And Robinson had a 30-11-3.3 season. Couple that with a Shaq going for 30-13-3, and what do you think an improved version of them would do? Maybe not 37/17, but 33-35PPG, 14-16RGP, 5APG and 3BPG would not seem out of reach. And it isn't just Wilt's era where you had high numbers. It isn't like Rodman did hit 18RPG and Ben hit 15RPG in Jordan's era or later. Shoot Kobe hit almost 36PPG just this year, Dirk and Bonzi hit 12RPG average this playoffs, and Arenas hit 34PPG. But noone, except Wilt, has hit 40PPG, let alone 50PPG. It is too far out from the players he played with, AND any players before or after him, not to weight it heavily in this debate.
Nobody else ever played in a transitional period like that either, especially at a position where a physical mismatch is most easily exploited.
With the scoring, I assume you were looking at points per game. I focused on Wilt's dominance, on a per-minute basis. Wilt played far more minutes per game than anyone else early in his career, and just as difference in pace distorts statistics between teams, difference in minutes played per game distorts statistics between players. If you want to guage Wilt's scoring ability, I think you need to isolate his scoring from his minutes played. Looking at PPG fails to make that distinction. For example, between 1960 and 1964, here are the top ten players in PPG (minimum of 200 games played): Code: player years games MPG PPG 1 Wilt Chamberlain 5 391 47.3 41.7 2 Elgin Baylor 5 349 42.0 31.9 3 Oscar Robertson 4 309 44.1 30.2 4 Walt Bellamy 3 239 42.0 28.8 5 Bob Pettit 5 385 40.5 28.2 6 Jerry West 4 281 39.0 25.8 7 Jack Twyman 5 382 35.5 23.1 8 Paul Arizin 3 229 36.4 22.5 9 Richie Guerin 5 390 35.6 21.5 10 Bailey Howell 5 387 35.7 21.1 Note how many more minutes per game Wilt played compared to everyone else. Compare that list to the top 10 players in 60-64 in points score per 48 minutes: Code: player years games MPG PP48 1 Wilt Chamberlain 5 391 47.3 42.3 2 Elgin Baylor 5 349 42.0 36.5 3 Clyde Lovellette 5 281 22.3 33.9 4 Bob Pettit 5 385 40.5 33.4 5 Tom Heinsohn 5 380 29.2 33.1 6 Oscar Robertson 4 309 44.1 32.9 7 Walt Bellamy 3 239 42.0 32.9 8 Jerry West 4 281 39.0 31.8 9 Jack Twyman 5 382 35.5 31.3 10 Cliff Hagan 5 385 31.9 31.1 Now, I'll do similar lists for the years 1985-1989, when Michael Jordan dominated the score board: Per game learers 85-89: Code: player years games MPG PPG 1 Michael Jordan 5 345 39.0 32.6 2 Dominique Wilkins 5 396 37.8 28.7 3 Larry Bird 5 318 39.1 27.9 4 Alex English 5 406 36.6 27.6 5 Mark Aguirre 5 391 33.4 23.6 6 Karl Malone 4 325 35.9 23.3 7 Adrian Dantley 5 354 33.9 23.3 8 Hakeem Olajuwon 5 386 36.2 23.0 9 Bernard King 4 211 32.6 22.8 10 Moses Malone 5 386 35.5 22.5 And, now, per 48 minute leaders 85-89: Code: player years games MPG PP48 1 Michael Jordan 5 345 39.0 40.2 2 Dominique Wilkins 5 396 37.8 36.4 3 Alex English 5 406 36.6 36.2 4 Larry Bird 5 318 39.1 34.3 5 Mark Aguirre 5 391 33.4 33.9 6 Bernard King 4 211 32.6 33.5 7 Adrian Dantley 5 354 33.9 33.0 8 Kiki Vandeweghe 5 312 33.0 32.4 9 Walter Davis 5 321 28.9 32.2 10 World B. Free 4 224 25.7 32.1 As you can see, the gap between Chamberlain the rest of the top scorers, on a per minute basis, is still more than it was for Jordan, but not nearly to the same extent. Further, I'd argue that you shouldn't compare what Chamberlain did relative to the rest of the top scorers, but rather you should compare what he did to the league average. If you do this, Chamberlain actually scored less, relative to the leage average, than Jordan did in his first 5 seasons. The reason is that in the 60s shot distribution was much more even than in the 80s. So there wasn't as much variation in per minute scoring amongst the pool of players in the early 60s as there was in the late 80s. Edit: I tried to confirm this last statement for the 1962 and 1987 seasons, and I was wrong (at least for those seasons). Per minute scoring was slightly more spread out (in terms of standard deviation) in 1962 than it was in 1987, for players playing more than 500 minutes. The key difference is that there was higher correlation between per minute scoring and minutes played in 1962 (0.521) than there was in 1987 (0.446). In other words, high scoring players in the 60s played proportionately more minutes than high scoring players in 1987.
