Did Wilts "100 point game" actually happen?

[Donkey4trading]

Seeing is believing.. And well I've never seen it, inclfact none of you have.

That's because footage of the game doesn't exist..

Lets take a closer look. In 1962 ( the year of the supposed game) the NBA wasn't very popular. Games werent televised, attendance was horrific and it was below college basketball in popularity. What a better way to generate coverage of the NBA than with a 100 pt game.. Could it be? Could Wilts 100 point game have been a fraud? Perhaps..

[QUOTE=Gary Pomerantz]

[inclinerator]

nope

[9erempiree]

Till this day we won't know but I consider Kobe's 81 point game the record for modern day basketball.

[K Xerxes]

Ooo, everyone likes a conspiracy.

[It's A VC3!!!]

I never looked into his 100 point game in depth but did any of the players on the court at that time ever comment on that game? I'm sure they did, as did the two coaches. Go dig that up and get more concrete evidence, OP.

[Jakeh008]

Till this day we won't know but I consider Kobe's 81 point game the record for modern day basketball.

As opposed to someone not considering that the modern day record?

[HomieWeMajor]

This game was manufactured just like Magic and Bird were manufactured to exploit the black and white divide in the 80s.

[niko]

I never looked into his 100 point game in depth but did any of the players on the court at that time ever comment on that game? I'm sure they did, as did the two coaches. Go dig that up and get more concrete evidence, OP.
Lots of people have commented on it that were there. It was in the paper. Wouldn't someone comment it was made up?

[9erempiree]

All I know is that most casual fans believe that the 81 points is a record by Kobe.

People would say things like Kobe is not that good but he holds the record for most points scored. This is from his haters.

Or others will say I like watching Kobe and he holds the record for most points.

[CavaliersFTW]

Quite literally NONE of the 'false dilemma's' you stated are true. Such as the things you claimed Harvey Pollack 'originally said' only later to 'change' his story - lmfao cite that shit you stupid ****, old data like that has been archived. Oh wait that's right, you can't cite those false dilemmas cause they never happened. Pollack never said 40,000 and he never said MSG... no story ever changed, because Wilt scoring 100 points isn't a 'story' it's an actual event. An event that actually happened - with actual cite-able data, unlike your imaginary false dilemmas.

http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/wilt/

[Donkey4trading]

Lots of people have commented on it that were there. It was in the paper. Wouldn't someone comment it was made up?




The box score was in the paper..

The stat keeper for that game being Harvey Pollack himself.

[It's A VC3!!!]

http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/wilt/
Pretty cool to hear. Can't believe I'm listening to something 50+ years old. Always creeps me. Still cool though.

[Donkey4trading]

Quite literally NONE of the 'false dilemma's' you stated are true. Such as the things you claimed Harvey Pollack 'originally said' only later to 'change' his story - lmfao cite that shit you stupid ****, old data like that has been archived. Oh wait that's right, you can't cite those false dilemmas cause they never happened. Pollack never said 40,000 and he never said MSG... no story ever changed, because Wilt scoring 100 points isn't a 'story' it's an actual event. An event that actually happened - with actual cite-able data, unlike your imaginary false dilemmas.

http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/wilt/


Yes because the one hurling insults and going out of his way to censor his curse word so that they don't get censored is definetly going to have a rational and unbiased opinion.

And yes, these "false claims" can be found all over the Internet.

Are you claiming you have footage of the game?

[QuebecBaller]

What the rest of the team said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBjUKYQ06RY

[CavaliersFTW]

Yes because the one hurling insults and going out of his way to censor his curse word so that they don't get censored is definetly going to have a rational and unbiased opinion.

And yes, these "false claims" can be found all over the Internet.

Are you claiming you have footage of the game?
I just posted the broadcast. Was it staged perhaps? Are guys who played in the game simply paid to talk about it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27tReCWl8RY

Mods, please delete this shameful thread.

[CavaliersFTW]

Yes because the one hurling insults and going out of his way to censor his curse word so that they don't get censored is definetly going to have a rational and unbiased opinion.

And yes, these "false claims" can be found all over the Internet.

Are you claiming you have footage of the game?
BTW, obvious alt is obvious.

[Donkey4trading]

BTW, obvious alt is obvious.


There you go avoid the question and throw an insult/accusation.


When one goes into attack mode it's usually in self defense, self defense is usually triggered by a perceived threat.. May I ask.

What are you threatened by?

What's stopping you from addressing the points in the OP? This thread isn't a knock on Wilt, so why are you so sensitive.

Wilt himself has been hesitant to even bask in the glory of a 100 point game, he doesn't even consider it his greatest achievement, his 55 boards against Russell gets the nod for that.

Don't be mad just because somebody dares to ask a few questions about a player you may admire

[CavaliersFTW]

There you go avoid the question and throw an insult/accusation.


When one goes into attack mode it's usually in self defense, self defense is usually triggered by a perceived threat.. May I ask.

What are you threatened by?
I didn't avoid the question Silkk, I answered it the post before, your the one who avoided it.

[rezznor]

do u know how hard it would be to keep a conspiracy of this size a secret? 4000 in attendance, 2 teams with their staff and coaches, arena workers...and nobody has said anything?

[MavsSuperFan]

It happened, but against lower competition than what the NBA is today.

[rodman91]

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/047/718/InBeforeTheLock1105.jpg

[Psileas]

Last time I checked, there is no footage available from the vast majority of Wilt's and his contemporaries' games, either. So, why not apply the same (ridiculous) "theory" for the rest of his games? Just because his scoring output was more believable? Was the whole 50 ppg season a sham, just to increase the NBA's popularity?

And if it didn't happen, what did actually happen instead at that date? Show us any info that may contribute to the original post being taken even remotely seriously.

[Real Men Wear Green]

We have no footage of the Revolutionary War, therefore it did not happen. As far as we can tell, England was the 51st state and we let it go because they couldn't cook. Canada was #52 and we released them because the place was cold and they talk funny. And so did the English, come to think of it.

[CelticBaller]

This thread finds it way back in here :lol

[TheReal Kendall]

**** the bs! I believe it happened and Kobe's 81 is not the record 9er

[TheMarkMadsen]

63 FGA & 32 FT attempts in the same game?

Did he should 90+ times? :lol

[Spaulding]

Ooo, everyone likes a conspiracy.

I agree. About to read this whole thing and stroke my ****.

[Trollsmasher]

I actually doubt that Wilt himself ever existed...

Or did any of you guys actually see him in person?

[fpliii]

No, the NBA started in 76-77 or 79-80, depending on who you asked. Everything prior to one of those seasons is a fictionalized account brought to your attention by government/media conspiracy.

[Donkey4trading]

We have no footage of the Revolutionary War, therefore it did not happen. As far as we can tell, England was the 51st state and we let it go because they couldn't cook. Canada was #52 and we released them because the place was cold and they talk funny. And so did the English, come to think of it.


You're right we don't have any footage of the revilutinary war, but we do have

The treaty of Paris
The tea act
The French alliance
The US constitution

And a heap load of other evidence

Great example

[josh99]

You're right we don't have any footage of the revilutinary war, but we do have

The treaty of Paris
The tea act
The French alliance
The US constitution

And a heap load of other evidence

Great example
It's clearly all rigged, I think you are under-estimating the power of David Stern.

[BallsOut]

I think the OP makes a good point. I mean some people mention seeing ghosts, UFOs, even Big Foot. However there is no actual proof of any of these entities.

Why should we be so eager to believe that Wilt scored 100 points? There is no real footage of this just like in the former.

[Harison]

There was no Wilt either :no: He is a mythical character, like Santa Clause.

[AintNoSunshine]

Seeing is believing.. And well I've never seen it, inclfact none of you have.

That's because footage of the game doesn't exist..

Lets take a closer look. In 1962 ( the year of the supposed game) the NBA wasn't very popular. Games werent televised, attendance was horrific and it was below college basketball in popularity. What a better way to generate coverage of the NBA than with a 100 pt game.. Could it be? Could Wilts 100 point game have been a fraud? Perhaps..



Wilts "accomplishment" during the early 60's would have been a big deal, and as any promoter knows, a special attraction will bring fans to the game and with NBA attendance as dreadful as it was..one man saw a giant among men and a golden opportunity, that mans name was..

Harvey Pollack

Pollack, the Warriors PR man at the time saw an oppurtunity and took it. Knowing there was no cameras, NO SPORTS WRITERS at the game and a handful in attendance he knew this was a situation that could be easily manipulated.

Harvey Pollack originally claimed that the game took place infront of 40,000 people

Today, the games attendance is believed to have been around 4,000.

Pollack also originally claimed that the game was played in Madison Squate Garden..because what's better than a 7 foot giant scoring 100 points? Doin it infront of 40,000 people at MSG.

That's how little attention was payed to this game that Pollack believed he could get away with LYING about where the game took place. The actually game took place in Pennsylvania at the Hershey sports arena..not MSG.

Also, we are led to believe that in this game Wilt shot an astounding 28-32 from the line that night..

Wilt Chamberlain, a career 51% FT shooter supposedly had a game where he made 28 out of 32 free throws and there's no video to prove it..

