Ways to compare across eras - MJ vs Wilt

[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.