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

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...

And the next best scorer that season didn't come close to that. Those scrubs were just too scrubby to score on each other.

True:applause:

I'd post my opinion, but I know that it'll piss off a lot of people

Context is important. Let's pretend that an 8 foot giant that is as mobile and strong as Shaq joins the league today. He'd probably dominate. Now let's pretend that 20 years later most centers are at least 8 feet tall and that mobile and strong.

I'm not impressed by Wilt's dominance over 6'6" unathletic centers, I'm also not impressed by the method used to score his 100 point game

[QUOTE=7_cody]I'd post my opinion, but I know that it'll piss off a lot of people

Context is important. Let's pretend that an 8 foot giant that is as mobile and strong as Shaq joins the league today. He'd probably dominate. Now let's pretend that 20 years later most centers are at least 8 feet tall and that mobile and strong.

I'm not impressed by Wilt's dominance over 6'6" unathletic centers, I'm also not impressed by the method used to score his 100 point game[/QUOTE]

An 8 foot Shaq in today's game would be far more of an anomaly than 7 foot 1 inch Wilt Chamberlain was in his.

Seriously...How many times can this thread be done?

Wilt = javale mcgee:lol

[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]
Wow, and that means that Russell was averaging [B]neg[/B]ative 7 ppg!!! Jerry West and the Big O right at 5 ppg!!! But not so fast, most of the league would average about about [B]neg[/B]ative 10 ppg. My only guess is that points were much harder to come by in Wilt's time than now. They must have widened the rim and brought it down a foot to help boost the scoring for the modern era.

[QUOTE=DatAsh]An 8 foot Shaq in today's game would be far more of an anomaly than 7 foot 1 inch Wilt Chamberlain was in his.[/QUOTE]

Sure, my numbers weren't the best-chosen in order to prove a point, but my point has been proved regardless

[QUOTE=7_cody]I'm not impressed by Wilt's dominance over 6'6" unathletic centers, I'm also not impressed by the method used to score his 100 point game[/QUOTE]

Just as a sampling, i'll remind you that in Wilt's rookie year, all but two teams had centers below 6'10-7'0.

The Nationals and the Celtics featuring 6'9 Bill Russell.

The Celtics went on to win the title.

Do a little research. It's enlightening.

[QUOTE=Poetry]Just as a sampling, i'll remind you that in Wilt's rookie year, all but two teams had centers below 6'10-7'0.

The Nationals and the Celtics featuring 6'9 Bill Russell.

The Celtics went on to win the title.

Do a little research. It's enlightening.[/QUOTE]

How is saying that most teams had centers BELOW 6'10 NOT supporting what I said?

I acknowledge that what you wrote may have been a typo - of course 6'10 footers and 7 footers existed, but so did the 6'6" centers that Wilt dominated -- do you see any 6'6" centers today? No, there's a reason why

[QUOTE=7_cody]I'd post my opinion, but I know that it'll piss off a lot of people

Context is important. Let's pretend that an 8 foot giant that is as mobile and strong as Shaq joins the league today. He'd probably dominate. Now let's pretend that 20 years later most centers are at least 8 feet tall and that mobile and strong.

I'm not impressed by Wilt's dominance over 6'6" unathletic centers, I'm also not impressed by the method used to score his 100 point game[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6900973&postcount=202[/url]

[QUOTE=7_cody]I'm not impressed by Wilt's dominance over 6'6" unathletic centers[/QUOTE]

:facepalm

Where does this myth about 6'6" white centers come from?

In 1961-62 when Wilt averaged over 50ppg there were just 9 teams in the NBA. Here's a list of the starting centers for each of those teams:

Philadelphia Warriors: Wilt Chamberlain* 7'1"
Boston Celtics: Bill Russell* 6'10"
Syracuse Nationals: Red Kerr 6'9" (main backup: Swede Halbrook 7'3")
New York Knicks: Phil Jordon 6'10" (main backup: Darrall Imhoff 6'10")
Los Angeles Lakers: Jim Krebs 6'8" (main backup: Ray Felix 6'11")
Cincinnati Royals: Wayne Embry 6'8"
Detroit Pistons: Walter Dukes 7'0"
St. Louis Hawks: Clyde Lovellette* 6'9" (main backup: Larry Foust 6'9")
Chicago Packers: Walt Bellamy* 6'11"

[I]*Denotes Hall of Famer[/I]

Then factor in that players were measured bare footed back then, so you can add another inch or so if you want those heights to be in keeping with modern measurements.

