Ways to compare across eras - MJ vs Wilt

There is a certain perception that athletes are constantly improving and that older generation players could not compete with today's players. It is possible there is some truth to this, but we can use overlapping careers of different players who stuck around a long time to get a sense of how eras compare. Example:

Wilt played from 1959-1973 - He played against Bill Russell as well as some very important matchups with Kareem Abdul Jabar (who then played until 1988)

KAJ played against Larry Bird and a little later Michael Jordan. Is there evidence to show KAJ seemed bewildered by MJs new age abilities? Michael Jordan played against Kobe, AI, Dirk, KG, Shaq, etc. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crA7Rui13hI[/url] (not serious footage obviously, but just as an example of how players in diff generations are not of different genetic composition)

It's not hard to see how a player like Wilt, in today's league that is lacking talent at the C position, could probably put up insane numbers again. Maybe click it down to 35-17 instead of 50-25, but I think the idea that players are on a different level today is a myth.

Wondering if anyone has memories or footage of a cross generational matchup that is interesting. I think it's particularly interesting with the center position, since there really have been so few truly great big men across the years and it is so obvious when one appears.

There's no reason whatsoever for players of X generation to be on a different level compared to the players of X-1, X-2... generations. Technology, knowledge and preparation change, not the quality of human beings. Both Wilt and Jordan were genetically profoundly gifted and would thrive regardless of when they lived.

[QUOTE=Mrofir]There is a certain perception that athletes are constantly improving and that older generation players could not compete with today's players. It is possible there is some truth to this, but we can use overlapping careers of different players who stuck around a long time to get a sense of how eras compare. Example:

Wilt played from 1959-1973 - He played against Bill Russell as well as some very important matchups with Kareem Abdul Jabar (who then played until 1988)

KAJ played against Larry Bird and a little later Michael Jordan. Is there evidence to show KAJ seemed bewildered by MJs new age abilities? Michael Jordan played against Kobe, AI, Dirk, KG, Shaq, etc. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crA7Rui13hI[/url] (not serious footage obviously, but just as an example of how players in diff generations are not of different genetic composition)

It's not hard to see how a player like Wilt, in today's league that is lacking talent at the C position, could probably put up insane numbers again. Maybe click it down to 35-17 instead of 50-25, but I think the idea that players are on a different level today is a myth.

Wondering if anyone has memories or footage of a cross generational matchup that is interesting. I think it's particularly interesting with the center position, since there really have been so few truly great big men across the years and it is so obvious when one appears.[/QUOTE]

Check out Jlauber post below. He did a great job with that concept.
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7603501&postcount=69[/url]

Greatness is greatness in any era.

I find it silly when people feel the need to trash players of a past era in order for the players of their own era to look better.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Check out Jlauber post below. He did a great job with that concept.
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7603501&postcount=69[/url][/QUOTE]


made this thread thinking probably nobody would respond, and hoping in the best case scenario I'd get a link or something along these lines. Thanks! I think there is an interesting argument to be made that among big men, the golden era of the nba was the approximately 65-80..

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Check out Jlauber post below. He did a great job with that concept.
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7603501&postcount=69[/url][/QUOTE]
He also posted this:

[QUOTE=jlauber]"not to diminish guys like Russell and West, two great defenders...but defense back then was nowhere near as good as it is today."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=jlauber]"I know that this is getting away from the original post some, but most people tend to diminish Wilt's accomplishments because he was so much bigger, taller, stronger, and more athletic than his opposing centers. And it is true, that when Wilt was scoring 50 ppg, it was Russell at 6-9 and Bellamy at 6-11, and the rest were pretty much 6-8 or 6-9 "stiffs."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=jlauber]

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]He also posted this:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5029077&postcount=53[/url][/QUOTE]
In the link I referenced above, my response actually addresses all of that. He made the bridge and saw things differently. At his age he was/is still growing. Too many people stick to the ideas they had when they were five years old.

Mrofir you can read the whole thread below.
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=272328[/url]

[QUOTE=Pointguard]He made the bridge and saw things differently. At his age he was/is still growing. Too many people stick to the ideas they had when they were five years old.[/QUOTE]

Those quotes that ThaRegul8r posted came back from 2005, I believe. If he really is 57 years old now, he was only 48-49 years old back then.

Bit late in the game to see things differently when your 50+ years old, but hey, if it fits ever you think believe in... by all means.

What exactly does someone see differently from events 40+ years later... from when it actually happened ?

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Those quotes that ThaRegul8r posted came back from 2005, I believe. If he really is 57 years old now, he was only 48-49 years old back then.

