Why the lack of respect for old school basketball superstars?

[WillC]

It surprises me when I see people on the message boards mocking old school basketball players like Wilt Chamberlain and Bob Cousy.

Why is there such a lack of respect for basketball pioneers and superstars from years gone by?

To use a phrase from the UK, you're pissing on your own door step. Players like Chamberlain and Cousy helped push the boundaries of the game, and yet many posters on ISH talk about old school players like they're trash and couldn't care less about the game's history.

I don't get it.

We all love basketball - that's what brings us together on the boards - so why not show a little respect for the men who helped the game become what it is today?

I wish people cared a little less about Jeremy Lin and a little more about Hank Luisetti.

[LABean]

It's basically Jordan's fault.
His stans flood everything with him, that other players get overshadowed.
Sounds like hate, but it's the truth.

Good thread, OP. :applause:

[PTB Fan]

Not enough footage of their brilliance which is why they aren't as appreciated as much as they should be

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

5 sta

[SpecialQue]

90% of the posters here view old basketball players the same way they view black & white films, as something outdated and inferior.

[stallionaire]

I wouldn't disagree with anyone who put at Wilt as 2nd to Jordan. There is decent footage of Wilt clips already (sped up to regular motion) as well as comprehensive stats which explain why he was such a dominate legend.

I'm in my early 20s but I respect basketball pre-80s a lot. Without those guys I wouldn't be enjoying the sport I do today.

[Crown&Coke]

every generation got their own set of goggles on, kinda pound on their chest type of believe that no one can carry their dudes jock strap.

and due to the inability to defend their position, the only think left to do is try to dismiss guys accomplishments

[Living Being]

Cousy >>>> Baron Davis

[get these NETS]

OP

taking the piss....is the term, I think
====================================


real sports fans understand a word called CONTEXT


game existed before today's players and will exist after them


lot of people aren't real sports fans but highlight watchers...

[AMISTILLILL]

There's an age old argument surrounding this... and it's one that will never, ever be settled. More than anything, chalk it up to an 'out of sight, out of mind' mentality for younger basketball fans. If they aren't able to see the highlights, it must not have been that spectacular.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Ignorance

[DuMa]

i was really fond of that mountain lion, ok?

[Punpun]

See it like this. Those players played in different leagues. So it's only normal you don't compare them. SABONIS is considered to be one of the BEST center ever. Yet as he spent 90% of his career in some European league, he isn't on talk for greatest all times.

So Wilt and Russel dominated the old NBA. Dr J dominates the ABA and then you have the MODERN ERA which is NBA + ABA.

--

Dat 777 post.

[305Baller]

Hank Luisetti? Really?


ok

:confusedshrug:

[WillC]

OP

taking the piss....is the term, I think

I'm British, and you're right, I could have used that term, but it has a different meaning.

'Pissing on your own doorstep' has the same meaning as the saying 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'.

In other words, when young basketball fans belittle the achievements of Wilt Chamberlain or any other old school superstar, it does them no favours. It makes them look ignorant and, simultaneously, diminishes the validity of our sport.

It seems to be unique to basketball message boards and ISH in particular.

I am a big football (soccer) fan and you don't find many fans mocking Pele, Maradona, Bobby Moore, Cruyff, etc. Fans are much more respectful of football's history.

There seems to be something unique about ISH that brings the worst out of youngsters.

SLAM magazine - who represent modern basketball culture well - have, for the past fifteen years or so, gone out of their way to educate modern fans about the game's history. Whether it was the article in issue 100 about Wilt Chamberlain or their various old school articles, you'd think modern fans would get the hint: respect the game's history.

After all, it won't be long before LeBron James and Kobe Bryant are 'old school' players from yesteryear.

[WillC]

Hank Luisetti? Really?


ok

:confusedshrug:

That sums it up, really.

The Associated Press voted Hank Luisetti as the second best player of the first 50 years of the 20th century, losing out to only George Mikan.

Luisetti was one of the pioneers of the jump shot, running one-hander (basically the tear-drop; think Tony Parker) and behind-the-back dribble.

But hey, who cares, right?

[CavaliersFTW]

Not enough footage of their brilliance which is why they aren't as appreciated as much as they should be

5 step process to successfully presenting vintage NBA players in a manner that can actually gain the respect of younger NBA fans.

Step 1. Consolidate the MASSIVE amounts of (completely disorganized) vintage NBA clips, games and documentaries that contain your player of choice.

Step 2. CORRECT ALL OF THE SLOW MOTION

Step 3. Correct the color and contrast, nobody wants to watch gloomy medieval looking footage. The older it looks the quicker it will be written off.

Step 4. (very important) Hell or high water try in some way to get it through to the viewers that those vintage players are NOT UNDERSIZED. These clownish modern list-heights have poisoned all vintage player reputations with as much toxicity as any old slow-motion footage highlight reel has. I like to use annotations, and the description box to identify players and their size with something like "as tall as Dwight Howard" or something along those lines. Anyone who comments with misinformation about how "small" the players were I correct them, and if they troll and spam ignorance then I just say f*ck em and delete their comments so they don't taint history for everyone else.

Step 5. Unlike highlights of modern players that people are familiar with you ABSOLUTELY MUST set aside time in any highlight video to reveal glimpses of the talent of the competition, because highlights of one player dominating unfamiliar players makes everyone jump to the conclusion that everyone else must be written off as "weak" and the highlighted player must simply be "ahead of his time"




Unfortunately combining all these elements into one highlight real is difficult and time consuming. Right now I'm (still) combing through my archive of footage of Wilt in his LA years - I'm probably about half way through it, if that. Then I'll be adding as much of the "exciting" commentator audio as I can. All of this stuff is the key to a proper highlight video that will make people go "damn... that guy can ball".

Next up after Wilt in LA, prob gonna be the Baylor and West duo. Or Oscar Robertson - 3 (of many) guys who also need their due in a legitimate highlight reel.

btw here's some more LA footage of Wilt this is by no means a complete video, and it is not publicly available on youtube it is just me checking my progress of certain scenes I color corrected and what not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzzxVE34k

[Smoke117]

It's basically Jordan's fault.
His stans flood everything with him, that other players get overshadowed.
Sounds like hate, but it's the truth.

Good thread, OP. :applause:

Shut the **** up. You're the biggest Kobe stan here this side of alphawolf. You are both clowns. Half the time you blabber on like a god damn retard.

[Punpun]

You actually upped the velocity here. Tha's not real speed. You took the slomo out in favor of quickening te frames.

[CavaliersFTW]

You actually upped the velocity here. Tha's not real speed. You took the slomo out in favor of quickening te frames.

- no i did not - I used youtube's new clip edit tool to save time and cut off too much blank screen in the beginning instead of re-uploading it and now the shit got f*cked up and looks sped up as **** - honestly I didn't render it like that, youtube's tools are crap. I'll just re-upload it. It looked fine before I used youtube's edit tool

[Brick Rick]

Because the eras before the association became 80+% black featured mostly "short, unathletic, white guys." Sure you had the odd anamoly here and there like the Wilt Chamberlains and George Mikans but a good high school squad would probably whip them pretty good.

I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I assume any era after the late 70's-Early 80's (when the league got much darker, faster and athletic) is no joke and could keep up with current teams.

What I'm getting at is, there is definetely an argument to be made that 50's and early 60's basketball had a lot of cans with only a few legit players who could be NBA players today sprinkled in. But the teams of the late 70's, 80's and 90's were just as fast and athletic as the players today.

[Punpun]

- no i did not - I used youtube's new clip edit tool to save time and cut off too much blank screen in the beginning instead of re-uploading it and now the shit got f*cked up and looks sped up as **** - honestly I didn't render it like that, youtube's tools are crap. I'll just re-upload it. It looked fine before I used youtube's edit tool
Oh.. well good luck to you. Impressive work you are doing.

[CavaliersFTW]

Because the eras before the association became 80+% black featured mostly "short, unathletic, white guys." Sure you had the odd anamoly here and there like the Wilt Chamberlains and George Mikans but a good high school squad would probably whip them pretty good.

I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I assume any era after the late 70's-Early 80's (when the league got much darker, faster and athletic) is no joke and could keep up with current teams.

What I'm getting at is, there is definetely an argument to be made that 50's and early 60's basketball had a lot of cans with only a few legit players who could be NBA players today sprinkled in. But the teams of the late 70's, 80's and 90's were just as fast and athletic as the players today.

:facepalm

Here's some statistics for you:

1965-66:
47 of 99 total NBA players were black.
31 of 45 total NBA starters were black.
14 of 20 total NBA all stars were black.

2011-12:
1 in every 5 IH posters continue to prove that they are legitimately ignorant and racist.

[LABean]

Shut the **** up. You're the biggest Kobe stan here this side of alphawolf. You are both clowns. Half the time you blabber on like a god damn retard.

:lol You're pathetic.

Tell me where I'm wrong?

[The Iron Fist]

That sums it up, really.

The Associated Press voted Hank Luisetti as the second best player of the first 50 years of the 20th century, losing out to only George Mikan.

Luisetti was one of the pioneers of the jump shot, running one-hander (basically the tear-drop; think Tony Parker) and behind-the-back dribble.

But hey, who cares, right?
Lies. Tha credit goes to Jordan.

[CavaliersFTW]

:lol You're pathetic.

Tell me where I'm wrong?

I actually agree with you but it isn't entirely MJ's fault, the league was pushing his hype but also Bird's and Magics just prior because the NBA had just transitioned from mere "spectator sport" to a monstrous mass media machine making profit off promotion, broadcasts, home video, shoe companies and other endorsements etc etc. It just exploded in popularity and everything before this mass media age was suddenly part of the NBA's dark ages, where such media perks and easily accessible highlight reels simply did not exist even though the game and athletes were just as competitive in every way shape and form. Heck, look at Kareem in the early 70's when he was duking it out with a 300lb Wilt, the young Kareem was an absolute beast and twice as athletic (and INTENSE) as Lakers Kareem. But people honestly say Lakers Kareem is Kareem's prime and at that point it just becomes so obvious that they literally don't know anything about the NBA prior to the 80's

[LABean]

I actually agree with you but it isn't entirely MJ's fault, the league was pushing his hype but also Bird's and Magics just prior because the NBA had just transitioned from mere "spectator sport" to a monstrous mass media machine making profit off promotion, broadcasts, home video, shoe companies and other endorsements etc etc. It just exploded in popularity and everything before this mass media age was suddenly part of the NBA's dark ages, where such media perks and easily accessible highlight reels simply did not exist even though the game and athletes were just as competitive in every way shape and form. Heck, look at Kareem in the early 70's vs Wilt, the guy was absolute beast and twice as athletic and nimble as Lakers Kareem. But people honestly say Lakers Kareem is Kareem's prime and at that point it just becomes so obvious that they literally don't know anything about the NBA prior to the 80's

Maybe I should have used a different choice of words to please everyone.
At least you understood what I meant. Good post. :applause:

[jstern]

It's basically Jordan's fault.
His stans flood everything with him, that other players get overshadowed.
Sounds like hate, but it's the truth.

Good thread, OP. :applause:

I don't like this post, because it simplistically makes it seem as if Jordan is consider the greatest of all time because of stans. Make it seem as if Wade has stans, Kobe has stans, Lebron has stans, etc, etc and each stans will always say their player is the best, so Jordan always being called the GOAT has less value. It's like another way to bring Jordan down. But the fact of the matters is that you have Barkley stans, Bird stans, Magic stans, etc most of them saying that Jordan is the greatest. You sound really young.

As for those old time players. I do think that the league is better right now, but still respect those players. The game is relative and competition is always going equal to competition regardless of era. In other words I still respect those older teams because they're were all competing just as hard as anyone in any other era to win. Any competitive person from the 60s, could be just as good if exposed to a more modern game early on.

[Smoke117]

I don't like this post, because it simplistically makes it seem as if Jordan is consider the greatest of all time because of stans. Make it seem as if Wade has stans, Kobe has stans, Lebron has stans, etc, etc and each stans will always say their player is the best, so Jordan always being called the GOAT has less value. It's like another way to bring Jordan down. But the fact of the matters is that you have Barkley stans, Bird, Magic, etc most of them saying that Jordan is the greatest. You sound really young.

As for those old time players. I do think that the league is better right now, but still respect those players. The game is relative and competition is always going equal to competition regardless of era. In other words I still respect those older teams because they're were all competing just as hard as anyone in any other era to win

That's the only reason he said what he said...to bring Jordan down. I just called him out on his agenda. These Kobe fan boys will agree with anything if its within their said agenda.

[bwink23]

:lol You're pathetic.

Tell me where I'm wrong?


You're wrong, it's YOUR FAULT....the fact that Jordan obliterated the competition of his era is the very reason why he's the greatest. It's not anyone's job to educate you on that competition but yourself. :no:

[bwink23]

I don't like this post, because it simplistically makes it seem as if Jordan is consider the greatest of all time because of stans. Make it seem as if Wade has stans, Kobe has stans, Lebron has stans, etc, etc and each stans will always say their player is the best, so Jordan always being called the GOAT has less value. It's like another way to bring Jordan down. But the fact of the matters is that you have Barkley stans, Bird stans, Magic stans, etc most of them saying that Jordan is the greatest. You sound really young.

As for those old time players. I do think that the league is better right now, but still respect those players. The game is relative and competition is always going equal to competition regardless of era. In other words I still respect those older teams because they're were all competing just as hard as anyone in any other era to win. Any competitive person from the 60s, could be just as good if exposed to a more modern game early on.


It's also arguable that those 9 teams back in the 60's had to be even more competitive, with the talent pool being so condensed.

[bwink23]

If you're not curious about the league's history, or have no respect for it's past, you're not much of a basketball fan at all in my opinion.

[Legends66NBA7]

OP

taking the piss....is the term, I think
====================================


real sports fans understand a word called CONTEXT


game existed before today's players and will exist after them


lot of people aren't real sports fans but highlight watchers...


There's an age old argument surrounding this... and it's one that will never, ever be settled. More than anything, chalk it up to an 'out of sight, out of mind' mentality for younger basketball fans. If they aren't able to see the highlights, it must not have been that spectacular.

The Bold.

Right on, that's exactly how I feel, as well. This is done a lot by common fans, let alone basketball fans.


Ignorance

This too.


:facepalm

Here's some statistics for you:

1965-66:
47 of 99 total NBA players were black.
31 of 45 total NBA starters were black.
14 of 20 total NBA all stars were black.

2011-12:
1 in every 5 IH posters continue to prove that they are legitimately ignorant and racist.

Great insight, as always.

[CavaliersFTW]

Oh.. well good luck to you. Impressive work you are doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzzxVE34k
try this one, it's a re-upload (I also edited the other post to get rid of that link of the sped-up youtube edit)



compare ball physics/player movements with this untouched real-time footage from the era:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVi0EtJcZg



Pretty sure I've got it dialed in pretty much right at how all those guys moved, they weren't as slow as most people think

[LABean]

That's the only reason he said what he said...to bring Jordan down. I just called him out on his agenda. These Kobe fan boys will agree with anything if its within their said agenda.

Meh. You take it however you want. :rolleyes:

[Nevaeh]

Why the lack of respect for old school basketball superstars?

A lot more female posters nowadays than in years past who hate having their favorite players' flaws or shortcomings pointed out.What's strange is you don't see these type of attacks for "Old Movies" or "Old Music" too much.

Just a sign of the times. Imagine how bad it would be if we didn't have Basketball Reference type sites and You Tube to verify how Old School players played during their time.

[WillyJakk]

From my standpoint, I respect the OG's but I am also a realist and this is why I knock those 50's 60's and some 70's guys:

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

He shook those 2 slow footed dudes doing this...I mean seriously...:facepalm

I've watched old footage of Walt Frazier and others and nearly all those guys dribbled hunched over driving right EVERY SINGLE TIME. Stand on their right side and they'd literally dribble in a circle.

Pistol Pete was ahead of his time cause besides the trickery and fancy passes, he actually had handles w/ both hands.

I respect the sh*t outta Dr J and Dominique Wilkins but those guys were terrible left handed dribblers BUT their supreme athleticism took them to another level that pushes them past most of today's modern players.

Bottom line is (imo) only a few OG's could play in the 90's-now and have the type of standout careers they had in their day so please stop trying to trick people w/ propaganda.

I respect the heck outta Bob Cousy but really, Prime "Houdini of the Hardwood" could even make the Celtics roster nowadays and you know it.

