OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NBA?

[Diddy1122]

Re:OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NB

??? ?????? wrote:

What do the photos prove? That Wilt Chamberlain wasn't 275 pounds as listed. He was more around 225ish early in his career, and probably around 240 later on. A 275 pound big man that's in shape, is a lot more physically imposing than a 225-240 pound one.

And fun fact....Tyson Chandler has a higher career scoring efficiency than Wilt Chamberlain.

If Tyson Chandler was in Wilt's era, we'd be talking about him as one of the 50 greatest players. I'm not sure about how many hard fouls they had back when Wilt play...probably not all that much, but against Wilt's competition, Tyson would probably make a move so quickly that the other players wouldn't even be off the ground by he time Tyson slammed the ball through the hoop. (They rarely seemed to be off the ground on Wilt's little horizontal flicking hookshot).

Tyson Chandler played in the era of 7 footers with good athleticism, who contest shots and play physical in the paint. Wilt Chamberlain played in the era of short centers, who often didn't weigh that much, and who had reaction times so slow, that most of them couldn't even react fast enough to get off the ground to contest Wilt's shots.

You're so wrong about Wilt's weight it's not even worth the effort to launch into the rest of a response.

Kareem, who WAS 7-2 225lbs, vs. Wilt, who WAS 7-1 275lbs, but probably closer to 300 in the pic.

 

[Manic Devourer]

Re:OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NB

??? ?????? wrote:

What do the photos prove? That Wilt Chamberlain wasn't 275 pounds as listed. He was more around 225ish early in his career, and probably around 240 later on. A 275 pound big man that's in shape, is a lot more physically imposing than a 225-240 pound one.

And fun fact....Tyson Chandler has a higher career scoring efficiency than Wilt Chamberlain.

If Tyson Chandler was in Wilt's era, we'd be talking about him as one of the 50 greatest players. I'm not sure about how many hard fouls they had back when Wilt play...probably not all that much, but against Wilt's competition, Tyson would probably make a move so quickly that the other players wouldn't even be off the ground by he time Tyson slammed the ball through the hoop. (They rarely seemed to be off the ground on Wilt's little horizontal flicking hookshot).

Tyson Chandler played in the era of 7 footers with good athleticism, who contest shots and play physical in the paint. Wilt Chamberlain played in the era of short centers, who often didn't weigh that much, and who had reaction times so slow, that most of them couldn't even react fast enough to get off the ground to contest Wilt's shots.

He wasn't what he was listed? Yeah, same goes for over 90% of the players in the league. So what?

You can talk about how less athletic WIlt was with photos, but you don't run up and down the court for every single minute of a game, scoring and rebounding as much as he did without being fit. There is a certain amount of strength, stamina and ability you need to not only to be able to do it one game, but to do it every single game regardless of the competition. He could have been 200 pounds for all I care, I bet you won't find many centers in this league that could play against college level talent and play as many games and minutes as Wilt and produce the numbers he did because they just physically wouldn't be able to do it, and most importantly they probably wouldn't have been motivated or assed to do it, and add to that the back to back games on commercial flights - do you think this pampered generation of players would bother? I think not.

And the way you talk about Wilt, and with the conviction that you speak about his ability, I'm hoping that you're in your 80's because to make such arguments about him as you do from watching 'clips' I would call you crazy. But hey, maybe I gave you a little more respect than you actually deserved, or heck maybe you really are in your 80's and you've watched Wilt play in his day then please forgive me. But at least we have photos to judge a person strength, and weight and most importantly their offensive moves right?

Play physical? Give me a break. Tyson entered into a league when there wasn't many good centers left besides Shaq, and in a generation where they were changing every rule to create space OUT of the lane, and to avoid contact at all means possible. You think with the hands that Tyson has, even at his speed and length he could hold on to the freaking ball long enough to dunk it? Yeah, maybe 2 out of 10 times a game.

