Bleacher Report exposes Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game

[JohnMax]

5 NBA Records We Need to Stop Revering (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2579842-5-nba-records-we-need-to-stop-revering)

Wilt Chamberlain's 100-Point Game

Partly because of the iconic picture, partly because of the appealingly round number and partly because of the sheer, towering impossibility of it all, no individual record carries the weight of Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game.

The Big Dipper pulled it off on March 2, 1962, and nobody has come close to topping it since.

Important point: What Chamberlain did was incredible. He was an athletic specimen decades ahead of his time, feasting on inferior physical talent in a league that wasn't yet keen on playing defense. Understanding those things helps to both celebrate the 100-point game and provide vital context.

And that context is everything.

Try to picture a modern NBA game devolving into what CBS Sports' Royce Young described here:

From accounts of how it went down, the Warriors spent almost the entire fourth quarter fouling to get the ball back and force-feeding Chamberlain the ball. New York coach Eddie Donovan said, 'The game was a farce. They would foul us and we would foul them.' Chamberlain's shot attempts by quarter: 14, 12, 16, 21. You think in a blowout in today's game that a team would keep feeding their star like that?

That's a joke. The NBA of 50 years ago could flit back and forth between competition and exhibition in ways that would be totally impossible now. Chamberlain's 100 came as the result of a concerted effort in a laugher of a game.

And that's not even considering the pace issue.

B/R's Adam Fromal helped me out with some math that matters: Wilt's Warriors averaged 131.1 possessions per 48 minutes that season, which was 1.039 times higher than the league average. So scoring 100 points in that environment would be akin to scoring 74.4 on a team that averaged a comparable pace in 2014-15.

Nobody scored 75 points in a game last season, but there are a handful of players who could have if (a) they'd played 48 minutes, (b) the opposition had basically given up and (c) their entire team spoon-fed them on every possession of a blowout.

We could dig into this from a bunch of other angles, and Fromal did it expertly here. But the overarching point is this: Wilt's 100 happened in a version of the NBA that barely resembles the one we know today. Virtually everything about that scoring environment made it easier for him to pile up points.

That doesn't mean Wilt was a bum. He was a freak of nature and, obviously, nobody else in his era could have done what he did.

But let's not make the mistake of revering a record that looks a whole lot more impressive than it really is.

.

[PHILA]

New York Daily News - Nov 3, 1996

Here's Wilt on:

The 100-point game

"I see now on TV where some company is saying you can buy a tape with that game on it. Let me tell you, the only camera that was ever in the arena that night was the one of me showing '100 points' on a sign," Chamberlain said. "When people see me, they say, 'There's the guy who scored 100 points.' It's a tag and I don't like that tag. It's not a putdown. But it's a simplification of how people see me. It doesn't exemplify what I tried to do in basketball. People forget, I had games where I only took one shot. Some games I didn't take any. I led the league in scoring seven straight years and then I was asked to do other things. That was a testament to how good I was."

[LAZERUSS]

In that same season Wilt hung B2B games (on two consecutive nights) of 62 points, on 27-45 shooting, against 6-10 HOFer Bill Russell; and 73 points, on 29-48 shooting, against 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy.

In fact, in his 10 seasonal H2H's that year against Russell, he averaged 39.7 ppg; and in his 10 seasonal H2H's against Bellamy that year, he averaged 52.7 ppg.

In his 64-65 season, Wilt had games of 52 and 58 points against HOFer Willis Reed; and 51 and 53 points against HOFer Bellamy. In that post-season, covering seven games, Wilt averaged 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and shot .555 from the field against HOFer Russell.

In his 65-66 season he hung games of 50 points on Bellamy; 46 points on Russell; and 45 points on Thurmond.

In his 68-69 season he put up two 60+ games within a span of a few days. He had a 60 point game against Connie Dierking, and a 66 point game against Jim Fox. BTW, in his 66 point game, he shot 29-35 from the floor...which is the highest FG% game in NBA history for a 60+ point game (.829 from the field.)

Those two 60+ point games came just a year before Kareem's rookie season. KAJ faced both Dierking and Fox on numerous occasions, and his high game against both was 41 points. Oh, and his high game against Bellamy was 41 points, while his high game against Thurmond was 34. Furthermore, Kareem played 20 years in his NBA career, and his high game was 55 points. As a side-note, a 39 year old Kareem hung games of 43 and 46 points on a 23 year old Hakeem. And that 46 point game came in only 37 minutes, and on a 70% FG% (21-30 shooting from the field.)

Finally, in Chamberlain's 71-72 season, at age 35, and in a year in which he averaged 14.8 ppg...he faced 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier, in arguably Lanier's greatest season, in five H2H games. In those five H2H's, Wilt averaged 28.8 ppg on a .750 FG%.

Of course, Chamberlain had 32 career games of 60+ points...which equals what the rest of the NBA has accomplished in it's entire history...combined! Oh, and in his 14 seasons, the rest of the NBA hung a combined five games of 60+ points in that same span. Kind of blows up the "pace" theory doesn't it?

[JerrySeinfeld]

New York Daily News - Nov 3, 1996

Here's Wilt on:

The 100-point game

"I see now on TV where some company is saying you can buy a tape with that game on it. Let me tell you, the only camera that was ever in the arena that night was the one of me showing '100 points' on a sign," Chamberlain said. "When people see me, they say, 'There's the guy who scored 100 points.' It's a tag and I don't like that tag. It's not a putdown. But it's a simplification of how people see me. It doesn't exemplify what I tried to do in basketball. People forget, I had games where I only took one shot. Some games I didn't take any. I led the league in scoring seven straight years and then I was asked to do other things. That was a testament to how good I was."

It's a shame he had that Bron syndrome.. could have been the GOAT

[Gileraracer]

easy to score when you play with midgets and without rules that prevent you from doing whatever you want :applause:

[feyki]

easy to score when you play with midgets and without rules that prevent you from doing whatever you want :applause:

:facepalm

[Lebowski]

Wilt Chamberlain's 100-Point Game
(http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2579842-5-nba-records-we-need-to-stop-revering)
Partly because of the iconic picture, partly because of the appealingly round number and partly because of the sheer, towering impossibility of it all, no individual record carries the weight of Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game.