Bit late in the game to see things differently when your 50+ years old, but hey, if it fits ever you think believe in... by all means.

[B]What exactly does someone see differently from events 40+ years later... from when it actually happened ?[/B][/QUOTE]

Your "mental eye" or your memory, or whatever you would like to call it, gets coloured by time, by events that came after, by the conversations and fun times you have with friends, the knowledge, the tragedies....... they can change - they DO change - how you view the past, your own past, everything really.
Also seeing things [I]as they happen [/I]can look very different from how you view the same thing a few years later; and if you spend a lot of time studying or researching, as jlauber did 60s hoops for example......... you can undergo a very profound change of view. Sorry to get all philosophical but you brought it up lol :lol


People didn't take Wilt for granted, exactly. Everyone was astounded by the things he could do at the time. But in a way we did take him for granted because you just thought, you know, Bob Lanier or Kareem or Darnell Hillman Doctor Dunk.... was going to wrestle all of those records away. And then as time passed, Kareem got the scoring record, and you know Stockton or someone chipped away some piddly record or other.... but as the years went by like a flood, why to my amazement there stands Wilt Chamberlain, still untouched and, apparently, untouchable. In all his glory!

I mean there was no name for triple double or quadruple double back then, but everyone just knew when Chamberlain had games with stat lines like 20+points, 20+ rebounds, & 12 assists with 10 or 12 blocks that he was doing things that had never been done before. You know, we didn't think in terms of triple double but you knew darn well that he was beyond anything ever seen before. He was, truly, amazing.

Well you see, when the triple double stat came along all those years later, and people starting gleaning through the record books, they started seeing statistical evidence of what Wilt was doing. I mean you know... NINE TRIPLE DOUBLES IN A ROW. THIRTY FIVE FIELD GOALS IN A ROW WITHOUT A MISS.
QUADRUPLE DOUBLES IN PLAYOFF GAMES AGAINST BILL RUSSELL.

So yeah, your view of the past changes because you learn things later that you didn't know at the time. All we knew in those years was Wilt was just.... beyond. We had no way of knowing that a half century later no one would ever come along to contest what he achieved.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]Your "mental eye" or your memory, or whatever you would like to call it, gets coloured by time, by events that came after, by the conversations and fun times you have with friends, the knowledge, the tragedies....... they can change - they DO change - how you view the past, your own past, everything really.
Also seeing things [I]as they happen [/I]can look very different from how you view the same thing a few years later; and if you spend a lot of time studying or researching, as jlauber did 60s hoops for example......... you can undergo a very profound change of view. Sorry to get all philosophical but you brought it up lol :lol

People didn't take Wilt for granted, exactly. Everyone was astounded by the things he could do at the time. But in a way we did take him for granted because you just thought, you know, Bob Lanier or Kareem or Darnell Hillman Doctor Dunk.... was going to wrestle all of those records away. And then as time passed, Kareem got the scoring record, and you know Stockton or someone chipped away some piddly record or other.... but as the years went by like a flood, why to my amazement there stands Wilt Chamberlain, still untouched and, apparently, untouchable. In all his glory!

I mean there was no name for triple double or quadruple double back then, but everyone just knew when Chamberlain had games with stat lines like 20+points, 20+ rebounds, & 12 assists with 10 or 12 blocks that he was doing things that had never been done before. You know, we didn't think in terms of triple double but you knew darn well that he was beyond anything ever seen before. He was, truly, amazing.

Well you see, when the triple double stat came along all those years later, and people starting gleaning through the record books, they started seeing statistical evidence of what Wilt was doing. I mean you know... NINE TRIPLE DOUBLES IN A ROW. THIRTY FIVE FIELD GOALS IN A ROW WITHOUT A MISS.
QUADRUPLE DOUBLES IN PLAYOFF GAMES AGAINST BILL RUSSELL.

So yeah, your view of the past changes because you learn things later that you didn't know at the time. All we knew in those years was Wilt was just.... beyond. We had no way of knowing that a half century later no one would ever come along to contest what he achieved.[/QUOTE]

Great Post.
I remember when I heard that Boston managed to get Parrish and McHale after some mysterious manipulations of getting Bird. I was young but I knew that Red Aurabach was a slickster and he pulled off some crazy magic. So when I heard of Russell's 11 rings I didn't think much of it cause I figured Red did the same things then. When a little older you start hearing three peat as some remarkable feat. Prime dominant Shaq and super stud Kobe couldn't pull off a four peat. Then you read that Russell pulled off an 8 peat. When younger you don't properly understand concepts like pressure, excellence and consistency.

