Is Wilt Chamberlain's 50.4ppg season overrated?

[Asukal]

So, you're claiming that Wilt wouldn't be able to benefit from the advancements of the game 25 years later? Not that he'd need to get any better to dominate, obviously, but what's the logic behind thinking he wouldn't?
By the way, Wilt wouldn't need to get better (=more skilled) to shoot better, either. He'd just need to take more efficient shots and there's no reason to think he wouldn't, in a league with slower and more careful offenses and less random, ill-advised shots taken (and with 39.5 shots per game, it's safe to assume he took his share of this type of shots).

You see that's where guys like you fail to understand something so simple. I didn't say Wilt will not dominate in the 80s, he would be great in any era. What I was disputing was Jlauber's mindset of robotic thinking, where if Wilt shot 50% in a 42% era, he'd AUTOMATICALLY shoot 57% in a 48% era. Basketball is not just about stats, there's a lot of other factors involved. What advancements in the game would Wilt benefit from 25 years later?

[KingBeasley08]

are you kidding me

easily overrated. niggah didnt give his teamates the ball and then blame falls on them when he lost in the playoffs

best part is that in another season, he purposely averaged 10 assists a game even though it didn't help his team

biggest stat padder in nba history

[millwad]

I wasn't comparing Wilt's FG% to a guard and forward. I was merely pointing out that players like Baylor, who would have a .486 season later in the 60's, and West, who would have a .514 mark later in the decade, were shooting WAY worse in the early 60's...which puts Wilt's .506 FG% into it's proper perspective. As ALWAYS, Wilt was outshooting the entire league by a HUGE margin.

That was exactly what you did and you've done it before as well and still, pointing out the FG% of guards and forwards in comparison with a center will always be a showcase of ignorance.

I will never accept the excuses you tried to convince us about regarding the lower FG% in the 50's and 60's. Stuff like the ball being of bad quality, the arenas being cold and yadi yadi..

If that would have been the case, then we wouldn't have had great FT-shooters like West back in the days. The same West who had better FG% than Kobe Bryant as an average.. Oscar as well..

I'm convinced that FG% back in the days had to do with the players actual skillset and physical dominance rather than the ball being less developed or the arenas being cold.. Guys like Oscar, West and Wilt had no problems with their FG%. Sure, Wilt dropped in the playoffs regarding both scoring and FG% but he was still shooting with better % than his competitors.

Defensive schemes and double and triple teams in later era's can't even be compared to one's in Wilt's era. There's plenty of footage of Wilt being guarded single-handedly, can you imagine a guy like Wilt being guarded single-handedly in later eras? Don't think so. And NO, I don't claim that he never was double or triple team'd, just not to the extent as he would have been in later eras.

And judging by what you just wrote, do you actually mean that the defense got weaker later in to the 60's? Seriously? Wow.. Is that how you explain West's and Baylor's seasons where they shot with better FG%...

AND, put Wilt's .506, in a league that shot .426, into MJ's '87 season, in which the entire league shot .480...and it would translate to about .570. And, MJ's '87 NBA averaged 109.9 ppg, which was only marginally behind Wilt's 118.8 ppg in '62. Even using basic math, and Wilt's '62 season would have been about 42 ppg in '87 (and that would be before adjusting his FG%...which would have raised his scoring to about 46 ppg.)

Still, Jlauber, it wouldn't translate "to about .570", that's nonsense. It's nonsense to actually claim that it got EASIER to score in the 80's compared to the 60's, especially considering the fact that the teams scored more per game compared to the 80's. And yes, that has to do with FGA but to actually blame the higher FG%-average on worse defense is just silly. And yes, now you're gonna reply with Kareem shooting with higher FG% later in his career, yadi yadi, but fact still remains that players gets smarter and know their limits better late in their career and having Magic by his side helped his FG% ALOT..

BTW, Wilt shot .613 from the line in that 61-62 season..and his 835 MADE FTs is the second greatest season of all-time (just behind West's 840 mark in '65.)

The same season he missed the most FT's in one season by one player in league history.

[Sarcastic]

^^^
Personal agenda

[Inception28]

His best season was 66-67, yet people believe his 50 ppg season was his best. Wilt didn't even win the MVP when he averaged 50 ppg a game.

