[Stardust]

The Cavaliers are 8-23 this season. Only the Washington Wizards and Sacramento Kings have worse records than Cleveland. Last season, the Cavs record was flipped after 31 games, with a 23-8 record.

I have hear all the arguments about how Lebron has not win a title. Lebron single-handedly, more so than any other athlete in history, was a one man show in Cleveland. He, by himself put the Cavaliers in position year in and year out to compete for a title.

Lebron James is the greatest player in Basketball today!

[BlackcatAlum]

I can't argue with anything you said. He is the best basketball player in the NBA right now and has been the past few years. I also don't blame Lebron for leaving Cleveland either, but what I and just about the rest of the country got so upset over was the way he handled it. He could have just called a press conference or sent a text message to someone at ESPN, but no, he simply had a 1-hour special called, "The Decision". But like I said, I don't blame him for going to Miami, basically him leaving Cleveland was the best decision he could have made for himself. Sure Lebron has burned some bridges in Cleveland, but after all, he wasn't from Cleveland, he's from Akron. So the hometown stuff is nothing but bologna.

[geauxtigers75]

He meant a lot, he WAS the Cavs. Cleveland is still crying like no one has ever lost a player to free agency before. I hate Cleveland (sports teams), it all makes me so happy to see them suck, as usual.

[LWC]

LeBron meant more to the Cavs than any one player has meant to any one team in years.

[zaga_fan]

You have to think that last year Lebron also had Big Z and Shaq
I'm not saying that those are marquee players and that they were responsible for a lot of the Cavs wins or anything.
Just that they lost their top 2 big men on top of Lebron and now they are just a handful of pretty good role players, but no one to really be a consistent offensive threat.
Lebron didn't have much help in Cleveland, but he definitely wasn't thrown to the wolves his last few years.
He had a decent team in a watered down Eastern conference that he helped make a great team(in the regular season of course).

[Ballers]

Lebron was a sacred jewell to the city of Cleveland.
I believe they were under the impression he was going to retire there..
Well I'd say he woulda if he would had a team to win a championship with..
So the end to the story book dream in Cleveland, is dead.

[Stardust]

You have to think that last year Lebron also had Big Z and Shaq
I'm not saying that those are marquee players and that they were responsible for a lot of the Cavs wins or anything.
Just that they lost their top 2 big men on top of Lebron and now they are just a handful of pretty good role players, but no one to really be a consistent offensive threat.
Lebron didn't have much help in Cleveland, but he definitely wasn't thrown to the wolves his last few years.
He had a decent team in a watered down Eastern conference that he helped make a great team(in the regular season of course).

Are you serious? Shaq and Z meant that much:igiveup:

I don't think so!

[Aslan]

Lebron James is the best player in the world. He don't have the attitude that MJ had because MJ wouldn't have went to a team where he wasn't "the guy", and of course MJ would have had a few rings by now too.
Still though, LEBRON JAMES IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE WORLD TODAY.

[Stardust]

Lebron James is the best player in the world. He don't have the attitude that MJ had because MJ wouldn't have went to a team where he wasn't "the guy", and of course MJ would have had a few rings by now too.
Still though, LEBRON JAMES IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE WORLD TODAY.

I agree with this, but let's not forget that MJ had one of the 50 best players of all time on his team for virtually all of his career with the Bulls. But you are right, MJ would have never wanted to be on the same team with Malone, Magic or Bird

Age wise and number of years in the league, are you sure about this comparison? MJ was 29 when he won his first NBA title, which was his 7th season???? LBJ just turned 26 on the 20th of this month, while he is in his 8th season

[zaga_fan]

Are you serious? Shaq and Z meant that much:igiveup:

I don't think so!

I'm just saying he had some good role players.
Losing 2 centers that get playing time and not replacing them with someone of the same caliber is NEVER good for a team.

[Belfry0304]

I'm not getting into the player because I will get mad and get banned from the site, but the reason for the Cavaliers terrible this season is the fact they have no post presence whatsoever. Post game wins in the NBA and the Cavaliers have no one. I really believe they'd still be a top 6 team in the East with a solid post player.

The same post game is the reason why #6 for the Heat never won a championship.

[Panther Thunder]

SD, Have you seen 'More Than a Game'? If not, I suggest it. A great film about LeBron and Saint Vincent/St. Mary.

