. J and David Thompson. And, then Bob McAdoo went ballistic from all over the court in the mid-70's. Finally, I was fortunate enough to have seen a PRIME Kareem, struggling against a way-past his prime Chamberlain, and even being outplayed by him...and yet, some 15 years later, and at age 38, he was effortlessly hanging 40+ point games on Hakeem and Ewing.

My god, the actual PLAYERS are not SIGNIFICANTLY taller TODAY, than they were in Wilt's era. And the NUMBERS? The HIGHEST scoring season in Wilt's CAREER, was in a league that averaged 118.8 ppg. He also played in leagues that scored as few as 107.6 ppg. How about TODAY's NBA? 100 ppg. So, based on that you just ARBITRARILY throw out a 23-12 seasonal average for a PEAK Chamberlain? When he was scoring 50 ppg and getting 27 rpg in those leagues? Maybe they taught you a different math in your schools...but I just don't see a 50-27 player, playing in leagues that were scoring at about 85%, and rebounding at levels around 70% of what they were at his peak...being a 23-12 player.

And once again, I have NEVER claimed that Wilt would be a 50-25 player in TODAY's NBA, either...despite the FACT that he did in FACT, accomplish those feats. BUT, there is simply no logical explanation as to a PRIME Chamberlain being a 23-12 player in TODAY's NBA...especially given the horrible centers who TRY to play the game today. You will NEVER convince me that a 6-9 Kevin Love, who had nowhere NEAR the size, strength, speed, leaping ability, or pure tenacity to grab a rebound that Chamberlain had...would be outrebounding the 7-2 Wilt, at 275 lbs, and with a 7-8 wingspan, by THREE rebounds per game. NOR will you convince me that today's centers and even team defenses, would have limited a PRIME Wilt, and being asked to carry a team offensively, to a measley 23 ppg.

When you can actually introduce some logical, factual evidence into your garbage posts, then get back to me. A 23-12 guy???!!! Yep, and a PRIME Kareem would be a 17-8 player; a PRIME West would be a 15-5 guy; a PRIME Oscar would be a 15-7-7 guy; A PRIME Russell would be an 8-11 guy; and players like Barry and McAdoo would be 17 ppg scorers at their best. Yep, using YOUR baseless analogies...that is what we are to presume.
You can't do anything about them. They just ramble on without taking into mind what the discussion is about. Just leave this trolls alone.

NauruDude

08-28-2011, 09:18 AM

Haha he wasn't even born then. How u think he could play in that era if he ain't born.

D-Wade316

08-28-2011, 09:24 AM

Dickwad,

It amazes me that the SAME "anti-Wilt" posters like YOURSELF, and of course Fecal9 (who at one time PRAISED Chamberlain as among the most clutch players of all-time, and backed it up with a volumnous post, just a little over a year ago), continually go out of your way to disparage not only Wilt, but the players of 40-50 years ago.

Regarding my above comments, please post their ENTIRE context for me, and not what was edited.

Once again, I could not care less what a few uneducated posters, like YOURSELF, have to say about Chamberlain. And if I'M doing Chamberlain a disservice, as KBlaze suggests, just what has he done? In one ridiculous post he claims that Wilt did not care about winning, using a quote that was OBVIOUSLY taken out of context, and probably at a moment when, once again, his teammates let him down (and yet, he can't find ONE game in the playoffs in which he could prove that Wilt wasn't going all out to WIN.) And then, in this topic, he ARBITRARILY throws out a "23-12" season as something that HE would expect from a PRIME Chamberlain. And to make it even more laughable, he uses Wilt's LAST season as some kind of an example as to what rebounding NUMBERS he would be putting up in today's game. In other words, Chamberlain, who OVERWHELMED his peers, including a TON of HOF players, would somehow merely be a GOOD player in today's game. I'm supposed to believe that a Chamberlain, who was winning rebounding titles in nearly EVERY season he played, and who outrebounded the great Russell by FIVE per game over the course of 142 H2H games, and a Chamberlain who was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series (most of which came against HOF centers)...would be outrebounded by players like the 6-9 Love, the 6-10 Howard, the 6-9 Randolph, and the 6-8 Griffin (and in Love's case, by THREE per game!)?

And, of course, by EXTENSION then, that means that players like a PRIME Russell would be somewhere around an 8-11 player; a PRIME Oscar would be a 15-7-7 guy. And, of course, Kareem, who never came close to dominating MANY of the SAME players in the fashion that a PRIME Chamberlain did...would now be around a 17-8 guy in today's NBA.

Which begs the question...just what would a PRIME Hakeem be then, in TODAY's NBA? My god, a 38 year old Kareem took an even bigger dump on him that a PRIME Shaq did, and he did it multiple times, and on a FAR greater efficiency, as well. Shaq's all-time high game against Hakeem, (who was washed up at the time BTW) was 37 points. In fact, in that particular playoff series, while Shaq did thoroughly outplay the has-been, by a solid margin (29 ppg to 13 ppg, and .516 to .426 shooting)...those numbers PALED in comparison to what the old Kareem dropped on a 23 year-old Hakeem (who would be first team all-defense the very next year), when he poured in 33 ppg on .634 shooting in five H2H games (including one game of 46 points on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.) A PRIME Kareem, in his BEST regular season, and against a 35 year-old Wilt, only shot .510. BUT, even that is deceptive, since Chamberlain's Lakers PUMMELED his Bucks that season, 4-1 (and Kareem's 50 point outburst came in a blowout loss, and in which he was outrebounded 25-8.) THEN, in the playoffs that SAME season, the WAY past-his-prime Chamberlain reduced Kareem to a .457 shooter, including a horrible .414 over the course of the last four pivotal games of that series. AND, once again, in a series in which virtually EVERYONE who witnessed it (and not just myself) claimed that Wilt outplayed Kareem in that SERIES...includingTIME magazine, which proclaimed Wilt as DECISIVELY outplaying Kareem in that SERIES. Not only that, but a year later...in Wilt's LAST season, and in six regular season games, he held Kareem to .450 shooting, while shooting .737 (yes, .737) himself. This from a 36 year-old Chamberlain playing on a surgically repaired knee.

So, we KNOW that a 34 year-old Chamberlain, and again, only a year removed from major knee surgery, and playing arguably his WORST season, battled a PRIME Kareem (who, at 23 won the scoring title at 31.7 ppg, on .577 shooting, as well as winning the MVP and the Finals MVP), to a virtually statistical draw. We also KNOW that a Wilt, at age 33, and just BEFORE that knee injury, absolutely POUNDED rookie Kareem in the ONE game before that injury in EVERY aspect of the game (outscoring, outrebounding, outassisting, outblocking, and horribly outshooting him.)

So, from all of the above...and according to Kblaze's bizzare NUMBERS, we are to believe that a PRIME Wilt would be less than HALF the player today, that he was in his dominating peak. Which, of course means that Kareem would also be HALF the player he was at HIS peak...which BTW, actually came IN the Chamberlain-era (and once again, Kareem NEVER came CLOSE to dominating the SAME league that a PRIME Wilt just ravished the league ina just a few years earlier.) And since we KNOW that a 38 year old Kareem could score at will against a 23 year old Hakeem, and in fact, from ages 38 thru 41 shoot an eye-popping .599 against him...combined (and yet, in 28 H2H games, and in his PRIME, he could only shoot .464 against a Chamberlain in the twilight of his career)...so that begs three questions. One, just what a 23 year-old Kareem would have reigned on ANY Hakeem? And two, given what we know with a PRIME Kareem being battled to a statistical draw over the course of 10 games in '71 by a Chamberlain in arguably his WORST season...just what a PRIME Wilt have hung on ANY version of Kareem? And three, then, just what a PRIME Chamberlain have dumped on ANY version of Hakeem?

We'll never know, of course, but where, from anything that Wilt did in his career, and considering how much more dominant he was against MANY of the SAME players that Kareem faced...where would he come up with a "23-12" set of NUMBERS in TODAY's NBA? Unless, of course, he is once again going to assume that a PRIME Kareem would be a good secondary player on a team today, by putting up something along the lines of a 17-8 season.

BTW, I could play this "fantasy" game, too. I could argue that if you took a PRIME Shaq, and threw back into the 60's, that he would have been a complete bust. Why? Because he would have fouled out within the first few minutes of every game with his blatant charging and elbowing (I have posted the YouTube footage of Shaq doing exactly that against Motumbo.) Or the same with MJ. Jordan would have been reduced to standing in one spot on the floor, given the fact that traveling and palming were actually called back then. Of course I am being facetious, but in any of these "cross-era" discussions, it is pure SPECULATION. However, it is one thing to make an educated assumption, and quite another to just mindlessly throw out a "23-12" set of NUMBERS, without even one molecule of supporting evidence to back up those NUMBERS.

The only "disservice" being done here are by those that continually disparage Wilt's legacy. The SAME posters who, at EVERY turn, SLIGHT Chamberlain's accomplishments. They can't even disguise their disdain for him either, because I have seen lists in which they put Chamberlain at the bottom of an all-time top-10 (and usually right next to Russell.)

I have read YOU, Dickwad, claiming that Hakeem had a better CAREER than Chamberlain (and once again, ranking Hakeem over Wilt.) Yet, there is not one shred of evidence that supports that view. Individual records, accolades, and team success...Wilt just blows him away. It is posters like yourself, Kblaze, Fecal9 and a few others that have basically labeled Chamberlain as a "loser", a "choker", a "stats-padder", and a "failure." But, you and these few other idiots are claiming that I'M doing a disservice to Wilt. Yeah right.
/THREAD

millwad

08-28-2011, 09:53 AM

/THREAD

Haha, you're funny.

A great majority in this thread bashed and rejected everything Jlauber has written in this thread and then a clown like you come and write "/thread" like Jlauber actually got it all right. Get real, look at all the posts directed to Jlauber with a negative message in them..

D-Wade316

08-28-2011, 10:08 AM

Haha, you're funny.

A great majority in this thread bashed and rejected everything Jlauber has written in this thread and then a clown like you come and write "/thread" like Jlauber actually got it all right. Get real, look at all the posts directed to Jlauber with a negative message in them..
LMFAO @ this idiot. A great majority in this board are trolls. Sadly, you are one of them. You're one of those contradicting, illogical "anti-Wilt" posters who finds the smallest crease to bash Wilt. It gets even worse when you assume things, and don't back it up.

millwad

08-28-2011, 10:29 AM

Dickwad,

It amazes me that the SAME "anti-Wilt" posters like YOURSELF, and of course Fecal9 (who at one time PRAISED Chamberlain as among the most clutch players of all-time, and backed it up with a volumnous post, just a little over a year ago), continually go out of your way to disparage not only Wilt, but the players of 40-50 years ago.

I'm not a Wilt hater, I'm a Jbieber-hater, your posts are trash and you need to get back to reality. There are only extremely few idiots like you on this site that thinks that the guys of Wilt's era were just as skilled as the players of today.

Regarding my above comments, please post their ENTIRE context for me, and not what was edited.

A quote like this isn't taken out of context, it clearly shows that you changed your mind 40 years after seeing the games, which is just pathetic:

Originally Posted by jlauber
“I know both you and I will get some flak from "old-timers" about how great some of them were . . . , but realistically, todays basketball players, although many lacking in fundamental skills, are far superior to the players of the 60's.”

Once again, I could not care less what a few uneducated posters, like YOURSELF, have to say about Chamberlain. And if I'M doing Chamberlain a disservice, as KBlaze suggests, just what has he done? In one ridiculous post he claims that Wilt did not care about winning, using a quote that was OBVIOUSLY taken out of context, and probably at a moment when, once again, his teammates let him down (and yet, he can't find ONE game in the playoffs in which he could prove that Wilt wasn't going all out to WIN.) And then, in this topic, he ARBITRARILY throws out a "23-12" season as something that HE would expect from a PRIME Chamberlain. And to make it even more laughable, he uses Wilt's LAST season as some kind of an example as to what rebounding NUMBERS he would be putting up in today's game. In other words, Chamberlain, who OVERWHELMED his peers, including a TON of HOF players, would somehow merely be a GOOD player in today's game. I'm supposed to believe that a Chamberlain, who was winning rebounding titles in nearly EVERY season he played, and who outrebounded the great Russell by FIVE per game over the course of 142 H2H games, and a Chamberlain who was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series (most of which came against HOF centers)...would be outrebounded by players like the 6-9 Love, the 6-10 Howard, the 6-9 Randolph, and the 6-8 Griffin (and in Love's case, by THREE per game!)?

Rebounds is not what I'm discussing, I know Wilt was a great rebounder but at the same time I have no doubt in my mind that he wouldn't average the same amount of rebounds today, it's obvious. We're talking about a league where a 6-5 Elgin Baylor averaged 19.8 rebounds per game..

And this is getting so boring, seriously..
You always play with words and numbers, I have never seen you analyze any players game, the only thing you talk about stats and quotes.

And the crap you always mention about Olajuwon is getting a bit silly, yes, Kareem took a dump on 2nd year pro Hakeem but Hakeem later that year absolutely destroyed Kareem and Lakers. Next..

And sure thing, Wilt was just amazing when he guarded Kareem. Too bad you forgot to mention the fact that Kareem averaged 40 points per game on 51% shooting on Wilt during the regular season of '72. And yes, I know that the lost in the playoffs but even there Kareem outscored Wilt with 23 points per game and he held Wilt to 10.8 points per game on less than 45% shooting and he also outassisted him and shot FT's twice as good as Wilt during that series. It's funny you always bash Kareem for his low percentage during that series but I've never seen you mention the fact that Wilt even shot worse than Kareem during that series and the funny thing is that he did it while averaging 23 less points per game.

And asshole, still you need to learn what "DECISIVELY" means, I'm getting tired of you and your stupidity.

And regarding Russell in this era, he didn't have alot skills when it came to scoring, he had crappy FG% and he was terrible from the FT-line, not as bad as Wilt though but Wilt was one of the worst FT-shooters of all-time so we shouldn't compare Russell to someone like Wilt, instead we should compare him to other great centers who actually could shoot FT's, like Kareem and Hakeem. Rebounding, defense and passing would have been great in any era but he would have been a crappy scorer today.

