Wilt Chamberlain discussion

[QUOTE=Simple Jack]Psileas - report back with the league leaders in FG% in the 60's.[/QUOTE]

Out of curiosity I looked it up and compared it through eras. To save time I generally left out the player's names next to the ranking.

I also looked at FT % and assists.

[B]1954[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 49%
2) 45%
3) 45%
4) 42%
5) 42%
10) 40%
15) 38.5% (Cousy)
20) 37.5%

The top three in FGA took 1,300, 1,300, and 1,200 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 84%
5) 81%
10) 76%
15) 73%
20) 71%

[I]Assists per game[/I]

1) 7
2) 6
3) 5
5) 4.5
10) 4
15) 3
20) 2.9

[B]1964[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 53%
2) 52%
3) 51%
5) 49%
10) 46%
15) 45%
20) 44%

Only three players shot above 50%!

Wilt led the league with 2,300 shots taken, the next two highest were in the 1,700's. Wilt jacked up 3,200 shots in 1962 and 2,800 in the following year. To put that into context, Jordan's two highest seasons are 2,300 and 2,000--and this is someone who consistently took 300+ more shots then the second most proflic shot taker during his prime years! AI's two highest seasons are 1,900 and 1,800; Kobe's 2,200 and 1,900.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 85%
2) 83%
3) 83%
5) 82%
10) 79%
15) 77%
20) 74%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 11
2) 7
3) 6
5) 5
10) 5
15) 3
20) 3.1

[B]1974[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 55%
2) 54%
3) 54%
5) 51%
10) 50%
15) 49.5%
20) 49%

12 players shot above 50%, two shot at 50%.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 90%
2) 90%
3) 88%
5) 87%
10) 86%
15) 85%
20) 84%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 8
2) 7
3) 7
5) 6
10) 6
15) 5
20) 4.7

The three league leaders in FGA took between 1,791 and 1,759 shots.

[B]1984[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 63%
2) 60%
3) 59%
5) 58%
10) 57%
15) 56%
20) 56%

The top three in FGA took between 1,765 and 1,603 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 89%
2) 88%
3) 87%
5) 86%
10) 85%
15) 84%
20) 84%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 13
2) 11
3) 11
5) 10
10) 7
15) 6
20) 5.6

[B]1994[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 60%
2) 57%
3) 56%
5) 54%
10) 53%
15) 51.5%
20) 51%

The three leaders in FGA took between 1,694 and 1,591 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 96%
2) 91%
3) 90%
5) 89%
10) 87%
15) 85%
20) 83.5%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 13
2) 10
3) 10
5) 9.5
10) 7
15) 6
20) 5

[B]2009[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 61%
2) 60%
3) 58%
5) 57%
10) 53%
15) 52.5%
20) 51%

The three leaders in FGA took between 1,739 and 1,616 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 98%
2) 95%
3) 93%
5) 91%
10) 88%
15) 87%
20) 87%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 11
2) 11
3) 10
5) 9
10) 7
15) 6
20) 5

These numbers suggest the 60's were a weak and unsophisticated era while the 50's were a joke. In addition, the stats from the 60's are inflated by pace and in Wilt's case by him taking a million shots a game. All that said, I still believe Wilt is a GOAT candidate and is in my top 5 of all-time but his record needs to be put into context. Back when he played only 3-5 players would shoot above 50% in a season. What does that tell you about the skill level of 60's players?

Damn... 16 pages on the most overrated player ever. Good work. There is really nothing else to discuss about Wilt Chamberlain and other 60s superstars. Just about everyone knows by now that these guys were good for their time and would be rotting at the end of the bench in today's STRONG era, probably picking their nose or ear, scratching their arse, waving a towel, and/or chugging gatorade, etc. I'd recommend ignoring everything the poster Psileas has to say. He's some weird stalker kind of guy who always quotes you if you say anything about the 60s. Nobody ever really cares enough to read any of his posts, but he'll continue to act like people do. To be honest, he spends half of his time in real life studying 60s players. Pretty sad if you ask me.

