Prime Wilt and Russell in Today's NBA

[SilkkTheShocker]

Where would they rank in the league?

[bmulls]

They'd be really good, but Wilt ain't averaging 50 ppg today

[AngelEyes]

Wilt would be 1a or 1b with Lebron. Russell would be the 3rd best player in the NBA.

[IGOTGAME]

How can people go crazy over Noel's potential but only see Russel as the 3rd best player on a team. Russel was more athletic than that kid.

[TheReal Kendall]

Top 2 players in the league and eventually GOATS.

Who's gonna stop either of them? Especially Wilt

[AngelEyes]

Top 2 players in the league and eventually GOATS.

Who's gonna stop either of them? Especially Wilt

Nobody is stopping Wilt obviously. I think LeBron would be right with them in terms of the most dominant, unstoppable players. Wilt, Lebron, and Russell would unquestionably be the three best players in the NBA.

[CavaliersFTW]

Nobody is stopping Wilt obviously. I think LeBron would be right with them in terms of the most dominant, unstoppable players. Wilt, Lebron, and Russell would unquestionably be the three best players in the NBA.
^- this

[IncarceratedBob]

Bill would be Tyson Chandler

[CavaliersFTW]

Bill would be Tyson Chandler
Can Tyson Chandler do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF22xiRxHv8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2AlFrOj5Mc

[JimmyMcAdocious]

In a league where every player who has ever played was active, Kareem would be the most dominating force in the league.

[IncarceratedBob]

Bill had no offensive game, just put backs and dunks.

Similar to Ty Chan

[jongib369]

Nobody is stopping Wilt obviously. I think LeBron would be right with them in terms of the most dominant, unstoppable players. Wilt, Lebron, and Russell would unquestionably be the three best players in the NBA.

Imagine a team with those 3...

[9erempiree]

Both would probably be dominating this league. This era of '10 and beyond is the weakest era in history.

Not enough superstars to carry out franchises because they are taking pay cuts to join the same team. It makes it a top heavy league rather than being spread out.

[CavaliersFTW]

Bill had no offensive game, just put backs and dunks.

Similar to Ty Chan
Yeah sure... but you left out his passing court vision left hook right hook and jump shot...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg3vui0Uvcc

[Dionysus]

Wilt would be 1a or 1b with Lebron. Russell would be the 3rd best player in the NBA.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

This is laughable, Wilt would be at best a mixture of Andrew Bynum and Tyson Chandler. He wouldn't avg no higher than 18ppg 11reb. Would be a middle of the pack top 30 player.

Russel would have no scoring abilty. Would be shocked if he had a season in this era averaging over 9ppg. He would however battle for a top 5 spot in rebounds a game. He'd average around 14 rebounds a game along with 2blks. Would make multiple All Defensive Teams and a few allstar games selected by coaches.

This isn't a league full of white midgets with no athletic abilities anymore ladies and gentlemen.

I'll give Wilt this, the regular season, he would most likely average LMA type numbers.

[IncarceratedBob]

Yeah sure... but you left out his passing court vision left hook right hook and jump shot...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg3vui0Uvcc
C'mon buddy,

I'm sure I can pull up a highlight reel of Tyson chandler looking like prime Shaq, it don't mean shit.

Highlights are exactly that, a player at their best.

Bill wasnt an offensive genius, great defensively tho. Similar to chandler post 2010

[Sarcastic]

Kevin Love can average 15 rpg in today's league, but Wilt could only average 11? :facepalm

[WayOfWade]

With modern workouts and food and training, I think they'd both be superstars, primarily because the current crop of centers is worse than a can of petrified poop.

[Poetry]

Wilt Chamberlain is hard to judge. His dominance is due to his monstrous size/athletisicm and he had relatively little skills unlike Shaq who had both.

:biggums:

[Psycho]

If Wilt and Russell had grown up in today's era they'd be egotistical crybabies who would have little to no offensive skills other than bricking fadeaway 3s.

[Jameerthefear]

Note: Don't reply to Psycho, Tony, or Dion's posts. They're all trolls.

Now on topic, I think they'd be the two best players in the league.

[Psycho]

Note: Don't reply to Psycho, Tony, or Dion's posts. They're all trolls.

Now on topic, I think they'd be the two best players in the league.

What are you, like 12?

I am saying that today's developmental leagues for young players does not encourage players to experiment and use difficult skills during games so as to foster mastery of said skills. Wilt and Russell grew up in an era where they could try and get away with whatever the fk they wanted, so they developed skills they would not growing up in the modern era.

[HoopsFanNumero1]

Note: Don't reply to Psycho, Tony, or Dion's posts. They're all trolls.

Now on topic, I think they'd be the two best players in the league.

Based on what? It's not like you've seen them play.

[senelcoolidge]

Bill Russell would be Joakim Noah. A tad bit better on the boards.

Wilt Chamberlain is hard to judge. His dominance is due to his monstrous size/athletisicm and he had relatively little skills unlike Shaq who had both. He would still have that monstrous size, but against the quicker defenses there is no way he would be as successful.

He would be a taller and longer Dwight Howard, which is still pretty good. He'd be top 3 with LeBron and Durant. LeBron would still be the best.

LOL, Wilt's skill set, stamina, and work ethic make Shaq look like Bismack Biyombo. Shaq could have been up there with the likes of Wilt and Kareem, but the guy was lazy and not as good defensively. Not as good a rebounder either. Wilt had elite defensive and offensive skills. Nothing like it since.

[Psycho]

LOL, Wilt's skill set, stamina, and work ethic make Shaq look like Bismack Biyombo. Shaq could have been up there with the likes of Wilt and Kareem, but the guy was lazy and not as good defensively. Not as good a rebounder either. Wilt had elite defensive and offensive skills. Nothing like it since.

Shaq was a very skilled offensive player, jump shots and free throws aside. And he didn't need to give effort defensively, people were scared to go near the guy.

[Scholar]

Bill Russell would likely be like Ben Wallace with Dennis Rodman-like rebounding numbers. If KLove can average 15 rpg, I'm sure Russell would average more.

