Do you guys seriously think Russell, Wilt and Oscar wouldnt have worse stats today?

[MavsSuperFan]

Obviously its not their fault they played in the 60s.

But Russell had a career average of 24.6 rebounds per game.
Also winning 11 championships
Wilt had seasons where he averaged 50.4. 44.8, 37.6, 38.4, 36.9, etc PPG.
He also averaged 22.9 Rebounds per game.
Oscar had 181 triple doubles, and averaged over 30 PPG for 6 of his first 7 seasons.

People who advocate for these guys as the best players that ever played in the NBA, often cite their amazing statistics. Is it really fair to people that played in later eras to compare their stats directly with these guys that got to play in a league where this could happen?

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

I would guess that 50% of the league back then wouldnt come close to making the NBA today.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Wilt would be averaging like 34/14-18 a game in his prime

but not 50/30

[MavsSuperFan]

Wilt would be averaging like 34/14-18 a game in his prime

but not 50/30
Ok fine, but the 50/30 was a result of his era.

[Psileas]

Do you guys seriously think Russell, Wilt and Oscar wouldnt have worse stats today?

Who is the question targeted to? Who claimed Oscar would avg 30/10/10, Wilt 50/25 and so on?
A better question is: Do you guys seriously think that 50% of that league would not be close to even making the NBA today, especially given the crappy quality of bigs?

[ABfor3]

Who is the question targeted to? Who claimed Oscar would avg 30/10/10, Wilt 50/25 and so on?
A better question is: Do you guys seriously think that 50% of that league would not be close to even making the NBA today, especially given the crappy quality of bigs?
This. Anybody who's seen footage of the league back then knows therewas barely any big men who could dribble the ball .. Guards has the handles of today's power forwards..the league is much more talented than it was before. No way in hell those guys average what they did back then

[MavsSuperFan]

This. Anybody who's seen footage of the league back then knows therewas barely any big men who could dribble the ball .. Guards has the handles of today's power forwards..the league is much more talented than it was before. No way in hell those guys average what they did back then
I agree with you, but I think you missed his point :lol

[MavsSuperFan]

Who is the question targeted to? Who claimed Oscar would avg 30/10/10, Wilt 50/25 and so on?
A better question is: Do you guys seriously think that 50% of that league would not be close to even making the NBA today, especially given the crappy quality of bigs?
So many of the 60s stans. Its the whole basis of the argument why russell or wilt is the best ever.

Also saying russell couldnt win 11 championships in the era of free agency.

[EllEffEll]

I think the most of the greats would have been great regardless of the era they played in. It's no more fair to expect that they would be exactly who they were then if they had grown up now, just as it's ludicrous to expect that today's stars would have been so much better then if they had grown up back then.

I do however believe that there may have been some exceptions to that generality.

Today's players generally have more flair to their game, but many lack the fundamentals and to some extent the BB-IQ that I feel was more prevalent in earlier eras. The fact that they turn pro earlier in their careers makes that even more of an issue.

Guys like Russell, Chamberlain, and Robertson are some of the players I believe would absolutely be greats today just as they were then as they were all outstanding athletically to say the least. JMHO.

[TheMarkMadsen]

I think the true greats from any era (50's, 60's, 70's, and on) would be star players in this area

Big O, Wilt, Russell, all these guys would still have a major impact and would be able to the leader of potential championship teams


the numbers might dip, but the impact wouldn't.

[moe94]

This. Anybody who's seen footage of the league back then knows therewas barely any big men who could dribble the ball .. Guards has the handles of today's power forwards..the league is much more talented than it was before. No way in hell those guys average what they did back then

You agreed to the exact opposite of what he was saying. :oldlol:

[steve]

Why do you care?

[moe94]

Why do you care?

Why is he discussing basketball on a basketball message board? How dare he.

[steve]

Why is he discussing basketball on a basketball message board? How dare he.

My point is, why is he trying to discredit a previous era? It's easy to say that a former player couldn't perform in a modern era but at the same time they don't have the benefit of knowing what a current player knows about the game and the automatic assumption is that player from the '50s or '60s will just be transported knowing what they know now into the modern era when thinking that is the absolute height or ignorance. If a player today's era played in the '60s, he would never be able to dribble the ball up the court without being called for a carry, the game has changed drastically. Which leads me to my original question, if someone enjoys basketball and has an understanding of the game and its history, why do they care how greats from other eras fit into this current iteration of the game?

[fpliii]

EDIT: Redacted, not worth my time.