 

[Manic Devourer]

Re:OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NB

I love the fact this is a barber shop type of argument we could have all day and night long, but I just want to say one more thing, basketball has never been about purely physical talent, it never has and never will. There has been 100's of players that have come into the league with extreme athletic gifts yet haven't proven anything or amounted to as much because they never full-filled their potential. Just as many of the players back in the day couldn't have played in our generation, there are plenty of players that we consider good players in our generation that wouldn't have competed back in the day either. You can't honestly just say, well because everyone is taller, faster and jumps higher equates to being a good basketball player. To say otherwise, you honestly just don't know basketball.

Nuff said. Goodnight and good luck.

 

[Diddy1122]

Re:OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NB

Manic Devourer wrote:

I love the fact this is a barber shop type of argument we could have all day and night long, but I just want to say one more thing, basketball has never been about purely physical talent, it never has and never will. There has been 100's of players that have come into the league with extreme athletic gifts yet haven't proven anything or amounted to as much because they never full-filled their potential. Just as many of the players back in the day couldn't have played in our generation, there are plenty of players that we consider good players in our generation that wouldn't have competed back in the day either. You can't honestly just say, well because everyone is taller, faster and jumps higher equates to being a good basketball player. To say otherwise, you honestly just don't know basketball.

Nuff said. Goodnight and good luck.

Well said. + 1.

 

[charity stripe]

Re:OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NB

I agree with everything Manic has said in this thread.

 

[Shakes]

Re:OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NB

Obviously being athletic doesn't make you a great player by itself.

But I really think people underestimate how far basketball has come since Wilt's time. Take a couple of sports that have been around longer than basketball in athletics.

At the 1960 Olympics (ie early days of Wilt's career) the gold medal in the 100m was won in a time of 10.2 seconds. 10.2 seconds is the time the slowest semi-finalist ran in 2008.

At the 1960 Olympics, the high jump was won with a height of 2.16 meters. 32 of the 40 finalists cleared heights higher than this in 2008.

At the 1960 Olympics, the shot put was won with a throw of 19.68 meters. This was below the qualifying standard for the 2008 Olympics.

So running, jumping and strength have come a huge way since Wilt's time. Although it's a lot harder to measure, it's highly likely basketball skill has progressed even further, given the relative youth of the sport.

In short, given that the best in the world from Wilt's time would look like B graders in athletics, I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that if Wilt was a rookie today (without the benefit of modern training and coaching) he'd be an end of bench guy. With modern training and coaching? Who knows, it's about as unanswerable as how fast Jesse Owens would be if he grew up today. You'd assume that some of the gap could be made up, but all of it? Impossible to tell.

 

[??? ??????]

Re:OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NB

We have video of Wilt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QmhTWmAaBc

Look at this. Watch how many times a player actually contests his shots. On the majority of Wilt's scores, the players don't even leave the ground.

As far as I can tell, Bill Russell, Nate Thurmond, and Willis Reed are the only person to actually contest Wilt's shots. Nate Thurmond only played in 3 of Wilt's 30+ PPG seasons. Willis Reed in 2, neither of the two played in Wilt's 50 PPG season or 44 PPG.

Go do a little drill. Go find a basket. Go on the low block, or second block. Just do little baby hooks/jump hooks. See how many shots you make. It's going to be around 90% if you have a good amount of basketball experience. Now go find someone 5 inches shorter than you. Have them stand with their arms down. Do the same thing. You're probably going to be around 90% again. Now do the same thing, and have the person put their arms up, but don't jump. You're probably going to make 75-80% of them.

That's what a lot of Wilt's shot attempts seem to be. Yes, it's only a highlight reel, but you would think that they would rather have Wilt making difficult, contested shots, rather than uncontested shots where the players stay on the ground with their arms down half the time.

In addition, if Wilt is this great scorer, can someone explain to me why he has a career 54.7 TS%. When he averaged 37.6 PPG in his rookie season, he had a 49.3 TS%. That's an inexcusable scoring efficiency. When he averaged 38.4 PPG, he had a 51.9 TS%. That's not good. When he averaged 50.4 PPG, he shot 53.6 TS%, still pretty mediocre. When he averaged 44.8 PPG, he shot 55.0 TS%. That's a solid scoring efficiency.