The Big Dipper pulled it off on March 2, 1962, and nobody has come close to topping it since.

Important point: What Chamberlain did was incredible. He was an athletic specimen decades ahead of his time, feasting on inferior physical talent in a league that wasn't yet keen on playing defense. Understanding those things helps to both celebrate the 100-point game and provide vital context.

And that context is everything.

Try to picture a modern NBA game devolving into what CBS Sports' Royce Young described here:

From accounts of how it went down, the Warriors spent almost the entire fourth quarter fouling to get the ball back and force-feeding Chamberlain the ball. New York coach Eddie Donovan said, 'The game was a farce. They would foul us and we would foul them.' Chamberlain's shot attempts by quarter: 14, 12, 16, 21. You think in a blowout in today's game that a team would keep feeding their star like that?

That's a joke. The NBA of 50 years ago could flit back and forth between competition and exhibition in ways that would be totally impossible now. Chamberlain's 100 came as the result of a concerted effort in a laugher of a game.

And that's not even considering the pace issue.

B/R's Adam Fromal helped me out with some math that matters: Wilt's Warriors averaged 131.1 possessions per 48 minutes that season, which was 1.039 times higher than the league average. So scoring 100 points in that environment would be akin to scoring 74.4 on a team that averaged a comparable pace in 2014-15.

Nobody scored 75 points in a game last season, but there are a handful of players who could have if (a) they'd played 48 minutes, (b) the opposition had basically given up and (c) their entire team spoon-fed them on every possession of a blowout.

We could dig into this from a bunch of other angles, and Fromal did it expertly here. But the overarching point is this: Wilt's 100 happened in a version of the NBA that barely resembles the one we know today. Virtually everything about that scoring environment made it easier for him to pile up points.

That doesn't mean Wilt was a bum. He was a freak of nature and, obviously, nobody else in his era could have done what he did.

But let's not make the mistake of revering a record that looks a whole lot more impressive than it really is.

What is there to expose? The 100-point game by one of the greatest players of all time is impressive, that is it, nothing more, nothing less. And why would comments from a salty coach who wished for nothing more then to have Wilt on his team add to anything?

[feyki]

Career high's are overrated . Kobe put 81 against euroleague level team. Wilt put 100 points against high school level team. 60-65 Knicks and 90-95 Mavs are worst teams ever.

[Phenith]

What a loser, he only scored triple digits in a professional basketball game, how can people think he was any good, SMH.

Open your eyes people, they guy was a legendary baller, it doesn't matter how much you try to diminish his achievements, he will still be a legend of the game.

[KobesFinger]

Career high's are overrated . Kobe put 81 against euroleague level team. Wilt put 100 points against high school level team. 60-65 Knicks and 90-95 Mavs are worst teams ever.

:wtf:

[Cocaine80s]

Scoring 100 isnt even that hard for Wilt against that competition. I mean just go to an 8 foot rim and play a pick up game with middle schoolers for 48 minutes. Shit Id probably drop one fiddy if I was playing serious

[Naero]

But how overrated can any single-game performance be?

While there is sensationalism in the honeymoon of them, the recency phenomenon isn't eternal; after it goes a few years in the rear-view mirror, many other sensationalities happen that it eventually becomes forgotten about, and people look more at the totality of a player's career when they came to mind.

Any legacy-assessor—stans and detractors alike—with any semblance of historianship won't lend more than an ounce of salt to any singular game when evaluating a player's legacy, which can only be a particle of their full picture.

Whenever Wilt is etched in the GOAT discussion, they are able to back it up with his consistently impactful dominance, such as averaging 50 points per game in that same season, while this 100-point output—albeit, more iconized than any seasonal averages due to the perfectly even number—is mentioned as nothing more than a footnote in his body of work.

Can single-game outbursts overrate a player in the wake of it? Yes. We've seen it with Kobe, whose popularity soared exponentially as fans and the media gushed over this, even insofar as to draw immoderate comparisons to Michael Jordan.

However, I've seen more ridicule him for his finals record and shortcomings therein than I have seen those vaunt this 100-point game; if anything, I've seen more people underrate it, as many modern-day fans like to downplay past eras just to prop up the superstars they've grown up reverentially watching.

Yes, it's a good and necessary perspective to promote if this game is to be overrated; however, this historical performance is so relatively unrenowned to the point where I'd call it reverse sensationalism for one to go out of their way to detract it.

[sd3035]

There we have it folks, JaVale McGee could have dropped 125 in that fraudulent era

[sd3035]

Imagine the insane numbers a modern day stat padder like Lebald could put up in that exhibition era

[DoctorP]

:wtf:


:lol

[SouBeachTalents]

It's a shame he had that Bron syndrome.. could have been the GOAT

Just like it's a shame you have that down syndrome

[chips93]

What a loser, he only scored triple digits in a professional basketball game, how can people think he was any good, SMH.

Open your eyes people, they guy was a legendary baller, it doesn't matter how much you try to diminish his achievements, he will still be a legend of the game.

nobody is saying he's not a legend, just that the 100 point game is overrated

the writer has good evidence to backup his claim

[feyki]

:wtf:

11 wins team :confusedshrug:

[NZStreetBaller]

I always felt that it was such a deliberate number. Not 101 not 102 or 99. But a solid 100. For the highest record ever.

And oh what a coincidence there was no camera in a professional nba basketball. Or atleast no surfaced evidence. Except what people write and say.

Atleast with kobes 81 we can all watch whenever the heck we want. He wasnt physically dominant for his era. U can say that the raptors were crap. But then think of all the great superstars throughout history who faced plenty of crappy teams in the season and never hit 81.

