Official "Will LeBron James be better than Michael Jordan" Thread (and Wilt...)

[XxIrvingxX]

Originally Posted by yodurk

Why not? What exactly has Lebron achieved (or you expect him to achieve) that would compensate for winning fewer championships than MJ?

On top of that I am surprised so few people here are mentioning the fact that Jordan was the unquestioned best player and leader of a team that won 72 frigging games. He also had a season with 69 wins and another with 67 wins. Isn't winning the ultimate metric of greatness?

Let me respond to that statement with a question. Why should Lebron need more TEAM achievements to prove that he individually is greater than Michael Jordan, assuming it gets to that point? And above all of that, what would Lebron NEED to achieve apart from championships to surpass Jordan? Title's don't determine who the greatest of all time is, just ask Bill Russell. But I'm sure carrying a team that was much worse than any team Jordan ever played for to the NBA finals is something that deserves some recognization, right?

Michael Jordan had a head above shoulders much better team than Lebron had in Cleveland, and in my opinion his team is still better than the one Lebron currently has in Miami. And what do you mean unquestioned best player in the NBA? Isn't that what Lebron is right now? The last time people were still questioning whether or not he was the best was in 2010 when he was still on the Cavs and people for some strange reason still thought Kobe was the best player at that point in the NBA, when the truth is Lebron has been better since 2008 (...well, okay fine 2009. Lebron still should've won the MVP award that season.)

[The Big Dipper]

Originally Posted by XxIrvingxX

Yea, no, I will continue to say he was better because he was taller because the truth is, he was better because he was taller. You're probably the first person on the face of this earth to ever say that Wilt's height didn't play a big part in his dominance. There are numerous NBA players who have pointed that out, when you read the articles about him, they point out his height and how dominant he was because of it. Hell you can even go on his bio and they will most likely point it out.

Again, I strongly recommend you stop trying to change the way I say things. It doesn't help you at all. I clearly stated that his height and athleticism were both tools that he had that played a huge part in his dominance. I stated this from the very start at the same time, don't make it sound like I stated one thing and then decided to randomly bring up the other.

And once again, I already answered why no one could have stopped Wilt. Because he was taller and more athletic than everyone else. That is probably the sixth time now I have said this at least. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand it but for the sake of the rules on this site I'll avoid saying the suggestion for why that might be.


With that said, 90% of the players from Wilt's era didn't even go above Wilt's shoulders when you stand them up against each other. Their skills have absolutely nothing to do with their inability to guard Wilt or to not have Wilt block the shit out of them on a nightly basis. I have no idea how you were able to come up with that conclusion, I have an urge to bash my head against a wall repeaditly when I think about it because it makes no sense.

I know his size helped but it wasn't the only reason the other reason was he was stronger, faster, quicker, jumped higher and had better stamina on top of having great timing, awareness and balance.

Once again if being tall was all you needed to dominate then Manute Bol would be considered the GOAT. But I would take Ben Wallace who is 6-6,6-7 barefoot over Manute Bol.

Today's players heights are inflated in reality they are 1.5 - 2 inches shorter. Centers from today are .5 inches taller than in 1964 on average. So Wilt would still be too tall for today's player, and coupled with the fact that this is one of the worst eras for centers Wilt would have a field day.

Per your logic Wilt was better because he was taller, so if he is taller than todays centers does that mean he would be better if he played today?

I don't think so but if you are gonna reductio ad absurdum what I say I think you will arrive at the conclusion that Wilt would be better than 90% of the centers today. I do think he would be better but not because he was taller, but because he was the better athlete, better scorer and better defender.

Wilt would constantly abuse Bill Russell, Bill Russell is as tall if not taller than Dwight Howard, the best center in the NBA, does this mean Wilt would destroy Dwight? He would be better than Dwight based off of your height statements. He would be better than Dwight but once again not only because of height.

If skill was the only thing people needed to be in the NBA then MJ would still be playing. I have no doubt he could still shoot. However you need athleticism. So why fault Wilt for being the most athletic center ever? I mean A.I's game was built on speed and quickness but it would be dumb to blame him for being too fast and it would be dumb to blame Wilt for being too tall. Even though in todays game he would still be too tall too fast and too strong.

The 3 second rule was implemented in 1966, which funny enough is the year Wilt transformed from being an offensive monster to being the teams defensive anchor and main distributor.

In 04 they did begin to enforce it more, so let's say he can't have as big an impact on defense if they made the 3 second rule stricter, this would then make his offensive game better since others can't just stand in the lane. Note Wilt still had amazing defense after this rule so I don't see it being a problem I actually see it as being harder for defenders to guard him especially since todays there is no more hand checking.

