How much would Kobe average in Wilt's era?

[MiseryCityTexas]

A prime Nate Thurmond would beast in today's league. That guy was built like an mma heavyweight back in the day.

[Nick Young]

who was I kidding, I think prime mamba would have averaged 60 pg his best season, overall career average of 45 ppg at 54%

[ACCBaller1403]

who was I kidding, I think prime mamba would have averaged 60 pg his best season, overall career average of 45 ppg at 54%

Then 14 year olds with no respect for history would claim that he was just playing against weak competition and would be at best a 20 ppg scorer today.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Get huge stats back then, it's weak competition. Don't put up huge stats but win against all your peers and you not only played against weak competition but you didn't even have the skills to rack up stats. Seriously, based on how these kids rate players from the past, even if you did get a career 45 ppg average you still wouldn't get respect.

[Psileas]

Then 14 year olds with no respect for history would claim that he was just playing against weak competition and would be at best a 20 ppg scorer today.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Get huge stats back then, it's weak competition. Don't put up huge stats but win against all your peers and you not only played against weak competition but you didn't even have the skills to rack up stats. Seriously, based on how these kids rate players from the past, even if you did get a career 45 ppg average you still wouldn't get respect.

Of course you wouldn't. The bigger stats you got at the era people didn't watch, the less respect you'd earn. If Wilt was even greater and more dominant than he actually was and had ended one season at 70 ppg, kids would claim that Kobe would be averaging 90. If Wilt's career high was 140, kids would claim Kobe would get 200, and so on.
Most humans (not all, obviously) are mediocre to bad at estimating facts and figures. Most young humans are simply way off. Ask them to translate Kobe's supposed "60 ppg in Wilt's era" into stats of later eras, but before the 2000's, and you're going to have a good laugh at them trying to find a way to reasonably connect Kobe's "60 ppg at Wilt's era", which ended in 1973, to Jordan's era, which started only 12 years later, with Jordan himself averaging 28.2 ppg that season. Following the progress of stats, an "ageless" Kobe should still be at 50+ ppg, while even a way past-prime Kobe (say at around 40 y.o) should probably still be good enough for 25+. And we're talking only about points.

[jlauber]

he NEVER fouled out because he was obsessed with making it through his entire career without doing so, however much it affected his game.

john havlicek - "wilt's great idiosyncrasy was not fouling out. He had never fouled out of a high school, college or professional game and that was the one record he was determined to protect. When he got his fourth foul, his game would change. I don't know how many potential victories he may have cheated his team out of by not really playing when he got into foul trouble"

and those 45 mpg (most all time by a wide margin) skew his stats and are rarely talked about. yes, it was great he could play entire games without getting tired and no doubt this was an asset to his team (unless he had 4 fouls ) but, obviously, the more minutes you play the better your stats will be...

wilt (career stats per 36 min) - 23.6 ppg/17.7 fga on .540%, 18 rpg, 3.5 apg

kareem ( " ) - 24. ppg/17.7 fga on .559%, 10.9 rpg, 3.5 apg

hakeem ( " ) - 21.9 ppg/17.1 fga on .512, 11.2 rpg, 2.5 apg

shaq ( " ) - 24.6 ppg/16.7 fga on .582, 11.2 rpg, 2.6 apg

russell ( " ) - 12.8 ppg/11.4 fga on .440% ( ), 19.1 rpg, 3.6 apg

moses ( " ) - 21.9 ppg/15.4 fga on .491%, 12.9 rpg, 1.4 apg

robinson ( " ) - 21.8 ppg/14.9 fga on .518%, 11 rpg, 2.6 apg

ewing ( " ) - 22 ppg/ 17.1 fga on .504%, 10.3 rpg, 2 apg


wilt's numbers are still awesome but with comparative minutes they appear far more.....normal.

The problem with using ANY of Wilt's stats are that there were THREE Chamberlain's. In his first seven years he HAD to carry putrid rosters. In his next three seasons, he was asked to be more of a facilitator. And his last four seasons were basically post-injured Wilt, who lost his lateral mobility, but who was still a dominating rebounder and defender, and by far-and-away, the most efficient shooter in history.