Wilt would likely be the reincarnation of Shaquille O'Neal with much better athleticism. I'd go so far as to say he'd probably average the same numbers Shaq did in his first 2-3 seasons, but obviously for a longer stretch since Wilt wouldn't get out of shape.

[CavaliersFTW]

Bill Russell would likely be like Ben Wallace with Dennis Rodman-like rebounding numbers. If KLove can average 15 rpg, I'm sure Russell would average more.

Wilt would likely be the reincarnation of Shaquille O'Neal with much better athleticism. I'd go so far as to say he'd probably average the same numbers Shaq did in his first 2-3 seasons, but obviously for a longer stretch since Wilt wouldn't get out of shape.
Do you guys even watch the videos I post of Bill Russell or do you just stick to judging players based on reputation and bball reference stats? I mean, I get it, Russell was a "defensive" center by reputation who also put up gaudy rebounding numbers - but on film what in the hell is it about Bill Russell's actual abilities on the floor that could even be considered similar to how Ben Wallace played? Russell running 5 positions on offense, shooting right and left handed hook shots, and jump shots, and his crazy hands and athleticism - and his FINESSE defensive/offensive style that revolved around the flexibility of his long lean build just doesn't remind me of "Ben Wallace" at all.

[aj1987]

They might eat up the boards, but people seem to forget that the rules favor perimeter players. GOAT defenders is what they'd be. Wilt might actually be pretty good defensively, but no way he's averaging over 30 PPG.

[TheReal Kendall]

This thread is hilarious!

Do y'all really hate Bill or are y'all just ignorant to his overall game?

Y'all are really underrating both of these guys so much that it's laughable.

I can only assume that most of you guys are young and haven't watched film on neither Wilt nor Russel.

"Bill would be Ben Wallace":facepalm:facepalm :facepalm Wilt would be like Tyson Chandler:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[Jameerthefear]

This thread is hilarious!

Do y'all really hate Bill or are y'all just ignorant to his overall game?

Y'all are really underrating both of these guys so much that it's laughable.

I can only assume that most of you guys are young and haven't watched film on neither Wilt nor Russel.

"Bill would be Ben Wallace":facepalm:facepalm :facepalm Wilt would be like Tyson Chandler:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
It's just the usual lame band of trolls telling the same lame jokes again. Don't pay attention.

[Dionysus]

This thread is hilarious!

Do y'all really hate Bill or are y'all just ignorant to his overall game?

Y'all are really underrating both of these guys so much that it's laughable.

I can only assume that most of you guys are young and haven't watched film on neither Wilt nor Russel.

"Bill would be Ben Wallace":facepalm:facepalm :facepalm Wilt would be like Tyson Chandler:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

If You watched Russel and Wilt vids like you say. Then you would have witnessed the JV competition those 2 played against.

[SilkkTheShocker]

All I know is that neither would be better than LeBron James.

[TheReal Kendall]

All I know is that neither would be better than LeBron James.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Lebron wouldn't be getting any media exposure if these 2 were in the league not.

[Deuce Bigalow]

LOL, Wilt's skill set, stamina, and work ethic make Shaq look like Bismack Biyombo. Shaq could have been up there with the likes of Wilt and Kareem, but the guy was lazy and not as good defensively. Not as good a rebounder either. Wilt had elite defensive and offensive skills. Nothing like it since.
http://jerseychaser.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Shaq-Dwight-Howard-Beef-150x150.jpg

[Gifted Mind]

It depends on which year of their primes, primes span a longer amount of time. Nonetheless, Russell, Wilt, and LeBron would be the clear-cut 3 best players in the NBA.

[SyRyanYang]

Can Tyson Chandler do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF22xiRxHv8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2AlFrOj5Mc

Maybe, if you speed him up.

[K]

http://jerseychaser.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Shaq-Dwight-Howard-Beef-150x150.jpg

Why do Americans always make these stupid team arguments for individual players?

[Pushxx]

Prime Wilt would be an absolute monster. People have no idea.

Russell's defense would be like prime KG's defense...but better...think about that for a second.

People would be in awe of those two specimens.

[Legends66NBA7]

[QUOTE=K

[K]

It's just a more recent trend in the sporting world/talk in North America. Individually though, O'Neal can match up with any center of all-time.

I know, but I wouldn't think any less of him if he played exactly the same but just didn't have any championships with his team. It's so senseless. Yet even the smartest posters on this website seem buy into that.

[Legends66NBA7]

[QUOTE=K

[EnoughSaid]

Realistically, and I'm not sure, I think Wilt could put up 25/14 or something crazy like that. Maybe more points. But he'd be the best big man by a longshot and would be destroying this current crop of centers.

[KOBE143]

Rank Javale Mcgee and Joel Anthony and you will get what you're looking for..

Probably the most accurate answer that you will get..

[WillC]

It's impossible to know how Wilt and Russell would perform in today's NBA, just as it will be impossible to know if LeBron would be effective in the NBA in 2060.

Having said that, I wish kids would stop trying to tarnish the reputations of NBA legends by comparing them to Joel Anthony and Javale McGee. It makes you look incredibly naive and ignorant.

What Wilt and Russell achieved in their era makes them top 4 players of all-time. Let's just accept that and move on.

[The-Legend-24]

:oldlol: @ Bill Russell being top 3. Dude would be a Ben Wallace type player at best.

[deja vu]

Wilt would be a slightly better version of Dwight Howard. A jumping pogo stick who gets dunks and blocks because of his freakish athleticism. Just watch old videos of Wilt dominating short white centers who wouldn't even sniff the D-League bench if they play today.

All he needs to score is to dunk and lay up the ball over these short dudes who aren't even jumping to challenge the shot. I guarantee you that if he tries to that sh*t in today's NBA, it will get rejected 80% of the time. NBA centers may suck right now compare to the 90s but they're still 100x the athletes of centers in the 50s and 60s. No more 6'5" white centers guarding Wilt.

For Pete's sake, Wilt was just laying in the ball and his opponent rarely even challenges the shot. Haha. I haven't seen Wilt doing some amazing footwork and post moves a la Hakeem or Kareem. His offense is predicated on dunking and laying up the ball over the heads of weak and short defenders. In short, a slightly better version of Dwight. LOL. He can't even make a half decent hook shot. Yao Ming when he was still playing had 10x the skill of Wilt aside from being 5 inches taller, and he averaged 25+ppg only once in his career.

Anyway, Wilt would still be the best center in the league because the current crop is so weak. As for Bill Russell? People are claiming that he's the best big man ever and GOAT candidate. Get real, he's a great rebounder and defender, but an average scorer. In the 60s, he averaged about 16-18 ppg when the pace was sky high, so no, he won't average like that nowadays. He'll average around 8-12 ppg today. In short, a slightly better Tyson Chandler.

[BoutPractice]

They'd be seen as the two best centers in the league, both ahead of Dwight and past his prime Tim Duncan.

Russell would be like Joakim Noah (currently a top 3-4 center in the league) on steroids, or Kevin Garnett with better defense against centers and rebounding but without the midrange jumpshot and turnaround.

Wilt, especially at his peak, is a player today's league is simply not prepared for: a dominant two-way center well over 7 feet tall. If you look at Roy Hibbert against Miami, you'll get an idea of how well Wilt would do nowadays.

[Inactive]

I think Wilt might average something like 28/15/5 with 4 or 5 blocks. At worst he's a 23/15/3/2.5 bigger version of Dwight.

It's hard to say what Russell might've done, but he had an abundance of athleticism, drive, and bbiq, so I'm sure he'd be one of the better players. Maybe something like a prime KG, with +2-3 rpg/bpg, and -5 ppg. 16-18/14-16/5 with 3-5 blocks.

[Dionysus]

It's hard to say what Russell might've done, but he had an abundance of athleticism, drive, and bbiq, so I'm sure he'd be one of the better players. Maybe something like a prime KG, with +2-3 rpg/bpg, and -5 ppg. 16-18/14-16/5 with 3-5 blocks.

Is this post foreal life?:roll: :roll: :roll:

If Russel's highest average was only 18 points per game 1 year during a ridiculous paced weak era, what would leave you to even fathom the possibility of this bloke to average 16-18 points in a more athletic, stronger era?

Russel averaged 15 points per game for his career in the weak era. He'd average 7ppg at best during these times. I will give you the rebounding and blocks. Skinnier Ben Wallace.

[LAZERUSS]

Is this post foreal life?:roll: :roll: :roll:

If Russel's highest average was only 18 points per game 1 year during a ridiculous paced weak era, what would leave you to even fathom the possibility of this bloke to average 16-18 points in a more athletic, stronger era?

Russel averaged 15 points per game for his career in the weak era. He'd average 7ppg at best during these times. I will give you the rebounding and blocks. Skinnier Ben Wallace.

Russell had seasons of 18+ ppg, post-seasons of 20+, and even a Finals in which he averaged 24 ppg. He also had seven 30-30 games in his career, including a game seven in the Finals of 30-40. He also had a Finals series in which he averaged 18 ppg, 27 rpg, and get this... shot .702 from the FIELD!

Even factoring in the SLIGHTLY higher pace of the 60's (my god, everyone just looks at the 61-62 season...by 68-69 the league was at 112.3 ppg), his scoring numbers would still have dwarfed Wallace's. And, of course, I guess averaging as high as 6 apg doesn't count either, right?

Just take a look at the footage that exiists and then get back to me. Russell was a FAR greater offensive player than Wallace (and probably many other "modern" centers, as well.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Prime Wilt would be an absolute monster. People have no idea.

Russell's defense would be like prime KG's defense...but better...think about that for a second.

People would be in awe of those two specimens.

So they would be the 2nd and 3rd best players in the league after LeBron? I think Wilt's game would translate better than Russell's for what its worth. But Im just not buying these guys taking over the league.

[madmax]

in other words, a Javale Mcgee and Ben Wallace of these days:bowdown: I'd guess they would be right in the middle of the pack as NBA players then

[Flash31]

Most of y'all in this thread commenting should NEVER EVER
Post about basketball.

Y'all are saying Bill and Wilt would be Chandler and Noah

Wilt had basic offensive skills,they were unathletic,they had weak competition


WOW,THE SHEER IGNORANCE is Ridiculous


The GOAT DEFENDER and GOAT CENTER AND 2ND BEST REBOUNDER
is compared to an above avg center nowadays,wow

The GOAT SCORER,MOST DOMINANT REBOUNDEER,2ND GOAT C Defender,Most Dominant NBA player in History is getting compared to an
avg 10,10 type player,WOW


It's beyond clear that most of y'all here do not know a damn thing about basketball and should never be allowed to post or write or even speak about it

[WillC]

Is this post foreal life?:roll: :roll: :roll:

If Russel's highest average was only 18 points per game 1 year during a ridiculous paced weak era, what would leave you to even fathom the possibility of this bloke to average 16-18 points in a more athletic, stronger era?

Russel averaged 15 points per game for his career in the weak era. He'd average 7ppg at best during these times. I will give you the rebounding and blocks. Skinnier Ben Wallace.

Are we supposed to value the opinion of someone who can't even spell Bill Russell's name properly?

[Inactive]

Is this post foreal life?:roll: :roll: :roll:

If Russel's highest average was only 18 points per game 1 year during a ridiculous paced weak era, what would leave you to even fathom the possibility of this bloke to average 16-18 points in a more athletic, stronger era?19 ppg was his high, he had 2 years over 18 ppg. He wasn't taking that many shots despite the pace, and he was playing on stacked teams. I think there is some evidence that Russell could elevate his scoring when it was required, but I'll admit my estimate was partly inflated based on reputation.


Russel averaged 15 points per game for his career in the weak era. He'd average 7ppg at best during these times. I will give you the rebounding and blocks. Skinnier Ben Wallace.When guys like Taj Gibson, and Chris Andersen average 12-13 pp36, I have a hard time imagining Russell would score less. Just running the floor, and putting back some offensive rebounds should guarantee him a double double with starter minutes.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Are we supposed to value the opinion of someone who can't even spell Bill Russell's name properly?

Dionysus is the smartest poster on the forum.