The only "disservice" being done here are by those that continually disparage Wilt's legacy. The SAME posters who, at EVERY turn, SLIGHT Chamberlain's accomplishments. They can't even disguise their disdain for him either, because I have seen lists in which they put Chamberlain at the bottom of an all-time top-10 (and usually right next to Russell.)

I have read YOU, Dickwad, claiming that Hakeem had a better CAREER than Chamberlain (and once again, ranking Hakeem over Wilt.) Yet, there is not one shred of evidence that supports that view. Individual records, accolades, and team success...Wilt just blows him away. It is posters like yourself, Kblaze, Fecal9 and a few others that have basically labeled Chamberlain as a "loser", a "choker", a "stats-padder", and a "failure." But, you and these few other idiots are claiming that I'M doing a disservice to Wilt. Yeah right.

I HAVE NEVER SAID HAKEEM HAD A BETTER CAREER, I said that Hakeem had greater championshipruns and only an idiot would claim something else.

And yes, you are doing a disservice to Wilt and his legacy, you single-handedly made Wilt look like a clown on this site. And it's funny since the guys who dissed you, posters like ShaqAttack, Fatal and Kblaze are much more respected on this site than you'll ever be.. You know why...

And regarding ranking Hakeem ahead of Wilt, I have no problems what so ever doing so and I have Shaq and Kareem over Wilt as well. Me ranking Hakeem over Wilt is not based on stats and in the end of the day, Hakeem won just as many championships as Wilt and he had greater runs..

millwad

08-28-2011, 10:32 AM

LMFAO @ this idiot. A great majority in this board are trolls. Sadly, you are one of them. You're one of those contradicting, illogical "anti-Wilt" posters who finds the smallest crease to bash Wilt. It gets even worse when you assume things, and don't back it up.

Yeah, and Jlauber who is considered to be the biggest joke on this site is not a troll.. The guy is a troll without even knowing it and in all honesty I couldn't care less about your opinion at all. I have barely read any of your posts on this site but being Jlauber's buttyboy says alot about you. You are riding the same guy's dick who claimed that the players of the 60's had just as much skills as the guys of today, and before that he said the complete opposite..

I'm not Anti-Wilt, I'm Anti-JBieber. Regarding me assuming things, please explain?

D-Wade316

08-28-2011, 10:45 AM

Yeah, and Jlauber who is considered to be the biggest joke on this site is not a troll.. The guy is a troll without even knowing it and in all honesty I couldn't care less about your opinion at all. I have barely read any of your posts on this site but being Jlauber's buttyboy says alot about you. You are riding the same guy's dick who claimed that the players of the 60's had just as much skills as the guys of today, and before that he said the complete opposite..

I'm not Anti-Wilt, I'm Anti-JBieber. Regarding me assuming things, please explain?
Yep. That's the just the cold-hard fact you can't accept. First of all, an over-the-hill Kareem pounded Hakeem. Second, over-the-hill Wilt fought PRIME Kareem to a stand still. The question is, what PRIME Wilt would do to PRIME Kareem considering that Kareem>Shaq, Hakeem, DRob, Walton?

Yes you are. Don't deny that.

23-12, many more.

D-Wade316

08-28-2011, 10:58 AM

Dickwad,

Back your claim that players today are more skilled than players in the past.
Refute this post:

I didn't glean ONE intelligent sentence in all of that rambling. And once again, you can't back up your own stupidity with even ONE pertinent FACT. You mindlessly throw out a 23-12 number for arguably the greatest force the game has ever seen, and we are just supposed to accept that? What in the name of hell are those ridculous NUMBERS based on? And yet, you then vomit up the nonsense that Shaq's 30-14 is the best we have ever seen (?) How about MJ? What would HIS NUMBERS look like in this MODERN era? It has been 15 years since his last meaningful game...so surely the game has changed SIGNIFICANTLY since then, right? Bird and Magic? In their primes, maybe role players in today's game? Moses and Kareem? It has been over 25 years since either of them were among the best players of their eras (and Kareem certainly wasn't in his PRIME, either.) What of them? In their PRIMES...bench players in today's NBA?

Look, YOU might believe that the game has changed DRAMATICALLY, since Wilt's heyday, but I sure can't seem to find much evidence of it. I recall Pistol Pete's magic even in the 60's at LSU. He was doing things with the ball that even Jason Williams couldn't duplicate in THIS era. AND, yet, did ANYONE think that Maravich was a better basketball player than Oscar or West? The game is STILL played with the same size baskets, same size courts, same size ball, with the same number of players, and with basically the same rules (with the 3 pt shot being about the only exception) since Chamberlain first stepped onto an NBA court. I haven't seen ANYTHING in TODAY's era, that I didn't see in the 60's. Hell, the Harlem Globetrotters of the 60's were doing EVERYTHING that we have seen in TODAY's game. Gus Johnson was shattering backboards in the 60's. Jerry Lucas had deadly 3pt range, despite the NBA not even having that rule in place. And even I wasn't around to see Bill Sharman shooting .932 from the FT line in the 50's. Connie Hawkins was swooping in for incredibly athletic baskets in the late 60's. And by the early 70's, and when Wilt was STILL dominating the world of basketball, I witnessed the high-flying dunks of Dr. J and David Thompson. And, then Bob McAdoo went ballistic from all over the court in the mid-70's. Finally, I was fortunate enough to have seen a PRIME Kareem, struggling against a way-past his prime Chamberlain, and even being outplayed by him...and yet, some 15 years later, and at age 38, he was effortlessly hanging 40+ point games on Hakeem and Ewing.

My god, the actual PLAYERS are not SIGNIFICANTLY taller TODAY, than they were in Wilt's era. And the NUMBERS? The HIGHEST scoring season in Wilt's CAREER, was in a league that averaged 118.8 ppg. He also played in leagues that scored as few as 107.6 ppg. How about TODAY's NBA? 100 ppg. So, based on that you just ARBITRARILY throw out a 23-12 seasonal average for a PEAK Chamberlain? When he was scoring 50 ppg and getting 27 rpg in those leagues? Maybe they taught you a different math in your schools...but I just don't see a 50-27 player, playing in leagues that were scoring at about 85%, and rebounding at levels around 70% of what they were at his peak...being a 23-12 player.

And once again, I have NEVER claimed that Wilt would be a 50-25 player in TODAY's NBA, either...despite the FACT that he did in FACT, accomplish those feats. BUT, there is simply no logical explanation as to a PRIME Chamberlain being a 23-12 player in TODAY's NBA...especially given the horrible centers who TRY to play the game today. You will NEVER convince me that a 6-9 Kevin Love, who had nowhere NEAR the size, strength, speed, leaping ability, or pure tenacity to grab a rebound that Chamberlain had...would be outrebounding the 7-2 Wilt, at 275 lbs, and with a 7-8 wingspan, by THREE rebounds per game. NOR will you convince me that today's centers and even team defenses, would have limited a PRIME Wilt, and being asked to carry a team offensively, to a measley 23 ppg.

When you can actually introduce some logical, factual evidence into your garbage posts, then get back to me. A 23-12 guy???!!! Yep, and a PRIME Kareem would be a 17-8 player; a PRIME West would be a 15-5 guy; a PRIME Oscar would be a 15-7-7 guy; A PRIME Russell would be an 8-11 guy; and players like Barry and McAdoo would be 17 ppg scorers at their best. Yep, using YOUR baseless analogies...that is what we are to presume.
Unless you can't, you're just rambling.

millwad

08-28-2011, 11:17 AM

Yep. That's the just the cold-hard fact you can't accept. First of all, an over-the-hill Kareem pounded Hakeem. Second, over-the-hill Wilt fought PRIME Kareem to a stand still. The question is, what PRIME Wilt would do to PRIME Kareem considering that Kareem>Shaq, Hakeem, DRob, Walton?

I'm starting to believe that you're Jlauber, you use the exact same arguments and you are licking his butt big-time quoting his crap and replying with "/Thread", haha.. And haha, you're calling me Dickwad.. Jlauber, we know it's you, no one is that pathetic..

And a stand still? Haha, Kareem averaged 40 points on Wilt in the regular season of '72 on 51% shooting and then outscoring Wilt with an average of 23 points per game in the playoffs on better FG% and then outassisting him and shooting FT's twice as good during the series. "Stand still" just got a new meaning.

And yeah, Kareem pounded Hakeem so badly that Hakeem in the same season abused Kareem and the Lakers and led his Rockets to an EASY 4-1 win in the playoffs.. A 2nd year pro in Hakeem Olajuwon leading his team to a crushing 4-1 win in series vs the previous year champs and against a team with Magic Johnson, Kareem and Worthy..

Yes you are. Don't deny that.

23-12, many more.

I didn't write the "23-12"-comment you idiot, and are the "many more" things I get credit for writing when others actually wrote it just like this? Haha, you're pathetic..

Calabis

08-28-2011, 11:20 AM

Against those unathletic undersized SGs I think these would be Kobe's stats

40ppg 10APG 9RPG 50%FGA omfg:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Here is a question for you...who the hell would Kobe be, without copying others greats games, and growing up in a very different world(ie racism, lack of playing all over the damn country, etc)

D-Wade316

08-28-2011, 02:15 PM

I'm starting to believe that you're Jlauber, you use the exact same arguments and you are licking his butt big-time quoting his crap and replying with "/Thread", haha.. And haha, you're calling me Dickwad.. Jlauber, we know it's you, no one is that pathetic..

And a stand still? Haha, Kareem averaged 40 points on Wilt in the regular season of '72 on 51% shooting and then outscoring Wilt with an average of 23 points per game in the playoffs on better FG% and then outassisting him and shooting FT's twice as good during the series. "Stand still" just got a new meaning.

And yeah, Kareem pounded Hakeem so badly that Hakeem in the same season abused Kareem and the Lakers and led his Rockets to an EASY 4-1 win in the playoffs.. A 2nd year pro in Hakeem Olajuwon leading his team to a crushing 4-1 win in series vs the previous year champs and against a team with Magic Johnson, Kareem and Worthy..

I didn't write the "23-12"-comment you idiot, and are the "many more" things I get credit for writing when others actually wrote it just like this? Haha, you're pathetic..
Jlauber...

jlauber

08-28-2011, 02:20 PM

Kblaze's claim that I am doing a disservice to Chamberlain was interesting. There was not one positive comment about Wilt in that post. And to make it even more suspicious, was using Wilt's FINAL season as some kind of an indicator as to the rebounder that Chamberlain was.

In examining Wilt's LAST season, and at age 36 (and again, a couple of years removed from major knee surgery), he LED the NBA in rebounding (for the ELEVENTH time in his 14 seasons...which included one season in which he was injured), at 18.6 rpg. He did so in 43.2 mpg, which was the second lowest of his career. And this came in a league in which the average team grabbed 50.6 rpg. Ok, Kevin Love, in his third season (and Chamberlain was grabbing 25.7 in his third season BTW), averaged 15.2 rpg in a league that averaged 41.3 rpg. So, reducing Wilt's 18.6 in a league that averaged 50.6 rpg, down to Love's 41.3 mpg, and Wilt comes in right at 15.2 rpg. Granted, Chamberlain played 43.2 mpg to Love's 35.8, BUT, while we know that Chamberlain could easily play 48 mpg, even in his LAST season (he averaged 47.2 mpg in his 17 post-season games), we certainly don't know how much longer, or how effective Love would have been at 43 mpg.

Kblaze also brought up Dwight Howard's 14.2 rpg season, in a league that averaged 42 rpg. And, yes, it came in 37.7 mpg. Here again, take Wilt's LAST season, at 18.6 rpg, in a league that averaged 50.6 rpg, and reduce it down to Dwight's level, and Wilt would have averaged 15.4 rpg. Once again, Wilt played 43.2 mpg, while Howard was at 37.7 mpg.

However, this is where it gets interesting. Howard, who could seldom stay on the floor for a full game due to stupid fouls, averaged 42.1 mpg in that '08 post-season (covering 10 games)...and 15.8 rpg. Meanwhile, Chamberlain, in his LAST season, at age 36, averaged 22.5 rpg in HIS 17 post-season games. So, Howard averaged 15.8 rpg, in 42.1 mpg, in a league that averaged 42 rpg. in his ten post-season games. Reducing Wilt's LAST post-season down to Howard's levels, and he would have averaged 18.6 rpg in that post-season. Reducing that down to Howard's 42.1 mpg, and Wilt would STILL have averaged 16.6 rpg in the same conditions.

Again...in his LAST season. Think about that, Chamberlain, at age 36, has been a better rebounder than ANY post-season that Howard has played in (including Howard's 15.3 in his 39.3 mpg post-season in '09...in which Wilt would STILL have snared 15.4 rpg.)

And, here again, Chamberlain at age 36, and in LAST season, was EASILY outrebounding a PRIME Kareem by 2.5 rpg, a PRIME Cowens by 2.4 rpg, a PRIME Unseld by 2.7 rpg, and a PRIME Hayes by 4.1 rpg. All four of those guys would go to battle for rebounding titles the rest of the decade (until Moses came in at the end of the decade.) Now, Wilt also outrebounded the 31 year old Thurmond, by "only" 1.5 rpg during the regular season. HOWEVER, the two squared off in the '73 WCF's (after Thurmond completely neutralized Kareem in thwe previous round)...and Wilt POUNDED Nate by a 23.6 rpg to 17.2 rpg margin in that series (while also outshooting him, .550 to .392.)

Now, think about this...Chamberlain LED the league in rebounding at age 36, at 18.6 rpg, and then, as ALWAYS, ELEVATED his rebounding in that post-season, to 22.5 rpg. Compare that with Russell, at age 36...well, Russell retired at age 34. How about Thurmond at age 36? Nope, Nate retired at 35. Hakeem at age 36? Ok, Olajuwon averaged 9.8 rpg at age 36, and then, in the post-season, he declined to 7.3 rpg. Kareem at age 36? 7.3 rpg, and in the post-season...all the way up to 8.2 rpg in 36.5 mpg. Robinson? 8.3 and then a decline to 5.8 rpg. Shaq? 8.4 rpg, and his team didn't make the playoffs.

