<div class="quote_poster">Rock4life Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">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</div> Guess your forgetting about that guy who averaged 22 RPG and has 11 rings.
<div class="quote_poster">Bobcats Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Guess your forgetting about that guy who averaged 22 RPG and has 11 rings.</div> Yes but 22 RPG in the 60's equates to about 15-17 a game (pace adjusted) now. And he had a lot of help didn't he? And no NTC, I win, Run BJM is a no good hooligan.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Yes but 22 RPG in the 60's equates to about 15-17 a game (pace adjusted) now. And he had a lot of help didn't he? And no NTC, I win, Run BJM is a no good hooligan. </div> You're acting like 15-17 RPG is nothing? I'm very confused...
<div class="quote_poster">Mamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You're acting like 15-17 RPG is nothing? I'm very confused...</div> No I'm just taking away the mysticism from "22" RPG. Bill is still good, I'm just setting the record straight, pace really impacts stats. Bill's team beat Wilt, but Bill himself couldn't stop him. Bill shouldn't get most of the credit for 11 rings either. The Celtics had a good 4-6 core players (as I've mentioned before).
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Yes but 22 RPG in the 60's equates to about 15-17 a game (pace adjusted) now. And he had a lot of help didn't he? And no NTC, I win, Run BJM is a no good hooligan. </div> Well, 15-17 RPG is still very impressive. And yes, I know he had quite a bit of help (so did Wilt), but I'm just responding to Rock4life who seems to think Wilt was the only true big man of his era which isn't true.
<div class="quote_poster">Mamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">What would Wilt's stats look like adjusted to the game, today?</div> Ok, here is a post from a great thread a few months ago: <div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Here's a fun little "what if" scenario, using some statistical manipuation. What if Wilt was drafted in 1992 instead of 1960. What kind of per game numbers would he have gotten? I'll just look at points, rebounds, and assists here. Firstly, these were his averages during his 14 year career: <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/>Wilt Chamberlain<br/>MPG PPG RPG APG<br/>--------------------- <br/>196046.437.627.02.3<br/>196147.838.427.21.9<br/>196248.550.425.72.4<br/>196347.644.824.33.4<br/>196446.136.922.35.0<br/>196545.234.722.93.4<br/>196647.333.524.65.2<br/>196745.524.124.27.8<br/>196846.824.323.88.6<br/>196945.320.521.14.5<br/>197042.127.318.44.1<br/>197144.320.718.24.3<br/>197242.314.819.24.0<br/>197343.213.218.64.5<br/></div> Pretty impressive. People often look at these numbers and are simply astonished. 50 points and 25 rebounds a game? Well, let's see how well Wilt's numbers hold up if he played in the same era as Shaquille O'neal. First, I'll assume he plays the same number of minutes per game as he did historically (which is being generous, by the way). And for each statitical category (points, rebounds, assists, etc.), I'll assume the ratio [stat per minute]/[league average stat per minute] is the same. So, if he scored at a rate of x% more than the league average in 1960, then he'll score x% above the league average in 1992. Let's compare his "per game" pts, reb, and assists to one Shaquille O'neal in the same time period (1993-2006): <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/>Wilt Chamberlain Shaquille O'neal<br/>MPG PPG RPG APG MPG PPG RPG APG <br/>--------------------- ---------------------<br/>199346.434.315.82.6 37.923.413.91.9 <br/>199447.833.116.01.9 39.829.313.22.4<br/>199548.542.914.92.3 37.029.311.42.7<br/>199647.638.715.03.4 36.026.611.02.9<br/>199746.132.113.95.2 38.126.212.53.1<br/>199845.230.014.13.6 36.328.311.42.4<br/>199947.326.414.94.7 34.826.310.72.3<br/>200045.520.015.47.7 40.029.713.63.8<br/>200146.819.715.28.1 39.528.712.73.7<br/>200245.317.415.74.3 36.227.210.73.0<br/>200342.122.214.73.5 37.827.511.13.1<br/>200444.317.114.43.8 36.821.511.52.9<br/>200542.313.015.63.5 34.122.910.42.7<br/>200643.211.915.03.6 30.620.09.2 1.9<br/></div> Wilt's numbers still look great, in comparison, but not quite as other-worldly as before. Realistically, it's hard to imagine that Wilt would have averaged over 45 minutes a game his whole career if he played in modern times. He probably wouldn't have been able to avoid foul trouble as easily, for one. And would playing against stiffer competition tire him out a bit more? Perhaps this is being somewhat unfair to Wilt ... maybe he could have averaged 40-42 minutes a game for his career, even in modern times. For comparison sake, let's suppose that Wilt played the same number of minute per game as Shaq has during his career. Now how do they compare? <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/>Wilt Chamberlain Shaquille O'neal<br/>MPG PPG RPG APG MPG PPG RPG APG <br/>--------------------- ---------------------<br/>199337.928.012.92.1 37.923.413.91.9 <br/>199439.827.513.31.6 39.829.313.22.4<br/>199537.032.711.41.8 37.029.311.42.7<br/>199636.029.311.42.6 36.026.611.02.9<br/>199738.126.511.54.3 38.126.212.53.1<br/>199836.324.111.42.9 36.328.311.42.4<br/>199934.819.411.03.5 34.826.310.72.3<br/>200040.017.613.56.8 40.029.713.63.8<br/>200139.516.612.96.9 39.528.712.73.7<br/>200236.213.912.63.4 36.227.210.73.0<br/>200337.820.013.23.2 37.827.511.13.1<br/>200436.814.212.03.1 36.821.511.52.9<br/>200534.110.512.62.9 34.122.910.42.7<br/>200630.68.4 10.62.6 30.620.09.2 1.9<br/></div> At this point, Shaq's numbers actually are starting to look better than Wilt's. Shaq never had the huge assist years Wilt had. Shaq's remained a go to scorer even near the end of his career, while Wilt's scoring dropped significantly. At the same time, Shaq's rebounding actually isn't that far behind Wilt's (surprisingly) ... though Chamberlain's rebounding in the latter half of his career was clearly superior.</div> Career PER: ||| Shaq- 27.82 ||| Wilt- 26.16 ||| http://www.justbball.com/forums/showthread...hamberlain+Shaq In other words, Wilt is still a badass but Shaq is on his level, and so are other modern accomplishments like "81".
