- 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
0
Posted on 5/29/16 at 5:52 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
When you are talking about the early days of any sport, a lot of weird stats happen. Much of it has to do with the talent pool being small like it was back then.
I guess you're doing the exact opposite of what I thought you were doing. You are only using the context and discounting how dominant he was.
Wilt can't help that he was so much better than everyone else. He was clearly great for his time. When we're talking about all-time-great, then I don't know how he's not a part of the conversation. Now could you drop Alexis Ajinca in that era and have him ball out too? Sure. But Wilt was the guy. Can't hold his era against him, or else the ATG lists are filled with people from the past 20 years.
Again, there's a difference between better and greater. If you want to say that there are a lot of better players today, ok maybe that's fair. But greatness is how you measure against your peers. Wilt was great without a doubt, he can't help that his peers were not close to the caliber of today's players. Obviously he likely wouldn't be as dominant today but that shouldn't affect his place in history.
This post was edited on 5/29/16 at 6:17 pm
Posted on 5/29/16 at 6:21 pm to Goldrush25
Wilt vs. Russ, head to head.
Points: Wilt, 28.7, Russ, 14.5
Rebounds: Wilt, 28.7, Russ, 23.7
Against an acknowledged defensive genius, Wilt had SEVEN 50plus point games, with a high of 62.
Against a great rebounded, Wilt had SEVEN 40plus rebound games, with a high of 55(NBA record).
Head to head, there is no doubt that Russell didn't slow down Wilt very much.
Points: Wilt, 28.7, Russ, 14.5
Rebounds: Wilt, 28.7, Russ, 23.7
Against an acknowledged defensive genius, Wilt had SEVEN 50plus point games, with a high of 62.
Against a great rebounded, Wilt had SEVEN 40plus rebound games, with a high of 55(NBA record).
Head to head, there is no doubt that Russell didn't slow down Wilt very much.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 6:27 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
Deandre Jordan >>>> Wilt
I know what you did here and it should have been more well received.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 6:36 pm to dukke v
quote:I feel bad for all the great players on shite teams across the sports world. People like you think they suck
BUT we can't do that can we... That's like putting Bron On the 1996 Bulls.. YOU ARE A DIPSHIT.. Who can't admit when he is wrong,...............
Posted on 5/29/16 at 6:39 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Head to head, there is no doubt that Russell didn't slow down Wilt very much.
They said back then, only Wilt stopped Wilt.
When he got bored or lethargic, when he didn't care, etc.
Nobody ever accuses Wilt of having Jordan's competitive attitude. Wilt was just always better than anyone...sort of like LeBron, didn't grow-up or develop a killer instinct.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 6:42 pm to Goldrush25
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."
Greatness is a measure of someone vs their contemporaries.
That's ridiculous. There has to be context to things like this. And athletes are much better now.
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 6:44 pm to Goldrush25
quote:This is not true. It's the exact opposite. The EXACT opposite.
Additionally, there's a difference between better and greater.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 6:47 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Just for shits and giggles, how many points per game do you think Jordan would average if he played his prime when Wilt played?
Michael would have given Wilt the Linda Rondstat treatment.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 6:47 pm to Goldrush25
quote:You're explaining how Wilt was a beneficiary of the times. Not why he was great at basketball. Btw, I'm not arguing that he wasn't great at basketball.
When we're talking about all-time-great, then I don't know how he's not a part of the conversation. Now could you drop Alexis Ajinca in that era and have him ball out too? Sure.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 6:48 pm to COTiger
quote:I don't understand the reference, but I think I agree
Wilt the Linda Rondstat treatment.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 6:50 pm to ReauxlTide222
Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:00 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:I feel like you have it opposite. You have to measure greatness vs contemporaries basically for all the reasons you mentioned though.
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."
That's ridiculous. There has to be context to things like this. And athletes are much better now.
Otherwise, the best players ever will always be only guys from the last 25 years or so.
Bigger stronger faster...
quote:as many as he wanted. But I think there are average nba players today who could be similar, by far better than basically every player in the 60s if you literally dropped them as they are today into the 60s.
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 7:13 pm to shel311
I agree with you. My reasoning for my views on this are simply due to odds. It's just hard to be a great. It's hard to be the best. Hell it's hard to be average in a pro sport. IMO, guys back in the day benefited from a bigger variance in athleticism, knowledge, ability to be found, TONS of things.
As things get specialized, there is less variance. Less room to be better than the next guy. Sure, greats in the 60s COULD be better than greats now. But the odds of them being great now aren't as good as the odds that they had of being great then.
As things get specialized, there is less variance. Less room to be better than the next guy. Sure, greats in the 60s COULD be better than greats now. But the odds of them being great now aren't as good as the odds that they had of being great then.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:16 pm to shel311
You can only ever measure players by how much they dominated their peers.
That's it. End of story.
And lets not act like athletes are so exponentially better today as if a 1960's Wilt couldn't even hang on the court with them. That gets overblown.
For instance, since 1965-1972 - Wilts playing days, the 100m dash has gone from 9.9 to 9.6.
And in 100 years it moved less than 1 second from Charlie Paddock at 10.4 in the early 20th century to Usain Bolt at 9.6 after the 20th century.
I'm pretty sure you put a Wilt from 40 years ago with his size and agility, he wouldn't be some fossil.
Evolution is great, but great evolution doesn't happen in a span of 100 years folks.
That's it. End of story.
And lets not act like athletes are so exponentially better today as if a 1960's Wilt couldn't even hang on the court with them. That gets overblown.
For instance, since 1965-1972 - Wilts playing days, the 100m dash has gone from 9.9 to 9.6.
And in 100 years it moved less than 1 second from Charlie Paddock at 10.4 in the early 20th century to Usain Bolt at 9.6 after the 20th century.
I'm pretty sure you put a Wilt from 40 years ago with his size and agility, he wouldn't be some fossil.
Evolution is great, but great evolution doesn't happen in a span of 100 years folks.
This post was edited on 5/29/16 at 7:17 pm
Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:16 pm to COTiger
frick me I love that song, didn't know she sang it.
I love that song, didn't know she sang it. Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:19 pm to ReauxlTide222
And I saw her sing it live many years ago.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:20 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:Wilt certainly seems like a rare case, but get outta here with acting like the 60s is anywhere near today's game.
And lets not act like athletes are so exponentially better today as if a 1960's Wilt couldn't even hang on the court with them. That gets overblown
The 76ers would probably pick their score against any title team from the 60s.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:24 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:Things are more specialized. Different things as far as philosophy and desirable skills and physical traits change and become more efficient.
For instance, since 1965-1972 - Wilts playing days, the 100m dash has gone from 9.9 to 9.6.
If cavemen played basketball, some would be the best. They'd have NO idea what they were doing, but a few would be the best...compared to their contemporaries.
Who was the best football player in 1922? I doubt he was as good as the best in 1990. I know race issues play into that, so it might not be the best example.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 7:31 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
It was a much different league back then. There were only 3 players in the league who were at least 6'9" tall
not even close to true
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News