[sd3035]

I crunched some numbers and have concluded that Wilt's 100 point game was worth 18 points in today's league

[Psileas]

Utter, pure bullshit. None of his "arguments" is anything new that hasn't been exposed itself. He doesn't even try to make a good case out of it by thinking that finding all kinds of negative stuff and adding them together will enhance his argument. So, ironically, he mentions shots per quarter, then goes on to say "and that's not even considering pace". :facepalm Seriously, dude? You think taking all these shots is something pace hasn't contributed in? Funnily enough, there have been worse ballhogging exhibitions when you adjust for pace and there have been multiple more efficient games by Wilt himself (even Wilt knew about it and had mentioned it), which, adjusted for pace and possessions, would also give him more than 100 "adjusted points". So, even if you want to discredit Wilt's 100 pointer due to pace, efficiency, possessions, you still have to remain in Wilt's territory.
Not to mention that Wilt's 100 pointer was a bigger outlier in its own era compared to the next most impressive scoring feat than Kobe's 81 was. That is, someone had come closer to match Kobe's 81 in Kobe's era than anyone had come to match Wilt's 100 in his own era.

[kshutts1]

Utter, pure bullshit. None of his "arguments" is anything new that hasn't been exposed itself. He doesn't even try to make a good case out of it by thinking that finding all kinds of negative stuff and adding them together will enhance his argument. So, ironically, he mentions shots per quarter, then goes on to say "and that's not even considering pace". :facepalm Seriously, dude? You think taking all these shots is something pace hasn't contributed in? Funnily enough, there have been worse ballhogging exhibitions when you adjust for pace and there have been multiple more efficient games by Wilt himself (even Wilt knew about it and had mentioned it), which, adjusted for pace and possessions, would also give him more than 100 "adjusted points". So, even if you want to discredit Wilt's 100 pointer due to pace, efficiency, possessions, you still have to remain in Wilt's territory.
Not to mention that Wilt's 100 pointer was a bigger outlier in its own era compared to the next most impressive scoring feat than Kobe's 81 was. That is, someone had come closer to match Kobe's 81 in Kobe's era than anyone had come to match Wilt's 100 in his own era.

What was the next highest non-Wilt total in his era? Baylor with 73 or something like that?

And the next highest non-Kobe? Depending on how you classify "era", David Robinson had 71, I think... AI, TMac, Arenas all eclipsed 60. But again, it's how we classify era.

Edit because I don't consider Robinson as playing in Kobe's era. Closest point total in Kobe's era is 62 by Melo.

[Psileas]

What was the next highest non-Wilt total in his era? Baylor with 73 or something like that?

And the next highest non-Kobe? Depending on how you classify "era", David Robinson had 71, I think... AI, TMac, Arenas all eclipsed 60. But again, it's how we classify era.

Baylor had 71, so that's 71% of Wilt's performance. That's the equivalent of someone scoring 57.5 (essentially 58) in Kobe's era and Iverson had scored 60 in that very season, so it doesn't even matter what you define as Kobe's era.

[warriorfan]

Big Wilt fan here, but his 100 point game largely benefited from playing against 6'5'' white dudes.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

lets just get this straightened out,

First of all, the average height of the centers he played with were taller than today (though people tended to grow earlier back then, though I could be wrong)
Second of all, IF YOU SCORE 100 POINTS, ITS ONE HUNDRED MOTHER F!CKING POINTS!

I'm fine with people not rating wilt, personally I don't rate him as high as others, but the Guy is a legend and would dominate in any era. Not 50 PPG dominant, but yes, he would dominate

[sd3035]

lets just get this straightened out,

First of all, the average height of the centers he played with were taller than today (though people tended to grow earlier back then, though I could be wrong)
Second of all, IF YOU SCORE 100 POINTS, ITS ONE HUNDRED MOTHER F!CKING POINTS!

I'm fine with people not rating wilt, personally I don't rate him as high as others, but the Guy is a legend and would dominate in any era. Not 50 PPG dominant, but yes, he would dominate


Wilt would average about 15 and 9 if he were lucky in today's league

A scrawny gay dude with no post moves, no jumper, and deplorable FT shooting just isn't going to cut it these days

[IllegalD]

Only weird Wilt Stanleys like Lazeruss, CavaliersFTW, and Psileas actually think that Wilt's "fake moon landing" 100 point game is better than Kobe scoring 81 in the modern era.

Let's face it. These guys are jizzing their pants over a performance which there isn't even ANY footage of. :facepalm


These guys are beyond weird because they're either:

1) 60+ year old men posting on a message board.

or

2) Super weird young dudes that think stanning oldschool players from the 50s and 60s somehow makes them "kewl". Like some hipster f*g who only listens to vinyl records and will scoff at your "inferior" MP3 playlist.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Wilt would average about 15 and 9 if he were lucky in today's league

A scrawny gay dude with no post moves, no jumper, and deplorable FT shooting just isn't going to cut it these days

Everyone knows I don't like wilt.

I didn't start respecting Lazarus as a poster until recently, though I concede his info is usually spot on.

The fact is, just because he was awkward in the post doesn't mean he was bad in the post. It works, that's what matters. Arguement said can be made that some of the moves he used back then wouldn't work today (that spin drop step move he did would occasionally work today, but not with the same success rate)

I personally don't rate wilt as high as others. But his peak is splitting hairs with shaq. His best 3 years are probably better than shaqs best 3 years.

Arguments could be made that his gaudy scoring totals didn't improve the team as much as they might have, but that arguement ignores the fact that his supporting cast, while underrated (they finished 20-20 before wilt left that first year, though granted they lost in a lot of blowouts)

But take out some locker room issues that are really, REALLY overblown, and I take wilt in my top 5 all time, possibly 4. He is a better player than some of the people I consider him below all time, and a lot of it has to do with situation.

The fact is, his athleticism is unmatched. I feel like it's overblown, because the only thing that really impresses me in a basketball sense is his vertical. (He was really fast, but the most athletic big men today aren't slugs compared to him imo. Davis tied with Tyreke in a sprint, who recorded a really fast time in the combine. Wilt probably has an extra step because it takes a while for him to accelerate. Tyreke is recorded as faster than Lebron)

But he would def be the best player on the nba today by a healthy margin.

[julizaver]

Wilt would average about 15 and 9 if he were lucky in today's league

A scrawny gay dude with no post moves, no jumper, and deplorable FT shooting just isn't going to cut it these days

Even if you are right about his offensive game and even if we all agree that Wilt will be a 15 ppg in todays game, the fact is that Wilt was the best rebounder in his era (he outrebounds Russell in their H2Hs by won almost every year the rebounding tittle), was the best passer (among centers), was the best shotblocker even in his twilight years.
And yet people still talked about his FT ,as if he wouldn't excel in today's league ?