<div class="quote_poster">Bobcats Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Guess your forgetting about that guy who averaged 22 RPG and has 11 rings.</div> A 6'10 220 pound guy. Which is a player slightly bigger than Tayshawn Prince 6'9 215 pounds. And slightly smaller than: Chris Bosh 6'10 230 pounds. Or exactly the same size as: Hedo Turkoglu 6'10 220 pounds And Shaq is shut down once again, by the mighty Turkoglu!!!
Basically no one on this board was around to witness Wilt get 100 so guess what? Comparing it to Kobe's 81 is PURE SPECULATION. Nobody knows anything. If you want to compare Kobe's 81 to something, compare it to something WE'VE ALL SEEN, so we have a point of reference.
<div class="quote_poster">phunDamentalz Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Basically no one on this board was around to witness Wilt get 100 so guess what? Comparing it to Kobe's 81 is PURE SPECULATION. Nobody knows anything. If you want to compare Kobe's 81 to something, compare it to something WE'VE ALL SEEN, so we have a point of reference.</div> Exactly. You're much better off comparing Michael Jordan's 69 vs. Kobe Bryant's 81 than you are Wilt Chamberlain's 100.
<div class="quote_poster">phunDamentalz Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Basically no one on this board was around to witness Wilt get 100 so guess what? Comparing it to Kobe's 81 is PURE SPECULATION. Nobody knows anything. If you want to compare Kobe's 81 to something, compare it to something WE'VE ALL SEEN, so we have a point of reference.</div> Then it's not just the comparison to Kobe that's speculation. This entire thread is speculation. The original poster asked if that was the greatest game ever. Well, none of us probably watched games regularly before the 90s (maybe 80s), so you'd have to say the original question was a bad one. I think it's understood that none of us have watched all of the great NBA games, but for the sake of not letting this thread just die we answer with what information we have.
In some ways, I think Kobe's string of consecutive 40-point games he had back in early 03 was more impressive than the 81. I mean 9 GAMES IN A ROW of 40+??? that's pretty nuts.
<div class="quote_poster">phunDamentalz Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">In some ways, I think Kobe's string of consecutive 40-point games he had back in early 03 was more impressive than the 81. I mean 9 GAMES IN A ROW of 40+??? that's pretty nuts.</div> Again, I agree. If you think about it, for some one of Kobe's caliber, scoring 81 isnt really that hard to do, think about it, he's had 2-3 other games where he has had 50-60+ going into the 4th, when he was then benched for the whole quater. Dont forget he was (well still is) the #1 option on a below average team, and every play was running through him pretty much. I'm not even going to mention the complete lack of defense. That game wasnt even his career high for Field Goals Attempted (I think that game wasnt even a 50+ game for him) so it could be done more often than we think, if almost every play is running through or going to the one guy, and if he has a hot hand.
<div class="quote_poster">NTC187 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Again, I agree. If you think about it, for some one of Kobe's caliber, scoring 81 isnt really that hard to do, think about it, he's had 2-3 other games where he has had 50-60+ going into the 4th, when he was then benched for the whole quater. Dont forget he was (well still is) the #1 option on a below average team, and every play was running through him pretty much. I'm not even going to mention the complete lack of defense. That game wasnt even his career high for Field Goals Attempted (I think that game wasnt even a 50+ game for him) so it could be done more often than we think, if almost every play is running through or going to the one guy, and if he has a hot hand.</div> I think only a handful of players in the next 30 years might be able to have a 74 TS % on 40+ shots and 20 FT attempts.