Many years later when asked how this was possible Wilt said he attributed his amazing free throw shooting to shooting underhand free throws against the Knicks and that

How convenient, a 51% free throw shooter gets turned into Ray Allen from the line for one night with no video evidence and while using a form that according to Wilts teaamate Al Attles

If Dwight Howard told you that he went 28-32 from the line in a game last night..but there was no video would you believe him? Prolly not. Especially If he claimed it was due to a new shooting form he was using that he will now never use again..

The game itself wasnt officially recognized and celebrated by the league until 1987..

The man who was burdened as being the "guy who wilt scored his 100 point on" Darrall Imhoff only played 20 minutes that game and wasn't even on the court when the 100th point was supposedly scored.

The game ball which Wilt supposedly scored his 100th point with was auctioned off for a huge sum of money was later suspended due to the question over the authenticity of the ball. The seller had claimed Chamberline handed him the ball after the game. However, Wilts teaamate contends that Wilt have him the ball..yet that ball has yet to be seen and verified...


Could the 100 point game have been nothing more than a marketing device to get more eyes on the NBA?


I know, I'm pretty sure the universe started 50 years ago

[pauk]

If a guy can score 81 points in a era averaging 90 possessions per game then im sure a guy could score 19 points more in a era averaging 50% more possessions per game... especially if that guy is Wilt, who averaged 48 mpg and 41 FG Attempts per game...

[CavaliersFTW]

If a guy can score 81 points in a era averaging 90 possessions per game then im sure a guy could score 19 points more in a era averaging 50% more possessions per game... especially if that guy is Wilt, who averaged 48 mpg and 41 FG Attempts per game...
False. Never did they ever average '50%' more possessions per game. Anytime you talk about possessions per game it has been proven time and again you straight up lie, and cannot cite any of the numbers to a reliable source. At what point are you going to acknowledge your mistakes (or should I call them lies?) Pauk?

[sick_brah07]

The thing that sounds odd is the free throw shooting numbers and that he shot different for just one game ? why on earth would you go away from something that clearly worked?

maybe he had like 80-85 and the score keeper ... altered the three throw numbers to make it 100

[CavaliersFTW]

The thing that sounds odd is the free throw shooting numbers and that he shot different for just one game ? why on earth would you go away from something that clearly worked?

maybe he had like 80-85 and the score keeper ... altered the three throw numbers to make it 100
And then paid off all the spectators, coaches, teammates and opponents to lie about it too? Yeah that's much more likely than him actually just having a hot night :oldlol:

[fpliii]

False. Never did they didn't average '50%' more possessions per game. Anytime you talk about possessions per game it has been proven time and again you straight up lie, and cannot cite any of the numbers to a reliable source. At what point are you going to acknowledge your mistakes (or should I call them lies?) Pauk?
He has Psileas, you, and myself on his ignore list I think, so he skips over our posts every time we correct him.

[CavaliersFTW]

He has Psileas, you, and myself on his ignore list I think, so he skips over our posts every time we correct him.
No we aren't on his ignore list, as he posts in threads I make or anyone else makes as long as it is something he's interested in - he just makes a conscious effort to ignore posts that call him out on things. He sees everything we post.

[fpliii]

No we aren't on his ignore list, as he posts in threads I make or anyone else makes as long as it is something he's interested in - he just makes a conscious effort to ignore posts that call him out on things. He sees everything we post.
lol so what's the point then? Is he just hoping someone who doesn't know better reads his post but doesn't look at ours, and is falsely led to believe they were averaging 140+ possessions a night in the 60s? Pretty despicable if that's his goal and he's not just trolling.

[Round Mound]

:facepalm

[jstern]

This is a dumb conspiracy. If it never happened, then you would have had players and other people there claiming that it never happened, that it was planned. Out of the 4,000 people who saw it, reporters there, you would have heard somebody come forward saying that he never did score that much. (The only way that such a conspiracy would work if it was backed by the US government, with them having the authority of silencing people. And even then some people would still let others know.)

Edit: I'm listening to the CavaliersFTW audio of the game. Are the play by play guys also in on the conspiracy? If so, they mention that they're in Hershey Pennsylvanian, did they forget to tell them that they should have said Madison Square Garden? I mean, if they're in on the conspiracy of making mainstream America think that Wilt Scored 100 points in Madison Square Garden then surely they must have told them to say they're in Madison Square Garden.

[Real Men Wear Green]

You're right we don't have any footage of the revilutinary war, but we do have

The treaty of Paris
The tea act
The French alliance
The US constitution

And a heap load of other evidence

Great example
If we can ignore the official score-keepers why can't we ignore treaties? It's all just pieces of paper that someone wrote on, and that's not good enough evidence for smart trolls like us.

[Vienceslav]

Next level trolling on display here.:roll: :applause:

[La Frescobaldi]

This is a dumb conspiracy. If it never happened, then you would have had players and other people there claiming that it never happened, that it was planned. Out of the 4,000 people who saw it, reporters there, you would have heard somebody come forward saying that he never did score that much. (The only way that such a conspiracy would work if it was backed by the US government, with them having the authority of silencing people. And even then some people would still let others know.)

Edit: I'm listening to the CavaliersFTW audio of the game. Are the play by play guys also in on the conspiracy? If so, they mention that they're in Hershey Pennsylvanian, did they forget to tell them that they should have said Madison Square Garden? I mean, if they're in on the conspiracy of making mainstream America think that Wilt Scored 100 points in Madison Square Garden then surely they must have told them to say they're in Madison Square Garden.
the NBA had a whole bunch of 50 year anniversary specials about this just last year; but since OP is like 13 yo he doesn't remember as far back as 18 months ago..... therefore that never happened either.

Anniversary specials that never happened, celebrating something that never happened. Pretty crazy world, huh?

[LAZERUSS]

Last time I checked, there is no footage available from the vast majority of Wilt's and his contemporaries' games, either. So, why not apply the same (ridiculous) "theory" for the rest of his games? Just because his scoring output was more believable? Was the whole 50 ppg season a sham, just to increase the NBA's popularity?

And if it didn't happen, what did actually happen instead at that date? Show us any info that may contribute to the original post being taken even remotely seriously.

C'mon, the fact was Wilt was able to pull of the greatest sports conspiracy of all-time. The man convinced the players, coaches, sportwriters, announcers, and even the fans watching his games, to go along with his charade. The hundreds of records that he still holds...didn't happen. Even the footage that does exist, ...all of it was altered.

Even Santa Claus, himself, scoffs at these "Wilt-myths."

[Kblaze8855]

The credibility of everyone to ever register here is damaged by this topic.

[Donkey4trading]

It's really not that crazy

How do you account for Wilt miraculously shooting 28-32 from the line when he was a career 51% shooter from the free throw line.

How do you account for no game ball? A huge game like this obviously somebody would think to keep the ball..right?

Even in a recent interview Al Attles complained that everybody he talks to believes they lost he game in which Wilt scored 100, he said its one of the things that bothers him most was that so many people thought they had lost that game. Why do so many people have a different memory of what happened?

Nobody can even tell you if Wilt scored his 100th point with a dunk or a lay up.


Really, there's alot of questions here that don't have answers, 28-32 from the line due to a new shooting form, that Wilt claimed he never used after that game..coming from the same guy who claimed to have killed a mountain lion with his bare hands..

Can anybody explain how a 51% FT shooter somehow shot 28-32 from the line one game and why would be decide to never use that form again? Somebody who was as stat conscious as Wilt finds a way to increase his FT% ten fold and then decides never to use it again...

[LAZERUSS]

It's really not that crazy

How do you account for Wilt miraculously shooting 28-32 from the line when he was a career 51% shooter from the free throw line.

How do you account for no game ball? A huge game like this obviously somebody would think to keep the ball..right?

Even in a recent interview Al Attles complained that everybody he talks to believes they lost he game in which Wilt scored 100, he said its one of the things that bothers him most was that so many people thought they had lost that game. Why do so many people have a different memory of what happened?

Nobody can even tell you if Wilt scored his 100th point with a dunk or a lay up.


Really, there's alot of questions here that don't have answers, 28-32 from the line due to a new shooting form, that Wilt claimed he never used after that game..coming from the same guy who claimed to have killed a mountain lion with his bare hands..

Can anybody explain how a 51% FT shooter somehow shot 28-32 from the line one game and why would be decide to never use that form again? Somebody who was as stat conscious as Wilt finds a way to increase his FT% ten fold and then decides never to use it again...

Chamberlain MADE 835 FTs in that 61-62 season (and shot .613 in the process), which is the second greatest season in NBA history.

Wilt changed his FT shooting technique several times over the course of his career. He actually shot FTs better in college (and his form looked much better BTW.)

Furthermore, Wilt had a range of 15+ feet, and there is college footage of him hitting jump shots from just beyond the FT stripe.

[iamgine]

It's really not that crazy

How do you account for Wilt miraculously shooting 28-32 from the line when he was a career 51% shooter from the free throw line.

How do you account for no game ball? A huge game like this obviously somebody would think to keep the ball..right?

