How should I adjust or value Wilt & Russell's stats???

[AintNoSunshine]

So these guys were grabbing 40+ rebounds in games, no way in helll am I going to take that at its face value. It is obviously impossible to replicate that in today's league so don't bullshiit me by saying they were just that good, yeah maybe because they were great compared to their (reletively weak)competition, but how should we adjust their stats? 40 rebound should be equivalent to what? 20 rebounds in today's game?

For those who wants to blast me, I am not disputing their greatness, I do have them both in my top 10. But would just like to know how would you guys account for their numbers.

[Sarcastic]

You rate them versus their competition.

Nate Thurmond and Walt Bellamy both played in their era, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar played against Wilt and right after Russell. None of them were able to put up the same numbers as Wilt nor Russell however.

If what they did was only due to the era, then why didn't anyone else do it?

[Psileas]

First of all, Wilt and Russell were not great due to relatively weak competition, they were great, period, and being top-10 is a no-brainer for both.
When it comes to rebounding, you may add individual rebounding numbers and compare to today's numbers. Up to the 1967-68 season, you need to do it yourself, since, up to then, team rebounds were added to the sum, thus inflating the totals - in other words, never did teams actually average 70+ individual rebounds per game, like some think.

Make no mistake, though, they were still the 2 best rebounders of their era and 2 of the the very greatest ever, regardless of adjustments.

[kshutts1]

So these guys were grabbing 40+ rebounds in games, no way in helll am I going to take that at its face value. It is obviously impossible to replicate that in today's league so don't bullshiit me by saying they were just that good, yeah maybe because they were great compared to their (reletively weak)competition, but how should we adjust their stats? 40 rebound should be equivalent to what? 20 rebounds in today's game?

For those who wants to blast me, I am not disputing their greatness, I do have them both in my top 10. But would just like to know how would you guys account for their numbers.

Do a statistical analysis of all of the players' stats back then? See how Wilt and Russel rate relative to their peers, then put that in today's stats. For example, and only example, let's say Wilt averaged 30r, while the majority of players averaged 10-20. That would mean Wilt rebounded twice as often as his peers. That would be equivalent to twice the league average today, or right around 14-16.

Another way is the aforementioned TRB%, which I take to mean... add up all the rebounds for every player in a game. Then divide Russel's or Wilt's total by the total rebounds. That shows that % of rebounds they gather. For the sake of ease, I wouldn't worry about whether or not either player was in the game; just pick a game where they played an average number of minutes (for them) and do it for the whole game. Then do the same analysis with the top rebounders of today and extrapolate.

[pauk]

Statistically you value/adjust them based on possessions (pace) & minutes....

I have a thread about that:

http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=294854

[Flash31]

So these guys were grabbing 40+ rebounds in games, no way in helll am I going to take that at its face value. It is obviously impossible to replicate that in today's league so don't bullshiit me by saying they were just that good, yeah maybe because they were great compared to their (reletively weak)competition, but how should we adjust their stats? 40 rebound should be equivalent to what? 20 rebounds in today's game?

For those who wants to blast me, I am not disputing their greatness, I do have them both in my top 10. But would just like to know how would you guys account for their numbers.


no way in hell they grab 40 rbs,
K Love did,Vucevic,Rodman
Love had a 30-30 game,Vuceveic had 25 rbs,Howard had over 25 rbs

Youre talking about the two goat rebounders EVER.
And they played whole game too,bc they either needed to or wanted to.

Is it possible to get 20 rbs a game avg today,YES YES IT IS.
Kevin Love avg 15,Howard at 14 at one point.
Have you forgotten the season where Love had multiple 20 rb games,a 30-30 game,a 40-20 game,multiple 30 rb games.

Youre talking about the TWO GOAT RBS,and then on top of that
Wilt would be 7'3-7'4 today with shoes on,and was one of the most athletic players ever and could play whole game,had a huge reach and wingspan.
Russell would be 6'11 today,was a national track runner,collegiate athlete.

They very well could get 20 rbs a game not at all impossible.
Rodman got 19 almost avg in a season.Love 16.

Could Wilt,Russell grab 20% of all rebounds,ESPECIALLY with Todays lack of rebounding players and the field of centers and big men available today,YES.

Wilt would abuse every center,and theres not any player in the league Bigger than him,has a longer wingspan,reach,nothing.
When PF today would rather shoot mid range or 3s and/or are bad defenders,
it opens up.

If Love can get 12-15,Howard 12 heavily injured,Noah 11,Vucevic 11
youre saying the two GOAT RBS could only get max 1-3 more than todays leading rebounders,come on.

There is no Rodman,no Thurmond caliber rb playing.
The closest is R Evans and K Love and they get nothing close.

The greats back then would still be greats today,
Centers and Big Men even more so.
Wilt in todays league would be UNSTOPPABLE Even More,
There is no c or big man playing today that could defend wilt or had the array of moves as Wilt.

Shaq at 38 was still scoring on todays top c,dwight included.
Duncan in his old age is still scoring 15-25 pts on todays top pf and c
and still getting 8-15 rbs.
Any great,especially goat c,would demlish todays big men
doesnt matter what era 60s,70s,80s,90s.

AT MINIMUM,WILT and Russell would get 18 rbs.
Just look at what Vucevic,Love,Howard get certain games and what they sometimes avg 13-16 rbs and their nowhere near the caliber of those 2.

[iamgine]

So these guys were grabbing 40+ rebounds in games, no way in helll am I going to take that at its face value. It is obviously impossible to replicate that in today's league so don't bullshiit me by saying they were just that good, yeah maybe because they were great compared to their (reletively weak)competition, but how should we adjust their stats? 40 rebound should be equivalent to what? 20 rebounds in today's game?

For those who wants to blast me, I am not disputing their greatness, I do have them both in my top 10. But would just like to know how would you guys account for their numbers.
In 12-13 season, the best rebounding team got 45 rebounds on an average game.

Wilt rebounded about 36% of his team's rebounds in '61-'62.

Wilt probably only play 40 minutes in this era instead of the 48.5 minutes he played

So...45*.36*40/48.5 = Around 13 rebounds per game.

[Psileas]

Statistically you value/adjust them based on possessions (pace) & minutes....

I have a thread about that:

http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=294854

No, you don't.


In 12-13 season, the best rebounding team got 45 rebounds on an average game.

Wilt rebounded about 36% of his team's rebounds in '61-'62.

Wilt probably only play 40 minutes in this era instead of the 48.5 minutes he played

So...45*.36*40/48.5 = Around 13 rebounds per game.

Wrong estimation, Wilt grabbed 40.2% of his team's rebounds in 1962.

[tmacattack33]

Adjust for the fact that the league was not fully integrated back then which means the competition was much weaker.

Then adjust for pace (possessions per game).

And even then there are other differences in rules.

Which is why comparing players from completely different eras is crazy. Or at least trying to compare someone to a player from way back then. I think a 1980 to 2010 comparison wouldn't be that bad. But a 1965 to 2010 comparision would be ridiculous.

[iamgine]

Wrong estimation, Wilt grabbed 40.2% of his team's rebounds in 1962.
How do you calculate that?

If that's true then about 14-15 rebounds adjusted to today.

[jlip]

The same way you adjust for the inflated assists and fg% numbers of the 80's and early 90's

[Flash31]

No, you don't.



Wrong estimation, Wilt grabbed 40.2% of his team's rebounds in 1962.

Yeah,and two how are you going to drop 8 mpg off bc nobody plays that now.
Wilt would play today as long as he wanted.

I mean Deng routinely clocks in at 39-41 mpg.

You cant just avg out the percentages compared to todays and then drop his mpg.
Durant plays 38 mpg,Kobe higher should we round that down to 36.MJ played a lot of mpg at times,should we round that down due to our own cause.



so 40% out of Say todays 45 avg would be 18
so 18 RBS
but then say he was on a high rebounding team,which he would be bc of him
and teammates also or no good rb teammates

The high is 52
so 40% out of 52
20.8,almost 21 rbs per game

[Psileas]

How do you calculate that?

If that's true then about 14-15 rebounds adjusted to today.

That's why I mentioned that up to 1968, calculating rebounds is a manual job. I added all the individual rebounds, I didn't take the established figure, because it combines individual and team rebounds.


Yeah,and two how are you going to drop 8 mpg off bc nobody plays that now.
Wilt would play today as long as he wanted.

I mean Deng routinely clocks in at 39-41 mpg.

You cant just avg out the percentages compared to todays and then drop his mpg.
Durant plays 38 mpg,Kobe higher should we round that down to 36.MJ played a lot of mpg at times,should we round that down due to our own cause.



so 40% out of Say todays 45 avg would be 18
so 18 RBS
but then say he was on a high rebounding team,which he would be bc of him
and teammates also or no good rb teammates

The high is 52
so 40% out of 52
20.8,almost 21 rbs per game

You're quoting the wrong poster.
The usefulness of avatars, I guess.

[BoutPractice]

It's interesting to look at what the rebounding leaders averaged in history...

- From 1950 to 1956, rebounding leaders averaged around 15 rpg.
- Then from 1956 to 1969, two things stand out. One: the rebounding leader is always either Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain. Two: over this 13 year period, they averaged 24 rpg.
- You then have the 1969 to 1973 period, where Wilt Chamberlain is at the end of his career. Elvin Hayes grabs one title and Wilt the other 3. Average: 18 rpg.
- Wilt retires. Then there's the period from 1973 to 1985. Average: 15 rpg. The greatest rebounder in this period is Moses Malone, who generally hovers around 15 rpg himself, with a high of 17,5.
- Next, the pre-Rodman period, 1985 to 1991. Lots of dispersion in terms of who is the rebounding leader. Average: 13,5 rpg.
- The Rodman period, 1991 to 1998. All the rebounding titles are captured by Rodman, with a personal high of 18,66 rpg. Average: around 17 rpg.
- The post-Rodman period, 1999 to now. Two rebounders stand out: Kevin Garnett, who was leader 4 times, and Dwight Howard, who was leader 5 times. The best average is from Ben Wallace: 15,42 pg. Overall average: 13,5 rpg ie the same as the transitional period between Moses and Rodman.


I'll leave to your own conclusions, but some things to note:
- Since Wilt retired, no player averaged 20 rpg. Wilt did it something like 7 times.
- Historically the rebounding leader tends to average over 15 rpg. It's unusual for him to average less than that. It's possible to average 18 rpg or more, even in the modern era, as Rodman did it in the 90s.
- There is no clear pattern of the average of rpg leaders going down over time. The average of the best rebounder is a product not of the era, but of the best rebounder himself! When that rebounder is Wilt, Russell or Rodman, the average goes up.

[Flash31]

In 12-13 season, the best rebounding team got 45 rebounds on an average game.

Wilt rebounded about 36% of his team's rebounds in '61-'62.

Wilt probably only play 40 minutes in this era instead of the 48.5 minutes he played

So...45*.36*40/48.5 = Around 13 rebounds per game.

If youre going to estimate based off percentages,
You cant drop his mpg,due to you thinking hell only play 40 mpg

AVG is 45 rbs a game
High is 52 rbs a Game
Lowest is 35 Rbs a game and thats Miami with no RBR or size

so AT Minimum 36% of total rbs at MINIMUM

12.6 on Lowest Miami Team whic would most likely be higher
16 Rbs a Game on AVG
18.7 Rbs on Highest

so at the absolute Minimum,Wilt would get 13-14 Rbs a Game
On AVG 16-18 RBS on AVG

And depending on team,pace,rebounds,teammates
18.7-20.8 RBS on highest team,circumstances,teammates,pace

so on avg from 12.6 being absolute lowest at 36% to 20.8 being highest at 40%
AVG REBOUNDING RATE
16.7,so roughly 17 Rebounds per game on only AVERAGE

[pauk]

No, you don't.


Yes, you DO when compared to others from a different era at least.... in the 60s they averaged up to around 140 poss. per game compared to todays 90 poss. per game...... per possession & minute Wilts / Russells stats were actually not that impressive compared to Jordan, Shaq, Lebron, Bird and a couple of others... again, take a look at my thread where i thoroughly adjust/calculate their stats towards todays era for example....

You DO... you have to adjust it that way, its not like Wilt / Russell would average 50 ppg, 30 rpg in todays era with 90 poss. per game.... that is just absurd.... somebody averaging that today is equivalent of something like 100 ppg, 60 rpg in the 60s.... some logic will ya?

[BoutPractice]

By the way, you can do the same analysis I did with rebounding with scoring. It's even more interesting with scoring, because the picture is really obvious:

- Pre-Wilt: Scoring leaders average around 25 ppg (high of 29, low of 21).
- The peak Wilt period: Repeated, crazy outbursts, including a 50 ppg, a 45 ppg and several 37/38 ppg seasons.
- Post-peak Wilt NBA: Remarkable stability over a 45 year period. Most of the time, the scoring leader averages something between 27 and 33 ppg, the average would probably be 30. There are only three 'outliers' (though they're not THAT far from 33 ppg): Kareem, Kobe and Jordan, who reached 35 and in Jordan's case, 37 ppg.

