Fans are starting to realize 81 points is a record...

[LAClipsFan33]

And to echo this...

Chamberlain had a 73 point, 36 rebound game against the 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy, who would have been listed at 7-0 in today's NBA.

36 rebounds to me is just as impressive as 70 points. Getting over 30 rebounds is hard as hell

[jlauber]

36 rebounds to me is just as impressive as 70 points. Getting over 30 rebounds is hard as hell

Chamberlain had 17 40-30 games (or 30-40 games) just against Russell, including a 34-55 game, and a 44-43 game.

In fact, Chamberlain had more 40-30 games, just against Russell (17), than all of the rest of the NBA had in it's history...COMBINED (9.) BTW, Wilt had 73 of them.

[KOBE143]

Chamberlain had 17 40-30 games (or 30-40 games) just against Russell, including a 34-55 game, and a 44-43 game.

In fact, Chamberlain had more 40-30 games, just against Russell (17), than all of the rest of the NBA had in it's history...COMBINED (9.) BTW, Wilt had 73 of them.

81 points >>>>> all Wilt The Choker stats combined..

[raptorfan_dr07]

81 points >>>>> all Wilt The Choker stats combined..

Yet the majority of sane, knowledgeable basketball fans rank Wilt higher than Kobe all time. Only people that throw out the "weak era", "midget white guys" BS are Kobe trolls, the dumbest collection of morons on the the internet. Kinda sad, seeing as how Wilt was a Laker and brought the franchise it's first ring in Los Angeles.

Oh and by the way, 100>>>81

[PyrrhusX]

81 points >>>>> all Wilt The Choker stats combined..

Wilt > Kobe.

Kobe stans still mad

[KOBE143]

Yet the majority of sane, knowledgeable basketball fans rank Wilt higher than Kobe all time. Only people that throw out the "weak era", "midget white guys" BS are Kobe trolls, the dumbest collection of morons on the the internet. Kinda sad, seeing as how Wilt was a Laker and brought the franchise it's first ring in Los Angeles.

Oh and by the way, 100>>>81

Sorry, Kobe embarrassed your franchise..

[jlauber]

Yet the majority of sane, knowledgeable basketball fans rank Wilt higher than Kobe all time. Only people that throw out the "weak era", "midget white guys" BS are Kobe trolls, the dumbest collection of morons on the the internet. Kinda sad, seeing as how Wilt was a Laker and brought the franchise it's first ring in Los Angeles.

Oh and by the way, 100>>>81

Only on ISH will you find that huge a margin being argued...

[Droid101]

Only on ISH will you find that huge a margin being argued...

Sorry, I love history and all that, but Kobe's 81 was better than Wilt's 100 by any measurable figure.

It seems at first glance that Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point night in 1962 is far superior to Kobe Bryant's 81-point game Sunday. After all, Bryant still needed 19 more points -- roughly Pau Gasol's average -- just to catch the Dipper.

But if you stack the two games side by side, you'll come to the startling realization that Bryant's performance was actually far superior. Breaking the two games down by the numbers, it quickly becomes apparent what a dominant night Kobe had. Consider the facts:



Wilt scored 100 of his team's 169 points in the 1962 game.
Bryant was more efficient. Bryant needed 46 shot attempts and 20 free throws to get 81 points. Chamberlain needed 63 field-goal attempts and 32 free-throw tries to get his 100. Bryant's true shooting percentage for the night was 73.9 percent; Chamberlain's was only 63.9 percent.

Bryant's performance was more real. In Chamberlain's game, the Warriors intentionally fouled the Knicks in the final minute of play to get the ball back for another Chamberlain try at the century mark. Only on his third try did he get to 100. At the time, his team was comfortably ahead, as it was for the entire second half, and it won 169-147. Bryant, on the other hand, got almost all his points when they were desperately needed, as his team trailed by 18 early in the third quarter.

Bryant needed fewer minutes. If you want to really be amazed, consider the fact that Kobe sat out for six minutes in the second quarter. So Bryant scored his 81 points in only 42 minutes, while Wilt played the full 48 in his 100-point effort. Had he played for an additional six minutes and scored at the same rate (hardly an unreasonable assumption, given how much gas he appeared to have at the end), Kobe would have finished with 93 points. Yes, 93.

The game was different. Of all the differences between Bryant's game and Chamberlain's, this one is perhaps the biggest. Chamberlain's game ended up 169-147, Bryant's 122-104. Obviously, there was a huge difference in the speed of play, and that meant Chamberlain had far more opportunities to score than Bryant did.

