<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Heatfan32 @ Sep 5 2006, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm really interested in hearing WHY you give Wilt so much credit. How many games have you actually seen? 2-3 maybe? I'm positive you are making your opinions on articles and stats because there are hardly any games from that far back.</div>I watched him play live a couple of times as a boy(yeah, save the old jokes), I've been a fan of him ever since. Even at the end of his career he was still a dominant player. There isn't a lot of video footage of him in his prime. Most of the tapes are of him when he was in his mid 30's. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I've watched quite a few tapes of Wilt when he played. He was not as talented as KG. Wasn't as good of a passer, athletic, and couldn't shoot midrange like KG. Not to mention KG is much more agressive, and due to the natural evolution of the game has a much wider variety in his offensive and defensive arsenal and has a much better knowledge of the game.</div>What team was he playing with on the tapes?<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>For their time they were good athletes, but Wilt was so far ahead of everyone in that era. But that is not the debate, it is how good Wilt would do in this era. He wouldn't have the athletic advantage that he had back then, his size advantage wouldn't be nearly as important, and since he didn't have the midrange jumpshot that makes a player like KG or Duncan so effective his offensive game would be very limited.</div> Trust me, Wilt had some good range, granted he didn't shoot from as deep as KG could, but he was famous for making fallaways from the top of the key. Also, he had a good shot from deep in the corner, he used to show off during games with those shots. People just saw his size and figured he just overpowered people, but he didn't. He was very versitale.To answere Heatfan32's question, yes, I do give him a lot of credit, but I try not to overrated him, even if it sounds like it. To be honest, he could average 20 rebounds a game today, easy, he was a beast on the boards and the greatest rebounder ever. I don't know how many points he'd average though, it depends on what his coach wanted I guess.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 5 2006, 08:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What team was he playing with on the tapes?</div>Most of the footage was a compilation of him from Philly, but I did get to see a full game or 2 from when he was on the Lakers. I also listened to some of the 100pt game broadcast. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Trust me, Wilt had some good range, granted he didn't shoot from as deep as KG could, but he was famous for making fallaways from the top of the key. Also, he had a good shot from deep in the corner, he used to show off during games with those shots. People just saw his size and figured he just overpowered people, but he didn't. He was very versitale.To answere Heatfan32's question, yes, I do give him a lot of credit, but I try not to overrated him, even if it sounds like it. To be honest, he could average 20 rebounds a game today, easy, he was a beast on the boards and the greatest rebounder ever. I don't know how many points he'd average though, it depends on what his coach wanted I guess.</div>He had some range, but not like a KG or Duncan, and certainly not like a Dirk. I highly disagree with you about Wilt being greatest rebounder ever. Bill Russell averaged 23RPG, and was only 6-10, 220. In this era Wilt would average around 10RPG. Again, back then you didn't have guard and forwards averaging as high of a percentage of rebounds as they do today, and the game back then was way more fast paced which allowed more more rebounding oppertunities.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Most of the footage was a compilation of him from Philly, but I did get to see a full game or 2 from when he was on the Lakers. I also listened to some of the 100pt game broadcast.</div>Most are. A long long time ago I saw some footage of him with the Globetrotters. He was running the break throwing behind the back passes! He obviously settled into a role in the NBA but damn, he could really move. It was real grainy though, mainly archive footage.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I highly disagree with you about Wilt being greatest rebounder ever. Bill Russell averaged 23RPG, and was only 6-10, 220. In this era Wilt would average around 10RPG. Again, back then you didn't have guard and forwards averaging as high of a percentage of rebounds as they do today, and the game back then was way more fast paced which allowed more more rebounding oppertunities.</div>Fair enough, I say Wilt because he holds the record and has the highest career average. But yeah, Russell was great at it. I disagree with you on how much he could average today though, I seriously think he could pull off 20 a game. Even in his mid 30's he was still a threat to pull down 35 at any given time. Today, a season high of 32 or so seems reasonable. He was a good jumper, I think he could've snatched some of those long rebounds too.
Once again, NBA is much different now. Game is slowed down, lots of bigger people that are far more athletic....bottom line is the game has evolved so much that I don't think he could grab over 20 a game.10-12 I think is where he'd be around at most.