I think Wilt's strength allowed him to out muscle people and get in to position to score, not his height. I think a skilled player isn't gonna be constantly blocked by Wilt, although even the best did. Kareem Abdul Jabbar who is also 7-1 was constantly blocked by Wilt. Not because Wilt is taller which he isn't but because Wilt had amazing timing and could jump so high. He was an amazing defender that is why he dominated on defense not because he was 7-1.

[XxIrvingxX]

Originally Posted by The Big Dipper

I know his size helped but it wasn't the only reason the other reason was he was stronger, faster, quicker, jumped higher and had better stamina on top of having great timing, awareness and balance.

Once again if being tall was all you needed to dominate then Manute Bol would be considered the GOAT. But I would take Ben Wallace who is 6-6,6-7 barefoot over Manute Bol.

Good job trying to twist my words around again. If you read the rest of the post I clearly stated that his crazy athleticism was another big reason for his dominance.

Originally Posted by The Big Dipper

Today's players heights are inflated in reality they are 1.5 - 2 inches shorter. Centers from today are .5 inches taller than in 1964 on average. So Wilt would still be too tall for today's player, and coupled with the fact that this is one of the worst eras for centers Wilt would have a field day.

Actually he wouldn't. Once again, the rules back then heavily favored Wilt. The rules that where made because of him would have prevented him from being as dominant.

Originally Posted by The Big Dipper

Per your logic Wilt was better because he was taller, so if he is taller than todays centers does that mean he would be better if he played today?

Being taller was one of the reasons, not the main and only one, again, if you tried actually reading my posts and not changing my words around, you would realize this.

Originally Posted by The Big Dipper

I don't think so but if you are gonna reductio ad absurdum what I say I think you will arrive at the conclusion that Wilt would be better than 90% of the centers today. I do think he would be better but not because he was taller, but because he was the better athlete, better scorer and better defender.

??

reductio ad absurdum...right. I'll ignore that entire statement until you change up the grammar on it because I have no clue what you were just trying to say there.

But yes, I would arrive to that conclusion. I never said Wilt wouldn't still be good in todays game. He would still be an incredible rebounder, I said before that he would probably be averaging around 3 blocks per game and I still believe he would. But scoring 30 points per game? Absolutely not, 20 points per game, maybe 25 points per game as a career high at the most. But not 30.

Originally Posted by The Big Dipper

Wilt would constantly abuse Bill Russell, Bill Russell is as tall if not taller than Dwight Howard, the best center in the NBA, does this mean Wilt would destroy Dwight? He would be better than Dwight based off of your height statements. He would be better than Dwight but once again not only because of height.

CONSTANTLY abuse him? I wouldn't go that far. He abused him a lot out there on the floor but it wasn't on a consistent basis unless all the document's I've seen regarding their rivalry were lying to me.

And again, you need to stop taking my height claims out of proportion. The reason I brought up the height is because back then, people of his height was rare. But the thing is, Wilt's athleticism sealed the deal, as I pointed out numerous times already. I don't know how you claim to the conclusion that I was simply basing my argument off of completely height, the statement you bolded sure makes it sound like that but apparently you've somehow gained the ability to completely forget about the parts where I stated that it was his height combined with his athleticism. But again, that still just favors my argument.

I want you to read this quote that I found.

Wilt was 7-1 and 275 pounds...let's keep this in mind for a moment, while I talk about what the NBA had at center.

There were a total of 18 centers in the league in 1961-62. Only five of them (including Wilt) averaged over 30 MPG.


Bill Russell was 6-9 and 215 pounds (-4 inches and -60 pounds)
Walt Bellamy was 6-11 and 225 pounds (-2 inches and -50 pounds)
Wayne Embry was 6-8 and 240 pounds (-5 inches and -35 pounds)
Red Kerr was 6-9 and 230 pounds (-4 inches and -45 pounds)

Only one of those four had the height to defend Wilt, and played longer than 30 minutes per game, and that was a 225-pound Bellamy that gave up 50 pounds to Wilt.
What about the rest?