[Psileas]

Wilt and Russell in any NBA = Candidates for #1. Russell might be considered a controversial choice though, since his scoring stats would not be in par with the average superstar's and many would be baffled with his teams winning so much. They would attribute it to his teammates. Much like they do with Russell's case IRL.

[Owl]

Wilt and Russell in any NBA = Candidates for #1. Russell might be considered a controversial choice though, since his scoring stats would not be in par with the average superstar's and many would be baffled with his teams winning so much. They would attribute it to his teammates. Much like they do with Russell's case IRL.
Debating Russell's merits is a relative thing. Obviously he was an all time elite rebounder and probably the best defensive player ever.

However when looking at his teams' winning (as with all players and how well their teams fared) I think you have to look at team context. By about '62 (off top of my head) he was both low usage (disguised by low minutes) and, for a center, low efficiency (in part because, like Wilt, he was a dreadful ft shooter) scorer. Relative to peers like Robertson and Chamberlain it's difficult to argue he didn't usually have substantially better supporting casts ('67 76ers would be close, as would '68 if you include playoff injured Cunningham, '69 Lakers were the more talented team but a bad fit, especially the coach). Even with Russell tabbed as greatest defender of all time IMO, I think Russell gets too large a portion of credit for the Celtics' awesome D, on the later teams at least. Sanders and KC were called the best defensive forward and guard of the 60s. Then throw in Havlicek who was consistently 1st team All-D once that accolade was created. Howell was a scrapper too. Reserves like Siegfried, Bryant and Embry weren't bad in that area either.

None of which is to say he wouldn't translate (though obviously he did gain some advantages from era, e.g. pace inflated stats and black quotas which must at least be considered when evaluating all early 60s numbers; plus arriving just after the implementation of the shot clock in the pros and in an era when it wasn't implemented at all at lower levels, so that players who weren't used to taking/judging "compromise" shots were forced to do so), the Ben Wallace comparison has been made, but (at very least) relative their peers Russell was superior in every aspect of the game: he was an all-time elite, rather than merely very good, rebounder; he was not a liability as a scorer as Wallace was; he was an important playmaker something Wallace's strongest advocates would never claim and he was for most of his career clearly the game's best defender and probably the best of all time, Wallace whilst very strong indeed in this area is again no match for Russell.

Whilst there is an element of a parlour game to the time machine aspect of "what would player x be in era y", and in forums such as this, trolling, typically against players from further back, projections should at least account for how well players did in their own era and respect their achievements. In the case of these two players, they are all time greats.

[LAZERUSS]

Debating Russell's merits is a relative thing. Obviously he was an all time elite rebounder and probably the best defensive player ever.

However when looking at his teams' winning (as with all players and how well their teams fared) I think you have to look at team context. By about '62 (off top of my head) he was both low usage (disguised by low minutes) and, for a center, low efficiency (in part because, like Wilt, he was a dreadful ft shooter) scorer. Relative to peers like Robertson and Chamberlain it's difficult to argue he didn't usually have substantially better supporting casts ('67 76ers would be close, as would '68 if you include playoff injured Cunningham, '69 Lakers were the more talented team but a bad fit, especially the coach). Even with Russell tabbed as greatest defender of all time IMO, I think Russell gets too large a portion of credit for the Celtics' awesome D, on the later teams at least. Sanders and KC were called the best defensive forward and guard of the 60s. Then throw in Havlicek who was consistently 1st team All-D once that accolade was created. Howell was a scrapper too. Reserves like Siegfried, Bryant and Embry weren't bad in that area either.

None of which is to say he wouldn't translate (though obviously he did gain some advantages from era, e.g. pace inflated stats and black quotas which must at least be considered when evaluating all early 60s numbers; plus arriving just after the implementation of the shot clock in the pros and in an era when it wasn't implemented at all at lower levels, so that players who weren't used to taking/judging "compromise" shots were forced to do so), the Ben Wallace comparison has been made, but (at very least) relative their peers Russell was superior in every aspect of the game: he was an all-time elite, rather than merely very good, rebounder; he was not a liability as a scorer as Wallace was; he was an important playmaker something Wallace's strongest advocates would never claim and he was for most of his career clearly the game's best defender and probably the best of all time, Wallace whilst very strong indeed in this area is again no match for Russell.

Whilst there is an element of a parlour game to the time machine aspect of "what would player x be in era y", and in forums such as this, trolling, typically against players from further back, projections should at least account for how well players did in their own era and respect their achievements. In the case of these two players, they are all time greats.

Good to see you posting again...

:cheers:

[jlip]

Russell had seasons of 18+ ppg, post-seasons of 20+, and even a Finals in which he averaged 24 ppg. He also had seven 30-30 games in his career, including a game seven in the Finals of 30-40. He also had a Finals series in which he averaged 18 ppg, 27 rpg, and get this... shot .702 from the FIELD!

Even factoring in the SLIGHTLY higher pace of the 60's (my god, everyone just looks at the 61-62 season...by 68-69 the league was at 112.3 ppg), his scoring numbers would still have dwarfed Wallace's. And, of course, I guess averaging as high as 6 apg doesn't count either, right?

Just take a look at the footage that exiists and then get back to me. Russell was a FAR greater offensive player than Wallace (and probably many other "modern" centers, as well.

It's also worth noting that Russell actually led the Celtics in scoring and assists in multiple playoff series. Ben Wallace never came close to doing either at any time in his life. IMO the closest thing we've seen to a Bill Russell type player in the past 20 years was KG in '08 when he actually had a legitimate case for being MVP.

[Legends66NBA7]

It's also worth noting that Russell actually led the Celtics in scoring and assists in multiple playoff series. Ben Wallace never came close to doing either at any time in his life. IMO the closest thing we've seen to a Bill Russell type player in the past 20 years was KG in '08 when he actually had a legitimate case for being MVP.

Or even Duncan. You could say Duncan, even this current year, mirrors that of 68 and 69 Russell.

[KG215]

[QUOTE=K

[KG215]

Even factoring in the SLIGHTLY higher pace of the 60's (my god, everyone just looks at the 61-62 season...by 68-69 the league was at 112.3 ppg), his scoring numbers would still have dwarfed Wallace's. And, of course, I guess averaging as high as 6 apg doesn't count either, right?
Slightly higher? Didn't teams average around 30 more possessions per game in the 1960's compared to now?

