[link text](
Naming the greatest is always a hard thing to do. As most times you're looking at players from didn't eras and trying to compare them. Not an easy task. However when you have a player come along no matter what the sport and they change the rules to level the playing advantage. That says it all.
Whenever people talk about the greatest, it's ridiculous how obvious their bias is. For instance, most people's top 10 basketball players played within 10 years of each other. Is it a coincidence that most people's top 10 include MJ, Magic, Bird, and Kareem? Some even include Isaiah Thomas!
My top 5 goes like this:
MJ
Wilt
James
Oscar
Hakeem
Hakeem is a toss up between Kareem and Russell. But don't even get me started on the most overrated player of all time in Kobe Bryant. He should never even sniff anyone's top 5 and I wouldn't put him in my top 10. 15 at best for him.
Look at his overall performance in every sport in which he competed, starting in High School and you will probably change the words "basketball player" to athlete. He was unbelievable.
@JhawkAlum Wait a decade and swap Embiid for Hakeem!
When you look at players in the context of the team or teams they played, some move higher and some move lower. Wilt, by and large, played for below average teams and still managed to put incredible numbers. Bill Russel is the complete opposite, he is no doubt a great player but he played for extremely good teams that made him look that much better. If you look a the head to head numbers against Wilt, it is not even close...btu the Celtics won most of the games. Other than the one year at Milwaukee, Kareem did not had superior teams with the Bucks and only got better once he went to the Lakers. Jordan and Olajuwon had very good teams around them and their success is partly a result of that, although both were superior players. I would take Kareem over Olajuwon any time.
I believe that it's always tough to compare different generations and it's really kind of a moot point. But I don't mean to diminish his amazing career. His numbers were mindblowing, staggering really. I find myself wondering why he didn't win more championships, but obviously it's at least due to his lack of having great teams around him.
Dude they changed the rules because of Wilt. Did they change the rules because of Jordan? Are they changing the rules for King LeBron?
Think about it? They changed the rules because Wilt was so dominate.
@DoubleDD Wilt came along just late enough in history to have a chance at the NBA. He was a part of a pioneering group of African Americans to play in the sport professionally. That's a factor that needs to be considered. Again, I'm not saying he wasn't the greatest, but you really can't say he was either because he didn't play against todays great players in a more developed game.
Wilt.
Next.
P.S.: Wilt would score and rebound far more in today's game, if he were on a weak team and asked to carry the team, as he was in his early career. Contemporary weight and CV training would have added 40 pounds to Wilt by the time he was an NBA rookie. He would become a bigger, stronger, more powerful NBA rookie 2-3 years earlier than he did without the wear and tear of KU basketball (being quadruple teamed and hacked to pieces) and track and the essentially wasted year with the trotters.
Add in that he would essentially have the lane to himself because of the need to guard the Trey stripe, and be guarded by a bunch 6-9 forwards that he could dunk and finger roll everytime down the floor and be allowed to walk, shove, and pretty much do as he pleases without worry of a violation, and one can conservatively infer he would average 10 Ppg and 5-10 rpg more!!!! His high point game would probably be 115-120 points instead of 100.
He would KILL today's game.
It's hard to know who is the greatest.. but he was unique at the time. These days, there are more guys that have physical attributes that are similar to his. That's at least one way to think about comparisons. Durant and Anthony Davis (and maybe Joel Embiid) are guys around 7' that have similar dexterity.
They are different, but the closest I can compare to Wilt in today's game. Can you think of someone else who is similar physically to Wilt?
The game is faster, there is more parity and it's officiated differently. Plus there is the 3-pt line which changes the strategies. So it's hard to compare.
I think Wilt in his prime would be a leader in the league in scoring but not at the astronomical rate that he did back in the day.
@jaybate-1.0 How do you think Jordan would do without hand checking? The freedom of movement allowed today would favor him immensely. Wilt would be a stud in any era, but there are more footers in the NBA now. And many of those big guys are pretty agile as well. I don't know if he'd put up better numbers now than then, but at least they'd count his blocks!
Good point about hand.checking, but....
Small ball and the Trey have filled the NBA with more great small ballers than in Jordan's era for sure. OMG, Lebron would eat Jordan alive, and Russell W would be just as good. MJ's weak trey for most of his career would cause him huge problems in today's game, because of the zones today that he never had to drive on. Jordan would suffer far more in today's game than Wilt. Wilt would absolutely feast today!!!
Today's footers just aren't very good since Duncan left.
Towns is all right...
Davis is a player to build a franchise around.
I'm curious how Wilt would fit in to today's game?
I know one thing... he would probably shoot 100 FTs a game. And that is a bad thing.
Teams would flood their benches into the game and play "hack a Shaq" with Wilt.
I'm afraid his game would be doomed until he learned to make at least 70% from the line.
Teams often intentionally fouled him back then, too.... but that was before the increase in PPP (points per possession) created largely from the trey ball. In today's game Wilt's statistical points "pros" and "cons" wouldn't add up to the advantage he had back in his day.
I think Wilt was fortunate to play the game when he did. It gave him the opportunity to show what he could do, and he did, making him a legend that will live forever!
@Crimsonorblue22 Boogie is the most underrated center in the league. If he had a better attitude I think he would attract another big time talent to come to Sacramento with him. He could easily be a major piece of a championship team.
Yeah, cousins is nice. So is the Spurs big. Embiid may surpass them all if he can stay healthy! Seriously Embiid is like a true 7ft Hakeem with more skill and bulk at this stage in their careers.
It's incredibly difficult to compare eras.
If you drop young Lebron James or Michael Jordan into the league when Elgin Baylor came in, we may have rules about how far away from the basket you were allowed to jump to dunk. Drop Steph Curry into the league around that time and there would be rules about how much one guy could dribble, or how far away you could be when you shot.
Wilt changed the rules because he was dominant (and because he basically destroyed the set shot as a part of the game). Wilt, along with Russell, Baylor and Robertson revolutionized the game by making it a vertical game as well as horizontal.
Prior to that quartet, guys played the game either vertically or horizontally. Go back and watch players from the early 1950s. Big guys played the game vertically because they were tall. Small guys played the game horizontally because they were not. But Wilt, Russell, Elgin and Oscar made you play both at the same time.
Wilt and Russell could run with guards, so guards could not just play on a horizontal plane, using their speed to outrun the giants that manned the paint. Elgin changed the way you could attack the rim. Oscar was the first truly big guard that could pass, handle, shoot, post up and do all of the things we see today. All four guys could play above the rim if necessary, but could also run the floor, defend, etc. They were all very much all around players.
Think of Wilt as an early Shaq. Think of Elgin as the first Lebron. Imagine Russell as Kevin Garnett. Oscar is the hardest to make a parallel for - maybe an early Magic, but smaller and better defensively.
Players now are so much more well rounded. Big guys can step away from the basket and handle or shoot. A guy like Anthony Davis would simply break the league in 1956. A 6-11 guy that handles like a guard, but blocks shots, runs like a gazelle and can shoot jumpers too. There wasn't an answer for that in 1956. Heck, nobody then even knew that could be a question. And Anthony Davis is not the best player in the NBA right now.
Heck, Kevin Durant would likely turn the whole world upside down. A 6-10 guy that's one of the best perimeter shooters in the league, handles like a guard, can post or step away from the basket and score. Who guards Kevin Durant in 1957 or 1958? And he can shoot FTs too. He likely wrecks the league in ways we can't even imagine.
But that's the thing. The game has been pushed to progress by all of the different elements of greatness that have been introduced. The game is where it is because of Wilt's size and agility making big men have to become mobile. It was raised because Elgin saw you could fly, David Thompson decided to walk on the sky, Julius went to the Dr., Michael Jordan became Air and every kid thought they could dunk from the FT line.
Now Steph Curry is leading a new revolution of long range bombers that will push the game to another place. 20 years from now there will be some kid built like Lebron swishing 25 footers and simultaneously dunking on people with severe malice, and people will say that guy is the greatest.
Not the greatest. Just next. Always next. And the game marches on.
@BeddieKU23 just heard Ben Mac didn't agree w/terms of contract
@nuleafjhawk against Wilt's competition, Shaquille would've done the same thing. I'm not saying Wilt isn't great, but the playing field isn't level. You really can't compare stats from bygone eras in basketball or football. Baseball stats pre/post steroid era are fairly comparable though.
Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Sam Jones and John Havilecek and Pete Maravich would each exceed Steph Curry'a accomplishments in today's game. Each would score 5-10 Ppg more than they did because of the Trey and each were taller, as strong, and as good of outside shooters. These guys would Small Ball the NBA to death.
As far as pure shooting goes, World B Free would equal or exceed Steph outside.
The great players above would be vastly more dominant in today's game of 6-9 forwards. Imagine a league a quarter full of Steph Currys!