Clyde Lovellette: 6-9, 234 lbs. (only played 40 games, also)
Phil Jordon: 6-10, 205 lbs. (a stick)
Jim Krebs: 6-8, 230 lbs.
Walter Dukes: 7-0, 220 lbs. (JaVale McGee, only 17 pounds LIGHTER)
Bob Ferry: 6-8, 230 lbs.
Charlie Tyra: 6-8, 230 lbs.
Larry Foust: 6-9, 215 lbs.
Darrall Imhoff: 6-10, 220 lbs. (19.8 MPG bench player behind Phil Jordon - mentioned above - in NY)
Ray Felix: 6-11, 220 lbs. (18.5 MPG bench player behind a much smaller Jim Krebs - mentioned above - in LA)
Hub Reed: 6-9, 215 lbs. (18.1 MPG bench player behind a smaller Wayne Embry - mentioned above - in CIN)
Swede Halbrook: 7-3, 235 lbs. (played just 14.2 MPG behind Red Kerr, who was much smaller, and he lasted just two seasons in the league)
Wayne Yates: 6-8, 235 lbs. (7.1 MPG, worthless)
Bevo Nordmann: 6-10, 225 lbs. (5.9 MPG, worthless)

Wilt was, by far, the heaviest player during that season. He was also the second tallest out of the three seven-footers (the tallest being a guy that logged just 14 minutes off the bench). The other seven-footer gave up 50 pounds to Wilt.

This is the point I am trying to make. From a height standpoint and from a weight standpoint, Wilt ALREADY had an unfair advantage over his opponents. This is not including his incredible athleticism, which is far beyond the athleticism that everyone else possesses. From a skill standpoint he had limited abilities, not limited to the point where he would be useless with a 6-11 and 220 pound body, but he was limited.

Now keep in mind, Wilt wouldn't be playing the minutes he played back then. So again, 30 points per game is not an accurate prediction of what his points per game column would be like in todays game. Back then the starters played a lot more heavier minutes (you were acting like before that Wilt was the only person that played a shitload of minutes, no, pretty much everyone who started did).

Originally Posted by The Big Dipper

If skill was the only thing people needed to be in the NBA then MJ would still be playing. I have no doubt he could still shoot. However you need athleticism. So why fault Wilt for being the most athletic center ever?

Where are you getting this idea that I'm faulting him for it? I've done nothing but praise his athleticism. I'm saying he would need more than just athleticism. He would need more than just a great finger roll and a good post game to put up the offensive numbers you suggested he would put up. He's good enough to do 20-25, but he's most certainly not good enough to do 30, let alone be the leading scorer in the league.

Originally Posted by The Big Dipper

I mean A.I's game was built on speed and quickness but it would be dumb to blame him for being too fast and it would be dumb to blame Wilt for being too tall. Even though in todays game he would still be too tall too fast and too strong.

The 3 second rule was implemented in 1966, which funny enough is the year Wilt transformed from being an offensive monster to being the teams defensive anchor and main distributor.

Blame Wilt for being too tall? What am I blaming him for exactly? And Iverson was a excellent player who was also a horrible team player, who's height didn't effect him when he was out on the court. That's not a very good comparison.

And wait, you said that he wasn't forced to become that type of player until he went to LA. This was two years before the matter. What happened? Please, do give me a reason to not believe that the 3 second rule coming into effect just made him much worse in terms of production and had to change to that in LA (I'm asking you because you seem to know SO much about the man, and I horribly lack the knowledge to know what kind of transitions he made in terms of the way he played at sudden occurrences like this one.)

Originally Posted by The Big Dipper

In 04 they did begin to enforce it more, so let's say he can't have as big an impact on defense if they made the 3 second rule stricter, this would then make his offensive game better since others can't just stand in the lane. Note Wilt still had amazing defense after this rule so I don't see it being a problem I actually see it as being harder for defenders to guard him especially since todays there is no more hand checking.

How exactly? First off they can stand in the lane, all they have to do is just stand there right when Wilt gets the ball. It's pretty easy basic stuff. It would all depend on the team he's on, and how good he is at creating those opportunities for himself. Wilt had a great post game (I know I said only good before but I guess I'll try to be nice here). Dominant post games are rare today. I don't know who the last great center was that dominated strictly off of post games (probably Shaq), so I'm not sure how often he would end up really using it.

Regardless, when given the kind of defense teams play today in comparison to back then, and the rules that follow, I doubt what you suggested would make Wilt's offensive abilities better to the point where it's a noticeable effect.

Originally Posted by The Big Dipper

I think Wilt's strength allowed him to out muscle people and get in to position to score, not his height. I think a skilled player isn't gonna be constantly blocked by Wilt, although even the best did.

A skilled player is going to be blocked by someone with an incredible leap and timing. It's impossible to not be. All you can do is make sure he's not around when you attempt to score.

For a good amount of time, his strength made it easy for him to get to the basket, I think in the highlight video you showed me, there were quite a few instances where he used his strength to get to the hoop and score. But when it came to putting the ball in, most of the time it was simply just him once again using his height to his advantages.