So you are so right on how things are coined. Back then they had 7 games in 10 nights and traveling time could take 30 hours four or five times a season. Now 4 games in 5 nights is a big deal and travel is no more than 10 hours. When younger you don't pay attention to a guy playing 48 minutes while having the activity of Lebron in the playoffs, for 80 games is a big ordeal. When older you understand attrition.

If you grow up watching Jordan and Kobe, you might think the eye of the Tiger is a given. At times you think bigmen will always get better - they don't. That one day there would be a league where only 4 or 5 players have a deep post game and 7 footers would all prefer to be shooters??? You realize what not to take for granted. Even as you get older, Wilt's tenacity to score and rebound like that is crazy. Wilt's timing is appreciated better. Jordan's hunger is appreciated more. Lebron's balance both physically and mentally is more a marvel to a 40 year old than a 25 year old.

All this to say to Legends66NBA7, Dwight Howard is dominant now and he's fully capable of getting more accolades than Shaq. He definitely isn't a Wilt. You learn that the improvement of centers was probably an illusion. Or as the "bridge argument" goes, young active, energetic Kareem wasn't the slow methodical guy that could outplay Hakeem and Ewing. When you get older you see things in a broader context. When I coach I see things about human behavior and even a dimension of the game not seen before.

I always wanted to make a thread like this because it's something that I often think about. So I'm glad that I keep seeing people who try to view things these way.


One that comes into mind I think from Reggie Miller's book. When he was a Rookie he might have said something to Bird, and Bird said something like, "Look here rookie. I'm the best basketball player in the world, in the whole ****ing world..." just an awesome rant by bird, and you know what? Bird was right. He was much better than Reggie Miller, and Reggie Miller played in the league and produced as an old man in the league during Kobe's prime. (10 ppg during his rookie year and 14.8 as a 39 year old in 2004-2005.)


So even though I might not have really seen Bird play, I recognize that the tendencies for some is to judge him because his style looked less athletic than most players, which forces me to look at the things that made him better than the rest. And looking at his game, he was great.

[QUOTE=Mrofir]There is a certain perception that athletes are constantly improving and that older generation players could not compete with today's players. It is possible there is some truth to this, but we can use overlapping careers of different players who stuck around a long time to get a sense of how eras compare. Example:

Wilt played from 1959-1973 - He played against Bill Russell as well as some very important matchups with Kareem Abdul Jabar (who then played until 1988)

KAJ played against Larry Bird and a little later Michael Jordan. Is there evidence to show KAJ seemed bewildered by MJs new age abilities? Michael Jordan played against Kobe, AI, Dirk, KG, Shaq, etc. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crA7Rui13hI[/url] (not serious footage obviously, but just as an example of how players in diff generations are not of different genetic composition)

It's not hard to see how a player like Wilt, in today's league that is lacking talent at the C position, could probably put up insane numbers again. Maybe click it down to 35-17 instead of 50-25, but I think the idea that players are on a different level today is a myth.

Wondering if anyone has memories or footage of a cross generational matchup that is interesting. I think it's particularly interesting with the center position, since there really have been so few truly great big men across the years and it is so obvious when one appears.[/QUOTE]
The league is different. To put a player from the 60s to today isn't easy. I have no doubt that Wilt would still be a fine player but to average 35/17? Very doubtful.

There's an evolution in defense. Today's teams are better and smarter with it. The overall talent level in NBA athletes has also increased as NBA became much more lucrative. It's also not a guarantee that the past players will be able to play under today's much more evolved sets and plays quickly. Not to call them stupid, but not everybody is able to understand the more complex basketball system easily. Javale Mcgee is one of those athletes. There's another matter of Wilt's awful awful free throw. Do we assume he'd better his FT in this era or not? If not then teams will take advantage of it and Wilt won't play at the end of games.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Great Post.
I remember when I heard that Boston managed to get Parrish and McHale after some mysterious manipulations of getting Bird. I was young but I knew that Red Aurabach was a slickster and he pulled off some crazy magic. So when I heard of Russell's 11 rings I didn't think much of it cause I figured Red did the same things then. When a little older you start hearing three peat as some remarkable feat. Prime dominant Shaq and super stud Kobe couldn't pull off a four peat. Then you read that Russell pulled off an 8 peat. When younger you don't properly understand concepts like pressure, excellence and consistency.

So you are so right on how things are coined. Back then they had 7 games in 10 nights and traveling time could take 30 hours four or five times a season. Now 4 games in 5 nights is a big deal and travel is no more than 10 hours. When younger you don't pay attention to a guy playing 48 minutes while having the activity of Lebron in the playoffs, for 80 games is a big ordeal. When older you understand attrition.

