Some of the All-Time greats averages in 100 poss. per game and 40 mpg.

[pauk]

First of all, please let it be known that there is no "This era is bad / This era is good" agenda or "This player was better / This player was worse" agenda here or whatever agenda.... it is strictly stats based on 100 poss. per game and 40 mpg.... it means nothing more than speculation, take it for what it literally is....

Just thought i would share with you a "research" i just did, i really was curious about what some of the all-time great players would hypothetically averaged if they had to work with the exact same league/team pace........... did some research (google/bball-reference) and then calculated those players averages per 100 possessions a game & 40 mpg.... i took only one of their best statistical seasons....

I picked 12 players for now, will do more later... feel free to ask about any other players numbers you wish to see "transformed" and i will do it....

-------------------------------------------------------------

(not a must read) How do you calculate this? Example:

First we must transform a players averages to 100 poss. per game...
Lets say you averaged 24.3 ppg for your career in 102.1 poss. per game...
you divide 24.3 with 102.1, which gives us 0.238.... which means that you averaged 0.238 ppg per possession..... now we just multiply 0.238 with 100 and that gets us to 23.8... 23.8 ppg in 100 possessions...

Now we go to the minutes, lets say you averaged 38.4 mpg for your career while averaging 23.8 ppg in 100 possessions a game.... so we divide 23.8 with 38.4, which gives/means 0.619 points per minute.... so, 0.619 pts x 40 minutes = 24.8 ppg...

Result = You averaged 24.8 ppg in 40 mpg with 100 poss. per game.

------------------------------------------------------------

If you are curious, here is the factual estimations of league history possessions per game:

2000s & current poss. per game = 90-100
1990s poss. per game = 90-100
1980s poss. per game = 100-110
1970s poss. per game = 110-130
1960s poss. per game = 140-160

Lets just go with 100 possessions and 40 mpg...

------------------------------------------------------------

Oscar Robertson 1961-62:

18.5 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 6.9 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

30.8 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 11.4 apg in his ~150 poss. per game. & 44.3 mpg.

Wilt Chamberlain 1961-62:

27.7 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 1.3 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, 2.4 apg in his ~150 poss. per game. & 48.5 mpg.

Bill Russell 1961-62:

11.2 ppg, 13.9 rpg, 2.7 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 4.5 apg in his ~150 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Shaquille O'Neal 1999-00:

31.8 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 4.1 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg.

29.7 ppg, 13.8 rpg, 3.8 apg in his 93.3 poss. per game. & 40.0 mpg.

Larry Bird 1986-87:

28.0 rpg, 9.2 rpg, 7.6 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg.

28.1 rpg, 9.2 rpg, 7.6 apg in his 99 poss. per game. & 40.5 mpg.

Magic Johnson 1986-87:

25.8 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 13.1 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

23.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 12.2 apg in his 102 poss. per game. & 36.3 mpg.

Kobe Bryant 2005-06:

37.9 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 4.8 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg.

35.4 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 4.5 apg in his 91 poss. per game. & 41 mpg.

Hakeem Olajuwon 1992-93:

27.9 ppg, 14.0 rpg, 3.7 apg in his 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg.

26.1 ppg, 13.0 rpg, 3.5 apg in 94.4 poss. per game & 39.5 mpg.

Kareem Abdul Jabbar 1971-72:

26.2 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 3.4 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg.

34.8 ppg, 16.6 rpg, 4.6 apg in his ~120 poss. per game & 44.2 mpg.

Jerry West 1965-66:

20.6 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 4.0 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg.

31.3 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 6.1 apg in his ~150 poss. per game & 40.7 mpg.

LeBron James 2009-10::

33.3 ppg, 8.2 rpg, 9.6 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg

29.7 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 8.6 apg in his 91.4 poss. per game & 39.0 mpg.

Michael Jordan 1988-89:

33.2 ppg, 8.1 rpg, 8.1 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg

32.5 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 8.0 apg in his 97.0 poss. per game & 40.2 mpg.




Some fun facts:

1. Wilt's & Oscar's best productions were actually mortal (still impressive though)... they just happened in a very different time thats all..

2. Per possession & minute Michael Jordan & Lebron James average the best overall productions for their career....... and per possession & minute Jordan, Lebron and Shaq had easily the most productive single seasons in NBA history.....

3. Magic Johnson's & Lebron James current career averages would be triple double career averages with ~150 poss. per game.

4. Per possession & minute Kobe Bryant in 2005-06 had actually the 2nd most impressive point production in NBA history.... #1 is Michael Jordan in 1986-87 who averaged 38.6 ppg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg....

[Zodiac]

Tldr

[Maindi]

Tldr
It's not even that long of a post phaggit

[pauk]

Tldr

You dont have to be hard on yourself, you dont have to read all that... just look at the stats if interested, which will take you just some seconds, if you are curious about more details perhaps then read or ask.... :)

[Kblaze8855]

First of all, please let it be known that there is no "This era is bad / This era is good" agenda or "This player was better / This player was worse" agenda here or whatever agenda.

Sure there is. It may or may not be an interesting set of numbers to glance at....but ets just be real about it.

[Living Being]

I always knew Shaq > Wilt.

CONFIRMED

[raprap]

Interesting. Might read it all later. Just glanced through the stats.

[dunksby]

Why per 100? Why not 120 or 130? Per 100 obviously will favor modern day basketball players' numbers.

[KobesFinger]

I like this, can I see T-Mac, Duncan and Kobe from 2002-03 and CP3 from 2007-08 please?

[Rubio2Gasol]

I always knew Shaq > Wilt.

CONFIRMED

Would Shaq be able to run up and down the court for 48 minutes and 140 possessions an entire season :coleman:

[Living Being]

Would Shaq be able to run up and down the court for 48 minutes and 140 possessions an entire season :coleman:
Sure. He'd just weigh 20 lbs less.

[chips93]

where did op get numbers for pace for wilt and oscars teams?

[inclinerator]

918 words

[inclinerator]

Why per 100? Why not 120 or 130? Per 100 obviously will favor modern day basketball players' numbers.
those number will still go higher no matter what number u choose

[pauk]

Sure there is. It may or may not be an interesting set of numbers to glance at....but ets just be real about it.

Whatever you wish Kblaze.... fine with me...

[Horatio33]

Pauk in "here's some stats that make LEBron look good" shocker.

[pauk]

Why per 100? Why not 120 or 130? Per 100 obviously will favor modern day basketball players' numbers.

I just picked 100 because i am more used to seeing that many possessions i guess... Wouldnt matter how many possessions i would choose... It doesnt favor anybody because a possession is a possession and all are calculated after the same possessions, no matter how little or how many possessions i would have used here you will get the same result but in different numbers.... I mean the player that averaged best numbers per. possession / minute will average the best numbers per. possession / minute no matter how many possessions/minutes we are going after..........

[Whoah10115]

Would Shaq be able to run up and down the court for 48 minutes and 140 possessions an entire season :coleman:


Most people are not using context. Some just think that their agenda has been validated.


Kblaze is right, but it doesn't change that I found this very interesting. Of course, these are all stats and context needs to be applied, but it's still cool.

[pauk]

Pauk in "here's some stats that make LEBron look good" shocker.

Unfortunately it does make many other players look good and/or better.... but only Lebron bothers you.... cant help that... do you want me to remove him? Will it make you feel better?

[toxicxr6]

And why is there no Duncan on this list?

[La Frescobaldi]

Show the hard evidence for possessions.

Since steals & turnovers weren't recorded, you really do have to show hard evidence.

Explain why you selected 100 and 40 mpg (i.e., this idea is from the guys at basketball reference from ca. 10 year ago and was used by several people as a way to belittle Chamberlain's feats in favor of Jordan.... Nobody could possibly play 48mpg, therefore Chamberlain will have to get his numbers lowered )

It's a pretty plaything but how does this show the stamina required to keep the same level of activity for 48 minutes that a guy has for 35 or 40?

[lilgodfather1]

So basically LeBron, Jordan, and Shaq are the three best peak players ever according to these numbers? Yeah that's a real shock lol.

I'd like to see LeBron, Jordan, and Shaq's averages based on the same amount of possessions of Wilt and Oscar. I'd venture to guess roughly LeBron would be somewhere around 48/13/13, Jordan would be 53/10/9, and Shaq would be 48/30.

[pauk]

where did op get numbers for pace for wilt and oscars teams?

For 1960s i have been reading/finding different results, anything from specific teams averaging 126 (books.google.com/books?id=Xh2iSGCqJJYC&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=possessions+per+game+Russell&source=bl&ots=n92f8-ZUTV&sig=xQZ9rPfa4Gt9WcETIgHy7G9Oo2g&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=RmpYUfftMeKI4gT6pIHgBw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=possessions per game Russell&f=false) to 145 (a book i have here at home, saying it was 145 poss. p/g in 1967) 130 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1423) to 156 (books.google.com/books?id=xf2iMkPYmc4C&pg=PT217&dq=possessions+per+game+basketball&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=2GtYUdacEuHV4gSX44HIDg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwATgK) and to a whooping 165 (books.google.com/books?id=vWfPuK6eCn8C&pg=PA57&dq=possessions+per+game+basketball&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=jWtYUfuGOpP04QSVzoGoCQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=possessions per game basketball&f=false) poss. per game and the best teams (Russell/Wilt/Oscar teams) averaged the most.... not being sure what to go with i went with something in the in the middle, 150.... its an approximate, but to be super accurate lets just say Wilt/Oscar/Russell played in a era with many more possessions a game....