[AintNoSunshine]

LOL this is not looking like a ISH thread with all that analysis, data and calculation. Where are the insults, name calling :roll:

Thanks guys

[jlip]

It's interesting to look at what the rebounding leaders averaged in history...

- From 1950 to 1956, rebounding leaders averaged around 15 rpg.
- Then from 1956 to 1969, two things stand out. One: the rebounding leader is always either Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain. Two: over this 13 year period, they averaged 24 rpg.
- You then have the 1969 to 1973 period, where Wilt Chamberlain is at the end of his career. Elvin Hayes grabs one title and Wilt the other 3. Average: 18 rpg.
- Wilt retires. Then there's the period from 1973 to 1985. Average: 15 rpg. The greatest rebounder in this period is Moses Malone, who generally hovers around 15 rpg himself, with a high of 17,5.
- Next, the pre-Rodman period, 1985 to 1991. Lots of dispersion in terms of who is the rebounding leader. Average: 13,5 rpg.
- The Rodman period, 1991 to 1998. All the rebounding titles are captured by Rodman, with a personal high of 18,66 rpg. Average: around 17 rpg.
- The post-Rodman period, 1999 to now. Two rebounders stand out: Kevin Garnett, who was leader 4 times, and Dwight Howard, who was leader 5 times. The best average is from Ben Wallace: 15,42 pg. Overall average: 13,5 rpg ie the same as the transitional period between Moses and Rodman.


I'll leave to your own conclusions, but some things to note:
- Since Wilt retired, no player averaged 20 rpg. Wilt did it something like 7 times.
- Historically the rebounding leader tends to average over 15 rpg. It's unusual for him to average less than that. It's possible to average 18 rpg or more, even in the modern era, as Rodman did it in the 90s.
- There is no clear pattern of the average of rpg leaders going down over time. The average of the best rebounder is a product not of the era, but of the best rebounder himself! When that rebounder is Wilt, Russell or Rodman, the average goes up.



By the way, you can do the same analysis I did with rebounding with scoring. It's even more interesting with scoring, because the picture is really obvious:

- Pre-Wilt: Scoring leaders average around 25 ppg (high of 29, low of 21).
- The peak Wilt period: Repeated, crazy outbursts, including a 50 ppg, a 45 ppg and several 37/38 ppg seasons.
- Post-peak Wilt NBA: Remarkable stability over a 45 year period. Most of the time, the scoring leader averages something between 27 and 33 ppg, the average would probably be 30. There are only three 'outliers' (though they're not THAT far from 33 ppg): Kareem, Kobe and Jordan, who reached 35 and in Jordan's case, 37 ppg.

:applause:

I noticed basically the same thing you did a while back. The "crazy stats" seemed to have started and ended with Wilt and Russell. It's makes you wonder how much of an effect did their presence alone have on league wide player style and numbers.

[iamgine]

You cant drop his mpg,due to you thinking hell only play 40 mpg


You kinda have to, seeing how in Wilt's era all the top guys played 44+ mpg. In fact, it should be dropped even lower seeing how today, no one exceeds 39 mpg.

[Psileas]

Yes, you DO when compared to others from a different era at least.... in the 60s they averaged up to around 140 poss. per game compared to todays 90 poss. per game...... per possession & minute Wilts / Russells stats were actually not that impressive compared to Jordan, Shaq, Lebron, Bird and a couple of others... again, take a look at my thread where i thoroughly adjust/calculate their stats towards todays era for example....

You DO... you have to adjust it that way, its not like Wilt / Russell would average 50 ppg, 30 rpg in todays era with 90 poss. per game.... that is just absurd.... somebody averaging that today is equivalent of something like 100 ppg, 60 rpg in the 60s.... some logic will ya?

No, you DON'T, as in "no, you don't have a thread about that", because the numerical lies of that thread have been busted since the dinosaur era. So, 2 things:
1) The age of dinosaurs is over.
2) The fairy tale that teams had 140-440 possessions back then belongs to the dinosaurs.

[Flash31]

You kinda have to, seeing how in Wilt's era all the top guys played 44+ mpg. In fact, it should be dropped even lower seeing how today, no one exceeds 39 mpg.

No you dont,considering Minutes played is completely arbitrary,its up to the players and coaches,
and considering a lot of people cant play 40 mpg or the coach doesnt need them to,They dont.

But then look at the Bulls
Deng routinely plays 39-40 mpg+,Noah plays a lot of minutes,Kobe played 40 mpg+ for over 10-20 games.

Wilt could play all 48 minutes in a game,certain people can,others cant he was one that could.
The main stars all played 40 mpg plus bc they could or were needed to,
If Wilt,Russell,Thurmond could play they did.Wilt playing 48 mpg was more valuable than him playing 38-40 mpg and somebody else playing those minutes.And if Wilt could tsill Play he DID.


The pace back then was quicker,Todays pace is even Slower
Defenses were Harder and Tougher back then,today is more Lax

So with a slower Pace,lax defense compared to then,and literally no great centers or anybody that could stop him in sight,
WHY WOULD HE Play Less.

And also,youre telling me that going up against Howard,Hibbert,Lopez,Gasol
is equivalent to Russell,Thurmond,Kareem,Reed.
COME ON.

[Dr.J4ever]

I havent made an exhaustive study like some of you, but cmon, there were more rebounding opportunities in the 60s. Scores were higher on average, probably because of the pace.

[Psileas]

Apologies to Flash31, I thought the comment for Wilt playing 40 mpg was directed to me, because I didn't pay enough attention to "and two".

[iamgine]

No you dont,considering Minutes played is completely arbitrary,its up to the players and coaches,
and considering a lot of people cant play 40 mpg or the coach doesnt need them to,They dont.

But then look at the Bulls
Deng routinely plays 39-40 mpg+,Noah plays a lot of minutes,Kobe played 40 mpg+ for over 10-20 games.

Wilt could play all 48 minutes in a game,certain people can,others cant he was one that could.
The main stars all played 40 mpg plus bc they could or were needed to,
If Wilt,Russell,Thurmond could play they did.Wilt playing 48 mpg was more valuable than him playing 38-40 mpg and somebody else playing those minutes.And if Wilt could tsill Play he DID.


The pace back then was quicker,Todays pace is even Slower
Defenses were Harder and Tougher back then,today is more Lax

So with a slower Pace,lax defense compared to then,and literally no great centers or anybody that could stop him in sight,
WHY WOULD HE Play Less.

And also,youre telling me that going up against Howard,Hibbert,Lopez,Gasol
is equivalent to Russell,Thurmond,Kareem,Reed.
COME ON.
We're talking average right? Obviously every top player in the NBA is capable of playing 48 minutes.

You are basically saying players like a 30 yrs old Gene Shue were fitter than all of today's athlete since he could play 39 mpg in a quicker pace, tougher era.

It doesn't work like that.

[Dr.J4ever]

We're talking average right? Obviously every top player in the NBA is capable of playing 48 minutes.

You are basically saying players like a 30 yrs old Gene Shue were fitter than all of today's athlete since he could play 39 mpg in a quicker pace, tougher era.

It doesn't work like that.
I agree. Are people here actually arguing athletes back then were in better shape? This would be contrary to everything we know. Wilt and russel are giants of the game but i dont believe in 50 ppg 30rpg 48min in todays game. That is crazy. I believe all of us can agree on that.

[Flash31]

We're talking average right? Obviously every top player in the NBA is capable of playing 48 minutes.

You are basically saying players like a 30 yrs old Gene Shue were fitter than all of today's athlete since he could play 39 mpg in a quicker pace, tougher era.

It doesn't work like that.

no Not saying that,But
Wilt wasnt just Some star,He was an exceptional Athlete and would still be Today

Not everybody back then played 40 mpg,not everybody could.

And yes AVG,
The avg NBA Player/Star may play 38 mpg,but thats on AVG.And thats not considering some stars play more(Kobe/Durant,LeBron)when needed and can.


Wilts AVG MPG WAS 45.8 almost 46 mpg.
The Lowest Wilt played was 42.3 mpg,Thats the Lowest.
And that yes was in a much faster pace,tougher,harder defense era.

So today, in a WAY Slower pace,more lax Defense compared to then along with arena upkeep,travel,trainers today
WILT COULD play 45-48 mpg and WOULD if he so wanted to.

There is no coach if a star can still play tell them nope only 38-40 mpg,if the Star says otherwise and can still play.Wilt today with the way things are and the current crop of big men,come on

Domination would be minimizing his impact.

It doesnt work by taking the NBA star avg,bc not all stars are the same.You could take each of their career avgs to compare what theyll play on avg but not collectively together to get an avg.
Wilt was a statistical anomaly and wasnt anything close to avg.

For ex Kobe avg close to 37 mpg avg total,highest was 41,and AVG
Nearly 39 mpg last season at 34yrs of age.
LeBron James avg 39.7 mpg for Career,Nearly 40 mpg,had seasons of 42+mpg.
Durant at 38,MJ at 39,had seasons of 40 mpg.
AI has a Career AVG of 41 mpg,with his high being 43.7 mpg,almost 44 mpg.


Not everybody can play 40 mpg,but a lot of stars do.
Wilt just so happened to play longer than everyone else,but stars playing 40 mpg isnt out of the ordinary or simply past era players,
Stars today and recently have played 40+mpg.

[iamgine]

no Not saying that,But
Wilt wasnt just Some star,He was an exceptional Athlete and would still be Today

Not everybody back then played 40 mpg,not everybody could.

And yes AVG,
The avg NBA Player/Star may play 38 mpg,but thats on AVG.And thats not considering some stars play more(Kobe/Durant,LeBron)when needed and can.


Wilts AVG MPG WAS 45.8 almost 46 mpg.
The Lowest Wilt played was 42.3 mpg,Thats the Lowest.
And that yes was in a much faster pace,tougher,harder defense era.

So today, in a WAY Slower pace,more lax Defense compared to then along with arena upkeep,travel,trainers today
WILT COULD play 45-48 mpg and WOULD if he so wanted to.

There is no coach if a star can still play tell them nope only 38-40 mpg,if the Star says otherwise and can still play.Wilt today with the way things are and the current crop of big men,come on

Domination would be minimizing his impact.

It doesnt work by taking the NBA star avg,bc not all stars are the same.You could take each of their career avgs to compare what theyll play on avg but not collectively together to get an avg.
Wilt was a statistical anomaly and wasnt anything close to avg.

For ex Kobe avg close to 37 mpg avg total,highest was 41,and AVG
Nearly 39 mpg last season at 34yrs of age.
LeBron James avg 39.7 mpg for Career,Nearly 40 mpg,had seasons of 42+mpg.
Durant at 38,MJ at 39,had seasons of 40 mpg.
AI has a Career AVG of 41 mpg,with his high being 43.7 mpg,almost 44 mpg.


Not everybody can play 40 mpg,but a lot of stars do.
Wilt just so happened to play longer than everyone else,but stars playing 40 mpg isnt out of the ordinary or simply past era players,
Stars today and recently have played 40+mpg.
As I said, any top players are capable of 48 minutes. They just don't do it today. Any of them could average 48 minutes if the coach allows, but it's very unlikely.

[Flash31]

As I said, any top players are capable of 48 minutes. They just don't do it today. Any of them could average 48 minutes if the coach allows, but it's very unlikely.

exactly,so Wilt playing 40+mpg today wouldnt be out of the ordinary
I mean AI played almost 44

so,what I was saying,you dont round down his mpg

[iamgine]

exactly,so Wilt playing 40+mpg today wouldnt be out of the ordinary
I mean AI played almost 44

so,what I was saying,you dont round down his mpg
It would be out of ordinary, seeing no one exceeds 39 mpg last season.

[gts]

I hate going across eras, best to compare them to the players of their own time but when I do I just use per 36 minutes numbers. It gets you in the ball park. From there on you just have to put things in the proper context which is a wide open discussion usually not worth discussing

[CavaliersFTW]

Yeah,and two how are you going to drop 8 mpg off bc nobody plays that now.
Wilt would play today as long as he wanted.

I mean Deng routinely clocks in at 39-41 mpg.

You cant just avg out the percentages compared to todays and then drop his mpg.
Durant plays 38 mpg,Kobe higher should we round that down to 36.MJ played a lot of mpg at times,should we round that down due to our own cause.



so 40% out of Say todays 45 avg would be 18
so 18 RBS
but then say he was on a high rebounding team,which he would be bc of him
and teammates also or no good rb teammates

The high is 52
so 40% out of 52
20.8,almost 21 rbs per game
Yeah nobody played every minute of every game for a full season then, either. :roll: You don't lop off Wilt's records simply because 'nobody is doing it now' there's a reason he owns the record books. NOBODY DID IT EVER, before, during, or since. Wilt is so good people just want to believe the guy 'couldn't' even though he did.

[CavaliersFTW]

I hate going across eras, best to compare them to the players of their own time but when I do I just use per 36 minutes numbers. It gets you in the ball park. From there on you just have to put things in the proper context which is a wide open discussion usually not worth discussing
that won't get you in the ballpark of anything though...

[Flash31]

It would be out of ordinary, seeing no one exceeds 39 mpg last season.