Even in a recent interview Al Attles complained that everybody he talks to believes they lost he game in which Wilt scored 100, he said its one of the things that bothers him most was that so many people thought they had lost that game. Why do so many people have a different memory of what happened?

Nobody can even tell you if Wilt scored his 100th point with a dunk or a lay up.


Really, there's alot of questions here that don't have answers, 28-32 from the line due to a new shooting form, that Wilt claimed he never used after that game..coming from the same guy who claimed to have killed a mountain lion with his bare hands..

Can anybody explain how a 51% FT shooter somehow shot 28-32 from the line one game and why would be decide to never use that form again? Somebody who was as stat conscious as Wilt finds a way to increase his FT% ten fold and then decides never to use it again...
Misleading. Career was 51% FT. But on that particular season was 61% FT. Even Shaq had gone 13/13 and 16/18 from the FT line.

Game ball theory was dumb. Even if he "only" scored 80, that would be the highest score ever, thus would still be a big deal.

[pauk]

False. Never did they ever average '50%' more possessions per game. Anytime you talk about possessions per game it has been proven time and again you straight up lie, and cannot cite any of the numbers to a reliable source. At what point are you going to acknowledge your mistakes (or should I call them lies?) Pauk?

The only one who lies here is you.. to yourself.... the very proven estimated average for NBA teams in the 60s was 125, teams like Celtics average the most with claims of up to 140....

Never have i nor you nor anybody seen a single bulletin claiming lesser or equal poss. per game / pace compared to the modern era (especially today) for any of the 60s teams.... but ALL claim more, MUCH more....

...and i have been proven wrong? I? Me? First of all, its not "me" you are proving wrong... its FACTS... ALL FACTS..... and last but not least, did i miss something? Proven wrong? Where? How? When? Show me! Oh pretty please!! I beg you!!

Would love to see if there is such proof out there, i mean... i have been searching for it my entire life! wowzers!! :eek:

Here are the so called "lies" just randomly searching on google:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1423

http://doubledribble.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/nba-stars-of-1960s-pace-adjusted-stats/

http://hoops-nation.com/community/topic/73231-nba-the-pace-in-the-60s/

http://hoops-nation.com/community/topic/39184-how-fast-was-the-pace-in-60s/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/441840-bill-russell-an-overrated-nba-legend

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-03-20/sports/9403200398_1_celtics-regulars-nba-history-philadelphia-warriors

You could go on forever.........

Not to mention all the books who talk about that subject.... all say the same thing.... ALL....


SO PLEASE, SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE BEEN "PROVEN WRONG"......... BECAUSE THERE IS ---->ZERO<---- FACTS OR EVEN FANTASY CLAIMS TO WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY.........

60s averaged more poss. per game / higher pace than ANY decade in NBA history..... thats a very true fact which everybody knows i think...

...and please dont act like i am trying to discredit the 60s... the point is nothing but notifying that the league was different....... thats where everything stops.... how about you? whats your point?

[Legends66NBA7]

The only one who lies here is you.. to yourself.... the very proven estimated average for NBA teams in the 60s was 125, teams like Celtics average the most with claims of up to 140...

Where ?

I never saw that in any of those links that it states 125-140 possessions as an estimate or a fact (I don't have an account on Hoops Nation either).

Their asking you where your getting those numbers, not whether the pace was high back then or not.

[BallsOut]

And then paid off all the spectators, coaches, teammates and opponents to lie about it too? Yeah that's much more likely than him actually just having a hot night :oldlol:

How would the spectators, coaches, teammates or opponents even know he had 100 points? There was no player scoreboard back then, there was just the team score and time remaining in the quarter.

The only ones that would know are the statkeepers. Spectating fans don't keep track of how many points Wilt scores. Coaches sure as hell don't and players are actually focused on winning the game.

It's really statkeepers word against all else here. We know statkeepers can be bought too, sometimes they're incredibly lenient, especially hometown statkeepers.

I just find it funny people take Wilt scoring 100 points as a given. Details of the actual game are scarcely documented. In conclusion, it just seems fishy to me, there's very little evidence to support it ever happening. Do you take the guy's word for it? I mean he did claim to wrestle mountain lions with his bare hands. I wouldn't say scoring 100 points in a basketball game is much more far-fetched than that.

:biggums:

[LAZERUSS]

How would the spectators, coaches, teammates or opponents even know he had 100 points? There was no player scoreboard back then, there was just the team score and time remaining in the quarter.

The only ones that would know are the statkeepers. Spectating fans don't keep track of how many points Wilt scores. Coaches sure as hell don't and players are actually focused on winning the game.

It's really statkeepers word against all else here. We know statkeepers can be bought too, sometimes they're incredibly lenient, especially hometown statkeepers.

I just find it funny people take Wilt scoring 100 points as a given. Details of the actual game are scarcely documented. In conclusion, it just seems fishy to me, there's very little evidence to support it ever happening. Do you take the guy's word for it? I mean he did claim to wrestle mountain lions with his bare hands. I wouldn't say scoring 100 points in a basketball game is much more far-fetched than that.

:biggums:

Of course the radio broadcast of the actual 4th quarter exists, and in which the broadcaster is recording everyone of Wilt's baskets and point totals throughout that quarter.

And that scorekeeper just happens to be in the basketball HOF.

[iamgine]

Why it's not that hard to believe:

Philly scored 169 points.

If Wilt had scored 100 points, he'd have scored 59% of his team's points.

Kobe had scored 81 points, which was 66% of his team's points.

David Robinson had scored 71 points, which was 63% of his team's points.

[LAZERUSS]

The only one who lies here is you.. to yourself.... the very proven estimated average for NBA teams in the 60s was 125, teams like Celtics average the most with claims of up to 140....

Never have i nor you nor anybody seen a single bulletin claiming lesser or equal poss. per game / pace compared to the modern era (especially today) for any of the 60s teams.... but ALL claim more, MUCH more....

...and i have been proven wrong? I? Me? First of all, its not "me" you are proving wrong... its FACTS... ALL FACTS..... and last but not least, did i miss something? Proven wrong? Where? How? When? Show me! Oh pretty please!! I beg you!!

Would love to see if there is such proof out there, i mean... i have been searching for it my entire life! wowzers!! :eek:

Here are the so called "lies" just randomly searching on google:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1423

http://doubledribble.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/nba-stars-of-1960s-pace-adjusted-stats/

http://hoops-nation.com/community/topic/73231-nba-the-pace-in-the-60s/

http://hoops-nation.com/community/topic/39184-how-fast-was-the-pace-in-60s/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/441840-bill-russell-an-overrated-nba-legend

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-03-20/sports/9403200398_1_celtics-regulars-nba-history-philadelphia-warriors

You could go on forever.........

Not to mention all the books who talk about that subject.... all say the same thing.... ALL....


SO PLEASE, SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE BEEN "PROVEN WRONG"......... BECAUSE THERE IS ---->ZERO<---- FACTS OR EVEN FANTASY CLAIMS TO WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY.........

60s averaged more poss. per game / higher pace than ANY decade in NBA history..... thats a very true fact which everybody knows i think...

...and please dont act like i am trying to discredit the 60s... the point is nothing but notifying that the league was different....... thats where everything stops.... how about you? whats your point?

These 140 possessions are pure rubbish and you know it.

One more damn time...

The NBA, at it's peak, averaged 118.8 ppg, on 108 FGA and 37 FTAs per game...and in a league which had an eFG% of .426 and a FT% of .727. And, if you subtract TEAM rebounds, which were no longer added to totals after the 67-68 season, the average NBA team had about 62 rpg. THAT is all you need to know. From there you can do the math comparisons of ANY NBA season.

For example, Chamberlain's 50.4 ppg 61-62 season translates to about 40-41 ppg in 2012-2013, and to about 45-46 ppg in MJ's 86-87 season.

Another example...the NBA shot an even 75% as many FGAs in 2012-2013 as in 61-62, and rebounded at a 67% pace.

Furthermore, you HAVE to adjust for eFG%'s, or the numbers will be horribly skewed. For example, in the 61-62 season, if you adjust for the "pace" of FGA and FTAs, but do not adjust for the eFG%'s variance, the 61-62 NBA would have only averaged 86 ppg in the 2012-2013 season, and in an NBA that averaged 98 ppg.You simply can't adjust purely based on "pace" with out adjusting the eFG%.

[fpliii]

Where ?

I never saw that in any of those links that it states 125-140 possessions as an estimate or a fact (I don't have an account on Hoops Nation either).

Their asking you where your getting those numbers, not whether the pace was high back then or not.

Ahem:


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 exactly three attempts at estimating pace in the basketball statistics community:

ElGee (6 >= 130, highest 135.9): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dE5jQnJyOG50ODNCZ0hpZFZpaGhnRW c&type=view&gid=0&f=true&sortcolid=18&sortasc=false&rowsperpage=25

basketball-reference.com (5 >= 130, highest 133.3): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dE5jQnJyOG50ODNCZ0hpZFZpaGhnRW c&type=view&gid=1&f=true&sortcolid=18&sortasc=false&rowsperpage=25

Dean Oliver (3>= 130, highest 132.9): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dE5jQnJyOG50ODNCZ0hpZFZpaGhnRW c&type=view&gid=2&f=true&sortcolid=18&sortasc=false&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 with specific mentions of 140+ possessions then please provide it, otherwise stop spreading misinformation. Not everybody will put the work in to investigate, and might take that post as fact.