[CavaliersFTW]

From my standpoint, I respect the OG's but I am also a realist and this is why I knock those 50's 60's and some 70's guys:

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

He shook those 2 slow footed dudes doing this...I mean seriously...:facepalm

I've watched old footage of Walt Frazier and others and nearly all those guys dribbled hunched over driving right EVERY SINGLE TIME. Stand on their right side and they'd literally dribble in a circle.

Pistol Pete was ahead of his time cause besides the trickery and fancy passes, he actually had handles w/ both hands.

I respect the sh*t outta Dr J and Dominique Wilkins but those guys were terrible left handed dribblers BUT their supreme athleticism took them to another level that pushes them past most of today's modern players.

Bottom line is (imo) only a few OG's could play in the 90's-now and have the type of standout careers they had in their day so please stop trying to trick people w/ propaganda.

I respect the heck outta Bob Cousy but really, Prime "Houdini of the Hardwood" could even make the Celtics roster nowadays and you know it.

lol 5 seconds of slow motion footage?... you put up a damn convincing argument son

:biggums:

[scream2207]

Jerry west is 2nd best SG ever after MJ :banana:

[CavaliersFTW]

From my standpoint, I respect the OG's but I am also a realist and this is why I knock those 50's 60's and some 70's guys:

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

He shook those 2 slow footed dudes doing this...I mean seriously...:facepalm

I've watched old footage of Walt Frazier and others and nearly all those guys dribbled hunched over driving right EVERY SINGLE TIME. Stand on their right side and they'd literally dribble in a circle.

Pistol Pete was ahead of his time cause besides the trickery and fancy passes, he actually had handles w/ both hands.

I respect the sh*t outta Dr J and Dominique Wilkins but those guys were terrible left handed dribblers BUT their supreme athleticism took them to another level that pushes them past most of today's modern players.

Bottom line is (imo) only a few OG's could play in the 90's-now and have the type of standout careers they had in their day so please stop trying to trick people w/ propaganda.

I respect the heck outta Bob Cousy but really, Prime "Houdini of the Hardwood" could even make the Celtics roster nowadays and you know it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvMq-eX_pNw

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/z%20Funny%20NBA%20Photos/0%20Players/Lebron%20James/--vs--6.gif

http://i.minus.com/im7wcIel4GOoO.gif

:roll:

[ThaRegul8r]

Because most people don't give a damn about anything that happened before they started following basketball. Nothing that occurred before then is significant.

Because people have agendas which involve discrediting and diminishing anyone other than whomever their favorites happen to be. They're like politicians, launching smear campaigns against anyone who doesn't fall under their agenda. Naturally, anyone who played before they began watching basketball will be a target of the smear campaign, as any and all historical rivals must be eliminated as well. However, this does not mean that fans of "old school" players are exempt, as they will often engage in smear campaigns as well to promote their agenda.

Because since I've been monitoring sports message boards since the advent of the internet, basketball fans are by far the most ignorant and clueless of any of the major sports.

[WillyJakk]

lol 5 seconds of slow motion footage?... you put up a damn convincing argument son

:biggums:

:coleman:
"Whatchu talkin' bout CavaliersFTW?"

Point is that move was effective then but not now and the way most played the game then wouldn't be as effective doing those moves now.

[CavaliersFTW]

:coleman:
"Whatchu talkin' bout CavaliersFTW?"

Point is that move was effective then but not now and the way most played the game then wouldn't be as effective doing those moves now.

And a crossover = a carry, and a crab dribble = a travel, and 2 out of ever 3 dunks you watch in highlights today = a charge... so are you gonna act like this is only a one-sided "skills from X era would be less effective in the game of Z era" situation? Goes both ways. Lebron's post game is worse than Bob Cousy's

[PistolPete44]

despite the immense wilt hate here, wilt was actually in everyone's top 10 list

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg


:oldlol: too funny

[Legends66NBA7]

Because most people don't give a damn about anything that happened before they started following basketball. Nothing that occurred before then is significant.

Yup.

Times have changed and it's a lot of "what have you done for me now" kind off thinking.


Because people have agendas which involve discrediting and diminishing anyone other than whomever their favorites happen to be. They're like politicians, launching smear campaigns against anyone who doesn't fall under their agenda. Naturally, anyone who played before they began watching basketball will be a target of the smear campaign, as any and all historical rivals must be eliminated as well. However, this does not mean that fans of "old school" players are exempt, as they will often engage in smear campaigns as well to promote their agenda.

This, sadly, is what angers me the most.

Regardless, right or wrong, agendas are always forced on others. It becomes hate for the person/messenger rather than... whatever message they were trying to convey. And often, basketball talk is casted aside because of it.


Because since I've been monitoring sports message boards since the advent of the internet, basketball fans are by far the most ignorant and clueless of any of the major sports.

This hurts the most, because it's true.

I don't think there's a more clueless/ignorant fanbase out there.

Great post and it's pretty truthful, so it's gonna hurt someone...

[WillyJakk]

And a crossover = a carry, and a crab dribble = a travel, and 2 out of ever 3 dunks you watch in highlights today = a charge... so are you gonna act like this is only a one-sided "skills from X era would be less effective in the game of Z era" situation? Goes both ways. Lebron's post game is worse than Bob Cousy's

Not sure about that but LeBron is horrible in the post.

I think most guys in the early years of the League had a better mid range game than today's players, athletically though, only a few would have the skills to even create a shot nowadays.

The game didn't get too athletic til the 70's thanks to the ABA, this era is when things evened out somewhat to now.

[CavaliersFTW]

Not sure about that but LeBron is horrible in the post.

I think most guys in the early years of the League had a better mid range game than today's players, athletically though, only a few would have the skills to even create a shot nowadays.

The game didn't get too athletic til the 70's thanks to the ABA, this era is when things evened out somewhat to now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVi0EtJcZg&t=1m59s

I just can't watch footage like this, and honestly think these rosters are uselesss or unable to create shots in today's league. I feel like people put on goggles and forget that 60 percent of our league is nothing but mediocre and fluff players like Joel Anthony, (old) Derrick Fischer, Zydrunas Ilgauskus, Ryan Hollins, I mean seriously... watch that - tell me is there anyone in that footage that look worse than the worst players in the league today.

[PHILA]

Some guards today lack the decisive instinct that Cousy had in this example below, spinning away from the D to hit the shot immediately off the catch. Although a big part of that the collective sagging effort on D nowadays which often concedes the 3 point shot, thus making one dimensional spot up shooters more valuable than ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzNMqC69qZc&t=24m2s


Below we can see a similar instinct from Jordan in the '89 playoffs, taking it a step up & all the way to the rim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVOw5llx5Uo&t=04m37s

[WillyJakk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVi0EtJcZg&t=1m59s

I just can't watch footage like this, and honestly think these rosters are uselesss or unable to create shots in today's league. I feel like people put on goggles and forget that 60 percent of our league is nothing but mediocre and fluff players like Joel Anthony, (old) Derrick Fischer, Zydrunas Ilgauskus, Ryan Hollins, I mean seriously... watch that - tell me is there anyone in that footage that look worse than the worst players in the league today.

This is my sincere conclusion and it may seem odd considering my stance but..

I truly think some of these older teams would beat the worst to lower tier of NBA teams today simply because the one constant is fundamentals and of the 6 mins of the vid I watched (sorry was kinda long vid) those guys consistently hit that mid range shot which is something most guys can't do nowadays.

The issue they'd have would actually be getting into their offense THEN actually getting off a shot against the modern athlete.

This is where I see a huge gap in eras thereby weakening the pre 70's case.

Btw Elgin Baylor had a great outlet pass in that vid.

Thanks for posting it, whether I agree w/ you or not I do appreciate the footage.

[bizil]

I think people fail to understand the process of evolution. In any sport, it seems the guys that seemed ahead of their time get the most props. For example, guys like Wilt, Cousy, West, Big O, Baylor, and Russell were ahead of their time. Meaning they were doing things that no other players at their position could really do. For example many of their numbers were so gaudy and far above everyone else u knew they were ahead of their time. So what happens is haters will say the competition wasn't as good so that's why they dominated like that. But at the same time, they were so dominant back then that u knew they could hold their own against and be better than players in the newer generations.

Jerry West was STILL better than Maravich and Monroe at his later stages. Wilt was STILL better than most of the centers he ran into in the 70's. Wilt held his own against Kareem and was still a more dominant player in some ways. And as we saw Kareem dominated guys in the 70's AND 80's! Kareem has as good of longevity being great as any player! So that should tell u that a prime Wilt would have been dominant in any era. Especially if an out of prime Wilt was still giving a young Kareem all he could handle.

So I show mad love to all the great players regardless of any era. Now in terms of GOAT ranking, it can be fun when ranking players. But the legends should NEVER BE DISRESPECTED! I'm 34 years old and grew up off of the legends in the mid 80's. I became a real student of the game later in the late 80's and early 90's when i was old enough to really study the game. So I am partial to those group of legends because they made me love the game. But I always appreciated the game. I remember in 5th and 6th grade I was reading Basketball Digest while the other kids were reading kids books! LOL

[Teanett]

it's because most posters here are 14 year old asian computer nerds who believe in 2k ratings.

[WillC]

If you're not curious about the league's history, or have no respect for it's past, you're not much of a basketball fan at all in my opinion.

Exactly.

I think that sums it up really. There are a lot of hipsters on ISH who don't really care about basketball - they just want to watch highlights and top 10 plays - hence they are willing to belittle the achievements of superstars of yesteryear.

Proper fans wouldn't do that.

[nbacardDOTnet]

Cousy >>>> Baron Davis

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/y%20Crazy%20Shot/from%20Crazy%20Pass/Bob%20Cousy/2.gif

:bowdown:

[WillC]

As the OP, I guess I'm just fiercely defensive of the history of this sport because of my love for the game of basketball.

Seeing 14-year-old kids trash the game's history is akin to watching drunken yobs pissing on a statue of a war hero.

You just don't do it.

Show some respect.

Nobody is claiming Cousy would dominate the NBA today. Hell, he might not have even be good enough to play in the NBA today. But, fact is, he dominated his era, was once regarded as the best basketball player alive, and was a basketball pioneer who helped shape the game as we know it today.

To see people mocking him for a 5-second GIF (after all, that's probably the first time many ISH users have ever seen him play) is, frankly, disgusting.

[nbacardDOTnet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvMq-eX_pNw

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/z%20Funny%20NBA%20Photos/0%20Players/Lebron%20James/--vs--6.gif

http://i.minus.com/im7wcIel4GOoO.gif

:roll:

size fixed. :roll:

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/z%20Funny%20NBA%20Photos/0%20Players/Lebron%20James/lebron-james-miami-heat-lol.gif

[jstern]

From my standpoint, I respect the OG's but I am also a realist and this is why I knock those 50's 60's and some 70's guys:

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

He shook those 2 slow footed dudes doing this...I mean seriously...:facepalm

I've watched old footage of Walt Frazier and others and nearly all those guys dribbled hunched over driving right EVERY SINGLE TIME. Stand on their right side and they'd literally dribble in a circle.

Pistol Pete was ahead of his time cause besides the trickery and fancy passes, he actually had handles w/ both hands.

I respect the sh*t outta Dr J and Dominique Wilkins but those guys were terrible left handed dribblers BUT their supreme athleticism took them to another level that pushes them past most of today's modern players.

Bottom line is (imo) only a few OG's could play in the 90's-now and have the type of standout careers they had in their day so please stop trying to trick people w/ propaganda.

I respect the heck outta Bob Cousy but really, Prime "Houdini of the Hardwood" could even make the Celtics roster nowadays and you know it.

Even though the defense there was horrible, I don't think the guy got his ankle twisted. He went down on his own will to try and get the ball. Horrible defense non the less. I imagine this was in the 50s. Also Cousy was limited by the stricter palming rules. Imagine only being able to dribble straight up and down, it would limit a player so much, and make it harder to dribble.

[Glide2keva]

It's basically Jordan's fault.
His stans flood everything with him, that other players get overshadowed.
Sounds like hate, but it's the truth.

Good thread, OP. :applause:
Um, actually most Jordan fans respect the older players, it's you Kobe fans that lack respect for past players in your attempts to aggrandize Kobe to levels he doesn't deserve.

Nice try though.

[CavaliersFTW]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/y%20Crazy%20Shot/from%20Crazy%20Pass/Bob%20Cousy/2.gif

:bowdown:
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/y%20Crazy%20Shot/from%20Crazy%20Pass/Bob%20Cousy/to-1.gif

[Brick Rick]

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

:yaohappy:

[SlayerEnraged]

It surprises me when I see people on the message boards mocking old school basketball players like Wilt Chamberlain and Bob Cousy.

Why is there such a lack of respect for basketball pioneers and superstars from years gone by?

To use a phrase from the UK, you're pissing on your own door step. Players like Chamberlain and Cousy helped push the boundaries of the game, and yet many posters on ISH talk about old school players like they're trash and couldn't care less about the game's history.

I don't get it.

We all love basketball - that's what brings us together on the boards - so why not show a little respect for the men who helped the game become what it is today?

I wish people cared a little less about Jeremy Lin and a little more about Hank Luisetti.

Because mostly of guys like MJ. They try to make him sound indivincible when really he played vs the weakest position as far as talent goes back in the day, he actually struggled vs the better players,etc.

[jstern]

Because mostly of guys like MJ. They try to make him sound indivincible when really he played vs the weakest position as far as talent goes back in the day, he actually struggled vs the better players,etc.

You're completely talking out of your ass, I bet you're like 17. Jordan always played his best against the toughest opponents. Like Phil said, Michael saved his best for the better competition just able to turn it on at will, while Kobe would just get hot and go on a tare. That's why Kobe's best games are against weaker teams and Jordan's best games are against elite teams, and NBA finals.


Um, actually most Jordan fans respect the older players, it's you Kobe fans that lack respect for past players in your attempts to aggrandize Kobe to levels he doesn't deserve.

Nice try though.

This exactly.


http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/y%20Crazy%20Shot/from%20Crazy%20Pass/Bob%20Cousy/to-1.gif

That's a sweet pass by Cousy.

[kurple]

i have no lack of respect for old school players.. but i just dont know anything about them, never seen either play

[jlauber]

I have posted this before, but take a look at the footage of Maravich on YouTube. He was doing things with a ball that made Jason Williams look like Carrot Top. YET, he Pistol Pete was NEVER considered on the level of West or Oscar.

I have posted the article, and shown the footage of Gus Johnson. He was 6-6 235 lbs. and had a KNOWN vertical that would rival Jordan's. And take a look at his SKILLS in the footage on YouTube. He had 15-20 ft. range, and was known to have shattered THREE backboards. BUT, take a look at his career statistics. While good, they were certainly not great. If the level of play in the 60's was so poor, why didn't a monster like Gus put up 30-20 games every night?

Rick Barry averaged 35.6 ppg on .451 shooting in the 66-67 season. Nine years later, in 74-75, he averaged 30.6 ppg on .464 shooting. He was just as great against the players of the 70's as he was against those of the 60's.

Havlicek played eight seasons in the 60's, and eight seasons in the 70's, He shot better EVERY year in the decade of the 70's, than he did in his BEST season of the 60's. Why?

A 38-39 year old Kareem had TEN STRAIGHT games of 32 ppg on an incredible .630 shooting, including three games of 40+, against a 22-23 year old Hakeem. And within days of his 46 point game, on 21-30 shooting (and in only 37 minutes) against Hakeem, he demolished Ewing by a 40-9 margin (outshooting Patrick, 15-22 to 3-17.) HOWEVER, in three straight playoff series, from 71-73, and against the relatively unknown Nate Thurmond, a PRIME Kareem shot .486, .428, and even .405 (and was outscored and outshot by Thurmond in that serie.)

Chamberlain, at age 35, in a season in which he hardly shot the ball, averaged 29 ppg in five H2H's against 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier, who would go on to be one of the best centers of the 70's. In his 68-69 season, again in a season in which he only averaged 14 FGAs per game, he hung games of 60 and 66 on centers who would be playing in the 70's. In his 70-71 season, just a year after major knee surgery, he battled a PRIME Kareem, in perhaps Kareem's greatest season, in TEN H2H's (five in the regular season, and five in the post-season), and nearly matched Kareem in scoring, while outrebounding him, and heavily outshooting him (holding Kareem to .454 in those ten H2H's.)