[Pointguard]

My position has always been that people miss several marks about the season.

1. That the energy is the biggest factor. Energy is the key to everything. Its the reason why people level off in rebounding, blocking shots, why so very few people can reach 30ppg (this is true of every decade -it

[D-Wade316]

[QUOTE=Pointguard]My position has always been that people miss several marks about the season.

1. That the energy is the biggest factor. Energy is the key to everything. Its the reason why people level off in rebounding, blocking shots, why so very few people can reach 30ppg (this is true of every decade -it

[Asukal]

Wilt, today would not only be Shaq among current centers he would also be John Wall among centers. He would be the only natural scorer among centers, he would be the most athletic, longest, most skilled, best rebounder, best blocker, best passer, and this is without the modern conveniences that would enhance his explosion, post game, foul shooting and shooting. But the real catch is that he with his speed in ’62 he would have been guarded by wings or points in today’s games so not even 6’8 players.

Wow so now Wilt was as fast as a Derrick Rose?

[jlauber]

My position has always been that people miss several marks about the season.

1. That the energy is the biggest factor. Energy is the key to everything. Its the reason why people level off in rebounding, blocking shots, why so very few people can reach 30ppg (this is true of every decade -it’s a natural leveling point of greats) reach 16 rebounds, get over 5 blocks per game. If you don't have the fuel you can't approach these phenomenal feats. Even specialist have trouble breaking these thresholds. Seemingly, if grown athletic men on a team with basic defensive skills guard skilled scorers a common threshold would be reached by even different types of great scorers (i.e. Shaq, Gervin, Dantley, Durant, Lebron, Kobe).

2. He didn’t neglect his other responsibilities, in fact they too were at crazy levels too. He had 76 bear units of rebounds and points (very close to 25% higher than the next greatest year by a center Kareem? McAdoo?). Can you imagine a guy far beyond Rodman’s best rebounding year and Jordan’s best scoring combined into one person. In fact they weren’t even close to Wilt’s numbers. Yet you remember how active those two were those years? And yet Chamberlain had games where he had at least 9 blocks as well. His activity level was astonishing.

3. The psychological insistence (in this aspect he was much stronger than other players) to surpass the previous records was bizarre over 80 games. Unlike anything before or after. Obviously pace helped. But that usually saps people’s energy as well. The natural tendency is after separation is huge like 5% is to slow it down.

4. His separation from the pack was unreal. All things are relative. Pure science there – not up for debate. People rarely ever go 40% before previous records and then hang out there. 30ppg is still a great threshold of great scorers – yet if Wilt has a regular threshold night he has to have 70 the next night. You think of the other unstoppable scorers at center only Kareem got separation in one year – and it was no where near Wilt’s level. Dwight Howard has no comp at center and he’s not even in the scoring race.
5. His focus was unbelievable. If he looses focus he would be a 35ppg scorer easily. You fight boredom, lack of true comp and the bully complex all the time.

6. He takes on an incredible scoring burden – and is second in FG% at a rate where he was going to be best person taking a shot as well.

7. The way the game was played it should have favored smaller players not bigger players.

Wilt, today would not only be Shaq among current centers he would also be John Wall among centers. He would be the only natural scorer among centers, he would be the most athletic, longest, most skilled, best rebounder, best blocker, best passer, and this is without the modern conveniences that would enhance his explosion, post game, foul shooting and shooting. But the real catch is that he with his speed in ’62 he would have been guarded by wings or points in today’s games so not even 6’8 players.

Well said. Chamberlain's '62 season was not just about the pure numbers, but, the fact that he was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his peers. And, he took the same basic LAST PLACE roster that he inherited in his rookie season, to a 49-31 record. THEN, he single-handedly carried them past Syracuse in the first round, with an epic game five, in a best-of-five series, of 56 points and 35 rebounds. And MIRACULOUSLY, he then carried them to a game seven, two point loss against Russell's 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers (and HOF coach...something Wilt seldom had.) And just how much help did he get in those playoffs from his teammates? They collectively shot .354.

