Did Wilts "100 point game" actually happen?

[QUOTE=iamgine]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.[/QUOTE]

Or that KAJ in their first 11 games, at ages 30-34, averaged 27.4 ppg against Thompson. Or that we don't have their known FG% numbers in their first 15 games, but that from their 16th game to their 39th game, KAJ shot .554 from the field. And once again, in their entire ten game post-season h2h's, KAJ averaged 25.9 ppg on a .568 FG%. BUT, in their 82-83 playoff series, covering five games, Kareem averaged 31 ppg on a .621 FG%.

Of course, and once again, Mychal Thompson NEVER faced a PRIME KAJ, either (an early to mid-70's Kareem.) In those seasons in which Kareem was averaging 30-35 ppg.

[QUOTE=iamgine]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.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. The only versions of prime/close to prime Kareem (up to 1981) averaged 26.9 ppg against Thomspon, without even feeling the need to prove anything against him, like he did against Hakeem.

BTW, for others, this scoring "inconsistency" is called stepping up to competition, but now it's called "problem with the bridge theory". How about this inconsistency?

[QUOTE=Psileas]Wrong. The only versions of prime/close to prime Kareem (up to 1981) averaged 26.9 ppg against Thomspon, without even feeling the need to prove anything against him, like he did against Hakeem.

BTW, for others, this scoring "inconsistency" is called stepping up to competition, but now it's called "problem with the bridge theory". How about this inconsistency?[/QUOTE]
The bridge theory is absurd. To take a 39 yrs old Kareem and pick and choose games against a very young Hakeem and call it the "bridge". How about the style these teams play? How about having the GOAT PG on the team? How about the fact that despite nowhere near his prime, Hakeem killed the Lakers in the playoff?

Also in the same note to take Wilt vs a very young Kareem. And then bashing him for never averaging Wilt's peak numbers. How absurd.

[QUOTE=iamgine]The bridge theory is absurd. To take a 39 yrs old Kareem and pick and choose games against a very young Hakeem and call it the "bridge". How about the style these teams play? How about having the GOAT PG on the team? How about the fact that despite nowhere near his prime, Hakeem killed the Lakers in the playoff?

Also in the same note to take Wilt vs a very young Kareem. And then bashing him for never averaging Wilt's peak numbers. How absurd.[/QUOTE]
What's absurd is the idea that any sort of 'era' boundaries exist. At no point did any different generation of players suddenly become irrelevant or inferior, there are new rookies every season, and new rule changes every couple of seasons throughout NBA history and at no point did any rookies or rule changes ever make any veterans seem like a suddenly outdated mold of basketball player.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]What's absurd is the idea that any sort of 'era' boundaries exist. At no point did any different generation of players suddenly become irrelevant or inferior, there are new rookies every season, and new rule changes every couple of seasons throughout NBA history and at no point did any rookies or rule changes ever make any veterans seem like a suddenly outdated mold of basketball player.[/QUOTE]
If that's true, then we'd agree that George Mikan was just as good as Dwight Howard.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]What's absurd is the idea that any sort of 'era' boundaries exist. At no point did any different generation of players suddenly become irrelevant or inferior, there are new rookies every season, and new rule changes every couple of seasons throughout NBA history and at no point did any rookies or rule changes ever make any veterans seem like a suddenly outdated mold of basketball player.[/QUOTE]

I'd agree, except for the introduction of the shot clock. Totally changed the game, and forced a lot of great players who couldn't adapt out of the league. From 54-55 to the present there's a great deal of continuity.

[QUOTE=iamgine]If that's true, then we'd agree that George Mikan was just as good as Dwight Howard.[/QUOTE]
If Mikan was given different rules and shown the different ways to capitalize on them the way the game is played tody, who's to say he couldn't? The guy was 245-280lbs and 6-10 (very likely a w/o shoes measurement) in an era where everybody (including himself) did not lift weights, he was physically very massive and strong, and had the natural stamina and coordination not to mention competitive drive at that size to not only play NBA basketball - but to be the very best in the world at it at the time he was playing.