Chamberlain's game featured 233 field-goal attempts versus 164 for Bryant's, and 93 free-throw attempts to 60 for Bryant's. We have no data on turnovers and offensive rebounds for Chamberlain's game, but based on the numbers I just mentioned, we can estimate there were 46 percent more possessions in the Chamberlain game than in the Kobe game.

If that's the case, we need to inflate Kobe's numbers by 46 percent to get an accurate idea of what it equates to in Chamberlain's era. The answer? An unbelievable 118 points. And if we add in six extra minutes for Bryant, we end up with the mind-boggling total of 135. By one player. In one game.

Another way to look at it is by deflating Chamberlain's numbers by a similar amount. If we change his currency into "2006 points," so to speak, the Stilt ends up with 68 points -- still an awesome performance, but clearly not on a level with Kobe's 81-point outburst. And once you adjust for the 48 minutes Chamberlain played vs. Kobe's 42, you end up with 60 points for Wilt -- or just a bit more than Kobe rang up in the second half.

So when our Marc Stein says this is the most amazing performance ever, believe it. Once you adjust for the differences in pace between the two eras and the fact that Bryant sat out for six minutes, even Chamberlain's monumental 100-point game pales by comparison. For basketball historians, Bryant's effort is now the scoring effort against which all others should be measured.

[LuppersGB]

In Wilt's 100 point game, a 6'6" center was guarding him.
That is like Kobe guarding Shaq in the post. It's a joke of an era. 6'6" - 6'8" centers

I guess we can discredit Yao Ming's whole career then. Or was having a 6inch advantage because we're in a weak era or 7" Centres

[Nick Young]

I guess we can discredit Yao Ming's whole career then. Or was having a 6inch advantage because we're in a weak era or 7" Centres

Different situation sport, and you know it.

Giant 7'5 centers traditionally have struggled with fitness and athleticism and never had an inherant advantage over 7'0 centers. George Muresan and Shawn Bradley were scrubs. Yao Ming is the only 7'4+ center I can think of who was any good.

A center at 6'6 is WNBA size today. 7 footer playing against 6'6 scrubs is ridiculous, and even with his height advantage, it took wilt 100 freethrows to get his 100 points.

[Psileas]

Sorry, I love history and all that, but Kobe's 81 was better than Wilt's 100 by any measurable figure.

It seems at first glance that Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point night in 1962 is far superior to Kobe Bryant's 81-point game Sunday. After all, Bryant still needed 19 more points -- roughly Pau Gasol's average -- just to catch the Dipper.

But if you stack the two games side by side, you'll come to the startling realization that Bryant's performance was actually far superior.Breaking the two games down by the numbers, it quickly becomes apparent what a dominant night Kobe had. Consider the facts:



Wilt scored 100 of his team's 169 points in the 1962 game.
Bryant was more efficient. Bryant needed 46 shot attempts and 20 free throws to get 81 points. Chamberlain needed 63 field-goal attempts and 32 free-throw tries to get his 100. Bryant's true shooting percentage for the night was 73.9 percent; Chamberlain's was only 63.9 percent.

Bryant's performance was more real. In Chamberlain's game, the Warriors intentionally fouled the Knicks in the final minute of play to get the ball back for another Chamberlain try at the century mark. Only on his third try did he get to 100. At the time, his team was comfortably ahead, as it was for the entire second half, and it won 169-147. Bryant, on the other hand, got almost all his points when they were desperately needed, as his team trailed by 18 early in the third quarter.

Bryant needed fewer minutes.If you want to really be amazed, consider the fact that Kobe sat out for six minutes in the second quarter. So Bryant scored his 81 points in only 42 minutes, while Wilt played the full 48 in his 100-point effort. Had he played for an additional six minutes and scored at the same rate (hardly an unreasonable assumption, given how much gas he appeared to have at the end), Kobe would have finished with 93 points. Yes, 93.

The game was different.Of all the differences between Bryant's game and Chamberlain's, this one is perhaps the biggest. Chamberlain's game ended up 169-147, Bryant's 122-104. Obviously, there was a huge difference in the speed of play, and that meant Chamberlain had far more opportunities to score than Bryant did.

Chamberlain's game featured 233 field-goal attempts versus 164 for Bryant's, and 93 free-throw attempts to 60 for Bryant's. We have no data on turnovers and offensive rebounds for Chamberlain's game, but based on the numbers I just mentioned, we can estimate there were 46 percent more possessions in the Chamberlain game than in the Kobe game.