Not really,considering Kobe at 34 played almost 39 min
Deng clocked at 39

LeBron,Kobe,Durant,Allen Iverson played all over 40+ min
Ai played almost 44 min,and his career avg is almost 42 mpg

With todays c an big men playing,a guy the skill of Wilt,a goat and his minutes played would get 40 mpg if he so wanted and could which he did

But say at the bare minimum he gets 40 mpg
and his avg are bare minimum
20 fga,15 fta(Dh getting 10-12),13 rbs at absolute minimum,3 blocks,4 ast,1 stl
10/20,7/15 50%

27 ppg,13 rbs,4ast,3 blocks,1 stl on 50%
on ABSOLUTE MINIMUM which even then
Love getting 12-15,Howard 12-15

I dont see the Goat rb,getting only 13 and only 27 ppg,3 blocks

Dwight had a 23,15 season

So say he gets anywhere from
27-30 ppg at minimum,13-16 rbs,3-5 blocks,4-6 ast on 50%

Is there anybody better than him currently playing No
He would be on a 50-60 win team every year
would be mvp and d poy almost every season
and since there is nobody that could stop him
More than 2 rings

so

30,15,5 on 50% with 4 blocks and 1 steal
And if he focused on d more

18-20,20,6-8 with 5 blocks and 2 steals on 55%

anybody come close

There would be no stopping him and due to his size,length,skill,athleticism and being goat rb and shot blocker
hed be t the top in those by at least 4-5 rbs over the next

Rodman got almost 19 rpg in a season and he was 6'6
If Wilt focused on d more hed get a very high number
along with todays big men and stats being more spread across the team

[Flash31]

Yeah nobody played every minute of every game for a full season then, either. :roll: You don't lop off Wilt's records simply because 'nobody is doing it now' there's a reason he owns the record books. NOBODY DID IT EVER, before, during, or since. Wilt is so good people just want to believe the guy 'couldn't' even though he did.

Did you even read that
I said he could and did
and you Dont lop off his records just bc no one else could

Wilt wasnt avg,If he played today he would still be able to and probably would play 40+mpg and still produce monster stats and be above everyone else in
ppg,rpg,mpg,bpg

[MavsSuperFan]

Statistically you value/adjust them based on possessions (pace) & minutes....

I have a thread about that:

http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=294854
That totally dismiss that the league overall was much less talented than today

[MavsSuperFan]

Yeah nobody played every minute of every game for a full season then, either. :roll: You don't lop off Wilt's records simply because 'nobody is doing it now' there's a reason he owns the record books. NOBODY DID IT EVER, before, during, or since. Wilt is so good people just want to believe the guy 'couldn't' even though he did.
He couldnt do it against the league today, not saying he wouldnt be a good player, but he wouldnt be putting up those numbers.

[iamgine]

Not really,considering Kobe at 34 played almost 39 min
Deng clocked at 39

LeBron,Kobe,Durant,Allen Iverson played all over 40+ min
Ai played almost 44 min,and his career avg is almost 42 mpg

With todays c an big men playing,a guy the skill of Wilt,a goat and his minutes played would get 40 mpg if he so wanted and could which he did

But say at the bare minimum he gets 40 mpg
and his avg are bare minimum
20 fga,15 fta(Dh getting 10-12),13 rbs at absolute minimum,3 blocks,4 ast,1 stl
10/20,7/15 50%

27 ppg,13 rbs,4ast,3 blocks,1 stl on 50%
on ABSOLUTE MINIMUM which even then
Love getting 12-15,Howard 12-15

I dont see the Goat rb,getting only 13 and only 27 ppg,3 blocks

Dwight had a 23,15 season

So say he gets anywhere from
27-30 ppg at minimum,13-16 rbs,3-5 blocks,4-6 ast on 50%

Is there anybody better than him currently playing No
He would be on a 50-60 win team every year
would be mvp and d poy almost every season
and since there is nobody that could stop him
More than 2 rings

so

30,15,5 on 50% with 4 blocks and 1 steal
And if he focused on d more

18-20,20,6-8 with 5 blocks and 2 steals on 55%

anybody come close

There would be no stopping him and due to his size,length,skill,athleticism and being goat rb and shot blocker
hed be t the top in those by at least 4-5 rbs over the next

Rodman got almost 19 rpg in a season and he was 6'6
If Wilt focused on d more hed get a very high number
along with todays big men and stats being more spread across the team
If he's on a 50-60 win team, his minutes would be even lower.

Not to mention when he was playing 48 minutes, that means he's playing many many minutes against scrubs too. That could inflate stats.

[CavaliersFTW]

He couldnt do it against the league today, not saying he wouldnt be a good player, but he wouldnt be putting up those numbers.
Who's gonna slow him down Joel Anthony? lol the guy dwarfed Shaquille O'Neal but has a decathletes physique and athleticism, and an IQ and skillset as high as anyone who's ever played his position... he could do anything he wanted. The league would be helpless.

[Flash31]

If he's on a 50-60 win team, his minutes would be even lower.

Not to mention when he was playing 48 minutes, that means he's playing many many minutes against scrubs too. That could inflate stats.

Well the num of wins doesnt correlate to lower mpg all the time
see(LeBron,AI,Shaq,Jordan)

and yes playing that many min would put him up against scrubs and role players
which would up his stats
so seeing

30,20 doesnt seem unreasonable and impossible now does it
or even
20,20

I mean if Love can get 16 rbs,Ibaka can get 3 blocks
Dwight could put up 25ppg

Love can get 30,30
20,20 games
What makes you think Wilt playing 40 mpg
and being goat rb,shot blocker,one of goat defenders,
most dominant scorer,one of goat skilled big men,along with his athleticism
against these current big men and frontcourts
Couldnt?

[CavaliersFTW]

Wilt had so much pull he did what he wanted - and this would be no different today. He wanted to play a lot of minutes, so he always did (now, playing every minute of every game was Coach McGuires idea, but Wilt was on board with it) But Wilt always wanted to play about 44 minutes a game or more, he cramped up if he sat, sitting him for anything more than a couple of plays to bandage up a cut or ice a knee was counter productive to his own ability to play. You cater to the phenomena of Wilt Chamberlain you DO NOT pigeon hole him into some run of the mill rotation.

If he were in the league today, and a coach wanted him to play 40 minutes or less they'd be fired. Wilt draws the fans, not the coach. And believe me, Wilt would draw so many fans the league ratings would skyrocket everywhere he played. Everybody would be looking to see him play all those minutes and putting up all those unbelievable stats. He could, and would do it all over again if he were in the league today. He's Wilt Chamberlain, you guys acting like Wilt couldn't rebound like Kevin Love or would barely score a few more points than Dwight Howard are just in denial.

[pauk]

No, you DON'T, as in "no, you don't have a thread about that", because the numerical lies of that thread have been busted since the dinosaur era. So, 2 things:
1) The age of dinosaurs is over.
2) The fairy tale that teams had 140-440 possessions back then belongs to the dinosaurs.

The only one who lies here is the one who denies the 60s being the highest paced era in NBA history....

[pauk]

That totally dismiss that the league overall was much less talented than today

Basketball HAS evolved compared to the 50s/60s, in terms of health, training, popularity, magnitude of players/teams/talent.... and has changed in rules...

Think about this.... the absolutely worst player in the 60s in the absolutely worst team in the 60s averaged MUCH more poss. per game than any player/team compared today......... do you think its because that player/team was better than anybody today??

Doesnt mean that 60s/Wilt/Russell etc. sucked.... not at all... but that you should take their stats with a grain of salt...

[CavaliersFTW]

Basketball HAS evolved compared to the 50s/60s, in terms of health, training, popularity, magnitude of players/teams/talent.... and has changed in rules...

Think about this.... the absolutely worst player in the 60s in the absolutely worst team in the 60s averaged MUCH more poss. per game than any player/team compared today......... do you think its because that player/team was better than anybody today??

Doesnt mean that 60s/Wilt/Russell etc. sucked.... not at all... but that you should take their stats with a grain of salt...
Only problem is, the 60's was not a '140 posession' paced league like you try to assert. It was about 120 at it's peak. Not even close to 140. To claim they played at that fictitious pace is like the people who try to claim Wilt played 5-10 white guys at center position. Lies that can easily be disproven - this isn't the 90's, you can't get away with lies about past era's like that anymore there is to much data at everyone's fingertips on the net. Sorry Pauk.

[Deuce Bigalow]

For rebounding, the best stat is True Rebounding %. That stat works for any era.

I calculated Wilt and Russell's TRB% a while back, here are the numbers:

Wilt Chamberlain
Regular Season: 20.4%
Playoffs: 21.9%
Finals: 22.0%

Bill Russell
Regular Season: 19.9%
Playoffs: 20.9%
Finals: 21.4%

Much higher numbers than the other great centers of Kareem, Shaq, and Hakeem. But they do not have the highest TRB% in league history. In before the Wilt fans make up excuses.

[kurple]

In 12-13 season, the best rebounding team got 45 rebounds on an average game.

Wilt rebounded about 36% of his team's rebounds in '61-'62.

Wilt probably only play 40 minutes in this era instead of the 48.5 minutes he played

So...45*.36*40/48.5 = Around 13 rebounds per game.
basketball isnt played on paper

[Deuce Bigalow]

Take a look at the highest rebound games in league history - http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/reboundsinglegame.html

Every single 35+ rebound game occurred in the 50s or 60s, except for only two (one in '71 & another in '88). You would think that at least one time a great rebounder would get lucky and get 35 wouldn't you? Hasn't happened in the last 25 years. And only 2 times since 1970. Were Russell and Wilt really that great? I doubt it. Prior to the 70's, the league averaged more FGAs and was less efficient which means more misses, in turn means more rebounds.

Let's compare a 60's year league average compared to last season.

1960-61 League average: 109.4 FGA/gm, 45.4 FG made/gm, 64.0 FG missed/gm

2012-13 League average: 82.0 FGA/gm, 37.1 FG made/gm, 44.9 FG missed/gm

Nearly 20 more missed shots a game, on average between those two years.

[NumberSix]

Keep it real. Bill Russell would have the same averages as Joakim Noah today.

[Psileas]

The only one who lies here is the one who denies the 60s being the highest paced era in NBA history....

I don't know who this person is. What I know, however, is that you can't play with numbers and think you can fool everyone through this.

[LAZERUSS]

The "paceologists" always bring up pace in these discussions, but never league averages.

I won't bother posting the formulas now, because I have done it many times before, but put Wilt's 61-62 season in 2012-2013, and adjust for the much higher eFG%'s, which you have to do if you are going to adjust for pace, and he would average around 37-38 ppg, 16-18 rpg, and about a .570 FG%.

Of course the "wilt-bashers" will claim that Chamberlain wouldn't be playing 48 mpg in this era, despite the fact that he was the only one doing it in his (and he was close several more times.) However, some will use Per/36...which, of course punishes a player who battled thru fatigue and injuries to play 48 mpg, and rewards a player who was playing 30-36 mpg, and was much fresher. Do you think the "anti-Wilt" gang would ever suggest that Chamberlain's efficiencies might have been considerably higher had he "only" played 40 mpg (e.g., FG% and TRB%.)

Nor do the "Wilt-detractors" ever bring up the fact that a prime Chamberlain was the ONLY player in his era (and keep in mind that KAJ played FOUR years IN the Wilt-era) that was putting up those unfathomable numbers? Or that a prime Chamberlain was just destroying his HOF peers along the way?

How about Chamberlain out-rebounding Russell in one game by a 55-19 margin. Or hanging a 73 point, 36 rebound game on 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy?

I could give example-after-example of a Chamberlain, even into his 30's, just putting up unbelievable games. Or a 36 year old Wilt, in his last post-season, covering 17 games, averaging 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg (and just murdering Boerwinkle, Thurmond, and Reed on the glass in the process.) Or that this same 36 year old Chamberlain averaged 5.42 bpg in that season. Or that a 32 year old Wilt hung two 60+ point games in the 69 season.

But, it wouldn't make any difference to the Custerites.

[lilgodfather1]

Take away about 25%.

[Deuce Bigalow]

The "paceologists" always bring up pace in these discussions, but never league averages.

I won't bother posting the formulas now, because I have done it many times before, but put Wilt's 61-62 season in 2012-2013, and adjust for the much higher eFG%'s, which you have to do if you are going to adjust for pace, and he would average around 37-38 ppg, 16-18 rpg, and about a .570 FG%.

Of course the "wilt-bashers" will claim that Chamberlain wouldn't be playing 48 mpg in this era, despite the fact that he was the only one doing it in his (and he was close several more times.) However, some will use Per/36...which, of course punishes a player who battled thru fatigue and injuries to play 48 mpg, and rewards a player who was playing 30-36 mpg, and was much fresher. Do you think the "anti-Wilt" gang would ever suggest that Chamberlain's efficiencies might have been considerably higher had he "only" played 40 mpg (e.g., FG% and TRB%.)

Nor do the "Wilt-detractors" ever bring up the fact that a prime Chamberlain was the ONLY player in his era (and keep in mind that KAJ played FOUR years IN the Wilt-era) that was putting up those unfathomable numbers? Or that a prime Chamberlain was just destroying his HOF peers along the way?