[ILLsmak]

I just picked 100 because i am more used to seeing that many possessions i guess... Wouldnt matter how many possessions i would choose... It doesnt favor anybody because a possession is a possession and all are calculated after the same possessions, no matter how little or how many possessions i would have used here you will get the same result but in different numbers.... I mean the player that averaged best numbers per. possession / minute will average the best numbers per. possession / minute no matter how many possessions/minutes we are going after..........

I may be crazy, but wouldn't it require you to define a possession first? Your statement would be true once a possession is defined.

Edit: In case that is vague, what I mean is you'd have to define per possession production for a player.

-Smak

[DatAsh]

Please show the exact method you're using to estimate the pace for those earlier teams.

Also, for the first few players I checked, you're numbers are wrong. You've inflated the stats a bit for certain players and deflated them a bit for others, so please show the exact calculation for each player.

[PrettyCool]

numbers prove Kobe is GOAT.

[Pointguard]

Wow, did Wilt and them have close to 200 possessions in a game??? His numbers were reduced nearly in half.

[DatAsh]

Wow, did Wilt and them have close to 200 possessions in a game??? His numbers were reduced nearly in half.

The OP didn't do a very good job of estimating pace. Not only that, but some of the numbers for certain players for which he didn't need to estimate pace are either inflated or deflated.

[Psileas]

1. Not buying the 150 possessions thing about the 60's, sorry. Especially 1966. Generally, look at the differences in the numbers of shots taken, FT's taken, etc. Compare 1966 to 1972. How the heck did you get to a difference of 30 possessions?

2. If it was anywhere near accurate to take a league with supposedly 150 possessions and project stats in a league of 100 or vice-versa without accounting for severe changes in efficiency (and therefore, other stats linked with it, like rebounds and assists), modern teams would be foolish NOT to try and get 150 possessions themselves nowadays.

3. Linked with #2. Why don't you also post the adjusted numbers for their whole teams, so that we really see who's more impactful statistically for his team? Also, how about posting their FGAs?

4. Linked with #3. Since you are a PER fan, if Wilt's stats are "mortal", how come he still has the most impressive individual season PERs of all time, which comes AFTER accounting for possessions? Why does Wilt's PER blow Magic's out of the water if Magic supposedly almost matches Wilt's scoring (LOL!), probably exceeds his efficiency (due to FT's) and Magic's assists advantage is wider than Wilt's rebounding advantage? Something doesn't add up here...

[tmacattack33]

Why per 100? Why not 120 or 130? Per 100 obviously will favor modern day basketball players' numbers.

lolwut

[guy]

Are we seriously supposed to believe that the OP didn't purposefully pick a criteria where Lebron came out on top? In fact, I guarantee that he took all of Jordan's best seasons from from 87-90, which are statistically considered his best, and specifically went with the season where Jordan didn't have a statistical edge in any of those categories :oldlol: , which coincidentally was the season he scored the less and played at the higher pace.

Anyway, this is misleading. You can't simply correlate stats with pace and minutes.

First of all, fatigue plays a factor in both cases, with more minutes and higher pace meaning that they are playing a larger percentage of the time at a greater fatigue.

Second of all, superstars in general don't take up an equal % of possessions when minutes and pace differ.

In many cases when a superstar plays less minutes, both him and his teammates will try to compensate for the missing of his impact while he's off the court, by playing through him more of the time when he's on the court.

And then, in most cases when pace is higher, higher pace has a lot to do with greater ball movement. High pace teams are rarely, if ever, the result of isolation and ball dominance of one player such as Lebron. Its the result of trying to get good shots by pushing the ball, which is almost impossible to do by relying too much on one player. And also, just like with minutes, there's a lesser desire and need for a superstar to have his presence felt on the same % of possessions, knowing that he will get more opportunities with more possessions already. Bottom line is, there's basically no way a team would get to 100 possessions per game in the modern era with the style of play Cleveland was playing with Lebron.

I'm not saying pace and minutes is irrelevant, just that its really not that simple, and when they don't really differ that much, like if its 2-3 mpg or 5-6 possessions per game, there's really not much of a point of considering it.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I've been trying to tell people about Wilt and the 50s/60s era exactly this. People are like OMG 50 ppg or 25 rpg!! Oscar triple double!! Well there were so many more possessions and the era was just not fully developed either.

[imdaman99]

lebron got blocked twice in 1 minute by kobe. per 100 possessions, he gets blocked by kobe 68 times in 40 mins.

i did not use a calculator, so dont quote me.

[Djahjaga]

lebron got blocked twice in 1 minute by kobe. per 100 possessions, he gets blocked by kobe 68 times in 40 mins.

i did not use a calculator, so dont quote me.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

:applause:

[jlip]

Assists are as inflated in the 80's as rebounds were in the 60's. Scoring is based on the same principle across eras...# shots taken and made.

[Djahjaga]

Assists are as inflated in the 80's as rebounds were in the 60's. Scoring is based on the same principle across eras...# shots taken and made.

That's an eloquent way of looking at it, but, just as shooting percentages were greatly deflated in the 60s, so was scoring.

Which makes what Wilt did even more freaking unbelievable.

The fact that someone could actually destroy the records for both several times over is mind blowing.



I did like the thread, btw, OP. Whether or not you had an agenda (and, call me crazy, but I don't think you do), I liked the stats. Would like to see more done.

Perhaps, KG's MVP season, Duncan's 2 MVP seasons, Durant's current season, some of Hondo's best seasons in the 70s, Bill Walton, more of Jerry West, more of Kobe, maybe AI, and then some specialists (just so we can see some really ridiculous numbers inflated or brought down to Earth) like Eaton, Bol, Ben Wallace.

[Whoah10115]

Are we seriously supposed to believe that the OP didn't purposefully pick a criteria where Lebron came out on top? In fact, I guarantee that he took all of Jordan's best seasons from from 87-90, which are statistically considered his best, and specifically went with the season where Jordan didn't have a statistical edge in any of those categories :oldlol: , which coincidentally was the season he scored the less and played at the higher pace.

Anyway, this is misleading. You can't simply correlate stats with pace and minutes.

First of all, fatigue plays a factor in both cases, with more minutes and higher pace meaning that they are playing a larger percentage of the time at a greater fatigue.

Second of all, superstars in general don't take up an equal % of possessions when minutes and pace differ.

In many cases when a superstar plays less minutes, both him and his teammates will try to compensate for the missing of his impact while he's off the court, by playing through him more of the time when he's on the court.

And then, in most cases when pace is higher, higher pace has a lot to do with greater ball movement. High pace teams are rarely, if ever, the result of isolation and ball dominance of one player such as Lebron. Its the result of trying to get good shots by pushing the ball, which is almost impossible to do by relying too much on one player. And also, just like with minutes, there's a lesser desire and need for a superstar to have his presence felt on the same % of possessions, knowing that he will get more opportunities with more possessions already. Bottom line is, there's basically no way a team would get to 100 possessions per game in the modern era with the style of play Cleveland was playing with Lebron.

I'm not saying pace and minutes is irrelevant, just that its really not that simple, and when they don't really differ that much, like if its 2-3 mpg or 5-6 possessions per game, there's really not much of a point of considering it.



Absolutely the best post in this thread. From beginning to end. I think I might just quote it randomly.



I've been trying to tell people about Wilt and the 50s/60s era exactly this. People are like OMG 50 ppg or 25 rpg!! Oscar triple double!! Well there were so many more possessions and the era was just not fully developed either.


Read poster above you.

[Kurosawa0]

The original post may be slanted, but if people really believe that Wilt averaged 50 points a game in a league as difficult as the one we know in modern times, you're insane. Oscar, Wilt, Russell etc. were all human beings and not somehow magically better than Kobe, LeBron or Michael. Seeing those stats compared to what we see today should actually point you in the opposite direction.

[Whoah10115]

The original post may be slanted, but if people really believe that Wilt averaged 50 points a game in a league as difficult as the one we know in modern times, you're insane. Oscar, Wilt, Russell etc. were all human beings and not somehow magically better than Kobe, LeBron or Michael. Seeing those stats compared to what we see today should actually point you in the opposite direction.



No one is really arguing that.

[Djahjaga]

No one is really arguing that.

Can we get some unbiased, well-analyzed opinions on this topic, then?

Why are some of the most mind-boggling stats from older eras? What does that imply about the relative strength of the league then to now? What does it say about the way basketball (or basketball trends) evolved? What are we to make of older players actually saying that players now are faster and stronger? How, if at all, can we make sense/compare the players/league then to the players/league now (if I'm giving you full hypothetical ability, there's no point in saying "you can't compare them")?

I find myself arguing either side and going in circles. I'd really like to hear some unbiased opinions, well-informed opinions on the matter.

[Whoah10115]

Can we get some unbiased, well-analyzed opinions on this topic, then?

Why are some of the most mind-boggling stats from older eras? What does that imply about the relative strength of the league then to now? What does it say about the way basketball (or basketball trends) evolved? What are we to make of older players actually saying that players now are faster and stronger? How, if at all, can we make sense/compare the players/league then to the players/league now (if I'm giving you full hypothetical ability, there's no point in saying "you can't compare them")?

