Wilt Chamberlain discussion

[QUOTE=Psileas]-Jerry West was a poor athlete who couldn't even get his hand above the rim and trained with soccer balls. However, Stockton, Nash, Billups and Duncan are all great or elite ones. Even Bird and Magic, even at their worst, were worlds better athletes than West.
-Big Baby Davis could do all the things Wilt could (that's a new gem right here). Plus, Greg Oden could run faster than him at his prime.
-Within 30 or so years, the talent pool in the USA increased by 3.2 gazillion times, regardless of what results show.
-Rumors that most players back then were measured barefoot and their weights weren't updated are myths just to make them look better.
-Wilt facing 4-5 very good/great centers in a 10-team league is not enough to qualify as good competition.

(And many more that I have no will to recall).

Dude, your understanding, perceptions and estimations at a lot of things you discuss are ironically bad to try and blame others for not understanding the game. Forget me, the "Wilt homer". Try to tell any of these things mentioned above to any sensible person who knows about NBA history and you'll be laughed at.[/QUOTE]

Heh, dude, I could care less if people laugh at me. My understanding is fine. If you have to lie about what I said to feel like you won that's okay... its just shameful cuz all those players you love lose.

[QUOTE=Manute for Ever!]Indiefan23, Psileas is probably the most knowledgeable poster on ISH. Why waste your time? He can actually back up and/or expand on his claims and know s the game inside out. Give it up.[/QUOTE]

Its cute how your friends who obviously already agree with you come in to give you morale support. Yea, they're not bias at all. :)

Like I said before, I'll do my best to try not to continue this conversation for like 5 months more. There are still many points I could address, like the fact that even Euroleague (and other European championships) NBA-level players aren't that many and neither are European teams which are attractive and wealthy enough to invite them - Josh Childress must be the biggest NBA name playing in Europe today, and he was considered just an average or a little above average NBA player. A lot of these guys had NCAA careers and then got cut (or completely ignored) by NBA teams.

Also, I can't help but mention the following quote:

[QUOTE]Man, I've watched old BAA games.[/QUOTE]

Reminds me of another guy who claimed so and had been banned. I just hope you're not him under another screen-name.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Like I said before, I'll do my best to try not to continue this conversation for like 5 months more. There are still many points I could address, like the fact that even Euroleague (and other European championships) NBA-level players aren't that many and neither are European teams which are attractive and wealthy enough to invite them - Josh Childress must be the biggest NBA name playing in Europe today, and he was considered just an average or a little above average NBA player. A lot of these guys had NCAA careers and then got cut (or completely ignored) by NBA teams.

Also, I can't help but mention the following quote:



Reminds me of another guy who claimed so and had been banned. I just hope you're not him under another screen-name.[/QUOTE]

Because I've watched ESPN Classic? ;0

I didn't way Euroleague was NBA talent, but theres top talent playing elsewhere and those leagues are getting much stronger. You acted like there were no other high quality teams and there are. Those teams are better then NCAA D-League teams and theres more talent then just childress playing. Pargo comes to mind as well. And Delfino off the top of my head.

Second best NBA player ever.

sorry, I can't resist this. You're resorting to just plain lying.

[QUOTE=Psileas]-Jerry West was a poor athlete who couldn't even get his hand above the rim and trained with soccer balls. However, Stockton, Nash, Billups and Duncan are all great or elite ones. Even Bird and Magic, even at their worst, were worlds better athletes than West.[/quote]

Yes, thats true.

[quote]-Big Baby Davis could do all the things Wilt could (that's a new gem right here).[/quote]

He could do all the things you listed when I made that comment.

[quote]Plus, Greg Oden could run faster than him at his prime.[/quote]

Greg Oden ran the floor as fast as Wilt did in a clip you showed me. You say 'in his prime' and list times Wilt the track athlete, not the in his prime ball player ran.

[quote]-Within 30 or so years, the talent pool in the USA increased by 3.2 gazillion times, regardless of what results show.[/quote]

The talent pool in the world. I specifically said and re-clarified this. You're bald faced lying.

[quote]-Rumors that most players back then were measured barefoot and their weights weren't updated are myths just to make them look better.[/quote]

You just assume players who are older you liked were 2"'s taller then everyone who played later despite the fact that plenty of people are listed barefoot and height in shoes varies totally from player to player. That is, you'd just tack on 2 inches with 0 facts backing you up. Constantly.

[quote]-Wilt facing 4-5 very good/great centers in a 10-team league is not enough to qualify as good competition.[/quote]

Not when you're comparing it to a league of 30 teams with 50 good bigs. No, its not.

[quote](And many more that I have no will to recall).

Dude, your understanding, perceptions and estimations at a lot of things you discuss are ironically bad to try and blame others for not understanding the game. Forget me, the "Wilt homer". Try to tell any of these things mentioned above to any sensible person who knows about NBA history and you'll be laughed at.[/QUOTE]

You're absolutely a Wilt old era homer. You look at tape of th 1967 NBA finals, admit they don't box out or play a sophisticated level of ball and that the players are way less athletic and then claim that they'd be able to compete on the same level in the 90's that Jordan played in. Watch the games side by side. The old era players were 'great' but there is 0 chance they could compete.

You even admit you have your head in the sand but are too proud to acknowldge it.

[quote]
Actually I (and most of the others) do talk about greatness. I don't really care what would happen if so and so changed eras and remained "only" as good as they were, because that would never happen. You're born and grow up in an era, yet, despite this obvious fact, some continue using the "time transportation" thing.
[/quote]

You 'don't care' because you know the result and refuse to admit it.

[QUOTE=Kiddlovesnets]Second best NBA player ever.[/QUOTE]

I think you can make an argument for that but it really depends on the criteria.

[QUOTE=indiefan23]I think you can make an argument for that but it really depends on the criteria.[/QUOTE]

Wilt was once voted as second greatest player in an official ISH poll...

[QUOTE=Kiddlovesnets]Wilt was once voted as second greatest player in an official ISH poll...[/QUOTE]

Well, if a poss by fans is your criteria I think you have to do better. Kobe was voted by 34% of fans as the best playoff performer of all time. Magic had 6%. Bird had 4%. You think people who know basketball give fans, much less, ISH fans, any credit at all? Do you think they deserve any?

[QUOTE]You just assume players who are older you liked were 2"'s taller then everyone who played later despite the fact that plenty of people are listed barefoot and height in shoes varies totally from player to player. That is, you'd just tack on 2 inches with 0 facts backing you up. Constantly.[/QUOTE]

I assume nothing. Open some books, ask people who know about the 60's and educate yourself.