[La Frescobaldi]

Ahem:

good ol' pawk, doing anything and everything he can to belittle past greats, even stooping to making up false numbers, so his boy looks better

[Miller for 3]

Enters thread about Wilt

Sees Pauk and 3 of his account promoting Lebron propaganda.

Leaves

[Deuce Bigalow]

These 140 possessions are pure rubbish and you know it.

One more damn time...

The NBA, at it's peak, averaged 118.8 ppg, on 108 FGA and 37 FTAs per game...and in a league which had an eFG% of .426 and a FT% of .727. And, if you subtract TEAM rebounds, which were no longer added to totals after the 67-68 season, the average NBA team had about 62 rpg. THAT is all you need to know. From there you can do the math comparisons of ANY NBA season.

For example, Chamberlain's 50.4 ppg 61-62 season translates to about 40-41 ppg in 2012-2013, and to about 45-46 ppg in MJ's 86-87 season.

Another example...the NBA shot an even 75% as many FGAs in 2012-2013 as in 61-62, and rebounded at a 67% pace.

Furthermore, you HAVE to adjust for eFG%'s, or the numbers will be horribly skewed. For example, in the 61-62 season, if you adjust for the "pace" of FGA and FTAs, but do not adjust for the eFG%'s variance, the 61-62 NBA would have only averaged 86 ppg in the 2012-2013 season, and in an NBA that averaged 98 ppg.You simply can't adjust purely based on "pace" with out adjusting the eFG%.
Wilt would translate into Dwight Howard. So think 20/13-22/14 numbers.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt would translate into Dwight Howard. So think 20/13-22/14 numbers.

Based on which Chamberlain season?

His 61-62 numbers, based on pure mathematical reasoning, translate into a 40-41 ppg, and over 17 rpg season in 2012-2013.

Here again, the NBA averaged 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs, as well as 62 rpg per team in the 61-62 season.

The 2012-2013 NBA averaged 82 FGAs, 22 FTAs, and 42 rpg.

82/108=75.9% x 39.5 FGA= 30 FGA

22/37=59.4% x 17 FTA=10 FTA

Then, the 61-62 NBA had an eFG% of .426, while the 2012-2013 had an eFG% of .496.


So, a 61-62 Wilt would have taken 30 FGAs per game in 2012-2013. He had an eFG% of .506 in 61-62, BUT, you HAVE to adjust his eFG% to 2012-2013 levels. .496/.426= 1.164 x .506 = .589.

30 FGAs x .589 = 17.7 FGM, or 35.4 ppg just on his FGA.

He shot .613 from the line in 61-62. 10 x .613 = 6.1 FTM per game.

35.4 + 6.1 = 41.5 ppg.


He averaged 25.6 rpg in an NBA that averaged 62 rpg. 42/62= .6774 x 25.6 rpg = 17.3 rpg.

Now, you can argue that a 61-62 Wilt would not be playing 48.5 mpg in the 2012-2013 season, BUT, it was not a fluke that he did so in 61-62. He had three other seasons of 47+ mpg, and averaged 45.8 mpg over his regular season career. And, on top of that, he averaged 47.2 mpg in his 160 post-season career.

Furthermore, if you were reduce Wilt's playing time, you would HAVE to raise his efficiencies (e.g, eFG% and TRB%.) So, while his numbers would drop with less playing time, his efficiencies would surely rise.

[CavaliersFTW]

Based on which Chamberlain season?

His 61-62 numbers, based on pure mathematical reasoning, translate into a 40-41 ppg, and over 17 rpg season in 2012-2013.

Here again, the NBA averaged 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs, as well as 62 rpg per team in the 61-62 season.

The 2012-2013 NBA averaged 82 FGAs, 22 FTAs, and 42 rpg.

82/108=75.9% x 39.5 FGA= 30 FGA

22/37=59.4% x 17 FTA=10 FTA

Then, the 61-62 NBA had an eFG% of .426, while the 2012-2013 had an eFG% of .496.


So, a 61-62 Wilt would have taken 30 FGAs per game in 2012-2013. He had an eFG% of .506 in 61-62, BUT, you HAVE to adjust his eFG% to 2012-2013 levels. .496/.426= 1.164 x .506 = .589.

30 FGAs x .589 = 17.7 FGM, or 35.4 ppg just on his FGA.

He shot .613 from the line in 61-62. 10 x .613 = 6.1 FTM per game.

35.4 + 6.1 = 41.5 ppg.


He averaged 25.6 rpg in an NBA that averaged 62 rpg. 42/62= .6774 x 25.6 rpg = 17.3 rpg.

Now, you can argue that a 61-62 Wilt would not be playing 48.5 mpg in the 2012-2013 season, BUT, it was not a fluke that he did so in 61-62. He had three other seasons of 47+ mpg, and averaged 45.8 mpg over his regular season career. And, on top of that, he averaged 47.2 mpg in his 160 post-season career.

Furthermore, if you were reduce Wilt's playing time, you would HAVE to raise his efficiencies (e.g, eFG% and TRB%.) So, while his numbers would drop with less playing time, his efficiencies would surely rise.
Holy shyt GOATberlain even by 'paceologist' standards drops a 41ppg 17rpg season in the modern era :bowdown:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Based on which Chamberlain season?

His 61-62 numbers, based on pure mathematical reasoning, translate into a 40-41 ppg, and over 17 rpg season in 2012-2013.

Here again, the NBA averaged 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs, as well as 62 rpg per team in the 61-62 season.

The 2012-2013 NBA averaged 82 FGAs, 22 FTAs, and 42 rpg.

82/108=75.9% x 39.5 FGA= 30 FGA

22/37=59.4% x 17 FTA=10 FTA

Then, the 61-62 NBA had an eFG% of .426, while the 2012-2013 had an eFG% of .496.


So, a 61-62 Wilt would have taken 30 FGAs per game in 2012-2013. He had an eFG% of .506 in 61-62, BUT, you HAVE to adjust his eFG% to 2012-2013 levels. .496/.426= 1.164 x .506 = .589.

30 FGAs x .589 = 17.7 FGM, or 35.4 ppg just on his FGA.

He shot .613 from the line in 61-62. 10 x .613 = 6.1 FTM per game.

35.4 + 6.1 = 41.5 ppg.


He averaged 25.6 rpg in an NBA that averaged 62 rpg. 42/62= .6774 x 25.6 rpg = 17.3 rpg.

Now, you can argue that a 61-62 Wilt would not be playing 48.5 mpg in the 2012-2013 season, BUT, it was not a fluke that he did so in 61-62. He had three other seasons of 47+ mpg, and averaged 45.8 mpg over his regular season career. And, on top of that, he averaged 47.2 mpg in his 160 post-season career.

Furthermore, if you were reduce Wilt's playing time, you would HAVE to raise his efficiencies (e.g, eFG% and TRB%.) So, while his numbers would drop with less playing time, his efficiencies would surely rise.
Based on factoring in competition. The league got a whole lot better from 61-62 to now.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Based on which Chamberlain season?

His 61-62 numbers, based on pure mathematical reasoning, translate into a 40-41 ppg, and over 17 rpg season in 2012-2013.

Here again, the NBA averaged 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs, as well as 62 rpg per team in the 61-62 season.

The 2012-2013 NBA averaged 82 FGAs, 22 FTAs, and 42 rpg.

82/108=75.9% x 39.5 FGA= 30 FGA

22/37=59.4% x 17 FTA=10 FTA

Then, the 61-62 NBA had an eFG% of .426, while the 2012-2013 had an eFG% of .496.


So, a 61-62 Wilt would have taken 30 FGAs per game in 2012-2013. He had an eFG% of .506 in 61-62, BUT, you HAVE to adjust his eFG% to 2012-2013 levels. .496/.426= 1.164 x .506 = .589.

30 FGAs x .589 = 17.7 FGM, or 35.4 ppg just on his FGA.

He shot .613 from the line in 61-62. 10 x .613 = 6.1 FTM per game.

35.4 + 6.1 = 41.5 ppg.


He averaged 25.6 rpg in an NBA that averaged 62 rpg. 42/62= .6774 x 25.6 rpg = 17.3 rpg.

Now, you can argue that a 61-62 Wilt would not be playing 48.5 mpg in the 2012-2013 season, BUT, it was not a fluke that he did so in 61-62. He had three other seasons of 47+ mpg, and averaged 45.8 mpg over his regular season career. And, on top of that, he averaged 47.2 mpg in his 160 post-season career.

Furthermore, if you were reduce Wilt's playing time, you would HAVE to raise his efficiencies (e.g, eFG% and TRB%.) So, while his numbers would drop with less playing time, his efficiencies would surely rise.



No way in hell does any big man average 30 FGA per fame in today's game.

Especially a big man who's point come from banging down low.


