Wilt averaging 50 points wasn't that impressive after all...

[QUOTE=BlueandGold]Good to know [B]your [/B]so modest. Anyways it's pretty obvious to most of the posters on here who are the trolls and who aren't.All I stated were factors to consider and [B]your [/B]getting that worked out about it and then attack me for "making up a load of crap".

If [B]your [/B]not offended by my opinions then simply ignore me or choose not to read.

I'm sure [B]your [/B]going to post some smart response back as to that's exactly what you plan to do but I'll continue to read your posts and respond to them as I see fit. When you want to have a civilized/legitimate discussion on NBA matters feel free to respond to mine with a little something more than calling everything what I have to say "a load of crap".[/QUOTE]

[B]*you're[/B]

Everything you said in your post at the bottom of page 2 was incorrect, so yes, it was a load of crap.

Like I said, it's a shame you can't respect the League's history, instead of trying to belittle it.

[QUOTE=7_cody]A quick google search tells me that there are like 46 seven footers in the NBA today. The list posted earlier had like 8 or 9 I think. So what you're basically saying is that there were 8 or 9 games where he faced a seven footer, most not very talented, but other then that he had a severe size advantage

His numbers are impressive for his era, nothing else, IMO[/QUOTE]

Are you mentally deficient? There are more today because there are more teams. Do your research, kid.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Wow. It's literally an all out ISH war right now between those who consider the 60's as a legitimately competitive NBA era (and the players who accomplished feats in that era) and those who clearly don't. Most NBA "fans" must have failed miserably in their history classes.[/QUOTE]

Those who don't respect the League's history are those of a certain age (i.e. school kids).

However, there's some good news: In 10 years time, when LeBron is retired, there will be some new kids on ISH who will try to tell people that LeBron was overrated. People like BlueandGold and his cronies will suddenly find themselves in our shoes; they will defend LeBron rationally and, all of sudden, it'll dawn on them that the League's history should be respected.

Only then will BlueandGold and his fellow teenagers have an appreciation of Wilt Chamberlain and other superstars of yesteryear.

In the meantime, it's like banging our heads against a brick wall.

They just don't get it.

But they will get it one day.

[QUOTE=WillC][B]*you're[/B]

Everything you said in your post at the bottom of page 2 was incorrect, so yes, it was a load of crap.

Like I said, it's a shame you can't respect the League's history, instead of trying to belittle it.[/QUOTE]

I really liked what you brought to this thread so far -- you even changed my perspective a bit on the "history of the game and its greatness back in the 60s"

however, to be fair, you're not really rebutting anything BlueandGold said. All of it is false just because you said so? Any proof? Looks to me like he made have made three very valid points, which I haven't researched or clarified, but have you?

[QUOTE=WillC]Those who don't respect the League's history are those of a certain age (i.e. school kids).

However, there's some good news: In 10 years time, when LeBron is retired, there will be some new kids on ISH who will try to tell people that LeBron was overrated. People like BlueandGold and his cronies will suddenly find themselves in our shoes; they will defend LeBron rationally and, all of sudden, it'll dawn on them that the League's history should be respected.

Only then will BlueandGold and his fellow teenagers have an appreciation of Wilt Chamberlain and other superstars of yesteryear.

In the meantime, it's like banging our heads against a brick wall.

They just don't get it.

But they will get it one day.[/QUOTE]

I respect the "history of the game" for what it was -- the history. I also believe that it has evolved and will continue to do so. From what I've seen watching footage and classic games of the very, very early games I was not impressed by the level of athleticism and skill. But that's to be expected, every sport starts somewhere.

Don't you think the level of talent and skill in the NBA and the world will be even better in 20 years from now, not worse?

With that said, I can see why you're frustrated, it's like your analogy of people bashing LeBron in the future -- if 20 years from now my grand kids are telling me that Kobe wasn't very good, or even LeBron, then they'll be hearing it from me lol

[QUOTE=7_cody]I really liked what you brought to this thread so far -- you even changed my perspective a bit on the "history of the game and its greatness back in the 60s"

[B]however, to be fair, you're not really rebutting anything BlueandGold said. All of it is false just because you said so? Any proof? Looks to me like he made have made three very valid points, which I haven't researched or clarified, but have you?[/B][/QUOTE]

I recommend that you, if you are truly a fan of the history of the game like myself. Anyways I wouldn't bother wasting any more text on willc, looks like he's out of trolling material already.