Originally Posted by The Big Dipper

Kareem Abdul Jabbar who is also 7-1 was constantly blocked by Wilt. Not because Wilt is taller which he isn't but because Wilt had amazing timing and could jump so high. He was an amazing defender that is why he dominated on defense not because he was 7-1.

This is false. In a book called "Wilt Larger Than Life", I believe it said that he only blocked the shot a couple of times, but he did it more than anyone else ever did in the history of basketball. But saying he "constantly" blocked it is an absolute lie. Come on now. Don't give me utter bs like that.

And once again, I agree Wilt would be an amazing defender in todays game, but stop overrating his defensive abilities. The goal tending rule did already exist when Wilt entered the league but it wasn't enforced very well.

Now it appears that (and this is of no surprise to me) that you still don't clearly understand what I'm saying after spelling it out for you numerous times. So I'll try one more time.

I'll start with the reasoning for Wilt's dominance. First off before I mention his athleticism/height, he was a great post scorer, and he had a great finger roll. That was basically it. He had great height so it was easy for him to score when near the hoop. Now his height isn't the only thing. He was an incredible athlete. He was freakishly strong. He was the kind of guy that would make you shit yourself if he got pissed at you on the street. Physically, there was nothing anyone could do against him.

He had good knowledge of the game as well. His timing as you pointed out before was excellent, that's part of the reason as to why he was such a good rebounder.

But he wouldn't score 30 per game in today's era, and he certainly wouldn't be a top five scorer in the league. Why?

1. He would need more abilities on offense, a great post game won't get you 30 per game. It couldn't get Shaq that, there's no possible way it could get Wilt that.
2. The rules don't favor him in this era.
3. He wouldn't play the same amount of minutes that he did back then.

Now it seems like you have the whole idea of the GOAT completely confused here, which would explain your horrible reasoning for your selection of Wilt as the GOAT, so I want you to do me a favor, and try to understand why people consider Michael Jordan to be greater than Wilt, or anyone for that matter. Also consider why people like Magic Johnson, or Larry Bird are considered so great, they had physical advantages over their opponents. Try to understand why they were considered so great. In fact, I want you to tell me why you think people think they're so great. And we'll go from there.

[The Big Dipper]

Reductio ad absurdum mean reducing to the absurd, following a statement or idea to it's illogical (or logical depending on how you look at it) and absurd extreme. For example if I said this season Kobe reached 30,000 so in 17 more years he will reach 60,000.

I was just saying that we could reductio ad absurdum that since Wilt is taller than everyone in the game today he would still dominate. But of course that is absurd height is not the only reason he dominated.

Now I understand I was misunderstood and you actually meant Wilt dominated because his weight, height, athleticism, timing, balance, awareness, stamina, incredible defense, outstanding rebounding and great post game.

So I guess we don't disagree.

In regards to his minutes per game, yes I said his stamina and ability to play 48 minutes a game was also part of the reason he dominated, his strength on offense and defense for 48 minutes would tire out his opponents.

So when you have a player who is one of the strongest, tallest, heaviest, most athletic, players off all time as well as one who historically will out rebound you, outscore you and outblock you and will not tire nor foul out. I think you have encountered one of if not the greatest individual player of all time.

All those factors are what made him one of the greatest players off all time of course I say GOAT but it's hard for others to swallow that so I will just say he is in the highest tier along with 1-3 other players.

In regards to the minutes I think that is where his stats would fall back, I don't think coaches would be ok with Wilt doing 48 minutes a game again. Or 48.5 minutes which he averaged for a season.

However I do think he could average 42-46 minutes so no I don't see his stats suffering too much.

Wilt is the greatest individual player of all time, even his biggest critic and that little weasel Bill Simmons has admitted that.

The man who has the gall to criticize Wilt to Bill Russell and each time Bill Russell corrects him. He thinks if he shits on Wilt he will get points with Bill, he thinks if he sucks up to him he can touch the rings. Anywho sorry I just hate Simmons such an obvious homer.

I will say Wilt is the greatest individual player off all time and in the discussion and short list for GOAT.

Originally Posted by XxIrvingxX

Now it seems like you have the whole idea of the GOAT completely confused here, which would explain your horrible reasoning for your selection of Wilt as the GOAT, so I want you to do me a favor, and try to understand why people consider Michael Jordan to be greater than Wilt, or anyone for that matter. Also consider why people like Magic Johnson, or Larry Bird are considered so great, they had physical advantages over their opponents. Try to understand why they were considered so great. In fact, I want you to tell me why you think people think they're so great. And we'll go from there.