We are most definitely NOT in a golden age of talent today.
Et al,
Wilt never was allowed to walk or foul at will, as he would be today. He would average 10 Ppg over what he did back when he played. He even said so when asked about Shaq. And its worse now than at Shaqs time and the post defenders are munchkins.
And if they fouled him, 50 times a game he would make 70% of his dunks and 50% of his free throws on 50 FGAs. Do the math. His PPP WOULD AVERAGE HIGHER AND WITH LESS VARIANCE THAN THE THREE POINT SHOOTING TEAMS TODAY, except on their very hottest nights. Plus his Trey balling mates would have wide open looks on any kickouts and so shoot a sharply higher average on 3ptas than opponents.
This isn't even close!
@BeddieKU23 I'll definitely agree that their front office is by far one of the worst in the league. They currently have 4 centers on their roster. Which is laughable in a league that has essentially devalued the position.
Rudy Gay will be a nice piece for a Thunder or Clippers before the trade deadline.
Rudy looked great against Wiggins the other night. Forgot he still could ball that good which is easy to forget when you play for the Kings.
Blessing for Ben if he can get on a better team. He's played well so far to start the season so he's probably auditioning for his next contract. Were rumors he was trade bait, I'm sure he could be traded during the year
@BeddieKU23 They really just need to start over and rebuild. Starting with the GM. I could only imagine the haul they could get for Boogie and Gay. 6 first round picks over the next 3 years maybe?
If they can flip BMac for a developmental guy and a 1st rounder I'd say he is gone as well.
I don't agree that we have more tall players now; there were plenty of tall players in Wilt's time, just none that could match up with him and I cannot think of a center that could match up now; physically he was way ahead of his time.
Last season I checked the starting rosters of all NBA teams and there were only half a dozen players identified as true centers, most of the players we consider center are now listed ad PFs. Tall players do not want to bang inside anymore and many that are tall enough to be centers are either PFs or the currently popular stretch PF.
I think you hit on one area that many (including myself) would overlook if Wilt was playing today... his assist numbers!
Wilt had an amazing gift for passing. He held the ball in one hand and tossed it like a baseball. With his height, he had a unique perspective on the game and often found passing lanes that other players couldn't find or see.
The game has changed a lot since the days of Wilt. His passing would help prevent the double-teams. Wilt INVITED double-teams in his day and would THRIVE on being double-teamed today.
I'm extremely curious if Wilt was around today if shooting coaches could help him over his FT and midrange shooting woes. That help would propel him to outrageous point totals!
My dad noted that Wilt's FT % tended to spike up in big games. Thus yes, they could help him with concentration.
@nuleafjhawk I disliked shaqs style of play and never was a fan of his. But dude was a force of nature. Bill Russel is the only player of hat era that I can think of with enough size to hold position on him. My point is that any dominate modern era center in his prime would put up monster stats in Wilts era.
I am aware that wilt was also freakishly strong, nailed every woman he ever looked at, could walk on water, and was the best center ever. I just don't think the gap is that large.
Who would you rather have Marino or Montana?
@jaybate-1.0 absurd statements. Athletes today are far better trained.
Basketball has also become a sport played better all over the world. So now we have giant Europeans coming over to play in the post. Something Wilt never had to deal with.
Just can't even comprehend how someone could think one man is more of a freak than 50 years of other players from all over the entire world. That he was so good generations of players couldn't even touch him. That narrative is so absurd. Shaq would have done the same thing if not more in that time period. Without hesitation do I say that. Shaq put up nearly 30ppg in the 90s and thousands. 30 years of being able to study the game and develop a defense to stop such large players.
Shaq (7'1 300 lbs) played:
- Yoa (7'6, 311 lbs),
- Olajuwon (7'0 255 lbs),
- David Robinson (7'1 249 lbs),
- Ewing (7'0 240 lbs),
- Mutombo (7'2 260 lbs),
- Elden Campbell, (6'11, 280 lbs),
- Dwight Howard 6'11 265 lbs
Wilt (7'1 276 lbs) played:
- Bill Russell (6'9, 220 lbs)
- Walt Bellamy (6'11 225 lbs)
- Jerry Lucas (6'11, 229 lbs)
- Nate Thurmond (6'11 225 lbs)
- Willis Reed 6'9 (240 lbs)
- Clyde Lovellette (6'9 234 lbs)
- Kareem (7'2, 247 lbs)
- Bob Lanier (6'10 260 lbs)
So, just to make that clear, Shaq played 5 other Hall of Fame Centers over 7 ft tall during his prime. And the two that weren't 7 ft, well they were bigger than anyone Wilt faced except for Kareem. In no possible way could Wilt have even came close to scoring the way he did in the 60s. He played against guys giving up 4-5 inches and 50 lbs. Shaq in that era would have had that same height advantage, except he had 100 plus pounds on many players. He would have literally been able to score at will the same exact way Wilt did.
Another thing to keep in mind about wilt is that he suffered a cute insomnia for most of his life and it no doubt adversely impacted his playing career. If he were playing today, sleep science would almost certainly sharply improve his performance by sharply lessening his insomnia.
@jaybate-1.0 He also probably would have had a hard time passing todays drug protcols. Which probably effected his sleep. Not to mention it is pretty hard to sleep when you have someone new in your bed every night...
Lets call it forced acute sleep insomnia that would have most likely still been the case today...
Oh, what the heck, I'll play along, since we are getting near tip off and near election day and folks need relief from the suspense about the reputed pedo ring that reputedly compromises both London and Washington media and gubmint officials the last few decades.
Think about how dominant Shaq was against that competition you list, which was of course the era before today's small ball, which was what I was referring to, right?
But that's okay. I'll play take what ya give me.
Now, hold that thought about how dominant Shaq was when he was allowed unlimited charging and shoving, and about as many steps as he needed to score. I know it was this way because I lived in California part of his Laker years and watched him regularly.
And resist the temptatian to shout "that's absurd!" 🙏
Now take a deep breath and compare Shaq's size and strength with Wilt's. They were sort of comparable, right? Wilt was thinner and an order of magnitude more athletic early and became stronger than Shaq later, but both guys had the ability to physically manhandle their competition.
One more deep breath....we're almost there.
Ready?
Wilt was fabulously more skilled than Shaq. Wilt had as many money moves in the post as any player that ever played the post. Drop steps both ways. Ambidextrous dunking AND finger rolling. And he said he could hook but never wanted to lower his fg% doing it. Turn around fadeaway from 10-15 was always money. Said he could shoot it from 20, but there was no point. Good dribbler. Great passer. Phenomenal body position and footwork. Impeccable timing.
Shaq had quick feet and he could dunk. That was it. Nothing else. Nada. And Shaq dominated the opponents you listed by charging and walking.
Wilt might never have missed a field goal in that era had he been allowed to charge and walk like Shaq.
Put another way, imagine what Shaq might have done had he had skill? He might have scored 100 points in a game.
I will have to respectfully disagree with you. It is said that Wilt had a 50 in. vertical jump, can you name me one of the modern center that comes even close to that? I will give you a clue, the average for the NBA is 28" and Shaq is listed at 32". Wilt was an athletic freak, regardless of what era he played; with today's training techniques he would be even better. BTW, Shaq's playing weight was 325 lbs and he is one of the heaviest and biggest players ever in the NBA and a lot of his success was by plowing over players with bulk rather than skill or finesse. If some of Wilt's feats of strength are to be believed, he was probably stronger, faster and much more agile than Shaq and would have dominated him much like he did every other player. Just my opinion.
@jaybate-1.0 I am not saying Wilt wouldn't have averaged right around 30 pts for his career still.
I am just saying he wouldn't have scored MORE. Shooting over 6'9 guys is a joke for a 7'1 freak.
You can't just set aside the size of the NBA changing just like it is nothing. The physicality of defense changing is also a factor. Sure he could have gotten away with more walks charges. But players also get away with more physicality on the defensive end now than they did then. You can bump bodies and it not be called a foul now. Shaq scored the way he did in the peak of defensive physicality. Early 90s was probably one of the most physical times in basketball.
In this era of small ball though, I could see where you are saying Wilt would score a ton. Boogie has done it. Anthony Davis looks like this year will be special. Wilt probably could have done it in this NBA due to the fact that there really are no good true centers left. And with how athletic he was he could have kept up with today's pace.
We have to draw the difference between young Shaq and older Shaq, as we would with Young Wilt and veteran Wilt.