Wilt at the beginning of his career was nothing more than a selfish blackhole, who only cared about his personal stats. Later in his career, when he took a reasonable amount of shots, he had a good scoring efficiency. When he was putting up his big scoring seasons, his efficiency was crap for the most part.

In Wilt's 50 PPG season, in the playoffs, he averaged only 35 PPG. Couldn't quite keep it up when he was forced to play somewhat quality players every night. 50.8 TS%....not very good at all.

That's actually a common theme with Wilt. In the playoffs as a whole for his career, he shot 52.4 TS%. That is bad. That is not an efficient scorer.

 

[houheffna]

Re:OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NB

I think you are going to just have to admit you went a bit too far. A bench player? Seriously. And then you say that the stats about his weight were off 50 lbs. and then compares one of the best players ever to.....Tyson Chandler. There are absolutely no stats that you could come up with to justify thinking that Wilt was 225 lbs. Wilt was a monster, and there is a good chance that with the way guys work out in present times, he might have been closer to 290 with the same level of athleticism. Wilt developed more and more to his game as he got older and he was a superior rebounder. His numbers with the Lakers were pretty good.

Again, Wilt and Jim Brown are two players from that era who could play with a lot of success in today's game, because as far as size went, they were ahead of their time. As far as his offensive game, over time, he developed a better offensive game than Shaq and nothing about his athleticism was average, one of the best athletes in NBA history. So again, I think you were a bit overzealous in my opinion. He would not have been as dominant, but if Yao Ming and Dwight Howard can show dominance, so could Wilt.

And people should stop being such homers. People are allowed to think someone else besides Jordon was G.O.A.T. An argument for Kareem could definitely be made. Norm Van Lier said that the greatest ever was Oscar Robertson, so everybody has their opinions...

 

[Shakes]

Re:OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NB

houheffna wrote:

People are allowed to think someone else besides Jordon was G.O.A.T.

Well by the same argument (that sports improve over time) that makes me think Wilt wouldn't be so good today, I think that given they're putting up comparable stats, LeBron is almost certainly playing at a higher level than Jordan ever did.

I really think it's inevitable that the best player ever is almost always a current player: after all, how many world records in athletics, swimming or cycling stand after an athlete's retirement? Not many at all, and those that do are usually only for a very short time.

 

[Shakes]

Re:OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NB

??? ?????? wrote:

That's actually a common theme with Wilt. In the playoffs as a whole for his career, he shot 52.4 TS%. That is bad. That is not an efficient scorer.

That is efficient compared to his peers.

 

[dougthonus]

Re:OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NB

Shakes wrote:

houheffna wrote:

People are allowed to think someone else besides Jordon was G.O.A.T.

Well by the same argument (that sports improve over time) that makes me think Wilt wouldn't be so good today, I think that given they're putting up comparable stats, LeBron is almost certainly playing at a higher level than Jordan ever did.

I really think it's inevitable that the best player ever is almost always a current player: after all, how many world records in athletics, swimming or cycling stand after an athlete's retirement? Not many at all, and those that do are usually only for a very short time.

I think you already described why that isn't true. In Wilt's era, there was so much low lying fruit for improvement because the game was so young and undeveloped relative to today. Jordan still grew up in an era with elite training methods and had one of the highest degrees of athleticism ever in the NBA.

Jordan ran a 4.3 40 yard dash which would still might be the fastest in the NBA. He had a 48 inch max vertical which is greater than anyone ever tested in the DX database.

Jordan still may have the best physicals of almost any player to ever play their position, so I don't think the same argument applies.

As for Wilt and his TS%, as has been stated, look at the TS% of other players in that era. The TS of the league was probably closer to 44-45% rather than 51-52% it is now, so Wilt's numbers in his era were extremely good.

Still, I agree that if you took Wilt's game from his era and put him in the NBA now, he'd not top out at better than role player. If you gave him today's training methods growing up, lifting methods etc, he'd have been a far greater physical specimen.

I don't think he'd have been as dominant as Shaq was if he grew up in this era, but I think he would have been probably been one of the best centers in the league with modern training.