[LakersReign]

The disrespect is due the the fact that they aren't old enough to appreciate players like Cousy, Wilt, Oscar, Kareem, etc. Black athletes back then got real hate simply cuz of their skin color. People just hated them, regardless of how much talent they had. If it wasn't for them, setting the bar, there would've never been a Jordan. TRUE NBA fans understand that and appreciate it. The people who don't had no interest in the NBA til '03 when Lebron was signed by the Cavs. Now you have all these kids dropping his name, acting like they know more about the game than anybody on the planet. These are the same people who call Kobe "old" at 34. So, if Kobe's "old" at 34, what do you call people like Jerry West, Bill Russel, Kareem, Magic and even Jordan? All that indicates is a complete lack of maturity to understand the past, to change the present, to help influence the future.

[guy]

It surprises me when I see people on the message boards mocking old school basketball players like Wilt Chamberlain and Bob Cousy.

Why is there such a lack of respect for basketball pioneers and superstars from years gone by?

To use a phrase from the UK, you're pissing on your own door step. Players like Chamberlain and Cousy helped push the boundaries of the game, and yet many posters on ISH talk about old school players like they're trash and couldn't care less about the game's history.

I don't get it.

We all love basketball - that's what brings us together on the boards - so why not show a little respect for the men who helped the game become what it is today?

I wish people cared a little less about Jeremy Lin and a little more about Hank Luisetti.

I don't think their trash. But alot of their stats and accomplishments are not taken into proper context when being compared to more recent players so thats where some of the criticism comes from.

[jlauber]

I don't think their trash. But alot of their stats and accomplishments are not taken into proper context when being compared to more recent players so thats where some of the criticism comes from.

BUT, those that DIMINISH their stats ALSO tend to EXAGGERATE them. In Wilt's highest "paced" NBA season, the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg. MJ's 37.1 ppg season came in a league that averaged 109.9 ppg. Rebounds were more plentiful, to be sure, BUT, even today it is at about 70% of the PEAK NBA season of the 60's...and the NBA scoring and rebounding numbers declined from that point on. By Wilt's LAST season, in 72-73, the NBA was averaging 107.6 ppg and 50.6 rpg.

For instance, those that rip Wilt's rebounding numbers, how about his rebounding in his LAST post-season, and at age 36? In 17 playoff games, he averaged 22.5 rpg, and in a post-season in which the average team had 50.6 rpg. Now, that was the LAST time a player ever averaged as much as 17.3 rpg in the post-season.

And who knows how many ppg a 69-70 Chamberlain would have averaged had he not shredded his knee in the ninth game? He was LEADING the league in scoring, at 32.2 ppg, on 60% shooting. He had games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 in those nine games, as well as a 25-25 9-14 shooting game against Kareem (he outscored, outrebounded, outassisted, outblocked, and heavily outshot Kareem in that game.) Included in those games were games of 37 against 7-0 270 lb Tom Boewinkle, and a 38 point explosion against reigning MVP Wes Unselld.

So, a Chamberlain was nearly as dominant by even the early 70's, as he had been in the early 60's...even though he was considerably past his prime.

[Story Up]

I feel like it's complete opposite, most overrate the crap out of old superstars.

[WillC]

Because mostly of guys like MJ. They try to make him sound indivincible when really he played vs the weakest position as far as talent goes back in the day, he actually struggled vs the better players,etc.

Did Jordan struggle against Clyde Drexler (one of the five greatest shooting guards of all-time) in the 1992 NBA Finals?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v417/butnugget/jordan-shrug-small.gif

I struggle to take seriously the opinion of someone who can't spell 'invincible'.

[CavaliersFTW]

I don't think their trash. But alot of their stats and accomplishments are not taken into proper context when being compared to more recent players so thats where some of the criticism comes from.
Come on dude, seriously? No fan of those guys that I've seen here misinterprets their accomplishments by lacking context. Find me posts on IH where actual fans attempted to suggest that those players stats and/or abilities are directly comparable to modern stats/abilities skill for skill and number for number.

And as far as context goes, the opposite is true of which side lacks context. People with an upfront insecurity issue, who feels they need to go out of their way to mention that the stats are misleading and accuse others of lacking this insight have got some of the most limited knowledge about those players I've seen. If these people began asking the people who are fans of the players why they are fans theyd be much better off than insisting those vintage player fans sat down and read some stat sheets w/o context. The fans that know how good those players were don't say "see, 27rpg > 15rpg! I win!'. Furthermore, i'd guarantee you these actual fans who have studied those players possess the best handle on just how those players can be compared to the modern players with "different stats" and skillsets.

Honestly, anyone who has ever bitched about vintage players, and vintage player fans, seems to have the least amount of knowledge about them. And no actual fan or neutral general NBA fan I know, has attempted to use their stats in direct tit for tat comparison to modern stats. There's really nothing to criticize here.

[CavaliersFTW]

I feel like it's complete opposite, most overrate the crap out of old superstars.
Names?

[PTB Fan]

5 step process to successfully presenting vintage NBA players in a manner that can actually gain the respect of younger NBA fans.

Step 1. Consolidate the MASSIVE amounts of (completely disorganized) vintage NBA clips, games and documentaries that contain your player of choice.

Step 2. CORRECT ALL OF THE SLOW MOTION

Step 3. Correct the color and contrast, nobody wants to watch gloomy medieval looking footage. The older it looks the quicker it will be written off.

Step 4. (very important) Hell or high water try in some way to get it through to the viewers that those vintage players are NOT UNDERSIZED. These clownish modern list-heights have poisoned all vintage player reputations with as much toxicity as any old slow-motion footage highlight reel has. I like to use annotations, and the description box to identify players and their size with something like "as tall as Dwight Howard" or something along those lines. Anyone who comments with misinformation about how "small" the players were I correct them, and if they troll and spam ignorance then I just say f*ck em and delete their comments so they don't taint history for everyone else.

Step 5. Unlike highlights of modern players that people are familiar with you ABSOLUTELY MUST set aside time in any highlight video to reveal glimpses of the talent of the competition, because highlights of one player dominating unfamiliar players makes everyone jump to the conclusion that everyone else must be written off as "weak" and the highlighted player must simply be "ahead of his time"




Unfortunately combining all these elements into one highlight real is difficult and time consuming. Right now I'm (still) combing through my archive of footage of Wilt in his LA years - I'm probably about half way through it, if that. Then I'll be adding as much of the "exciting" commentator audio as I can. All of this stuff is the key to a proper highlight video that will make people go "damn... that guy can ball".

Next up after Wilt in LA, prob gonna be the Baylor and West duo. Or Oscar Robertson - 3 (of many) guys who also need their due in a legitimate highlight reel.

btw here's some more LA footage of Wilt this is by no means a complete video, and it is not publicly available on youtube it is just me checking my progress of certain scenes I color corrected and what not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzzxVE34k

Interesting post. I can't wait for the Baylor and Big O videos. West as well. Keep them coming. I want to appreciate their greatness :bowdown:

[bwink23]

I just think kids these days are more interested in seeing Dirk's hair in high definition.

[bwink23]

Let's put it this way...Lebron's receding hairline has more of a basketball impact on today's youth than the history of the game.

[PTB Fan]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/y%20Crazy%20Shot/from%20Crazy%20Pass/Bob%20Cousy/2.gif

:bowdown:


:bowdown:

[jlauber]

Virtually every facet of the game that is being played TODAY, was being done in the 60's (with perhaps the exception of the 3 pt shot...and players like Jerry Lucas and Jon McGlocklin would be just as good as any in TODAY's game.)

[senelcoolidge]

It's true people that demean the past greats are not true fans of basketball. When I first really got into basketball at age 14. I wanted to know about all the greats and the sport. I watched film and read books on the greats. I learned my NBA history. I never saw these guys play, but had the utmost respect for them. Without them the game would not have evolved to what we have today. Maybe kids today are just DUMB and don't have the attention spans to see beyond what they see in front of them. I don't know.

[WillC]

It's true people that demean the past greats are not true fans of basketball. When I first really got into basketball at age 14. I wanted to know about all the greats and the sport. I watched film and read books on the greats. I learned my NBA history. I never saw these guys play, but had the utmost respect for them. Without them the game would not have evolved to what we have today. Maybe kids today are just DUMB and don't have the attention spans to see beyond what they see in front of them. I don't know.

Excellent post.

[guy]

Come on dude, seriously? No fan of those guys that I've seen here misinterprets their accomplishments by lacking context. Find me posts on IH where actual fans attempted to suggest that those players stats and/or abilities are directly comparable to modern stats/abilities skill for skill and number for number.

And as far as context goes, the opposite is true of which side lacks context. People with an upfront insecurity issue, who feels they need to go out of their way to mention that the stats are misleading and accuse others of lacking this insight have got some of the most limited knowledge about those players I've seen. If these people began asking the people who are fans of the players why they are fans theyd be much better off than insisting those vintage player fans sat down and read some stat sheets w/o context. The fans that know how good those players were don't say "see, 27rpg > 15rpg! I win!'. Furthermore, i'd guarantee you these actual fans who have studied those players possess the best handle on just how those players can be compared to the modern players with "different stats" and skillsets.

Honestly, anyone who has ever bitched about vintage players, and vintage player fans, seems to have the least amount of knowledge about them. And no actual fan or neutral general NBA fan I know, has attempted to use their stats in direct tit for tat comparison to modern stats. There's really nothing to criticize here.

I've seen jlauber say that Wilt would average 40 ppg/20 rpg/8 apg/8 bpg in today's era. I believe he softened his stance on that, but it wasn't by much. He's made other ridiculous arguments like saying Shaq averaged 38/17 for a playoff series, so it shouldn't be farfetched that Wilt could do better then that for an entire season today, ignoring that 82 games > 6 games.

The stats argument may not be as big of a deal as it was before. But I hear alot of people point out that they only had 8-10 teams back then meaning the league wasn't watered down with so many teams, teams were deeper back then, etc. It doesn't seem like anyone points out how ridiculous this is because of the fact that as the population has grown and as the popularity of basketball has probably tripled or quadrupled so the talent pool has been much deeper meaning the league has expanded just as the talent pool has increased. And then people bring up championships, MVPs, all-star appearances, all-nba first teams, etc. and they ignore that these are not fair comparisons to more recent eras because while the league expanded and the talent pool increase, these awards/honors did not increase i.e. there's always only been 1 MVP, 24 all-stars, etc.

Thats my main point. Alot of this is ignored when comparing everyone.

[jlauber]

I've seen jlauber say that Wilt would average 40 ppg/20 rpg/8 apg/8 bpg in today's era. I believe he softened his stance on that, but it wasn't by much. He's made other ridiculous arguments like saying Shaq averaged 38/17 for a playoff series, so it shouldn't be farfetched that Wilt could do better then that for an entire season today, ignoring that 82 games > 6 games.

The stats argument may not be as big of a deal as it was before. But I hear alot of people point out that they only had 8-10 teams back then meaning the league wasn't watered down with so many teams, teams were deeper back then, etc. It doesn't seem like anyone points out how ridiculous this is because of the fact that as the population has grown and as the popularity of basketball has probably tripled or quadrupled so the talent pool has been much deeper meaning the league has expanded just as the talent pool has increased. And then people bring up championships, MVPs, all-star appearances, all-nba first teams, etc. and they ignore that these are not fair comparisons to more recent eras because while the league expanded and the talent pool increase, these awards/honors did not increase i.e. there's always only been 1 MVP, 24 all-stars, etc.

Thats my main point. Alot of this is ignored when comparing everyone.

And I have seen posters claim that Wilt would be a 25-13 guy in TODAY's NBA, as well. That is as ridiculous as claiming that Chamberlain would be a 50-25 player today. Today's NBA is scoring at 85-90% and rebounding at 70-80% of what they were in the Chamberlain era. They were not DOUBLING the totals back then. AND, while rebounds were more plentiful, no one mentions that the CONDITIONS at the time, significantly reduced FG%'s. Put Wilt's 65-66 season of .540, in a league that shot .433, in MJ's '87, when it shot .480 (and had an eFG% of .490), and Wilt scoring average of 33.5 ppg would probably have remained relatively close, despite shooting less shots. Why? Because that .540 in '66 translates to .600 in '87 (and even higher if you use the eFG%.)

Yes, the population of the world has doubled, and in more popular than it was 50 years ago. The NBA also has 2-3 times as many teams. The BEST basketball players in the world were playing in 1960, just as the BEST basketball players are playing today.

In Wilt's case, he was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his peers. But, instead so many here just ridicule his peers. YET, the game is being played essentially the same way, on the same size courts, with the same number of players, with the same size rims, hoops, and balls. Furthermore, the players of today are only SLIGHTLY taller, on AVERAGE, than they were 50 years ago. And I mean by less than 1".

Chamberlain's NUMBERS translate to easily a 35-18 .575 season. Yet, since Shaq could "only" produce a 30 ppg season, then the posters claim that that is all Wilt could possibly accomplish. Why? Chamberlain had more range, was quicker, more athletic, and quite possibly, stronger. Chamberlain was also slightly taller, and had a slightly longer wing-span.

And don't forget that just as recently as 2006, we had Kobe averaging 35.4 in a league that averaged 97 ppg. So, let's not act like 35 ppg is out of the realm of possibility.

Rodman averaged 18.7 rpg as recently as 1992, and he did so in a career high 40 mpg. Given the fact that Chamberlain was bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic, stronger, and as ferocious a rebounder in his career, 18 to even 20 rpg would not be unrealistic. Hell, 6-9 Kevin Love averaged 15 rpg in 36 mpg LAST SEASON for cryingoutloud.

Chamberlain was routinely playing 47-48 mpg in his career, and certainly, something along the lines of 44-45 mpg would not be an impossibility, either. Iverson was playing 44 mpg as recently as 2002.

Furthermore, what was the NBA like before Chamberlain arrived? The scoring record was 29.2 ppg; the rebounding record was 23.0; and the FG% record was .490. How many fans, at the time, would have predicted that someone would come into the league in 1959-60, and in his 14 seasons, have scoring seasons of 38, 38, 45, and 50? Of rebounding seasons of 26, 27, and 27: of FG% seasons of .540, .683, and then .727??

Not only that, but subtract Wilt from the Chamberlain-era, and the scoring record, at THAT time, would have been Barry's 35.6 ppg. A great season to be sure, but Kareem would average 34.8 ppg in '72, Archibald 34.0 ppg in '73, McAdoo at 34.5 ppg in '75, Gervin 33.1 in '80, King 32.9 in '85 (played in 55 games, though), MJ at 37.1 in '87, McGrady at 32.1 ppg in '03, and Kobe's 35.4 in '06.

So, let's not act like EVERYONE was scoring 35 ppg in the Wilt-era.

And, subtract Wilt and Russell from the NBA in their careers, and the rebounding record would be Jerry Lucas' 21.1 rpg in '66. In fact, aside from Wilt and Russell, there have been a TOTAL of FOUR 20+ rpg seasons in NBA (and including even the ABA) HISTORY. FOUR (and two of those were by Lucas.)

FG%? Take Chamberlain out, and the record in the 14 years in which Chamberlain played, would have been Johnny Green's .587 in '71. Here again, ONLY Wilt had ANY seasons of .595+ DURING the Wilt era (and he did it FOUR times.)

And don't forget that Kareem played FOUR seasons in the Wilt era. Yet, he never came close to approaching ANY of Wilt's marks. BTW, in Chamberlain's 69-70 season (his 11th year) he was averaging 32.2 ppg on .600 shooting in his first nine games of that season. Now, we have no way of knowing how that season would have played out had he not tore his knee up, but he was asked by his new coach to become the focal point of the offense, and he had games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 as well as 25-25 .643 game against Kareem. AND, just the season before, he hung the TWO highest games of the season, with games of 60 and 66 (on a staggering 29-35 shooting too.)

Why? Why was it ONLY Chamberlain?

[guy]

And I have seen posters claim that Wilt would be a 25-13 guy in TODAY's NBA, as well. That is as ridiculous as claiming that Chamberlain would be a 50-25 player today.


:oldlol: This is exactly what I'm talking about? You realize 25/13 is still most likely the best center in the league and very arguably the best player in the league right? But thats as ridiculous of a claim as saying he'd average about double what Dwight Howard and Kevin Love put up?



Yes, the population of the world has doubled, and in more popular than it was 50 years ago. The NBA also has 2-3 times as many teams. The BEST basketball players in the world were playing in 1960, just as the BEST basketball players are playing today.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the top 96 players in the league back then are equal to top 96 players in the league today. Do you agree?



Chamberlain's NUMBERS translate to easily a 35-18 .575 season. Yet, since Shaq could "only" produce a 30 ppg season, then the posters claim that that is all Wilt could possibly accomplish. Why? Chamberlain had more range, was quicker, more athletic, and quite possibly, stronger. Chamberlain was also slightly taller, and had a slightly longer wing-span.


