Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14732830]Milwaukee was 38-44 in Kareem's last season. [/QUOTE]
Bucks were 35-30 in the games Kareem played that year. 3-14 without him.
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
If your standard is a difference of 7 games or being better with a different core years later it applies to lots of people. The warriors by the time they were in the finals had 3 all stars wilt never played with one of which was Rick Barry. And along with that Thurmond who was stuck behind wilt was entering his prime. The warriors had 2 prime hall of famers and 3 more all stars by 67 and 4 of them Wilt didn’t play with.
The 76ers won a title with him and got destroyed by injuries the next year. If falling from champion and legit contender to random playoff team isn’t much of a drop because of only 7 less wins you certainly have to add Jordan to whatever list you’re making with Wilt over 1994. Which I suppose may have been your point to begin with.
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14732836]If your standard is a difference of 7 games or being better with a different core years later it applies to lots of people. The warriors by the time they were in the finals had 3 all stars wilt never played with one of which was Rick Barry. And along with that Thurmond who was stuck behind wilt was entering his prime. The warriors had 2 prime hall of famers and 3 more all stars by 67 and 4 of them Wilt didn’t play with.
The 76ers won a title with him and got destroyed by injuries the next year. If falling from champion and legit contender to random playoff team isn’t much of a drop because of only 7 less wins you certainly have to add Jordan to whatever list you’re making with Wilt over 1994. Which I suppose may have been your point to begin with.[/QUOTE]
hes literally showing the next year tho, its not like there are random jumps for agenda purposes.
btw can you unlock this thread? not sure why its locked
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?509997-2023-2-13-HUGE-Standing-Implications-Blazers-vs-New-Look-Lakers-GT[/url]
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14732836]If your standard is a difference of 7 games or being better with a different core years later it applies to lots of people. The warriors by the time they were in the finals had 3 all stars wilt never played with one of which was Rick Barry. And along with that Thurmond who was stuck behind wilt was entering his prime. The warriors had 2 prime hall of famers and 3 more all stars by 67 and 4 of them Wilt didn’t play with.
The 76ers won a title with him and got destroyed by injuries the next year. [B]If falling from champion and legit contender to random playoff team isn’t much of a drop because of only 7 less wins you certainly have to add Jordan to whatever list you’re making with Wilt over 1994. Which I suppose may have been your point to begin with[/B].[/QUOTE]
MJ wasn't traded, which is the reason why I didn't mention him, or even LeBron.
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14732838]hes literally showing the next year tho, its not like there are random jumps for agenda purposes.
btw can you unlock this thread? not sure why its locked
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?509997-2023-2-13-HUGE-Standing-Implications-Blazers-vs-New-Look-Lakers-GT[/url][/QUOTE]
I was legit confused when I woke up this morning and saw that thread locked. I assumed full court started spamming it or something, but no. One of the mods just wanted the last word and locked it.
Smh.
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14732840]I was legit confused when I woke up this morning and saw that thread locked. I assumed full court started spamming it or something, but no. One of the mods just wanted the last word and locked it.
Smh.[/QUOTE]
rmwg on his period again
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14732821]How the hell were they 10-28 with a 28 year old Wilt to begin with? You'd expect more impact from a player who many have as a top 5 ever player, not to mention he was traded during an 11 game losing streak. Has any top 10 player ever in his prime ever lost 10 straight?
Wolves got 10 games worse when they traded KG.[/QUOTE]
You'd have to dig through the history yourself. They didn't have a good enough team to beat Boston and him and the FO probably punted on the season before the trade happened.
The two teams Wilt left were in a great situation. Warriors had a young Nate Thurmond (who couldn't play his true position next to Wilt) plus they were bad enough during Wilt's last season that they were also able to draft Rick Barry. Sixers had one of the deepest rosters in the league with 3 other HOFers on the squad so they were still able to win games without him as well.
Wolves went into a rebuild. They weren't bad enough with KG to have a realistic chance at a #1 pick plus they didn't get another star in return.
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
I feel like the idea that the human body produces feces is somehow ground breaking to many
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14732832]Bucks were 35-30 in the games Kareem played that year. 3-14 without him.[/QUOTE]
yea, but they were still 38-44 without him the following season. That's a .463 win % compared to the previous season (.176%)
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
if I read your thread title correctly :
Hondo's team , and then he left , but a new guy on the block came in Bird.
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14732840]I was legit confused when I woke up this morning and saw that thread locked. [B]I assumed full court started spamming it or something[/b], but no. One of the mods just wanted the last word and locked it.
Smh.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol:
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
[QUOTE=Axe;14733273]:oldlol:[/QUOTE]
What a dingus.
[img]https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fgiffiles.alphacoders.com%2F118%2F118865.gif&f=1&nofb=1[/img]
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
[QUOTE=GimmeThat;14732745]it shows you that points and rebounds are team efforts, strength and conditioning are individual efforts[/QUOTE]
Yet somehow[url=https://www.autismspeaks.org/sites/default/files/styles/wysiwyg_small_width/public/Autism_Speaks_VerticalDS_Full_RGB_150dpi%20%281%29.png?itok=PjWDnAPa],[/url] his teammates did better without him than vice versa.
Re: Is Wilt is the only superstar who's team didn't regress much when they traded him
^Autistic.
Wilt would easily average 40 ppg in this stat inflated era.