How about Chamberlain out-rebounding Russell in one game by a 55-19 margin. Or hanging a 73 point, 36 rebound game on 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy?

I could give example-after-example of a Chamberlain, even into his 30's, just putting up unbelievable games. Or a 36 year old Wilt, in his last post-season, covering 17 games, averaging 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg (and just murdering Boerwinkle, Thurmond, and Reed on the glass in the process.) Or that this same 36 year old Chamberlain averaged 5.42 bpg in that season. Or that a 32 year old Wilt hung two 60+ point games in the 69 season.

But, it wouldn't make any difference to the Custerites.
Wilt had a 20% TRB for his career, with a peak of 21%.

Dwight? 21% TRB for his career, with a peak of 22%.
Love? 22% TRB for his career, with a peak of 23%.
The Rebounding GOAT Rodman? 23% TRB for his career, with 4 seasons of over 26%.

Sorry brah

[NumberSix]

Wilt had a 20% TRB for his career, with a peak of 21%.

Dwight? 21% TRB for his career, with a peak of 22%.
Love? 22% TRB for his career, with a peak of 23%.
The Rebounding GOAT Rodman? 23% TRB for his career, with 4 seasons of over 26%.

Sorry brah
Facts.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt had a 20% TRB for his career, with a peak of 21%.

Dwight? 21% TRB for his career, with a peak of 22%.
Love? 22% TRB for his career, with a peak of 23%.
The Rebounding GOAT Rodman? 23% TRB for his career, with 4 seasons of over 26%.

Sorry brah

Chamberlain was playing 46 mpg, scoring 30 ppg, and handing out 4-5 apg. Furthermore, he was not only blocking 8-10 shots per game, he was probably trying to block another 8-10 per game. So, he was LOSING rebounds by blocking shots.

Love and Dwight have been playing 36 mpg, and Rodman played 30 mpg. And none of them dominated at both ends of the floor like Chamberlain, either.

And Wilt, who supposedly "wilted" in the post-season, averaged 47 mpg, and had a career playoff TRB% of around 23%, with a high of 25%. In one post-season series against Russell, he had a 25-18% edge.

Ask Dwight, Love, and Rodman to play 46-48 mpg, 80-82 games per year, in schedules that were more condensed, for 14 seasons, and they likely would drop dead in around season #3. And none of them would have approached 22% in doing so, either.

[La Frescobaldi]

Statistically you value/adjust them based on possessions (pace) & minutes....

I have a thread about that:

http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=294854

tell us again how you provided 'factual' numbers like 140 games per possession. I forget how you did that, but it seems like I remember you just invented it out of the air.
quoting pawk:
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


The difference between your cooked-up 140 possessions (nobody knows YET how that was invented) and 118 (the rampaging fast 1962 season) is even greater than the difference between 118 and 100 possessions, the number you randomly chose as a baseline. Possibly for pauk reasons.

Tell us how you did that again? I can't remember.

Oh yes. When I asked this same question on your other thread, not only did you never reply, but I believe you never posted again in that thread....

[fpliii]

tell us again how you provided 'factual' numbers like 140 games per possession. I forget how you did that, but it seems like I remember you just invented it out of the air.
quoting pawk:
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


The difference between your cooked-up 140 possessions (nobody knows YET how that was invented) and 118 (the rampaging fast 1962 season) is even greater than the difference between 118 and 100 possessions, the number you randomly chose as a baseline. Possibly for pauk reasons.

Tell us how you did that again? I can't remember.

Oh yes. When I asked this same question on your other thread, not only did you never reply, but I believe you never posted again in that thread....

Just ignore him, Psileas and I have called him out on this every time for months but he keeps it up. Quoting myself for the 10,000th time:


Serious question pauk: From where did you get the 140 possessions a game estimate? I've seen you cite it numerous times, but you've never provided calculations or a source. There have been three attempts at estimating pace in the basketball statistics community:

ElGee (6 >= 130, highest 135.9): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...rowsperpage=25

basketball-reference.com (5 >= 130, highest 133.3): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...rowsperpage=25

Dean Oliver (3>= 130, highest 132.9): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...rowsperpage=25

Now I don't care about Wilt, but I've seen you casually throw this 140 number around enough that I had to intervene. If you have calculations/a valid source then please provide it, otherwise stop spreading misinformation, and edit that post to say 130 from now on (I say from now on because I've seen that exact post from you more than a half dozen times). Not everybody will put the work in to investigate, and might take that post as fact.

Just post this whenever he tries to mention it.

[La Frescobaldi]

the game is much slower, but depending on the team he landed on today & the situation around him, Chamberlain could probably get a couple seasons at his career average.

His turnaround fadeaway off the left block was money for years and years, and he had a sweet 8 foot jumper that he very seldom used later on but was an effective counter for the finger roll. He wasn't just a dunk dude, he had a complete offensive game all the way round the circle out to 15 feet. That finger roll he had still gets used today, it's just not a highlight move like it was then, because that was one of Chamberlain's signatures.

[LAZERUSS]

Chamberlain played in about 1200 career games, including playoffs, and I suspect that he would have been the leading rebounder in around 1000 of them. Furthermore, in his 29 post-season series, he was never outrebounded in even one series, and in many of them he was just crushing his opposing centers, including Russell and Thurmond.

Russell was widely recognized as the second best rebounder of his era, and in their 143 career h2h's (in which Russell probably played close to Wilt minutes), Chamberlain outrebounded him by FIVE per game. He had post-seasons (again, with Russell probably playing 2-3 less mpg) in which Wilt outrebounded Russell by margins of 5, 5, and even 9 per game. In his last post-season, at age 36, Chamberlain outrebounded Thurmond by nearly 7 per game.

So, here again, it's not just about Wilt's NUMBERS, but his absolute DOMINATION of his peers.

[TheMarkMadsen]

20+ years from now are you going to adjust or value the statistics of players today differently?

[LAZERUSS]

And you can throw out the ridiculous 140 possessions per game, too.

Let's get to reality...

In '62, which was the NBA at it's fastest "pace" the average team took 108 FGAs, and 37 FTAs. AND, they had an eFG% of .426.

In '13, the NBA averaged 82 FGAs per team, and 22 FTAs per team. On an eFG% of .496.

Chamberlain's numbers would have been reduced to 30 FGAs, and 10 FTAs in '13. Just using his .506 FG% alone would have been worth 36 ppg. BUT, if you don't adjust the FG%'s, then the '62 NBA would average 86 ppg in '13. Adjust the eFG% to '13 levels, and they would average 97 ppg in a league that averaged 98. So, Wilt's .506 FG% would have risen to .589...or over 17 FGM (instead of 15)...or about 40 ppg.

Of course you can do the easy math too. In '62 the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg. In '13 it was at 98.1 ppg, 98.1/118.8= 82.5. 82.5 x 50.6 = 41 ppg.

BTW, Wilt's .683 FG% in '67 translates to .768 in 2013. And his .727 FG% in '73 translates to .789 in 2013.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Chamberlain was playing 46 mpg, scoring 30 ppg, and handing out 4-5 apg. Furthermore, he was not only blocking 8-10 shots per game, he was probably trying to block another 8-10 per game. So, he was LOSING rebounds by blocking shots.

Love and Dwight have been playing 36 mpg, and Rodman played 30 mpg. And none of them dominated at both ends of the floor like Chamberlain, either.

And Wilt, who supposedly "wilted" in the post-season, averaged 47 mpg, and had a career playoff TRB% of around 23%, with a high of 25%. In one post-season series against Russell, he had a 25-18% edge.

Ask Dwight, Love, and Rodman to play 46-48 mpg, 80-82 games per year, in schedules that were more condensed, for 14 seasons, and they likely would drop dead in around season #3. And none of them would have approached 22% in doing so, either.
Let's look at Bill Russell, who had a career TRB% that was 0.8% less than Wilt.

'56-'57: 35.3 MPG, 21.92%
'57'-58: 38.3 MPG, 21.32%
'67-'68: 37.9 MPG, 19.78%

In the 3 seasons he averaged 38.3 MPG or less, his TRB% was 20-22%, hardly a different than his career 19.6% TRB while averaging 42.3 MPG for his career.

In Dennis Rodman's highest MPG season ('91-'92), which he played all 82 games in and started 80 of them, his TRB% was 26.2 while averaging 40.3 MPG.

Bill never came close to 26% even though he had 3 seasons of 38.3 MPG or less, and Wilt would not have come close either since they were very close to having the same TRB% for their careers.

[LAZERUSS]

Let's look at Bill Russell, who had a career TRB% that was 0.8% less than Wilt.

'56-'57: 35.3 MPG, 21.92%
'57'-58: 38.3 MPG, 21.32%
'67-'68: 37.9 MPG, 19.78%

In the 3 seasons he averaged 38.3 MPG or less, his TRB% was 20-22%, hardly a different than his career 19.6% TRB while averaging 42.3 MPG for his career.

In Dennis Rodman's highest MPG season ('91-'92), which he played all 82 games in and started 80 of them, his TRB% was 26.2 while averaging 40.3 MPG.

Bill never came close to 26% even though he had 3 seasons of 38.3 MPG or less, and Wilt would not have come close either since they were very close to having the same TRB% for their careers.

Of course, while Chamberlain elevated his TRB% in the post-season, and playing 47,2 mpg his entire post-season career, Rodman SHRANK, and in his 40.3 mpg season, his TRB% dropped to 18.8% in the post-season..probably from fatigue.

And even you have to admit that Russell's TRB% climbed, even late in his career...with less mpg. And he never came close to Wilt minutes, either. Give a prime Wilt 40 mpg, over the course of 80 games, and his TRB% surely would have risen at least 2%.

Of course, Rodman was never a shot-blocker, while Chamberlain probably averaged 8+ per game over his career (and once again, probably went at another 8 or so, as well), all of which COST him rebounds (probably 2-3 per game.) Add that up, and that's another 4-5 rpg, and probably into the 25% range. All while scoring 30+ ppg.

[CavaliersFTW]

The "paceologists" always bring up pace in these discussions, but never league averages.

I won't bother posting the formulas now, because I have done it many times before, but put Wilt's 61-62 season in 2012-2013, and adjust for the much higher eFG%'s, which you have to do if you are going to adjust for pace, and he would average around 37-38 ppg, 16-18 rpg, and about a .570 FG%.

Of course the "wilt-bashers" will claim that Chamberlain wouldn't be playing 48 mpg in this era, despite the fact that he was the only one doing it in his (and he was close several more times.) However, some will use Per/36...which, of course punishes a player who battled thru fatigue and injuries to play 48 mpg, and rewards a player who was playing 30-36 mpg, and was much fresher. Do you think the "anti-Wilt" gang would ever suggest that Chamberlain's efficiencies might have been considerably higher had he "only" played 40 mpg (e.g., FG% and TRB%.)

Nor do the "Wilt-detractors" ever bring up the fact that a prime Chamberlain was the ONLY player in his era (and keep in mind that KAJ played FOUR years IN the Wilt-era) that was putting up those unfathomable numbers? Or that a prime Chamberlain was just destroying his HOF peers along the way?

How about Chamberlain out-rebounding Russell in one game by a 55-19 margin. Or hanging a 73 point, 36 rebound game on 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy?

I could give example-after-example of a Chamberlain, even into his 30's, just putting up unbelievable games. Or a 36 year old Wilt, in his last post-season, covering 17 games, averaging 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg (and just murdering Boerwinkle, Thurmond, and Reed on the glass in the process.) Or that this same 36 year old Chamberlain averaged 5.42 bpg in that season. Or that a 32 year old Wilt hung two 60+ point games in the 69 season.

But, it wouldn't make any difference to the Custerites.
Get 'em JL! :applause:

[CavaliersFTW]

tell us again how you provided 'factual' numbers like 140 games per possession. I forget how you did that, but it seems like I remember you just invented it out of the air.
quoting pawk:
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


The difference between your cooked-up 140 possessions (nobody knows YET how that was invented) and 118 (the rampaging fast 1962 season) is even greater than the difference between 118 and 100 possessions, the number you randomly chose as a baseline. Possibly for pauk reasons.

Tell us how you did that again? I can't remember.

Oh yes. When I asked this same question on your other thread, not only did you never reply, but I believe you never posted again in that thread....
Dude got caught in his own lie and bailed, he tries to bring it up again and you call him out AGAIN and now he won't show his face AGAIN - he's hoping we'll all forget someday. :oldlol:

Don't worry Pauk, we won't. We know you love lying about the pace of the 60's. Nobody is going to forget, there are too many legitimate NBA historians on ISH now to let you get away with BSing about that topic.

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, while players like Shaq, Hakeem, DRob, and Ewing were routinely outrebounded (not on average, of course, but many games in their careers), Chamberlain was seldom outrebounded. And does anyone believe that a 6-8 Rodman would have outrebounded a better conditioned, much taller, much stronger, much longer, and much more athletic Wilt h2h?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Of course, while Chamberlain elevated his TRB% in the post-season, and playing 47,2 mpg his entire post-season career, Rodman SHRANK, and in his 40.3 mpg season, his TRB% dropped to 18.8% in the post-season..probably from fatigue.