[moe94]

My point is, why is he trying to discredit a previous era? ?

He's trolling era stans.

[MavsSuperFan]

My point is, why is he trying to discredit a previous era? It's easy to say that a former player couldn't perform in a modern era but at the same time they don't have the benefit of knowing what a current player knows about the game and the automatic assumption is that player from the '50s or '60s will just be transported knowing what they know now into the modern era when thinking that is the absolute height or ignorance. If a player today's era played in the '60s, he would never be able to dribble the ball up the court without being called for a carry, the game has changed drastically. Which leads me to my original question, if someone enjoys basketball and has an understanding of the game and its history, why do they care how greats from other eras fit into this current iteration of the game?
Because I think that era deserves discrediting. And it would be unfair to later eras to pretend it was just as good.

Primarily because;

1. Racial discrimination.
2. Much lower financial incentives attracting talent. (people were better off becoming a doctor than an NBA player. Lots of players had to work second jobs to get by.)
3. Much smaller population pool (eg. zero international players).


The first point is self explanatory

2. Lots of kids today who display talent at basketball, basically dedicate their whole lives to trying to make the NBA. Turning over their lives to AAU coaches. While this has obvious negatives, it cant be argued that this focus on basketball better develops basketball skills. Note that I recognize that the kid is screwed if he cant make it to the NBA, but we are only talking about the effect on the overall talent/skills of the NBA. Back when the financial incentives of the NBA were much lower, no one would have done this.

I learned from a guy on ISH that Bob Pettit got a law degree. What pro athlete today gets a law degree? No one. Even supposedly smart ones like Peyton Manning get joke degrees in communications. Pro Athletes today need to focus on getting better at their sports.

3. This is also obvious. A guy like dirk in the 1960s would never have joined the NBA.


if someone enjoys basketball and has an understanding of the game and its history, why do they care how greats from other eras fit into this current iteration of the game?[

i hate how people rank wilt and russell above shaq in terms of peak performance.


If a player today's era played in the '60s, he would never be able to dribble the ball up the court without being called for a carry, the game has changed drastically.
They would adjust quite easily and benefit from playing weaker competition.
Anthony Parker was like the best player in the euroleague for 2 years. He could barely make the NBA. Now I am not saying that I am sure the greats of the 60s couldnt make the NBA today. I am saying the benefited from the weaker competition.

[fpliii]

EDIT: Redacted, not worth my time.

[justin12140]

People think your trolling, but I agree. These guys would still be great players, but I really don't know how anyone can watch 60s basketball an honestly believe that the average player is as good as today.

[steve]

Because I think that era deserves discrediting. And it would be unfair to later eras to pretend it was just as good.

Primarily because;

1. Racial discrimination.
2. Much lower financial incentives attracting talent. (people were better off becoming a doctor than an NBA player. Lots of players had to work second jobs to get by.)
3. Much smaller population pool (eg. zero international players).


The first point is self explanatory

2. Lots of kids today who display talent at basketball, basically dedicate their whole lives to trying to make the NBA. Turning over their lives to AAU coaches. While this has obvious negatives, it cant be argued that this focus on basketball better develops basketball skills. Note that I recognize that the kid is screwed if he cant make it to the NBA, but we are only talking about the effect on the overall talent/skills of the NBA. Back when the financial incentives of the NBA were much lower, no one would have done this.

I learned from a guy on ISH that Bob Pettit got a law degree. What pro athlete today gets a law degree? No one. Even supposedly smart ones like Peyton Manning get joke degrees in communications. Pro Athletes today need to focus on getting better at their sports.

3. This is also obvious. A guy like dirk in the 1960s would never have joined the NBA.



i hate how people rank wilt and russell above shaq in terms of peak performance.


They would adjust quite easily and benefit from playing weaker competition.
Anthony Parker was like the best player in the euroleague for 2 years. He could barely make the NBA. Now I am not saying that I am sure the greats of the 60s couldnt make the NBA today. I am saying the benefited from the weaker competition.

You clearly have no understanding of how the game evolved and we have nothing left to discuss.

[MavsSuperFan]

People think your trolling, but I agree. These guys would still be great players, but I really don't know how anyone can watch 60s basketball an honestly believe that the average player is as good as today.
This is largely my point, and that playing against players that arent on average as good as today, inflates the stats of the great players of that era. Thank you. also people often choose to dismiss arguments they dont like as trolling.