Wilt averaged 50 points a game as a 25 year old in 1961-62. The All-star centers and power forwards that year were the following players:
Dolph Schayes, 6-8, 220 pounds (basically the same size as our own Josh Jackson)
Johnny Green, 6-5, 200 pounds (smaller than Wayne Selden)
Bill Russell, 6-10, 215 pounds (a big guy in his day, but lighter than Perry Ellis is now, and Perry is at least 2 inches shorter than Russell)
Bob Pettit, 6-9, 205 (Cheick Diallo was bigger than Pettit when he arrived on campus last year)
Walt Bellamy, 6-11, 225 (legitimately tall, but again, he's lighter than Perry Ellis, or even Carlton Bragg)
Wayne Embry, 6-8, 240 (Roughly Perry Ellis' size)
Those were the all-stars that season. Could any of those players do anything to guard young Shaq?
But let's dive into the numbers.
As a 25 year old, Wilt shot 50% from the field. As a 25 year old, Shaq shot 58% from the field. Yes, Wilt scored more, but he shot nearly 40 shots a game. You better average close to 50 a night shooting that much. Shaq shot less than 20 times per game as a 25 year old, but he averaged 28 points per game. If you up Shaq's FG attempts to match Wilt's, but shave off a little bit of his efficiency - say he shoots only 50% on the additional 20 attempts per game to match Wilt's 39.5 shots per game vs his 19.1. That tacks 20 points per game onto his average, bringing him to 48.3 - and that doesn't include any additional FTs!
Wilt shot 17 FTs per game that season. Shaq shot 11 as a 25 year old. Tack on the extra 6 FT attempts (not out of the realm of possibility if Shaq were shooting 20 more FG per game) and suddenly, even if Shaq shoots just 2-6 from the line on those additional 6 attempts, guess what his average is --- 50.3. Wilt averaged 50.4 in his historic season.
That's about as close to a mirror image as you can get. And that's just the back of the envelope math to equalize the shot attempts and free throw attempts, dropping down Shaq's efficiency with more usage. If Shaq were to maintain even a bit more efficiency, it's not crazy to say he could have averaged 55+ per game if he replaced Wilt in that wild 1962 season, since I drop his FG% from 58% to 54% and his FT% from almost 53% to under 46% (Wilt was 50% and 61%, for perspective).
This isn't an argument to say that Shaq was/is better. This is an argument to say that Shaq could have absolutely matched Wilt's numbers from that season. There was never a post man that could score as reliably from inside 6 feet like Shaq. Here are his FG% from his rookie year until his 10th year in the league - 56, 60, 58, 57, 56, 58, 57, 57, 57, 58. Shaq shot 58% from the field for his career.
Wilt did eventually get there from an efficiency standpoint. After never shooting better than 54% during the first 9 years of his career, from then until the end of his career his numbers are like this - 68, 59, 58, 57, 55, 65, 72. An incredible run that brought his career number up to 54%. But during that run, Wilt never averaged more than 27.3 points per game. His efficiency skyrocketed right as he took fewer shots (never more than 19 a game, mostly in the mid teens as his career entered its later years).
Here's a quick comparison of Wilt's scoring and FG% vs. Shaq's - Wilt in Blue, Shaq in Red. Notice how his efficiency doesn't take off until his scoring plummets:
Meanwhile, notice how Shaq never strays from the high 50s or low 60s. He's just a machine throughout his career. And Shaq played another couple years after this also where he was still a very efficient scorer (though often injured).
From his second year in the league until his 11th, if you had to bet your life that Shaq would average 26 points a game and shoot 55%+, you would have lived every year. That's consistent and amazing.
One quick note. At age 25, Shaq was playing in his 6th season in the NBA, at age 25, Wilt was starting his 3rd season...3 years of experience is quite a bit, considering Wilt spent some yeasr with the Harlem Globe Trotters, not exactly the best place to find decent competition to hone your skills.
I am trying to envision someone among the competition you list trying to get physical with Will Chamberlain. Other than shaq, I am not having much luck. And if Shaq had tried to get rough with Wilt, I reckon Wilt would have just shot fadeaways on him for 50 points.
Your data makes my case.
Wilt, without unlimited charging and without as many steps allowed as necessary, Was comparable with Shaq, but only if we assume Shaq's FG% would only drop the modest amount you assume arbitrarily, were Shaq's FGAs to spike up to young Wilt's level.
But of course Wilt had a huge increment of decline in his FG% that you document and it is logical to infer Shaq's increment of decline as his FGAs spiked would be greater than Wilt, since Shaq was nearly touchless, when not dunking and Wilt had a fine 10-15 ft bank shot, plus all manner of finger rolls Shaq could not do.
The bottom line is: Shaq's high percentage hinged almost entirely on dunking and that hinged largely on charging and traveling and strength. Wilt had the strength.
Wilt, with a sharply better touch, would, with charging and walking added to his repertoire, have had much higher FG%s both for low and high FGA totals than Shaq young, or old.
There's no way around it.
And the issue of better players in Shaq's time is rendered irrelevant as follows. I stipulate Shaq faced a greater number of good big men (though arguably not one as good as Big Russ on defense and rebounding, but charging and walking and strength offset that variable in Shaq's time and so would have with Wilt also.
So Shaq without touch and without charging and walking, would not have done as well as Wilt did against Wilt's era centers either in Wilt's youth, or his maturity.
Shaq just couldn't have come close to Wilt's accomplishments without charging and walking.
@justanotherfan Don't let those stats get in the way of Jaybates narrative!
@jaybate-1.0 First of all, they scored more points in the 60s than they did in the 90s. By nearly 25 ppg more...
While you keep bringing up charging and traveling, you conveniently forget defenses were also allowed to be more physical and actually make contact with a shooter in the time Shaq has played. Compared to 1960 where you couldn't even sneeze on a guy shooting the ball. Free throw attempts were down 800 in a season in the same 60's to 90's time frame. PER TEAM. Shaq would have shot plenty of free throws.
His stats actually prove HIS point and not yours. It would be safe to take off 5% points of Shaq's shooting percentage as that was the biggest gap of shooting percentage in any season in the NBA. That still puts Shaq in the exact same level of scoring as Wilt.
You are also forgetting the number of lob passes Wilt was able to catch over 6'7-6'9 defenders that were easy dunks. Shaq had to actually establish position against guys with Wingspans that were at least comparable to his own.
These are the facts JB. Your own personal love for Wilt is getting in the way of seeing things for the way they truly are.
So we are down to comparing Wilt to Shaq? Really?
I mean I like Shaq and all, but how can anybody reach that conclusion?
Sure I can buy the argument of taking a modern day player like Anthony Davis putting him in a time machine and sending him back into time. That he would dominate. I mean the game has evolved this we all can agree on. Yet you guys aren't wanting to look at the other side of the coin. What if we could bring a young boy Wilt into the future and let him harness his game with advancement in training technology, and coaching. Let that sink into your mind.
I mean they didn't even keep track of blocked shots when Wilt was playing. He changed the game in every way. He holds records that still stand today.
The thing is a special player or a gifted player is just that. It doesn't matter what era they are born in. I have no doubt in my mind a young Wilt growing up in todays game would still dominate. I always believe Wilt dominance would be so profound that they would change the rules of the game again.
You see Wilt was not only a gifted man but he had a lions heart. Even a post modern Wilt would give the best of the modern age all they could handle. King Lebron would find his ass on the floor picking up what's left of his shattered ego if he locked horns with Wilt.
You are missing the main component. By and large Wilt played for crappy teams where he was basically the entire team, except for a couple of years. Shaq, on the other hand, played for much better teams and had a much better supporting cast. Place Shaq in most of the teams Wilt played and see how his number dip.
@JayHawkFanToo Actually, we already added that in. Notice the lower FG percentage combined with the higher shots attempted. Also, add in the extra free throws shot. You are dismissing that players Wilt went up against are about 5-10% shorter and about 10-20% lighter players/
Not to mention, Shaq was not "surrounded by talent." He went to the Orlando Magic as the #1 overall pick. Meaning, they SUCKED. 21-61. Shaq comes in and, what do you know? They win 20 more games the very next season. And every season he was with them all the way up to 60 wins and a Confernece Finals run. He leaves, they lose 15 more games the next season... Shaq WAS the Magic.
Lakers, Shaq comes in. Wins 2 chips. Leaves and the year after he leaves they miss the playoffs... Shaw WAS the Lakers.
Goes to the Heat. Takes them from a .500 team to a Conference finals and wins a championship the next season. Shaq WAS the heat.
Shaq playoff stats: 24 ppg. .556 fg%, 16 consecutive playoffs made.
Wilt playoff stats: 22.ppg .522 fg% 10 consecutive playoffs made.
