Originally posted by JohnLennonForeverI remember when Mikan passed away a couple of years ago, Shaq, who has a very good understanding of NBA history, paid for his funeral expenses. The Mikan family did not have a lot of money, and Shaq had a lot of respect for the NBA's first dominant big man.
My grandpa was close friends with George Mikan back in high school! But what about Malone or Magic Johnson? Not in there anywhere! What about Jerry West also? And even Larry Bird!
And yes, any list of the greatest players would have to include Malone (both of them, Karl and Moses), Johnson, Bird and West!
1 edit
Originally posted by JohnLennonForeverJohnson, Bird, and West were on the list I was responding to.
My grandpa was close friends with George Mikan back in high school! But what about Malone or Magic Johnson? Not in there anywhere! What about Jerry West also? And even Larry Bird!
Malone wasn't.
A couple of names that have showed up since that I think deserve mention are: Arazin, Barkely, Greer, Gervin, Lenny Wilkens.
3 edits
Originally posted by richfeetStats can be misleading. I think the real problem with Wilt's stats is that either the guy was twice as good as any one else who ever played the game or he was playing against weaker opponents.
NO Wilt Chamberlain was the most effective center ever check his stats Shaq is nowhere close to Wilt..
In 1961 or '62, Wilt AVERAGED 50 points and 25 rebounds per game.
At about the same time, the Big O was averaging a Triple Double for his CARREER!
These numbers are so outstanding that they call themself into question.
Despite those great numbers, Chamberlain lost the championship to russell 8 times and Robertson never won a championship until he got teamed with Jabbar late in his carreer.
Oscar could only dribble with his right hand. He always went to his right. I'm a huge Oscar Robertson fan, but it is hard to imagine him being as successful today. (Of course, if he played today, he'd probably be better too. and the debate goes round and round.)
Originally posted by TheBloopThat was a great story.
I remember when Mikan passed away a couple of years ago, Shaq, who has a very good understanding of NBA history, paid for his funeral expenses. The Mikan family did not have a lot of money, and Shaq had a lot of respect for the NBA's first dominant big man.
And yes, any list of the greatest players would have to include Malone (both of them, Karl and Moses), Johnson, Bird and West!
Originally posted by TheBloopMcAdoo and Nique were players. Deserve some sort of mention as well.
As a point of reference, here are the original "NBA 50", chosen in 1996:
Abdul-Jabbar, Archibald, Arizin, Barkley, Barry, Baylor, Bing, Bird, Chamberlain, Cousy, Cowens, Cunningham, DeBusschere, Drexler, Erving, Ewing, Frazier, Gervin, Greer, Havlicek, Hayes, Johnson, Jones (Sam), Jordan, Lucas, Malone (Karl), Malone (Moses), Maravich, McHale, Mikan, Mon ...[text shortened]... n read. Lots of great trivia (Bill Russell was 10-0 in game sevens, etc)...
2 edits
Originally posted by Red NightYes, stats can be misleading...
Stats can be misleading. I think the real problem with Wilt's stats is that either the guy was twice as good as any one else who ever played the game or he was playing against weaker opponents.
In 1961 or '62, Wilt AVERAGED 50 points and 25 rebounds per game.
At about the same time, the Big O was averaging a Triple Double for his CARREER!
These n rse, if he played today, he'd probably be better too. and the debate goes round and round.)
In fact, the game in which Wilt scored 100 turned into a free throw shooting contest after awhile... The Knicks were fouling other Warrior players to keep the ball away from Wilt, and the Warriors were fouling the Knicks in order to get the ball back.
Tell you a rather amazing story about Wilt's 100 point game:
You may know that the game was played in Hershey PA... A student named Marc Stern at nearby Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa, had tickets to see the Warriors play the Knicks that night... he gave the tickets away when a professor suddenly scheduled a test for the next day.
Today, Stern is a Lakers season ticket-holder, meaning he had tickets to see a certain Laker game against the Raptors. But Stern opted to attend a birthday party instead -- and thus failed to see Kobe's 81-point performance.
This poor guy gave away tickets to see the two highest individual-scoring games in history.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/basketball/nba/01/27/kobe.wilt.tickets/index.html
Oscar Robertson "only" averaged a triple double during one season of his career... but he also averaged a triple double over a five year period...
Starting off as a rookie:
1961 - 30.5 ppg 10.1 rpg 9.7 apg
1962 - 30.8 ppg 12.5 rpg 11.4 apg (there's his triple double average)
1963 - 28.3 ppg 10.4 rpg 9.5 apg
1964 - 31.4 ppg 9.9 rpg 11.0 apg
1965 - 30.4 ppg 9.0 rpg 11.5 apg
It's actually possible that Wilt WAS twice as good as anyone who ever played the game. He was a much different player the last few years of his career, and there is not a lot of film available of his earlier feats... in fact, no video exists of his 100 point game.