As someone who has seen more than enough footage of Wilt Chamberlain and other 60s players, I can tell you that he'd be no better than Andrew Bogut in today's league. A guy like Dwight Howard is a far better athlete than Wilt "the quilt" Chamberlain ever was in his prime. People often bring up Wilt's 100 m time as evidence of him being an athletic freak, but I tell you that these times are made up. There is no proof of Wilt being a high jump champion or having a crazy 100 m time. It's all nonsense from guys who played with the guy or coached him during the 60s.

Wilt Chamberlain played the WEAKEST, MOST PATHETIC competition out of anyone in NBA history. The centers he went up against were 6'6" on average and no more athletic than a guy like Andres Biedrins or David Lee today. When Wilt scored 100, the toughest guy he was guarded by was basically a Mark Madsen clone. NOBODY with a shred of common sense takes the accomplishments of Wilt Chamberlain seriously. It's all good to read if you want some laughs, but we all know that he's not even among the top 5 players to ever play this game. A player like prime Shaq O'Neal would have no problem destroying all of Wilt's records in the 60s era of basketball. Just imagine Shaq playing Rik Smits and Todd McCullough every game instead of just in the Finals. Guy would have averaged 60 PPG, 35 RPG, 9 APG, 14 BPG on close to 70% FG if he wanted to.

60s = worthless era of basketball. The real NBA began in the 80s and continues today. Anything before the 80s = not taken seriously.

For further evidence of the inflated stats of the 60's, look at the all-time best single season performances in rebounding. Is it a coincidence they all occurred in or around the 60's?

Rank Player TRB Season
1. Wilt Chamberlain* 2149 1960-61
2. Wilt Chamberlain* 2052 1961-62
3. Wilt Chamberlain* 1957 1966-67
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 1952 1967-68
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 1946 1962-63
6. Wilt Chamberlain* 1943 1965-66
7. Wilt Chamberlain* 1941 1959-60
8. Bill Russell* 1930 1963-64
9. Bill Russell* 1878 1964-65
10. Bill Russell* 1868 1960-61
11. Bill Russell* 1843 1962-63
12. Bill Russell* 1790 1961-62
13. Wilt Chamberlain* 1787 1963-64
14. Bill Russell* 1779 1965-66
15. Bill Russell* 1778 1959-60
16. Wilt Chamberlain* 1712 1968-69
17. Bill Russell* 1700 1966-67
18. Wilt Chamberlain* 1673 1964-65
19. Jerry Lucas* 1668 1965-66
20. Bill Russell* 1612 1958-59

Here are the best seasons over the past two decades. Look at how low they rank. Rodman was arguably the most dominant rebounder ever yet his best seasons come in at 26th, 45th, and 76th all time.

26. Dennis Rodman 1530 1991-92
45. Dennis Rodman 1367 1993-94
60. Kevin Willis 1258 1991-92
76. Dennis Rodman 1201 1997-98
95. Dwight Howard 1161 2007-08
96. Dikembe Mutombo 1157 1999-00
99. Sam Lacey 1149 1974-75

A similar thing can be seen regarding field goals attempts, although the 60's skew is a bit less here than in rebounding, although this is mainly due to Michael Jordan.