[CavaliersFTW]

Slightly higher? Weren't teams averaging around 20-30 more possessions per game in the 1960's compared to now?
Your an intelligent poster, I'm sure your aware that the usage rate of the superstars went up as the pace of the league went down while the size of the league went up. That's why scoring averages still to this day aren't really different than in the 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, '00's etc etc... save for Wilt Chamberlain. The rebounding numbers have been more affected by "pace" and accuracy than anything. But when the "pace" was different, the offense was distributed more evenly across the team, it didn't inflate the superstars scoring numbers like some would prefer to believe. If that were true Russell would be a 8ppg scorer and Jerry West and Elgin Baylor would be like 16ppg scorers in this era and Wilt would get his "25" ppg like these paceologists think he'd peak at today. Funny cause they never chop up Kareem's numbers like that, or Jordan's or anyone else from the past with gaudy numbers who played in a different league than today.

[KG215]

I just couldn't tell if jlauber was being hyperbolic like he's know to do, or if that was accurate. Because I know I've read various articles on that era mentioning the pace was, what, in the 120 possessions per game range? I've seen as high as 150 for 1962, but surely that's not right. That's just absurd.

I do think numbers would come down a bit for those players in today's NBA, but not ot the drastic lengths a lot of people think. I still think prime Wilt would be a something like a 30 and 15 player, and Oscar would be around a 25-7-7 player in today's NBA.

[Doranku]

I don't know why people think Russell and Chamberlain would waltz right into the game today and start dominating right off the bat. The game now is completely different than what it was then.

[kamil]

If prime Wilt or Russell were in the league today, LeBron* would try and collude with them to win a ring. Shortcutting bitch has no shame at all.

[kshutts1]

Clearly they would team up and dominate the league for 10+ years. That's what great players do now.

[LAZERUSS]

I have said it before, but for those that may not have read it...

I agree that the average players of today are better. MARGINALLY better than those of yesteryear. Why? Because they have the benefit of technology and 100+ years of the sport. Modern medicine, including surgery; better nutrition (although CavsFan will likely bring up some valid arguments); better training (my god...many kids are being coached at 6+years old...and are being "tracked" in grade schools...and weight-training is much improved); better equipment and facilities (I grew up playing with different size and weighted balls, many bald, as well as playing on blacktop outdoors); and better travel conditions.

And you can't minimize the advantages of having all the experiences of previous eras to draw upon. Every single facet of the game has been scruntinized.

Having said that, though, many of these "advantages" are minimal, at best. While basketball does indeed involve a great degree of athleticism, it is still largely a skills-based game. As an example, the great shooters of the past would be just as great (if not greater) today.

As an example...how about FT shooting? In the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756 from the line. In 2012-13 the NBA shot .753. Hell, in 73-74 the league shot .771. And players like Bill Sharman were shooting as high as .932 in the 50's.

You would think that with all these modern advancements, that FT shooting would be nearly automatic for everyone. If anything, it has become worse.

And the "ESPN Generation" will argue that the 3pt shooters are much better today. Really? I have mentioned it before, but I attended a Warriors-Knicks game back in the 70's, and in the pre-game shoot-around, Jerry Lucas, from between the circles (and probably around 25 ft) made some 20 straight shots...most of them barely tickling the net. This from the game's greatest PF of that era. In fact, I would suspect that Lucas, who was built very much like Kevin Love, would be Kevin Love in today's NBA.

And that brings up another point. Those that argue that the game is much more athletic today, only need look as recently as the 2010-11 season. Here was a 6-8 (and white) Kevin Love running away with the rebound title, at 15.2 rg, and in only 36 mpg. In that same season, a 6-2 (and white) 37 year old Steve Nash, and only playing 33 mpg, led the leage in apg. And a 6-11 (and white) Andrew Bogut led the NBA in blocks.

In fact, if "athleticism" were such a key element, how come James White has never amounted to anything? How come a 7-0 Javale mcGee has been a bench player? Same with Ryan Hollins. Geez, a 7-0 Hollins averaged 5.7 ppg...in COLLEGE, for cryingoutloud.

How about size? Surely that makes a significant difference, right? Take Chamberlain out of the equation, and there have been far more 6-10, and shorter, rebound champions, than seven-footers. In fact, there has never been a 7-3+ rebound champion. To be brutally honest, with the exception of Yao, who was injury-prone, there has never been a truly great 7-3+ player in NBA history (and even if I were to concede that Ralph Sampson was a very good player...he was really only 7-1.)

You want a great example? Look up Priest Lauderdale. 7-4, 325+ lbs (as high as 360). Surely he was a "Shaq-like" player, right? He played in the NBA for two seasons, and 3.4 ppg and 1.9 rpg.

Then, honestly ask yourself...

How many Shaq's have we seen since 1993? Just ONE. If every generation is supposedly getting better...where are the Shaq's?

I remember Pat Riley, in the 80's, claiming that one day he envisioned a team of Magic Johnson's. Well, we are still waiting for the second one...some 20 years after Magic retired.

Where are the Kareem's and his vaunted sky-hook? How come a near 40 year old Kareem could just wipe the floor with Hakeem and Ewing in the 80's? And a prime Hakeem held his own against a young Shaq in the mid-90's. What does that tell you about a prime Kareem?

True, today's era has the 7-0 Dirk. But the 70's had a 6-10 McAdoo that had nearly the range of Dirk, with a much better post game.

How about Jason "White Chocolate" Williams? Guess what, "Pistol Pete" Maravich was doing virtually everything Williams was, only much better, and with a much better overall game...as far back as the 60's. BTW, as talented as Maravich was back then, no one compared him to Oscar or West, both of whom were another level.

And take a look at the limited footage of guys like Dave Bing, Nate Archibald, and Earl Monroe. Great ball-handlers. Same with guys you never heard of, like Em Bryant. In fact, I remember watching the Harlem Globetrotters on TV back in the 60's. They were doing virtually everything the top ball-handlers of today are doing...but some 50 years ago.