BTW Cavs what argument have to offer on the points i just made?

[QUOTE=Raz]Are you mentally deficient? There are more today because there are more teams. Do your research, kid.[/QUOTE]

I never said otherwise -- a smaller league is also advantageous for individual performance and success

I don't care enough to do the research and exactly what percentage of 7 footers existed back then compared to today -- most of us, well most of us should know that it's obviously a much higher percentage today

[QUOTE=7_cody]I really liked what you brought to this thread so far -- you even changed my perspective a bit on the "history of the game and its greatness back in the 60s"

however, to be fair, you're not really rebutting anything BlueandGold said. All of it is false just because you said so? Any proof? Looks to me like he made have made three very valid points, which I haven't researched or clarified, but have you?[/QUOTE]

Fine, just for you, I will point out why each of BlueandGold's points is invalid...

[QUOTE=BlueandGold]Take into consideration:

- # of teams in the league at that point was a 1/3rd of what it is now, ABA also existed to take away talent from the NBA[/quote]

If anything, playing against just 9 teams made life harder for Wilt; instead of beating up on the likes of the Bobcats, he had to face the 8 best opposing centers in the league game-after-game.

Meanwhile, the ABA didn't exist in 1961-62 :facepalm

[quote]- # of playoff games needed to win a championship was much lower as well (factoring in championships)[/quote]

What has that got to do with Wilt averaging 50ppg in the regular season? :facepalm

[quote]-# of possessions per game and pace was MUCH higher during the 60s/70s. There's a great possessions/drating chart that's been floating around that shows that the pace was the highest in the 60s, 70s and 80s, lowest in the late 90s and 00s. [/quote]

That is true.

Wilt averaged 50.4ppg that season. Second place? Walt Bellamy with 31.6ppg. [b]The pace is irrelevant[/b]; nobody has ever won the scoring title by such a huge margin.

[quote]- Average height/wingspan of your average player was much smaller, also mentioned earlier the talent pool was diluted due to ABA sapping talent away from the league. Hell even the Harlem Globetrotters took Wilt before Philly was able to secure him.[/QUOTE]

The wingspan comment isn't true; the average height of centers back then was the same as it is now. I've already pointed out that players were measured bare-footed back then.

And, as I've already said, the ABA didn't exist in 1961-62.

:facepalm

So there you have it, 7_cody. I hope that proves that everything BlueandGold said was a load of crap.

I think if you gave Wilt a year to train/adjust to the modern game though he'd be the best player in the game today (yes above LeBron) even at "only" 26-28 ppg/11-12 rpg.

[QUOTE=b1imtf]How the **** does he average 48.5 minutes?[/QUOTE]

[IMG]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-XHwF6g-Ue6Y/T2kxn9YwXZI/AAAAAAAADQ0/3q2doFcf7L0/s800/tumblr_lhxn994rWB1qbpbljo1_500.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=WillC][B]*you're[/B]

Everything you said in your post at the bottom of page 2 was incorrect, so yes, it was a load of crap.

Like I said, it's a shame you can't respect the League's history, instead of trying to belittle it.[/QUOTE]

[quote=Willc]Those who don't respect the League's history are those of a certain age (i.e. school kids).

However, there's some good news: In 10 years time, when LeBron is retired, there will be some new kids on ISH who will try to tell people that LeBron was overrated. People like BlueandGold and his cronies will suddenly find themselves in our shoes; they will defend LeBron rationally and, all of sudden, it'll dawn on them that the League's history should be respected.

Only then will BlueandGold and his fellow teenagers have an appreciation of Wilt Chamberlain and other superstars of yesteryear.

In the meantime, it's like banging our heads against a brick wall.

They just don't get it.

But they will get it one day.[/quote]

lol I see Willc has clamed down?

Where does such a dramatic turn come from when he turns from this type of post ^ to the post he just made :oldlol:

[QUOTE=7_cody]From what I've seen watching footage and classic games of the very, very early games I was not impressed by the level of athleticism and skill. [/QUOTE]

You need to look more closely. Sure, you won't have seen Iverson-esque crossovers in the 1960s. You won't see (many) alley-oops. You won't see (many) behind the back passes.

