Did Wilts "100 point game" actually happen?

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]No we aren't on his ignore list, as he posts in threads I make or anyone else makes as long as it is something he's interested in - he just makes a conscious effort to ignore posts that call him out on things. He sees everything we post.[/QUOTE]
lol so what's the point then? Is he just hoping someone who doesn't know better reads his post but doesn't look at ours, and is falsely led to believe they were averaging 140+ possessions a night in the 60s? Pretty despicable if that's his goal and he's not just trolling.

:facepalm

This is a dumb conspiracy. If it never happened, then you would have had players and other people there claiming that it never happened, that it was planned. Out of the 4,000 people who saw it, reporters there, you would have heard somebody come forward saying that he never did score that much. (The only way that such a conspiracy would work if it was backed by the US government, with them having the authority of silencing people. And even then some people would still let others know.)

Edit: I'm listening to the CavaliersFTW audio of the game. Are the play by play guys also in on the conspiracy? If so, they mention that they're in Hershey Pennsylvanian, did they forget to tell them that they should have said Madison Square Garden? I mean, if they're in on the conspiracy of making mainstream America think that Wilt Scored 100 points in Madison Square Garden then surely they must have told them to say they're in Madison Square Garden.

[QUOTE=Donkey4trading]You're right we don't have any footage of the revilutinary war, but we do have

The treaty of Paris
The tea act
The French alliance
The US constitution

And a heap load of other evidence

Great example[/QUOTE]
If we can ignore the official score-keepers why can't we ignore treaties? It's all just pieces of paper that someone wrote on, and that's not good enough evidence for smart trolls like us.

Next level trolling on display here.:roll: :applause:

[QUOTE=jstern]This is a dumb conspiracy. If it never happened, then you would have had players and other people there claiming that it never happened, that it was planned. Out of the 4,000 people who saw it, reporters there, you would have heard somebody come forward saying that he never did score that much. (The only way that such a conspiracy would work if it was backed by the US government, with them having the authority of silencing people. And even then some people would still let others know.)

Edit: I'm listening to the CavaliersFTW audio of the game. Are the play by play guys also in on the conspiracy? If so, they mention that they're in Hershey Pennsylvanian, did they forget to tell them that they should have said Madison Square Garden? I mean, if they're in on the conspiracy of making mainstream America think that Wilt Scored 100 points in Madison Square Garden then surely they must have told them to say they're in Madison Square Garden.[/QUOTE]
the NBA had a whole bunch of 50 year anniversary specials about this just last year; but since OP is like 13 yo he doesn't remember as far back as 18 months ago..... therefore that never happened either.

Anniversary specials that never happened, celebrating something that never happened. Pretty crazy world, huh?

[QUOTE=Psileas]Last time I checked, there is no footage available from the vast majority of Wilt's and his contemporaries' games, either. So, why not apply the same (ridiculous) "theory" for the rest of his games? Just because his scoring output was more believable? Was the whole 50 ppg season a sham, just to increase the NBA's popularity?

And if it didn't happen, what did actually happen instead at that date? Show us any info that may contribute to the original post being taken even remotely seriously.[/QUOTE]

C'mon, the fact was Wilt was able to pull of the greatest sports conspiracy of all-time. The man convinced the players, coaches, sportwriters, announcers, and even the fans watching his games, to go along with his charade. The hundreds of records that he still holds...didn't happen. Even the footage that does exist, ...all of it was altered.

Even Santa Claus, himself, scoffs at these "Wilt-myths."

The credibility of everyone to ever register here is damaged by this topic.

It's really not that crazy

How do you account for Wilt miraculously shooting 28-32 from the line when he was a career 51% shooter from the free throw line.

How do you account for no game ball? A huge game like this obviously somebody would think to keep the ball..right?

Even in a recent interview Al Attles complained that everybody he talks to believes they lost he game in which Wilt scored 100, he said its one of the things that bothers him most was that so many people thought they had lost that game. Why do so many people have a different memory of what happened?

Nobody can even tell you if Wilt scored his 100th point with a dunk or a lay up.


Really, there's alot of questions here that don't have answers, 28-32 from the line due to a new shooting form, that Wilt claimed he never used after that game..coming from the same guy who claimed to have killed a mountain lion with his bare hands..

Can anybody explain how a 51% FT shooter somehow shot 28-32 from the line one game and why would be decide to never use that form again? Somebody who was as stat conscious as Wilt finds a way to increase his FT% ten fold and then decides never to use it again...

[QUOTE=Donkey4trading]It's really not that crazy

How do you account for Wilt miraculously shooting 28-32 from the line when he was a career 51% shooter from the free throw line.

How do you account for no game ball? A huge game like this obviously somebody would think to keep the ball..right?

Even in a recent interview Al Attles complained that everybody he talks to believes they lost he game in which Wilt scored 100, he said its one of the things that bothers him most was that so many people thought they had lost that game. Why do so many people have a different memory of what happened?

Nobody can even tell you if Wilt scored his 100th point with a dunk or a lay up.


Really, there's alot of questions here that don't have answers, 28-32 from the line due to a new shooting form, that Wilt claimed he never used after that game..coming from the same guy who claimed to have killed a mountain lion with his bare hands..