[king360]

Lebron made the Cavs, anyone who says he didn't is just blinded by there hatred for him. He is the best player in the NBA, I say Kobe is just to mess around on here but because of his age he is not. Lebron could have went to the Nets last year and they would have made the playoffs, so he meant the world to the Cavs.

[zaga_fan]

I'm not getting into the player because I will get mad and get banned from the site, but the reason for the Cavaliers terrible this season is the fact they have no post presence whatsoever. Post game wins in the NBA and the Cavaliers have no one. I really believe they'd still be a top 6 team in the East with a solid post player.

The same post game is the reason why #6 for the Heat never won a championship.

agreed
If they had a post presence they could be a playoff contender.
Nowhere near where they were with Lebron, but they could make the playoffs.
You don't even have to have a winning record to make it to the postseason in the east.

[Stardust]

agreed
If they had a post presence they could be a playoff contender.
Nowhere near where they were with Lebron, but they could make the playoffs.
You don't even have to have a winning record to make it to the postseason in the east.

LOL, we are talking about the 3rd WORST team in the NBA, and I'm hearing all they need is a Center. And the Center's that they lost were Z & Shaq? Sorry, but this squad needs more than a Center to make the playoffs. Did I mention that they are the 3rd WORST team in the NBA yet?

[Stardust]

Lebron made the Cavs, anyone who says he didn't is just blinded by there hatred for him. He is the best player in the NBA, I say Kobe is just to mess around on here but because of his age he is not. Lebron could have went to the Nets last year and they would have made the playoffs, so he meant the world to the Cavs.

Good post :Thumbs: Not because we agree, but this is a very logical observation

[TidesHoss32]

Best player ever? Nah, Ill say Michael Jordan til the day I die. Best player today, at this moment, yeah Ill go for that. I wouldnt call him the best player of the last ten years though, because Id still go with Kobe. The only person that was able to stop Michael Jordan was Dean Smith. Nobody in the NBA, not even Joe Dumars in his prime, was able to stop Michael Jordan. When Michael scored less than 20 points, it was front sports page news. As far as the top 50 player argument, I believe in ten years, LeBron and Dwayne Wade will both be on that list, so in time, it will even out. The question right now though, is how many championships will LeBron win in the next ten years. If he only wins one or even two, in this VERY watered down NBA, then in ten years, this discussion wont even be up for debate. For me though, all time, I'd take Michael and Kobe.

[Hoot Gibson]

I know that I am in the minority but IMO, there has never been nor will there ever be a player as dominant as Wilt Chamberlain and it is not even close. In 55 games, Chamberlain scored at least 30 points and grabbed 30 rebounds or more. He was the only NBA player ever to record 40 points and 40 rebounds in a game and he did it on 5 different occasions. Those are records that will never be broken or even threatened in the future.

[Stardust]

I know that I am in the minority but IMO, there has never been nor will there ever be a player as dominant as Wilt Chamberlain and it is not even close. In 55 games, Chamberlain scored at least 30 points and grabbed 30 rebounds or more. He was the only NBA player ever to record 40 points and 40 rebounds in a game and he did it on 5 different occasions. Those are records that will never be broken or even threatened in the future.

Wilt was before my time, so all I can go by is limited video and what I have read. What I did not read you say was that Wilt was the greatest, but the most dominate. That I can agree with. During Wilt's era, there was only one player who could compete with Wilt and that was a man who was 4" shorter than the Big Dipper. Wilt played against such inferior big men, he did whatever he wanted, which was definitely the most dominate era that any individual ever had. Wilt was not challenged by anyone until the end of his career. At the end of Wilts days was the very beginning of the "Big Men" era. Wilt, though hampered by injuries, had difficulty with guys like Willis Reed, Wes Unseld (at 6-7) and Bob Lanier all came into the league and had great battles with Wilt in his final days with the Lakers. But there was one big fella that I feel would have matched, possibly surpassed Wilt if he had played during the same era, and that is Kareem. Kareem was not the physical player that Wilt was, but he did not have to be. If you would have put Kareem and his ability to hit a mid-range jumper as well as dominate at the basket during the 60's, Kareem would have been just as good.

Since Kareem played in an era was he was challenged by good big men in at least 3/4's of all of his games, and to be the most prolific scorer of all-time sure makes it hard to argue that Kareem was not more dominate than Wilt when you compare what the two players had to compete against. Like I said, Wilts stats cannot be argued for most dominate, but when you can dominate better competition like Kareem did playing against arguably the greatest era of Centers of all-time, I'd go with Kareem over Wilt.