This is what gets me every time somebody mentions anything about Jordan and centers. "Oh Jordan did it without a center and that makes him the greatest" "Jordan only had Longley and Cartwright so looky there." It isn't just about centers, it is about inside presence and help. True, Jordan never had a dominant center but he had some very reliable help at the 4 spot on both runs. Horace Grant manned the 4 spot during the Bulls run in 1991, 1992, and 1993. During these season he averaged the following: * 90-91: 12.8 Points Per Game, 8.5 Rebounds Per Game, 0.9 Blocks Per Game. Additionally he averaged 54.7% from the field, 71% from the free throw line, 1.2 steals per game, and 2.3 assists. * 91-92: 14.2 Points Per Game, 10.0 Rebounds Per Game, 1.6 Blocks Per Game. Additionally he averaged 57.9% from the field, 74.1% from the free throw line, 1.2 steals per game, and 2.7 assists. * 92-93: 13.2 Points Per Game, 9.5 Rebounds Per Game, 1.3 Blocks Per Game. Additionally he averaged 50.8% from the field, 61.9% from the free throw line, 1.2 steals per game, and 2.6 assists. While these are no superstar number they are themselves adequate. Rodman served his purpose during the last run * 95-96: 14.9 Rebound Per Game of which 9.3 were defensive and 5.6 offensive * 96-97: 16.1 Rebound Per Game of which 10.2 were defensive and 5.8 offensive * 97-98: 15.0 Rebound Per Game of which 9.8 were defensive and 5.3 offensive. I am sure you're saying but he just rebounded but still this is a crucial stat. Without anybody getting these boards how would the team gain possession without baskets being made? Then you add Scottie Pippen, who played SF, to the mix who added 20 points per game, 6-8 more rebounds, 5-6 more assists, 1 more block, and 2-3 more steals. Put Scottie with either of those two forwards above you have a formidable inside combination. That's why the Bulls were able to just toss somebody in at center and still win. Who needs a great center when you're other two inside guys are combining for at least 25 points and 20 boards a night? I don't put Jordan on that pedestal of being the greatest player of all time but I do not dispute the fact that he is one of the greatest. I get sick of people saying he didn't have any inside help when he in fact had plenty. Quit ignoring it and giving Jordan all the praise. If you put Jordan out there and replaced Grant or Rodman with Pete Chilcutt and then replaced Pippen with Pete Myers I guarantee you he wouldn't have one a single title.
I said that he wasn't scoring as much, but everything else was as good or better than Kareem and that was old Wilt who didn't want to score as much as he used to. Also, don't hold Wilt's stamina against him. Blocks, steals, and offensive rebounds were a part of the PER formula by Kareem's final seasons. He has an advantage over him in his first four vs Kareem's first four when everything was equal. Regular stats shouldn't be used much to judge players much less a nerd stat like PER. Basektball is not baseball. I don't know about all that scoring per minute stuff either... Again, using Wilt's stamina against him.
LOL, why shoudl a nerd stat like PER be used less? The reason why it was devloped was because the regular ones can be misleading, if anything it should be used more. Oh, and by 1971 Kareem was the best overall Center (and player) in basketball by most conventional measures that I can think of.
None of Wilt's PER include his blocks, steals, and offensive rebounds. That alone should make it invalid at least when comparing players PERs before 1974. He was the best because Wilt was past his prime. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/PER_career.html Tracy McGrady>Hakeem So says PER! How can you make up Wilt's lost PER points from blocks and offensive boards? He and Russell (who is 92nd in PER BTW) probably led the league by wide margins in those two categories.