Using that 36 minute production...in Wilt's first seven seasons he his numbers looked like this...

30 ppg, 19 rpg, and .520 shooting (and BTW, in leagues that shot between .410 to .441.) Not quite the ACTUAL 40 ppg, 25 rpg, .520 numbers, but still quite impressive.

Of course, using 36 minute production is far more UNFAIR to Chamberlain than any other player in history, since, he was basically the ONLY player capable of playing (and PRODUCING) for 48 mpg. So, while opposing teams were bringing in second tier players for 12 minutes, Chamberlain's teams had THE best player in the league, and on the floor, for the ENTIRE game. Still, one can only wonder how much more EFFICIENT Wilt would have been had he "only" played some 40-42 mpg over the course of his career. Not only for each game, but each SEASON. Surely his ppg/per minute, rpg/per minute, and his FG% efficiency, would have risen with more "quality" minutes.

As for Wilt not fouling out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

[QUOTE]In the 1972 NBA Finals, the Lakers again met the New York Knicks; the Knicks were shorthanded after losing Willis Reed to injury, and so, undersized 6'8" Jerry Lucas had the task to defend against the 7'1" Chamberlain.[88] However, prolific outside shooter Lucas helped New York to win Game 1, hitting 9 of his 11 shots in the first half alone; in Game 2, which the Lakers won 106

[millwad]

The problem with using ANY of Wilt's stats are that there were THREE Chamberlain's. In his first seven years he HAD to carry putrid rosters. In his next three seasons, he was asked to be more of a facilitator. And his last four seasons were basically post-injured Wilt, who lost his lateral mobility, but who was still a dominating rebounder and defender, and by far-and-away, the most efficient shooter in history.

Using that 36 minute production...in Wilt's first seven seasons he his numbers looked like this...

30 ppg, 19 rpg, and .520 shooting (and BTW, in leagues that shot between .410 to .441.) Not quite the ACTUAL 40 ppg, 25 rpg, .520 numbers, but still quite impressive.

Buhu, everything that makes Wilt look greater than his competitors you are really good at mentioning but as soon as something makes Wilt look less dominant you always have an excuse. So what that there was 3 versions of Wilt and that his 4 last years as a pro were post-injury Wilt.. Every center and ever player goes through differents stages during their careers.

Of course, using 36 minute production is far more UNFAIR to Chamberlain than any other player in history, since, he was basically the ONLY player capable of playing (and PRODUCING) for 48 mpg. So, while opposing teams were bringing in second tier players for 12 minutes, Chamberlain's teams had THE best player in the league, and on the floor, for the ENTIRE game. Still, one can only wonder how much more EFFICIENT Wilt would have been had he "only" played some 40-42 mpg over the course of his career. Not only for each game, but each SEASON. Surely his ppg/per minute, rpg/per minute, and his FG% efficiency, would have risen with more "quality" minutes.

Wilt wouldn't play that amount of minutes in today's era, there's just no way.

As for Wilt not fouling out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain



Of course, Wilt was hardly ever in foul trouble...having only averaged 2.0 fpg in his career. Clearly, he seldom had to worry about fouling out. Of course, ANY player should play intelligently when in foul trouble...so to praise a player for fouling out, especially at a critical time of the game, never seemed to make much sense to me.

Great, as usual you gave us a wikipedia-page to trust.. And to start with, in the same text you quoted you can find a nice looking "citation needed" regarding Wilt's blocks in that game.

And the quote in the text you highlighted was taken from a book written by Robert Cherry, the same Cherry was Wilt's biographer and in the same book Mr Cherry claimed that Wilt slept wilt 20 000 women. If you want anyone to trust you, don't use wikipedia and don't use "citation needed" texts, please.

[jlauber]

Buhu, everything that makes Wilt look greater than his competitors you are really good at mentioning but as soon as something makes Wilt look less dominant you always have an excuse. So what that there was 3 versions of Wilt and that his 4 last years as a pro were post-injury Wilt.. Every center and ever player goes through differents stages during their careers.