[MavsSuperFan]

He's trolling era stans.
Maybe I am being stupid, but its not on purpose, so its not trolling. This my genuine opinion on this topic. I do troll from time to time though

Eg. last years finals pretending to cheer for the heat.

[Psileas]

I still haven't seen a single poster's name that claims Wilt would average 50/25 or whatever. I only see generalities about "Wilt stans", yet I don't see anyone like the title describes.

BTW, in the past, I'd asked this and, surprisingly, got no answers from 60's-70's naysayers: Plant the 1972 Lakers or the 1967 Sixers to 1980 and the 1980 Lakers to 2013. How many games does each team win?

[MMM]

You can only compare talents to their respective era. Not sure why NBA fans are so preoccupied with ranking players all time. The OP might think it is unfair to compare modern stars to 60s stars focusing on stats but modern stars have their share of advantages based solely on era. So, i'm not sure why it upsets the OP that someone ranks Wilt or Russell over Shaq when Shaq benefited from medical science, better coaching, better player development.

I think that it is more likely that 60s stars would remain stars in the modern game if they enjoyed the benefits today players get than vice versa. Much more variables for a modern player to grow up in the 40s/50s to become a 60s star imo.

[Marchesk]

But I hate how people rank wilt and russell above shaq in terms of peak performance.

For Wilt, his relative statistical dominance over his peers was greater than Shaq's. And for Russell, it's his contribution to winning. Shaq was on legitimate contenders who failed to win for one reason or another. Russell's teams only failed twice. Once when he got hurt in the finals, and once to a great Wilt team.

As for the stats themselves, everyone gets that the pace is different, that guys like Wilt wouldn't be playing 48 minutes today, that there is a three point line, and so on. So yeah, their stats would look different if they played today.

I do wonder what 50 ppg equals to today. Wilt outscored Baylor by 12 that season. That would be like if Dwight Howard was averaging 37 today, with Durant second at 29 ppg.

Of course Wilt isn't getting the same number of shot attempts, but you figure that his FG% would go up in today's game. Wilt proved later in his career that he could shoot at an extremely high FG%.

As for Oscar, he would figure to get the same number of assists. That's one of the stats which isn't inflated. He also shot a really good FG% for a guard in that era. As did West. You would think that the 3pt line would be a benefit for a guy like West.

[Kblaze8855]

Who is the question targeted to? Who claimed Oscar would avg 30/10/10, Wilt 50/25 and so on?


Not a single person on the face of the earth. If anyone were saying the stats would translate directly they would think Elgin Baylor was a hell of a lot better than Jordan. Which...is not something you are going to hear often.

Dude made a topic a while back asking if people really thought Wilt could score 20 a game these days as if a 7'2''(as he would be listed these days), long jumper, high jumper, marathon running, shot put state record holder, 2 guard for the Harlem Globetrotters, who can handle Kareem in his prime, and play 48.5 minutes of running a night with way more possessions would just be ****ed against the might of Robin Lopez and the general scum in his way playing the 5 today.

He has no interest in reality, no interest in learning about the people hes discussing, and doesnt even base his absurd topics on anything people even believe. Hes just here to agitate.

[BoutPractice]

Even if the competition is weaker, it doesn't diminish a player's obvious ability to dominate a basketball game.

Take footage of Shaq in high school or college. (I'm not saying the NBA in the 60s was like college currently, it's just for the sake of argument) Say you're in 1990... You could use the same flawed thinking used to discredit players from the 60s to diminish Shaq's ability. 'He will never dominate in the NBA because he's dominating high school/college players.' That's insane logic. Scouts don't think like that. Scouts see a Shaq or a LeBron in high school/college and think: this guy has a number of exceptional attributes that lead me to think he has the potential to dominate the league. If a Wilt Chamberlain came along today, they'd say the same thing about him. If a Wilt Chamberlain was available in 2014's draft, he would have Joel Embiid and Andrew Wiggins battling for the number 2 spot. Everyone would want to tank for a chance to get him.

Another way to present the same argument is to wonder how much more someone could have dominated his competition than Wilt Chamberlain. If you think current players are so much better than Wilt, then you would logically have to argue that they could at least average the same, if not better stats against 1960s competition. If you're saying Wilt would have stats similar or worse than a current player, then you have to be able to picture in your mind a parallel universe where we hear about the exploits of a guy with exactly the same attributes as this current player, and this guy averaged at least 50/25 for a season, led the league in assists, played more than 48 a game, broke every imaginable records, etc. Can you honestly picture something like that happening with most players in the league today?

