That is a good story but your father was only partly right. When he was at Kansas, he could turn the quarter over and leave it there!! Means he had to have time up there to left, flip, and replace.
What you don't realize is during an off season interview he was told he was not a good passer and all he could do was score. He told the guy to eff himself and he would lead the league in assists from the center position. The 8+ assists is the next season after the interview although I don't think he lead the league but he surely lead the centers.
Yeah i vaguely recall that and mentioned it in my last post; honestly given the subjective nature of assists, if he said "I want to lead the league in assists" and I'm the Lakers' home game scorer, that makes me more likely to give him credit for a dime or two, don't you think? I just don't think you can really look at the assist stats back then and assume a very good translation to today, I mean look at Bill Russell finishing right up with Chamberlain most years - I just have a hard time believing that they'd be finishing up with Rubio and Deron Williams in the top 10 in the modern era.
i hate wilt chamberlain & bill russell. easily the two most overrated players in the history of the nba. even worse are the delusional maggots who like to perpetrate the fraud of wilt & russell's greatness translating in any era. Biggest crock of shiet out there. they played in a underdeveloped nba. against utterly inferior athletic competition not to mention skills. The mere fact that wilt averaged 50 per game is indicative of the infancy of the nba & its talent. Put wilt in the 80s or 90s, he'd be lucky to make a allstar game.
Missed seeing your link, you're right about our great minds, though! To embed from Youtube you click the Share button under the vid, then the Embed button that pops up, then you copy and paste the code that pops up, into your post.
I don't you are quite understanding that for two years of Wilt's career, he finished with assist number comparable to point guards WITHIN HIS OWN ERA (SEASONS) and point guards beyond. Yes, Wilt Chamberlain DID LEAD THE LEAGUE IN ASSISTS TOTAL in 1966-67, but you are correct in that Big O finished first in assists per game. STILL, when have you ever heard of a CENTER finishing 2nd or in top 5 at any point in NBA history. He did it twice, no less. You should really stop trying to discredit this guy. How come David Robinson wasn't able to do that in the 90s, if he was comparable over his career. 4.4 in an era where assists are given out more conservatively is still better than 2.5 in an era where assists are given out more easily and subjectively. The main reason I keep bringing up assist stats nowadays, because it's often been said that they are much more INFLATED nowadays than they were in 1960s. http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=Assist: "In basketball, an assist is attributed to a player who passes the ball to a teammate in a way that leads to a score by field goal, meaning that he or she was "assisting" in the basket. There is some judgment involved in deciding whether a passer should be credited with an assist. An assist can be scored for the passer even if the player who receives the pass makes a basket after dribbling the ball. However, the original definition of an assist did not include such situations, so the comparison of assist statistics across eras is a complex matter." In those days (50s and 60s), it was a pass that lead to score, and the ball allegedly the ball could not even touch the ground it had to be a direct pass and score/shot. http://hoops-nation.com/community/index.php?/topic/37757-if-assists-were-kept-this-way-in-the-60s/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123855027541776617.html http://basketball91.com/coaching/basketball-assist/#.UA8F4aPHk7w These account prove your point is misleading, because Chamberlain (and other past stars) may have had more assists in the modern era for a difference in interpretation of the rules.
Again, see my points above. When I say there was a faster pace, I don't just mean a few extra possessions. I mean about 110-125+ possessions per game (contrast that with the modern era where it's around 90-100). Was it 25% harder to get an assist back then? 50%? You certainly had at least 25% more chances (actually more considering that players played for 48 minutes, not going ot bother to do the math.) Frankly Wilt deciding he was going to lead the league in assists and then the Lakers Scorer handing out tons of assists to Wilt seems very suspect to me, especially given the lack of scrutiny paid to that sort of thing at the time, there was no game tape or Elias sports bureau to check this thing. The biggest problem I have is that your analysis seems to be premised on making 1-1 comparisons ("OMG A CENTER LED THE LEAGUE IN ASSISTS HE'S THE CHRIS PAUL DERON WILLIAMS OF HIS ERA! IT'S LIKE DWIGHT HOWARD GETTING 11apg TODAY"). I think for so many reasons that's just not a valid comparison. You get into sampling issues, where it took 4 APG and a friendly Garden scorer for Russell to get into the top 10 right behind Wilt most of those years....guys shooting terribly from the field at levels that would get them sent to the D-League today...there's just something lacking there, too many missign pieces of the puzzle to make the kind of transpositions into today that you're willing to make. David Robinson I think is about as close as you can come in the modern era to a dominant passing & scoring center, and like I said, during his early-mid-90's peak, he was tossing up a similar assist % to Wilt and accordingly had a comparble impact on the offense relative to the era. You may not like it but by the numbers-wise it's largely true; and as much as you claim that banging against the Dolph Schayes and Willie Nauls of the era was comparable - it wasn't, and is not. Make no mistake and I'll repeat what I said earlier...Wilt would have been dominant in any era. Shaq at his peak was about hte closest a center has come to being purely unstoppable at the C position.