Where did you come up with that translation? Let me know. Cause using just plain math isn't really accurate since there are differences in the game today. Has nothing to do with Shaq. It has to do with how the game is played today.



And don't forget that just as recently as 2006, we had Kobe averaging 35.4 in a league that averaged 97 ppg. So, let's not act like 35 ppg is out of the realm of possibility.

Rodman averaged 18.7 rpg as recently as 1992, and he did so in a career high 40 mpg. Given the fact that Chamberlain was bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic, stronger, and as ferocious a rebounder in his career, 18 to even 20 rpg would not be unrealistic. Hell, 6-9 Kevin Love averaged 15 rpg in 36 mpg LAST SEASON for cryingoutloud.

Chamberlain was routinely playing 47-48 mpg in his career, and certainly, something along the lines of 44-45 mpg would not be an impossibility, either. Iverson was playing 44 mpg as recently as 2002.


A few common sense things you are ignoring:

Wilt wouldn't play anywhere close to that amount of MPG. Not cause he couldn't but because coaches/GMs/owners today feel that thats counterproductive and not good for business and would rarely ever let a player play that much. Just cause AI did, doesn't mean Wilt would. More then likely, he's averaging the the typical 37-40 mpg that most superstars play.

Dennis Rodman had a higher rebound rate then Wilt ever did and unlike Wilt did not have to focus on other things like scoring. So to assume he would rebound just as much is stupid.

For FTs, he wouldn't have the 3 to make 2 rule and as a result he'd get less FTs and teams would take up more of a wack-a-Wilt strategy which would mean less touches for him.

Perimeter defense is better so its harder to get the ball down to big men, which would result in less touches for Wilt.

With 3 point shooting and the growing reliance on it, 3-point shots would come at the expense of some of Wilt's touches.

Also, with more 3-point attempts and longer distance shooting in general, that would mean more longer rebounds which Wilt would miss out on.

[CavaliersFTW]

Guy, honestly, your displaying the same ignorance I was talking about right now. Even if you think JL is going too far in one direction, your going too far in the opposite, and JL - despite bias, does know more about Wilt than you do and that includes what Wilt is likely capable of. He would play more minutes than a typical NBA player today, because he did the same thing in his era. Why? Because he had a limitless motor and the best NBA coaches try to use the strengths of players. Would he play even if the team was getting blown out? No. Would he play every minute of a playoff game if the team was better with him on the floor rather than off the floor? Yes. If you read about him you'd understand why, he A. Was moody and could poison the energy of his entire team if a coach decided to sit him for no apparent reason and B. It was because he felt he cramped up when he was on the bench and when "rest" is redundant and "sitting" is counter productive what would an intelligent coach be doing? Sitting him anyways? Little things like this, you don't know of therefor you are not acknowledging. Wilt did things that he did because he's Wilt, he's a f*cking unique as hell player, and athlete, and he didn't conform to systems when he was playing in the same traditional sense of any players around him in his era, and he wouldn't be doing that in today's game either. He had unique talents that his good coaches recognized and thus, and he had unique quirks that they also had to deal with to appease him but it's the only way to coach him. He'd be doing a lot of the same things in today's game even if you find it "impossible" because it is so unorthodox. Stats won't be the same, but his antics and dismay about playing limited minutes? That wouldn't change at all, he'd get a lot more minutes than stars today.

...And rebounding, so suddenly it's okay for the rebounding rate to directly transfer to today's game but other stats can't? Hypocrisy at it's best. Your bitching about people who might talk about his rebound numbers like they are crazy yet here you are trying to take rebound % and use it for direct comparison. He's a better rebounder than any player in the game today, and it's quite possible he'd be a better rebounder than Dennis Rodman - if we're talking about the LA Lakers Wilt. This is not based on stats, this is based on common sense watching him play, and also based on how superior he was to any peers. Also, as said it's going to depend on which version of Wilt we're talking about because he radically changed his game 3 times during his career. Defender, Facilitator, and Scorer, and he had different stats and %'s for every different role.

[guy]

Guy, honestly, your displaying the same ignorance I was talking about right now. Even if you think JL is going too far in one direction, your going too far in the opposite, and JL - despite bias, does know more about Wilt than you do and that includes what Wilt is likely capable of. He would play more minutes than a typical NBA player today, because he did the same thing in his era. Why? Because he had a limitless motor and the best NBA coaches try to use the strengths of players. Would he play even if the team was getting blown out? No. Would he play every minute of a playoff game if the team was better with him on the floor rather than off the floor? Yes. If you read about him you'd understand why, he A. Was moody and could poison the energy of his entire team if a coach decided to sit him for no apparent reason and B. It was because he felt he cramped up when he was on the bench and when "rest" is redundant and "sitting" is counter productive what would an intelligent coach be doing? Sitting him anyways? Little things like this, you don't know of or acknowledge, and coaches today would be taking them into consideration had they been in a situation to coach Wilt.

Where did I say he wasn't capable of more minutes? I clearly stated that that wouldn't have anything to do with it. If he would've played 41-42 mpg instead, big deal. Doesn't change my point. What do you mean no apparent reason? The reason would be the same reason Spoelstra sits Lebron, Brooks sits Durant, SVG sits Howard, etc. Just cause he got moody doesn't mean anything to me. You think all players want to rest everytime they get sent to the bench? No. Times have changed now. More then likely growing up in the more recent eras and seeing that playing 44+ mpg like many superstars did back then is not normal today would probably make him understand thats playing less minutes is more reasonable and understandable.

How am I going too far in the other direction? I didn't say he would be a scrub. I didn't say he wouldn't still be a great player. I'm not saying he still wouldn't put up monster numbers. I just don't think he'd put up the astronomical numbers that jlauber says he would.

[CavaliersFTW]

Where did I say he wasn't capable of more minutes? I clearly stated that that wouldn't have anything to do with it. If he would've played 41-42 mpg instead, big deal. Doesn't change my point. What do you mean no apparent reason? The reason would be the same reason Spoelstra sits Lebron, Brooks sits Durant, SVG sits Howard, etc. Just cause he got moody doesn't mean anything to me. You think all players want to rest everytime they get sent to the bench? No. Times have changed now. More then likely growing up in the more recent eras and seeing that playing 44+ mpg like many superstars did back then is not normal today would probably make him understand thats playing less minutes is more reasonable and understandable.

How am I going too far in the other direction? I didn't say he would be a scrub. I didn't say he wouldn't still be a great player. I'm not saying he still wouldn't put up monster numbers. I just don't think he'd put up the astronomical numbers that jlauber says he would.

25 and 13 is too low for Wilt's capabilities, those are Kevin freakin Love numbers. We're talking about one of the world's greatest athletes and NBA players of the 20th century and now he's just on Kevin Loves level? You inferred it to be a reasonable guesstimate. That + what you said about the minutes thing - it just told me you also lacked context.

Your examples of Lebron and Durant their coaches etc. Well, the are not Wilt... How many books either written about, or mentioning Wilt have you read? How many news papers, sports articles, personal interviews, coach interviews, and teammate interviews have you watched/read? I ask because when reading them you find out he was not a normal basketball player, he was not even a normal basketball superstar - he had to be coached differently he did not respond well (an understatement) to what he thought were "weak" coaches or to coaches who thought they could/needed to "control" him. That's part of the reason why he has 2 rings more than anything. The majority of his career was a roller coaster of incapable coaching. Coaches not named Alex Hannum, Frank McGuire, and Bill Sharmon were all fired because they could not coach Wilt, and Wilt was on MJ's level of popularity and profitability for the league both on and off the court and with his magnetic personality he certainly would be today as well. His value >>>> a coaches value and that class of athlete gets the same treatment in the NBA today, you find them a good coach that will appease them not the other way around, and one of the stipulations for Wilt to be appeased was keeping him on the floor until the game was over, or until you didn't want him in anymore because he acted like he was incapable of playing after being benched.

[jlauber]

:oldlol: This is exactly what I'm talking about? You realize 25/13 is still most likely the best center in the league and very arguably the best player in the league right? But thats as ridiculous of a claim as saying he'd average about double what Dwight Howard and Kevin Love put up?



Sure, but that doesn't mean the top 96 players in the league back then are equal to top 96 players in the league today. Do you agree?



Where did you come up with that translation? Let me know. Cause using just plain math isn't really accurate since there are differences in the game today. Has nothing to do with Shaq. It has to do with how the game is played today.



A few common sense things you are ignoring:

Wilt wouldn't play anywhere close to that amount of MPG. Not cause he couldn't but because coaches/GMs/owners today feel that thats counterproductive and not good for business and would rarely ever let a player play that much. Just cause AI did, doesn't mean Wilt would. More then likely, he's averaging the the typical 37-40 mpg that most superstars play.

Dennis Rodman had a higher rebound rate then Wilt ever did and unlike Wilt did not have to focus on other things like scoring. So to assume he would rebound just as much is stupid.

For FTs, he wouldn't have the 3 to make 2 rule and as a result he'd get less FTs and teams would take up more of a wack-a-Wilt strategy which would mean less touches for him.

Perimeter defense is better so its harder to get the ball down to big men, which would result in less touches for Wilt.

With 3 point shooting and the growing reliance on it, 3-point shots would come at the expense of some of Wilt's touches.

Also, with more 3-point attempts and longer distance shooting in general, that would mean more longer rebounds which Wilt would miss out on.

1. A 25-13 center IN Wilt's era was very good. He was a 40+-25 center in those leagues.

2. The MATH? Put 61-62 Wilt's NUMBERs in TODAY's NBA,. and reduce his FGAs and FTAs down to those levels, and guess what...he is a 38-18 player. Bump his FG% to current levels, and he would be closer to 40.

Furthermore, put a 61-62 Wilt in MJ's '87 season, and cut his FGAs and FTAs down to MJ's to '87 levels, and he is at 42 ppg. THEN, up his FG% to '87 levels, and it becomes 46 ppg.

3. Wilt has the SEVEN highest MPG seasons in NBA history. Why would a player that was playing 43 mpg in his LAST season, at age 36 (and then 47.1 mpg in his 17 playoff games) suddenly become a 37-40 mpg player in TODAY's NBA.

BUT, let's assume this...he plays 42 mpg, which is completely realistic. THEN, put him in a typical NBA season (not 2011-12) in which there are maybe 4-5 B2B's, and ZERO 3-in-a-rows (and yes, Chamberlain played in PLAYOFF series of 3 games in three nights, and get this, 48 mpg in all of them, and oh BTW, he had a muscle tear in his thigh, arthritis in the other knee, and a bad toe, and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING.) Much less the ACTUAL 4-in-a-rows and even FIVE-IN-A-ROWS that he did play.

Don't you think that his EFFICIENCY, in ALL areas, would INCREASE? 6 mpg x 80 games. By game 50 of the season he would be much more rested, AND, EFFICIENT. Then, multiply that by 14 seasons.

4. Rodman also built his numbers against a slew of rebounding inept big men. AND, he DECLINED DRAMATICALLY in the post-season...going from 13.8 rpg in the regular season, down to 9.9 in his post-season career. In fact, he was often a LIABILITY because he couldn't shoot for his life.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain DOMINATED EVERYONE. His playoff numbers, which shot UP considerably, also don't take into account how often he just CRUSHED those opposing centers. He had THREE entire post-seasons of outrebounding Russell (who was playing as many minutes as Wilt) by margins of 5, 5, and even 9 rpg. He pounded Thurmond by margins of 4 and even 7 per game in the post-season. My god, in his 142 H2H games with Russell, he outrebounded him by FIVE per game.

He was MUCH TALLER, had a MUCH WIDER wingspan, was MUCH BIGGER, MUCH STRONGER, and was MUCH MORE ATHLETIC than Rodman. I have no doubt that, a.) If Rodman were getting 18-19 rpg in HIS era, then Wilt would have gotten at least 20, and b.) H2H, Wilt would have DESTROYED Rodman on the glass, just as he did his own peers.

And both Psileas and ThaRegul8r posted this info (not sure which one was first), BUT, Wilt averaged 7-10 bpg in his CAREER. Not only that, but he challenged many more. How many rebounds did Wilt lose by, a.) blocking the shot, and b.) being out of position for a rebound when he didn't block it? FAR more than Rodman ever did, that's for sure.

5. The 3-to-make-2 FT rule was ONE of the FT shooting rules at the time. It was also offset by the ONE shot foul as well (ANY non-shooting foul committed in the first five fouls, was awarded ONE FT, and basically, a single possession of at at most, ONE point.)

6. Longer rebounds? Wilt would be a FAR better "long rebounder" than Kevin Love, who averaged 15.2 rpg in 36 mpg LAST SEASON. A MUCH better rebounding Wilt, playing 42 mpg, would easily be challenging 20 rpg in TODAY's NBA.

Once again, in a CURRENT NBA, in which centers who can even put up a 12-10 are rare, and with Wilt's 7-2 (7-3 by TODAY's measurement), 7-8 wingspan, 40+" vertical (and that is being conservative), 280-300+ lbs, massively strong, and highly SKILLED with a KNOWN 12-15 ft. range (watch CavsFan's YouTube footage of a Wilt from high school thru the first half of his NBA career...he CLEARLY had a solid range)

I'm sorry, but 35-18 .600 seasons seem much more REASONABLE than a Dwight or Love season.

[IGotACoolStory]

If Kevin Love is doing with he is doing, 70's players can do work in this era too.

[nbacardDOTnet]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/y%20Crazy%20Shot/from%20Crazy%20Pass/Bob%20Cousy/to-1.gif

nice find. That's what I uploaded. =)

[La Frescobaldi]

:oldlol: This is exactly what I'm talking about? You realize 25/13 is still most likely the best center in the league and very arguably the best player in the league right? But thats as ridiculous of a claim as saying he'd average about double what Dwight Howard and Kevin Love put up?
It depends which team he's on. If he's on today's Pistons, he's gonna get 40ppg and close to 20rpg. If he's on the Heat, he's gonna get 12 or 14 ppg and still close to 20rpg.
Wilt was utterly unstoppable by anyone who has ever played basketball. If Willis Reed, Bob Lanier, & Bill Russell couldn't stop him - and they could not - nobody else could. We are talking about some of the greatest players ever right there. Bob Lanier would be putting up just about the numbers he wanted to in today's league. I always thought Willis Reed was better.


Where did you come up with that translation? Let me know. Cause using just plain math isn't really accurate since there are differences in the game today. Has nothing to do with Shaq. It has to do with how the game is played today.

I agree that numbers like 50 & 25 would not be possible in today's NBA. The pace is too slow, largely because perimeter players spend 8 to 10 seconds of every possession dribbling.



A few common sense things you are ignoring:

Wilt wouldn't play anywhere close to that amount of MPG. Not cause he couldn't but because coaches/GMs/owners today feel that thats counterproductive and not good for business and would rarely ever let a player play that much. Just cause AI did, doesn't mean Wilt would. More then likely, he's averaging the the typical 37-40 mpg that most superstars play.

False.
Chamberlain was abundantly clear on this subject with every coach he ever played for. But it's much simpler than that.
In a league where Carmelo Anthony deliberately tanks to get his coach fired and nobody cares, #13 would play all the minutes he wants.


Dennis Rodman had a higher rebound rate then Wilt ever did and unlike Wilt did not have to focus on other things like scoring. So to assume he would rebound just as much is stupid.

When Dennis Rodman can put up league leading scoring numbers come back and talk about that. Rodman never had Chamberlain's motor.
Anybody that is an elite specialist is going to get astronomical numbers. If Chamberlain spent his offensive energy on purely getting rebounds and setting screens, his rebound rate would have been completely off the charts.


For FTs, he wouldn't have the 3 to make 2 rule and as a result he'd get less FTs and teams would take up more of a wack-a-Wilt strategy which would mean less touches for him.

Don Nelson was quite vocal about the fact that he didn't invent HackaShaq; he just used the Celtics methods Red Auerbach invented to try and stop Chamberlain. Nellie was one of the main hackers so he would know what he's talking about.

But I've seen estimates that close to half of Chamberlain's free throws were and-ones. So are you sure you know where you're going with that?


Perimeter defense is better so its harder to get the ball down to big men, which would result in less touches for Wilt.

With 3 point shooting and the growing reliance on it, 3-point shots would come at the expense of some of Wilt's touches.



I agree. There's a lot of shotjacking in today's game.


Also, with more 3-point attempts and longer distance shooting in general, that would mean more longer rebounds which Wilt would miss out on.

