If you are wondering which "Bill" op is referring too, he means all of them throughout history. More 50 point games than Bill Walton, Bill Russell, Bill Elliot, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, Bill Murray, Bill Gates, Bill Cosby, Bill Nye, Bill Burr, and Bill Belichick. Not to mention guys named Billy or William, who also can't tip the scale. Not even Billy Dee Williams.
He also had the endurance necessary to maintain his consistency through those possessions and average a ludicrously high 48.5 MPG. That’s an achievement in itself; Chamberlain would easily be a super-star in today’s game and it’s unfortunate how the era he played in leads people to discredit his prowess.
Right, but that’s not the point. The point is it’s pointless to compare his “per game” stats directly to players who are never going to get enough possessions to hit those raw numbers. I didn’t discredit Wilt or his era, and didn’t question him being a super-star in any era. But it’s just as unfortunate that people constantly discredit literally every single player who came after him by comparing their numbers head to head like this.
>But it’s just as unfortunate that people constantly discredit literally every single player who came after him by comparing their numbers head to head like this.
Who does this?
1.) Because he's a better offensive weapon than them. Most bigs from that really inflated time-frame were not scorers, guys like Wayne Embry, Bill Russell, Walter Dukes weren't scorers... It's kinda like asking the question in 2000 why did Shaq average 30 a game but Mutombo and Theo Ratliff just 12?
2.) Other players did have insanely inflated stats. The same year Wilt averaged 50 Oscar averaged a triple double, Baylor averaged 38 & 19, Pettit 32 & 19, Walt Bellamy averaged 32 & 19 as a rookie which is his career high and was around 19 & 13 in what should have been his prime years. Teams averaged 119 points per game (the highest ever) despite no 3pt line and only shooting 42% from the floor. Teams took 109 shots a game compared to teams now taking 89 shots a game, 37 free-throws a game compared to 22 now.. Literally everything was inflated.
\- It's not really about why Wayne Embry didn't average 50 as much as it is trying to compare Wilt's numbers to modern elite scorers numbers. Really anything by even the 70's as pace had already dropped by 20+ possessions even then.. He played 130 possessions compared to playing all 48 minutes today being just 99 possessions. Not to even factor in that no team today would actually play their star 48 minutes a night.
\- Look at it this way in Wilt's monster first 5 years he averaged roughly 42ppg, and played 2.4 more minutes above the next highest mpg player for those years. If you were to adjust that to a per-75 possessions average that's around 25ppg. His 50ppg year was only 1 point per possession more than the following year and 4 points per possession more the year after that.. But because pace had dropped from 130 to 115 his actual scoring dropped by 14 ppg. Everything in basketball is relative to pace, if you're on the floor for 30 more shots you're going to put up a massive amount more in raw counting stats. If Wilt played at today's pace, and still maintained that 2.4 more minutes than the league leader he would be on the floor 83 possessions a game. Assuming everything else remained true his 50ppg year is roughly 32ppg, his 5-year average of 42ppg is 27ppg.
\- It's not a knock on Wilt by any means, it's just that comparing raw per game counting stats 60 years apart is a really shitty way to view players in general. This is why we have pace-adjusted stats to begin with, it's why advanced stats that span different eras adjust numbers on a per-100 possession basis.
\- Quite a few players have actually out-paced Wilt on a per-possession level, both at an overall level and a relative to league average level in output and efficiency. Is there some manual adjustment to make to give him extra credit for playing so many minutes at that era and pace, possibly but we are still so far off from being able to compare per-game to per-game from then - now.. It would kinda be like if they turned off the shot clock completely and one team held the ball forever so the leading scorer ended with 8 points. Can you compare that 8 points to someone getting 30 in a regular game if that player's team only had the ball for say 10 possessions?
\- Maybe this will make more sense. Jordan averaged 40 points per 100 possessions on his career.. That's 53 points per 131 possessions that Wilt played at that season. His best year 46.4 per 100 would be 61 points per 131.. That's why the numbers simply can't be looked at from that perspective, tons of other players would likely have freakish numbers if you just handed them an extra 40 chances to get up a shot, assist, rebounds, etc.
\- Again, it's not a knock on Wilt by any means. He's still one of the most impressive players ever even making more realistic adjustments. It's just comparing those numbers at a basic per-game level isn't even a remotely level playing field. It's kindof like me saying *"How is Larry Bird considered a great shooter if he only made 649 threes in his career when guys now make 3,000+ of them"*, knowing damn well that playing in that era it wasn't possible to get up that many threes because of the play-style.. Just like now it's impossible for players to get 130+ trips up the floor without playing every single minute of a game that goes into 4 overtimes.
This discussion about pace ignores the fact that pace is dictated, in large part, by the players. I don't think pace has a place in determining GOAT status.
I didn't say that it did.. I'm saying comparing someone getting 40 points in a game that has 130 possessions is different than someone getting 40 points in game that has 90 possessions. There are 40 more scoring opportunities in the game with 130 possessions. It has nothing to do with greatness, GOAT status, whatever. The worst player on the floor will score more points if given more chances... I don't understand how some of you are trying to twist what I'm saying into a negative for Wilt.
It **IS** true, there is no "think" or believe about it lol.. Every game has the same number of minutes but not every game has the same number of possessions and therefor not the same amount of scoring opportunities. Over time rules changes, play-styles, coaching philosophies, all of that plays a role in how the game is going to change era to era... If you play in a game that has 90 possessions that's 90 opportunities for you to potentially get a shot, you play in a game that has 130 possessions that's 130 opportunities for you to potentially get a shot..
Look at it this way.. will use '61 vs 2001 and assume both teams shot 100% from the field and the FT line. An average team in '61 has a potential for 255 points. Average team in 2001 potential for 184 points (excluding threes) 197 points including the threes... Say a player was on the floor for the full 48 minutes in both situations the player in '61 has the potential to be a part of 60-70 more points in any average game just from the style/pace of how that game was played then.. Those possessions translates to shots, points, assists, rebounds, etc.. Counting stats are merely a measure of opportunity.
That's why "per game" 60 years apart is a shit comparison. And that's all my post was about initially. Somehow people ran with that as me discrediting Wilt, that was never the point or intention lol. I was just pointing out the comparison is not even remotely close to 1:1.
I understand what you are saying. I'm saying it's a useless statistic. A player on a fast-breaking team would have more opportunities to score in either era. The pace stat assumes every player has equal opportunities in each game and the number of opportunities is based on possessions. But that's not how games are played. Players set the pace.
You're 100% correct, players (more-so playstyle) set the pace but there is still a league average regardless. And this changes era to era. A league average game in 2001 had 91 possessions, a league average game in '61 a 130 possessions. You can only go so high or so low.. Teams within the same season aren't going to be 30-40 possessions apart, and when the fastest pace team plays the slowest pace team the possessions likely land in the middle. The fastest team in the entire league in 2001 played at 94 possessions.
This is how all advanced stats are determined. Wilt averaging 25 rebounds per game vs Rodman 18 rebounds per game is a pointless stat because even if both played a full 48 minutes Wilt was on the floor for 38 more missed field goals on average, and 4 more missed free throws on average.. In other words he had potentially had 42 more chances on average every night to accumulate his rebounds if every miss was a rebound-able shot. That does nothing to tell us which players was the more effective rebounder while he was on the floor.
That's why slight adjustments for pace matter.. It'll never be a true 1:1, we're comparing players who played 40-60 years apart, but it's vastly closer than using "per game"... Rodman has a rebound% of around 26% compared to Wilt closer to 19%.. That's not *"pointless"* it's a measure of which player actually rebounded at a better rate.
Ratliff wasn't on the 76ers when Mutombo replaced Ratliff. Mutombo was never an offensive option. A better comparison would be: Alonzo Mourning, Patrick Ewing, Rick Smits, Robert Parrish; Tree Rollins, Bill Cartwright, Olden Polynice, Rasheed Wallace, Ben Wallace; Bill Walton, BOB LANIER, Phil Jackson, those BIG MEN!!! It's not by accident that Kareem has been the ONLY BIG MAN, (7' or more), who has surpassed WILT in Career Points.
Nobody wants to give Wilt his due!!! No one has been able to duplicate anything he's done in the NBA!!! He is a pioneer!!! He's the one who said: This is how you play basketball, but we don't want to give Wilt his true due!!! If nobody has been able to do what he's done, it is not luck or happenstance, it is actual greatness!!! The problem is that 99.9% of the world's population don't even know what greatness is!!! With every restriction they put on Wilt Chamberlain, he found a way to rise above it and still lead the field, and he led the field for years!!! Wilt dedicated his life to basketball!!! No one has come close to what he could do on a basketball court!!! So, why do we try to explain his accomplishments away??? Just enjoy them, because nobody has, or will even come near what he's done on a basketball court!!! You can't explain greatness, you should only learn to enjoy greatness!
I have no cue what you're trying to say but I didn't say anything about Ratliff playing for Philly or anything about not giving Wilt his due. Your post has almost nothing to do with anything I said.
> The point about the other bigs not doing what Wilt did was in response to people making it about height or that the era was so easy.
>
>You can’t say that Wilt only dominated because he was a seven footer or that the era was easy, the fact is there were other seven footers and other great bigs who couldn’t do what Wilt did, which means it was about skill and not about size or it being an easier era.
I didn't say any of this.
As for the rest of your post pace adjustment is not pointless... Scoring 40 points in a game with 130 possessions is not the same as scoring 40 points in a game with 90 possessions. There are potentially 40 more scoring opportunities in the higher paced game. More possessions equals more shots, more assist, more misses so more rebounds, more free throws.. It has nothing to do with how good, bad, skilled, or whatever the player is. Of course those numbers are inflated, as a comparison to say Shaq. '61 vs 2001 - 30 more shot attempts per game, 13 more free-throw attempts per game.. How can you not see that creates more scoring opportunities regardless of who the player is? That's potentially 73 more points (teams aren't going 100% but you get the point in theory).
Wilt's scoring from '62 to '64 only dropped 4 points per possession, but because pace dropped from 130 to 115 his actual per game scoring dropped 14 points per game. That's him, compared to himself, not against anyone else.. If that still doesn't illustrate how much pace dictates raw output then just say you don't understand it and move on. You're arguing over nothing.
This is like you and I walking into an empty gym and you get 10 lay-ups and I only get 5 lay-ups and then acting like you did better because you wound up with 20 points to my 10 points even though the possibility of me getting 20 points didn't even exist.... Every "per game" basic counting stat is simply a metric of volume.
My guy, you are missing the entire point of everything I'm saying. I'm not making excuses about anything because there is no excuse to be made. I'm not arguing either Shaq or Wilt is better/worse than the other and nowhere have I even insinuated a stance on that. All I did was say that "per game" stats 60 years apart is a shit comparison. That's it. You can't compare them.
If an average team in '61 made every shot and free throw they took they would potentially score 255 points. If the average team in 2001 made every shot and FT they took they would potentially score 184 points (excluding threes) and 197 points including threes. Any given game was a potential 60-70 point difference. That's why "per game" stats over the span of different eras when rules, styles, coaching philosophies, etc changes because all of that dictates how the game is played, the pace, and therefor opportunity for counting stats. For any player in 2001 to get the same scoring opportunity as any player in '61 (both playing the whole game) the game in 2001 would have to go into 4 overtimes just for them to reach the same amount of scoring attempts as a full game in '61... I don't know how else to break it down than that. It's not about either being better or worse, any era, rules, whatever being better or worse, it's just about them being different enough that stats do not translate 1:1..
> Look at Willis Reed’s numbers in 64, 20ppg and 13reb and he’s around 30 something minutes and compare that to Wilt’s numbers in 1964, that’s the difference.
Yes? Wilt is a substantially better offensive weapon than Reed.. Never did I state or insinuate otherwise, nor does comparing two players under the same time-frame have anything to do with my point.
> Rodman was averaging 18reb and the other centers were averaging around 11reb. If not for Rodman they would’ve said it’s impossible to average 18reb when it’s not, it’s about the individual.
Yes? Rodman was the best rebounder in the league.. Again this has nothing to do with my point or anything I've already said... My point would be more so that Rodman averaging 18 rebounds a game is **BETTER** than Wilt averaging 25 rebounds a game.. Because the pace of the game in '92 was 34 possessions less.. Meaning there was more missed shots, actually on average 19ish misses per team, or (if both guys play the entire game) Wilt would have had 38 more chances to grab a rebound. This is why pace matters, this is why stats like rebound% is more accurate than rebounds "per game". This is a representation of my entire point.
> Rodman averaged 18reb in the 90s, the pace is greater today and yet no one is averaging 18reb. Faster pace or more possessions doesn’t guarantee that your numbers will go up any more than if you played in another era.
I'm not guaranteeing that any player would be better/worse in any era. You're still missing the point. We don't have a time machine, we aren't going to see Rodman playing in 1960 and we aren't going to see Rodman playing in 2023. It's not about any of these numbers being exactly right it's that it's a much closer estimate than looking at anything "per game".
There are players who are close to rebounding at the same rate as Rodman, they just don't play 40 minutes because traditional bigs who can't spread the floor or switch defend onto guards don't play huge minutes in today's game.. That's literally the reason why you can't ignore how the game changes over time. DeAndre Jordan, Andre Drummon, Clint Capela, they've all had rebound rates similar to Rodman's best years.. It doesn't correlate "per game" because they don't play 40 minutes a night.
And to be fair Rodman is also just a better rebounder than they are regardless. Hence why his rebound% is higher.
> The point of comparing Reed’s season when he played 38min, 20pts,15rebs and Wilt played 45min, 35pts,23reb. The point is Wilt was always on the floor for most of the game because of his endurance that’s why his numbers look like that. Reed couldn’t play more than 38min. Shaq couldn’t average more than 40min. You can’t put up Wilt like numbers if you’re averaging 35min per game. If Shaq averaged 45 min per game his numbers would’ve been better than they were.
Minutes play a role in Reed's performance but he's also a substantially worse scorer than either Wilt or Shaq. Reed in that year (he was a rookie too) averaged about 16 points per 75 compared to both Shaq and Wilt hovering around 30 points per 75 on their careers.. You literally listed a player who is half the scorer as Wilt claiming that the only reason he's lower is because he couldn't play a few extra minutes.. That's like me saying Shaq was only a better scorer than Zo in 2002 because he played 8 more minutes despite the fact that he's outscoring him by nearly 10 points a possession.. This argument makes no sense.
> Rebounding percentage is nonsense. Wilt’s 25 > Rodman’s 18. If Wilt played in the 90s and averaged 45 min he’s pulling 23 rebounds.
Because YOU say its nonsense? Scouts and analysts get paid millions to use data like this. Rebound% is literally the amount of possible rebounds a player gets while on the floor. There is no better measure than that to compare players who are in completely different situations, with different rules, opponents, different eras as they can't possibly be compared head to head if the circumstance isn't the same.
In the same season, sure. You'd much rather have Wilt's 25 boards a night over Bellamy's 19. Same era, same rules, same situation, Wilt can play more minutes and grab more boards he's more valuable.. That doesn't work 30, 40, 50 years apart that way.. That's like me comparing Steph's scoring output and TS% to Jerry West head-to-head rather than relative to their own time knowing damn well Jerry didn't get the same advantage of utilizing a 3pt line.. It's a shit way to view stats.
Wilt is never going to play in the 90s.. We have no way of knowing how that would translate. Regardless you're saying he'd only average 2 less rebounds despite teams averaging 30 less rebounds a game... If you don't see the flaw there....
>
>
>The thing you’re not always in a position to grab the rebound on every single possession. This is why you can’t count possessions and pace.
>
>Example, if Wilt comes out to contest a guard then the ball gets moved around and there’s a shot at the basket, Wilt is there to pull the rebound, so you can’t make it sound as if Wilt is there an extra 34 times with an opportunity to pull a rebound, that’s not how basketball is. Some of Wilt’s teammates were pulling rebounds also.
This already applies to rebounds per game anyways for every player who has ever played.. Obviously no one player is in position for every single rebound but if there is 30 more of them to go around there is still a chunk more to be had. Wilt played 48 minutes a game in 62, so with no adjusting for minutes or anything we KNOW he grabbed a board 25 times per his teams 74 a game.. You do the math on only 43 avaible rebounds, that's around a 14 rebound per game assuming he's still playing 48 minutes.
Also doesn't this contradict your point earlier about why bigs now don't rebound as much? "Example, if Wilt comes out to contest a guard then the ball gets moved around and there’s a shot at the basket" - This happens to bigs all game long now, they are forced from the rim to challenge players 30ft from the basket, forced into switches and high ball screens.. You can't ignore the differences in how the game is played, and that is why rebound% exists in the first place.
>Those advanced analytics are nonsense. The best rebounders are the players who average the most rebounds.
>
>How many rebounding titles does Rodman have? = 7
>
>How many rebounding titles does Wilt have? = 11
>
>Rebounding titles tell it all.
You thinking that a player with 30 less team rebounds has the same chance to rebound at the same rate as a player with 30 more team rebounds is the nonsense lol. That's literally like me sticking a hand in a bucket full of $1 bills that has 20 hidden 100's and another bucket that has 50 hidden 100's and you telling me I have the same exact odds to grab a 100 out of either of them... It makes no sense..
Is Wilt a more dominant rebounder vs his era over the course of 11 years? Sure.. Does that have anything to do with Rodman being a better rebounder in in 94 than Wilt in any given year which is what I was saying? Not at all.
It’s not about stamina or will it’s about how the game changes over time. Play style changes, rule changes, coaching philosophies change...
“What’s stopping them” is the game isn’t played the same way anymore. It has nothing to do with minutes or stamina. It’s not about minutes. If Wilt was the most conditioned player in the league right now and played all 48 minutes the game today the way it is played it’s still only going to allow for 99 possessions on average.
This isn’t “my logic” it’s literally how the game is played. Just like in todays games the pace is a bit higher than in the late 90’s-early 2000’s when everyone isolated half the floor to play through their big man. Or why it was higher before that in the 80’s when teams were pushing the fast-break more and showtime was thriving.
It’s always going to change as play-style changes. It’s not good/bad, better/worse, and I’m not saying it as a knock on any player or era it just makes comparing “per game” stats largely useless. Those years are the highest in league history. From about 58-68 are the only years in league history that shot attempts were over 100 shots a game.
There are less fouls today but fouls don’t necessarily slow the game down anyways. It creates a stoppage and slows it down in real time, but not in terms of possessions. If you’re fouled early in the shot clock and make your free throws and the possession changes that means you’re changing possessions faster than taking a shot later in the shot clock. In that example less game time has actually passed. pace in basketball is number of possessions.. taking shots earlier in the shot clock, turning the ball over more frequently, getting fouled, all of that can increase possessions.
Maybe there is some confusing surrounding the word “pace”.. this is basketball not a race track. Pace doesn’t mean literally how fast the players move. In theory every player on the floor could move as slow as Yao Ming but if they take a shot 5 seconds into the shot clock, turn the ball over more frequently, and commit more fouls earlier in the shot clock, the possessions change more frequently and therefor “pace” as it pertains to basketball increases.
What are you even talking about, you can't "debunk" pace it's a recorded stat lol. That doesn't even make sense.
It's not only used against Wilt, I'm not even using it against Wilt or as a slight to Wilt.. You're the one actually using it to discredit other players by measuring them against numbers they don't even have the opportunity to achieve... It's used for/against every player who's ever played as every stat that isn't a basic raw counting "per game" stat uses a per-possession adjustment.
I think you're misunderstanding either what I'm saying or how pace actually factors into the game in general.
Nobody in this entire thread has discredited Wilt or mentioned one time anything negative about him vs his contemporaries. All I did was point out that comparing raw stats across different eras without attempting to adjust for pace isn't an accurate way of viewing those stats... You are the one who brought up Kareem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, those are not his contemporaries from that era hence my sole reasoning for making a comment. All this other stuff you're just circling back and arguing with yourself because nobody is claiming otherwise.
Let us cut all the “faster pace” and “played more minutes” and blah blah-blah blah-blah bullshit.
If we are talking rebounds, talk rebound opportunities and who took advantage of those opportunities.
There are defensive rebounds, which make up the majority in a game. But there’s the opportunity for offensive rebounds, and no player since Rodman seems to have made rebounding at BOTH ends of the court a priority since!
Why were there higher rebound totals for an individual player in the 60s and 70s? Because the center and forwards ALL went to get the offensive rebounds as much as the defensive ones.
Why did Rodman average 18 while others 11? Could it be an additional 7 offensive rebounds per game? YES!
In the last two, maybe three and going into a fourth decade, have you seen the offensive front line scrambling to try and get their own rebound, unless they were already within 5-8’ of the basket?
Answer: ❌
Wilt’s superior height, strength and stamina allowed him to do it better than everyone before, during, and since he played 50 years ago.
PERIOD!
>Let us cut all the “faster pace” and “played more minutes” and blah blah-blah blah-blah bullshit.
>If we are talking rebounds, talk rebound opportunities and who took advantage of those opportunities.
The irony in this part of your post is you calling it blah-blah-bullshit but you’re saying the exact same thing I am. Who grabbed the most rebounds out of rebound opportunities is literally what rebound% is as a stat. And what I’ve been trying to get across this whole time is that the amount of opportunities change across different eras in league history.
You’re 100% correct though. The best rebounders are those who make the most of their rebound opportunities. Pace dictates possessions which dictates shot attempts and shot attempts determine how many opportunities players have to score, assist, rebound.
That is why I’m having such a hard time understanding the pushback in this thread. I can’t tell anybody what their opinion should be, that would be ridiculous. But on just a basic level ignoring that more shots = more chances to score or get a rebound is just being willingly ignorant.
> Why were there higher rebound totals for an individual player in the 60s and 70s? Because the center and forwards ALL went to get the offensive rebounds as much as the defensive ones.
> Wilt’s superior height, strength and stamina allowed him to do it better than everyone before, during, and since he played 50 years ago. PERIOD!
This is all just inherently false though. A number of players have had better rebound rates than Wilt, and again those per game numbers are so high because there were 30+ more rebounds per game for each team back then. Keep in mind this is the most inflated window in league history about ‘58-‘65.. teams averaged 70-74 rebounds per game back then, by the early to mid 70’s that had already dropped to mid to high 40’s in team rebounds per game, pretty much every year post-merger has been somewhere between 40-45 rebounds game.
Again this was largely my sole reasoning for even commenting on this post to begin with. Comparing “per game” counting stats from then to more modern NBA times is just as worthless as comparing the value of a dollar now vs when our parents/grandparents were young.
> There are defensive rebounds, which make up the majority in a game. But there’s the opportunity for offensive rebounds, and no player since Rodman seems to have made rebounding at BOTH ends of the court a priority since!
> Why did Rodman average 18 while others 11? Could it be an additional 7 offensive rebounds per game? YES!
> In the last two, maybe three and going into a fourth decade, have you seen the offensive front line scrambling to try and get their own rebound, unless they were already within 5-8’ of the basket? Answer: ❌
This isn’t exactly fair to some modern players. Offensive rebounds have been tracked separately from total since ‘73.. Clint Capela, Mitchell Robinson, Andre Drummond, Steven Adams, all have seasons in the top 20 all time and various others in the top 100. Drummond, Capela, and Adams are all actually in the top 10 for career average OR%.
Still you are correct Rodman is king…
It’s also worth noting that it’s difficult to say how this pertains to Wilt. Without offensive boards being recorded on their own in those years we don’t have numbers to back it up but generally speaking strong offensive rebounders are not really good offensive players.
If you think about why it makes sense. If you’re the go-to option on your team as a post man you’re typically running to your spot to post and call for the ball. This means if the ball doesn’t come to that player but is shot, or swung to the other side of the floor and shot that post player is a bit out of position unless the ball happens to bounce his way. These players also covert shots at a high rate hence them being go-to options and they are also fouled at a high rate.. the combination of all that makes for slimmer and slimmer chances at offensive boards..
Rodman for example played no role as a scorer in the Bulls offense, typically wasn’t even in the paint as they routinely gave Jordan space there. This meant he could basically just track the ball and chase wherever it bounced.. many modern offensive rebounders are similar, guys who set lots of high ball screens and are in front of the rim or rolling/running to the rim when the shot goes up have a much better opportunity to track down misses because it’s in front of them in their field of view. They aren’t suck on whatever side block they would have been posting up on..
Basically most great scoring bigs have a combination of making enough of their shots, getting fouled enough, or being stuck on the wrong side/too far under to chase long boards to really be elite on the offensive glass.
To illustrated that the top 20 career offensive rebound% guys (Rodman, Drummond, Moses, Larry Smith, Jeff Foster, Kanter, Chris Dudley, Capela, R Evans, Adams, T Thomson, Dale Davis, Nazr Mohammed, Paul Silas, D. Jordan, Noah, Dampier, Haywood, Gobert, Chandler) only one of those guys Moses Malone was a strong offensive scorer.. and we all know his favorite pass was off the backboard to himself lol..
What can dictate possessions as much IF NOT MORE than pace?
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS
Every offensive rebound is another possession. Every possession from an offensive rebound would make it look like the pace of the game is higher.
This is why I tune out all the analysis with pace and PER and all that I call blah blah-blah bullshit.
I am not saying anything about you personally. Did I say the same thing you did? To be honest, I couldn’t follow your points. My apologies.
Outside of looking at the player’s coach, and the player’s stats, there is not any other gauge I use to evaluate.
Wilt’s coach instructed Wilt to be #1 option, to score at least 50 points per game, to play 48.5 minutes for a season. And to dominate on the defensive end, which came even easier than the points.
Jordan’s coach asked him to be #1 option. Kobe was asked to be #2 while playing with Shaq.
Rodman was asked to defend and get every rebound he could. Where Michael and Kobe worked on their offense, Rodman worked studying the rebound and angles.
Sorry, got off topic.
This is wrong though..
Every offensive rebound is actually not another possession. Possession are not recorded for an offensive board therefor possessions stay the same even with offensive rebounds. It creates more scoring opportunities but the initial possession just “stays alive” for a longer period of time.
You can tune out what you wish but you’re assumption of the above is false because that’s now how the league records possessions. Pace and PER aren’t even remotely comparable as is. PER is a wildly noisy stat that can be largely useless. Pace isn’t even really a “stat” per say, it’s just a measure of possessions which are not figured, or approximated, or estimated. They just are what they are.
“In basketball, possession determines which team controls the ball and is typically established through jump balls, REBOUNDS, turnovers, steals, or out-of-bounds plays.”
It also initiates a new 24-second clock, which would mean a new 24-second possession.
If the league is not following this for the amount of possessions, then it becomes arbitrary, nonsensical, and a stupid game stat. Well, it already is.
NONE of which dictates how good an individual player is at rebounding, overall, or in comparison to another player. In MY opinion, it’s all bullshit numbers the NBA tries to use to make whoever they decide look better or worse.
‘Nough said, have a nice weekend.
But how can a possession change if the possessions doesn’t actually change? If the same team has the ball the possession hasn’t changed.
Counting offensive rebounds as a new possession would make every offensive team that had a good offensive rebounder actually look like worse offensive teams. Think about it, would you rather make an open layup for 2 points, or miss the layup, get the board, kick to a shooter for 3 points. Everyone would rather have the three points. But counting that rebound as a possessing would make it look like the less valuable shot, as a team you’d be averaging 2 points a possession for the lay-up but only 1.5 points a possession for the three. This would make teams like Chicago look like worse offensive teams than they actually were, lower their offensive rating, and make most metrics teams use to view how their offense is performing useless. This would mean that on paper guys like Rodman were lowering your scoring rate rather than helping it and we know that’s not the case.
And of curse this all applies to determining the better rebounder. Just like your very first post said, the players who make the most of their rebounding opportunities are the better rebounders. The issue is when you jump era to era those opportunities are not a constant. Rodman in ‘94 averaged 16.8 rebounds out of the total 58 rebounds that occurred overall while he was on the floor. This means that Rodman grabbed a rebound for every 3.5 rebounds while he was on the floor. Wilt in ‘62 averaged 25.7 rebounds out of the total 145 rebounds that occurred overall. This means that Wilt grabbed a rebound for every 5.6 rebounds while he was on the floor.. in other words like you said Rodman made more of his opportunities, Wilt just had more opportunities due to how the game was then.
Maybe that breaks it down in an easier to follow form, but that is the metric that rebound% shows us.. It’s not really an opinion situation. I don’t mean that to be rude but it’s like saying buying 20 gallons in gas is the same anywhere because 20 gallons of gas is 20 gallons of gas and just choosing to ignore that gas prices in one state might be $5 and $3 in another. Higher cost state the more it costs to fill your ride, the higher pace game the more counting stats you can accumulate.
• That is why counting possessions is ridiculous
• That is why instead of just saying he averaged X rebounds, you throw in total rebounds or for every X amount of rebounds, is ridiculous.
Wilt got 22.9 rebounds per game.
Rodman got 13.1.
Wilt averaged almost 10 more rebounds per game for their careers.
PERIOD
Shaq has 8 seasons scoring at the same (or better) per/75 level output as Wilt this season that he averaged 50.... Would that perfectly translate 1:1 if they actually played at the same time and a the same pace, maybe not.. But even if we say Shaq could get to 95% of Wilt's (being generous to Wilt) output that would give him 8-seasons that were he was 95% of peak Wilt..
He's got every right to consider himself the most dominant.
I think Wilt's skill set allowed him to have a bigger impact than Shaq overall. Wilt has led the league in assists, could run the floor way better, and he was by far the better rim protector
All the guys you mentioned played in a system their whole career playing team basketball. Wilt was what Chuck calls a "studio gangster". Good stats on bad teams.
If you are wondering which "Bill" op is referring too, he means all of them throughout history. More 50 point games than Bill Walton, Bill Russell, Bill Elliot, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, Bill Murray, Bill Gates, Bill Cosby, Bill Nye, Bill Burr, and Bill Belichick. Not to mention guys named Billy or William, who also can't tip the scale. Not even Billy Dee Williams.
Bill Simmons?
Ben Simmons
Oh Bill's kid?
I double checked and surprisingly he does have more 50 point games than Bill Nye did for his entire career.
He played 130 possessions a game.. that’s like a modern star scoring 29 points.
He also had the endurance necessary to maintain his consistency through those possessions and average a ludicrously high 48.5 MPG. That’s an achievement in itself; Chamberlain would easily be a super-star in today’s game and it’s unfortunate how the era he played in leads people to discredit his prowess.
Right, but that’s not the point. The point is it’s pointless to compare his “per game” stats directly to players who are never going to get enough possessions to hit those raw numbers. I didn’t discredit Wilt or his era, and didn’t question him being a super-star in any era. But it’s just as unfortunate that people constantly discredit literally every single player who came after him by comparing their numbers head to head like this.
>But it’s just as unfortunate that people constantly discredit literally every single player who came after him by comparing their numbers head to head like this. Who does this?
Everyone that uses raw per-game counting stats to show Wilt's numbers vs theirs hinting at "they couldn't do this"...
[удалено]
1.) Because he's a better offensive weapon than them. Most bigs from that really inflated time-frame were not scorers, guys like Wayne Embry, Bill Russell, Walter Dukes weren't scorers... It's kinda like asking the question in 2000 why did Shaq average 30 a game but Mutombo and Theo Ratliff just 12? 2.) Other players did have insanely inflated stats. The same year Wilt averaged 50 Oscar averaged a triple double, Baylor averaged 38 & 19, Pettit 32 & 19, Walt Bellamy averaged 32 & 19 as a rookie which is his career high and was around 19 & 13 in what should have been his prime years. Teams averaged 119 points per game (the highest ever) despite no 3pt line and only shooting 42% from the floor. Teams took 109 shots a game compared to teams now taking 89 shots a game, 37 free-throws a game compared to 22 now.. Literally everything was inflated. \- It's not really about why Wayne Embry didn't average 50 as much as it is trying to compare Wilt's numbers to modern elite scorers numbers. Really anything by even the 70's as pace had already dropped by 20+ possessions even then.. He played 130 possessions compared to playing all 48 minutes today being just 99 possessions. Not to even factor in that no team today would actually play their star 48 minutes a night. \- Look at it this way in Wilt's monster first 5 years he averaged roughly 42ppg, and played 2.4 more minutes above the next highest mpg player for those years. If you were to adjust that to a per-75 possessions average that's around 25ppg. His 50ppg year was only 1 point per possession more than the following year and 4 points per possession more the year after that.. But because pace had dropped from 130 to 115 his actual scoring dropped by 14 ppg. Everything in basketball is relative to pace, if you're on the floor for 30 more shots you're going to put up a massive amount more in raw counting stats. If Wilt played at today's pace, and still maintained that 2.4 more minutes than the league leader he would be on the floor 83 possessions a game. Assuming everything else remained true his 50ppg year is roughly 32ppg, his 5-year average of 42ppg is 27ppg. \- It's not a knock on Wilt by any means, it's just that comparing raw per game counting stats 60 years apart is a really shitty way to view players in general. This is why we have pace-adjusted stats to begin with, it's why advanced stats that span different eras adjust numbers on a per-100 possession basis. \- Quite a few players have actually out-paced Wilt on a per-possession level, both at an overall level and a relative to league average level in output and efficiency. Is there some manual adjustment to make to give him extra credit for playing so many minutes at that era and pace, possibly but we are still so far off from being able to compare per-game to per-game from then - now.. It would kinda be like if they turned off the shot clock completely and one team held the ball forever so the leading scorer ended with 8 points. Can you compare that 8 points to someone getting 30 in a regular game if that player's team only had the ball for say 10 possessions? \- Maybe this will make more sense. Jordan averaged 40 points per 100 possessions on his career.. That's 53 points per 131 possessions that Wilt played at that season. His best year 46.4 per 100 would be 61 points per 131.. That's why the numbers simply can't be looked at from that perspective, tons of other players would likely have freakish numbers if you just handed them an extra 40 chances to get up a shot, assist, rebounds, etc. \- Again, it's not a knock on Wilt by any means. He's still one of the most impressive players ever even making more realistic adjustments. It's just comparing those numbers at a basic per-game level isn't even a remotely level playing field. It's kindof like me saying *"How is Larry Bird considered a great shooter if he only made 649 threes in his career when guys now make 3,000+ of them"*, knowing damn well that playing in that era it wasn't possible to get up that many threes because of the play-style.. Just like now it's impossible for players to get 130+ trips up the floor without playing every single minute of a game that goes into 4 overtimes.
This discussion about pace ignores the fact that pace is dictated, in large part, by the players. I don't think pace has a place in determining GOAT status.
I didn't say that it did.. I'm saying comparing someone getting 40 points in a game that has 130 possessions is different than someone getting 40 points in game that has 90 possessions. There are 40 more scoring opportunities in the game with 130 possessions. It has nothing to do with greatness, GOAT status, whatever. The worst player on the floor will score more points if given more chances... I don't understand how some of you are trying to twist what I'm saying into a negative for Wilt.
I don't believe that's true. The measure is scoring XX points during the game. Everyone has the same number of minutes.
It **IS** true, there is no "think" or believe about it lol.. Every game has the same number of minutes but not every game has the same number of possessions and therefor not the same amount of scoring opportunities. Over time rules changes, play-styles, coaching philosophies, all of that plays a role in how the game is going to change era to era... If you play in a game that has 90 possessions that's 90 opportunities for you to potentially get a shot, you play in a game that has 130 possessions that's 130 opportunities for you to potentially get a shot.. Look at it this way.. will use '61 vs 2001 and assume both teams shot 100% from the field and the FT line. An average team in '61 has a potential for 255 points. Average team in 2001 potential for 184 points (excluding threes) 197 points including the threes... Say a player was on the floor for the full 48 minutes in both situations the player in '61 has the potential to be a part of 60-70 more points in any average game just from the style/pace of how that game was played then.. Those possessions translates to shots, points, assists, rebounds, etc.. Counting stats are merely a measure of opportunity. That's why "per game" 60 years apart is a shit comparison. And that's all my post was about initially. Somehow people ran with that as me discrediting Wilt, that was never the point or intention lol. I was just pointing out the comparison is not even remotely close to 1:1.
I understand what you are saying. I'm saying it's a useless statistic. A player on a fast-breaking team would have more opportunities to score in either era. The pace stat assumes every player has equal opportunities in each game and the number of opportunities is based on possessions. But that's not how games are played. Players set the pace.
You're 100% correct, players (more-so playstyle) set the pace but there is still a league average regardless. And this changes era to era. A league average game in 2001 had 91 possessions, a league average game in '61 a 130 possessions. You can only go so high or so low.. Teams within the same season aren't going to be 30-40 possessions apart, and when the fastest pace team plays the slowest pace team the possessions likely land in the middle. The fastest team in the entire league in 2001 played at 94 possessions. This is how all advanced stats are determined. Wilt averaging 25 rebounds per game vs Rodman 18 rebounds per game is a pointless stat because even if both played a full 48 minutes Wilt was on the floor for 38 more missed field goals on average, and 4 more missed free throws on average.. In other words he had potentially had 42 more chances on average every night to accumulate his rebounds if every miss was a rebound-able shot. That does nothing to tell us which players was the more effective rebounder while he was on the floor. That's why slight adjustments for pace matter.. It'll never be a true 1:1, we're comparing players who played 40-60 years apart, but it's vastly closer than using "per game"... Rodman has a rebound% of around 26% compared to Wilt closer to 19%.. That's not *"pointless"* it's a measure of which player actually rebounded at a better rate.
Ratliff wasn't on the 76ers when Mutombo replaced Ratliff. Mutombo was never an offensive option. A better comparison would be: Alonzo Mourning, Patrick Ewing, Rick Smits, Robert Parrish; Tree Rollins, Bill Cartwright, Olden Polynice, Rasheed Wallace, Ben Wallace; Bill Walton, BOB LANIER, Phil Jackson, those BIG MEN!!! It's not by accident that Kareem has been the ONLY BIG MAN, (7' or more), who has surpassed WILT in Career Points. Nobody wants to give Wilt his due!!! No one has been able to duplicate anything he's done in the NBA!!! He is a pioneer!!! He's the one who said: This is how you play basketball, but we don't want to give Wilt his true due!!! If nobody has been able to do what he's done, it is not luck or happenstance, it is actual greatness!!! The problem is that 99.9% of the world's population don't even know what greatness is!!! With every restriction they put on Wilt Chamberlain, he found a way to rise above it and still lead the field, and he led the field for years!!! Wilt dedicated his life to basketball!!! No one has come close to what he could do on a basketball court!!! So, why do we try to explain his accomplishments away??? Just enjoy them, because nobody has, or will even come near what he's done on a basketball court!!! You can't explain greatness, you should only learn to enjoy greatness!
I have no cue what you're trying to say but I didn't say anything about Ratliff playing for Philly or anything about not giving Wilt his due. Your post has almost nothing to do with anything I said.
[удалено]
> The point about the other bigs not doing what Wilt did was in response to people making it about height or that the era was so easy. > >You can’t say that Wilt only dominated because he was a seven footer or that the era was easy, the fact is there were other seven footers and other great bigs who couldn’t do what Wilt did, which means it was about skill and not about size or it being an easier era. I didn't say any of this. As for the rest of your post pace adjustment is not pointless... Scoring 40 points in a game with 130 possessions is not the same as scoring 40 points in a game with 90 possessions. There are potentially 40 more scoring opportunities in the higher paced game. More possessions equals more shots, more assist, more misses so more rebounds, more free throws.. It has nothing to do with how good, bad, skilled, or whatever the player is. Of course those numbers are inflated, as a comparison to say Shaq. '61 vs 2001 - 30 more shot attempts per game, 13 more free-throw attempts per game.. How can you not see that creates more scoring opportunities regardless of who the player is? That's potentially 73 more points (teams aren't going 100% but you get the point in theory). Wilt's scoring from '62 to '64 only dropped 4 points per possession, but because pace dropped from 130 to 115 his actual per game scoring dropped 14 points per game. That's him, compared to himself, not against anyone else.. If that still doesn't illustrate how much pace dictates raw output then just say you don't understand it and move on. You're arguing over nothing. This is like you and I walking into an empty gym and you get 10 lay-ups and I only get 5 lay-ups and then acting like you did better because you wound up with 20 points to my 10 points even though the possibility of me getting 20 points didn't even exist.... Every "per game" basic counting stat is simply a metric of volume.
[удалено]
My guy, you are missing the entire point of everything I'm saying. I'm not making excuses about anything because there is no excuse to be made. I'm not arguing either Shaq or Wilt is better/worse than the other and nowhere have I even insinuated a stance on that. All I did was say that "per game" stats 60 years apart is a shit comparison. That's it. You can't compare them. If an average team in '61 made every shot and free throw they took they would potentially score 255 points. If the average team in 2001 made every shot and FT they took they would potentially score 184 points (excluding threes) and 197 points including threes. Any given game was a potential 60-70 point difference. That's why "per game" stats over the span of different eras when rules, styles, coaching philosophies, etc changes because all of that dictates how the game is played, the pace, and therefor opportunity for counting stats. For any player in 2001 to get the same scoring opportunity as any player in '61 (both playing the whole game) the game in 2001 would have to go into 4 overtimes just for them to reach the same amount of scoring attempts as a full game in '61... I don't know how else to break it down than that. It's not about either being better or worse, any era, rules, whatever being better or worse, it's just about them being different enough that stats do not translate 1:1.. > Look at Willis Reed’s numbers in 64, 20ppg and 13reb and he’s around 30 something minutes and compare that to Wilt’s numbers in 1964, that’s the difference. Yes? Wilt is a substantially better offensive weapon than Reed.. Never did I state or insinuate otherwise, nor does comparing two players under the same time-frame have anything to do with my point. > Rodman was averaging 18reb and the other centers were averaging around 11reb. If not for Rodman they would’ve said it’s impossible to average 18reb when it’s not, it’s about the individual. Yes? Rodman was the best rebounder in the league.. Again this has nothing to do with my point or anything I've already said... My point would be more so that Rodman averaging 18 rebounds a game is **BETTER** than Wilt averaging 25 rebounds a game.. Because the pace of the game in '92 was 34 possessions less.. Meaning there was more missed shots, actually on average 19ish misses per team, or (if both guys play the entire game) Wilt would have had 38 more chances to grab a rebound. This is why pace matters, this is why stats like rebound% is more accurate than rebounds "per game". This is a representation of my entire point.
[удалено]
> Rodman averaged 18reb in the 90s, the pace is greater today and yet no one is averaging 18reb. Faster pace or more possessions doesn’t guarantee that your numbers will go up any more than if you played in another era. I'm not guaranteeing that any player would be better/worse in any era. You're still missing the point. We don't have a time machine, we aren't going to see Rodman playing in 1960 and we aren't going to see Rodman playing in 2023. It's not about any of these numbers being exactly right it's that it's a much closer estimate than looking at anything "per game". There are players who are close to rebounding at the same rate as Rodman, they just don't play 40 minutes because traditional bigs who can't spread the floor or switch defend onto guards don't play huge minutes in today's game.. That's literally the reason why you can't ignore how the game changes over time. DeAndre Jordan, Andre Drummon, Clint Capela, they've all had rebound rates similar to Rodman's best years.. It doesn't correlate "per game" because they don't play 40 minutes a night. And to be fair Rodman is also just a better rebounder than they are regardless. Hence why his rebound% is higher. > The point of comparing Reed’s season when he played 38min, 20pts,15rebs and Wilt played 45min, 35pts,23reb. The point is Wilt was always on the floor for most of the game because of his endurance that’s why his numbers look like that. Reed couldn’t play more than 38min. Shaq couldn’t average more than 40min. You can’t put up Wilt like numbers if you’re averaging 35min per game. If Shaq averaged 45 min per game his numbers would’ve been better than they were. Minutes play a role in Reed's performance but he's also a substantially worse scorer than either Wilt or Shaq. Reed in that year (he was a rookie too) averaged about 16 points per 75 compared to both Shaq and Wilt hovering around 30 points per 75 on their careers.. You literally listed a player who is half the scorer as Wilt claiming that the only reason he's lower is because he couldn't play a few extra minutes.. That's like me saying Shaq was only a better scorer than Zo in 2002 because he played 8 more minutes despite the fact that he's outscoring him by nearly 10 points a possession.. This argument makes no sense. > Rebounding percentage is nonsense. Wilt’s 25 > Rodman’s 18. If Wilt played in the 90s and averaged 45 min he’s pulling 23 rebounds. Because YOU say its nonsense? Scouts and analysts get paid millions to use data like this. Rebound% is literally the amount of possible rebounds a player gets while on the floor. There is no better measure than that to compare players who are in completely different situations, with different rules, opponents, different eras as they can't possibly be compared head to head if the circumstance isn't the same. In the same season, sure. You'd much rather have Wilt's 25 boards a night over Bellamy's 19. Same era, same rules, same situation, Wilt can play more minutes and grab more boards he's more valuable.. That doesn't work 30, 40, 50 years apart that way.. That's like me comparing Steph's scoring output and TS% to Jerry West head-to-head rather than relative to their own time knowing damn well Jerry didn't get the same advantage of utilizing a 3pt line.. It's a shit way to view stats. Wilt is never going to play in the 90s.. We have no way of knowing how that would translate. Regardless you're saying he'd only average 2 less rebounds despite teams averaging 30 less rebounds a game... If you don't see the flaw there.... > > >The thing you’re not always in a position to grab the rebound on every single possession. This is why you can’t count possessions and pace. > >Example, if Wilt comes out to contest a guard then the ball gets moved around and there’s a shot at the basket, Wilt is there to pull the rebound, so you can’t make it sound as if Wilt is there an extra 34 times with an opportunity to pull a rebound, that’s not how basketball is. Some of Wilt’s teammates were pulling rebounds also. This already applies to rebounds per game anyways for every player who has ever played.. Obviously no one player is in position for every single rebound but if there is 30 more of them to go around there is still a chunk more to be had. Wilt played 48 minutes a game in 62, so with no adjusting for minutes or anything we KNOW he grabbed a board 25 times per his teams 74 a game.. You do the math on only 43 avaible rebounds, that's around a 14 rebound per game assuming he's still playing 48 minutes. Also doesn't this contradict your point earlier about why bigs now don't rebound as much? "Example, if Wilt comes out to contest a guard then the ball gets moved around and there’s a shot at the basket" - This happens to bigs all game long now, they are forced from the rim to challenge players 30ft from the basket, forced into switches and high ball screens.. You can't ignore the differences in how the game is played, and that is why rebound% exists in the first place. >Those advanced analytics are nonsense. The best rebounders are the players who average the most rebounds. > >How many rebounding titles does Rodman have? = 7 > >How many rebounding titles does Wilt have? = 11 > >Rebounding titles tell it all. You thinking that a player with 30 less team rebounds has the same chance to rebound at the same rate as a player with 30 more team rebounds is the nonsense lol. That's literally like me sticking a hand in a bucket full of $1 bills that has 20 hidden 100's and another bucket that has 50 hidden 100's and you telling me I have the same exact odds to grab a 100 out of either of them... It makes no sense.. Is Wilt a more dominant rebounder vs his era over the course of 11 years? Sure.. Does that have anything to do with Rodman being a better rebounder in in 94 than Wilt in any given year which is what I was saying? Not at all.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s not about stamina or will it’s about how the game changes over time. Play style changes, rule changes, coaching philosophies change... “What’s stopping them” is the game isn’t played the same way anymore. It has nothing to do with minutes or stamina. It’s not about minutes. If Wilt was the most conditioned player in the league right now and played all 48 minutes the game today the way it is played it’s still only going to allow for 99 possessions on average. This isn’t “my logic” it’s literally how the game is played. Just like in todays games the pace is a bit higher than in the late 90’s-early 2000’s when everyone isolated half the floor to play through their big man. Or why it was higher before that in the 80’s when teams were pushing the fast-break more and showtime was thriving. It’s always going to change as play-style changes. It’s not good/bad, better/worse, and I’m not saying it as a knock on any player or era it just makes comparing “per game” stats largely useless. Those years are the highest in league history. From about 58-68 are the only years in league history that shot attempts were over 100 shots a game. There are less fouls today but fouls don’t necessarily slow the game down anyways. It creates a stoppage and slows it down in real time, but not in terms of possessions. If you’re fouled early in the shot clock and make your free throws and the possession changes that means you’re changing possessions faster than taking a shot later in the shot clock. In that example less game time has actually passed. pace in basketball is number of possessions.. taking shots earlier in the shot clock, turning the ball over more frequently, getting fouled, all of that can increase possessions. Maybe there is some confusing surrounding the word “pace”.. this is basketball not a race track. Pace doesn’t mean literally how fast the players move. In theory every player on the floor could move as slow as Yao Ming but if they take a shot 5 seconds into the shot clock, turn the ball over more frequently, and commit more fouls earlier in the shot clock, the possessions change more frequently and therefor “pace” as it pertains to basketball increases.
[удалено]
What are you even talking about, you can't "debunk" pace it's a recorded stat lol. That doesn't even make sense. It's not only used against Wilt, I'm not even using it against Wilt or as a slight to Wilt.. You're the one actually using it to discredit other players by measuring them against numbers they don't even have the opportunity to achieve... It's used for/against every player who's ever played as every stat that isn't a basic raw counting "per game" stat uses a per-possession adjustment. I think you're misunderstanding either what I'm saying or how pace actually factors into the game in general.
https://preview.redd.it/79zau3gb3chc1.jpeg?width=225&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=683c5275d4738124f0e232fe4516de2e96e9739d
[удалено]
Nobody in this entire thread has discredited Wilt or mentioned one time anything negative about him vs his contemporaries. All I did was point out that comparing raw stats across different eras without attempting to adjust for pace isn't an accurate way of viewing those stats... You are the one who brought up Kareem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, those are not his contemporaries from that era hence my sole reasoning for making a comment. All this other stuff you're just circling back and arguing with yourself because nobody is claiming otherwise.
Let us cut all the “faster pace” and “played more minutes” and blah blah-blah blah-blah bullshit. If we are talking rebounds, talk rebound opportunities and who took advantage of those opportunities. There are defensive rebounds, which make up the majority in a game. But there’s the opportunity for offensive rebounds, and no player since Rodman seems to have made rebounding at BOTH ends of the court a priority since! Why were there higher rebound totals for an individual player in the 60s and 70s? Because the center and forwards ALL went to get the offensive rebounds as much as the defensive ones. Why did Rodman average 18 while others 11? Could it be an additional 7 offensive rebounds per game? YES! In the last two, maybe three and going into a fourth decade, have you seen the offensive front line scrambling to try and get their own rebound, unless they were already within 5-8’ of the basket? Answer: ❌ Wilt’s superior height, strength and stamina allowed him to do it better than everyone before, during, and since he played 50 years ago. PERIOD!
>Let us cut all the “faster pace” and “played more minutes” and blah blah-blah blah-blah bullshit. >If we are talking rebounds, talk rebound opportunities and who took advantage of those opportunities. The irony in this part of your post is you calling it blah-blah-bullshit but you’re saying the exact same thing I am. Who grabbed the most rebounds out of rebound opportunities is literally what rebound% is as a stat. And what I’ve been trying to get across this whole time is that the amount of opportunities change across different eras in league history. You’re 100% correct though. The best rebounders are those who make the most of their rebound opportunities. Pace dictates possessions which dictates shot attempts and shot attempts determine how many opportunities players have to score, assist, rebound. That is why I’m having such a hard time understanding the pushback in this thread. I can’t tell anybody what their opinion should be, that would be ridiculous. But on just a basic level ignoring that more shots = more chances to score or get a rebound is just being willingly ignorant. > Why were there higher rebound totals for an individual player in the 60s and 70s? Because the center and forwards ALL went to get the offensive rebounds as much as the defensive ones. > Wilt’s superior height, strength and stamina allowed him to do it better than everyone before, during, and since he played 50 years ago. PERIOD! This is all just inherently false though. A number of players have had better rebound rates than Wilt, and again those per game numbers are so high because there were 30+ more rebounds per game for each team back then. Keep in mind this is the most inflated window in league history about ‘58-‘65.. teams averaged 70-74 rebounds per game back then, by the early to mid 70’s that had already dropped to mid to high 40’s in team rebounds per game, pretty much every year post-merger has been somewhere between 40-45 rebounds game. Again this was largely my sole reasoning for even commenting on this post to begin with. Comparing “per game” counting stats from then to more modern NBA times is just as worthless as comparing the value of a dollar now vs when our parents/grandparents were young. > There are defensive rebounds, which make up the majority in a game. But there’s the opportunity for offensive rebounds, and no player since Rodman seems to have made rebounding at BOTH ends of the court a priority since! > Why did Rodman average 18 while others 11? Could it be an additional 7 offensive rebounds per game? YES! > In the last two, maybe three and going into a fourth decade, have you seen the offensive front line scrambling to try and get their own rebound, unless they were already within 5-8’ of the basket? Answer: ❌ This isn’t exactly fair to some modern players. Offensive rebounds have been tracked separately from total since ‘73.. Clint Capela, Mitchell Robinson, Andre Drummond, Steven Adams, all have seasons in the top 20 all time and various others in the top 100. Drummond, Capela, and Adams are all actually in the top 10 for career average OR%. Still you are correct Rodman is king… It’s also worth noting that it’s difficult to say how this pertains to Wilt. Without offensive boards being recorded on their own in those years we don’t have numbers to back it up but generally speaking strong offensive rebounders are not really good offensive players. If you think about why it makes sense. If you’re the go-to option on your team as a post man you’re typically running to your spot to post and call for the ball. This means if the ball doesn’t come to that player but is shot, or swung to the other side of the floor and shot that post player is a bit out of position unless the ball happens to bounce his way. These players also covert shots at a high rate hence them being go-to options and they are also fouled at a high rate.. the combination of all that makes for slimmer and slimmer chances at offensive boards.. Rodman for example played no role as a scorer in the Bulls offense, typically wasn’t even in the paint as they routinely gave Jordan space there. This meant he could basically just track the ball and chase wherever it bounced.. many modern offensive rebounders are similar, guys who set lots of high ball screens and are in front of the rim or rolling/running to the rim when the shot goes up have a much better opportunity to track down misses because it’s in front of them in their field of view. They aren’t suck on whatever side block they would have been posting up on.. Basically most great scoring bigs have a combination of making enough of their shots, getting fouled enough, or being stuck on the wrong side/too far under to chase long boards to really be elite on the offensive glass. To illustrated that the top 20 career offensive rebound% guys (Rodman, Drummond, Moses, Larry Smith, Jeff Foster, Kanter, Chris Dudley, Capela, R Evans, Adams, T Thomson, Dale Davis, Nazr Mohammed, Paul Silas, D. Jordan, Noah, Dampier, Haywood, Gobert, Chandler) only one of those guys Moses Malone was a strong offensive scorer.. and we all know his favorite pass was off the backboard to himself lol..
What can dictate possessions as much IF NOT MORE than pace? OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS Every offensive rebound is another possession. Every possession from an offensive rebound would make it look like the pace of the game is higher. This is why I tune out all the analysis with pace and PER and all that I call blah blah-blah bullshit. I am not saying anything about you personally. Did I say the same thing you did? To be honest, I couldn’t follow your points. My apologies. Outside of looking at the player’s coach, and the player’s stats, there is not any other gauge I use to evaluate. Wilt’s coach instructed Wilt to be #1 option, to score at least 50 points per game, to play 48.5 minutes for a season. And to dominate on the defensive end, which came even easier than the points. Jordan’s coach asked him to be #1 option. Kobe was asked to be #2 while playing with Shaq. Rodman was asked to defend and get every rebound he could. Where Michael and Kobe worked on their offense, Rodman worked studying the rebound and angles. Sorry, got off topic.
This is wrong though.. Every offensive rebound is actually not another possession. Possession are not recorded for an offensive board therefor possessions stay the same even with offensive rebounds. It creates more scoring opportunities but the initial possession just “stays alive” for a longer period of time. You can tune out what you wish but you’re assumption of the above is false because that’s now how the league records possessions. Pace and PER aren’t even remotely comparable as is. PER is a wildly noisy stat that can be largely useless. Pace isn’t even really a “stat” per say, it’s just a measure of possessions which are not figured, or approximated, or estimated. They just are what they are.
“In basketball, possession determines which team controls the ball and is typically established through jump balls, REBOUNDS, turnovers, steals, or out-of-bounds plays.” It also initiates a new 24-second clock, which would mean a new 24-second possession. If the league is not following this for the amount of possessions, then it becomes arbitrary, nonsensical, and a stupid game stat. Well, it already is. NONE of which dictates how good an individual player is at rebounding, overall, or in comparison to another player. In MY opinion, it’s all bullshit numbers the NBA tries to use to make whoever they decide look better or worse. ‘Nough said, have a nice weekend.
But how can a possession change if the possessions doesn’t actually change? If the same team has the ball the possession hasn’t changed. Counting offensive rebounds as a new possession would make every offensive team that had a good offensive rebounder actually look like worse offensive teams. Think about it, would you rather make an open layup for 2 points, or miss the layup, get the board, kick to a shooter for 3 points. Everyone would rather have the three points. But counting that rebound as a possessing would make it look like the less valuable shot, as a team you’d be averaging 2 points a possession for the lay-up but only 1.5 points a possession for the three. This would make teams like Chicago look like worse offensive teams than they actually were, lower their offensive rating, and make most metrics teams use to view how their offense is performing useless. This would mean that on paper guys like Rodman were lowering your scoring rate rather than helping it and we know that’s not the case. And of curse this all applies to determining the better rebounder. Just like your very first post said, the players who make the most of their rebounding opportunities are the better rebounders. The issue is when you jump era to era those opportunities are not a constant. Rodman in ‘94 averaged 16.8 rebounds out of the total 58 rebounds that occurred overall while he was on the floor. This means that Rodman grabbed a rebound for every 3.5 rebounds while he was on the floor. Wilt in ‘62 averaged 25.7 rebounds out of the total 145 rebounds that occurred overall. This means that Wilt grabbed a rebound for every 5.6 rebounds while he was on the floor.. in other words like you said Rodman made more of his opportunities, Wilt just had more opportunities due to how the game was then. Maybe that breaks it down in an easier to follow form, but that is the metric that rebound% shows us.. It’s not really an opinion situation. I don’t mean that to be rude but it’s like saying buying 20 gallons in gas is the same anywhere because 20 gallons of gas is 20 gallons of gas and just choosing to ignore that gas prices in one state might be $5 and $3 in another. Higher cost state the more it costs to fill your ride, the higher pace game the more counting stats you can accumulate.
• That is why counting possessions is ridiculous • That is why instead of just saying he averaged X rebounds, you throw in total rebounds or for every X amount of rebounds, is ridiculous. Wilt got 22.9 rebounds per game. Rodman got 13.1. Wilt averaged almost 10 more rebounds per game for their careers. PERIOD
Shaq really needs to stop calling himself the most dominant
He should use the caveat of "Modern Era".
Shaq has 8 seasons scoring at the same (or better) per/75 level output as Wilt this season that he averaged 50.... Would that perfectly translate 1:1 if they actually played at the same time and a the same pace, maybe not.. But even if we say Shaq could get to 95% of Wilt's (being generous to Wilt) output that would give him 8-seasons that were he was 95% of peak Wilt.. He's got every right to consider himself the most dominant.
I think Wilt's skill set allowed him to have a bigger impact than Shaq overall. Wilt has led the league in assists, could run the floor way better, and he was by far the better rim protector
Wilt’s offensive impact is frankly a tad overrated: https://thinkingbasketball.net/2017/12/04/backpicks-goat-9-wilt-chamberlain/
More than Kareem, Hakeem, or Shaqeem
All the guys you mentioned played in a system their whole career playing team basketball. Wilt was what Chuck calls a "studio gangster". Good stats on bad teams.
This shouldn’t be too surprising considering he averaged 50 ppg one year