Will anyone ever break 100 points in an NBA game?

[LAZERUSS]

Another side-note...

Darrall Imhoff, who as a 6-foot-10 rookie center for the New York Knicks had the misfortune of guarding Chamberlain during his 100-point game in 1962, said, "I spent 12 years in his armpits, and I always carried that 100-point game on my shoulders. "After I got my third foul, I said to one of the officials, Willy Smith, 'Why don't you just give him 100 points and we'll all go home?' Well, we did." Two nights later, at Madison Square Garden, Chamberlain tried to go for the century mark again. But Imhoff 'held' him to 54 points. [COLOR="DarkRed"]The fans gave Imhoff a standing ovation[/COLOR]. "He was an amazing, strong man," Imhoff said. "I always said the greatest record he ever held wasn't 100 points, but his 55 rebounds against Bill Russell. Those two players changed the whole game of basketball. The game just took an entire step up to the next level." Stewart, Larry (1999-10-13). "Giant Towered Over the Rest". The Los Angeles Times.

BTW, it was actually 58.

[Marchesk]

Lebron probably if he wanted

Would hurt his efficiency doe.

[Marchesk]

Silver should rigg someone to 100 points, would make the league more popular

Should rig it for Melo. Not like the Knicks are doing anything. They need to be relevant somehow.

[Marchesk]

yea all records get broken eventually

Maybe? Dimaggio's record still stands. That's pretty damn old. The Celtics winning 8 titles in a row will be extremely hard to break. Some think the Bulls could have done so had MJ not retired (both times), but odds are fatigue would have caught up with them and they would have been taken down at some point. Or run into peak Olajuwon.

I don't think Wilt's rebound or scoring record are going to fall unless the pace of the game picks back up combined with another Kobe-like performance. The rebounding one might even be harder to break. When is the last time anyone got close to 50?

[jzek]

No. Just goes to show how inferior the old era is...

[LAZERUSS]

No. Just goes to show how inferior the old era is...

No, it just goes to show you how inferior THIS era is. Entire TEAMS don't average 100 ppg. Bunch of weak-ass clowns trying to play the game...

[TheMarkMadsen]

No, it just goes to show you how inferior THIS era is. Entire TEAMS don't average 100 ppg. Bunch of weak-ass clowns trying to play the game...

1962 league average for teams was 119 ppg..

2014 league average for teams was 101ppg..

PACE PACE PACE PACE...

Teams back then played absolutly no defense, the pace was insane, guys like Oscar Robertson were averaging trip doubles for 6 straight years.. defense was garbage..

[LAZERUSS]

1962 league average for teams was 119 ppg..

2014 league average for teams was 101ppg..

PACE PACE PACE PACE...

Teams back then played absolutly no defense, the pace was insane, guys like Oscar Robertson were averaging trip doubles for 6 straight years.. defense was garbage..

Well I was being facetious, but to claim that they played no defense, when players like Kareem were shooting .518 from the field in the 60's, and most others were shooting 40-45% is being harsh.

Nate Thurmond held a PEAK Kareem to a .447 FG% in their four full seasons in the league together. Not only that, but in their 34 H2H games, KAJ's HIGH game was 34 points (and he only hit 30+ five times altogether.)

There were 30-52 teams in the 80's that were shooting .504 from the field. And the current NBA has cracked the .500 barrier for eFG%'s.

Yes, "pace" matters. But then again, with the floor so widely spaced today, true centers should be scoring considerably more. And we have clods like Cousins scoring 24 ppg to prove it.

The posters that rip "Wilt's pace", need to realize, that the highest scoring period in the 60's, was 119 ppg. And that was the HIGHEST. In Chamberlain's 68-69 season, the NBA averaged 112 ppg, and Wilt STILL hung TWO 60+ point games.

Of course, the "paceologists" merely use "pace" without adjusting for the considerably worse FG%'s of the 60's. If we are going to punish the players of the 60's for playing at a higher "pace", then we also have to adjust for their lower eFG%'s.

So, when someone says that the '62 NBA averaged 108 FGAs, and 37 FTAs per game...they have to adjust for the league only shooting .426, as well. For example, just reducing the '62 season down to MJ's '87 season, and Chamberlain's FGAs would have declined from 39.5 down to 32.6 FGAs per game, and his FTAs would have declined from 17.0 down to 14.0. Without adjusting for Chamberlain shooting .506 in a league that shot an eFG% of .426, Wilt's numbers would STILL have translated to 32.6 + 8.5, or 41.1 ppg. BUT, then you HAVE to adjust his FG% up, or else his league would only be averaging about 95 ppg in '87, and not 110 ppg. So, Chamberlain's .506 suddenly becomes .580 in '87, and then you have to adjust his FGM to reflect that. His 16.3 FGM then becomes 19 FGM per game, and raises his scoring level to 46.5 ppg.

Of course, we could also do the simple math, as well. Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg in an NBA that averaged 118.8 ppg. Reduce his scoring down to the '87 level of 109.9 ppg...or 92.5% of his '62 seasonal scoring...and he would have averaged 46.6 ppg. Or pretty much dead-on using the much more complex formula.

But I don't expect the vast majority of posters here to comprehend any of that.

The real bottom line....the game today is not played much differently than it was 50 years ago. The players aren't any bigger, nor more skilled, and the rules, aside from the 3pt line, are essentially the same. And the court size, hoop size, and ball size are all identical, as well.

True, it is played at a slower pace, but only marginally.

[ImKobe]

Kobe could have back when the pace was considerably higher. Heck, he could have broken 100 in his prime if the team was any worse and Phil just decided to let Kobe break the record by letting him gun 50+ shots in a game...

Remember, he dropped 55 points in one half and 61 through 3 quarters, and those games happened within a month + he could have shot better in both of them (he only played 32 mins in the Dallas game as well and only took 31 shots).

[SOD 21]

Yes, of course, pace matters because when the pace is 18% faster in the early 1960s than in today's NBA, it leads to that many more scoring opportunities.

Consider this, when will Chamberlain scored 100 points in 1962 he accounted for 59% of his team's points that night compared to Kobe Bryant scoring 66% of his team's points against Toronto in 2006. The difference is that Wilt's team scored nearly 50 more points in that game in 1962 compared to Kobe's in 2006.

Another factor in Wilt Chamberlain's favor is the mind-boggling amount of minutes that he regularly played in that era of the NBA. In the 1962 season when he scored 100 points, he averaged 48.5 minutes per game. He never came out of games, ever. While his stamina and durability is remarkable, it isn't something that players ever do consistently in today's league with the amount of their contracts and concern over hurting their longevity and health.

The pace of the game and the sheer minutes that he played makes it almost impossible for any modern player to duplicate his hundred point game; unless it is some type of freakish game that is exceptionally high scoring that goes into multiple overtimes, then maybe.