I find myself arguing either side and going in circles. I'd really like to hear some unbiased opinions, well-informed opinions on the matter.


This isn't the thread for it...I'd like someone to make that thread tho.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Why per 100? Why not 120 or 130? Per 100 obviously will favor modern day basketball players' numbers.
lol fail. it won't change anything as far as who looks best. multiply all the numbers by 1.2 if you want 120. same people will look good.

[Djahjaga]

This isn't the thread for it...I'd like someone to make that thread tho.

I will make it right now! I hope to get your opinion on it! :cheers:

[jlip]

Can we get some unbiased, well-analyzed opinions on this topic, then?

Why are some of the most mind-boggling stats from older eras? What does that imply about the relative strength of the league then to now? What does it say about the way basketball (or basketball trends) evolved? What are we to make of older players actually saying that players now are faster and stronger? How, if at all, can we make sense/compare the players/league then to the players/league now (if I'm giving you full hypothetical ability, there's no point in saying "you can't compare them")?

I find myself arguing either side and going in circles. I'd really like to hear some unbiased opinions, well-informed opinions on the matter.

Isn't it really only rebounding and Wilt's scoring? He's the only player whose scoring is mind blowing. I think it's readily admitted by most that there were more rebounds during the 60's, but remove Wilt's scoring and nobody from the 60's averaged anymore ppg during any season than MJ's or Kobe's best season. (I know about Baylor's '62 season, but he only played a little over half a season.)

[DatAsh]

1. Not buying the 150 possessions thing about the 60's, sorry.

You shouldn't; those numbers are way too high. A more realistic pace estimate for the 1962 Warriors would be somewhere in the range of 130 possessions per game.


Are we seriously supposed to believe that the OP didn't purposefully pick a criteria where Lebron came out on top? In fact, I guarantee that he took all of Jordan's best seasons from from 87-90, which are statistically considered his best, and specifically went with the season where Jordan didn't have a statistical edge in any of those categories :oldlol: , which coincidentally was the season he scored the less and played at the higher pace.

Anyway, this is misleading. You can't simply correlate stats with pace and minutes.

First of all, fatigue plays a factor in both cases, with more minutes and higher pace meaning that they are playing a larger percentage of the time at a greater fatigue.

Second of all, superstars in general don't take up an equal % of possessions when minutes and pace differ.

In many cases when a superstar plays less minutes, both him and his teammates will try to compensate for the missing of his impact while he's off the court, by playing through him more of the time when he's on the court.

And then, in most cases when pace is higher, higher pace has a lot to do with greater ball movement. High pace teams are rarely, if ever, the result of isolation and ball dominance of one player such as Lebron. Its the result of trying to get good shots by pushing the ball, which is almost impossible to do by relying too much on one player. And also, just like with minutes, there's a lesser desire and need for a superstar to have his presence felt on the same % of possessions, knowing that he will get more opportunities with more possessions already. Bottom line is, there's basically no way a team would get to 100 possessions per game in the modern era with the style of play Cleveland was playing with Lebron.

I'm not saying pace and minutes is irrelevant, just that its really not that simple, and when they don't really differ that much, like if its 2-3 mpg or 5-6 possessions per game, there's really not much of a point of considering it.

Well said, and you're absolutely right.

[dh144498]

First of all, please let it be known that there is no "This era is bad / This era is good" agenda or "This player was better / This player was worse" agenda here or whatever agenda.... it is strictly stats based on 100 poss. per game and 40 mpg.... it means nothing more than speculation, take it for what it literally is....

Just thought i would share with you a "research" i just did, i really was curious about what some of the all-time great players would hypothetically averaged if they had to work with the exact same league/team pace........... did some research (google/bball-reference) and then calculated those players averages per 100 possessions a game & 40 mpg.... i took only one of their best statistical seasons....

I picked 12 players for now, will do more later... feel free to ask about any other players numbers you wish to see "transformed" and i will do it....

-------------------------------------------------------------

(not a must read) How do you calculate this? Example:

First we must transform a players averages to 100 poss. per game...
Lets say you averaged 24.3 ppg for your career in 102.1 poss. per game...
you divide 24.3 with 102.1, which gives us 0.238.... which means that you averaged 0.238 ppg per possession..... now we just multiply 0.238 with 100 and that gets us to 23.8... 23.8 ppg in 100 possessions...

Now we go to the minutes, lets say you averaged 38.4 mpg for your career while averaging 23.8 ppg in 100 possessions a game.... so we divide 23.8 with 38.4, which gives/means 0.619 points per minute.... so, 0.619 pts x 40 minutes = 24.8 ppg...

Result = You averaged 24.8 ppg in 40 mpg with 100 poss. per game.

------------------------------------------------------------

If you are curious, here is the factual estimations of league history possessions per game:

2000s & current poss. per game = 90-100
1990s poss. per game = 90-100
1980s poss. per game = 100-110
1970s poss. per game = 110-130
1960s poss. per game = 140-160

Lets just go with 100 possessions and 40 mpg...

------------------------------------------------------------

Oscar Robertson 1961-62:

18.5 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 6.9 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

30.8 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 11.4 apg in his ~150 poss. per game. & 44.3 mpg.

Wilt Chamberlain 1961-62:

27.7 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 1.3 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, 2.4 apg in his ~150 poss. per game. & 48.5 mpg.

Bill Russell 1961-62:

11.2 ppg, 13.9 rpg, 2.7 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 4.5 apg in his ~150 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Shaquille O'Neal 1999-00:

31.8 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 4.1 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg.

29.7 ppg, 13.8 rpg, 3.8 apg in his 93.3 poss. per game. & 40.0 mpg.

Larry Bird 1986-87:

28.0 rpg, 9.2 rpg, 7.6 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg.

28.1 rpg, 9.2 rpg, 7.6 apg in his 99 poss. per game. & 40.5 mpg.

Magic Johnson 1986-87:

25.8 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 13.1 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

23.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 12.2 apg in his 102 poss. per game. & 36.3 mpg.

Kobe Bryant 2005-06:

37.9 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 4.8 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg.

35.4 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 4.5 apg in his 91 poss. per game. & 41 mpg.

Hakeem Olajuwon 1992-93:

27.9 ppg, 14.0 rpg, 3.7 apg in his 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg.

26.1 ppg, 13.0 rpg, 3.5 apg in 94.4 poss. per game & 39.5 mpg.

Kareem Abdul Jabbar 1971-72:

26.2 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 3.4 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg.

34.8 ppg, 16.6 rpg, 4.6 apg in his ~120 poss. per game & 44.2 mpg.

Jerry West 1965-66:

20.6 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 4.0 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg.

31.3 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 6.1 apg in his ~150 poss. per game & 40.7 mpg.

LeBron James 2009-10::

33.3 ppg, 8.2 rpg, 9.6 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg

29.7 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 8.6 apg in his 91.4 poss. per game & 39.0 mpg.

Michael Jordan 1988-89:

33.2 ppg, 8.1 rpg, 8.1 apg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg

32.5 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 8.0 apg in his 97.0 poss. per game & 40.2 mpg.




Some fun facts:

1. Wilt's & Oscar's best productions were actually mortal (still impressive though)... they just happened in a very different time thats all..

2. Per possession & minute Michael Jordan & Lebron James average the best overall productions for their career....... and per possession & minute Jordan, Lebron and Shaq had easily the most productive single seasons in NBA history.....

3. Magic Johnson's & Lebron James current career averages would be triple double career averages with ~150 poss. per game.

4. Per possession & minute Kobe Bryant in 2005-06 had actually the 2nd most impressive point production in NBA history.... #1 is Michael Jordan in 1986-87 who averaged 38.6 ppg in 100 poss. per game & 40 mpg....


:bowdown: :bowdown:

[ThaRegul8r]

For 1960s i have been reading/finding different results, anything from specific teams averaging 126 (books.google.com/books?id=Xh2iSGCqJJYC&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=possessions+per+game+Russell&source=bl&ots=n92f8-ZUTV&sig=xQZ9rPfa4Gt9WcETIgHy7G9Oo2g&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=RmpYUfftMeKI4gT6pIHgBw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=possessions per game Russell&f=false) to 145 (a book i have here at home, saying it was 145 poss. p/g in 1967) 130 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1423) to 156 (books.google.com/books?id=xf2iMkPYmc4C&pg=PT217&dq=possessions+per+game+basketball&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=2GtYUdacEuHV4gSX44HIDg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwATgK) and to a whooping 165 (books.google.com/books?id=vWfPuK6eCn8C&pg=PA57&dq=possessions+per+game+basketball&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=jWtYUfuGOpP04QSVzoGoCQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=possessions per game basketball&f=false) poss. per game and the best teams (Russell/Wilt/Oscar teams) averaged the most.... not being sure what to go with i went with something in the in the middle, 150

If you're not sure how to come up with a reasonable estimate, then the logical thing to do would be to not venture any figure on the subject whatsoever.

[Whoah10115]

lebron got blocked twice in 1 minute by kobe. per 100 possessions, he gets blocked by kobe 68 times in 40 mins.

i did not use a calculator, so dont quote me.



:roll:

[LAZERUSS]

Although this topic involves speculation, the OP is using flawed information. Instead, let's sue actual comparative statistical information.