And even you have to admit that Russell's TRB% climbed, even late in his career...with less mpg. And he never came close to Wilt minutes, either. Give a prime Wilt 40 mpg, over the course of 80 games, and his TRB% surely would have risen at least 2%.

Of course, Rodman was never a shot-blocker, while Chamberlain probably averaged 8+ per game over his career (and once again, probably went at another 8 or so, as well), all of which COST him rebounds (probably 2-3 per game.) Add that up, and that's another 4-5 rpg, and probably into the 25% range. All while scoring 30+ ppg.
Rodman still had postseasons of 25.7%, 24.4%, 24.3%, and 23.4%, with 2 of those being championship runs. Wilt had only one Rodmanesque postseason.

[LAZERUSS]

Rodman still had postseasons of 25.7%, 24.4%, 24.3%, and 23.4%, with 2 of those being championship runs. Wilt had only one Rodmanesque postseason.

Chamberlain had SEVERAL.

And you mean the Wilt who played in 160 post-season games, and AVERAGED 47.2 mpg...and the Rodman who played in 169, and AVERAGED 28.3 mpg?

Chamberlain averaged 24.5 rpg in the post-season, and, at his peak, it was at 30 rpg. Rodman averaged 9.9 rpg in the post-season, with a peak of 16.

[Deuce Bigalow]

BTW, while players like Shaq, Hakeem, DRob, and Ewing were routinely outrebounded (not on average, of course, but many games in their careers), Chamberlain was seldom outrebounded. And does anyone believe that a 6-8 Rodman would have outrebounded a better conditioned, much taller, much stronger, much longer, and much more athletic Wilt h2h?
Wilt played 47-48 mpg :confusedshrug:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Chamberlain had SEVERAL.

And you mean the Wilt who played in 160 post-season games, and AVERAGED 47.2 mpg...and the Rodman who played in 169, and AVERAGED 28.3 mpg?

Chamberlain averaged 24.5 rpg in the post-season, and, at his peak, it was at 30 rpg. Rodman averaged 9.9 rpg in the post-season, with a peak of 16.
:banghead:

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt played 47-48 mpg :confusedshrug:

In the post-season H2H's, players like Russell, Thurmond, and Kareem played nearly as many minutes...and Wilt was cleaning their clocks.

[LAZERUSS]

:banghead:

Rodman averaged 0.6 bpg in his career, with a TOTAL of 531. You can be sure Chamberlain had entire seasons of more than that.

[LAZERUSS]

If the 6-8 Kevin Love could average 15.2 rpg in 36 mpg just a couple of years ago, does anyone in their right mind believe that a 7-1 (close to 7-3 in shoes) Chamberlain, at 280-300 lbs, with a 40 inch vertical, and a 7-8 wingspan, would not have averaged more?

[97 bulls]

In the post-season H2H's, players like Russell, Thurmond, and Kareem played nearly as many minutes...and Wilt was cleaning their clocks.
I fail to see how who he played against had any relevancy on how many minutes he played. Rodman played against players just as good if nit better than Wilt

How many more rebounds would Rodman get if he played another 8 minutes per?

[97 bulls]

Rodman averaged 0.6 bpg in his career, with a TOTAL of 531. You can be sure Chamberlain had entire seasons of more than that.
Rodman also drew alot of charges. Which in my opinion is much better than blocks.

[LAZERUSS]

Let's look at Bill Russell, who had a career TRB% that was 0.8% less than Wilt.

'56-'57: 35.3 MPG, 21.92%
'57'-58: 38.3 MPG, 21.32%
'67-'68: 37.9 MPG, 19.78%

In the 3 seasons he averaged 38.3 MPG or less, his TRB% was 20-22%, hardly a different than his career 19.6% TRB while averaging 42.3 MPG for his career.

In Dennis Rodman's highest MPG season ('91-'92), which he played all 82 games in and started 80 of them, his TRB% was 26.2 while averaging 40.3 MPG.

Bill never came close to 26% even though he had 3 seasons of 38.3 MPG or less, and Wilt would not have come close either since they were very close to having the same TRB% for their careers.

You do realize that H2H, and with Russell playing close to Wilt-minutes, that Chamberlain just slaughtered Russell?

In their 143 H2H games, Chamberlain outrebounded Russell by FIVE per GAME! He held a 92-43-8 margin in those 143 games. He held a 23-4 edge in 35+ rebound H2H games, and a 7-1 margin in 40+ H2H's.

Once again, Chamberlain was never outrebounded in their EIGHT post-season series, and in some he had margins of 5, 5, and even 9 per game!

Russell was nowhere near the dominant rebounder that Chamberlain was.

[LAZERUSS]

I fail to see how who he played against had any relevancy on how many minutes he played. Rodman played against players just as good if nit better than Wilt

How many more rebounds would Rodman get if he played another 8 minutes per?

You mean the Rodman that averaged 32 mpg over the course of his career, and the Chamberlain who averaged 46 over his?

The Rodman whose highest TRB% seasons came in 32 or less mpg? And do you honestly believe that Wilt's "efficiency" would not have risen with 8 mpg less? Or a Chamberlain who was going after 15 shots per night (and blocking 8 of them)?

And just what would Rodman's numbers looked like had he been the focal point on offense, (and swarmed in the process)?

[LAZERUSS]

Rodman also drew alot of charges. Which in my opinion is much better than blocks.

Was he drawing 15 per game? Here again, Chamberlain was blocking 8+ shots per game, and probably going after another 8.

[Deuce Bigalow]

If the 6-8 Kevin Love could average 15.2 rpg in 36 mpg just a couple of years ago, does anyone in their right mind believe that a 7-1 (close to 7-3 in shoes) Chamberlain, at 280-300 lbs, with a 40 inch vertical, and a 7-8 wingspan, would not have averaged more?
LOL

We already been over that. Wilt is 7'2" with shoes. 7'2" + 40" = head at 10'6"

:facepalm

His head could get half a foot above the rim.....right. We have never seen his head anywhere near the rim, let alone above it

[LAZERUSS]

LOL

We already been over that. Wilt is 7'2" with shoes. 7'2" + 40" = head at 10'6"

:facepalm

His head could get half a foot above the rim.....right. We have never seen his head anywhere near the rim, let alone above it

You and I both know there is footage with Chamberlain's fingertips with a couple of inches of the top of the backboard. And, there have been respectable eye-witness accounts of Chamberlain touching the top of the backboard. There is also Tex Winter claiming that he witnessed Chamberlain dunking from the FT line, and in fact was so shocked, that he headed a committee to ban such "freakish activity." Not to mention a 35 year old Wilt blocking two of a prime KAJ's skyhooks, at their apex.

[CavaliersFTW]

Rodman also drew alot of charges. Which in my opinion is much better than blocks.
A guy who goes limp to draw charges intimidates no one... A 310lb guy with a 7-8 wingspan and hops that can sky to reject your shots above the square, with the strength to punish your body if you attempt to drive into him, has a slightly different impact on defense. Acting like Rodman drawing charges to agitate people had anywhere close the the basket protecting defensive prowess of Chamberlain just sounds cheezy and desperate. Wilt was a god under the hoop, you piss him off and he will literally take over a game on either end he chooses. He could shut down the basket, literally just shut it down completely for long stretches of a game. Rodman was a mere cockroach by comparison, an annoying pest at times but absolutely insignificant compared to what Chamberlain could do.

[97 bulls]

Was he drawing 15 per game? Here again, Chamberlain was blocking 8+ shots per game, and probably going after another 8.
Totally different era. Ive seen videos of Wilt Chamberlain blocking shots. Its obvious the pump fake was not invented at that time. No wonder why he never fouled out. The way the game was played back then he should've had more

[97 bulls]

A guy who goes limp to draw charges intimidates no one... A 310lb guy with a 7-8 wingspan and hops that can sky to reject your shots above the square, with the strength to punish your body if you attempt to drive into him, has a slightly different impact on defense. Acting like Rodman drawing charges to agitate people had anywhere close the the basket protecting defensive prowess of Chamberlain just sounds cheezy and desperate. Wilt was a god under the hoop, you piss him off and he will literally take over a game on either end he chooses. He could shut down the basket, literally just shut it down completely for long stretches of a game. Rodman was a mere cockroach by comparison, an annoying pest at times but absolutely insignificant compared to what Chamberlain could do.
Well that cockroach has a ring for all but one of his legs. Perhaps Wilt would've won more had he played like the cockroach

[LAZERUSS]

Totally different era. Ive seen videos of Wilt Chamberlain blocking shots. Its obvious the pump fake was not invented at that time. No wonder why he never fouled out. The way the game was played back then he should've had more

Do you have footage of a KAJ skyhook being blocked at it's apex by anyone in the 80's (other than the 7-2 Gilmore, and not one as he is just letting it go, or still in his hand)? And keep in mind that an old Chamberlain was blocking them against a prime athletic KAJ.

[Deuce Bigalow]

You and I both know there is footage with Chamberlain's fingertips with a couple of inches of the top of the backboard. And, there have been respectable eye-witness accounts of Chamberlain touching the top of the backboard. There is also Tex Winter claiming that he witnessed Chamberlain dunking from the FT line, and in fact was so shocked, that he headed a committee to ban such "freakish activity." Not to mention a 35 year old Wilt blocking two of a prime KAJ's skyhooks, at their apex.
And yet no pictures of him, NOT ONE of him being CLOSE to rim level for a guy who supposedly can get his head 6" above the rim.

[97 bulls]

Do you have footage of a KAJ skyhook being blocked at it's apex by anyone in the 80's (other than the 7-2 Gilmore, and not one as he is just letting it go, or still in his hand)? And keep in mind that an old Chamberlain was blocking them against a prime athletic KAJ.
Do you even know what a pump fake is?

My point is the time Wilt played in was Jurassic. The reason players dont block shots at that level is because players have evolved and learned how to counter shotblockers. These methods were never used in Chamberlain and Russells era.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Do you have footage of a KAJ skyhook being blocked at it's apex by anyone in the 80's (other than the 7-2 Gilmore, and not one as he is just letting it go, or still in his hand)? And keep in mind that an old Chamberlain was blocking them against a prime athletic KAJ.
The only time Kareem was ever blocked were those back to back times by Wilt Chamberlain in that one game.

[CavaliersFTW]

Do you even know what a pump fake is?

My point is the time Wilt played in was Jurassic. The reason players dont block shots at that level is because players have evolved and learned how to counter shotblockers. These methods were never used in Chamberlain and Russells era.
Really a f*cking pump fake was never used in the 60's? Your awfully close to getting negged just for being a total dumbass :facepalm

[PHILA]

Totally different era. Ive seen videos of Wilt Chamberlain blocking shots. Its obvious the pump fake was not invented at that time. No wonder why he never fouled out. The way the game was played back then he should've had more


:biggums:

[CavaliersFTW]

The only time Kareem was ever blocked were those back to back times by Wilt Chamberlain in that one game.
There are other people who claim to have witnessed Wilt block Kareem's skyhook on different occasions than that 'one game'. There is even an article that a writer wrote floating around the net about a time Wilt blocked Kareem's skyhook and the impression it left on him. Wilt get's extremely close to blocking the shot (like, within an inch if not less) in about 3 other separate clips outside of those two where he does block it (twice in a row mind you) on film, suggesting (though it probably did not happen often) that it certainly happened more than just two times. The fact that it happened two times in a row also suggests that it wasn't a one time fluke.

[97 bulls]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=splnUR-52jM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This is a highlight video of Chamberlain blocking shots. Not one time did I see a guy try pump faking then jump into him and draw a foul, more than half of the shots would be considered goal tending, or perhaps they should've tried doing what some guards do today. Try to dunk on him.

His shotblocking is totally overrated.

[CavaliersFTW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=splnUR-52jM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This is a highlight video of Chamberlain blocking shots. Not one time did I see a guy try pump faking then jump into him and draw a foul, more than half of the shots would be considered goal tending, or perhaps they should've tried doing what some guards do today. Try to dunk on him.

His shotblocking is totally overrated.
:rolleyes: cherry picking vids of NCAA highlights and 2 or 3 games worth of stock footage that deliberately lack pump faking to try and make an erroneous assertion? Your pathetic dude give it a rest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqyEb-MgPAs
'Jurrassic era' pump fakes :oldlol: more impressive pump faking than 99% of the league today is even capable of. :applause: And he's an example of Wilt's so called 'weak' center competition.

Wilt doesn't bite pump fakes because he's seem them a couple thousand times and they don't work on him. If you've resorted to pump faking you've already lost, and he's closed enough ground to block your shot if you aren't smart enough to just give up and pass.
http://youtu.be/zaXHYlPECcc?t=2m48s

97 bulls disappearing act in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

[kshutts1]

I love Wilt/Russell discussions, but it is really annoying how half of the responses are clearly uninformed, whether by choice or just lack of ability to comprehend. Why can't they just stay out? Sigh. Trolls.

[rodman91]

Those rebounds would be somewhere in 13-15 rpg in modern basketball pace.
Russell's rebounding numbers would be Kevin Love's numbers if you convert it.

Their %TRB same.

[SHAQisGOAT]

"pump-fake wasn't yet invented in the 60's"

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

One of the best quotes I've seen here.