If you grow up watching Jordan and Kobe, you might think the eye of the Tiger is a given. At times you think bigmen will always get better - they don't. That one day there would be a league where only 4 or 5 players have a deep post game and 7 footers would all prefer to be shooters??? You realize what not to take for granted. Even as you get older, Wilt's tenacity to score and rebound like that is crazy. Wilt's timing is appreciated better. Jordan's hunger is appreciated more. Lebron's balance both physically and mentally is more a marvel to a 40 year old than a 25 year old.

All this to say to Legends66NBA7, Dwight Howard is dominant now and he's fully capable of getting more accolades than Shaq. He definitely isn't a Wilt. You learn that the improvement of centers was probably an illusion. Or as the "bridge argument" goes, young active, energetic Kareem wasn't the slow methodical guy that could outplay Hakeem and Ewing. When you get older you see things in a broader context. When I coach I see things about human behavior and even a dimension of the game not seen before.[/QUOTE]

So right on how the perspective change as you get older and can relate to not being the same physically as you were when younger. It's harder to understand when not having had experienced it.

[QUOTE=iamgine]The league is different.[/QUOTE]
Yep.
[QUOTE=iamgine]To put a player from the 60s to today isn't easy. I have no doubt that Wilt would still be a fine player but to average 35/17? Very doubtful.[/QUOTE]
True, it's difficult to project numbers. However, 35/17 from a guy who once averaged 50/25 does not seem "Very doubtful." - it actually seems about right.
[QUOTE=iamgine]There's an evolution in defense.[/QUOTE]
No... there's been rule modifications.
[QUOTE=iamgine][B]Today's teams are better and smarter with it.[/B] The overall talent level in NBA athletes has also increased as NBA became much more lucrative. It's also not a guarantee that the past players will be able to play under today's much more evolved sets and plays quickly. Not to call them stupid, but not everybody is able to understand the more complex basketball system easily. Javale Mcgee is one of those athletes. There's another matter of Wilt's awful awful free throw. Do we assume he'd better his FT in this era or not? If not then teams will take advantage of it and Wilt won't play at the end of games.[/QUOTE]
So you are straight-faced trying to say the game is played more cerebrally now than in the 60's and that's a reason we should question a 60's players ability to play the game today? [IMG]http://www.the-coli.com/images/smilies/comeon.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Yep.

True, it's difficult to project numbers. However, 35/17 from a guy who once averaged 50/25 does not seem "Very doubtful." - it actually seems about right.

No... there's been rule modifications.

So you are straight-faced trying to say the game is played more cerebrally now than in the 60's and that's a reason we should question a 60's players ability to play the game today? [IMG]http://www.the-coli.com/images/smilies/comeon.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]

I think his rebounds would be higher (17 might be his career average), that's the easiest part of his game to project since it was a constant throughout his career. Scoring is more of a reflection of role, so it would depend on his team's system/his mindset.

BTW, has anyone broken down Wilt's numbers by coach? In 'Wilt', written shortly after he retired (I think it was in 1973), he noted McGuire, Hannum, Sharman as the good coaches for whom he'd played. I wonder what the splits are.

[QUOTE=fpliii]I think his rebounds would be higher (17 might be his career average), that's the easiest part of his game to project since it was a constant throughout his career. Scoring is more of a reflection of role, so it would depend on his team's system/his mindset.

BTW, has anyone broken down Wilt's numbers by coach? In 'Wilt', written shortly after he retired (I think it was in 1973), he noted McGuire, Hannum, Sharman as the good coaches for whom he'd played. I wonder what the splits are.[/QUOTE]
His stats with McGuire are his insane 50ppg on .506% 25rpg 2.5apg stats for the 62 season - as McGuire only coached him that one season. He took Boston to 7 games in the EDF.

Off the to of my head his stats with Hannum are probably going to look something like ~29ppg on ~.590fg% ~22.5rpg with ~7apg. He made 2 Fnals appearances, winning one of them, and an EDF appearance that took Boston to 7 games.

His stats with Sharman are probably like 14ppg on .700fg%, 4.25apg, 19rpg. He made 2 Finals appearances with Sharman and won 1 of them.

