RealGM

wilt chamberlain was a fairly good nba player...his equivalent today would probably be chris bosh..........


haha nah im playin. ok, hes arguably the greatest ever. but which wilt would you rather have on your team?

1. the 50-25 monster (took over 30 shots a game)

2. the 24-24-8 insane fg%, dominant defense

3. the extremely, extremely high percentage, low volume scorer with still awesome rebounding, russellesque d, and facilitator of the offense (the wilt on the lakers)

The second and third options are kinda similar, i know, but they still were different stages in his career.

50 and 25 is too good to pass up for me. There's a reason a player like that would shoot 30 times a game.

The 1967 version without a second of doubt.

I would take the 1967 version of Wilt that did what it took to win a championship, not stat-hound Wilt who did what it took to make his stats look good (this includes the year he lead the league in assists). Wilt in 1967 was and is everything you want in a basketball player.

how bad is my team? with a good team probably #2 but I can imagine teams I'd rather have Wilt shooting 30+ times a game at over .100 worse FG% and scoring 50 points . . . after all, Iverson got to a final shooting over 30 times a game and only scoring 33 points a game (playoff averages) . . .surely Wilt could scoring 50 on the same shots.

penbeast0 wrote:how bad is my team? with a good team probably #2 but I can imagine teams I'd rather have Wilt shooting 30+ times a game at over .100 worse FG% and scoring 50 points . . . after all, Iverson got to a final shooting over 30 times a game and only scoring 33 points a game (playoff averages) . . .surely Wilt could scoring 50 on the same shots.

I don't know if its even possible for a bigman to shoot 30 a game in todays NBA.

ronnymac2 wrote:wilt chamberlain was a fairly good nba player...his equivalent today would probably be chris bosh..........


haha nah im playin. ok, hes arguably the greatest ever. but which wilt would you rather have on your team?

1. the 50-25 monster (took over 30 shots a game)

2. the 24-24-8 insane fg%, dominant defense

3. the extremely, extremely high percentage, low volume scorer with still awesome rebounding, russellesque d, and facilitator of the offense (the wilt on the lakers)

The second and third options are kinda similar, i know, but they still were different stages in his career.

Good question, but the answer is kind of obvious IMHO. It is option 2., Philly Wilt.

WARRIORS: Wilt was a an uber dominant scorer who shot 30x per game on a .500 clip and grabbed 25+ rebounds. But his low post defense was not phenomenal, team mate Tom Meschery said how average he found Wilt's basket D given his talent. Also, Wilt was pretty spoilt and enjoyed parties quite a bit more than the NBA... DURING THE SEASON.

SIXERS: Alex Hannum forces Wilt to work hard at last. Wilt sacrifices his superb scoring for high accuracy and DPOY like defense. This is also the time when Wilt trained so hard that a gym rat like Hal Greer started to be impressed. I think 1967-8 were Wilt's best years.

LAKERS: Wilt blew out his knee. He came back, but was not nearly as quick anymore. There is a reason why agile Willis Reed dropped 40 points on him, because he could run circles around him. Wilt was POWERFUL without end and a superb passer, but his quickness and speed were gone.

For me, Sixers first, then a tossup between Warriors and Lakers. Lakers if you have high scorers already (West/Goodrich) or Warriors if you need one in the first place.

1967 Wilt.

The best thing about option #1 is

He will sell alot of tickets, jerseys and get me on TV
He will eventualy become #2

Do you want a 20yr old LBJ or a 29yr old Kobe?? I like the extra yrs that gives me the longer window.

During Wilts 1st period he did come as close to winning a title (game 7) as he did in 68,69 and in 70,71. Im not so sure that had the refs swallowed the whistle and Hondo not stole the ball that Everyone would not want a C that scored 40ppg.

option 2 obviously. defensive monster with the ability to bust out for 50 if needed.

Many people are likely going to be enamored of the 50-ppg season and scoring 100 points in a single game, but as I've tried to say for years there's more to basketball than stats. To me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, I choose the 1966-67 Wilt. He played his best all-around ball, led his team to the best record in NBA history at the time, became the only man in NBA history to beat a healthy Bill Russell in the playoffs, and then went through Nate Thurmond in the Finals. IMO this was the best season of his career. He did what was needed to win. The next year he was preoccupied with leading the league in assists, but '67 was the year he put it all together to win a championship, which is what it's all about.

I know this'll run contrary to the majority, but I take #2 and #3 over #1, because I don't want one man scoring 50 points on my team. I want a team of people who'll do whatever's needed in that particular game to win. I don't want or need someone scoring 50 a game every game. Since it's my team, I'm not constructing it that way.

Youngblood wrote:50 and 25 is too good to pass up for me. There's a reason a player like that would shoot 30 times a game.

Yup, and a reason why a good coach would make him stop shooting 30 times a game.

I'd go with '67 Wilt.

Basileus777 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I don't know if its even possible for a bigman to shoot 30 a game in todays NBA.

With 90+ possessions in a game it'd be easy to get him 30 shots a game if you're first priority was to get him 30 shots a game. Of course if you're first priority was to win, you might have some problems.