 

[RC_Skinny22]

Re:OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NB

Diddy1122 wrote:

OT: Who is that Bulls player with the 33? Or is it a Bucks / Bullets player?

 

[JimmyBulls]

Re:OT: What would Wilt be able to do in today's NB

He would still be the best center to ever play the game. The guy was big, strong, a amazing athlete, and toyed with the competition for his entire career. There is nothing in his game that wouldn't translate to today's (or any era) of the game. Some of the stats, now that is something you can argue about, but I think there should be no question that Wilt and Kareem would've been great in any era.

 

[Fred]

Bob Cousy from his book: "The key to our success in '64 is that Tommy Heinsohn quit smoking 3 weeks before the playoffs."

So, that was the key to the Celtics beating Wilt again. I wonder what Shaq would have done with freaking Tommy Heinsohn. Tommy Heinsohn would have ended up in a freaking body bag after Game 1. The only thing Wilt could do better than Shaq was miss free throws.

Shaq:
Career FG%: 58%
FT: 52%

Wilt:
Career FG%: 54%
FT: 51%

OVERVIEW:
The Boston Celtics won their sixth straight NBA championship, taking out the San Francisco Warriors in five games. The series featured the NBA's top rebounder, Bill Russell, against the top scorer and second-leading rebounder, Wilt Chamberlain.

While Chamberlain averaged 29.2 PPG and 27.6 RPG, it was Russell who walked away with another ring. Rookie Nate Thurmond made his first Finals appearance as a member of the Warriors. The first three games of the series were decided by double figures before things got more competitive.
Road to the Finals
Team Warriors Celtics
Regular Season 48-32, 1st in Western Division 59-21, 1st in Eastern Division
Division Semifinals Bye Bye
Division Finals Def. St. Louis Hawks, 4-3 Def. Cincinnati Royals, 4-1

Game 1 - Celtics 108, Warriors 96
John Havlicek led a Celtics onslaught in the pivotal second quarter. Havlicek outscored the Warriors 18-15 in the period. Boston had a 32-15 margin during that quarter thanks to Havlicek's record-tying eight field goals.

Havlicek and Sam Jones led the Celtics with 28 points.

Wilt Chamberlain led the Warriors with 22 points, though he missed eight of his 12 free throw attempts. Tom Meschery had 16 points and Al Attles added 15.
Game 2 - Celtics 124, Warriors 101
The Celtics didn't land the knockout punch, though they moved ahead 2-0.

It was Wilt Chamberlain who threw the blow of note, punching Celtics veteran Clyde Lovellette in the jaw, leaving the center bloodied. The ugly scene left Boston police on the floor to restore order. Celtics coach Red Auerbach had to be dragged off the floor.

As for the game, it was blowout city as Sam Jones scored 31 points while Tommy Heinsohn added 20. The Celtics led by 9 after one quarter, 19 at half and 30 after three quarters. That explained why Chamberlain was frustrated.

Chamberlain finished with 32 points.
Game 3 - Warriors 115, Celtics 91
The Warriors returned home and came out on fire, leading 40-21 after the first quarter en route to a convincing victory.

Wilt Chamberlain led the team with 35 points. Tom Meschery had 17 first-quarter points as the Warriors took command. San Francisco went on a 16-0 run in under three minutes.

The Warriors defense also tightened up. Sam Jones was held to 6 points while Tommy Heinsohn was limited to 8.
Game 4 - Celtics 98, Warriors 95
John Havlicek's two late free throws locked up a Celtics win, giving Boston a commanding 3-1 series edge.

Boston led by 11 with under five minutes left before Guy Rodgers keyed a late Warriors rally. Up 96-95, Havlicek iced the game with the winning free throws.

Tommy Heinsohn had 17 of his 25 points in the third quarter.

Wilt Chamberlain had 27 points and 38 rebounds in defeat.
Game 5 - Celtics 105, Warriors 99
Bill Russell preserved a victory with a dunk with 12 seconds remaining as the Celtics locked up their sixth consecutive championship.