Rank Player FGA Season
1. Wilt Chamberlain* 3159 1961-62
2. Wilt Chamberlain* 2770 1962-63
3. Wilt Chamberlain* 2457 1960-61
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 2311 1959-60
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 2298 1963-64
6. Michael Jordan* 2279 1986-87
7. Elgin Baylor* 2273 1962-63
8. Rick Barry* 2240 1966-67
9. Rick Barry* 2217 1974-75
10. Elvin Hayes* 2215 1970-71
11. Kobe Bryant 2173 2005-06
12. Elgin Baylor* 2166 1960-61
13. Bob McAdoo* 2138 1974-75
14. Tiny Archibald* 2106 1972-73
15. Wilt Chamberlain* 2083 1964-65
16. Elvin Hayes* 2082 1968-69
17. Jack Twyman* 2063 1959-60
18. Pete Maravich* 2047 1976-77
19. Elvin Hayes* 2020 1969-70
20. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 2019 1971-72
21. Michael Jordan* 2003 1992-93
22. Michael Jordan* 1998 1987-88
23. Wilt Chamberlain* 1990 1965-66
24. George Gervin* 1987 1981-82
25. John Havlicek* 1982 1970-71

29. Allen Iverson 1940 2002-03
32. Jerry Stackhouse 1927 2000-01
33. Kobe Bryant 1924 2002-03
55. LeBron James 1823 2005-06
56. Moses Malone* 1822 1981-82
Allen Iverson 1822 2005-06
58. Michael Jordan* 1818 1991-92
Sam Jones* 1818 1964-65
Allen Iverson 1818 2004-05
61. Tracy McGrady 1813 2002-03
Allen Iverson 1813 2000-01
63. Antawn Jamison 1812 2000-01
Alex English* 1812 1984-85
Hakeem Olajuwon* 1149 1989-90
104. Kevin Garnett 1139 2003-04

[QUOTE=hall of fame]Damn... 16 pages on the most overrated player ever. Good work. There is really nothing else to discuss about Wilt Chamberlain and other 60s superstars. Just about everyone knows by now that these guys were good for their time and would be rotting at the end of the bench in today's STRONG era, probably picking their nose or ear, scratching their arse, waving a towel, and/or chugging gatorade, etc. I'd recommend ignoring everything the poster Psileas has to say. He's some weird stalker kind of guy who always quotes you if you say anything about the 60s. Nobody ever really cares enough to read any of his posts, but he'll continue to act like people do. To be honest, he spends half of his time in real life studying 60s players. Pretty sad if you ask me.

As someone who has seen more than enough footage of Wilt Chamberlain and other 60s players, I can tell you that he'd be no better than Andrew Bogut in today's league. A guy like Dwight Howard is a far better athlete than Wilt "the quilt" Chamberlain ever was in his prime. People often bring up Wilt's 100 m time as evidence of him being an athletic freak, but I tell you that these times are made up. There is no proof of Wilt being a high jump champion or having a crazy 100 m time. It's all nonsense from guys who played with the guy or coached him during the 60s.

Wilt Chamberlain played the WEAKEST, MOST PATHETIC competition out of anyone in NBA history. The centers he went up against were 6'6" on average and no more athletic than a guy like Andres Biedrins or David Lee today. When Wilt scored 100, the toughest guy he was guarded by was basically a Mark Madsen clone. NOBODY with a shred of common sense takes the accomplishments of Wilt Chamberlain seriously. It's all good to read if you want some laughs, but we all know that he's not even among the top 5 players to ever play this game. A player like prime Shaq O'Neal would have no problem destroying all of Wilt's records in the 60s era of basketball. Just imagine Shaq playing Rik Smits and Todd McCullough every game instead of just in the Finals. Guy would have averaged 60 PPG, 35 RPG, 9 APG, 14 BPG on close to 70% FG if he wanted to.

60s = worthless era of basketball. The real NBA began in the 80s and continues today. Anything before the 80s = not taken seriously.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, all apart from smits being a bad player,he was a good player and he himself would have tore **** up in the 60's, let alone Shaq.I cant believe people look at game footage of Wilt and come away impressed.Again im talking about watching full games and not highlight reels that can make Smush parker and Darko seem like ATG.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]

A similar thing can be seen regarding field goals attempts, although the 60's skew is a bit less here than in rebounding, although this is mainly due to Michael Jordan.