Athletcism back "in the day." By now everyone here should know that Russell was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper (ranked as high as 7th.) He was also among the best middle-distance runners of the 50's.

Gus Johnson? Yep...I know...you haven't heard of him. Go ahead and google "Gus Johnson and the Nail." In any case, Gus was 6-6, 230 lbs, and probably had a vertical the equal of Jordan's. Not only that, but he was smashing backboards as far back as the 60's. Oh, and take a look at the small footage that exists of him. He had a soft touch from as far as 15+ feet. You want to know something even more amazing? Here was a player that was physically on par with any player in the current NBA, and probably as skilled as many of them, as well...and yet, while he was an outstanding player in the 60's...he had ONE 20 ppg season, and never a 20 rpg season. If the players of the 60's were supposely so "weak" how come a Gus Johnson wasn't putting up 30-20 seasons?

Google the name of Calvin Murphy. He was 5-9, and dunking the ball in high school... in the 60's. And he was putting up near 40 ppg college seasons. How about David Thompson, who was playing high school ball ... in the 60's? And I hope everyone here has heard of Dr. J. He was doing the "Jordan dunks" long before MJ was.

And while he never played a meaningful game in the NBA, just google the name of Raymond Lewis. Given the fact that he was routinely embarrassing players like Doug Collins, and get this, Michael Cooper....just how great could he have been?

The great Kareem, at ages 38-39, averaged 32 ppg on, get this... .633 shooting, covering ten straight h2h's, against a 22-23 year old Hakeem. Included were three games of 40+, with a high of 46 (and in only 37 minutes.) And in the same week he was slaughtering Hakeem with that 46 point game, he was destroying Ewing (he outscored Patrick, 40-9, while outshooting Ewing, 15-22 to 3-17.)

And yet a PRIME KAJ, in 40 career h2h's against an old Nate Thurmond (whom many here have no clue about), shot about a combined .440 against him. His HIGH game against Thurmond, was only 34 points. In his three post-season series against Nate, he shot .486, .428, and .405 (and was outscored and outshot by Thurmond...and in KAJ's greatest statistical season.)

How come a shell of a Kareem could just obliterate the likes of Hakeem and Ewing, and yet, be reduced to a shot-jacking brick-layer by a Thurmond?

Furthermore, the 6-10 Moses Malone would come along in the mid-70's, and just shellack KAJ in the majority of their 40 career h2h's. How could a 6-10 Malone, and with virtually no "hops", consistently just wax a near-prime Kareem?

Yet, I bet if you asked the majority here, they would probably claim a 6-10 Moses would be an ordinary player in today's NBA.

The bottom line is that, quite simply, there has only been ONE Bird, ONE Magic, ONE MJ, ONE Russell, ONE Kareem, ONE Oscar, ONE Moses, ONE Dr. J, ONE Hakeem, ONE Shaq, and ONE Wilt. Not the many that you would believe would have naturally come along in the last 100 years of the game.

[JTatStarranch]

Anyone that understands context can see that

Russell would average about

15/16/5/4/2 in todays game on 50% shooting.

Wilt would average about

24/13/5/3/ on 55% shooting

[kshutts1]

To: Lazerus, Euroleague, and all other "essayists"...

Do you really take the time to write up these "essays", and do the necessary research, on the spot? Or do you have loads of "essays" saved on your computer, and you just copy/paste when the need arises?

I don't mean this negatively, as I appreciate most of your posts (particularly Lazerus'), but I'm just curious.

And if done on the spot, is your profession one that you have oodles of computer face-time, with minimal supervision? Or do you do this all in your free time, at home?

[LAZERUSS]

To: Lazerus, Euroleague, and all other "essayists"...

Do you really take the time to write up these "essays", and do the necessary research, on the spot? Or do you have loads of "essays" saved on your computer, and you just copy/paste when the need arises?

I don't mean this negatively, as I appreciate most of your posts (particularly Lazerus'), but I'm just curious.

And if done on the spot, is your profession one that you have oodles of computer face-time, with minimal supervision? Or do you do this all in your free time, at home?

I can't speak for the other's, but yes, I do have some "saved" material. Having said, I typically will just do it from memory (I know, very few will believe that, but it is in fact, the case.) As for "free" time, I happen to have a day off today. And usually at night I will spend about an hour here.

Thanks for the kind words, BTW.

[LAZERUSS]

I don't know why people think Russell and Chamberlain would waltz right into the game today and start dominating right off the bat. The game now is completely different than what it was then.

I would tend to disagree. The game was invented in the 1890's. It was being played by colleges in the late 1890's. There were professional teams as far back as the 1920's.

To be honest, there have been two major rules changes. One was the 24 second clock. The other was the 3pt shot. True, there have been many other much less significant changes (and most of those were in the 50's and before Wilt and Russell.) The lane has been widened twice (BTW, only once in college), the second time being aimed strictly at Chamberlain (and it had virtually NO affect.)

The court dimensions, the ball (although it became uniform in the late 60's), the hoop size, the number of players, the basic rules...virtually still the same as when invented.

The game is played somewhat differently now. The 3pt shot has spread out the floor, and we now perimeter players dominating more because of it. But still, as recently as 2000, Shaq was putting up a 38-17 .600 Finals (and a 33-16-.550 Finals on DPOY Mutombo a year later.)

Are defenses really better today? How come the eFG%'s have gone up almost every year since the 60's? How come an older Nate could battle a prime KAJ, and basically one-on-one, and render KAJ into a .440 shooter? And yet a 39 year old Kareem could carpet-bomb a Hakeem to the tune of 33 ppg and .630 shooting as recently as 1986?

Watch footage of the 60's. The lanes were clogged. There was no 3pt shot, so defenses could sag. True, the game was played at a faster rate, but how come it is not now? Why could Magic's Lakers have a 126 ppg post-season? Here again, watch the current NBA. Players walk the ball up, pass-pass- pass up a good shot, pass, and then take a worse shot as the clock expires. is that defense, or just poor offensive play?

Anyway...that's my opinion....

[CavaliersFTW]

Anyone that understands context can see that

Russell would average about

15/16/5/4/2 in todays game on 50% shooting.