Furthermore, KBlaze went out of his way to point out a couple of games in the '67 Finals, in which Wilt grabbed over 30 rpg. In one of them, Wilt pulled down 38 rebounds out of the 150 available. Of course, that would be the equivalent of a player getting 19 out of 75 (or about 25% of ALL of the rebounds.) Not bad, BUT, how about Wilt in the previous round, and against Russell? Once again... in game one, Wilt had 32 of the 120 available rebounds, and all while holding Russell to 15. In the clinching game five win of that series, Chamberlain had 36 of the 128 total available rebounds, and held Russell to 21. And, in game three, Russell managed to get 29 of the 134 available rebounds, BUT, Chamberlain ripped down a playoff record of 41...or an eevn 30% of ALL of the available rebounds. I could list a TON of games in which Chamberlain just CRUSHED Russell on the glass (he outrebounded Russell by a 92-42-8 margin in their 142 H2H games...and by an average of FIVE per game), but I wonder what Wilt's available percentage was in the game in which he murdered Russell by a 55-19 margin? Even in Russell's last season, in which Chamberlain was 32, Wilt had one game in which he held a 42-18 advantage, and then followed that up with a playoff game margin of 31-13. And, how about Wilt's clinching game five in the '72 NBA Finals, in which he played with two heavily bandaged wrists (one was sprained, the other fractured)? All Chamberlain did in that game was grab 29 rebounds, out of the 106 available, and while holding the ENTIRE Knick team to 39 (and, while scoring 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, and with NINE blocks.)

Now, we know that Wilt was grabbing 27.2 rpg in leagues that averaged about 62 rpg (and BEFORE adding TEAM rebounds), and then in '67 he averaged 24.2 rpg, in 45.2 mpg, in a league that averaged about 59 rpg. And those numbers were pretty indicative of just what he was burying the league with for the entire decade. BUT, wouldn't it be interesting if we had the available rebounds in all of those games, and including the many of the playoffs, when he had EIGHT post-seasons of 24.7+, including a 30.2 average in '66?

DOMINATION? Once again, Chamberlain absolutely CRUSHED Russell in their 142 H2H games, including ALL eight of their post-season series (and some by as much as 32 to 23 rpg.) He was also NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series (can ANY other player, including Rodman, make that claim?) ELEVEN rebounding titles in 14 seasons (and once again, he averaged 18.4 rpg in his '70 season when he was injured...and Hayes led the league at 16.9 rpg.) He outrebounded Thurmond in nearly every post-season GAME, and pounded him in all of their series. He outrebounded Kareem in the majority of their H2H's, and won three rebounding titles in their four year together (again, missing out in '70 when he was injured), as well as even outrebounding Jabbar in one game by a 25-8 margin. He had 30+ rebound games against Unseld, Lanier, and Cowens just in his 71-72 season alone (and at age 35, and two years removed from that surgery.)

So, go ahead and throw out the NUMBERS, Chamberlain was LIGHT-YEARS ahead of his peers in EVERY aspect of rebounding. And his NUMBERS translate into being the best rebounder in THIS era, as well.

Kblaze8855

08-28-2011, 03:28 PM

And yes, you are doing a disservice to Wilt and his legacy, you single-handedly made Wilt look like a clown on this site. And it's funny since the guys who dissed you, posters like ShaqAttack, Fatal and Kblaze are much more respected on this site than you'll ever be.. You know why...

Hes really doing nothing but gettlng Wilt hated on. I spent like 7-8 years trying to explain to people who hated on Wilt how unreasonable some of the claims about him are. My first post here ever....was 10 seasons ago..and it was about How underrated he is due to people not understanding how to put his numbers in context without making him out to be playing against scrubs.
From the moment I got here...I defended wilt. I just did it without being an asshole lost in numbers with a mind that cant process two concepts at once.

What amazed me is how often he can apply common sense to some and then disregard his own logic when Wilt is the issue. He knows that if you transport Kobe in his prime to 1962...hes not actually a better player. Hes playing in a vastly different situaiton. so he estimates he could score in the mid 40s. He can understand that ability doesnt have to change for production to be far more or less due to the situation. But then...he takes a claim that wilt would score half as much...to mean im saying Wilt is half the player. Its hard to even imagine an adult mind capable of such a thing.

Shit Wilt scored less than half as much in his prime than he did at his scoring peak. he was clearly not a lesser player. he just...scored half as much. And 1967 is a lot more similar to 1962 than 62 is to 2011. But while simply getting new teammates and a change in coaching can drop wilts scoring by 26 a game in 5 years....its absurd to assume it can drop by as much with 50 years of change, different teammates, a totally different approach to using stars, nobody playing nearly his minutes, and having thousands of less possessions.

Really...how is a grown man incapable of understanding how that has NOTHING to do with Wilt actually performing worse? he could perform exactly as well and not have numbers any better than the 23-28 and 12-14 I said id not be surprised by.

Lets say Wilt would be played 40 minutes a game(which I very much doubt..coaches just dont do that these days).

Production over 40 minutes...Wilt at his very best(philly...67 and 68) was putting up 21 a game. 21. 21 points 21 rebounds. With thousands more rebounds to grab. Wilt at his best and on a good team was just not pushed to score. he played at the only time in history anyone would be asked to score the way he did. In 2011? Lets just throw him on the teams he played on so im clearly not picking and choosing situations that fit my point...

Warriors. Put Wilt on a team with 3 people who have scored about 20 a game. Wilt with Lee, Curry, and Ellis. 4 good scorers. Why is wilt taking a large number of shots exactly? He isnt. Hes playing team ball as he showed he was willing to when he had teammates to play with. And lets say Wilt is EXACTLY as effective on the boards. He gets the exact same percentage of his teams rebounds in 2011 as he got in his best season(67). 34%. Know what that is on the 2011 Warriors? 13.78.

Clearly some differences would exist if you drop a great rebounder like wilt onto the team. But there just arent enough for him to get up to the levels he was at....or near them...not without pulled a rodman and doing nothing else but rebounding.

On Philly now? He would be called on to score more...but at the rates he was back in his scoring days? He took 39 shots of 108 for his team. On the current 76ers..if he shots at the same rate..same percentage of his teams shots(and he wouldnt) thats 29 shots a game. Why on Earth...would wilt be taking 29 shots a game on the 76ers now? Thats about the same rate(of the teams shots) as Kobe took in 06. Why would wilt be asked to do such a thing? They have enough decent scorers to get by. They were a middling team scoring wise without Wilt. But he steps in and takes more shots than anyone has since the 80s? He steps in and takes more shots than AI did when he was playing 44 minutes a night? Of course he doesnt. Shooting that much just will not happen in 2011 on an even somewhat decent team.

Wilt wasnt selfish enough to do it. he was asked...told...to score the way he did. He didnt just hate his teammates, not want to pass, or have a gunners mentality. He did as he was told and gets hated on for it 50 years later. IT wasnt Wilt deciding to shoot 40 times a game. It was him being told t odo it...who is gonna tell him to shoot 30 times now? Im not even gonna go into what he would do on the Lakers now...with Kobe, Gasol, odom, Bynum, and all.

He spent most of his career shooting about what bigtime scorers shoot these days(He never even shot as much as Kobe or AI after 1965)...or shooting a lot less. He spent 7 years shooting 7-16 times a game when he was fully capable of scoring 30 a night. In Philly he probably could have done 40+ a game. But he shot 16 times a night...and played the best ball of his career.

But its an insult to say he might score in 2011 what he scored at his best? while rebounding less because...there are thousands less to grab? Pretending that there being thousands less missed shots means I think Wilt would be a worse rebounder?

And to stretch it to act like im saying Kareem would put up 17-18 a game? As if any players statistical decline for well explained reasons should be applied to everyone else? And at the same rate? As if Kareem was doing 50 a game to begin with? Kareem was scoring mid to upper 20s most of his prime. But hes gonna drop at the same 50% rate Wilt would? And that is what im supposed to be saying?

Its the combo of a lack of reasoning, not being able to apply his own logic when it doesnt suit an agenda, and just generally being a know nothing stat addicted cheerleader that have made wilt so much more mocked than he used to be here.

So many of these people who only talk about their favorite player do nothing but make them more hated on than they would be otherwise. It normally doesnt bother me...but Wilt wasnt doing so great in the eyes of modern fans to begin with.

And his legacy gets turned into something to mock by this guy who cant make a point without looking like an idiot?

If he actually wants Wilt to be more respected he should stop saying things so foolish people have no choice but to laugh and get him worked up into saying things that are even dumber.

Hes the "Your guy was better off without you" poster taken to an extreme I never thought possible.

jlauber

08-28-2011, 05:05 PM

Chamberlain's REBOUNDING would be a constant. He was the BEST rebounder, and by usually by a LARGE margin. You have already blown up your own 12 rpg myth. A Chamberlain playing FAR few minutes would STILL be getting 14 rpg in TODAY's game. And, that does not take into account the LACK of quality centers in TODAY's NBA.

And for one who doesn't relish NUMBERS, you don't even acknowledge the OBVIOUS. Wilt DOMINATED his peers. It goes beyond the 20-27 rpg seasons. And it goes beyond the PLETHORA of 25-30 rpg post-seasons. He simply CRUSHED his peers. How do explain Wilt outrebounding Russell by a 55-19 margin one game (not mention the overwhelming edge he had in MANY other H2H games)? Tom Boerwinkle actually had a higher "rebound rate" in a couple of seasons in the early 70's. The two met three times in the '71, '72 and '73 playoffs, and Chamberlain buried him in each. Forget the fact that the 7-0 270 lb. Boerwinkle couldn't even stay on the floor for any reasonable amount of minutes, ...he couldn't hang with Wilt when he was on it. In the '73 playoffs, he played exactly 30 minutes, and grabbed 9 rebounds, or about 15 per 48 minutes. Chamberlain pulled down 172 over the course of that seven game series, and averaged 24.6 rpg for the series. All at age 36, and in his LAST season in the NBA.

I have already given my take on Chamberlain's "expected" production in TODAY's NBA... 30-35 ppg, 17-18 rpg, and on .575 to .600 shooting. I also made the comment that Wilt MAY not have HAD to SCORE that much, BUT, that he would certainly be capable of it.

Once again...his REBOUNDING would be a constant. And his best seasons of 27 rpg translate to about 18 rpg in today's NBA. Would he play 48 mpg? Of course not. BUT, he LED the NBA in mpg nearly EVERY season (NINE times), and with the SEVEN highest in NBA HISTORY. He was playing 43.2 mpg in his LAST season. And we have had players like Iverson and Lebron playing 43 mpg in the CURRENT NBA. Wilt also hated to come out of games because of his arthritic knees, which would stiffen up. I suspect that a PRIME Chamberlain would be playing every bit of 43 mpg, but even at 42...his 18 rpg drop to about 16.

HOWEVER, drop his minutes, and his EFFICIENCY surely would rise. And not just for ONE game...but over the course of the ENTIRE season. And over the course of his entire CAREER. So, let's raise his rebounding back to at least 16-17. THEN, factor in that he is not being challenged very often at the center position, and even in 42 mpg, 18 rpg would not be unreasonable. Especially when Wilt PROVED that, in the biggest games of the playoffs, and against the BEST rebounders of his era, he could routinely grab 30-40 (even 41) rpg.

And that EFFICIENCY comes into play in his SCORING and SHOOTING, as well. I have long maintained that LEAGUE AVERAGE FG% needs to be applied, just as those that push "pace" in THEIR agendas to discredit Chamberlain's offensive numbers. And, with the modern era, it's not just about league average FG% either, but eFG%, since teams are taking more long range shots. Wilt was scoring 50 ppg, on .506 shooting, in league's that shot .426; 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting, in league's that shot .441; 36.9 ppg on .524 shooting, in league's that shot .433; 34.7 ppg on .510 shooting, in a league that shot .426 (BTW, the lane was widened that season, and it affect Wilt far less than the rest of the league; and 33.5 ppg, on .540 shooting, in a league that shot .433. THEN, as KBlaze pointed out, he dropped to 24.1 ppg, BUT, on .683 shooting, in a league that shot .441. And, BTW, Rick Barry, who led the NBA in scoring, at 35.6 admitted that Chamberlain didn't care to win the scoring title that season. So, the ENTIRE league was aware of the fact that Wilt COULD have easily scored MUCH more. And, over the course of the next two seasons, while Wilt "only" averaged 24.3 ppg and then 20.5 ppg, he STILL hung games of 52, 53, 53, 60, 66, and 68.

Perhaps the most interesting season would have been his '69-70 season. Why? Because once again, he had a new head coach, and that coach, Joe Mullaney immediately went to Wilt and asked him to become the focal point of the offense. Chamberlain relished the role. He was in his 11th season, and had done whatever his coaches asked him to, whether it be score 40-50 ppg, or lead the league in assists. Now, well into his 30's, he was being asked to once again change his game. And he responded by averaging 32.2 ppg in his first nine games. Included in those nine games were games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43...as well as a H2H with rookie Kareem, in which he outscored Jabbar (Alcindor), 25-23; outrebounded Jabbar, 25-20; outassisted Kareem, 5-2; outblocked him, 3-2; and outshot him by a 9-14 to 9-21 margin (.643 to .429.) BTW, this was a 14 team NBA, with centers such as Unseld, Hayes, Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and Kareem.

Unfortunately, Chamberlain shredded his knee in that ninth game, and was never the same again. Still, despite that injury and subsequent surgery, he came back WAY ahead of schedule, and, as he said, to help his team in the post-season (THAT was the Chamberlain who was labeled as selfish.) And while he was nowhere near 100%, he still hung a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 Finals (the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history.)

But, while we have no way of knowing if Chamberlain could have sustained that 32.2 ppg over the course of the entire season, it was still a STATEMENT. Here was Chamberlain, nearing the twilight of his career, and STILL being capable of putting up 30+ ppg runs (and 40 point games.)

And, once again, he was accomplishing ALL of that, in leagues that shot FAR worse than the current NBA. He was shooting 100-200+ points over the league average even then, in leagues that shot between .410 to .456.

Now, take last year's NBA... .459 FG%. Even adjusting some of Wilt's "scoring" seasons, in leagues that shot around .430 on average, Wilt's EFFICIENCY would have risen in the current NBA. BUT, it goes beyond that .459 of 2011, too. The league eFG% was at .498 last season. Adjust Wilt's shooting to reflect that increase, and he would have been shooting at around .600 in his "scoring" seasons, and well over 70% in his "efficiency" seasons. So, while his FGAs would drop due to "pace", his FG%'s would rise, which would offset some of that drop.

