How good is prime Wilt Chamberlain in today's game?

[tsherkin]

I doubt Wilt would average 30 without turning himself into a 70%+ FT shooter.

The minutes and attempts he needed to do it in his own era would not happen in today's league.

At 18 FGA/g as a focus, though, and factoring in his incompetence at the line, I could see 27ish ppg though, a lot like prime Shaq. He was brutal on the offensive glass, mostly shot high-percentage looks at the rim, got out in transition, etc. He'd be fantastic for the first 46. No sense underrating that. At his size and mobility, he'd be fantastic. With a coach riding his ass to dunk the ball and the ESPN era endorsing that style, he'd look more like later Wilt ITO efficiency.

27/14+/4 seems about right as an average performance. He'd be a dominant, perennial MVP contender.

His post skills were unimpressive but you don't need a dizzying array of skills with that sort of ability to get deep post position, and his passing ability made it a worthwhile proposition to dump it into his hands repeasdly wven when the D is gonna swarm him the way contemporary help D functions.

[CaliBullsFan]

27 points seems conservative for a prime Wilt who would be at or near the top of the NBA in minutes

[HeartBreakKid]

I feel like Chamberlain would be a gigantic turnover machine, like 4 turnovers per game at least. There's no way this dude was going for the assist record and not turning the rock over.

[CaliBullsFan]

I feel like Chamberlain would be a gigantic turnover machine, like 4 turnovers per game at least. There's no way this dude was going for the assist record and not turning the rock over.

Why?

[ardee]

I feel like Chamberlain would be a gigantic turnover machine, like 4 turnovers per game at least. There's no way this dude was going for the assist record and not turning the rock over.

There has been film analysis done and he averaged approximately 2-2.5 TOV at max.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[tsherkin]

27 points seems conservative for a prime Wilt who would be at or near the top of the NBA in minutes

There isn't a significant push to players big minutes in the contemporary league; it wasn't uncommon at all for upper-tier players to log 40-44 mpg in the 60s, and even into the 70s it happened far more frequently than it does now. There are 70 player-seasons of 40+ mpg in the league from 99-00 forward... across 33 players. Of those, 18 did it more than once. 9 of them did it 3+ times. The only bigs to do it 2+ times were Garnett and combo forwards Jamison and Toine.

It's really not a common thing at all, more the purview of guards, who expend considerably less physical energy physically jousting with one another. Wilt was an incredible cardio athlete, for sure, but his career was shortened due to his heavy minutes load and that's not really how we play guys in the contemporary age. So yeah, he'd probably be in the upper echelon of minutes-played leaders, but even that wouldn't be much. I imagine 36-38 mpg from him, and that's like 10 fewer minutes per game than his career average of 45.8 mpg, which he'd never approach in this day and age just on the basis of investment protection.

Keep in mind that his actual PER36 stats, unadjusted for pace, are 23.6 PTS, 18.0 REB and 3.5 AST compared to 30.1 PPG, 22.9 RPG and 4.4 APG.

27 ppg is not conservative, it's optimistic because I feel strongly that Wilt was a truly dominant talent of a timeless sort. He took 22.5 FGA/g to get the 30.1 PPG he averaged in his career, and that isn't something we're going to see in a player who didn't feature a 20-foot jumper and couldn't hit a free throw to save his life, especially after he bulked up. It's just too hard to generate the kind of shots he needs. Shaq only had two seasons of 20+ FGA/g in his entire career (though one also at 19.6), and in or before 99-00, and the odds of a team bothering to ram the ball into Wilt that often compared to the possibilities of a guard-led offense just really aren't there, it doesn't make that much sense, particularly given that Wilt was "only" a 54.7% TS player in his time. Now, he peaked well higher than that, his career numbers smashed by his early seasons volume shooting at nonsense levels based on coach directive, so he'd probably look more like he did in his later years... (but even then, he had a couple of outlier seasons with the Lakers on incredibly low volume and one big one with Philly, and was otherwise a 55-57% TS guy) but in those later years, he considerably reduced his shooting and scoring volume to REACH those efficiency numbers, which is precisely why projecting huge scoring averages from him doesn't make a ton of sense. And none of that factors in turnovers. There isn't really sufficient video evidence to judge him and post defense is VEEERY different now compared to then. Team D in general, really, so it's really tough to say how that would work for him, because if he was a giant turnover factory like a lot of post players (especially the higher-volume playmaker guys), that really robs from the efficacy of dumping the ball into him. I doubt he was a total trainwreck, of course, so we can assume that he'd be pretty solid, but you've got to be getting a pretty wicked pay-out to go to a given player very often, and as a matter of course, Wilt's career is an exercise in precisely WHY making one guy the high-volume focal point of your offense usually isn't the most effective strategy ever, even if he's pretty damned good. Distributed offense is just far more versatile than pound-rock iso ball, be it on the perimeter or in the post. The whole point of the post when it's really running is high-percentage shots or shifting the defense to make it vulnerable to a passing attack, and when you really weaponize the pass (of which Wilt was capable), you limit volume.