If it is okay with you I am not going to. I think the point about Wilt has been made which was my intention. I would love to go over what makes the GOAT player but going back and forth with you for days has become tiresome and boring. If you make a thread and others participate I would love to but just dealing with you is tiring, I don't have Wilt's stamina I can't be here forever.

Originally Posted by XxIrvingxX

P.S. didn't you say you were done a couple posts ago?

If you make another thread where others and I can go over it I'll do it. As for this, thank you I am DONE!

[Luke]

Pretending like Wilt could put up the same numbers today as he did then is absurd. So is anyone who has already put LeBron over Wilt.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App

[XxIrvingxX]

Originally Posted by Luke

Pretending like Wilt could put up the same numbers today as he did then is absurd. So is anyone who has already put LeBron over Wilt.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App

Not saying I already put him over Wilt but when his career is over with I see no reason as to why anyone wouldn't put him over Wilt.

But enough about my opinion, Luke do you think he will surpass Wilt?

[Luke]

He hasn't passed Wilt in my mind yet so I don't see why y'all are arguing about a hypothetical. I think LeBron has a great chance to end up at the top with Jordan, Magic and Kareem but he hasn't yet.

Put it this way, I'm very confident that LeBron will go down as a better pro than Kobe. Has he had a better career in total to this point? No so I don't bring it up often. Just because he's on track for something doesn't mean that it's a forgone conclusion.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Luke

Pretending like Wilt could put up the same numbers today as he did then is absurd. So is anyone who has already put LeBron over Wilt.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App

prime wilt could put up shaq+++ numbers right now - no problem

[Luke]

Originally Posted by e-monk

prime wilt could put up shaq+++ numbers right now - no problem

So roughly 30/13/3 with 3 blocks a game with great intimidating D? I wouldn't argue against that. Maybe a slight dip in PPG coupled with some better D or maybe an extra dime a game or something, but not a substantial difference.

[XxIrvingxX]

I'd imagine around 25/15/4. I just can't see him managing those kind of scoring numbers, although it's not impossible.

[e-monk]

Wilt was better suited than Shaq to the new rules as he was both more mobile and had more range including a jump shot out to the teens (but why use it when you can shots from 2'?) - I think 25-30 ppg at 55+% 15ish rebounds 5 or 6 dimes and a clutch of blocks, maybe even a hakeem like 2+ steals per game - the thing is that there are no beasts for him to joust with any more but the rules make it easier to double and triple him before he gets the ball in the post

[e-monk]

also he played guard for the globe trotters so who knows...?

[Diable]

Pretty much nothing except baseless speculation. Wilt played roughly 30% more possessions per game than Shaq I would guess. He was playing inferior competition in an era where there was basically no gameplanning during the regular season and very basic defensive schemes compared to the modern era. Absolutely no logical way to conclude that he would have been as good as Shaq, unless that is something you want to argue without anything to support it save your own imagination. The basic math indicates that it simply isn't so.

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Diable

Pretty much nothing except baseless speculation. Wilt played roughly 30% more possessions per game than Shaq I would guess.

your guess is excessive but here's a point you miss, he ran his ass up and down the court a lot more than Shaq had to and did it for 48 minutes a game so was much better conditioned than Shaq or any other big in the last 30 or 40 years

He was playing inferior competition

I dont understand why people think this, by the mid 60s in an 8-10 game league he literally had to face a hall of famer every other night whereas Shaq faced a much higher frequency of stiffs over the course of the season simply because there were that many more teams

in an era where there was basically no gameplanning during the regular season and very basic defensive schemes compared to the modern era.

it's funny that you open your post with the phrase 'baseless speculation' and then turn around and immediately proceed to show us an excellent example of the same - he was routinely double and triple teamed, hell he left college because of the tactics teams were using against him

Absolutely no logical way to conclude that he would have been as good as Shaq, unless that is something you want to argue without anything to support it save your own imagination. The basic math indicates that it simply isn't so.

he was stronger and more athletic and better conditioned than Shaq, there are fairly good sources to establish all that - in your terms excellent math - can you imagine Shaq winning a big 8 title in the high jump 3 years running? and though fatty weighed more (not much btw - Wilt was listed at 300 towards the end of his career) Fatty was also bigger than Duncan and Duncan routinely out played him


and he was more skilled than Shaq, there are excellent sources for that information as well (people who coached with or against him, fellow players etc)

[XxIrvingxX]

Completely misread Emonks post, nvm.