When Shaq turned it on he was as good as anyone ever. Period. To think that a player like Shaq wouldn't have touched the game in the same way Wilt did is ignoring statistical data and common sense. They just didn't make players that size back in the day. Wilt worked out more than most (everyone) in that era. He was the first guy to be so freakishly athletic for his size that he did change the game forever. But to say that nobody could have matched up with him EVER, it just isn't a realistic opinion. The smartest guy on the planet is more than likely not THAT much smarter than the next smartest guy. Especially if considered over a 30+ year period. The fastest guy isn't THAT much faster than the 2nd fastest guy. The guy with the best arm doesn't throw THAT much harder than the guy with the 2nd best arm. The best bowler in the world isn't THAT much better than the 2nd best bowler. Messi isn't THAT much better than Ronaldo. Tiger Woods isn't THAT much better than Jack Nicklaus (arguable either way), etc etc etc. In a world of BILLIONS of people, the odds of one man being THAT much better than the other billions is quite simply impossible. Hell, even than the hundreds of millions just in the U.S. over 30 years. Just not realistic.
This is my last post on this, as you or JayB have found no statistical or useful data to backup your side of this conversation. You are both just being stubborn and offering no real rebuttal other than what you have seen or heard about Wilt. @DoubleDD I'll go ahead and throw you in with them. If you guys want to bring out statistical data or any other relevant facts please do. Otherwise, this conversation has gone as far as it will go.
Actually his data makes my case and my logic stands completely unimpeached by anything you've added.
You can continue to introduce fallacies and compound them into anything you like. I took the time to point out your fallacies to you once, starting with the fact that you fallaciously slid the era back to the era BEFORE small ball, which was not EVEN the era I was comparing. And I took the time to point out clearly and logically why his data made my case. You found not one fallacy in my reasoning. You merely took off on some other fallacious tangents.
I am not going to go through the ritual of pointing out your fallacies again. I don't want to be a grinch this early in the season.
I will just reassert the knowns.
Wilt actually did score 100 points in a game without charging, or traveling. He would have scored much, much more than 100 points that game had he been able to charge and travel at will. This is indisputable. How much is pure speculation. But when I was a kid, we all used to play grab by the rules for awhile and then occasionally just break all the rules for fun. We charged, and travelled, and hacked the charger, and so on. And what I remember is that if I could charge and travel at will, I was pretty much unstoppable. Because I was pretty strong and athletic, I could actually elude most of the gang tackling we did on the court to each other and I could hole the apple even with a guy or two holding me simply by getting to the rim. If I could do this, them imagine what Wilt might have done. Recall the impressive things Shaq, who couldn't shoot a lick, did.
Wilt actually did average circa 50 ppg without charging, or traveling. He would have averaged vastly more than that had he been able to charge and travel at will. Again, this is indisputable.
Wilt actually did maintain a relatively high shooting percentage when shooting essentially unprecedentedly high total FGAs, and an astronomical FG% when he tightened his FGAs to totals closer to what other centers, like Shaq have shot, and he actually did this WITHOUT being able to charge at will and walk as many steps as needed to score a dunk. Thus it is hardly anything but mastering the obvious to infer he would have shot a vastly higher percentage during both periods of his career had he been able to travel and charge at will.
Shaq never did anything without being able to charge at will and walk as many steps as needed to score a dunk; that was how it was during the era that he played. Wilt was still alive and watching the game, when Shaq played. In an interview of Wilt and Big Russ both Wilt and Big Russ made clear that they BOTH would have hung much bigger numbers being able to charge and walk at will. Surely we can trust two of the greatest centers of all time mastering the obvious, can't we? I mean, it isn't like they were lying out of vanity. No one seriously doubts that Wilt and Big Russ and Nate Thurmond and Willis Reed, and would have put up much bigger numbers being able to walk and charge at will had they played in the Shaq era. The total trips in the Shaq era may have been significantly less, but charging and walking would have largely off set fewer trips with higher percentages.
Shaq never shot a finger roll, much less mastered several a game.
Shaq never shot a turn around, fade away jump shot from 10-15 feet that I recall, much less mastered it and shot it in great numbers for 5 years, as Wilt did.
Shaq never played Bill Russell, or Kareem Jabbar in their primes. Wilt did.
Wilt would have made an awesomely higher percentage both in his early years and in his later years had he been able to charge and walk at will. Its just indisputable.
The point is: Shaq--without shooting skill--made high percentages, because he COULD charge and walk at will, even in an era with more contact allowed. Being able to charge and walk at will is a huge advantage. And the advantage is greatly magnified when you are massively bigger and stronger, as Shaq was. Charging and walking at his size were such gigantic advantages for Shaq that it did not matter that he played in an era with more athletic footers (if and only if we stretch the concept of "more" athletic to include the likes of awkward, knee injured guys like Dikembe Mutombo and Pat Ewing. It is therefore astonishing to me that anyone could reach a conclusion other than that if Wilt played in Shaq's era and were allowed to charge and walk like Shaq was, Wilt, being more athletic, and stronger, would have done even better than Shaq in Shaq's era.
Really, Wilt might have scored 120 or a 130 points in a game even in Shaqs era had he been able to charge and walk like Shaq. He couldn't have done it every night. But Ewing and Mutombo on bad knees? Wilt could pretty much have scored on them at will had he been able to charge and walk. Wilt could not have scored even a hundred on Olajuwan. But he could have hung 50-75 on Hakeem had Wilt been allowed to charge and walk playing Hakeem.
This underestimation, or even complete overlooking, of the advantage of charging and walking puzzles me.
You should be a politician. You take numbers completely out of context to create a narrative that fits your premise.
You indicate that Shaq was "the team" everywhere he played and this is incorrect. Teams were built for Shaq to play and succeed and when the teams refused to spend more money to provide a superior supporting casts he bolted. His success is largely a result of the teams that were assembled for him; from that perspective there is no question he was very smart. Wilt played in an era where most teams had one or two stars and the rest were marginal players with a couple of exceptions one being the Celtics and the other the Lakers and a few other teams on and off. Wilt was the team and he repeatedly stated that he was expected to score 40 points first and then worry about any thing else. When he was told that he scored too much, guess what? He led the League in assist the next season with almost 9 apg; did Shaq ever did that? Wilt averaged almost twice as many apg than Shaq. Keep in mind that when he played for the Lakers he shot .605 from the field, and he scored from a lot farther out than Shaq whose scoring was mostly from within 3 feet of the basket after he plowed over offensive players, something Wilt was not allowed to do. Can you imagined the numbers and champions he would gave had if he played his entire career for the Celtics like Russell did?
Wilt played 5 less seasons than Shaq and yet he managed to score more points, grab more rebound, get more assist and play more minutes than Shaq...amazing, isn't it? He was not only the superior athlete but a very durable one as well; over his career, he averaged more than 10 minutes more per game than Shaq.
No question that both were great players and both dominated in their respective eras; however, there is no way that Shaq is better than Wilt. I have seen tons of publications that rank all-time players and the better ones invariably have Wilt as one if the top 3 and some will have Kareem ahead based on his all time scoring but you have to take into account that he played 20 years in the NBA to Wilt's 13. Some of the rankings created by younger analysts, not fully familiar with Wilt, tend to rank him lower but still ahead of Shaq.
@justanotherfan I like what you did with the stats. But there is one crucial aspect that you missed.
CONDITIONING!
Wilt averaged OVER 48 minutes a game that special season. No way on God's green earth could Shaq keep up his numbers throughout an entire game. His rate of scoring and rebounding would fall tremendously.
It adds to how much more of an athlete Wilt was. What guard could do that nowadays? Yet alone your 7'1 center while being the sole focus offensively and defensively.
@jaybate-1.0 INDISPUTABLE :joy: :joy: :joy: :joy: :joy: :joy:
Oh man. JB said it's indisputable so it is. He said it. Has to be. Can't not be.
@Kcmatt7 no sense trying to reason with some people. I have personally enjoyed the information you have brought to the table. Thanks for doing some of the research I was too lazy to do myself.
What cracks me up is the other side of the argument. Basically saying Wilt is the best ever isn't enough. He has to be better than your guy in any era and it isn't close or they will take their ball and go home.
Hahahaha
It is well documented that Wilt did not run the floor when he was with the Sixers, and that if he picked up his third foul, he would not defend aggressively because he did not want to foul out. Wilt famously said, when asked why he walked up the floor on offense "they can wait for me."
Additionally, averaging over 48 minutes a game means that Wilt's scoring and rebounding were aided by playing OT games, something that a player can't necessarily control. That artificially inflates his numbers a bit.
Wilt was a great player, but let's remember that his scoring and rebounding numbers were aided by the fact that shooting percentages were pretty poor across the league. Let's go back to the numbers.
As a whole, the league shot 42.6% in 1961-62. The next year it ticked up to 44.1%
As a whole, the league shot 45.0% in 1997-98. The next year it dropped to 43.7%.
Just for perspective, last year the league shot 45.2%.
You say hey, that's just 2.4%, that's not that much. When it comes to available rebounds (especially for a big guy like Shaq or Wilt) that's a huge difference. The average team rebounding figure over 82 games in 1961-62 was 5713. In 1997-98, that figure was 3407. Last year, that figure was 3588.