Odds are pretty high that 27 ppg is nearer to the upper bound than anything else for Wilt. And that's still amazing. Keep in mind that there are a half-dozen guys in league history who've averaged 27+ ppg on their careers, Wilt included. The notion that he'd still hang around there on average is more a compliment that you seem to appreciate, based on your comment.

Is it possible that he could have a season where he pushed 30 ppg? Sure. Keep in mind, though, that Shaq only approached 30 ppg three times in his career (and is himself a 23.7 ppg player on his career due to his length decline phase), scoring 29+ ppg in three seasons (29.3 ppg twice and 29.7 ppg once).

It's tactically difficult and taxing to get a player that many touches in the post and have them turn into attempts without him just firing up crappy fadeaways or turning into the lane to shoot a hanger over a double-team, neither of which are remarkably high-percentage shots. It's a lot better to deploy your big for the really good shots and have him passing it out if he doesn't have it right away, sometimes reposting. It's really better to do as the Spurs do, and mix PnRs with high post action, a few post isos and a LOT of post decoy to set up cuts and so forth. Wilt was pretty good at the passing game, so that makes a lot more sense than trying to fire it into him a lot for touches down low, unless a team is guarding him a given way where that becomes a particularly wise proposition.

Remember, I'm talking average, so again, in any given season, it's POSSIBLE that he'd average higher, but I already think that this is an optimistic average for someone who was so bad at the line and who had such little range. Remember too that we watched a player with considerably more will to play power-post basketball, and even in an era where post defense wasn't quite as harsh as it is now in terms of ball denial and the permission of early coverage, even he wasn't really able to do a lot more than what I'm projecting for Wilt here. Gotta consider that. For all the Herculean myths about Wilt's strength, there's no way on earth he had more lower body power in the post than Shaq, just based on raw physics, and he wasn't any better at timing his movements for post position, so it's not like he'd be trumping Diesel for post position. Nor were his block skills considerably more advanced, so the notion that he'd be a BETTER scorer than Shaq in the contemporary game doesn't hold a lot of water. A similar one, though, that's a compelling argument and sitting there, these are the conclusions we draw.

Wilt has a rep as a volume scorer, but people don't seem to appreciate how much pace and minutes really affected that, nor how the contemporary game would really limit his ability to do what he did back then. Also, people seem to forget that his most effective years were all under 18 FGA/g, and even shooting silly percentages from the floor, when you're that bad at the line, you're not averaging 30 ppg.

[MacGill]

I feel like Chamberlain would be a gigantic turnover machine, like 4 turnovers per game at least. There's no way this dude was going for the assist record and not turning the rock over.

There has been film analysis done and he averaged approximately 2-2.5 TOV at max.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

link please of film used to determine statistic.

[baki]

Wilt reminds me so much of DeAndre Jordan if he was playing today.

[mooncheese]

Back then there was no 3-point line to space the floor... it was all two-pointers... in Wilt's day, the paint looked like a throng of twenty-somethings clamoring outside a club in south beach - it was just a packed, clogged paint on a perpetual basis.

Compare that to today's game where shooters space the floor AND there is defensive 3 seconds... it's a massive difference... even a cursory glance at any game from today shows a wide open gap of space where the paint is because shooters spread the floor and there is a defensive 3 seconds rule.

if anthony davis can average 21ppg all on guard-created dunks/easy at-rim looks, transition and putbacks (i know he had the occasional jumpshot or move - but by and large...) - wilt would be getting much more than that.

keep in mind that the defense in Wilt's day was able to be MUCH more physical, even more than the 80's, where they had changed the rules to make it softer, and which Wilt complained about over the years.

so basically, in wilt's day the paint was packed at all times and he averaged a zillion points... in today's game, you have much smaller guys like Anthony davis and Dwight howard that get 20 points per game easily and the paint is wide open.