Can anybody explain how a 51% FT shooter somehow shot 28-32 from the line one game and why would be decide to never use that form again? Somebody who was as stat conscious as Wilt finds a way to increase his FT% ten fold and then decides never to use it again...[/QUOTE]

Chamberlain MADE 835 FTs in that 61-62 season (and shot .613 in the process), which is the second greatest season in NBA history.

Wilt changed his FT shooting technique several times over the course of his career. He actually shot FTs better in college (and his form looked much better BTW.)

Furthermore, Wilt had a range of 15+ feet, and there is college footage of him hitting jump shots from just beyond the FT stripe.

[QUOTE=Donkey4trading]It's really not that crazy

How do you account for Wilt miraculously shooting 28-32 from the line when he was a career 51% shooter from the free throw line.

How do you account for no game ball? A huge game like this obviously somebody would think to keep the ball..right?

Even in a recent interview Al Attles complained that everybody he talks to believes they lost he game in which Wilt scored 100, he said its one of the things that bothers him most was that so many people thought they had lost that game. Why do so many people have a different memory of what happened?

Nobody can even tell you if Wilt scored his 100th point with a dunk or a lay up.


Really, there's alot of questions here that don't have answers, 28-32 from the line due to a new shooting form, that Wilt claimed he never used after that game..coming from the same guy who claimed to have killed a mountain lion with his bare hands..

Can anybody explain how a 51% FT shooter somehow shot 28-32 from the line one game and why would be decide to never use that form again? Somebody who was as stat conscious as Wilt finds a way to increase his FT% ten fold and then decides never to use it again...[/QUOTE]
Misleading. Career was 51% FT. But on that particular season was 61% FT. Even Shaq had gone 13/13 and 16/18 from the FT line.

Game ball theory was dumb. Even if he "only" scored 80, that would be the highest score ever, thus would still be a big deal.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]False. Never did they ever average '50%' more possessions per game. Anytime you talk about possessions per game it has been proven time and again you straight up lie, and cannot cite any of the numbers to a reliable source. At what point are you going to acknowledge your mistakes (or should I call them lies?) Pauk?[/QUOTE]

The only one who lies here is you.. to yourself.... the very proven estimated average for NBA teams in the 60s was 125, teams like Celtics average the most with claims of up to 140....

Never have i nor you nor anybody seen a single bulletin claiming lesser or equal poss. per game / pace compared to the modern era (especially today) for any of the 60s teams.... but ALL claim more, MUCH more....

...and i have been proven wrong? I? Me? First of all, its not "me" you are proving wrong... its FACTS... ALL FACTS..... and last but not least, did i miss something? Proven wrong? Where? How? When? Show me! Oh pretty please!! I beg you!!

Would love to see if there is such proof out there, i mean... i have been searching for it my entire life! wowzers!! :eek:

Here are the so called "lies" just randomly searching on google:

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1423[/url]

[url]http://doubledribble.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/nba-stars-of-1960s-pace-adjusted-stats/[/url]

[url]http://hoops-nation.com/community/topic/73231-nba-the-pace-in-the-60s/[/url]

[url]http://hoops-nation.com/community/topic/39184-how-fast-was-the-pace-in-60s/[/url]

[url]http://bleacherreport.com/articles/441840-bill-russell-an-overrated-nba-legend[/url]

[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-03-20/sports/9403200398_1_celtics-regulars-nba-history-philadelphia-warriors[/url]

You could go on forever.........

Not to mention all the books who talk about that subject.... all say the same thing.... ALL....


SO PLEASE, SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE BEEN "PROVEN WRONG"......... BECAUSE THERE IS ---->ZERO<---- FACTS OR EVEN FANTASY CLAIMS TO WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY.........

60s averaged more poss. per game / higher pace than ANY decade in NBA history..... thats a very true fact which everybody knows i think...

...and please dont act like i am trying to discredit the 60s... the point is nothing but notifying that the league was different....... thats where everything stops.... how about you? whats your point?

[QUOTE=pauk]The only one who lies here is you.. to yourself.... the very proven estimated average for NBA teams in the 60s was 125, teams like Celtics average the most with claims of up to 140...[/QUOTE]

Where ?

I never saw that in any of those links that it states 125-140 possessions as an estimate or a fact (I don't have an account on Hoops Nation either).

Their asking you where your getting those numbers, not whether the pace was high back then or not.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]And then paid off all the spectators, coaches, teammates and opponents to lie about it too? Yeah that's much more likely than him actually just having a hot night :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

How would the spectators, coaches, teammates or opponents even know he had 100 points? There was no player scoreboard back then, there was just the team score and time remaining in the quarter.

The only ones that would know are the statkeepers. Spectating fans don't keep track of how many points Wilt scores. Coaches sure as hell don't and players are actually focused on winning the game.

It's really statkeepers word against all else here. We know statkeepers can be bought too, sometimes they're incredibly lenient, especially hometown statkeepers.

