Basketball statistics

[Joanne Vergin]

Could someone refer me to a website with good basketball statistics? I'm trying to help someone with a project on the top ten basketball players. The problem I am running into is stuff based on opinion, not fact.
Thanks.

[Benjamin Burch]

What type of statistics? I think that's an important first step. However, a great catch-all with both standard statistics as well as limited Sabermetric statistics is

http://www.baseball-reference.com/

[Joanne Vergin]

I have been to the baseball site, do they have other sports as well?
To answer the other question, I don't know what the "big" stats are for basketball. I know homerun is the big one in baseball and I can tel you the top three in that! :)

[Billie Goodson]

Perhaps Ben meant this site.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/

[Benjamin Burch]

I have been to the baseball site, do they have other sports as well?
To answer the other question, I don't know what the "big" stats are for basketball. I know homerun is the big one in baseball and I can tel you the top three in that! :)

I read your ENTIRE thing wrong. I thought you said "Baseball."

Yes, they do have basketball.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/

It has a pretty wide array of Total, Per game, per 36-Minute, and Advanced statistics.

You could also use,

http://www.82games.com/

It has a lot more advanced analysis.

NBA.com also provides its own statistics which can be helpful or useful. Those are some starter sites.

Does this individual understand some of the ideas around advanced statistics? He will probably want to consider some of the discussion of how advanced statistics improve upon standard statistics, but also address weaknesses in advanced statistics.

[Billie Goodson]

I have been to the baseball site, do they have other sports as well?
To answer the other question, I don't know what the "big" stats are for basketball. I know homerun is the big one in baseball and I can tel you the top three in that! :)

A good argument can be advanced that the top three statistical categories are points, rebounds, and assists. There are additional categories such as steals, games played, and various awards that can also be used in any calculation. One also has to consider whether the discussion is limited to levels of competition such as NCAA vs NBA or perhaps a combination of the two. There are names that might appear at the NCAA level that would disappear if their NBA performance is also used. A lot of variables, but it always makes for good discussion.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

No research needed. Here you go:

Michael Jordan
Bill Russell
Kobe Bryant
Wilt Chamberlain
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Bob Cousy
Shaquille O'Neal
Moses Malone
:tongue:

[Billie Goodson]

No research needed. Here you go:

Michael Jordan
Bill Russell
Kobe Bryant
Wilt Chamberlain
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Bob Cousy
Shaquille O'Neal
Moses Malone
:tongue:


How could you ever rate ____ above _____ ? Don't you realize that _____ played in x more games than ____ where he _____ more ____ than _____? In addition, he was voted _____ by the _____ x times while _____ was only voted _____ x- times? Besides that _____ did it all while _____ and that is sure worth more than _____ who did it while ____. Surely your criteria are farcical and you obviously don't know ____.

[Joanne Vergin]

Jeremy, is this based solely on statistics or is this also opinion? I am trying to stay away from opinion.

[Joanne Vergin]

Oh, and I mean professional players btw. I did not make that clear.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Jeremy, is this based solely on statistics or is this also opinion? I am trying to stay away from opinion.

It's based solely on my opinion...my opinion of the stats, of course. :-)

(And I typed it rather quickly...I'm open to suggestion of revision.)

[Billie Goodson]

It's based solely on my opinion...my opinion of the stats, of course. :-)

(And I typed it rather quickly...I'm open to suggestion of revision.)

Why would we even try to change your mind, it is obviously already made up and you don't want the facts.

Oh, sorry, apologies. I now notice that this is not on the theology forum. I will have to reconsider my response.

[Billie Goodson]

Jeremy, is this based solely on statistics or is this also opinion? I am trying to stay away from opinion.

It would be impossible to compile a list such as this without some factor of opinion. However, I think Jeremy has a very credible list. There could be good cases made for moving individuals up/down in the list (obviously Jordan can't be moved up). Some could argue his last two names are sketchy, but there are valid reasons to put them there. Some would argue that others such as Pete Maravich are not included. But, I think his list is a great starting point.

(Hopefully, this post is more within the decorum of the expectations of the sports forum. Man, I wandered over here from the theology forum and didn't change my filters.)

[Joanne Vergin]

Ok gentlemen (and ladies) are the single most important stats points, rebounds and assists? If so, we can look for those and compile our own list.
This all started because someone wanted to know who had the most home runs which even I know is one of the most important statistics. But RBI's and other things are up there too.

[Joanne Vergin]

No research needed. Here you go:

Michael Jordan
Bill Russell
Kobe Bryant
Wilt Chamberlain
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Bob Cousy
Shaquille O'Neal
Moses Malone
:tongue:

Wow, there is only one name on here I have not heard before. I guess I don't live in a dark sports-less cave after all.

[David Morris]

It's based solely on my opinion...my opinion of the stats, of course. :-)

(And I typed it rather quickly...I'm open to suggestion of revision.)

I would think that Tim Duncan and/or David Robinson would appear on that list.

[Jim Poteet]

No research needed. Here you go:

Michael Jordan
Bill Russell
Kobe Bryant
Wilt Chamberlain
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Bob Cousy
Shaquille O'Neal
Moses Malone
:tongue:

What about Oscar Robertson?

[Billie Goodson]

From the basketball-reference.com site:

*-Denotes Hall of Fame membership

Points:
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 38387
2. Karl Malone* 36928
3. Michael Jordan* 32292
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 31419
5. Julius Erving* 30026
6. Moses Malone* 29580
7. Shaquille O'Neal 28255
8. Dan Issel* 27482
9. Elvin Hayes* 27313
10. Hakeem Olajuwon* 26946

Rebounds:

1. Wilt Chamberlain* 23924
2. Bill Russell* 21620
3. Moses Malone* 17834
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 17440
5. Artis Gilmore 16330
6. Elvin Hayes* 16279
7. Karl Malone* 14968
8. Robert Parish* 14715
9. Nate Thurmond* 14464
10. Walt Bellamy* 14241

Assists:

1. John Stockton* 15806
2. Jason Kidd 10923
3. Mark Jackson 10334
4. Magic Johnson* 10141
5. Oscar Robertson* 9887
6. Isiah Thomas* 9061
7. Gary Payton 8966
8. Steve Nash 8397
9. Rod Strickland 7987
10. Maurice Cheeks 7392

Steals:

1. John Stockton* 3265
2. Michael Jordan* 2514
3. Gary Payton 2445
4. Jason Kidd 2343
5. Maurice Cheeks 2310
6. Scottie Pippen* 2307
7. Julius Erving* 2272
8. Clyde Drexler* 2207
9. Hakeem Olajuwon* 2162
10. Alvin Robertson 2112

[Billie Goodson]

I would think that Tim Duncan and/or David Robinson would appear on that list.

I think they are sentimental picks but neither really have the body of work to be in the list (by my criteria which I will not state because it really doesn't exist). But I think they are names that would be considered, although eventually unable to supplant another name on the list.


What about Oscar Robertson?

A lot of good reasons to put the Big O on the list. Who would you take off? Personally, I would drop Kobe B. from the list -- but that is a huge bias of mine that I really can't justify based on the court.

[Benjamin Burch]

No research needed. Here you go:

Michael Jordan
Bill Russell
Kobe Bryant
Wilt Chamberlain
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Bob Cousy
Shaquille O'Neal
Moses Malone
:tongue:

Worst list I've ever seen. Kobe above Shaq? Not a chance.