[Johnlac1]

Nobody stops the 25 yr old Wilt from getting 28-30 ppg, 15-18 rbds, 3-4 bls, per game. Too long, too athletic, too smart, and too determined. Wilt's weakest off. flaw was his love for his fadeaway jump shot which I think coaches today would strongly discourage him from taking. Even though he had a good hook, most of his misses came from his fadeaways. Today, like most centers, he'd have a jump hook. Even so the pressure Wilt would put of defenses would be enormous. His stamina was incredible.

But was that Wilt's prime? The 30 yr old Wilt was bigger, stronger, and more pass-oriented. He could still score but had lost some off. skill and mobility. Nevertheless, many people choose that Wilt as the best Wilt despite his loss of scoring capability. That Wilt would today probably average about 18-20 ppg, 15+ rbds pers, 2-3 blks,and 5-6 assists.

I'm a huge Wilt fan, but it still puzzles me why he let his offense decline over the course of his career. He rarely practiced in the off season and lost much of his off skills. Look at his college clips to see the Wilt with an excellent stand-up jumper. Ten years later that shot was gone from his repertoire. He even shot a decent (for a center) 60% from the foul line.

So it's always somewhat of a question of which Wilt does a person think was the best Wilt? The younger Wilt who scored enormous ppgs or the older, and stronger Wilt who decided to be a playmaker? I actually prefer the younger Wilt. The younger Wilt, despite being noticeably less muscular than the older Wilt, was still the strongest player in the league by all accounts. He certainly wouldn't be a weakling today. And no center would match his combination of size, athleticism, strength, desire, stamina, skill, AND intelligence. Wilt rarely got ruffled by rough play. I'm sure he regretted punching Tom Heinsohn in the '60 playoffs and not being able to shoot for almost two games. Philly lost both games and probably a good chance to upset Boston.

But either Wilt would still be formidable in the league today.

[tsherkin]

Nobody stops the 25 yr old Wilt from getting 28-30 ppg, 15-18 rbds, 3-4 bls, per game. Too long, too athletic, too smart, and too determined.

This still doesn't address issues of minutes, pace, or the differing rebounding zones created by the three-point line (especially at modern volume). There's a LOT stopping a post player from getting 30 ppg, which is why it hasn't happened since Karl Malone did it (unless you count Shaq's near-misses on 30 ppg), particularly since he was incompetent at the foul line and didn't have pick-and-pop type range or consistency on his jumper, other issues which this comment fails to address.

Wilt would be great, but there are practical limitations on scoring volume when you're a sub-70% FT shooter, issues which are compounded with each further drop in FT% from that point.

Wilt's weakest off. flaw was his love for his fadeaway jump shot

I don't think this is correct either. I think his greatest flaw offensively was being a career 51.1% FT shooter, and that his range was a bigger issue than his fadeaway. Even over his first four seasons, when he wasn't a total waste of skin at the line, he still only shot 57.6% and that's very bad. He's like Shaq in that regard, worsening as his career progressed and he added more bulk, and neither were very good there to start.

Further, keep this in mind.

Over Wilt's first two seasons, he averaged 29.2 and 28.9 PTS36, taking 24.9 and 23.4 FGA36 in the process. There's no way that happens in the modern league, and that's even without factoring in how much of that happened in transition. So looking to the prolific PPG production of Wilt's youth isn't really a good way to try and sell his ability to score at that volume in today's game, because it happened through a mechanism that even guards rarely manage to match in the modern game with their greater mobility and speed with which they get off a shot.

[CaliBullsFan]

Nobody stops the 25 yr old Wilt from getting 28-30 ppg, 15-18 rbds, 3-4 bls, per game. Too long, too athletic, too smart, and too determined.

This still doesn't address issues of minutes, pace, or the differing rebounding zones created by the three-point line (especially at modern volume). There's a LOT stopping a post player from getting 30 ppg, which is why it hasn't happened since Karl Malone did it (unless you count Shaq's near-misses on 30 ppg), particularly since he was incompetent at the foul line and didn't have pick-and-pop type range or consistency on his jumper, other issues which this comment fails to address.

Wilt would be great, but there are practical limitations on scoring volume when you're a sub-70% FT shooter, issues which are compounded with each further drop in FT% from that point.