No, not at all. Guys like Jerry Lucas, Oscar Robertson, Don Ohl, Sam Jones, & Jerry West were great long range bombers. Oscar was sweetness fadeaway from the corner - and he was primarily a driving "power guard."

********************************

I watched the Sixers win their first ring in 1967 - I've seen a lot of ball. Kevin Love is one of the greatest rebounders I've ever seen. But he's not very well liked or respected among fans. When you say 25 & 13 as being the best player in the league, I get what you are saying, because those are Kevin Love's numbers. But Kevin is not in Chamberlain's category.

You have to understand, when you talk about Chamberlain you are talking about one of the 3 or 4 greatest athletes in the history of sports. We're not talking about Howard or Gortat. It's really hard for people to absorb this very simple fact: in all of NBA history, there's Wilt Chamberlain, & there's Michael Jordan - and there's everyone else.
Now as I say that, I can't speak from my own knowledge about Bill Russell. When I saw him he was long past his prime, and he was weighed down by his role as player coach. He is very likely right up there, people that I respect for their hoops knowledge that watched him play in his glory days are unanimous that he was.

[jlauber]

It depends which team he's on. If he's on today's Pistons, he's gonna get 40ppg and close to 20rpg. If he's on the Heat, he's gonna get 12 or 14 ppg and still close to 20rpg.
Wilt was utterly unstoppable by anyone who has ever played basketball. If Willis Reed, Bob Lanier, & Bill Russell couldn't stop him - and they could not - nobody else could. We are talking about some of the greatest players ever right there. Bob Lanier would be putting up just about the numbers he wanted to in today's league. I always thought Willis Reed was better.



I agree that numbers like 50 & 25 would not be possible in today's NBA. The pace is too slow, largely because perimeter players spend 8 to 10 seconds of every possession dribbling.




False.
Chamberlain was abundantly clear on this subject with every coach he ever played for. But it's much simpler than that.
In a league where Carmelo Anthony deliberately tanks to get his coach fired and nobody cares, #13 would play all the minutes he wants.



When Dennis Rodman can put up league leading scoring numbers come back and talk about that. Rodman never had Chamberlain's motor.
Anybody that is an elite specialist is going to get astronomical numbers. If Chamberlain spent his offensive energy on purely getting rebounds and setting screens, his rebound rate would have been completely off the charts.



Don Nelson was quite vocal about the fact that he didn't invent HackaShaq; he just used the Celtics methods Red Auerbach invented to try and stop Chamberlain. Nellie was one of the main hackers so he would know what he's talking about.

But I've seen estimates that close to half of Chamberlain's free throws were and-ones. So are you sure you know where you're going with that?



I agree. There's a lot of shotjacking in today's game.



No, not at all. Guys like Jerry Lucas, Oscar Robertson, Don Ohl, Sam Jones, & Jerry West were great long range bombers. Oscar was sweetness fadeaway from the corner - and he was primarily a driving "power guard."

********************************

I watched the Sixers win their first ring in 1967 - I've seen a lot of ball. Kevin Love is one of the greatest rebounders I've ever seen. But he's not very well liked or respected among fans. When you say 25 & 13 as being the best player in the league, I get what you are saying, because those are Kevin Love's numbers. But Kevin is not in Chamberlain's category.

You have to understand, when you talk about Chamberlain you are talking about one of the 3 or 4 greatest athletes in the history of sports. We're not talking about Howard or Gortat. It's really hard for people to absorb this very simple fact: in all of NBA history, there's Wilt Chamberlain, & there's Michael Jordan - and there's everyone else.
Now as I say that, I can't speak from my own knowledge about Bill Russell. When I saw him he was long past his prime, and he was weighed down by his role as player coach. He is very likely right up there, people that I respect for their hoops knowledge that watched him play in his glory days are unanimous that he was.

Excellent post.

BTW, I agree with nearly all of it.

Wilt's NUMBERS would be whatever his COACHES needed them to be.

For instance, in his 66-67 season, he "only" averaged 24.1 ppg, along with 24.2 rpg, 7.8 apg, and on a mind-numbing .683 from the floor. HOWEVER, even Rick Barry, who won the scoring title at 35.6 ppg, acknowledged that, had Wilt wanted to win the scoring title, he would have. In fact, Wilt averaged 24.1 ppg, 24.3 ppg, and 20.5 ppg from '67 thru '69, BUT he had the HIGH scoring games in every one of those seasons, including games of 52, 53, 53, 58, 60, 66, and 68.

And he was LEADING the league in scoring early in the 69-70 season, at 32.2 ppg, when he went down with his horrific knee injury.

In any case, in his PRIME, he was certainly capable of 35-40 ppg seasons, even when he wasn't getting them.

[Deuce Bigalow]

It depends which team he's on. If he's on today's Pistons, he's gonna get 40ppg and close to 20rpg. If he's on the Heat, he's gonna get 12 or 14 ppg and still close to 20rpg.
Wilt was utterly unstoppable
ROFL

[La Frescobaldi]

Excellent post.

BTW, I agree with nearly all of it.

Wilt's NUMBERS would be whatever his COACHES needed them to be.

For instance, in his 66-67 season, he "only" averaged 24.1 ppg, along with 24.2 rpg, 7.8 apg, and on a mind-numbing .683 from the floor. HOWEVER, even Rick Barry, who won the scoring title at 35.6 ppg, acknowledged that, had Wilt wanted to win the scoring title, he would have. In fact, Wilt averaged 24.1 ppg, 24.3 ppg, and 20.5 ppg from '67 thru '69, BUT he had the HIGH scoring games in every one of those seasons, including games of 52, 53, 53, 58, 60, 66, and 68.

And he was LEADING the league in scoring early in the 69-70 season, at 32.2 ppg, when he went down with his horrific knee injury.

In any case, in his PRIME, he was certainly capable of 35-40 ppg seasons, even when he wasn't getting them.

Luke Jackson off that 76er squad was probably the first true power forward. Monstrous strong and a great rebounder, he was one of the few guys that could muscle Wayne Embry and later on, Wes Unseld. That was one of the saddest days in NBA history when he blew out his knee in 69. While Chamberlain was lucky and got back nearly all of his former athletic ability, Luke's injury pretty much destroyed him, and like many old-school NBA players, he never recovered. Coach Hannum had tagged Luke as Chamberlain's heir apparent as the League's best center....

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It depends which team he's on. If he's on today's Pistons, he's gonna get 40ppg and close to 20rpg.

Yeah...no way that's happening. No coach in their right mind would dump it down to someone that many times this day and age. What a waste of possessions.

The more I research Wilt's scoring feats (like his 100pt game or the "improbable" 50ppg season), the less impressed I am. Back in his prime, I've read that his coaches would force feed him the ball nearly every possession just so he could outscore the other team. :oldlol: How exactly is that a winning formula?

[jlauber]

Yeah...no way that's happening. No coach in their right mind would dump it down to someone that many times this day and age. What a waste of possessions.

The more I research Wilt's scoring feats (like his 100pt game or the "improbable" 50ppg season), the less impressed I am. Back in his prime, I've read that his coaches would force feed him the ball nearly every possession just so he could outscore the other team. :oldlol: How exactly is that a winning formula?

It WAS a "winning formula." Wilt came to a LAST PLACE roster, and in his rookie season, he carried them to a 49-26 record. Two years later, he took that same basic last place roster, only older and worse, thru the first round of the playoffs, and then to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers. BTW, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season.

[Deuce Bigalow]

It WAS a "winning formula." Wilt came to a LAST PLACE roster, and in his rookie season, he carried them to a 49-26 record. Two years later, he took that same basic last place roster, only older and worse, thru the first round of the playoffs, and then to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers. BTW, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season.
What did Wilt shoot from the freethrow line??

[jlauber]

What did Wilt shoot from the freethrow line??

GTFO out of this thread...

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It WAS a "winning formula." Wilt came to a LAST PLACE roster, and in his rookie season, he carried them to a 49-26 record. Two years later, he took that same basic last place roster, only older and worse, thru the first round of the playoffs, and then to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers. BTW, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season.

Yeah, being ousted by Russell 7 out of 8 times sure constitutes as a "winning formula". It wasn't until the '67 season Wilt dialed it back - the one and only time he lead his team past Russell's.

[jlauber]

Yeah, being ousted by Russell 7 out of 8 times sure constitutes as a "winning formula". It wasn't until the '67 season Wilt dialed it back - the one and only time he lead his team passed Russell's.

SWAP their rosters, with Russell's FIVE to EIGHT HOF teammates every year, while Wilt had ZERO to TWO in those same seasons...and what do you think the results would have been. None other than John Wooden claimed that Wilt would have won all of those rings.

[nycelt84]

SWAP their rosters, with Russell's FIVE to EIGHT HOF teammates every year, while Wilt had ZERO to TWO in those same seasons...and what do you think the results would have been. None other than John Wooden claimed that Wilt would have won all of those rings.

Definitely since Russell was a loser and that greatest winner tag he has is undeserved and he would have never won a thing on any other teams. Forget what his own coach and teammates said and let's instead take the word of a college coach who never beat Russell in college.

[CavaliersFTW]

Yeah...no way that's happening. No coach in their right mind would dump it down to someone that many times this day and age. What a waste of possessions.

The more I research Wilt's scoring feats (like his 100pt game or the "improbable" 50ppg season), the less impressed I am. Back in his prime, I've read that his coaches would force feed him the ball nearly every possession just so he could outscore the other team. :oldlol: How exactly is that a winning formula?
Read more and you'll find out why it was a winning formula. I'm talking about the '62 season under Frank McGuire's coaching - which is the guy who developed that whole gameplan.

[jlauber]

Definitely since Russell was a loser and that greatest winner tag he has is undeserved and he would have never won a thing on any other teams. Forget what his own coach and teammates said and let's instead take the word of a college coach who never beat Russell in college.

Russell's achievements stand on their own. HOWEVER, here was the REALITY of the Russell-Wilt "teammates."

Russell played with HOF teammates, and in complete seasons, 71 times.
Chamberlain's HOF teammates played in 23 Full seasons.

Russell was basically drafted (in a trade) by a playoff team that had gone 39-33 the year before. Not only that, but Tommy Heinsohn was drafted in the same year. A year later Boston added HOFer Sam Jones. And, as the Celtic players retired, they were replaced by HOFers (Bob Cousy was basically replaced by John Havlicek.)

Meanwhile, Chamberlain was drafted (while in high school) by what would be a LAST PLACE team when he arrived. Not only that, that roster basically got OLDER and became WORSE.

In Wilt's first six seasons in the NBA, he played on putrid rosters, while Russell was paired with between FIVE to EIGHT HOFers. Granted, much like Chamberlain's "HOF" teammate, Tom Gola (arguably the worst HOFer of all time), some of Russell's "HOF" teammates would not have made the Hall without Russell. KC Jones and Satch Sanders were not HOF caliber players. BUT, the two of them were widely regarded as among the best defenders, at their respective positions, of their era.

Despite being HEAVILY OUTGUNNED in those first six seasons, Chamberlain still took one Warrior roster (that collectively shot .354 in that post-season) to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their SEVEN HOFers. In the '64 season, Chamberlain took a horrible roster to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where Boston, with an 8-2 edge in HOFers, beat them, 4-1. However, two of those wins came in the last few seconds.

Wilt was traded to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and he then took a 40-40 team, to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18Celtic team that was height of their dynasty.

So, in Wilt's first six seasons, he had NO CHANCE of beating the vaunted Celtic Dyansty, and yet, he nearly did so twice (and in another, outgunned 8-2 in HOFers, he still made a series out of it.)

In one of those seasons, in 62-63, Russell had a 9-1 edge in HOFers.

Not only that, but virtually NONE of those teammates that Wilt was paired with, played any better without him.

BUT, we are supposed to believe that Russell would have still had an edge in rings had those two swapped rosters in those six seasons?

In Russell's last four seasons, Wilt finally had rosters that were equal (not greater.) In fact, take 66-67 for instance. Was Greer better than Sam Jones? Was Cunningham greater than Havlicek? Boston was deeper even in THAT season, and yet, for the first time in his career, Chamberlain finally had a roster that was competitive with Russell's...and the result? As always, Wilt dominated Russell, but with his teammates neutralizing Russell's, Chamberlain's Sixers annihilated Russell's Celtics, 4-1. And, had Boston not eked out a 121-117 win in Boston in game four, it would have been a sweep.

The following season would surely have been a repeat, too, except that Wilt, and his teammates, were DECIMATED by injuries. Even with Cunningham missing the entire series, and with Luke Jackson and Wali Jones sustaining injuries in game five, and Wilt nursing a variety of injuries (and noticeably limping from game three on)...the Sixers still were able to lose a game seven, by four points. Had Philly been reasonably healthy (hell, even without Cunningham they had forged a 3-1 series lead), they would easily have repeated.

Wilt's 65-66 Sixers, were just not ready for beating the seven-time champs, despite edging them in the regular season, 55-25 to 54-26. And, as was often the case, while Chamberlain played as brilliantly as he did in the regular season, his teammates completely fell apart...collectively shooting .352 from the floor in that Boston series (Wilt averaged 28 ppg, on .509 shooting, and with 30.2 rpg, against Boston in that series.)

IMO, the only season in which Wilt's TEAM probably should have beaten Russell's Celtics, came in the 68-69 season. And, had Johnny Egan not lost the ball late in game four, and then Sam Jones, hitting a miraculous shot at the buzzer of that game, LA WOULD have won that series, 4-1. In any case, Baylor played as awful a series as any all-time "great" ever did. And, the reality was, had the Lakers even had a mediocre coach, instead of the completely incompetent Van Breda Kolf, that they likely would have won that series.

Overall, I find it hard to believe that Chamberlain would not have gone 6-0 in his first six seasons, had the two swapped rosters, and likely no worse than 9-1 in the entire ten seasons in which they battled each other.

[La Frescobaldi]

Yeah...no way that's happening. No coach in their right mind would dump it down to someone that many times this day and age. What a waste of possessions.

The more I research Wilt's scoring feats (like his 100pt game or the "improbable" 50ppg season), the less impressed I am. Back in his prime, I've read that his coaches would force feed him the ball nearly every possession just so he could outscore the other team. :oldlol: How exactly is that a winning formula?

I agree few coaches would give him 33-35 shots a game today; the Pistons or the Wizards would be the only teams desperate enough to do something like that. And that's exactly how desperate the Warriors were in '62.

I can only wish we had some of that guy's 60 or 70 point games on film. As far as I know, we literally only have film of Chamberlain's worst games.

Look at the '67 Sixers. There's 1 single game on film of their matchup with the Celtics in the East that year - and that one is the only game Boston won in the series.
Literally his worst game of the series - - when his team was completely destroying the greatest dynasty in history - - is the only one we have.

The best game I know of on film, is game 5 of the '72 Finals, when he went 24 29 8 (and 9 blocks according to the announcers). That was a monstrous Finals performance, but it was mild as milk compared to what he was doing on the court in '68.

Sorry man, you just had to see it to understand.

[jlauber]

I agree few coaches would give him 33-35 shots a game today; the Pistons or the Wizards would be the only teams desperate enough to do something like that. And that's exactly how desperate the Warriors were in '62.

I can only wish we had some of that guy's 60 or 70 point games on film. As far as I know, we literally only have film of Chamberlain's worst games.

Look at the '67 Sixers. There's 1 single game on film of their matchup with the Celtics in the East that year - and that one is the only game Boston won in the series.
Literally his worst game of the series - - when his team was completely destroying the greatest dynasty in history - - is the only one we have.

The best game I know of on film, is game 5 of the '72 Finals, when he went 24 29 8 (and 9 blocks according to the announcers). That was a monstrous Finals performance, but it was mild as milk compared to what he was doing on the court in '68.

Sorry man, you just had to see it to understand.

I find it hard to believe that there has been some kind of conspiracy against Chamberlain, but it is almost an impossibility that a man who had 271 40+ games in his career, and even many in the playoffs, and yet not one exists?

And even the blatant lying Simmons claims to have watched one of Wilt's 73 point games. Not only that, but there have been other's (plural), and more reliable (almost anyone else would be) that have claimed to have watched them in museums.

In the meantime, and thankfully, CavsFan has unearthed a gold mine of a high school, college, and early NBA Wilt. Footage of Wilt hitting multiple 12-15+ foot shots in single games. Footage in which he is blocking a shot with his fingertips clearly near the top of the backboard. Footage of Wilt handling the ball like a PG, or streaking down the court with his well-known sprinter's speed.

We also have a video conversation with none other than Tex Winter claiming that he witnessed a high school Wilt take three steps from behind the FT line, and then with a leap from the line, dunking the ball. Not only that, he did something about it. He was the major force behind the banning of such "freakish activity."