[QUOTE]Not when you're comparing it to a league of 30 teams with 50 good bigs. No, its not.[/QUOTE]

The 50th best big in any modern league is a low-impact scrub or, at best, a very mediocre player, with low basketball skills, especially nowadays. This doesn't constitute a "good big" or real competition.

[QUOTE]You're absolutely a Wilt old era homer. You look at tape of th 1967 NBA finals, admit they don't box out or play a sophisticated level of ball and that the players are way less athletic and then claim that they'd be able to compete on the same level in the 90's that Jordan played in. Watch the games side by side. The old era players were 'great' but there is 0 chance they could compete.
You even admit you have your head in the sand but are too proud to acknowldge it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]You 'don't care' because you know the result and refuse to admit it.[/QUOTE]

The real reason you only care about straightly comparing players from different eras without any adjustment is because deep inside you know that older guys had much more talent than you give them credit and you fear that a more fair, adjusted comparison (which is the norm in comparing just about anything, except if you have ever met anyone who believes that the commander-in-chief of the army of modern Tanzania is greater than Alexander the Great, because Alexander's army used swords and shields) would greatly hurt the players you idolized.
No, really, you find me one sane person who would think like this in that army example. And this example is actually exaggerated, because war in the last 2,300 years progressed way, way more than basketball in the last 30-50. The equivalent of the Atom Bomb in 330 BC in basketball would be a player averaging like 3,000 ppg (or generally, a completely supernatural number) in the 60's/70's.

OK, off now.

[QUOTE=Psileas]I assume nothing. Open some books, ask people who know about the 60's and educate yourself.[/quote]

Ha, you deny then that you tacked on 2 inches to every 60's player's height? That's an 'assumption' because you don't know what the differences actually are. All the education in the world, of which I have plenty, is not going to change the fact that you didn't know the numbers when you claimed you did.

[quote]The 50th best big in any modern league is a low-impact scrub or, at best, a very mediocre player, with low basketball skills, especially nowadays. This doesn't constitute a "good big" or real competition.[/quote]

I completely agree with you. That's why you should see my point about how the 60s were watered down when you have to go to the 50'th or 60'th player in 1991 to reach the player getting half of the leader, Robinson's boards. 30 years earlier you hit that mark at rebounder #7. Thanks for finally agreeing.

[quote]The real reason you only care about straightly comparing players from different eras without any adjustment is because deep inside you know that older guys had much more talent than you give them credit and you fear that a more fair, adjusted comparison (which is the norm in comparing just about anything, except if you have ever met anyone who believes that the commander-in-chief of the army of modern Tanzania is greater than Alexander the Great, because Alexander's army used swords and shields) would greatly hurt the players you idolized.[/quote]

Greater? No. Who would win a fight? Tanzania would kill every one of them without sustaining a scratch 100 times out of 100.

The real reason I don't have adjusted stats? Well adjusted for what? My point is that possessions/watered down talent relative to the best players hyper inflated their stats. I don't really have time to pace adjust stats for 30 years of basketball. How can you say that? Everything I've posted has been making a case TO adjust their stats and discussing the factors which would have to be adjusted for to compare their play then statistically to play now.

[quote]No, really, you find me one sane person who would think like this in that army example. And this example is actually exaggerated, because war in the last 2,300 years progressed way, way more than basketball in the last 30-50. The equivalent of the Atom Bomb in 330 BC in basketball would be a player averaging like 3,000 ppg (or generally, a completely supernatural number) in the 60's/70's.

OK, off now.[/QUOTE]

You know I have never put down the 'greatness' of these players. At every juncture I've stated I think they are great and deserve their place in the sports history. I'm a fan of many of them. I love Kareem and watched him when I was a kid. I think West was a great shooter. I think Bill Russell was a great winner.

I have said one and only one solitary thing. These players could not achieve that same greatness as the players they were with the same skills and abilities in the modern NBA. Its the same way (but to a lesser degree) that Alexander the great would lose any battle to the army of Tanzina using the same methods they used to fight wars. I have not been unreasonable or even disrespectful to them. I'm pretty sure Jerry West will be the first to admit he didn't have the skills of Michael Jordan and that the closeness of their stats are not indicative of their relative skill sets. What does he have to prove? He's Jerry West. The only finals MVP to lose. The guy who's image is on every piece of NBA anything in the world. And he started it all shooting a soccer ball through a crap hoop after his father had drank to much. Then he went on to build championship teams as a GM.

That dude has nothing left to prove and I'm pretty sure he would admit the league has evolved to another level for many of the reasons I listed... the biggest of which I stated was that these players I supposedly disrespect pushed the league to a higher level and that the improvement was not a knock against them but their legacy. I'm not sure why his fans can not accept the facts/truth of the matter. You even went beyond this... you said the 50's players were in the same league. Its just preposterous. Watch Geroge Mikan and tell me he plays with Shaq. He does not. He loses to Shaq just like Alexander gets shot a bullet or his army is melted down with a tactical nuclear device.

[QUOTE=Psileas]


The 50th best big in any modern league is a low-impact scrub or, at best, a very mediocre player, with low basketball skills, especially nowadays. This doesn't constitute a "good big" or real competition.

The real reason you only care about straightly comparing players from different eras without any adjustment is because deep inside you know that older guys had much more talent than you give them credit and you fear that a more fair, adjusted comparison (which is the norm in comparing just about anything, except if you have ever met anyone who believes that the commander-in-chief of the army of modern Tanzania is greater than Alexander the Great, because Alexander's army used swords and shields) would greatly hurt the players you idolized.
No, really, you find me one sane person who would think like this in that army example. And this example is actually exaggerated, because war in the last 2,300 years progressed way, way more than basketball in the last 30-50. The equivalent of the Atom Bomb in 330 BC in basketball would be a player averaging like 3,000 ppg (or generally, a completely supernatural number) in the 60's/70's.

OK, off now.[/QUOTE]
It is not even that much of an adjustment. The ignorant here would have us believe we have created a race of superhumans within one generation that athletes of the 60's could not compete with:rolleyes: ( Bob Beamon laughs)

Yet the idolization of today's GROSSLY overhyped shoesalesmen makes it just that much more amusing when they lose to 'unathletic' /soft Euro players in the 2002 World Campionships(6th place), 2004 Olympics & 2006 FIBA Championships losing to some teams with not a single NBA player on it's roster.