Rank Player FGA Season
1. Wilt Chamberlain* 3159 1961-62
2. Wilt Chamberlain* 2770 1962-63
3. Wilt Chamberlain* 2457 1960-61
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 2311 1959-60
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 2298 1963-64
6. Michael Jordan* 2279 1986-87
7. Elgin Baylor* 2273 1962-63
8. Rick Barry* 2240 1966-67
9. Rick Barry* 2217 1974-75
10. Elvin Hayes* 2215 1970-71
11. Kobe Bryant 2173 2005-06
12. Elgin Baylor* 2166 1960-61
13. Bob McAdoo* 2138 1974-75
14. Tiny Archibald* 2106 1972-73
15. Wilt Chamberlain* 2083 1964-65
16. Elvin Hayes* 2082 1968-69
17. Jack Twyman* 2063 1959-60
18. Pete Maravich* 2047 1976-77
19. Elvin Hayes* 2020 1969-70
20. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 2019 1971-72
21. Michael Jordan* 2003 1992-93
22. Michael Jordan* 1998 1987-88
23. Wilt Chamberlain* 1990 1965-66
24. George Gervin* 1987 1981-82
25. John Havlicek* 1982 1970-71

29. Allen Iverson 1940 2002-03
32. Jerry Stackhouse 1927 2000-01
33. Kobe Bryant 1924 2002-03
55. LeBron James 1823 2005-06
56. Moses Malone* 1822 1981-82
Allen Iverson 1822 2005-06
58. Michael Jordan* 1818 1991-92
Sam Jones* 1818 1964-65
Allen Iverson 1818 2004-05
61. Tracy McGrady 1813 2002-03
Allen Iverson 1813 2000-01
2003-04[/QUOTE]

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of those who continue you call Kobe selfish:rolleyes: yet MJ/AI are all over the list of root toot shootingest guards to ever put on sneakers.

Also for the 3 first page threads of basicaslly the same several trolls questioning HOF'ers/ all time greats when a thread questioing AI's HOF credentials(which most of us agreed he was in) is closed.:confusedshrug:

Amazing.....

[QUOTE=32jazz]Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of those who continue you call Kobe selfish:rolleyes: yet MJ/AI are all over the list of root toot shootingest guards to ever put on sneakers.

Also for the 3 first page threads of basicaslly the same several trolls questioning HOF'ers/ all time greats when a thread questioing AI's HOF credentials(which most of us agreed he was in) is closed.:confusedshrug:

Amazing.....[/QUOTE]

AI is the GOAT littleman. Of course he's in. Kobe is selfish. MJ shot 'way' higher %'s, had more assists, everything, and could win playing that style. Kobe could not.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock] Rodman was arguably the most dominant rebounder ever yet his best seasons come in at 26th, 45th, and 76th all time.
[/QUOTE]

Arguably ? Are you kidding me ?

And if you want a more accurate stat, try rebound percentage (percentage of avalaible rebounds you grabbed while on the floor) :

[B]1. Dennis Rodman, 94-95, 29.73% (!!!)
2. Dennis Rodman, 95-96, 26.56%
3. Dennis Rodman, 91-92, 26.19%
4. Dennis Rodman, 92-93, 25.99%
5. Dennis Rodman, 93-94, 25.74%
6. Dennis Rodman, 96-97, 25.61%
7. Dennis Rodman, 97-98, 24.08%[/B]
8. Jayson Williams, 95-96, 23.78%
9. Danny Fortson, 98-99, 23.70%
10. Moses Malone, 76-77, 23.38%

Career :

[B]1. Dennis Rodman, 23.44%[/B]
2. Swen Nater, 20.85%
3. Dwight Howard, 20.51%
4. Moses Malone, 19.83%
5. Larry Smith, 19.30%
6. Ben Wallace, 19.12%
7. Dikembe Mutombo, 19.10%
8. Chris Dudley, 18.76%
9. Tim Duncan, 18.44%
10. Marcus Camby, 18.34%

Only 2 players have been able to have a higher rebound percentage for a season than Rodman's career average. If that's not f*cking sick, I don't know what is.