Wilt wouldn't play that amount of minutes in today's era, there's just no way.




Great, as usual you gave us a wikipedia-page to trust.. And to start with, in the same text you quoted you can find a nice looking "citation needed" regarding Wilt's blocks in that game.

And the quote in the text you highlighted was taken from a book written by Robert Cherry, the same Cherry was Wilt's biographer. If you want anyone to trust you, don't use wikipedia and don't use "citation needed" texts, please.

Well, of course I could have just as easily told you that I watched that game, which I did, as well as the rest of that series, and the previous round in the WCF's.

[Psileas]

The problem with using ANY of Wilt's stats are that there were THREE Chamberlain's. In his first seven years he HAD to carry putrid rosters. In his next three seasons, he was asked to be more of a facilitator. And his last four seasons were basically post-injured Wilt, who lost his lateral mobility, but who was still a dominating rebounder and defender, and by far-and-away, the most efficient shooter in history.

Using that 36 minute production...in Wilt's first seven seasons he his numbers looked like this...

30 ppg, 19 rpg, and .520 shooting (and BTW, in leagues that shot between .410 to .441.) Not quite the ACTUAL 40 ppg, 25 rpg, .520 numbers, but still quite impressive.

Of course, using 36 minute production is far more UNFAIR to Chamberlain than any other player in history, since, he was basically the ONLY player capable of playing (and PRODUCING) for 48 mpg. So, while opposing teams were bringing in second tier players for 12 minutes, Chamberlain's teams had THE best player in the league, and on the floor, for the ENTIRE game. Still, one can only wonder how much more EFFICIENT Wilt would have been had he "only" played some 40-42 mpg over the course of his career. Not only for each game, but each SEASON. Surely his ppg/per minute, rpg/per minute, and his FG% efficiency, would have risen with more "quality" minutes.

As for Wilt not fouling out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain



Of course, Wilt was hardly ever in foul trouble...having only averaged 2.0 fpg in his career. Clearly, he seldom had to worry about fouling out. Of course, ANY player should play intelligently when in foul trouble...so to praise a player for fouling out, especially at a critical time of the game, never seemed to make much sense to me.

A few more points on this (I have the other guy in my IL, but since you quoted him, I'll bite for now):

1) You can't project "per-36" minutes to a guy who was getting almost no rest by just using a "36/MP x actual stats" logic. Even Wilt usually didn't play at the same level through the whole game, since even he needed some rest (whether he admitted it or not). Getting 12 minutes of rest per game would be too much rest time for him, but I definitely see a 40 mpg Wilt getting better numbers than what his projected stats would show. Same goes for other "huge mpg" players, like early 60's Robertson, Russell, Lucas, '72 Kareem, '73 Archibald and so on.

2) Wilt did care about not fouling out, but him never having been fouled out is a lie. He did it twice before turning pro. He was also disqualified twice as a pro (once in 1963, ending various huge scoring streaks).

3) How about remembering that with less playing time, Wilt's fouls would also go down, making him more dominant defensively as well (apart from the whole fatigue issue)?

4) The "4 fouls" figure is completely made-up (but I won't be surprised if it starts getting used more from now on). Wilt, apart from the source of JLauber, actually had 5 fouls in a few more decisive games, and his teams either won some of them or lost in ways that don't strongly connect with Wilt's defensive lack. Here are some:

1965, Eastern Finals, Game 6 vs Celtics: 5 fouls, Sixers won. Finished game with 30/25/5.

1968, Eastern Semifinals, Game 6 vs Knicks: 5 fouls, played 48 minutes, Sixers won and advanced.

1968, Eastern Finals, Game 4 vs Celtics: 5 fouls, played 48 minutes, Sixers won.

1969, Reg.season, vs G.State: 5 fouls, but played for the whole 63 minutes of the game, tying his career-high.

