ISH: Where MJ and Shaq allegedly had a higher peak than Wilt Chamberlain

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Not capable of playing Wilt's minutes - [I]at all.[/I][/QUOTE]

You're deluded if you truly believe that. There are plenty of professional athletes in today's game capable of playing Wilt minutes, its just a different style of game and a different methodology concerning minutes.

Back then it was, play your best players until they're exhausted, and keep playing them regardless of the score. Now it's play your best players until their performance starts to dip because of fatigue(not the max they're capable of), and take them out of blowout games for respect.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Not capable of playing Wilt's minutes - [I]at all.[/I][/QUOTE]

How in the hell do you know this? Why are you so god damn presumptuous with these statements? You don't think prime/peak Jordan, who was known for being insanely durable with incredible stamina, couldn't play 44+ minutes per game? I'm not saying he'd be playing Wilt's 45-48 mpg but weren't the other superstar players of that era playing 42-44 mpg? Why wouldn't Jordan be able to play Wilt minutes "at all"? That's like you're insinuating he wouldn't touch those minutes when there's not a major difference between 45-46 mpg and 43-44 mpg.

Dammit man, I agree with Wilt being absurd at his peak and worthy of GOAT peak consideration. But you're acting like it's not even up for discussion and then go as far to say Jordan wouldn't be capable of playing Wilt's minutes.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Not capable of playing Wilt's minutes - [I]at all.[/I][/QUOTE]

Jordan could EASILY play 43+ mpg. You're talking about perhaps the best conditioned athlete in NBA history when factoring in his energy level on both sides. Get a grip. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Not capable of playing Wilt's minutes - [I]at all.[/I][/QUOTE]


LOL you're a ****. Wilt played in blowout games like a fking dipshit.

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Trench Richardson can bench press [B]475[/B]: [IMG]http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trent_richardson.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://www.theclevelandfan.com/images/stories/Browns/trent-richardson-beast.jpg[/IMG]

Michael Pittman: 485 lbs: [IMG]http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee350/Jarg007/michaelpittman.jpg[/IMG]

Vernon Davis: bench-pressed 465 pounds, power-cleaned 365 pounds -[IMG]http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee350/Jarg007/vernondavis.jpg[/IMG]



And this guy can do 500?....[IMG]http://g.cdn.mersap.com/basquetbol/files/2010/07/wilt2.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Wilt was a god. You didn't know? Some of the proposed max lifts for Wilt are numbers usually reserved for professional bodybuilders on HGH and steriods and they are around 6 foot typically. Wilt, having extremely long arms would have more trouble locking out a heavy max bench. Same for a shoulder press.

That along with the sleeping with 10,000 women and killing a mountain lion story make it hard to believe that he had the kind of brute strength professional body builders with advanced anabolic compounds have to work years to develop

To be honest I'm confused about this discussion. On the one hand we have people casually dismissing Wilt's strength and athleticism as though the specific amount he could press or his vertical leap alters how remarkable an athlete he was. Then on the other hand we're getting that Wilt unquestionably has the best peak. There's no one who has it unquestionably. There are those who would pick Kareem who got no votes for first or second place or thus far third place here, for example [url]http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=918286[/url]

We're all going to have different criteria. For some Wilt playing so many minutes is stat padding, to others it's a remarkable show of endurance and the added value in those extra minutes is one reason why he is more dominant (and of course some will be in the middle).

So claiming any one person should clearly have it, as though all other choices (and the posters who made them) were stupid seems, well, unusual. I, personally, was surprised that Shaq got so many votes, but then if the criteria was who was most undisputably the best player in the league then Shaqs 3 title winning span could claim it (because to my mind a youngish Duncan is weaker competition than Magic was for most of MJ's peak or Russell and Oscar were Chamberlain's peak), though one might choose Kareem. So the different criteria and interpretations we bring (a couple more areas where people would have different interpretations would be eras relative strengths and weighting of playoff performance) will inevitably lead us to different conclusions.

To those who think it is unquestionably Wilt (or anyone else), I'd honestly be interested to hear what span you'd choose as his peak, why it is so clearly the best peak, and if you don't have Wilt (or said other person) as the GOAT why are they not? i.e. where does Wilt (or said player) lose ground on the player you consider GOAT?

For what it's worth I don't think a forum is the optimal way of doing this as people will be influenced by the first voters and so vote pragmatically.