[Ryan Scott]

There's no stat to tell you Kareem was a ninny.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Worst list I've ever seen. Kobe above Shaq? Not a chance.

Hmm...I don't see any numbers on my list. They were there to begin, but I took them off. Top Ten lists for this kind of thing are increasingly futile year-by-year.

And I hereby declare that any suggestions/names given without stating which name comes off the list to be worthless. (Not to mention deploring the list without backing up said deploration.)
:D:D:D

[Ryan Scott]

As long as Michael Jordan is on top of the list, I won't complain too much. I agree Bill Russell needs to be close.

By the way, Bill Simmons just wrote a 100,000 word volume called "The Book of Basketball" in which he outlines (among other things) his top 40 or 50 players of all time, along with the stats and rationale for his choices.

You can disagree, but chances are you won't have done more research.

[David Lyons]

No research needed. Here you go:

Michael Jordan
Bill Russell
Kobe Bryant
Wilt Chamberlain
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Bob Cousy
Shaquille O'Neal
Moses Malone
:tongue:

Wow! I want to add Julius Erving to the list because he changed the way the game is played, setting the table for Michael Jordan and others. However, I cannot make a valid case for removing any of the others, so, just like I learned from watching NCAA football conferences, here is my Top Ten:

Michael Jordan
Bill Russell
Kobe Bryant
Wilt Chamberlain
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Bob Cousy
Shaquille O'Neal
Moses Malone
Julius Erving

[David Morris]

You can disagree, but chances are you won't have done more research.

Chances are I would never have the time or money to do it either.

[David Morris]

Hmm...I don't see any numbers on my list. They were there to begin, but I took them off. Top Ten lists for this kind of thing are increasingly futile year-by-year.

And I hereby declare that any suggestions/names given without stating which name comes off the list to be worthless. (Not to mention deploring the list without backing up said deploration.)
:D:D:D

I would replace Shaquille O'Neal with Tim Duncan.

Reasoning:

Tim had better averages in Rebounds, Assists, Steals, Blocks, FT%. He also averaged less fouls and turnovers.

Both players were 3 time NBA Finals MVP's, with Tim winning two regular season MVP awards to Shaq's one. Tim also turned it up more in the playoffs, having better averages in Rebound and Assists, while only averaging 1.5 less points.

On top of that, Tim has been nothing but a first class teammate, and has never caused any division among his teammates. Shaq's championships have come with All-Pro players (Kobe & D-Wade), Tim has not had similar support.

While TD's style of play may be boring, it gets the job done. He didn't earn the nickname "The Big Fundamental" for nothing.

[Jim Poteet]

No research needed. Here you go:

Michael Jordan
Bill Russell
Kobe Bryant
Wilt Chamberlain
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Bob Cousy
Shaquille O'Neal
Moses Malone
:tongue:

Don't forget Akeem "The Dream" Olajuwon.

[Ryan Scott]

Don't forget Akeem "The Dream" Olajuwon.

I feel even more special for agreeing with Coach. I've always thought Olajuwon was among the top three centers of all time. Maybe as high as #2. I'm still not sure how to weigh Kareem's longevity and Shaq's physical size when it comes to "best."

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Don't forget Akeem "The Dream" Olajuwon.


I feel even more special for agreeing with Coach. I've always thought Olajuwon was among the top three centers of all time. Maybe as high as #2. I'm still not sure how to weigh Kareem's longevity and Shaq's physical size when it comes to "best."

Who's off?

[Ryan Scott]

Who's off?

Right now I think I'm at: Russell, Kareem, Olajuwon, Shaq. I know Shaq physically and physically has perhaps the most ability ever, but he's only played up to that ability for short amounts of time. Olajuwon was constantly working to improve his game and reached near the peak of his talent for much of his career.

That and the way he completely destroyed a young Shaq in the finals leads me to give him the edge. As much as I don't like Kareem; the man was amazing in his prime and played at a high level for an incredibly long time.

[David Morris]

Pistol Pete > Michael Jordan

[Ryan Scott]

Pistol Pete > Michael Jordan

...in college.

[Benjamin Burch]

Who's off?

Moses Malone.

He was an absolutley fantastic center, but I think Shaq was better. Therefore, I gotta take Moses off that list and put The Dream on for sure.

[Jim Poteet]

Right now I think I'm at: Russell, Kareem, Olajuwon, Shaq. I know Shaq physically and physically has perhaps the most ability ever, but he's only played up to that ability for short amounts of time. Olajuwon was constantly working to improve his game and reached near the peak of his talent for much of his career.

That and the way he completely destroyed a young Shaq in the finals leads me to give him the edge. As much as I don't like Kareem; the man was amazing in his prime and played at a high level for an incredibly long time.

If Wilt is not in the top four centers of all time, something is wrong.

[David Lyons]

I would replace Shaquille O'Neal with Tim Duncan.

While I agree with your high opinion of Tim Duncan as a person, I have to disagree with taking Shaq off the list. He was the most dominant center, without question, during the majority of his career. For all of his career until the last couple of years he was one of the top three players in the league every year. His presence altered his opponents strategy more than any other player. He helped take three different teams to the Finals, and would have had four if Lebron hadn't mailed it in late in the playoffs.

[David Lyons]

For best NBA player all time, I don't think anyone can touch Bill Russell. It's all about championships and helping your team. Nobody did that better than Russell. The Celtics would never have had that dynasty without him.

[Ryan Scott]

If Wilt is not in the top four centers of all time, something is wrong.

Basketball is a team game. Wilt was selfish and a horrible teammate. He could care less about winning.

If I'm picking a team to play a game, I'm not picking Wilt at Center, especially not before those other guys (maybe Shaq).

[Ryan Scott]

If I'm picking a team to defend the honor of the planet (a la Space Jam), I'd go with Bill Russell, Tim Duncan, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Gary Payton.

Four guys who always come through in big moments. Obviously Payton is not the best PG ever, far from it - but with three scorers already you just need someone to play defense and distribute the ball. In his prime there have been few better defenders. (Duncan was just in case we need scoring in the post; Russell is not a shoot first sort of guy. Duncan isn't flashy. They complement each other's games almost perfectly.) My only real question is whether Bird and Jordan could get along - we might have to replace Bird with LeBron (who's shown he doesn't really want to take the last shot anyway.) It's tough to have two go-to guys on the same team.

[Billie Goodson]

If I'm picking a team to defend the honor of the planet (a la Space Jam), I'd go with Bill Russell, Tim Duncan, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Gary Payton.

Four guys who always come through in big moments. Obviously Payton is not the best PG ever, far from it - but with three scorers already you just need someone to play defense and distribute the ball. In his prime there have been few better defenders. (Duncan was just in case we need scoring in the post; Russell is not a shoot first sort of guy. Duncan isn't flashy. They complement each other's games almost perfectly.) My only real question is whether Bird and Jordan could get along - we might have to replace Bird with LeBron (who's shown he doesn't really want to take the last shot anyway.) It's tough to have two go-to guys on the same team.

I would replace Payton with Stockton if that is the team and I had one chance to make it better. Who can forget the Lakers with Payton/Malone/Bryant et. al that failed horribly. In fact, that is why I tend to leave Kobe off the list, he needs the perfect complement to cater to his skills.