[IMG]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-QfX6baLFFEo/UlTFlxAuISI/AAAAAAAAEu0/lu03u4Mdr1c/s800/Bob-Kurland%252C-Wilt%252C-MikanV%2520%25281%2529.jpg[/IMG]

He had the competitive mindset to outright destroy opponents - he took dance lessons off the court to improve his coordination - basically he'd try anything and do anything to win. He has that very special raw ingredient to be a dominant big man - and I'm not just talking about his physical tools which are there I'm talking about the single most important component of all, the muscle between his ears.

If Brook Lopez can be the #1 scoring big man in the NBA last season, a guy who can't rebound a lick and is about as coordinated as Herman Munster, than I'm pretty sure Mikan could comfortably adjust to a slightly different version of the game he once dominated.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]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]
Wilt would be nowhere as good as players like Kobe or Shaq in this era, so no team would give him 30 FGAs. His best bet is being Dwight Howard type player in the modern era.

[QUOTE=iamgine]The bridge theory is absurd. To take a 39 yrs old Kareem and pick and choose games against a very young Hakeem and call it the "bridge". How about the style these teams play? How about having the GOAT PG on the team? How about the fact that despite nowhere near his prime, Hakeem killed the Lakers in the playoff?

Also in the same note to take Wilt vs a very young Kareem. And then bashing him for never averaging Wilt's peak numbers. How absurd.[/QUOTE]

"The bridge"-theory is nothing but utter bogus and Lazeruss (Jlauber) is a clown for even using it and it gets even worse when he only cherry picks games.

Like he'll say that rookie and 2nd year pro Olajuwon got [B]destroyed [/B]by Kareem and therefor the bridge is so valid. But it's funny, [B]he will not tell you that the 2nd year pro absolutely destroyed the Lakers and Kareem in his 2nd pro season during the Rockets playoff run.[/B] The same playoff-run where Olajuwon outplayed Kareem big time in the playoffs as a 2nd year pro.

And to understand what kind of clown Lazeruss is you need to know this. In '72 Wilt and Kareem faced each other both during the regular season and the playoffs and before getting totally destroyed he used to claim that Wilt "murdered" Kareem that year.

[B]Then of course it was nothing but fiction. Kareem averaged 40 points on 50% shooting against Wilt in the regular season and in the playoffs he outscored Wilt with 23 points.. [U]PER GAME[/U].[/B]

81 is the measuring bar
in godbe we trust

[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%. [B]Makes you think a good portion of them were probably offensive rebounding put back attempts.[/B]

-Smak[/QUOTE]
I don't think this portion was discussed properly. Basically all that can be said about it is... good point.

That being said, I appreciate the time and effort that the pace calculations took, but I doubt there is such a direct relationship. As an estimate, they're fine. But then we need to consider the differences in athleticism in the league today, and while that's not quantifiable, we can assume that the increased focus on athleticism today would bring the numbers down slightly (and I mean slightly).
Not to say that Wilt would not be able to keep up athletically, but I think we've all played pick-up with someone more skilled than we are, but not nearly as athletic... and a semi-skilled athletic player typically beats a skilled semi-athletic player... or at least the more athletic player makes it much more difficult than the difference in skills would suggest.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]If Mikan was given different rules and shown the different ways to capitalize on them the way the game is played tody, who's to say he couldn't? The guy was 245-280lbs and 6-10 (very likely a w/o shoes measurement) in an era where everybody (including himself) did not lift weights, he was physically very massive and strong, and had the natural stamina and coordination not to mention competitive drive at that size to not only play NBA basketball - but to be the very best in the world at it at the time he was playing.

He had the competitive mindset to outright destroy opponents - he took dance lessons off the court to improve his coordination - basically he'd try anything and do anything to win. He has that very special raw ingredient to be a dominant big man - and I'm not just talking about his physical tools which are there I'm talking about the single most important component of all, the muscle between his ears.

