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

[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.