If that's the case, we need to inflate Kobe's numbers by 46 percent to get an accurate idea of what it equates to in Chamberlain's era. The answer? An unbelievable 118 points.And if we add in six extra minutes for Bryant, we end up with the mind-boggling total of 135. By one player. In one game.

Another way to look at it is by deflating Chamberlain's numbers by a similar amount. If we change his currency into "2006 points," so to speak, the Stilt ends up with 68 points -- still an awesome performance, but clearly not on a level with Kobe's 81-point outburst. And once you adjust for the 48 minutes Chamberlain played vs. Kobe's 42, you end up with 60 points for Wilt -- or just a bit more than Kobe rang up in the second half.

So when our Marc Stein says this is the most amazing performance ever, believe it. Once you adjust for the differences in pace between the two eras and the fact that Bryant sat out for six minutes, even Chamberlain's monumental 100-point game pales by comparison. For basketball historians, Bryant's effort is now the scoring effort against which all others should be measured.

Any measurable figure? The article you posted has clearly no intention of giving an unbiased look to the comparison, so let's quickly counter what has been written:

-There was no 3-point shot in Wilt's era. So, if we want to pretend that we can inflate the numbers in Kobe's league/game to catch the numbers of Wilt's league/game, let's also stick to the rules of Wilt's league/game. Therefore, it's not the equivalent of an 81-point game the one that we need to adjust, it's the equivalent of a 74-point one. Which means that, after the adjustment, you'll have to remove about 10 points from Kobe's inflated figure.

-In 2006, it was a blessing to be a perimeter player anyway, thanks to the rules: 35.6 ppg for Kobe, 33 ppg for Iverson, 31 for LeBron, 29.5 for Arenas. There hasn't been a season when so many perimeter players dominated the scoring sector.

-The Knicks actually did care about not getting humiliated after a point. They triple, quardupled, even quintupled Wilt to prevent the ball from reaching his hands. The Raptors didn't give a rat's ass. Kobe had reached 40, 50, 60 points and they still single covered him instead of collapsing on him, they still let him get the ball and shoot whenever the hell he wanted to.

-The Knicks started fouling Wilt's teammates before Wilt's teammates responded the same way (which of course the article failed to mention), thus unnecessarily inflating Wilt's teammates' point total. Another sign they didn't want Wilt to humiliate them.

-Wilt's game involved more possessions, but Kobe took a significantly larger percentage of his team's shots (32% vs 27%, an 18.5% difference or, to put it in the article's terms, a 18.5% inflation of Kobe's scoring). Not to mention that an increase of a game's pace brings down overinflated possessions' percentage, so it's not reasonable to expect that Kobe at Wilt's pace and for 48 minutes would still take 32% of his team's shots (BTW, in Wilt's game, that would translate to Kobe taking 75 shots).

-Kobe's performance would have a better chance of being better if other "unimportant" things like defense or rebounding were not included. Defensively, it was definitely not the best game for either Wilt or Kobe. However, Wilt did grab 25 rebounds to Kobe's 6 (in a game with high FG %'s and less rebounding opportunities than the usual 1962 game), while also giving 2 assists to Kobe's 2. So, it's not 100 vs 81, it's 100/25/2 vs 81/6/2.

So, why didn't the article mention any of these things? At least, I admit that I wrote this as a rebutal. If the article's author is honest about himself, he'll admit his intentions were at least as biased and agenda-driven.

[mentallooser]

Sorry, I love history and all that, but Kobe's 81 was better than Wilt's 100 by any measurable figure.

Except for the measurable figure of basic numbers. You know how 100 > 81 ? If you think that Kobe's 81 point game is better then that is fine. But every measurable figure?

[Nick Young]

If Kobe chucked as many shots as Wilt did in his 100 game, Kobe could have easily reached 120+
Wilt needed
32 Freethrows
63 Field Goal attempts


Kobe only needed 46 field goal attempts and took 20 free throws to get 81.

Imagine if Kobe took 15 more shots and got 12 more freethrows-he would have shattered Wilt's record.

[riseagainst]

If Kobe chucked as many shots as Wilt did in his 100 game, Kobe could have easily reached 120+
Wilt needed
32 Freethrows
63 Field Goal attempts


Kobe only needed 46 free throw attempts and took 20 freethrows to get 91.

Imagine if Kobe took 15 more shots and got 12 more freethrows-he would have shattered Wilt's record.

so many typos in this post......

[magictricked]

[QUOTE]After scoring 28 points in the third quarter, Chamberlain had 69 points for the game, including 21 on 22 free-throw attempts