[QUOTE=Mikaiel]Arguably ? Are you kidding me ?

And if you want a more accurate stat, try rebound percentage (percentage of avalaible rebounds you grabbed while on the floor) :

[B]1. Dennis Rodman, 94-95, 29.73% (!!!)
2. Dennis Rodman, 95-96, 26.56%
3. Dennis Rodman, 91-92, 26.19%
4. Dennis Rodman, 92-93, 25.99%
5. Dennis Rodman, 93-94, 25.74%
6. Dennis Rodman, 96-97, 25.61%
7. Dennis Rodman, 97-98, 24.08%[/B]
8. Jayson Williams, 95-96, 23.78%
9. Danny Fortson, 98-99, 23.70%
10. Moses Malone, 76-77, 23.38%

Career :

[B]1. Dennis Rodman, 23.44%[/B]
2. Swen Nater, 20.85%
3. Dwight Howard, 20.51%
4. Moses Malone, 19.83%
5. Larry Smith, 19.30%
6. Ben Wallace, 19.12%
7. Dikembe Mutombo, 19.10%
8. Chris Dudley, 18.76%
9. Tim Duncan, 18.44%
10. Marcus Camby, 18.34%

Only 2 players have been able to have a higher rebound percentage for a season than Rodman's career average. If that's not f*cking sick, I don't know what is.[/QUOTE]

I agree Rodman 'should' be a first ballot HOF'er ,but didn't rebound pct only become an official stat in 1971? With all due respect to the legendary Tom Boerwinkle who had the highest rebound rate in 1971 & the venerable Larry Smith (5th all time) :confusedshrug: .........................

Smith & Boerwinkle barely played over 20mpg during their careers & Rodman played approx. 31mpg. Wilt /Russell & others averaged around 44/45 mpg so I would assume fatigue/time on the floor etc....would hurt their 'rates' just like everyone agrees 'pace' mpg skewers their averages.

Is there some 'unofficial' numbers for before '71? And even so doesnt' playing 45-48 in some cases:eek: hurt your 'rate' compared to Tom 'friggin' Boerwinkle & Larry Smith as well as Rodman?

And answer this also .Why is this thread still open considering it was a dead thread bumped by a troll for absolutely no reason after 2/3 weeks?

[QUOTE=indiefan23]Hey Psileas... your PM's on here are full. I'm trying to send ya something. Think you can clear it?[/QUOTE]

Read what I wrote to you. Starting from a few hours from now, I will be out for quite a lot of time. No reason for the time being, because I don't have the time to respond. Maybe when I return. What was it about?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Out of curiosity I looked it up and compared it through eras. To save time I generally left out the player's names next to the ranking.

I also looked at FT % and assists.

[B]1954[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 49%
2) 45%
3) 45%
4) 42%
5) 42%
10) 40%
15) 38.5% (Cousy)
20) 37.5%

The top three in FGA took 1,300, 1,300, and 1,200 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 84%
5) 81%
10) 76%
15) 73%
20) 71%

[I]Assists per game[/I]

1) 7
2) 6
3) 5
5) 4.5
10) 4
15) 3
20) 2.9

[B]1964[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 53%
2) 52%
3) 51%
5) 49%
10) 46%
15) 45%
20) 44%

Only three players shot above 50%!