He wouldn't be able to play in today's NBA... he would have contracted AIDS because of all the women he would have sex with, and thus retire.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Sep 5 2006, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Once again, NBA is much different now. Game is slowed down, lots of bigger people that are far more athletic....bottom line is the game has evolved so much that I don't think he could grab over 20 a game.10-12 I think is where he'd be around at most.</div>Can't we settle for 15 or 16? I can't see him getting only 10 or 12. I think he could do better than that. A rebounder is the same in any era, they go and get the ball. I'm sure Wilt would do that.
Yes, but their ability to beat out others is the question. The era we are in now has it so that unless you are 6'4'' or taller, you can't win a dunk contest with only a 40" leap. Back in Wilt's era it was rare a player under 6'4'' could even dunk, let alone do a 360 reverse windmill like VC. If a team scores 108PPG they are considered unstoppable offensively. Back then 120-130PPG was the norm. There is a reason no one has more than 16RPG since what, the early '70's? And again, it's the quality of the competition. Part of that is the recent foregin invasion, part of it is the natural evolution of the player and game, and part of it is the basketball reneissance of the late '80's/early '90's. The quality of each player in the league is amazing, especially the athletic aspect of it. Wilt would probably be average at best athletically, and he wasn't Ben Wallace in terms of agressiveness, so I don't see him getting over 10-12RPG. Coaches teaching how to box out, be more agressive, etc..is another reason for rebounding amongst every position outside of center increasing.
More Centers today play more of a perimeter game anyway. That's why the rebounds are being so spread out. If Wilt played today, he'd stay where a center "should" stay. Today 12 boards is leading the league. 12 boards today would be like 18 or 19 in the 60's. I think he'd lead the league in rebounding.I think if Wilt played in the 80's he'd definately be only average in athleticism, but the game has since slowed down. He'd be able to hack it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 5 2006, 11:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Can't we settle for 15 or 16? I can't see him getting only 10 or 12. I think he could do better than that. A rebounder is the same in any era, they go and get the ball. I'm sure Wilt would do that.</div>Yeah, except it wasnt uncommon for someone to average 30 rpg back then. Now, no one averages more than 14 a game. Do you think Wilt would be that much better than Dwight Howard at rebounding? No. He would get 10-13 at most imo.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 5 2006, 10:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>More Centers today play more of a perimeter game anyway. That's why the rebounds are being so spread out. If Wilt played today, he'd stay where a center "should" stay. Today 12 boards is leading the league. 12 boards today would be like 18 or 19 in the 60's. I think he'd lead the league in rebounding.I think if Wilt played in the 80's he'd definately be only average in athleticism, but the game has since slowed down. He'd be able to hack it.</div>That isn't taking into account all the great new rebounders, and evolution of the players in our era. What you said is just half of the reaosn why I feel Wilt would only average around 10-12RPG.The '80's were less athletic than our era right now. MJ was the poster boy of athleticism, something totally new....now VC, Kobe, etc... are all just as athletic as MJ ever was, and there are people that can do more in the air than Spudd ever did and they are just as short/shorter! The game today is so far more athletic than the '80's, especially at PF/C. KG, Amare, Dwight, etc...
there are great rebounders now? who? and don't say Ben Wallace, his rebounding proves that Wilt could grab a lot more than anyone in the league today.
In past few years: KG, Duncan, Dwight, Marcus Camby, Elton Brand, JO, Marion, Ben, Yao, Shaq, Emeka, etc...And it isn't a matter of height, Dennis Rodman was around 13-14RPG for career (one season had 18RPG!). Dennis is the greatest rebounder the NBA has ever seen, and he was only 6'7'', 228.The rebounders of today would be too athletic, too agressive, and would know too many new tricks for Wilt to grab more than 10-12RPG.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Never said all of them were. But the competition was FAR, and I mean FAR less athletic, a LOT smaller (not just in height, in the strength and weight department as well), and not half as knowledgable about defense as they are today. And that is excluding coaches of today setting up defenses that can slow down or totally shut down the best players in the world. Wilt would have not been any different.</div>Nitro, you seem to forget the chart I set up. It's very rough, but you get the point.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Dennis is the greatest rebounder the NBA has ever seen, and he was only 6'7'', 228.</div>No way! Wilt was better, so was Bill Russell, Mose Malone,and maybe Wes Unceld and Nate Thurmond. Rodman was the best rebounder in the modern times but those guys could really show him up.