But what you will see is incredible team play. You'll see Bill Russell playing the high-post pivot better than anyone in history. You'll see Bob Cousy knowing [i]exactly[/i] where each of his teammates prefers to receive the ball. You'll see Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar scoring in more ways than Dwight Howard can even dream of. You'll see Oscar Robertson mastering the art of backing down his man and scoring with the most beautiful jump shot you will ever see.

If that's not skill, then I don't know what is.

(By the way, you seem intelligent enough to take on board everything I am saying, so I hope I'm not wasting my time here)

Well looks like I'm going to watch some more Wilt footage. Maybe I was wrong about him.

Before anyone bashes me -- I have great basketball knowledge, but I've admitted that I'm weak on the very very early history of the NBA

Not many people would admit this

[QUOTE=WillC]Wilt averaged 50.4ppg that season. Second place? Walt Bellamy with 31.6ppg. [b]The pace is irrelevant[/b]; nobody has ever won the scoring title by such a huge margin.[/QUOTE]

Just to clarify, wasn't that the last year that a scoring title was determined by Total Points, not Points Per Game ?

I know I've read that it used to be the case to determine a scoring title. Unless, this isn't true.

For what matters, Wilt still led the league in scoring by a huge margin

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Just to clarify, wasn't that the last year that a scoring title was determined by Total Points, not Points Per Game ?

I know I've read that it used to be the case to determine a scoring title. Unless, this isn't true.[/QUOTE]

I would need to look that up. But that doesn't change things; Walt Bellamy had the second highest points per game average that season.

And it was nearly 20ppg less than Wilt's.

[QUOTE=7_cody]Well looks like I'm going to watch some more Wilt footage. Maybe I was wrong about him.[/QUOTE]

There are some incredible videos floating around on this forum. You'll be amazed by his arsenal.

I think it's safe to say that I just won this argument, so I'm logging off.

Hopefully a few people will learn to respect the history of the game a bit more after reading this thread.

[QUOTE=WillC]I would need to look that up. But that doesn't change things; Walt Bellamy had the second highest points per game average that season.

And it was nearly 20ppg less than Wilt's.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I just edited my post.

[QUOTE=WillC]You need to look more closely. Sure, you won't have seen Iverson-esque crossovers in the 1960s. You won't see (many) alley-oops. You won't see (many) behind the back passes.

But what you will see is incredible team play. You'll see Bill Russell playing the high-post pivot better than anyone in history. You'll see Bob Cousy knowing [i]exactly[/i] where each of his teammates prefers to receive the ball. You'll see Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar scoring in more ways than Dwight Howard can even dream of. You'll see Oscar Robertson mastering the art of backing down his man and scoring with the most beautiful jump shot you will ever see.

If that's not skill, then I don't know what is.

(By the way, you seem intelligent enough to take on board everything I am saying, so I hope I'm not wasting my time here)[/QUOTE]

Actually the ball and off ball movement is really the only thing that has impressed me. I was always disgusted at the hunchback dribbling and refusal to go left, but now I understand that may be because of the fact that players couldn't carry back in the day.

And no you're not wasting my time -- you've already changed my perspective a bit and shown me that I'm weak in the early history of the game, so I gotta work on that

[QUOTE=7_cody][B]Well looks like I'm going to watch some more Wilt footage.[/B] Maybe I was wrong about him.

Before anyone bashes me -- I have great basketball knowledge, but I've admitted that I'm weak on the very very early history of the NBA

Not many people would admit this[/QUOTE]
Very big of you to say that - theres a starting point
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzzxVE34k[/url]

[QUOTE=7_cody]Actually the ball and off ball movement is really the only thing that has impressed me. I was always disgusted at the hunchback dribbling and refusal to go left, but now I understand that may be because of the fact that players couldn't carry back in the day.

And no you're not wasting my time -- you've already changed my perspective a bit and shown me that I'm weak in the early history of the game, so I gotta work on that[/QUOTE]

[This really is my last post, I promise...]

After you've learned more about the early days of the NBA, the next step is to learn more about pre-NBA history. You'll be amazed at what you'll discover.

When you find yourself reading 300-page books about Hank Luisetti (look him up), then I will be happy that you've reached my level of obsession on the game's history :pimp:

Best of luck and enjoy every second of it.