I just find it funny people take Wilt scoring 100 points as a given. Details of the actual game are scarcely documented. In conclusion, it just seems fishy to me, there's very little evidence to support it ever happening. Do you take the guy's word for it? I mean he did claim to wrestle mountain lions with his bare hands. I wouldn't say scoring 100 points in a basketball game is much more far-fetched than that.

:biggums:

[QUOTE=BallsOut]How would the spectators, coaches, teammates or opponents even know he had 100 points? There was no player scoreboard back then, there was just the team score and time remaining in the quarter.

The only ones that would know are the statkeepers. Spectating fans don't keep track of how many points Wilt scores. Coaches sure as hell don't and players are actually focused on winning the game.

It's really statkeepers word against all else here. We know statkeepers can be bought too, sometimes they're incredibly lenient, especially hometown statkeepers.

I just find it funny people take Wilt scoring 100 points as a given. Details of the actual game are scarcely documented. In conclusion, it just seems fishy to me, there's very little evidence to support it ever happening. Do you take the guy's word for it? I mean he did claim to wrestle mountain lions with his bare hands. I wouldn't say scoring 100 points in a basketball game is much more far-fetched than that.

:biggums:[/QUOTE]

Of course the radio broadcast of the actual 4th quarter exists, and in which the broadcaster is recording everyone of Wilt's baskets and point totals throughout that quarter.

And that scorekeeper just happens to be in the basketball HOF.

Why it's not that hard to believe:

[B]Philly scored 169 points.[/B]

If Wilt had scored 100 points, he'd have scored [B]59% of his team's points.[/B]

Kobe had scored 81 points, which was [B]66% of his team's points.[/B]

David Robinson had scored 71 points, which was [B]63% of his team's points.[/B]

[QUOTE=pauk]The only one who lies here is you.. to yourself.... the very proven estimated average for NBA teams in the 60s was 125, teams like Celtics average the most with claims of up to 140....

Never have i nor you nor anybody seen a single bulletin claiming lesser or equal poss. per game / pace compared to the modern era (especially today) for any of the 60s teams.... but ALL claim more, MUCH more....

...and i have been proven wrong? I? Me? First of all, its not "me" you are proving wrong... its FACTS... ALL FACTS..... and last but not least, did i miss something? Proven wrong? Where? How? When? Show me! Oh pretty please!! I beg you!!

Would love to see if there is such proof out there, i mean... i have been searching for it my entire life! wowzers!! :eek:

Here are the so called "lies" just randomly searching on google:

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1423[/url]

[url]http://doubledribble.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/nba-stars-of-1960s-pace-adjusted-stats/[/url]

[url]http://hoops-nation.com/community/topic/73231-nba-the-pace-in-the-60s/[/url]

[url]http://hoops-nation.com/community/topic/39184-how-fast-was-the-pace-in-60s/[/url]

[url]http://bleacherreport.com/articles/441840-bill-russell-an-overrated-nba-legend[/url]

[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-03-20/sports/9403200398_1_celtics-regulars-nba-history-philadelphia-warriors[/url]

You could go on forever.........

Not to mention all the books who talk about that subject.... all say the same thing.... ALL....


SO PLEASE, SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE BEEN "PROVEN WRONG"......... BECAUSE THERE IS ---->ZERO<---- FACTS OR EVEN FANTASY CLAIMS TO WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY.........

60s averaged more poss. per game / higher pace than ANY decade in NBA history..... thats a very true fact which everybody knows i think...

...and please dont act like i am trying to discredit the 60s... the point is nothing but notifying that the league was different....... thats where everything stops.... how about you? whats your point?[/QUOTE]

These 140 possessions are pure rubbish and you know it.

One more damn time...

The NBA, at it's peak, averaged 118.8 ppg, on 108 FGA and 37 FTAs per game...and in a league which had an eFG% of .426 and a FT% of .727. And, if you subtract TEAM rebounds, which were no longer added to totals after the 67-68 season, the average NBA team had about 62 rpg. THAT is all you need to know. From there you can do the math comparisons of ANY NBA season.

For example, Chamberlain's 50.4 ppg 61-62 season translates to about 40-41 ppg in 2012-2013, and to about 45-46 ppg in MJ's 86-87 season.

Another example...the NBA shot an even 75% as many FGAs in 2012-2013 as in 61-62, and rebounded at a 67% pace.

Furthermore, you HAVE to adjust for eFG%'s, or the numbers will be horribly skewed. For example, in the 61-62 season, if you adjust for the "pace" of FGA and FTAs, but do not adjust for the eFG%'s variance, the 61-62 NBA would have only averaged 86 ppg in the 2012-2013 season, and in an NBA that averaged 98 ppg.You simply can't adjust purely based on "pace" with out adjusting the eFG%.

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Where ?

I never saw that in any of those links that it states 125-140 possessions as an estimate or a fact (I don't have an account on Hoops Nation either).