[QUOTE=Owl]

For what it's worth I don't think a forum is the optimal way of doing this as people will be influenced by the first voters and so vote pragmatically.[/QUOTE]

That's not always a bad thing though. Quality posts can influence subsequent votes in both a positive and negative fashion.

[QUOTE=Poochymama]For those of you that are interested. Here are MJ's Wilt-minute-adjusted-pace-adjusted scoring numbers through the first three peat, respective to Wilt's first 9 seasons.

[B]84-85: 45.7 ppg
85-86: NA - not capable of playing Wilt minutes due to injury
86-87: 61.1 ppg
87-88: 52.9 ppg
88-89: 44.0 ppg
89-90: 47.9 ppg
90-91: 51.2 ppg
91-92: 45.8 ppg
92-93: 52.0 ppg[/B]

I know there's more to it than that[B](how would they use him, would the guys back then guard him with the same efficiency that the guys in his time guarded him, how often would he be called for traveling :lol, how would the extra minutes affect his efficiency )[/B], but it does help to put Jordan's first 9 seasons in somewhat close to the proper context. It's certainly more accurate than comparing their numbers straight up(non pace, non minute adjusted).[/QUOTE]

Also, how would the pace affect the analogy of the percentage of shots he takes (faster pace=more distribution), while you'll have to remove the points generated from 3-pointers (convert them to 2-pointers).
It's a league with a different philosophy. Without using this context, it's difficult to extrapolate numbers as a means to see what X would average back then - it should be made more clear if you consider that in theory, many more guys from Jordan's era would have pace+minute adjusted ppg averages at 40+. Even prime Chris Mullin would have multiple "adjusted" seasons more prolific than any season by West or Oscar, or even peak Baylor and, sorry, but, Mullin wasn't a better scorer than those guys. People don't even use these types of adjustments for Kobe or LeBron compared to the 80's-90's to make such points.

Here's something to consider: 1974 Jerry West, at 36, with his whole body banged with injuries, would get a pace+minute adjusted average close to 30 ppg in "1962 terms", while a 1962 younger, healthier West himself "only" got 30.5. 1986 Kareem, at 39, would average an adjusted ppg average close to what 1972 Kareem averaged for the Bucks. Things look rather problematic, don't you think?

[QUOTE=Psileas]Also, how would the pace affect the analogy of the percentage of shots he takes (faster pace=more distribution), while you'll have to remove the points generated from 3-pointers (convert them to 2-pointers).
It's a league with a different philosophy. Without using this context, it's difficult to extrapolate numbers as a means to see what X would average back then - it should be made more clear if you consider that in theory, many more guys from Jordan's era would have pace+minute adjusted ppg averages at 40+. Even prime Chris Mullin would have multiple "adjusted" seasons more prolific than any season by West or Oscar, or even peak Baylor and, sorry, but, Mullin wasn't a better scorer than those guys. People don't even use these types of adjustments for Kobe or LeBron compared to the 80's-90's to make such points.

Here's something to consider: 1974 Jerry West, at 36, with his whole body banged with injuries, would get a pace+minute adjusted average close to 30 ppg in "1962 terms", while a 1962 younger, healthier West himself "only" got 30.5. 1986 Kareem, at 39, would average an adjusted ppg average close to what 1972 Kareem averaged for the Bucks. Things look rather problematic, don't you think?[/QUOTE]

This is Ether...

[QUOTE=DatAsh]That's not always a bad thing though. Quality posts can influence subsequent votes in both a positive and negative fashion.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I tried to phrase it in such a manner that indicated that specifically tactics negatively influence voting. I would acknowledge that focused debate of a high calibre before a final vote (i.e. people could indicate preferences but can't vote until the discussion has been had) could be a very good thing. But besides tactical voting, another problem with the forum as a platform for such a debate is that you get elements of groupthink and people might not want to put an opinion that seems distinctly minority for fear of looking stupid. Anonymous (sealed) voting would be better for that (which wouldn't necessarily preclude debate, you could have it after a debate, and perhaps also before, to create a shortlist of candidates).

[QUOTE=BlueandGold]Cavs.. what do you say to people who say that the # of possessions per game and pace of the 60s/70s was much faster than the 90s or 00s and also the fact that there were much less games to play during the season and especially in the playoffs, where you only had to win 2 playoff seasons for a championship :facepalm

Also just because wilt has the best peak as far as numbers makes him the superior peak player. It's a little fishy that Wilt's peak was 5 years apart (you said his peak was in 62 and 67) while Jordan had essentially a decade long peak and Shaq a little less (7-8 years).