[Psileas]

:rolleyes: cherry picking vids of NCAA highlights and 2 or 3 games worth of stock footage that deliberately lack pump faking to try and make an erroneous assertion? Your pathetic dude give it a rest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqyEb-MgPAs
'Jurrassic era' pump fakes :oldlol: more impressive pump faking than 99% of the league today is even capable of. :applause: And he's an example of Wilt's so called 'weak' center competition.

Wilt doesn't bite pump fakes because he's seem them a couple thousand times and they don't work on him. If you've resorted to pump faking you've already lost, and he's closed enough ground to block your shot if you aren't smart enough to just give up and pass.
http://youtu.be/zaXHYlPECcc?t=2m48s

97 bulls disappearing act in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrScTdm8mj8

Not only were fakes existent, but Wilt was great at avoiding them, due to having some of the best reflexes ever in a big man.

[97 bulls]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=splnUR-52jM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This is a highlight video of Chamberlain blocking shots. Not one time did I see a guy try pump faking then jump into him and draw a foul, more than half of the shots would be considered goal tending, or perhaps they should've tried doing what some guards do today. Try to dunk on him.

His shotblocking is totally overrated.

[kshutts1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=splnUR-52jM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This is a highlight video of Chamberlain blocking shots. Not one time did I see a guy try pump faking then jump into him and draw a foul, more than half of the shots would be considered goal tending, or perhaps they should've tried doing what some guards do today. Try to dunk on him.

His shotblocking is totally overrated.
Maybe that's because that is an offensive foul? The league allows it today for some asinine reason. Biggest b---- move in the league.

And anyone Chamberlain's size should NEVER fall for a pump fake. You only fall for a PF if the person you're guarding is smaller than you... aka you need to jump to block his shot. If you're significantly taller/longer, then you don't need to jump, so it's much easier to remain disciplined.

[Psileas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=splnUR-52jM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This is a highlight video of Chamberlain blocking shots. Not one time did I see a guy try pump faking then jump into him and draw a foul, more than half of the shots would be considered goal tending, or perhaps they should've tried doing what some guards do today. Try to dunk on him.

His shotblocking is totally overrated.

Are you trying now to pretend that this is somehow commonplace nowadays? The vast majority of shots aren't taken after some elaborate footwork that will try to force the defender into commiting a foul. Establishing an adequate shooting position is almost always considered enough for someone to shoot.
You try to artificially raise the bar when it's evident that it doesn't really make any big difference - plus, it exposes your ignorance ("Its obvious the pump fake was not invented at that time"), because constantly raising the bar is not a trait of someone who knows what he's talking about in the first place.

Dunk on him? Been there, done that. Gus Johnson tried this twice in a game, the first time he succeeded, the second time he was destroyed (carried out with an injury), and Gus Johnson was much stronger than any guard. What makes you think that guards would have any better luck? Hell, the majority of dunks are performed under much more relaxed conditions and not with an elite big roaming under the basket ready to block them. Whenever this successfully happens, it makes posters and famous clips (KJ on Hakeem, Jordan on Ewing, Kobe on Yao, Dr.J a couple of times on Kareem, etc). Wilt falling victim to this once in a blue moon wouldn't hurt his legacy more than Dr.J's dunks on Kareem hurt Kareem's legacy.

[97 bulls]

Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrScTdm8mj8

Not only were fakes existent, but Wilt was great at avoiding them, due to having some of the best reflexes ever in a big man.
Lol thats one play.

[SHAQisGOAT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=splnUR-52jM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This is a highlight video of Chamberlain blocking shots. Not one time did I see a guy try pump faking then jump into him and draw a foul, more than half of the shots would be considered goal tending, or perhaps they should've tried doing what some guards do today. Try to dunk on him.

His shotblocking is totally overrated.

:biggums: :wtf:
Why the **** should anyone include any of that on a highlight video of Wilt blocking shots?

Yeah would love to see some guard tryin to dunk on him :lol This ain't Chris Bosh we're talking about, not even Dwight Howard really. Pretty easy to dunk on a 275+ lbs, 7'1, athletic freak :rolleyes:

[BoutPractice]

You do realize that the best shot blockers even today mostly block simple, straightforward shots that very much "existed" in the 60s, right?

[97 bulls]

Maybe that's because that is an offensive foul? The league allows it today for some asinine reason. Biggest b---- move in the league.

And anyone Chamberlain's size should NEVER fall for a pump fake. You only fall for a PF if the person you're guarding is smaller than you... aka you need to jump to block his shot. If you're significantly taller/longer, then you don't need to jump, so it's much easier to remain disciplined.
No. That is a foul. You must be jumping straight up in order for it to be an offensive foul. Wilt didn't have to worry about biting on pump fakes because a large portion of his blocks would he considered goal tending today.

[97 bulls]

Are you trying now to pretend that this is somehow commonplace nowadays? The vast majority of shots aren't taken after some elaborate footwork that will try to force the defender into commiting a foul. Establishing an adequate shooting position is almost always considered enough for someone to shoot.
You try to artificially raise the bar when it's evident that it doesn't really make any big difference - plus, it exposes your ignorance ("Its obvious the pump fake was not invented at that time"), because constantly raising the bar is not a trait of someone who knows what he's talking about in the first place.

Dunk on him? Been there, done that. Gus Johnson tried this twice in a game, the first time he succeeded, the second time he was destroyed (carried out with an injury), and Gus Johnson was much stronger than any guard. What makes you think that guards would have any better luck? Hell, the majority of dunks are performed under much more relaxed conditions and not with an elite big roaming under the basket ready to block them. Whenever this successfully happens, it makes posters and famous clips (KJ on Hakeem, Jordan on Ewing, Kobe on Yao, Dr.J a couple of times on Kareem, etc). Wilt falling victim to this once in a blue moon wouldn't hurt his legacy more than Dr.J's dunks on Kareem hurt Kareem's legacy.
Im not implying its common place. But based on that vid, a large portion of the shots he blocked were a result of two things. Goal Tending and the shooter going up soft.

And in responses to your implication that I am ignorant to the way the game was played in the sixties due to my comment about pump fakes not being invented, its was a sarcastic exaggeration. I know players pump faked. My point is to not go up soft and give him something different.

If I were playing Wilt Id immediately try to get him in foul trouble. Players didnt seem to do that at the time.

[97 bulls]

You do realize that the best shot blockers even today mostly block simple, straightforward shots that very much "existed" in the 60s, right?
Yes but they can't stand at the basket and wait fir the shooter to take a jump shot and block it on its way to the rim.

[CavaliersFTW]

Im not implying its common place. But based on that vid, a large portion of the shots he blocked were a result of two things. Goal Tending and the shooter going up soft.

And in responses to your implication that I am ignorant to the way the game was played in the sixties due to my comment about pump fakes not being invented, its was a sarcastic exaggeration. I know players pump faked. My point is to not go up soft and give him something different.

If I were playing Wilt Id immediately try to get him in foul trouble. Players didnt seem to do that at the time.
If you were playing Wilt you would pee your pants

[97 bulls]

The fact of the matter is Wilts shot blocking is overrated. Would he be a great shot blocker today? Off course. But based on the videos Ive seen he got away with alot of stuff that isnt allowed today and no one ever really challenged him and by doing that let him off the hook. Theres no way hed be able to play a whole career in the modern NBA and not foul out.

[97 bulls]

This is a question for Lazarus, Cav, PSilas, etc. What would Rodmans numbers look like had he played in the late 50s and 60s.

Mind you playing 44-45 minutes per, in a league that took almost 30-35 more shots, and shot much worse percentages.

[Pointguard]

If I were playing Wilt Id immediately try to get him in foul trouble. Players didnt seem to do that at the time.

Wilt jumped late, very quickly and always had great control over fouling people.

[97 bulls]

Wilt jumped late, very quickly and always had great control over fouling people.
I understand that PG. It still doesn't change tge fact that when a person alludes to Wilt s shot blocking ability, they should do it in context.

[CavaliersFTW]

I understand that PG. It still doesn't change tge fact that when a person alludes to Wilt s shot blocking ability, they should do it in context.
The 'context' you've fabricated with your imagination is completely fictitious. You even tried to say 60's player 'couldn't pump-fake' :roll: Your a straight up f*cking idiot.

You've also gone on record saying that Scottie Pippen is a better SF than Larry Bird and that John Stockton is a better point guard than Magic Johnson. Earlier in this thread you said that Dennis Rodman taking a charge has a greater impact on defense than Wilt Chamberlain's defensive prowess in the middle. Your a joke man, nothing but a joke. A Chicago bulls homer to the highest degree, you will try to belittle any percieved 'threat' to your glorious 90's Bulls, whether it be a different era (the 60s, or present day) or a different player (Magic, Larry, Wilt, Russell). You'll talk trash about anyone who was great enough to challenge or supercede the players and impact of your beloved Bulls. I genuinely feel pitty for you.

[97 bulls]

Response to CavaliersFtW

The 'context' you've fabricated with your imagination is completely fictitious. You even tried to say 60's player 'couldn't pump-fake'*Your a straight up f*cking idiot.
I've posted a highlight video of Chamberlain blocking shots. How can this possibly be fictitious. Ive also stated that mu "pump fake" comment was a sacastic exaggeration.





Earlier in this thread you said that Dennis Rodman taking a charge has a greater impact on defense than Wilt Chamberlain's defensive prowess in the middle.
There was an assumption that all Rodman did was rebound. Thats not true. I stand by the fact that a charge has a much higher detrimental effect on a players psyche than a blocked shot. Why? Because its a foul on that player, and its a TO, and most importantly, that coupled with defensive fouls forces a player to be mindful of their foul situation and be wary throughout the rest of the game. Not to mention it can even minimize a players minutes. And eventually eliminate them from the game. And a player has to be just as mindful of a defender being capable and quick enough to beat them to a spot in a similar way they look for shot blockers.


As far as the Pippen/Bird and Magic/Stockton comparisons, again you totally take my comments out of context. Why not post exactly what I said. However, I stand by the fact that John Stockton is a better pure PG than Magic. If need be, make another thread and ill gladly set you straight.



Your a joke man, nothing but a joke. A Chicago bulls homer to the highest degree, you will try to belittle any percieved 'threat' to your glorious 90's Bulls, whether it be a different era (the 60s, or present day) or a different player (Magic, Larry, Wilt, Russell). You'll talk trash about*anyone*who was great enough to challenge or supercede the players and impact of your beloved Bulls. I genuinely feel pitty for you.
Drivel at its finest. I can say the same about you and your stance on Chamberlain. This paragraph is a classic case of what happens when a poster has nothing left. Insults and misquoting. Why not do yourself a favor and allow the other pro Wilt guys attempt to defend him. Your making them look bad

[kshutts1]

No. That is a foul. You must be jumping straight up in order for it to be an offensive foul. Wilt didn't have to worry about biting on pump fakes because a large portion of his blocks would he considered goal tending today.
True. But you said the offensive player leans in. Regardless of how it's stated in the rules, I consider the offensive player initiating the (dangerous) contact an offensive foul. If I'm in the air, and I'm contacted with, rather than the other way around, it's their fault.

[97 bulls]

True. But you said the offensive player leans in. Regardless of how it's stated in the rules, I consider the offensive player initiating the (dangerous) contact an offensive foul. If I'm in the air, and I'm contacted with, rather than the other way around, it's their fault.
I do agree. But those are the rules and the offensive players today take advantage.

[La Frescobaldi]

Rodman also drew alot of charges. Which in my opinion is much better than blocks.

Rodman? You are using Rodman as a benchmark to compare to Chamberlain?

Oh wait - Dennis Rodman was the greatest offensive force of his era, I forgot. He was outscoring Michael Jordan on offense, and was clearly better than even Ewing & Hakeem at defense at the same time, AND was leading the league in rebounds every year for like a decade.
Did D Rod lead the NBA in win-shares 8 times? Tell us again how Dennis led the league in assists or field goal percentage. Tell us again how he led the league in rebounding AND scoring, even in just 1 season.
Let's compare Rodman to those levels, to the things quite literally only one player in history has ever done.

Rodman was a rebounding specialist who also played great defense (at times, world class, elite, all-time defense). Chamberlain led his league in darn near every single category, and for half his career he led his league in multiple categories IN THE SAME SEASON. What does Rodman have to do with it?

This only serves to show how great Chamberlain was, just like all these guys who compare him to Jordan, or somebody else.

Not only is Chamberlain virtually the only player to be compared to Michael Jordan on offense... he is virtually the only player to be compared to Bill Russell on defense.... AND he is virtually the only player to be compared to Dennis Rodman at rebounding... AND he is virtually the only player to be compared to Artis Gilmore at FG%.... AND he is virtually the only player to be compared to John Havlicek in stamina........ in every single facet of basketball, Chamberlain was performing at the very highest levels ever seen.

Only one man has led the league at just about everything. Only one.

Gotta stretch your mind around that. Because Rodman is not comparable; he only stood out from the rest of the league at 1 thing.... not at EVERYTHING.

[97 bulls]

Rodman? You are using Rodman as a benchmark to compare to Chamberlain?

