<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The part that gets me about the 100 is that there was no 3 point line</div> Even if there was, I highly doubt Chamberlain would take advantage of it. He had no where the kind of shooting ability that Kobe has.
<div class="quote_poster">Mercury Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Even if there was, I highly doubt Chamberlain would take advantage of it. He had no where the kind of shooting ability that Kobe has.</div> I believe Kobe has the highest efficiency rating for a single game as well.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">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> Well VC's original arguement was about how stats (as in ppg, bpg, spg, etc) are used to define a player's greatness. Honestly, when comparing players and thier legacy, say 50 years from now, you really think people are going to compare thier EFFICIENCY ratings? No. Journalists, fans, everyone will just look at the statistic outputs of the players in question and compare (like how I used Wilt's 50-25 as one of my points in my arguement - nice rebuttal by the way VC) For example, 50 years from now a kid maybe asked about who was the better player, AI or Kobe? Assuming that both of thier careers had ended in the year 2007 (hypothetical situation to help you comphrehend his point), people would be more liable to say that AI was the better player overall since his career stats were a little more padded than Kobe's. Of course, Kobe's had 3 rings, so he may not be the best example to use, but you get the point. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> 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> I think the fact that the NBA has grown in leaps and bounds since the 80's in terms of media coverage and fanbase helps the cause of current superstars being remembered much more than past ones. Bill Russell led the Celtics to a dynasty, but the fact is that most people will tend to overlook on those statistics simply because they were not actually exposed to it when it was happening. A majority of the writers and journalists we read nowadays about the NBA were probably not even born when Bill was reigning in the NBA, and that is why we get a skewed perspective on the past. Since most journalists (i.e - see Bill Simmons) grew up watching teams of the 80's and ended up analyzing teams of the 90's and 00's, it is these teams and the superstars of this era that is shoved down our throats more than any other.
<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> You're joking, right? Its not even very amazing in today's NBA to see a guard averaging 30 ppg, all they do is whore themselves to the line the whole game because of all of the rules that favor the offensive player and the refs blatant bias. Guards in today's game have it easier than any position at any point in the history of the NBA. The rules in Wilt's day were implemented to make him less effective compared to the rules today that make guards better than they would be in any other era. Not only does Kobe have the rules and referees helping him out tremendously, hes a guard so he can just bring it up and score, and hes got the 3 point shot to help him get there. Wilt had to score purely on 2 pt field goals and had to fight for position while the entire opposing team was trying to deny him the ball. And lets not forget the most important thing; Kobe was still 19 points off Wilt's record, people act like he shattered Wilt's record but really he wasn't that close. He didn't get to 100, he has the rules and referees on his side, has the 3 pt shot, hes a guard and can score from anywhere, and he doesn't have to deal with hack-a-Kobe like Wilt did yet people still think Kobe's game was more impressive? Its blatant bias toward Kobe because hes from the current era. Oh and Wilt also had 25 rebounds, if his 19 point edge wasn't enough for you, and he also matched Kobe's 2 assists. Wilt's game was 19 points and 19 rebounds better than Kobe's and he didn't have the refs on his jock, the 3 pt shot, and weak rules preventing defenders from touching him, how the hell can anyone seriously think Kobe's game was better than Wilts? 100 > 81 25 > 6 2 = 2 Wilt didn't have the rules, officials, 3 pt shot, or ability to get the ball from anywhere on the court and score from anywhere on the court going for him. And he still scored more than Kobe, rebounded more, and got the same number of assists. So why is Kobe's game more impressive in the eyes of many?
