Okay, maybe not 25 a game, but who will be his competition on the boards every game? I mean, he hogged the boards. 11 is too little, he'd average more than 15 definately.
I dont think that Wilt would be a dominant center. I think that he would be the 3rd best center in the league behind Shaq and Yao. The guys that he played agaisnt back then were alot smaller and less physical than today. Era's make that big of a difference IMO. Whatever u people say really wont influence my opinion what so ever. As for his numbers..... 18 and 10. somewhere around there.
I Honestly think he would get killed. What he was one of the tallest in the NBA? He wouldnt be able to keep up with Duncan, KG.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Sep 2 2006, 11:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I dont think that Wilt would be a dominant center. I think that he would be the 3rd best center in the league behind Shaq and Yao. The guys that he played agaisnt back then were alot smaller and less physical than today. Era's make that big of a difference IMO. Whatever u people say really wont influence my opinion what so ever. As for his numbers..... 18 and 10. somewhere around there.</div>I think he would. Yao is nowhere close to Wilt so, that's never happening. As for Shaq, Wilt has too many moves for Shaq to be successful guarding him, Shaq may get a few on Wilt on offense, but he wont shut down Wilt at all. And I'm sick of everybody saying that players were smaller back then, what? were 7 footers invented after 1970? Let's get serious, there were a lot of tall players in Wilt's era, in fact Wilt wasn't even the tallest player in the NBA. He was one of the most well known, hence the reason for forgetting the rest of the big guys like Zelmo Beatty and Clyde Lovelette and so on. Also, Wilt has never recorded less than 10 boards in a game for his entire career, he would definately grab more than ten per game, how about 19-24? somewhere between there, also, Wilt would definately have 15-20 games with 30 or more rebounds. As for scoring, who knows for sure, if he wanted to averaged 30ppg, he could, who's gunna stop him, I think it depends on what his coach wants him to do.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I Honestly think he would get killed. What he was one of the tallest in the NBA? He wouldnt be able to keep up with Duncan, KG.</div>KG is the closest big man to Wilt as far as athleticism but THAT'S IT. Duncan and KG wouldn't kill Wilt, they wouldn't even slow him down.
To me the most reasonable stats he would have is:25-32ppg/10-14rpg/2-4apg/2-3bpg/1spg/FG59%Why?If Bill Russell couldnt gaurd him that well who will? Im sure Ben Wallace cant,because look at the height advantage Myabe Shaq and Duncan are the best suitable defender. Rebounding wise Duncan,Shaq,Big Ben,JO are probably the best people that can/t outbox him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 3 2006, 01:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay, maybe not 25 a game, but who will be his competition on the boards every game? I mean, he hogged the boards. 11 is too little, he'd average more than 15 definately.</div>You're still reaching. I doubt he is that much better of a rebounder than Dwight Howard. I would say 13 rpg MAX.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 2 2006, 07:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The reasons are stupid though. Even though there more shots in the 60's, players then were getting the same percentage of boards as players today. So, no advantage there. I'll admit, 35ppg is a bit much, but after doing what he did to Bill Russell, trust me, none of these poor ass, fundamentaly undsound bigmen today are even going to have a chance. Don't give me that Tim Duncan sh*t either, he'll be Wilt's bi*ch right along with Shaq's fat-outtashape ass. 30ppg and 22rpg 8bpg, 8apg and 48mpg sounds right.</div>comeo on. 48 minutes a game? Listen to yourself! no one could do that at the pace of today's game. Today's big men are far more athletic and strong than they were. NO CHANCE IN HELL anyone in the nba could average 20 rpg. that'll likely never happen again.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 3 2006, 02:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think he would. Yao is nowhere close to Wilt so, that's never happening. As for Shaq, Wilt has too many moves for Shaq to be successful guarding him, Shaq may get a few on Wilt on offense, but he wont shut down Wilt at all. And I'm sick of everybody saying that players were smaller back then, what? were 7 footers invented after 1970? Let's get serious, there were a lot of tall players in Wilt's era, in fact Wilt wasn't even the tallest player in the NBA. He was one of the most well known, hence the reason for forgetting the rest of the big guys like Zelmo Beatty and Clyde Lovelette and so on. Also, Wilt has never recorded less than 10 boards in a game for his entire career, he would definately grab more than ten per game, how about 19-24? somewhere between there, also, Wilt would definately have 15-20 games with 30 or more rebounds. As for scoring, who knows for sure, if he wanted to averaged 30ppg, he could, who's gunna stop him, I think it depends on what his coach wants him to do.KG is the closest big man to Wilt as far as athleticism but THAT'S IT. Duncan and KG wouldn't kill Wilt, they wouldn't even slow him down.