Of course, the real question would be, IF, a PRIME Chamberlain were asked to CARRY an offense, and even be reasonable, and "reducing" his FGAs to say 25 per game, well, at .600 shooting, he would scoring 30 ppg BEFORE his FTAs. Even at .550, that is 27 ppg. Add in his FT scoring, and he would easily top 30 ppg. And all of that is BEFORE the additional EFFICIENCY boost he would get in less mpg. Then, think about this. Even at 20 FGAs, and at around .600 shooting, Chamberlain, with his FTs would STILL be close to 30 ppg.

So, if you want to say that a PRIME Chamberlain would only be a 23-12 player in today's NBA...I just don't see it. Even dramatically reducing his FGAs, he would still probably be a 23-16 guy...and on perhaps as high as .700 shooting (which we KNOW that he was capable of BTW.) BUT, that would be a "facilitating" Chamberlain. I contend that realistically, Chamberlain would still have had his "scoring" seasons at some point. And, 30-35 ppg would not be out of the question.

Pointguard

08-28-2011, 05:21 PM

Jlauder isn't responsible for people hating on Wilt. You never change your position, to the wrong position, because of negative feedback. If you accomplish that, all you have done is be the leader of dumming people down. The world will do you know favors in that scenario. It's one thing to say it was yesterday or the old days, but its a whole other thing to not acknowledge greatness, separation, domination and one of the greatest trailblazer's of offensive dominance in any sport. Is basketball the only sport where respected fans flow with this lack of knowledge or act like he should be desecrated. Every other sport the majority of the fans are in the know of the player that was way ahead of his time. Resentment and blind haterism is only the way of basketball fans.

Pele, Ruth, Thorpe, Jim Brown, Ali, Gretsky are all Iconic because they were ahead of their time, superskilled, trailblazers that affected the game more than anybody else and others dream of attaining their heights. Nobody knows how much they won but everybody knows that they are great. Wilt had more separation than those guys did and his game was more complete. If people hate Wilt's greatness they hate a part of the game. They made rules for him, he dominated, the first mega force on both sides of the ball. The quintessential center, the first gifted player to give it his all on both sides of the ball. The first power finesse game. The first to play above the rim. The first to lead the league in most of the major categories. The first to play with style after totally dominating content.

Its not really close as to what others bring to the game, the separation he achieved from other players, the absolute domination, complete all- around game, energy to execute more than others and the impact and style he

LJJ

08-28-2011, 05:39 PM

i was thinking more of who would guard him off the dribble? no doubt russell would have made it tough for him to score once he got to the rim...

(in response to:)
http://i.imgur.com/RCSYT.jpg

That's not Bill Russell you fackot. You just proved to anyone with even a morsel of knowledge about basketball that you don't know what the hell you are saying. Typical Kobe stan fackot. How the fukc can you type without a brain and with Kobe's d1ck rammed up your asshole is what I'm asking.

millwad

08-28-2011, 05:43 PM

Now, take last year's NBA... .459 FG%. Even adjusting some of Wilt's "scoring" seasons, in leagues that shot around .430 on average, Wilt's EFFICIENCY would have risen in the current NBA. BUT, it goes beyond that .459 of 2011, too. The league eFG% was at .498 last season. Adjust Wilt's shooting to reflect that increase, and he would have been shooting at around .600 in his "scoring" seasons, and well over 70% in his "efficiency" seasons. So, while his FGAs would drop due to "pace", his FG%'s would rise, which would offset some of that drop.

Of course, the real question would be, IF, a PRIME Chamberlain were asked to CARRY an offense, and even be reasonable, and "reducing" his FGAs to say 25 per game, well, at .600 shooting, he would scoring 30 ppg BEFORE his FTAs. Even at .550, that is 27 ppg. Add in his FT scoring, and he would easily top 30 ppg. And all of that is BEFORE the additional EFFICIENCY boost he would get in less mpg. Then, think about this. Even at 20 FGAs, and at around .600 shooting, Chamberlain, with his FTs would STILL be close to 30 ppg.

So, if you want to say that a PRIME Chamberlain would only be a 23-12 player in today's NBA...I just don't see it. Even dramatically reducing his FGAs, he would still probably be a 23-16 guy...and on perhaps as high as .700 shooting (which we KNOW that he was capable of BTW.) BUT, that would be a "facilitating" Chamberlain. I contend that realistically, Chamberlain would still have had his "scoring" seasons at some point. And, 30-35 ppg would not be out of the question.

Haha, now you only show how stupid you really are. You can't compare the average FG% of less skilled players in the 60's to the players of today's FG%.

It's like you honestly believe that Wilt played in an era where the defense was that much better rather than the players being less skilled. To actually believe that the Wilt of the 60's with the same skills and everything would make 60-70% of his shots while scoring crazy much today is just a joke.

No way, Jbieber, there's no way. Some of Wilt's dominance came through him being an athletic freak compared to players of that era. And the amount of double teams he'd have on him in this era if he'd be really dominant can't even be compared to the few double teams he faced in his own era, like come on.

And Wilt couldn't shoot, spam all you want about his "great outside shot" but he is one of the worst FT-shooters of all-time and he extremely bad technique when it came to shooting.

catch24

08-28-2011, 05:55 PM

:oldlol: at this hypocritical twit

[quote=jlauber]

jlauber

08-28-2011, 06:00 PM

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Jlauder isn't responsible for people hating on Wilt. You never change your position, to the wrong position, because of negative feedback. If you accomplish that, all you have done is be the leader of dumming people down. The world will do you know favors in that scenario. It's one thing to say it was yesterday or the old days, but its a whole other thing to not acknowledge greatness, separation, domination and one of the greatest trailblazer's of offensive dominance in any sport. Is basketball the only sport where respected fans flow with this lack of knowledge or act like he should be desecrated. Every other sport the majority of the fans are in the know of the player that was way ahead of his time. Resentment and blind haterism is only the way of basketball fans.

Pele, Ruth, Thorpe, Jim Brown, Ali, Gretsky are all Iconic because they were ahead of their time, superskilled, trailblazers that affected the game more than anybody else and others dream of attaining their heights. Nobody knows how much they won but everybody knows that they are great. Wilt had more separation than those guys did and his game was more complete. If people hate Wilt's greatness they hate a part of the game. They made rules for him, he dominated, the first mega force on both sides of the ball. The quintessential center, the first gifted player to give it his all on both sides of the ball. The first power finesse game. The first to play above the rim. The first to lead the league in most of the major categories. The first to play with style after totally dominating content.

Its not really close as to what others bring to the game, the separation he achieved from other players, the absolute domination, complete all- around game, energy to execute more than others and the impact and style he

jlauber

08-28-2011, 06:15 PM

:oldlol: at this hypocritical twit

Hypocritical?

First of all, those posts were made YEARS ago. Secondly, I question the context.

And, I could not care less. We have access to FAR more footage and information than we did years ago. At one time I believed that the modern athlete was better. And I still do. BUT, it is only a marginal difference. Look at HEIGHTS. In Wilt and Russell's era, players were measured barefoot (and in some cases, like Wilt's, Kareem's, and Walton's...they were UNDER-measured), while TODAY's players are measured in shoes. In 1960, the average center was 6-10. By 1970 it was 6-11. In 2011 it was a little over 7-0. Add at least an inch to the players of yesteryear, and they narrow those gaps to almost nil. Of course, as we have seen, height is not the be-all that so many claim. 6-9 Rodman won multiple rebounding titles, as did 6-7 Ben Wallace. Even 6-5 Barkley won a title.

Once again, Maravich was doing things with the ball in the 60's that we see today, only better. And, also once again, no one considered him a greater player than West or Oscar (or even Frazier.) Dr. J and David Thompson, in the early 70's, and Gus Johnson in the 60's, were all making spectacular high-flying dunks. 6-10 McAdoo was hitting shots from all over the floor. Jerry Lucas and Jon McGlocklin could match the best pure shooters of this era.

As for Chamberlain. How can anyone in their right mind honestly believe that a 7-2, 275 lb, beast, with a 7-8 wingspan, and amazing athletic ability, as well as great SKILLS, think that he would not be a great player today? Who is better TODAY?

Russell's offense. I have come to appreciate Russell much more here. For years I focused on Chamberlain's statistical domination and obvious edge in skills, but even I have had to take a second look at his game in these youtube videos. He was a GOOD offensive player. He was very quick, and had a good all-around game at the basket. My god, the man had a 30-40 game seven, as well, as an 18-29 .702 Finals...AND, another Finals in which he LED Boston in scoring at 23.6 ppg. I am certainly not ashamed to say that I under-rated his overall game.

Once again...and as I have railed HERE for the two years that I have been involved here...the GREATS of the 60's and 70's, would be GREAT today. ESPECIALLY with all of the advantages of modern technology, training, and coaching. The real question would be...just how GREAT would they be?

RRR3

08-28-2011, 06:16 PM

Hypocritical?

First of all, those posts were made YEARS ago. Secondly, I question the context.

And, I could not care less. We have access to FAR more footage and information than we did years ago. At one time I believed that the modern athlete was better. And I still do. BUT, it is only a marginal difference. Look at HEIGHTS. In Wilt and Russell's era, players were measured barefoot (and in some cases, like Wilt's, Kareem's, and Walton's...they were UNDER-measured), while TODAY's players are measured in shoes. In 1960, the average center was 6-10. By 1970 it was 6-11. In 2011 it was a little over 7-0. Add at least an inch to the players of yesteryear, and they narrow those gaps to almost nil. Of course, as we have seen, height is not the be-all that so many claim. 6-9 Rodman won multiple rebounding titles, as did 6-7 Ben Wallace. Even 6-5 Barkley won a title.

Once again, Maravich was doing things with the ball in the 60's that we see today, only better. And, also once again, no one considered him a greater player than West or Oscar (or even Frazier.) Dr. J and David Thompson, in the early 70's, and Gus Johnson in the 60's, were all making spectacular high-flying dunks. 6-10 McAdoo was hitting shots from all over the floor. Jerry Lucas and Jon McGlocklin could match the best pure shooters of this era.

As for Chamberlain. How can anyone in their right mind honestly believe that a 7-2, 275 lb, beast, with a 7-8 wingspan, and amazing athletic ability, as well as great SKILLS, think that he would not be a great player today? Who is better TODAY?

Russell's offense. I have come to appreciate Russell much more here. For years I focused on Chamberlain's statistical domination and obvious edge in skills, but even I have had to take a second look at his game in these youtube videos. He was a GOOD offensive player. He was very quick, and had a good all-around game at the basket. My god, the man had a 30-40 game seven, as well, as an 18-29 .702 Finals...AND, another Finals in which he LED Boston in scoring at 23.6 ppg. I am certainly not ashamed to say that I under-rated his overall game.

Once again...and as I have railed HERE for the two years that I have been involved here...the GREATS of the 60's and 70's, would be GREAT today. ESPECIALLY with all of the advantages of modern technology, training, and coaching. The real question would be...just how GREAT would they be?

I fail to see how the context would make those posts any less hypocritical. Admit you were wrong, dude. It'll help. Trust me.

jlauber

08-28-2011, 06:18 PM

I fail to see how the context would make those posts any less hypocritical. Admit you were wrong, dude. It'll help. Trust me.

Not at all.

NugzHeat3

08-28-2011, 06:23 PM

jlauber basically loses all credibility with the quotes catch24 posted. Think about it, this guy claims he's 56 years old who watched Wilt live and whatever else.

Why would you change your opinion just now after all those years? Especially something that you witnessed with your own eyes.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is a gimmick account or a Wilt relative (serious).

jlauber

08-28-2011, 06:33 PM

Haha, now you only show how stupid you really are. You can't compare the average FG% of less skilled players in the 60's to the players of today's FG%.

It's like you honestly believe that Wilt played in an era where the defense was that much better rather than the players being less skilled. To actually believe that the Wilt of the 60's with the same skills and everything would make 60-70% of his shots while scoring crazy much today is just a joke.

No way, Jbieber, there's no way. Some of Wilt's dominance came through him being an athletic freak compared to players of that era. And the amount of double teams he'd have on him in this era if he'd be really dominant can't even be compared to the few double teams he faced in his own era, like come on.

And Wilt couldn't shoot, spam all you want about his "great outside shot" but he is one of the worst FT-shooters of all-time and he extremely bad technique when it came to shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak&feature=fvst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLBXoFJ05ew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUfwr6tdADo

There is enough footage there to clearly show Chamberlain's outside shooting ability. Too bad we don't have full videos of some of his 271 40+ point NBA games, though.

As for lower FG%'s in the 60's...

The BALL was not uniform, the gyms were often frigid and breezy, the scheduling was much more brutal, and the travel conditions were much worse. And yes, Thurmond, Russell, and Chamberlain were great defenders, too. Players played hurt, and with poorer medical attention, as well.

RRR3

08-28-2011, 06:46 PM

millwad

08-28-2011, 07:20 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak&feature=fvst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLBXoFJ05ew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUfwr6tdADo

There is enough footage there to clearly show Chamberlain's outside shooting ability. Too bad we don't have full videos of some of his 271 40+ point NBA games, though.

As for lower FG%'s in the 60's...

The BALL was not uniform, the gyms were often frigid and breezy, the scheduling was much more brutal, and the travel conditions were much worse. And yes, Thurmond, Russell, and Chamberlain were great defenders, too. Players played hurt, and with poorer medical attention, as well.

First of all, two of those videos were highlight videos and I didn't find his outside shot impressive at all in in the last one who was from an all-star game..

If it's like that, then look at this video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh6fOuUOkok

In the video I just linked you can see what an amazing shooter Mihm was and what a great range he had.. Oh, and look at those dunks and blocks, the guy looked amazing.. in the highlight video..

It's called highlight for a reason.

And yeah, blame the low FG% on everything but the skillset of the players..

catch24

08-28-2011, 07:22 PM

millwad

08-28-2011, 07:32 PM

jlauber

08-28-2011, 08:10 PM

First of all, two of those videos were highlight videos and I didn't find his outside shot impressive at all in in the last one who was from an all-star game..

If it's like that, then look at this video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh6fOuUOkok

In the video I just linked you can see what an amazing shooter Mihm was and what a great range he had.. Oh, and look at those dunks and blocks, the guy looked amazing.. in the highlight video..

It's called highlight for a reason.

And yeah, blame the low FG% on everything but the skillset of the players..

