1. Defense was not played in that era 2. Few were capable of playing defense 3. Possessions per game rates were incredulous 4. We have every night turning into a matchup of this years Kings vs Warriors with more talent on each side Put me on a court with the most talented middle schoolers in the world and I guarantee you being an athletic 6'1 workhorse with a soft touch I'll be able to average 30 and 20 at the very least, even more if I do lines of coke at halftime. Now imagine if I was a foot taller! Oh, and most of our opponents will be from prominent suburban areas. Catch my drift? I've seen tapes of Wilt playing and I refuse to believe it's anything greater than a hard-working Amare playing against opponents in lead boots. I give Russell credit for being a defensive pioneer, although both are overrated for being the "first" of their generation when they are compared to modern day greats like Hakeem, Shaq and Kareem. Any greater than the Knicks reaching the Finals in 1999 with Patrick Ewing, Latrell Sprewell, Allan Houston shooting between 41-43%? The 76ers had a great 6th man in Aaron McKie and role players with a high basketball IQ... so do you really want to use Rafer Alston as an example? He wouldn't sniff any PT on this team. Theo Ratliff and Mutombo combined to average 6.2 bpg as starters, almost an unheard of statistic. This is the ONLY situation Iverson can thrive in, and that too they lost in 5 games to a Western Conference team in the Finals. The Eastern Conference was pitiful that year. In the playoffs, Iverson had a 36.8% usage rate, shot 39% from the floor and they still made it to the finals! Iverson posessed an amazing mix of athleticism, handles and body control, but he rarely played smart basketball, got to throw up as many shots as he wanted and was extremely inefficient. As someone who plays a similar style of basketball myself, I can tell you this does not correlate to winning basketball. Excelling while playing under control and doing so efficiently is what defines the true great ones.
You live in a very strange world if you think simply being athletic means you can take on the likes of Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. Those guys were freaky athletes with freaky skills in any era. Do you know how many shots West blocked at roughly 6'2? That he'd regularly pin shots to the backboard? That he could hit from anywhere on the court? That Baylor was the best prototypical scoring forward ever at the time, with scoring ability like Bernard King at his best, to go with boards like Shawn Marion on steroids? And yet, together these guys constituted a .500 team? You think Nate Thurmond, Maurice Stokes, Clyde Lovellette, Zelmo Beaty, Bob Pettit, and Bill Russell were chumps that Wilt could just roll over? You think Wilt, who had a reliable turnaround-fadeaway from 15 feet, was a fraud? Even though he led the league in assists? Even though he had a brief stint as the point guard for the Trotters? Even though he was a track star in every event coming out of college? Even though he had a 55-inch vertical? Even though he could outlift Schwarzenegger when he was 45 and retired when Arnold himself was still in his Mr. Universe days? You think he'd be nothing but Amare Stoudemire today? Really? How very wrong you are about basketball in the 60s. Wilt would make Shaq cry like a useless, sissy little girl if they ever met in their primes. He was stronger than Shaq, had twice the jets, twice the hops, and ten million times the basketball talent that Shaq has.
Congrats on throwing out a lot of big names from the same era, proving nothing. No one is arguing against him being a freak of nature, I think the argument is that a lot of people can't put the quality of play from that period into perspective. Don't put words in my mouth because your argument is based on rhetoric alone... he would be Amare today if all his opponents wore lead boots, and they don't, so naturally I consider him much better than Amare. But defense was not considered a priority in the 60/70s, teams had more than 30 possessions a game than they do now, and Wilt scored most of his baskets with no 3 second rule, standing right under the basket over physically weaker competition. But he was definitely a freak of nature.
"My argument is based on rhetoric alone"... and yours isn't? You've been throwing out a lot generalizations about basketball from that era. I see very, very few facts or evidence that you have any idea what you're talking about. So I wouldn't be the one talking about "arguments based on rhetoric" if I were you. Some of the few facts you give are faulty... Oh really? No 3-second rule, huh? Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. 3-second rule and the 12-foot lane were around before Wilt ever stepped foot in the league. And, Wilt scored most of his baskets in his best days off of jumpers, not under the basket: "Wilt was the strongest man ever to play basketball, but he always took a fallaway jumper. It was the damndest thing. He played basketball the hard way... If Wilt had consistently driven to the basket, he'd have scored 200 in a game." --Charley Eckman, NBA Coach But I'm sure you're right, and Eckman's wrong about Wilt's scoring habits... he only witnessed it. Clearly that's not a basis for any real knowledge. Thanks for proving conclusively that you have no appreciable familiarity or knowledge about the early NBA at all. I'm not going to argue anymore with someone who spouts "facts" which are simply wrong. I'm guessing this game or footage you saw was from the early 70s when Wilt was with the Lakers, and he was a mere husk of what he used to be. If you want to do that, why don't we discuss the merits of Gary Payton's career based on footage from his Laker days? Because that's an equally fair comparison.
To further that point, that 76ers team was built around AI. They tried the 2nd star thing with KVH and Hughes, and while history has shown that those stars really sucked in the end, the most relative success AI ever had was on a team full of offensive scrubs. They weren't terrible players. They were super hustlers, defenders and great rebounders. They were winning by letting AI do everything on offense (score and create) and excel at everything else. AI shot 39% for the playoffs that season and they went to the NBA finals. And yes, everything has be be taken into account: weak East, AI inefficient but effective, team played well in that AI dominated system.