[QUOTE=WillC]You need to look more closely. Sure, you won't have seen Iverson-esque crossovers in the 1960s. You won't see (many) alley-oops. You won't see (many) behind the back passes.

But what you will see is incredible team play. You'll see Bill Russell playing the high-post pivot better than anyone in history. You'll see Bob Cousy knowing [i]exactly[/i] where each of his teammates prefers to receive the ball. You'll see Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar scoring in more ways than Dwight Howard can even dream of. You'll see Oscar Robertson mastering the art of backing down his man and scoring with the most beautiful jump shot you will ever see.

If that's not skill, then I don't know what is.

(By the way, you seem intelligent enough to take on board everything I am saying, so I hope I'm not wasting my time here)[/QUOTE]
Good post. The subtle nuances of 60's and 70's games go unnoticed by many fans of today's basketball because they are more focused on highlight plays and athleticism.

Your mention of the Big O is excellent. He would back his man down right to his preferred spot on the court and turnaround with that high release and get a good look virtually everytime. It's not flashly like a crossover and drive for a dunk like Wade but it requires a great deal of skill and talent. Bill Simmons likened Oscar's high post game as "bringing an Uzi to an Old West gunfight."

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Very big of you to say that - theres a starting point
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzzxVE34k[/url][/QUOTE]

His scoop-lay up shot looks so hard to defend. It's almost like you can't tell if it's going to be a fake, a dunk or a shot.

[QUOTE=Poetry]His scoop-lay up shot looks so hard to defend. It's almost like you can't tell if it's going to be a fake, a dunk or a shot.[/QUOTE]

Hard to cleanly block to, gonna hit his arm most of the time

[QUOTE=BlueandGold]Regardless of what a lot of NBA revisionists would like to say there's no way Wilt would average close to that in today's game.

Take into consideration:

- # of teams in the league at that point was a 1/3rd of what it is now, ABA also existed to take away talent from the NBA

- # of playoff games needed to win a championship was much lower as well (factoring in championships)

-# of possessions per game and pace was MUCH higher during the 60s/70s. There's a great possessions/drating chart that's been floating around that shows that the pace was the highest in the 60s, 70s and 80s, lowest in the late 90s and 00s.

- Average height/wingspan of your average player was much smaller, also mentioned earlier the talent pool was diluted due to ABA sapping talent away from the league. Hell even the Harlem Globetrotters took Wilt before Philly was able to secure him.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm

These posts. To much wrong to even begin addressing it.

Teams were more stacked in the 60's 70's and 80's despite the ABA and it's relatively short existence. The league we see now is more diluted. All the talk we hear of now about Super teams was the norm way back when.

What does the number of playoff games have to do with regular season statistics?

The pace of the game is the only legit statement you've made and it would be the only thing to curtail Wilt putting up big numbers on a consistent basis but Wilt was an incredible player in his day and if he were transported to today with today's training methods he'd be even more of a force of nature. It would be tough no arguing that but in the right system with the right role players around him I don't doubt for a second he'd make a proper run at it

the Harlem Globetrotters comment. WTF does that have to with anything?

[QUOTE=magictricked]:facepalm

These posts. To much wrong to even begin addressing it.

Teams were more stacked in the 60's 70's and 80's despite the ABA and it's relatively short existence. The league we see now is more diluted. All the talk we hear of now about Super teams was the norm way back when.

What does the number of playoff games have to do with regular season statistics?

The pace of the game is the only legit statement you've made and it would be the only thing to curtail Wilt putting up big numbers on a consistent basis but Wilt was an incredible player in his day and if he were transported to today with today's training methods he'd be even more of a force of nature. It would be tough no arguing that but in the right system with the right role players around him I don't doubt for a second he'd make a proper run at it

the Harlem Globetrotters comment. WTF does that have to with anything?[/QUOTE]

WillC already debunked this for you, think it's on the previous page

[QUOTE=7_cody]Hard to cleanly block to, gonna hit his arm most of the time[/QUOTE]

Yeah when he has deep position, you can see defenders holding his other arm, since the extension makes it so hard to reach the ball.

[QUOTE=iamgine]Many would see Wilt scoring 50 ppg and either say "wow, he was so great" or "what a weak era that was that he was able to score that high." Actually, neither statement was fully correct.