THe pace is there, but ASSISTS were NOT AWARDED in the same way. You are talking about inflation of numbers, since the 80s. For example, how would Oscar Robertson numbers drop in today's game, if the more assists are being awarded than they were in his day. Though, the pace is lower, the percentage of assists is much higher. It's related to judgment and interpretation of assists. Dubious claim, unsubstantiated, and a personal conspiracy theory. A complete misrepresentation of what of I said, and even exaggerating to the point of putting words into my mouth. If you are going to convince, don't misrepresent what I said. Though, I did compare Chamberlain to other centers, which is valid and fair for the most part (from his era). Also, I said two TOP 5 finishes, not only top 10, also again Wilt Chamberlain leads all centers in assists per game. So, he was doing something more in than those two seasons to reach such accomplishment. Because as his peers and critics have all said, he was a pretty good passer. How often does that happen? You even brought up Bill Russell, another center who had spectacular passing ability, so did Wes Unseld and Bill Walton. Do you actually know of any active or modern centers who could pass like that outside of Divac and Sabonis? Do you actually think someone, like Dalembert, Camby, or even Howard have the skill to average 5 assists in any era of basketball? [QUOTEI think for so many reasons that's just not a valid comparison. You get into sampling issues, where it took 4 APG and a friendly Garden scorer for Russell to get into the top 10....guys shooting terribly from the field at levels that would get them sent to the D-League today...there's just something lacking there, too many missign pieces of the puzzle to make the kind of transpositions into today.[/QUOTE] Russell shot terribly, yet he was a fantastic rebounding machine, great passers, high basketball IQ, and one of the greatest defenders. Not pointing you out personally, but anyone who would talk up someone like Chuck Hayes, but talk down to Russell or Chamberlain is sorely lacking perspective. Chuck Hayes has found a niche in this league with his strength and defense, yet his terrible at everything else. Moreover, Chuck Hayes doesn't possess a tenth of the skills that Russell and Chamberlain had. Similar percentage (yet weaker), in an era with an inflation in the assist category. He's numbers in that category maybe as inflated as Wilt's scoring numbers The funny thing about Chamberlain you could cut his stats in half, and he'd still be a Hall of Fame worthy player. It's funny you also disregarded these other guys and conveniently mention two players who were drafted in another era of basketball (early 50s): "Besides Bill Russell, who was 6'10" and 220 lbs., and the few other centers who are constantly mentioned in order to back up this erroneous myth, such as Dave Cowens, who was 6'9" and 230 lbs., Willis Reed, who was 6'9" and 240 lbs., and Wes Unseld, who was 6'7" and 245 lbs., there were numerous other centers throughout Wilt’s career who he played against who were anything but Lilliputian. Following is a list of some of them: Walter Dukes (7'0", 220 lbs.) Swede Halbrook (7'3, 235 lbs.) Tom Boerwinkle (7'0", 265 lbs.) Bob Lanier (6'11", 265 lbs.) Darrall Imhoff (6'10", 220 lbs.) Otto Moore (6'11", 210 lbs.) Sam Lacey (6'10", 235 lbs.) George Johnson (6'11", 245 lbs.) Paul Ruffner (6'10", 230 lbs.) Dick Cunningham (6'10", 245 lbs.) Walt Bellamy (6'11", 225 lbs.) Leroy Ellis (6'10", 210 lbs.) Nate Thurmond (6'11", 235 lbs.) Mel Counts (7'0", 235 lbs.) Nate Bowman (6'10", 230 lbs.) Clyde Lee (6'10", 210 lbs.) Walt Wesley (6'11", 230 lbs.) Henry Akin (6'10", 225 lbs.) Hank Finkel (7'0", 240 lbs.) Lew Alcindor aka Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (7'2", 225 lbs.) Neal Walk (6'10", 220 lbs.) Elmore Smith (7'0", 250 lbs.) Jim McDaniels (6'11", 230 lbs.) LaRue Martin (6'11", 215 lbs.) Tom Riker (6'10", 225 lbs.) Conrad Dierking (6'9", 225 lbs.) Johnny “Red” Kerr (6'9", 230 lbs.) Bob Pettit (6'9", 220 lbs.) Spencer Haywood (6'9", 230 lbs.) Rick Roberson (6'9", 230 lbs.) Luke Jackson (6'9", 240 lbs.) Duke Hogue (6'9," 240 lbs.) Zelmo Beaty (6'9", 230 lbs.) Len Chappell (6'9", 240 lbs.) Elvin Hayes (6'9", 235 lbs.) Hub Reed (6'9", 220 lbs.)" http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...t-chamberlain-is-the-greatest-nba-player-ever
A well past his prime Wilt was able to hold his own against a young (and already MVP-caliber) Kareem. Kareem continued to make all-star appearances and rack up MVP votes into the 1980s, so I'm pretty sure a prime Wilt would have done just fine in the 80s as well.