Wilt would average about

24/13/5/3/ on 55% shooting
:wtf: these numbers are wack

So Wilt would shoot 5% more accurate than russell and get only a few more touches? And he'd grab 3 LESS rebounds a game?

Also... 2 blocks, and 3 blocks for both?

There is no way Russell is outrebounding Wilt by 3rpg in this era, when he was outrebounded by Wilt in HIS OWN era - how the hell does Wilt suddenly become an inferior rebounder to Russell just because they switch era's?

And 2bpg for Bill Russell, the greatest defensive player of all time?

And in 1973 the season before a 27 year old Kareem was officially blocking 3.5 shots a game a 36 year old Wilt was unofficially tracked blocking 5.4 shots per game. But he'd only manage 3 today?

:coleman:

[jlip]

Anyone that understands context can see that

Russell would average about

15/16/5/4/2 in todays game on 50% shooting.

Wilt would average about

24/13/5/3/ on 55% shooting

I agree with Russell, but you basically turned Wilt which was a 7'1" 275+ lb athletic freak into really only slightly statistically better than the 6'9" Kevin Love.

[LAZERUSS]

Your an intelligent poster, I'm sure your aware that the usage rate of the superstars went up as the pace of the league went down while the size of the league went up. That's why scoring averages still to this day aren't really different than in the 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, '00's etc etc... save for Wilt Chamberlain. The rebounding numbers have been more affected by "pace" and accuracy than anything. But when the "pace" was different, the offense was distributed more evenly across the team, it didn't inflate the superstars scoring numbers like some would prefer to believe. If that were true Russell would be a 8ppg scorer and Jerry West and Elgin Baylor would be like 16ppg scorers in this era and Wilt would get his "25" ppg like these paceologists think he'd peak at today. Funny cause they never chop up Kareem's numbers like that, or Jordan's or anyone else from the past with gaudy numbers who played in a different league than today.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I would reiterate what you stated, though...

Why ONLY Chamberlain? Even the great Kareem, and at his most dominating self, managed to play four years in the "Wilt-era" and never remotely challenged many of the staggering records that Chamberlain put up. How come?

[LAZERUSS]

It's also worth noting that Russell actually led the Celtics in scoring and assists in multiple playoff series. Ben Wallace never came close to doing either at any time in his life. IMO the closest thing we've seen to a Bill Russell type player in the past 20 years was KG in '08 when he actually had a legitimate case for being MVP.

THIS!

:applause:

And, yes, even I was guilty of minimizing Russell's play years ago. However, I didn't start following the NBA until about 1963, and after that, while Russell certainly had a couple of great post-seasons, his offense, particularly his scoring, declined considerably.

But even more than that, just look at the footage that CavsFan produced (and went viral BTW)..of a prime Russell. To compare THAT with Wallace is truly laughable. Wallace couldn't hit the rim from five feet, nor was anywhere the passer, or ball-handler, that a prime Russell was.

[millwad]

THIS!

:applause:

And, yes, even I was guilty of minimizing Russell's play years ago. However, I didn't start following the NBA until about 1963, and after that, while Russell certainly had a couple of great post-seasons, his offense, particularly his scoring, declined considerably.
.

Oh, shut up.

You did not start to follow the NBA 1963 at age 7.

You're the same retard who changed your mind abour Wilt and his era in like 2008. Such a clown.

[MiseryCityTexas]

THIS!

:applause:

And, yes, even I was guilty of minimizing Russell's play years ago. However, I didn't start following the NBA until about 1963, and after that, while Russell certainly had a couple of great post-seasons, his offense, particularly his scoring, declined considerably.

But even more than that, just look at the footage that CavsFan produced (and went viral BTW)..of a prime Russell. To compare THAT with Wallace is truly laughable. Wallace couldn't hit the rim from five feet, nor was anywhere the passer, or ball-handler, that a prime Russell was.


Lol i didn't realize Bill was the good of a ball handler until i seen his youtube clips. he was a 6 9 center that could clearly run the fast break and even has the potential to set up an offense shockingly.

[CavaliersFTW]

Lol i didn't realize Bill was the good of a ball handler until i seen his youtube clips. he was a 6 9 center that could clearly run the fast break and even has the potential to set up an offense shockingly.
He'd be called a 6-11 center by today's standards which makes it even more impressive.

He was 6-9 and 5/8ths w/o shoes. Virtually every single player that height in the NBA is listed 6-11 today. Some are even shorter, and still list 6-11.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Bill Russell - KG with less range but superior shot blocking and intangibles.
Wilt - Rich man's Dwight Howard.

[LAZERUSS]

:wtf: these numbers are wack

So Wilt would shoot 5% more accurate than russell and get only a few more touches? And he'd grab 3 LESS rebounds a game?

Also... 2 blocks, and 3 blocks for both?

There is no way Russell is outrebounding Wilt by 3rpg in this era, when he was outrebounded by Wilt in HIS OWN era - how the hell does Wilt suddenly become an inferior rebounder to Russell just because they switch era's?

And 2bpg for Bill Russell, the greatest defensive player of all time?

And in 1973 the season before a 27 year old Kareem was officially blocking 3.5 shots a game a 36 year old Wilt was unofficially tracked blocking 5.4 shots per game. But he'd only manage 3 today?

:coleman:

:applause: :applause: :applause:

The reality is, we have no way of knowing what Wilt would average in today's NBA. But, the Wilt-pundits constantly use their "formulas" as some kind of scientific evidence. I have seen posters claim that a prime Wilt would have been a 25-12 guy today...based on pace. Yep, teams were averaging 200 points and 100 rebounds a game back then.

Today's NBA currently scores at about 85% of the NBA in '62, and rebounds at about a 70% rate. So, using simple math, a '62 Wilt would average about 42 ppg and 17-18 rpg in today's NBA. And BTW, his .506 FG% would rise significantly because his NBA had an eFG% of .426, while the 2012-13 NBA just had an eFG% of .496...which would raise Wilt's "projected" FG% to about .590.

Here again, no one can really argue what Wilt's numbers would really be today, but please, let's knock off these "math formulas" which are built on complete fallacies.