Their asking you where your getting those numbers, not whether the pace was high back then or not.[/QUOTE]

Ahem:

[QUOTE]Serious question pauk: From where did you get the 140 possessions a game estimate? I've seen you cite it numerous times, but you've never provided calculations or a source. There have been [B]exactly three attempts[/B] at estimating pace in the basketball statistics community:

ElGee (6 >= 130, highest 135.9): [url]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dE5jQnJyOG50ODNCZ0hpZFZpaGhnRWc&type=view&gid=0&f=true&sortcolid=18&sortasc=false&rowsperpage=25[/url]

basketball-reference.com (5 >= 130, highest 133.3): [url]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dE5jQnJyOG50ODNCZ0hpZFZpaGhnRWc&type=view&gid=1&f=true&sortcolid=18&sortasc=false&rowsperpage=25[/url]

Dean Oliver (3>= 130, highest 132.9): [url]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dE5jQnJyOG50ODNCZ0hpZFZpaGhnRWc&type=view&gid=2&f=true&sortcolid=18&sortasc=false&rowsperpage=25[/url]

Now I don't care about Wilt, but I've seen you casually throw this 140 number around enough that I had to intervene. If you have calculations/a valid source with specific mentions of 140+ possessions then please provide it, otherwise stop spreading misinformation. Not everybody will put the work in to investigate, and might take that post as fact.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=fpliii]Ahem:[/QUOTE]

good ol' pawk, doing anything and everything he can to belittle past greats, even stooping to making up false numbers, so his boy looks better

Enters thread about Wilt

Sees Pauk and 3 of his account promoting Lebron propaganda.

Leaves

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]These 140 possessions are pure rubbish and you know it.

One more damn time...

The NBA, at it's peak, averaged 118.8 ppg, on 108 FGA and 37 FTAs per game...and in a league which had an eFG% of .426 and a FT% of .727. And, if you subtract TEAM rebounds, which were no longer added to totals after the 67-68 season, the average NBA team had about 62 rpg. THAT is all you need to know. From there you can do the math comparisons of ANY NBA season.

For example, Chamberlain's 50.4 ppg 61-62 season translates to about 40-41 ppg in 2012-2013, and to about 45-46 ppg in MJ's 86-87 season.

Another example...the NBA shot an even 75% as many FGAs in 2012-2013 as in 61-62, and rebounded at a 67% pace.

Furthermore, you HAVE to adjust for eFG%'s, or the numbers will be horribly skewed. For example, in the 61-62 season, if you adjust for the "pace" of FGA and FTAs, but do not adjust for the eFG%'s variance, the 61-62 NBA would have only averaged 86 ppg in the 2012-2013 season, and in an NBA that averaged 98 ppg.You simply can't adjust purely based on "pace" with out adjusting the eFG%.[/QUOTE]
Wilt would translate into Dwight Howard. So think 20/13-22/14 numbers.

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Wilt would translate into Dwight Howard. So think 20/13-22/14 numbers.[/QUOTE]

Based on which Chamberlain season?

His 61-62 numbers, based on pure mathematical reasoning, translate into a 40-41 ppg, and over 17 rpg season in 2012-2013.

Here again, the NBA averaged 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs, as well as 62 rpg per team in the 61-62 season.

The 2012-2013 NBA averaged 82 FGAs, 22 FTAs, and 42 rpg.

82/108=75.9% x 39.5 FGA= 30 FGA

22/37=59.4% x 17 FTA=10 FTA

Then, the 61-62 NBA had an eFG% of .426, while the 2012-2013 had an eFG% of .496.


So, a 61-62 Wilt would have taken 30 FGAs per game in 2012-2013. He had an eFG% of .506 in 61-62, BUT, you HAVE to adjust his eFG% to 2012-2013 levels. .496/.426= 1.164 x .506 = .589.

30 FGAs x .589 = 17.7 FGM, or 35.4 ppg just on his FGA.

He shot .613 from the line in 61-62. 10 x .613 = 6.1 FTM per game.

35.4 + 6.1 = 41.5 ppg.


He averaged 25.6 rpg in an NBA that averaged 62 rpg. 42/62= .6774 x 25.6 rpg = 17.3 rpg.

Now, you can argue that a 61-62 Wilt would not be playing 48.5 mpg in the 2012-2013 season, BUT, it was not a fluke that he did so in 61-62. He had three other seasons of 47+ mpg, and averaged 45.8 mpg over his regular season career. And, on top of that, he averaged 47.2 mpg in his 160 post-season career.

Furthermore, if you were reduce Wilt's playing time, you would HAVE to raise his efficiencies (e.g, eFG% and TRB%.) So, while his numbers would drop with less playing time, his efficiencies would surely rise.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Based on which Chamberlain season?

His 61-62 numbers, based on pure mathematical reasoning, translate into a 40-41 ppg, and over 17 rpg season in 2012-2013.

Here again, the NBA averaged 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs, as well as 62 rpg per team in the 61-62 season.

The 2012-2013 NBA averaged 82 FGAs, 22 FTAs, and 42 rpg.

82/108=75.9% x 39.5 FGA= 30 FGA

22/37=59.4% x 17 FTA=10 FTA

Then, the 61-62 NBA had an eFG% of .426, while the 2012-2013 had an eFG% of .496.


So, a 61-62 Wilt would have taken 30 FGAs per game in 2012-2013. He had an eFG% of .506 in 61-62, BUT, you HAVE to adjust his eFG% to 2012-2013 levels. .496/.426= 1.164 x .506 = .589.