[Hoot Gibson]

Wilt was before my time, so all I can go by is limited video and what I have read. What I did not read you say was that Wilt was the greatest, but the most dominate. That I can agree with. During Wilt's era, there was only one player who could compete with Wilt and that was a man who was 4" shorter than the Big Dipper. Wilt played against such inferior big men, he did whatever he wanted, which was definitely the most dominate era that any individual ever had. Wilt was not challenged by anyone until the end of his career. At the end of Wilts days was the very beginning of the "Big Men" era. Wilt, though hampered by injuries, had difficulty with guys like Willis Reed, Wes Unseld (at 6-7) and Bob Lanier all came into the league and had great battles with Wilt in his final days with the Lakers. But there was one big fella that I feel would have matched, possibly surpassed Wilt if he had played during the same era, and that is Kareem. Kareem was not the physical player that Wilt was, but he did not have to be. If you would have put Kareem and his ability to hit a mid-range jumper as well as dominate at the basket during the 60's, Kareem would have been just as good.

Since Kareem played in an era was he was challenged by good big men in at least 3/4's of all of his games, and to be the most prolific scorer of all-time sure makes it hard to argue that Kareem was not more dominate than Wilt when you compare what the two players had to compete against. Like I said, Wilts stats cannot be argued for most dominate, but when you can dominate better competition like Kareem did playing against arguably the greatest era of Centers of all-time, I'd go with Kareem over Wilt.

IMO, Kareem was not even close to Wilt because, as you said, he was not a physical player. The sky hook was an unstoppable shot when it was falling because of Kareem's height but in his prime, Chamberlain would have physically dominated Kareem in every way possible. Wilt was the first recipient of the hack-a-Shaq defense because, like Shaq, he was a horrible free throw shooter. Kareem was a scorer but even in that area, he would have been no match for Wilt.

People who insist that Chamberlain put up big numbers because centers were less talented in his day ignore the big games that Chamberlain had against Boston and Russell, including the following 30/30 games:

12-13-61 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 30 rebounds-52 points
02-10-62 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 31 rebounds-38 points
12-26-62 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 32 rebounds-43 points
01-08-63 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 31 rebounds-45 points
02-21-63 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 38 rebounds-40 points
02-26-63 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 30 rebounds-34 points
01-07-64 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 32 rebounds-35 points
01-19-64 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 30 rebounds-31 points
11-25-64 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 32 rebounds-37 points
12-28-65 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 40 rebounds-31 points
01-14-66 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 42 rebounds-37 points
03-06-66 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 30 rebounds-32 points

In other words, against one of the best defensive centers ever to play the game, Chamberlain had some of the best games of his career. Bill Russell, like Kareem, had a much better supporting cast than Chamberlain had during most of his career. That is the only reason that Chamberlain did not die with more championship rings than he did. He was a fierce competitor and he does not get enough credit for it. People who assume that Chamberlain would not have been a dominant center in today's game are just fooling themselves.

[Aslan]

Best player ever? Nah, Ill say Michael Jordan til the day I die. Best player today, at this moment, yeah Ill go for that. I wouldnt call him the best player of the last ten years though, because Id still go with Kobe. The only person that was able to stop Michael Jordan was Dean Smith. Nobody in the NBA, not even Joe Dumars in his prime, was able to stop Michael Jordan. When Michael scored less than 20 points, it was front sports page news. As far as the top 50 player argument, I believe in ten years, LeBron and Dwayne Wade will both be on that list, so in time, it will even out. The question right now though, is how many championships will LeBron win in the next ten years. If he only wins one or even two, in this VERY watered down NBA, then in ten years, this discussion wont even be up for debate. For me though, all time, I'd take Michael and Kobe.

I do agree with everything ye said.

IMO, Kareem was not even close to Wilt because, as you said, he was not a physical player. The sky hook was an unstoppable shot when it was falling because of Kareem's height but in his prime, Chamberlain would have physically dominated Kareem in every way possible. Wilt was the first recipient of the hack-a-Shaq defense because, like Shaq, he was a horrible free throw shooter. Kareem was a scorer but even in that area, he would have been no match for Wilt.