Also both Jordan and Shaq had much more impressive playoff and finals peaks than wilt, showing up big when it really mattered. Both were also forced to play much more playoff games to win their champions (16 games to 8).[/QUOTE]

Posting this again so Cavs has the opportunity to respond.

A more relevant debate might be Wilt Vs. Kareem Abdul Jabbar since they actually played against each other.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Also, how would the pace affect the analogy of the percentage of shots he takes (faster pace=more distribution), while you'll have to remove the points generated from 3-pointers (convert them to 2-pointers).
It's a league with a different philosophy. Without using this context, it's difficult to extrapolate numbers as a means to see what X would average back then - it should be made more clear if you consider that in theory, many more guys from Jordan's era would have pace+minute adjusted ppg averages at 40+. Even prime Chris Mullin would have multiple "adjusted" seasons more prolific than any season by West or Oscar, or even peak Baylor and, sorry, but, Mullin wasn't a better scorer than those guys. People don't even use these types of adjustments for Kobe or LeBron compared to the 80's-90's to make such points.

Here's something to consider: 1974 Jerry West, at 36, with his whole body banged with injuries, would get a pace+minute adjusted average close to 30 ppg in "1962 terms", while a 1962 younger, healthier West himself "only" got 30.5. 1986 Kareem, at 39, would average an adjusted ppg average close to what 1972 Kareem averaged for the Bucks. Things look rather problematic, don't you think?[/QUOTE]

Don't take my post the wrong way(not that you did, but it appears others may have). My post wasn't meant to bash Wilt or the era, I was just trying to put things in a little bit better perspective.

I can't say I honestly believe that Jordan would average those numbers in Wilt's era, but I do believe those numbers are closer to what he'd average than what his numbers were in his own era. I do think Jordan was a slightly better scorer than Wilt(and definitely in the playoffs) and as such would tend to average slightly more ppg in any given area, but like you said, there's too many variables to truly account for to get an absolutely accurate figure.

As for who had the better peak? I think it's very debatable. Jordan was a slightly better scorer, better passer/playmaker, better in the clutch, and stepped his game up more for the playoffs/finals. Wilt was 90-95% the scorer Jordan was, a MUCH BETTER rebounder(I have him 2nd all time), and a much more impactfull defender(again I have him 2nd all time). If we're just talking regular season I'd go with Wilt for his rebounding and defense(67), but with playoffs included I'm leaning slightly in Jordan's favor.

To say that these two don't have comparable peaks is asinine.

[QUOTE=ThunderStruk022]And we're just supposed to pretend Shaq's 40ish/20ish and 30/16 averages or so in a much slower era isn't just as impressive as Wilt's games? [/quote]
Just for clarity's sake, are you BlueandGold under another screename? I have responded to him before and another screen-name had come at me in a personal tone, and it wasn't your screenname. Shaq's best playoff run is 30 and 15 not 40 and 20ish. My response was to BlueandGold according to his context that Wilt was never impressive like Shaq in the playoffs. You have a different context. Doesn't make sense for me to respond to the same head in two different contexts.

[quote]
You just can't take Wilt's numbers at face value, as impressive as they were. That goes for the blocks too (that wren't goal tends like some of the ones in the OP video). Like I said, Wilt's peak is right there at the top in my opinion. I'm also one that believes he would be a 30-33 ppg 15-17 rpg player in this era at his peak, too. I'm just saying you can't take Wilt's numbers at face value, especially when you compare them to Shaq's similar numbers in a much slower paced era.[/QUOTE]
Once again, this is another context. To you I will say Wilt's value is in relation to other players. If he's leads the league in everything he's dominant. In comparing peaks you can only measure the player against his peers. If Wilt had more separation, then it is more than likely he was more dominant. If any player now lead the league in ppg by 10% over seven years now he's going to be more impressive to us than Shaq was. If he did it while out rebounding a Dennis Rodman clone as well, we will look at the guy more impressively than we do Shaq. Pace won't factor into the argument at all. All things are relative and you know you lying if you think otherwise.

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]
When I did post the numbers, the other stats I didn't have (which I really needed to look at) were FGA. Now, nobody saying Shaq wasn't a great elimination game player, but Wilt probably is the best ever, was my point. The thread I was responding too was talking about how Wilt always folded under pressure and I wasn't trying to compare eras there.
[/QUOTE]
You didn't need to explain yourself, that quote was on me and it fit appropiately by itself.