Wilt's weakest off. flaw was his love for his fadeaway jump shot

I don't think this is correct either. I think his greatest flaw offensively was being a career 51.1% FT shooter, and that his range was a bigger issue than his fadeaway. Even over his first four seasons, when he wasn't a total waste of skin at the line, he still only shot 57.6% and that's very bad. He's like Shaq in that regard, worsening as his career progressed and he added more bulk, and neither were very good there to start.

Further, keep this in mind.

Over Wilt's first two seasons, he averaged 29.2 and 28.9 PTS36, taking 24.9 and 23.4 FGA36 in the process. There's no way that happens in the modern league, and that's even without factoring in how much of that happened in transition. So looking to the prolific PPG production of Wilt's youth isn't really a good way to try and sell his ability to score at that volume in today's game, because it happened through a mechanism that even guards rarely manage to match in the modern game with their greater mobility and speed with which they get off a shot.

You are trying to put him at numbers that make sense for today's game the problem is his numbers didn't make any sense for when he was playing.

[tsherkin]

You are trying to put him at numbers that make sense for today's game the problem is his numbers didn't make any sense for when he was playing.

That's not really a productive comment. His shooting volume and minutes were not totally out of sorts for his era at all. Kareem averaged 42.5 mpg and 22.8 FGA/g over his first 7 seasons, from 69-70 through 75-76 as well, for example. Wilt's efficiency definitely set him aside in that era, and of course he was also a remarkable, all-time great player on top of the strange numbers, but it's not at all a meaningful thing to add by saying "oh, his numbers were crazy then, so they'd be crazy now."

I've already agreed to the general principle that Wilt would be a fantastic player in the modern league. I do, however, think that some need to stop and think about how Wilt generated the numbers he did, and what has changed in the interim four decades since he last played which would change those things. The rules are different, the court dimensions are different, coaching strategies are different. He had the physical tools and the will which would help him remain a dominant force today, for sure, but the specific benchmarks people are trying to set, especially with regards to scoring, those need to be re-evaluated.

We play like 33% fewer possessions per game compared to Wilt's era, and he'd very likely play nearly a quarter less per game in terms of minutes. He was an abysmal free throw shooter (like Shaq) and he doesn't really fit the skill paradigm for a PnR big. That limits him in many of the same ways Shaq was limited, only Shaq was a better power player in that he was more committed to doing what he did instead of reshaping himself to fit the expectations of others. It's possible that contemporary coaching would help correct this in Wilt, though, since we seem to venerate the dunk as divine these days, and Wilt craved popular acknowledgement.

The point is, there is definitely debate about what he could and couldn't achieve in this league. We have a bench mark for what a piss-poor FT shooter who is dominant on the low block can do, and that's from before things were made a little more difficult for post players. Shaq remains a pretty good marker for apex Wilt in the contemporary league on offense.

Meantime, simple math and observation make this one a good sell.

Think of it this way: it's pretty much not going to happen that Wilt is going to get more than 18-20 FGA/g in any given season. MAYBE stretch that out to 21 in a peak season. That's just the nature of the game, based on the number of possessions, the spots on the floor he occupies and how he gets his shots. He isn't gonna be running around in a ton of 120-possession games, that's simply not the game played in the NBA any longer.

In seasons where he shot 18+ FGA/g in his own career, Wilt typically shot 50-52%. If you remove his 12-game season in 1970, he never shot higher than 54%.

So let's roll with 54% for a second, and use 18 FGA/g to start.

9.72 / 18 = 19.44 points off of FGAs. He was a .505 FTR guy on his career, heavily influenced by his lower-volume seasons at the end of his career, but let's use that average. That's 9.1 FTA/g, and let's be generous, and say he shot 60% from the line that year, which he managed only once in his actual career. That's an additional 5.46 points.

So that's 24.9 ppg off of 18 FGA/g.

Let's get nuts and do that for 20 FGA/g, though, and say that a team is playing him 40 mpg and really focusing on getting the ball into him on the pivot.

10.8 FGM, 6.1 FTM.

That's 27.7 points per game off of 20 FGA/g.

So in order to really get him a lot higher than that, we have to start messing around with stuff he didn't do in his actual career. Wilt's advantages over a guy like Shaq aren't related to offense so much, more so his rebounding and defense. People are fascinated by Wilt's scoring volume, but many don't really put any effort at all into considering how it was accomplished. Wilt ran a lot, played lots of minutes and did so in a league where the average game was way, way faster than any game we have seen in ages. A totally different style of play. Let's not even go into the 2.9 era or how defenses work in the post now, because it's still very clear that post guys can get 16-19 FGA/g if the team really works at it. It's better/easier if they have a strong 17-footer, of course, but still. It's important to remember how many points Wilt (like Shaq) left on the table because of his inability at the foul line.