The starting baseline numbers of relevance should be 118.8 ppg, 108 FGA/game, 37 FTA/game, 61 rpg, and the always overlooked stat of .426 eFG%. Those were the league averages in Wilt's historic '62 season. And, no, his personal team averages should not be used. Wilt took his team, on his back, and drove them to their numbers...in that season. He was generally a "catch-and-shoot" shooter, unlike MJ and Kobe, players who would dribble for several seconds in orer to get their shots.

Also, keep in mind that Wilt's numbers were achieved playing nearly very minute of every game. Why is that important? Because the OP is basing his evaluations on a 40 mpg basis. Think about just how unfair that is to a player who played every minute of every game, in a season in which he also played a ton of back-to-back games, including separate stretches of six, three-in-a-rows; three, four-in-a-rows; and even another separate stretch of, five games in five days.

Does anyone in their right mind believe that a Shaq, in 2000, who played a career high 40 mpg, would have continued to play at the same levels, playing 48 mpg? Would his rebounds per game have gone from 13.6 rpg in 40 mpg, to a projected 16.3 rpg playing 48 mpg? Would he have continued to shoot .574 from the field, playing an exhausting 48 mpg? And doing so in a schedule of 20 or so back-to-back games? Keep in mind that Shaq's playoff numbers, with one days rest, were considerly less than when he had two. Meanwhile, Wilt was playing in an era of playoff series with not only back-to-back games, but with even three-in-a-row.

And given Chamberlain's history of playing 45.8 mpg over his entire career, and then an unfathomable 47.2 mpg over the course of his 160 post-season games, or that his worst season was "only" 42.3 mpg (on a Laker team that went 69-13 and on their games by NBA record margins), or that in his last season, at age 36, he was playing 43.2 mpg...there would have been no era in which he would only b playing 40 mpg. I suspect that a prime Chamberlain would have led the league just like he did nearly ever season...so that would mean at least 42-43- an even 44 mpg (jst take a look at the league leaders year-after-year.) So, even in Shaq's 2000 season, in which he played that career high 40 mpg, Michael Finley was leading the leaue at 42.2 mpg.

So then, the reverse has to also be taken into account...that Wilt's efficiencies wold surely rise only playing a hypothetical 40 mpg. Would Wilt's rebound rate of 25.7 rpg, at 48.5 mpg, have been a straight drop to 21.4 rpg? Or would his rebounding efficiency have risen somewhat to counter the drop? And if so, how much? Same with his FG%. Surely his .506 FG% would have been considerably higher playing less minutes in a season which had the most demandin schedule in NB history.

Let's begin. Since I mentioned Shaq's 2000 season, we'll start there.

Once again here were Shaq's numbers. 40 mpg, 29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg, and on .574 shooting. In that '99-00 season, the NBA averaged 97.5 ppg, 43 rpg, and had an eFG% of .478. And, the average team took 82 FGAs per game, and 25 FTAs per game.

In Wilt's '61-62 season, Chamberlain averaged 39.5 FGAs per game, in a league that averaged 108 FGA, and he averaged 17 FTAs per game, in a league that shot 37 FTAs per team on average. He shot .506 from the field (in a league that had an eFG% of .426...more on that later), and shot .613 from the line.

Here we go...reduce Wilt's FGAs down to 99-00 levels (82/108 x 39.5), and he would have averaged an even 30 FGAs per game. Multiply his .506 FG% by that 30 FGA, and he would have averaged 15.2 FGM per game, or 30.4 ppg from the field. Reduce his 17 FTAs down to '99-00 levels, (37/25 x 17) and he would have taken 11.4 FTA per game. Since he shot .613 from the line that season, he woul have made an even 7 FT's per game. 30.4 + 7 = 37.4 ppg.

Multiply that 37.4 ppg by .825 (40/48.5), and he would have averaged 30.9 ppg in 2000, playing 40 mpg.

But wait...we forgot something. Wilt's '62 NBA ony had an eFG% of .426, while Shaq's '00 had an eFG of .478. So what you ask? If we are going to hypothetically reduce Wilt's '62 season numbers down to '00 levels, we also have to raise the FG%'s to equalize the conditions. Why? In the 99-00 season, the average NBA team averaged 97.5 ppg. If we don't equalize the FG%'s, then the average team from '61-62 will only average 32.3 made FGAs per game, or 64.6 ppg on FGAs. Then factor in that they would only average 18 ppg on their 25 FTAs (.727), ...for a total of 84.6 ppg...or over 13 ppg less than the average team in 2000.

How do we equalize it again? Raise the league FG% to an adjusted .478. Suddenly, in '62, the average team would be making 39.2 FGM per game, or 78.4 ppg. Add the 18 ppg that they did from the line, and then the average team in '62 would be scoring 96.4 ppg. By the way, the reason it is not equal has a considerable amount to do with Wilt's FT shooting. Take a look at the NBA's FT% before Wilt arrived. In the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756 from the line (in 2000 it was .755.) Furthermore, in the season after Wilt retired, '73-74, the NBA shot .771.

What does all of that have to do with Wilt's scoring average in '99-00? Once again, reducing his FGAs down to '00 levels, he would have taken 30 FGAs per game. But, instead of making 15.2 FGs per game (based on his .506 FG%), he would make an adjusted 17.1 FGs per game (.478/.426, x .506) on an adjusted FG% of .568. 17.1 x2 = 34.2 ppg, + 7 ppg from the line, or 41.2 ppg. Reduce 41.2 ppg by playing 40 mpg, instead of 48.5 mpg, and he would have averaged an even 34.0 ppg (on .568 shooting.)

Of course, you could do this much easily. The average NBA team averaged 118.8 ppg in '62, and 97.5 ppg in '00. Divide 97.5 by 118.8, and you get .821. Multiply 50.4 ppg by .821, and you have 41.4 ppg. Multiply 41.4 by .825 and Wilt's scoring average, in 40 mpg, would have been 34.2 ppg.

How about rebounding? In the 61-62 season, the NBA averaged about 61 rpg per team (after adjusting for team rebounds.) In Shaq's '99-00 season, it was at 43 rpg. This is relatively easy. 43/61 = .705. Multiply Wilt's 25.7 rpg times .705, and it omes out atw18.1 rpg. Multiply 18.1 times .825, and it becomes an adjusted 14.9 rpg, which would have led the league(and here again, that is a Wilt only playing 40 mpg.)


You can the above in any of the OP's scenarios. How about MJ's '86-87 season?

88 FGA, 30.5 FTA, 44 rpg, and on an eFG% of .488.

Chamberlain's numbers would then be, 32.2 FGAs, and 14 FTAs per game. His FG% would have risen to .580 (488/426 x 506), or 18.7 FGM per game, or 37.4 ppg. And he woud have made 8.6 FTs per game (14 x .613), or a total of 46 ppg. Multiply 46 x .825, and he woud have averaged 38 ppg...playing the same mpg as MJ (37.1 ppg on 40 mpg.)

And he would have averaged 18.5 rpg playing 48 mpg (25.7 rpg x .721), or 15.3 rpg...playing 40 mpg.

So, to recap, Wilt, in 86-87, would have averaged 38 ppg, on .580 shooting, and 15.3 rpg...all while only playing 40 mpg.

Once again, though, the above numbers don't take into account the extra efficiency "boost" that a Chamberlain, only playing 40 mpg, instead of 48.5 mpg, would have surely received.

Go ahead...use those formulas for any of the OP's listings. Wilt's 61-62 season stands as the greatest scoring season of all-time.

[TheTenth]

Although this topic involves speculation, the OP is using flawed information. Instead, let's sue actual comparative statistical information.

The starting baseline numbers of relevance should be 118.8 ppg, 108 FGA/game, 37 FTA/game, 61 rpg, and the always overlooked stat of .426 eFG%. Those were the league averages in Wilt's historic '62 season. And, no, his personal team averages should not be used. Wilt took his team, on his back, and drove them to their numbers...in that season. He was generally a "catch-and-shoot" shooter, unlike MJ and Kobe, players who would dribble for several seconds in orer to get their shots.

Also, keep in mind that Wilt's numbers were achieved playing nearly very minute of every game. Why is that important? Because the OP is basing his evaluations on a 40 mpg basis. Think about just how unfair that is to a player who played every minute of every game, in a season in which he also played a ton of back-to-back games, including separate stretches of six, three-in-a-rows; three, four-in-a-rows; and even another separate stretch of, five games in five days.

Does anyone in their right mind believe that a Shaq, in 2000, who played a career high 40 mpg, would have continued to play at the same levels, playing 48 mpg? Would his rebounds per game have gone from 13.6 rpg in 40 mpg, to a projected 16.3 rpg playing 48 mpg? Would he have continued to shoot .574 from the field, playing an exhausting 48 mpg? And doing so in a schedule of 20 or so back-to-back games? Keep in mind that Shaq's playoff numbers, with one days rest, were considerly less than when he had two. Meanwhile, Wilt was playing in an era of playoff series with not only back-to-back games, but with even three-in-a-row.