30 FGAs x .589 = 17.7 FGM, or 35.4 ppg just on his FGA.

He shot .613 from the line in 61-62. 10 x .613 = 6.1 FTM per game.

35.4 + 6.1 = 41.5 ppg.


He averaged 25.6 rpg in an NBA that averaged 62 rpg. 42/62= .6774 x 25.6 rpg = 17.3 rpg.

Now, you can argue that a 61-62 Wilt would not be playing 48.5 mpg in the 2012-2013 season, BUT, it was not a fluke that he did so in 61-62. He had three other seasons of 47+ mpg, and averaged 45.8 mpg over his regular season career. And, on top of that, he averaged 47.2 mpg in his 160 post-season career.

Furthermore, if you were reduce Wilt's playing time, you would HAVE to raise his efficiencies (e.g, eFG% and TRB%.) So, while his numbers would drop with less playing time, his efficiencies would surely rise.[/QUOTE]
Holy shyt GOATberlain even by 'paceologist' standards drops a 41ppg 17rpg season in the modern era :bowdown:

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Based on which Chamberlain season?

His 61-62 numbers, based on pure mathematical reasoning, translate into a 40-41 ppg, and over 17 rpg season in 2012-2013.

Here again, the NBA averaged 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs, as well as 62 rpg per team in the 61-62 season.

The 2012-2013 NBA averaged 82 FGAs, 22 FTAs, and 42 rpg.

82/108=75.9% x 39.5 FGA= 30 FGA

22/37=59.4% x 17 FTA=10 FTA

Then, the 61-62 NBA had an eFG% of .426, while the 2012-2013 had an eFG% of .496.


So, a 61-62 Wilt would have taken 30 FGAs per game in 2012-2013. He had an eFG% of .506 in 61-62, BUT, you HAVE to adjust his eFG% to 2012-2013 levels. .496/.426= 1.164 x .506 = .589.

30 FGAs x .589 = 17.7 FGM, or 35.4 ppg just on his FGA.

He shot .613 from the line in 61-62. 10 x .613 = 6.1 FTM per game.

35.4 + 6.1 = 41.5 ppg.


He averaged 25.6 rpg in an NBA that averaged 62 rpg. 42/62= .6774 x 25.6 rpg = 17.3 rpg.

Now, you can argue that a 61-62 Wilt would not be playing 48.5 mpg in the 2012-2013 season, BUT, it was not a fluke that he did so in 61-62. He had three other seasons of 47+ mpg, and averaged 45.8 mpg over his regular season career. And, on top of that, he averaged 47.2 mpg in his 160 post-season career.

Furthermore, if you were reduce Wilt's playing time, you would HAVE to raise his efficiencies (e.g, eFG% and TRB%.) So, while his numbers would drop with less playing time, his efficiencies would surely rise.[/QUOTE]
Based on factoring in competition. The league got a whole lot better from 61-62 to now.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Based on which Chamberlain season?

His 61-62 numbers, based on pure mathematical reasoning, translate into a 40-41 ppg, and over 17 rpg season in 2012-2013.

Here again, the NBA averaged 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs, as well as 62 rpg per team in the 61-62 season.

The 2012-2013 NBA averaged 82 FGAs, 22 FTAs, and 42 rpg.

82/108=75.9% x 39.5 FGA= 30 FGA

22/37=59.4% x 17 FTA=10 FTA

Then, the 61-62 NBA had an eFG% of .426, while the 2012-2013 had an eFG% of .496.


So, a 61-62 Wilt would have taken 30 FGAs per game in 2012-2013. He had an eFG% of .506 in 61-62, BUT, you HAVE to adjust his eFG% to 2012-2013 levels. .496/.426= 1.164 x .506 = .589.

30 FGAs x .589 = 17.7 FGM, or 35.4 ppg just on his FGA.

He shot .613 from the line in 61-62. 10 x .613 = 6.1 FTM per game.

35.4 + 6.1 = 41.5 ppg.


He averaged 25.6 rpg in an NBA that averaged 62 rpg. 42/62= .6774 x 25.6 rpg = 17.3 rpg.

Now, you can argue that a 61-62 Wilt would not be playing 48.5 mpg in the 2012-2013 season, BUT, it was not a fluke that he did so in 61-62. He had three other seasons of 47+ mpg, and averaged 45.8 mpg over his regular season career. And, on top of that, he averaged 47.2 mpg in his 160 post-season career.

Furthermore, if you were reduce Wilt's playing time, you would HAVE to raise his efficiencies (e.g, eFG% and TRB%.) So, while his numbers would drop with less playing time, his efficiencies would surely rise.[/QUOTE]



No way in hell does any big man average 30 FGA per fame in today's game.

Especially a big man who's point come from banging down low.


I agree that Wilt would be a dominate player today but I can't fathom him taking 30 FGA per game especially if surrounded by a few good teammates.

Even Kobe in 06 didn't take that many shots per game. And Kobe was a perimeter player.

Wilts shots came from the paint, no team is goin to dump it down to him enough times for him to take 30 shots per game

[QUOTE=TheMarkMadsen]No way in hell does any big man average 30 FGA per fame in today's game.

Especially a big man who's point come from banging down low.


