if you took his worst scoring and worst rebounding performance and put them together, you still get a 26/15 game. granted, the pace of the games and the field goal percentages from that season were such that it seems every team simply ran down the floor as fast as possible and chucked up a long jumper (seemingly with their offhand), so it was easy to get points and rebounds, but still never going below 26 or 15 (if i scanned it correctly) is pretty crazy. and i would think dwight howard could grab 25 rebounds per game if he played that season.
Whats crazy is he went from a total of 7 assists that entire season to eventually leading the league.
1) He's a center, man. 2) It's actually (in reality) funny that he leads all centers in NBA history in assists average per game (and had two seasons where he was in the top 10 in assist and even lead in assist totals one year). 3) Even though, he averaged of 30 ppg and still consider the biggest ball hog ever, he still averaged more assist than Baylor, Gervin, Dantley, Arizin, Wilkins, and nearly every big men you can think of. While, only being .2 off of Kobe's career average and .4 from Havlicek's average. Yet, both players have never averaged over 8 in season, while Kobe has only averaged 6 once in his career. Also, remember that Wilt did this when he was still one of the best scorers, defenders, and re-bounders in the league.
He sucked at free throws. I wonder why his shooting % was not higher? He was basically playing with a bunch of short white dudes.
shooting percentages were terrible for most of the 60's, especially the early 60's. i think russell was #2 one year at like 46%. and some of the celtics hall of fame guards had seasons where they shot right around 33.3%.
Never saw Wilt or Russell play. How they got these crazy numbers is beyond me. Were there no 7 footers besides them back then?
That's commonly believed but it's not true, it was true in the 1950's and earlier, but by the 1960's there was plenty of size in the league, also consider that there were only 10 teams and so obviously if you put together a list of all tall players there wouldn't be as many names as there are now.
What really blows me away is that he scored 50 or more points in more than HALF of the games that season.
I wish people would stop making that argument; Nate Thurmond (HOF) - 6,11 Wes Unseld (HOF), 6,7 (245) Kareem Abdul Jabbar (HOF), 7,2 Dave Cowens (HOF), 6,9 (230) Walt Bellamy (HOF), 6,10 1/2 Willis Reed (HOF), 6,9 (235) Bob Lanier (HOF), 6,11 (250) Sam Lacey, 6,10 Elmore Smith 7,0 (250) Johnny Kerr, 6,9 (230) Clifford Ray, 6,9 (230) Zelmo Beaty, 6,9 Tom Boerwinkle, 7,0 (265) Walter Dukes, 7,0 Joe Strawder, 6,10 Rick Roberson, 6,9 Otto Moore, 6,10 Mel Counts, 7,0 Chamberlain played against all of these players, either in his younger days or his last few seasons. I'd like to know, where are all of these short 6,5 - 6,7 unathletic white guys that people often bring up in these arguments. Most of these players could come into the league, now and still play (and even start at center). If there are any players above who aren't that tall, I'd figure most of them were pretty stocky (sort of like Chuck Hayes or David Lee) to where they could play situational center in the modern day NBA. http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/playerseasonsearch.htm I dare anyone to find at least 10 players in that top half of that list of names that is under 6,7 and under 235.
I think its a trick question. Back then they didn't have practical archival. All of the highlights you see were recorded on film.
Especially that guy called Bill Russell he was soo small, and very unathletic. :grin: He average more than 20-20 against Boston (with Russell)
This is a big reason why 'old time' stats are so inflated. There is no way today's game would allow someone to put up 40 shots per game...no way. We actually play something called 'Defense' in todays game...you ask anyone that watched the old NBA and they'll all tell you that defense is much tougher now. It's amazing that he had games where he only shot in the 40% and sometimes 30's% for the game and still scored 40-50 points. Still, he was clearly the best NBA player and athlete at the time...if he played in today's game he 'd probably put up similar number to the late 90's/early 00's Shaq, with more blocks...not too shabby. But avg. 50pts and 25 rbs/game? Nah.
I read Simmons' basketball book a few months back, and some other things about Wilt. It seems crazy to say, but something about him reminds me of Tracy McGrady. He was a guy with enormous physical talents, but he lacked the killer instinct and he was quick to deflect criticism (particularly his lack of playoff success) away from himself. He had a tendency to shrink in the biggest moments. He had a reputation as a guy who cared more about his numbers and individual accolades than team success. He would frequently take plays off on the defensive end (especially when he was in danger of getting into foul trouble). If you watch old footage of Wilt, even the way he trotted down the floor is reminiscent of McGrady.