Wilt Chamberlain faced no more 6'6" centers than Shaq, Kareem or any other legendary center did.

Clearly, later in his career, Wilt faced even tougher competition at center, including the likes of Willis Reed, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Nate Thurmond and Bob Lanier.

And guess what? He still dominated.

[QUOTE=7_cody]How is saying that most teams had centers BELOW 6'10 NOT supporting what I said?

I acknowledge that what you wrote may have been a typo - of course 6'10 footers and 7 footers existed, but so did the 6'6" centers that Wilt dominated -- do you see any 6'6" centers today? No, there's a reason why[/QUOTE]

6 out of 8 teams had Centers that were 6'10 and up in Wilt's rookie year.

There were players then that played multiple positions, F-C, same as today. But primarily, almost all the teams had BIG big men.

Let's not act like LeBron wouldn't be one of the three best centers in the league today. Like Wilt, LeBron is a freak of nature athlete.

The league has gotten smaller in the last 10-15 years. And being 6'10 and up doesn't guarantee a players will be the best center in the league.

[QUOTE=WillC]:facepalm

Where does this myth about 6'6" white centers come from?

In 1961-62 when Wilt averaged over 50ppg there were just 9 teams in the NBA. Here's a list of the starting centers for each of those teams:

Philadelphia Warriors: Wilt Chamberlain* 7'1"
Boston Celtics: Bill Russell* 6'10"
Syracuse Nationals: Red Kerr 6'9" (main backup: Swede Halbrook 7'3")
New York Knicks: Phil Jordon 6'10" (main backup: Darrall Imhoff 6'10")
Los Angeles Lakers: Jim Krebs 6'8" (main backup: Ray Felix 6'11")
Cincinnati Royals: Wayne Embry 6'8"
Detroit Pistons: Walter Dukes 7'0"
St. Louis Hawks: Clyde Lovellette* 6'9" (main backup: Larry Foust 6'9")
Chicago Packers: Walt Bellamy* 6'11"

[I]*Denotes Hall of Famer[/I]

Then factor in that players were measured bare footed back then, so you can add another inch or so if you want those heights to be in keeping with modern measurements.

Wilt Chamberlain faced no more 6'6" centers than Shaq, Kareem or any other legendary center did.

Clearly, later in his career, Wilt faced even tougher competition at center, including the likes of Willis Reed, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Nate Thurmond and Bob Lanier.

And guess what? He still dominated.[/QUOTE]

A quick google search tells me that there are like 46 seven footers in the NBA today. The list posted earlier had like 8 or 9 I think. So what you're basically saying is that there were 8 or 9 games where he faced a seven footer, most not very talented, but other then that he had a severe size advantage

His numbers are impressive for his era, nothing else, IMO

Alright, I graciously accept defeat on the size issue -- I'm still not impressed with Wilt's method of scoring his 100, or the era that he played in (as arrogant as that sounds as a basketball fan)

I don't think Wilts dominance would translate to this era, but that is impossible to prove, so it's just an opinion

[QUOTE=7_cody]A quick google search tells me that there are like 46 seven footers in the NBA today. The list posted earlier had like 8 or 9 I think. So what you're basically saying is that there were 8 or 9 games where he faced a seven footer, most not very talented, but other then that he had a severe size advantage

His numbers are impressive for his era, nothing else, IMO[/QUOTE]

You do realize the league was much smaller then? Do some research man. You're making yourself sound so uninformed.

[QUOTE=7_cody]Alright, I graciously accept defeat on the size issue -- I'm still not impressed with Wilt's method of scoring his 100, or the era that he played in (as arrogant as that sounds as a basketball fan)

I don't think Wilts dominance would translate to this era, but that is impossible to prove, so it's just an opinion[/QUOTE]

Nobody is saying Wilt would average 50ppg today or be able to score 100 points in a game if he played today.

But that doesn't deny the fact that averaging 50ppg - even back in 1961-62 - was ****ing impressive.

I find it baffling why you are trying to piss all over the history of a sport that you clearly love. Care to explain your reasons for doing so?