I agree that Wilt would be a dominate player today but I can't fathom him taking 30 FGA per game especially if surrounded by a few good teammates.

Even Kobe in 06 didn't take that many shots per game. And Kobe was a perimeter player.

Wilts shots came from the paint, no team is goin to dump it down to him enough times for him to take 30 shots per game[/QUOTE]
If that big man is Wilt, he absolutely would be fed for 30 shots a game, any previously below .500 team that acquires or drafts Wilt that DOESN'T feed him for 30 shot attempts a game would have their coach fired. This is Wilt Chamberlain we're talking about, way way way above and beyond any offensive force you've ever seen play. By reputation alone a coach would TELL his players to feed him the ball and move out the way.

[QUOTE=9erempiree]Till this day we won't know but I consider Kobe's 81 point game the record for modern day basketball.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://i1253.photobucket.com/albums/hh600/Rodman2124/kobeclutch.gif[/IMG]

Some of these posts are way too precious... :oldlol:

[QUOTE=BallsOut]How would the spectators, coaches, teammates or opponents even know he had 100 points? There was no player scoreboard back then, there was just the team score and time remaining in the quarter.

The only ones that would know are the statkeepers. Spectating fans don't keep track of how many points Wilt scores. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, I mean, Wilt might only have 50-60 points by the end of the game, but somehow every single spectator, player, coach, etc in the building would not be able to notice the difference between 60 and 100.


[QUOTE] Coaches sure as hell don't and players are actually focused on winning the game.

It's really statkeepers word against all else here. We know statkeepers can be bought too, sometimes they're incredibly lenient, especially hometown statkeepers.[/QUOTE]

Again, how the heck is anyone able NOT to realize the difference between 100 and a much lower figure? Say Wilt scored "only" 60. Meaning all his other teammates were stripped by 40 pts. How come no other teammate complained about his points? You're naive if you think that at least most players don't know at least approximately how much they've scored. You think Arizin wouldn't have realized it if he had scored 26 points and was given credit for 16? Or Joe Ruklick if he had scored 2 or 4 points and was given credit for none?

Statkeepers VERY rarely will commit any mistake in [B]scoring [/B]crediting. In stats like rebounding or shot blocking, yes, in some rare occasions. Scoring? I don't remember having seen such a gaffe at least in recent years, let alone multiple blunders in the same game.
And, while we are at it, how do we know that Wilt scored [B]only [/B]100 points? What if he scored 110-120 and statkeepers for some reason (e.g, to make him try even harder to score) tried to keep his totals down?

[QUOTE]I just find it funny people take Wilt scoring 100 points as a given. Details of the actual game are scarcely documented. In conclusion, it just seems fishy to me, there's very little evidence to support it ever happening. Do you take the guy's word for it? I mean he did claim to wrestle mountain lions with his bare hands. I wouldn't say scoring 100 points in a basketball game is much more far-fetched than that.

:biggums:[/QUOTE]

Yes, a zillion newspapers recorded or mentioned it, statkeepers recorded it, Harvey Pollack recorded it, 4,124 fans saw it, there's audio from Q4, there's a whole book written about it, every player present in that game has offered details from that game alone, including players from the Knicks (what would be their motive?), but if Wilt hasn't fought a mountain lion, this can't be any truer...Brilliant. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=TheMarkMadsen]No way in hell does any big man average 30 FGA per fame in today's game.

Especially a big man who's point come from banging down low.


I agree that Wilt would be a dominate player today but I can't fathom him taking 30 FGA per game especially if surrounded by a few good teammates.

Even Kobe in 06 didn't take that many shots per game. And Kobe was a perimeter player.

Wilts shots came from the paint, no team is goin to dump it down to him enough times for him to take 30 shots per game[/QUOTE]

Kobe, playing 41 mpg, averaged over 27 FGAs on a weak team in '06, and in a league that averaged 80 FGAs per team.

And Wilt in '62 was not just shooting inside shots. He came into the league with a range of up to 15 ft, and was taking turn-around bank shots from 12 feet.

Put a '62 Wilt on a similar crappy roster in '13, and he likely would lead the league in shot attempts. The fact that we haven't seen big men do it in the last few seasons is more of a reflection on the inept big men playing the game, than the defenses they are facing.

And as recently as the '01 Finals, Shaq averaged 26 FGAs and 15 FTAs in the the six game Finals against the Pacers, en route to a 38 ppg average. And a few years before that, Hakeem averaged 29.5 FGAs, on a team that averaged a total of 78 FGAs, against Shaq in the '95 Finals. So clearly, it was possible.

In any case, I get tired of posters attempting to use "pace" against Wilt, and coming up with ludicrous numbers like he would be a 22-14 guy. Even adjusting for "pace" Wilt's 61-62 was the greatest scoring season in NBA history.

And based on a simple math, Wilt's 61-62 season translates to a 41 ppg, 17 rpg, .590 FG% season in 12-13.