If Brook Lopez can be the #1 scoring big man in the NBA last season, a guy who can't rebound a lick and is about as coordinated as Herman Munster, than I'm pretty sure Mikan could comfortably adjust to a slightly different version of the game he once dominated.[/QUOTE]
He had the size but cmon now. You're basically describing Luke Walton.

[QUOTE=iamgine]The bridge theory is absurd. To take a 39 yrs old Kareem and pick and choose games against a very young Hakeem and call it the "bridge". How about the style these teams play? How about having the GOAT PG on the team? How about the fact that despite nowhere near his prime, Hakeem killed the Lakers in the playoff?

Also in the same note to take Wilt vs a very young Kareem. And then bashing him for never averaging Wilt's peak numbers. How absurd.[/QUOTE]

This thoery, that I had mentioned before Lauber had (though I hadn't given it a name), takes into account a respectably large sample of games, it's not choosing the best from one side and the worst from the other. The objective isn't to compare players from across eras by comparing the performance of a common opponent against them, rather than show that this player had been great (or not) during different eras and, consequently, that the division of the league's history into separate eras of different levels is wrong. The closest we've seen to an era change happened when the shot clock arrived and even then, there've seen voteran players who adapted fine.
The rest of your comment on Kareem vs Hakeem may not be an effort to discredit 80's Kareem, but it sure looks like it: He'd been playing with Magic during the whole 80's, so whatever advantages he enjoyed against any other opponent, he did against Hakeem. It's just that vs Hakeem, he was more motivated to perform at a high level and asked more for the ball. This would never happen if they knew that Kareem couldn't pull it off against Hakeem/Sampson. But it was common knowledge among them that Kareem had been great in all "eras" he'd played, so they trusted him. In defense, not at the same degree, which is why they tried to strengthen their frontline in the late 80's. After all, we all know today that Kareem's defense and rebounding suffered more than his offense as he grew older. But he still performed great.

[QUOTE=Psileas]This thoery, that I had mentioned before Lauber had (though I hadn't given it a name), takes into account a respectably large sample of games, it's not choosing the best from one side and the worst from the other. The objective isn't to compare players from across eras by comparing the performance of a common opponent against them, rather than show that this player had been great (or not) during different eras and, consequently, that the division of the league's history into separate eras of different levels is wrong. The closest we've seen to an era change happened when the shot clock arrived and even then, there've seen voteran players who adapted fine.
The rest of your comment on Kareem vs Hakeem may not be an effort to discredit 80's Kareem, but it sure looks like it: He'd been playing with Magic during the whole 80's, so whatever advantages he enjoyed against any other opponent, he did against Hakeem. It's just that vs Hakeem, he was more motivated to perform at a high level and asked more for the ball. This would never happen if they knew that Kareem couldn't pull it off against Hakeem/Sampson. But it was common knowledge among them that Kareem had been great in all "eras" he'd played, so they trusted him. In defense, not at the same degree, which is why they tried to strengthen their frontline in the late 80's. After all, we all know today that Kareem's defense and rebounding suffered more than his offense as he grew older. But he still performed great.[/QUOTE]
I guess what I'm saying is it's absurd because here we are taking a 39 years old man, far far removed from his prime in a very stacked team with the GOAT PG. Against a sophomore player, also very far from his prime. And somehow the result of their matchup determine...something.

[QUOTE=iamgine]I guess what I'm saying is it's absurd because here we are taking a 39 years old man, far far removed from his prime in a very stacked team with the GOAT PG. Against a sophomore player, also very far from his prime. And somehow the result of their matchup determine...something.[/QUOTE]
How do you address the Ewing situation then.. As far as him being a sophomore player, Hakeem was a very good defensive player right off the bat, like Ewing. His offensive moves weren't as polished then.

