This assumption, upon which you base your whole theory, is flawed. There were fewer teams in Wilt's era, leading to a concentration of talent (or inversely, there are more teams now, meaning the talent is watered down). That would pull the league averages down, which using your formula depresses Wilt's numbers. If you eliminate all of the extra players that expansion forces you to have, you won't see the league averages depressed as much, if at all. Then Wilt's numbers using your formula won't look as bad. Of course, you made another assumption, that somehow you can get Wilt's numbers in the modern game from some statistical manipulation of other people's numbers, which is not neccessarily true. It is possible with the watering down of the league that Wilt would put up better numbers because he is the same person, but the teams he is playing against are weaker. That doesn't even take into account advances in nutrition and workouts. If you had the same building blocks Wilt had before and added modern scientific advancements, what could he have become? Basically, you made a bunch of assumptions that all went against Wilt, and came up with a result that *gasp* when against Wilt.
I suppose you "could" argue Pippen was more valuable then Jordan but you'd be wasting your breath because no one is buying that. Their offense fell from 3rd in points in 1993 to 15th in 1994. They were winning games, but aside from Jordan's numbers, he dominated when it counts. That's why Kobe Bryant will always be Kobe Bryant until he can actually win when it matters. Chamberlain had the same issue. He won a grand total of one title. A player's greatness isn't defined by their stats but by results and the fact of the matter is that Jordan won 6 titles and Chamberlain won 1 title. The only other dominant center at the time, an aging Bill Russell, took him to school again and again. Even Willis Reid, who had one working leg, led his team to victory against Chamberlain. If you can't beat a hobbling Willis Reid, then you're not the GOAT in my book. Chamberlain even admitted in an interview that he just didnt have the competitive fire to take it to the next level. Well, that's what seperates the great from the greatest. This should be a no-brainer. The one statistic that matters the most, winning, breaks this tie between Jordan and Chamberlain.
Fine. Lovely. If you're a 24-year old Wilt, who would you rather go against: The same seven crappy opponents at center in 1960, or 26 tough-as-hell, darn good, mediocre, and crappy opponents in 1997? Jim Krebs? 6-7 rookie Wayne Embry? Ancient Red Kerr? Walter Dukes? Can't remember any others at this point ...
Teams scored more, they rebounded more, and there were more assists. That has nothing to do with concentration of talent, and everything to do with the faster pace and more missed shots. You take the league average for points scored by a team, divided by the league average for total minutes played on a team, and you get a points/min stat for the average player. Similar deal with any other box score stat. I'll also add that my stat adjustments aren't meant to be rigorously accurate. Other factors could be taken into account, perhaps (which may or may not end up being in Wilt's favor). But they're a hell of a lot better that just comparing their per game numbers.
Horrid. Only became famous for his good looks and way with children. It's actually a crap premise, but the poorly-defined point remains the same -- I'd rather deal with Russell and Embry and five other guys who would be undersized PFs in Shaq's era.
okay. I think Pip did well in 94 in MJ's absence because somebody had to score and do all that crap. Armstrong eventually cracked the lineup ahead of Paxson in 93. BJ Armstrong, if I recall, had some falling out with the Bulls, so he asked to be exposed on the expansion draft, and was selected first overall.
Shaq's era, LMAO !!! Who? Jason Collins or Aran Williams ? It doesn't work like that. Shaq can average 30 ppg against the "good" centres, he also just average 30 against scrubs. It doesn't mean he's a worse player.
Nice theory, but overall it collapses. It's pretty safe assumption that there is a lot more talent in the NBA now than back in the 60's by the virtue of the fact that the talent pool is several magnitudes larger, and expanded at a much faste pace than the NBA itself.
Chamberlain is a better rebounder than Shaq. Chamberlain is a better passer than Shaq. Chamberlain is a better defender and shotblocker than Shaq. Scoring is the cloest, but Chamberlain is a better scorer than Shaq. Hence your adjusted stats don't mean much.
Will there be 3 times as many Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, etc. caliber players from this era as there were then? That is quite a statement. Would Mark Madsen have made one of the 8 teams back then? Would Ryan Bowen? I don't know if I agree with you that there is three times the talent in the NBA now than there was when there were only 8 teams. It isn't like they were restricting black players like in baseball. There are less than twice as many people in America now as there were in 1960, but 4 times as many NBA franchises.
Nobody's arguing that Wilt would put up the same numbers if he played today, but you can't honestly believe he'd be any worse than Tim Duncan. He's roughly the same size, but has much more athleticism and strength. If Tim Duncan is a lock for the Hall of Fame, Wilt Chamberlain in the modern era would be as well. As for comparing eras, why don't we go the other way? The game as evolved, and there's no way you can just pick up a player and drop him in another era for comparison. Players today wouldn't "survive" in the 60s either. Shaq would probably foul out within the first 10 minutes. Hakeem would get called for travelling on every possession. Jordan would've been called for carrying the ball every other time down the court. Instead of looking at stats, playing style, or level of competition...look at the player's skillset or talent. Given Wilt's physical ability, he'd be perfectly able to succeed in today's league if he had been born more recently. Likewise, given Jordan's talent and work ethic, I'm sure he would've been a great wingman if he had been born earlier.
Kelly, I'm very disappointed in you on this one. If Wilt was 6-8 with enormous athleticism and speed in 1990, playing with Scottie Pippen, having all the advanced training facilities and medical care, having a coach who knew how to max out his abilities, and getting a foul call from the refs every time the opponent breathed on him, wouldn't he have accomplished the same as Jordan?
Bill Russell, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy. Those guys were NOT pushovers, and Thurmond/Bellamy were not particularly undersized. Given that there were about a third of the teams then as there are now, I would hardly say Wilt's competition was worse than Shaq's...
What's more, if someone came along today, and was 7'6" and had amazingly soft touch AND ungodly speeed, athleticism and ballhandling skills, you'd basically have Yao plus Jordan combined. And he'd put up amazing stats, probably win a couple of championships, etc. Would his play be discounted because he was so physically and athletically dominant. We are talking about sports here, right? Athletics? The fact that Wilt was as physically dominant as he was during the period only goes to prove the point. IMO, Joran was as uniquely gifted as Wilt was...not as tall, but just as dominant physically and athletically compared to his peers. Wilt/Jordan, Jordan/Wilt are clear #1/#2 ever, imo. The decision from there is mostly subjective. You can't possibly use any kind of analysis to try and derive Wilt's stats today, or Jordan's stats back then...its freaking impossible. Next thing you know you'll be looking and point per possesion differentials to see what a team's record should have been, when all you ahve to do to see how good that team was is to look at what their record was. For me, it's Wilt number 1. While completely subjective, I think, in today's world, Wilt would still be the greatest ever...he'd be Shaq, Yao and Hakeem combined. The guy put up a double-triple-double in a game. On top of all that, the guy was an excellent track and field athlete, a superb volley-baller, was offered an NFL contract, did some boxing, some work with auto racing, and slept with over 20,000 women....c'mon, how's that not the greatest?
it does mean alot when you factor in the competition against other great centers like the dream, robinson, ewing, etc.