The rest would be pure speculation. BUT, we have THE "bridge" in Kareem to make cross-era comparisons. KAJ played four years IN the Chamberlain-era, and didn't come close to the huge numbers that a prime Chamberlain leveled against many of the same centers that the two faced. And we know a 39 year old KAJ was capable of 46 point games, on 70% shooting, and in only 37 minutes, against a young Hakeem. And a peak Hakeem battled a young Shaq to a near-draw in the '95 Finals. Based on Shaq being the most dominant player in the league in the early 00's, and you can draw your own conclusions as to how a peak Chamberlain would fare in today's NBA.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Some of these posts are way too precious... :oldlol:



Yeah, I mean, Wilt might only have 50-60 points by the end of the game, but somehow every single spectator, player, coach, etc in the building would not be able to notice the difference between 60 and 100.




Again, how the heck is anyone able NOT to realize the difference between 100 and a much lower figure? Say Wilt scored "only" 60. Meaning all his other teammates were stripped by 40 pts. How come no other teammate complained about his points? You're naive if you think that at least most players don't know at least approximately how much they've scored. You think Arizin wouldn't have realized it if he had scored 26 points and was given credit for 16? Or Joe Ruklick if he had scored 2 or 4 points and was given credit for none?

Statkeepers VERY rarely will commit any mistake in [B]scoring [/B]crediting. In stats like rebounding or shot blocking, yes, in some rare occasions. Scoring? I don't remember having seen such a gaffe at least in recent years, let alone multiple blunders in the same game.
[B]And, while we are at it, how do we know that Wilt scored [B]only [/B]100 points? What if he scored 110-120 and statkeepers for some reason (e.g, to make him try even harder to score) tried to keep his totals down?[/B]



Yes, a zillion newspapers recorded or mentioned it, statkeepers recorded it, Harvey Pollack recorded it, 4,124 fans saw it, there's audio from Q4, there's a whole book written about it, every player present in that game has offered details from that game alone, including players from the Knicks (what would be their motive?), but if Wilt hasn't fought a mountain lion, this can't be any truer...Brilliant. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Excellent point. IF the scorekeepers were capable of altering scoring, how come no one claims that Wilt might have had 120 points in that game?

In any case, the game's score was kept on a SCOREBOARD, for all to see. The "Wilt-bashers" would have you believe that they were using chalk on a blackboard.

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Based on factoring in competition. The league got a whole lot better from 61-62 to now.[/QUOTE]

Chamberlain averaged 39.6 ppg against Russell in ten games that season. And how about against the 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy? Only 52.7 ppg in ten games. BTW, Wilt averaged 38 ppg against Russell in nine h2hs, and 43.7 ppg in ten h2h's against Bellamy the very next season.

Dunno why people use FGA to count pace when you are looking at a league with much higher rebounding and much lower FG%. Makes you think a good portion of them were probably offensive rebounding put back attempts.

-Smak

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]
The rest would be pure speculation. BUT, we have THE "bridge" in Kareem to make cross-era comparisons. KAJ played four years IN the Chamberlain-era, and didn't come close to the huge numbers that a prime Chamberlain leveled against many of the same centers that the two faced. And we know a 39 year old KAJ was capable of 46 point games, on 70% shooting, and in only 37 minutes, against a young Hakeem. And a peak Hakeem battled a young Shaq to a near-draw in the '95 Finals. Based on Shaq being the most dominant player in the league in the early 00's, and you can draw your own conclusions as to how a peak Chamberlain would fare in today's NBA.[/QUOTE]
Bridge theory doesn't really work because it pick and choose games that serves its purpose.

Wilt himself just two seasons later wasn't able to match his great production from '61-'62. Was he declining so rapidly at the age of 28? Did he not face the same centers?

In the same season that KAJ scored 46 points on young Hakeem, he could only scored 13 points against a rapidly declining Mychall Thompson. Thus I could say KAJ couldn't even score against a "scrub" and that 46 pt game was a fluke.

[QUOTE=ILLsmak]Dunno why people use FGA to count pace when you are looking at a league with much higher rebounding and much lower FG%. Makes you think a good portion of them were probably offensive rebounding put back attempts.

-Smak[/QUOTE]

Tell me then why KAJ had four seasons, in his prime, when he shot .539, .529, .518, and even .513. And yet, in the 80's he was shooting .604, and even .599 at age 37.

Or that the entire NBA, as a whole, jumped significantly in the 80's. And CENTERS, like Gilmore and KAJ had massive increases. And then CENTERS like Hakeem, who had his highest FG% season in his ROOKIE season (in '85), or CENTERS like Ewing and Robinson having their best FG% seasons early in their careers, in the late 80's, and early 90's, and then dropping significantly.

Did the CENTERS of the early to late 60's learn to shoot DRAMATICALLY better in the late 60's? Did the best CENTERS of the 70's learn to shoot better in the 80's, and even past their primes? And did the best CENTERS that played in the 80's and 90's, suddenly forget how to shoot as they entered the 90's?

You simply have to factor in ERA shooting. Players actually shot FTs better in the late 50's than they did just last season, and yet, their FG%s were way lower. Wilt shot .461 in his rookie season. By the mid-60's he was shooting .683. Take a look at Darrall Imhoff. Had multiple seasons of .314 to ,386 early in his career, and by the late 60's, was shooting .540. Look up Johnny Green. The man was struggling in the .430's in the early 60's, and leading the NBA at .587 in the 70's. Jerry West, with the same perfect jump-shot form was shooting .419 and .445 in the early 60's, and then as high as .514 in the late 60's. Why?