I agree that Wilt would be a dominate player today but I can't fathom him taking 30 FGA per game especially if surrounded by a few good teammates.

Even Kobe in 06 didn't take that many shots per game. And Kobe was a perimeter player.

Wilts shots came from the paint, no team is goin to dump it down to him enough times for him to take 30 shots per game

[CavaliersFTW]

No way in hell does any big man average 30 FGA per fame in today's game.

Especially a big man who's point come from banging down low.


I agree that Wilt would be a dominate player today but I can't fathom him taking 30 FGA per game especially if surrounded by a few good teammates.

Even Kobe in 06 didn't take that many shots per game. And Kobe was a perimeter player.

Wilts shots came from the paint, no team is goin to dump it down to him enough times for him to take 30 shots per game
If that big man is Wilt, he absolutely would be fed for 30 shots a game, any previously below .500 team that acquires or drafts Wilt that DOESN'T feed him for 30 shot attempts a game would have their coach fired. This is Wilt Chamberlain we're talking about, way way way above and beyond any offensive force you've ever seen play. By reputation alone a coach would TELL his players to feed him the ball and move out the way.

[TheBigVeto]

Till this day we won't know but I consider Kobe's 81 point game the record for modern day basketball.

http://i1253.photobucket.com/albums/hh600/Rodman2124/kobeclutch.gif

[Psileas]

Some of these posts are way too precious... :oldlol:


How would the spectators, coaches, teammates or opponents even know he had 100 points? There was no player scoreboard back then, there was just the team score and time remaining in the quarter.

The only ones that would know are the statkeepers. Spectating fans don't keep track of how many points Wilt scores.

Yeah, I mean, Wilt might only have 50-60 points by the end of the game, but somehow every single spectator, player, coach, etc in the building would not be able to notice the difference between 60 and 100.



Coaches sure as hell don't and players are actually focused on winning the game.

It's really statkeepers word against all else here. We know statkeepers can be bought too, sometimes they're incredibly lenient, especially hometown statkeepers.

Again, how the heck is anyone able NOT to realize the difference between 100 and a much lower figure? Say Wilt scored "only" 60. Meaning all his other teammates were stripped by 40 pts. How come no other teammate complained about his points? You're naive if you think that at least most players don't know at least approximately how much they've scored. You think Arizin wouldn't have realized it if he had scored 26 points and was given credit for 16? Or Joe Ruklick if he had scored 2 or 4 points and was given credit for none?

Statkeepers VERY rarely will commit any mistake in scoring crediting. In stats like rebounding or shot blocking, yes, in some rare occasions. Scoring? I don't remember having seen such a gaffe at least in recent years, let alone multiple blunders in the same game.
And, while we are at it, how do we know that Wilt scored only 100 points? What if he scored 110-120 and statkeepers for some reason (e.g, to make him try even harder to score) tried to keep his totals down?


I just find it funny people take Wilt scoring 100 points as a given. Details of the actual game are scarcely documented. In conclusion, it just seems fishy to me, there's very little evidence to support it ever happening. Do you take the guy's word for it? I mean he did claim to wrestle mountain lions with his bare hands. I wouldn't say scoring 100 points in a basketball game is much more far-fetched than that.

:biggums:

Yes, a zillion newspapers recorded or mentioned it, statkeepers recorded it, Harvey Pollack recorded it, 4,124 fans saw it, there's audio from Q4, there's a whole book written about it, every player present in that game has offered details from that game alone, including players from the Knicks (what would be their motive?), but if Wilt hasn't fought a mountain lion, this can't be any truer...Brilliant. :oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

No way in hell does any big man average 30 FGA per fame in today's game.

Especially a big man who's point come from banging down low.


I agree that Wilt would be a dominate player today but I can't fathom him taking 30 FGA per game especially if surrounded by a few good teammates.

Even Kobe in 06 didn't take that many shots per game. And Kobe was a perimeter player.

Wilts shots came from the paint, no team is goin to dump it down to him enough times for him to take 30 shots per game

Kobe, playing 41 mpg, averaged over 27 FGAs on a weak team in '06, and in a league that averaged 80 FGAs per team.

And Wilt in '62 was not just shooting inside shots. He came into the league with a range of up to 15 ft, and was taking turn-around bank shots from 12 feet.

Put a '62 Wilt on a similar crappy roster in '13, and he likely would lead the league in shot attempts. The fact that we haven't seen big men do it in the last few seasons is more of a reflection on the inept big men playing the game, than the defenses they are facing.

And as recently as the '01 Finals, Shaq averaged 26 FGAs and 15 FTAs in the the six game Finals against the Pacers, en route to a 38 ppg average. And a few years before that, Hakeem averaged 29.5 FGAs, on a team that averaged a total of 78 FGAs, against Shaq in the '95 Finals. So clearly, it was possible.

In any case, I get tired of posters attempting to use "pace" against Wilt, and coming up with ludicrous numbers like he would be a 22-14 guy. Even adjusting for "pace" Wilt's 61-62 was the greatest scoring season in NBA history.

And based on a simple math, Wilt's 61-62 season translates to a 41 ppg, 17 rpg, .590 FG% season in 12-13.

The rest would be pure speculation. BUT, we have THE "bridge" in Kareem to make cross-era comparisons. KAJ played four years IN the Chamberlain-era, and didn't come close to the huge numbers that a prime Chamberlain leveled against many of the same centers that the two faced. And we know a 39 year old KAJ was capable of 46 point games, on 70% shooting, and in only 37 minutes, against a young Hakeem. And a peak Hakeem battled a young Shaq to a near-draw in the '95 Finals. Based on Shaq being the most dominant player in the league in the early 00's, and you can draw your own conclusions as to how a peak Chamberlain would fare in today's NBA.

[LAZERUSS]

Some of these posts are way too precious... :oldlol:



Yeah, I mean, Wilt might only have 50-60 points by the end of the game, but somehow every single spectator, player, coach, etc in the building would not be able to notice the difference between 60 and 100.




Again, how the heck is anyone able NOT to realize the difference between 100 and a much lower figure? Say Wilt scored "only" 60. Meaning all his other teammates were stripped by 40 pts. How come no other teammate complained about his points? You're naive if you think that at least most players don't know at least approximately how much they've scored. You think Arizin wouldn't have realized it if he had scored 26 points and was given credit for 16? Or Joe Ruklick if he had scored 2 or 4 points and was given credit for none?

Statkeepers VERY rarely will commit any mistake in scoring crediting. In stats like rebounding or shot blocking, yes, in some rare occasions. Scoring? I don't remember having seen such a gaffe at least in recent years, let alone multiple blunders in the same game.
And, while we are at it, how do we know that Wilt scored only 100 points? What if he scored 110-120 and statkeepers for some reason (e.g, to make him try even harder to score) tried to keep his totals down?



Yes, a zillion newspapers recorded or mentioned it, statkeepers recorded it, Harvey Pollack recorded it, 4,124 fans saw it, there's audio from Q4, there's a whole book written about it, every player present in that game has offered details from that game alone, including players from the Knicks (what would be their motive?), but if Wilt hasn't fought a mountain lion, this can't be any truer...Brilliant. :oldlol:

Excellent point. IF the scorekeepers were capable of altering scoring, how come no one claims that Wilt might have had 120 points in that game?

In any case, the game's score was kept on a SCOREBOARD, for all to see. The "Wilt-bashers" would have you believe that they were using chalk on a blackboard.

[LAZERUSS]

Based on factoring in competition. The league got a whole lot better from 61-62 to now.

Chamberlain averaged 39.6 ppg against Russell in ten games that season. And how about against the 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy? Only 52.7 ppg in ten games. BTW, Wilt averaged 38 ppg against Russell in nine h2hs, and 43.7 ppg in ten h2h's against Bellamy the very next season.

[ILLsmak]

Dunno why people use FGA to count pace when you are looking at a league with much higher rebounding and much lower FG%. Makes you think a good portion of them were probably offensive rebounding put back attempts.

-Smak

[iamgine]

The rest would be pure speculation. BUT, we have THE "bridge" in Kareem to make cross-era comparisons. KAJ played four years IN the Chamberlain-era, and didn't come close to the huge numbers that a prime Chamberlain leveled against many of the same centers that the two faced. And we know a 39 year old KAJ was capable of 46 point games, on 70% shooting, and in only 37 minutes, against a young Hakeem. And a peak Hakeem battled a young Shaq to a near-draw in the '95 Finals. Based on Shaq being the most dominant player in the league in the early 00's, and you can draw your own conclusions as to how a peak Chamberlain would fare in today's NBA.
Bridge theory doesn't really work because it pick and choose games that serves its purpose.

Wilt himself just two seasons later wasn't able to match his great production from '61-'62. Was he declining so rapidly at the age of 28? Did he not face the same centers?

In the same season that KAJ scored 46 points on young Hakeem, he could only scored 13 points against a rapidly declining Mychall Thompson. Thus I could say KAJ couldn't even score against a "scrub" and that 46 pt game was a fluke.

[LAZERUSS]

Dunno why people use FGA to count pace when you are looking at a league with much higher rebounding and much lower FG%. Makes you think a good portion of them were probably offensive rebounding put back attempts.