DeAndre Jordan. One of the best centers in NBA nowadays. The guy is even poorer FT shooter then Wilt and opposing teams intentionally fouled him in order to send him to the FT line. He is 11 ppg in his prime/career year. Why his coach keep him on the floor for 35 minutes per game ? Is he an idiot ? And why his team agreed to pay him more then 20 millions a year salary ?

And then ask Kareem and Russell if they think DeAndre was better player then Wilt.

[Psileas]

Only weird Wilt Stanleys like Lazeruss, CavaliersFTW, and Psileas actually think that Wilt's "fake moon landing" 100 point game is better than Kobe scoring 81 in the modern era.

Let's face it. These guys are jizzing their pants over a performance which there isn't even ANY footage of. :facepalm


These guys are beyond weird because they're either:

1) 60+ year old men posting on a message board.

or

2) Super weird young dudes that think stanning oldschool players from the 50s and 60s somehow makes them "kewl". Like some hipster f*g who only listens to vinyl records and will scoff at your "inferior" MP3 playlist.

If anything, what's not going to make you seem "kewl" in the real world is posting ad hominem drivel and mixing stupid conspiracy theories (=moon landing "hoax") and counter-"arguments" that make zero sense, like a game with no footage meaning that it can't be the GOAT performance.
Btw, what's wrong with 60 y.o men posting? Their experience and sense of logic easily trump the ones that posters like you have. I'd rather have a talk with a 60 y.o than a "kewl" 20 y.o who, due to his inexperience, thinks he brings new stuff to the table while most of the time his ideas are either too vague/theoratical tired stuff that pretty much any average 20 y.o repeats or, even worse, completely out of reality.

[IllegalD]

If anything, what's not going to make you seem "kewl" in the real world is posting ad hominem drivel and mixing stupid conspiracy theories (=moon landing "hoax") and counter-"arguments" that make zero sense, like a game with no footage meaning that it can't be the GOAT performance.
Btw, what's wrong with 60 y.o men posting? Their experience and sense of logic easily trump the ones that posters like you have. I'd rather have a talk with a 60 y.o than a "kewl" 20 y.o who, due to his inexperience, thinks he brings new stuff to the table while most of the time his ideas are either too vague/theoratical tired stuff that pretty much any average 20 y.o repeats or, even worse, completely out of reality.

I guess that answers which one you are. :lol

Relax, gramps.

[Psileas]

Even if you are right about his offensive game and even if we all agree that Wilt will be a 15 ppg in todays game, the fact is that Wilt was the best rebounder in his era (he outrebounds Russell in their H2Hs by won almost every year the rebounding tittle), was the best passer (among centers), was the best shotblocker even in his twilight years.
And yet people still talked about his FT ,as if he wouldn't excel in today's league ?

DeAndre Jordan. One of the best centers in NBA nowadays. The guy is even poorer FT shooter then Wilt and opposing teams intentionally fouled him in order to send him to the FT line. He is 11 ppg in his prime/career year. Why his coach keep him on the floor for 35 minutes per game ? Is he an idiot ? And why his team agreed to pay him more then 20 millions a year salary ?

And then ask Kareem and Russell if they think DeAndre was better player then Wilt.

He isn't and we aren't, respectivaly. A 29 ppg scorer against prime Russell isn't going to average 15 ppg in any league unless he plays blindfolded.

[Psileas]

I guess that answers which one you are. :lol

Relax, gramps.

I guess that answers which one you are. :lol

Relax, kiddo.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt would average about 15 and 9 if he were lucky in today's league

A scrawny gay dude with no post moves, no jumper, and deplorable FT shooting just isn't going to cut it these days

Yep...

A full 7-1+, with a measured 7-8 wingspan, weighing around 290 lbs, with a 40 " vertical...and THESE post moves...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

Would be lucky to be a 15-9 guy in today's NBA.

Pretty amazing that a 6-9 1/2 Cousins, at around 280 lbs, with a known 28 vertical, and only playing 34 mpg, can put up 24-13 seasons in TODAY's NBA, isn't it?

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

He isn't and we aren't, respectivaly. A 29 ppg scorer against prime Russell isn't going to average 15 ppg in any league unless he plays blindfolded.

Wilt probably is at the very worst the 2nd greatest peak center ever (when it comes to all time rankings, he was very unlucky throughout his career. I realize that these "excuses" are actually usually legitimate, but Fair or not, it is what it is. I'm willing to say that peak wilt was far above (in a peak sense, so it's still always splitting hairs) Russell, and that wilt may or may not have won 11 championships Russell did if they switched teams (personally, I feel those teams needed defense rather than offense, and while wilt is the greatest or second greatest shot blocker in nba history by such a large margin it isn't even funny, Russell is another class, and in an era where palming, 3 pointers, etc weren't invented yet, I feel that dominating through defense would be more possible, though I personally feel that Russell's defensive expertise lies in things like the pick and roll)

But is it fair to rank Russell ahead of wilt, when the other way around would be possible, if not probable if wilt was drafted to the celtics? Personally, while it isn't fair, it is what it is.

Wilt is still a absolute lock for top 10, and in my opinion, top 5 as well. I'm not as high on him as other posters for certain reasons I won't disclose, because really, I don't see the point in hating on players for no reason. It works both ways in my opinion. Unless we are arguing with a Stan, I see no need to bring down other players achievements. I'm arguing with 3ball over that classic debate and tbh I don't even like who I'm arguing for. I'll just never understand is forum's obsession with trying to put down the accomplishments of certain players for the sake of their own favorite players. Saying something like "derp weak era" only convinced me, before, when I was a casual fan, that wilt played In a great era when Lazarus or cavs started shouting out facts that nobody could dispute.

If people wanted to show who was better, post facts or stats, not simple terms like killer instinct over and over again, and while it may exist, I don't believe that it's what separates players that high up, know what I mean?)

