What skills?
I know you are not talking about ball handling, pnr defense, or jump shooting. He had a hook shot with either hand and no one could keep him out of position down low. Robinson and Duncan were outweighed by 60 pounds so that strategy worked.
Chamberlain was of the same size as Shaq. He could press and lift more. He could jump higher. And lets be frank, Shaq was a mediocre defender with no midrange game.
If Wilt couldn't even handle a reed-thin Kareem, what makes you think he could stop Shaq? The Big Diesel also delivered when it counts, which is something Wilt almost always failed to do. Wilt had a grand total of two rings, which is ridiculous considering the talent of bigs and the level of all-around play that time.
Last edited by ezau; 03-21-2014 at 03:20 AM.
"In his early years Chamberlain was not interested in basketball, because he thought it was "a game for sissies".[11] Instead, he was an avid track and field athlete: as a youth, he high jumped 6 feet, 6 inches, ran the 440 yards in 49.0 seconds and the 880 yards in 1:58.3, put the shot 53 feet, 4 inches, and broad jumped 22 feet."
"Chamberlain, who reportedly had a 50-inch vertical leap,[142] was physically capable of converting foul shots via a slam dunk without a running start (beginning his movement at the top of the key)."
Jumping 6 feet 6 inches is impressive no matter who you are. To do that as a youth is just crazy, especially back in those days. The world record at the time was just over 7 feet. Running a half mile in under two minutes is absolutely RIDICULOUS, regardless of the level of athlete you are. Consider that that's under a 4 minute mile pace. For a big man. Just what!?
If you were to use a time machine to teleport Russell into today's nba, then he'd probably struggle because of the advancements in coaching, strategy, training and medicine. But you can't judge a player by that because they were measured against their peers. Much like you can't say newton would be a dumbass in today's economy because he doesn't know how to use spreadsheets or Columbus can't navigate because he can't use a gps.
However, if Russell was born 40 years later, with all the changes and ground work that has taken place, he would still be a top nba player because of his vision, athletic ability aNd basketball iq.
His head never was at rim level. Wilt was 7'2", a 48" vert is 4 feet so the top of his head could reach 11'2"....lol. His entire head would be above the rim all the time with that vertical. You cant really believe this can you? Great I'm arguing with another crazy Wilt historian.
He also crushed a mountain lion with his bare hands and threw it away, picked up 100 pound dumbells like we pick up our telephones, broke a players toes because the force his dunk was so strong, slept with 20000 women, benched 500 pounds, ect. Right..."In his early years Chamberlain was not interested in basketball, because he thought it was "a game for sissies".[11] Instead, he was an avid track and field athlete: as a youth, he high jumped 6 feet, 6 inches, ran the 440 yards in 49.0 seconds and the 880 yards in 1:58.3, put the shot 53 feet, 4 inches, and broad jumped 22 feet."
"Chamberlain, who reportedly had a 50-inch vertical leap,[142] was physically capable of converting foul shots via a slam dunk without a running start (beginning his movement at the top of the key)."
Jumping 6 feet 6 inches is impressive no matter who you are. To do that as a youth is just crazy, especially back in those days. The world record at the time was just over 7 feet. Running a half mile in under two minutes is absolutely RIDICULOUS, regardless of the level of athlete you are. Consider that that's under a 4 minute mile pace. For a big man. Just what!?
If it were so easy to score 50 a game back then some other dude would have done it. Chamberlain is definitely a top 10 player of all-time, probably top 5, maybe even top 3.
He's got a do ented 6 foot 6 inch high jump in college with videos to prove it. Unless you think that a high jump champion doesn't mean anything on a basketball court?
Dont get the need to belittle Wilt. Not choosing sides but he clearly was one of the two best players of his era ... and extremely dominant. Did not win enough but he won.
I dont rank him with MJ, Kareem, Duncan Kobe cuz I never saw him play.
Same for "O", Bill Russ, Elgin, West ...