Wilt's 50 point season...his per 36 minutes ppg was 'only' 37 ppg. Still extremely high right? After all, even MJ's highest per 36 minutes ppg was 33 ppg. Not so fast. Adjust that for modern pace it would be much lower. It would 'only' be around 31 ppg.

But that's still pretty darn high right? I would agree, except by playing 48.5 minuter per game, Wilt would've played in a lot of garbage minutes. So that inflated his ppg and other stats. And If you factor that by playing 48.5 minutes, it means he also played against 60's scrubs A LOT. That also inflated his ppg and other stats.

In the end his 50 PPG translated to modern era would be about 25 ppg, maybe 28 ppg if he's allowed to play 42 minutes per game. Not that extraordinary after all. Nice stamina though...[/QUOTE]
An interesting post. Some points more valid than others.


[QUOTE=iamgine]Many would see Wilt scoring 50 ppg and either say "wow, he was so great" or "what a weak era that was that he was able to score that high." Actually, neither statement was fully correct.

Wilt's 50 point season...his per 36 minutes ppg was 'only' 37 ppg. Still extremely high right? After all, even MJ's highest per 36 minutes ppg was 33 ppg. Not so fast. Adjust that for modern pace it would be much lower. It would 'only' be around 31 ppg.[/QUOTE]
Minutes did indeed increase substantially his opportunity to score points.

Also depending on whether you're trying to project Wilt into the modern game (without the benefit of sports science and chartered flights etc), or state how dominant he was you might also want to adjust his field goal percentage up. You could do this a number of ways, you might choose the modern 2 point percentage as early NBA players had little incentive to take such long shots, you might adjust by the margin he was ahead of the pack or by the percentage he was above the average.

[QUOTE=iamgine]But that's still pretty darn high right? I would agree, except by playing 48.5 minuter per game, Wilt would've played in a lot of garbage minutes. So that inflated his ppg and other stats. And If you factor that by playing 48.5 minutes, it means he also played against 60's scrubs A LOT. That also inflated his ppg and other stats. [/QUOTE]
How many garbage minutes do you think there are in the average game? Also how much do you think other teams went to their bench. As I'm sure you're aware all the elite players in the 60s played big minutes. Bill Russell average 42.3mpg over his career, Oscar Robertson 44 mpg through to the 1970 season, Walt Bellamy played 42.3 minutes that year. So no he wasn't playing scubs a lot.

[QUOTE=iamgine]In the end his 50 PPG translated to modern era would be about 25 ppg, maybe 28 ppg if he's allowed to play 42 minutes per game. Not that extraordinary after all. Nice stamina though...[/QUOTE]
Your most valid points relate to the huge minutes (which weren't atypical for the era, but he probably wouldn't be allowed to play that much today) and pace. But turning 50ppg into 25ppg just isn't credible.


Whilst Elgin Baylor played only 48 games in 1961-62 due to military service his 38.3 ppg should be acknowledged, even if we are going to say it might not meet minimum thresholds. Given that Baylor got better than 34 points in the year before and after in years in which the league scoring average was lower it would be disingenuous to say that Baylor would not have at very least matched his 34ppg or suggest 38ppg was a fluke. Even excluding Baylor there were 5 players averaging over 30 points per game, with no other year having more than 3 such players. So for that one single season, whilst Wilt's lead over the pack was substantial, it was not as large as others have perhaps implied and pace I think we would all recognise, was a factor.

Still the ideas that what Wilt did "wasn't that impressive", or that Wilt should be punished for his athleticism and strength or that he was playing 6'6 pivotmen (Chuck Hayes anyone?) are not credible. Whilst there are legitimate factors that should be accounted for (pace, smaller pool of potential players, racial quotas) in Wilt's early career numbers, his achievements are undeniably staggering.

[QUOTE=Owl]
How many garbage minutes do you think there are in the average game? Also how much do you think other teams went to their bench. As I'm sure you're aware all the elite players in the 60s played big minutes. Bill Russell average 42.3mpg over his career, Oscar Robertson 44 mpg through to the 1970 season, Walt Bellamy played 42.3 minutes that year. So no he wasn't playing scubs a lot.

[/QUOTE]
For centers, only Bill and Walt averaged 42+ minutes. The rest of the league's centers averaged less than 35 minutes. So yes, he was playing scrubs a lot.