Simply put, in the 60's, the pace was high, lots of shots went up, but lots of shots were missed. A big guy like Wilt could grab offensive rebounds and get 6-7 putbacks in a single game to increase his scoring average, yet he still could not maintain a high shooting percentage. Wilt could also grab lots of defensive boards to push his rebounding numbers above 20.
There were 2300 less rebounding opportunities in 1997-98 than there were in 1961-62. That's 28 rebounds a game for each team. A guy like Wilt that's grabbing 25% of his teams rebounds anyway, 28 more boards is 7 rebounds a game.
When you compare eras, you have to compare the pace and game style, too. Poor shooting means lots of rebounds, which inflates the rebounding numbers, particularly for big men. Poor shooting at a fast pace really drives that up.
@jaybate-1.0
Well once I found that out I couldn't dispute it my entire argument just went to crap.
CJ Giles
Et al
Wilt would have scored and rebounded vastly more in any era under any cirncumstances that then prevailed, where he could have charged and traveled at will.
The rest of the variables are tertiary in relation at most.
It really is apples to oranges to compare the guys from the b&w TV era to other eras.
Wilt was great. They did indeed change the rules because of him.
Diet and health advances happen. 30,40,50 yrs later, there are 4 times as many people on the planet, there are simply more agile post players, who also exist in an era when the sport itself is more advanced and developed, simply due to all the preceding "greats" that played in previous eras.
MJ was great. My personal favorite of all time for 3 reasons: Charisma, competetive fire, and straight-up stats-stuffer. Oh, and he played both ends of the court, wish I could say the same about Kobe. And for those who still want to compare eras, OK...--> I will type stephen curry's name in lowercase, since he is a footnote, playing in a less physical era than MJ. We all saw what happened when the Finals refs "let" Cleveland play physical with that wafer-straw man (curry), so save the strawman arguments.
You can say similar things even about past KU "eras". How would RussRob and Chalmers physicality-D do with the refs of the last 2 years? We stifled people. Now I think we have to out-attritition and out-score foes. We couldnt outscore Nova, and they won the attrition battle (ask Devonte & Perry about their hogwash fouls).
Cliff Notes version: Each era has its scene "set" for its participants. Nobody "played" (in every sense of the word) their own era better than Michael Jeffrey Jordan. He became, and still is, larger than even his own sport.
This video does a great job breaking down the pace/minutes arguments that I was making earlier.
[link text](
@dylans Super Joe! Back in the day, I always told people I disliked how Marino would look angrily at Duper and Clayton (WRs) and whatever WR came after whenever there seemed to be an incompletion. Montana and Elway didnt do that. Brett Favre didnt do that. Trent Green, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Alex Smith, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning didnt/dont do that. So as great as Marino's stats were, give me Joe Montana. Interestingly, the farthest the Chiefs have ever gotten in the playoffs in 40yrs (since Len Dawson), is that 1 year when superJoe took them to the AFC Champ game in the 90s.
All that being said, in this era: Tom Brady is just cool in every way. He's got it all. Alex Smith is underrated. Russell Wilson is overrated, and he and his cartoon coach botched their chance to be in the history books. Apparently they both forgot about some guy named Marshawn Lynch when it was 1st & goal at the 1yd line? Wilson (the dummy who threw the pick) could have called an audible to Lynch. What would have pinheadPete said once Seattle was Champs? They'll never live that ignominy down.
That video is a very biased view of how basketball was played and assumes that Wilt did not get the physical play of today's game. I will post the following excerpt directly from the NBA site ↗ and tell me if Wilt did not take a physical pounding...you can draw your own conclusions...
Chamberlain's inaugural season seemed to take a heavy toll on him. After the postseason loss to Boston, the rookie stunned his fans by announcing that he was thinking of retiring because of the excessively rough treatment he had endured from opponents. He feared that if he played another season, he would be forced to retaliate, and that wasn't something he wanted to do.
In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."
Despite his size and strength, Chamberlain was not an enforcer or a revenge seeker. He knew how to control his body and his emotions and rarely got into altercations. One indication of this was the astonishing statistic that not once in his 14-year career, in more than 1,200 regular and postseason games, did he foul out. Some people claimed he simply wasn't aggressive enough. "My friends would say, 'Hey man, you should throw [Bill] Russell in the basket, too.' " said Chamberlain. "They said I was too nice, too often against certain of my adversaries."
Of course, Chamberlain didn't retire. He simply endured the punishment and learned to cope with it, bulking up his muscles to withstand the constant shoving, elbowing and body checks other teams used against him.
In a virtual repeat of his rookie year, he poured in 38.4 points and 27.2 rebounds per game in 1960-61. The next season he made a quantum leap in his performance. Posting a phenomenal average of 50.4 points per game, he became the only player in history to score 4,000 points in a season.
What is interesting is when he projects recent player numbers to the 1962 numbers, they still don't come close to Wilt's numbers. BTW, the shot clock. or lack thereof, is a non-factor since it was implemented before Wilt joined the NBA.
@JayHawkFanToo Dam I knew i had hopps for a white boy lol 31 inch in highschool.
And on a side note Wilt is my first pick if i could make a all time fantasy team. His averages are the best of Russel, Hakeem, Shaq and Kareem, he just started his career later and didnt play as long, has the best average career for points and rebounds if not mistaken and the best average for a single season.
@kjayhawks He also lead the league in assists one year just to prove he could do it.
That is amazing considering that...
Kevin Durant is only 33.5"
Magic Johnson 30"
Karl Malone 28"
Larry Bird 28"
The average NBA vertical leap is 28"...of course these are standing and not running jumps.
The key here is we are not comparing players from different eras.
I, at least, am engaging in counterfactual inference, which is valid
logic widely used in social science and historical research, as well as strategic research.
What if Wilt played in either era and had been allowed to charge and travel at the same levels as Shaq in Shaq's era? Would Wilt have scored more or less in either era having been allowed to charge and travel?
It's defies logic to infer he would have scored more not charging and traveling. Of course he would have scored more.
I am fine with assuming there were fewer trips in Shaq's era. If I were coaching Wilt in Shaq's era, and Wilt could charge and travel like Shaq, I just would have had Wilt take a larger percentage of total FGAs. It would have been stupid not to.
This is not a difficult counterfactual inference at all. We have Shaq to prove that the big man talent of his era could not stop a guy (Shaq) that was Wilt's size with zero touch (and less athleticism than Wilt) from scoring HIGH FG percentages. It's a no brainer that Wilt would have done sharply better than Shaq in either era.
@JayHawkFanToo Well I'm 6'1 and could dunk it.
At 6-1, and bulking up to 325, and being allowed to charge and travel, you would have been narly as dominant as Shaq, assuming you had his quick feet and.could still dunk. But not quite. The height still counts for something. But charging and traveling are awesome edges.
@JayHawkFanToo I just measured im 94 inches from the ground with my arms sterched all the way out, 10 foot is 120 inches plus the ball to dunk so I'd guess that 31 inches is fairly accurate. lol i bet im like 27 now. Can still grab the rim, just cant get the ball over.
Well, I am shorter, cannot jump nearly as high and definitely cannot dunk but I was a serviceable hybrid guard in intramural play with a pretty decent outside shot. That's it, that is my story and I am sticking to it. LOL.
@jaybate-1.0 I cant shoot or dribble well but my calling card was defense and rebounding. put me in Self lol
@JayHawkFanToo I wasnt a great player bye any stretch just slightly above average. I did have the highest vertical on the team but I was slow 4.70s 40 time. Going to a 2A school i also was the second tallest on the team which is why i played post lol.
I had to study the effects of rules and institutions--formal and informal--once upon a time. Certain ones can have decisive effects. An informal rules change allowing charging and traveling by a 325 pound human being with quick feet has decisive effect. I watched many Laker games for several years of Shaq's career. It's still vivid!!!
@jaybate-1.0 well if i keep eating unhealthy I may get there, currently 220 was 178 in HS
I am about 86" with no shoes with both arms stretched and in my younger days and with a good head of steam I could just about touch the rim; standing under the basket standing still and jumping not even close...
@kjayhawks said:
well if i keep eating unhealthy I may get there
It can be done.
Nothing is written.:smiley:
Ooooh, yessssssss!
@jaybate-1.0 motivational pic Impossible is nothing lol
@JayHawkFanToo bout 5 foot away I take two big steps and I can grab the rim, just did it, was out playing with my son he's 16 months and he already can give me a bounce pass most of the time with a full sized ball lol.
You are waaaaay ahead of me. I am close to 40 pounds heavier than I was in college. Sad face emoji here...