Otoh, I do understand the arguement for kobe's game being equally impressive. Pace is important, because even though its effects are largely overblown

If we look at this situation, when a player is on fire, it isn't a matter of how many he will score, it's how many shots he will put up.

I believe that wilts performance was a better basketball performance, but I do understand that while it was against a bottom feeder team (Kobes game I mean) the game was close, so there is some extra dramatic effect.

[monkeypox]

Anyone who actually read the history and not the box score knew that the 100 point game wasn't a normal game. But then the league was very different back then and much smaller. They needed the spectacle to survive. A lot of that era should just be considered on it's own apart from the modern era because it's not really a valid comparison. Wilt's 45 rebound game is probably as unbreakable at this point as his 100 point game.

[ClipperRevival]

Wilt probably is at the very worst the 2nd greatest peak center ever (when it comes to all time rankings, he was very unlucky throughout his career. I realize that these "excuses" are actually usually legitimate, but Fair or not, it is what it is. I'm willing to say that peak wilt was far above (in a peak sense, so it's still always splitting hairs) Russell, and that wilt may or may not have won 11 championships Russell did if they switched teams (personally, I feel those teams needed defense rather than offense, and while wilt is the greatest or second greatest shot blocker in nba history by such a large margin it isn't even funny, Russell is another class, and in an era where palming, 3 pointers, etc weren't invented yet, I feel that dominating through defense would be more possible, though I personally feel that Russell's defensive expertise lies in things like the pick and roll)

But is it fair to rank Russell ahead of wilt, when the other way around would be possible, if not probable if wilt was drafted to the celtics? Personally, while it isn't fair, it is what it is.

Wilt is still a absolute lock for top 10, and in my opinion, top 5 as well. I'm not as high on him as other posters for certain reasons I won't disclose, because really, I don't see the point in hating on players for no reason. It works both ways in my opinion. Unless we are arguing with a Stan, I see no need to bring down other players achievements. I'm arguing with 3ball over that classic debate and tbh I don't even like who I'm arguing for. I'll just never understand is forum's obsession with trying to put down the accomplishments of certain players for the sake of their own favorite players. Saying something like "derp weak era" only convinced me, before, when I was a casual fan, that wilt played In a great era when Lazarus or cavs started shouting out facts that nobody could dispute.

If people wanted to show who was better, post facts or stats, not simple terms like killer instinct over and over again, and while it may exist, I don't believe that it's what separates players that high up, know what I mean?)

Otoh, I do understand the arguement for kobe's game being equally impressive. Pace is important, because even though its effects are largely overblown

If we look at this situation, when a player is on fire, it isn't a matter of how many he will score, it's how many shots he will put up.

I believe that wilts performance was a better basketball performance, but I do understand that while it was against a bottom feeder team (Kobes game I mean) the game was close, so there is some extra dramatic effect.

You play basketball to win, not to put up great, individual numbers. Russell won. And I don't think it's a coincidence. He took his craft seriously and thought it was a mental battle as much as it was a physical battle. Just as MJ thought it was a mental battle also. And I agree with them. You never want to show weakness against an opponent and when you have them down, you want to bash them harder. That's the harsh reality of competition. I don't know if Wilt embraced the challenge like Russell did. And if he didn't, he didn't maximize his talents.

God given talent only takes you so far. It's the greats who want to maximize their talents by working harder and mentally focusing on the task at hand that get the job done. The guy who doesn't want it as much usually comes up short. That's how I view the Russell/Wilt rivalry. One guy just wanted it a bit more and it showed on the court.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Yep...

A full 7-1+, with a measured 7-8 wingspan, weighing around 290 lbs, with a 40 " vertical...and THESE post moves...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

Would be lucky to be a 15-9 guy in today's NBA.

Pretty amazing that a 6-9 1/2 Cousins, at around 280 lbs, with a known 28 vertical, and only playing 34 mpg, can put up 24-13 seasons in TODAY's NBA, isn't it?

While I'm not saying cousins is comparable to wilt, I believe that's not a fair comparison.

Wilt is a 28-16.7 guy per 36 minutes in the nba today

He could play 48 minutes, but I don't see why. It just increases the chance of injury.

Btw, I would take some of those measurements with a grain of salt. In my opinion, many players grow as they age later now. For example, Davis came in as a 6ft 9.5 guy with a 7ft 5 wing span and a 9ft standing reach.

Now he is probably around 6ft 11 (the higher side) and is rumored to have a 7ft 8 wing span, and probably closer to a 9ft 6 reach. (He have arsed his standing reach, because no way it's only 9ft lol)

I mean, wilt was an athletic beast, but I hardly see how that applies. He would be the most athletic player in the nba today, but I am more impressed with his vertical than anything else.

He ran a 4.6 40 yard (willing to say it might have been more on the 4.5 side, since his clothing, though I don't know much about hand timed vs computerized time) which I of is more applicable in terms of a basketball sprint, but since Lebron ran a 4.6 yard as well, and he was measured to be about as fast as Paul top speed wise, who was measured slower than reke, who tied in a sprint with Davis, the only thing I see separating those 2 athletically is an embarrassing strength difference and a obvious vertical jump difference, ATHLETICALLY SPEAKING of course, in a basketball sense

Obviously Davis isn't even on that stratosphere yet


(I think it's 6 inches personally my their vert difference. Davis's vert is 37 right now, I think it jumped, and wilts was probably in the low 40s, as some say he couldn't touch the top of the backboard, but I tend to believe it. Video evidence is very awkward in terms of camera angles, but I wouldn't be shocked if he could)

[kurple]

what did they expose? did he not score 100 points....

[Hey Yo]

Wilt would average about 15 and 9 if he were lucky in today's league

A scrawny gay dude with no post moves, no jumper, and deplorable FT shooting just isn't going to cut it these days
Is that what the high school coach told you when deciding who makes the team?

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

You play basketball to win, not to put up great, individual numbers. Russell won. And I don't think it's a coincidence. He took his craft seriously and thought it was a mental battle as much as it was a physical battle. Just as MJ thought it was a mental battle also. And I agree with them. You never want to show weakness against an opponent and when you have them down, you want to bash them harder. That's the harsh reality of competition. I don't know if Wilt embraced the challenge like Russell did. And if he didn't, he didn't maximize his talents.

