well on this day 45 years ago wilt scored 100 points in a single game. my question do you think this is the best single player performance in league history?
Wilt can easily be considered better. The NBA made new rules just to make Wilt less dominant. The best players are either Jordan or Wilt.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Wilt can easily be considered better. The NBA made new rules just to make Wilt less dominant. The best players are either Jordan or Wilt.</div> I don't know if I'd go that far. I think that Wilt was great, but nowhere near as talented as Larry Bird, or even Magic Johnson for that matter. Talk to anyone who actually saw Wilt play, and they'll tell you that at the time, Bill Russell was considered a better player. Forty years later though, we just look back at the statistics and don't remember anything about their actual games. For example, forty years from now, Allen Iverson might look like a better player than Kobe Bryant. We all know that's not true now, but if you just looked at the stats, you could make a strong argument for Iverson being the better player, and that's probably how they'll be looked at forty years from now.
It's a phenomenal accomplishment, let's just leave it at that. Most of these kinda debates tend to just fall back on the same points in the end (I'm assuming this is going to turn into a Kobe vs. wilt thing). As far as if it's the best single player performance, I would have to say Hakeem's (or any one else's) quadruple double is more impressive, considering the fact that Wilt scored against players much smaller and weaker than himself. That's not really his fault but I don't think he'd be able to pull it off in today's NBA. Again, that's a hypothetical assumption, so I can't use it in my defence.
<div class="quote_poster">Karma Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">As far as if it's the best single player performance, I would have to say Hakeem's (or any one else's) quadruple double is more impressive, considering the fact that Wilt scored against players much smaller and weaker than himself. That's not really his fault but I don't think he'd be able to pull it off in today's NBA. Again, that's a hypothetical assumption, so I can't use it in my defence.</div> I don't think that Chamberlain is the second greatest player of all-time, but the era that he played in definitely featured some great big men, probably more greats than are in today's NBA. Here are some of the guys he played against: Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Jerry Lucas, Bob Pettit, Nate Thurmond, Bob McAdoo, Elvin Hayes, etc.
100 pts. is still a huge accomplishment but I think Kobe, a guard, scoring 81 is more impressive especially in today's NBA.
<div class="quote_poster">Voodoo Child Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think that Chamberlain is the second greatest player of all-time, but the era that he played in definitely featured some great big men, probably more greats than are in today's NBA. Here are some of the guys he played against: Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Jerry Lucas, Bob Pettit, Nate Thurmond, Bob McAdoo, Elvin Hayes, etc.</div> Well, I was actually referencing to the actual players he played against in the game in which he scored 100 points. I'm not sure who the players were, but it has generally been stated that they were really small in comparison to him.
<div class="quote_poster">Karma Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Well, I was actually referencing to the actual players he played against in the game in which he scored 100 points. I'm not sure who the players were, but it has generally been stated that they were really small in comparison to him.</div> Actually, the Knicks' starting center that night was Darrall Imhoff (6'10"), and his reserve was Cleveland Buckner (6'9"). They were each a few inches shorter than Chamberlain, but not any more than the average height disparity between a dominant big man of the modern era like Shaq and the average center of his day. Besides, how about Wilt Chamberlain's 55 rebound game? He pulled off that feat against Bill Russell, arguably the greatest rebounder of all-time.
<div class="quote_poster">Playmaker15 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">100 pts. is still a huge accomplishment but I think Kobe, a guard, scoring 81 is more impressive especially in today's NBA.</div> Not this debate again.
<div class="quote_poster">Voodoo Child Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Actually, the Knicks' starting center that night was Darrall Imhoff (6'10"), and his reserve was Cleveland Buckner (6'9"). They were each a few inches shorter than Chamberlain, but not any more than the average height disparity between a dominant big man of the modern era like Shaq and the average center of his day. </div> Well, Wilt's dominance over the league is easily observable when you look at his stats. I don't think anyone's ever going to come close to averaging 50 points and 25 rebounds in a season ever again. That says that a) he was UNDOUBTEDLY the best player to ever play the game, or (and more likely) his competition level in the league at the time was not as strong as it perhaps got when he got older. That amazing season was also the same season the 100 point game was played. I think what taints his accomplishment is the fact that first and foremost, the game had gotten out of hand by the fourth quarter, since the Knicks weren't even trying to WIN the game at that point, but rather were holding the ball in order to kill the clock and prevent Chamberlain from scoring. The 4th quarter was just a series of long lobs to Wilt, combined with the Knicks intentionally fouling his teammates to keep the ball away from him and the Warriors in return fouling the Knicks players just to stop the game clock so they could get the ball back to Wilt on the ensuing posession. When you play like that, it's not really a "game", but more so just a forced feat. I think it's great that he still scored 100 when the Knicks were trying to kill the clock every time, but that takes away from the "game" aspect of the actual game.
<div class="quote_poster">Karma Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Well, Wilt's dominance over the league is easily observable when you look at his stats. I don't think anyone's ever going to come close to averaging 50 points and 25 rebounds in a season ever again. That says that a) he was UNDOUBTEDLY the best player to ever play the game, or (and more likely) his competition level in the league at the time was not as strong as it perhaps got when he got older. That amazing season was also the same season the 100 point game was played. I think what taints his accomplishment is the fact that first and foremost, the game had gotten out of hand by the fourth quarter, since the Knicks weren't even trying to WIN the game at that point, but rather were holding the ball in order to kill the clock and prevent Chamberlain from scoring. The 4th quarter was just a series of long lobs to Wilt, combined with the Knicks intentionally fouling his teammates to keep the ball away from him and the Warriors in return fouling the Knicks players just to stop the game clock so they could get the ball back to Wilt on the ensuing posession. When you play like that, it's not really a "game", but more so just a forced feat. I think it's great that he still scored 100 when the Knicks were trying to kill the clock every time, but that takes away from the "game" aspect of the actual game.</div> I don't think it's as black and white as you put it. There's definitely an option c, an option d, an option e, etc. There are many factors that you have to consider that go way beyond statistics. As I said earlier, from a purely statistical point of view, a lot forty years from now might think that Allen Iverson was the best player of the '90-2000's era, something which we can all agree at this point in time would be a bullshit assumption, but an assumption that would look surprisingly valid in the future none the less. Anyway, back to the Wilt vs. The Field argument, Bill Russell put up statistics that weren't as jaw-dropping, except on the glass, where he is arguably the greatest rebounder of all-time with a career average of 22.5 rpg, but yet Russell still has more career MVP's (six) and more career titles (eleven). If Wilt Chamberlain was so dominant, why is that? Time skews our perception of players to the point where we largely rely on statistics, and statistics are not always the most reliable way of judging a player's game. It's funny. During the 1960's and 1970's, there was no question as to who the greatest player was. It was Russell. Then even into the 80's, Russell's legacy held strong. In 1980, he was voted Greatest Player in NBA History by the Professional Basketball Writers Association of America. Now, over forty years later, most people wouldn't even rate him as the best big man in his era. It makes you wonder how players like Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant will be looked at down the road compared to guys like Allen Iverson and Vince Carter.
<div class="quote_poster">Voodoo Child Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think it's as black and white as you put it. There's definitely an option c, an option d, an option e, etc. There are many factors that you have to consider that go way beyond statistics. As I said earlier, from a purely statistical point of view, a lot forty years from now might think that Allen Iverson was the best player of the '90-2000's era, something which we can all agree at this point in time would be a bullshit assumption, but an assumption that would look surprisingly valid in the future none the less. Anyway, back to the Wilt vs. The Field argument, Bill Russell put up statistics that weren't as jaw-dropping, except on the glass, where he is arguably the greatest rebounder of all-time with a career average of 22.5 rpg, but yet Russell still has more career MVP's (six) and more career titles (eleven). If Wilt Chamberlain was so dominant, why is that? Time skews our perception of players to the point where we largely rely on statistics, and statistics are not always the most reliable way of judging a player's game. It's funny. During the 1960's and 1970's, there was no question as to who the greatest player was. It was Russell. Then even into the 80's, Russell's legacy held strong. In 1980, he was voted Greatest Player in NBA History by the Professional Basketball Writers Association of America. Now, over forty years later, most people wouldn't even rate him as the best big man in his era. It makes you wonder how players like Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant will be looked at down the road compared to guys like Allen Iverson and Vince Carter.</div> Bill has more titles because he played with six hall of famers IIRC, and the voters factor in Wins/Championships when voting for the MVP. MVPs mean nothing. And I don't know why you implied AI has had better overall "stats" than Kobe. That's simply not true. I'd take Wilt over Bill in a landslide.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Bill has more titles because he played with six hall of famers IIRC, and the voters factor in Wins/Championships when voting for the MVP. MVPs mean nothing.</div> And Wilt Chamberlain never played with great players? His rookie year he had the benefit of playing with Paul Arizin (Hall of Famer) and Tom Gola (Hall of Famer). Chamberlain then went on to play with the likes of Hal Greer (Hall of Famer), Billy Cunningham (Hall of Famer), Jerry West (Hall of Famer), Elgin Baylor (Hall of Famer), Gail Goodrich (Hall of Famer), and Nate Thurmond (Hall of Famer). And since when do MVP's not mean anything? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And I don't know why you implied AI has had better overall "stats" than Kobe. That's simply not true. </div> Iverson's career averages: 28.0 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 6.1 apg, 2.3 spg Bryant's career averages: 23.9 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.5 spg
<div class="quote_poster">Voodoo Child Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It makes you wonder how players like Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant will be looked at down the road compared to guys like Allen Iverson and Vince Carter.</div> Michael Jordan's legacy is pretty safe.... Iverson and Vince Carter will fade into the background. As will KObe, strangely enough, UNLESS he can do some insane stuff in the next 5 years, which doesn't look like happening.... There is no doubt in my mind that in 100 years people will STILL think Jordan is the best up through 2007. However, I also think that is very likely that a few cats will come along in the next 100 years who will surpass Jordan. ANd possibly one in the next 20 years. This game is still VERY young. However, is there anyone playing right now that you think might surpass MJ in terms of public opinion? The leading candidates are Dwayne Wade, LeBron and Gilbert Arenas... none of those guys are going to surpass Jordan in my view.