<div class="quote_poster">Karma Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Well VC's original arguement was about how stats (as in ppg, bpg, spg, etc) are used to define a player's greatness. Honestly, when comparing players and thier legacy, say 50 years from now, you really think people are going to compare thier EFFICIENCY ratings? No. Journalists, fans, everyone will just look at the statistic outputs of the players in question and compare (like how I used Wilt's 50-25 as one of my points in my arguement - nice rebuttal by the way VC)</div> PPG is an obsolete stat. If someone (in a general sense) is too ignorant to figure out why, their opinion shouldn't hold weight in the future or present. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> For example, 50 years from now a kid maybe asked about who was the better player, AI or Kobe? Assuming that both of thier careers had ended in the year 2007 (hypothetical situation to help you comphrehend his point), people would be more liable to say that AI was the better player overall since his career stats were a little more padded than Kobe's. Of course, Kobe's had 3 rings, so he may not be the best example to use, but you get the point. </div> Even by just looking at their stats, AI's % still sucks, so there is no grand edge. <div class="quote_poster">Run BJM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You're joking, right? Its not even very amazing in today's NBA to see a guard averaging 30 ppg, all they do is whore themselves to the line the whole game because of all of the rules that favor the offensive player and the refs blatant bias. Guards in today's game have it easier than any position at any point in the history of the NBA. The rules in Wilt's day were implemented to make him less effective compared to the rules today that make guards better than they would be in any other era. Not only does Kobe have the rules and referees helping him out tremendously, hes a guard so he can just bring it up and score, and hes got the 3 point shot to help him get there. Wilt had to score purely on 2 pt field goals and had to fight for position while the entire opposing team was trying to deny him the ball. And lets not forget the most important thing; Kobe was still 19 points off Wilt's record, people act like he shattered Wilt's record but really he wasn't that close. He didn't get to 100, he has the rules and referees on his side, has the 3 pt shot, hes a guard and can score from anywhere, and he doesn't have to deal with hack-a-Kobe like Wilt did yet people still think Kobe's game was more impressive? Its blatant bias toward Kobe because hes from the current era. Oh and Wilt also had 25 rebounds, if his 19 point edge wasn't enough for you, and he also matched Kobe's 2 assists. Wilt's game was 19 points and 19 rebounds better than Kobe's and he didn't have the refs on his jock, the 3 pt shot, and weak rules preventing defenders from touching him, how the hell can anyone seriously think Kobe's game was better than Wilts? 100 > 81 25 > 6 2 = 2 Wilt didn't have the rules, officials, 3 pt shot, or ability to get the ball from anywhere on the court and score from anywhere on the court going for him. And he still scored more than Kobe, rebounded more, and got the same number of assists. So why is Kobe's game more impressive in the eyes of many?</div> Because he was more efficient per possession, wasn't he? And Wilt could not make 3 point shots even if he wanted to, that was a good rule change that rewarded people with greater skillsets. Yes, the FTs skew things a bit but his rating would still rank nearly the same with Wilt. Wilt's teammates were also fouling people in the end to help get him the record. They are pretty even accomplishments. Wilt's era was faster paced, so it was actually easier to accumulate points and rebounds in that era. So yes, that also means Bill Russell was not the greatest rebounder ever either. Rodman had a higher Rebound rate IIRC.
<div class="quote_poster">Run BJM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You're joking, right? Its not even very amazing in today's NBA to see a guard averaging 30 ppg, all they do is whore themselves to the line the whole game because of all of the rules that favor the offensive player and the refs blatant bias. Guards in today's game have it easier than any position at any point in the history of the NBA. The rules in Wilt's day were implemented to make him less effective compared to the rules today that make guards better than they would be in any other era. Not only does Kobe have the rules and referees helping him out tremendously, hes a guard so he can just bring it up and score, and hes got the 3 point shot to help him get there. Wilt had to score purely on 2 pt field goals and had to fight for position while the entire opposing team was trying to deny him the ball. And lets not forget the most important thing; Kobe was still 19 points off Wilt's record, people act like he shattered Wilt's record but really he wasn't that close. He didn't get to 100, he has the rules and referees on his side, has the 3 pt shot, hes a guard and can score from anywhere, and he doesn't have to deal with hack-a-Kobe like Wilt did yet people still think Kobe's game was more impressive? Its blatant bias toward Kobe because hes from the current era. Oh and Wilt also had 25 rebounds, if his 19 point edge wasn't enough for you, and he also matched Kobe's 2 assists. Wilt's game was 19 points and 19 rebounds better than Kobe's and he didn't have the refs on his jock, the 3 pt shot, and weak rules preventing defenders from touching him, how the hell can anyone seriously think Kobe's game was better than Wilts? 100 > 81 25 > 6 2 = 2 Wilt didn't have the rules, officials, 3 pt shot, or ability to get the ball from anywhere on the court and score from anywhere on the court going for him. And he still scored more than Kobe, rebounded more, and got the same number of assists. So why is Kobe's game more impressive in the eyes of many?</div> Because he was more efficient per possession, wasn't he? Yes, the FTs skew things a bit but his rating would still rank nearly the same with Wilt. Wilt's teammates were also fouling people in the end to help get him the record. They are pretty even accomplishments. Wilt's era was faster paced, so it was actually easier to accumulate points and rebounds in that era.
Personally, I've always felt that you really can't compare how great players were in general class that played entirely different positions and had entirely seperate roles. I usually just rate guys on best PG, C, SF, etc. But whatever works for ya'. Wilt was great though, but the NBA was much different then of course. We will never know how he would've played in this type of league. Reminds me of the NHL and Sidney Crosby. ESPN and others make a big fuss about his point scoring compared to the Great One. However, the new rules don't really make much sense to compare what this kid has done to a man that played in much more difficult scoring times.