Hmmm...

Kareem had seasons in the 70's, in which he shot .539, .529, .518, and even one of .513. In that '74 season, he averaged 27.0 ppg on .539 shooting, and at age 26. At age 33, he averaged 26.2 ppg on .574 shooting. And that came after his '80 season of .604 shooting. In fact, he had EIGHT seasons of .564 or better shooting in the 80's, including one of .599 at age 37. Did he become a better shooter, even in his late 30's? OR, was it perhaps the FACT that FG%'s JUMPED DRAMATICALLY in the 80's?

Artis Gilmore, in his prime, and at age 27... 18.6 ppg on .522 shooting, and in '77. How about his '82 season, and at age 32? 18.5 ppg on .652 shooting. How come a PRIME Gilmore's high season in the 70's was .575, and yet, in the defenseless 80's, he had SIX seasons of .600 or better, with a high of .670?

How about the players of the 60's? John Havlicek played seven seasons in the 60's, and nine in the 70's. Guess what? He shot better in EVERY season in the 70's than he did in his BEST season in the 60's, even in his last season at age 37.

Jerry West, who had perfect form on his jump shot, shot .419 and .445 in his first two seasons in the NBA, in leagues that shot .415 and .426. He was shooting .497 and .494 in the 70's, and his best season came in the late 60's, at .514.

Rick Barry averaged 35.6 ppg on .451 shooting in '67. In '75 he averaged 30.6 ppg on .464 shooting.

Walt Bellamy's career high FG% season came in '72, at well past his prime, when he averaged 18.6 ppg on .545 shooting.

Elgin Baylor had multiple exceptionally low FG%'s in the early to mid-60's, with lows of .401 and .408. In '70, and well past his prime, he shot .486.

Chamberlain? A steady rise almost every season. Then, in the 70's he went even higher.

Of course, all of that supports the TRENDS of that period. FG% pretty much rose almost every season in the 60's, albeit slowly.

Same in the 70's. Slow rises until all of a sudden, in 78-79, it jumped from .469 to .485. What happened?

Then, think about this. How about the players who came into the league in the mid-80's, like your boy Hakeem? What was his highest FG% season? His ROOKIE season, in '85, in a league that shot .491, he shot .538. He played 18 seasons, and his ROOKIE season he shoots his best mark. And, BTW, his 4th best season came in his second season, at .526. Did he become a WORSE shooter as the years went by, OR, was it because the ENTIRE league totals started a decline from '85 on (albeit slowly.) Why did MJ's FG%'s steadily drop from the early 90's thru the end of his career? Did he become a WORSE shooter?

Let's get real here. In the 80's, FG%'s started a meteoric rise. There were ENTIRE leagues shooting .492, and even 30-52 teams shooting .504. How come? How come, nearly player-for-player, the players shot better in the 80's than those that came from the 70's, as well as those that played into the 90's?

Once again, there were a multitude of reasons why FG%'s were down in the early 60's. The ball was not uniform until the late 60's. I have seen footage of BALD basketball's. And some were lighter, some heavier, and I suspect, based on personal experience, that some were even lopsided. There were DOCUMENTED cases of FRIGID arenas, and some were even BREEZY. Most all of us have played basketball in the elements. And they dramatically affect shooting. There were FLOORS with dead-spots, which affected dribbling, and subsequently the setting up of a shot. And perhaps the biggest factor? The SCHEDULE, which was BRUTAL. I have documented Wilt's '62 season (and in which he missed EIGHT minutes all season.) He played in a TON of B2B's. He also played in SIX separate runs of "three-in-a-rows." Not only that, but he also played another FOUR separate stretches of "four-games-in-a-row." On top of all of that, he even played ANOTHER separate stretch of "FIVE-games-in-a-row", and with none of them having a B2B home game. Traveling conditions were considerably worse, too. And, players were expected to play even when they were hurt, as well.

jlauber

08-28-2011, 08:16 PM

Kblaze8855

08-28-2011, 08:28 PM

Jlauder isn't responsible for people hating on Wilt. You never change your position, to the wrong position, because of negative feedback. If you accomplish that, all you have done is be the leader of dumming people down. The world will do you know favors in that scenario. It's one thing to say it was yesterday or the old days, but its a whole other thing to not acknowledge greatness, separation, domination and one of the greatest trailblazer's of offensive dominance in any sport. Is basketball the only sport where respected fans flow with this lack of knowledge or act like he should be desecrated. Every other sport the majority of the fans are in the know of the player that was way ahead of his time. Resentment and blind haterism is only the way of basketball fans.

Nobody is individually responsible for a player being hated on. But his obsessive, often unreasonably stat based, endless daily arguing over Wilt has done little but create a bunch of young people who see him as a joke and hate on Wilt by association. People making wilt hating topics just to see his easily baited 11 page response and not read it.

Some kid says "Wilt was playing 6'6'' centers who couldnt rebound or run the floor" and he comes in:

"FOOL. In 1959 Wilt chamberlain took the league by STORM and dropped 37 points and 27 rebounds with an unofficial 17 blocks in his FIRST game. And as Syracuse Nationals beat writer Rory Mchendleson said:

"Wilt Chamberlain is bending this league over and mounting it in preparation of a penetration from which it may never recover"

Which may in fact has been an understatement. You see even though he faced the great Walt Bellamy, Wayne Embry, bill Russell, and other hall of fame level centers EVERY NIGHT for a 10 game stretch of 1961 he averaged 62 points and 44 rebounds on a Zeus like 66% shooting in a league that shot only 29%...."

And its just on and on repeating the exact same numbers and phrases word for word in topic after topic and so many of the kinds of people who might look into what wilt did and come to respect it just laugh because the source of the information has no idea how to present it reasonably or in context and will post numbers as if they should be taken at face value and do it over and over and over and over and over responding to people who dont actually care what he says because the whole point was just to get him worked up and beating his chest over nothing.

He has drug Wilt into running joke status and the man deserves better.

millwad

08-28-2011, 08:40 PM

Ok then Dickwad...find me some FULL footage, like the one's that CATCH24 supposedly had but obviously NEVER watched...since they were only HALVES of two separate games.

Find me just ONE of Chamberlain's 271 40+ point games. Better yet, how about one of his 118 50+ point games. And I would REALLY appreciate it if you could get me just ONE of his 32 60+ point games. And one can only wonder what his skill-set must have looked like in just ONE of his SIX 70+ point games.

Why do you ask for something that doesn't exist?
I pointed out a valid fact, everyone looks great in a highlight video.

And what's funny is that you claim that you saw a ton of Wilt games back in the days but still the youtube-user WiltAtKansas made you change your mind like 40 years after you saw the games at first.. Who are you trying to fool you clown?

I play in the swedish basketball league and last year my team signed an american college player and I youtube'd the guy and he was labeled as a 3-point expert and when he finally came over he was trash and couldn't hit crap but looking at his highlight videos was like watching a NBA player in action... Usually the americans we get over are really good but this guy was trash and I don't know why he was signed in first place but anyway, just looking at a highlight video and then pointing out stuff like "oh, he made that shot, he must be a great outside shooter" doesn't work.

I don't believe in highlight videos at all so quit the crap, please. And even the footage you linked, Wilt's outside shot looked pretty raw and not great at all.

Stop messing up Wilt's legacy on this board, you are not doing anyone a favour at all with your constant spamming and odd behaviour. As an example, Bill Russell was Wilt's greatest rival and he's considered to be one of the greatest players of all time, why is that he's basically not getting any hate at all compared to Wilt? The reason is you, Wilt's legacy on this board would be much greater without your constant spamming.

jlauber

08-28-2011, 08:47 PM

Nobody is individually responsible for a player being hated on. But his obsessive, often unreasonably stat based, endless daily arguing over Wilt has done little but create a bunch of young people who see him as a joke and hate on Wilt by association. People making wilt hating topics just to see his easily baited 11 page response and not read it.

Some kid says "Wilt was playing 6'6'' centers who couldnt rebound or run the floor" and he comes in:

"FOOL. In 1959 Wilt chamberlain took the league by STORM and dropped 37 points and 27 rebounds with an unofficial 17 blocks in his FIRST game. And as Syracuse Nationals beat writer Rory Mchendleson said:

"Wilt Chamberlain is bending this league over and mounting it in preparation of a penetration from which it may never recover"

Which may in fact has been an understatement. You see even though he faced the great Walt Bellamy, Wayne Embry, bill Russell, and other hall of fame level centers EVERY NIGHT for a 10 game stretch of 1961 he averaged 62 points and 44 rebounds on a Zeus like 66% shooting in a league that shot only 29%...."

And its just on and on repeating the exact same numbers and phrases word for word in topic after topic and so many of the kinds of people who might look into what wilt did and come to respect it just laugh because the source of the information has no idea how to present it reasonably or in context and will post numbers as if they should be taken at face value and do it over and over and over and over and over responding to people who dont actually care what he says because the whole point was just to get him worked up and beating his chest over nothing.

He has drug Wilt into running joke status and the man deserves better.

If you are directing those quotes at me...please show me the source. I KNOW they are NOT mine. BTW, Wilt's first game was 43 points, 28 rebounds, and an unofficial 17 blocks (and as Psileas pointed out, on 17-27 shooting.)

millwad

08-28-2011, 08:50 PM

If you are directing those quotes at me...please show me the source. I KNOW they are NOT mine. BTW, Wilt's first game was 43 points, 28 rebounds, and an unofficial 17 blocks (and as Psileas pointed out, on 17-27 shooting.)

Wow, you're really not even getting the point of his message.. Instead of responding to the actual message of the post you as always choose to get your head stuck on some non-correct stats. I'm starting to believe that you have a mental disorder or something.

jlauber

08-28-2011, 08:57 PM

Why do you ask for something that doesn't exist?
I pointed out a valid fact, everyone looks great in a highlight video.

And what's funny is that you claim that you saw a ton of Wilt games back in the days but still the youtube-user WiltAtKansas made you change your mind like 40 years after you saw the games at first.. Who are you trying to fool you clown?

I play in the swedish basketball league and last year my team signed an american college player and I youtube'd the guy and he was labeled as a 3-point expert and when he finally came over he was trash and couldn't hit crap but looking at his highlight videos was like watching a NBA player in action... Usually the americans we get over are really good but this guy was trash and I don't know why he was signed in first place but anyway, just looking at a highlight video and then pointing out stuff like "oh, he made that shot, he must be a great outside shooter" doesn't work.

I don't believe in highlight videos at all so quit the crap, please. And even the footage you linked, Wilt's outside shot looked pretty raw and not great at all.

Stop messing up Wilt's legacy on this board, you are not doing anyone a favour at all with your constant spamming and odd behaviour. As an example, Bill Russell was Wilt's greatest rival and he's considered to be one of the greatest players of all time, why is that he's basically not getting any hate at all compared to Wilt? The reason is you, Wilt's legacy on this board would be much greater without your constant spamming.

Chamberlain's FORM in those highlight videos, including his FTs, looked very SOLID. True, as even he said, his FT shooting became worse, but early on he was decent, and he certainly looked much better. Of course, none other than HOF coach Red Holzman CONFIRMED what that video footage conclusively PROVED...

[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."

--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70

And don't feed me any of your crap about Wilt's legacy here. The SAME "anti-Wilt" clan that has existed here since I came on board, continues to spew the SAME vomit about Chamberlain, YOU included.

Holy Random

08-28-2011, 08:57 PM

Wow, you're really not even getting the point of his message.. Instead of responding to the actual message of the post you as always choose to get your head stuck on some non-correct stats. I'm starting to believe that you have a mental disorder or something.

Lol, I seriously can't believe he again didn't get KBlaze's point...

millwad

08-28-2011, 09:10 PM

Chamberlain's FORM in those highlight videos, including his FTs, looked very SOLID. True, as even he said, his FT shooting became worse, but early on he was decent, and he certainly looked much better. Of course, none other than HOF coach Red Holzman CONFIRMED what that video footage conclusively PROVED...

How can a person say that Wilt's FT's looked "VERY SOLID"?
His freethrow's looked like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITxDdnzpnU8

Is that your definition of "VERY SOLID"? You're a joke, you're nothing but a joke. Wilt has never been decent from the freethrow-line and at his best he was a 61% FT-shooter which is not decent at all. And over his career, as an average he made 51% of his FT's which makes him one of the worst FT-shooters of all-time. And in the playoffs he made 45% of his freethrows as an average which also makes him one of the worst FT-shooters of all time in NBA history.

And don't feed me any of your crap about Wilt's legacy here. The SAME "anti-Wilt" clan that has existed here since I came on board, continues to spew the SAME vomit about Chamberlain, YOU included.

Everyone agree's with me, at least a big majority, you're not doing anyone a favour with your constant spamming about Wilt.

RRR3

08-28-2011, 09:11 PM

How can a person say that Wilt's FT's looked "VERY SOLID"?
His freethrow's looked like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITxDdnzpnU8

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/cannot_be_unseen.jpg

Thorn

08-28-2011, 09:14 PM

Nobody is individually responsible for a player being hated on. But his obsessive, often unreasonably stat based, endless daily arguing over Wilt has done little but create a bunch of young people who see him as a joke and hate on Wilt by association. People making wilt hating topics just to see his easily baited 11 page response and not read it.

Some kid says "Wilt was playing 6'6'' centers who couldnt rebound or run the floor" and he comes in:

"FOOL. In 1959 Wilt chamberlain took the league by STORM and dropped 37 points and 27 rebounds with an unofficial 17 blocks in his FIRST game. And as Syracuse Nationals beat writer Rory Mchendleson said:

"Wilt Chamberlain is bending this league over and mounting it in preparation of a penetration from which it may never recover"

Which may in fact has been an understatement. You see even though he faced the great Walt Bellamy, Wayne Embry, bill Russell, and other hall of fame level centers EVERY NIGHT for a 10 game stretch of 1961 he averaged 62 points and 44 rebounds on a Zeus like 66% shooting in a league that shot only 29%...."

And its just on and on repeating the exact same numbers and phrases word for word in topic after topic and so many of the kinds of people who might look into what wilt did and come to respect it just laugh because the source of the information has no idea how to present it reasonably or in context and will post numbers as if they should be taken at face value and do it over and over and over and over and over responding to people who dont actually care what he says because the whole point was just to get him worked up and beating his chest over nothing.