I'm about 40 heavier than HS in the winter I trim down in the summer I don't own a scale anymore but I'm 220 in winter 205 in summer. Working in a hot shop helps lol. If I get to 230 I'll hit the gym. I did about 4 years ago and got back down to 185 but kids and marriage are stressful haha.
The point of the shotclock piece was that it sped the game up. Before that, scores were often very low. The season before the shotclock, there wasn't a single team in the NBA that averaged even 90 points a game - Boston led the league averaging 87.7 points per game, Syracuse was second at just a shade over 83.
The very next season the lowest scoring team in the league averaged 87.4 points per game. In just a single year, the average scoring output went from 79.5 to 93.1.
From there, scoring took off. 99 in 1955-56. 99.6 the next year. 106.6 the year after that. Then 108.2, 115.3, 118.1, and finally 118.8 in the 1961-62 season.
Let's shift the discussion to another player from that era - Oscar Robertson - for just a second.
Oscar Robertson nearly averaged a triple double in 1960-61. He was 0.3 assists short. He averaged a triple double the next year. Is there anyone out there saying that Oscar Robertson was the most well rounded player of all time, because his stats from that era suggest that he was, or are we taking those stats with a grain of salt because they are just a bit off the wall from everything else in basketball history? The numbers for the Big O in each year from 1960 to the 64-65 season:
1960-61, 30.5 points, 10.1 rebounds, 9.7 assists
1961-62, 30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds, 10.1 assists
1962-63, 28.3 points, 10.4 rebounds, 9.5 assists
1963-64, 31.4 points, 9.9 rebounds, 11.0 assists
1964-65, 30.5 points, 9.0 rebounds, 11.5 assists
Look at those five seasons for a second. Might I also add that those were Oscar Robertson's first five seasons in the NBA. He nearly averaged a triple double as a rookie. He was 20 assists short. In 1962-63, he was 42 assists short of averaging a triple double. In 63-64, he was 7 rebounds short of the triple double. The next year, he was 76 rebounds short. That is insane. Oscar Robertson was 62 assists and 83 rebounds short of averaging a triple double for FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS. If you average his first five years, the Big O did average a triple double for his first five years in the NBA. How is he not talked about as a top five all time player?!?!
Oh yeah, because we understand that the pace of play allowed for a guy to throw up those types of numbers. It's not that Robertson wasn't good. He was amazing. But he was like a pre-Lebron Lebron - he was a 25-7-7 guy. In today's NBA, that's what his numbers would be, just like in that era, Lebron would have slapped up 30-10-10.
In some ways, the 1960-1965 seasons are like the juiced ball/steroid era in baseball - not because guys were doing anything illegal, just that the numbers from that era are out of whack with anything that happened before or since. It's like the 1997-2003 home run totals - just off the wall to where people don't pay as much attention to them as they might have in another time.
We do that with every number from that era, except for Wilt's 50 ppg scoring average.
The shot clock is a non-issue because it was instituted in 1954 or 5 years before Wilt Joined the League in 1959 and has been in effect since then. Both Wilt and Shaq played their entire careers with the shot clock. I am not sure what is your point. The 3 point shot would be more relevant since it was introduced in 1979 and Wilt played his entire career without it and Shaq played his entire career with it and the lower percentage of 3 point FG, resulted in a change in the rebounding pattern.
As far as Oscar Robertson, you can probably check old posts and you will see that I have mentioned him may times as one of the greater and more complete players ever in the NBA. Much like Wilt, Oscar played his entire career without the 3 point shot and with it, his numbers might have been even better. I am not sure what sources you use but most of the ones I check usually have the Big "O" among the greats of the game.
Most of the so called basketball analysts are relatively young and never saw some of the older players like Wilt, Oscar, Jerry West, Bob Cousey, Walt Bellamy, Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit and George Mikan (to name just a few) play, and what they know is mostly anecdotal and hence they really don't give them the credit they deserve and give the more recent players more credit.
@justanotherfan They won't ever, EVER consider the talent gap that there was back then.
Players didn't make enough for it to actually be enticing to play basketball competitively growing up as a kid. Nor did the programs exist at the time to do so. So those special athletes stood out even more back then. And now, these old guys think they saw God himself play the game of basketball and can't let go of the fact that the game has gotten sooooo much better and the talent gap that existed back then doesn't exist today thanks to year round training, the scientific advancements we have had and the money that is now involved.
Just to put in perspective how much more enticing it is to play pro basketball, the average NBA salary in 1965 was $15k The average salary in the US at the time was $6k. 1.5 times the average salary. Wilt was the first player to make $100k. Or rather, 15.5 times the average salary in the U.S.
In 2010, the average NBA salary was $5m. The average US salary at the time was $51k. Or rather nearly 100 times higher than the average salary. LeBron makes $30m or 588 times the average salary.
This doesn't even include the European options failed players have today. If you failed back in the 60s, your career was over. And you couldn't have saved up enough money to live off of the rest of your life.
Now you have guys like Stephon Marbury playing in China until he is 40 making millions and when he retires, he will have enough money to live off of for the rest of his life.
I just read a tweet about how Patrick Ewing said that Joel Embiid could very well be the most talented Center in the NBA right now. Apparently that kind of talk does not happen, does not come out of Ewing's mouth lightly.
One day we could be adding Joel Embiid to the list of Greatest!
@Kcmatt7 Agreed i think some of the players back then were good enough to play these days but only a hand full. Its the same way in FB, kids now a days are bigger, faster and stronger than most that played in the old days. I'm thinking Wilt could've played in todays game just fine if he was in his prime, some of the other guys like Jerry west would get smoked IMO.
@kjayhawks oh exactly what I've been trying to say. Nobody is arguing to say that Wilt wasn't a transcendent player. He truly was. But let's just not lie about who he played against or why his stats were so inflated.
I mean one of the things that made Wilt so good was that he did workout like a modern day athlete. He also made the money to make basketball his sole focus where a hefty majority of players could not do that. They actually had to go get other jobs during the offseason.
It was such a different time, those who lived it aren't able to take the glasses off. That'll probably be me talking about LeBron in 40 years...
[link text](
"But let’s just not lie about who he played against or why his stats were so inflated."
--@Kcmatt7
No one advocating for Wilt ever has to lie; that's why its so fun to advocate for Wilt.
It is only those trying to understate his accomplishments and abilities in comparison to modern players, and trying to diminish the quality of the competition he played against and the rules (no normalized charging and traveling) that he labored under that skirt an acute Pinnochio effect.
Rock Chalk!!!
Players back then mostly used the most advanced training methods of the day. They would be doing the same thing in this era as well. The greats from the 50's, 60's, and 70's more than likely would succeed today as well because those guys were driven to be the best. They would still be driven to be the best if transplanted into this era as well.
@Kcmatt7 said:
Players didn’t make enough for it to actually be enticing to play basketball competitively growing up as a kid.
All of these sorts of arguments can be inverted on themselves easily and validly.
Players make so much now that they protect the merchandize and don't play nearly as hard, so Wilt would completely whip their asses today, if he played today as hard as he did then.
As a result, IMHO, all this sorts of arguments are rather superfluous.
Thanks for posting the feed about Wilt.
My take away was that block of Jabbar's sky hook, when Wilt was way past his jumping prime.
Imagine if Wilt had played his first tens seasons coincident with Kareem.
They were both about the same size.
Wilt was of course a vastly better jumper than Kareem, as the tape of him in old age at 300+ pounds shows with him swatting Kareem's sky hook effortlessly.
Imagine how many sky hooks of Kareem's Wilt would have blocked, when Wilt was Kareem's weight?
Would Kareem have even tried the sky hook on Wilt the first five years of Wilt's career?
Next, imagine Kareem trying to guard Wilt the first five years of Wilt's career.
Wilt could easily out maneuver Kareem and do finger roles and fadeaways on Kareem, even when Wilt was an old man lugging 300+ pounds around.
Imagine how consistently Wilt could have blown around and by Kareem, or shot the fade away, when Wilt was in his first five years.
Wilt probably could have scored 40-50 points on Kareem, or fouled him out in ten minutes, while holding Kareem to 10-15 points during Wilt's first five seasons.
The man was an order of magnitude better than any other center that played the game...except maybe for Big Russ.
I have always thought that Big Russ would have become a great offensive player had he played on lesser teams his first five years in the league.
Big Russ was a great, great, GREAT athlete, who had the strongest will I have ever seen in a basketball player, even stronger than Wilt's.
Just as Wilt became what his teams needed early on, and then again later on, Big Russ became what was needed by the Celts and they were so successful that he never had to develop his offensive game his entire career.
But I recall in college that he could hang numbers whenever his team needed them.
But i don't think Big Russ could have stopped the sky hook of the great Kareem, so, I've got to give the edge to Wilt as the all time center.
But I do so with the GREATEST respect for pound for pound the greatest center that ever played the game--Big Russ.