Oh wait - Dennis Rodman was the greatest offensive force of his era, I forgot. He was outscoring Michael Jordan on offense, and was clearly better than even Ewing & Hakeem at defense at the same time, AND was leading the league in rebounds every year for like a decade.
Did D Rod lead the NBA in win-shares 8 times? Tell us again how Dennis led the league in assists or field goal percentage. Tell us again how he led the league in rebounding AND scoring, even in just 1 season.
Let's compare Rodman to those levels, to the things quite literally only one player in history has ever done.

Rodman was a rebounding specialist who also played great defense (at times, world class, elite, all-time defense). Chamberlain led his league in darn near every single category, and for half his career he led his league in multiple categories IN THE SAME SEASON. What does Rodman have to do with it?

This only serves to show how great Chamberlain was, just like all these guys who compare him to Jordan, or somebody else.

Not only is Chamberlain virtually the only player to be compared to Michael Jordan on offense... he is virtually the only player to be compared to Bill Russell on defense.... AND he is virtually the only player to be compared to Dennis Rodman at rebounding... AND he is virtually the only player to be compared to Artis Gilmore at FG%.... AND he is virtually the only player to be compared to John Havlicek in stamina........ in every single facet of basketball, Chamberlain was performing at the very highest levels ever seen.

Only one man has led the league at just about everything. Only one.

Gotta stretch your mind around that. Because Rodman is not comparable; he only stood out from the rest of the league at 1 thing.... not at EVERYTHING.
Im not comparing Rodman to Chamberlain as a whole. Im comparing their rebounding. Thats it. And its disingenuous to trivialize Rodmans rebounding by comparing them as overall players. I mean, if were gonna penalize players based on short-commings. How great would Larry Bird or Magic Johnson or George Gervin be if they had to play defense at the level of Bobby Jones or Bruce Bowen?

Rodman wasnt just a great rebounder. He was a great defender. A great passer, and most of all..... a winner. He didn't just sit under the basket and grab rebounds. Granted, Rodman didnt score, but that was due in large part because he knew it wasn't needed. Not because he didn't. Im I mean his best rebounding season was his highest scoring season. Rodman would've at least put up Russell type numbers back in the 60s.

I watched highlights (meaning his best plays) of Wilt blocking shots. At least 70% of the blocks I've seen in such videos would be called goaltending today.

And perhaps most importantly, Rodman had a high basketball IQ. He didnt go out there for stats, he went out there to win. I question Wilts IQ. Case and point. When his naysayers claimed he should've won more and lost because he wasnt a team player, what does he do? Go after the assists title and in some cases at the detriment of his team.

And mind you. Im not saying Rodman as a basketball player was better than Chamberlain. But to say Wilt is better because Rodman was one.dimensional is a straw man argument as well as a disservice to Wilt. Hes a greater player than Rodman, but not rebounder or winner. The facts bare it out.

[CavaliersFTW]

Im not comparing Rodman to Chamberlain as a whole. Im comparing their rebounding. Thats it. And its disingenuous to trivialize Rodmans rebounding by comparing them as overall players. I mean, if were gonna penalize players based on short-commings. How great would Larry Bird or Magic Johnson or George Gervin be if they had to play defense at the level of Bobby Jones or Bruce Bowen?

Rodman wasnt just a great rebounder. He was a great defender. A great passer, and most of all..... a winner. He didn't just sit under the basket and grab rebounds. Granted, Rodman didnt score, but that was due in large part because he knew it wasn't needed. Not because he didn't. Im I mean his best rebounding season was his highest scoring season. Rodman would've at least put up Russell type numbers back in the 60s.

I watched highlights (meaning his best plays) of Wilt blocking shots. At least 70% of the blocks I've seen in such videos would be called goaltending today.

And perhaps most importantly, Rodman had a high basketball IQ. He didnt go out there for stats, he went out there to win. I question Wilts IQ. Case and point. When his naysayers claimed he should've won more and lost because he wasnt a team player, what does he do? Go after the assists title and in some cases at the detriment of his team.

And mind you. Im not saying Rodman as a basketball player was better than Chamberlain. But to say Wilt is better because Rodman was one.dimensional is a straw man argument as well as a disservice to Wilt. Hes a greater player than Rodman, but not rebounder or winner. The facts bare it out.
No you didn't. You watched some random film clips. Taken from very few sources. Mostly from grainy NCAA clips with nothing but b/w 35mm bleacher camera angles. In truth, you haven't seen shit, you are incredibly unqualified to talk about this topic.

And talk about delusional... now Rodman's IQ is higher than Wilt's? :oldlol:

[fpliii]

Im not comparing Rodman to Chamberlain as a whole. Im comparing their rebounding. Thats it. And its disingenuous to trivialize Rodmans rebounding by comparing them as overall players. I mean, if were gonna penalize players based on short-commings. How great would Larry Bird or Magic Johnson or George Gervin be if they had to play defense at the level of Bobby Jones or Bruce Bowen?

Rodman wasnt just a great rebounder. He was a great defender. A great passer, and most of all..... a winner. He didn't just sit under the basket and grab rebounds. Granted, Rodman didnt score, but that was due in large part because he knew it wasn't needed. Not because he didn't. Im I mean his best rebounding season was his highest scoring season. Rodman would've at least put up Russell type numbers back in the 60s.

I watched highlights (meaning his best plays) of Wilt blocking shots. At least 70% of the blocks I've seen in such videos would be called goaltending today.

And perhaps most importantly, Rodman had a high basketball IQ. He didnt go out there for stats, he went out there to win. I question Wilts IQ. Case and point. When his naysayers claimed he should've won more and lost because he wasnt a team player, what does he do? Go after the assists title and in some cases at the detriment of his team.

And mind you. Im not saying Rodman as a basketball player was better than Chamberlain. But to say Wilt is better because Rodman was one.dimensional is a straw man argument as well as a disservice to Wilt. Hes a greater player than Rodman, but not rebounder or winner. The facts bare it out.

Let me preface this by saying, again, I am not a Wilt guy.

1) I like Rodman a lot, but that's one of the most disrespectful comments I've seen on this site. Wow. Do not put Rodman in the same sentence, or even paragraph as Russell. I hope you were speaking purely about rebounding there, since that's the only way to put him close to Russell's league.

2) No, you haven't. There's only footage of a few games from the era available, so they are a random sample of Wilt, and not his best games. Since most are from his Lakers years, they're actually doing him a disservice.

3) That's your opinion, not a fact. Don't portray it as such.

I like you as a poster normally, but this post really made me shake my head. I know you like Rodman (again, I do as well), but so much of this, ugh.

[CavaliersFTW]

Let me preface this by saying, again, I am not a Wilt guy.

1) I like Rodman a lot, but that's one of the most disrespectful comments I've seen on this site. Wow. Do not put Rodman in the same sentence, or even paragraph as Russell. I hope you were speaking purely about rebounding there, since that's the only way to put him close to Russell's league.

2) No, you haven't. There's only footage of a few games from the era available, so they are a random sample of Wilt, and not his best games. Since most are from his Lakers years, they're actually doing him a disservice.

3) That's your opinion, not a fact. Don't portray it as such.

I like you as a poster normally, but this post really made me shake my head. I know you like Rodman (again, I do as well), but so much of this, ugh.
You must be mistaking him for someone else if you thought he was a good poster. He's the guy who argues with people that Stockton is better than Magic (because Magic's 'greatness' threatens the legacy of MJ and MJ's 90's era bulls), he argues with people that Pippen is better than Larry Bird (because Bird's 'greatness' threatens the legacy of MJ and MJ's 90's era Bulls), and so on and so on and so on.

Any all time great who he perceives as a direct threat the legacy of Michael Jeffrey Jordan and his 90's Bulls dynasty he goes on all out smear-campaigns to try and sell them short. He will throw anyone under the bus, and speak all sorts of lies and half-truths to service his agenda. Read up on his posts in this thread alone if you think I'm kidding. He is a terrible poster, and he is purely a 90's era Chicago Bulls fanatic (lunatic might be a better word actually), not a basketball fan.

[fpliii]

You must be mistaking him for someone else if you thought he was a good poster. He's the guy who argues with people that Stockton is better than Magic (because Magic's 'greatness' threatens the legacy of MJ and MJ's 90's era bulls), he argues with people that Pippen is better than Larry Bird (because Bird's 'greatness' threatens the legacy of MJ and MJ's 90's era Bulls), and so on and so on and so on.

Any all time great who he perceives as a direct threat the legacy of Michael Jeffrey Jordan and his 90's Bulls dynasty he goes on all out smear-campaigns to try and sell them short. He will throw anyone under the bus, and speak all sorts of lies and half-truths to service his agenda. Read up on his posts in this thread alone if you think I'm kidding. He is a terrible poster, and he is purely a 90's era Chicago Bulls fanatic (lunatic might be a better word actually), not a basketball fan.

idk man my interactions in the past with him have been fine, and I generally ignore agenda-driven posts so if he's had a few of those I would've missed them. There's a difference between seeing that kind of post from someone who's trolling or just messing around, and that shit. Spitting right in the face of the ****ing history of the game. I resent when people try to pass of ignorance as fact, smh.

[CavaliersFTW]

idk man my interactions in the past with him have been fine, and I generally ignore agenda-driven posts so if he's had a few of those I would've missed them. There's a difference between seeing that kind of post from someone who's trolling or just messing around, and that shit. Spitting right in the face of the ****ing history of the game. I resent when people try to pass of ignorance as fact, smh.
According to him Dennis Rodman drawing charges had a greater overall defensive impact on games than Wilt Chamberlain's presence in the middle. Read back, you'll see comments like that all through this thread - with long winded 'explanations' as to why he believes those things. Now, if he comes back here and says he was joking than okay, maybe he's a good poster who turned bad to troll for a laugh. But he's been posting back and forth for several pages now rattling off how Wilt wasn't as good a defensive player, nor as smart, nor as good a rebounder, nor as good an impact player/winnner/etc as Dennis freaking Rodman and he also quite clearly believes Rodman would duplicate what Bill Russell did in the 60's. He said 60's players didn't know how to pump fake (and that's why Wilt and Russell blocked so many shots... cause those 'primitive' 60's players 'couldn't avoid it'), and he called it the "Jurrassic era" of basketball. I'm not making it up, the guy is either trolling, or he's an idiot, either way not a good poster. Not when it comes to NBA history.

[fpliii]

According to him Dennis Rodman drawing charges had a greater overall defensive impact on games than Wilt Chamberlain's presence in the middle. Read back, you'll see comments like that all through this thread - with long winded 'explanations' as to why he believes those things. Now, if he comes back here and says he was joking than okay, maybe he's a good poster who turned bad to troll for a laugh. But he's been posting back and forth for several pages now rattling off how Wilt wasn't as good a defensive player as Dennis freaking Rodman and how Rodman would basically be Bill Russell in the 60's.

:facepalm

I think the best case scenario is that he got so deep into the argument and is just trying to defend his points (which he doesn't believe in actuality) for ego reasons. If not, wow...

Shit like this pisses me off.

[CavaliersFTW]

Totally different era. Ive seen videos of Wilt Chamberlain blocking shots. Its obvious the pump fake was not invented at that time. No wonder why he never fouled out. The way the game was played back then he should've had more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqyEb-MgPAs

97 Bulls - our resident expert on *revisionist*NBA history cause 'he's seen videos'.

[97 bulls]

Let me preface this by saying, again, I am not a Wilt guy.

1) I like Rodman a lot, but that's one of the most disrespectful comments I've seen on this site. Wow. Do not put Rodman in the same sentence, or even paragraph as Russell. I hope you were speaking purely about rebounding there, since that's the only way to put him close to Russell's league.

2) No, you haven't. There's only footage of a few games from the era available, so they are a random sample of Wilt, and not his best games. Since most are from his Lakers years, they're actually doing him a disservice.

3) That's your opinion, not a fact. Don't portray it as such.

I like you as a poster normally, but this post really made me shake my head. I know you like Rodman (again, I do as well), but so much of this, ugh.
Now hold on. I believe the video I posted was called Wilt Chamberlain blocking Highlights. It wasnt just some random plays. I also never said I witnessed Wilts games on TV or in person. So I dont see where your second point cuz I admitted I only have seen video footage and highlights. But seeing as highlights are normally a montague of the best plays or happenings of a game. I think its more than a fair assessment.

Lastly. Dont do what a lot of people that frequent this site do. Call a person that disagrees with you a bad poster. Like you stated. Were all entitled to oir opinions. I didnt just throw some stuff out there. Ive backed uo every point Ive made.

[PHILA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqyEb-MgPAs

97 Bulls - our resident expert on *revisionist*NBA history cause 'he's seen videos'.
Willis Reed had some nice moves in the paint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGbcl6mkQYs#t=5m13s

[fpliii]

Now hold on. I believe the video I posted was called Wilt Chamberlain blocking Highlights. It wasnt just some random plays. I also never said I witnessed Wilts games on TV or in person. So I dont see where your second point cuz I admitted I only have seen video footage and highlights. But seeing as highlights are normally a montague of the best plays or happenings of a game. I think its more than a fair assessment.

