Did Wilts "100 point game" actually happen?

[kshutts1]

Dunno why people use FGA to count pace when you are looking at a league with much higher rebounding and much lower FG%. Makes you think a good portion of them were probably offensive rebounding put back attempts.

-Smak

I don't think this portion was discussed properly. Basically all that can be said about it is... good point.

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

[iamgine]

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

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

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

He had the size but cmon now. You're basically describing Luke Walton.

[Psileas]

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

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

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

[iamgine]

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

I guess what I'm saying is it's absurd because here we are taking a 39 years old man, far far removed from his prime in a very stacked team with the GOAT PG. Against a sophomore player, also very far from his prime. And somehow the result of their matchup determine...something.

[Pointguard]

I guess what I'm saying is it's absurd because here we are taking a 39 years old man, far far removed from his prime in a very stacked team with the GOAT PG. Against a sophomore player, also very far from his prime. And somehow the result of their matchup determine...something.

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

[305Baller]

[iamgine]

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

ewing situation

[97 bulls]

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

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

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

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

[CavaliersFTW]

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

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

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

Wilt isn't an 'average superstar' - he's Wilt Chamberlain - the record book owner. He did things nobody did before him, while he was playing, or after he played. If Wilt wants to play 48 minutes, who's gonna stop him? In today's era coaches have even less influence over superstar players than they did in his own era. He'd play as many minutes as he wanted today, and if a coach didn't like it they'd be fired.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Wilt isn't an 'average superstar' - he's Wilt Chamberlain - the record book owner. He did things nobody did before him, while he was playing, or after he played. If Wilt wants to play 48 minutes, who's gonna stop him? In today's era coaches have even less influence over superstar players than they did in his own era. He'd play as many minutes as he wanted today, and if a coach didn't like it they'd be fired.

Dwight Howard is a borderline superstar, if you can even call him a superstar at all I don't know.

[BoutPractice]

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

[Pointguard]

ewing situation

Originally Posted by iamgine

I guess what I'm saying is it's absurd because here we are taking a 39 years old man, far far removed from his prime in a very stacked team with the GOAT PG. Against a sophomore player, also very far from his prime. And somehow the result of their matchup determine...something.

You keep saying its absurd because he -Lazeruss, according to you, cherry picked a young Hakeem. But then he includes the other future prominent center, Ewing, and it applies across the board. At the very least the argument is solid and consistent. No? It doesn't seem absurd because it applies to the very good in three different eras.

[iamgine]

Originally Posted by iamgine

You keep saying its absurd because he -Lazeruss, according to you, cherry picked a young Hakeem. But then he includes the other future prominent center, Ewing, and it applies across the board. At the very least the argument is solid and consistent. No? It doesn't seem absurd because it applies to the very good in three different eras.

The argument is neither consistent nor solid. What was said above also applied to Ewing.

[Pointguard]

The argument is neither consistent nor solid. What was said above also applied to Ewing.

Name the prominent center it doesn't apply to? There is usually one exception to the rule. Otherwise its comprehensive.

[97 bulls]

Wilt isn't an 'average superstar' - he's Wilt Chamberlain - the record book owner. He did things nobody did before him, while he was playing, or after he played. If Wilt wants to play 48 minutes, who's gonna stop him? In today's era coaches have even less influence over superstar players than they did in his own era. He'd play as many minutes as he wanted today, and if a coach didn't like it they'd be fired.

The owners would stop him. Wilt would easily be a 30 mill per guy. Theres no way an owner would be willing to invest that much money to watch him tear a ligament playing the lowly Raptors for 48 minutes.

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