People often wonder what would happen if you were to switch, say, Wilt and Shaq. They always wonder what would happen to Wilt in today's league. But they never wonder what would happen to Shaq in the 60s. They don't see that even if Shaq had the most dominant stats imaginable... no one would believe that he was THIS good today. They wouldn't have the footage for the equivalent of his 00-02 years, the only footage available would be of Miami Shaq. They'd say he only dominated because he was bigger and stronger than anyone else (of course you in this universe know that he did in fact, dominate the early 00s for the exact same reason), they'd say tales about him are exaggerated. They'd question his post skills because he seemed to repeatedly use the same, simple (yet unstoppable) two moves. They'd ridicule him based on clips of him at the free throw line, and a not particularly flattering full game against Bill Russell, where he commits an early travel, blows a dunk out of frustration, picks up a few offensive fouls and is out of the game quickly.

[ILLsmak]

Wilt would be averaging like 34/14-18 a game in his prime

but not 50/30

Maybe not. I think they'd be as good, probably, but stats are just different now. Hard to get 34 from a C now. Can't play 48 now. Even 18 rebounds is insane.

-Smak

[Psileas]

Not a single person on the face of the earth. If anyone were saying the stats would translate directly they would think Elgin Baylor was a hell of a lot better than Jordan. Which...is not something you are going to hear often.

Dude made a topic a while back asking if people really thought Wilt could score 20 a game these days as if a 7'2''(as he would be listed these days), long jumper, high jumper, marathon running, shot put state record holder, 2 guard for the Harlem Globetrotters, who can handle Kareem in his prime, and play 48.5 minutes of running a night with way more possessions would just be ****ed against the might of Robin Lopez and the general scum in his way playing the 5 today.

He has no interest in reality, no interest in learning about the people hes discussing, and doesnt even base his absurd topics on anything people even believe. Hes just here to agitate.

And then you have people who have the audacity to ask me why I add in my ignore list the ones that "don't agree with me".

[Psileas]

Even if the competition is weaker, it doesn't diminish a player's obvious ability to dominate a basketball game.

Take footage of Shaq in high school or college. (I'm not saying the NBA in the 60s was like college currently, it's just for the sake of argument) Say you're in 1990... You could use the same flawed thinking used to discredit players from the 60s to diminish Shaq's ability. 'He will never dominate in the NBA because he's dominating high school/college players.' That's insane logic. Scouts don't think like that. Scouts see a Shaq or a LeBron in high school/college and think: this guy has a number of exceptional attributes that lead me to think he has the potential to dominate the league. If a Wilt Chamberlain came along today, they'd say the same thing about him. If a Wilt Chamberlain was available in 2014's draft, he would have Joel Embiid and Andrew Wiggins battling for the number 2 spot. Everyone would want to tank for a chance to get him.

Another way to present the same argument is to wonder how much more someone could have dominated his competition than Wilt Chamberlain. If you think current players are so much better than Wilt, then you would logically have to argue that they could at least average the same, if not better stats against 1960s competition. If you're saying Wilt would have stats similar or worse than a current player, then you have to be able to picture in your mind a parallel universe where we hear about the exploits of a guy with exactly the same attributes as this current player, and this guy averaged at least 50/25 for a season, led the league in assists, played more than 48 a game, broke every imaginable records, etc. Can you honestly picture something like that happening with most players in the league today?

People often wonder what would happen if you were to switch, say, Wilt and Shaq. They always wonder what would happen to Wilt in today's league. But they never wonder what would happen to Shaq in the 60s. They don't see that even if Shaq had the most dominant stats imaginable... no one would believe that he was THIS good today. They wouldn't have the footage for the equivalent of his 00-02 years, the only footage available would be of Miami Shaq. They'd say he only dominated because he was bigger and stronger than anyone else (of course you in this universe know that he did in fact, dominate the early 00s for the exact same reason), they'd say tales about him are exaggerated. They'd question his post skills because he seemed to repeatedly use the same, simple (yet unstoppable) two moves. They'd ridicule him based on clips of him at the free throw line, and a not particularly flattering full game against Bill Russell, where he commits an early travel, blows a dunk out of frustration, picks up a few offensive fouls and is out of the game quickly.