[QUOTE=WillC]Nobody is saying Wilt would average 50ppg today or be able to score 100 points in a game if he played today.

But that doesn't deny the fact that averaging 50ppg - even back in 1961-62 - was ****ing impressive.

I find it baffling why you are trying to piss all over the history of a sport that you clearly love. Care to explain your reasons for doing so?[/QUOTE]

I'm not very knowledgeable on the NBA before the 1980s, well I know quite a bit but I'm not expert is what I want to say

From what I've seen watching classic games probably pre 1970s or so (which is how I like to judge, by watching, not reading stats) - the game was in its early stages of evolution and none of it was impressive

It doesn't make basketball less amazing, every sport started somewhere.

[QUOTE=7_cody]I'm not very knowledgeable on the NBA before the 1980s, well I know quite a bit but I'm not expert is what I want to say

From what I've seen watching classic games probably pre 1970s or so (which is how I like to judge, by watching, not reading stats) - the game was in its early stages of evolution and none of it was impressive

It doesn't make basketball less amazing, every sport started somewhere.[/QUOTE]

Without meaning to sound condescending, perhaps you ought to learn a bit more about basketball pre-1970s before criticising it?

Basketball wasn't impressive pre-1970? That's an incredibly naive and insulting comment.

[I]Hank Luisetti's use of the one-handed shot wasn't impressive in the 1930s?

Nat Holman's Original Celtics invention of the pivot play wasn't impressive?

The Harlem Renaissance's intricate team play wasn't impressive?

Oscar Robertson's all-around dominance in college and the pros wasn't impressive?

The Boston Celtic's 11 championships weren't impressive?[/I]

I think you need to learn a bit more before commenting in the future.

[QUOTE=7_cody]A quick google search tells me that there are like 46 seven footers in the NBA today. The list posted earlier had like 8 or 9 I think. So what you're basically saying is that there were 8 or 9 games where he faced a seven footer, most not very talented, but other then that he had a severe size advantage

His numbers are impressive for his era, nothing else, IMO[/QUOTE]
A quick google search isn't research - research that would tell you there [I]aren't[/I] 46 7 footers in the NBA today at all. Because NBA list heights today are ridiculously exaggerated.

Shaq would do the same in that era, perhaps more pts.

[QUOTE=swi7ch]Shaq would do the same in that era, perhaps more pts.[/QUOTE]

That's correct.

But he wasn't even alive then, so your point is a moot one.

[QUOTE=7_cody]From what I've seen watching classic games probably pre 1970s or so (which is how I like to judge, by watching, not reading stats) - the game was in its early stages of evolution and none of it was impressive[/QUOTE]

For the most part, the game is the same now as it was then, with a few differences in what was considered kosher and what wasn't.

The biggest leap in the game occurred post Mikan with the introduction of the shot clock. There's never been a bigger leap from one era to the other since then.

Back then, a team like the Globetrotters could dribble out the game clock and steal a victory from the Lakers.

FROM NBA.com:

[I]"Two momentous events in NBA history occurred prior to the 1954-55 season. George Mikan, who had been the standard-bearer as the league gained a foothold in the public consciousness, announced his retirement. But if anything could overshadow the departure of the game's greatest player, it was the adoption of the 24-second clock and an accompanying limit on the number of fouls a team could commit in a quarter. Syracuse owner Danny Biasone and his GM, Leo Ferris, came up with the shot clock idea, which along with the team foul limit, created the pro basketball game we know today.

The shot clock is born.

Scoring shot up immediately, from 79.5 ppg to 93.1. While team scoring soared, individual point totals did not, with the increased points seeming to come from across the team."[/I]

[QUOTE=7_cody]A quick google search tells me that there are like 46 seven footers in the NBA today. The list posted earlier had like 8 or 9 I think. So what you're basically saying is that there were 8 or 9 games where he faced a seven footer, most not very talented, but other then that he had a severe size advantage

His numbers are impressive for his era, nothing else, IMO[/QUOTE]
Outside of Wilt, nobody was blocking Kareem's hook with regularity. That just didn't happen. Not Sampson, not Hakeem, not Ewing, not Bol, not Eaton. So everybody was 6'6 to Kareem. So why didn't he score 50ppg. Yao had a much bigger height advantage and he could shoot. Shaq had a bigger advantage than Wilt because he used his weight to dominate and nobody had his size AND the refs worked with him on his advantages. Shaq was also quicker, among the longest, stronger and faster than all the other centers (wasn't as fast D Rob tho). Height doesn't have as much to do with scoring as you think. How many 7 foot centers ever averaged over 30ppg. I can only think of Kareem and Wilt. The more impressive center scorers were 6/10 ish Amare, Moses, McAdoo, Hakeem and they did so with impressive movement and finess more so than anything. Shaq is unique in the power game aspect.