[QUOTE=fpliii]BTW, has anyone broken down Wilt's numbers by coach? In 'Wilt', written shortly after he retired (I think it was in 1973), he noted McGuire, Hannum, Sharman as the good coaches for whom he'd played. I wonder what the splits are.[/QUOTE]

This is sort of beside the point, but it amazes me that Alex Hannum isn't in the Hall of Fame as a coach. He has two NBA titles and an ABA title, not to mention he's the only coach to beat the Auerbach/Russell Celtics in the playoffs (and he did it twice).

[QUOTE=steve]This is sort of beside the point, but it amazes me that Alex Hannum isn't in the Hall of Fame as a coach. He has two NBA titles and an ABA title, not to mention he's the only coach to beat the Auerbach/Russell Celtics in the playoffs (and he did it twice).[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/hannual01c.html[/url]

Inducted in 98.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]So yeah, your view of the past changes because you learn things later that you didn't know at the time. All we knew in those years was Wilt was just.... beyond. We had no way of knowing that a half century later no one would ever come along to contest what he achieved.[/QUOTE]

For the "no one would ever" line... the game changed too. That is the key to the whole thing.

Wilt does not play every minute and second of every game today. The coaches wouldn't allow it.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]All this to say to Legends66NBA7, Dwight Howard is dominant now and he's fully capable of getting more accolades than Shaq. He definitely isn't a Wilt.[/QUOTE]

He isn't a Shaq either, but it's the same thing with the "no one would ever" line... the game changed, the rules changed. It's not big man's game anymore, it's a perimeter oriented game. Howard just happens to be the best of his position because of weaker centers. It's also easier to notice that Howard is a more flawed player than Shaq.

Shaq vs Wilt is more than a valid argument

[QUOTE]You learn that the improvement of centers was probably an illusion. [/QUOTE]

What improvement ? In skills ? Sure they have, but not by much since the center position really hasn't changed all that much, outside of well... they can't play much down low.

It was definitely at it's peak either in the 70's or 90's.

[QUOTE]Or as the "bridge argument" goes, young active, energetic Kareem wasn't the slow methodical guy that could outplay Hakeem and Ewing.[/QUOTE]

Which Hakeem and Ewing would we be talking about ? Prime versions or their older versions ?

[QUOTE]When you get older you see things in a broader context.[/QUOTE]

No doubt if were talking about our own personal life, but I don't see anything different now that I would later on for basketball discussions. The game might change again and again, it's inevitable it seems.

I guess we just view things differently.

60's ball was a joke. Terrible competition, no athleticism, no rules, no defense, poor skill level, etc. Comparing Wilt to Jordan is just insulting to Jordan. Jordan did what he did in a league with real athletes and skilled players. What Wilt accomplished is analogous to some high school phenom like Andrew Wiggins joining a Special Olympics wheelchair league and lighting it up.

[QUOTE=2010splash]60's ball was a joke. Terrible competition, no athleticism, no rules, no defense, poor skill level, etc. Comparing Wilt to Jordan is just insulting to Jordan. Jordan did what he did in a league with real athletes and skilled players. What Wilt accomplished is analogous to some high school phenom like Andrew Wiggins joining a Special Olympics wheelchair league and lighting it up.[/QUOTE]

You could reverse every bit of that and be just as valid.
When Jordan can score the most points in his own era get back to me. When he can lead the league 11 times in rebounding get back to me. When Jordan can lead the league in scoring, fg% rebounding, assists and probably blocked shots multiple times........... get back to us.

Comparing Jordan to Wilt is just insulting to Wilt.

When Jordan had to beat a team like 60s Celtics or early 70s Knicks or Bucks get back to me. In fact, when did Jordan ever see a team of that level that wasn't his own? Oh wait, he did. The Celtics and the Pistons handed him his head every year for like a decade.

I like this thread, too. I would like to see some stats backing up the intra-generational matchups for some comparable performance numbers. I have not read the whole thread yet, but I felt the original post had a good concept but didn't have the in-depth analysis to make the concept great.

[QUOTE=2010splash]60's ball was a joke. Terrible competition, no athleticism, no rules, no defense, poor skill level, etc. Comparing Wilt to Jordan is just insulting to Jordan. Jordan did what he did in a league with real athletes and skilled players.[/QUOTE]

Ironic in that I noted a while ago that every later generation does this to prior generations of players, and that for those who do this, the same would inevitably be done to Jordan when time marched on and Jordan became the prior generation to a new generation of fans. And, sure enough, Kobe fans said Jordan faced terrible competition (I've seen people say, "His toughest defender was 6-3 Joe Dumars?"), no defense (I've seen some post videos on the more sophisticated defensive schemes vs. the "poor defense" Jordan faced), etc., the same things Jordan fans were saying about players of past generations. So seeing as how every later generation does this to the past generation without exception, is it the truth, or is it recency bias?