Very good post. Specifically regarding the bolded one, I repeat what I've written in the past: Even if I see a Bugatti Veyron surpass a crappy Lada with 250 mph, I will need no further evidence that it is a supercar and wonder "yeah, but how would it fare against a Ferrari?". Similarly, when I see Wilt dominate the lights out of just about everyone, black or white, athletic or stiff, 7-footer or not or play someone that people don't doubt (young prime Kareem) toe to toe in 1971, while past his own prime and generally do things that only a no worse than elite player could do, why would I have the slightest second thoughts whether he'd dominate in any other era I've seen?

[Kblaze8855]

Having checked I must take back my claim that he made the Wilt 20ppg topic. He was just in it. He made this one on Kwame vs Hondo though:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=309427

[Psileas]

Out of curiosity, I checked my CP and saw this:


Your a ****** Wilt/all the other 60's scrubs are garbage lik you

Weak f*****, you can't even form a proper sentence (or, at least, you pretend so), so flex your non-existent mental muscles in the rep room, it's all you're good for. :oldlol:
BTW, despite anonymity, it's not that hard to find some evidence regarding who you are.

[LAZERUSS]

Walt Frazier believes that Wilt would have scored MORE in the current NBA...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMvmsCqRAiI&feature=related

[LAZERUSS]

Of course we will never know what numbers Chamberlain (or Russell or Oscar) would be putting up in today's NBA, but we can do some basic math conversions.

Take Wilt's 61-62 season for example... 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, .506 eFG%, and .613 FT%, while taking 39.5 FGAs, and 17 FTAs per game, in an NBA that averaged 62 rpg (yes, you have to take away team rebounds), and scored 118.8 ppg, with 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs per game, and on an eFG% of .426.

That eFG% is crucial BTW. If you don't adjust for era eFG%, then the teams of the '62 season, would only average 86 ppg in today's NBA, instead of the actual 100.0 ppg in 2013-14.

Here are the current numbers: 100.0 ppg, on an eFG% of .496, in a league in which the average team gets 43.2 rpg, and takes 84 FGAs per game, and 23.2 FTAs per game.

Wilt's 61-62 numbers look like this...

His FGAs would drop from 39.5 FGAs per game, to 30.7. His FTAs would drop from 17 to 10.6. So, before adjusting his eFG%, his FGM would have been at 15.5. BUT, we HAVE to adjust for eFG%. So, instead of shooting .506 in an NBA that had an eFG% of .426, Chamberlain would now be shooting .589 in an NBA that is currently shooting an eFG% of .496. So, his scoring, just from FGAs would rise from 15.5 FGM, to 18.1 FGM...or 36.2 ppg, just from FGAs. Then you can add his FTM, which would drop down to 6.5 FTM...or

42.7 ppg (again, on a .589 FG%.)

BTW, you could also use simple math here, too. The current NBA is averaging 100 ppg. In 61-62 the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg. So, the current NBA is scoring at 84% of what Wilt's NBA scored at. Reduce Chamberlain's 50.4 ppg dwon to 2014 levels, and it would be 42.4 ppg.

And his rebounding would decline from 25.7 rpg, down to 17.8 rpg.

What would a player who averages 42.7 ppg, 17.8 rpg, and shoots .589 from the field be worth today?

Now, you can argue that Chamberlain wouldn't be playing 48.5 mpg in today's NBA, but if any player would be, it would have been Chamberlain, who averaged 45.8 mpg over his entire career (and then 47.2 mpg in his 160 post-season games.) And keep in mind that as recently as 2010 the NBA had players playing as much as 41.3 mpg, and back in 2006, 43.1 mpg. Surely a peak Chamberlain would be playing at least that much. And, if you reduce his scoring, and rebounding numbers because of less playing time, you would certainly have to expect him to increase his effciency in both because of the less minutes.

[MavsSuperFan]

Having checked I must take back my claim that he made the Wilt 20ppg topic. He was just in it. He made this one on Kwame vs Hondo though:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=309427
:lol :lol
That was mostly trolling. I honestly dont think Kwame is better. I was just upset at the 60s favoritism I do troll from time to time.

[MavsSuperFan]

I still haven't seen a single poster's name that claims Wilt would average 50/25 or whatever. I only see generalities about "Wilt stans", yet I don't see anyone like the title describes.

BTW, in the past, I'd asked this and, surprisingly, got no answers from 60's-70's naysayers: Plant the 1972 Lakers or the 1967 Sixers to 1980 and the 1980 Lakers to 2013. How many games does each team win?
I dont remember people very well, irl, much less on ish.

But I have had debates with people that say stuff like:
"look at wilts stats he is better than Shaq. He dominated more than shaq".
Or
"russell won 11 rings"
"the both dominated on the boards averaging over 20 rebounds per game for a career"

I'm just saying that wilts stats and russells stats plus rings were accumulated and won against a league where the average talent level was lower than the league where shaq was forced to compete.