[Ryan Scott]

I would replace Payton with Stockton if that is the team and I had one chance to make it better. Who can forget the Lakers with Payton/Malone/Bryant et. al that failed horribly. In fact, that is why I tend to leave Kobe off the list, he needs the perfect complement to cater to his skills.

I thought about Stockton; the obvious choice. But as good as he was defensively, he wasn't that quick on his feet. He relied on the hand check, which is no longer allowed. Assuming we're playing under current rules, I'm just not comfortable with his athletic ability. Payton failed late in his career because he still thought he was fast. Again, in an ideal situation, we're taking these guys at the peak of their abilities - Payton didn't have a long prime, but he was top notch for a couple years.

[Jim Poteet]

Basketball is a team game. Wilt was selfish and a horrible teammate. He could care less about winning.

If I'm picking a team to play a game, I'm not picking Wilt at Center, especially not before those other guys (maybe Shaq).

Were you alive when Wilt played?:) I can assure he was not selfish. He even led the league in assists one year. Shaq should not be mentioned in the same sentence with Wilt.

[Benjamin Burch]

Were you alive when Wilt played?:) I can assure he was not selfish. He even led the league in assists one year. Shaq should not be mentioned in the same sentence with Wilt.

I can accept the sentiment, but I can't agree with it in reality. Wilt obviously put up some of the most dominating statistics in the history of the game. However, he did so against a lot of far less athletic players and in a time when there was simply no one in the league nearly as tall as him. Unless he was facing Russell, no one was going to be able to stop him.

Shaq, on the other hand, dominated in a way that also almost no player ever has in the history of the game but did so in one of the league's best era of Big Men. Mutombo, Mourning, Wallace, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing were all in the league when Shaq was dominating. Also, that doesn't even include the incredible talent at Power Forward in Kemp and Malone early on and then 2 of the 5 (arguably 3) best Power Forwards to ever play the game - Duncan and Garnett. Hakeem and Robinson were certainly on the back 9 during (and retired for part of) Shaq's prime. However, does anyone here really believe that Hakeem or Robinson could have stopped Shaq 99-02? I don't. No one could.

I would argue that Shaquille O'Neal is one of only two centers that actually does belong in the same sentence as Wilt (Russell being the other).

I would actually rate it this way:

Wilt
Shaq
Russell
Kareem
Hakeem

And honestly, I would not be bothered by anyone putting Shaq at #1 above Wilt. He really was simply that good. If he could have shot 70% consistently from the free throw line, I don't think there'd be any doubt.

[Billie Goodson]

I can accept the sentiment, but I can't agree with it in reality. Wilt obviously put up some of the most dominating statistics in the history of the game. However, he did so against a lot of far less athletic players and in a time when there was simply no one in the league nearly as tall as him. Unless he was facing Russell, no one was going to be able to stop him.



One can also argue that Shaq is playing in a time (like Kobe and all other modern players) where defense is practically unheard of in the NBA. I have to admit a prejudice against the current state of the NBA game. Honestly, to me it is pathetic. Maybe some of the players today could compete in the league of 20+ years ago, but they would be vastly different players in those leagues. I think the all star game is the only place where they readily admit they really hate to play defense, otherwise for the most part they put up a feeble effort at it and hope they can shine when they get the ball back in their hands. The NBA game is ripe for a team that has solid fundamentals to completely dominate the league.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Basketball is a team game. Wilt was selfish and a horrible teammate. He could care less about winning.

When it comes to Wilt, I can only mainly go on statistics. Why would you take Hakeem over Wilt? If it's really "team play," then I"m not sure why you'd take Olajuwan over him as they both had two championships, and Wilt averaged two assists more per game than Hakeem.

[Benjamin Burch]

One can also argue that Shaq is playing in a time (like Kobe and all other modern players) where defense is practically unheard of in the NBA. I have to admit a prejudice against the current state of the NBA game. Honestly, to me it is pathetic. Maybe some of the players today could compete in the league of 20+ years ago, but they would be vastly different players in those leagues. I think the all star game is the only place where they readily admit they really hate to play defense, otherwise for the most part they put up a feeble effort at it and hope they can shine when they get the ball back in their hands. The NBA game is ripe for a team that has solid fundamentals to completely dominate the league.

Yes, but Shaq did not dominate in the current defenseless game that you're referencing.

Again, when Shaq was in on the front of his prime and in it he was playing against the likes of:

Ben Wallace
Alonzo Mourning
Greg Ostertag
Theo Ratliff
Yao Ming
David Robinson
Hakeem Olajuwon
Patrick Ewing
Dikembe Mutombo
Shawn Kemp
Dennis Rodman
Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan

Shaq arguably played in the single greatest era of Big Men that the league has ever seen. Sadly he was at his best once The Dream and The Admiral were retired and Zo was battling Kidney Disease. However, one cannot argue that Shaq did not put up his impressive numbers against a stacked league.

[Benjamin Burch]

For best NBA player all time, I don't think anyone can touch Bill Russell. It's all about championships and helping your team. Nobody did that better than Russell. The Celtics would never have had that dynasty without him.

I genuinely despise this line of thinking. Because the Celtics also would not have had that dynasty without Cousy.

Statements like this seem to miss the team aspect of Basketball. Because the fact is that if Bill Russell had played on a team of nobodies, this discussion wouldn't be happening. However, he'd still be the same great ball-player, right?

Or Kobe. Sure, Shaq could not have won without Kobe. But Kobe also could not have won without Shaq. The fact of the matter is that Shaq was the most dominant player on that team and the biggest reason for those championships. However, he couldn't have won them without that team. Likewise, somehow Kobe still gets tons of credit for "having 5 championships" and it's spoken of in a way that assumes he's done more than LeBron when, in all reality, all he's done is play on better teams than LeBron.

The only question should be, when faced with the opportunity to perform in clutch situations and give your team a chance to win, did you do that? If so... it really shouldn't matter if you have zero championships. No matter how good one player is, he's not going to overcome a team that is simply much better.

[Ryan Scott]

Were you alive when Wilt played? I can assure he was not selfish. He even led the league in assists one year. Shaq should not be mentioned in the same sentence with Wilt.

He led the league in assists that year because he wanted to lead the league in assists. Check out his team's record that season. They were built around him scoring 50 pts a game and he decided to give the ball up half the times he got it. He also stopped playing defense when he got in foul trouble because he set some random goal of never fouling out of a game. He got traded four times while he was in his prime in an era where that just didn't happen.

I'd rather have a motivated Shaq than Wilt, but I'd really rather have Bill Russell.

[Ryan Scott]

When it comes to Wilt, I can only mainly go on statistics. Why would you take Hakeem over Wilt? If it's really "team play," then I"m not sure why you'd take Olajuwan over him as they both had two championships, and Wilt averaged two assists more per game than Hakeem.

So did you not get a chance to read Simmons' book? He makes a pretty good case against Wilt in there.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

There are so many contradictions in this post, I don't even know where to start.


I genuinely despise this line of thinking. Because the Celtics also would not have had that dynasty without Cousy.

David never said that the Celtics would have won without Cousy. You lambasted him for that and then went on to make the same kind of statement by saying that the Celtics would never have won without Cousy...? I don't get it. Anyone and everyone (including BOTH Bill Russell and Bob Cousy) will tell you that Russell was more important than anyone else, including Red Auerbach. Could he have done it without Cousy? Probably not...but it's a futile question and any response is nothing more than conjecture.


Statements like this seem to miss the team aspect of Basketball. Because the fact is that if Bill Russell had played on a team of nobodies, this discussion wouldn't be happening. However, he'd still be the same great ball-player, right?

David just said that what made Russell great was his team play!!! Russell made everyone around him better like no other center ever has.


Or Kobe. Sure, Shaq could not have won without Kobe. But Kobe also could not have won without Shaq. The fact of the matter is that Shaq was the most dominant player on that team and the biggest reason for those championships. However, he couldn't have won them without that team. Likewise, somehow Kobe still gets tons of credit for "having 5 championships" and it's spoken of in a way that assumes he's done more than LeBron when, in all reality, all he's done is play on better teams than LeBron.

...oh...and also that he's better than LeBron.


The only question should be, when faced with the opportunity to perform in clutch situations and give your team a chance to win, did you do that? If so... it really shouldn't matter if you have zero championships. No matter how good one player is, he's not going to overcome a team that is simply much better.
Hmm...okay...you make claim that Kobe has only had more succes than LeBron because he's had other players and then you say that all that matters is the maximizing of opportunities in the clutch...which is all that Kobe has ever done and all of that which LeBron has NEVER done.

(And I'm a Celtics fan, so I have little love for Kobe.)

[Benjamin Burch]

There are so many contradictions in this post, I don't even know where to start.



David never said that the Celtics would have won without Cousy. You lambasted him for that and then went on to make the same kind of statement by saying that the Celtics would never have won without Cousy...? I don't get it. Anyone and everyone (including BOTH Bill Russell and Bob Cousy) will tell you that Russell was more important than anyone else, including Red Auerbach. Could he have done it without Cousy? Probably not...but it's a futile question and any response is nothing more than conjecture.

I possibly misunderstood. I was under the impression that Russell was getting the credit for being the "key" to those championships. I don't believe that such a thing exists. Each star player doing their job was the "key" to those championships.

My point is that when a player's championships is credited toward their greatness the entire conversation gets skewed beyond any meaning.

Because the fact is that no championship player ever did it on their own. Without the fact that they were on a great team to begin with they'd never have won. Look at Barkley. Is he any less of a player because he never won? No. But yet we continually seem to have the conversation in ways that make it seem as though he is.



David just said that what made Russell great was his team play!!! Russell made everyone around him better like no other center ever has.

But, again, my question is... is championships any kind of a meaningful measure of that? Just imagine Russell on a terrible team. No doubt he still plays amazing team basketball and makes everyone around him better like no other center ever has. However, they still don't compete for a championship.

So, the championship becomes completely meaningless in the equation.

Not to mention the coach variable. With a terrible coach does that team compete for a championship?

There are way too many variables at work for the "Championship count" to mean anything at all in the conversation.

This is why I made the statement about capitalizing on opportunities by performing well. See below for some clarification there.




...oh...and also that he's better than LeBron.


I think that any and every statistical analysis will show that LeBron has been better in every single category than Kobe Bryant, including making his teammates better.



Hmm...okay...you make claim that Kobe has only had more succes than LeBron because he's had other players and then you say that all that matters is the maximizing of opportunities in the clutch...which is all that Kobe has ever done and all of that which LeBron has NEVER done.

(And I'm a Celtics fan, so I have little love for Kobe.)
I think that LeBron in fact has capitalized on opportunities. That was actually my point. No matter how much he did that it wasn't going to lead to championships when the other teams were easily better overall. I must not have communicated that well. My apologies. So, it actually wasn't a contradiction, I just failed at communication! :smilies1722:

LeBron's playoff performance two years ago was as good as Jordan's best. So how can we say he didn't capitalize? The fact is that his #2 player was Mo Williams and #3 was Delonte West. That team doesn't stand a chance.

This year #2 was Antawn Jamison and #3 Mo Williams. Again... no chance.

As for the regular season records, that's why there are 7-game series. It equalizes star-power. A guy like LeBron James can win games all by himself in one game sets against another great team when they don't play them again for 20 more games. However, you play 7 games in a row against each other and the better team will win more games regardless of the star on the other side.

I think the fact that LeBron took the Magic Series to 7 in 2009 and the Celtics series to 6 in 2010 is a testament to just how amazing he really is. HIs teams were far outmatched.

It is also evidenced by how mediocre the Cavaliers' record was against playoff teams over the past 2 seasons during the regular season.

Anyways... I'm rambling at this point.

[Jim Poteet]

I can accept the sentiment, but I can't agree with it in reality. Wilt obviously put up some of the most dominating statistics in the history of the game. However, he did so against a lot of far less athletic players and in a time when there was simply no one in the league nearly as tall as him. Unless he was facing Russell, no one was going to be able to stop him.

Shaq, on the other hand, dominated in a way that also almost no player ever has in the history of the game but did so in one of the league's best era of Big Men. Mutombo, Mourning, Wallace, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing were all in the league when Shaq was dominating. Also, that doesn't even include the incredible talent at Power Forward in Kemp and Malone early on and then 2 of the 5 (arguably 3) best Power Forwards to ever play the game - Duncan and Garnett. Hakeem and Robinson were certainly on the back 9 during (and retired for part of) Shaq's prime. However, does anyone here really believe that Hakeem or Robinson could have stopped Shaq 99-02? I don't. No one could.

I would argue that Shaquille O'Neal is one of only two centers that actually does belong in the same sentence as Wilt (Russell being the other).

I would actually rate it this way:

Wilt
Shaq
Russell
Kareem
Hakeem

And honestly, I would not be bothered by anyone putting Shaq at #1 above Wilt. He really was simply that good. If he could have shot 70% consistently from the free throw line, I don't think there'd be any doubt.

I am going to give you some reality.:)

You need to check and see the great players at center that Wilt played against. Also remember that for most of his career there were only 8 teams in the NBA. With only 8 teams the competition was not watered down and most teams only had 10 players on their team. Check out the the stats for Bill Russell, Nate Thurmond, and Bob Lanier. All were great centers and would dominate in today's NBA.

Here is an interesting take on Wilt. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/438984-wilt-chamberlain-did-he-really-play-in-weak-era

Wilt used to work out with the Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) during the time when Arnold first came to the U.S. as a bodybuilder. Wilt got his bench press up to 500 pounds. Shaq could only bench about 450, probably less now.

When Wilt was 59 years old, he was STILL able to bench 465, which is more that Shaq has ever been able to do. Wilt was 63 when he died.

Wilt was definitely stronger than Shaq (although Shaq is a LOT heavier because he has a lot more fat than Wilt did). Shaq's excess fat has a negative affect on his stamina.

Wilt averaged 46 minutes per game over the course of his career, and in 1962, Wilt only sat out EIGHT MINUTES of the ENTIRE SEASON. He was ejected with two technicals with eight minutes to go in one game, but played every minute (including overtimes) of each of the other 79 games that season. As a result of playing more minutes of overtime than he sat out during regulation, Wilt averaged 48.5 minutes per game that year, even though a regulation game is only 48 minutes.

Shaq has only had one season in which he averaged 40 min/game. He's never been a conditioning fanatic.

Shaq is good, but he ain't Wilt Chamberlain

Secondly, the 60's era in which Wilt played, was a more physical era. There were no sissy flagrant or hand-check fouls during that time. Refs allowed those physical tactics go unpunished because the owners and NBA management believe that blood and violence was what brought people to basketball games back then.

Superstar players like Wilt received no favorable treatment from refs and, in fact, refs often sided with the opposing team against Wilt because they feel that he is simply too dominating. The NBA enacted rules to stop Wilt somehow.

And what made it even more amazing is that he had 3-4 guys collapsing and getting rough on him whenever he touched the ball. Unless you're Bill Russell and feeling lucky, Wilt was NEVER played one on one.

"Wilt wouldn't be able to dominate this current era"

What would it be like if a prime 7'1'' 300-pounder with a 55" vertical and a 500 bench press came into the league now? I think he'd expose the NBA for the sham it is today.

First, he'd definitely lead the NBA in rebounds. He'd average 18.

Second, he'd lead the league in blocks. He'd average six or seven.

Third, he'd lead the league in shooting percentage for guys over 15 points per game.

He'd average over 60 percent.

Fourth, he'd lead the league in free throws tried. 15-20 per game.

He would also lead in minutes played at 45 per game. No center could run with him.

He'd average well over 20 points and a fraction over seven assists, also. And his team, no matter which one he's put on, would contend immediately.

Since there's so few good centers now, and a bloated 30-team league where he only plays half of them twice, the regular season would be a cakewalk.

Then, they'd have to figure out how to pay him, easily the greatest player ever...
The NBA today is lucky he came along earlier.

[Jim Poteet]

Yes, but Shaq did not dominate in the current defenseless game that you're referencing.

Again, when Shaq was in on the front of his prime and in it he was playing against the likes of:

Ben Wallace
Alonzo Mourning
Greg Ostertag
Theo Ratliff
Yao Ming
David Robinson
Hakeem Olajuwon
Patrick Ewing
Dikembe Mutombo
Shawn Kemp
Dennis Rodman
Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan

Shaq arguably played in the single greatest era of Big Men that the league has ever seen. Sadly he was at his best once The Dream and The Admiral were retired and Zo was battling Kidney Disease. However, one cannot argue that Shaq did not put up his impressive numbers against a stacked league.

Are you kidding? The NBA has become a no-defense league and is all about entertainment. "Real basketball" hasn't been played in the NBA in the last 15 years. Do some historical study so that you appreciate the fundamental players of the past. Remember the game of basketball didn't begin in 1995!:smilies1127:

[Jim Poteet]

He led the league in assists that year because he wanted to lead the league in assists. Check out his team's record that season. They were built around him scoring 50 pts a game and he decided to give the ball up half the times he got it. He also stopped playing defense when he got in foul trouble because he set some random goal of never fouling out of a game. He got traded four times while he was in his prime in an era where that just didn't happen.

I'd rather have a motivated Shaq than Wilt, but I'd really rather have Bill Russell.

Wilt never stopped playing defense. Shaq would have been embarrassed in a match-up with Wilt.

[Billie Goodson]

Jim, I'm going to thank you for the passion you bring to the discussion and some good discussion. My opinion of Wilt is jaded by things I heard about him off the court and I am not old enough to remember him on the court so I am going to defer to you on that. I think I am clear on your vote if we were headed toward a poll!

[Jim Poteet]

Jim, I'm going to thank you for the passion you bring to the discussion and some good discussion. My opinion of Wilt is jaded by things I heard about him off the court and I am not old enough to remember him on the court so I am going to defer to you on that. I think I am clear on your vote if we were headed toward a poll!

Wilt had some problems off the court, no doubt. I have several good friends who played in the NBA during Wilt's era. They are still in awe of his skills as a basketball player and athlete. He also was a superb track athlete and volleyball player. Thanks for your input.

[David Lyons]

I genuinely despise this line of thinking. Because the Celtics also would not have had that dynasty without Cousy.

Statements like this seem to miss the team aspect of Basketball. Because the fact is that if Bill Russell had played on a team of nobodies, this discussion wouldn't be happening. However, he'd still be the same great ball-player, right?

The only question should be, when faced with the opportunity to perform in clutch situations and give your team a chance to win, did you do that? If so... it really shouldn't matter if you have zero championships. No matter how good one player is, he's not going to overcome a team that is simply much better.

Well, thanks for the compliment about my thinking ability.:smilies1404:

You apparently totally did not understand my point. Bill Russell was completely about "team". He could have easily put up enormous numbers if he was only concerned about his personal legacy. Instead, he listened to his coach (even when it was him) and helped the team. Look back to how he did in college as well. Magic Johnson was similar in how he helped a team instead of being selfish.

Concerning your last paragraph, I totally agree with the sentiment, if we were discussing the NFL. But in basketball, the fine line between being a good team and a great team is mostly determined by how well the top two players are willing to mesh together under the coaches supervision to help the team.:smilies0262::smilies0262:

[Ryan Scott]

"Wilt wouldn't be able to dominate this current era"

What would it be like if a prime 7'1'' 300-pounder with a 55" vertical and a 500 bench press came into the league now? I think he'd expose the NBA for the sham it is today.

First, he'd definitely lead the NBA in rebounds. He'd average 18.

Second, he'd lead the league in blocks. He'd average six or seven.

Third, he'd lead the league in shooting percentage for guys over 15 points per game.

He'd average over 60 percent.

Fourth, he'd lead the league in free throws tried. 15-20 per game.

He would also lead in minutes played at 45 per game. No center could run with him.

He'd average well over 20 points and a fraction over seven assists, also. And his team, no matter which one he's put on, would contend immediately.

Since there's so few good centers now, and a bloated 30-team league where he only plays half of them twice, the regular season would be a cakewalk.

Then, they'd have to figure out how to pay him, easily the greatest player ever...
The NBA today is lucky he came along earlier.

And his team would lose in the first round of the playoffs every year. He's be just like LeBron. His teams rarely won and he constantly put his own stats over the good of his team. Not the kind of guy I want playing for me.

[Benjamin Burch]

Well, thanks for the compliment about my thinking ability.:smilies1404:

I think you have a great thinking ability! :)

I promise I was not calling that into question at all! (And I'm sorry it came across that way)



You apparently totally did not understand my point.

I tried to recognize that might be the case in my last post. :)



Bill Russell was completely about "team". He could have easily put up enormous numbers if he was only concerned about his personal legacy. Instead, he listened to his coach (even when it was him) and helped the team. Look back to how he did in college as well. Magic Johnson was similar in how he helped a team instead of being selfish.

I agree. That wasn't what I was pushing back against.



Concerning your last paragraph, I totally agree with the sentiment, if we were discussing the NFL. But in basketball, the fine line between being a good team and a great team is mostly determined by how well the top two players are willing to mesh together under the coaches supervision to help the team.:smilies0262::smilies0262:

I agree, but your entire premise requires that the "top two players" even be good enough to win a championship. What's more, those top 2 players need a serious team around them if they want a chance.

See my first two paragraph's/responses of this post. (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?2369-Basketball-statistics&p=33082&viewfull=1#post33082)

[Benjamin Burch]

[/B]

Are you kidding? The NBA has become a no-defense league and is all about entertainment. "Real basketball" hasn't been played in the NBA in the last 15 years. Do some historical study so that you appreciate the fundamental players of the past. Remember the game of basketball didn't begin in 1995!:smilies1127:

I know. But the fact remains that many of these names are top defensive big men, regardless of era. The Admiral and The Dream are easily top 10 Centers to ever play the game of basketball.

Oh, and I'm also one of the few people left who have studied enough history that I think Jerry West is better than Kobe Bryant....

However, in response to all of your info - I don't disagree and I never said I did. :)

After all, I did place Wilt above Shaq, didn't I? I was only saying that I think it's fair to mention them in the same sentence.

[Jim Poteet]

And his team would lose in the first round of the playoffs every year. He's be just like LeBron. His teams rarely won and he constantly put his own stats over the good of his team. Not the kind of guy I want playing for me.

He spent much of his career playing in the same division with the Celtics. The Celtics had the best players, the best defensive center and the best coach in Red Auerbach. Wilt very seldom lost in the first round of the playoffs. You need to do some historical research and then write.:) Wilt was a man among boys and one tremendous physical speciman.

[Jim Poteet]

I know. But the fact remains that many of these names are top defensive big men, regardless of era. The Admiral and The Dream are easily top 10 Centers to ever play the game of basketball.

Oh, and I'm also one of the few people left who have studied enough history that I think Jerry West is better than Kobe Bryant....

However, in response to all of your info - I don't disagree and I never said I did. :)

After all, I did place Wilt above Shaq, didn't I? I was only saying that I think it's fair to mention them in the same sentence.

I like Jerry West too. He was an incredible player.

[David Lyons]

Could someone refer me to a website with good basketball statistics? I'm trying to help someone with a project on the top ten basketball players. The problem I am running into is stuff based on opinion, not fact.
Thanks.

Joanne, I hope that now we have responded with the facts about our opinions that you have found what you were looking for.:smilies1722:

BTW, I usually go to espn.com to start looking for statistics. It is the easiest one for me to remember for whatever sport I am looking into at the moment. (Having typed that, I went there but did not immediately find the stats for all time, though they must be there somewhere, I think.):smilies0373:

[David Morris]

I am going to give you some reality.:)

You need to check and see the great players at center that Wilt played against. Also remember that for most of his career there were only 8 teams in the NBA. With only 8 teams the competition was not watered down and most teams only had 10 players on their team. Check out the the stats for Bill Russell, Nate Thurmond, and Bob Lanier. All were great centers and would dominate in today's NBA.

Here is an interesting take on Wilt. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/438984-wilt-chamberlain-did-he-really-play-in-weak-era

Wilt used to work out with the Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) during the time when Arnold first came to the U.S. as a bodybuilder. Wilt got his bench press up to 500 pounds. Shaq could only bench about 450, probably less now.

When Wilt was 59 years old, he was STILL able to bench 465, which is more that Shaq has ever been able to do. Wilt was 63 when he died.

Wilt was definitely stronger than Shaq (although Shaq is a LOT heavier because he has a lot more fat than Wilt did). Shaq's excess fat has a negative affect on his stamina.

Wilt averaged 46 minutes per game over the course of his career, and in 1962, Wilt only sat out EIGHT MINUTES of the ENTIRE SEASON. He was ejected with two technicals with eight minutes to go in one game, but played every minute (including overtimes) of each of the other 79 games that season. As a result of playing more minutes of overtime than he sat out during regulation, Wilt averaged 48.5 minutes per game that year, even though a regulation game is only 48 minutes.

Shaq has only had one season in which he averaged 40 min/game. He's never been a conditioning fanatic.

Shaq is good, but he ain't Wilt Chamberlain

Secondly, the 60's era in which Wilt played, was a more physical era. There were no sissy flagrant or hand-check fouls during that time. Refs allowed those physical tactics go unpunished because the owners and NBA management believe that blood and violence was what brought people to basketball games back then.

Superstar players like Wilt received no favorable treatment from refs and, in fact, refs often sided with the opposing team against Wilt because they feel that he is simply too dominating. The NBA enacted rules to stop Wilt somehow.

And what made it even more amazing is that he had 3-4 guys collapsing and getting rough on him whenever he touched the ball. Unless you're Bill Russell and feeling lucky, Wilt was NEVER played one on one.

"Wilt wouldn't be able to dominate this current era"

What would it be like if a prime 7'1'' 300-pounder with a 55" vertical and a 500 bench press came into the league now? I think he'd expose the NBA for the sham it is today.

First, he'd definitely lead the NBA in rebounds. He'd average 18.

Second, he'd lead the league in blocks. He'd average six or seven.

Third, he'd lead the league in shooting percentage for guys over 15 points per game.

He'd average over 60 percent.

Fourth, he'd lead the league in free throws tried. 15-20 per game.

He would also lead in minutes played at 45 per game. No center could run with him.

He'd average well over 20 points and a fraction over seven assists, also. And his team, no matter which one he's put on, would contend immediately.

Since there's so few good centers now, and a bloated 30-team league where he only plays half of them twice, the regular season would be a cakewalk.

Then, they'd have to figure out how to pay him, easily the greatest player ever...
The NBA today is lucky he came along earlier.

We are fortunate he came along earlier. Now in an era of Tiger Woods, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan we won't have to listen to Wilt boast about the number of women he averaged a day. He was a joke.

[Jim Poteet]

We are fortunate he came along earlier. Now in an era of Tiger Woods, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan we won't have to listen to Wilt boast about the number of women he averaged a day. He was a joke.

No, he wasn't a joke as a player!

[David Morris]

As a player, maybe not. However, I think your view of him might be a little to high. I read the article, and I am not sure where the author gets half of his ideas from. His thoughts regarding Wilt playing today say that he would win the MVP award every year and every other team would be playing for second place. That couldn't be further from the truth.


No, he wasn't a joke as a player!

As a player, he was great. I will give him that. He was dominant, and he could score and rebound. There were other players doing that then, and there are players doing that today.


Wilt used to work out with the Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) during the time when Arnold first came to the U.S. as a bodybuilder. Wilt got his bench press up to 500 pounds. Shaq could only bench about 450, probably less now.

What does a difference of 50 pounds in the bench press have to do with anything between 2 guys that are 7 feet tall in this discussion?


Wilt averaged 46 minutes per game over the course of his career, and in 1962, Wilt only sat out EIGHT MINUTES of the ENTIRE SEASON. He was ejected with two technicals with eight minutes to go in one game, but played every minute (including overtimes) of each of the other 79 games that season. As a result of playing more minutes of overtime than he sat out during regulation, Wilt averaged 48.5 minutes per game that year, even though a regulation game is only 48 minutes.

Wilt would sit out more time today. The rosters are bigger, and he would get into foul trouble often enough that he would need to sit for a bit. And yes, there are players that would be able to run with him. Athletes today are just as well conditioned, if not better.


Superstar players like Wilt received no favorable treatment from refs and, in fact, refs often sided with the opposing team against Wilt because they feel that he is simply too dominating. The NBA enacted rules to stop Wilt somehow.

Quotes like this need to be supported with evidence and/or facts. Specifically, what NBA rules were enacted to stop Wilt? My guess is that this is what the author wants to think to support his argument that is built on a weak foundation.


What would it be like if a prime 7'1'' 300-pounder with a 55" vertical and a 500 bench press came into the league now? I think he'd expose the NBA for the sham it is today.

The NBA isn't a sham today. It is what it is. Two different eras of basketball, and in some respects, you can't compare them.


Then, they'd have to figure out how to pay him, easily the greatest player ever...

Two words: Mark Cuban. That was tough to figure out.

A few questions:
-Why did Wilt only win 4 MVP awards? (Don't get me wrong, that is really good. But why only 4 if he was that dominant?)
-Why didn't he play longer?
-If he was that amazing, why didn't one team keep him throughout his entire career?

The best (and worst) line in the article you referenced: "Wilt would definitely lead the NBA in rebounding. No one in the NBA has anything like the stamina that he had on OR off the court." 20,000 women (Wilt's own estimate)...I would say he does. I think playing professional sports is a privilege. If you can't be a decent citizen, you can't play. Sounds pretty simple to me. That kinda character gets many college players kicked off a team. In pro sports you get a few boos and an extended contract. That is a joke.

[Jim Poteet]

As a player, maybe not. However, I think your view of him might be a little to high. I read the article, and I am not sure where the author gets half of his ideas from. His thoughts regarding Wilt playing today say that he would win the MVP award every year and every other team would be playing for second place. That couldn't be further from the truth.

As a player, he was great. I will give him that. He was dominant, and he could score and rebound. There were other players doing that then, and there are players doing that today.



What does a difference of 50 pounds in the bench press have to do with anything between 2 guys that are 7 feet tall in this discussion?



Wilt would sit out more time today. The rosters are bigger, and he would get into foul trouble often enough that he would need to sit for a bit. And yes, there are players that would be able to run with him. Athletes today are just as well conditioned, if not better.



Quotes like this need to be supported with evidence and/or facts. Specifically, what NBA rules were enacted to stop Wilt? My guess is that this is what the author wants to think to support his argument that is built on a weak foundation.



The NBA isn't a sham today. It is what it is. Two different eras of basketball, and in some respects, you can't compare them.



Two words: Mark Cuban. That was tough to figure out.

A few questions:
-Why did Wilt only win 4 MVP awards? (Don't get me wrong, that is really good. But why only 4 if he was that dominant?)
-Why didn't he play longer?
-If he was that amazing, why didn't one team keep him throughout his entire career?

The best (and worst) line in the article you referenced: "Wilt would definitely lead the NBA in rebounding. No one in the NBA has anything like the stamina that he had on OR off the court." 20,000 women (Wilt's own estimate)...I would say he does. I think playing professional sports is a privilege. If you can't be a decent citizen, you can't play. Sounds pretty simple to me. That kinda character gets many college players kicked off a team. In pro sports you get a few boos and an extended contract. That is a joke.

I have a little advantage on you. I have been able to watch the NBA since the mid-fifties. I have great admiration on the basketball court for Wilt, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, the Celtics franchise and Red Auerbach. In that era, the league was about basketball. In today's game, the NBA (National Entertainment Association), is about one-on-one matchups, shoddy fundamentals and very little defense. There is only one center in the NBA today that could play with Wilt and Russell. His name is Dwight Howard.

[David Morris]

I have a little advantage on you. I have been able to watch the NBA since the mid-fifties. I have great admiration on the basketball court for Wilt, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, the Celtics franchise and Red Auerbach. In that era, the league was about basketball. In today's game, the NBA (National Entertainment Association), is about one-on-one matchups, shoddy fundamentals and very little defense. There is only one center in the NBA today that could play with Wilt and Russell. His name is Dwight Howard.

I understand where you are coming from, but I guess I just don't know what you have an advantage in. All of this is purely opinion based, so whether I lived and watched the NBA in the 50's or present day, it is all based on our own opinion, and there is no such thing as an advantage when it comes to an opinion, unless of course it is truth vs. lies.

I almost mentioned Dwight Howard in response to the article asking what 7'1" player with a 55" vertical jump and 500 pound bench press would do for the NBA. Then I discovered that D.H. only benches 345 and his vert is only 41". Aside from that though he is really a great player.

Now I do have one little problem with your statement that today's NBA exhibits very little defense. Please consult my handy factual chart below:

Philadelphia Warriors/Golden State Warriors
1961-62: 122.7 ppg allowed (Wilt's team by the way)
1981-82: 109.8 ppg allowed
2001-02: 103.1 ppg allowed

Los Angeles Lakers
1961-62: 116.3 ppg allowed
1981-82: 109.8 ppg allowed
2001-02: 94.1 ppg allowed

Boston Celtics
1961-62: 111.8 ppg allowed
1981-82: 105.6 ppg allowed
2001-02: 94.1 ppg allowed

Detroit Pistons
1961-62: 117.1 ppg allowed
1981-82: 106.0 ppg allowed
2001-02: 92.2 ppg allowed

Now looking at this handy factual chart, it looks to me that over a 40 year period, the defense has done nothing but gotten better. Some teams shaved 25 points off the average points allowed for opponents. So if 2010 has very little defense, was there no defense when Wilt played? If Wilt was such a defensive specimen, why were the Philadelphia Warriors 2nd in league defense (out of 9 teams) the year before he came, but after he came they were consistently in the bottom two? His teams only finished in the top 3 defenses once.

This whole idea that this isn't my dad's NBA is true, because it isn't. Defenses are allowing less points than years past. Your assertion that the NBA is the National Entertainment Association really has more to do with our consumer culture than stuff that is wrong with the game of basketball. I will always prefer college basketball over the NBA, but Wilt wouldn't be the Wilt of the 1960's today.

[Jim Poteet]

I understand where you are coming from, but I guess I just don't know what you have an advantage in. All of this is purely opinion based, so whether I lived and watched the NBA in the 50's or present day, it is all based on our own opinion, and there is no such thing as an advantage when it comes to an opinion, unless of course it is truth vs. lies.

I almost mentioned Dwight Howard in response to the article asking what 7'1" player with a 55" vertical jump and 500 pound bench press would do for the NBA. Then I discovered that D.H. only benches 345 and his vert is only 41". Aside from that though he is really a great player.

Now I do have one little problem with your statement that today's NBA exhibits very little defense. Please consult my handy factual chart below:

Philadelphia Warriors/Golden State Warriors
1961-62: 122.7 ppg allowed (Wilt's team by the way)
1981-82: 109.8 ppg allowed
2001-02: 103.1 ppg allowed

Los Angeles Lakers
1961-62: 116.3 ppg allowed
1981-82: 109.8 ppg allowed
2001-02: 94.1 ppg allowed

Boston Celtics
1961-62: 111.8 ppg allowed
1981-82: 105.6 ppg allowed
2001-02: 94.1 ppg allowed

Detroit Pistons
1961-62: 117.1 ppg allowed
1981-82: 106.0 ppg allowed
2001-02: 92.2 ppg allowed

Now looking at this handy factual chart, it looks to me that over a 40 year period, the defense has done nothing but gotten better. Some teams shaved 25 points off the average points allowed for opponents. So if 2010 has very little defense, was there no defense when Wilt played? If Wilt was such a defensive specimen, why were the Philadelphia Warriors 2nd in league defense (out of 9 teams) the year before he came, but after he came they were consistently in the bottom two? His teams only finished in the top 3 defenses once.

This whole idea that this isn't my dad's NBA is true, because it isn't. Defenses are allowing less points than years past. Your assertion that the NBA is the National Entertainment Association really has more to do with our consumer culture than stuff that is wrong with the game of basketball. I will always prefer college basketball over the NBA, but Wilt wouldn't be the Wilt of the 1960's today.

Wilt would probably be better today.:) Much of the lower scoring averages has to be with slowing the game down and using the entire 24 second clock. Most teams of today do not run the fast break, but are so coach controlled that the shot goes up in the final seconds of each 24 second possession.

I have spent most of my life involved in basketball (player, coach, referee, administrator, etc.). It is somewhat advantageous to see things first hand at all levels of basketball. I love the game of basketball and even wrote my doctoral dissertation on free throw shooting. I am not just an observer, but a student of the game. When I hear people like the late John Wooden say many of the same things I am sharing in this thread, I don't think I am too far off base.

Frankly, shooting fundamentals are so lacking in today's game of basketball and that is another big reason why scoring averages have diminished. I guess you can that it is all my opinion, but there has to be some credence given to my ability as an "expert witness.:)

[David Morris]

Wilt would probably be better today.:) Much of the lower scoring averages has to be with slowing the game down and using the entire 24 second clock. Most teams of today do not run the fast break, but are so coach controlled that the shot goes up in the final seconds of each 24 second possession.

I have spent most of my life involved in basketball (player, coach, referee, administrator, etc.). It is somewhat advantageous to see things first hand at all levels of basketball. I love the game of basketball and even wrote my doctoral dissertation on free throw shooting. I am not just an observer, but a student of the game. When I hear people like the late John Wooden say many of the same things I am sharing in this thread, I don't think I am too far off base.

Frankly, shooting fundamentals are so lacking in today's game of basketball and that is another big reason why scoring averages have diminished. I guess you can that it is all my opinion, but there has to be some credence given to my ability as an "expert witness.:)

Any link to that dissertation? Would love to read that. I think we both have issues with different aspects of the game, at least that is what I am gathering. I won't argue that possessions are longer and there is more coach control, but I think that is simply how the game has evolved. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Billie Goodson]

What does a difference of 50 pounds in the bench press have to do with anything between 2 guys that are 7 feet tall in this discussion?



Two names...Shaq and Manute Bol come to mind in this regards.

[Jim Poteet]

Any link to that dissertation? Would love to read that. I think we both have issues with different aspects of the game, at least that is what I am gathering. I won't argue that possessions are longer and there is more coach control, but I think that is simply how the game has evolved. Thanks for your thoughts.

Send me a personal message and I will see that you get a copy of the dissertation.

[David Lyons]

Two names...Shaq and Manute Bol come to mind in this regards.

I doubt that Manute Bol could have bench pressed more than 200 pounds, let alone 450 or 500.:smilies0436:

[David Lyons]

Send me a personal message and I will see that you get a copy of the dissertation.

I would be interested in reading that as well. Could you make it available on the internet?

So.... what is your job? Maybe you should be on TNT to help with logical thinking by some of their talents.:smilies1127:

[Jim Poteet]

I would be interested in reading that as well. Could you make it available on the internet?

So.... what is your job? Maybe you should be on TNT to help with logical thinking by some of their talents.:smilies1127:

Thanks for asking about my jobs. I have had many - professor, coach, administrator at several universities - Pasadena College (now PLNU), NNU, SNU, Seattle Pacific University, Biola University. I also worked for the NAIA (National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics) as a consultant to the President. I have a Doctor of Education degree in Sport Management and have just developed an academic major in Health, Physical Education and Sport Management for Southwestern Christian University - a small college in Bethany, less than a mile from SNU. The university has been in transition from a Bible College to a Christian Liberal Arts University. I am chair of the HPESM department and teach courses such as Theory of Coaching, Foundations of Sport Management, Sociology of Sport, Sport Marketing, and Issues in Sport Evangelism (not all in the same semester, obviously). I am also Associate Athletic Director as we are in a transition to full membership in the NAIA. My last small piece of a full-time job is Assistant Men's Varsity Basketball Coach. I am having the time of my life working with a great group of players and challenging them daily to be the "best that they can be."

I've probably told you more than you want to know, but those are the things that fill up my day.:) I also enjoy the "give and Take" of the NazNet sports forum. I try to take a historical view and use my many years of experience to share a perspective.

[David Lyons]

I've probably told you more than you want to know, but those are the things that fill up my day.:) I also enjoy the "give and Take" of the NazNet sports forum. I try to take a historical view and use my many years of experience to share a perspective.

Actually, no. I did want to hear all of what you have done and are doing. Along with pastoring and music and newspapers, I have been a coach a few times, including this year (11-12 year old girls softball), and love discussing sports. I find that coaching and pastoring are very similar. Except that in sports, people remember the successes for a longer time than in the church.:smilies0822:

[Marcus Kibbe]

What about Oscar Robertson?

I was just reading through this thread and would have to agree with Jim. A top ten list without the big O is a top ten list that is in error..
Oscar Robertson is (and will continue to be) the only player in NBA history to average a triple double for an entire season.
That fact alone puts him on the list. Probably the most amazing individual achievement in the history of basketball.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I was just reading through this thread and would have to agree with Jim. A top ten list without the big O is a top ten list that is in error..
Oscar Robertson is (and will continue to be) the only player in NBA history to average a triple double for an entire season.
That fact alone puts him on the list. Probably the most amazing individual achievement in the history of basketball.

I already said that I'd be okay exchanging Moses Malone with the Big O. But I also said that if you think someone "must" be on the list, then tell me who is off. It's easy nothingness to say who should be on and not so easy to say who is off. And it's not in "error". Only facts can be erroneous. Opinions cannot be, as horrible or weak as they may be. :) This is the difficulty with making top ten lists in sports - people don't know how to have the conversation without mixing terminology of fact and opinion. (And everyone's guilty of it.)

Fact: Oscar Robertson is the only player who ever averaged a triple-double in a season.
Opinion: That fact alone makes him one of the Top Ten best players in NBA history.

Fact: No one has scored more points in NBA history over the course of a career than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
Opinion: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the greatest player in NBA history.

[Marcus Kibbe]

I already said that I'd be okay exchanging Moses Malone with the Big O. But I also said that if you think someone "must" be on the list, then tell me who is off. It's easy nothingness to say who should be on and not so easy to say who is off. And it's not in "error". Only facts can be erroneous. Opinions cannot be, as horrible or weak as they may be. :) This is the difficulty with making top ten lists in sports - people don't know how to have the conversation without mixing terminology of fact and opinion. (And everyone's guilty of it.)

Fact: Oscar Robertson is the only player who ever averaged a triple-double in a season.
Opinion: That fact alone makes him one of the Top Ten best players in NBA history.

Fact: No one has scored more points in NBA history over the course of a career than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
Opinion: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the greatest player in NBA history.

Ok, I see how it is.

Looking at your original list ... I would eliminate Cousy all day long. He had Bill Russell and Sam Jones on his squad. These two would make any 'good' point guard look 'great'.

I would argue Moses is not even the best "Malone". Replace Moses with Karl and your list is looking more respectable ... in my opinion.

[Marcus Kibbe]

And it's not in "error". Only facts can be erroneous. Opinions cannot be, as horrible or weak as they may be.


Is it fact or opinion that Jordan is one of the greatest, lets say 100,000 players in the history of basketball?
Is it fact or opinion that Kareem was a better center than Will Perdue?
Is it fact or opinion that LeBron is a better baller than Lady Gaga?