- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why do you have Wilt Chamberlain in your top 5 all-time?
Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:37 pm to FightinTigersDammit
Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:37 pm to FightinTigersDammit
My biggest gripe with Wilt is how poor his teams were offensively when he had high usage rates and scoring all of those points.
Offensive Rating
1960 Warriors- 7th of 8 teams (Averaged 37.6 PPG)
1961 Warriors- 6th of 8 teams (Averaged 38.4 PPG)
1962 Warriors- 4th of 8 teams (Averaged 50.4 PPG)
1963 Warriors- 5th of 9 teams (Averaged 44.8 PPG)
1964 Warriors- 5th of 9 teams (Averaged 36.9 PPG)
1965 Warriors- 9th of 9 teams (Averaged 38.9 PPG)
1965 76ers- 6th of 9 teams (Averaged 30.1 PPG)
1966 76ers- 6th of 9 teams (Averaged 33.5 PPG)
1967 76ers- 1st of 10 teams (Averaged 24.1 PPG)
1968 76ers- 4th of 12 teams (Averaged 24.3 PPG)
1969 Lakers- 2nd of 14 teams (Averaged 20.5 PPG)
1970 Lakers- 8th of 14 teams (Averaged 27.3 PPG)
1971 Lakers- 4th of 17 teams (Averaged 20.7 PPG)
1972 Lakers- 1st of 17 teams (Averaged 14.8 PPG)
1973 Lakers- 2nd of 17 teams (Averaged 13.2 PPG)
The less Wilt scored, the better his teams were offensively. His volume scoring actually hurt his teams.
When you have one guy scoring all the points, it stagnates ball movement and makes teams worse. Than you look at Russell. He was known for his defense and the Celtics were the best defensive team in the league by a country mile year after year and it's pretty easy to see who was the more impactful player at their best.
Offensive Rating
1960 Warriors- 7th of 8 teams (Averaged 37.6 PPG)
1961 Warriors- 6th of 8 teams (Averaged 38.4 PPG)
1962 Warriors- 4th of 8 teams (Averaged 50.4 PPG)
1963 Warriors- 5th of 9 teams (Averaged 44.8 PPG)
1964 Warriors- 5th of 9 teams (Averaged 36.9 PPG)
1965 Warriors- 9th of 9 teams (Averaged 38.9 PPG)
1965 76ers- 6th of 9 teams (Averaged 30.1 PPG)
1966 76ers- 6th of 9 teams (Averaged 33.5 PPG)
1967 76ers- 1st of 10 teams (Averaged 24.1 PPG)
1968 76ers- 4th of 12 teams (Averaged 24.3 PPG)
1969 Lakers- 2nd of 14 teams (Averaged 20.5 PPG)
1970 Lakers- 8th of 14 teams (Averaged 27.3 PPG)
1971 Lakers- 4th of 17 teams (Averaged 20.7 PPG)
1972 Lakers- 1st of 17 teams (Averaged 14.8 PPG)
1973 Lakers- 2nd of 17 teams (Averaged 13.2 PPG)
The less Wilt scored, the better his teams were offensively. His volume scoring actually hurt his teams.
When you have one guy scoring all the points, it stagnates ball movement and makes teams worse. Than you look at Russell. He was known for his defense and the Celtics were the best defensive team in the league by a country mile year after year and it's pretty easy to see who was the more impactful player at their best.
2
Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:37 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
. I know race issues play into that, so it might not be the best example.
yeah and most of the 100M times were from white guys in 1915.
Who knows how fast black guys were running back then but weren't allowed to go to the Olympics until later.
Meaning, the gap between 100 years ago and Usain Bolt might be even smaller.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:39 pm to COTiger
quote:Awesome
And I saw her sing it live many years ago.
Shits stuck in my head now
Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:42 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
The less Wilt scored, the better his teams were offensively.
Well Simmons talked about this.
He was so good, he was a black hole...and his teams stood around after feeding him, watching.
That's why "Wilt's teams" never felt like real teams. It was the GOAT in the center (when center still dominated) - swallowing up all offense. Just throw it into Wilt...and back off. Must have sucked being his teammate.
Wilt was probably too good for his own good.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:46 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:there are no reliable #s for possessions per game from 1962 just estimates. Also what would you adjust his minutes to? The minutes he played was an anomaly in his own era
If you adjust for possessions per game and minutes on par with today's game, Wilt's numbers that year come out to about 30 ppg, 15 rebounds per game
Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:54 pm to VerlanderBEAST
quote:I don't believe that's true. And I'm pretty sure there were like 7 guys who averaged more than Curry did this year...they year Wilt had his 50.
The minutes he played was an anomaly in his own era
I'm probably a bit off, so don't go crazy if I am, but my point still stands.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 8:14 pm to ReauxlTide222
Steph Curry was 26th in minutes played this season.