</div>it's common knowledge that players were way shorter back then. i read an article that said if you were above 6 foot, you played in the post. period. you're acting like Wilt is God. We're playing in the most talented era EVER in basketball. No one will be able to get those stats. no one.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nba dogmatist @ Sep 3 2006, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>comeo on. 48 minutes a game? Listen to yourself! no one could do that at the pace of today's game. Today's big men are far more athletic and strong than they were. NO CHANCE IN HELL anyone in the nba could average 20 rpg. that'll likely never happen again.</div>What?, the game in the 1960's was played twice as fast as it is today. Teams then would make todays Phoenix Suns look like the f*cking Pistons. Wilt averaged 48.5 minutes a game when the lowest scoring teams were putting up 110ppg. If you think today's game is fast, you must have your head up your ass.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>idiot, it's common knowledge that players were way shorter back then. i read an article that said if you were above 6 foot, you played in the post. period. you're acting like Wilt is God. We're playing in the most talented era EVER in basketball. No one will be able to get those stats. no one.</div>This isn't the most talented era in basketball ever, it is the most overhyped. In the 1960's a player had to EARN their credit, today, it is handed to them for doing nothing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nba dogmatist @ Sep 3 2006, 03:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>comeo on. 48 minutes a game? Listen to yourself! no one could do that at the pace of today's game. Today's big men are far more athletic and strong than they were. NO CHANCE IN HELL anyone in the nba could average 20 rpg. that'll likely never happen again.idiot, it's common knowledge that players were way shorter back then. i read an article that said if you were above 6 foot, you played in the post. period. you're acting like Wilt is God. We're playing in the most talented era EVER in basketball. No one will be able to get those stats. no one.</div>Stop calling members idiots. Youre setting a great example as a mod
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 2 2006, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dude, by a book, watch some tape, build a f*cking time machine....You are serioulsy underestimating what Wilt can do, 8 blocks per game isn't out of reach for him, he routinely recorded 15,16 and 17 blocks in games all the time during his career. Wilt Chamberlain would average 22 rebounds per game, wake the F*ck up. Defense today compared to the 1960s is so soft, he probably wouldn't even break a sweat. However, it does depend on which Wilt shows up, the 1959-1964 Wilt would try to average 35ppg or more. The 1967-1973 Wilt would be a defender and strong rebounder, and would average probably 15ppg and 25rpg.</div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 4 2006, 03:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What?, the game in the 1960's was played twice as fast as it is today. Teams then would make todays Phoenix Suns look like the f*cking Pistons. Wilt averaged 48.5 minutes a game when the lowest scoring teams were putting up 110ppg. If you think today's game is fast, you must have your head up your ass.This isn't the most talented era in basketball ever, it is the most overhyped. In the 1960's a player had to EARN their credit, today, it is handed to them for doing nothing.</div>In the first paragraph you say that defenses of today are soft compared to the defenses of the 60's, and in the second paragraph you say that the lowest scoring teams in the 60's scored 110 points per game. I could be wrong, but strong defenses do not give up 110 points per game. You completely contradict yourself in two different area's. The players of today are bigger, stronger, faster and just all around more athletic than the players of the 1960's. If you take a player from the 60's, any player, put him in a time machine and moved him to today i don't believe he would be the dominant player he was in the 1960's. Players of today have more to train and work with to get more atheltic than they had in the 60's. The coaches and players of today are smarter, and know the game better than the players of the 60's did. The coaches would know how to make game plans to stop Chamberlain and in all likely hood would stop Chamberlain from being the player he was.
Thanks man, it's good to be able to get back on, i moved back to the U.S, and to a new post and then went to airborne school, so i had alot i have been doing the past two months or so. I'm gonna try to be as active as possible again.
The pace of the game was faster, that's why teams gave up more points. For example, Team USA in the World championships were one of the two best defensive teams in the tournament, yet they allowed the most points per game, that is just because they played at a much faster pace. The 1960's were no different.Yeah, most players today are bigger, stronger and faster than players in the 1960s (due mainly to better training techniques). But Wilt Chamberlain is definately the exception to the rule. He was simply brilliant, no matter the era, he'd be a dominant player.