1969 Western Finals, Game 1 vs Atlanta: 5 fouls, Lakers won by 2.

1970 Western Finals, Game 3 vs Atlanta: 5 fouls, played 51 of the game's 53 minutes and, that's right, sank the game-winning FT's. So, no, he didn't actually miss the last 2 minutes due to fouling trouble, the Lakers needed him for the line. ;)

1971 Western Finals, Game 5 vs Milwaukee: 5 fouls, played 46 minutes, blocked multiple shots, went out in standing ovation by the opponent crowd, when the game was practically over.

1972 Western Semis, Game 3 vs Chicago: Wilt had 5 fouls, played for whole 48 minutes, Lakers won.

5) Thank you, olala, for letting us know that it makes no difference to a superstar's defensive efforts the fact that he has 5 fouls, especially since he knows he's anyway asked to play for 95-100% of the whole game.

[millwad]

Well, of course I could have just as easily told you that I watched that game, which I did, as well as the rest of that series, and the previous round in the WCF's.

Just like you saw a ton of other Wilt games back then? Just like you changed your mind about that era 40 years after actually seeing the actual games?

And even if you now saw the games you just wrote about, I doubt you'd remember 39 year old basketball games that good, you clown.

[jlauber]

A few more points on this (I have the other guy in my IL, but since you quoted him, I'll bite for now):

1) You can't project "per-36" minutes to a guy who was getting almost no rest by just using a "36/MP x actual stats" logic. Even Wilt usually didn't play at the same level through the whole game, since even he needed some rest (whether he admitted it or not). Getting 12 minutes of rest per game would be too much rest time for him, but I definitely see a 40 mpg Wilt getting better numbers than what his projected stats would show. Same goes for other "huge mpg" players, like early 60's Robertson, Russell, Lucas, '72 Kareem, '73 Archibald and so on.

2) Wilt did care about not fouling out, but him never having been fouled out is a lie. He did it twice before turning pro. He was also disqualified twice as a pro (once in 1963, ending various huge scoring streaks).

3) How about remembering that with less playing time, Wilt's fouls would also go down, making him more dominant defensively as well (apart from the whole fatigue issue)?

4) The "4 fouls" figure is completely made-up (but I won't be surprised if it starts getting used more from now on). Wilt, apart from the source of JLauber, actually had 5 fouls in a few more decisive games, and his teams either won some of them or lost in ways that don't strongly connect with Wilt's defensive lack. Here are some:

1965, Eastern Finals, Game 6 vs Celtics: 5 fouls, Sixers won. Finished game with 30/25/5.

1968, Eastern Semifinals, Game 6 vs Knicks: 5 fouls, played 48 minutes, Sixers won and advanced.

1968, Eastern Finals, Game 4 vs Celtics: 5 fouls, played 48 minutes, Sixers won.

1969, Reg.season, vs G.State: 5 fouls, but played for the whole 63 minutes of the game.

1969 Western Finals, Game 1 vs Atlanta: 5 fouls, Lakers won by 2.

1970 Western Finals, Game 3 vs Atlanta: 5 fouls, played 51 of the game's 53 minutes and, that's right, sank the game-winning FT's. So, no, he didn't actually miss the last 2 minutes due to fouling trouble, the Lakers needed him for the line. ;)

1971 Western Finals, Game 5 vs Milwaukee: 5 fouls, played 46 minutes, blocked multiple shots, went out in standing ovation by the opponent crowd, when the game was practically over.

1972 Western Semis, Game 3 vs Chicago: Wilt had 5 fouls, played for whole 48 minutes, Lakers won.

5) Thank you, olala, for letting us know that it makes no difference to a superstar's defensive efforts the fact that he has 5 fouls, especially since he knows he's anyway asked to play for 95-100% of the whole game.

I'll add another one...