Yeah, if he was a 70-75% FT shooter like Malone, D-Rob, Hakeem, Ewing, etc, etc, then we'd be talking about a guy who could potentially post Kareem-like scoring numbers in the modern league, but that wasn't Wilt. He blew chunks at the line, just like Shaq. Maybe he'd make them when it counted, but we're talking about seasonal averages, and there above is the harsh reality of what would happen to Wilt in the modern league in terms of his scoring averages without some extraordinary departures from his own career production rates and/or modern coaching principles.

To whit, let me throw this at you: There are FIVE seasons (5!!) in the last decade and a half where a player 6'10+ played in at least 40 games and at least 40 mpg.

Garnett did it twice, Duncan once, Lamar Odom once and Shaq once. They all played between 40.0 and 40.6 mpg, no more.

Let's stretch that out further. Between 89-90 and this past season (13-14), there are 10 such seasons (so another 5 per decade). The others? David Robinson, Hakeem Olajuwon and three from Vin Baker (o.O I know, right?). Still none higher than 41.0 mpg.

Drop it back to 1980, and there are still only 3 more: 2 from Moses Malone and one from Jeff Ruland, Moses rocking out at 42 mpg in 81-82.

It's EXCEEDINGLY uncommon for teams to play guys that many minutes in the 3pt era.

Now, change the paramters... from 59-60 to 78-79:

45 seasons.

Thurmond has 8. Elmore Smith 1. Bill Russell 9. Moses Malone 1. Sam Lacey 1. Wilt had 10 in a row, then 3 more. Walt Bellamy 5. Kareem had 7 in a row.

It was a far more common occurrence (note that in that stretch, there are more such player-seasons than in the past 30+ years). It was an era-related thing which changed as the league grew. We COULD play players at that rate, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to do it, begging for injury and earlier breakdown in their careers. As players got more expensive, teams started protecting their assets a little more, and that's a major limitation on Wilt's production.

As I already explained, his per36 numbers, unadjusted for pace, were 23.6 PTS and 18.0 REB against 30.1 PPG and 22.9 RPG in 45.8 MPG.

There would be no way on God's Green Earth that he'd play 46 mpg over his career in the contemporary league, period. That's a non-starter for conversation, no matter what kind of physical outlier he was (and Wilt was truly a remarkable athletic specimen, that much is not debatable, I agree).

So we're lopping anywhere from 6-10 mpg off of his MPG, and adding in all of those other factors, it'd be incredibly difficult to match the kind of numbers we're discussing here.


Let's have a look at this from another angle. From 79-80 until now, there are 11 seasons of a guy 6'10+ taking 20+ FGA/g. So never mind that the minutes are basically impossible to replicate, there have been 11 player-seasons of a guy 6'10 or taller playing at least half of a season and taking 20+ FGA/g.

They are D-Rob, 3 from Hakeem, two from Shaq, one from Moses, two from Ewing, and one each from Tom Chambers and LaMarcus Aldridge (this year, actually). MOST of those guys had a far better jumper than Wilt. This is especially true of Hakeem, Ewing and LMA. All of them but Shaq shot at LEAST 71% from the FT line the year they did it, which of course is around 10% better than Wilt's single-season best.

The best amongst those seasons was Moses' 82 season. 31.1 ppg, 42.0 mpg, 22.5 FGA/g, 76.2% FT on 10.2 FTA/g.

Wilt could never match that. He'd lose 1.7 PPG just on the basis of FT shooting. That means that even at 22.5 FGA/g (which is highly unlikely to begin with), he'd still be rocking 29.4 PPG, and that makes the 30 ppg marker out of reach for him in the contemporary period by yet another measure. He'd have to match or exceed a shooting volume that no big has managed in over 3 decades while playing more minutes than any other big has done over a similar time frame and he'd STILL come short because of his FT shooting.

This is the point I've been driving at, spelled out in all of its nitty-gritty detail.

It wouldn't be an effective, efficient proposition for a team to force the ball to Wilt on a number of possessions that would eventually permit him to take 22-23 FGA/g. That's not winning basketball. We learned that lesson based on the volume excesses of his early career, and then learned it again with guys like Barry and Jordan and Kobe: forcing one guy to shoot that many times is a BAD tactical decision, and not awesome for your overall team offense, particularly come the playoffs.