People who insist that Chamberlain put up big numbers because centers were less talented in his day ignore the big games that Chamberlain had against Boston and Russell, including the following 30/30 games:

12-13-61 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 30 rebounds-52 points
02-10-62 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 31 rebounds-38 points
12-26-62 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 32 rebounds-43 points
01-08-63 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 31 rebounds-45 points
02-21-63 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 38 rebounds-40 points
02-26-63 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 30 rebounds-34 points
01-07-64 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 32 rebounds-35 points
01-19-64 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 30 rebounds-31 points
11-25-64 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 32 rebounds-37 points
12-28-65 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 40 rebounds-31 points
01-14-66 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 42 rebounds-37 points
03-06-66 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 30 rebounds-32 points

In other words, against one of the best defensive centers ever to play the game, Chamberlain had some of the best games of his career. Bill Russell, like Kareem, had a much better supporting cast than Chamberlain had during most of his career. That is the only reason that Chamberlain did not die with more championship rings than he did. He was a fierce competitor and he does not get enough credit for it. People who assume that Chamberlain would not have been a dominant center in today's game are just fooling themselves.

You make a compelling argument Hoot! :Thumbs:

[Stardust]

IMO, Kareem was not even close to Wilt because, as you said, he was not a physical player. The sky hook was an unstoppable shot when it was falling because of Kareem's height but in his prime, Chamberlain would have physically dominated Kareem in every way possible. Wilt was the first recipient of the hack-a-Shaq defense because, like Shaq, he was a horrible free throw shooter. Kareem was a scorer but even in that area, he would have been no match for Wilt.

People who insist that Chamberlain put up big numbers because centers were less talented in his day ignore the big games that Chamberlain had against Boston and Russell, including the following 30/30 games:

12-13-61 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 30 rebounds-52 points
02-10-62 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 31 rebounds-38 points
12-26-62 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 32 rebounds-43 points
01-08-63 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 31 rebounds-45 points
02-21-63 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 38 rebounds-40 points
02-26-63 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 30 rebounds-34 points
01-07-64 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 32 rebounds-35 points
01-19-64 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 30 rebounds-31 points
11-25-64 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 32 rebounds-37 points
12-28-65 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 40 rebounds-31 points
01-14-66 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 42 rebounds-37 points
03-06-66 Wilt Chamberlain Philadelphia vs Boston 30 rebounds-32 points

In other words, against one of the best defensive centers ever to play the game, Chamberlain had some of the best games of his career. Bill Russell, like Kareem, had a much better supporting cast than Chamberlain had during most of his career. That is the only reason that Chamberlain did not die with more championship rings than he did. He was a fierce competitor and he does not get enough credit for it. People who assume that Chamberlain would not have been a dominant center in today's game are just fooling themselves.

I think that is way overstated using those stats. Wilt was the ONLY shooter. He was the ONLY interior player. Thus, he would have been the ONLY player to have stats! He was not putting up those numbers against just the 6-9 Bill Russell, but 6-5 Sam Jones, and 6-5 Tom Heinson. PLEASE! You don't play 1:1 basketball! There has been help defense since the beginning of the game.

Wilt was so much bigger phyiscally than any of his competition. You are way off to think that Wilt could even come close to the outrageous numbers he had in today's game. That's nuts to even consider! The NBA center in Wilts day was 6-9, with power forwards 6-5 & 6-6. Wilt could not create the clearance today with interiors averaging 6-11 in the paint. He would be surrounded by guys as big and bigger than him. C'mon, you are fooling yourself. This is like the argument that Babe Ruth is the greatest player ever. Bull, he was the greatest of his era. Players in each era have always been better than the previous era.

[Belfry0304]

LOL, we are talking about the 3rd WORST team in the NBA, and I'm hearing all they need is a Center. And the Center's that they lost were Z & Shaq? Sorry, but this squad needs more than a Center to make the playoffs. Did I mention that they are the 3rd WORST team in the NBA yet?

Actually, I'm pretty sure I stated even when he was with the Cavaliers he never won a championship because he never had a Center. If they had a center, I'd put money they would make the playoffs in the East. Take Howard off the Magic and they are as garbage as the Cavs are now.

[Hoot Gibson]

I think that is way overstated using those stats. Wilt was the ONLY shooter. He was the ONLY interior player. Thus, he would have been the ONLY player to have stats! He was not putting up those numbers against just the 6-9 Bill Russell, but 6-5 Sam Jones, and 6-5 Tom Heinson. PLEASE! You don't play 1:1 basketball! There has been help defense since the beginning of the game.