The Wilt detractors love to rip Chamberlain's 62-63 season, too. His Warriors only went 31-49, BUT, that was arguably the worst roster in NBA history. SIXTEEN different players, and his BEST teammate, Tom Meschery, averaged 16 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and shot .425. The fact was, Meschery would have been at the very far end of the Celtic bench that season (Boston had NINE HOFers that season.)

The Warriors lousy record that season was deceptive, too. They lost 35 games by single digits, and were only involved in eight games of 20+ (going 4-4.) Their total differential was only -2.1 ppg. And here was Wilt, playing 47.6 mpg, averaging 44.8 ppg, 24.3 rpg, even 3.4 apg, and shooting a then-record .528 from the field. In fact, Wilt LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of the 22 statistical categories (and had their been other categories, like offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, rebound percentage, blocked shots, etc, it would have been even more.) He even ran away with Win Shares (20.9 on a team that won 31 games...or, he was directly responsible for about 70% of his team's wins.) And his PER of 31.8 is an all-time record. And while the Warriors only went 1-8 against Russell's Celtics, six of the games were very close, and all Wilt did was outrebound Russell in those games, and outscored him by a 38-14 margin, per game. And how much help did he get from his teammates that season? They collectively shot .412, which would have been way below the worst team in the league (.427...surprisingly, Boston.)

And while the "anti-Wilt" clan loves to slap Chamberlain's team record in 62-63, they NEVER bring up the fact that Wilt then took that same cast of clowns to a 48-32 record the very next season, and a trip to the Finals, where they lost two games in the waning seconds, in losing the series, 4-1, against Russell's Celtics, and their EIGHT HOFers. And all Wilt did in that series was average 29 ppg, 27 rpg, and shoot .517. And that came after he single-handedly carried the Warriors past the Hawks in the previous round, with a 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg, .559 series, which included a game seven of 39 points, 26 rebounds, and 12 blocks.

And how about the next season, when a very sick Wilt was traded to the Sixers at mid-season? (BTW, the NBA widened the lane before the start of the season...and Wilt was averaging 39 ppg at mid-season when he was traded.) He came to a Philly team that had been 34-46 the year before, and while they would only finish 40-40 in 64-65, Wilt then led them to a 3-1 romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals, and into the ECF's, where they would face the 62-18 Celtics, which was their best record in their "dynasty" run. Amazingly, Philly battled Boston down to the very last play of game seven, losing 110-109 when "Havlicek stole the ball." How did Wilt "the choker" fare in that game? 30 points, on 12-15 shooting (80% for those that need assistance), and with 32 rebounds. In fact, he scored six of Philadephia's last eight points, (including 2-2 from the line, and a dunk over Russell with five seconds left.) For the series, Wilt, who constantly is criticized for his "decline" in the post-season, put up a 30 ppg, 31 rpg seven game series.

Chamberlain's 65-66 season also has to rank among the greatest ever. He LED the NBA in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; he LED the NBA in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; and he LED the NBA in FG%, at .540 (which was a record at the time.) He even found time to hand out 5.2 apg. Here again, the "anti-Chamberlain" gang NEVER bring up this fact...that Wilt LED his team to the BEST RECORD in the league that season, too. However, they WILL point out that Wilt's Sixers were wiped out by Boston in the ECF's, 4-1. BUT, they won't mention that all Wilt did in that series was average 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 from the field, including a 46-34 performance in the clinching game five loss. How about Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot .352. Yet, it is WILT, who gets the lion's share of the blame.

And even the most ardent of those that rip Chamberlain have to acknowledge his '66-67 season as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all-time. He absolutely OBLITERATED the NBA that season. 24.1 ppg, 24.2 rpg, 7.8 apg, and an eye-popping .683 FG%. He then pounded the Royals, then Russell, and then Thurmond in the playoffs and Finals. His dominated Russell in every facet of the game, and for once, his teammates finally matched Russell's. The result? A 4-1 blowout of the eight-time defending champs, and a near sweep (losing game four in Boston by four points.)

And that game five was particularly interesting. In his game five in the '66 ECF's, Wilt did all he could, hanging that 46 point (on 19-34 shooting), 34 rebound game against Russell, albeit, in a losing effort. Now, how did Russell fare in the '67 ECF's, when he was faced with the exact same circumstances? In that game five, Russell scored a meager four points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Meanwhile, Chamberlain poured in 29 points (22 in the first half when the game was still in doubt), on 10-16 shooting, with 13 assists, and a staggering 36 rebounds. For those that claim that Russell had Wilt's "number" in the post-season...why couldn't Russell step up in that clinching game five loss, when it was obvious his teammates needed him to?