[IMG]http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/7296/28615355ddnbgli.jpg[/IMG]

my wilt video for 7 cody


[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgbfZTQeKRk[/url]

idk if its in this thread or not , it might be at the start, but whoever posted that the whole adjusting of stats shit is useless because it means russel averaged neg 7 points.... you are amazing and truly made an intelligent point. dont know fi the ***** will see this BUT PROPS WERE AERNED

[QUOTE=Colbertnation64]my wilt video for 7 cody


[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgbfZTQeKRk[/url][/QUOTE]
Lil B follows you on twitter :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Lil B follows you on twitter :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
hahaha so happy about that.

He followed me randomly, I woke up one day with the email. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=RazorBaLade]idk if its in this thread or not , it might be at the start, but whoever posted that the whole adjusting of stats shit is useless because it means russel averaged neg 7 points.... you are amazing and truly made an intelligent point. dont know fi the ***** will see this BUT PROPS WERE AERNED[/QUOTE]

With a purely multiplicative function like the one used to adjust for pace and minutes, you won't end up with a negative value unless you multiply by a negative(which you shouldn't).

For instance, Wilt's 62 team played at a 130.5 pace. If we adjust that down to the 90.9 pace that Kobe's 05-06 team played at you come out with around 35 points a game. From there, you can adjust the minutes down to whatever amount you see fit; with 44 mpg, you're now looking at 32 ppg, 42mpg - 30ppg.

If we apply the same method to Bill Russell we'll end up with 13ppg @44mpg and 12ppg @42mpg. You shouldn't be getting negative numbers. If you are, you're doing something wrong.

Apologies if you were being sarcastic, I couldn't tell.

[QUOTE=iamgine]For centers, only Bill and Walt averaged 42+ minutes. The rest of the league's centers averaged less than 35 minutes. So yes, he was playing scrubs a lot.[/QUOTE]
Wilt, Bellamy and Russell one third of starting centers. Clyde Lovellette played only 29.8 mpg but Bob Pettit played some center was he a scrub?

Like I said the elite players played long minutes at the time, which as I showed, was the norm.

Even accounting for ten minutes against so called "scrubs" how much more is that than an average center would have? Five extra minutes? Or are you confident that you bench patterns from back then. They weren't the same as today you know. For a time Havlicek started on the bench then after coming in sometimes never left the game.

Then account for how fatigue would have affected many of Wilt's minutes to be sub-optimal. Presumably in the modern game Wilt would have been rested and generally in even better condition. Yet you fail to account for this.

Trusting your calculations on pace and minutes he was at 31ppg per 36, Wilt would be at 36.16666667 ppg based on playing 42 minutes. Yet you project him scoring "maybe 28ppg". You're projected that he gained an extra 8 and a bit points by virtue of playing so called "scrubs" even though you've already pulled his minutes down and thus presumably taken away most of his minutes against said "scrubs". You've punished him twice by taking away his minutes (thus projecting him to play only against full timers) and then removed nearly a quarter of his points total suggesting it was earn't against scrubs despite the fact that you've taken those minutes away.

The second adjustment would need to take into account the first but you just lopped off 8 points without any reasoning as to why that amount is appropriate. Had you projected based on even semi-justified assumptions then we could at least debate it (e.g. had you said "I'm projecting Wilt to play 36mpg -on the low side but makes calculations easier- so I could take a quarter of his ppg away, but I think I'm taking his minutes against scrubs away so I think he'll have had more of his points then so I'll take three tenths of ppg away" then we could at least argue it). But instead you've lopped off an arbitrary chunk of his scoring, without any accounting for how he might benefit from rest.

50ppg was inflated, we all know that but to suggest that that it equates to half his actual points total in the modern game is ludicrous. It would project Oscar Robertson as a 12.5ppg career scorer (peaking at 15.6ppg), Jerry West as a 13.5ppg scorer etc. Put simply it's just not credible. Adjust properly with a real, transparent methodology or don't do it at all, but don't just conjure up numbers from nowhere.

[QUOTE=Owl]Wilt, Bellamy and Russell one third of starting centers. Clyde Lovellette played only 29.8 mpg but Bob Pettit played some center was he a scrub?

Like I said the elite players played long minutes at the time, which as I showed, was the norm.