-Smak

Tell me then why KAJ had four seasons, in his prime, when he shot .539, .529, .518, and even .513. And yet, in the 80's he was shooting .604, and even .599 at age 37.

Or that the entire NBA, as a whole, jumped significantly in the 80's. And CENTERS, like Gilmore and KAJ had massive increases. And then CENTERS like Hakeem, who had his highest FG% season in his ROOKIE season (in '85), or CENTERS like Ewing and Robinson having their best FG% seasons early in their careers, in the late 80's, and early 90's, and then dropping significantly.

Did the CENTERS of the early to late 60's learn to shoot DRAMATICALLY better in the late 60's? Did the best CENTERS of the 70's learn to shoot better in the 80's, and even past their primes? And did the best CENTERS that played in the 80's and 90's, suddenly forget how to shoot as they entered the 90's?

You simply have to factor in ERA shooting. Players actually shot FTs better in the late 50's than they did just last season, and yet, their FG%s were way lower. Wilt shot .461 in his rookie season. By the mid-60's he was shooting .683. Take a look at Darrall Imhoff. Had multiple seasons of .314 to ,386 early in his career, and by the late 60's, was shooting .540. Look up Johnny Green. The man was struggling in the .430's in the early 60's, and leading the NBA at .587 in the 70's. Jerry West, with the same perfect jump-shot form was shooting .419 and .445 in the early 60's, and then as high as .514 in the late 60's. Why?

There were many factors. Balls that were not uniform; venues that were cold, and even breezy; players logging more minutes, and playing with injuries; and most importantly, much more condensed schedules. Take a look at the 2011-2012 season. In the first half of that strike season, in which the schedule was condensed, teams were scoring 96 ppg on as low as .443 FG%. As the schedule became more normalized, scoring and shooting went up.

And it's not just basketball. Do you think the "Steroid Era" players would have been hitting 60-70 HRs in the "Dead Ball era?" (or in the WWII era?) And has pitching suddenly improved since the advent of drug testing, or was there something else at play?

How about passing in the early 70's? Do you think today's QBs, playing with the same set of rules that the teams of the early 70's to late 70's had, would be putting up 5000 yard passing seasons?

If you are going to use "pace" against the greats of the 60's, then you HAVE to adjust for league-wide shooting. BTW, Oscar was scoring 30 ppg on as few as 22 FGAs per game in the 60's. Does that mean that he would only be capable of 16 FGAs in the current NBA? BUT, yet MJ and Kobe could take 27-28?

[LAZERUSS]

Bridge theory doesn't really work because it pick and choose games that serves its purpose.

Wilt himself just two seasons later wasn't able to match his great production from '61-'62. Was he declining so rapidly at the age of 28? Did he not face the same centers?

In the same season that KAJ scored 46 points on young Hakeem, he could only scored 13 points against a rapidly declining Mychall Thompson. Thus I could say KAJ couldn't even score against a "scrub" and that 46 pt game was a fluke.

In his first TEN STRAIGHT games against Hakeem, Kareem AVERAGED 32 ppg on, get this... a .621 FG%. This from a 38-39 year old Kareem. BTW, he had THREE games of 40+ against Hakeem. AND, in the same week that he plastered Hakeem with a 46 point game (again, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes), he hammered Ewing with a 40 point game, on 15-22 shooting, all while holding ewing to 9 points on 3-17 shooting. Again, from a 39 year old KAJ.

[CavaliersFTW]

Lazeruss has been flat out destroying the opposition with facts today :applause:

[iamgine]

In his first TEN STRAIGHT games against Hakeem, Kareem AVERAGED 32 ppg on, get this... a .621 FG%. This from a 38-39 year old Kareem. BTW, he had THREE games of 40+ against Hakeem. AND, in the same week that he plastered Hakeem with a 46 point game (again, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes), he hammered Ewing with a 40 point game, on 15-22 shooting, all while holding ewing to 9 points on 3-17 shooting. Again, from a 39 year old KAJ.
That's funny cause against Mychall Thompson, Prime KAJ was only able to average 23 ppg.

Mychall actually scored 38 points against Prime KAJ, the biggest out of their matchups.

Mychall must be better than Hakeem eh?

[LAZERUSS]

That's funny cause against Mychall Thompson, Prime KAJ was only able to average 23 ppg.

Mychall actually scored 38 points against Prime KAJ, the biggest out of their matchups.

Mychall must be better than Hakeem eh?

A 38-41 year old KAJ outscored Hakeem in their 23 career h2h's, and outshot him by a .607 to .512 margin.

A 39-41 year old KAJ outscored Ewing in their 8 career h2h's, and outshot him by a .581 to .446 margin.


BTW, Thompson NEVER faced a PRIME KAJ. But, in their five game 82-83 playoff matchup, a 35 year old KAJ averaged 30.8 ppg on a .621 FG% against him...all while holding Thompson to a 13.4 ppg .472 FG% series.

BUT, both Chamberlain and Thurmond did. In 28 career H2H's against Wilt, a PRIME Kareem shot .464. And in 50 career H2H's against Nate, he shot a very educated estimated FG% of .440.

And, if you want domination, Moses badly outplayed KAJ in their 40 career H2H's. Of course, he faced KAJ from '77-78 on. A prime KAJ was playing in the early 70's.

[iamgine]

A 38-41 year old KAJ outscored Hakeem in their 23 career h2h's, and outshot him by a .607 to .512 margin.

A 39-41 year old KAJ outscored Ewing in their 8 career h2h's, and outshot him by a .581 to .446 margin.


BTW, Thompson NEVER faced a PRIME KAJ.

BUT, both Chamberlain and Thurmond did. In 28 career H2H's against Wilt, a PRIME Kareem shot .464. And in 50 career H2H's against Nate, he shot a very educated estimated FG% of .440.

And, if you want domination, Moses badly outplayed KAJ in their 40 career H2H's. Of course, he faced KAJ from '77-78 on. A prime KAJ was playing in the early 70's.
Again with the pick and choose. That is the problem with bridge theory. Fact is:

Against Mychall Thompson, Prime KAJ was only able to average a very educated estimated 23 ppg.

Mychall actually scored a very educated estimated 38 points against Prime KAJ, the biggest out of their matchups.

[niko]

This is the stupidest ****ing topic ever on this board and that's saying a lot.

[LAZERUSS]

Again with the pick and choose. That is the problem with bridge theory. Fact is:

Against Mychall Thompson, Prime KAJ was only able to average a very educated estimated 23 ppg.

Mychall actually scored a very educated estimated 38 points against Prime KAJ, the biggest out of their matchups.

Or that KAJ in their first 11 games, at ages 30-34, averaged 27.4 ppg against Thompson. Or that we don't have their known FG% numbers in their first 15 games, but that from their 16th game to their 39th game, KAJ shot .554 from the field. And once again, in their entire ten game post-season h2h's, KAJ averaged 25.9 ppg on a .568 FG%. BUT, in their 82-83 playoff series, covering five games, Kareem averaged 31 ppg on a .621 FG%.

Of course, and once again, Mychal Thompson NEVER faced a PRIME KAJ, either (an early to mid-70's Kareem.) In those seasons in which Kareem was averaging 30-35 ppg.

[Psileas]

Again with the pick and choose. That is the problem with bridge theory. Fact is:

Against Mychall Thompson, Prime KAJ was only able to average a very educated estimated 23 ppg.

Mychall actually scored a very educated estimated 38 points against Prime KAJ, the biggest out of their matchups.

Wrong. The only versions of prime/close to prime Kareem (up to 1981) averaged 26.9 ppg against Thomspon, without even feeling the need to prove anything against him, like he did against Hakeem.

BTW, for others, this scoring "inconsistency" is called stepping up to competition, but now it's called "problem with the bridge theory". How about this inconsistency?

[iamgine]

Wrong. The only versions of prime/close to prime Kareem (up to 1981) averaged 26.9 ppg against Thomspon, without even feeling the need to prove anything against him, like he did against Hakeem.

BTW, for others, this scoring "inconsistency" is called stepping up to competition, but now it's called "problem with the bridge theory". How about this inconsistency?
The bridge theory is absurd. To take a 39 yrs old Kareem and pick and choose games against a very young Hakeem and call it the "bridge". How about the style these teams play? How about having the GOAT PG on the team? How about the fact that despite nowhere near his prime, Hakeem killed the Lakers in the playoff?

Also in the same note to take Wilt vs a very young Kareem. And then bashing him for never averaging Wilt's peak numbers. How absurd.

[CavaliersFTW]

The bridge theory is absurd. To take a 39 yrs old Kareem and pick and choose games against a very young Hakeem and call it the "bridge". How about the style these teams play? How about having the GOAT PG on the team? How about the fact that despite nowhere near his prime, Hakeem killed the Lakers in the playoff?

Also in the same note to take Wilt vs a very young Kareem. And then bashing him for never averaging Wilt's peak numbers. How absurd.
What's absurd is the idea that any sort of 'era' boundaries exist. At no point did any different generation of players suddenly become irrelevant or inferior, there are new rookies every season, and new rule changes every couple of seasons throughout NBA history and at no point did any rookies or rule changes ever make any veterans seem like a suddenly outdated mold of basketball player.