Wilt led the league with 2,300 shots taken, the next two highest were in the 1,700's. Wilt jacked up 3,200 shots in 1962 and 2,800 in the following year. To put that into context, Jordan's two highest seasons are 2,300 and 2,000--and this is someone who consistently took 300+ more shots then the second most proflic shot taker during his prime years! AI's two highest seasons are 1,900 and 1,800; Kobe's 2,200 and 1,900.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 85%
2) 83%
3) 83%
5) 82%
10) 79%
15) 77%
20) 74%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 11
2) 7
3) 6
5) 5
10) 5
15) 3
20) 3.1

[B]1974[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 55%
2) 54%
3) 54%
5) 51%
10) 50%
15) 49.5%
20) 49%

12 players shot above 50%, two shot at 50%.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 90%
2) 90%
3) 88%
5) 87%
10) 86%
15) 85%
20) 84%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 8
2) 7
3) 7
5) 6
10) 6
15) 5
20) 4.7

The three league leaders in FGA took between 1,791 and 1,759 shots.

[B]1984[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 63%
2) 60%
3) 59%
5) 58%
10) 57%
15) 56%
20) 56%

The top three in FGA took between 1,765 and 1,603 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 89%
2) 88%
3) 87%
5) 86%
10) 85%
15) 84%
20) 84%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 13
2) 11
3) 11
5) 10
10) 7
15) 6
20) 5.6

[B]1994[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 60%
2) 57%
3) 56%
5) 54%
10) 53%
15) 51.5%
20) 51%

The three leaders in FGA took between 1,694 and 1,591 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 96%
2) 91%
3) 90%
5) 89%
10) 87%
15) 85%
20) 83.5%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 13
2) 10
3) 10
5) 9.5
10) 7
15) 6
20) 5

[B]2009[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 61%
2) 60%
3) 58%
5) 57%
10) 53%
15) 52.5%
20) 51%

The three leaders in FGA took between 1,739 and 1,616 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 98%
2) 95%
3) 93%
5) 91%
10) 88%
15) 87%
20) 87%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 11
2) 11
3) 10
5) 9
10) 7
15) 6
20) 5

These numbers suggest the 60's were a weak and unsophisticated era while the 50's were a joke. In addition, the stats from the 60's are inflated by pace and in Wilt's case by him taking a million shots a game. All that said, I still believe Wilt is a GOAT candidate and is in my top 5 of all-time but his record needs to be put into context. Back when he played only 3-5 players would shoot above 50% in a season. What does that tell you about the skill level of 60's players?[/QUOTE]

Thanks for putting that together. That was what I was trying to get at.

***When judging players on an all-time list, you have to take into consideration only their achievements and individual performance within their own era. Comparing across other eras is based on assumptions and it just hold for a logical argument.

[QUOTE=Simple Jack]Thanks for putting that together. That was what I was trying to get at.

***When judging players on an all-time list, you have to take into consideration only their achievements and individual performance within their own era. Comparing across other eras is based on assumptions and it just hold for a logical argument.[/QUOTE]

Jack, there is no such thing as a logical player comparison. Logic is 1 + 1 =2 and there's just no black and white player achievements to add up like that.

You continue with this 'it can't be done' mantra. Comparing a player's achievements are just as illogical because winning a title in 1948 is just as affected by era as scoring 50 PPG. Its just not the same achievement. And what 'achievements' are you talking about anyway? Winning titles is no indication of how good you are as a player because teams win titles and a million things can prevent you from winning or even having winning seasons that have 0 to do with your personal talent. Was Mitch Richmond poor? Cuz he didn't win jack.

Really, the only logical way to compare players is to watch tape of them playing at their highest level and compare them by their performance.

I think its a little convenient that you hang onto this 'achievements' thing. The Pistons made the con finals 7 years in a row, so they achieved way more then the Sacromento Kings teams, but the Kings were way better because the east was intensely weak during those years and the same applies to the Celtics winning 11 of 13 titles. They were better then everyone, thats an achievement, but everyone stank, and that lowers the achievement.

The only reason someone would have for it is to protect their perceptions of those players. If you can ignore their poor play and only count up rings or whatever other era based stat you want you can ignore the fact that players today just play the game at a higher level. There is zero question that Mitch Richmond was a better player then say, tommy heinsohn. Richmond was an elite athlete. Tommy Heinsohn, well, he was a smoker, and there just no way around that fact. Mitch is better. Its that simple.