[MavsSuperFan]

You can only compare talents to their respective era. Not sure why NBA fans are so preoccupied with ranking players all time. The OP might think it is unfair to compare modern stars to 60s stars focusing on stats but modern stars have their share of advantages based solely on era. So, i'm not sure why it upsets the OP that someone ranks Wilt or Russell over Shaq when Shaq benefited from medical science, better coaching, better player development.

I think that it is more likely that 60s stars would remain stars in the modern game if they enjoyed the benefits today players get than vice versa. Much more variables for a modern player to grow up in the 40s/50s to become a 60s star imo.

You can only compare talents to their respective era.
I agree with this.

Not sure why NBA fans are so preoccupied with ranking players all time.
99% because people have told me that Wilt and Russell are better than shaq. And I think they benefited from playing in a weaker league. In think level of competition matters.

Eg. Player A would accumulate godly stats in the chinese basketball league, good stats in the euroleague and poor stats in the NBA.


i'm not sure why it upsets the OP that someone ranks Wilt or Russell over Shaq when Shaq benefited from medical science, better coaching, better player development.
Because I strongly feel that shaqs advantages were less beneficial than their advantages. Also obviously this is hypothetical argument with people that I will never meet so if anyone is getting agitated Im sorry.

[MavsSuperFan]

For Wilt, his relative statistical dominance over his peers was greater than Shaq's. And for Russell, it's his contribution to winning. Shaq was on legitimate contenders who failed to win for one reason or another. Russell's teams only failed twice. Once when he got hurt in the finals, and once to a great Wilt team.

As for the stats themselves, everyone gets that the pace is different, that guys like Wilt wouldn't be playing 48 minutes today, that there is a three point line, and so on. So yeah, their stats would look different if they played today.

I do wonder what 50 ppg equals to today. Wilt outscored Baylor by 12 that season. That would be like if Dwight Howard was averaging 37 today, with Durant second at 29 ppg.

Of course Wilt isn't getting the same number of shot attempts, but you figure that his FG% would go up in today's game. Wilt proved later in his career that he could shoot at an extremely high FG%.

As for Oscar, he would figure to get the same number of assists. That's one of the stats which isn't inflated. He also shot a really good FG% for a guard in that era. As did West. You would think that the 3pt line would be a benefit for a guy like West.


For Wilt, his relative statistical dominance over his peers was greater than Shaq's. And for Russell, it's his contribution to winning. Shaq was on legitimate contenders who failed to win for one reason or another. Russell's teams only failed twice. Once when he got hurt in the finals, and once to a great Wilt team.

This is largely my point. Shaq suffers from having played in a league with greater talent/skills on average.

also the celtics were able to stay together like that due to the lack of free agency.

[MavsSuperFan]

Even if the competition is weaker, it doesn't diminish a player's obvious ability to dominate a basketball game.

Take footage of Shaq in high school or college. (I'm not saying the NBA in the 60s was like college currently, it's just for the sake of argument) Say you're in 1990... You could use the same flawed thinking used to discredit players from the 60s to diminish Shaq's ability. 'He will never dominate in the NBA because he's dominating high school/college players.' That's insane logic. Scouts don't think like that. Scouts see a Shaq or a LeBron in high school/college and think: this guy has a number of exceptional attributes that lead me to think he has the potential to dominate the league. If a Wilt Chamberlain came along today, they'd say the same thing about him. If a Wilt Chamberlain was available in 2014's draft, he would have Joel Embiid and Andrew Wiggins battling for the number 2 spot. Everyone would want to tank for a chance to get him.

Another way to present the same argument is to wonder how much more someone could have dominated his competition than Wilt Chamberlain. If you think current players are so much better than Wilt, then you would logically have to argue that they could at least average the same, if not better stats against 1960s competition. If you're saying Wilt would have stats similar or worse than a current player, then you have to be able to picture in your mind a parallel universe where we hear about the exploits of a guy with exactly the same attributes as this current player, and this guy averaged at least 50/25 for a season, led the league in assists, played more than 48 a game, broke every imaginable records, etc. Can you honestly picture something like that happening with most players in the league today?

