penbeast0 wrote:anyone ever find the "dunking free throws" rule? I want to see that one
http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.htmlDuring his career, his dominance precipitated many rules changes. These rules changed included widening the lane, instituting offensive goaltending and revising rules governing inbounding the ball and shooting free throws (Chamberlain would leap with the ball from behind the foul line to deposit the ball in the basket).
I think the problem is that most of the websites discussing NBA rule changes use Robert Bradley's NPBR site, which has section titled
Significant NBA Rule Changes. (My emphasis.) I think the NBA simply adopted the NCAA rule about free throws, which means part of this comes from the NCAA rule change that was made after Wilt's college coach Phog Allen bragging in 1956 that that Wilt would make every free throw. (From
Wilt, 1962; cited source Pete Newell)
And I think there are a couple of periods where we just don't know where a rule change went into effect; There are a number listed at the end of the rules list with ??? for date implemented at the NPBR site. There were other fouls that were implemented because of Wilt where we don't know the date--the "away from the ball foul" is one. That was added so that opposing players wouldn't simply foul Wilt the minute the ball was inbounded in the final minutes of close games. And there's a 7 year gap between 1955 and 1962 where there were, apparently, no major rule changes. I find that very, very hard to believe. Anyway, I'm going to assume that the NBA knows it's own history well enough.
It was more than 20 years before the NBA got around to thinking Wilt's 100 point game was something worth remembering. For one thing, Wilt had scored 67, 65, and 61 points in the three games leading up to the 100 point game. He was tearing up the league in a way that no one has done, before or since. For another, contemporary news stories didn't think much of it. The AP story made the New York Times...on page 14. It was actually a half story; the other half of the Page 14 story was about the 43rd Annual Knights of Columbus track meet at the Garden. Columnists were far harsher than that. Two days after Wilt's 100 point game, Jimmy Powers, of the
New York Daily News, wrote:
"Basketball is not prospering because most normal sized American youngsters or adults cannot identify themselves with the freakish stars. A boy can imagine he is a Babe Ruth, a Jack Dempsey, or a bob Cousy, for example, but he finds his imagination stretched to the breaking point trying to visualize himself as one of the giraffe types on display today. You just can't see a seven-foot basket stuffing monster to even the most gullible adolescent."
This was the sports editor of one of the most widely read newspapers in the country.
The NBA was so impressed that they did nothing to even acknowledge the game on its one-year anniversary. Or the five year anniversary. Or the tenth. Or the twentieth.
And, again, Wilt himself was not happy with the game for a long, long time. After the game, when his teammate At Attles came up to him in the locker room after the reporters were gone, Wilt was looking at the box score with a strained look on his face. "Big Fella, what's the matter?" Al asked.
"I never thought I would take 63 shots in a game."
"Yeah, but you made 36 of them." Attles smiled. "Hey, we'll take that any day of the week."
"Yeah, but...63 shots, Al."
When Kobe scored 81, it was an
event in a way that, clearly, Chamberlain's game was not. And, to me, that's telling. We are now more focused on numerical greatness than ever before. And the game has slowed--which does not necessarily make it easier to score, just that you will have more chances if you have the style and stamina to do so. IMO, those changes make Kobe's game very slightly more impressive--or, perhaps to be more accurate, to be considered more impressive. Wilt's game was not considered a big deal when he did it--by himself, by most writers, by the NBA itself. Kobe had to fight through layers of the statistical worship we have built up and on in the past two or three decades. He did have to combat a slower game; he was more efficient. (Although Jack Kiser of the Philadelphia Daily News pointed out that Wilt made shots he would never ordinarily have taken, including "Long jumpers from 25-30 feet with two and three mend clinging to [him]"...so Wilt probably would have registered a few threes himself.) Kobe's game was analyzed and lionized, and there's pressure when you know your game will be looked at like that.
But Kobe thrives on that. He wants the recognition and attention. Wilt did too, but not in so overt a way on the basketball court. It showed in his response to his 100 point game, which was echoed by so many others for so long. Wilt gave his teammate At Attles, who had wanted Wilt to celebrate his accomplishment, a ball and a plaque with a photo of them, and wrote on it, "To Al, who did all the right things at the wrong time." Attles had gone 8 for 8 that night. Wilt made it clear that he owed his accomplishment to his teammates. I just don't see Kobe giving Chris Mihm or Lamar Odom something like that. I don't see Smush Parker saying what Al said when talking to a group of high school and college basketball players about Wilt's game.
"The single most important thing that you play for in a team sport--there's only one reason you play--to try to win. You need to do whatever is necessary. If you win, that means you
all share in it."
I think Kobe's game is a slightly more impressive. I think both games are anomalies and are fairly worthless from a statistical analysis point of view. But I think they say a lot about what we want out of basketball players, now and in the past. Wilt thought that a game as out of line as his 100 point game was not particularly good for him, the game, or his teammates. Kobe's game was an anomaly too...one that garnered him attention and personal accolades from fans. I am not sure we have moved forward in appreciating or understanding basketball.