But without the pound for pound, I've got to go with Wilt.
Kareem and Big Russ were a tie, and Kareem might have been better than Big Russ had Kareem layed off the weed he reputedly used regularly.
Bottom line these three guys were pre-charge and travel era. They were about as good statistically, in some cases better, in the pre-charge and travel era, as were the guys that came after them in the Charge and Travel Era.
Logical conclusion: Wilt, Big Russ, and Kareem were waaaaaay better than the centers that have come after them. Waaaaaaaay better.
Really, Wilt would likely have scored as many as another 5,000 career points in the charge and travel era, even with the lower number of trips in the charge and travel era. Why? Because he would have literally been unstoppable.
Might as well listen to LB tell a Wilt Chamberlain at 43 years old story, too.
@jaybate-1.0 Duuuuude! That was really cool.
And did you notice how cleverly LB broke the Wilt embargo by tangent, when asked about Bird-Magic.
There appears a concerted effort to marginalize Wilt from NBA memory in the Nike-Jordan era. Nike Jordan were to huge of a money maker for the NBA and the petroshoeco-agency complex to allow the memory of Wilt get in the way.
How can you hype Mike as the greatest for Nike, if everyone remembers how much better Wilt actually was? It was never Wilt hating. It was business. They apparently HAD to bury Wilt legend to make the Mike myth work.
I believe it is a lot simpler than that. Consider that he average 40 year old basketball commentator was not even born when Wilt retired from the NBA. The more plausible explanation is that most sports reporters never saw Wilt play and to them is a player from an older generation when the sport was young and information from that era is not easy to come by and there is no video to document some of the better performances from tha era. For example, the only documentation from the game where Wilt scored 100 points is a few press reports and a picture of him holding a sign; I am not sure there is a tape of the radio broadcast. Today, even the simplest event is captured for posterity not only by the media but also by 1000s of cell phone cameras.
Excellent point.
As time passes, all persons of any kind in all fields fade, from subsequent generations memories...unless they are made part of what might be called instituted memory, aka official history. We remember some founders of our country, some Presidents, some generals, but not others, many generations after anyone was alive to witness them, because they are taught to us in schools by our government's and its scholars' and oligarchs' preferences. And later reinforced by author's and media in books, film, tv, and internet usually strongly subsidized by government and private oligarchs seeking to reinvigorate a certain memory intended to help rationalize a present or anticipated activity.
So it follows that passage of time, and absence of those in media having seen him play, explains the fading of Wilt's phenomenal abilities from media coverage, just as you suggest, and the likely quite conscious decision to only partially institute and largely not teach his accomplishments; and instead institute and teach first Magic/Bird and then MJ and perhaps now Lebron, is likely driven by the marketing need to generate revenues from each succeeding generation by the most expedient means at hand--the appeal to each generation's vanity that its athletes (and by implicit suggestion-- it) are the greatest yet; that progress is never ending and linear.
It is so much easier to sell beer by saying your star is the best there ever was, so don't turn that dial, and bet while you can, for your greatest ever player will retire soon. Appeals to scarcity and vanity are powerful marketing tools in the hands of someone aiming the media spotlight.
Making persons think this is the greatest player at the biggest moment in sports history is "giving them thoughts that control things;" i.e., programming them how to think, so that they willingly suspend (or at least limit) reason and disbelief, and so watch, buy and bet on the "greatest show on earth" ever! That's entertainment! That is the Essense of Carney showmanship, augmented by advertising, propaganda, and when necessary, a psy-op.
In a big moment, you never want them thinking about anything other than the spectacle at hand, unless that thinking makes the spectacle seem even bigger and makes them want to watch, buy and bet more.
You've got to make'em think of Mike, not Wilt. Lebron not Wilt.
Wilt was waaaaaay better. That won't make a 20 year old today watch, buy and bet!
And now you've got to glorify Small Ball, when there is a drought of big men.
"That's entertainment!"
So: what we are each describing separately is likely required jointly to create the phenomenon we observe over the length of time we observe it in the case of basketball and Wilt.
Rock Chalk
Look at it this way. The Dream Team was arguably the best team ever assembled and I believe it would handle the current USA team rather handily. Now, look which players on that team are even mentioned? Only Jordan, and mostly because of the merchandising.
Unfortunately we now live in a society where instant gratification and "what have you done for me lately" rule the news and admires people that are famous for being famous and utterly devoid of any talent whatsoever, like the Kardashians...unless you consider a huge rear end and a sex tape talent...
I was remarking similarly about The Voice and America's Got Talent.
I enjoy these two shows a lot, because they are about something other than hyper pessimism, hyper ugliness, and hyper authoritarianism resplendent in baroque-noir style holding down the mindlessly violent and ugly serfs by near torture interrogation and extraction of coerced confessions as the best we can hope for in a duly constituted republic and a nation of laws temporarily overrun by an arrogant private oligarchy drunk on the capacity of recent technology to amplify their greed and grasp over command and control.
BUT...
Then a friend sent me a feed of a kinescope of the Jimmy Durante Show--an early variety show from 1952--and I watched it in amazement, for I had forgotten how marvelous it was to be entertained by skilled, professional entertainers.
My friend suggested that sport is popular, because it is the last type of popular entertainment where technology and economics converge to still permit/require highly talented, skilled, and drilled pre-professionals and professionals be the performers.
He is a KU fan. He said imagine KU Basketball in which Bill Self, Frank Mason, Devonte, Josh, Bragg, and Landen sit in big, tech-throne chairs along the court and watch and judge the walk-ons, who are the primary performers for the team for the entire season. He said that is The Voice.
It took awhile to sink in.
The point is that it is not economical to pay the professional entertainers on The Voice to perform their actual skills every night. They charge too much. The economics of the show only work if they sit there and do nothing and watch, like you and me, while amateurs looking for a big break perform for nothing, or next to nothing, and subject themselves to the debasement of being commoditized before our eyes.
I am not knocking The Voice and shows like it. I don't blame Americans thirsting for entertainment wanting to watch amateurs sing and dance, instead of beat confessions out of scum bags and white collar criminals (aka white middle class men being image reengineered with mass media to not be such an influential, successful portion of the society and electorate). But how economically dysfunctional is it, when the American economy can no longer afford to be entertained by skilled, professional entertainers, EVEN virtually and remotely through TV?
So: it is not just that Americans are base and crazed seekers of instant gratification. That is largely the effect of a cause. The cause is that the American economy can afford to present skilled performers even virtually to the American public, given its high 22% unemployment (when accounted for with pre-1980 criteria), outsourced high paying jobs (accomplished with tax subsidy), largely failed experiment with central bank centric central planning, and largely failed experiment with deeply subsidized oligopoly market regimes, etc.
Through out American little "r" republican history, until the rise of blatantly insipid and anti-democratic neo conservative deconstruction of legacy Constitutional order and New Deal economic institutions, and the temporary, but 16 year and counting eclipse of the sovereign republic with the National Security State apparatus and its FEMA COG shadow government (and no doubt with the interference of central bank centric interests from states outside the USA) that appears to be badly bungling the staging of this Presidential election, well, through out that long little "r" republican history, America arts and letters and popular entertainment grew to become some of the most wildly popular and beloved art forms and entertainment products in the world.
The American popular song came to dominate popular music in the 20th Century. Dixieland, ragtime, jazz, blues, country, even American classical music blossomed BEFORE the great baroque-noir era of increasingly unaffordable entertainment by skilled professional entertainers.
The American popular movie came to dominate popular cinema in the 20th Century. Shorts. Silent films. Talkies. Epics. Americans produced some of the best of all of these types of entertainment and found ways to make them affordable enough to pay skilled professionals to act in them and found movies chains, separated from production companies by anti-trust enforcement, capable of not gouging so much for distribution that Americans actually got to see great skilled professional performers at least on the screen.
Radio the same.
Television the same.
Music the same.
The republic operating constitutionally under rule of law found ways to afford to entertain citizens with skilled professional performers. Self entertainment stayed on the porch swing, where it belonged. Amateur entertainment stayed in small venues like regional theater, and mellerdrammers.
Its not that the old republic did not have casualties of modernization. Vaudeville, which developed many of the skilled professional entertainers of the old republic of the 20th Century could not compete with the outlets of movies, radio and television. The fabulous territorial big bands that lived in KC and toured the southwestern US playing in gin joints that sold Pendergast booze disappeared with the end of prohibition, the end of the Depression, and the mass urbanization after WWII. But the ascendent, replacement outlets (portals if you will) for entertainment could still afford to use skilled professional performers.
It is almost unbelievable that we have now at least two generations of young Americans that know only reality TV and amateur TV; that have never been consistently entertained by skilled professionals. We are literally being entertained in national, regional and even global audiences now by persons that wouldn't even have been allowed on a vaudeville stage, wouldn't even have been allowed on Howdy Doody; wouldn't even have been allowed on 12 Street and Vine.