People often wonder what would happen if you were to switch, say, Wilt and Shaq. They always wonder what would happen to Wilt in today's league. But they never wonder what would happen to Shaq in the 60s. They don't see that even if Shaq had the most dominant stats imaginable... no one would believe that he was THIS good today. They wouldn't have the footage for the equivalent of his 00-02 years, the only footage available would be of Miami Shaq. They'd say he only dominated because he was bigger and stronger than anyone else (of course you in this universe know that he did in fact, dominate the early 00s for the exact same reason), they'd say tales about him are exaggerated. They'd question his post skills because he seemed to repeatedly use the same, simple (yet unstoppable) two moves. They'd ridicule him based on clips of him at the free throw line, and a not particularly flattering full game against Bill Russell, where he commits an early travel, blows a dunk out of frustration, picks up a few offensive fouls and is out of the game quickly.
I am mostly just saying I think Shaq is better/more dominant.

[MavsSuperFan]

Not a single person on the face of the earth. If anyone were saying the stats would translate directly they would think Elgin Baylor was a hell of a lot better than Jordan. Which...is not something you are going to hear often.

Dude made a topic a while back asking if people really thought Wilt could score 20 a game these days as if a 7'2''(as he would be listed these days), long jumper, high jumper, marathon running, shot put state record holder, 2 guard for the Harlem Globetrotters, who can handle Kareem in his prime, and play 48.5 minutes of running a night with way more possessions would just be ****ed against the might of Robin Lopez and the general scum in his way playing the 5 today.

He has no interest in reality, no interest in learning about the people hes discussing, and doesnt even base his absurd topics on anything people even believe. Hes just here to agitate.


Not a single person on the face of the earth. If anyone were saying the stats would translate directly they would think Elgin Baylor was a hell of a lot better than Jordan. Which...is not something you are going to hear often.
Many people on ISH has implied that wilt and russell are better than shaq or the best players ever and cited their rare averages as evidence. And in russell's case the championships he won, in what i consider aganist lessor competition.


Dude made a topic a while back asking if people really thought Wilt could score 20 a game these days as if a 7'2''(as he would be listed these days), long jumper, high jumper, marathon running, shot put state record holder, 2 guard for the Harlem Globetrotters, who can handle Kareem in his prime, and play 48.5 minutes of running a night with way more possessions would just be ****ed against the might of Robin Lopez and the general scum in his way playing the 5 today.


As you have said I didnt make this topic, but tbh I dont know if he would have. I'm just saying I think the 60s had lower talent/skills on average and that many players in that league couldnt make the modern NBA. (not saying he couldnt or that he wouldnt have been good-great). Just that his actual accomplishments came against lessor competition


He has no interest in reality, no interest in learning about the people hes discussing, and doesnt even base his absurd topics on anything people even believe. Hes just here to agitate.

First of all I am sorry if I have agitated you. I never thought saying 60s NBA had lower talent on average than the modern NBA would offend anyone. It just never occurred to me this was a controversial position. I am sorry if I have offended you, it was not my intention. None of this is that important to me,

I just think that because of the fact that teams tried to maintain white player quotas, the much lower financial incentives and the lack of international talent, the 1960s NBA league was on average with much lower talent and skills on average.

And I think players benefit from playing a lower level of competition. People state their opinions all the time here. Maybe I have been offensive in stating mine, and if I have I am sorry.

[AirFederer]

Wilt would be a poor mans Shaq if he played today. Plus Shaq delivered as no Uno. Deal with it.:cheers:

[MavsSuperFan]

Of course we will never know what numbers Chamberlain (or Russell or Oscar) would be putting up in today's NBA, but we can do some basic math conversions.

Take Wilt's 61-62 season for example... 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, .506 eFG%, and .613 FT%, while taking 39.5 FGAs, and 17 FTAs per game, in an NBA that averaged 62 rpg (yes, you have to take away team rebounds), and scored 118.8 ppg, with 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs per game, and on an eFG% of .426.

That eFG% is crucial BTW. If you don't adjust for era eFG%, then the teams of the '62 season, would only average 86 ppg in today's NBA, instead of the actual 100.0 ppg in 2013-14.

Here are the current numbers: 100.0 ppg, on an eFG% of .496, in a league in which the average team gets 43.2 rpg, and takes 84 FGAs per game, and 23.2 FTAs per game.

Wilt's 61-62 numbers look like this...