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Yep.

True, it's difficult to project numbers. However, 35/17 from a guy who once averaged 50/25 does not seem "Very doubtful." - it actually seems about right.

No... there's been rule modifications.

So you are straight-faced trying to say the game is played more cerebrally now than in the 60's and that's a reason we should question a 60's players ability to play the game today?[/QUOTE]
50/25 was on 48+ minutes. Very doubtful.

Umm no, I'm trying to say teams defense has much improved since the 60s.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]
Comparing Jordan to Wilt is just insulting to Wilt.
[/QUOTE]

Not at all.

[QUOTE=iamgine]50/25 was on 48+ minutes. Very doubtful.

Umm no, I'm trying to say teams defense has much improved since the 60s.[/QUOTE]
Team defense? Improved?

Zone (team defense) is only one type of defense... and it is [I]allowed now[/I]. It was [I]not allowed[/I] (in the NBA) in the 60's. As I stated that's a rule modification. Funny because I can come right back around and say that as a result of the NBA's rule modifications since the 1960's 1 on 1 defense has regressed just as much as "team defense" has improved. 1 on 1 defensive freedoms like hand checking have been removed from the game. You can't really say one set of defensive rules being used by the NBA is any greater at stopping a player like Wilt than another. Players in the "modern era" have still proven quite capable of averaging similar offensive volumes as players were in the 60's - with even greater average fg%'s actually. We're talking about fictional shit right now like time travel, so shit, if your going to bring Wilt back and see what he's capable of why not bring his 1962 coach Frank McQuire to coach his team, and then he absolutely will play 48+ minutes in the modern league, and the coach will definitely tell teammates to feed Wilt so that Wilt can score the number Frank McGuire, his coach, envisioned him scoring from the start. 50ppg.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Team defense? Improved?

Zone (team defense) is only one type of defense... and it is [I]allowed now[/I]. It was [I]not allowed[/I] (in the NBA) in the 60's. As I stated that's a rule modification. Funny because I can come right back around and say that as a result of the NBA's rule modifications since the 1960's 1 on 1 defense has regressed just as much as "team defense" has improved. 1 on 1 defensive freedoms like hand checking have been removed from the game. You can't really say one set of defensive rules being used by the NBA is any greater at stopping a player like Wilt than another. Players in the "modern era" have still proven quite capable of averaging similar offensive volumes as players were in the 60's - with even greater average fg%'s actually. We're talking about fictional shit right now like time travel, so shit, if your going to bring Wilt back and see what he's capable of why not bring his 1962 coach Frank McQuire to coach his team, and then he absolutely will play 48+ minutes in the modern league, and the coach will definitely tell teammates to feed Wilt so that Wilt can score the number Frank McGuire, his coach, envisioned him scoring from the start. 50ppg.[/QUOTE]
Not just zone defense. Overall defense. Tactics, one on one, help, zone, etc has improved from the 60s.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]You could reverse every bit of that and be just as valid.
When Jordan can score the most points in his own era get back to me. When he can lead the league 11 times in rebounding get back to me. When Jordan can lead the league in scoring, fg% rebounding, assists and probably blocked shots multiple times........... get back to us.

Comparing Jordan to Wilt is just insulting to Wilt.

When Jordan had to beat a team like 60s Celtics or early 70s Knicks or Bucks get back to me. In fact, when did Jordan ever see a team of that level that wasn't his own? Oh wait, he did. The Celtics and the Pistons handed him his head every year for like a decade.[/QUOTE]
It can't. Why in the hell would a 6'6" SG be anywhere near the league leader in FG%, rebounding, blocks, etc.

And you incorrectly assume that the 60's Celtics and 70's Knicks were some kind of powerhouses compared to the teams Jordan faced. Just because they were stacked relative to other 60's or 70's teams does not mean that Wilt's competition was tougher.

Case in point - two key players (and current HOFers) on the 60's Celtics were Bob Cousy and John Havlicek. Neither player had the athleticism nor skill level that would translate to anything more than a complete scrub in Jordan's league or today's league. Yet someone like you would use [I]these[/I] players to support your theory that the 60's Celtics were tough competition for Wilt. If only Jordan were being defended by slow and unathletic stiffs every night...

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Team defense? Improved?