Lastly. Dont do what a lot of people that frequent this site do. Call a person that disagrees with you a bad poster. Like you stated. Were all entitled to oir opinions. I didnt just throw some stuff out there. Ive backed uo every point Ive made.

I'm gonna have to give you a mulligan on this, so much wrong here I can't respond. As I said, I like you as a poster, but I just can't respond to this.

BTW I didn't call you a bad poster, I said "I like you as a poster normally" which is why I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt (but comparing Rodman to Russ isn't something that can be the basis of a valid opinion). I just can't get into this discussion though, sorry.

[CavaliersFTW]

Now hold on. I believe the video I posted was called Wilt Chamberlain blocking Highlights. It wasnt just some random plays. I also never said I witnessed Wilts games on TV or in person. So I dont see where your second point cuz I admitted I only have seen video footage and highlights. But seeing as highlights are normally a montague of the best plays or happenings of a game. I think its more than a fair assessment.

Lastly. Dont do what a lot of people that frequent this site do. Call a person that disagrees with you a bad poster. Like you stated. Were all entitled to oir opinions. I didnt just throw some stuff out there. Ive backed uo every point Ive made.
Would you like me to re-upload that same video and retitle for you? Quit acting like such a dumbass, Jaranarm is a subscriber of mine who uploaded that video and I know EXACTLY which clips of mine he used to make it, and they came from some of my old uploads that contained a few clips of Wilt. He made the video back when there was still barely any uploaded footage of Wilt. He had a small small number of limited sources to work with. They aren't highlights. They are random clips.

Here's your chance to save face, are you trolling, or are you really this stupid?

[La Frescobaldi]

Im not comparing Rodman to Chamberlain as a whole. Im comparing their rebounding. Thats it. And its disingenuous to trivialize Rodmans rebounding by comparing them as overall players. I mean, if were gonna penalize players based on short-commings. How great would Larry Bird or Magic Johnson or George Gervin be if they had to play defense at the level of Bobby Jones or Bruce Bowen?

Rodman wasnt just a great rebounder. He was a great defender. A great passer, and most of all..... a winner. He didn't just sit under the basket and grab rebounds. Granted, Rodman didnt score, but that was due in large part because he knew it wasn't needed. Not because he didn't. Im I mean his best rebounding season was his highest scoring season. Rodman would've at least put up Russell type numbers back in the 60s.

I watched highlights (meaning his best plays) of Wilt blocking shots. At least 70% of the blocks I've seen in such videos would be called goaltending today.

And perhaps most importantly, Rodman had a high basketball IQ. He didnt go out there for stats, he went out there to win. I question Wilts IQ. Case and point. When his naysayers claimed he should've won more and lost because he wasnt a team player, what does he do? Go after the assists title and in some cases at the detriment of his team.

And mind you. Im not saying Rodman as a basketball player was better than Chamberlain. But to say Wilt is better because Rodman was one.dimensional is a straw man argument as well as a disservice to Wilt. Hes a greater player than Rodman, but not rebounder or winner. The facts bare it out.

Nothing straw man about it at all. It's a simple fact that Rodman played at the highest level at rebounding and defense, but Chamberlain not only rebounded & D'd at that highest level, HE WAS DOING EVERYTHING ELSE AT THAT SAME LEVEL AT THE SAME TIME.
The level of intensity was incredibly higher than even Rodman could produce.
There's no comparison, and when you add in the fact that 13 was also the most dangerous scoring force on the court.... you got nothing at all here.

[CavaliersFTW]

ANY version of Rodman still couldn't dream of having half a fraction of the abilities and influence on games as Wilt did as a 17 year old kid:
http://youtu.be/zukRbA3y0qo?t=3m6s

How many times did Rodman catch people's shots in mid-air. Or wait, I forgot he 'drew charges' so much more impactful than catching players shots right? :oldlol:
http://youtu.be/zukRbA3y0qo?t=7m27s

Those 4 clips of Wilt catching shots, all happened 4 games in a row during the '57 NCAA tournament. He was catching 1 shot every single game of the tournament. That's the only stretch of games in a row that exists of Wilt. If those are any indication of his ability game to game, that kind of ability has simply never been seen before or since Wilt. Some players are lucky to have done that once or twice in their entire lifetime playing the sport and I'm not talking NBA I'm talking from grade school to pro to geriatric league. Most players simply can't do that, ever, no matter how hard they try. Wilt was making it routine. Heck, I've got 3 additional clips of him doing it in High school, 2 times just from 1 game alone.

[97 bulls]

:facepalm

I think the best case scenario is that he got so deep into the argument and is just trying to defend his points (which he doesn't believe in actuality) for ego reasons. If not, wow...

Shit like this pisses me off.
Dont listen to that clown. It's unfortunate that you came in in the middle of this cconversation. Lazarus, Cavs, and a few others, claim Rodman was only a great rebounder because he did nothing else. My reply was if Rodman played in the 60s, with the amount of FGAs and the low FG%s, his numbers would be on par with Russells. I wouldn't call Russell a one dimensional player. Would you?

Ill even take it a step further. In your opinion, what would Dennis Rodmans stats look like if he played in the late 50s and 60s.

[CavaliersFTW]

Dont listen to that clown. It's unfortunate that you came in in the middle of this cconversation. Lazarus, Cavs, and a few others, claim Rodman was only a great rebounder because he did nothing else. My reply was if Rodman played in the 60s, with the amount of FGAs and the low FG%s, his numbers would be on par with Russells. I wouldn't call Russell a one dimensional player. Would you?

Ill even take it a step further. In your opinion, what would Dennis Rodmans stats look like if he played in the late 50s and 60s.
Yeah, see, your only digging yourself a deeper grave. Bill Russell could run an offense and score any time he needed too - he just wasn't needed very often. He had a wide variety of ways of scoring, he had handles and could go end to end, he understood every play and could run every play from any position that the Celtics ran. He did things 'offensively' that Rodman couldn't do. He understood the game in a way that Rodman did not understand. Rodman DID just focus on rebounding. He was a hustle player, often playing limited minutes. Rebounding and a tough defensive assignment. Russell played a complete game - for almost the entire game... and at one point did this while coaching a team. Nobody is underrating Rodman, your underrating Russell by thinking they could swap places and Rodman would be just as good.

[La Frescobaldi]

Dont listen to that clown. It's unfortunate that you came in in the middle of this cconversation. Lazarus, Cavs, and a few others, claim Rodman was only a great rebounder because he did nothing else. My reply was if Rodman played in the 60s, with the amount of FGAs and the low FG%s, his numbers would be on par with Russells. I wouldn't call Russell a one dimensional player. Would you?

Ill even take it a step further. In your opinion, what would Dennis Rodmans stats look like if he played in the late 50s and 60s.

D Rod was far more than 1 dimensional. FAR.

Dude is one of the all time greats no question. Amazing

[97 bulls]

Nothing straw man about it at all. It's a simple fact that Rodman played at the highest level at rebounding and defense, but Chamberlain not only rebounded & D'd at that highest level, HE WAS DOING EVERYTHING ELSE AT THAT SAME LEVEL AT THE SAME TIME.
The level of intensity was incredibly higher than even Rodman could produce.
There's no comparison, and when you add in the fact that 13 was also the most dangerous scoring force on the court.... you got nothing at all here.
Youre preaching to.the choir bro. Rodman didnt do everything at a high level. Ive never said or tried to argue this. I said he wasnt one dimensional. He did more than just rebound. But again, if were gonna start penalizing players for not doing everything at the level of Wilt then dont stop at Rodman. Knock down Magic, Bird, Gervin, Barkley etc. Anyone who didnt play defense at a high level.

[97 bulls]

Yeah, see, your only digging yourself a deeper grave. Bill Russell could run an offense and score any time he needed too - he just wasn't needed very often. He had a wide variety of ways of scoring, he had handles and could go end to end, he understood every play and could run every play from any position that the Celtics ran. He did things 'offensively' that Rodman couldn't do. He understood the game in a way that Rodman did not understand. Rodman DID just focus on rebounding. He was a hustle player, often playing limited minutes. Rebounding and a tough defensive assignment. Russell played a complete game - for almost the entire game... and at one point did this while coaching a team. Nobody is underrating Rodman, your underrating Russell by thinking they could swap places and Rodman would be just as good.
In what context could Russell "run" a team? Like a PG? You basically are saying the same thing about Russell that I said about Rodman. Rodman CHOSE not to shoot. He realized the best way to help his team was doing what he did. Plain and simple

[La Frescobaldi]

Youre preaching to.the choir bro. Rodman didnt do everything at a high level. Ive never said or tried to argue this. I said he wasnt one dimensional. He did more than just rebound. But again, if were gonna start penalizing players for not doing everything at the level of Wilt then dont stop at Rodman. Knock down Magic, Bird, Gervin, Barkley etc. Anyone who didnt play defense at a high level.

zackly. I figured we were closer on viewpoints than maybe you and some the other guys postin on this thread are right now... and we are

[La Frescobaldi]

In what context could Russell "run" a team? Like a PG? You basically are saying the same thing about Russell that I said about Rodman. Rodman CHOSE not to shoot. He realized the best way to help his team was doing what he did. Plain and simple

Russell is altogether different animal from any of these other guys.

Big Bill had a way of moving on the court that was like a signal to the other Celtics. It wasn't even the amazing outlet passes or the blocked shots that really did it. He would start to pick up the pace on the defensive end.... little things like all of a sudden he wouldn't even be in the paint, he'd be clear out in the corner running a double team. And that sudden jolt of energy, just that little extra activity from Russell would just tear through the entire arena like a lightning bolt and sure as the world the freaking Celtic fast break would just kick in from that moment until the end of the quarter - 4, 5 minutes at a stretch, just blazing speed on display - and all of it started just by Russell deciding it was time to dominate some poor slob who had the ball on the perimeter.

Another thing about Russell is he knew exactly what every player on the court could do, and what they couldn't do. I don't mean just that he studied their game to know what their tendencies were - he knew physical possibilities to an infinitesimal exact correctness. He would apply pressure on a guy's arm just with his hand, in such a precise way... that guy could not turn to the basket. He understood leverage perfectly. He could do that to guys like Luke Jackson and Wilt Chamberlain and Willis Reed - some of the strongest guys who ever played basketball. His handcheck was unbelievable. It wasn't about strength, it was... like karate - perfectly timed, perfectly placed to destroy a player's chance of getting to the ball.

Russell was, contrary to popular myth, an incredible stat hound. He would go to the scorer's table sometimes and he was just ferocious about demanding that they count his rebounds. Now whether that was another of his psychological games? Who knows with that dude. He was cold. Brutally cold. Always calculating, every second. Ice.

[97 bulls]

zackly. I figured we were closer on viewpoints than maybe you and some the other guys postin on this thread are right now... and we are
Im not a troll bro. Let me flip it. Bill Russell routinely shot in the low 40s as far as field goal percentage. Now, that woukd be considered atrocious for a center. But that was pretty solid back then. If someone were to ask me my opinion on what Russell woukdve shot, id say it'd be in the low 50s FG%. But thats cuz I try to apply some kind of context.

[Psileas]

Russell is altogether different animal from any of these other guys.

Big Bill had a way of moving on the court that was like a signal to the other Celtics. It wasn't even the amazing outlet passes or the blocked shots that really did it. He would start to pick up the pace on the defensive end.... little things like all of a sudden he wouldn't even be in the paint, he'd be clear out in the corner running a double team. And that sudden jolt of energy, just that little extra activity from Russell would just tear through the entire arena like a lightning bolt and sure as the world the freaking Celtic fast break would just kick in from that moment until the end of the quarter - 4, 5 minutes at a stretch, just blazing speed on display - and all of it started just by Russell deciding it was time to dominate some poor slob who had the ball on the perimeter.

Another thing about Russell is he knew exactly what every player on the court could do, and what they couldn't do. I don't mean just that he studied their game to know what their tendencies were - he knew physical possibilities to an infinitesimal exact correctness. He would apply pressure on a guy's arm just with his hand, in such a precise way... that guy could not turn to the basket. He understood leverage perfectly. He could do that to guys like Luke Jackson and Wilt Chamberlain and Willis Reed - some of the strongest guys who ever played basketball. His handcheck was unbelievable. It wasn't about strength, it was... like karate - perfectly timed, perfectly placed to destroy a player's chance of getting to the ball.

Russell was, contrary to popular myth, an incredible stat hound. He would go to the scorer's table sometimes and he was just ferocious about demanding that they count his rebounds. Now whether that was another of his psychological games? Who knows with that dude. He was cold. Brutally cold. Always calculating, every second. Ice.

In the early 00's, there was a great online article that called Russell a "scientist in sneakers", mentioning such high IQ exploits of him. The writer knew well what he was talking about.

[Dr.J4ever]

Just wondering, have any of you old school guys seen wilt or russel play live or watch games live and follow their careers in 60s and 70s?

[PHILA]

In the early 00's, there was a great online article that called Russell a "scientist in sneakers", mentioning such high IQ exploits of him. The writer knew well what he was talking about.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050222215751/http://www.indiepro.com/glenn/articles/article3.htm

[PHILA]

The article was written for Boston Magazine, February 1989.