It's not only about that, the fact that you can't determine if the pace and the high scoring cancels out the low assist numbers - it's about the fact that players are simply much better at passing and shooting (and defending) too. Looking at the breakdown of league leaders, the sampling is very small, and it just doesn't make much sense and really isn't a very good comparison to today; everything is way too skewed. Not a conspiracy, just an honest acknowledgement of the realities of a day that neither of us was alive to see. There are many MANY skilled passing big men who could have racked up huge assists in that era in the modern game. Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Webber, LeBron James; Magic Johnson, Lamar Odom - these guys would have all been centers in that era. Think about that for a bit. Not sure why you brought up Chuck Hayes, but he would have been a much more highly regarded player in that era than he is today, due to the vastly superior competition which is a matter of simple math. If a complete offensive zero like Wes Unseld can carve out an HOF career back then, I have fullest confidence that Chuck (who is a pretty good passer) could do well also. Several things - most of the actual big men you posted were from the late 60's/early 70's, not the early 60's when Wilt was posting video game numbers against the Willie Naulls and Richie Guerins of the universe. - Lot of these guys were awful players who wouldn't make the NBA today (particulary the early 60's benchwarmers you're mentioning, like Darrell Imhoff? Walter Dukes? GTFOOH) - LOL @ Walt Bellamy, automatic credibility destroyer
SamFisher: You keep saying there is no basis for a fair comparison, and then you go right ahead and say that today's players are more skilled. If there's no basis for comparison, then leave it at that, you simply can't compare assists in the late 60s to assists today. Too much has changed: game pace, what constitutes an assist, the three point circle (no pass from the post to a shooter more than 25 feet from the basket would have counted as an assist in the 60s, today it makes up a bunch of them). Where there are objective bases for comparison, it's pretty clear: Wilt was bigger, stronger, faster and could jump higher than any center playing today. He was stronger, taller, and a better jumper than Shaq. He was probably a better natural athlete than any big man who ever played. Would he put up the same numbers today? Doubtful. Would he excel in today's league? There's absolutely no reason to think that he would not. He had three big weaknesses as a player: 1) he usually refused to take the kind of dominating, overpowering style of play that Shaq used. He suffered from a Goliath complex and wanted people to appreciate him for his skill and not for his raw size and strength. Thus the development of shots like the dipsey doodle (finger roll). 2) He lacked Russell or Jordan's killer instinct. For this reason, when winning was all that mattered, he often came up short to Russell and the Celtics. And 3) He was far too focused on stats. They were important to him. He would decide to focus on one kind of stat and the rest of his game would suffer as a result. In part, I think this was poor coaching.
Theres many bases for comparison but taking the extremely untranslatable assist numbers from the pre modern game - its even worse than points and rebounding - and saying that "nobody alive could do that" is like saying that no NFL player could win an Olympic decathlon like Jim Thorpe so he therefore is a better athlete than Calvin Johnson or Cam Newton.
When I said Chamberlain was stronger, bigger, faster and could jump higher than any center now playing, that was nothing like comparing Cam Newton to Jim Thorpe in the decathlon. Instead, there are witnesses and records showing objective measures on all those things, and it's simply fact. Chamberlain could bench press more than Shaq's max. He had a higher vertical leap than anyone ever to play the game, including Jordan. He's as tall as any skilled center now playing. And he was easily faster than any center now playing: he ran the hundred in under 11 seconds, and the 440 in 49 seconds when he was in high school. As for assists, your point is fair. But when you adjust for pace, you should also adjust for the lower shooting percentage that came with that pace. You've commented several times that the shooting was abominable. Poor shooting would tend to lower assist stats, don't you think? If you look at the mid-sixties, Oscar was putting up 10+ assists/game, and then there was maybe one other player with 7-8/game each year. The drop off from there was to about 5.5, and that was good enough to get someone in the top 5. So even with the increased pace, assists seem to have been harder to come by then than now. Also, since its really hard to compare assists, it seems to me to make even less sense to rely on a derived stat like assist %. Too much has changed. There were other good passing centers who played in Wilt's era or just after. None of them managed to put up anywhere near the assist numbers that Wilt did in 67 and 68. Attributing that to scorer bias, I think, is unfounded. At least you have no evidence of it. If there were such scorer bias, then you would expect more assists for people like Frazier, Jerry West early in his career, and other point guards. It doesn't seem to have panned out that way. Isn't it just possible that Wilt racked up all those assists because he got double teamed and then threw some nice passes? (Whereas before he would just have shot the ball even though doubled.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4seN0mugh1k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzzxVE34k&t=1m22s Sam, I've ripped you a new one on here before. You literally don't know what your talking about when it comes to vintage basketball so please just stop - it's sad.
^I'm surprised this ID hasn't been retired yet...obviously it's a burner since it's May 2012 This wasn't the one you were using when you told us he ran a sub-10 100 meters a few years ago...which was actually 100 yards, and closer to 11 seconds...oops...
Dwight has NOTHING on Wilt Chamberlin <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/w8Wiq-POmFA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