My bad...typo on my part. I agree with you. Posting up Wayne Embry is easier than going up against the typical center today. Seriously...do you understand English? You're reading way too much into what I'm trying to say. Who cares about what position they play? Who the hell cares about how good of a defender Howard is? One of your posts claimed Chamberlain was playing amongst a bunch of 6'7" 210 lbs. centers....when if fact his opponents were never that small. That's the point I'm trying to refute. I'm comparing player SIZE: - Tim Duncan's SIZE as compared to Stromile Swift's is very close to... - Chamberlain's SIZE as compared to his opponents at the center (Embry, Bellamy, Russell, etc.) Yes...Chamberlain was bigger than his contemporaries, but he was NOT playing against a bunch of modern-sized shooting guards contrary to what many people believe.
The median height for a 60's center was 6-8. That's not far away from 6-7, certainly closer than 7-1. The difference betewen Duncan playing on 6-8 Howard, is that Duncan has 7-6 Yao Ming playing right behind him, in theory, and sometimes playing him straight up (and it's arguable that Duncan is really a C anyway, certainly by 1960's definitions he is), as well as a 6-7 SF or some guards coming with the double teams. The mismatch then is a lot harder to exploit. If Duncan is physically too big for your PF, you put your C on him, as most teams usually will in that situation. With WIlt, you had him playing on a 6-8 defender who had a 6-7 inch PF behind him, usually with no double team help anyway. Not the same animal. LOL, I see you edited your post to make it more strident. Doesn't help your case much.
Blocks and steals are zeroed out for everyone. Steals are actually worth more than a block, and Wilt would have likely been below average in getting steals. It's not clear Wilt's PER would have been better if those were included. Offensive rebounds are assumed to be 33% of the total for everyone. Wilt's PER is hurt by this, probably, but the impact wouldn't be huge. Further, it also doesn't include turnovers (which would have likely hurt Wilt, relative to the rest of the league), and if there were three pointers Wilt's PER would have been even less (because he wouldn't have benefitted from them, while other perimeter players would have). Overall, I think the estimated PER back then is decent, as far as numbers go.
First of all...it's not any more strident than it already was. Second, I have no idea how much clearer I need to be. I'm sure everyone else who's read my last 5 posts know that all I've been trying to do is to find an analogous size comparion with modern players. I'll make one last-ditch attempt...in kindergarten level English, so maybe you'll understand. - In 1962, Wilt was 7'1" and 260. He played against people 6'8" and 230 - In 2006, there's a guy named Duncan who's 7'0" and 260. There's another guy named Stromile Swift who's 6'9" and 230. What do you know! Duncan is the same amount bigger than Swift as Wilt was to the people he played against. That's all! I'm not talking about talent level, defensive ability, teammates, or anything else. JUST PLAYER SIZE. Now, if you still desperately need to find something else in this post to disagree with, I can't help you.
I don't know how I can make it more clear. Wilt was always the tallest, biggest player on the Court, and signficantly bigger than anybody who guarded him. Duncan might be big for a PF, but is frequently has not even been hte the biggest player on his own team (depending on who was next to him) and is frequently guarded by players who are as big or bigger than he is, as well as at or near his level of athleticism. That is simply not a valid argument you can make for Chamberlain in the early 60's. Nearly every single minute on the floor, he was the biggest player out there, by a substantial margin. Duncan, btw, is frequently listed at 6-11. Swift meanwhile is frequently listed at 6-10. The fact that you intentionally used the low-end estimates for Swift, while using the high end listings for Duncan, is disingenous on your part. Either way, the fact that Swift is primarly a PF and not a C (whereas 40 years ago he would be a natural C, no questions asked) effectively makes my point for me. The two are simply not comparable. Chamberlain was athletically and physically ahead of his counterparts in way that current players are not, by virtue of the era they play in.