[QUOTE=Mikaiel]
Only 2 players have been able to have a higher rebound percentage for a season than Rodman's career average. If that's not f*cking sick, I don't know what is.[/QUOTE]

I LOVE the worm, but its gotta be said. He was a specialist. If he was trying to score more he does not get as many boards or get way up on that list as high so he's kind of an anomaly. Guys like Forston are there cuz they couldn't play 30 minutes without fouling out. Either way, I think it shows a totally weak and statistically era even if those guys had higher %'s. Wilt's case for everything is stats and without playing 25% more possessions every game or out bigging diminutive players, that's all he'd remain. A great big dude who didn't win much.

[QUOTE]These numbers suggest the 60's were a weak and unsophisticated era while the 50's were a joke. In addition, the stats from the 60's are inflated by pace and in Wilt's case by him taking a million shots a game. All that said, I still believe Wilt is a GOAT candidate and is in my top 5 of all-time but his record needs to be put into context. Back when he played only 3-5 players would shoot above 50% in a season. What does that tell you about the skill level of 60's players?[/QUOTE]

I'll be out of the site for quite some time, so here's one last note, about this:

Some of these stats don't reveal anything about sophistication. The all-time highest FG%'s were during the mid-80's, not today. In the late 60's, they were already comparable to nowadays. FT's? Lower than today, but players were also fewer. You see yourself that in the early 70's, more players shot at high percentages, and most of these played in the 60's, as well. Assists? They were measured in a different way than today. Assist leaders having less assists can be explained by this and can also mean that the game was more team-oriented. And it was. High pace doesn't help individualism, and this is a main reason I don't buy 100% the absolute pace adjustments. Apart from Wilt, no superstar of the era took as high a percentage of his team's shots as Kobe or LeBron or younger Iverson. Even Wilt, given his playing time and pace, didn't take such an extraordinary number of shots.

[QUOTE=Psileas]I'll be out of the site for quite some time, so here's one last note, about this:

Some of these stats don't reveal anything about sophistication. The all-time highest FG%'s were during the mid-80's, not today. In the late 60's, they were already comparable to nowadays. FT's? Lower than today, but players were also fewer. You see yourself that in the early 70's, more players shot at high percentages, and most of these played in the 60's, as well. Assists? They were measured in a different way than today. Assist leaders having less assists can be explained by this and can also mean that the game was more team-oriented. And it was. High pace doesn't help individualism, and this is a main reason I don't buy 100% the absolute pace adjustments. Apart from Wilt, no superstar of the era took as high a percentage of his team's shots as Kobe or LeBron or younger Iverson. Even Wilt, given his playing time and pace, didn't take such an extraordinary number of shots.[/QUOTE]

Yep, I think the biggest reason the 60's players are so hard done by, really they'd be all stars today, was the lack of rationality people from that era had, right? ;0 clear out your PM's. :rockon:

[B]A PRIME Wilt is the Greatest Player that Ever Played by miles! :rolleyes:
Also the Best Most Complete Athletic-Physical Player ofAll Time
Also the Most Complre IMPAC (Technically-SKilled and Physical) Center of All Time

He played in Second Toughest Era in NBA History The Late 60s-Early 70s reason why it was very diffuclt for him to win same as for Charles, Malone, Stockton, Kemp-Paton (we know Lakers after his prime), Webber etc etc

Second Best Era`s After the 80s.

Early 90s and Mid 90s is close to that of the late 60s and early 70s

Late 90s and 2000s = One of the Weakest Eras in Competitive Team Ball Ever!. Team Expansion, Less Posibilities of Great Role Players, Stars and Supestars To Play Togheter, Zero Fundamentally Sound Players, Passing Game, Shot Selection, Court Vision, Rule Changes to Easen the Game and A WAY LESSER PHYSICAL ERA than Wilts[/B]

:violin: