NBA Finals

[GannonFan]

Whether James is top 10 all time or not kind of depends to some extent, I think, on whether you're talking about top 10 in absolute terms or top 10 in terms of how he compares to other players of his time. I think that in basketball, like any other sport, players keep getting better overall as time goes on. Like if you took Wilt Chamberlin in his prime, put him in a time machine, and transported him to today he almost certainly would not be nearly as dominant as he was when he played. In fact he might not even stand out as a great player. That sort of thing.

Are assuming Chamberlain had his same training from the 1950's or 1960's, or that he had modern training with AAU basketball allowing him to play all year? The closest modern player to his build was Hakeem Olajuwon, a player that had a decent career. Chamberlain was an athlete, not a big body like Shaq. His track stats from Wiki
high jumped 6 feet, 6 inches, ran the 440 yards in 49.0 seconds and the 880 yards in 1:58.3, put the shot 53 feet, 4 inches, and broad jumped 22 feet.

Agreed, Wilt was a freak of an athlete and was incredibly strong as well. He'd be a star today if he was in this era, especially coming up through the system and with the modern training.

[JohnStOnge]

Guys, I don't mean to pick on Chamberlin but there is a huge difference between the players he was playing against then and what he'd be playing against now if you put him a time machine. One objective measure of that is just physical size. In watching highlights of Chamberlin one thing that stands out to me is how small and thin the other players were overall compared to today's players. You can get a look at that from the article at http://www.seatsmart.com/blog/history-o ... ba-player/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Chamberlin played from 1959 through 1973. Look at the charts below showing average heights and weights of NBA players by year. You have to squint some but look at how average heights and weights looked like when Chamberlin played vs. what they have looked like recently. And does anybody doubt that players now are also substantially stronger, faster, quicker, and generally more athletic than they were when Chamberlin was playing?

Yes I know if anybody who played then had been born later so that they played now they get better nutrition, training, etc. But that's just a factor in what I'm talking about. There's a huge difference between rating players relative to their time and rating them in absolute terms. Chamberlin was just way physically superior to the players in the league back when he played. If you put him as he was in 1959 when he came into the league in a time machine and transported him to now he would be much more challenged. He would not be head and shoulders physically superior to everybody else like he was then. It'd be a totally different thing for him.

Again, that's not to pick on Chamberlin. The same is true for any sport for any player. Like...dare I say it...if you put Jim Brown as he was when he played in a time machine and transported him to today he probably would not dominate the NFL right now. He'd be playing against much bigger, stronger, and faster defenders than anything he saw back then. So on and so forth.

[JALMOND]

Again, that's not to pick on Chamberlin. The same is true for any sport for any player. Like...dare I say it...if you put Jim Brown as he was when he played in a time machine and transported him to today he probably would not dominate the NFL right now. He'd be playing against much bigger, stronger, and faster defenders than anything he saw back then. So on and so forth.

This reminded me of when George Halas was asked back in the seventies how Red Grange would fare against the modern defenses. Halas responded by saying that Grange would probably get about 600 yards during the season, to which the reporter took to mean that the defenses were much stronger than what Grange faced back in the 20's and he said that to Halas. Halas then said, "But you have to remember that Grange would be 70 years old now."

[JohnStOnge]

Red Grange, if transported to the present day in a time machine just as he was in his prime, probably wouldn't make the starting lineup for Wisconsin Whitewater today. Might not even make the team.

[Gil Dobie]

Guys, I don't mean to pick on Chamberlin but there is a huge difference between the players he was playing against then and what he'd be playing against now if you put him a time machine. One objective measure of that is just physical size. In watching highlights of Chamberlin one thing that stands out to me is how small and thin the other players were overall compared to today's players. You can get a look at that from the article at http://www.seatsmart.com/blog/history-o ... ba-player/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Chamberlin played from 1959 through 1973. Look at the charts below showing average heights and weights of NBA players by year. You have to squint some but look at how average heights and weights looked like when Chamberlin played vs. what they have looked like recently. And does anybody doubt that players now are also substantially stronger, faster, quicker, and generally more athletic than they were when Chamberlin was playing?

Yes I know if anybody who played then had been born later so that they played now they get better nutrition, training, etc. But that's just a factor in what I'm talking about. There's a huge difference between rating players relative to their time and rating them in absolute terms. Chamberlin was just way physically superior to the players in the league back when he played. If you put him as he was in 1959 when he came into the league in a time machine and transported him to now he would be much more challenged. He would not be head and shoulders physically superior to everybody else like he was then. It'd be a totally different thing for him.

Again, that's not to pick on Chamberlin. The same is true for any sport for any player. Like...dare I say it...if you put Jim Brown as he was when he played in a time machine and transported him to today he probably would not dominate the NFL right now. He'd be playing against much bigger, stronger, and faster defenders than anything he saw back then. So on and so forth.

I'm sure the emergence of the 6'8" guard has the biggest impact on change in height. Change in training would have increased the entire NBA weight. Guys like Bogut Pekovic, Lopez(s), etc, would have been relegated to the bench in Chamberlain's era. Chamberlain played at 275 lbs and would run circles around a guy like Shaq. Imagine a 240 lb Dwight Howard or 220 lb Anthony Davis guarding Wilt. And that's with Wilt's 1950's - 60's training. And Wilt could run the floor.

[clenz]

Howard weighs 270. He may have been scrawny when he entered the league at 18 but is far from that now.

He also has a 40" vert, benches close to 400 and runs about a 4.7-4.8 40.

Anthony Davis is pushing 250 at this point. He came in at 19 years old and 220 (much like Dwight Howard). Reports in June 2014 had him at 240 (http://www.nba.com/pelicans/news/anthon ... owing-6-10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). At this point I'd assume he'll be pushing 250 by October. He's taking the same route Howard did and he's only 21 years old. By the time he's 24-25 he'll look a lot like Howard.




Wilt would have as much success guarding Shaq as anyone else - next to none. Shaq may not have been fast but it took 9 steps to get around him and all your energy not to get stepped on by him.

KD weighs 240.

[Gil Dobie]

Wilt's listed weight was 275, he was actually 290 to 320 during his playing days. Just copied some of the highlights.

From Bleacher Report

Many don’t know it, but Wilt used to lift weights with Arnold Schwarzenegger and got his bench press up to over 500 lbs.

As K.C. Jones once put it in describing Wilt’s power, "He stopped me dead in my tracks with his arm, hugged me and lifted me off the floor with my feet dangling," Jones said. "It scared the hell out of me. When I went to the free-throw line, my legs were still shaking. Wilt was the strongest guy and best athlete ever to play the game. [Source: Goliath's Wonderful Life, Hoop Magazine; May 1999; Chris Ekstrand]

Paul Silas gave an even more impressive impression of Wilt’s strength and power when he once said, "One time, when I was with Boston and he was with the Lakers, Happy Hairston and I were about to get in a scrape. All of a sudden, I felt an enormous vise around me. I was 6'7", 235 lbs., and Wilt had picked me up and turned me around. He said, 'We're not going to have that stuff.' I said, 'Yes sir.'

Wilt was a world-class athlete, who came out of college a 440 Champion track star as well as a basketball Phenom. Anyone who knows the history of the NBA knows that during the 60s the pace of basketball was frenetic, with players running up and down the court all game long (half-court basketball being almost anathema to the league at the time).

During this era, Wilt once averaged more than 48 minutes a game for an entire season. That in and of itself testifies to the incredible stamina Wilt possessed and what great shape he was in. Most of the centers through the '80s, '90s, and even today wouldn’t stand a chance trying to run with Chamberlain.

Another thing that should be remembered, but is all but forgotten whenever a discussion of Wilt Chamberlain vs “Anyone” is brought up is the fact Wilt faced much greater defensive pressure than centers do today. Opponents were literally allowed to mug Chamberlain at will without getting a foul called on them; yet Wilt still dominated.

The most telling thing about Chamberlain’s dominance was his passing ability. Wilt is the only center in NBA history to have led the league in assists.

During the 1966-67 season, Philadelphia76ers Coach Alex Hannum asked Wilt to pass the ball more. Chamberlain was more than willing, and for the first time in his career didn’t win the NBA scoring crown, averaging only 24.1 PPG.

However, he recorded the league’s, and his personal, best FG percentage (.683), still grabbed the rebounding title with a 24.2 RPG average, and most importantly, was third in the NBA in assists, averaging 7.8 APG.

[Gil Dobie]

Here is a shot of Wilt in his volleyball days.

[Gil Dobie]

He was also a jumper, verticle was 46".
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF8yJ1J1W7Q[/youtube]

[Gil Dobie]

Wilt's 40 yard dash was timed at a weight of 290lbs to be 4.6

Shaq's 40 yard dash at a weight of 350lbs was timed at 5.8

[Gil Dobie]

One of my favorite interviews of Russell and Chamberlain.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdd2biHVlyA[/youtube]

[Gil Dobie]

In an interview with Bob Costas in 1997, Wilt said he would average 60-70 points per game. Said the league rules are tilted towards the offense. Instead of going up against 2 or 3 players, he would be going up against individual players.

[JohnStOnge]

Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul Jabbar went head to head 28 times. You can find the stats on the head to head match ups at http://ballislife.com/kareem-wilt-dunki ... ead-stats/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

And if you look at those stats and just kind of scan through them you can see that Jabbar clearly had the better of it and it wasn't really close. I don't want to go through the trouble of calculating a bunch of stuff on all the measures but Jabbar outscored Chamberlain during 21 of the 28 match ups. The average was Chamberlain 16.1, Jabbar 31.0. In other words Jabbar almost doubled him. On one occasion Jabbar outscored him by 50 to 18. On another he outscored him 33 to 8. 39 to 11. 37 to 9. Stuff like that. The most Chamberlain out scored Jabbar by in any game was 9. Jabbar outscored Chamberlain by more than 9 points 20 times. It wasn't close.

Yes I know Jabbar was younger and that's a significant factor. But the bottom line is that when Chamberlain played a guy in Jabbar who was really good and could match up with him height wise he wasn't all that.

Look, I"m not saying Chamberlain wouldn't be in the NBA or wouldn't be a good player. But, c'mon guys, the overall size and athleticism of the guys he was playing against were factors in how well he did and he'd be playing bigger, more athletic guys if you put him in a time machine and transported him to today.

To me all you have to do is watch Youtube videos of him playing and look at how small and thin the other players look. I'll admit that I don't watch NBA basketball now as I did back in the 70s and early 80s but all you need to do is see a few highlights on Sports Center and you can see that the players are WAY bulkier and more athletic overall than they were then.

[JohnStOnge]

In an interview with Bob Costas in 1997, Wilt said he would average 60-70 points per game. Said the league rules are tilted towards the offense. Instead of going up against 2 or 3 players, he would be going up against individual players.

He's kidding himself. As I just posted when he played against another great center who could match up with him he averaged 16 points per game.

[Gil Dobie]

In an interview with Bob Costas in 1997, Wilt said he would average 60-70 points per game. Said the league rules are tilted towards the offense. Instead of going up against 2 or 3 players, he would be going up against individual players.

He's kidding himself. As I just posted when he played against another great center who could match up with him he averaged 16 points per game.

These are 2 of the best centers ever, to compare a 23-25 year old Jabbar to a 34-36 Chamberlain is humorous at best. In Jabbar's first season, they played once. Pretty even, Jabbar was 22, Chamberlain 33. Watching Wilt play in the 1970's was like watching Jabbar play in the 1980's. Both past their prime, but still good enough to be effective in the NBA. Oh, and Wilt once scored 62 points against Bill Russell head-to-head, and in another game grabbed 55 rebounds against Russell, one of the best defensive centers ever.

1. Date: Fri 10/24/69
- Chamberlain 25 pts, 25 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 9-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 23 pts, 20 rebs, 2 as, 2 blocks, 9-21 FG/FGA L

Second year was pretty even, Jabbar winning the Championship with the Bucks.

Third year was also pretty even, Chamberlain and Lakers win the Championship

Final year Wilt shot over 10 times just twice, Jabbar scored more, but other stats were pretty even, Rebounds, Assists.

[Gil Dobie]

Some interesting comparisons. Not sure how close the photo matches are, but the stats do show a difference.

For the record Shaq
7-0.88 w/o shoes (according to the newspapers from that time) - draftexpress rounded it up to 7-1 even
7-7 wingspan

[clenz]

Some interesting comparisons. Not sure how close the photo matches are, but the stats do show a difference.

For the record Shaq
7-0.88 w/o shoes (according to the newspapers from that time) - draftexpress rounded it up to 7-1 even
7-7 wingspan

Would be nice to have photos of Howard and Davis actually holding their arms straight.

Makes it a bit deceiving, no?

[clenz]

You are also comparing one...maybe two with Karem..player from a 20-40 year stretch to a guy like Javale McGee who is thought of as a clown of a player.

Wilt very well may be dominate today as well. The issue when comparing his career to today players is the guys The majority of guys Wilt played against wouldn't be D1 college players today.

On the big side they were Kyle Singler, but much less skilled

[Gil Dobie]

Some interesting comparisons. Not sure how close the photo matches are, but the stats do show a difference.

For the record Shaq
7-0.88 w/o shoes (according to the newspapers from that time) - draftexpress rounded it up to 7-1 even
7-7 wingspan

Would be nice to have photos of Howard and Davis actually holding their arms straight.

Makes it a bit deceiving, no?

That's why the stats are included and the mention of not sure how close the photos match reality.

[Gil Dobie]

You are also comparing one...maybe two with Karem..player from a 20-40 year stretch to a guy like Javale McGee who is thought of as a clown of a player.

Wilt very well may be dominate today as well. The issue when comparing his career to today players is the guys The majority of guys Wilt played against wouldn't be D1 college players today.

On the big side they were Kyle Singler, but much less skilled

These 4 and Wilt could play in any era. There were mostly 9 teams. I would agree with the Singler comparison for the 1950's as far as small forward skills, but put Singler in with these guys, even in the 1950's, and let him try and play 48 minutes with his back to the basket. The Singler types would wear out. Except for Russell, the other 3 on the list gave Jabbar a tough time when he entered the league. Russell retired before Jabbar entered the league. I'm not looking at stats, just my opinion from watching these players over the years.

Nate Thurmond 6-11, 235 Hall of Fame
Willis Reed 6-10, 240 Hall of Fame
Bill Russell 6-10, 220 Hall of Fame
Walt Bellamy 6-11, 245, Hall of Fame

[JohnStOnge]

Oh, and Wilt once scored 62 points against Bill Russell head-to-head, and in another game grabbed 55 rebounds against Russell, one of the best defensive centers ever.

Russel was one of the best defensive players ever relative to the players he was playing against at the time. He was a 6'9" center.

[Gil Dobie]

Oh, and Wilt once scored 62 points against Bill Russell head-to-head, and in another game grabbed 55 rebounds against Russell, one of the best defensive centers ever.

Russel was one of the best defensive players ever relative to the players he was playing against at the time. He was a 6'9" center.

Here is your 6'9" Bill Russell standing next to 6'9" Ben Wallace. I think Russell was 6.93 according to the new Mensa Math.



There were 9 teams in the Association for most of the 1960's, and Russell played against Hall of Famers, his height or taller half the time.

Nate Thurmond 6-11, 235 Hall of Fame
Willis Reed 6-10, 240 Hall of Fame
Bill Russell 6-10, 220 Hall of Fame
Walt Bellamy 6-11, 245, Hall of Fame
Wilt Chamberlain 7-1, 275 Hall of Fame

Russell's last year in the NBA, the average player was 6'6", 214 lbs, his first year 6'5", 205. Link

According to your graph, today's players are 6'7.8", 216 lbs.

From what I have seen, the heights and weights of the 1960's are more accurate than the heights listed for today's players. Kevin Garnett is the only one of todays players that I have found that is actually slightly taller than his listed height, Lebron is the only one I have found that is listed as his actual height.

[clenz]

Russel was one of the best defensive players ever relative to the players he was playing against at the time. He was a 6'9" center.

Here is your 6'9" Bill Russell standing next to 6'9" Ben Wallace. I think Russell was 6.93 according to the new Mensa Math.



There were 9 teams in the Association for most of the 1960's, and Russell played against Hall of Famers, his height or taller half the time.

Nate Thurmond 6-11, 235 Hall of Fame
Willis Reed 6-10, 240 Hall of Fame
Bill Russell 6-10, 220 Hall of Fame
Walt Bellamy 6-11, 245, Hall of Fame
Wilt Chamberlain 7-1, 275 Hall of Fame

Russell's last year in the NBA, the average player was 6'6", 214 lbs, his first year 6'5", 205. Link

According to your graph, today's players are 6'7.8", 216 lbs.

From what I have seen, the heights and weights of the 1960's are more accurate than the heights listed for today's players. Kevin Garnett is the only one of todays players that I have found that is actually slightly taller than his listed height, Lebron is the only one I have found that is listed as his actual height.

Funny you use that picture.

That picture links to this site

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showth ... p?t=315020" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and from that site we have this post...


Bill Russell
*6-9 and 5/8ths w/o shoes on (1955 SI issue)
*7-4 wingspan ('The Rivalry' book about Russell and Chamberlain)
In 1955 sports illustrated article Russell tells the writer not to refer to him as '6-10' but rather '6-9' because he "already feels like enough of a goon (term used for lanky freakishly tall people back then)"

Ben Wallace:
~6-7 w/o shoes (admitted to TNT back in 2006)
*7-2 wingspan? (this number is not yet cite-able... some people on some other message boards are stating he had a 7-2 wingspan but I am as yet unable to find the actual source for this number)

and this one

I don't know what all of the arguing is about here...

Russell was a documented 6-9.5 and Wallace admitted that he was 6-7.

And Russell was probably slightly taller than Dwight, and a couple of inches shorter than KG.

[Gil Dobie]

Funny you use that picture.

That picture links to this site

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showth ... p?t=315020" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and from that site we have this post...


Bill Russell
*6-9 and 5/8ths w/o shoes on (1955 SI issue)
*7-4 wingspan ('The Rivalry' book about Russell and Chamberlain)
In 1955 sports illustrated article Russell tells the writer not to refer to him as '6-10' but rather '6-9' because he "already feels like enough of a goon (term used for lanky freakishly tall people back then)"

Ben Wallace:
~6-7 w/o shoes (admitted to TNT back in 2006)
*7-2 wingspan? (this number is not yet cite-able... some people on some other message boards are stating he had a 7-2 wingspan but I am as yet unable to find the actual source for this number)

and this one

I don't know what all of the arguing is about here...

Russell was a documented 6-9.5 and Wallace admitted that he was 6-7.

And Russell was probably slightly taller than Dwight, and a couple of inches shorter than KG.

Kind of a round about way to make my point, that the size of today's players may be exaggerated. Charles Barkley rounded up from 6'4 3/4" to 6'6", pretty short for a power forward, but he was good. Shaq was 6'11", but listed at 7'1", Dwight Howard listed at 6'11", really 6'9", and Kevin Love listed at 6'10", really 6'7 3/4". Curious if John's graph was for actual height or listed height.

[JohnStOnge]

Look guys, I posted heights and weights just to provide some metric. But just think about it. In any field of athletics the athletes have gotten better over time due, probably, to environmental factors. Wilt Chamberlin ended his NBA career 42 years ago.

You put the athletes in general in ANY professional sport 42 years ago and transport them in a time machine to the present day and the overwhelming majority of them would have NO shot to make a professional team today. I'd bet that less than 1% of them could do it and that's probably being generous.

I'm guessing that Chamberlain as he was would be in that very small percentage that could play in his professional sport today. But the overall level of talent he'd be playing against would be MUCH higher than what he played against in his time. Not even REMOTELY close. No WAY he'd have anywhere near the stats or level of dominance he had against what was, in absolute terms, a much lower overall level of competition.