I'm not totally sure why everyone brings up that Wilt didn't have a 3 pt line as if it makes his accomplishment better. Don't you think it's harder to hit 3 pters and jumpshots as opposed to all the layups, dunks, and shots within 3 feet of the basket that Wilt probably made? The game was just so different......I mean... 100 points in a game? 55 rebounds? It's ridiculously high, if it was even close to how it is today, he should be considered the best basketball player in history. I, however, am not even sure if I would put him in the same sentence as Jordan, Bird, and Magic. I would put several other accomplishments above Wilts. But that's just me...
If you want to assess how impressive Wilt's 100 point game was, you have to also look at the team stats. Here's the box score for that game (small print): http://www.hoophall.com/exhibits/chamberlain_boxscore.htm <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/><br/> MINFG FGAFT FTAREB AST PFPTS<br/>PHI24083 11543 52 603925169<br/>NYK24057 11833 41 601732147<br/>Wilt48386328 32 2522100<br/></div> This gives us some context. It would be nice if we knew a bit more (offensive rebounds, turnovers, etc.), but this is what was tracked back then. One way to put a value on the points an individual scored is to consider it as a ratio of the opposing team's point total. In this case, for every 10 points New York scored, Wilt scored 6.8. That's an unbelievable figure. But Wilt was also far more efficient than New York as a team -- 64.9 TS% compared to 54.0 TS%. Thus, for every 10 "scoring attempts" by New York, Wilt had only 5.7. How does that stack up against Kobe's 81 point game? Frankly, I think Kobe's game is more impressive (purely based on the numbers). Here's the boxscore. For every 10 points Toronto scored, Kobe scored 7.8 (that's probably a record). And for every 10 scoring attempts Toronto had, Kobe had 6.2. Kobe's TS% was 73.9% (spectacular) and Toronto's was 59.1% (very good, but not enough on this night). As for the rebounds, Wilts played the entire game and there were 120 rebounds total. 25 rebounds isn't that big a deal. It would be like getting 14 rebounds or so in a game today. I mean, certainly it's very good, but not nearly as eye popping as it would be today.
In my opinion, what Kobe did last year eclipses what Wilt did in an era that was frankly less athletic, smaller, less talented and with far worse defense (although the Raps' defense on that day probably rivalled the poor defense of that era). However, I'll take Hakeem's 2 quadruple-doubles over either of those accomplishments anyday.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">If you want to assess how impressive Wilt's 100 point game was, you have to also look at the team stats. Here's the box score for that game (small print): http://www.hoophall.com/exhibits/chamberlain_boxscore.htm <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/><br/> MINFG FGAFT FTAREB AST PFPTS<br/>PHI24083 11543 52 603925169<br/>NYK24057 11833 41 601732147<br/>Wilt48386328 32 2522100<br/></div> This gives us some context. It would be nice if we knew a bit more (offensive rebounds, turnovers, etc.), but this is what was tracked back then. One way to put a value on the points an individual scored is to consider it as a ratio of the opposing team's point total. In this case, for every 10 points New York scored, Wilt scored 6.8. That's an unbelievable figure. But Wilt was also far more efficient than New York as a team -- 64.9 TS% compared to 54.0 TS%. Thus, for every 10 "scoring attempts" by New York, Wilt had only 5.7. How does that stack up against Kobe's 81 point game? Frankly, I think Kobe's game is more impressive (purely based on the numbers). Here's the boxscore. For every 10 points Toronto scored, Kobe scored 7.8 (that's probably a record). And for every 10 scoring attempts Toronto had, Kobe had 6.2. Kobe's TS% was 73.9% (spectacular) and Toronto's was 59.1% (very good, but not enough on this night). As for the rebounds, Wilts played the entire game and there were 120 rebounds total. 25 rebounds isn't that big a deal. It would be like getting 14 rebounds or so in a game today. I mean, certainly it's very good, but not nearly as eye popping as it would be today.</div> This emphasizes that volume based stats are not the end all. TS% and number of possessions are quite important. Kobe also played 42 minutes, whereas it would be unlikely that Wilt would be able to be out on the court for 48 minutes in today's game. Jesus had an efficiency rating of 70+ (better than anyone else ever).