Obviously we are never going to be able to really prove this right for either one of us, because we will never see it, it's just speculation. I just don't think that Wilt Chamberlain would be the dominant player he was in the 60's. With the way the game is played today, more agressive, physical defenses with bigger and stronger players than the 60's, i don't know how Wilt would handle it. I have watched a couple of games from the 60's with him in them, and he was never bumped and rough housed the way players bump and rough house these days. Add to that, the smarter players and coaches of today, they would know how to play team defense on Wilt that he never saw in the 60's.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 4 2006, 02:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>people just don't know enough about the game in the 1960's so they ASSUME that it was easier then.</div>Did you grow up watching basketball during the '60s? No you didn't. It is common sense to know it was easier back then. The size athleticism, strength, etc. was worse back then than it is now. I mean really how many legends are there from the '60s? Not a lot. There was no where near as much talent back then as there is now or in the 80s and 90s.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Did you grow up watching basketball during the '60s? No you didn't.</div>Oh right, you know my age.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>It is common sense to know it was easier back then.</div>That's an assumption. I can't believe the arrogance in thinking that this era in the NBA is so great, and then the ignorance to assume that any other time before wasn't good enough. There were many great players in the 1960's, the only difference between them and players today is that players today have ESPN to overhype everthing they do.Instead of acting like you know everything, take the time to look at the game in those days, read books and stats, and if you can find it, watch some film. You'll be very supprised. Players today aren't stronger, they are more toned, they have better training and diet techniques. That still doesn't take away from the players of the 1960's, many of them were very strong, and all of them were very athletic. If Wilt Chamberlain had ESPN, ABC and Amhad Rashad following him around all the time like MJ had, he'd be called the greatest player of alltime, not MJ. Most of the players today are more popular, hence, it seems as if they are better, when actually they are no different from the players of the 1960's.And beleive it or not, defenses were very good in those days. They may not have been more complex, but they were just as good, and a lot tougher.
Other than MB people are not giving Wilt enough credit.I think 27/15/5 blocks in his prime sounds right, Jerry West is on record saying if blocks were a recorded stat back then Wilt would average a triple double with blocks.http://broadband.nba.com/cc/playa.php?cont..._highlights.asxThose moves would still work today. There is limited amount of solid centers in the league today, Wilt would destroy every center currently playing today.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And beleive it or not, defenses were very good in those days. They may not have been more complex, but they were just as good, and a lot tougher.</div>Bingo, Players today may be taller, They may be stronger, But they are worse defenders.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>8 bpg? What the hell? He would never get 8 bpg. That is alo rediculous. So is the 22 ppg...Jeez man..I don't know what you are on..The 8 apg is too excessive too. He was a great passer, but big men simply do not get 8 apg no matter how good they are at passing. Maybe 3-5 apg at the most.</div>I agree with assists, 8 apg is a stretch. The most assists he ever had in a season was 8.6 and that was his career high. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I dont think that Wilt would be a dominant center. I think that he would be the 3rd best center in the league behind Shaq and Yao. The guys that he played agaisnt back then were alot smaller and less physical than today. Era's make that big of a difference IMO. Whatever u people say really wont influence my opinion what so ever.As for his numbers..... 18 and 10. somewhere around there.</div>U-N-D-E-R-R-A-T-E-D. 18 AND 10? Thats placing him with the likes of Antawn Jamison, Mehmet Okur, Pau Gasol, Shawn Marion, Chris Webber, And Lamar Odom.Also, Defense's back then were alot more physical, They didn't baby the players back then.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC @ Sep 4 2006, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Other than MB people are not giving Wilt enough credit.I think 27/15/5 blocks in his prime sounds right, Jerry West is on record saying if blocks were a recorded stat back then Wilt would average a triple double with blocks.http://broadband.nba.com/cc/playa.php?cont..._highlights.asxThose moves would still work today. There is limited amount of solid centers in the league today, Wilt would destroy every center currently playing today.Bingo, Players today may be taller, They may be stronger, But they are worse defenders.Also, Defense's back then were alot more physical, They didn't baby the players back then.</div>I think the more complex defenses along with the bigger, stronger faster players is going to hurt Wilt Chamberlain and would really throw him off these days. He won't just be facing only the center when he is playing, the team defenses of today will cause him to be facing defenses from the entire team. He is going to have bigger, longer arms waving in his face from all around every time he shot these days, than what he had in the past. When he gets hit, or bumped after getting the ball, it's going to be harder than what he got bumped back in the days, simply because the people bumping him are going to be bigger and stronger than what they was back in the 60's.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Sep 4 2006, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Stop calling members idiots. Youre setting a great example as a mod </div>you were basically doing the same thing to him. stop complaining about everything i do. you always complain that i get away with more here, why do you think that is? i bring more to the site than you. i'm amore respected member, just get used to it and stop being a baby.