And given Chamberlain's history of playing 45.8 mpg over his entire career, and then an unfathomable 47.2 mpg over the course of his 160 post-season games, or that his worst season was "only" 42.3 mpg (on a Laker team that went 69-13 and on their games by NBA record margins), or that in his last season, at age 36, he was playing 43.2 mpg...there would have been no era in which he would only b playing 40 mpg. I suspect that a prime Chamberlain would have led the league just like he did nearly ever season...so that would mean at least 42-43- an even 44 mpg (jst take a look at the league leaders year-after-year.) So, even in Shaq's 2000 season, in which he played that career high 40 mpg, Michael Finley was leading the leaue at 42.2 mpg.

So then, the reverse has to also be taken into account...that Wilt's efficiencies wold surely rise only playing a hypothetical 40 mpg. Would Wilt's rebound rate of 25.7 rpg, at 48.5 mpg, have been a straight drop to 21.4 rpg? Or would his rebounding efficiency have risen somewhat to counter the drop? And if so, how much? Same with his FG%. Surely his .506 FG% would have been considerably higher playing less minutes in a season which had the most demandin schedule in NB history.

Let's begin. Since I mentioned Shaq's 2000 season, we'll start there.

Once again here were Shaq's numbers. 40 mpg, 29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg, and on .574 shooting. In that '99-00 season, the NBA averaged 97.5 ppg, 43 rpg, and had an eFG% of .478. And, the average team took 82 FGAs per game, and 25 FTAs per game.

In Wilt's '61-62 season, Chamberlain averaged 39.5 FGAs per game, in a league that averaged 108 FGA, and he averaged 17 FTAs per game, in a league that shot 37 FTAs per team on average. He shot .506 from the field (in a league that had an eFG% of .426...more on that later), and shot .613 from the line.

Here we go...reduce Wilt's FGAs down to 99-00 levels (82/108 x 39.5), and he would have averaged an even 30 FGAs per game. Multiply his .506 FG% by that 30 FGA, and he would have averaged 15.2 FGM per game, or 30.4 ppg from the field. Reduce his 17 FTAs down to '99-00 levels, (37/25 x 17) and he would have taken 11.4 FTA per game. Since he shot .613 from the line that season, he woul have made an even 7 FT's per game. 30.4 + 7 = 37.4 ppg.

Multiply that 37.4 ppg by .825 (40/48.5), and he would have averaged 30.9 ppg in 2000, playing 40 mpg.

But wait...we forgot something. Wilt's '62 NBA ony had an eFG% of .426, while Shaq's '00 had an eFG of .478. So what you ask? If we are going to hypothetically reduce Wilt's '62 season numbers down to '00 levels, we also have to raise the FG%'s to equalize the conditions. Why? In the 99-00 season, the average NBA team averaged 97.5 ppg. If we don't equalize the FG%'s, then the average team from '61-62 will only average 32.3 made FGAs per game, or 64.6 ppg on FGAs. Then factor in that they would only average 18 ppg on their 25 FTAs (.727), ...for a total of 84.6 ppg...or over 13 ppg less than the average team in 2000.

How do we equalize it again? Raise the league FG% to an adjusted .478. Suddenly, in '62, the average team would be making 39.2 FGM per game, or 78.4 ppg. Add the 18 ppg that they did from the line, and then the average team in '62 would be scoring 96.4 ppg. By the way, the reason it is not equal has a considerable amount to do with Wilt's FT shooting. Take a look at the NBA's FT% before Wilt arrived. In the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756 from the line (in 2000 it was .755.) Furthermore, in the season after Wilt retired, '73-74, the NBA shot .771.

What does all of that have to do with Wilt's scoring average in '99-00? Once again, reducing his FGAs down to '00 levels, he would have taken 30 FGAs per game. But, instead of making 15.2 FGs per game (based on his .506 FG%), he would make an adjusted 17.1 FGs per game (.478/.426, x .506) on an adjusted FG% of .568. 17.1 x2 = 34.2 ppg, + 7 ppg from the line, or 41.2 ppg. Reduce 41.2 ppg by playing 40 mpg, instead of 48.5 mpg, and he would have averaged an even 34.0 ppg (on .568 shooting.)

Of course, you could do this much easily. The average NBA team averaged 118.8 ppg in '62, and 97.5 ppg in '00. Divide 97.5 by 118.8, and you get .821. Multiply 50.4 ppg by .821, and you have 41.4 ppg. Multiply 41.4 by .825 and Wilt's scoring average, in 40 mpg, would have been 34.2 ppg.

How about rebounding? In the 61-62 season, the NBA averaged about 61 rpg per team (after adjusting for team rebounds.) In Shaq's '99-00 season, it was at 43 rpg. This is relatively easy. 43/61 = .705. Multiply Wilt's 25.7 rpg times .705, and it omes out atw18.1 rpg. Multiply 18.1 times .825, and it becomes an adjusted 14.9 rpg, which would have led the league(and here again, that is a Wilt only playing 40 mpg.)


You can the above in any of the OP's scenarios. How about MJ's '86-87 season?

88 FGA, 30.5 FTA, 44 rpg, and on an eFG% of .488.

Chamberlain's numbers would then be, 32.2 FGAs, and 14 FTAs per game. His FG% would have risen to .580 (488/426 x 506), or 18.7 FGM per game, or 37.4 ppg. And he woud have made 8.6 FTs per game (14 x .613), or a total of 46 ppg. Multiply 46 x .825, and he woud have averaged 38 ppg...playing the same mpg as MJ (37.1 ppg on 40 mpg.)

And he would have averaged 18.5 rpg playing 48 mpg (25.7 rpg x .721), or 15.3 rpg...playing 40 mpg.

So, to recap, Wilt, in 86-87, would have averaged 38 ppg, on .580 shooting, and 15.3 rpg...all while only playing 40 mpg.

Once again, though, the above numbers don't take into account the extra efficiency "boost" that a Chamberlain, only playing 40 mpg, instead of 48.5 mpg, would have surely received.

Go ahead...use those formulas for any of the OP's listings. Wilt's 61-62 season stands as the greatest scoring season of all-time.
You saved me alot of time with this response. However even though Wilt's 61-62 season is the greatest scoring season of all time, Jordan's 86-87 scoring season beats his 62-63 season.

[Leftimage]

Seems like an accurate enough depiction.

[LAZERUSS]

You saved me alot of time with this response. However even though Wilt's 61-62 season is the greatest scoring season of all time, Jordan's 86-87 scoring season beats his 62-63 season.

MJ and Kobe's greatest scoring seasons were/are, two of the three greatest of all-time.

As for Wilt, I have long maintained that his peak seasons were probably either 65-66, or 66-67. His 65-66 season was his last great scoring season, but it wasn't just the 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, 5.2 apg, and .540 FG% (in a league that shot .433 overall), but take a look at his pure domination of his opposing HOF centers. He absolutely owned Russell, Thurmond, and Bellamy in his head-to-heads. And, while Reed was now playing PF alongside Bellamy, in the season before, 64-65, when he was playing center, Chamberlain averaged 40 ppg against him in nine head-to-head meetings.

Almost everyone acknowledges that his 66-67 was among the greatest ever. he "only" averaged 24.1 ppg, but he did ocassionally explode just to prove he could. He had the NBA high game that season (58 points on 26-34 shooting, as well as a 42 point game on 18-18 shooting), and the scoring champ, Rick Barry (35.6 ppg) "thanked" Wilt for "letting" him win it. BTW, in the very next season, Wilt had games of 52, 53, 53, and an NBA high of 68. His .683 FG% was staggering, considering that the league shot .441, and the next highest mark was .521.

And I have always wondered how his 69-70 season would have played out had he not blown out his knee. In his first nine games he was leading the league in scoring at 32.2 ppg. (on .579 shooting BTW), including games of 38 against reigning MVP Wes Unseld, and 42 on star Bob Rule, as well as a 25 point game against rookie Kareem, in which he outplayed him in every facet of the game. In that ninth game, he had scored 33 points on 13-14 shooting, too.

[PickernRoller]

There is a reason I don't get involved in stats debates even though you're usually baited here to....look at the walls of text.

At the end of the day, stats can be misleading and interpretations of stats usually are. Such a great debate - I learned nothing new. :facepalm

[TheTenth]

There is a reason I don't get involved in stats debates even though you're usually baited here to....look at the walls of text.

At the end of the day, stats can be misleading and interpretations of stats usually are. Such a great debate - I learned nothing new. :facepalm

Debates usually just leave people just more ingrained in their opinions but unless you didn't read everything or have confirmation bias, I doubt you learned NOTHING new. Even if it was something trivial, you probably took at least something away from the posts in this thread. But everything is misleading, not just stats so why even debate on anything? Stats are less misleading than opinions since numbers don't have emotions or agendas behind them (at least that I know of.) Maybe the people who influence them have agendas, but not the numbers themselves haha.

[bmd]

Why per 100? Why not 120 or 130? Per 100 obviously will favor modern day basketball players' numbers.The number of possessions doesn't matter. It can be 100, 130, 400, 9 million, etc. it doesn't matter.

Why doesn't it matter?

Because he made everything equal. Here is an example:

If Bill averages 20 points on 90 possessions per game, and Frank averages 30 points on 110 possessions a game, how can you compare them? Well, first you have to figure out how many points they average in just ONE possession.

The way you figure this out is to divide the points by the number of possessions. So for Bill, 20 divided by 90 = 0.222. For Frank, 30 divided by 110 = 0.272. So that means Bill averages 0.222 points per one possession, and Frank averages 0.272 points per one possession.

So now, all you have to do is multiply those numbers by whatever number of possessions you want.