Elvin Hayes/Wes Unseld/Kareem & even Dr J prove that there is an indisputable continuity/fluidity of Basketball between the three decades(60's,70's,80's).

Sports is always evolving,but it isn't like the game of today is unrecognizable compared to the 70's /80's.

[QUOTE=32jazz]It is not even that much of an adjustment. The ignorant here would have us believe we have created a race of superhumans within one generation that athletes of the 60's could not compete with:rolleyes: ( Bob Beamon laughs)[/QUOTE]


That obviously is not true as framed, but the interaction between athletic ability, drawing from a larger pool of talent, and most importantly the scientific gains in body chemistry, nutrition, etc (which HAS grown by leaps and bounds, especially in application) leads the average player to be noticeably more athletic than 40 years ago.

If you want to discuss something like track and field, virtually every single record from the 60s has been smashed, and the vast majority have been broken multiple times.

[QUOTE=Bush4Ever]That obviously is not true as framed, but the interaction between athletic ability, drawing from a larger pool of talent, and most importantly the scientific gains in body chemistry, nutrition, etc (which HAS grown by leaps and bounds, especially in application) leads the average player to be noticeably more athletic than 40 years ago.

If you want to discuss something like track and field, virtually every single record from the 60s has been smashed, and the vast majority have been broken multiple times.[/QUOTE]

Let's look at(not all) just a FEW of your hero sprinters who have 'smashed' the world record recently: Tim Montgomery(doper),Justin Gatlin(Doper),Linford Christie(disgaraced doper),Maurice Greene(suspected doper with some shady payments to dope dealers),the East Germas,etc....as I said that was just a few as I don't have time to name them all:confusedshrug: .

Let's not forget Flo Jo who was transforming into a man before our very eyes & Maiden Marion Jones(who proved you can do it without detection):rolleyes: Please don't disgrace the names of great Track Athletes of the past with these dopers of the late 70's/80's & beyond. No one barely trusts the times/records anymore & the sports prestige has suffered accordingly.

The 100m record of '68(Jim Hines) stood for nearly two(2) decades & we know Bob Beamon's strory.

I admitted in my post that sports is always evolving ,but it is assinine to think that for some reason that Humans are somehow just so physically superior to those a generation or so ago.
I have acknowledged the evolution/improvement of equipment,training techniques,etc....:confusedshrug:

Then again we are talking about Basketball here & not the drug infested Track & Field world of today.

Fact is Elvin Hayes/Kareem/Wes Unseld/Dr J(technically),etc...had no problem playing in either one of the three decades(60's/70's/80's) & even excelled at very advanced ages well into 80's. It is a testamet to the continuity of the sport from the 60's to the 80's(NBA golden Era) up until today.

Now go let ESPN bombard you with how marvelous & super-human Dwight Howard & Lebron James are:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=32jazz]Let's look at(not all) just a FEW of your hero sprinters who have 'smashed' the world record recently: Tim Montgomery(doper),Justin Gatlin(Doper),Linford Christie(disgaraced doper),Maurice Greene(suspected doper with some shady payments to dope dealers),the East Germas,etc....as I said that was just a few as I don't have time to name them all:confusedshrug: .

Let's not forget Flo Jo who was transforming into a man before our very eyes & Maiden Marion Jones(who proved you can do it without detection):rolleyes: Please don't disgrace the names of great Track Athletes of the past with these dopers of the late 70's/80's & beyond. No one barely trusts the times/records anymore & the sports prestige has suffered accordingly.

The 100m record of '68(Jim Hines) stood for nearly two(2) decades & we know Bob Beamon's strory.

I admitted in my post that sports is always evolving ,but it is assinine to think that for some reason that Humans are somehow just so physically superior to those a generation or so ago.
I have acknowledged the evolution/improvement of equipment,training techniques,etc....:confusedshrug:

Then again we are talking about Basketball here & not the drug infested Track & Field world of today.

Fact is Elvin Hayes/Kareem/Wes Unseld/Dr J(technically),etc...had no problem playing in either one of the three decades(60's/70's/80's) & even excelled at very advanced ages well into 80's. It is a testamet to the continuity of the sport from the 60's to the 80's(NBA golden Era) up until today.

Now go let ESPN bombard you with how marvelous & super-human Dwight Howard & Lebron James are:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

If you don't like using professional times, you can use high school times or college times. The same pattern holds. Swimming times are another easy example.

I don't think anyone would argue that human beings have evolved to become superhuman beings, but rather than all of the tangential advantages afforded to today's athletes give the modern athlete a non-trivial edge in terms of athleticism compared to 40 years ago. Of course, exceptions will always exist. Some overlap does exist between eras, but the mean levels of athleticism are better today. Think of something like this, with the modern era on the right:
[url]http://www.dtreg.com/LdaOverlapDistribution.jpg[/url]

Now go let senile old men bombard you with how Wilt had a 80 inch vertical, could bench press the state of Utah, and had sex with 20,000 women while bench pressing the state of Utah (that is a joke, don't freak out).

Actually if you study T n F records the biggest jumps occured when there was no/lax drug testing. When testing was implemented, records moved much slower.

[QUOTE=Bush4Ever]
Now go let senile old men bombard you with how Wilt had a 80 inch vertical, could bench press the state of Utah, and had sex with 20,000 women while bench pressing the state of Utah (that is a joke, don't freak out).[/QUOTE]

What? 'while' making love with 20 k women? Didn't he bench press the statue of Utah with his *****??

[QUOTE=32jazz]It is not even that much of an adjustment. The ignorant here would have us believe we have created a race of superhumans within one generation that athletes of the 60's could not compete with:rolleyes: ( Bob Beamon laughs)

Yet the idolization of today's GROSSLY overhyped shoesalesmen makes it just that much more amusing when they lose to 'unathletic' /soft Euro players in the 2002 World Campionships(6th place), 2004 Olympics & 2006 FIBA Championships losing to some teams with not a single NBA player on it's roster.

Elvin Hayes/Wes Unseld/Kareem & even Dr J prove that there is an indisputable continuity/fluidity of Basketball between the three decades(60's,70's,80's).

Sports is always evolving,but it isn't like the game of today is unrecognizable compared to the 70's /80's.[/QUOTE]

When was Garbo unathletic? He did everything for the Raptors. 3 players prove jack squat about anything except 3 player out of 100's.