I lol at dudes who never saw Magic or or Mj play as rookies trying to validate or invalidate Wilt.
Simmons for example did a nice job in his BOB ... cuz he sought out Wilt's peers. But even then his Celtic bias was evident, I saw all the trash he talked bout wilt prior to the book so no way was he objective. Wilt was a star for his two biggest rivals (Sixers/Lakers)
Stats cant do Wilt justice cuz he played with and against a bunch of slow unathletic guys (most of the black players wernt young VC or Lebron either) so the stat heads cant just hold to their numbers.
All I know is that after the 90s they changed the rules so people could score more.
As in the players skills were such that they couldn't score the same as the players who came before them without gifting them millions of free throws with lame touch fouls.
You absolutely can judge a player by that if you're comparing to people other than their peers. That's what we're doing here.
Simmons has a lot of awful takes, but at least he understands the bottom line: TD is the best player of his generation.
Scoring was highly inflated in that era. West averaged 31 FGA and 14FTA in one playoff run (Elgin Baylor went down in early in the playoffs, so West had an increased load). During the regular season, that Lakers team had a pace factor of 113 (113 possessions per game). Most NBA teams these days average around 90.
I don't think Deuce will ever get the concept of pace. PPG is one of the most misleading stats in basketball.
League average FGA in '69 and '70 two of West's peak years were 99, throughout the '80s the average was 87-90. West averaged over 30 ppg in both postseasons and finals those years including his highest finals series.
Scoring was highly inflated in that era. West averaged 31 FGA and 14FTA in one playoff run (Elgin Baylor went down in early in the playoffs, so West had an increased load). During the regular season, that Lakers team had a pace factor of 113 (113 possessions per game). Most NBA teams these days average around 90.
I don't think Deuce will ever get the concept of pace. PPG is one of the most misleading stats in basketball.
Yes. And the fact West's era was considerably faster than the run 'n gun 80's proves my point. He would not average 30 ppg in today's game. He wouldn't get the shot attempts/possessions.
And 99 FGA is crazy fast. The league average today is 83.
Also pace =/= FGA. Pace is number of possessions (today's league average is 94). West was on teams that went into the 120s.
This is why I've always told you how arbitrary per game stats are. But you continue to use them, even though they're antiquated.
Then you're saying newton is not one of the most brilliant scientist of all time.
Players build on what was done before them, and this logic would mean that ll timers will always be discounted and not given the credit they deserve for what they have done for the game.
The laws of physics haven't changed. The compe ion and the game itself have changed. The Newton analogy is a poor one, because what he did cannot be quantified on a "compe ion" scale. Someone would have done it regardless, but he did it and at an early age. He was other worldly brilliant. Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain were just tall and somewhat athletic. There have been many tall and athletic guys to come along since, but not many before. I'd put Larry Bird above both of them. There are a couple people I'd put in the same realm as Newton, but then I don't know every scientist out there.
West was an efficient guard though. He has 30 ppg seasons with 22-23 FGA like Kobe did.
The laws of science has not changed either, so I wouldn't understand how the Newton analogy wouldn't apply. The issue is that new players learned from the old players, and as the game evolved, players adapted and changed their play to adapt to the new game.
Using the Newton analogy again, there are geniuses in any age and era, Newton was that genius back in his era. The same applies to basketball players, there have always been people who were built to play basketball, even before the game was invented. Bill Russell and Chamberlain happened to be those basketball players who dominated the league at the beginning of the sport. Russell and Chamberlain weren't just tall and somewhat athletic. Russell was extremely high in basketball IQ, and brought elements to the game that weren't there before. His defense and outlet pass built a dynasty in which he was unquestionably the integral part. The Celtics based their fast break offense on his rebounding and outlet capabilities.