It is so extraordinary that I am not really able even to take a stab at the likely effects on culture over the next several decades.
I know there are great performers out there todays, and that in fields like digital down load music, we are perhaps at an all time zenith of quantity of skilled professional performers, whether or not I still listen to and like much of it. Steve's iPod and his phone and DARPA's internet enabled this.
But movies, television, and streaming video?
More and more they cannot afford to use skilled professional actors. More and more they have to use walk ons and special effects, and locations without artifice to try to crank the shit out on a budget that makes ends meet.
I know the very top of the entertainment biz is more flush than ever before, because of the globalization of markets, coupled with the balkanizing of 2000 channels. and growing.
But look for a musical that is more than Meryl Streep hoofing in Greece with a bunch of nobodies free riding off some Mediterranean scenery, or someone trying to stretch a rock video out to feature length, and you won't find it. The economics don't pencil. They haven't penciled since back in the third quarter of the old 20th Century republic.
We are having a brief renaiissance of the mini serial on NetFlicks and HBO. House of Cards and Masters of Sex come to mind, but there are lots more. It is not that there is no good product out there. There may be more than there has been in a long time.
But reality TV and amateur TV used to be exceptions to the rule, rather than dominant product of the time. Ted Mack Amateur Hour, the game shows, and so on were there to fill till prime time.
Now prime time is full of them.
More and more media is reruns.
Even the original products are so formulaic and populated with the same underlying polygonal FX, that they are essentially reruns that are being seen for the first time. Tasty paradox.
One truly great irony of our time is that even the intel agencies are reputedly getting away from real false flag casualty events and starting to stage fake false flag casualty events; i.e., casualty event simulations using trained accident simulation actors given legends and that quickly disappear., or so it is reputed by some. On one level we should be grateful. Better they scare us with fake injuries than really hurting a bunch of innocent persons. But best would be if they just stopped doing false flags entirely--faked or real. Regardless, when ever someone on the alternate news internet takes the time to go frame by frame through one of these faked terrorist events, and one looks at the accident simulation actors, they really don't look all that skilled and professional. We are not talking Betty Davis playing persons that have just supposedly had their limbs blown off. They look more like they have been doing it a few years part time and are just going through the motions so the intel cameramen can get their shots and feed them to mainstream media, or so it is reputed to be done. I don't know. I don't have any first hand knowledge of this sort of thing. I am just struck by the irony and emblematic aspects of the reputed activity in the age of hyper realism and post skilled professional actor entertainment.
@jaybate-1.0 you have made no valid points. Your traveling and charging "theory" has no validity as there is absolutely nothing to prove that to be true and there are absolutely ZERO numbers to support it.
Superfluous.... When someone can give 10 reasons why Wilt wouldn't do what he did in the 60s in todays game (I do still think he would average in the very high 20s ppg and about 15 rebounds a game) somehow none of those matter. Except for the one thing you have brought up which again, has not been substantiated in the slightest, "traveling and charging." I mean quality and size of players is 10x a better argument than "in my opinion it is easier to score when you can travel and charge because when I was a little boy in gym class it was easier to score when we did that." Absolutely awful points you have made for your case. And I expect better from you...
@Kcmatt7 I have made valid points. My traveling and charging (and traveling some more) “logic” has validity as there is absolutely nothing to prove that it is invalid and there are absolutely ZERO numbers to support that it is invalid.
ILLOGICAL… When someone implies that one would score less being able to charge and travel at will than one would score not being able to charge and travel at will (I do still think he would average in the very high 60s ppg and about 30 rebounds a game under today's rules and against todays small ball teams and that his team today would hurry the ball up the court every trip to get him as many FGAs as possible against 6-9 post men) logic does not appear to matter to such a board rat. Except for the one illogical thing you have brought up which again, you cannot justify, “scoring less when being allowed to charge and travel, and scoring more when not being able to charge and travel.” I mean quality and size of players is NOT ONLY NOT a 10x a better argument than “in my opinion it is easier to score when you can charge and travel than when you cannot despite when you were a little boy in gym class it was hard for you to score whether you did or not charge or travel .” Absolutely awful points you have made for your case. And I expect better from you…
(Note to @Kcmatt7 : I have tried to respond above in form, words, and punctuation as much like your own as possible, to make it as easy for you to understand, as possible. Its not my style. But if it will help you understand my point, then I am only too happy to do it. I guess you could call it playing "take what you give me." )
@jaybate-1.0 AWWW TINKS JAYBEE. IMA SO DUMM DAT I KAN UNLY REED AND COMMPREHIND IF SUM'N RITES HOW EYES DUZ.
JB's argument:
- Wilt would score and rebound more in today's NBA .
JB's premises behind said argument:
- Wilt scored 50 ppg game in a season.
- Traveling and charging make it much easier to score.
- Today's "small ball players" are midgets that Wilt would dominate.
- Wilt would score more than 50 ppg.
The thing I am not comprehending is how you are getting to your conclusion based off of your "logic." (Usually someone has support when they consider something "logic"). The league as a whole last season has scoring down 13.5% from when Wilt set the record. And in fact, it was up last year to one of the highest it has ever been in decades. Would that not dictate it being more difficult to score points in today's game? Because, to me, it would seem logical to think that if teams are scoring less points than they were in the 60s, even while charging at each other like bulls and never dribbling (do you even watch the NBA anymore? Just not true at all), that players would actually score less points. Less points per team = Less points scored by players. I mean just basic math right? Maybe I am crazy for thinking that. But it seems logical to me.
It is also very logical to think that Wilt wouldn't score as much, even in todays midget game, because we have a very good sample size of him playing against shorter and lighter midgets than those in todays game. So, it would be logical to assume that he surely wouldn't be able to score more against midgets (even those midgets are larger than who he played in the 60s. Significantly larger) now than he did then.
Other sound logic: The best athletes didn't play basketball. It wasn't enticing enough. Money wasn't good enough. An entire black generation wasn't recruited to play CBB and so they weren't in the NBA either. Less people in the world played basketball. Youth programs were not near as intense or common then as they are today. The training gap due to players not making enough money for basketball to be there only full-time job (except for the super stars) allowed for the best players to stay on top.
Then you have the simple math. Wilt wouldn't play 48 mpg in today's world. Less minutes=Less points. Also very simple math.
And finally, you call the assumption of "traveling and charging" to be a logical argument. Except that shooting percentages are relatively close to the same they were in the 1960s. Therefore, despite being able to trample your opponent and pivot until your heart desires, there has been another formal or informal rule change that offsets that. Probably physicality in the post. Or rather, being allowed to bump the man with the ball while shooting. Something that wasn't allowed in 1960s games. If he was touched at all while shooting, he shot free throws. So guys couldn't guard him anywhere near as aggressively as they could have today. If you factor that with the extended MPG that starting players in that era got, they played even less defense because of the potential for fouling out. The shooting percentages alone completely debunk your argument for "nonstop charging and traveling."
So again, please tell me how Wilt could average 60 a night in today's game. Because, sweetheart, it wouldn't have happened. If you could use facts or figures or actually list out how your "logic" makes sense, I really would love to hear it. Because at this point, you have reverted to childish tactics due to your poor argument that is based solely on speculation.
(Note to @jaybate-1.0 : :kissing_heart: )
@DoubleDD Never said he was a "middling top 50 nba player" I personally think he could be the best ever. It is either him, Jordan or LeBron. Those are the top 3 in my opinion. It just depends on what you rank players by. But that is a whole other argument.
Wilt has also been known to stretch the truth... I mean what is a 0 between friends :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
Any time you say the "simple" this, or the "sound logic," it appears you are struggling to run away from my basic logic. Here it is again.
If Wilt gets to charge and travel, he scores way more.
If Wilt noes not get to charge and travel, he scores way less.
That was easy.
Therefore:
If you agree that Wilt would score more being able to charge and travel like Shaq did, while doing it against small ball players of the present, then you are thinking clearly. And anyone that didn't play a hurry up offense with Wilt today would be nuts, because he would blow another team out in the first half with almost never missing a basket on any trip.
If you insist that Wilt would score less being able to charge and travel like Shaq did, while doing it against small ball players of the present, then you are VERY confused.
Which is it?
( a late addition: I am just letting the logic work, it is NOT my opinion against yours. It is my logic against your 10 arguments. Alas, Your ten arguments aren't invalidating, or outweighing my logic. If they were, I would be happy to acknowledge it.)
And a :kissing_heart: back to you, sir.
P.S.: I'm feeling increasingly good about the robustness of my logic here.
You will shortly embrace it and feel as good as I do.
Its no fun polishing turds.
I'm not making you. You are making yourself.