Tommy Heinsohn led a balanced attack with 19 points. Six Celtics finished in double figures. Frank Ramsey completed his nine-year career with 11 key second-quarter points; he finished with 18 points.

Wilt Chamberlain scored 30 points, but his team fell short once again.

 

[engies]

While I don't think he would be nearly as successful, & my experience of watching his game tape is extremely limited, but I disagree that he would be a bench player

I think he would be a solid player, possibly a 20-12 guy, if not a 16-10 guy. Not to shabby

But I do agree the old school players, though they may have played much harder, wouldnt be nearly as successfull in todays league. Evolution of the game, wider audience thus wider array of talent & the evolution of athletics & medical science are huge disadvantages they would face

 

[clonetrooper264]

Wilt was a man ahead of his time. For the era, he was the most dominant offensive force. Sure the players around him sucked, but what are people going to say about Michael Jordan many years from now when probably athletes are going to have the minimum of Tyrus's athletic ability? The players around Jordan sucked? The guards were too slow? They couldn't jump high enough? Would MJ be a role player 50 years from now? I think not. Now obviously Wilt would never come close to scoring 100 points in this league. Everyone in this time period is better than the players of that time period. I think Kush said it best, "the great players were great, you could put them into the NBA today and they could play." Wilt went up against Kareem later in his career and still did pretty well. I think everyone would agree that Kareem was no slouch. Plus the fact the Wilt played 48.5 minutes that one year just shows how much of an athletic freak he was. Who today has that kind of stamina? And I don't think that Wilt has the basketball IQ of Tyrus either. Wilt is only a bench player? Ridiculous.

 

[RPK]

I think Wilt could play and be dominant in today's game. Maybe not as dominant as he was, but he be a perennial all star for sure. Just ask Kareem, who could play in any era.

 

[Fred]

Just an fyi, I've had more than a few people email me that Jordan played in a "weaker" era. Jordan retired in 2003. FYI, I think that would be defined as the current era. Kobe was playing in 2003.

As a 40 year old, in 82 games, he shot .445 from the field, and averaged 20 PPG. How can you possibly argue that a younger version of that man couldn't dominate today? Jordan would dominate any era, especially the weaker era of Wilt.

 

[Fred]

I also agree that Kareem would be fantastic today. I think he was a lot better than Wilt. Wilt and Bill Russell, the 2 premier big men of that day, would have a difficult time in today's game, especially Bill. They simply weren't tremendously skilled offensively, and depended far more on their size advantage to score. I guess you could make the same argument about Shaq, but I still feel he was more skilled, and obviously a lot stronger and bigger.

I guess my point is, when all is said and done, Wilt could have been an All-Star today with today's training. But please don't tell me that he is the greatest of All-Time (Kush referred to someone saying that on his last show). He's not even close.

It's:

1. Michael
2. Jordan
3. Michael Jordan
4. Michael Jeffrey Jordan
5. MJ
6. North Carolina version of MJ
7. 40 Year old Jordan
8. Magic Johnson
9. Hakeem O.
10. Kareem
11. LeBron
12. Shaq
13. Kobe
14. O. Robertson

895. Ben Gordon
2,978. Kirk Hinrich
1,586,908. Me

I'm not too sure about those last 3.

 

[Shakes]

Fred wrote:

As a 40 year old, in 82 games, he shot .445 from the field, and averaged 20 PPG. How can you possibly argue that a younger version of that man couldn't dominate today? Jordan would dominate any era, especially the weaker era of Wilt.

Oh come on, Jordan had TS% of .461 and .491 in his two wizards years. For comparison, to pick a couple of guys who are frequently called chuckers, Jamal Crawford has been above .500 TS% the last 5 seasons, and Jason Richardson the last 7.

What Jordan did was impressive given his age, but lets not pretend he was still great because he averaged 20 PPG. His efficiency was way down on where he was at his prime. If he wasn't in control of the team and wasn't the most famous basketball player on the planet but was just a no-name guy I doubt the coach would have allowed him to have so many shots.

I think Jordan on the Wizards doesn't prove anything other than that a guy past his prime plays like a guy past his prime.