Wilt was simply dominant, in ways that the league has not seen since. I will take his athletic prowess with a grain of salt as well, but watching him play (just look up videos if you will), he was clearly on the same plane of athleticism as the elite athlete in today's game. His high jump, sprint and long jump records were all official, so there really is not much room to argue those. The league changed the rules for free throw shooting because they can't have Wilt get a running start and dunk the ball. How many 7' 300lb guys can dunk from the FT line?
Saying Larry Bird is more athletic than those is just asinine. I hope you meant from a ranking standpoint on this one, and I would agree with that.
good to see amb, dmc, and pump contributing in good basketball talk.
Modern day scientists know more about science in general than Issac Newton knew. The argument isn't whether or not modern day ball players know more about the game. The argument is whether or not old timers, in their primes, would be as dominant in the league as they were in their day. Neither Wilt nor Bill would be even close, and I don't know that either of them would even be top 10 players today. That's not because they didn't understand the game of basketball, but that they just weren't nearly as impressive relative to today's crop as they were when it was just a small league. It has nothing to do with learning from each other. Kobe took Mike's moves, but Kobe isn't considered better than Mike. There were players from that era that were really good, but the Wilt/Russell thing is just about league imbalance, especially Wilt's stats.
You see some D-league guys score 30 a game. Those D-league teams would beat most of the NBA teams of Russell's era, maybe all of them, yet the D-league guy cannot average 7 a game in the NBA.
Why has no team won 4 consecutive championships since Russell did it? Why only the Lakers and Celtics for 10 years? Is it because there was no parity in the league? Of course. Had there been parity, we'd not be talking about Russell and Chamberlain. When a player can rise to the top and stay there for a long time in a somewhat balanced league, that says a lot more about that player than having one team win 9 les in 11.Using the Newton analogy again, there are geniuses in any age and era, Newton was that genius back in his era. The same applies to basketball players, there have always been people who were built to play basketball, even before the game was invented. Bill Russell and Chamberlain happened to be those basketball players who dominated the league at the beginning of the sport. Russell and Chamberlain weren't just tall and somewhat athletic. Russell was extremely high in basketball IQ, and brought elements to the game that weren't there before. His defense and outlet pass built a dynasty in which he was unquestionably the integral part. The Celtics based their fast break offense on his rebounding and outlet capabilities.
When one guy gets 50 rebounds in a game, that's not because he's the best rebounder the world has ever seen even today. It's because he's 3 feet taller than anyone else. 50 rebounds... 100 points... really? And you think that doesn't illustrate how imbalanced that era was?
What elite athlete today has scored 100 points in a game, or grabbed 50 rebounds? Without those gawdy stats, we don't even talk about Wilt.Wilt was simply dominant, in ways that the league has not seen since. I will take his athletic prowess with a grain of salt as well, but watching him play (just look up videos if you will), he was clearly on the same plane of athleticism as the elite athlete in today's game. His high jump, sprint and long jump records were all official, so there really is not much room to argue those. The league changed the rules for free throw shooting because they can't have Wilt get a running start and dunk the ball. How many 7' 300lb guys can dunk from the FT line?
I didn't say Larry was more athletic. I said I'd take him over either of them. Hasheem Thabeet in the 60's would have been a dominant force in the NBA.Saying Larry Bird is more athletic than those is just asinine. I hope you meant from a ranking standpoint on this one, and I would agree with that.
He was efficient, but I don't see a 6'2" shooting guard getting 20+ shot attempts today. And if he did, he'd be inefficient, much like Allen Iverson.
That's why no one ranks West above Kobe, even though West bests him in every per game stat. In addition to beating Kobe in nearly every stat category, West was also a much better Finals performer. The only argument Kobe has over him is ring count.
If you're going to rank West above Hakeem, Duncan, etc, based on the logic you presented, then you should also rank him above Kobe.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 03-22-2014 at 09:33 PM.
Wilt had such elite, once in a lifetime monkeyballer genes. Plus he barebacked so many chicks, that DNA has to be spread somewhere out there.
How so?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote