RealGM

Does anyone here have a good guestimate based on pace what these two guys would average if they played in today's era? I did some really quick crunching, and figured that Wilt would have averaged 16-17 rebounds per game if he played today. Russell would probably be around 14-15. Does that sound about right?

either would be lucky to even be able to make the D-League today, they'd be getting schooled by Brian Cardinal and Eddy Curry in the NBA. If you put Eddy Curry back in the 50s he'd average average a quintuple/triple every game

TrueLAFan does this and explains this best.

iirc in the post that i read, he did a rough estimate using rebounding %'s across the eras. it works out to be roughly what you estimated - 16rpg or so.

edit - i also seem to remember that it was minute-adjusted to 40mpg but not entirely sure.

Wile E. Coyote wrote:Does anyone here have a good guestimate based on pace what these two guys would average if they played in today's era? I did some really quick crunching, and figured that Wilt would have averaged 16-17 rebounds per game if he played today. Russell would probably be around 14-15. Does that sound about right?

I've done this exercise before and got slightly lower numbers for peak season, not average. I used a few more adjustments than True LA fan might've done, but neither of them was anywhere close to Rodman's best.

Wilt's career Reb % is around 20.5; Russel's is about 20. There's no other analytic tool that compares between eras better than Reb %. Here's the information on how to do it by season for pre-1969 players, with an explanation and linked spreadsheet.

viewtopic.php?f=344&t=955514

Both Wilt and Russell are a little below D12 right now--but were at that level (22 or so Reb %) when they were younger players. Both played about 15-20% more because of stylistic choices and ability to stay out of foul trouble; that would almost certinaly drop today. Russell was almost always a top 2-3 player in MPG, which would put him around 40 mpg now (a drop of about 5% from what he actually played). Wilt led the league in MPG in 9 of his 13 seasons, was top 3 in 3 of the other years, and was the greatest outlier in endurance in NBA history. He'd probably have a career average closer to 42 mpg (which is more than 8% off what he actually plauyed). With both players, I'd say that's accurate as to how much they'd play now. Knock 5% off Russel's MPG, and 8.25% off of Wilt's.

Anyway, at 40 mpg, Russell would snag 13.8 boards a game in an average year. At 42 mpg, Wilt would grab 14.9 rebounds a game in a typical year. This is at the current level of 41.75 rebounds per game per team.

Both Wilt and Russell are a little below D12 right now--but were at that level (22 or so Reb %) when they were younger players. Both played about 15-20% more because of stylistic choices and ability to stay out of foul trouble; that would almost certinaly drop today.

don't you think that stylistic choices refer to fouls as well ? today's bigs are fouling much more often so clearly that would affect both Wilt and Russell.

another stylistic change is that small players are playing much more MPG than bigs which wasn't the case in the 60s. Zach Randolph plays the most mins out of all bigs 37.7, then Nowitzki and LMA at 37.5, David Lee 37.3 and Pau Gasol at 37.0. there's no reason to believe that Wilt and Russell would eclipse those numbers that largely. there's no coach who would risk his franchise 7 footer to play him 40 MPG every night (and remember they wouldn't know if Wilt/Russ are injury prone or not, just like you don't wanna risk Dwight Howard despite that he's an ironman right now).

your numbers are quite accurate except that they'd play 36-40 MPG depending on the team. on 50-60W team they'd play much lower mins because more blowouts and better supporting cast (no necessity to put them back in). on lottery team that might be closer to 40 MPG. even LeBron and Durant aren't playing 40 MPG, I don't see why Wilt/Russ would eclipse this barrier so easily.

going by your numbers:
Wilt at 36 MPG - 12.77
Wilt at 40 MPG - 14.19

Russ at 36 MPG - 12.42
Russ at 40 MPG - 13.8

No. Nate Thurmond was also good about staying out of foul trouble. Red Kerr was fair…a foul every 12 minutes. Walt Bellamy fouled…about a foul every 11 minutes, about as much as Shaq. Willis Reed committed a foul every 9 minutes. Darrell Imhoff, Wayne Embry, Connie Dierking, Zelmo Beaty—they fouled a ton; way more than that (a foul every eight minutes or less for most). Other fairly big minute Cs fouled even more--Jim Barnes, Jim Krebs, Joe Strawder, Mel Counts. Wilt and Russell were outliers. Bigs don’t foul more today. And bigs didn’t foul less then. Wilt and Russell did. Credit where credit is due.

As to the minutes played…I stick with the idea that Russell would continue to be among the league leaders, and Wilt would be at the top of the league. Duncan averaged close to 40 mpg for six seasons until he started getting nagging injuries (which Wilt and Russell never had). Garnett averaged over 39 minutes for more than a decade. Kareem averaged over 40 mintues for over a decade. LeBron has a career average of 40 minute per game now. AI’s career average is over 41. Spree had an 11 year run as a 40 mpg player. Malone had about a decade run as a 39-40 mpg player. Joe Johnson’s been over 40 mpg over the past six years. A lot/most of those players wer eon successful teams. I don't think size really has anything to do with it. Given their proven ability to play extended minutes and ability to stay out of foul trouble, I don’t see any compelling reason Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain would play less than players like that. I do some reason to say, in Wilt’s case, that he would play a bit more—he was greatest outlier in terms of both minutes played and fouls per minute of any starting C in history. But even then, I only think he’d play a couple of minutes more than the Garnetts/Duncans did.

Silver Bullet wrote:

Wile E. Coyote wrote:Does anyone here have a good guestimate based on pace what these two guys would average if they played in today's era? I did some really quick crunching, and figured that Wilt would have averaged 16-17 rebounds per game if he played today. Russell would probably be around 14-15. Does that sound about right?

I've done this exercise before and got slightly lower numbers for peak season, not average. I used a few more adjustments than True LA fan might've done, but neither of them was anywhere close to Rodman's best.

Rodman? And they call Wilt a stat whore..Rodman used to regularly leave his defensive assignment (and IMO his defense was overrated anyway) to get another board. If he'd tried to play an honest game at both ends of the floor instead of being a one trick pony, at best he'd look like a VERY poor man's version of Jerry Lucas...without the brains or the offense

writerman wrote:

Silver Bullet wrote:

Wile E. Coyote wrote:Does anyone here have a good guestimate based on pace what these two guys would average if they played in today's era? I did some really quick crunching, and figured that Wilt would have averaged 16-17 rebounds per game if he played today. Russell would probably be around 14-15. Does that sound about right?

I've done this exercise before and got slightly lower numbers for peak season, not average. I used a few more adjustments than True LA fan might've done, but neither of them was anywhere close to Rodman's best.

Rodman? And they call Wilt a stat whore..Rodman used to regularly leave his defensive assignment (and IMO his defense was overrated anyway) to get another board. If he'd tried to play an honest game at both ends of the floor instead of being a one trick pony, at best he'd look like a VERY poor man's version of Jerry Lucas...without the brains or the offense

That's okay. I wasn't making any argument for or against Rodman, just stating their numbers.

TrueLAfan wrote:No. Nate Thurmond was also good about staying out of foul trouble. Red Kerr was fair…a foul every 12 minutes. Walt Bellamy fouled…about a foul every 11 minutes, about as much as Shaq. Willis Reed committed a foul every 9 minutes. Darrell Imhoff, Wayne Embry, Connie Dierking, Zelmo Beaty—they fouled a ton; way more than that (a foul every eight minutes or less for most). Other fairly big minute Cs fouled even more--Jim Barnes, Jim Krebs, Joe Strawder, Mel Counts. Wilt and Russell were outliers. Bigs don’t foul more today. And bigs didn’t foul less then. Wilt and Russell did. Credit where credit is due.

well, half of these guys were enforcers who were SUPPOSED to foul. you've said it numerous times yourself - every team had an enforcer. also, you've always emphasized how physical bigs were in the paint, unabling Jerry West to get to the paint because of the punishment etc. if you're using that argument, don't blow it off in this case just because it doesn't prove your point. I think it's easy to say that referees blow the whistle much more often than they did in the 90s. even bigs from the 90s would see their fouls go up. considering how much more physical (allegedly) 60s were in your opinion, it's pretty clear Russell and Wilt would average a lot of fouls too. as would pretty much all shotblocking bigs.

TrueLAFan wrote:As to the minutes played…I stick with the idea that Russell would continue to be among the league leaders, and Wilt would be at the top of the league. Duncan averaged close to 40 mpg for six seasons until he started getting nagging injuries (which Wilt and Russell never had). Garnett averaged over 39 minutes for more than a decade. Kareem averaged over 40 mintues for over a decade. LeBron has a career average of 40 minute per game now. AI’s career average is over 41. Spree had an 11 year run as a 40 mpg player. Malone had about a decade run as a 39-40 mpg player. Joe Johnson’s been over 40 mpg over the past six years. A lot/most of those players wer eon successful teams. I don't think size really has anything to do with it. Given their proven ability to play extended minutes and ability to stay out of foul trouble, I don’t see any compelling reason Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain would play less than players like that. I do some reason to say, in Wilt’s case, that he would play a bit more—he was greatest outlier in terms of both minutes played and fouls per minute of any starting C in history. But even then, I only think he’d play a couple of minutes more than the Garnetts/Duncans did.

Garnett only averaged so many mins because he was playing with crap in Minnesota and once he was off the court, they were getting crushed every time. Wolves couldn't afford playing Garnett low mins. otherwise they wouldn't be a playoff team; not even close actually. his mins were waaay down in Boston.

Duncan's certainly an interesting example but averaged 38-40 MPG only during his first 6 years. after that, they started to limit his mins, because they were always worried about their franchise player getting injured.

unless your coach is an idiot who doesn't care (Nellie) and plays you 48 MPG (Monta had that period), obviously this is gonna affect your mins. Wilt, as athletic as he may be, was still 7'1 or 7'2. there's no idiot who'd play him 42 MPG for his entire career. at some point you start worrying about your franchise player getting injured. now, we know for a fact that Wilt wasn't injury prone in his days... but how the hell would you know that BEFORE the fact ? I could see LeBron playing 43 MPG quite easily... but why would you do that instead of saving his body ? in 20 years we may be able to say "we know for a fact LeBron was an ironman"... but we can't say that now. honestly, if you're ignoring that aspect, I don't think you can be taken seriously here. you're never playing your franchise player more than 40 MPG unless he's on a terrible team. not today.