Want to do 100 possessions? 0.222 times 100 = 22.2 points per 100 possessions for Bill. 0.272 times 100 = 27.2 points per 100 possessions for Frank.

How about 150 possessions? 0.222 times 150 = 33.3 points. 0.272 times 150 = 40.8.


So it doesn't matter what number of possessions you choose. Frank scores more per one possession, so he'd score more for any number of possessions.

[MoBe1Kanobi]

Im typing on my phone so I dont feel lime quoting but im siding more with OP than the other two posters who are basically saying you cant keep up tgat sort of efficiency over 40 mpg (basically aims at Shaq). IMO, its not saying here this is what Shaq or Kobe or Lebron would average with 40 mpg but considering all the variations between the old and modern era the biggest stat divider is the pace. Are you guys yelling me that the GREATS of todays physically dominant era are not as capable physically of keeping up with the pace of the physical prehistoric like athleticism of a Oscar rob or wilt???? I think these numbers are in the ballpark of what would be appropriate if we are trying to look at a players ABILITY moreso over 40 mins in a perfect world where conditioning/injuries and pace was equal for everyone. You can always say "well todays iso ball player uses more % of a teams possesions" but are you really trying to say that the games of a Wilt/Russell/Oscar are really gonna thrive in the halfcourt instead of their circus like pace where Antoni like defense would at least be the league avg??? 2 sides to every argument. Its funny to me how all these old ass players get exposed and Bill Russell ends up as a less athletic Tyson Chandler and everyones nostalgia metr hits offended

[TheTenth]

Im typing on my phone so I dont feel lime quoting but im siding more with OP than the other two posters who are basically saying you cant keep up tgat sort of efficiency over 40 mpg (basically aims at Shaq). IMO, its not saying here this is what Shaq or Kobe or Lebron would average with 40 mpg but considering all the variations between the old and modern era the biggest stat divider is the pace. Are you guys yelling me that the GREATS of todays physically dominant era are not as capable physically of keeping up with the pace of the physical prehistoric like athleticism of a Oscar rob or wilt???? I think these numbers are in the ballpark of what would be appropriate if we are trying to look at a players ABILITY moreso over 40 mins in a perfect world where conditioning/injuries and pace was equal for everyone. You can always say "well todays iso ball player uses more % of a teams possesions" but are you really trying to say that the games of a Wilt/Russell/Oscar are really gonna thrive in the halfcourt instead of their circus like pace where Antoni like defense would at least be the league avg??? 2 sides to every argument. Its funny to me how all these old ass players get exposed and Bill Russell ends up as a less athletic Tyson Chandler and everyones nostalgia metr hits offended
Its not the minutes differences which should be accounted for but the pace differences which renders lower FG% for some players in the 60s and higher FG% for 80s players, which in turn makes them have higher Points/100 possesions if not correctly changed.

[MoBe1Kanobi]

Its not the minutes differences which should be accounted for but the pace differences which renders lower FG% for some players in the 60s and higher FG% for 80s players, which in turn makes them have higher Points/100 possesions if not correctly changed.

Im not followin u exactly.. What r the variables that are rendering lower FG % for pre 80s players? I was of the understanding that the difference in ppg was because of a slowung of the pace

[La Frescobaldi]

MJ and Kobe's greatest scoring seasons were/are, two of the three greatest of all-time.

As for Wilt, I have long maintained that his peak seasons were probably either 65-66, or 66-67. His 65-66 season was his last great scoring season, but it wasn't just the 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, 5.2 apg, and .540 FG% (in a league that shot .433 overall), but take a look at his pure domination of his opposing HOF centers. He absolutely owned Russell, Thurmond, and Bellamy in his head-to-heads. And, while Reed was now playing PF alongside Bellamy, in the season before, 64-65, when he was playing center, Chamberlain averaged 40 ppg against him in nine head-to-head meetings.

Almost everyone acknowledges that his 66-67 was among the greatest ever. he "only" averaged 24.1 ppg, but he did ocassionally explode just to prove he could. He had the NBA high game that season (58 points on 26-34 shooting, as well as a 42 point game on 18-18 shooting), and the scoring champ, Rick Barry (35.6 ppg) "thanked" Wilt for "letting" him win it. BTW, in the very next season, Wilt had games of 52, 53, 53, and an NBA high of 68. His .683 FG% was staggering, considering that the league shot .441, and the next highest mark was .521.

And I have always wondered how his 69-70 season would have played out had he not blown out his knee. In his first nine games he was leading the league in scoring at 32.2 ppg. (on .579 shooting BTW), including games of 38 against reigning MVP Wes Unseld, and 42 on star Bob Rule, as well as a 25 point game against rookie Kareem, in which he outplayed him in every facet of the game. In that ninth game, he had scored 33 points on 13-14 shooting, too.

Your two posts reveal a most interesting inquiry. I also find your user name to be intriguing.
I've come back from a nice trip away myself, to find one of the youngsters anxiously waiting to tell me he had been using my user name to make some... rather irrational posts on ISH. He was very upset that my reputation was 'tarnished' (nice word for a kid, I thought) and that I'd lost one of my gateways to the world lol. I'm afraid instead of punishing him in some way (as his parents recommended) I just pointed out that ISH is, after all, merely a pleasant diversion, and my self esteem, however humble, doesn't really rest on an internet bulletin board.But, tempests and teacups aside, it's great to see what appears to be an old friend on here..... and if I may add, a very apt username!

To the point - great as that '67 season was, I've always thought Chamberlain was as good or even better in '68 - a season for which he gets very little credit, because of the Sixer squad's collapse under all the injuries in the playoffs.
His stats absolutely declined year over year - almost right across the board - but the way he had.... more or less learned, in a way, to completely take over games.... just has no rival as far as I've ever seen. Wilt had learned how to completely destroy other team's offenses while still playing at his 1967 level on the offensive side of the court.
It may be nostalgia, like many ISH guys have for Jordan or Bird, or whoever it is for them.... but those are the greatest seasons I've seen from an individual player.

[Thorn]

jlauber welcome back friend, we were worried about you :banana:

[DatAsh]

Although this topic involves speculation, the OP is using flawed information. Instead, let's sue actual comparative statistical information.

The starting baseline numbers of relevance should be 118.8 ppg, 108 FGA/game, 37 FTA/game, 61 rpg, and the always overlooked stat of .426 eFG%. Those were the league averages in Wilt's historic '62 season. And, no, his personal team averages should not be used. Wilt took his team, on his back, and drove them to their numbers...in that season. He was generally a "catch-and-shoot" shooter, unlike MJ and Kobe, players who would dribble for several seconds in orer to get their shots.

Also, keep in mind that Wilt's numbers were achieved playing nearly very minute of every game. Why is that important? Because the OP is basing his evaluations on a 40 mpg basis. Think about just how unfair that is to a player who played every minute of every game, in a season in which he also played a ton of back-to-back games, including separate stretches of six, three-in-a-rows; three, four-in-a-rows; and even another separate stretch of, five games in five days.

Does anyone in their right mind believe that a Shaq, in 2000, who played a career high 40 mpg, would have continued to play at the same levels, playing 48 mpg? Would his rebounds per game have gone from 13.6 rpg in 40 mpg, to a projected 16.3 rpg playing 48 mpg? Would he have continued to shoot .574 from the field, playing an exhausting 48 mpg? And doing so in a schedule of 20 or so back-to-back games? Keep in mind that Shaq's playoff numbers, with one days rest, were considerly less than when he had two. Meanwhile, Wilt was playing in an era of playoff series with not only back-to-back games, but with even three-in-a-row.

And given Chamberlain's history of playing 45.8 mpg over his entire career, and then an unfathomable 47.2 mpg over the course of his 160 post-season games, or that his worst season was "only" 42.3 mpg (on a Laker team that went 69-13 and on their games by NBA record margins), or that in his last season, at age 36, he was playing 43.2 mpg...there would have been no era in which he would only b playing 40 mpg. I suspect that a prime Chamberlain would have led the league just like he did nearly ever season...so that would mean at least 42-43- an even 44 mpg (jst take a look at the league leaders year-after-year.) So, even in Shaq's 2000 season, in which he played that career high 40 mpg, Michael Finley was leading the leaue at 42.2 mpg.

So then, the reverse has to also be taken into account...that Wilt's efficiencies wold surely rise only playing a hypothetical 40 mpg. Would Wilt's rebound rate of 25.7 rpg, at 48.5 mpg, have been a straight drop to 21.4 rpg? Or would his rebounding efficiency have risen somewhat to counter the drop? And if so, how much? Same with his FG%. Surely his .506 FG% would have been considerably higher playing less minutes in a season which had the most demandin schedule in NB history.

Let's begin. Since I mentioned Shaq's 2000 season, we'll start there.

Once again here were Shaq's numbers. 40 mpg, 29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg, and on .574 shooting. In that '99-00 season, the NBA averaged 97.5 ppg, 43 rpg, and had an eFG% of .478. And, the average team took 82 FGAs per game, and 25 FTAs per game.

In Wilt's '61-62 season, Chamberlain averaged 39.5 FGAs per game, in a league that averaged 108 FGA, and he averaged 17 FTAs per game, in a league that shot 37 FTAs per team on average. He shot .506 from the field (in a league that had an eFG% of .426...more on that later), and shot .613 from the line.