Oscar could certainly dribble with either hand, but he went with his strong move the majority of the time, as most players do...Elgin Baylor is another guy who would basically only go to his right, it wasn't just Oscar.
But this is true of most players today as well. The few guys who can go strong the the basket with either hand are the superstars of today, and recent years. But you won't see Iverson go to his left very often either. And I remember seeing Reggie Miller take it strong to the hoop and throw down a two-handed dunk in the playoffs one year at the end of his career, against the Nets... I was stunned when he made that move, because I'm not sure I ever saw him dunk, even after watching him for 15 years...
The thing about players today is that most of them are very good at one thing, and one thing only... we've got a league full of point guards that can't shoot, and 'shooting guards' that can't put the ball on the floor. Most shooting guards were guys who played forward in college, and didn't have to put the ball on the floor, because all they did was spot up and shoot.
In the 70s, we had guards, forwards, and centers. Earl Monroe could bring the ball up for the Knicks if he had to, even though Walt Frazier usually ran the offense... and 'point-guard' Walt Frazier could certainly shoot from anywhere on the court... and make it...
But when the Bulls were dominating the 90s, guard Steve Kerr would have been shot if he ever tried to bring the ball up... that guy couldn't put the ball on the floor, and he was a guard on a championship team. I loved watching the Bulls during that time, but the specialization these days is driving me nuts.
Also, teams can win championships today with two all star players... you couldn't do that in the 80s... you basically needed four hall of fame quality players to win a title... there isn't a team in the NBA that even has four hall of fame quality players on their roster today.
As far as rebounding, Tim Duncan's career high 25 rebounds took place in a game with 101 missed shots (against Miami on 2/1/03). The final score of that game was a pathetic 67-65. Duncan's career high would be comparable to literally hundreds of games involving Chamberlain or Russell...
1970 finals: Game 1 106 missed shots, Chamberlain 24 rebounds
Game 2: 105 missed shots...Chamberlain 24 rebounds
Game 6: 90 missed shots... Chamberlain 27 rebounds
Game 7: 91 missed shote: Chamberlain, 24 rebounds'
1972 Finals Game 5: 108 missed shots, Chamberlain 29 rebounds.
(during some of Wilt's career, not all box scores recorded FGA, only FGM. These examples above were noted in Kalb's book).
Wilt simply went out and had a "Duncan career high" game every night.
If there were more misses, Wilt would get more rebounds...I don't know how many missed shots occurred in the game in which Wilt pulled down 55 rebounds against Russell and the Celtics, but you get the idea.
But being only able to go to one's right or one's left is certainly not unique to players back then... I'm a Laker fan from back in Wilt's day, but James Worthy couldn't go to his left at all. Kevin McHale figured this out, and that's one of the reasons McHale usually outplayed Worthy in their head to head confrontations. Worthy would try a fake, or a spin move, but McHale always knew where the shot was coming from.
1 edit
Originally posted by TheBloopYou're missing the forest for the trees. Although you are right about robertson. Thanks for setting me straight.
Yes, stats can be misleading...
In fact, the game in which Wilt scored 100 turned into a free throw shooting contest after awhile... The Knicks were fouling other Warrior players to keep the ball away from Wilt, and the Warriors were fouling the Knicks in order to get the ball back.
Tell you a rather amazing story about Wilt's 100 point game:
You m n move, but McHale always knew where the shot was coming from.
The point was that Chamberlain and Robertson's numbers were so good as to beg the question were they that good or were they just playing against weak competition.
No one would seriously suggest that Chamberlain would average 50 points and 25 rebounds per game against today's players.
Statistically the greatest team of all time looks something like this:
West
Robertson
Chamberlain
Baylor
Barry
But most experts would tell you that the greatest team of all time looks something like this:
Johnson
Jordan
Jabbar
Bird
Erving
Notice that none of the names are the same.
Also, I would bet that team # 1 would have a tough time beating:
Frazier
Thomas
Russell
B Jones
Havilcek
And we already know that chamberlain almost never beat Russell when it mattered.
Regarding the 80's; two teams won 8 of 10 championship from 80-89; the Lakers and the Celtics (The Sixers won in 83 and the Pistons won in 89) and neither team had 4 superstars. Jabbar, Johnson and maybe worthy. Bird, and maybe McHale and Parrish. Dennis Johnson was good. The lakers had two major role players: Rambis and Cooper.