God given talent only takes you so far. It's the greats who want to maximize their talents by working harder and mentally focusing on the task at hand that get the job done. The guy who doesn't want it as much usually comes up short. That's how I view the Russell/Wilt rivalry. One guy just wanted it a bit more and it showed on the court.

I mean, I would definitely attribute his better teammates (though his teammates, despite their how credidentials, are overblown talent wise. Offensively, assuming Russell is a positive, which I'm not assuming, they were actually pretty bad, worst in the league usually. Defensively their defensive rating was league average with Russell out)

I mean, I would agree to disagree. I feel like the talent difference is overblown. Every one of them makes mistakes. Wilt ffed up that last half season as a warrior (I wouldn't call heart problems an excuse, because was putting up his regular numbers)

While Russell ffed up an inbounds pass or something.

I personally think that they both did their own thing.
As for the rivalry, here is my opinion. Wilts stats are too hard to overcome in terms of their head to head stats, but Russell was the time of guy that could dominate going 0-5 from the field, and getting only 8 or so rebounds.

I can't say who was better, I feel like they did what they had to do, that wilt would have won many titles with Russell's team and Russell wouldn't win many titles with wilts teams (though he might fare better with the lakers portion of wilts career, wilt was the second best post man to man defender ever Imo, 2nd at rim protection, but I question him into other defensive areas (jerry Lucas, who was like long range big man, seemed to fare pretty much like he would against other centers against wilt, though I don't know if they guarded each other.

I respect you as a poster, so let's just agree to disagree

[ClipperRevival]

I mean, I would definitely attribute his better teammates (though his teammates, despite their how credidentials, are overblown talent wise. Offensively, assuming Russell is a positive, which I'm not assuming, they were actually pretty bad, worst in the league usually. Defensively their defensive rating was league average with Russell out)

I mean, I would agree to disagree. I feel like the talent difference is overblown. Every one of them makes mistakes. Wilt ffed up that last half season as a warrior (I wouldn't call heart problems an excuse, because was putting up his regular numbers)

While Russell ffed up an inbounds pass or something.

I personally think that they both did their own thing.
As for the rivalry, here is my opinion. Wilts stats are too hard to overcome in terms of their head to head stats, but Russell was the time of guy that could dominate going 0-5 from the field, and getting only 8 or so rebounds.

I can't say who was better, I feel like they did what they had to do, that wilt would have won many titles with Russell's team and Russell wouldn't win many titles with wilts teams (though he might fare better with the lakers portion of wilts career, wilt was the second best post man to man defender ever Imo, 2nd at rim protection, but I question him into other defensive areas (jerry Lucas, who was like long range big man, seemed to fare pretty much like he would against other centers against wilt, though I don't know if they guarded each other.

I respect you as a poster, so let's just agree to disagree

It's a misconception that Russell had all this talent and poor little Wilt had no help. That's the easy conclusion to come to when you look at their ring counts. But if you dig deeper, you can see that Wilt had plenty of legit chances to beat Russell but simply couldn't get it done, several times with the clearly better team.

Wilt is also 0-7 in game 7s against Russell. That is saying A LOT.

I won't get all into this as you don't seem to be in the mood to do so but if you are bored one day, I suggest you look deeper into their rivalry and not just the ring count or individual numbers. Context is crucial.

[LAZERUSS]

It's a misconception that Russell had all this talent and poor little Wilt had no help. That's the easy conclusion to come to when you look at their ring counts. But if you dig deeper, you can see that Wilt had plenty of legit chances to beat Russell but simply couldn't get it done, several times with the clearly better team.

Wilt is also 0-7 in game 7s against Russell. That is saying A LOT.

I won't get all into this as you don't seem to be in the mood to do so but if you are bored one day, I suggest you look deeper into their rivalry and not just the ring count or individual numbers. Context is crucial.

Please do some real research before posting.

Here were the FACTS.

Wilt had only TWO teams that was favored over Russell's in their eight post-season series. His '67 team, in which Wilt had an EQUAL roster, and in which he absolutely destroyed Russell and Boston en route to a 4-1 (near sweep) of the Celtics.

And POSSIBLY in '69...when Chamberlain had the worst post-season series of his career, and yet, he still outplayed Russell...particularly in game seven. In fact, Russell HID the entire 4th quarter of that game seven. Had Wilt not been benched, there was a strong possibility that LA beats Boston in that game seven.

And speaking of Game Seven's...the two met in FOUR of them...with Russell's TEAMs winning by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points...and in games (and series) in which Wilt either outplayed Russell, or downright annihilated him.

BTW, none other than John Wooden commented that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, and coaches, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Please do some real research before posting.

Here were the FACTS.

Wilt had only TWO teams that was favored over Russell's in their eight post-season series. His '67 team, in which Wilt had an EQUAL roster, and in which he absolutely destroyed Russell and Boston en route to a 4-1 (near sweep) of the Celtics.

And POSSIBLY in '69...when Chamberlain had the worst post-season series of his career, and yet, he still outplayed Russell...particularly in game seven. In fact, Russell HID the entire 4th quarter of that game seven. Had Wilt not been benched, there was a strong possibility that LA beats Boston in that game seven.

And speaking of Game Seven's...the two met in FOUR of them...with Russell's TEAMs winning by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points...and in games (and series) in which Wilt either outplayed Russell, or downright annihilated him.

While I'm not disagreeing with you or clipper revival...

STOP DOING THIS...

Like seriously lol, I mean, I get doing it once but don't you just bold it. Jk

While I'm not denying that wilt outplayed Russell, I will say that I dont think Russell was exactly a box score stuffer.

I mean, I kind of understand how the celtics would be really close with the wilts teams.

i think we all agree that Russell is the best defender ever.

I personally would not call him the best post defender ever, yes, he is one of the best, top 5 for sure, but Thurmond was superior in this regard.

Now, his off-ball impact was immense, the only person who could even score in the pick and roll against him was Oscar, and it might have been a fluke,

But with wilt being the type of guy you need to occupy at all times, I wonder how Russell's off-ball impact would work out when defending wilt.