Wilt was so much bigger phyiscally than any of his competition. You are way off to think that Wilt could even come close to the outrageous numbers he had in today's game. That's nuts to even consider! The NBA center in Wilts day was 6-9, with power forwards 6-5 & 6-6. Wilt could not create the clearance today with interiors averaging 6-11 in the paint. He would be surrounded by guys as big and bigger than him. C'mon, you are fooling yourself. This is like the argument that Babe Ruth is the greatest player ever. Bull, he was the greatest of his era. Players in each era have always been better than the previous era.

Wilt was the among the most athletic players ever to play in the NBA in any era. It seems that as every generation becomes the "current" one, they dismiss great players of previous generations and assume that they were just lucky to have played against inferior athletes. I never claimed that Wilt would have matched the stats that he had during his career if he played today but the level of competition was not as different as you seem determined to believe. While today's players are generally taller and more athletic than they were 30 or 40 years ago, they are also often less fundamentally sound.

Take Dennis Rodman, for example. Rodman was much smaller and much weaker than Chamberlain but he was a rebounding machine in the modern era against players who were often taller and stronger than himself because he blocked out and outworked his opponents instead of relying solely on his athleticism to get rebounds. Charles Barkley is another example of a player much smaller than Chamberlain who was a ferocious rebounder and scorer because he was so much better fundamentally than most of his opponents.

What really separates great basketball players from the field has always been the combination of athleticism and determination to learn and apply the fundamental skills of the game.

Had Steve Nash played in Chamberlain's era, he would have put up great numbers and you would be making a similar argument that you are about Chamberlain.There is no way that a guy as small and relatively unathletic as Steve Nash could ever win an MVP against today's competition. We all know that not only did Nash win an MVP, he won two of them and narrowly missed winning a third.

The NBA is full of athletes today but the number of truly great players in the league is not that much different than it was in Wilt's day. Wilt had 12 30-30 games against Bill Russell and the Celtics. Do you really think that he could not post those kind of numbers against teams like Washington, New Jersey, and Sacramento, and centers named Nazr Mohammed, Brendan Haywood, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Marcin Gortat, Brad Miller, Omer Asik, and Johan Petro? Today's big men are not as talented or numerous as you seem to think.

In 1964 there were only 9 NBA teams, which meant that Chamberlain was matched up against other Hall of Famers Bill Russell, Bob Petit, Willis Reed, or Walt Bellamy every other game.

Like I said above - I realize that I am in the minority with my opinion that Wilt was the best player in NBA history (but I would rather be right than with the majority). :biggrin:

Sorry for the off thread posts about Wilt. I just do not believe that there is a talent gap between today's NBA and the NBA of yesteryear. LeBron, Kobe, et al. would have been great in any era but there are also plenty of today's players who would have been cut from the NBA rosters of 1965.

[Stardust]

Wilt was the among the most athletic players ever to play in the NBA in any era. It seems that as every generation becomes the "current" one, they dismiss great players of previous generations and assume that they were just lucky to have played against inferior athletes. I never claimed that Wilt would have matched the stats that he had during his career if he played today but the level of competition was not as different as you seem determined to believe. While today's players are generally taller and more athletic than they were 30 or 40 years ago, they are also often less fundamentally sound.

Take Dennis Rodman, for example. Rodman was much smaller and much weaker than Chamberlain but he was a rebounding machine in the modern era against players who were often taller and stronger than himself because he blocked out and outworked his opponents instead of relying solely on his athleticism to get rebounds. Charles Barkley is another example of a player much smaller than Chamberlain who was a ferocious rebounder and scorer because he was so much better fundamentally than most of his opponents.

What really separates great basketball players from the field has always been the combination of athleticism and determination to learn and apply the fundamental skills of the game.

Had Steve Nash played in Chamberlain's era, he would have put up great numbers and you would be making a similar argument that you are about Chamberlain.There is no way that a guy as small and relatively unathletic as Steve Nash could ever win an MVP against today's competition. We all know that not only did Nash win an MVP, he won two of them and narrowly missed winning a third.