Game seven of the '69 Finals. Late in the third quarter, and with his Lakers down big, Chamberlain picked up his fifth foul. Unlike Rosen's completely absurd take on that game (I won't go into that now however), Wilt continued to play. AND, the Lakers slowly fought their way back into that game. Early in the 4th period, Russell picked up HIS fifth foul. Almost immediately, the Lakers went into Wilt, who went right around a "matador-like" Russell, for an easy hoop. The Lakers continued to rally, BUT, the brilliant Van Breda Kolf either watched without a thought, (or perhaps even encouraged it), but Chamberlain rarily touched the ball after that. Mid-way in that period, Wilt grabbed a rebound, and landed awkwardly, and came up lame. He stayed in for one more play, and grabbed yet another rebound, and his outlet led to West hitting two FT's, which had cut Boston's early 17 point lead to 7. Wilt HAD to come out. And within a couple of minutes, he asked to go back in. Of course, as they say, the rest was history. His replacement, the great Mel Counts, missed couple of shots down the stretch (en route to a 4-13 game...while Wilt shot 7-8)...and the Lakers lost by two.

[Psileas]

I'll add another one...

Game seven of the '69 Finals. Late in the third quarter, and with his Lakers down big, Chamberlain picked up his fifth foul. Unlike Rosen's completely absurd take on that game (I won't go into that now however), Wilt continued to play. AND, the Lakers slowly fought their way back into that game. Early in the 4th period, Russell picked up HIS fifth foul. Almost immediately, the Lakers went into Wilt, who went right around a "matador-like" Russell, for an easy hoop. The Lakers continued to rally, BUT, the brilliant Van Breda Kolf either watched without a thought, (or perhaps even encouraged it), but Chamberlain rarily touched the ball after that. Mid-way in that period, Wilt grabbed a rebound, and landed awkwardly, and came up lame. He stayed in for one more play, and grabbed yet another rebound, and his outlet led to West hitting two FT's, which had cut Boston's early 17 point lead to 7. Wilt HAD to come out. And within a couple of minutes, he asked to go back in. Of course, as they say, the rest was history. His replacement, the great Mel Counts, missed couple of shots down the stretch (en route to a 4-13 game...while Wilt shot 7-8)...and the Lakers lost by two.

I left this one out on purpose. You see, some are arguing that this is why he supposedly faked his injury late on. This game played a huge role in Wilt's "being absent/not playing defense when he got 5 fouls" later bad reputation. Oh, Russell also had 5 fouls at that point and wasn't exactly dominant defensively in those minutes, either.

[jlauber]

Just like you saw a ton of other Wilt games back then? Just like you changed your mind about that era 40 years after actually seeing the actual games?

And even if you now saw the games you just wrote about, I doubt you'd remember 39 year old basketball games that good, you clown.

I either listened to, or watched EVERY single game of that '72 Laker team that season (Chick Hearn and Lynn Shackleford on KABC 790...and the next year they would move to KFI 640). However, I lived in Northern California, and whenever they played the Warriors (and they were televised several times that season on KTVU), I listened to the legendary Bill King, (quiet possibly the greatest play-by-play basketball announcer of all-time.) I still recall a late season TELEVISED game between the Lakers and the Warriors, in which LA jumped out to a huge lead early, then the Warriors chipped away to cut it to 15 at the half. In the second half, the Lakers break just obliterated GS, and by the end of the 3rd period LA was up by 30 again. Then, theire bench continued the onslaught, and they wound up beating the Warriors, 162-99. My biggest memory of that game? In that first half, the Lakers went to Wilt on four straight possessions...but only after he powered his way into the lane against a helpless Thurmond...and he jammed home four straight dunks at point-blank range. I always wondered why they didn't do that much more often. And, I witnessed the same strategy some 30 years later when LA would do the same with Shaq.

As for me changing my opinions...not really. I, too, was like you. I blindly accepted that the modern players were NATURALLY better. Not that I ever actually was convinced of it. But, I remember reading the take on the '84 Husker football team in SI, in which they were compared to their '71 counterparts. They were much bigger, had faster players, and were more explosive. Then, I read Ara Parseighians comparison with the '88 Irish and his '66 team. He proclaimed that the '88 team would have beaten his team by 40 points.

HOWEVER, the more I have RESEARCHED the greats of yesteryear, the more I have come away with an even greater respect. True, the AVERAGE athlete today is bigger, stronger, faster, better trained, better fed, has better medical care, better equipment, better venues, better scheduling, better traveling conditions, etc, etc. BUT, the truly GREAT players of the last 50 years (and even longer in baseball) would be GREAT in TODAY's game.