I mean, looking at the 1967 I think series in the end of game 3, I can't remember it vividly but Russell looked as if the only thing he could do was defend wilt man to man in that game. Might have been a matchup advantage,

I am probably wrong in this, but it's just a thought.

Honestly, here's how I always view it, to build a team, I would pick wilt, to build a dynasty, I would pick Russell.

Also, in 1968, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't celtics win by 4 points on average in the rs anyway?

(Now, this is because there were a ridiculous amount of blowouts, but still)

[ClipperRevival]

Please do some real research before posting.

Here were the FACTS.

Wilt had only TWO teams that was favored over Russell's in their eight post-season series. His '67 team, in which Wilt had an EQUAL roster, and in which he absolutely destroyed Russell and Boston en route to a 4-1 (near sweep) of the Celtics.

And POSSIBLY in '69...when Chamberlain had the worst post-season series of his career, and yet, he still outplayed Russell...particularly in game seven. In fact, Russell HID the entire 4th quarter of that game seven. Had Wilt not been benched, there was a strong possibility that LA beats Boston in that game seven.

And speaking of Game Seven's...the two met in FOUR of them...with Russell's TEAMs winning by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points...and in games (and series) in which Wilt either outplayed Russell, or downright annihilated him.

BTW, none other than John Wooden commented that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, and coaches, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

I was watching a documentary on them and they said Russell was 0-7 in game 7s. If you can't trust a documentary, what can you trust? But doing quick research, I think Wilt was 0-4 in game 7s, as you suggested.

But anyways, Wilt clearly had the superior team in 3 seasons.

1967 - No explanation needed.
1968 - Wilt's 76ers were 62-20 and Celtics were 54-28
1969 - Wilt's Lakers were 55-27 and Celtics were 48-34. No one expected the Celtics to even have a chance. That was Russell's last year and he was on his last legs.

[ClipperRevival]

While I'm not disagreeing with you or clipper revival...

STOP DOING THIS...

Like seriously lol, I mean, I get doing it once but don't you just bold it. Jk

While I'm not denying that wilt outplayed Russell, I will say that I dont think Russell was exactly a box score stuffer.

I mean, I kind of understand how the celtics would be really close with the wilts teams.

i think we all agree that Russell is the best defender ever.

I personally would not call him the best post defender ever, yes, he is one of the best, top 5 for sure, but Thurmond was superior in this regard.

Now, his off-ball impact was immense, the only person who could even score in the pick and roll against him was Oscar, and it might have been a fluke,

But with wilt being the type of guy you need to occupy at all times, I wonder how Russell's off-ball impact would work out when defending wilt.

I mean, looking at the 1967 I think series in the end of game 3, I can't remember it vividly but Russell looked as if the only thing he could do was defend wilt man to man in that game. Might have been a matchup advantage,

I am probably wrong in this, but it's just a thought.

Honestly, here's how I always view it, to build a team, I would pick wilt, to build a dynasty, I would pick Russell.

Also, in 1968, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't celtics win by 4 points on average in the rs anyway?

(Now, this is because there were a ridiculous amount of blowouts, but still)

Russell didn't care about stats. All he wanted to do was win. He would do whatever the team needed to win. His teams usually had enough scoring so he focused on defense, rebounding, outlet passing and just being the enforcer on the court, trying to win the mental battle every night.

[jlip]

Anyone who actually read the history and not the box score knew that the 100 point game wasn't a normal game. But then the league was very different back then and much smaller. They needed the spectacle to survive. A lot of that era should just be considered on it's own apart from the modern era because it's not really a valid comparison. Wilt's 45 rebound game is probably as unbreakable at this point as his 100 point game.

What "spectacle"? The game was not on camera, and it barely got any news coverage the next day.


Also Wilt's rebounding record is 55 not 45.

[LAZERUSS]

While I'm not disagreeing with you or clipper revival...

STOP DOING THIS...

Like seriously lol, I mean, I get doing it once but don't you just bold it. Jk

While I'm not denying that wilt outplayed Russell, I will say that I dont think Russell was exactly a box score stuffer.

I mean, I kind of understand how the celtics would be really close with the wilts teams.

i think we all agree that Russell is the best defender ever.

I personally would not call him the best post defender ever, yes, he is one of the best, top 5 for sure, but Thurmond was superior in this regard.

Now, his off-ball impact was immense, the only person who could even score in the pick and roll against him was Oscar, and it might have been a fluke,

But with wilt being the type of guy you need to occupy at all times, I wonder how Russell's off-ball impact would work out when defending wilt.

I mean, looking at the 1967 I think series in the end of game 3, I can't remember it vividly but Russell looked as if the only thing he could do was defend wilt man to man in that game. Might have been a matchup advantage,

I am probably wrong in this, but it's just a thought.

Honestly, here's how I always view it, to build a team, I would pick wilt, to build a dynasty, I would pick Russell.

Also, in 1968, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't celtics win by 4 points on average in the rs anyway?

(Now, this is because there were a ridiculous amount of blowouts, but still)

A few points. Even Tom Heinsohn and KC Jones have acknowledged that Russell needed a TEAM effort to stop Wilt. And there is a Costas interview with both Wilt and Russell, in which Chamberlain commented that Russell almost always had help in defending him (and Russell sat silently when Wilt made it.)

As for '68. Not sure what your point was. Wilt's Sixers were clearly a better team...in the RS. BUT, the team that waltzed to the best record in the league, was not the same team that battled Boston in the '68 EDF's.

I'll let PHILA help out with this...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328011&postcount=14

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328006&postcount=13

Keep in mind that with an injured Wilt, and without HOFer Cunningham, the Sixers STILL jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. BTW, as a sidenote, Chamberlain destroyed Russell in game five...in what could have been the clincher...had he not lost TWO more starters in that game.

A healthy '68 Sixer team would have easily repeated their annihilation of the Celtics in '67.

[LAZERUSS]

I was watching a documentary on them and they said Russell was 0-7 in game 7s. If you can't trust a documentary, what can you trust? But doing quick research, I think Wilt was 0-4 in game 7s, as you suggested.