<div class="quote_poster">Voodoo Child Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">And Wilt Chamberlain never played with great players? His rookie year he had the benefit of playing with Paul Arizin (Hall of Famer) and Tom Gola (Hall of Famer). Chamberlain then went on to play with the likes of Hal Greer (Hall of Famer), Billy Cunningham (Hall of Famer), Jerry West (Hall of Famer), Elgin Baylor (Hall of Famer), Gail Goodrich (Hall of Famer), and Nate Thurmond (Hall of Famer). And since when do MVP's not mean anything? Iverson's career averages: 28.0 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 6.1 apg, 2.3 spg Bryant's career averages: 23.9 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.5 spg </div> Wow there you again with "PPG". Jesus guy, the man has a godawful TS% and takes five more shots a game anyway. Kobe has better numbers per 40 minutes. Career Player EFFICIENCY rating: Kobe: About 23.5 <-- Straight out of Highschool AI: About 21.5
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> Career Player EFFICIENCY rating: Kobe: 23+ AI: Just over 21.7</div> that's actually not a very big difference at all.. the real difference is 3:0 in terms of rings....
<div class="quote_poster">phunDamentalz Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">that's actually not a very big difference at all.. the real difference is 3:0 in terms of rings....</div> No, it is quite a bit of difference in this case. He's trying to imply AI is, somewhat easily, the better player when one observes the stats.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">No, it is quite a bit of difference in this case. He's trying to imply AI is, somewhat easily, the better player when one observes the stats.</div> AI OVERALL has better stats than Kobe. live with it. of course if Kobe didn't have Shaq all those years who KNOWS what his average would have been - 34ppg??
<div class="quote_poster">Voodoo Child Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">And Wilt Chamberlain never played with great players? His rookie year he had the benefit of playing with Paul Arizin (Hall of Famer) and Tom Gola (Hall of Famer). Chamberlain then went on to play with the likes of Hal Greer (Hall of Famer), Billy Cunningham (Hall of Famer), Jerry West (Hall of Famer), Elgin Baylor (Hall of Famer), Gail Goodrich (Hall of Famer), and Nate Thurmond (Hall of Famer).</div> Some of those people you mentioned played with a worn down Wilt... Also, many of those "Hall of Famers" you mentioned put up somewhat crappy PER. Whereas the Boston Celtics always had a core of 4-6 players producing Semi-All-Star level PER. They remind me of the Pistons. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> And since when do MVP's not mean anything? </div> Since the voting got stupid back in 1962. Nash has two, Shaq has one... Heh. <div class="quote_poster">phunDamentalz Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">AI OVERALL has better stats than Kobe. live with it. of course if Kobe didn't have Shaq all those years who KNOWS what his average would have been - 34ppg??</div> No he doesn't, that's what PER is for. Per (not to be confused with Player Efficiency Rating) 40 Kobe has the same/slightly better stats than AI anyway. Kobe got less minutes at the start of his career (he was also the first perimeter player out of highschool IIRC).
<div class="quote_poster">Playmaker15 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">100 pts. is still a huge accomplishment but I think Kobe, a guard, scoring 81 is more impressive especially in today's NBA.</div> Exactly man The part that gets me about the 100 is that there was no 3 point line