[QUOTE=indiefan23]Discuss Wilt Chamberlain[/QUOTE]

The 60's were a weak era. Anyone can score on 6'4" white guys at center

[QUOTE=Bush4Ever]If you don't like using professional times, you can use high school times or college times. The same pattern holds. Swimming times are another easy example.

I don't think anyone would argue that human beings have evolved to become superhuman beings, but rather than all of the tangential advantages afforded to today's athletes give the modern athlete a non-trivial edge in terms of athleticism compared to 40 years ago. Of course, exceptions will always exist. Some overlap does exist between eras, but the mean levels of athleticism are better today. Think of something like this, with the modern era on the right:
[url]http://www.dtreg.com/LdaOverlapDistribution.jpg[/url]

Now go let senile old men bombard you with how Wilt had a 80 inch vertical, could bench press the state of Utah, and had sex with 20,000 women while bench pressing the state of Utah (that is a joke, don't freak out).[/QUOTE]


I have no problem with using the times of these( record breaking)PROVEN dopeheads/cheaters you are so impressed with :confusedshrug: I have never claimed that athletes of the past are somehow superior so I'm not under any delusion that Wilt is more athletic than D Rob or Dwight Howard.Unlike contemporary clowns (yourself included) I do not believe one to be any superior to the other.
I'm gonna say it again that it is obvious that training,equipment,techniques,etc....have improved, attempting to sqeeze a bit more out of our abilities, but it's foolish to believe humans are somehow physically superior.

That being said Athleticism isn't the only thing that determines Basketball greatness /success & I repeat:
Elvin Hayes/Kareem/Wes Unseld/Dr J had no problem playing in the 60's/70's & at advanced ages well into the 80's since we are talking about Basketball aren't we:confusedshrug: & not your doped up Track & Field Athletes of the past 2-3 decades or so.

[QUOTE=32jazz]I have no problem with using the times of these( record breaking)PROVEN dopeheads/cheaters you are so impressed with :confusedshrug: I have never claimed that athletes of the past are somehow superior so I'm not under any delusion that Wilt is more athletic than D Rob or Dwight Howard.Unlike contemporary clowns (yourself included) I do not believe one to be any superior to the other.
I'm gonna say it again that it is obvious that training,equipment,techniques,etc....have improved, attempting to sqeeze a bit more out of our abilities, but it's foolish to believe humans are somehow physically superior.

That being said Athleticism isn't the only thing that determines Basketball greatness /success & I repeat:
Elvin Hayes/Kareem/Wes Unseld/Dr J had no problem playing in the 60's/70's & at advanced ages well into the 80's since we are talking about Basketball aren't we:confusedshrug: & not your doped up Track & Field Athletes of the past 2-3 decades or so.[/QUOTE]

RAGE = THE COOL :mad: :mad:

I'll let other people evaluate my statements and posting history since you seem to be upset.

[QUOTE=Bush4Ever]RAGE = THE COOL :mad: :mad:

I'll let other people evaluate my statements and posting history since you seem to be upset.[/QUOTE]
^^^
:cry:

Good , because I really don't have patience for close minded Knucklheads nor the performance enhanced contemporary cheats they slurp at the expense of other wonderful more 'natural'athletes of another era.

[QUOTE=32jazz]I have no problem with using the times of these( record breaking)PROVEN dopeheads/cheaters you are so impressed with :confusedshrug: I have never claimed that athletes of the past are somehow superior so I'm not under any delusion that Wilt is more athletic than D Rob or Dwight Howard.Unlike contemporary clowns (yourself included) I do not believe one to be any superior to the other.
I'm gonna say it again that it is obvious that training,equipment,techniques,etc....have improved, attempting to sqeeze a bit more out of our abilities, but it's foolish to believe humans are somehow physically superior.

That being said Athleticism isn't the only thing that determines Basketball greatness /success & I repeat:
Elvin Hayes/Kareem/Wes Unseld/Dr J had no problem playing in the 60's/70's & at advanced ages well into the 80's since we are talking about Basketball aren't we:confusedshrug: & not your doped up Track & Field Athletes of the past 2-3 decades or so.[/QUOTE]

Man, what is your issue? Guy is a 'clown' now because he made a few reasonable points about how athletics has progressed? And why do the doping runners invalidate the ones who didn't dope?

Hayes/Unseld only played into the early, early 80's before it really got strong. Kareem/Unseld were shadows of their formers selves on teams led by players who were better then them.

Either way... if I can do things physically that you can't that means I'm physically superior. Its simple.

[QUOTE=32jazz]^^^
:cry:

Good , because I really don't have patience for close minded Knucklheads nor the performance enhanced contemporary cheats they slurp at the expense of other wonderful more 'natural'athletes of another era.[/QUOTE]

You mean closed minded there huh? Whats your point anyway? Doping is almost a non-issue in basketball because it limits players agility. Players often need to drop not gain. I'm not sure which of your fav players' toes we stepped on because your reaction while barely disagreeing with anything anyone is saying is just intense. I bet you're kinda like that Psilias guy who got so offended I didn't think his favorite players wern't as good as their stats he started saying the greatest players in the history of the game were all poor athletes. He didn't go as far as to say Jordan was a poor athlete but he got close.

[QUOTE=Psileas]stuff[/QUOTE]

Hey Psileas... your PM's on here are full. I'm trying to send ya something. Think you can clear it?

[QUOTE=Simple Jack]Psileas - report back with the league leaders in FG% in the 60's.[/QUOTE]

Out of curiosity I looked it up and compared it through eras. To save time I generally left out the player's names next to the ranking.

I also looked at FT % and assists.

[B]1954[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 49%
2) 45%
3) 45%
4) 42%
5) 42%
10) 40%
15) 38.5% (Cousy)
20) 37.5%

The top three in FGA took 1,300, 1,300, and 1,200 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 84%
5) 81%
10) 76%
15) 73%
20) 71%

[I]Assists per game[/I]

1) 7
2) 6
3) 5
5) 4.5
10) 4
15) 3
20) 2.9

[B]1964[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 53%
2) 52%
3) 51%
5) 49%
10) 46%
15) 45%
20) 44%

Only three players shot above 50%!