<div class="quote_poster">Run BJM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You're joking, right? Its not even very amazing in today's NBA to see a guard averaging 30 ppg, all they do is whore themselves to the line the whole game because of all of the rules that favor the offensive player and the refs blatant bias. Guards in today's game have it easier than any position at any point in the history of the NBA. The rules in Wilt's day were implemented to make him less effective compared to the rules today that make guards better than they would be in any other era. Not only does Kobe have the rules and referees helping him out tremendously, hes a guard so he can just bring it up and score, and hes got the 3 point shot to help him get there. Wilt had to score purely on 2 pt field goals and had to fight for position while the entire opposing team was trying to deny him the ball. And lets not forget the most important thing; Kobe was still 19 points off Wilt's record, people act like he shattered Wilt's record but really he wasn't that close. He didn't get to 100, he has the rules and referees on his side, has the 3 pt shot, hes a guard and can score from anywhere, and he doesn't have to deal with hack-a-Kobe like Wilt did yet people still think Kobe's game was more impressive? Its blatant bias toward Kobe because hes from the current era. Oh and Wilt also had 25 rebounds, if his 19 point edge wasn't enough for you, and he also matched Kobe's 2 assists. Wilt's game was 19 points and 19 rebounds better than Kobe's and he didn't have the refs on his jock, the 3 pt shot, and weak rules preventing defenders from touching him, how the hell can anyone seriously think Kobe's game was better than Wilts? 100 > 81 25 > 6 2 = 2 Wilt didn't have the rules, officials, 3 pt shot, or ability to get the ball from anywhere on the court and score from anywhere on the court going for him. And he still scored more than Kobe, rebounded more, and got the same number of assists. So why is Kobe's game more impressive in the eyes of many?</div> yeah dude! Kobe was nowhere near. Kobe porbably hit some 3's that game to help him out. Wilt's were all down low. Wilt > Kobe
<div class="quote_poster">Baller09 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">yeah dude! Kobe was nowhere near. Kobe porbably hit some 3's that game to help him out. Wilt's were all down low. Wilt > Kobe</div> Obviously he is "near" Chamberlain. I don't see how anyone could argue that. And without the three pointers, he still had 74 points... But why should you hate on him for that anyway? Run BJM is a Kobe hater btw. Whereas I (and that bright Durvasa fellow) have mostly used complex stats/facts, and not subjective conclusions, to make my case.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> Run BJM is a Kobe hater btw. Whereas I (and that bright Durvasa fellow) have mostly used complex stats/facts, and not subjective conclusions, to make my case.</div> I don't deny that but you are a Kobe jock rider so its not like any of our opinions are more important than one another. Durvasa's stats favor Kobe but statistics can be swayed for everything. Kobe may have been more efficient but it was still 19 points less than Wilt's game. Fairly close, but still less than Wilt. Its hard to compare the two games because of the different eras and positions, I think Wilt's game was better as I posted previously, anyone else can believe what they want.
<div class="quote_poster">Run BJM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't deny that but you are a Kobe jock rider so its not like any of our opinions are more important than one another. Durvasa's stats favor Kobe but statistics can be swayed for everything. Kobe may have been more efficient but it was still 19 points less than Wilt's game. Fairly close, but still less than Wilt. Its hard to compare the two games because of the different eras and positions, I think Wilt's game was better as I posted previously, anyone else can believe what they want.</div> I'm a fan of "Jesus" actually, more so than Kobe (Jesus has only played basketball on a few occasions... ) , but I get your point. And since Durvasa isn't exactly biased on this issue, his post has much credibility. PER is quite a reliable stat compared to fg% and other volume based statistics. BTW, your user title is very amusing.
^I've already stated that I think Kobe's performance was better, but I find it interesting that you buy into stats when they support your guy, but disregard them when they don't.
<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">^I've already stated that I think Kobe's performance was better, but I find it interesting that you buy into stats when they support your guy, but disregard them when they don't.</div> And what stats are you referring to? What reckless assumptions have you made this time? Blatant Lies. There is a difference between getting 20 FTs when one is shooting 46 times and controlling the ball for longer periods of time; and getting 18.25 FTpg in the NBA Finals (over the course of 4 not 1 game) where the Mavs lost by just a few points in game 3/5/6. A couple of extra free-throws taken away from Kobe wouldn't have meant jack, whereas in the Finals the same does not hold true for Wade. If Kobe had stolen a title like that, I would have been annoyed. And I've already stated in the past that the Lakers stole a title from the Kings. I take note of all stats.
^The Lakers? Or the officials? or (possibly) the people who payed/told the officials who to favor? Samaki's three after the buzzer in game 4 never counted. All those phanom fouls called on Vlade Divac and Scott Pollard in game 6 were just bs. That series was just an example of how crappy officials can be and get away with it. It's a shame how Sac-Town had to pay dues before the officials would call a game straight for them. sorry for the rant.
It's a great accomplishment..........On the other hand it's more of a tribute to the lack of quality bigmen that played in that era. Wilt was the only true giant of that era, plus the players weren't nearly as strong or quick. So in reality, Shaq the best center of all time. Wilt was tremendous tho