The year Wilt averaged 48.5 minutes per game, 2 through 5 were as follows:
45.2
44.3
42.9
42.3
Curry averaged 34.2 minutes. 20th place in '62 was right at 35 minute.
The year Wilt averaged 48.5 minutes per game, 2 through 5 were as follows:
45.2
44.3
42.9
42.3
Curry averaged 34.2 minutes. 20th place in '62 was right at 35 minute.
This post was edited on 5/29/16 at 8:16 pm
Posted on 5/29/16 at 8:17 pm to shel311
Boom!
I was talking about points, though. There were multiple people back then averaging a mind blowing number of points per game.
I was talking about points, though. There were multiple people back then averaging a mind blowing number of points per game.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 8:41 pm to VerlanderBEAST
quote:In the early 60's, it is true.
not even close to true
Posted on 5/29/16 at 8:49 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:There is a such thing called diminishing returns. The closer you get to peak human potential, the harder it is to make even small gains.
yeah and most of the 100M times were from white guys in 1915. Who knows how fast black guys were running back then but weren't allowed to go to the Olympics until later. Meaning, the gap between 100 years ago and Usain Bolt might be even smaller.
The difference between 9.95 and 9.58, while it may not seem like a lot, is fricking massive considering we are talking about the fastest of all-time up to that point and we're only talking about 10 seconds of time.
But the absolute top athletes like Wilt back then and the elite athletes today may not be all that different... but what is different is the competition they were playing against.
Wilt back then was a freak compared to most of the guys he was playing against. The NBA today is filled with athletic freaks. The talent pool was so much smaller back then compared to now.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 9:05 pm to Vicks Kennel Club
quote:This. All of this! Every single bit of this.
Ok, fine. Adjust to 30/15 (which is dumb as shite) and he is still one of the top five ever. The only other person to average 30 points in their career is Jordan. Only four others have averaged 15+ rebounds per game and they were all players from decades ago. Wilt averaged 30/22 for his career!
Stop digging yourself in a deeper whole. Wilt is inner circle tier one HOF with Jordan, Kareem, and Lebron.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 9:10 pm to PrimeTime Money
I understand that, and good post.
I was just trying to point out how people seem to think athletes are ridiculously better today. They are better but the gap isn't as huge as people think it is.
The guys 50 years ago weren't total bums.
Evolution is a slow burn.
I was just trying to point out how people seem to think athletes are ridiculously better today. They are better but the gap isn't as huge as people think it is.
The guys 50 years ago weren't total bums.
Evolution is a slow burn.
This post was edited on 5/29/16 at 9:12 pm
Posted on 5/29/16 at 9:14 pm to PrimeTime Money
Posted on 5/29/16 at 9:22 pm to Mahootney
quote:No. Deandre Jordan would average 30/15 in Wilt's day
This. All of this! Every single bit of this.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 10:08 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Deandre Jordan would average 30/15 in Wilt's day
Nah. Wilt would block all his shots in the first half, then, in the second half, tell him, "Now, you can play", like he did to Walt Bellamy.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 10:22 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Wilt was probably too good for his own good.
Excellent observation. Something that can be easily misunderstood, but I think you are largely right.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 10:51 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:all those #s are estimates and should be taken with grain of salt
My biggest gripe with Wilt is how poor his teams were offensively when he had high usage rates and scoring all of those points.
Offensive Rating
Posted on 5/29/16 at 11:32 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:Just for shits and giggles, how much do you think Michael Jordan would have weighed if he had grown up in North Carolina having been born in 1936? Adjust for the dietary conditions and state of the art coaching and training techniques of the period. How much effect do you think the depression and rationing during WWII would have had on his childhood development?
Just for shits and giggles, how many points per game do you think Jordan would average if he played his prime when Wilt played?
Posted on 5/29/16 at 11:36 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
This is so shortsighted. If that's the case, frick MJ and Lebron. In 100 years, people I'll look at their stats and think, "hmmm, these 2 awesome guys were just a little bit better than the people they were playing against."
MJ and Lebron are not just a little better than the guys they're up against. Sure it's not to the disparity that Wilt faced but the modern game was still being formed back then. What's happened since then? Athletes have married other athletes and made super-athlete babies. That won't be lost on any astute historian looking back.
When we're talking about extraordinary athletes, which is pretty much everyone in the NBA now, it takes quite a bit of excellence to be just "a little bit better."
Posted on 5/29/16 at 11:37 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Wilt back then was a freak compared to most of the guys he was playing against. The NBA today is filled with athletic freaks. The talent pool was so much smaller back then compared to now.
Yes, but he still would have been a bigger freak than anyone in the NBA. Wilt's athleticism outclasses LBJ ffs. He's substantially bigger and he's faster (unless someone can point to LBJ having similar track and field accomplishments, then he's just bigger and stronger).
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News