Wilt led the league with 2,300 shots taken, the next two highest were in the 1,700's. Wilt jacked up 3,200 shots in 1962 and 2,800 in the following year. To put that into context, Jordan's two highest seasons are 2,300 and 2,000--and this is someone who consistently took 300+ more shots then the second most proflic shot taker during his prime years! AI's two highest seasons are 1,900 and 1,800; Kobe's 2,200 and 1,900.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 85%
2) 83%
3) 83%
5) 82%
10) 79%
15) 77%
20) 74%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 11
2) 7
3) 6
5) 5
10) 5
15) 3
20) 3.1

[B]1974[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 55%
2) 54%
3) 54%
5) 51%
10) 50%
15) 49.5%
20) 49%

12 players shot above 50%, two shot at 50%.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 90%
2) 90%
3) 88%
5) 87%
10) 86%
15) 85%
20) 84%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 8
2) 7
3) 7
5) 6
10) 6
15) 5
20) 4.7

The three league leaders in FGA took between 1,791 and 1,759 shots.

[B]1984[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 63%
2) 60%
3) 59%
5) 58%
10) 57%
15) 56%
20) 56%

The top three in FGA took between 1,765 and 1,603 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 89%
2) 88%
3) 87%
5) 86%
10) 85%
15) 84%
20) 84%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 13
2) 11
3) 11
5) 10
10) 7
15) 6
20) 5.6

[B]1994[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 60%
2) 57%
3) 56%
5) 54%
10) 53%
15) 51.5%
20) 51%

The three leaders in FGA took between 1,694 and 1,591 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 96%
2) 91%
3) 90%
5) 89%
10) 87%
15) 85%
20) 83.5%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 13
2) 10
3) 10
5) 9.5
10) 7
15) 6
20) 5

[B]2009[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 61%
2) 60%
3) 58%
5) 57%
10) 53%
15) 52.5%
20) 51%

The three leaders in FGA took between 1,739 and 1,616 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 98%
2) 95%
3) 93%
5) 91%
10) 88%
15) 87%
20) 87%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 11
2) 11
3) 10
5) 9
10) 7
15) 6
20) 5

These numbers suggest the 60's were a weak and unsophisticated era while the 50's were a joke. In addition, the stats from the 60's are inflated by pace and in Wilt's case by him taking a million shots a game. All that said, I still believe Wilt is a GOAT candidate and is in my top 5 of all-time but his record needs to be put into context. Back when he played only 3-5 players would shoot above 50% in a season. What does that tell you about the skill level of 60's players?

Damn... 16 pages on the most overrated player ever. Good work. There is really nothing else to discuss about Wilt Chamberlain and other 60s superstars. Just about everyone knows by now that these guys were good for their time and would be rotting at the end of the bench in today's STRONG era, probably picking their nose or ear, scratching their arse, waving a towel, and/or chugging gatorade, etc. I'd recommend ignoring everything the poster Psileas has to say. He's some weird stalker kind of guy who always quotes you if you say anything about the 60s. Nobody ever really cares enough to read any of his posts, but he'll continue to act like people do. To be honest, he spends half of his time in real life studying 60s players. Pretty sad if you ask me.

As someone who has seen more than enough footage of Wilt Chamberlain and other 60s players, I can tell you that he'd be no better than Andrew Bogut in today's league. A guy like Dwight Howard is a far better athlete than Wilt "the quilt" Chamberlain ever was in his prime. People often bring up Wilt's 100 m time as evidence of him being an athletic freak, but I tell you that these times are made up. There is no proof of Wilt being a high jump champion or having a crazy 100 m time. It's all nonsense from guys who played with the guy or coached him during the 60s.

Wilt Chamberlain played the WEAKEST, MOST PATHETIC competition out of anyone in NBA history. The centers he went up against were 6'6" on average and no more athletic than a guy like Andres Biedrins or David Lee today. When Wilt scored 100, the toughest guy he was guarded by was basically a Mark Madsen clone. NOBODY with a shred of common sense takes the accomplishments of Wilt Chamberlain seriously. It's all good to read if you want some laughs, but we all know that he's not even among the top 5 players to ever play this game. A player like prime Shaq O'Neal would have no problem destroying all of Wilt's records in the 60s era of basketball. Just imagine Shaq playing Rik Smits and Todd McCullough every game instead of just in the Finals. Guy would have averaged 60 PPG, 35 RPG, 9 APG, 14 BPG on close to 70% FG if he wanted to.

60s = worthless era of basketball. The real NBA began in the 80s and continues today. Anything before the 80s = not taken seriously.

For further evidence of the inflated stats of the 60's, look at the all-time best single season performances in rebounding. Is it a coincidence they all occurred in or around the 60's?

Rank Player TRB Season
1. Wilt Chamberlain* 2149 1960-61
2. Wilt Chamberlain* 2052 1961-62
3. Wilt Chamberlain* 1957 1966-67
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 1952 1967-68
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 1946 1962-63
6. Wilt Chamberlain* 1943 1965-66
7. Wilt Chamberlain* 1941 1959-60
8. Bill Russell* 1930 1963-64
9. Bill Russell* 1878 1964-65
10. Bill Russell* 1868 1960-61
11. Bill Russell* 1843 1962-63
12. Bill Russell* 1790 1961-62
13. Wilt Chamberlain* 1787 1963-64
14. Bill Russell* 1779 1965-66
15. Bill Russell* 1778 1959-60
16. Wilt Chamberlain* 1712 1968-69
17. Bill Russell* 1700 1966-67
18. Wilt Chamberlain* 1673 1964-65
19. Jerry Lucas* 1668 1965-66
20. Bill Russell* 1612 1958-59

Here are the best seasons over the past two decades. Look at how low they rank. Rodman was arguably the most dominant rebounder ever yet his best seasons come in at 26th, 45th, and 76th all time.

26. Dennis Rodman 1530 1991-92
45. Dennis Rodman 1367 1993-94
60. Kevin Willis 1258 1991-92
76. Dennis Rodman 1201 1997-98
95. Dwight Howard 1161 2007-08
96. Dikembe Mutombo 1157 1999-00
99. Sam Lacey 1149 1974-75

A similar thing can be seen regarding field goals attempts, although the 60's skew is a bit less here than in rebounding, although this is mainly due to Michael Jordan.