Of course, virtually ALL of these claims have been made and printed since Wilt went to high school. If anything, it has amazed me that there have been so many "non-believers", when teammates, coaches, and members of the media were making these claims for decades. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of eye-witness accounts which describe Chamberlain's incredible strength and athleticism...and yet the "Chamberlain-bashers" (most of whom have scattered to the hills in in disgrace the last few months) continue to disparage them (even though none of them were around when Chamberlain was alive.)

And I get a kick out of those that claim that Wilt wouldn't be putting up anywhere those numbers in this era. Why? He was the ONLY man putting them up in HIS era. I have mentioned it many times before, but before Wilt arrived in the NBA, the scoring record was 29.2 ppg; the rebounding record (set by another freak...Bill Russell...and before him it was 16.0 rpg) was 23.0 rpg; and the FG% record was .490. Don't you think that to the average sports fan in 1960, that what Wilt wrought upon the NBA was just as unbelievable (if not moreso) then, than if a player would accomplish something similar today?

The fact is, the game is not significantly different today, than what it was 50 years ago. The court dimensions, the rim, the number of players, and the size of the players are all about the same. True, the game was played at a slightly faster pace (and partly because of Wilt BTW...just look at the scoring before he arrived, and after he left)...and under considerably worse condtions (the major reason why FG%'s were so low early in the 60's), but overall, the game is basically the same.

And we have "bridges", players like Havlicek, Barry, Gilmore, Dr. J, Moses, and the ultimate "bridge" Kareem, who have proven the above. Some here have claimed that the game changed when Magic and Bird arrived. Interesting...how come in their first four seasons, that the MVPs were players who were dominating in the 70's? The FACT is, there is NO ONE SEASON in which the game suddenly changed to what we see today.

Yes, it has SLOWLY (and MARGINALLY) evolved. As it should. The players and coaches of today have over a 100 years of basketball experience to draw from. But, players like Gus Johnson, who was a SKILLED and POWERFUL 6-6 235 lb. man with MJ's vertical were not dominating in the 60's. How come? And there were MANY seven-footers who played in the 60's (many that didn't even make the NBA, too), and how come THEY weren't scoring 30+ ppg?

The Harlem Globetrotters were around well before the 60's, and they were doing things with a ball THEN, that we see TODAY. Pistol Pete was far more "magical" with a ball than Jason Williams EVER was. Nor would anyone who lived in THAT era ever claim that Maravich was anywhere near the player that West or Oscar were.

One more time...virtually EVERYTHING that is being done on the basketball court TODAY, was being done 50 years ago.

[WillyJakk]

Why do you keep referencing Kareem (who competed against Wilt) when comparing how you feel Wilt woulda played against the late 80's, 90's, 00's, and current day Centers?

You do realize Kareem (at an advanced age) possessed the most impossible shot to defend (maybe Dirk's one leg kick shot) in all of basketball, right?

Cap could always get that shot off BUT Cap was also a back to the basket C.

How would Wilt do against various skilled Centers (such as Sabonis, Divac, Smits, Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwon, and Yao for instance) guys who could face him up AWAY from the basket and score?

You NEVER EVER answer this question, you and Wilt Chamberlain jock-riders always post a "but just look at this youtube clip of Wilt scoring on stiffs and midgets or the obligatory decent C for their time".

You guys NEVER EVER come out w/ an actual opinion of what you think the matchup would go like, it's always "but Wilt would...just look at this new clip I just posted of him".

You never answer because it doesn't support your views.

[CavaliersFTW]

Why do you keep referencing Kareem (who competed against Wilt) when comparing how you feel Wilt woulda played against the late 80's, 90's, 00's, and current day Centers?

You do realize Kareem (at an advanced age) possessed the most impossible shot to defend (maybe Dirk's one leg kick shot) in all of basketball, right?

Cap could always get that shot off BUT Cap was also a back to the basket C.

How would Wilt do against various skilled Centers (such as Sabonis, Divac, Smits, Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwon, and Yao for instance) guys who could face him up AWAY from the basket and score?

You NEVER EVER answer this question, you and Wilt Chamberlain jock-riders always post a "but just look at this youtube clip of Wilt scoring on stiffs and midgets or the obligatory decent C for their time".

You guys NEVER EVER come out w/ an actual opinion of what you think the matchup would go like, it's always "but Wilt would...just look at this new clip I just posted of him".

You never answer because it doesn't support your views.

:wtf:

Willis Reed, Bellamy, and young Kareem were all skilled centers with a face-up game who liked to use it to step out to shoot jumpers particularly when being guarded by Wilt who more or less preferred to keep himself anchored around a 16 foot radius in the low-post. "Scrubs" Like Leroy Ellis who are just as big and mobile as the young KG also played with an almost strictly face-up driving, or shooting game against Wilt. The big E Elvin Hayes is another extremely athletic face-up big, and he wasn't a scrub, you may have heard of him - and if not I feel bad for you. Jerry Lucas - just another 50 greatest 6 foot stiff - dropped in at center when Reed was injured and he's virtually a Kevin Love clone in his shooting touch and range, size, and rebounding ability - he'd get some rebounds against Wilt its not like Wilt gets every one of them, but more to the point when he shot, he'd drift out to the perimeter to shoot hoping to bait Wilt. He wasn't gonna chase him though, his job was to keep the basket locked down. Your talking about players who played exactly like the overwhelming majority of Wilt's competition. Bill Russell, Kareem, Thurmond, Bellamy, occasionally Reed - they were actually only a FEW players that could try to play Wilt with their back to him. His arms were so long and his stance was so solid you wanted to know where his hands were and you wanted to try to move around him or stay out of his reach you were never gonna bump him backwards

:biggums:

its funny how you act like we need to educate your ass to change your mind and that it is our fault that your not impressed. Like a "Wilt jock-rider" can even teach you anything when you already decided your own answers. Such as the direct inference that Wilt's competition lacked skill, the entire premise for you question... So you already decided that before you even asked your question Wilt's competition lacked a face-up game and good skills. Wow, brilliant. I see people are now already pulling all the same funny hat tricks for Michael Jordan that they do for Wilt. Weak era/weak competition/unathletic/everyone today is equal/not that impressive... riiiiiiiight.... The ignorance of "basketball" fans (IE insecure fans with an agenda) spreads like Wildfire. Is Wilt threatening the legacy of some of your favorite players? Or the era you grew up loving? Is that why your acting like such an idiot? I need not waste more time with you - after all, you've already concluded that Wilt's competition is 6 foot stiffs merely sprinkled in with obligitory good centers.

[jlauber]

Why do you keep referencing Kareem (who competed against Wilt) when comparing how you feel Wilt woulda played against the late 80's, 90's, 00's, and current day Centers?

You do realize Kareem (at an advanced age) possessed the most impossible shot to defend (maybe Dirk's one leg kick shot) in all of basketball, right?

Cap could always get that shot off BUT Cap was also a back to the basket C.

How would Wilt do against various skilled Centers (such as Sabonis, Divac, Smits, Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwon, and Yao for instance) guys who could face him up AWAY from the basket and score?

You NEVER EVER answer this question, you and Wilt Chamberlain jock-riders always post a "but just look at this youtube clip of Wilt scoring on stiffs and midgets or the obligatory decent C for their time".

You guys NEVER EVER come out w/ an actual opinion of what you think the matchup would go like, it's always "but Wilt would...just look at this new clip I just posted of him".

You never answer because it doesn't support your views.

How did those guys fare against Shaq? Look up their career H2H's...Shaq OWNED them. Do you for one stinkin' instance believe that Shaq was a better all-around force than Chamberlain?

Just watch the damn footage that I posted (CavsFan's BTW) of a Wilt from college to the firts half of his NBA career. He was incredibly quick, had 15+ ft range, could leap higher than ANY other legitmate NBA player EVER, and was as strong as Shaq (Wilt was benching 425 lbs in 1964...and well before his peak in terms of strength.)

Bellamy was a HOF center who had 15-20 ft. range. In their first meeting, Bellamy came into the game averaging 30 ppg. At the center jump Wilt told Bellamy that he would not score a point. Sure enough, Wilt shadowed him all over the court, and Bellamy did not score a point (in fact, Bellamy claimed that Wilt blocked nearly every shot.) At the start of the second half, Wilt smiled and told Bellamy that he would "let him play." BTW, Chamberlain outscored the 6-11 Bellamy (who would be measured at 7-0 in shoes) in that game, 52-14. It would be one of MANY massacres he would level on Bellamy. Hell, in their first 20 H2h games, Chamberlain AVERAGED 48.2 ppg against Bellamy.

As for Kareem...a PRIME Kareem was a FAR greater player than the 38-39 year old that was AVERAGING 32 ppg on just a mind-blowing .630 FG% against a 22-23 Hakeem. In fact, I have challenged anyone here, to find ANY center, no matter the greatest of all-time, and against ANY OTHER center, no matter how pathetic...who averaged 32 ppg on .630 shooting over the course of ten straight games.

BTW, as a sidenote...and since you did not mention his name...where do rank the 6-10 Moses Malone, who was BATTERING a PRIME Kareem in their 40 career H2H's? It wasn't even close, either. And the bigger the game, the bigger the demolition, too.

If Shaq could POUND Hakeem, Robinson, Sabonis, Divac, and Yao (a PRIME Shaq had his way with Yao), then you could be sure that a 7-2 280-300+ Wilt, with a 7-8 wingspan, a 40+" vertical, a 4.4 40, probably a 500 lb bench press, and was far more SKILLED than someone like Dwight Howard...would have no problem with those centers you mentioned.

As for Smits? You have to be kidding. Smits was the glorifed equivalent of Swede Halbrook in Wilt's era. If Shaq could hang a 38-17 .611 Finals on Smits, why would the result be any different with Chamberlain?

[Whoah10115]

I hate these threads because it's just a bunch of people fighting for their bottom line. People give stats and everything. People insult the players of the day as if they couldn't even make the league today.



It's just a waste. And I know jlauber gets bugged by stupid posters like Deuce and millwad but you're an adult and a smart one so there isn't any reason why you have to bring Wilt into every conversation or why you have to keep listing these stats. Everything has to have context.






BTW, I think Chamberlain is a monster. He's not gonna average 40 and 20 (love ya too brah but come on lol)...not unless the coach is cool with his team being 9 and 73 (not terrible, as you get a draft pick). That's too high.

[bizil]

In today's game, Wilt wouldn't average 50 points a game like he did before. There are too many other 7 footers in the L. That's not to say there weren't great big guys 6'10 and up during Wilt's career. But there are more of them and way more teams. But I could EASILY see Wilt putting up 30+ points and 13-15 boards pure game minimum. I could see Wilt racking up insane scoring games exceeding 60 or 70 points in a game as well. Wilt at 45 years of age used to play against Magic, Bernard King, and other pros in pickup games. They said Wilt was STILL the best player on the court in many of those games. I'm not sure who the opposing big men were, but it goes to show that Wilt was a freak of nature and kept himself in epic shape.

Wilt is in the league of Ruth, Ali, Mays, Sugar Ray Robinson, and Jim Brown. As they were back then, they would DOMINATE TODAY! It might not be as dominant, but they would be on top. Their games were just need a minor tweak possibly, but it wouldn't need a complete overhaul by any stretch. Unlike say a George Mikan for example. His game would need to be overhauled to be as dominant as he was in his day.

But if Mikan was born at a time where he was playing today, his skillset would be updated to where he could be great. But as he was then, u couldn't put him in a time machine and expect him to be dominant right out of the gate. U could put Wilt, Ruth, or Ali in a time machine and they would be dominant right out of the gate!

[Whoah10115]

Guy, honestly, your displaying the same ignorance I was talking about right now. Even if you think JL is going too far in one direction, your going too far in the opposite, and JL - despite bias, does know more about Wilt than you do and that includes what Wilt is likely capable of. He would play more minutes than a typical NBA player today, because he did the same thing in his era. Why? Because he had a limitless motor and the best NBA coaches try to use the strengths of players. Would he play even if the team was getting blown out? No. Would he play every minute of a playoff game if the team was better with him on the floor rather than off the floor? Yes. If you read about him you'd understand why, he A. Was moody and could poison the energy of his entire team if a coach decided to sit him for no apparent reason and B. It was because he felt he cramped up when he was on the bench and when "rest" is redundant and "sitting" is counter productive what would an intelligent coach be doing? Sitting him anyways? Little things like this, you don't know of therefor you are not acknowledging. Wilt did things that he did because he's Wilt, he's a f*cking unique as hell player, and athlete, and he didn't conform to systems when he was playing in the same traditional sense of any players around him in his era, and he wouldn't be doing that in today's game either. He had unique talents that his good coaches recognized and thus, and he had unique quirks that they also had to deal with to appease him but it's the only way to coach him. He'd be doing a lot of the same things in today's game even if you find it "impossible" because it is so unorthodox. Stats won't be the same, but his antics and dismay about playing limited minutes? That wouldn't change at all, he'd get a lot more minutes than stars today.

...And rebounding, so suddenly it's okay for the rebounding rate to directly transfer to today's game but other stats can't? Hypocrisy at it's best. Your bitching about people who might talk about his rebound numbers like they are crazy yet here you are trying to take rebound % and use it for direct comparison. He's a better rebounder than any player in the game today, and it's quite possible he'd be a better rebounder than Dennis Rodman - if we're talking about the LA Lakers Wilt. This is not based on stats, this is based on common sense watching him play, and also based on how superior he was to any peers. Also, as said it's going to depend on which version of Wilt we're talking about because he radically changed his game 3 times during his career. Defender, Facilitator, and Scorer, and he had different stats and %'s for every different role.





There is nothing ignorant about that post. He could even be wrong on some things, but noting there is ignorant. He's only pointing out the things that jlauber should consider when considering what his STATS would be. Stats are stats. Wilt might be the best player in the league, but that doesn't mean his stats would be anything like they were. And he's right. Wilt could average 30 and 18, but he's not gonna do that every year. And there is no way that 25/13 is as crazy as 50/25.




The lane is wider today (because of Wilt). The 3 second violation exists (because of Wilt). Goaltending is called more frequently (because of Wilt). Yea, that's because he was dominant and they felt that was a more fair way to play (not to stop him). But that means some players today don't get those advantages. It's just context. It has nothing to do with disrespecting Chamberlain.




You really had no right calling that post out the way you did and you should backtrack and apologize for being insulting.

[rodman91]

Being respectful is different than being delusional. Basketball got much better than 50-60's. But some people actually believe Bill Russell was better player than Shaq or Hakeem. That's just absurd.

Russell,Wilt,West and others were greatests of their era.They were pioneers, they made basketball better sport,more recognizable.. I respect all of that.

Lack of respect happens because of myths(50 inch vertical) ,old stories, grumpy old NBA ballers (he'd score 60-75 per game, etc.) and using stats,accomplishments in primitive era players against modern era players.

[jlauber]

There is nothing ignorant about that post. He could even be wrong on some things, but noting there is ignorant. He's only pointing out the things that jlauber should consider when considering what his STATS would be. Stats are stats. Wilt might be the best player in the league, but that doesn't mean his stats would be anything like they were. And he's right. Wilt could average 30 and 18, but he's not gonna do that every year. And there is no way that 25/13 is as crazy as 50/25.




The lane is wider today (because of Wilt). The 3 second violation exists (because of Wilt). Goaltending is called more frequently (because of Wilt). Yea, that's because he was dominant and they felt that was a more fair way to play (not to stop him). But that means some players today don't get those advantages. It's just context. It has nothing to do with disrespecting Chamberlain.




You really had no right calling that post out the way you did and you should backtrack and apologize for being insulting.

A 25-13 is what Dwight and Love are putting up. Dwight is not as tall, as big, as strong, NOR as ATHLETIC, as Chamberlain was. Not to mention that Wilt was more SKILLED. Love? He is basically what Jerry Lucas was to HIS era...the same era that Wilt just OVERWHELMED his peers in. Lucas had legitimate 3 pt range (even without the line), and was a beast pn the glass. Lucas had TWO 20-20 seasons, and aside from Wilt's TEN, there has NEVER been another player with more than ONE. And, aside from Lucas and Wilt, only TWO other players ever accomplished that feat.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. It was not JUST the NUMBERS with Wilt. It was the pure DOMINATION of his peers. Yes, even Russell. Despite what nonsense you might read from Bill Simmons, there were VERY few games in which Russell even EQUALLED Wilt.