In Wilt's first seven years in the league, he averaged about 40 ppg, 25 rpg, and on about .520 shooting (in league's that shot between .410 to .441.) And yet he is criticized for not winning a title in those years. However, the reality was, he had inept rosters, and mostly incompetent coaching. And how about these telling numbers...in those six post-seasons (his team was so bad in '63 that they didn't make the playoffs), his teammates collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .352, .352, and a mind-numbing .332. And yet, he somehow got them to two game seven's against the greatest dynasty in major professional sports history, losing them by 2 and 1 point, and a Finals in another year.

But, the Chamberlain critics merely point out that he was 0-7 in rings in those seven years, and that he was a "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in the post-season.

[B]

I've posted this a billion times before, but it bears repeating.

The game back then was like... 140 possessions per game! That's insane. If there were that many possessions these days, everyone's numbers would be inflated (see Suns and Golden State scoring compared to say, the Blazers).

If you normalize for possessions, here are the best scoring seasons ever (Wilt's doesn't even make the cut):

http://www.backpicks.com/2011/01/28/...n-nba-history/

Interesting.

[Psileas]

You see that's where guys like you fail to understand something so simple. I didn't say Wilt will not dominate in the 80s, he would be great in any era. What I was disputing was Jlauber's mindset of robotic thinking, where if Wilt shot 50% in a 42% era, he'd AUTOMATICALLY shoot 57% in a 48% era. Basketball is not just about stats, there's a lot of other factors involved. What advancements in the game would Wilt benefit from 25 years later?

Guys "like me" are not the ones who blindly adjust stats, positively or negatively. I don't consider it correct to adjust FG%'s because of how the league shot, but I consider it equally wrong to try to adjust Wilt's scoring with the logic Droid's card demonstrates. I do believe though that Wilt would shoot better than 51% had he played in the 80's, because he'd have cut down a lot of badly taken shots that he took in the early 60's. How do you think Wilt suddenly exploded from 54% to 68% FG shooting in a single season? He cut down needless shots by a lot.
BTW, while I'm not trying to predict Wilt's FG%, I don't consider 57% to be any stretch, especially in the 80's, figures that even a few non-centers could reach back then. Any physical, strong guy with some offensive awareness would be able to get there (Gilmore, Barkley, Dawkins), except if he wanted to pad his offensive rebounding, a la Moses Malone.

What advancements in the game would Wilt benefit from 25 years later? Is this a rhetoric question, implying that Wilt wouldn't have anything to benefit from regardless of era (hey, that's nice of you to think of Wilt that highly, but I still disagree!)? Here's a very simple example: He'd benefit by getting better passes from teammates.

[Rooster]

Overrated. When Wilt came to the league, there were only a couple of players who were 6-10 and Wilt was strong athletic 7 footer. He put all those numbers because he was a stat padder. I think it's best to measure his numbers on what he did in the playoffs with some capable defenders. Nonetheless, he was still a great player.

[jlauber]

Guys "like me" are not the ones who blindly adjust stats, positively or negatively. I don't consider it correct to adjust FG%'s because of how the league shot, but I consider it equally wrong to try to adjust Wilt's scoring with the logic Droid's card demonstrates. I do believe though that Wilt would shoot better than 51% had he played in the 80's, because he'd have cut down a lot of badly taken shots that he took in the early 60's. How do you think Wilt suddenly exploded from 54% to 68% FG shooting in a single season? He cut down needless shots by a lot.
BTW, while I'm not trying to predict Wilt's FG%, I don't consider 57% to be any stretch, especially in the 80's, figures that even a few non-centers could reach back then. Any physical, strong guy with some offensive awareness would be able to get there (Gilmore, Barkley, Dawkins), except if he wanted to pad his offensive rebounding, a la Moses Malone.

What advancements in the game would Wilt benefit from 25 years later? Is this a rhetoric question, implying that Wilt wouldn't have anything to benefit from regardless of era (hey, that's nice of you to think of Wilt that highly, but I still disagree!)? Here's a very simple example: He'd benefit by getting better passes from teammates.