There were many factors. Balls that were not uniform; venues that were cold, and even breezy; players logging more minutes, and playing with injuries; and most importantly, much more condensed schedules. Take a look at the 2011-2012 season. In the first half of that strike season, in which the schedule was condensed, teams were scoring 96 ppg on as low as .443 FG%. As the schedule became more normalized, scoring and shooting went up.

And it's not just basketball. Do you think the "Steroid Era" players would have been hitting 60-70 HRs in the "Dead Ball era?" (or in the WWII era?) And has pitching suddenly improved since the advent of drug testing, or was there something else at play?

How about passing in the early 70's? Do you think today's QBs, playing with the same set of rules that the teams of the early 70's to late 70's had, would be putting up 5000 yard passing seasons?

If you are going to use "pace" against the greats of the 60's, then you HAVE to adjust for league-wide shooting. BTW, Oscar was scoring 30 ppg on as few as 22 FGAs per game in the 60's. Does that mean that he would only be capable of 16 FGAs in the current NBA? BUT, yet MJ and Kobe could take 27-28?

[QUOTE=iamgine]Bridge theory doesn't really work because it pick and choose games that serves its purpose.

Wilt himself just two seasons later wasn't able to match his great production from '61-'62. Was he declining so rapidly at the age of 28? Did he not face the same centers?

In the same season that KAJ scored 46 points on young Hakeem, he could only scored 13 points against a rapidly declining Mychall Thompson. [B]Thus I could say KAJ couldn't even score against a "scrub" and that 46 pt game was a fluke[/B].[/QUOTE]

In his first TEN STRAIGHT games against Hakeem, Kareem AVERAGED 32 ppg on, get this... a .621 FG%. This from a 38-39 year old Kareem. BTW, he had THREE games of 40+ against Hakeem. AND, in the same week that he plastered Hakeem with a 46 point game (again, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes), he hammered Ewing with a 40 point game, on 15-22 shooting, all while holding ewing to 9 points on 3-17 shooting. Again, from a 39 year old KAJ.

Lazeruss has been flat out destroying the opposition with facts today :applause:

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]In his first TEN STRAIGHT games against Hakeem, Kareem AVERAGED 32 ppg on, get this... a .621 FG%. This from a 38-39 year old Kareem. BTW, he had THREE games of 40+ against Hakeem. AND, in the same week that he plastered Hakeem with a 46 point game (again, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes), he hammered Ewing with a 40 point game, on 15-22 shooting, all while holding ewing to 9 points on 3-17 shooting. Again, from a 39 year old KAJ.[/QUOTE]
That's funny cause against Mychall Thompson, Prime KAJ was only able to average 23 ppg.

Mychall actually scored 38 points against Prime KAJ, the biggest out of their matchups.

Mychall must be better than Hakeem eh?

[QUOTE=iamgine]That's funny cause against Mychall Thompson, Prime KAJ was only able to average 23 ppg.

Mychall actually scored 38 points against Prime KAJ, the biggest out of their matchups.

Mychall must be better than Hakeem eh?[/QUOTE]

A 38-41 year old KAJ outscored Hakeem in their 23 career h2h's, and outshot him by a .607 to .512 margin.

A 39-41 year old KAJ outscored Ewing in their 8 career h2h's, and outshot him by a .581 to .446 margin.


BTW, Thompson NEVER faced a PRIME KAJ. But, in their five game 82-83 playoff matchup, a 35 year old KAJ averaged 30.8 ppg on a .621 FG% against him...all while holding Thompson to a 13.4 ppg .472 FG% series.

BUT, both Chamberlain and Thurmond did. In 28 career H2H's against Wilt, a PRIME Kareem shot .464. And in 50 career H2H's against Nate, he shot a very educated estimated FG% of .440.

And, if you want domination, Moses badly outplayed KAJ in their 40 career H2H's. Of course, he faced KAJ from '77-78 on. A prime KAJ was playing in the early 70's.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]A 38-41 year old KAJ outscored Hakeem in their 23 career h2h's, and outshot him by a .607 to .512 margin.

A 39-41 year old KAJ outscored Ewing in their 8 career h2h's, and outshot him by a .581 to .446 margin.


BTW, Thompson NEVER faced a PRIME KAJ.

BUT, both Chamberlain and Thurmond did. In 28 career H2H's against Wilt, a PRIME Kareem shot .464. And in 50 career H2H's against Nate, he shot a very educated estimated FG% of .440.

And, if you want domination, Moses badly outplayed KAJ in their 40 career H2H's. Of course, he faced KAJ from '77-78 on. A prime KAJ was playing in the early 70's.[/QUOTE]
Again with the pick and choose. That is the problem with bridge theory. Fact is:

Against Mychall Thompson, Prime KAJ was only able to average a very educated estimated 23 ppg.

Mychall actually scored a very educated estimated 38 points against Prime KAJ, the biggest out of their matchups.

This is the stupidest ****ing topic ever on this board and that's saying a lot.