Oh yeah, I agree. Actually, SamFisher made good points about defensive matchups as well. Duncan has the same size and athleticism advantage against guys like Bowen/Howard that Wilt had against his contemporaries...but is effectively "held in check" because of the big defensive presence in the paint in the form of Yao or another modern-day center. Nonetheless, SamFisher was reading way too deeply into what I was trying to say...which is simply the fact that Wilt was big...but not a freakin' behemoth compared to his contemporaries. (Defensive matchups, talent level, and everything else aside of course)
I have always hated the argument of who is the best of all time because it truely is a subjective statement to say that one player in perticular is the best above all else. My point: Wilt Chamberlain Oscar Robertson Magic Johnson George Mikan Bill Russell Could all make the argument that one of them is the greatest of all time and all could make good arguments with points that you cant argue against. Like wise anyone could make the argument that Jordan is the greatest of all time. IMO the best basketball player that I ever saw play the game was Magic Johnson...but that is my oppinion and cetainly not the oppinion of most people living in Chicago. I think MJ is in the same class as the absolute top tier elite players that have ever played the game but I can not say that he was the absolute best.
Excuse me for jumping in. Should this--being ahead of his time--be factored in as we consider "greatness," whatever it means? Magic Johnson was the first player who could play PG with a PF body. Now we have guys like LeBron and T-Mac (not as tall but close) who can do that. Ralph Sampson was the first big man who could dribble and run the floor like a guard. Now we have guys like KG and Dirk. Yao is the first man taller than 7-5 heavier than 300 who can both make a post move and shoot from outside of the low post. Who knows, 10 years from now, we might have a bunch of big players who can do that. I'd say being way above his contemporary should be a plus, rather than a minus, in measuring greatness.
I don't know whether or not we should directly consider it in terms of greatness, I do know that it explains some of his other-worldly numbers and represents an opportunity that other players did not have and likely will not ever have, I would estimate that these things follow a parabolic curve so we're not going to see that type of 'leap forward' like we did ever again. In fact, if you go back a decade before Wilt, George Mikan, at 6-10 240 lbs in Clark Kent glasses, was considered physically dominant by virtue of his sheer size and strength- another man ahead of his time in the early post-war era. Now however, if we go back 20 years, I don't think you'd see much signficant variation between the heights and weights and athleticism of 1986 big men and 2006 big men. Guys like Yao and Ralph are more "blips" than trends (and in Ralph's case, one that ended disappointingly) I think.
I said that, a past his prime Wilt was right there with a young Kareem in everything but PPG. Blocks don't count for anything. Everyone grabs the same amount of offensive rebounds. The stat is getting more and more bogus.
You don't see the problem with that statement? What is "everything but PPG"? And who cares about the number of statistical categories one player is better than another? Are we talking about statistical versatility, or actual overall impact? Kareem was also scoring at nearly twice the rate as Wilt a couple seasons into his career. Shouldn't that more than offset Wilt's comparatively slight advantage in rebounding and scoring efficiency? In case you're not totally clear on how PER works: it's meant to give an idea of how a player's statistical producitivity, per possession, rates relative to the league average. For years in which some of the boxscore stats aren't available, basketball-reference.com modifies the formula to get at a number that should be pretty close. I think what they did makes sense. Before blocks are tallied, they are zeroed out for everyone. Wilt's PER is hurt by this, true. At the same time, turnovers and steals are also zeroed out (both of which are more heavily weighted than blocks). Wilt's PER would be helped by this. The net effect, I'd imagine, is probably not very much. Further, as I pointed out, the absence of three pointers in Wilt's time woud help his PER, since he would have benefitted less from them than the average player. As for offensive rebounding, it is not assumed that everyone grabs the same offensive rebounds. It is assumed that 33% of a player's rebounds are offensive, and 67% are defensive. On average, this is generally the right ratio. Did Wilt grab proportionately more offensive rebounds than 33%? Maybe. For Hakeem Olajuwon, it was 29.3% for his career, and for Shaq it has been 32.6%. For Moses Malone (who was known for his offensive rebounding) it was 41.2%. Eliot Kalb, in "Who's Better, Who's Best?" posited that Wilt may not have been a poportionately great offensive rebounder since he took a fair amount of ill-advised fadeaway jumpers during his career. If that's true, the 33% might be generous.
