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

[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+.

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

Oscar would be projected at about 20 ppg in 61-62, not 12.5 ppg.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: baseless - classic garbage post material. your better than this

So since when does height make an era strong? Is this a weak era? Because there are plenty of big ass dudes out there who aren't doing anything versus smaller competition. Roy hibbert was 6 inches taller than anyone on the Heat roster and he didnt put up 50. Dwight is the best center in the league at 6'9. I don't understand why people are so hell bent on lowering wilt's legacy. The dude was legit. Would he score 100 today? No. He would be damn good though.

[QUOTE=coin24]Wilt = javale mcgee:lol[/QUOTE]
i wish

I don't really have any comment, other than that there (almost certainly) isn't a linear relationship between pace/minutes and performance. You'll obviously get diminishing returns as minutes increase, so it's difficult to compare players on the basis of adjusted production.

If you scored the points, they count as points. You can't make them disappear. But the second you adjust them you can only adjust them to the point that if somebody scored that you can't take that away from him. Since Ted Luckenbill averaged two ppg on that Wilt team you can't pretend that he didn't score. Reality demands that he exist as a scorer. The most points you can take away from Wilt would be 1.9ppg. Any other adjustment is a lie on earth, for all practical reasons.

The second point is if 50ppg is predicated on minutes and inferior competition then why doesn't it exist in our HS or college ranks where disparities exist in much greater proportions? How about Kareem in every level of the game he was only disturbed by Thurmond and Wilt but he never got within 15ppg of that year. Here's a contemporary of Wilt and he had an unstoppable shot and is top GOAT on nearly everybody's list.

He scored more than 20% more than any other full time player. Please show me a similar example in any major sport. It seems like a distortion of reality. If that doesn't impress you then what will?