Uh... Have you addressed why Agoo's votes didn't all translate into the other poll? Yes my thread gets bumped a bunch and I drafted popular/modern players from the start. I don't have mind control over people despite what you think. How jealous are you?
And? You said he doesn't come up in the clutch, you didn't bother with the other "details" though, like showing me exactly how this is the case. Uh so? Have you ever watched Wilt Chamberlain play? You love to defend these old players who you probably haven't seen much yourself. Actually you don't have any understanding of PER then, it takes into account the League average, and measures the standard deviations one performs over that. So this is completely false and there are plenty of important rule changes that would impact Wilt today. You're in love with Allen Iverson type of garbage volume scoring. You think he's better than Chris Paul, so of course you'll support these other players. Plenty of people bring up how they don't think old players would be as good today, so my team will win against these type of matchups.
I've seen Wilt play and Baylor, too. Wilt was and still would be today arguable THE BEST player of all time, period. The debate is between him and Jordan. Baylor is certainly top 2-3 SFs of all time, he'd be about 3x as good today as Vince ever was.
He'd be a fine center... Comparable to Shaq but there are serious problems with him that I don't need to intangibly explain. Baylor is a macrocosm of Allen Iverson in the sense that his points and efficiency when put into context aren't as impressive.
Only when put into the context that suits your world view. I'm sorry, but this is just one of the stupidest basketball posts I've seen on the site in a long time.
Uh-oh he's like Shaq! What a diss. Not everyone thinks he's Jesus Christ, all Wilt Chamberlain discussions include this point. It is stupid to ignore that he took about 40 shots a game to get to 50 points per game in a season. He could dominate the NBA at the same level and not achieve the same production now, due to the possessions allocated to him.
Wilt would put up 35/20 numbers in the NBA today, and maybe get 10 assists as well. You simply do not fathom how good a player he was. Take half the teams in the NBA away and put those players on the remaining 15 teams and you have an NBA that is as packed with talent as the NBA was then.
For example, durvasa calculated his rebound rate and he falls much more into the 15 RPG range; 20 is impossible for him. He could score 35 a game, he wouldn't do it as efficiently as Shaq though.
Rodman was not the best rebounder of all time. Those are the kinds of statements that make your case stupid.
Those are the kind of statements that make your case stupid then, because he clearly was. His Rebound rate is second to no one.
Rodman was a top 10 all-time rebounder, certainly best for his height. Wilt and Russell were obviously the top two of all time. Moses Malone was the best offensive rebounder, period. Nate Thurmond cannot be overlooked. Walton in his healthy prime was about as good as anyone. Wes Unseld never put up the kinds of stats that would impress YOU, but his rebounding was outstanding. Cowens was an inch taller than Rodman and played C and guarded guys like Wilt and Kareem and grabbed 15+ RPG for a few seasons.
Jerry Lucas was as good a man defender and as good a rebounder as Rodman, but he was a muuuuuuuch better offensive player. He was 6'8" and could guard centers (but they couldn't guard him!). He was also a winner and he could memorize the phone book. (I do not know if he would be able to win Celebrity Mole, though.)
Very good! Rodman had to contend for rebounds with Luc Longley. Even so, for a good part of Rodman's great rebounding years, a fellow named Jayson Williams (Nets player) was considered nearly his equal.
Williams was in Rodman's league as a rebounder, but could not play man defense even close to Rodman's level. Normal looking, 90s Pistons Rodman was an incredible defensive player. The older version who was such a dominant rebounder was still great, but not nearly as good.