Rank Player FGA Season
1. Wilt Chamberlain* 3159 1961-62
2. Wilt Chamberlain* 2770 1962-63
3. Wilt Chamberlain* 2457 1960-61
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 2311 1959-60
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 2298 1963-64
6. Michael Jordan* 2279 1986-87
7. Elgin Baylor* 2273 1962-63
8. Rick Barry* 2240 1966-67
9. Rick Barry* 2217 1974-75
10. Elvin Hayes* 2215 1970-71
11. Kobe Bryant 2173 2005-06
12. Elgin Baylor* 2166 1960-61
13. Bob McAdoo* 2138 1974-75
14. Tiny Archibald* 2106 1972-73
15. Wilt Chamberlain* 2083 1964-65
16. Elvin Hayes* 2082 1968-69
17. Jack Twyman* 2063 1959-60
18. Pete Maravich* 2047 1976-77
19. Elvin Hayes* 2020 1969-70
20. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 2019 1971-72
21. Michael Jordan* 2003 1992-93
22. Michael Jordan* 1998 1987-88
23. Wilt Chamberlain* 1990 1965-66
24. George Gervin* 1987 1981-82
25. John Havlicek* 1982 1970-71

29. Allen Iverson 1940 2002-03
32. Jerry Stackhouse 1927 2000-01
33. Kobe Bryant 1924 2002-03
55. LeBron James 1823 2005-06
56. Moses Malone* 1822 1981-82
Allen Iverson 1822 2005-06
58. Michael Jordan* 1818 1991-92
Sam Jones* 1818 1964-65
Allen Iverson 1818 2004-05
61. Tracy McGrady 1813 2002-03
Allen Iverson 1813 2000-01
63. Antawn Jamison 1812 2000-01
Alex English* 1812 1984-85
Hakeem Olajuwon* 1149 1989-90
104. Kevin Garnett 1139 2003-04

[QUOTE=hall of fame]Damn... 16 pages on the most overrated player ever. Good work. There is really nothing else to discuss about Wilt Chamberlain and other 60s superstars. Just about everyone knows by now that these guys were good for their time and would be rotting at the end of the bench in today's STRONG era, probably picking their nose or ear, scratching their arse, waving a towel, and/or chugging gatorade, etc. I'd recommend ignoring everything the poster Psileas has to say. He's some weird stalker kind of guy who always quotes you if you say anything about the 60s. Nobody ever really cares enough to read any of his posts, but he'll continue to act like people do. To be honest, he spends half of his time in real life studying 60s players. Pretty sad if you ask me.

As someone who has seen more than enough footage of Wilt Chamberlain and other 60s players, I can tell you that he'd be no better than Andrew Bogut in today's league. A guy like Dwight Howard is a far better athlete than Wilt "the quilt" Chamberlain ever was in his prime. People often bring up Wilt's 100 m time as evidence of him being an athletic freak, but I tell you that these times are made up. There is no proof of Wilt being a high jump champion or having a crazy 100 m time. It's all nonsense from guys who played with the guy or coached him during the 60s.

Wilt Chamberlain played the WEAKEST, MOST PATHETIC competition out of anyone in NBA history. The centers he went up against were 6'6" on average and no more athletic than a guy like Andres Biedrins or David Lee today. When Wilt scored 100, the toughest guy he was guarded by was basically a Mark Madsen clone. NOBODY with a shred of common sense takes the accomplishments of Wilt Chamberlain seriously. It's all good to read if you want some laughs, but we all know that he's not even among the top 5 players to ever play this game. A player like prime Shaq O'Neal would have no problem destroying all of Wilt's records in the 60s era of basketball. Just imagine Shaq playing Rik Smits and Todd McCullough every game instead of just in the Finals. Guy would have averaged 60 PPG, 35 RPG, 9 APG, 14 BPG on close to 70% FG if he wanted to.

60s = worthless era of basketball. The real NBA began in the 80s and continues today. Anything before the 80s = not taken seriously.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, all apart from smits being a bad player,he was a good player and he himself would have tore **** up in the 60's, let alone Shaq.I cant believe people look at game footage of Wilt and come away impressed.Again im talking about watching full games and not highlight reels that can make Smush parker and Darko seem like ATG.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]

A similar thing can be seen regarding field goals attempts, although the 60's skew is a bit less here than in rebounding, although this is mainly due to Michael Jordan.

Rank Player FGA Season
1. Wilt Chamberlain* 3159 1961-62
2. Wilt Chamberlain* 2770 1962-63
3. Wilt Chamberlain* 2457 1960-61
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 2311 1959-60
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 2298 1963-64
6. Michael Jordan* 2279 1986-87
7. Elgin Baylor* 2273 1962-63
8. Rick Barry* 2240 1966-67
9. Rick Barry* 2217 1974-75
10. Elvin Hayes* 2215 1970-71
11. Kobe Bryant 2173 2005-06
12. Elgin Baylor* 2166 1960-61
13. Bob McAdoo* 2138 1974-75
14. Tiny Archibald* 2106 1972-73
15. Wilt Chamberlain* 2083 1964-65
16. Elvin Hayes* 2082 1968-69
17. Jack Twyman* 2063 1959-60
18. Pete Maravich* 2047 1976-77
19. Elvin Hayes* 2020 1969-70
20. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 2019 1971-72
21. Michael Jordan* 2003 1992-93
22. Michael Jordan* 1998 1987-88
23. Wilt Chamberlain* 1990 1965-66
24. George Gervin* 1987 1981-82
25. John Havlicek* 1982 1970-71

29. Allen Iverson 1940 2002-03
32. Jerry Stackhouse 1927 2000-01
33. Kobe Bryant 1924 2002-03
55. LeBron James 1823 2005-06
56. Moses Malone* 1822 1981-82
Allen Iverson 1822 2005-06
58. Michael Jordan* 1818 1991-92
Sam Jones* 1818 1964-65
Allen Iverson 1818 2004-05
61. Tracy McGrady 1813 2002-03
Allen Iverson 1813 2000-01
2003-04[/QUOTE]

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of those who continue you call Kobe selfish:rolleyes: yet MJ/AI are all over the list of root toot shootingest guards to ever put on sneakers.

Also for the 3 first page threads of basicaslly the same several trolls questioning HOF'ers/ all time greats when a thread questioing AI's HOF credentials(which most of us agreed he was in) is closed.:confusedshrug:

Amazing.....

[QUOTE=32jazz]Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of those who continue you call Kobe selfish:rolleyes: yet MJ/AI are all over the list of root toot shootingest guards to ever put on sneakers.

Also for the 3 first page threads of basicaslly the same several trolls questioning HOF'ers/ all time greats when a thread questioing AI's HOF credentials(which most of us agreed he was in) is closed.:confusedshrug:

Amazing.....[/QUOTE]

AI is the GOAT littleman. Of course he's in. Kobe is selfish. MJ shot 'way' higher %'s, had more assists, everything, and could win playing that style. Kobe could not.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock] Rodman was arguably the most dominant rebounder ever yet his best seasons come in at 26th, 45th, and 76th all time.
[/QUOTE]

Arguably ? Are you kidding me ?