Who was the best defender on Shaq? For me it was 6'8 Rodman. I not feeling the height argument. AI amazingly, doesn't even get respect from most of you guys claiming that the 60's was small, and AI isn't 6 ft tall and scored primarily from 15 feet and in, so height isn't that crazy of factor for most of yall.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Outside of Wilt, nobody was blocking Kareem's hook with regularity. That just didn't happen. Not Sampson, not Hakeem, not Ewing, not Bol, not Eaton. So everybody was 6'6 to Kareem. So why didn't he score 50ppg. Yao had a much bigger height advantage and he could shoot. Shaq had a bigger advantage than Wilt because he used his weight dominate and nobody had his size AND the refs worked with him on his advantages. Shaq was also quicker, among the longest, stronger and faster than all the other centers (wasn't as fast D Rob tho). Height doesn't have as much to do with scoring as you think. How many 7 foot centers ever averaged over 30ppg. I can only think of Kareem and Wilt. The more impressive center scorers were 6/10 ish Amare, Moses, McAdoo, Hakeem and they did so with impressive movement and finess more so than anything. Shaq is unique in the power game aspect.

Who was the best defender on Shaq? For me it was 6'8 Rodman. I not feeling the height argument. AI amazingly, doesn't even get respect from most of you guys claiming that the 60's was small, and AI isn't 6 ft tall and scored primarily from 15 feet and in, so height crazy of factor for most of yall.[/QUOTE]

Excellent post full of good examples. Why can't more ISH members make intelligent well-researched posts like this?

[quote=WillC]That's correct.

But he wasn't even alive then, so your point is a moot one.[/quote]
I don't care, as long as I'm right. :rockon:

Also, imagine how much McGee would dominate that era. :eek:

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=BlueandGold]Regardless of what a lot of 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.

- [B]Average height/wingspan of your average player was much smaller[/B], also mentioned earlier the talent pool was diluted due to ABA sapping talent away from the league[/QUOTE]
I research player barefoot height / wingspans that predate draftexpress and I can tell you that's bullshit right off the bat. Sounds like your other reasonings are simply making up excuses for your own fav players when anyone could easily cherry pick reasons why their own era is "weak". Plus, your accusing people of saying things that have never been said trying to make the opposition look stupid with lies. Find me one quote of anyone on ISH saying Wilt would average 50 today. I'll wait.

[QUOTE=7_cody]I'm not very knowledgeable on the NBA before the 1980s, well I know quite a bit but I'm not expert is what I want to say

From what I've seen watching classic games probably pre 1970s or so (which is how I like to judge, by watching, not reading stats) - the game was in its early stages of evolution and none of it was impressive

It doesn't make basketball less amazing, every sport started somewhere.[/QUOTE]
The only big differences I see from back then to now is the ball handling, because players werent allowed to carry the ball back then and more dunks. And of course the 3point line. But post play especially, hasnt seemed to change that much.

[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]

Find me one person who thinks that Wilt would average 50ppg today.

Nobody thinks he would or could.

However, that doesn't take anything away from what he [B][I]did [/I][/B]achieve in the 1960s, when he single-handedly decimated the record books for eternity.

If you don't respect that, then that's your loss. It's a shame you can't respect the history of the game.

[QUOTE=MasterDurant24]The only big differences I see from back then to now is the ball handling, because players werent allowed to carry the ball back then and more dunks. And of course the 3point line. But post play especially, hasnt seemed to change that much.[/QUOTE]

You're spot on; ball-handling and the three-point line are the main changes.

[QUOTE=WillC]Find me one person who thinks that Wilt would average 50ppg today.

Nobody thinks he would or could.

However, that doesn't take anything away from what he [B][I]did [/I][/B]achieve in the 1960s, when he single-handedly decimated the record books for eternity.
[B]
If you don't respect that, then that's your loss. It's a shame you can't respect the history of the game.[/B][/QUOTE]

It's a shame that's all you got from my post.