Zone (team defense) is only one type of defense... and it is [I]allowed now[/I]. It was [I]not allowed[/I] (in the NBA) in the 60's. As I stated that's a rule modification. Funny because I can come right back around and say that as a result of the NBA's rule modifications since the 1960's 1 on 1 defense has regressed just as much as "team defense" has improved. 1 on 1 defensive freedoms like hand checking have been removed from the game. You can't really say one set of defensive rules being used by the NBA is any greater at stopping a player like Wilt than another. Players in the "modern era" have still proven quite capable of averaging similar offensive volumes as players were in the 60's - with even greater average fg%'s actually. We're talking about fictional shit right now like time travel, so shit, if your going to bring Wilt back and see what he's capable of why not bring his 1962 coach Frank McQuire to coach his team, and then he absolutely will play 48+ minutes in the modern league, and the coach will definitely tell teammates to feed Wilt so that Wilt can score the number Frank McGuire, his coach, envisioned him scoring from the start. 50ppg.[/QUOTE]

You'd have to have completely unselfish guards like Al Attles & Guy Rodgers on the team because Chamberlain was a center and generally speaking even superstars like Shaq or Dwight Howard have complained in this era about not getting the ball when they are open (which is frequently true), lowering their ability to destroy the opposing paint (thereby winning games) and implying greed on the part of guards (a universal, timeless truth).

Nowadays? If Chamberlain was on the Knicks Carmelo Anthony would tank games until Wilt-sanity was traded and he would would sit on the bench and refuse to play until McGuire was fired.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Ironic in that I noted a while ago that every later generation does this to prior generations of players, and that for those who do this, the same would inevitably be done to Jordan when time marched on and Jordan became the prior generation to a new generation of fans. And, sure enough, Kobe fans said Jordan faced terrible competition (I've seen people say, "His toughest defender was 6-3 Joe Dumars?"), no defense (I've seen some post videos on the more sophisticated defensive schemes vs. the "poor defense" Jordan faced), etc., the same things Jordan fans were saying about players of past generations. So seeing as how every later generation does this to the past generation without exception, is it the truth, or is it recency bias?[/QUOTE]
No, you are talking about the defensive rule changes from the 90's until early 2000's. That's different. The competition/talent level was still the same (worse perimeter players but far better bigs). The 60's stuff is truth because it relates to the poorer overall quality of basketball being played at the time, the average athlete being far worse, talent pool dilution, easier playoff format (only 2 rounds needed to win it all), far fewer teams, etc. Just an awful brand of basketball.

[QUOTE=2010splash]It can't. Why in the hell would a 6'6" SG be anywhere near the league leader in FG%, rebounding, blocks, etc.

And you incorrectly assume that the 60's Celtics and 70's Knicks were some kind of powerhouses compared to the teams Jordan faced. Just because they were stacked relative to other 60's or 70's teams does not mean that Wilt's competition was tougher.

Case in point - two key players (and current HOFers) on the 60's Celtics were Bob Cousy and John Havlicek. Neither player had the athleticism nor skill level that would translate to anything more than a complete scrub in Jordan's league or today's league. Yet someone like you would use [I]these[/I] players to support your theory that the 60's Celtics were tough competition for Wilt. If only Jordan were being defended by slow and unathletic stiffs every night...[/QUOTE]

It's not my fault Jordan can't win rebounding, FG or block shot titles. I'm not comparing him to Wilt Chamberlain. You are. And you can't do it.

I don't remember seeing Cousy play. I have no idea. The few clips I have seen of his passing ability make me think you're wrong.

If John Havlicek was playing today I have no doubt he'd be 1st team NBA , one of the best rebounding forwards, a game winning shooter, probably top 5 man defenders, valid MVP contender regardless of what team he was on. You'd have to talk about LeBron James or Kevin Garnett from several years ago to show me a forward better than John Havlicek. He's not top 10 anymore but he's not far behind it.
Best of luck watching hundreds of hours of film.

[QUOTE=2010splash]No, you are talking about the defensive rule changes from the 90's until early 2000's. That's different. The competition/talent level was still the same (worse perimeter players but far better bigs). The 60's stuff is truth because it relates to the poorer overall quality of basketball being played at the time, the average athlete being far worse, talent pool dilution, easier playoff format (only 2 rounds needed to win it all), far fewer teams, etc. Just an awful brand of basketball.[/QUOTE]

How many 60s games have you seen?