The NBA is full of athletes today but the number of truly great players in the league is not that much different than it was in Wilt's day. Wilt had 12 30-30 games against Bill Russell and the Celtics. Do you really think that he could not post those kind of numbers against teams like Washington, New Jersey, and Sacramento, and centers named Nazr Mohammed, Brendan Haywood, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Marcin Gortat, Brad Miller, Omer Asik, and Johan Petro? Today's big men are not as talented or numerous as you seem to think.

In 1964 there were only 9 NBA teams, which meant that Chamberlain was matched up against other Hall of Famers Bill Russell, Bob Petit, Willis Reed, or Walt Bellamy every other game.

Like I said above - I realize that I am in the minority with my opinion that Wilt was the best player in NBA history (but I would rather be right than with the majority). :biggrin:

Sorry for the off thread posts about Wilt. I just do not believe that there is a talent gap between today's NBA and the NBA of yesteryear. LeBron, Kobe, et al. would have been great in any era but there are also plenty of today's players who would have been cut from the NBA rosters of 1965.

LOL, this sounds like one of those "players back in my day.....". You still are trying to make this a one-on-one game, so no, he would not put up 30-30 games, EVER! You cannot put up those games ever again, EVER! It is absolutely nuts, and I mean NUTS to not think that a player like Nazr Mohammad, Zadrunis or even Miller would not have put up GREAT numbers during that time of basketball. Those guys would have all averaged 20/20 if not more. Why, because the skills of players today are tremendously better than in those days. if you want to talk about most Dominate, then put Shaq in that era and Shaq, unquestionably the strongest most athletic BIG man ever, would have averaged at minimum, the exact same as Wilt!

[Hoot Gibson]

LOL, this sounds like one of those "players back in my day.....". You still are trying to make this a one-on-one game, so no, he would not put up 30-30 games, EVER! You cannot put up those games ever again, EVER! It is absolutely nuts, and I mean NUTS to not think that a player like Nazr Mohammad, Zadrunis or even Miller would not have put up GREAT numbers during that time of basketball. Those guys would have all averaged 20/20 if not more. Why, because the skills of players today are tremendously better than in those days. if you want to talk about most Dominate, then put Shaq in that era and Shaq, unquestionably the strongest most athletic BIG man ever, would have averaged at minimum, the exact same as Wilt!

You are entitled to be wrong if you want. :biggrin:

Shaq lacked Chamberlain's discipline and work ethic. Shaq is no Chamberlain and it has nothing to do with the time in which he is playing. Chamberlain kept himself fit and at age 35, he still managed to average 19.2 rebounds per game and to make the NBA All-Defensive First Team. Chamberlain declined offers to come out of retirement when he was in his 50s. More than one team thought he might still provide 10 or 15 quality minutes in the playoffs for them.

Compared to Chamberlain, Shaq was a flash in the pan who squandered a wealth of potential by letting off-court distractions like rap music and acting limit his on-court performance. Shaq's "peak" was short-lived.

If you really believe that the skills of today's players are "tremendously better" than in Chamberlain's days, then you and I must be watching different games. There are more than three times as many NBA teams today than there were during Chamberlain's prime and the number of fundamentally sound players - those who can shoot, dribble, pass, and block-out - has not kept pace with the number of teams in the league. That is why a player like Steve Nash can still be a star in today's NBA.

I will readily concede that are more many more tall, quick jumping athletes in today's NBA who are ferocious dunkers, but the level of play has not improved much, IMO. That is evident whenever a group of NBA all-stars struggles against some of the top international teams, which are generally much less athletic than American players.

As for making the NBA a one-on-one game, today's game is much more of a one-on-one game than it was in Chamberlain's day. Despite his gaudy numbers, Chamberlain was very coachable and proved himself to be a team player. Not only did he lead the league in assists one season, when coaches asked him to limit his shots and take on a different role, he did so without complaint. As a result, Chamberlain still holds the single season FG% record of 72.7% and he is also number 2 on the list at 68.3%.

[Stardust]

LOL, OMG - You have watched basketball from the 60's and you can honestly say the skill level is comparable to today's game. LOL - What a Hoot! I guess if you can sit there and honestly believe that, then there is absolutely no where else I can take this.

Shaq had as many great years as Wilt - Do you know hoe many years Wilt played? Put Shaq in that timeframe, you get EXACTLY the same dominance! Put any of todays Centers in that era for 10 years and you get that!