He has drug Wilt into running joke status and the man deserves better.

Pretty much this...I feel like Wilt is ripped on unfairly for getting "only" 2 rings and his losses to the Celtics are way overstated, but bringing Wilt into every thread and posting on and on and on isn't helping your (and Wilt's) case. Oh, and...

FOOL. In 1959 Wilt chamberlain took the league by STORM and dropped 37 points and 27 rebounds with an unofficial 17 blocks in his FIRST game. And as Syracuse Nationals beat writer Rory Mchendleson said:

"Wilt Chamberlain is bending this league over and mounting it in preparation of a penetration from which it may never recover"

Which may in fact has been an understatement. You see even though he faced the great Walt Bellamy, Wayne Embry, bill Russell, and other hall of fame level centers EVERY NIGHT for a 10 game stretch of 1961 he averaged 62 points and 44 rebounds on a Zeus like 66% shooting in a league that shot only 29%...."

:lol :roll: :roll:

Scoooter

08-28-2011, 09:20 PM

How can a person say that Wilt's FT's looked "VERY SOLID"?
His freethrow's looked like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITxDdnzpnU8
That was later in his career, obviously. I don't know if he was better earlier in his career, but it wouldn't be unheard of. Speaking strictly for form, Shaq looked completely normal shooting free throws back when he was in high school and college. But by the end of his career he was, like, half-nervously shot-putting it with one hand.

I've never understood disliking a poster on an internet message board and having that translate to disliking the player he's a fan of. It's not Wilt's fault he's all jlauber ever talks about. And it's not like jlauber's wrong with most of what he's saying either.

"Stans like you are the reason everybody hates Player X". :lol I guess ISH really is that stupid.

millwad

08-28-2011, 09:36 PM

That was later in his career, obviously. I don't know if he was better earlier in his career, but it wouldn't be unheard of. Speaking strictly for form, Shaq looked completely normal shooting free throws back when he was in high school and college. But by the end of his career he was, like, half-nervously shot-putting it with one hand.

I've never understood disliking a poster on an internet message board and having that translate to disliking the player he's a fan of. It's not Wilt's fault he's all jlauber ever talks about. And it's not like jlauber's wrong with most of what he's saying either.

"Stans like you are the reason everybody hates Player X". :lol I guess ISH really is that stupid.

Actually Wilt was always a terrible FT-shooter, he even had a season when he was 31 where he only made 38% of his FT's. His technique hasn't anything to do with age and as I mentioned, he was always a crappy FT-shooter...

And Shaq was a pathetic FT-shooter as well, not as bad as Wilt though.

Scoooter

08-28-2011, 09:42 PM

Actually Wilt was always a terrible FT-shooter, he even had a season when he was 31 where he only made 38% of his FT's. His technique hasn't anything to do with age and as I mentioned, he was always a crappy FT-shooter...

And Shaq was a pathetic FT-shooter as well, not as bad as Wilt though.
...

That was later in his career, obviously. I don't know if he was better earlier in his career, but it wouldn't be unheard of. Speaking strictly for form, Shaq looked completely normal shooting free throws back when he was in high school and college. But by the end of his career he was, like, half-nervously shot-putting it with one hand.

rodman91

08-28-2011, 09:54 PM

How can a person say that Wilt's FT's looked "VERY SOLID"?
His freethrow's looked like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITxDdnzpnU8

http://www.oaks10.com/images/nc17.jpg

Warning: This movie contains graphic images that some viewers may find disturbing.Viewer discretion is advised

millwad

08-28-2011, 09:55 PM

...

I agree that Shaq's form looked better in college but he was still a terrible FT-shooter in college as well. He made 57% of his FT's in college as an average and he even had 3 NBA seasons where he shot with higher FT% than his collge average. And the half-nervous shot-putting center made 59% of his FT's as a 36 year old in Phoenix which is higher than his college average..

And still, no one claims that Shaq was had a good outside shot or anything like that and in the end of the day, Wilt was even a worse FT-shooter then Shaq..

RRR3

08-28-2011, 09:58 PM

http://www.oaks10.com/images/nc17.jpg

Warning: This movie contains graphic images that some viewers may find disturbing.Viewer discretion is advised
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhdiaqeA2n1qha84jo1_500.png

jlauber

08-28-2011, 10:29 PM

Compare Chamberlain's FT shooting in this high school video (at around the 1:50 mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUfwr6tdADo

To your video near the end of his career

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITxDdnzpnU8

BTW, Chamberlain not only .613 from the line in his 61-62 season, he MADE 835 FTs, which is second only to West's 840 in '66. Oh, and also BTW, Wilt holds the record for FTs MADE in a game (with Dantley) at 28...in his 100 point game, and on 28-32 shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak&feature=related

As for his outside shooting...

watch the first minute of this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak&feature=related

chips93

08-28-2011, 10:42 PM

Compare Chamberlain's FT shooting in this high school video (at around the 1:50 mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUfwr6tdADo

his form looks worse than 90% of modern nba players

The_Yearning

08-28-2011, 11:05 PM

Don't tell me that lunatic is still harping on the fakest history of any sport...

Kobe would be dropping 50ppg... 10+ rebounds and 7+ assists a game... 3 blocks and 5 steals a game.... 50+fg %, 45% from 3, 85% from free throws...

Forget 11 rings... he would probably win about 15 straight from age 20 onwards...

EricForman

08-29-2011, 02:37 AM

BigBalla44

08-29-2011, 03:35 AM

guys, leave Lauber alone, his insistence that Wilt is GOAT isn't that outrageous, considering Wilt is one of six guys who has an actual case of GOAT argument. Yes, I TOO think Wilt's case is the weakest out of the six, but Wilt is still in that elite class that can have a case.

save the "you're the worst poster ever" digs at the Kobe stans who constantly flood the board with sh*t threads. Iron Fist, StacksonDeck, TheLogo, those clowns

I agree. Although I dont agree with Jlauber on many issues at least he contributes to this board with his knowledge.

Kobe c.um dumpsters, on the other hand, have nothing to offer. Phuck them.

All Net

08-29-2011, 05:37 AM

At least Lauber backs his words up better than these idiotic trolls

That you have to respect.

millwad

08-29-2011, 08:17 AM

At least Lauber backs his words up better than these idiotic trolls

That you have to respect.

Jlauber's words are so twisted that it's ridiculous and he has no analyzing-skills what so ever. Everything is about stats when it comes to Jlauber beside the stats that doesn't favour Wilt, like his FT's.

When someone mentions Wilt's FT-shooting he instead mention that Wilt made the second most FT's over one season. Like how does that even matter when we're talking about a player who was one of the worst FT-shooters of all time and even had a season where he only made 38% of his FT's?

jlauber

08-29-2011, 10:10 AM

Jlauber's words are so twisted that it's ridiculous and he has no analyzing-skills what so ever. Everything is about stats when it comes to Jlauber beside the stats that doesn't favour Wilt, like his FT's.

When someone mentions Wilt's FT-shooting he instead mention that Wilt made the second most FT's over one season. Like how does that even matter when we're talking about a player who was one of the worst FT-shooters of all time and even had a season where he only made 38% of his FT's?

While Chamberlain was obviously a poor FT shooter for most of his career, he was actually adequate early on. In his 61-62 season he shot .613, and once again, his 835 MADE FTs are the second most ever in a season. He also ranks 17th in CAREER FT's MADE (14th in NBA only.) There are a TON of GREAT players behind him in that category, including your boy Hakeem, who played four more seasons, and even Larry Bird, who played roughly the same amount of games, and made 2000 LESS over the course of his career.

Of course a pure stats geek like yourself, who has criticized the most explosive scorer in NBA history for not leading his title teams in scoring, also neglects to see the IMPACT that Chamberlain (and Shaq, as well) had at the line. Those two players were/are probably MILES ahead of any other players in "and-one's." Plays, because of their power, they still scored, in some cases while deliberately being fouled, and then made a bonus shot on top of it. And it goes beyond even that. For instance, Wilt played on teams that almost always either led the league, or were at the very top in FTAs. His '67 team just blew away the NBA that season.

But, how about this? In his 68-69 season, the Lakers led the league in FTAs. The very next season, when he went down in game nine of the year, and did not come back until the last three games...the Lakers finished 11th, out of 14 teams in FTAs. THEN, (and I don't have time to look up the actual numbers now), the Lakers, WITH Wilt, massively outshot the Knicks from the line in the '70 Finals (which was the only reason that that series even went seven games.) Clearly, he was getting his teammates to the line, as well as himself. He pounded opposing teams and players, and got his team into the bonus much quicker. He also put opposing players in foul trouble, which either inhibited their defense, or caused them to have to come out altogether.

RRR3

08-29-2011, 11:03 AM

@Jlauber,
61.3% free throw shooting is far from adequate.

jlip

08-29-2011, 11:11 AM

At best probably a slightly less efficient Jerry West.

Pointguard

08-29-2011, 11:45 AM

Of course a pure stats geek like yourself, who has criticized the most explosive scorer in NBA history for not leading his title teams in scoring, also neglects to see the IMPACT that Chamberlain (and Shaq, as well) had at the line. Those two players were/are probably MILES ahead of any other players in "and-one's." Plays, because of their power, they still scored, in some cases while deliberately being fouled, and then made a bonus shot on top of it. And it goes beyond even that. For instance, Wilt played on teams that almost always either led the league, or were at the very top in FTAs. His '67 team just blew away the NBA that season.

But, how about this? In his 68-69 season, the Lakers led the league in FTAs. The very next season, when he went down in game nine of the year, and did not come back until the last three games...the Lakers finished 11th, out of 14 teams in FTAs. THEN, (and I don't have time to look up the actual numbers now), the Lakers, WITH Wilt, massively outshot the Knicks from the line in the '70 Finals (which was the only reason that that series even went seven games.) Clearly, he was getting his teammates to the line, as well as himself. He pounded opposing teams and players, and got his team into the bonus much quicker. He also put opposing players in foul trouble, which either inhibited their defense, or caused them to have to come out altogether.
Excellent point. If he making "and ones" the missed "and one" free throws aren't as heavily weighed. Nobody made a big deal about free throws when Shaq was just abusing folks. It should have been less of a deal in Wilt's time because I believe, can't really say, they shot three times to make two baskets? And you have to add in the fact that the coach could play with more strategy because they were often in an early bonus situation which I believe added an extra shot? I know I hear this bonus shot thing in older films - can somebody help me?

If, all of this true, Wilt's "effective free throw shooting" would be much higher. Particularly if he added 4 or 5 extra FT's a game due to bonus situations and three point scenarios back then don't hurt the team because they got their field goal just the same. A situation where "True Free Throw percentage" would come into play. Jluader totally flipped the script on them once again.

Kblaze8855

08-29-2011, 12:56 PM

At least Lauber backs his words up better than these idiotic trolls

That you have to respect.

Not at this point. I didnt notice right away but at this point its pretty clear he has nothing to say that I dont already know or couldnt get from google if I knew where to look.

The 3 biggest basketball fans I know who remember those days clearly...my stepfather, my uncle, and his younger friend who briefly made the nba in the 70s(Clyde mayes)....not a one of them has ever supported anything they thought by spitting numbers. Because who remembers numbers from individual games, exactly when they happened, and how from 50 years ago...on a wide number of subjects? They remember things like play style, discussions with other basketball people at the time, and skill sets.

Clyde for one cant say enough about how great Elvin Hayes was and having known him off and on for over 20 years about the only number he seems to throw out is an ever changing estimate on how much Elvin dropped on his team in like 1977. My stepfather who passed would have been deep into his 60s. I used to argue with him about Elgin Baylor not being as good as...whoever. I knew pretty much the same numebrs I know now(this was probably like...1990 so they were not as extensive). Its hard to even put into words the extent to which I was scoffed at for my numbers. And he was right to do so. Before youtube you know how someone went about seeing Elgin Baylor game footage? NBA home video. I had all of them I could get my hands on but really..I probably saw a minute and a half of Baylor in his prime at the time. Why was I even talking about the guy with someone born in the 40s who saw him live in person and arguing about anything he has to say? He clearly knew the mane game...wel. I knew his numbers much better(he thought Baylor won an MVP in there somewhere...I was happy to list the MVPs of his era(...in order..which I can do from 1950 to right now off the top of my head).

But the older I get and the more I think about it...the less such things matter. On one hand...to someone who doesnt know you just know it from a book, a quote, an almanac, or the internet...and have it saved pre written in a notepad file or bookmarked for later use...it sounds impressive to know what a guy did in 6 head to head games in 1966. But its not really...knowledge. Its information. Very different things.

I have expansive information on the 60s NBA. Do I have knowledge about it? That...I dont know about. Ive watched more than most im sure of that. I care to learn mroe than most. I am obsessive about such things...more than most I suspect. But is youtube clips(or back i nthe day...Emule downloaded games)..and a lot of facts ive picked up in a quarter century of being a basketball nerd...really knowing anything?

Im not sure it is.

If he actually knows...anything...hes not shown it. He knows facts. But the more facts you know the less impressive they are I think.

Of what good are dozens of facts when you use them to conclude that Adrian Dantley who could do nothing but score inside 16 feet is a better offensive player(not scorer even...offensive player) than Larry Bird?

And who goes from downplaying Wilts 60s opponents to acting like the ywere great....based on memory? What did 40 years ago change? The quotes he used to post kinda make me wonder if he remembers anything on the era. Lets say hes in his upper 50s as ive heard.

Hes telling me about shit that happened when he was 6 or 7 when the NBA had no really major national tv deals and everyone who remembers the time that I know say they listened to games and only watched a couple playoff games a season on tv...at night...often just the second half being shown? And some of these people were in chicago so its not like...a small market. IVe asked bigtime fans from the time...who tell me the finals were not even on tv a lot of the time. Which doesnt shock me since as late as the 80s they were tape delayed.

So what im left to conclude is...even if the guy is 60 years old hes remembering a few games from the 60s...when he was a smal child.

The information hes giving us...is not what he remembers from then or likely even knew. Nobody in the 60s knew players numbers that well. What hes giving us is information he found on the internet in the last couple years.

Having done the same thing since I was looking up obscure information on guys like Bob davies when the internet was "new" in the early 90s....I dont see it as impressive.