[QUOTE=2010splash]No, you are talking about the defensive rule changes from the 90's until early 2000's. That's different. The competition/talent level was still the same (worse perimeter players but far better bigs). The 60's stuff is truth because it relates to the poorer overall quality of basketball being played at the time, the average athlete being far worse, talent pool dilution, easier playoff format (only 2 rounds needed to win it all), far fewer teams, etc. Just an awful brand of basketball.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm talking about people now doing the same thing to Jordan fans that Jordan fans have done to others. People have said Jordan had no competition when he played, faced no defense, etc., the same charges Jordan fans have made against others. I've seen it, because I actually pay attention to these things. [I]"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."[/I]

[QUOTE=2010splash]No, you are talking about the defensive rule changes from the 90's until early 2000's. That's different. The competition/talent level was still the same (worse perimeter players but far better bigs). The 60's stuff is truth because it relates to the poorer overall quality of basketball being played at the time, the average athlete being far worse, talent pool dilution, easier playoff format (only 2 rounds needed to win it all), far fewer teams, etc. Just an awful brand of basketball.[/QUOTE]
lol after this post I really am done with this thread.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]It's not my fault Jordan can't win rebounding, FG or block shot titles. I'm not comparing him to Wilt Chamberlain. You are. And you can't do it.

I don't remember seeing Cousy play. I have no idea. The few clips I have seen of his passing ability make me think you're wrong.

If John Havlicek was playing today I have no doubt he'd be 1st team NBA , one of the best rebounding forwards, a game winning shooter, probably top 5 man defenders, valid MVP contender regardless of what team he was on. You'd have to talk about LeBron James or Kevin Garnett from several years ago to show me a forward better than John Havlicek. He's not top 10 anymore but he's not far behind it.
Best of luck watching hundreds of hours of film.[/QUOTE]
I can compare Jordan favorably to Wilt by pointing his far greater team success against far tougher competition. That's all that needs to be done. He is even statistically superior if you adjust Wilt's inflated stats for the high pace and weak competition he played.

And I hope that Havlicek 1st team all-NBA comment was a joke. Forget LeBron and Garnett - he wouldn't even be better than Pierce today. Kevin Durant would run circles around him. Prime McGrady, Duncan, Bosh, Nowitzki, Love, George, prime Marion... could name probably 30 more who were better than Havlicek would be in the modern era.

[QUOTE=DatAsh]How many 60s games have you seen?[/QUOTE]
They're all over YouTube. Plenty.

[QUOTE=2010splash]They're all over YouTube.[/QUOTE]

I disagree.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]
Comparing Jordan to Wilt is just insulting to Wilt.
[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-psSaCpk6VKY/UGM3edtIV8I/AAAAAAAADPE/BkC8uaKjoAg/s1600/michael-jordan-laughing.gif[/IMG]

MJ 6
Wilt 2

Don't compare Jordan to a choker please.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Team defense? Improved?

Zone (team defense) is only one type of defense... and it is [I]allowed now[/I]. It was [I]not allowed[/I] (in the NBA) in the 60's. As I stated that's a rule modification. Funny because I can come right back around and say that as a result of the NBA's rule modifications since the 1960's 1 on 1 defense has regressed just as much as "team defense" has improved. 1 on 1 defensive freedoms like hand checking have been removed from the game. You can't really say one set of defensive rules being used by the NBA is any greater at stopping a player like Wilt than another. Players in the "modern era" have still proven quite capable of averaging similar offensive volumes as players were in the 60's - with even greater average fg%'s actually. We're talking about fictional shit right now like time travel, so shit, if your going to bring Wilt back and see what he's capable of why not bring his 1962 coach Frank McQuire to coach his team, and then he absolutely will play 48+ minutes in the modern league, and the coach will definitely tell teammates to feed Wilt so that Wilt can score the number Frank McGuire, his coach, envisioned him scoring from the start. 50ppg.[/QUOTE]



We have to be realistic here. I understand what you're trying to say, but Wilt would max out at 40MPG. 10 years ago he might get 42. If his team was in the East and super average then maybe he could push a little higher than 40 now, but it's still unlikely. Any team with Wilt would choose to protect its future and not let him play that much. It's just how it's gonna go.


Team defenses are more sophisticated, tho they're not necessarily better. Obviously, we're not gonna get scoring like in the 60's. And we won't get the 80's either, as coaches are going to want to play it safe on that side of the ball...especially to combat the newer defensive approaches.


Nowadays, coaches and their defensive systems make a lot of concessions, but are conservative enough to play a more defensive-minded game, overall. Wilt is going to score Level Medium video game numbers. That's just not reasonable, especially when considering his minutes will be much lower.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]
Nowadays? If Chamberlain was on the Knicks Carmelo Anthony would tank games until Wilt-sanity was traded and he would would sit on the bench and refuse to play until McGuire was fired.[/QUOTE]



To be fair, I don't think there is any era where Wilt and Carmelo would mesh.