[Hoot Gibson]

LOL, OMG - You have watched basketball from the 60's and you can honestly say the skill level is comparable to today's game. LOL - What a Hoot! I guess if you can sit there and honestly believe that, then there is absolutely no where else I can take this.

Shaq had as many great years as Wilt - Do you know hoe many years Wilt played? Put Shaq in that timeframe, you get EXACTLY the same dominance! Put any of todays Centers in that era for 10 years and you get that!

Yes, I have watched basketball from the 60s, a period where US college players dominated world competition in the Olympics. I have also watched enough "modern" basketball to see polished international teams humiliate much more athletic NBA star-studded teams. Basketball is a team sport and what NBA teams of the 60s and 70s (Chamberlain did play against Kareem and he still led the league in rebounding several seasons) lacked in athleticism they made up for in fundamentals and teamwork.

Chamberlain played 14 seasons and he was the NBA MVP four times. In his rookie season, he was the Rookie of the Year, the league MVP, and the All-Star game MVP. You can compare Shaq and Wilt anyway that you want, but the fact is that Shaq had only one MVP season and to suggest that he ever dominated play the way that Wilt did is ridiculous.

Wilt was still one of the NBA's dominant players when he retired, averaging 18.6 rebounds per game. Shaq averaged 9.2 rpg during his 14th NBA season. As a rebounder, Shaq peaked during his rookie season with an average of 13.9 rpg. In Chamberlains rookie season, he shattered the NBA single season scoring record with an average of 37.6 ppg and 27.0 rpg.

It is crazy to argue that Wilt Chamberlain was not the most dominant NBA player of all time. While you want to focus on Wilt's early career and the dearth of quality big men that he faced, Chamberlain more than held his own late in his career despite the entrance into the NBA of quality centers like Kareem, Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes, Dave Cowens, Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier, and others.

You are trying to paint Chamberlain's career as one where he only faced one quality center and a host of slow, clumsy pygmy centers, but that is not an accurate picture.

[Stardust]

^ Hoot, you make me laugh, you really do. To even make a comparison to what International basketball WAS to what it IS is beyond uneducated, it's ludicrous! It was the Dream Team that turned international basketball into the powerhouse that it is today. In the 60's basketball all across the road was so inferior, there were never discussions about foreign players playing in the NBA. Now we have 4-5 drafted in the first round every single year.

And yes, Wilt was before his time, because he played against inferior competition. His numbers were more realistic when the NBA centers that you mentioned came into the league. He was no longer a 40 PPG and 20 PPG player now was he? You are the one who said he was in as great of shape at the end of his career that he was at the beginning. Then why did his numbers drop when he saw better competition!

[Hoot Gibson]

^ Hoot, you make me laugh, you really do. To even make a comparison to what International basketball WAS to what it IS is beyond uneducated, it's ludicrous! It was the Dream Team that turned international basketball into the powerhouse that it is today. In the 60's basketball all across the road was so inferior, there were never discussions about foreign players playing in the NBA. Now we have 4-5 drafted in the first round every single year.

And yes, Wilt was before his time, because he played against inferior competition. His numbers were more realistic when the NBA centers that you mentioned came into the league. He was no longer a 40 PPG and 20 PPG player now was he? You are the one who said he was in as great of shape at the end of his career that he was at the beginning. Then why did his numbers drop when he saw better competition!

No need for the insults, SD. I assure you that I am somewhat educated and my math skills are certainly good enough to read a stat line. All you have offered is an opinion because there are no stats available to you to support your position. It is akin to a lawyer resorting to insults and theatrics when he knows he is defending a guilty client. :biggrin:

According to Wilt, his average dropped after his first 7 seasons because his coaches asked him to shoot less and involve his teammates more, which he did. Obviously, with a shooting percentage of nearly 73% in his final season, if he had wanted to score more (or had his coach wanted him to), he could have done so. The bottom line is that once Wilt was surrounded by some decent players, he began passing the ball more and shooting less.

What Wilt did not do was let himself get out of shape to the point his rebounding numbers plummeted the way that Shaq's have (although Shaq was never in Chamberlain's class as a rebounder).

What you don't get about international basketball is that those teams are still much less athletic than NBA teams are. How many international players who are high draft picks are extremely athletic? Very few. They are prized by NBA teams because they are so often more polished skill-wise and come from more team-oriented systems than American college players. In other words, the international players have much in common with NBA stars of the 60s and 70s.