And if you want a more accurate stat, try rebound percentage (percentage of avalaible rebounds you grabbed while on the floor) :

[B]1. Dennis Rodman, 94-95, 29.73% (!!!)
2. Dennis Rodman, 95-96, 26.56%
3. Dennis Rodman, 91-92, 26.19%
4. Dennis Rodman, 92-93, 25.99%
5. Dennis Rodman, 93-94, 25.74%
6. Dennis Rodman, 96-97, 25.61%
7. Dennis Rodman, 97-98, 24.08%[/B]
8. Jayson Williams, 95-96, 23.78%
9. Danny Fortson, 98-99, 23.70%
10. Moses Malone, 76-77, 23.38%

Career :

[B]1. Dennis Rodman, 23.44%[/B]
2. Swen Nater, 20.85%
3. Dwight Howard, 20.51%
4. Moses Malone, 19.83%
5. Larry Smith, 19.30%
6. Ben Wallace, 19.12%
7. Dikembe Mutombo, 19.10%
8. Chris Dudley, 18.76%
9. Tim Duncan, 18.44%
10. Marcus Camby, 18.34%

Only 2 players have been able to have a higher rebound percentage for a season than Rodman's career average. If that's not f*cking sick, I don't know what is.

[QUOTE=Mikaiel]Arguably ? Are you kidding me ?

And if you want a more accurate stat, try rebound percentage (percentage of avalaible rebounds you grabbed while on the floor) :

[B]1. Dennis Rodman, 94-95, 29.73% (!!!)
2. Dennis Rodman, 95-96, 26.56%
3. Dennis Rodman, 91-92, 26.19%
4. Dennis Rodman, 92-93, 25.99%
5. Dennis Rodman, 93-94, 25.74%
6. Dennis Rodman, 96-97, 25.61%
7. Dennis Rodman, 97-98, 24.08%[/B]
8. Jayson Williams, 95-96, 23.78%
9. Danny Fortson, 98-99, 23.70%
10. Moses Malone, 76-77, 23.38%

Career :

[B]1. Dennis Rodman, 23.44%[/B]
2. Swen Nater, 20.85%
3. Dwight Howard, 20.51%
4. Moses Malone, 19.83%
5. Larry Smith, 19.30%
6. Ben Wallace, 19.12%
7. Dikembe Mutombo, 19.10%
8. Chris Dudley, 18.76%
9. Tim Duncan, 18.44%
10. Marcus Camby, 18.34%

Only 2 players have been able to have a higher rebound percentage for a season than Rodman's career average. If that's not f*cking sick, I don't know what is.[/QUOTE]

I agree Rodman 'should' be a first ballot HOF'er ,but didn't rebound pct only become an official stat in 1971? With all due respect to the legendary Tom Boerwinkle who had the highest rebound rate in 1971 & the venerable Larry Smith (5th all time) :confusedshrug: .........................

Smith & Boerwinkle barely played over 20mpg during their careers & Rodman played approx. 31mpg. Wilt /Russell & others averaged around 44/45 mpg so I would assume fatigue/time on the floor etc....would hurt their 'rates' just like everyone agrees 'pace' mpg skewers their averages.

Is there some 'unofficial' numbers for before '71? And even so doesnt' playing 45-48 in some cases:eek: hurt your 'rate' compared to Tom 'friggin' Boerwinkle & Larry Smith as well as Rodman?

And answer this also .Why is this thread still open considering it was a dead thread bumped by a troll for absolutely no reason after 2/3 weeks?

[QUOTE=indiefan23]Hey Psileas... your PM's on here are full. I'm trying to send ya something. Think you can clear it?[/QUOTE]

Read what I wrote to you. Starting from a few hours from now, I will be out for quite a lot of time. No reason for the time being, because I don't have the time to respond. Maybe when I return. What was it about?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Out of curiosity I looked it up and compared it through eras. To save time I generally left out the player's names next to the ranking.

I also looked at FT % and assists.

[B]1954[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 49%
2) 45%
3) 45%
4) 42%
5) 42%
10) 40%
15) 38.5% (Cousy)
20) 37.5%

The top three in FGA took 1,300, 1,300, and 1,200 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 84%
5) 81%
10) 76%
15) 73%
20) 71%

[I]Assists per game[/I]

1) 7
2) 6
3) 5
5) 4.5
10) 4
15) 3
20) 2.9

[B]1964[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 53%
2) 52%
3) 51%
5) 49%
10) 46%
15) 45%
20) 44%

Only three players shot above 50%!

Wilt led the league with 2,300 shots taken, the next two highest were in the 1,700's. Wilt jacked up 3,200 shots in 1962 and 2,800 in the following year. To put that into context, Jordan's two highest seasons are 2,300 and 2,000--and this is someone who consistently took 300+ more shots then the second most proflic shot taker during his prime years! AI's two highest seasons are 1,900 and 1,800; Kobe's 2,200 and 1,900.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 85%
2) 83%
3) 83%
5) 82%
10) 79%
15) 77%
20) 74%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 11
2) 7
3) 6
5) 5
10) 5
15) 3
20) 3.1

[B]1974[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 55%
2) 54%
3) 54%
5) 51%
10) 50%
15) 49.5%
20) 49%

12 players shot above 50%, two shot at 50%.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 90%
2) 90%
3) 88%
5) 87%
10) 86%
15) 85%
20) 84%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 8
2) 7
3) 7
5) 6
10) 6
15) 5
20) 4.7

The three league leaders in FGA took between 1,791 and 1,759 shots.

[B]1984[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 63%
2) 60%
3) 59%
5) 58%
10) 57%
15) 56%
20) 56%

The top three in FGA took between 1,765 and 1,603 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 89%
2) 88%
3) 87%
5) 86%
10) 85%
15) 84%
20) 84%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 13
2) 11
3) 11
5) 10
10) 7
15) 6
20) 5.6

[B]1994[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 60%
2) 57%
3) 56%
5) 54%
10) 53%
15) 51.5%
20) 51%

The three leaders in FGA took between 1,694 and 1,591 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 96%
2) 91%
3) 90%
5) 89%
10) 87%
15) 85%
20) 83.5%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 13
2) 10
3) 10
5) 9.5
10) 7
15) 6
20) 5

[B]2009[/B]

[I]FG %[/I]

1) 61%
2) 60%
3) 58%
5) 57%
10) 53%
15) 52.5%
20) 51%

The three leaders in FGA took between 1,739 and 1,616 shots.