This is the stuff people need to keep in mind. The lengths to which a team would have to go in the contemporary league to get someone like Wilt to 30 ppg just aren't worth it. The odds against it are huge. He'd still be very good, of course, but that's a whole other situation, which I don't think anyone is debating.

I think any team would be thrilled with a 24-27 player who produced at sound efficiency (FT shooting aside) and still managed to grab, what, 14-16 rpg, passed well and played good defense. That's a perennial MVP candidate right there.

But 30 a night? Nah, that's not gonna happen.

[CaliBullsFan]

You are trying to put him at numbers that make sense for today's game the problem is his numbers didn't make any sense for when he was playing.

That's not really a productive comment. His shooting volume and minutes were not totally out of sorts for his era at all.

They were totally out of sorts for his era you even provide evidence of this in the 2nd half of your post. Trying to normalize something that was an enormous outlier doesn't work.

[tsherkin]

You are trying to put him at numbers that make sense for today's game the problem is his numbers didn't make any sense for when he was playing.

That's not really a productive comment. His shooting volume and minutes were not totally out of sorts for his era at all.

They were totally out of sorts for his era you even provide evidence of this in the 2nd half of your post. Trying to normalize something that was an enormous outlier doesn't work.

I provided evidence that it was quite a bit more common in Wilt's era, actually. You should probably re-read that portion of my post.

[CaliBullsFan]

That's not really a productive comment. His shooting volume and minutes were not totally out of sorts for his era at all.

They were totally out of sorts for his era you even provide evidence of this in the 2nd half of your post. Trying to normalize something that was an enormous outlier doesn't work.

I provided evidence that it was quite a bit more common in Wilt's era, actually. You should probably re-read that portion of my post.

Yes a bit more common but still an enormous outlier

[tsherkin]

They were totally out of sorts for his era you even provide evidence of this in the 2nd half of your post. Trying to normalize something that was an enormous outlier doesn't work.

I provided evidence that it was quite a bit more common in Wilt's era, actually. You should probably re-read that portion of my post.

Yes a bit more common but still an enormous outlier

That's inaccurate as well, given league size. Essentially all of the star bigs were playing comparable minutes and there are only ever a few great big scorers. Star players played bigger minutes and per-game shooting averages were higher due to pace and minutes.

You are wrong, and badly so.

[RayBan-Sematra]

I am with TSherkin when it comes to not assuming that Wilt could be an excellent high volume scorer in the league today.

His P42 playoff scoring stats in his Prime were 29ppg which came on 50%FG/52%TS.
Even later on his lower scoring years his FG% only rose to about 54-55% which while good for a guy who can hit from the line was bad for Wilt who was struggling to even shoot 40% from the stripe.

Sure he would have better spacing today but he would also have to deal with wider lanes, far more advanced defenses and better athleticism overall (especially at the smaller positions).
Probably better overall competition also. There wasn't a gluttony of great bigmen in the very early 60's. You had Wilt, Russell and who else?

Then there is the argument that Wilt had this ultra efficient power game which he just chose not to display consistently in fear of being labeled a bully.
Not sure I buy that. Watching him I don't necessarily believe he had the skills to play such an effective power-game and would he really be scared to unleash it occasionally in a big playoff game or two to secure a Championship? I mean if he was playing a finesse game 99% of the time I think that would be enough to get his point across.
Plus in highlight videos he does often seem to score by abusing his physical advantages and he dunks plenty so... he didn't seem that opposed to scoring using his physical gifts.

I won't make any bold statements regarding how good he would be today but I am currently doubtful he'd be as effective a volume scorer as Kareem or O'neal would likely be.
I would think his best role would still be to score closer to 20ppg then 30ppg while employing his passing ability and focusing on boards/defense.

[NO-KG-AI]

He'd be the best big man in the league today, and by such a comfortable margin that it would make him a legitimate option as "most valuable", though I'd absolutely prefer to build my team around LeBron in his present form... Wilt would still be terrifying, and in the discussion for best player every year (a real discussion, between he and LeBron, and no one else).

[MisterWestside]

If Dwight Howard can score 23 ppg in today's game - and, while I think he's unfairly knocked for his post game, he still isn't the most most technically sound post guy in the league - then I would think that Chamberlain, whom I rank ahead of Howard on offense, could score at least that.

30? Not impossible, but a tough feat. "Closer to 20"? Nah.