[iamgine]

What's absurd is the idea that any sort of 'era' boundaries exist. At no point did any different generation of players suddenly become irrelevant or inferior, there are new rookies every season, and new rule changes every couple of seasons throughout NBA history and at no point did any rookies or rule changes ever make any veterans seem like a suddenly outdated mold of basketball player.
If that's true, then we'd agree that George Mikan was just as good as Dwight Howard.

[fpliii]

What's absurd is the idea that any sort of 'era' boundaries exist. At no point did any different generation of players suddenly become irrelevant or inferior, there are new rookies every season, and new rule changes every couple of seasons throughout NBA history and at no point did any rookies or rule changes ever make any veterans seem like a suddenly outdated mold of basketball player.

I'd agree, except for the introduction of the shot clock. Totally changed the game, and forced a lot of great players who couldn't adapt out of the league. From 54-55 to the present there's a great deal of continuity.

[CavaliersFTW]

If that's true, then we'd agree that George Mikan was just as good as Dwight Howard.
If Mikan was given different rules and shown the different ways to capitalize on them the way the game is played tody, who's to say he couldn't? The guy was 245-280lbs and 6-10 (very likely a w/o shoes measurement) in an era where everybody (including himself) did not lift weights, he was physically very massive and strong, and had the natural stamina and coordination not to mention competitive drive at that size to not only play NBA basketball - but to be the very best in the world at it at the time he was playing.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-QfX6baLFFEo/UlTFlxAuISI/AAAAAAAAEu0/lu03u4Mdr1c/s800/Bob-Kurland%252C-Wilt%252C-MikanV%2520%25281%2529.jpg

He had the competitive mindset to outright destroy opponents - he took dance lessons off the court to improve his coordination - basically he'd try anything and do anything to win. He has that very special raw ingredient to be a dominant big man - and I'm not just talking about his physical tools which are there I'm talking about the single most important component of all, the muscle between his ears.

If Brook Lopez can be the #1 scoring big man in the NBA last season, a guy who can't rebound a lick and is about as coordinated as Herman Munster, than I'm pretty sure Mikan could comfortably adjust to a slightly different version of the game he once dominated.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Kobe, playing 41 mpg, averaged over 27 FGAs on a weak team in '06, and in a league that averaged 80 FGAs per team.

And Wilt in '62 was not just shooting inside shots. He came into the league with a range of up to 15 ft, and was taking turn-around bank shots from 12 feet.

Put a '62 Wilt on a similar crappy roster in '13, and he likely would lead the league in shot attempts. The fact that we haven't seen big men do it in the last few seasons is more of a reflection on the inept big men playing the game, than the defenses they are facing.

And as recently as the '01 Finals, Shaq averaged 26 FGAs and 15 FTAs in the the six game Finals against the Pacers, en route to a 38 ppg average. And a few years before that, Hakeem averaged 29.5 FGAs, on a team that averaged a total of 78 FGAs, against Shaq in the '95 Finals. So clearly, it was possible.

In any case, I get tired of posters attempting to use "pace" against Wilt, and coming up with ludicrous numbers like he would be a 22-14 guy. Even adjusting for "pace" Wilt's 61-62 was the greatest scoring season in NBA history.

And based on a simple math, Wilt's 61-62 season translates to a 41 ppg, 17 rpg, .590 FG% season in 12-13.

The rest would be pure speculation. BUT, we have THE "bridge" in Kareem to make cross-era comparisons. KAJ played four years IN the Chamberlain-era, and didn't come close to the huge numbers that a prime Chamberlain leveled against many of the same centers that the two faced. And we know a 39 year old KAJ was capable of 46 point games, on 70% shooting, and in only 37 minutes, against a young Hakeem. And a peak Hakeem battled a young Shaq to a near-draw in the '95 Finals. Based on Shaq being the most dominant player in the league in the early 00's, and you can draw your own conclusions as to how a peak Chamberlain would fare in today's NBA.
Wilt would be nowhere as good as players like Kobe or Shaq in this era, so no team would give him 30 FGAs. His best bet is being Dwight Howard type player in the modern era.

[millwad]

The bridge theory is absurd. To take a 39 yrs old Kareem and pick and choose games against a very young Hakeem and call it the "bridge". How about the style these teams play? How about having the GOAT PG on the team? How about the fact that despite nowhere near his prime, Hakeem killed the Lakers in the playoff?

Also in the same note to take Wilt vs a very young Kareem. And then bashing him for never averaging Wilt's peak numbers. How absurd.

"The bridge"-theory is nothing but utter bogus and Lazeruss (Jlauber) is a clown for even using it and it gets even worse when he only cherry picks games.

Like he'll say that rookie and 2nd year pro Olajuwon got destroyed by Kareem and therefor the bridge is so valid. But it's funny, he will not tell you that the 2nd year pro absolutely destroyed the Lakers and Kareem in his 2nd pro season during the Rockets playoff run. The same playoff-run where Olajuwon outplayed Kareem big time in the playoffs as a 2nd year pro.

And to understand what kind of clown Lazeruss is you need to know this. In '72 Wilt and Kareem faced each other both during the regular season and the playoffs and before getting totally destroyed he used to claim that Wilt "murdered" Kareem that year.

Then of course it was nothing but fiction. Kareem averaged 40 points on 50% shooting against Wilt in the regular season and in the playoffs he outscored Wilt with 23 points.. PER GAME.

[Mr. Jabbar]

81 is the measuring bar
in godbe we trust

[kshutts1]

Dunno why people use FGA to count pace when you are looking at a league with much higher rebounding and much lower FG%. Makes you think a good portion of them were probably offensive rebounding put back attempts.

-Smak
I don't think this portion was discussed properly. Basically all that can be said about it is... good point.

That being said, I appreciate the time and effort that the pace calculations took, but I doubt there is such a direct relationship. As an estimate, they're fine. But then we need to consider the differences in athleticism in the league today, and while that's not quantifiable, we can assume that the increased focus on athleticism today would bring the numbers down slightly (and I mean slightly).
Not to say that Wilt would not be able to keep up athletically, but I think we've all played pick-up with someone more skilled than we are, but not nearly as athletic... and a semi-skilled athletic player typically beats a skilled semi-athletic player... or at least the more athletic player makes it much more difficult than the difference in skills would suggest.

[iamgine]

If Mikan was given different rules and shown the different ways to capitalize on them the way the game is played tody, who's to say he couldn't? The guy was 245-280lbs and 6-10 (very likely a w/o shoes measurement) in an era where everybody (including himself) did not lift weights, he was physically very massive and strong, and had the natural stamina and coordination not to mention competitive drive at that size to not only play NBA basketball - but to be the very best in the world at it at the time he was playing.

He had the competitive mindset to outright destroy opponents - he took dance lessons off the court to improve his coordination - basically he'd try anything and do anything to win. He has that very special raw ingredient to be a dominant big man - and I'm not just talking about his physical tools which are there I'm talking about the single most important component of all, the muscle between his ears.

If Brook Lopez can be the #1 scoring big man in the NBA last season, a guy who can't rebound a lick and is about as coordinated as Herman Munster, than I'm pretty sure Mikan could comfortably adjust to a slightly different version of the game he once dominated.
He had the size but cmon now. You're basically describing Luke Walton.

[Psileas]

The bridge theory is absurd. To take a 39 yrs old Kareem and pick and choose games against a very young Hakeem and call it the "bridge". How about the style these teams play? How about having the GOAT PG on the team? How about the fact that despite nowhere near his prime, Hakeem killed the Lakers in the playoff?

Also in the same note to take Wilt vs a very young Kareem. And then bashing him for never averaging Wilt's peak numbers. How absurd.

This thoery, that I had mentioned before Lauber had (though I hadn't given it a name), takes into account a respectably large sample of games, it's not choosing the best from one side and the worst from the other. The objective isn't to compare players from across eras by comparing the performance of a common opponent against them, rather than show that this player had been great (or not) during different eras and, consequently, that the division of the league's history into separate eras of different levels is wrong. The closest we've seen to an era change happened when the shot clock arrived and even then, there've seen voteran players who adapted fine.
The rest of your comment on Kareem vs Hakeem may not be an effort to discredit 80's Kareem, but it sure looks like it: He'd been playing with Magic during the whole 80's, so whatever advantages he enjoyed against any other opponent, he did against Hakeem. It's just that vs Hakeem, he was more motivated to perform at a high level and asked more for the ball. This would never happen if they knew that Kareem couldn't pull it off against Hakeem/Sampson. But it was common knowledge among them that Kareem had been great in all "eras" he'd played, so they trusted him. In defense, not at the same degree, which is why they tried to strengthen their frontline in the late 80's. After all, we all know today that Kareem's defense and rebounding suffered more than his offense as he grew older. But he still performed great.