At this point its a repackaging of the only information it seems he has. Information we could all have by merely...looking it up. having looked it up...having basketball research sites bookmaeked...google archives...almanacs from years past...quotes and stat sites and all saved...

He just gives me lists of information ive had for 20 years with an occasional new bit of head to head results from an old article ive not yet looked at.

Once it was clear he had little to say but the numbers/results id ask for some kind of...information on how some guys played. Or...a non numbers explanation for things and I never get one. I have a genuine interest in learning things about the game I did not know. Older people often help with that.

This guy? Any knowledge he has on the 60s he got off the internet or has lost in 60 years of memories. Nothing wrong with a number when its the only way to word a performance simply and quickly. When its all you have and you cant go deeper even when asked? Eh.

I have too much of that as it is. Hes pretty much me if I didnt know so many numbers I stopped caring....and I only applied them to talking about 3 people.

Read enough of what he says...and its clear he has nothing to say and no real information to pass along to young people. Nothing they cant find themselves at least. His posts are just thousands of era specific archives that he stopped adding new information to long ago.

I respect that as much as I respect Google.

I am over the top wordy. But never let it be said I cant explain myself without the words and numbers of others.

oolalaa

08-29-2011, 03:39 PM

oolalaa

08-29-2011, 04:51 PM

Well, Chamberlain not only NEVER fouled out in his 1200+ NBA games, he only averaged 2.0 fouls per game and in a career average of 45+ mpg.

he NEVER fouled out because he was obsessed with making it through his entire career without doing so, however much it affected his game.

john havlicek - "wilt's great idiosyncrasy was not fouling out. He had never fouled out of a high school, college or professional game and that was the one record he was determined to protect. When he got his fourth foul, his game would change. I don't know how many potential victories he may have cheated his team out of by not really playing when he got into foul trouble"

and those 45 mpg (most all time by a wide margin) skew his stats and are rarely talked about. yes, it was great he could play entire games without getting tired and no doubt this was an asset to his team (unless he had 4 fouls :lol ) but, obviously, the more minutes you play the better your stats will be...

wilt (career stats per 36 min) - 23.6 ppg/17.7 fga on .540%, 18 rpg, 3.5 apg

kareem ( " ) - 24. ppg/17.7 fga on .559%, 10.9 rpg, 3.5 apg

hakeem ( " ) - 21.9 ppg/17.1 fga on .512, 11.2 rpg, 2.5 apg

shaq ( " ) - 24.6 ppg/16.7 fga on .582, 11.2 rpg, 2.6 apg

russell ( " ) - 12.8 ppg/11.4 fga on .440% ( :facepalm ), 19.1 rpg, 3.6 apg

moses ( " ) - 21.9 ppg/15.4 fga on .491%, 12.9 rpg, 1.4 apg

robinson ( " ) - 21.8 ppg/14.9 fga on .518%, 11 rpg, 2.6 apg

ewing ( " ) - 22 ppg/ 17.1 fga on .504%, 10.3 rpg, 2 apg

wilt's numbers are still awesome but with comparative minutes they appear far more.....normal.

millwad

08-29-2011, 06:46 PM

Not at this point. I didnt notice right away but at this point its pretty clear he has nothing to say that I dont already know or couldnt get from google if I knew where to look.

The 3 biggest basketball fans I know who remember those days clearly...my stepfather, my uncle, and his younger friend who briefly made the nba in the 70s(Clyde mayes)....not a one of them has ever supported anything they thought by spitting numbers. Because who remembers numbers from individual games, exactly when they happened, and how from 50 years ago...on a wide number of subjects? They remember things like play style, discussions with other basketball people at the time, and skill sets.

Clyde for one cant say enough about how great Elvin Hayes was and having known him off and on for over 20 years about the only number he seems to throw out is an ever changing estimate on how much Elvin dropped on his team in like 1977. My stepfather who passed would have been deep into his 60s. I used to argue with him about Elgin Baylor not being as good as...whoever. I knew pretty much the same numebrs I know now(this was probably like...1990 so they were not as extensive). Its hard to even put into words the extent to which I was scoffed at for my numbers. And he was right to do so. Before youtube you know how someone went about seeing Elgin Baylor game footage? NBA home video. I had all of them I could get my hands on but really..I probably saw a minute and a half of Baylor in his prime at the time. Why was I even talking about the guy with someone born in the 40s who saw him live in person and arguing about anything he has to say? He clearly knew the mane game...wel. I knew his numbers much better(he thought Baylor won an MVP in there somewhere...I was happy to list the MVPs of his era(...in order..which I can do from 1950 to right now off the top of my head).

But the older I get and the more I think about it...the less such things matter. On one hand...to someone who doesnt know you just know it from a book, a quote, an almanac, or the internet...and have it saved pre written in a notepad file or bookmarked for later use...it sounds impressive to know what a guy did in 6 head to head games in 1966. But its not really...knowledge. Its information. Very different things.

I have expansive information on the 60s NBA. Do I have knowledge about it? That...I dont know about. Ive watched more than most im sure of that. I care to learn mroe than most. I am obsessive about such things...more than most I suspect. But is youtube clips(or back i nthe day...Emule downloaded games)..and a lot of facts ive picked up in a quarter century of being a basketball nerd...really knowing anything?

Im not sure it is.

If he actually knows...anything...hes not shown it. He knows facts. But the more facts you know the less impressive they are I think.

Of what good are dozens of facts when you use them to conclude that Adrian Dantley who could do nothing but score inside 16 feet is a better offensive player(not scorer even...offensive player) than Larry Bird?

And who goes from downplaying Wilts 60s opponents to acting like the ywere great....based on memory? What did 40 years ago change? The quotes he used to post kinda make me wonder if he remembers anything on the era. Lets say hes in his upper 50s as ive heard.

Hes telling me about shit that happened when he was 6 or 7 when the NBA had no really major national tv deals and everyone who remembers the time that I know say they listened to games and only watched a couple playoff games a season on tv...at night...often just the second half being shown? And some of these people were in chicago so its not like...a small market. IVe asked bigtime fans from the time...who tell me the finals were not even on tv a lot of the time. Which doesnt shock me since as late as the 80s they were tape delayed.

So what im left to conclude is...even if the guy is 60 years old hes remembering a few games from the 60s...when he was a smal child.

The information hes giving us...is not what he remembers from then or likely even knew. Nobody in the 60s knew players numbers that well. What hes giving us is information he found on the internet in the last couple years.

Having done the same thing since I was looking up obscure information on guys like Bob davies when the internet was "new" in the early 90s....I dont see it as impressive.

At this point its a repackaging of the only information it seems he has. Information we could all have by merely...looking it up. having looked it up...having basketball research sites bookmaeked...google archives...almanacs from years past...quotes and stat sites and all saved...

He just gives me lists of information ive had for 20 years with an occasional new bit of head to head results from an old article ive not yet looked at.

Once it was clear he had little to say but the numbers/results id ask for some kind of...information on how some guys played. Or...a non numbers explanation for things and I never get one. I have a genuine interest in learning things about the game I did not know. Older people often help with that.

This guy? Any knowledge he has on the 60s he got off the internet or has lost in 60 years of memories. Nothing wrong with a number when its the only way to word a performance simply and quickly. When its all you have and you cant go deeper even when asked? Eh.

I have too much of that as it is. Hes pretty much me if I didnt know so many numbers I stopped caring....and I only applied them to talking about 3 people.

Read enough of what he says...and its clear he has nothing to say and no real information to pass along to young people. Nothing they cant find themselves at least. His posts are just thousands of era specific archives that he stopped adding new information to long ago.

I respect that as much as I respect Google.

I am over the top wordy. But never let it be said I cant explain myself without the words and numbers of others.

Great post, couldn't agree more.
Discussing with Jlauber is like discussing with a biased version of Google..

zay_24

08-29-2011, 07:13 PM

Considering what he's done in the toughest scoring era in NBA history, he would have atleast 4 100 point games.

Stats in his PRIME- 45-60 ppg, 18rpg, 20apg, 5spg, 70% FG

MiseryCityTexas

08-29-2011, 08:31 PM

A prime Nate Thurmond would beast in today's league. That guy was built like an mma heavyweight back in the day.

Nick Young

08-29-2011, 09:13 PM

who was I kidding, I think prime mamba would have averaged 60 pg his best season, overall career average of 45 ppg at 54%

ACCBaller1403

08-29-2011, 09:19 PM

who was I kidding, I think prime mamba would have averaged 60 pg his best season, overall career average of 45 ppg at 54%

Then 14 year olds with no respect for history would claim that he was just playing against weak competition and would be at best a 20 ppg scorer today.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Get huge stats back then, it's weak competition. Don't put up huge stats but win against all your peers and you not only played against weak competition but you didn't even have the skills to rack up stats. Seriously, based on how these kids rate players from the past, even if you did get a career 45 ppg average you still wouldn't get respect.

Psileas

08-29-2011, 09:38 PM

Then 14 year olds with no respect for history would claim that he was just playing against weak competition and would be at best a 20 ppg scorer today.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Get huge stats back then, it's weak competition. Don't put up huge stats but win against all your peers and you not only played against weak competition but you didn't even have the skills to rack up stats. Seriously, based on how these kids rate players from the past, even if you did get a career 45 ppg average you still wouldn't get respect.

Of course you wouldn't. The bigger stats you got at the era people didn't watch, the less respect you'd earn. If Wilt was even greater and more dominant than he actually was and had ended one season at 70 ppg, kids would claim that Kobe would be averaging 90. If Wilt's career high was 140, kids would claim Kobe would get 200, and so on.
Most humans (not all, obviously) are mediocre to bad at estimating facts and figures. Most young humans are simply way off. Ask them to translate Kobe's supposed "60 ppg in Wilt's era" into stats of later eras, but before the 2000's, and you're going to have a good laugh at them trying to find a way to reasonably connect Kobe's "60 ppg at Wilt's era", which ended in 1973, to Jordan's era, which started only 12 years later, with Jordan himself averaging 28.2 ppg that season. Following the progress of stats, an "ageless" Kobe should still be at 50+ ppg, while even a way past-prime Kobe (say at around 40 y.o) should probably still be good enough for 25+. And we're talking only about points.

jlauber

08-29-2011, 09:45 PM

he NEVER fouled out because he was obsessed with making it through his entire career without doing so, however much it affected his game.

john havlicek - "wilt's great idiosyncrasy was not fouling out. He had never fouled out of a high school, college or professional game and that was the one record he was determined to protect. When he got his fourth foul, his game would change. I don't know how many potential victories he may have cheated his team out of by not really playing when he got into foul trouble"

and those 45 mpg (most all time by a wide margin) skew his stats and are rarely talked about. yes, it was great he could play entire games without getting tired and no doubt this was an asset to his team (unless he had 4 fouls :lol ) but, obviously, the more minutes you play the better your stats will be...

wilt (career stats per 36 min) - 23.6 ppg/17.7 fga on .540%, 18 rpg, 3.5 apg

kareem ( " ) - 24. ppg/17.7 fga on .559%, 10.9 rpg, 3.5 apg

hakeem ( " ) - 21.9 ppg/17.1 fga on .512, 11.2 rpg, 2.5 apg

shaq ( " ) - 24.6 ppg/16.7 fga on .582, 11.2 rpg, 2.6 apg

russell ( " ) - 12.8 ppg/11.4 fga on .440% ( :facepalm ), 19.1 rpg, 3.6 apg

moses ( " ) - 21.9 ppg/15.4 fga on .491%, 12.9 rpg, 1.4 apg

robinson ( " ) - 21.8 ppg/14.9 fga on .518%, 11 rpg, 2.6 apg

ewing ( " ) - 22 ppg/ 17.1 fga on .504%, 10.3 rpg, 2 apg

wilt's numbers are still awesome but with comparative minutes they appear far more.....normal.

The problem with using ANY of Wilt's stats are that there were THREE Chamberlain's. In his first seven years he HAD to carry putrid rosters. In his next three seasons, he was asked to be more of a facilitator. And his last four seasons were basically post-injured Wilt, who lost his lateral mobility, but who was still a dominating rebounder and defender, and by far-and-away, the most efficient shooter in history.

Using that 36 minute production...in Wilt's first seven seasons he his numbers looked like this...

30 ppg, 19 rpg, and .520 shooting (and BTW, in leagues that shot between .410 to .441.) Not quite the ACTUAL 40 ppg, 25 rpg, .520 numbers, but still quite impressive.

Of course, using 36 minute production is far more UNFAIR to Chamberlain than any other player in history, since, he was basically the ONLY player capable of playing (and PRODUCING) for 48 mpg. So, while opposing teams were bringing in second tier players for 12 minutes, Chamberlain's teams had THE best player in the league, and on the floor, for the ENTIRE game. Still, one can only wonder how much more EFFICIENT Wilt would have been had he "only" played some 40-42 mpg over the course of his career. Not only for each game, but each SEASON. Surely his ppg/per minute, rpg/per minute, and his FG% efficiency, would have risen with more "quality" minutes.

As for Wilt not fouling out...

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

[QUOTE]In the 1972 NBA Finals, the Lakers again met the New York Knicks; the Knicks were shorthanded after losing Willis Reed to injury, and so, undersized 6'8" Jerry Lucas had the task to defend against the 7'1" Chamberlain.[88] However, prolific outside shooter Lucas helped New York to win Game 1, hitting 9 of his 11 shots in the first half alone; in Game 2, which the Lakers won 106

millwad

08-29-2011, 10:18 PM

jlauber

08-29-2011, 10:24 PM

Buhu, everything that makes Wilt look greater than his competitors you are really good at mentioning but as soon as something makes Wilt look less dominant you always have an excuse. So what that there was 3 versions of Wilt and that his 4 last years as a pro were post-injury Wilt.. Every center and ever player goes through differents stages during their careers.

Wilt wouldn't play that amount of minutes in today's era, there's just no way.

Great, as usual you gave us a wikipedia-page to trust.. And to start with, in the same text you quoted you can find a nice looking "citation needed" regarding Wilt's blocks in that game.

And the quote in the text you highlighted was taken from a book written by Robert Cherry, the same Cherry was Wilt's biographer. If you want anyone to trust you, don't use wikipedia and don't use "citation needed" texts, please.

Well, of course I could have just as easily told you that I watched that game, which I did, as well as the rest of that series, and the previous round in the WCF's.