Here we go...reduce Wilt's FGAs down to 99-00 levels (82/108 x 39.5), and he would have averaged an even 30 FGAs per game. Multiply his .506 FG% by that 30 FGA, and he would have averaged 15.2 FGM per game, or 30.4 ppg from the field. Reduce his 17 FTAs down to '99-00 levels, (37/25 x 17) and he would have taken 11.4 FTA per game. Since he shot .613 from the line that season, he woul have made an even 7 FT's per game. 30.4 + 7 = 37.4 ppg.

Multiply that 37.4 ppg by .825 (40/48.5), and he would have averaged 30.9 ppg in 2000, playing 40 mpg.

But wait...we forgot something. Wilt's '62 NBA ony had an eFG% of .426, while Shaq's '00 had an eFG of .478. So what you ask? If we are going to hypothetically reduce Wilt's '62 season numbers down to '00 levels, we also have to raise the FG%'s to equalize the conditions. Why? In the 99-00 season, the average NBA team averaged 97.5 ppg. If we don't equalize the FG%'s, then the average team from '61-62 will only average 32.3 made FGAs per game, or 64.6 ppg on FGAs. Then factor in that they would only average 18 ppg on their 25 FTAs (.727), ...for a total of 84.6 ppg...or over 13 ppg less than the average team in 2000.

How do we equalize it again? Raise the league FG% to an adjusted .478. Suddenly, in '62, the average team would be making 39.2 FGM per game, or 78.4 ppg. Add the 18 ppg that they did from the line, and then the average team in '62 would be scoring 96.4 ppg. By the way, the reason it is not equal has a considerable amount to do with Wilt's FT shooting. Take a look at the NBA's FT% before Wilt arrived. In the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756 from the line (in 2000 it was .755.) Furthermore, in the season after Wilt retired, '73-74, the NBA shot .771.

What does all of that have to do with Wilt's scoring average in '99-00? Once again, reducing his FGAs down to '00 levels, he would have taken 30 FGAs per game. But, instead of making 15.2 FGs per game (based on his .506 FG%), he would make an adjusted 17.1 FGs per game (.478/.426, x .506) on an adjusted FG% of .568. 17.1 x2 = 34.2 ppg, + 7 ppg from the line, or 41.2 ppg. Reduce 41.2 ppg by playing 40 mpg, instead of 48.5 mpg, and he would have averaged an even 34.0 ppg (on .568 shooting.)

Of course, you could do this much easily. The average NBA team averaged 118.8 ppg in '62, and 97.5 ppg in '00. Divide 97.5 by 118.8, and you get .821. Multiply 50.4 ppg by .821, and you have 41.4 ppg. Multiply 41.4 by .825 and Wilt's scoring average, in 40 mpg, would have been 34.2 ppg.

How about rebounding? In the 61-62 season, the NBA averaged about 61 rpg per team (after adjusting for team rebounds.) In Shaq's '99-00 season, it was at 43 rpg. This is relatively easy. 43/61 = .705. Multiply Wilt's 25.7 rpg times .705, and it omes out atw18.1 rpg. Multiply 18.1 times .825, and it becomes an adjusted 14.9 rpg, which would have led the league(and here again, that is a Wilt only playing 40 mpg.)


You can the above in any of the OP's scenarios. How about MJ's '86-87 season?

88 FGA, 30.5 FTA, 44 rpg, and on an eFG% of .488.

Chamberlain's numbers would then be, 32.2 FGAs, and 14 FTAs per game. His FG% would have risen to .580 (488/426 x 506), or 18.7 FGM per game, or 37.4 ppg. And he woud have made 8.6 FTs per game (14 x .613), or a total of 46 ppg. Multiply 46 x .825, and he woud have averaged 38 ppg...playing the same mpg as MJ (37.1 ppg on 40 mpg.)

And he would have averaged 18.5 rpg playing 48 mpg (25.7 rpg x .721), or 15.3 rpg...playing 40 mpg.

So, to recap, Wilt, in 86-87, would have averaged 38 ppg, on .580 shooting, and 15.3 rpg...all while only playing 40 mpg.

Once again, though, the above numbers don't take into account the extra efficiency "boost" that a Chamberlain, only playing 40 mpg, instead of 48.5 mpg, would have surely received.

Go ahead...use those formulas for any of the OP's listings. Wilt's 61-62 season stands as the greatest scoring season of all-time.

Are you JLauber?

I agree with your sentiments of 67' Wilt being not only his greatest season, but the greatest season of any player, period.

I tend to think 62' Wilt is drastically overrated because of the role he played. I'd take 66', 67', 68' and 64' Wilt all before I'd take 62' Wilt.

Also, much of your math is flawed, but I can't say I entirely disagree with your conclusions.

[ThaRegul8r]

Are you JLauber?

Yes, it is.

As if it weren't evident enough from the content of the posts if one has read enough of them, the choice of the name "Lazeruss," after the whole thing about being dead isn't exactly subtle.

[DatAsh]

Yes, it is.

As if it weren't evident enough from the content of the posts if one has read enough of them, the choice of the name "Lazeruss," after the whole thing about being dead isn't exactly subtle.

What made me suspicious is that he's making a lot of the same mathematical mistakes that Jlauber used to make.

[SyRyanYang]

Finally, someone out-essayed pauk. mad respect.

[fpliii]

jlauber going up against pauk? Hmmm...

[La Frescobaldi]

jlauber going up against pauk? Hmmm...

powk posts = far better than the personal assaults that other guy always used because he had 0 value to add. a true null.
mullwad or something like that.
nullwad.

[deja vu]

Wow! Jlauber is back! :banana:

[L8kersfan222]

Pauk exposed.

[sundizz]

Are you JLauber?

I agree with your sentiments of 67' Wilt being not only his greatest season, but the greatest season of any player, period.

I tend to think 62' Wilt is drastically overrated because of the role he played. I'd take 66', 67', 68' and 64' Wilt all before I'd take 62' Wilt.

Also, much of your math is flawed, but I can't say I entirely disagree with your conclusions.

It's a great post. However you can't just say ridiculous stuff like could Shaq play 48 mpg. It's a different era and that is what was expected. Shaq could had played 48 mpg. Albeit, not as well as Wilt. Shaq also played against teams that could scout him with video, against much more sophisticated defenses, with much more scrutiny. What Wilt did was dominate in an undeveloped league. It's not a knock on him. It's just the truth. It's like intramural ball..if someone is much better, there is just nothing you can do to stop him. They had no time to scout, no hack a Wilt going on, etc. Would Wilt be able to play 48 mpg in today's NBA? Sure, I think so. However, he wouldn't because no coach would let him. You talk about playing in games. However, today's athletes hit the gym, go to shootarounds, have media sessions, etc etc. that put additional wear and tear on their bodies. Watching Wilt in high school videos it doesn't seem likely he even played all that much hoops at that point. He looks like a young, lanky giraffe that can't move well. Shaq at high school >>>>>>> Wilt at high school.

[PHILA]

He looks like a young, lanky giraffe that can't move well.

He was very quick and agile in his younger years, though perhaps not as coordinated yet since his body was still growing. He was a tremendous leaper as well.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNw0c19DhIU&t=2m

http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/5110019AA4921_s01.do



http://i.imgur.com/AFcjo4U.png

[kNicKz]

Pauk got exposed

:roll:

[andgar923]

Whether Pauk had an agenda or was flawed, still props to him for even attempting this.

Not only did he try, he tried to explain his methodology (whether we agree with it or not) and he made an easy to read and understand listing of his findings.

I may not always agree with him, but gotta give him props on this for trying.

[Big#50]

Why no Duncan or Dirk?

[Mr. Jabbar]

too boring; didn't read

[Pointguard]

I read the OP somewhere else. I mean Pauk personalized it but I recall the methodology.

I'm with Jesus. Great to have Lazzurus back tho.

[LAZERUSS]

Pauk has been among the better posters here, and it was not my intention to "expose" him. I have read the analysis of the so-called "paceologists" on the topic of Chamberlain's extraordinary feats throughout the years after he retired. Pauk was certainly not the first to bring up "pace."

But it has also been pointed out that the NBA in the 60's, and particularly the early 60's, was played under conditions that were not conducive to the higher FG%'s that would slowly evolve to about the late 70's, when they just exploded. The ball was not uniform until the late 60's, and there are photos from that period with what appears to even be bald basketballs. The games were often played in cold, and even breezy venues. The game was usually played out to no more than about 20 feet, and defenses were more compacted. Traveling conditions were considerably worse, as were hotel accomodations. Medical technology was nothing like what is practiced today, and players were encouraged to play with their injuries. And finally, the scheduling was just brutal. Back-to-back games are a rarity today (and none at all in the playoffs.) In Wilt's '62 season alone, he played in six separate stretches of "three-in-rows"; another three separate runs of "four-in-a-rows: and even yet another separate stretch of an unfathomable "five-games-in-five nights" (and there were two road games in between, as well.)