[IMG]http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tin-foil-hat.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Pointguard]How do you address the Ewing situation then.. As far as him being a sophomore player, Hakeem was a very good defensive player right off the bat, like Ewing. His offensive moves weren't as polished then.[/QUOTE]
ewing situation :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Psileas]This thoery, that I had mentioned before Lauber had (though I hadn't given it a name), takes into account a respectably large sample of games, it's not choosing the best from one side and the worst from the other. The objective isn't to compare players from across eras by comparing the performance of a common opponent against them, rather than show that this player had been great (or not) during different eras and, consequently, that the division of the league's history into separate eras of different levels is wrong. The closest we've seen to an era change happened when the shot clock arrived and even then, there've seen voteran players who adapted fine.
The rest of your comment on Kareem vs Hakeem may not be an effort to discredit 80's Kareem, but it sure looks like it: He'd been playing with Magic during the whole 80's, so whatever advantages he enjoyed against any other opponent, he did against Hakeem. It's just that vs Hakeem, he was more motivated to perform at a high level and asked more for the ball. This would never happen if they knew that Kareem couldn't pull it off against Hakeem/Sampson. But it was common knowledge among them that Kareem had been great in all "eras" he'd played, so they trusted him. In defense, not at the same degree, which is why they tried to strengthen their frontline in the late 80's. After all, we all know today that Kareem's defense and rebounding suffered more than his offense as he grew older. But he still performed great.[/QUOTE]
I think the "bridge theory" can be explained in one word. RIVALRY. Because the flip side is those great games the older players had vs the younger incumbent didnt happen on a nightly basis vs the avg centers. Not to mention the fact that the younger players were inexperienced. Basically neither of the players mentioned were in their prime. How did Jabaar fair vs the rest of the league?

Saying that, any reasonable person kniw Chamberlain would be just as dominant now as he was back then. Not at the same statistical level of the 60s, but definitely dominant.

The math Lazurus did was interesting. But not totally on the up and up. Wilt wouldn't play 48 minutes on a nightly basis now. The avg super star plays 38-40 minutes per night. Thats basically a quarter.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I think the "bridge theory" can be explained in one word. RIVALRY. Because the flip side is those great games the older players had vs the younger incumbent didnt happen on a nightly basis vs the avg centers. Not to mention the fact that the younger players were inexperienced. Basically neither of the players mentioned were in their prime. How did Jabaar fair vs the rest of the league?

Saying that, any reasonable person kniw Chamberlain would be just as dominant now as he was back then. Not at the same statistical level of the 60s, but definitely dominant.

The math Lazurus did was interesting. But not totally on the up and up. Wilt wouldn't play 48 minutes on a nightly basis now. The avg super star plays 38-40 minutes per night. Thats basically a quarter.[/QUOTE]
Wilt isn't an 'average superstar' - he's Wilt Chamberlain - the record book owner. He did things nobody did before him, while he was playing, or after he played. If Wilt wants to play 48 minutes, who's gonna stop him? In today's era coaches have even less influence over superstar players than they did in his own era. He'd play as many minutes as he wanted today, and if a coach didn't like it they'd be fired.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Wilt isn't an 'average superstar' - he's Wilt Chamberlain - the record book owner. He did things nobody did before him, while he was playing, or after he played. If Wilt wants to play 48 minutes, who's gonna stop him? In today's era coaches have even less influence over superstar players than they did in his own era. He'd play as many minutes as he wanted today, and if a coach didn't like it they'd be fired.[/QUOTE]
Dwight Howard is a borderline superstar, if you can even call him a superstar at all I don't know.

People still have trouble with the concept of the 'outlier'. We feel more comfortable with averages, which is why it's difficult to even get our heads around what Wilt did.