I'm not going to argue with someone who keeps taking reference points from the era in question itself, instead of looking at the facts. Here are the facts: 1. Wilt averaged over 45 mpg for his entire NBA career. Compare that to say Michael Jordan, who averaged 38 mpg. 2. Wilt's 76ers team averaged over 30 possessions a game more than the average team from the 90's. 3. Wilt's "fallaway jumper" was taken extremely close to the basket, I'm sure a guy who is the 2nd worst FT shooter of all time behind Ben Wallace had "range". 4. Defense was simply not played back then, and even when it was, it was swiping at the ball as your opponent drove by you. Russell was the first to actually prioritize shutting down the other opponent. And he was 5 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter, according to his own words! "After I played him for the first time," Russell says, "I said, 'Let's see. He's four or five inches taller. He's 40 or 50 pounds heavier. His vertical leap is at least as good as mine. He can get up and down the floor as well as I can. And he's smart. The real problem with all this is that I have to show up!" All these factors lead to a major inflation of statistics for Wilt in an era when statistics were already inflated! And despite being such a dominant force in his era surrounded by Hall of Fame talent, Wilt could only win 2 NBA titles. No facts have been presented to change my view of the NBA in the 60's. But he was definitely a freak of nature.
Well, you can't really say the second star system didn't work because of AI when it is clear that the second stars were both scrubs. It was probably a net gain to play a much better defender, anyway. I definitely agree with your points. I just want to say that it should be noted that many of these players either had all of their best seasons while playing around AI or saw a steep drop off in production after playing with him. Everyone says that system was perfect for HIM but those guys were more productive as well when they were only asked to knockdown wide open shots or only asked to defend and rebound. Those guys may not have seemed terrible then but they sure haven't shown much since.
To the OP and Iverson's statements: as hated as he is and as criticized as he (rightly) is, put yourself in his shoes for a second. I don't think he's *ever* seen such a dramatic effect as what happened when he left the Nuggets this time. Now they are a number 2 seed in a great conference. It's like breaking up with someone and then watching her hook up with some really friendly guy, with great hair, and watching her lose weight and start to look more awesomely hot than ever. And you are like getting fat and sitting on your couch, and you're all like WTF maybe it was all my fault. This is what happens when AI looks at the Nugs. If he's really smart, what he will do is voluntarily redefine himself as a sixth man. Imagine having a struggling offense (ahem) and putting AI in for 8 minutes. It would be like the Microwave on steroids. Simply game-changing and awesome. Then you take his shot volume self out again, and he can see he had an awesome effect.
Declined? Iverson has not declined at all, hes just in a bad situation with the Pistons and can't play the style of play hes used to. Think about it he was third in the league in scoring last year he hasn't declined at all imo
It's not a matter of him being smart or not. He simply cannot be effective if he decreases his volume of shots because he's a volume shooter. He's one of those guys that can miss his first 8 shots yet still finish 12/25.
just saw on bottom ticker on ESPN..breaking news: iverson is going to miss remainder of season with a back problem. how convenient
haha, yeah this move is very non-transparent way of iverson saying, i'm not playing until you make me a starter. i used to like him, but this just goes to show how selfish he is.
drexlerfan got owned. laughable that you think wilt could make shaq cry. prime shaq would eat wilt for breakfast, the same way the dream ate drob
Again: simply wrong. Here you are, trying to make arguments, and backing them up with these so-called "facts": 1. Wilt scored most of his baskets standing right under the basket. Wrong. 15-foot turnarounds were his pet shot. He was closer to a Tim-Duncan player than a Shaq. 2. There was no 3-second rule when Wilt played. Wrong. 3 seconds existed for all of Wilt's NBA career. 3. Wilt's fadeaways were extremely close to the basket. Wrong. 15 feet is not "extremely close." If you knew anything about the player or the era, you would know that Wilt's FT-shooting was entirely mental, not mechanical like Shaq's is. Quotes for you: Dolph Schayes (one of Wilt's coaches, and a great foul-shooter himself): "The two of us would go to the gym by ourselves and practice, shooting 100 free throws. He'd make 80-85 of them. But in the games, he'd tighten up, shoot 1-for-10, 3-for-11. He'd line the ball off the rim." Alex Hannum (one of Wilt's coaches): "He'd practice his free-thows all the time and probably shoot 75%." You render all your arguments pointless when you make assertions that are flatly wrong. You used FT% to extrapolate that Wilt had no range. Wrong. Period. Thank you for yet another exhibit proving you have no clue about Wilt, or basketball in Wilt's era. Would you take a political debate with a guy who claims that John McCain is president of the United States right now seriously? No. So don't expect me to take you seriously.
HAHAHAHAHA. I got owned by the guy who thinks that 3 seconds didn't exist when Wilt played? Suuuuuure. If you're a small child/sheep who believes heresay from ESPN, I suppose perhaps I did get owned... in the wonderful world of facts and reality, you are sadly mistaken. But let's put it to a Clutchfans vote! In fact, it's already been done, right when Shaq was in his prime: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=32353 ...oops. 16 votes for Wilt as all-time greatest, 1 for Shaq. You're right, I'm clearly alone on thinking that Wilt would take Shaq's lunch money.