Originally posted by Red NightOriginally posted by Red Night
The point was that Chamberlain and Robertson's numbers were so good as to beg the question were they that good or were they just playing against weak competition...
The point was that Chamberlain and Robertson's numbers were so good as to beg the question were they that good or were they just playing against weak competition...
And yes, I see your point here, and it's a good one. Athletes overall do get better as time goes on...this is actually much easier to see in one-dimensional sports such as track and field, and gymnastics. It's a little more complicated in mulit-dimensional sports, but I think that the average player does get better as time goes on. However, pure, 100% athleticism doesn't always win in basketball. An example of what I mean is what's been happening in the Olympics, and other international competitions. The U.S. players are constantly getting their heads handed to them, and the teams that are doing this are doing it by playing basketball the way WE (the U.S.) used to play it in the 50s and 60s... they are taking the way WE taught them to play the game, and using that style against us now.
And sure, our Olympic teams are composed of players that have never played together before...but that's ALWAYS been the case. Believe it or not, there were quite a few people who thought our '92 dream team wouldn't come home with the gold medal...mostly college basketball fans/analysts (who didn't want to see NBA players in the Olympics) , including some high profile ones. I'm even thinking that Billy Packer may have been one of them, but I'm not positive about that, so don't quote me 🙂 And yes, other countries' teams are getting better, but we should be getting better too, and we're not.
2 edits
Originally posted by Red NightMaybe not would, but he certainly could...
...No one would seriously suggest that Chamberlain would average 50 points and 25 rebounds per game against today's players.
Chamberlain was an unbelievable athlete. It's quite possible that he could averge those numbers against today's centers, because of his stamina. Unlike guys like Shaq, Chamberlain was always in shape, which is how he averaged over 45 min/game during his career, even though he took an unbelievable pounding every night.
Now, would he put those kind of numbers up today? Most likely not. When Chamberlain won his titles, he put up much more 'human' numbers. He averaged 21.4 ppg and 24.2 rpg in 1967, the year in which he won his first title. In 1972, he avg 19.2 rpg, but only 14.2 ppg.
Wilt would be the best center in the game today if he played today, and would have a few 50 or 60 (or 70) point games, but in all seriousness, I don't think he wouldn't average 50....
The year Wilt averaged 50, his Warriors lost in the Eastern Conferance finals, to guess who? 🙂 Boston led that game 107-102, but Wilt hit two FREE THROWS (!) and then made a 3 point play to tie the game. However, Sam Jones hit a jumper with two seconds left to win it for Boston, who advanced to the finals and beat the Lakers in seven (in the 7th game against the Lakers, won by the Celtics in OT, Russell had 30 points and 40 rebounds...this was the game in which Laker Frank Selvy missed a 12 foot jumper at the buzzer in regulation that would have dethroned the Celtics).
Incidentally, here's a link to a game-by-game recap of the '72 Lakers' 33 game winning streak... a nice piece of history... Wilt was 35 years old at the time:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/news/1999/10/12/33_game_streak/
Originally posted by Red NightThe Lakers did have three Hall of Famers on those teams (Jabbar, Magic and Worthy)... Rambis and Cooper were definitely role players, but Coooper could play a lot of roles...he was a defensive stopper, an excellent back up point guard, and a three point threat... in the '87 finals when Magic hit the junior sky hook to win it for the Lakers, it was Cooper's 3 pointer a minute earlier that cut a six point Celtic lead in half. Byron Scott was their other starter, earlier it had been Norm Nixon. Bob McAdoo is a Hall of Famer, but he was a role player (sixth man who could score and rebound) by the time he got to the Lakers. Mychal Thompson became a role player (back up center and defensive 'stopper' against McHale) when he went to the Lakers in mid-season, 1977.
...Regarding the 80's; two teams won 8 of 10 championship from 80-89; the Lakers and the Celtics (The Sixers won in 83 and the Pistons won in 89) and neither team had 4 superstars. Jabbar, Johnson and maybe worthy. Bird, and maybe McHale and Parrish. Dennis Johnson was good. The lakers had two major role players: Rambis and Cooper.
Rambis of course, was the ULTIMATE role player!
The Celtics also had 3 hall of famers in Bird, Parrish and McHale...however, Dennis Johnson's career was of Hall of Fame quality. Johnson was a six time All NBA first team defense (also second team all defense 3 times), and was a key player on 3 NBA championship teams... I'm frankly not sure why he isn't already in the Hall of Fame, but he should be there. Sometimes a player who splits his time with 3 teams (as Johnson did) is not thought of as highly as a player who does the same things, but spends his career with one team...