[QUOTE=iamgine]ewing situation :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
Originally Posted by iamgine
[quote]
[I]I guess what I'm saying is it's absurd because here we are taking a 39 years old man, far far removed from his prime in a very stacked team with the GOAT PG. Against a sophomore player, also very far from his prime. And somehow the result of their matchup determine...something.[/I]
[/quote]
You keep saying its absurd because he -Lazeruss, according to you, cherry picked a young Hakeem. But then he includes the other future prominent center, Ewing, and it applies across the board. At the very least the argument is solid and consistent. No? It doesn't seem absurd because it applies to the very good in three different eras.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Originally Posted by iamgine

You keep saying its absurd because he -Lazeruss, according to you, cherry picked a young Hakeem. But then he includes the other future prominent center, Ewing, and it applies across the board. At the very least the argument is solid and consistent. No? It doesn't seem absurd because it applies to the very good in three different eras.[/QUOTE]
The argument is neither consistent nor solid. What was said above also applied to Ewing.

[QUOTE=iamgine]The argument is neither consistent nor solid. What was said above also applied to Ewing.[/QUOTE]
Name the prominent center it doesn't apply to? There is usually one exception to the rule. Otherwise its comprehensive.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Wilt isn't an 'average superstar' - he's Wilt Chamberlain - the record book owner. He did things nobody did before him, while he was playing, or after he played. If Wilt wants to play 48 minutes, who's gonna stop him? In today's era coaches have even less influence over superstar players than they did in his own era. He'd play as many minutes as he wanted today, and if a coach didn't like it they'd be fired.[/QUOTE]
The owners would stop him. Wilt would easily be a 30 mill per guy. Theres no way an owner would be willing to invest that much money to watch him tear a ligament playing the lowly Raptors for 48 minutes.

His playing that much is probably why his stats in the RS and PO dropped. He probably just didnt have it.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Originally Posted by iamgine

You keep saying its absurd because he -Lazeruss, according to you, cherry picked a young Hakeem. But then he includes the other future prominent center, Ewing, and it applies across the board. At the very least the argument is solid and consistent. No? It doesn't seem absurd because it applies to the very good in three different eras.[/QUOTE]
But why didnt he avg 30 against the league at 38 years old? Context has to be implemented in this discussion.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]But why didnt he avg 30 against the league at 38 years old? Context has to be implemented in this discussion.[/QUOTE]

Why do you think that is so? I think its because Pat Riley knew he it was too hard for him to do that game in and game out. So when he played against a up and coming center he used it as a way to challenge him. What context do you see it in?

[QUOTE]I think the "bridge theory" can be explained in one word. RIVALRY. Because the flip side is those great games the older players had vs the younger incumbent didnt happen on a nightly basis vs the avg centers. Not to mention the fact that the younger players were inexperienced. Basically neither of the players mentioned were in their prime. How did Jabaar fair vs the rest of the league?[/QUOTE]

The "bridge theory" is obviously summed up better by looking at the overall stats of the season. Knowing how in any given era there's a good number of veterans who have performed well throughout the season against the newer generation of players and that most veterans who didn't manage to perform as well had reasons other than their overall level of play (injuries, losing athleticism more rapidly, fatigue due to age), these are good indications of the correctness of the theory. It's the closest one can get to the popular but completely utopic "time travel" argument - Kareem barely missing Bill Russell and barely missing David Robinson, Parish facing Cowens and Shaq, Jordan facing Gervin and Kobe...

[QUOTE=Pointguard]How do you address the Ewing situation then.. As far as him being a sophomore player, Hakeem was a very good defensive player right off the bat, like Ewing. His offensive moves weren't as polished then.[/QUOTE]

Olajuwon was not anywhere close to his prime in terms of defensive skillset, he was foul prone and he also was easy to get up to the air.

And the who "bridge"-nonsense is utter garbage, if this nonsense makes sense, then Moses has a strong case for being the GOAT-center of all-time, especially if you like to cherry pick like Jlauber.

I'm not gonna say I cut hair, but..

no it was all ****** propaganda,,,kobe holds the highest scoring in a single game