BTW idolizing and glorifying past NBA players is not "respecting the history of the game".

I'm not sure how old you are but have some more self-respect please, or at least respect the legitimate posters on this forum. If not you'll find yourself arguing with only the trolls on this forum (at least 50% of the posters here)

[QUOTE=LamarOdom]True:applause:[/QUOTE]

The funniest part of that post is as if you hadn't ever had a thought close to this ever.

Yet garbage minutes or not, think of how a man playing an entire game under more PHYSICAL rules and harder opposition (yes, not every single game, but that's like criticizing Kobe for scoring some crazy amount of points against Charlotte "but it's against Charlotte" is how you denigrate the entire 60s basketball, when infact the league was infinitely stronger. I guess everyone in the league has no marketable stars just because Charlotte doesn't).

Can you see anyone playing 48 minutes in today's pussyball? Exactly.

[QUOTE=BlueandGold]It's a shame that's all you got from my post.

BTW idolizing and glorifying past NBA players is not "respecting the history of the game".

I'm not sure how old you are but have some more self-respect please, or at least respect the legitimate posters on this forum. If not you'll find yourself arguing with only the trolls on this forum (at least 50% of the posters here)[/QUOTE]

I'm not glorifying past NBA players; I'm merely defending them from people who show no respect for what those players and teams accomplished.

In your post, you made up a load of crap and expect people to buy it.

I'm probably twice your age and, from what I can tell, know infinitely more about basketball than you do. You said you're a "legitimate poster on this forum" and yet your previous post stated that "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", proving that you struggle with reading comprehension.

I'll ask once again: please find me one person who thinks that Wilt would average 50ppg today. Even jlauber doesn't think that.

Now, if you've got nothing constructive to say about NBA history, then stop trying to piss all over it.

Thank you.

[QUOTE=Math2]Can you see anyone playing 48 minutes in today's pussyball? Exactly.[/QUOTE]

He led the league practically every year, well into the end of his career, it's almost unimaginable.

Once in a generation, freak of nature athlete.

Even if his minutes were reduced in todays game, he would be raring to get off the bench and add to his 20,000 list.

[QUOTE=WillC]I'm not glorifying past NBA players; I'm merely defending them from people who show no respect for what those players and teams accomplished.

In your post, you made up a load of crap and expect people to buy it.
[B]
I'm probably twice your age and, from what I can tell, know infinitely more about basketball than you do.[/B] You said you're a "legitimate poster on this forum" and yet your previous post stated that "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", proving that you struggle with reading comprehension.

I'll ask once again: please find me one person who thinks that Wilt would average 50ppg today. Even jlauber doesn't think that.

Now, if you've got nothing constructive to say about NBA history, then stop trying to piss all over it.

Thank you.[/QUOTE]
Good to know your so modest. Anyways it's pretty obvious to most of the posters on here who are the trolls and who aren't.All I stated were factors to consider and your getting that worked out about it and then attack me for "making up a load of crap".

If your not offended by my opinions then simply ignore me or choose not to read.

I'm sure your going to post some smart response back as to that's exactly what you plan to do but I'll continue to read your posts and respond to them as I see fit. When you want to have a civilized/legitimate discussion on NBA matters feel free to respond to mine with a little something more than calling everything what I have to say "a load of crap".

Anyways back to the OP:

- the pace per possessions WAS significantly much more in the 60s and 70s.
- took much less games to win a championship (only had to win 8) and the ABA also sapped talent away from the league (Dr. J, Moses, etc)
- Wilt's point production also dropped significantly in the playoffs, even with the higher pace was unable to outscore Jordan and Shaq in playoff PPG

If you want to dispute those facts than please go ahead, will only respond to NBA related content.

How the **** does he average 48.5 minutes?

Wow. It's literally an all out ISH war right now between those who consider the 60's and 70's as a legitimately competitive NBA era (and the players who accomplished feats in that era) and those who clearly don't. Most NBA "fans" on the non-supportive side must have failed [I]miserably[/I] in their history classes when they were in school. Clearly it isn't valued. Most of the people talking about that era that don't think it was competitive are OPENLY STATING that they have seen little of it and know little of it. Yet they are just as keen on saying it wasn't impressive :facepalm