Even accounting for ten minutes against so called "scrubs" how much more is that than an average center would have? Five extra minutes? Or are you confident that you bench patterns from back then. They weren't the same as today you know. For a time Havlicek started on the bench then after coming in sometimes never left the game.

Then account for how fatigue would have affected many of Wilt's minutes to be sub-optimal. Presumably in the modern game Wilt would have been rested and generally in even better condition. Yet you fail to account for this.

Trusting your calculations on pace and minutes he was at 31ppg per 36, Wilt would be at 36.16666667 ppg based on playing 42 minutes. Yet you project him scoring "maybe 28ppg". You're projected that he gained an extra 8 and a bit points by virtue of playing so called "scrubs" even though you've already pulled his minutes down and thus presumably taken away most of his minutes against said "scrubs". You've punished him twice by taking away his minutes (thus projecting him to play only against full timers) and then removed nearly a quarter of his points total suggesting it was earn't against scrubs despite the fact that you've taken those minutes away.

The second adjustment would need to take into account the first but you just lopped off 8 points without any reasoning as to why that amount is appropriate. Had you projected based on even semi-justified assumptions then we could at least debate it (e.g. had you said "I'm projecting Wilt to play 36mpg -on the low side but makes calculations easier- so I could take a quarter of his ppg away, but I think I'm taking his minutes against scrubs away so I think he'll have had more of his points then so I'll take three tenths of ppg away" then we could at least argue it). But instead you've lopped off an arbitrary chunk of his scoring, without any accounting for how he might benefit from rest.

50ppg was inflated, we all know that but to suggest that that it equates to half his actual points total in the modern game is ludicrous. It would project Oscar Robertson as a 12.5ppg career scorer (peaking at 15.6ppg), Jerry West as a 13.5ppg scorer etc. Put simply it's just not credible. Adjust properly with a real, transparent methodology or don't do it at all, but don't just conjure up numbers from nowhere.[/QUOTE]
Bellamy was actually a rookie and not good defensively. So that leaves just Russell.

Oscar would be projected at about 20 ppg in 61-62, not 12.5 ppg.

[QUOTE=iamgine]Bellamy was actually a rookie and not good defensively. So that leaves just Russell.

Oscar would be projected at about 20 ppg in 61-62, not 12.5 ppg.[/QUOTE]
Well no halving his ppg that year would put him around 15ppg. But as I clearly stated I was reffering to his career totals.
I never said Bellamy was a good defender. But if it was about what you put up against whom, he was putting up over 40ppg on Russell that year. Russell who probably was playing full games versus Chamberlain. And ignoring Bellamy assumes that that we're saying that playing a good offensive player doesn't require any extra effort or exertion.

That aside I don't know why each time you're responding to only one line out of each of my posts. I asume it's because you you accept the general point that you pulled 25ppg out of nowhere and then took away substantial minutes and yet still assumed he'd play substantial minutes against backups and ended up badly overadjusting.

Nobody thinks 50ppg wasn't inflated, I've said that in every post I've made. But 25ppg is very low and you've shown no methodology for it so why on earth are you so wedded to that figure.

[QUOTE=Owl]Well no halving his ppg that year would put him around 15ppg. But as I clearly stated I was reffering to his career totals.
I never said Bellamy was a good defender. But if it was about what you put up against whom, he was putting up over 40ppg on Russell that year. Russell who probably was playing full games versus Chamberlain. And ignoring Bellamy assumes that that we're saying that playing a good offensive player doesn't require any extra effort or exertion.

That aside I don't know why each time you're responding to only one line out of each of my posts. I asume it's because you you accept the general point that you pulled 25ppg out of nowhere and then took away substantial minutes and yet still assumed he'd play substantial minutes against backups and ended up badly overadjusting.

Nobody thinks 50ppg wasn't inflated, I've said that in every post I've made. But 25ppg is very low and you've shown no methodology for it so why on earth are you so wedded to that figure.[/QUOTE]
I only responded with 1 line because it's all in the 1st post. It's not just simply halving the points. Jerry West, for example would be projected at around 22 ppg in 61-62.

One more point about projecting modern numbers to Wilt's era: Do so for whole teams or convert 60's teams' scoring stats into modern ppg numbers, then compare players and report the results, thank you.

Or, alternatively, someone tell me how no team in the 80's wasn't "smart" enough to raise their pace from 100 to 130 and therefore raise their ppg from 110 to 140+.