Psileas

08-29-2011, 10:31 PM

The problem with using ANY of Wilt's stats are that there were THREE Chamberlain's. In his first seven years he HAD to carry putrid rosters. In his next three seasons, he was asked to be more of a facilitator. And his last four seasons were basically post-injured Wilt, who lost his lateral mobility, but who was still a dominating rebounder and defender, and by far-and-away, the most efficient shooter in history.

Using that 36 minute production...in Wilt's first seven seasons he his numbers looked like this...

30 ppg, 19 rpg, and .520 shooting (and BTW, in leagues that shot between .410 to .441.) Not quite the ACTUAL 40 ppg, 25 rpg, .520 numbers, but still quite impressive.

Of course, using 36 minute production is far more UNFAIR to Chamberlain than any other player in history, since, he was basically the ONLY player capable of playing (and PRODUCING) for 48 mpg. So, while opposing teams were bringing in second tier players for 12 minutes, Chamberlain's teams had THE best player in the league, and on the floor, for the ENTIRE game. Still, one can only wonder how much more EFFICIENT Wilt would have been had he "only" played some 40-42 mpg over the course of his career. Not only for each game, but each SEASON. Surely his ppg/per minute, rpg/per minute, and his FG% efficiency, would have risen with more "quality" minutes.

As for Wilt not fouling out...

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

Of course, Wilt was hardly ever in foul trouble...having only averaged 2.0 fpg in his career. Clearly, he seldom had to worry about fouling out. Of course, ANY player should play intelligently when in foul trouble...so to praise a player for fouling out, especially at a critical time of the game, never seemed to make much sense to me.

A few more points on this (I have the other guy in my IL, but since you quoted him, I'll bite for now):

1) You can't project "per-36" minutes to a guy who was getting almost no rest by just using a "36/MP x actual stats" logic. Even Wilt usually didn't play at the same level through the whole game, since even he needed some rest (whether he admitted it or not). Getting 12 minutes of rest per game would be too much rest time for him, but I definitely see a 40 mpg Wilt getting better numbers than what his projected stats would show. Same goes for other "huge mpg" players, like early 60's Robertson, Russell, Lucas, '72 Kareem, '73 Archibald and so on.

2) Wilt did care about not fouling out, but him never having been fouled out is a lie. He did it twice before turning pro. He was also disqualified twice as a pro (once in 1963, ending various huge scoring streaks).

3) How about remembering that with less playing time, Wilt's fouls would also go down, making him more dominant defensively as well (apart from the whole fatigue issue)?

4) The "4 fouls" figure is completely made-up (but I won't be surprised if it starts getting used more from now on). Wilt, apart from the source of JLauber, actually had 5 fouls in a few more decisive games, and his teams either won some of them or lost in ways that don't strongly connect with Wilt's defensive lack. Here are some:

1965, Eastern Finals, Game 6 vs Celtics: 5 fouls, Sixers won. Finished game with 30/25/5.

1968, Eastern Semifinals, Game 6 vs Knicks: 5 fouls, played 48 minutes, Sixers won and advanced.

1968, Eastern Finals, Game 4 vs Celtics: 5 fouls, played 48 minutes, Sixers won.

1969, Reg.season, vs G.State: 5 fouls, but played for the whole 63 minutes of the game, tying his career-high.

1969 Western Finals, Game 1 vs Atlanta: 5 fouls, Lakers won by 2.

1970 Western Finals, Game 3 vs Atlanta: 5 fouls, played 51 of the game's 53 minutes and, that's right, sank the game-winning FT's. So, no, he didn't actually miss the last 2 minutes due to fouling trouble, the Lakers needed him for the line. ;)

1971 Western Finals, Game 5 vs Milwaukee: 5 fouls, played 46 minutes, blocked multiple shots, went out in standing ovation by the opponent crowd, when the game was practically over.

1972 Western Semis, Game 3 vs Chicago: Wilt had 5 fouls, played for whole 48 minutes, Lakers won.

5) Thank you, olala, for letting us know that it makes no difference to a superstar's defensive efforts the fact that he has 5 fouls, especially since he knows he's anyway asked to play for 95-100% of the whole game.

millwad

08-29-2011, 10:32 PM

Well, of course I could have just as easily told you that I watched that game, which I did, as well as the rest of that series, and the previous round in the WCF's.

Just like you saw a ton of other Wilt games back then? Just like you changed your mind about that era 40 years after actually seeing the actual games?

And even if you now saw the games you just wrote about, I doubt you'd remember 39 year old basketball games that good, you clown.

jlauber

08-29-2011, 10:42 PM

A few more points on this (I have the other guy in my IL, but since you quoted him, I'll bite for now):

1) You can't project "per-36" minutes to a guy who was getting almost no rest by just using a "36/MP x actual stats" logic. Even Wilt usually didn't play at the same level through the whole game, since even he needed some rest (whether he admitted it or not). Getting 12 minutes of rest per game would be too much rest time for him, but I definitely see a 40 mpg Wilt getting better numbers than what his projected stats would show. Same goes for other "huge mpg" players, like early 60's Robertson, Russell, Lucas, '72 Kareem, '73 Archibald and so on.

2) Wilt did care about not fouling out, but him never having been fouled out is a lie. He did it twice before turning pro. He was also disqualified twice as a pro (once in 1963, ending various huge scoring streaks).

3) How about remembering that with less playing time, Wilt's fouls would also go down, making him more dominant defensively as well (apart from the whole fatigue issue)?

4) The "4 fouls" figure is completely made-up (but I won't be surprised if it starts getting used more from now on). Wilt, apart from the source of JLauber, actually had 5 fouls in a few more decisive games, and his teams either won some of them or lost in ways that don't strongly connect with Wilt's defensive lack. Here are some:

1965, Eastern Finals, Game 6 vs Celtics: 5 fouls, Sixers won. Finished game with 30/25/5.

1968, Eastern Semifinals, Game 6 vs Knicks: 5 fouls, played 48 minutes, Sixers won and advanced.

1968, Eastern Finals, Game 4 vs Celtics: 5 fouls, played 48 minutes, Sixers won.

1969, Reg.season, vs G.State: 5 fouls, but played for the whole 63 minutes of the game.

1969 Western Finals, Game 1 vs Atlanta: 5 fouls, Lakers won by 2.

1970 Western Finals, Game 3 vs Atlanta: 5 fouls, played 51 of the game's 53 minutes and, that's right, sank the game-winning FT's. So, no, he didn't actually miss the last 2 minutes due to fouling trouble, the Lakers needed him for the line. ;)

1971 Western Finals, Game 5 vs Milwaukee: 5 fouls, played 46 minutes, blocked multiple shots, went out in standing ovation by the opponent crowd, when the game was practically over.

1972 Western Semis, Game 3 vs Chicago: Wilt had 5 fouls, played for whole 48 minutes, Lakers won.

5) Thank you, olala, for letting us know that it makes no difference to a superstar's defensive efforts the fact that he has 5 fouls, especially since he knows he's anyway asked to play for 95-100% of the whole game.

I'll add another one...

Game seven of the '69 Finals. Late in the third quarter, and with his Lakers down big, Chamberlain picked up his fifth foul. Unlike Rosen's completely absurd take on that game (I won't go into that now however), Wilt continued to play. AND, the Lakers slowly fought their way back into that game. Early in the 4th period, Russell picked up HIS fifth foul. Almost immediately, the Lakers went into Wilt, who went right around a "matador-like" Russell, for an easy hoop. The Lakers continued to rally, BUT, the brilliant Van Breda Kolf either watched without a thought, (or perhaps even encouraged it), but Chamberlain rarily touched the ball after that. Mid-way in that period, Wilt grabbed a rebound, and landed awkwardly, and came up lame. He stayed in for one more play, and grabbed yet another rebound, and his outlet led to West hitting two FT's, which had cut Boston's early 17 point lead to 7. Wilt HAD to come out. And within a couple of minutes, he asked to go back in. Of course, as they say, the rest was history. His replacement, the great Mel Counts, missed couple of shots down the stretch (en route to a 4-13 game...while Wilt shot 7-8)...and the Lakers lost by two.

Psileas

08-29-2011, 10:54 PM

I'll add another one...

Game seven of the '69 Finals. Late in the third quarter, and with his Lakers down big, Chamberlain picked up his fifth foul. Unlike Rosen's completely absurd take on that game (I won't go into that now however), Wilt continued to play. AND, the Lakers slowly fought their way back into that game. Early in the 4th period, Russell picked up HIS fifth foul. Almost immediately, the Lakers went into Wilt, who went right around a "matador-like" Russell, for an easy hoop. The Lakers continued to rally, BUT, the brilliant Van Breda Kolf either watched without a thought, (or perhaps even encouraged it), but Chamberlain rarily touched the ball after that. Mid-way in that period, Wilt grabbed a rebound, and landed awkwardly, and came up lame. He stayed in for one more play, and grabbed yet another rebound, and his outlet led to West hitting two FT's, which had cut Boston's early 17 point lead to 7. Wilt HAD to come out. And within a couple of minutes, he asked to go back in. Of course, as they say, the rest was history. His replacement, the great Mel Counts, missed couple of shots down the stretch (en route to a 4-13 game...while Wilt shot 7-8)...and the Lakers lost by two.

I left this one out on purpose. You see, some are arguing that this is why he supposedly faked his injury late on. This game played a huge role in Wilt's "being absent/not playing defense when he got 5 fouls" later bad reputation. Oh, Russell also had 5 fouls at that point and wasn't exactly dominant defensively in those minutes, either.

jlauber

08-29-2011, 11:15 PM

Just like you saw a ton of other Wilt games back then? Just like you changed your mind about that era 40 years after actually seeing the actual games?

And even if you now saw the games you just wrote about, I doubt you'd remember 39 year old basketball games that good, you clown.

I either listened to, or watched EVERY single game of that '72 Laker team that season (Chick Hearn and Lynn Shackleford on KABC 790...and the next year they would move to KFI 640). However, I lived in Northern California, and whenever they played the Warriors (and they were televised several times that season on KTVU), I listened to the legendary Bill King, (quiet possibly the greatest play-by-play basketball announcer of all-time.) I still recall a late season TELEVISED game between the Lakers and the Warriors, in which LA jumped out to a huge lead early, then the Warriors chipped away to cut it to 15 at the half. In the second half, the Lakers break just obliterated GS, and by the end of the 3rd period LA was up by 30 again. Then, theire bench continued the onslaught, and they wound up beating the Warriors, 162-99. My biggest memory of that game? In that first half, the Lakers went to Wilt on four straight possessions...but only after he powered his way into the lane against a helpless Thurmond...and he jammed home four straight dunks at point-blank range. I always wondered why they didn't do that much more often. And, I witnessed the same strategy some 30 years later when LA would do the same with Shaq.

As for me changing my opinions...not really. I, too, was like you. I blindly accepted that the modern players were NATURALLY better. Not that I ever actually was convinced of it. But, I remember reading the take on the '84 Husker football team in SI, in which they were compared to their '71 counterparts. They were much bigger, had faster players, and were more explosive. Then, I read Ara Parseighians comparison with the '88 Irish and his '66 team. He proclaimed that the '88 team would have beaten his team by 40 points.

HOWEVER, the more I have RESEARCHED the greats of yesteryear, the more I have come away with an even greater respect. True, the AVERAGE athlete today is bigger, stronger, faster, better trained, better fed, has better medical care, better equipment, better venues, better scheduling, better traveling conditions, etc, etc. BUT, the truly GREAT players of the last 50 years (and even longer in baseball) would be GREAT in TODAY's game.

Kareem is the greatest example in basketball. Of course there were others. Barry was unbelieveable in '67, and again in '75. Magic was just as great in '91 as he was in '80. Dr. J dominated both the decade of the 70's and then for half of the 80's. I could go on, too. All of them were GREAT for MANY seasons, and their production hardly wavered. Nor did it explode, either. Why? How come, if each year the talent levels supposedly increase, that none of the greats dropped much, if at all? Kareem, in his absolute GREATESTY statistical season, 71-72, STRUGGLED mightily against Nate and Wilt, both past their peaks, in the playoffs. He shot .405 against Nate, and .457 against Wilt (and once again, only .414 over the course of the last four games), and Chamberlain was even blocking a TON of his shots...all at age 35, in the twilight of his career, and on a surgically repaired knee.

And, I have mentioned it many times, now, but it was NOT just basketball, either. While today's football players are MUCH bigger (my god, QBs are 260 lbs), and generally faster, the FASTEST players played years ago. Darrell Green was dominating from the early 80's into the 00's (and was winning the NFL's "fastest man competition" late in his career.) Bo was running 4.12's 25 years ago. Hershel, Gault, Branch, and Deion, ALL faster than anyone today. AND, the fastest LEGITIMATE NFL player ever? Bob Hayes, who was a HOF receiver some 50 years ago.

Baseball? Reggie Jackson, Harmon Killebrew, Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Frank Howard were hitting the ball as far back in the 60's and 70's, as anyone today. In fact, Mantle was CLEARLY the most prodigious "power" hitter of all-time...at 5-11 and 190 lbs. The average pitcher throws harder today (although it amazes me how few innings that they can do it), BUT, Nolan Ryan was hitting 101 on a SLOW gun in the 70's. There are those that believe he would have hit 106-107 on a FAST gun (used today.) AND, how about this? Ryan, in his LAST pitch, at age 46, and on an INJURED arm, was clocked at 98 MPH! Bob Feller was supposedly close to a 100 back in the 40's. Koufax SLOWED down his fastball to control it, and was still close to a 100. And, just google the name Steve Dalkowski. There were those that believed he was capable of 110...and back in the 50's.

Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941, pre-integration, and .388 at age 38, in 1957, post-integration. He faced many of the pitchers that a declining Ruth faced (and still hit .341 in 1932)...and he faced many of the pitchers that would go on to dominate the 60's. How come his numbers were consistent thru FOUR decades?

So, yes, I do believe that the GREATS of the 60's and 70's would be GREAT today. Russell, Oscar, West, Maravich, Dr. J, Baylor, Barry, McAdoo, Hondo, Lucas, Lanier, Cowens, Hayes, Unseld, Greer, Sam Jones, Walton, Kareem, and Wilt, among them. Now, we will never know what kind of numbers that they would have put up, BUT, I am convinced, that they would have been among the best that play the game TODAY.