But anyways, Wilt clearly had the superior team in 3 seasons.

1967 - No explanation needed.
1968 - Wilt's 76ers were 62-20 and Celtics were 54-28
1969 - Wilt's Lakers were 55-27 and Celtics were 48-34. No one expected the Celtics to even have a chance. That was Russell's last year and he was on his last legs.

Not in the post-season.

Again...thanks to PHILA's research...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328011&postcount=14

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328006&postcount=13

That Sixer team, including Wilt himself, was so riddled with injuries that they weren't even favored in their first round matchup against the Knicks.

[LAZERUSS]

What "spectacle"? The game was not on camera, and it barely got any news coverage the next day.


Also Wilt's rebounding record is 55 not 45.

Interesting too...in that game, he outrebounded Russell, 55-19.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

A few points. Even Tom Heinsohn and KC Jones have acknowledged that Russell needed a TEAM effort to stop Wilt. And there is a Costas interview with both Wilt and Russell, in which Chamberlain commented that Russell almost always had help in defending him (and Russell sat silently when Wilt made it.)

As for '68. Not sure what your point was. Wilt's Sixers were clearly a better team...in the RS. BUT, the team that waltzed to the best record in the league, was not the same team that battled Boston in the '68 EDF's.

I'll let PHILA help out with this...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328011&postcount=14

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328006&postcount=13

Keep in mind that with an injured Wilt, and without HOFer Cunningham, the Sixers STILL jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. BTW, as a sidenote, Chamberlain destroyed Russell in game five...in what could have been the clincher...had he not lost TWO more starters in that game.

A healthy '68 Sixer team would have easily repeated their annihilation of the Celtics in '67.

Well, I'm not denying any of that.
When I was talking about 68, it was because you said that the celtics won by 4. I'm think they won by 1 that year in game 7. I wasn't being serious lol, and I did hear about the injuries before,

I mean, I'm not surprised about that part about defending wilt. My point is more that I believe Russell was better as an off-ball defender. More so because while he was good on-ball, top 5 all time easily, when it came to off-ball defense, judging by how dominant he was as a defender he probably was just a monster.
I think he might have had to be more active defending wilt.

I've always maintained that I believe wilts peak was in 67 and 68. I believe those are the years where he really played the best role he could, if you know what I mean. While the 24-24-8 stuff is great, what I find more impressive is how ridiculously good the team was offensively, because of wilt.
I feel like while wilt obviously had a worst supporting cast, I feel like, other than his rookie season, I don't think the celtics had a 50% win record with Russell injured.

When I said stop doing this I meant capitalizing lol. Just kidding of course.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Interesting too...in that game, he outrebounded Russell, 55-19.

Well, I don't think we are doubting wilts rebounding abilities. He was the best all time in that regard.

If deandre can average 15 per 36, I think wilt would average 16.5 per 36

I mean, I recall his rebounding percentage in his final season was 20 ish right?

Judging from what I've seen, rebound rate has a +-3 deviation when it comes to a players peak vs old age/injury, so it wasn't an "derp era thing" by any means

Considering that he wasn't a rebounding specialist and was an all around player (I maintain that his impact for many years was more balanced)
I think it was more impressive than deandre for sure.
Tbh, I don't get the arguement that if player A can do this, then why can't player B do this, because great short rebounders exist in any era
(Elgin, Dennis, Shawn)
Sadly, he still can't beat frequency vibrations, the best pg in nba history.

[feyki]

60-63 Wilt = Prime Ivy

64-68 Wilt = Prime Kareem,Bill,Jordan,Mikan

69-73 Wilt = Prime Thurmond

.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

From accounts of how it went down, the Warriors spent almost the entire fourth quarter fouling to get the ball back and force-feeding Chamberlain the ball. New York coach Eddie Donovan said, 'The game was a farce. They would foul us and we would foul them.' Chamberlain's shot attempts by quarter: 14, 12, 16, 21. You think in a blowout in today's game that a team would keep feeding their star like that?

That's actually a pretty valid point. Has any of the players' teams that were capable of giving Wilt's 100 a run for it's money done anything like that? I mean, didn't Kobe sit out after scoring 60 in 3 quarters? Were they even force-feeding him the ball that whole game, giving him that many shot attempts every quarter, and then fouling immediately to stop the clock and get the ball back as soon as possible? I don't know, mangs. I feel like if Jordan's Bulls, Shaq's Lakers, etc did what the Warriors did against like a 76'er's ish caliber team that they would have a legit shot at matching if not exceeding Wilt's record as long as they also stayed in for the full 48.

:confusedshrug:

They could do the same when it comes to his 48 rebounds record and others as well, I'm sure. I mean, what other superstar's team went to such lengths in order to procure records like this man's did? I can't think of any even coming remotely close. Hell, my boy Leonard wasn't even allowed to break 30 for the longest because Pop would take him out whenever he'd get close.

:oldlol:

[julizaver]

Imagine the insane numbers a modern day stat padder like Lebald could put up in that exhibition era

OK, we send the so called modern "Lebald" in the 60s era:

1) Take away his modern day equipment (shoes for example)
2) Play 4 games in 4 days - on the road with 60s busses and airplanes (no private/team jets with special designed seats. We could only imagine how his back would feel in the mornings.
3) Let him eat fast food.
4) Give him the same medical care, which the players from 60s receive.
5) Let him play in hot/cold arenas without air conditioning (remember the Cramp Game ?), with public smoking. Let him breath the smoke and shoot with cold hands the 60s ball.
6) Let him dribble on 60s parquet floor with holes on it.
7) No 3pt shooting
8) Others.

How do you think a pampered modern day proffesional player would feel after half a season playing under 60s conditions ? Could he have play in all the minutes in all the games during since he cramped in modern arena (once the aircon was absent) ? :lol

With that said I have no doubth that Lebron would put some elite numbers during his first games - probably some Elgin Baylors numbers, but I doubt he would approach Wilt's level of dominance and would have 70-40 games. Did someone think that he could grabbed 55 rebounds playing vs Russell or aproach other Wilt's stuff at the time. I don't believe.