Kareem is the greatest example in basketball. Of course there were others. Barry was unbelieveable in '67, and again in '75. Magic was just as great in '91 as he was in '80. Dr. J dominated both the decade of the 70's and then for half of the 80's. I could go on, too. All of them were GREAT for MANY seasons, and their production hardly wavered. Nor did it explode, either. Why? How come, if each year the talent levels supposedly increase, that none of the greats dropped much, if at all? Kareem, in his absolute GREATESTY statistical season, 71-72, STRUGGLED mightily against Nate and Wilt, both past their peaks, in the playoffs. He shot .405 against Nate, and .457 against Wilt (and once again, only .414 over the course of the last four games), and Chamberlain was even blocking a TON of his shots...all at age 35, in the twilight of his career, and on a surgically repaired knee.

And, I have mentioned it many times, now, but it was NOT just basketball, either. While today's football players are MUCH bigger (my god, QBs are 260 lbs), and generally faster, the FASTEST players played years ago. Darrell Green was dominating from the early 80's into the 00's (and was winning the NFL's "fastest man competition" late in his career.) Bo was running 4.12's 25 years ago. Hershel, Gault, Branch, and Deion, ALL faster than anyone today. AND, the fastest LEGITIMATE NFL player ever? Bob Hayes, who was a HOF receiver some 50 years ago.

Baseball? Reggie Jackson, Harmon Killebrew, Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Frank Howard were hitting the ball as far back in the 60's and 70's, as anyone today. In fact, Mantle was CLEARLY the most prodigious "power" hitter of all-time...at 5-11 and 190 lbs. The average pitcher throws harder today (although it amazes me how few innings that they can do it), BUT, Nolan Ryan was hitting 101 on a SLOW gun in the 70's. There are those that believe he would have hit 106-107 on a FAST gun (used today.) AND, how about this? Ryan, in his LAST pitch, at age 46, and on an INJURED arm, was clocked at 98 MPH! Bob Feller was supposedly close to a 100 back in the 40's. Koufax SLOWED down his fastball to control it, and was still close to a 100. And, just google the name Steve Dalkowski. There were those that believed he was capable of 110...and back in the 50's.

Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941, pre-integration, and .388 at age 38, in 1957, post-integration. He faced many of the pitchers that a declining Ruth faced (and still hit .341 in 1932)...and he faced many of the pitchers that would go on to dominate the 60's. How come his numbers were consistent thru FOUR decades?

So, yes, I do believe that the GREATS of the 60's and 70's would be GREAT today. Russell, Oscar, West, Maravich, Dr. J, Baylor, Barry, McAdoo, Hondo, Lucas, Lanier, Cowens, Hayes, Unseld, Greer, Sam Jones, Walton, Kareem, and Wilt, among them. Now, we will never know what kind of numbers that they would have put up, BUT, I am convinced, that they would have been among the best that play the game TODAY.

[jlauber]

I left this one out on purpose. You see, some are arguing that this is why he supposedly faked his injury late on. This game played a huge role in Wilt's "being absent/not playing defense when he got 5 fouls" later bad reputation. Oh, Russell also had 5 fouls at that point and wasn't exactly dominant defensively in those minutes, either.

Simmons for one, I believe. However, ask yourself this...why would Chamberlain, who picked up his 5th foul late in the third period, and with his team down 17 (and would STILL be down 17 early in the 4th)...wait until the 6 minute mark, and with LA streaking back into the game (cutting the margin down to 7)? And, as anyone that actually watched that game would attest...Boston was on fumes by that point in the game. It STILL took Chamberlain's absence, and a MIRACLE shot by Nelson to win the game by TWO points.

And BTW, Russell was nowhere to be found in that 4th quarter. Had the Lakers even had a poor coach, instead of a vindicative and incompetent one, they would have MILKED Chamberlain in that 4th quarter, and when Russell picked up HIS 5th foul. Instead, he hardly touched the ball.