Danny Ainge was their other starter at guard, and even he made the all star team one year (1988)...but was not a year-in, year-out all time great the way these other guys were.
Bill Walton was a fourth Hall of Famer, but had only one really good year with the Celtics (1986)... Walton's career highs in games played were:
80 (1986)
67 (1985)
65 (1977)
Those were the only seasons in his 10 year career in which he played over 60 games. In two of those seasons, he won a title (77 and 86).
The '83 Sixers had two Hall of Famers in Moses Malone (then in his prime) and Julius Erving. Maruice Cheeks' career was of Hall of Fame quality, but I'm not sure if or when he's going to make it, but I think he will some day.. Bobby Jones' career was pretty close to HOF quality as well (an eight time all NBA first team defense). Andrew Toney was on his way to a HOF career, but injuries stopped him.. Charles Barkley said that when he got to the 76ers as a rookie, Toney was the best player on the team, better than Dr. J or Moses (who were aging).
Originally posted by TheBloopI loved Bobby Jones. (I put him on my working mans all-star team to beat the Stat all-Stars!)
The Lakers did have three Hall of Famers on those teams (Jabbar, Magic and Worthy)... Rambis and Cooper were definitely role players, but Coooper could play a lot of roles...he was a defensive stopper, an excellent back up point guard, and a three point threat... in the '87 finals when Magic hit the junior sky hook to win it for the Lakers, it was Cooper's ...[text shortened]... Toney was the best player on the team, better than Dr. J or Moses (who were aging).
Interesting that you say Wilt would be the best center today.
The more often debated point was if he was the best center of his era. I personally would vote for Russell. Wilt was a tremendous specimen though.
Walton is in the Basketball Hall of Fame, but I think he wouldn't be if all he had was his pro carreer. UCLA and his post playing activities helped. Great player though.
Originally posted by TheBloopThe Olympics and the world championship are frustrating. We're playing teams that play better together than we do. The wide lane, and the short three point line also change the game.
Originally posted by Red Night
[b]The point was that Chamberlain and Robertson's numbers were so good as to beg the question were they that good or were they just playing against weak competition...
And yes, I see your point here, and it's a good one. Athletes overall do get better as time goes on...this is actually much easier to see in one ...[text shortened]... ies' teams are getting better, but we should be getting better too, and we're not.[/b]
There are a couple of other rule changes that affect our performance as well.
I'd like to see us go back to sending college kids or maybe a mixture.
Alternatively we could send a good NBA team. One of the teams that gets knocked out of the playoffs early.
When you look back at the "Dream Team" it really was just that. Some of the best basketball players of all time. Our recent entries have not been as talented, but they have been good enough on paper.
We need better three point shooters, better defensive players, and better passers.
Originally posted by Red NightYes, true about Wilt and Russell...
I loved Bobby Jones. (I put him on my working mans all-star team to beat the Stat all-Stars!)
Interesting that you say Wilt would be the best center today.
The more often debated point was if he was the best center of his era. I personally would vote for Russell. Wilt was a tremendous specimen though.
Walton is in the Basketball Hall of Fame, ...[text shortened]... he had was his pro carreer. UCLA and his post playing activities helped. Great player though.
When Wilt was piling up his best (scoring) numbers against Russell, the Celtics dominated Wilt's teams. Once Wilt started playing with soem better teammates, his teams won more regularly.
When the Sixers beat the Celtics in the 1967 playoffs, Wilt averaged 22 points, 32 rebounds, and 10 assists -- a triple double-- against Russell.. In the clinching game 5, he had 29 points, 36 rebounds, and 13 assists. I'll tell you what...I've seen a lot of triple doubles over the years, but I've NEVER seen one like that!
And what you said about Walton is true... He would not be a Hall of Famer based on his NBA career alone...however, the Hall of Fame is known as the "Basketball" Hall of Fame, not the "NBA" Hall of Fame. Walton's series of injuries over the years was one of the great 'tradgedies' of NBA history... I was so looking forward to some great Jabbar/Walton matchups as Walton was entering the NBA, and while they did play come incredible games against each other, the rivalry was not what it could have been had Walton remained healthy.
Back to Russell though... he is often asked about how his Celtics would have done against the Bulls of the 90s... in his book "Russell's Rules", he states what I think is the truth...they would have let Jordan get his 40 or 50 points and would have beaten the Bulls decisively. Part of what made the Celtics what they were was their ability to win games against the very best, as they proved with Wilt.
And of course, I loved Russell's comment when asked about what he thought of the Bulls three-peats... "Not much" 🙂