Take a look at the FG%'s of the players who played in the early 60's, and who also played into the late 60's, or even into the 70's. Almost to a man they climbed. Some by huge margins. Jerry West, whose jump shot looked nearly the same in the '62 all-star game, as it did in video footage in the late 60's and early 70's, had two seasons of shooting .419 and .445. Johnny Green had seasons of .430 shooting early in his career, and by the early 70's, was leading the league. Darrell Imhoff shot as poorly as .386 in the early 60's, and as high as .540 in the late 60's. John Havlicek, whose 16 season career was split evenly between the two decades, shot as poorly as .399 in the early 60's, and then shot better in every season in the decade of the 70's, as he did in his best seasons in the 60's. Baylor shot as poorly as .401 early in the 60's, and as high as .486 late in his career, and on a bum leg. Even Wilt, who would just blow away FG% records later on, shot as poorly as .461 in his first season. These players did not suddenly learn to shoot.

Once again, take a look at the league FT%'s before Wilt arrived, .756 in '59 (keep in mind that in Shaq's 2000 season, the NBA shot .755), and the season after Wilt retired (.771.) And given the conditions that existed in the early 60's (and obviously before), it was amazing that they shot as well as they did.

From the late 70's, to the current NBA, FG%'s have remained relatively steady, with only a dip in the late 90's, and early 00's. But, keep in mind that the use of the 3pt shot has slowly risen from the late 70's, as well. The eFG%'s have been pretty level since then. So, when you read about FG%'s in 2000 being .449, the actual eFG% was .478, which means, of course, that two-point shooting was actually considerably higher, and was brought down by the 3pt percentages. And keep in mind that the 3pt shot also opened up the lanes and stretched out defenders. The post players actually benefitted somewhat.

Still, defenses improved from the late 80's over those from the late 70's thru the mid-80's. Take a look at those great centers who played in the early to mid-80's, and would also play into the 90's. Hakeem had his highest FG% season in his rookie season. Robinson and Ewing shot considerably better early in their careers, than they did in the mid-to-late 90's. Conversely, look at the centers who played in both decades of the 70's and 80's. Players like Kareem and Gilmore, even well past their primes, were shooting miles better in the decade of the 80's. Teams with records of 30-52 were shooting as high as .504 in the early to mid-80's, and that was not even eFG%'s either.

And all of the above is exactly why you have to factor in eFG% in these cross-era comparisions. And it clearly makes a difference in these formulas. As I stated earlier, if you don't take eFG% into account, then the teams of '62, in a league in which they averaged 119 ppg, would only average 85 ppg in Shaq's 2000 season, in a league that averaged 98 ppg.

And here again, you can't tell me that Sharman, who shot as high as .932 from the line in '59, would only be a .440 shooter in the decades of the 70's and beyond. Or West would only shoot as low as .419 in the 80's, or beyond. And, how did a prime Kareem, in the decade of the 70's, have seasons of .539, .529, .518, and even .513 (right in the middle of the 70's)? And yet in the 80's, never shoot below .564, and as high as .604 and .599? Or Gilmore suddenly going from as low as a .522 shooter, to having six seasons of .618+ in the 80's. Or MJ's FG%'s declining almost every season in the 90's. Or, as I mentioned earlier, Hakeem, Ewing, and Robinson all having their most efficient seasons early in their careers, and then generally declining after that.

And, by-the-way, the game was not it's infancy in the 60's either. The game was invented in the 1890's, and the dimensions, ball, hoop, and number of players has all remained relatively the same. And there really have only been two major rules changes that truly affected the game. The shot-clock, introduced in the 50's, and the 3pt shot, which the NBA adopted in the late 70's (and the ABA had been playing with since the 60's.) Sure, there were minor changes, like three-seconds, offensive and defensive goal-tending (all of which preceded Wilt BTW), and other's like the widening of the lane (which did not affect Wilt at all.) BTW, college basketball still uses the 12 ft lane that was in place before the "anti-Wilt" rule of widening it to 16 ft before the '65 season.

The game was invented in the 1890's, and was played by colleges in the late 1890's. There were professional teams as far back as the 1920's. And the NBA was established in 1946. So, no, the NBA, and particularly basketball, was not in it's infancy in the early 60's.

Nor do the Wilt-detractors bring up the fact that he was still capable of 60 point games even into the last season of the 60's (and was averaging 32.2 ppg in the last season of the 60's when his shredded his knee.) Or that Chamberlain was averaging 22.5 rpg in his 17 post-season games in his very last season (72-73), and that the highest post-season rpg playoffs since was Kareem's 17.3 rpg in his 11 games in the '77 playoffs. BTW, Wilt's 22.5 rpg average came in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg.

Or that, as ThaRegul8r's research produced...that a 36 year old Chamberlain, in his last season, averaged 5.5 bpg, which is interesting given the fact that Mark Eaton set the NBA record of 5.6 bpg only 12 years later. And while we don't have solid numbers to back it up, none other than the esteemed Harvey Pollack had Wilt with seasons of 10+ bpg. And in some research, estimates had Chamberlain with dozens of double digit games in the mid-60's...with several in the 20's, and even a couple as high as 30+. And there is a recorded game, by SI, in 1968, in which Wilt blocked 23 shots.

And Russell was the only player who was close to Wilt in that category. Kareem and an aging Thurmond, actually played in the season in which the NBA started "officially" recording blocked shots, and neither were within the grand canyon of blocking 5 bpg, much less more.

Finally, for those that attempt to diminish what Chamberlain was capable of, how about his last two seasons, and against 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier, who probably had his best season in one of them, in which. over the course of 11 straight games, Chamberlain averaged 23.9 ppg, on an unfathomable .784 FG%. Or that a prime Wilt averaged (yes averaged) 48.2 ppg against 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy (who would measure at over 7-0 in today's NBA), over the course of 20 (yes 20) straight games. And yet, Kareem faced Bellamy on numerous occasions, and his high game against him was only 39 (and Bellamy more than held his own against him.) Or that a prime "scoring" Wilt averaged 30 ppg against 6-11 HOFer Nate Thurmond, over the course of 11 straight games, including highs of 38 and 45 (outscoring Thurmond by margins of 38-15 and 45-13), and yet, Kareem faced Thurmond in some 40 H2H's, and only had seven games of 30+, with a high game of 34.

The fact was, a 38-39 year old Kareem could average 32 ppg on .633 shooting in ten straight games against a 23 year old Hakeem, and even lit up Ewing in a game in which he outscored Patrick, 40-9, in the about the same week he shelled Hakeem with a 46 point in only 37 minutes of play.

So, for those that suggest that a prime Wilt would not be among the best players of this era, is to suggest that Kareem, Hakeem, and even Shaq, would not be, either.

[Alan Ogg]

Here's a link to basketball reference's stats on the pace / possessions per game.

70s are more like 100 to 110
80s 107 to 109
early 90s 100 to 106
late 90s to present 95 to 100

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html?redir

[Alan Ogg]

Another possible way to adjust would be league average points per game.

60s 110-118
70s 102-112
80s 107-110
early 90s 101-106
mid 90s to present 93 to 100

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Here's a link to basketball reference's stats on the pace / possessions per game.

70s are more like 100 to 110
80s 107 to 109
early 90s 100 to 106
late 90s to present 95 to 100

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html?redir

Look at the number of 3pa.. good stuff. thanks.

[iamgine]

Another possible way to adjust would be league average points per game.

60s 110-118
70s 102-112
80s 107-110
early 90s 101-106
mid 90s to present 93 to 100
FGA+.5*FTA is better

[RoundMoundOfReb]

FGA+.5*FTA is better
i think i read somewhere that each ft is worth .41 fga cause of techs and and-1s.

[keepinitreal]

Good job you guys. Interesting data Pauk, and good job pointing out the flawed assumptions LAZERUSS.:applause:

[black&scholes]

lebron is goat, we already know

[Poetry]

http://i.imgur.com/AFcjo4U.png

Why is this in widescreen? Isn't it supposed to be in a 4:3 ratio?

[La Frescobaldi]

It's a great post. However you can't just say ridiculous stuff like could Shaq play 48 mpg. It's a different era and that is what was expected. Shaq could had played 48 mpg. Albeit, not as well as Wilt. Shaq also played against teams that could scout him with video, against much more sophisticated defenses, with much more scrutiny. What Wilt did was dominate in an undeveloped league. It's not a knock on him. It's just the truth. It's like intramural ball..if someone is much better, there is just nothing you can do to stop him. They had no time to scout, no hack a Wilt going on, etc. Would Wilt be able to play 48 mpg in today's NBA? Sure, I think so. However, he wouldn't because no coach would let him. You talk about playing in games. However, today's athletes hit the gym, go to shootarounds, have media sessions, etc etc. that put additional wear and tear on their bodies. Watching Wilt in high school videos it doesn't seem likely he even played all that much hoops at that point. He looks like a young, lanky giraffe that can't move well. Shaq at high school >>>>>>> Wilt at high school.
O'Neal would have to prove he could play 82 games a year before we could talk about anything even close to 45 mpg for his career.
HackaShaq was well known to have come from coach Nellie who loudly proclaimed he dusted off Auerbach's playbooks that Red invented to stop Chamberlain.... and Nelson knew what he was doing since he was a main perp himself.

[feyki]

More like this ;

80's - 100-105

70's - 105-110 ( Btw , Pace of 74 Finals was 97.5 )

Second Half Of 60's - 110-115

64 and 65 - 115-120

Early 60's - 120-130

Late 50's - 120-125

Mid 50's - 110-115

Early 50's - 85-95

..

And don't forget " TS% , league average or opponent level " to adjusting defence .