Wilt was winning scoring titles by +11 ppg and +19 ppg. He won his first svene straight, and AVERAGED 40 ppg in the process. He nearly won EVERY rebounding title (11 in 14 seasons, and he would have easily won it the year in which he was injured), and came in second in the two years that he didn't win it. He won NINE FG% titles, and did so while winning scoring AND rebounding titles, AND even an assist title. He won FG% titles by .157 and even .162 margins over his nearest competitor (and in leagues that had Bellamy and Kareem.) He outshot the league average by margins of .244 and even an incomprehensible .271.

And, think about this...how many other players have ever LED the NBA in Scoring, Rebounding, AND FG%...at the SAME time? Wilt did it THREE times. Or how many other players have ever LED the league in Rebounding, FG%, and Assists...at the SAME time? All while dominating defensively, and blocking shots at educational guesses of up to 10+ per game.

Most posters look at his 50 and 45 ppg seasons, and immediately dismiss them. "Pace" and "competition." Of course, they do so without rationalizing the FACT that not only did NO ONE else was accomplishing those numbers IN those years...they were not even coming CLOSE to doing.

You mentioned the widening of the lane. How much did it affect Wilt? The year before the NBA widened the lane, in 63-64, Chamberlain averaged 36.9 ppg on .524 shooting. In the next season, an ILL Chamberlain was averaging 38.9 ppg on .499 shooting at the mid-way point in the season, when he was traded to the Sixers. With better teammates, he cut back his shooting, and wound up at 34.7 ppg on .510 shooting. The next year he averaged 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting (in a league that shot .433.) And, then in 66-67, he "only" averaged 24.1 ppg, BUT, on a staggering .683 FG% (in a league that shot .441, and in which the runnerup, Walt Bellamy shot .521 while averaging 19.0 ppg.)

BTW, Wilt had EIGHT 60+ point games AFTER the widening of the lane. And the only reason he didn't have more was that he was no longer shooting nearly as often. BUT, from 66-67 thru 68-69, when Wilt was averaging about 14 FGAs per game, he STILL had the league HIGH's in scoring EACH season, and in fact, hung games of 52, 53, 53, 58, 60, 66, and 68 in those three years.

THEN, before the start of the 69-70 season, Wilt's new coach, Joe Mullaney, asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense. We'll never know how that season would have played out, but before Chamberlain shredded his knee in the ninth game (in a game in which he scored 33 points on 13-13 shooting), he was LEADING the league at 32.2 ppg, on .600 shooting (with games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 points...including 38 against reigning MVP Wes Unseld, and a 25-25 .643 game against Kareem.)

Kareem entered the league in that same season (69-70.) He played in the Wilt era for four seasons. And yet, he never approached even the TWO 60 point games that Wilt put up just the year before, in 68-69. And he only had ONE season, in his 20 years, which was better than what Wilt was averaging in that 69-70 season when he went down with that knee injury.

In fact, Kareem faced MANY of the SAME centers that a PRIME Chamberlain just CRUSHED...and he never came close to dominating them in the fashion that a PRIME Wilt did.

Which is interesting, because, as I have shown repeatedly, and OLD OLD Kareem, at ages 38 and 39, treated Hakeem and Ewing like he was playing against a middle school girl's team center. Kareem had a FAR more difficult time with players like Wilt, Thurmond, and then later Gilmore and Moses (who absolutely owned Kareem in their 40 H2H's.) An OLD Kareem could abuse centers like Hakeem and Ewing, both of whom were the 2-4 best centers of the 90's (behind only Shaq...and Shaq never dominated them in the same abusive fashion that an OLD Kareem did.) That speaks volumes about the quality of play in BOTH the 60's and 70's.

Yet, how often do posters here mention Moses, Gilmore, or Thurmond on their all-time center's lists? Thurmond is interesting, because he reduced Kareem to just AWFUL scoring and shooting percentages in their 50+ H2H games. And yet, a PRIME "scoring" Wilt routinely hung 30+ on Nate (and overwhelming him by HUGE margins in the process), including one game in which he battered Nate by a 45-13 margin.


And why would Wilt "only" be a 25-13 player in today's NBA, when Shaq was at 30 ppg just a decade ago? Or 6-7 Ben Wallace grabbing 15.4 rpg, less than a decade ago? Or the 6-9 Love grabbing 15.2 rpg, and in only 36 mpg, LAST season?

Why would a Chamberlain, that just MURDERED his peers, including the great Russell, and absolutely DOMINATED ALL of them on the glass (even in his LAST season)...only be AMONG the best scorers and rebounders in an era of admittedly WEAK centers?

[jlauber]

Being respectful is different than being delusional. Basketball got much better than 50-60's. But some people actually believe Bill Russell was better player than Shaq or Hakeem. That's just absurd.

Russell,Wilt,West and others were greatests of their era.They were pioneers, they made basketball better sport,more recognizable.. I respect all of that.

Lack of respect happens because of myths(50 inch vertical) ,old stories, grumpy old NBA ballers (he'd score 60-75 per game, etc.) and using stats,accomplishments in primitive era players against modern era players.

And yet, a player like Kareem could just SHELL what would be two of the four best centers of the 90's...and over the course of MANY games...and ALL at ages 38 and 39?

The same Kareem, who, in his PRIME, was outplayed by an OLD Wilt, who was a year removed from major knee surgery. The same Kareem, who, in his PRIME, struggled with a Thurmond, that a PRIME Chamberlain just DESTROYED.

BTW, Wilt had a LEGITIMATE 40+" vertical (higher than even Dwight's), and most educated guesses range it at over 42". We also have FOOTAGE of a Wilt block, in which his fingertips are near the top of the backboard. All on a leap in which he went straight up, with no time to react, and blocked with his OFF-hand. And yet, we also have recently shown footage of a Dwight toppping Shaq's supposed previous record of 12' 5", with a touch of 12' 6".

Of course, we KNOW that Wilt was a PART-TIME college HIGH JUMP champion (and with poor technique.) We also KNOW that Wilt was OVER 7-1, and would be close to 7-3 with TODAY's measuring methods. And that he had a 7-8 wingspan, which was more than even Shaq. Or that Wilt weighed between 280-300+ for much of his NBA career. And we KNOW that Wilt was regarded as THE strongest man in the NBA (and MANY articles and eye-witness accounts have him with a 500+ lb. bench press.) AND, we have VIDEO FOOTAGE, of near complete SINGLE GAMES, in which Chamberlain is hitting MULTIPLE shots from 12-15+ feet.

But we are supposed to believe that THAT Chamberlain, wouldn't be the player that the 6-9 Dwight Howard and the 6-9 Kevin Love are in TODAY's NBA?

[Deuce Bigalow]

And yet, a player like Kareem could just SHELL what would be two of the four best centers of the 90's...and over the course of MANY games...and ALL at ages 38 and 39?

The same Kareem, who, in his PRIME, was outplayed by an OLD Wilt, who was a year removed from major knee surgery. The same Kareem, who, in his PRIME, struggled with a Thurmond, that a PRIME Chamberlain just DESTROYED.

BTW, Wilt had a LEGITIMATE 40+" vertical (higher than even Dwight's), and most educated guesses range it at over 42". We also have FOOTAGE of a Wilt block, in which his fingertips are near the top of the backboard. All on a leap in which he went straight up, with no time to react, and blocked with his OFF-hand. And yet, we also have recently shown footage of a Dwight toppping Shaq's supposed previous record of 12' 5", with a touch of 12' 6".

Of course, we KNOW that Wilt was a PART-TIME college HIGH JUMP champion (and with poor technique.) We also KNOW that Wilt was OVER 7-1, and would be close to 7-3 with TODAY's measuring methods. And that he had a 7-8 wingspan, which was more than even Shaq. Or that Wilt weighed between 280-300+ for much of his NBA career. And we KNOW that Wilt was regarded as THE strongest man in the NBA (and MANY articles and eye-witness accounts have him with a 500+ lb. bench press.) AND, we have VIDEO FOOTAGE, of near complete SINGLE GAMES, in which Chamberlain is hitting MULTIPLE shots from 12-15+ feet.

But we are supposed to believe that THAT Chamberlain, wouldn't be the player that the 6-9 Dwight Howard and the 6-9 Kevin Love are in TODAY's NBA?
punch yourself in the face old man

[guy]

1. A 25-13 center IN Wilt's era was very good. He was a 40+-25 center in those leagues.

Do you not understant the point as usual? A 25/13 center is not just very good in today's era. That's elite, and assuming great defense and great passing for a big man, easily the best center in the league and very arguably the best player in the league. Do you not understand that?

I never even said he wouldn't do better then that. I said saying that someone claiming he'd average 25/13 is just as bad as claiming he'd average 50/25 is absurd and ridiculous and perfectly illustrates my main point.



2. The MATH? Put 61-62 Wilt's NUMBERs in TODAY's NBA,. and reduce his FGAs and FTAs down to those levels, and guess what...he is a 38-18 player. Bump his FG% to current levels, and he would be closer to 40.

Furthermore, put a 61-62 Wilt in MJ's '87 season, and cut his FGAs and FTAs down to MJ's to '87 levels, and he is at 42 ppg. THEN, up his FG% to '87 levels, and it becomes 46 ppg.

I don't know what numbers you're using but I went ahead and did the math myself just to see where you're coming using his FG and FT attempts and %s of 39.5 FGA per game, 17 FTA per game, 50.6 FG% and 61.3 FT%, 1962's league average of 107.7 FGA per game game and 37.1 FTA per game. I also took his rebounds per game of 25.7 and the league's of 71.4 I took the % of his FGA, FTA, and RPG over the league's and used it on 2011's averages of 81.2 FGA per game, 24.4 FTA per game, and 41.4 per game. According to that, he'd average 30 FGAs per game, 11 FTAs per game, and if he converted at the same FG% and FT%s, he'd average 37 ppg/15 rpg, not 38 ppg/18 ppg.

That's still outstanding numbers, but like I said, NOT HAPPENING. First of all, there's NO WAY a center in today's league is going to average 30 FGAs per game. You realize Dwight Howard only averages 13.4 FGA per game? Shaq only averaged over 20 FGAs per game twice in his career, with his high being 21.1 FGA per game? Hakeem only averaged 20-21.5 3x in his career. Robinson over 20 1x in his career. Ewing average over 20 only 2x in his career. And other then Dwight Howard, they all played in eras that were less perimeter oriented then today's. The game is different, there's more reliance on perimeter players and there's no way he'd play 45-48 mpg like he regularly played. At the most he'd play 41-42 mpg. Now if you want to say Wilt's a special player and he would've averaged more shots then all of them, okay fine, I can see that being possible. But with that said, he's not averaging about 10 more shots and 50% then Shaq, Ewing, Hakeem, and Robinson at their highs, and 17 more shots and over 100% more then Dwight Howard right now in today's era. Thats absurd to think. And if he's shooting 61% from the line, thats not nearly that bad for them to foul him all the time and he'd probably take less then 11 FTs as well.

So although I think this still might going overboard, I'll say that 22 FGAs per game and 10 FTAs per game both at 60% is about reasonable and that would convert to about 32 ppg. And I'm saying that would be his high. I'd say something like 30-32 ppg/15-16 rpg would probably be his best statistical season.



3. Wilt has the SEVEN highest MPG seasons in NBA history. Why would a player that was playing 43 mpg in his LAST season, at age 36 (and then 47.1 mpg in his 17 playoff games) suddenly become a 37-40 mpg player in TODAY's NBA.

Because that's today's NBA. Nobody plays that much anymore. I softened my stance and said that 41-42 mpg is possible. He's not playing the 44-48 mpg he played during his career though. And to everyone that says that he would become a devisive force in the locker room as a result, sorry but I don't believe that. Part of the reason is because back then it was more of the norm for superstars to play that much so just like most people in life, they can try to get away with going a little above the norm, but not much more then that. He might play more then normal and even lead the league in MPG, but he's not playing 5 mpg more then the next player in the league.



Don't you think that his EFFICIENCY, in ALL areas, would INCREASE? 6 mpg x 80 games. By game 50 of the season he would be much more rested, AND, EFFICIENT. Then, multiply that by 14 seasons.

Sure. Never said that wouldn't be the case.



4. Rodman also built his numbers against a slew of rebounding inept big men. AND, he DECLINED DRAMATICALLY in the post-season...going from 13.8 rpg in the regular season, down to 9.9 in his post-season career. In fact, he was often a LIABILITY because he couldn't shoot for his life.

Rodman went up against Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Malone, Barkley, Mutombo, Parish, McHale, Bird, Laimbeer, Kemp, Oakley, Ewing, Mason, Zo, Webber, Buck, Coleman, Thorpe, Baker, etc. How is that bad competition?

And good job just removing context and why his rebounding was worse in the playoffs. Kind of like how Wilt's scoring went from 30 to 22 ppg in the playoffs right?



He was MUCH TALLER, had a MUCH WIDER wingspan, was MUCH BIGGER, MUCH STRONGER, and was MUCH MORE ATHLETIC than Rodman. I have no doubt that, a.) If Rodman were getting 18-19 rpg in HIS era, then Wilt would have gotten at least 20, and b.) H2H, Wilt would have DESTROYED Rodman on the glass, just as he did his own peers.

Hasn't it been proven enough over the years that size and athleticism doesn't have nearly as much to do with rebounding as some people think?



5. The 3-to-make-2 FT rule was ONE of the FT shooting rules at the time. It was also offset by the ONE shot foul as well (ANY non-shooting foul committed in the first five fouls, was awarded ONE FT, and basically, a single possession of at at most, ONE point.)

You realize non-shooting fouls in the first five fouls today does not result in any FTAs right? You're just proving my point more.



6. Longer rebounds? Wilt would be a FAR better "long rebounder" than Kevin Love, who averaged 15.2 rpg in 36 mpg LAST SEASON. A MUCH better rebounding Wilt, playing 42 mpg, would easily be challenging 20 rpg in TODAY's NBA.


Why are you making this about Kevin Love? Whether Wilt would be a better rebounder or not, my point about longer rebounds is that it effects the rebounding of all big men negatively, including Kevin Love and that would include Wilt as well.

[guy]

25 and 13 is too low for Wilt's capabilities, those are Kevin freakin Love numbers. We're talking about one of the world's greatest athletes and NBA players of the 20th century and now he's just on Kevin Loves level? You inferred it to be a reasonable guesstimate. That + what you said about the minutes thing - it just told me you also lacked context.

I never said 25/13 would be what he would average, just that its infinitely more reasonable then 50/25. Don't you agree? And what exactly is the hate on Kevin Love? He's arguably the most statistically impressive player in the league right now, or at least top 3 right now with Lebron and Howard.



Your examples of Lebron and Durant their coaches etc. Well, the are not Wilt... How many books either written about, or mentioning Wilt have you read? How many news papers, sports articles, personal interviews, coach interviews, and teammate interviews have you watched/read? I ask because when reading them you find out he was not a normal basketball player, he was not even a normal basketball superstar - he had to be coached differently he did not respond well (an understatement) to what he thought were "weak" coaches or to coaches who thought they could/needed to "control" him. That's part of the reason why he has 2 rings more than anything. The majority of his career was a roller coaster of incapable coaching. Coaches not named Alex Hannum, Frank McGuire, and Bill Sharmon were all fired because they could not coach Wilt, and Wilt was on MJ's level of popularity and profitability for the league both on and off the court and with his magnetic personality he certainly would be today as well. His value >>>> a coaches value and that class of athlete gets the same treatment in the NBA today, you find them a good coach that will appease them not the other way around, and one of the stipulations for Wilt to be appeased was keeping him on the floor until the game was over, or until you didn't want him in anymore because he acted like he was incapable of playing after being benched.

No that class of athlete doesn't get that kind of treatment nor do they have that mentality where they expect it. Its a completely different sports environment now where multibillionaires are the bosses of these players. When there really isn't much to gain from a player playing that many more minutes while already playing as much as they have, but there's much to risk, chances are they won't let happen. I don't really care how Wilt was back then, cause growing up in more recent eras would probably lower his expectations on that type of thing. Wilt, growing up in the 80s or 90s realizing that its not anywhere near the norm to play 44-48 mpg probably won't expect that. You think Jordan liked coming out of a game? He never played more then 41 mpg in a season.

[guy]

When Dennis Rodman can put up league leading scoring numbers come back and talk about that. Rodman never had Chamberlain's motor.
Anybody that is an elite specialist is going to get astronomical numbers. If Chamberlain spent his offensive energy on purely getting rebounds and setting screens, his rebound rate would have been completely off the charts.

Thats what I said. That was my point. Part of the reason he rebounded as much he did was cause he only needed to focus on rebounding and defense. Wilt on the other hand did more of everything.