I have posted this many times before, but shooting in the 80's was off the charts. Kareem, in his absolute prime, had FG%'s of .539, .529, .518, and .513 in the 70's...and yet, in the first eight years of the 80's, and approaching 40, he shot .564 or better, including .604 and .599 (at age 37.) Gilmore is an even more glaring example. He had a season in the 70's, and in his prime, of 18.6 ppg and on .522 shooting. His high season in the 70's was .575...and yet, in the 80's he exploded for SIX straight seasons of .600+ including seasons of 17.9 ppg on .670 and 18.5 ppg on .652. Hell, at age 35 he put up a 19.1 ppg .623 season.

Then, take a look at the other side of the coin. Centers who came into the league in the 80's, and played into the 90's. Hakeem had his BEST FG% season in his ROOKIE year, at .534...and not coincidently, in the 84-85 season, which was an all-time NBA record of .492. He had his 4th best season the very next year, too. Ewing had his three highest FG% seasons from 87-88 thru 89-90, and then declined to seasons of under 50% in the 90's. Even David Robinson, who came into the league in 89-90, had his third best season in his rookie year, and then followed it up with his two best seasons the very next two years. And then, a slow decline.

And, in reality, the shooting explosion began in the 78-79 season, when the NBA jumped from .469 in 77-78 to .485 in 78-79. Moses had his five greatest seasons from '79 thur '83.

Meanwhile, the greats of the 60's, player-for-player, shot much worse in the early 60's, and considerably better as they progressed. Havlicek played eight seasons in both decades of the 60's and 70's, and all eight in the 70's were better than his best in the 60's. Hell, he even shot .399 one season in the early 60's. Baylor had a .401 season and West had a .419 season. Barry averaged 35.6 ppg on .451 shooting in '67, and 30.6 ppg on .464 shooting in '75.

Players like Unseld, Hayes, and Lanier...MUCH better in the late 70's than in the late 60's or early 70's.

Of course, Wilt himself, pretty much shot straight up on the graph. He had his only sub- .500 season in his rookie year, and after that he dramatically rose almost every single season. He would break the FG% record in '61, '63, '66, '67, and then in his final season in '73.

So, only a complete idiot would claim that Wilt would not have shot better (and CONSIDERABLY better BTW) in the 80's.

[G.O.A.T]

When Wilt came to the league, there were only a couple of players who were 6-10 and Wilt was strong athletic 7 footer.

Actually when Wilt was a rookie five of the other seven teams had a player 6'11" or taller in their line-up and the ones that didn't had Bill Russell (6'10" 225) and Wayne Embry (6'8" 275) who were the two toughest players for Wilt to go against in his early years.

[jlauber]

Overrated. When Wilt came to the league, there were only a couple of players who were 6-10 and Wilt was strong athletic 7 footer. He put all those numbers because he was a stat padder. I think it's best to measure his numbers on what he did in the playoffs with some capable defenders. Nonetheless, he was still a great player.

In his first six post-seasons, covering seven years, all Wilt did was average 32 ppg, 27 rpg, and shoot .510 (in leagues that shot about .430 on average.) In his first eight post-seasons, covering nine years, he could only average 29 ppg, 27 rpg 5 apg, and shoot .520 (in leagues that averaged about .435 shooting.)

In his last seven years, and with decent surrounding personnel, his scoring dropped considerably, but even then he was dominating his peers. He even battled a statistically prime Kareem to a statistical draw in their '71 playoff H2H...and that was accomplished only a year after major knee surgery, and at age 34. Then, while being outscored by Kareem in the '72 WCF's, by virtually EVERY account, Wilt outplayed Kareem. He held Kareem, who had shot .574 during the regular season, to .457 shooting, which included .414 over the course of the last four games of that series.

In Wilt's LAST season, he held a PRIME Kareem to 29 ppg on .450 shooting in their six regular season H2H's...while scoring 11 ppg on .737 himself. He even outscored Kareem in one game that year, 24-21, while outshooting him, 10-15 to 10-27.

And we all know that Kareem went on to absolutely torch the greats of the 80's, even at age 38.