I disagree with that. Doesn't it strike you odd that all the rebounders you mentioned came from the '50's/'60's/early '70's? There rebounding numbers were so high simply because they had FAR more oppertunities to grab them, and they didn't have guards like Jkidd gobbling up forward like rebound numbers, or players like LeBron with 40 inch leaps and are 6'7''. Rodman, being smaller than pretty much all of those players you listed, grabbing an upwards of 18RPG in our era of amazing athleticism and slowed down game, it is simply amazing.Hang Eleven- Please post your chart, I don't believe I saw it. In this topic I just gave an answer to the topic question, not looking at other people's posts, and then Michael Bryant responded and it went on. Please post it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Sep 6 2006, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I disagree with that. Doesn't it strike you odd that all the rebounders you mentioned came from the '50's/'60's/early '70's? There rebounding numbers were so high simply because they had FAR more oppertunities to grab them, and they didn't have guards like Jkidd gobbling up forward like rebound numbers, or players like LeBron with 40 inch leaps and are 6'7''. Rodman, being smaller than pretty much all of those players you listed, grabbing an upwards of 18RPG in our era of amazing athleticism and slowed down game, it is simply amazing.Hang Eleven- Please post your chart, I don't believe I saw it. In this topic I just gave an answer to the topic question, not looking at other people's posts, and then Michael Bryant responded and it went on. Please post it.</div>There were a lot more rebounds to be had in the 1960's, but rebounders then rebounded the same percentage of available rebounds as todays players do. I did the math, and Wilt picked up about 35% of his teams boards while, Ben Wallace, Howard and the others today are taking down about 32% of their teams rebounds. If Ben Wallace and Dwight Howard played in the 60's they'd average around 18 or 19 per game. Shaq could average at least 15 boards per game today if he actually tried. He averages like 16 for the playoffs. So would Wilt, he was better at rebounding than Shaq is. Wilt could average more than 16 per game today. It doesn't matter what era it is, rebounding takes effort, Wilt took pride in his rebounding numbers. He'd definately lead the league if he played today. There is no doubt. He is a better rebounder than Ben Wallace and Dwight Howard, Redneck is right.
He could still be one of the best centers in the league but no way could he get 100 points in the NBA todayR.I.P Wilt Chamberlain
there were no guard who could rebound in the 60s and 70s? what about Oscar Robertson? he averaged double figure rebounding his first four years in the league and he was only 6'5". Bob Cousey averaged around 7 a game for quite a while.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 6 2006, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There were a lot more rebounds to be had in the 1960's, but rebounders then rebounded the same percentage of available rebounds as todays players do. I did the math, and Wilt picked up about 35% of his teams boards while, Ben Wallace, Howard and the others today are taking down about 32% of their teams rebounds. If Ben Wallace and Dwight Howard played in the 60's they'd average around 18 or 19 per game. Shaq could average at least 15 boards per game today if he actually tried. He averages like 16 for the playoffs. So would Wilt, he was better at rebounding than Shaq is. Wilt could average more than 16 per game today. It doesn't matter what era it is, rebounding takes effort, Wilt took pride in his rebounding numbers. He'd definately lead the league if he played today. There is no doubt. He is a better rebounder than Ben Wallace and Dwight Howard, Redneck is right.</div>Don't say that. It is harder to get 32% of the boards nowadays than 35% back in the '60's. A LOT harder. Once again, you got SO many great forwards and guards, all very athletic, going for the loose balls. With the 3pt line being so far out there are a better chance for guards to get those rebounds. Again, nowadays rebounding takes a LOT of agressiveness and athleticism moreso than height, and Wilt wasn't as agressive nor athletic as a Dwight Howard, Ben Wallace or KG, and not much taller.Rebounding does take effort no matter what era you are in, but back in Wilt's time there were more oppertunities to get rebounds, the competititon was nothing compared to Wilt's amazing size and ahead of his time athleticism. Nowadays the players are much stronger, bigger, more agressive, and athletic. The boxing out technique has been eprfected, and there are less chances for guys on the inside to get more than 13-14RPG. I feel Wilt would be in the 10-12RPG area.