But I've seen estimates that close to half of Chamberlain's free throws were and-ones. So are you sure you know where you're going with that?


I'm not sure what your point is?




No, not at all. Guys like Jerry Lucas, Oscar Robertson, Don Ohl, Sam Jones, & Jerry West were great long range bombers. Oscar was sweetness fadeaway from the corner - and he was primarily a driving "power guard."


Are you really going to argue that the % of longer range shots taken back then is the same as today, specifically 3 point range shots? Shit, I notice a difference just between now and 15 years ago.

I made points about the other things you said in my previous 2 posts.

[WillyJakk]

My personal opinion, after all the conjecture and posturing about Wilt:

In HIS PRIME (from what I've seen from the footage provided by Cavsftw, etc and watching old footage on NBATV, NBA Superstars video tapes, etc.),

I truly believe (although he was older) the NBA since the early 70's slowly became more and more integrated at all positions, Wilt's scoring numbers went down (yeah I know about his knee injury) while his rebounding was still LEGENDARY so I've come to this assumption (like others and keep in mind this is PRIME Wilt in these era's):

Wilt in late 70s (vs Kareem, Malone, Walton, etc.): 32+ppg| 18+rebs| 6blks
Rank: #1
Wilt in the 80's (vs Hakeem, Sampson, Ewing etc): 30ppg| 15rebs| 6blks
Rank: #1
Wilt in the 90's (vs Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq, Deke, Zo, etc): 22ppg| 12rebs| 4blks
Rank: #3-#4
Wilt in the 00's (vs Shaq, B Wallace, Yao, etc): 22ppg| 14rebs| 4blks
Rank: #2
Wilt in the 10's ( vs Howard, Bynum, M Gasol, Bogut, etc): 22ppg| 20rebs| 5blks
Rank: #1

I think only time Wilt "struggles" is the 90's w/ the greatest C era and perhaps PF era also. I think he "struggles" w/ scoring in the 2000's to present simply due to the League being far too perimeter oriented now. I think he'd absolutely be the best C in the L now ahead of Dwight simply because it is a fact Dwight Howard struggles against C's w/ length (Yao) and though I believe Yao's base (legs) are much stronger than Wilt's (which is why Dwight struggled against Yao) I think Wilt's superb athleticism compensates for this.

I do believe Dwight Howard is every bit as strong (if not stronger but not by much) than Wilt's upper body.

Again Wilt, GREAT GREAT player regardless of era and either the #1 or no less than #3 or 4 best C of eras I listed, but he would not be the OVERALL BEST PLAYER OF ANY of these eras I listed.

This is where the disagreement comes in w/ guys like jlauber etc.

[jlauber]

Do you not understant the point as usual? A 25/13 center is not just very good in today's era. That's elite, and assuming great defense and great passing for a big man, easily the best center in the league and very arguably the best player in the league. Do you not understand that?

I never even said he wouldn't do better then that. I said saying that someone claiming he'd average 25/13 is just as bad as claiming he'd average 50/25 is absurd and ridiculous and perfectly illustrates my main point.



I don't know what numbers you're using but I went ahead and did the math myself just to see where you're coming using his FG and FT attempts and %s of 39.5 FGA per game, 17 FTA per game, 50.6 FG% and 61.3 FT%, 1962's league average of 107.7 FGA per game game and 37.1 FTA per game. I also took his rebounds per game of 25.7 and the league's of 71.4 I took the % of his FGA, FTA, and RPG over the league's and used it on 2011's averages of 81.2 FGA per game, 24.4 FTA per game, and 41.4 per game. According to that, he'd average 30 FGAs per game, 11 FTAs per game, and if he converted at the same FG% and FT%s, he'd average 37 ppg/15 rpg, not 38 ppg/18 ppg.

That's still outstanding numbers, but like I said, NOT HAPPENING. First of all, there's NO WAY a center in today's league is going to average 30 FGAs per game. You realize Dwight Howard only averages 13.4 FGA per game? Shaq only averaged over 20 FGAs per game twice in his career, with his high being 21.1 FGA per game? Hakeem only averaged 20-21.5 3x in his career. Robinson over 20 1x in his career. Ewing average over 20 only 2x in his career. And other then Dwight Howard, they all played in eras that were less perimeter oriented then today's. The game is different, there's more reliance on perimeter players and there's no way he'd play 45-48 mpg like he regularly played. At the most he'd play 41-42 mpg. Now if you want to say Wilt's a special player and he would've averaged more shots then all of them, okay fine, I can see that being possible. But with that said, he's not averaging about 10 more shots and 50% then Shaq, Ewing, Hakeem, and Robinson at their highs, and 17 more shots and over 100% more then Dwight Howard right now in today's era. Thats absurd to think. And if he's shooting 61% from the line, thats not nearly that bad for them to foul him all the time and he'd probably take less then 11 FTs as well.

So although I think this still might going overboard, I'll say that 22 FGAs per game and 10 FTAs per game both at 60% is about reasonable and that would convert to about 32 ppg. And I'm saying that would be his high. I'd say something like 30-32 ppg/15-16 rpg would probably be his best statistical season.



First of all, your rebounding numbers are WAY OFF. There was not ONE team in the NBA in the 61-62 season that AVERAGED 71.4 rpg. The Celtics LED the league at 66 rpg. The AVERAGE team grabbed 63 rpg.

Don't take MY word for it...ADD up EACH team's INDIVIDUAL numbers.

And, in Wilt's 60-61 season it was actually at 62 rpg...in a season in which Chamberlain averaged 27.2 rpg.

BTW, the NBA USED to count TEAM REBOUNDS, which they discontinued after the 71-72 season.


Regarding your math, much of it, but not ALL, is correct.

In the 2010-2011 season, the NBA averaged 81.2 FGAs per game, 24.4 FTAs per game, AND, the league SHOT .459 from the field. BUT, not only that, the eFG% was at .498!

In Wilt's 61-62 season, the NBA averaged 107.7 FGAs per game, 37.1 FTAs per game, and shot .426 from the field...and had an eFG% of also .426.

So, here we go...

Take Wilt's 39.5 FGAs per game, and reduce it down to 2011 levels, and he would have taken 29.8 FGAs per game. And his 17 FTAs per game, reduced down to 2011 levels would have been 11.2 FTAs per game.

Chamberlain shot .613 from the line, so that equates to 6.9 FTs MADE per game in 2011. And Chamberlain shot .506 from the floor in 61-62, so using BASIC math, he would have made 15.1 FGM per game. 30.2 + 6.9 = 37.1 ppg.

BUT, Wilt's NBA did not shoot the .459 or even .498 in 61-62, but rather shot .426. And yes, if you are going to use reduced shooting numbers against Wilt, you also have to INCREASE his FG%'s.

Wilt would not shoot .506 in a league that shot .459, but rather, would have shot .545 . 29.8 x .545 = 16.2 FGM, or 32.4 ppg + 6.9 FTM = 38.3 ppg.

Now, if you want an even more accurate FG%, Wilt's .506 in a league that shot an eFG% of .426, would RISE to .591 in a league that had an eFG% of .498. Multiply that .591 x 29.8 and you get 17.6 FGM, or 35.2 ppg + 6.9 FTM. or... 42.1 PPG at PURE 2011 levels.

Now, you could also do it the easy way, too. The 2011 NBA averaged 99.6 ppg, while Wilt's 61-62 NBA averaged 118.8 ppg. So, the 2011 NBA scored at 84% of what Wilt's NBA scored at. 84% of Wilt's 50.4 ppg = guess what ...
42.3 ppg.

BTW, if you don't account for at least the FG% differences, teams will not score at the 99.6 ppg average by adjusting their numbers down using the LEAGUE AVERAGE of FG%. Instead, they would only average 86.9 ppg. THAT is why you HAVE to adjust for LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%.

(Here is how the above breaks down. If you reduce 61-62 FGAs and FTAs down to 2011 levels, the NBA would average 81.2 FGA and 24.3 FTA, and shooting .426 from the floor, they would only make 34.6 FGM per game, or 69.2 ppg from the field. Multiply their .727 FT% in 61-62 x 24.3 FTAs, and they would make 17.7.) 69.2 ppg + 17.7 = 86.9 ppg. Which is CLEARLY not realistic.)

BTW, if you also use the RIDICULOUS "PACE" metrics, you will also find the '62 teams scoring considerably LESS than the 99.6 ppg of 2011 as well.

His rebounding numbers in 61-62 were at 25.7 rpg, and again, at his peak, in 60-61, it was at 27.2 rpg, in league's that averaged about the same rpg.

The 2010-2011 NBA averaged 41.4 rpg, while Wilt's 61-62 NBA averaged 63 and his 60-61 averaged 62.

Wilt's 25.7 rpg comes out to 16.9 rpg, and his 27.2 rpg comes out to 17.9 rpg (or 18 rpg.)

THAT is where I pulled those numbers from.

His RAW numbers translate to a 37-17 season in 2011, but his more ADJUSTED numbers go from either a 38-17 to as high as a 42-18 season.


Now, let's use MJ's '87 season as yet another example.

That NBA averaged 88.8 FGAs and 30.5 FTAs per game, while shooting either .480 from the field, or an eFG% of .488.

Reduce Wilt's FGAs in 61-62 down to 86-87 levels, and Wilt would have taken 32.6 FGAs per game. And reducing his FTAs down to '87 levels, and he would have taken 13.9 FTAs per game.

SIMPLE math...

32.6 x .506 = 16.5 FGM or 33 ppg.
13.9 x .613 = 8.5 FTM or 8.5 ppg

33 ppg + 8.5 ppg - 41.5 ppg/

NOW, the ADJUSTED math...

Wilt's 61-62 NBA shot .426, MJ's shot either .480 or .488. We'll just use the .480 figure.

Chamberlain's .506 jumps to .570 at '87 levels.

32.6 x .570 = 18.6 FGM or 37.2 ppg
37.2 ppg + 8.5 FTM = 45.7 ppg

Of course, you could use SIMPLE math, as well.

MJ's NBA averaged 109.9 ppg, Wilt's was at 118.8 ppg
MJ's NBA was at 92.5% of Wilt's.
.925 x 50.4 ppg = ...guess what...46.6 ppg.

And MJ's NBA averaged 44 rpg.

Wilt's 61-62 reduced down to '87 levels would come in at 17.9 rpg, and his 60-61 season comes in 19.3 rpg.

Think about that...Wilt in MJ's 86-87 season would have averaged somewhere around a 45-18 .570 season.


As for your FGA argument.

NO ONE else averaged 29.7 FGAs in a FULL season IN the Wilt era. And NO other CENTER averaged more than Kareem's 24.9 FGA in 71-72. Even Walt Bellamy, IN Wilt's 61-62 season (when he averaged 31.6 ppg) ONLY averaged 23.7 FGA!

So, why was it ONLY Chamberlain having MULTIPLE 30+ FGA seasons? It was because Chamberlain could start his offense from beyond 15 ft (and in fact, ROUTINELY was taking 12-15 shots in the first half of his career.) Wilt was a SKILLED BALL-HANDLER, and coupled with his RANGE, his VARIETY of post moves, including JUMP SHOTS, TURN AROUND jump shots, HOOK shots, FINGER-ROLLS, and SPINNING layins...

well, Wilt would get as many shots as he would have wanted.

BTW, BOTH MJ and Kobe averaged more FGAs, per minute played in their highest scoring seasons, than Wilt did in his 61-62 season.

MPG?

I see you are now at 44 mpg. Wilt only had a FOUR seasons, in his 14 year career in which he played less than 44 mpg (with a LOW of 42.3.) Even in his LAST season, he averaged 43.2 mpg.

BUT, let's say that Wilt did play "only" 44 mpg. Wouldn't you agree that he would naturally have been more EFFICIENT with LESS mpg? 4 mpg x 80 games per year x 14 seasons.

How much fresher would he have been in game 30? 40? 60?

So, even if you were to reduce his numbers by a 44/48 ratio, his ACTUAL production would probably be at around 45 maybe even 46/48.

In any case, a PRIME Chamberlain, being asked to carry an offense in the CURRENT NBA would certainly be capable of 35-18 seasons. Possibly even greater.

25-13? Those are mere 'great" numbers in TODAY's NBA...not the IMMORTAL numbers that a PRIME Chamberlain would be carpet-bombing the current NBA with.

[La Frescobaldi]

This turned into a Wilt Chamberlain thread.

But when you talk about lack of respect, the King of Underrated has got to be #24 Sam Jones.

I truly believe there has never been a more clutch player than the Silent Celtic.

From a different thread:
****************************************
Russell talking about 24.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY4EhnRgBWU

6 season ending shots, make it or the season was over!! As far as I know - I have no stats at all to back it up - but I believe Sam Jones is the most clutch shooter in NBA history.

Sam is the most underrated player BY FAR ever in the NBA. This guy was not a Robert Horry/ Derrick Fisher type pressure shooter with some solid skills on the court.

If I was to roll out the all-time guards, Sam Jones would be right up there in the top 5.

Everybody annoints Russell as the guy on those Celtics teams and no question it was his team. But that Celtics offense ran through Sam Jones from the time he stepped up after Cousy & Sharman left until right down to the very end of his career in 68-69 when Havlicek took over.

Oscar & Jerry West get the accolades as the premier guards of that era. But Sam was right there.

It's hard to describe exactly the total and complete difference between the game back then and what it has changed into over the years, but here's a example I can remember from about 66 or 67. The Celtics ran a non-stop fast break for 7 minutes straight against the Knicks. If the Knicks scored the Celtics did not stop running even during the inbounds pass. That game was pure transition basketball in the second quarter for 7 minutes without a timeout. I'll never forget Sam Jones racing on the court lathered like the sleekest quarterhorse you ever saw. Just completely dominated the Knicks with marathon endurance.

Sheer windsprint fleet ball winging from hand to hand not touching the court not a single dribble from Russell's hand to Sam's non-stop fullspeed layup

It was the most incredible performance of athletic endurance by any team I ever saw and every bit of it led by Sam Jones.

when a timeout finally was called it was like you woke up from a trance. The crowd was in a absolute frenzy of excitement

That was pure sport
***********************************

12 years in the NBA, 11 Finals appearances........ 10 rings.

Nobody talks about him.

Respect?

[La Frescobaldi]

If you read this thread right here, you can plainly see why old school basketball gets no respect: poison pen tactics wreck young people's understanding of what was happening in those days.

http://207.58.151.151/forum/showthread.php?t=230310

It's really pretty disgusting for a guy who never saw Hal Greer play a game to write crap like that simply to make himself important. Classic anklebiter.

[JMT]

If you read this thread right here, you can plainly see why old school basketball gets no respect: poison pen tactics wreck young people's understanding of what was happening in those days.

http://207.58.151.151/forum/showthread.php?t=230310

It's really pretty disgusting for a guy who never saw Hal Greer play a game to write crap like that simply to make himself important. Classic anklebiter.

As a rule of thumb, comparison threads should be limited to those that saw both players play. In their era. Multiple times. Whole games, not snippets of high or low lights.

You would think that anyone with even a hint of common sense would realize that, if they didn't see both players play, they have nothing to add to the discussion.

Sadly, this is ISH, where common sense is decidedly uncommon.

[CavaliersFTW]

As a rule of thumb, comparison threads should be limited to those that saw both players play. In their era. Multiple times. Whole games, not snippets of high or low lights.

You would think that anyone with even a hint of common sense would realize that, if they didn't see both players play, they have nothing to add to the discussion.

Sadly, this is ISH, where common sense is decidedly uncommon.

:no:

I guess there's no place on IH for the historians who watch games and game footage, plus the documentaries both from that period and made after the players retired, as well as the interviews both from that time period and made afterwards. Information dating as far back as the 1960's has now become as easy to access as modern era media. Combine this with reading the equally easy to access archived news coverage and you can now get complete game and series recaps, box scores, and the opinion of numerous media outlets of that time. Not to mention the number of books written by the various players who no longer play.

Tell me, how many times have you sat down and watched a full games of Rasheed Wallace? How about Michael Jordan? What about David Robinson or Hakeem Olajuwon? I don't know how old you are but how many of the players full games from "your era" do you accurately recall? If I pressed you for info on any of these guys you could easily go to youtube right now and watch some of their performances to get a handle on their game, and you could find the written recaps and reviews of games and series. And you could watch interviews and other various footage and highlights to overall, have a good handle on those guys.








At this point, the same can now be done as far back as the 1960's. There's actually no excuse that more basketball fans aren't taking advantage of these things and talking about them.