[iamgine]

This thoery, that I had mentioned before Lauber had (though I hadn't given it a name), takes into account a respectably large sample of games, it's not choosing the best from one side and the worst from the other. The objective isn't to compare players from across eras by comparing the performance of a common opponent against them, rather than show that this player had been great (or not) during different eras and, consequently, that the division of the league's history into separate eras of different levels is wrong. The closest we've seen to an era change happened when the shot clock arrived and even then, there've seen voteran players who adapted fine.
The rest of your comment on Kareem vs Hakeem may not be an effort to discredit 80's Kareem, but it sure looks like it: He'd been playing with Magic during the whole 80's, so whatever advantages he enjoyed against any other opponent, he did against Hakeem. It's just that vs Hakeem, he was more motivated to perform at a high level and asked more for the ball. This would never happen if they knew that Kareem couldn't pull it off against Hakeem/Sampson. But it was common knowledge among them that Kareem had been great in all "eras" he'd played, so they trusted him. In defense, not at the same degree, which is why they tried to strengthen their frontline in the late 80's. After all, we all know today that Kareem's defense and rebounding suffered more than his offense as he grew older. But he still performed great.
I guess what I'm saying is it's absurd because here we are taking a 39 years old man, far far removed from his prime in a very stacked team with the GOAT PG. Against a sophomore player, also very far from his prime. And somehow the result of their matchup determine...something.

[Pointguard]

I guess what I'm saying is it's absurd because here we are taking a 39 years old man, far far removed from his prime in a very stacked team with the GOAT PG. Against a sophomore player, also very far from his prime. And somehow the result of their matchup determine...something.
How do you address the Ewing situation then.. As far as him being a sophomore player, Hakeem was a very good defensive player right off the bat, like Ewing. His offensive moves weren't as polished then.

[305Baller]

http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tin-foil-hat.jpg

[iamgine]

How do you address the Ewing situation then.. As far as him being a sophomore player, Hakeem was a very good defensive player right off the bat, like Ewing. His offensive moves weren't as polished then.
ewing situation :confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

This thoery, that I had mentioned before Lauber had (though I hadn't given it a name), takes into account a respectably large sample of games, it's not choosing the best from one side and the worst from the other. The objective isn't to compare players from across eras by comparing the performance of a common opponent against them, rather than show that this player had been great (or not) during different eras and, consequently, that the division of the league's history into separate eras of different levels is wrong. The closest we've seen to an era change happened when the shot clock arrived and even then, there've seen voteran players who adapted fine.
The rest of your comment on Kareem vs Hakeem may not be an effort to discredit 80's Kareem, but it sure looks like it: He'd been playing with Magic during the whole 80's, so whatever advantages he enjoyed against any other opponent, he did against Hakeem. It's just that vs Hakeem, he was more motivated to perform at a high level and asked more for the ball. This would never happen if they knew that Kareem couldn't pull it off against Hakeem/Sampson. But it was common knowledge among them that Kareem had been great in all "eras" he'd played, so they trusted him. In defense, not at the same degree, which is why they tried to strengthen their frontline in the late 80's. After all, we all know today that Kareem's defense and rebounding suffered more than his offense as he grew older. But he still performed great.
I think the "bridge theory" can be explained in one word. RIVALRY. Because the flip side is those great games the older players had vs the younger incumbent didnt happen on a nightly basis vs the avg centers. Not to mention the fact that the younger players were inexperienced. Basically neither of the players mentioned were in their prime. How did Jabaar fair vs the rest of the league?

Saying that, any reasonable person kniw Chamberlain would be just as dominant now as he was back then. Not at the same statistical level of the 60s, but definitely dominant.

The math Lazurus did was interesting. But not totally on the up and up. Wilt wouldn't play 48 minutes on a nightly basis now. The avg super star plays 38-40 minutes per night. Thats basically a quarter.

[CavaliersFTW]

I think the "bridge theory" can be explained in one word. RIVALRY. Because the flip side is those great games the older players had vs the younger incumbent didnt happen on a nightly basis vs the avg centers. Not to mention the fact that the younger players were inexperienced. Basically neither of the players mentioned were in their prime. How did Jabaar fair vs the rest of the league?

Saying that, any reasonable person kniw Chamberlain would be just as dominant now as he was back then. Not at the same statistical level of the 60s, but definitely dominant.

The math Lazurus did was interesting. But not totally on the up and up. Wilt wouldn't play 48 minutes on a nightly basis now. The avg super star plays 38-40 minutes per night. Thats basically a quarter.
Wilt isn't an 'average superstar' - he's Wilt Chamberlain - the record book owner. He did things nobody did before him, while he was playing, or after he played. If Wilt wants to play 48 minutes, who's gonna stop him? In today's era coaches have even less influence over superstar players than they did in his own era. He'd play as many minutes as he wanted today, and if a coach didn't like it they'd be fired.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Wilt isn't an 'average superstar' - he's Wilt Chamberlain - the record book owner. He did things nobody did before him, while he was playing, or after he played. If Wilt wants to play 48 minutes, who's gonna stop him? In today's era coaches have even less influence over superstar players than they did in his own era. He'd play as many minutes as he wanted today, and if a coach didn't like it they'd be fired.
Dwight Howard is a borderline superstar, if you can even call him a superstar at all I don't know.

[BoutPractice]

People still have trouble with the concept of the 'outlier'. We feel more comfortable with averages, which is why it's difficult to even get our heads around what Wilt did.

[Pointguard]

ewing situation :confusedshrug:
Originally Posted by iamgine


I guess what I'm saying is it's absurd because here we are taking a 39 years old man, far far removed from his prime in a very stacked team with the GOAT PG. Against a sophomore player, also very far from his prime. And somehow the result of their matchup determine...something.

You keep saying its absurd because he -Lazeruss, according to you, cherry picked a young Hakeem. But then he includes the other future prominent center, Ewing, and it applies across the board. At the very least the argument is solid and consistent. No? It doesn't seem absurd because it applies to the very good in three different eras.

[iamgine]

Originally Posted by iamgine

You keep saying its absurd because he -Lazeruss, according to you, cherry picked a young Hakeem. But then he includes the other future prominent center, Ewing, and it applies across the board. At the very least the argument is solid and consistent. No? It doesn't seem absurd because it applies to the very good in three different eras.
The argument is neither consistent nor solid. What was said above also applied to Ewing.

[Pointguard]

The argument is neither consistent nor solid. What was said above also applied to Ewing.
Name the prominent center it doesn't apply to? There is usually one exception to the rule. Otherwise its comprehensive.

[97 bulls]

Wilt isn't an 'average superstar' - he's Wilt Chamberlain - the record book owner. He did things nobody did before him, while he was playing, or after he played. If Wilt wants to play 48 minutes, who's gonna stop him? In today's era coaches have even less influence over superstar players than they did in his own era. He'd play as many minutes as he wanted today, and if a coach didn't like it they'd be fired.
The owners would stop him. Wilt would easily be a 30 mill per guy. Theres no way an owner would be willing to invest that much money to watch him tear a ligament playing the lowly Raptors for 48 minutes.

His playing that much is probably why his stats in the RS and PO dropped. He probably just didnt have it.

[97 bulls]

Originally Posted by iamgine

You keep saying its absurd because he -Lazeruss, according to you, cherry picked a young Hakeem. But then he includes the other future prominent center, Ewing, and it applies across the board. At the very least the argument is solid and consistent. No? It doesn't seem absurd because it applies to the very good in three different eras.
But why didnt he avg 30 against the league at 38 years old? Context has to be implemented in this discussion.

[Pointguard]

But why didnt he avg 30 against the league at 38 years old? Context has to be implemented in this discussion.

Why do you think that is so? I think its because Pat Riley knew he it was too hard for him to do that game in and game out. So when he played against a up and coming center he used it as a way to challenge him. What context do you see it in?

[Psileas]

I think the "bridge theory" can be explained in one word. RIVALRY. Because the flip side is those great games the older players had vs the younger incumbent didnt happen on a nightly basis vs the avg centers. Not to mention the fact that the younger players were inexperienced. Basically neither of the players mentioned were in their prime. How did Jabaar fair vs the rest of the league?

The "bridge theory" is obviously summed up better by looking at the overall stats of the season. Knowing how in any given era there's a good number of veterans who have performed well throughout the season against the newer generation of players and that most veterans who didn't manage to perform as well had reasons other than their overall level of play (injuries, losing athleticism more rapidly, fatigue due to age), these are good indications of the correctness of the theory. It's the closest one can get to the popular but completely utopic "time travel" argument - Kareem barely missing Bill Russell and barely missing David Robinson, Parish facing Cowens and Shaq, Jordan facing Gervin and Kobe...

[millwad]

How do you address the Ewing situation then.. As far as him being a sophomore player, Hakeem was a very good defensive player right off the bat, like Ewing. His offensive moves weren't as polished then.

Olajuwon was not anywhere close to his prime in terms of defensive skillset, he was foul prone and he also was easy to get up to the air.

And the who "bridge"-nonsense is utter garbage, if this nonsense makes sense, then Moses has a strong case for being the GOAT-center of all-time, especially if you like to cherry pick like Jlauber.

[Donkey4trading]

I'm not gonna say I cut hair, but..

[LakersForlife]

no it was all ****** propaganda,,,kobe holds the highest scoring in a single game