[Round Mound]

Peek.

Wilt Chamberlain: 34 PPG/56% FG/16 RPG/4.0 BPG/4.0 APG
Bill Russell: 14 PPG/52% FG/15.5 RPG/3.0 BPG/3.0 APG

[305Baller]

Peaks today:

Wilt: 29 PPG, 12 RPG, 3 BPG, 3 APG

Russell: 17.5 PPG, 12 RPG , 4 BPG , 4 APG

:confusedshrug:

[Marchesk]

Peaks today:

Wilt: 29 PPG, 12 RPG, 3 BPG, 3 APG

Russell: 17.5 PPG, 12 RPG , 4 BPG , 4 APG

:confusedshrug:

That's not a bad estimate. I think Wilt would do a little better on the rebounding and blocks.

[deja vu]

:lol @ nostalgic old farts overrating Wilt and Russell.

[jlip]

Peaks today:

Wilt: 29 PPG, 12 RPG, 3 BPG, 3 APG

Russell: 17.5 PPG, 12 RPG , 4 BPG , 4 APG

:confusedshrug:

Why would two of the greatest rebounders the NBA has ever seen who outrebounded everybody they played against struggle to even compete with Kevin Love as rebounders today who is shorter and less athletic than both of them?

[CavaliersFTW]

Why would two of the greatest rebounders the NBA has ever seen who outrebounded everybody they played against struggle to even compete with Kevin Love as rebounders today who is shorter and less athletic than both of them?
:roll: @ 6-7 and 3/4 inch soft-bodied Kevin Love out-rebounding Wilt and Russell's potential "peak" in the modern era by 3 rebounds a game.

[kamil]

Why would two of the greatest rebounders the NBA has ever seen who outrebounded everybody they played against struggle to even compete with Kevin Love as rebounders today who is shorter and less athletic than both of them?

Dennis Rodman was 6'7'' and not exactly an athletic BEAST but still managed to dominate the boards, in one season nearly 19 RPG.

[deja vu]

Yeah because height and athleticism are all there is to rebounding. :facepalm

I thought you guys are knowledgeable posters. :lol

[kamil]

Yeah because height and athleticism are all there is to rebounding. :facepalm

I thought you guys are knowledgeable posters. :lol

Read one reply before yours.

[Marchesk]

:lol @ nostalgic old farts overrating Wilt and Russell.

I wasn't alive to see them play, but I've seen enough youtube video and photos to convince me they were athletic enough to fit in just fine today. Really, what big do you have today who would be better than those two? A 37 year old Duncan? A broke back Howard? A Heat destroying Hibbert?

[deja vu]

Read one reply before yours.
You're a few seconds quicker than me so I didn't read your post. :lol

[kamil]

You're a few seconds quicker than me so I didn't read your post. :lol

You best not peg me with those other dumbasses. I've been following basketball long enough to know these things.

Muggsy Bogues was 5'3'' and could still ball with the worlds best. Just goes to show height isn't everything.

[Marchesk]

Yeah because height and athleticism are all there is to rebounding. :facepalm

No, but Russell and Wilt were the best rebounders of their era. The only rebounder in history who was maybe better was Rodman, and that depends on how you massage the numbers.

Adjusted for pace, Wilt is still averaging 16-20 rebounds per game, which is what Rodman did at his peak (well not quite 20 but in that area).

Yes, and there's the weaker era retort. Wilt and Russell were still pulling down big rebounding numbers against the other bigs of the day. Wilt's 55 against the Celtics might be even more impressive than his 100 point game. Adjusted for pace, and it's still over 40, which nobody has done in decades.

[jlip]

Yeah because height and athleticism are all there is to rebounding. :facepalm

I thought you guys are knowledgeable posters. :lol

You missed the whole point. They were not just taller and more athletic. They were DOMINANT rebounders who were taller and more athletic. Combine that with the fact that they both (including Russell) set out to outrebound their competition.

[deja vu]

I wasn't alive to see them play, but I've seen enough youtube video and photos to convince me they were athletic enough to fit in just fine today. Really, what big do you have today who would be better than those two? A 37 year old Duncan? A broke back Howard? A Heat destroying Hibbert?
I'm not saying that Wilt and Russell won't be the two best big men in the NBA today, because the current crop of big men are garbage.

You guys just tend to overrate Wilt and Russell claiming that Wilt will look like prime Shaq and Bill will become a KG with better defense. Wilt's offense is mostly predicated on dunks and layups over shorter white guys. I've seen dozens of YouTube videos with Wilt doing that. You think those shots won't get rejected in today's NBA? LOL. I've rarely seen Wilt doing some amazing post moves that leave defenders in the dust a la Hakeem or Kareem. Just laying up the ball over short dudes just won't cut it in today's NBA. Too many times, I've seen Wilt getting deep position under the basket because defending leaves much to be desired. In the NBA nowadays, you won't see Wilt getting deep post position easily. He'll either have to overpower defenders like prime Shaq or display some amazing post moves like Hakeem or Yao to post those big numbers (i.e. 28+ ppg).

Granted, today's centers are weak in comparison to the 80s and 90s, so Wilt and Russell will be successful. Big deal, because Dwight averaged 20+ ppg mostly on dunks and layups, and I don't think Dwight is on the same level as Hakeem or Shaq.

[deja vu]

You missed the whole point. They were not just taller and more athletic. They were DOMINANT rebounders who were taller and more athletic. Combine that with the fact that they both (including Russell) set out to outrebound their competition.
I can agree with what you and Marchesk said. But it's ridiculous to say things like, "Kevin Love is leading the league in rebounds, but Wilt and Russell will be worse?" Things like that. Love is a notorious rebound spammer. Granted, he has a talent for knowing where the ball will go after a missed shot, but he spams rebounds to inflate stats. Often times, he leaves his man to go after the rebound, leaving his team's defense vulnerable.

Rodman has also been accused of rebound spamming or stats padding in the past. So no, just because you are more athletic and taller than Love or Rodman doesn't mean that you'll be a better rebounder than them. Who knows how many rebounds Love or Rodman will get in the 60s?