His FGAs would drop from 39.5 FGAs per game, to 30.7. His FTAs would drop from 17 to 10.6. So, before adjusting his eFG%, his FGM would have been at 15.5. BUT, we HAVE to adjust for eFG%. So, instead of shooting .506 in an NBA that had an eFG% of .426, Chamberlain would now be shooting .589 in an NBA that is currently shooting an eFG% of .496. So, his scoring, just from FGAs would rise from 15.5 FGM, to 18.1 FGM...or 36.2 ppg, just from FGAs. Then you can add his FTM, which would drop down to 6.5 FTM...or

42.7 ppg (again, on a .589 FG%.)

BTW, you could also use simple math here, too. The current NBA is averaging 100 ppg. In 61-62 the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg. So, the current NBA is scoring at 84% of what Wilt's NBA scored at. Reduce Chamberlain's 50.4 ppg dwon to 2014 levels, and it would be 42.4 ppg.

And his rebounding would decline from 25.7 rpg, down to 17.8 rpg.

What would a player who averages 42.7 ppg, 17.8 rpg, and shoots .589 from the field be worth today?

Now, you can argue that Chamberlain wouldn't be playing 48.5 mpg in today's NBA, but if any player would be, it would have been Chamberlain, who averaged 45.8 mpg over his entire career (and then 47.2 mpg in his 160 post-season games.) And keep in mind that as recently as 2010 the NBA had players playing as much as 41.3 mpg, and back in 2006, 43.1 mpg. Surely a peak Chamberlain would be playing at least that much. And, if you reduce his scoring, and rebounding numbers because of less playing time, you would certainly have to expect him to increase his effciency in both because of the less minutes.

So you dont at all factor in these guys were in the NBA in the 1960s?
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

You only adjust for pace. But there are so many other factors. I have heard that NBA teams used to have set quotas of white players, and would disregard superior black players. This imo lowers the quality of the opposition and the surrounding players. Allowing the good players to achieve greater stats and accomplishments.

Obviously the NBA had much lower financial rewards and incentives. and Obviously it was an america only league.

[LAZERUSS]

So you dont at all factor in these guys were in the NBA in the 1960s?
http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

You only adjust for pace. But there are so many other factors. I have heard that NBA teams used to have set quotas of white players, and would disregard superior black players. This imo lowers the quality of the opposition and the surrounding players. Allowing the good players to achieve greater stats and accomplishments.

Obviously the NBA had much lower financial rewards and incentives. and Obviously it was an america only league.

It's too bad that Chamberlain shredded his knee in the ninth game of the 69-70 season. His new coach, Joe Mullaney had approached Wilt before the strat of the season, and asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense (after Van Breda Kolff''s coaching disaster the season before.) In those first nine games, Chamberlain was leading the league in scoring, at 32.2 ppg, and on a .579 FG% (this from a 33 year old Chamberlain, who was past his peak.)

And in those nine games, Chamberlain put up games of 33, 35, 37 (on 7-0 270 lb Tom Boerwinkle, who used to give KAJ fits), 38 (on reigning MVP Wes unseld), 42 (on rising star Bob Rule...go head, look him up), and 43 points. He also outplayed rookie Alcindor (Kareem) in every facet of the game in their one H2H before his injury (he outscored KAJ, 25-23; outrebounded KAJ, 25-20; outassisted KAJ, 5-2; outblocked KAJ, 3-2; and outshot KAJ from the field, 9-14 to 9-21.)

And just the season before, and even with an incompetent coach who hated him, Chamberlain had a streak of 17 games in which he averaged 31.1 ppg, and included games of 60 and 66 points,...against two centers that KAJ's career high would be 41 points.

That was in a 14 team league that included centers like the 7-0 Boerwinkle (his career TRB% was among the best ever BTW); the 6-9 Rule (who was a scoring terror until he tore up his knee a couple of years later); Willis Reed, and still in his prime (he would win MVP that same season); the 6-11 Bellamy (and still a force); Elvin Hayes (who had led the league in scoring just the year before); Unseld, (who, as I already mentioned was the ROY and MVP just the year before); 6-11 Nate Thurmond, (who, along with Russell and Wilt was the third best defensive center in NBA history...and just ask KAJ, who shot about .440 over the course of his career against him); and the 7-2 Kareem.

Oh, and you could probably add at least an inch to all of them using the current measuring system.

Here was Chamberlain scoring 32.2 ppg on a .579 FG% (in a league which would shoot an eFG% of .460), with about 20 rpg...in a league filled with HOF centers, several of whom would be dominant centers in the decade of the 70's, and even Kareem, who, at age 39, would be averaging 33 ppg on a .630 FG% against Hakeem in their H2H's.

Maybe that will put Chamberlain's dominance in a better perspective...