[I]FT %[/I]

1) 98%
2) 95%
3) 93%
5) 91%
10) 88%
15) 87%
20) 87%

[I]Assists[/I]

1) 11
2) 11
3) 10
5) 9
10) 7
15) 6
20) 5

These numbers suggest the 60's were a weak and unsophisticated era while the 50's were a joke. In addition, the stats from the 60's are inflated by pace and in Wilt's case by him taking a million shots a game. All that said, I still believe Wilt is a GOAT candidate and is in my top 5 of all-time but his record needs to be put into context. Back when he played only 3-5 players would shoot above 50% in a season. What does that tell you about the skill level of 60's players?[/QUOTE]

Thanks for putting that together. That was what I was trying to get at.

***When judging players on an all-time list, you have to take into consideration only their achievements and individual performance within their own era. Comparing across other eras is based on assumptions and it just hold for a logical argument.

[QUOTE=Simple Jack]Thanks for putting that together. That was what I was trying to get at.

***When judging players on an all-time list, you have to take into consideration only their achievements and individual performance within their own era. Comparing across other eras is based on assumptions and it just hold for a logical argument.[/QUOTE]

Jack, there is no such thing as a logical player comparison. Logic is 1 + 1 =2 and there's just no black and white player achievements to add up like that.

You continue with this 'it can't be done' mantra. Comparing a player's achievements are just as illogical because winning a title in 1948 is just as affected by era as scoring 50 PPG. Its just not the same achievement. And what 'achievements' are you talking about anyway? Winning titles is no indication of how good you are as a player because teams win titles and a million things can prevent you from winning or even having winning seasons that have 0 to do with your personal talent. Was Mitch Richmond poor? Cuz he didn't win jack.

Really, the only logical way to compare players is to watch tape of them playing at their highest level and compare them by their performance.

I think its a little convenient that you hang onto this 'achievements' thing. The Pistons made the con finals 7 years in a row, so they achieved way more then the Sacromento Kings teams, but the Kings were way better because the east was intensely weak during those years and the same applies to the Celtics winning 11 of 13 titles. They were better then everyone, thats an achievement, but everyone stank, and that lowers the achievement.

The only reason someone would have for it is to protect their perceptions of those players. If you can ignore their poor play and only count up rings or whatever other era based stat you want you can ignore the fact that players today just play the game at a higher level. There is zero question that Mitch Richmond was a better player then say, tommy heinsohn. Richmond was an elite athlete. Tommy Heinsohn, well, he was a smoker, and there just no way around that fact. Mitch is better. Its that simple.

[QUOTE=Mikaiel]
Only 2 players have been able to have a higher rebound percentage for a season than Rodman's career average. If that's not f*cking sick, I don't know what is.[/QUOTE]

I LOVE the worm, but its gotta be said. He was a specialist. If he was trying to score more he does not get as many boards or get way up on that list as high so he's kind of an anomaly. Guys like Forston are there cuz they couldn't play 30 minutes without fouling out. Either way, I think it shows a totally weak and statistically era even if those guys had higher %'s. Wilt's case for everything is stats and without playing 25% more possessions every game or out bigging diminutive players, that's all he'd remain. A great big dude who didn't win much.

[QUOTE]These numbers suggest the 60's were a weak and unsophisticated era while the 50's were a joke. In addition, the stats from the 60's are inflated by pace and in Wilt's case by him taking a million shots a game. All that said, I still believe Wilt is a GOAT candidate and is in my top 5 of all-time but his record needs to be put into context. Back when he played only 3-5 players would shoot above 50% in a season. What does that tell you about the skill level of 60's players?[/QUOTE]

I'll be out of the site for quite some time, so here's one last note, about this:

Some of these stats don't reveal anything about sophistication. The all-time highest FG%'s were during the mid-80's, not today. In the late 60's, they were already comparable to nowadays. FT's? Lower than today, but players were also fewer. You see yourself that in the early 70's, more players shot at high percentages, and most of these played in the 60's, as well. Assists? They were measured in a different way than today. Assist leaders having less assists can be explained by this and can also mean that the game was more team-oriented. And it was. High pace doesn't help individualism, and this is a main reason I don't buy 100% the absolute pace adjustments. Apart from Wilt, no superstar of the era took as high a percentage of his team's shots as Kobe or LeBron or younger Iverson. Even Wilt, given his playing time and pace, didn't take such an extraordinary number of shots.

[QUOTE=Psileas]I'll be out of the site for quite some time, so here's one last note, about this:

Some of these stats don't reveal anything about sophistication. The all-time highest FG%'s were during the mid-80's, not today. In the late 60's, they were already comparable to nowadays. FT's? Lower than today, but players were also fewer. You see yourself that in the early 70's, more players shot at high percentages, and most of these played in the 60's, as well. Assists? They were measured in a different way than today. Assist leaders having less assists can be explained by this and can also mean that the game was more team-oriented. And it was. High pace doesn't help individualism, and this is a main reason I don't buy 100% the absolute pace adjustments. Apart from Wilt, no superstar of the era took as high a percentage of his team's shots as Kobe or LeBron or younger Iverson. Even Wilt, given his playing time and pace, didn't take such an extraordinary number of shots.[/QUOTE]

Yep, I think the biggest reason the 60's players are so hard done by, really they'd be all stars today, was the lack of rationality people from that era had, right? ;0 clear out your PM's. :rockon:

[B]A PRIME Wilt is the Greatest Player that Ever Played by miles! :rolleyes:
Also the Best Most Complete Athletic-Physical Player ofAll Time
Also the Most Complre IMPAC (Technically-SKilled and Physical) Center of All Time

He played in Second Toughest Era in NBA History The Late 60s-Early 70s reason why it was very diffuclt for him to win same as for Charles, Malone, Stockton, Kemp-Paton (we know Lakers after his prime), Webber etc etc

Second Best Era`s After the 80s.

Early 90s and Mid 90s is close to that of the late 60s and early 70s

Late 90s and 2000s = One of the Weakest Eras in Competitive Team Ball Ever!. Team Expansion, Less Posibilities of Great Role Players, Stars and Supestars To Play Togheter, Zero Fundamentally Sound Players, Passing Game, Shot Selection, Court Vision, Rule Changes to Easen the Game and A WAY LESSER PHYSICAL ERA than Wilts[/B]

:violin: