I think Wilt gets knocked down a few pegs because of the level of competition he faced.
Truthfully, I dont know many people who think Wilt would have averaged 25-26 rebounds in todays game. not to mention the 50ppg average. It was a different league. I am sure he would still be great if he played today, but his numbers would not be what they were in the 1960s, just like if Ruth played today he would not be out homering entire teams.
@craig44 said:
I think Wilt gets knocked down a few pegs because of the level of competition he faced.
Truthfully, I dont know many people who think Wilt would have averaged 25-26 rebounds in todays game. not to mention the 50ppg average. It was a different league. I am sure he would still be great if he played today, but his numbers would not be what they were in the 1960s, just like if Ruth played today he would not be out homering entire teams.
What do you think would have happened to Jordan the second time he tried one of his dunks against Wilt or Russell? I can hear the 🚑 coming.
No one can know how one of today's players would have done in the "old days", or how an "old timer" would do today either.
Wilt wasn't just the only tall guy, he was the only tall, strong, talented, skilled and smart guy. He didn't just dominate, he obliterated, at both ends of the court.
There were a lot less teams then as well. We could go on and on about the different eras and what makes them easier and harder, it won't prove anything.
As I've said on many occasions, it's impossible to find an overall GOAT in any team sport. But to not at least mention Wilt as the GOAT center baffles me.
@SanctionII said:
Wilt suffers from the "Nobody likes Goliath" mindset.
Wilt certainly had his faults, no doubt about it.
At times he likely took his athletic superiority for granted, and became lazy in some aspects. So it's been said.
He averaged 44 minutes a game for his last 5 years with the Lakers, so he wasn't that lazy.
I saw a little of him play towards the end of his career and yes, he was often the last player up the court on offense. He then led the league in shooting percentage AND rebounding in each of his last 2 seasons. His PPG were way down though.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
I think Wilt gets knocked down a few pegs because of the level of competition he faced.
Truthfully, I dont know many people who think Wilt would have averaged 25-26 rebounds in todays game. not to mention the 50ppg average. It was a different league. I am sure he would still be great if he played today, but his numbers would not be what they were in the 1960s, just like if Ruth played today he would not be out homering entire teams.
What do you think would have happened to Jordan the second time he tried one of his dunks against Wilt or Russell? I can hear the 🚑 coming.
No one can know how one of today's players would have done in the "old days", or how an "old timer" would do today either.
Wilt wasn't just the only tall guy, he was the only tall, strong, talented, skilled and smart guy. He didn't just dominate, he obliterated, at both ends of the court.
There were a lot less teams then as well. We could go on and on about the different eras and what makes them easier and harder, it won't prove anything.
As I've said on many occasions, it's impossible to find an overall GOAT in any team sport. But to not at least mention Wilt as the GOAT center baffles me.
@SanctionII said:
Wilt suffers from the "Nobody likes Goliath" mindset.
Wilt certainly had his faults, no doubt about it.
At times he likely took his athletic superiority for granted, and became lazy in some aspects. So it's been said.
He averaged 44 minutes a game for his last 5 years with the Lakers, so he wasn't that lazy.
I saw a little of him play towards the end of his career and yes, he was often the last player up the court on offense. He then led the league in shooting percentage AND rebounding in each of his last 2 seasons. His PPG were way down though.
There's another myth about Wilt regarding his height being so much taller than the rest. Well i did a study on this, and I think I posted it on here years ago, I'm forgetting the exact figures, but yes Wilt was around an inch and a half taller than the average center back then.
Yes, that's an advantage, but not to the point whereby he could have achieved the greatness he did solely because of that.
Another myth was that he played in the "stone age" or something. Wilt retired in 1974 and played against greats such as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. So anyone who wants to consider that Kareem also played in the stone age, well then more power to ya.
@coolstanley said:
I'm not a huge NBA fan, but do most fans still consider Jordan to be the GOAT over Lebron? Even though Lebron will probably hold most of the individual stats?
@coolstanley said:
I'm not a huge NBA fan, but do most fans still consider Jordan to be the GOAT over Lebron? Even though Lebron will probably hold most of the individual stats?
He does and I believe Lebron gets treated unfairly here. If it were a baseball player with those longevity records then he would most likely the the majority GOAT.
His personality rubs many people the wrong way and if that is part of the GOAT criteria then so be it. But he really is as good as Jordan.
@coolstanley said:
I'm not a huge NBA fan, but do most fans still consider Jordan to be the GOAT over Lebron? Even though Lebron will probably hold most of the individual stats?
I would say most still do. Most of Lebrons career stats are due to his longevity. There is very little black ink on Lebabies stat page. in 20 seasons he has led the league in 2 statistics. points/game once and assists/game once. That is the entirety of his league leading statistics.
Lebron is the all-time points leader. Isn't that one of the most prestigious records in all of team sports?
yes it is. That record is definitely a longevity record. He has only led the league twice in one of the major statistical categories in 20 seasons.
Hs is more of a well rounded type of player offensively.
LeBron is going to end up fourth all time in PPG though, so his longevity stats are not 'compiler' types of stats.
Imagine if Pete Rose was the all time leader in hits as we know, BUT, he also maintained a lifetime .339 batting average through all those games. That would be similar to Lebron's scoring average.
@coolstanley said:
I'm not a huge NBA fan, but do most fans still consider Jordan to be the GOAT over Lebron? Even though Lebron will probably hold most of the individual stats?
I would say most still do. Most of Lebrons career stats are due to his longevity. There is very little black ink on Lebabies stat page. in 20 seasons he has led the league in 2 statistics. points/game once and assists/game once. That is the entirety of his league leading statistics.
Lebron is the all-time points leader. Isn't that one of the most prestigious records in all of team sports?
yes it is. That record is definitely a longevity record. He has only led the league twice in one of the major statistical categories in 20 seasons.
Hs is more of a well rounded type of player offensively.
LeBron is going to end up fourth all time in PPG though, so his longevity stats are not 'compiler' types of stats.
Imagine if Pete Rose was the all time leader in hits as we know, BUT, he also maintained a lifetime .339 batting average through all those games. That would be similar to Lebron's scoring average.
Well rounded, but only very very rarely was he ever the best at anything. Can we really say someone was the Greatest if they were only the "Greatest" against their own peers in statistical categories 2 times in a 20 year period? Black ink has to count for something.
Rose vs. Cobb. Rose had more hits, no one would say he was better.
ruth vs Aaron. similarly, Aaron had more HR, no one would say he was better than Ruth
Lebrons career line looks similar to karl malones to me. malone rebounded a little better, lebron passed a little better
@coolstanley said:
I'm not a huge NBA fan, but do most fans still consider Jordan to be the GOAT over Lebron? Even though Lebron will probably hold most of the individual stats?
I would say most still do. Most of Lebrons career stats are due to his longevity. There is very little black ink on Lebabies stat page. in 20 seasons he has led the league in 2 statistics. points/game once and assists/game once. That is the entirety of his league leading statistics.
Lebron is the all-time points leader. Isn't that one of the most prestigious records in all of team sports?
yes it is. That record is definitely a longevity record. He has only led the league twice in one of the major statistical categories in 20 seasons.
Hs is more of a well rounded type of player offensively.
LeBron is going to end up fourth all time in PPG though, so his longevity stats are not 'compiler' types of stats.
Imagine if Pete Rose was the all time leader in hits as we know, BUT, he also maintained a lifetime .339 batting average through all those games. That would be similar to Lebron's scoring average.
Well rounded, but only very very rarely was he ever the best at anything. Can we really say someone was the Greatest if they were only the "Greatest" against their own peers in statistical categories 2 times in a 20 year period? Black ink has to count for something.
Rose vs. Cobb. Rose had more hits, no one would say he was better.
ruth vs Aaron. similarly, Aaron had more HR, no one would say he was better than Ruth
Lebrons career line looks similar to karl malones to me. malone rebounded a little better, lebron passed a little better
They would say Rose is better if he had the most hits and still hit .339. Heck, guys make the HOF for longevity stats in baseball.
@craig44 said:
I think Wilt gets knocked down a few pegs because of the level of competition he faced.
Truthfully, I dont know many people who think Wilt would have averaged 25-26 rebounds in todays game. not to mention the 50ppg average. It was a different league. I am sure he would still be great if he played today, but his numbers would not be what they were in the 1960s, just like if Ruth played today he would not be out homering entire teams.
What do you think would have happened to Jordan the second time he tried one of his dunks against Wilt or Russell? I can hear the 🚑 coming.
No one can know how one of today's players would have done in the "old days", or how an "old timer" would do today either.
Wilt wasn't just the only tall guy, he was the only tall, strong, talented, skilled and smart guy. He didn't just dominate, he obliterated, at both ends of the court.
There were a lot less teams then as well. We could go on and on about the different eras and what makes them easier and harder, it won't prove anything.
As I've said on many occasions, it's impossible to find an overall GOAT in any team sport. But to not at least mention Wilt as the GOAT center baffles me.
@SanctionII said:
Wilt suffers from the "Nobody likes Goliath" mindset.
Wilt certainly had his faults, no doubt about it.
At times he likely took his athletic superiority for granted, and became lazy in some aspects. So it's been said.
He averaged 44 minutes a game for his last 5 years with the Lakers, so he wasn't that lazy.
I saw a little of him play towards the end of his career and yes, he was often the last player up the court on offense. He then led the league in shooting percentage AND rebounding in each of his last 2 seasons. His PPG were way down though.
I think the same thing would have happened to Jordan vs wilt or russell as happened when he attempted dunks on shaq or Hakeem.
Human beings/athletes have not changed over the last 50-100 years. the only difference is that of training techniques and nutrition/supplements.
Wilt was a fantastic player. he would be fantastic if he played today as well. no doubt the best center in the league if he were to have been born in 1996 and was playing now. He would not be a superman. He wouldnt average 50 he wouldnt average 27 rebounds a game either. how do I know? because no one in the modern era is doing anything remotely close to that. not even close.
It would be like a pitcher throwing 125mph. Dont get me wrong though, he would be great today.
@coolstanley said:
I'm not a huge NBA fan, but do most fans still consider Jordan to be the GOAT over Lebron? Even though Lebron will probably hold most of the individual stats?
I would say most still do. Most of Lebrons career stats are due to his longevity. There is very little black ink on Lebabies stat page. in 20 seasons he has led the league in 2 statistics. points/game once and assists/game once. That is the entirety of his league leading statistics.
Lebron is the all-time points leader. Isn't that one of the most prestigious records in all of team sports?
yes it is. That record is definitely a longevity record. He has only led the league twice in one of the major statistical categories in 20 seasons.
Hs is more of a well rounded type of player offensively.
LeBron is going to end up fourth all time in PPG though, so his longevity stats are not 'compiler' types of stats.
Imagine if Pete Rose was the all time leader in hits as we know, BUT, he also maintained a lifetime .339 batting average through all those games. That would be similar to Lebron's scoring average.
Well rounded, but only very very rarely was he ever the best at anything. Can we really say someone was the Greatest if they were only the "Greatest" against their own peers in statistical categories 2 times in a 20 year period? Black ink has to count for something.
Rose vs. Cobb. Rose had more hits, no one would say he was better.
ruth vs Aaron. similarly, Aaron had more HR, no one would say he was better than Ruth
Lebrons career line looks similar to karl malones to me. malone rebounded a little better, lebron passed a little better
For example, Lebron has led the league in the advanced stats several times that take into account the assists, rebounds, FG% etc..
Six times Lebron led in PER (player efficiency rating)
9 times in value over replacement
Basketball stats not as valid as baseball, but leading in something like PER is better than someone like Stockton who led in assists every year but that was the majority of his game.
@coolstanley said:
I'm not a huge NBA fan, but do most fans still consider Jordan to be the GOAT over Lebron? Even though Lebron will probably hold most of the individual stats?
I would say most still do. Most of Lebrons career stats are due to his longevity. There is very little black ink on Lebabies stat page. in 20 seasons he has led the league in 2 statistics. points/game once and assists/game once. That is the entirety of his league leading statistics.
Lebron is the all-time points leader. Isn't that one of the most prestigious records in all of team sports?
yes it is. That record is definitely a longevity record. He has only led the league twice in one of the major statistical categories in 20 seasons.
Hs is more of a well rounded type of player offensively.
LeBron is going to end up fourth all time in PPG though, so his longevity stats are not 'compiler' types of stats.
Imagine if Pete Rose was the all time leader in hits as we know, BUT, he also maintained a lifetime .339 batting average through all those games. That would be similar to Lebron's scoring average.
Well rounded, but only very very rarely was he ever the best at anything. Can we really say someone was the Greatest if they were only the "Greatest" against their own peers in statistical categories 2 times in a 20 year period? Black ink has to count for something.
Rose vs. Cobb. Rose had more hits, no one would say he was better.
ruth vs Aaron. similarly, Aaron had more HR, no one would say he was better than Ruth
Lebrons career line looks similar to karl malones to me. malone rebounded a little better, lebron passed a little better
They would say Rose is better if he had the most hits and still hit .339. Heck, guys make the HOF for longevity stats in baseball.
Lebron runs an offense much more than Malone did.
What do you call a player who has great career statistics and rarely if ever leads his league in any statistical category?
@coolstanley said:
I'm not a huge NBA fan, but do most fans still consider Jordan to be the GOAT over Lebron? Even though Lebron will probably hold most of the individual stats?
I would say most still do. Most of Lebrons career stats are due to his longevity. There is very little black ink on Lebabies stat page. in 20 seasons he has led the league in 2 statistics. points/game once and assists/game once. That is the entirety of his league leading statistics.
Lebron is the all-time points leader. Isn't that one of the most prestigious records in all of team sports?
yes it is. That record is definitely a longevity record. He has only led the league twice in one of the major statistical categories in 20 seasons.
Hs is more of a well rounded type of player offensively.
LeBron is going to end up fourth all time in PPG though, so his longevity stats are not 'compiler' types of stats.
Imagine if Pete Rose was the all time leader in hits as we know, BUT, he also maintained a lifetime .339 batting average through all those games. That would be similar to Lebron's scoring average.
Well rounded, but only very very rarely was he ever the best at anything. Can we really say someone was the Greatest if they were only the "Greatest" against their own peers in statistical categories 2 times in a 20 year period? Black ink has to count for something.
Rose vs. Cobb. Rose had more hits, no one would say he was better.
ruth vs Aaron. similarly, Aaron had more HR, no one would say he was better than Ruth
Lebrons career line looks similar to karl malones to me. malone rebounded a little better, lebron passed a little better
They would say Rose is better if he had the most hits and still hit .339. Heck, guys make the HOF for longevity stats in baseball.
Lebron runs an offense much more than Malone did.
What do you call a player who has great career statistics and rarely if ever leads his league in any statistical category?
Depends on the category, how high they are consistently, etc..
Lebron is going to be fourth all time in PPG and first in points scored. Points are the currency of the game and that combination is ultra impreissive.
Would be similar to a guy being first all time in RBI/Runs scored and also fourth all time in those categories in per at bat ratios.
Or if Koufax had a lifetime 2.76 ERA but it was over 5,000 IP instead of 2,200.
To say his points scored is merely a longevity record is not accurate. If he was averaging 20 points a game and played forever, that would be a point, but not at over 27 PPG as that is rarified air itself.
Add his impressive assist and rebound totals. There is no denying that is other worldly great.
@coolstanley said:
I'm not a huge NBA fan, but do most fans still consider Jordan to be the GOAT over Lebron? Even though Lebron will probably hold most of the individual stats?
@craig44 said:
I think Wilt gets knocked down a few pegs because of the level of competition he faced.
Truthfully, I dont know many people who think Wilt would have averaged 25-26 rebounds in todays game. not to mention the 50ppg average. It was a different league. I am sure he would still be great if he played today, but his numbers would not be what they were in the 1960s, just like if Ruth played today he would not be out homering entire teams.
What do you think would have happened to Jordan the second time he tried one of his dunks against Wilt or Russell? I can hear the 🚑 coming.
No one can know how one of today's players would have done in the "old days", or how an "old timer" would do today either.
Wilt wasn't just the only tall guy, he was the only tall, strong, talented, skilled and smart guy. He didn't just dominate, he obliterated, at both ends of the court.
There were a lot less teams then as well. We could go on and on about the different eras and what makes them easier and harder, it won't prove anything.
As I've said on many occasions, it's impossible to find an overall GOAT in any team sport. But to not at least mention Wilt as the GOAT center baffles me.
@SanctionII said:
Wilt suffers from the "Nobody likes Goliath" mindset.
Wilt certainly had his faults, no doubt about it.
At times he likely took his athletic superiority for granted, and became lazy in some aspects. So it's been said.
He averaged 44 minutes a game for his last 5 years with the Lakers, so he wasn't that lazy.
I saw a little of him play towards the end of his career and yes, he was often the last player up the court on offense. He then led the league in shooting percentage AND rebounding in each of his last 2 seasons. His PPG were way down though.
I think the same thing would have happened to Jordan vs wilt or russell as happened when he attempted dunks on shaq or Hakeem.
Human beings/athletes have not changed over the last 50-100 years. the only difference is that of training techniques and nutrition/supplements.
Wilt was a fantastic player. he would be fantastic if he played today as well. no doubt the best center in the league if he were to have been born in 1996 and was playing now. He would not be a superman. He wouldnt average 50 he wouldnt average 27 rebounds a game either. how do I know? because no one in the modern era is doing anything remotely close to that. not even close.
No one in his time was close either.
I'm not saying he would average 50, on the right team, he might average more.
I can't think of another player in NBA history who had his combination of height, physique and athleticism.
Maybe David Robinson? LeBron is gifted, but I think Wilt was better.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
So Gretzky at almost 3000 points in his career has almost no votes makes zero sens. None of the other 3 dominated their sport like Wayne did hockey. No one is even close to Wayne look at how many records he holds it is insane. Ruth sure but Aaron beat his HR record. Jordan OK but Lebron has nearly 40 000 points. I agree with Brady best in the NFL at his position but could be bested at some point. No one will ever ever pass Gretzky in points and many other records not in out lives and most likely not in a 1000 years or more. Some day someone will hit 800 HR. Gretzky is the most dominant of all the 4 players mentioned no questions asked the stats and records speak for themselves and they will stand the test of time unlike the other 3.
I know baseball is #1 in the USA but come on Babe Ruth was the best at baseball and I am not even sure he was compared to Ty Cobb and a few others.
To be the best your stats and records must stand the test of time only Gretzky in this list will do so. Even 500 years from now no one will pass most of his records. It is simply impossible. Someone would have to have 150 points for 20 years forget it a player will be lucky to have a few 150 point seasons in his entire career and that will be the best of the best of that era just like McDavid now.
Ruth will always remain the biggest name in baseball but he is not the greatest of all. To many have now passed him in many areas of the game.
@PillarDollarCollector said:
To be the best your stats and records must stand the test of time only Gretzky in this list will do so. Even 500 years from now no one will pass most of his records. It is simply impossible. Someone would have to have 150 points for 20 years forget it a player will be lucky to have a few 150 point seasons in his entire career and that will be the best of the best of that era just like McDavid now.
Ruth will always remain the biggest name in baseball but he is not the greatest of all. To many have now passed him in many areas of the game.
Ruth stats hold up. Hes still the all time leader in many stats including elite post season stats. Wayne was great but Ruth being a pitcher and hitter would be like if Wayne played goalie and passed it to himself to go score. The two way aspect sets him apart from others
@PillarDollarCollector said:
To be the best your stats and records must stand the test of time only Gretzky in this list will do so. Even 500 years from now no one will pass most of his records. It is simply impossible. Someone would have to have 150 points for 20 years forget it a player will be lucky to have a few 150 point seasons in his entire career and that will be the best of the best of that era just like McDavid now.
Ruth will always remain the biggest name in baseball but he is not the greatest of all. To many have now passed him in many areas of the game.
Ruth stats hold up. Hes still the all time leader in many stats including elite post season stats. Wayne was great but Ruth being a pitcher and hitter would be like if Wayne played goalie and passed it to himself to go score. The two way aspect sets him apart from others
I get what you mean thing is Gretzky is so far ahead of the rest it is insane. I have no issue with any of the 4 players in this topic. They are all top notch and iconic. But I am thinking 100 years from now or more Gretzky will still what people will see at the top of most records in his sport. Because of this he will never be forgotten or pushed in the back round. I know the other 3 may still be talked about but I believe long long long term Gretzky will still stand tall.
Ruth will always remain the biggest name in baseball but he is not the greatest of all. To many have now passed him in many areas of the game.
Its surprising to me that Ruth is still considered the best in his sport by some people, when he played in a era with alot less competition.
There were some great players and pitchers. Ruth is baseball always will be. But he is not the greatest of the great of all sports.
I'm not sure he always will be. I think over time, Bonds will overtake Ruth as the GOAT. Ruth had no African American competition.
My vote for Greatest of the great of all sports would be Novak Djokovic. He is breaking all the records in his sport and he's still in his prime.
Bonds = steroids that will always be in history books. Ruth will always be viewed as baseball his name is just to big and people will never let it fall.
Same with Jordan and Lebron saw both play Jordan was better. But long long term Because Lebron will hit 40 000 points he will be maybe the top scorer in the NBA forever and because of that future generations will look at his name over Jordan. They will never have seen both play.
Ruth will always remain the biggest name in baseball but he is not the greatest of all. To many have now passed him in many areas of the game.
Its surprising to me that Ruth is still considered the best in his sport by some people, when he played in a era with alot less competition.
There were some great players and pitchers. Ruth is baseball always will be. But he is not the greatest of the great of all sports.
I'm not sure he always will be. I think over time, Bonds will overtake Ruth as the GOAT. Ruth had no African American competition.
My vote for Greatest of the great of all sports would be Novak Djokovic. He is breaking all the records in his sport and he's still in his prime.
Bonds = steroids that will always be in history books. Ruth will always be viewed as baseball his name is just to big and people will never let it fall.
There are no asterisks in the history books for players who used. Look at Aaron and Mantle.
Ruth will always remain the biggest name in baseball but he is not the greatest of all. To many have now passed him in many areas of the game.
Its surprising to me that Ruth is still considered the best in his sport by some people, when he played in a era with alot less competition.
There were some great players and pitchers. Ruth is baseball always will be. But he is not the greatest of the great of all sports.
I'm not sure he always will be. I think over time, Bonds will overtake Ruth as the GOAT. Ruth had no African American competition.
My vote for Greatest of the great of all sports would be Novak Djokovic. He is breaking all the records in his sport and he's still in his prime.
Bonds = steroids that will always be in history books. Ruth will always be viewed as baseball his name is just to big and people will never let it fall.
There are no asterisks in the history books for players who used. Look at Aaron and Mantle.
I know what you mean but Bonds has his name in the black that will never change.
@PillarDollarCollector said:
To be the best your stats and records must stand the test of time only Gretzky in this list will do so. Even 500 years from now no one will pass most of his records. It is simply impossible. Someone would have to have 150 points for 20 years forget it a player will be lucky to have a few 150 point seasons in his entire career and that will be the best of the best of that era just like McDavid now.
Ruth will always remain the biggest name in baseball but he is not the greatest of all. To many have now passed him in many areas of the game.
Ruth stats hold up. Hes still the all time leader in many stats including elite post season stats. Wayne was great but Ruth being a pitcher and hitter would be like if Wayne played goalie and passed it to himself to go score. The two way aspect sets him apart from others
I get what you mean thing is Gretzky is so far ahead of the rest it is insane. I have no issue with any of the 4 players in this topic. They are all top notch and iconic. But I am thinking 100 years from now or more Gretzky will still what people will see at the top of most records in his sport. Because of this he will never be forgotten or pushed in the back round. I know the other 3 may still be talked about but I believe long long long term Gretzky will still stand tall.
Wayne certainly wont ever be forgotten and is the best ever in the NHL, but in terms of long long term Ruths have a better chance of holding up. Its been almost 100 years since hes played and Othani is the only player thats comparable to him and Ruth is still ahead of him by miles. Theres a stronger chance that with the NHL becoming more offensive that eventually we see his points challenged or broken than we see a two way baseball player match Ruth. Even elite two way players in college get told by MLB teams to pick one or the other in the minors and baseball is just completely against letting players do both. With the DH in both leagues now no pitcher will have the chance to be converted to a hitter anymore for being too good at hitting while pitching like what happened to Ruth. Ruth would have even won a CY Young award as a pitcher if that award was around at the time. Othani only gets to do both because he spent years in Japan doing both which that alone basically means even if he never got hurt would really be a long shot to match Ruths career numbers.
@craig44 said:
I think Wilt gets knocked down a few pegs because of the level of competition he faced.
Truthfully, I dont know many people who think Wilt would have averaged 25-26 rebounds in todays game. not to mention the 50ppg average. It was a different league. I am sure he would still be great if he played today, but his numbers would not be what they were in the 1960s, just like if Ruth played today he would not be out homering entire teams.
What do you think would have happened to Jordan the second time he tried one of his dunks against Wilt or Russell? I can hear the 🚑 coming.
No one can know how one of today's players would have done in the "old days", or how an "old timer" would do today either.
Wilt wasn't just the only tall guy, he was the only tall, strong, talented, skilled and smart guy. He didn't just dominate, he obliterated, at both ends of the court.
There were a lot less teams then as well. We could go on and on about the different eras and what makes them easier and harder, it won't prove anything.
As I've said on many occasions, it's impossible to find an overall GOAT in any team sport. But to not at least mention Wilt as the GOAT center baffles me.
@SanctionII said:
Wilt suffers from the "Nobody likes Goliath" mindset.
Wilt certainly had his faults, no doubt about it.
At times he likely took his athletic superiority for granted, and became lazy in some aspects. So it's been said.
He averaged 44 minutes a game for his last 5 years with the Lakers, so he wasn't that lazy.
I saw a little of him play towards the end of his career and yes, he was often the last player up the court on offense. He then led the league in shooting percentage AND rebounding in each of his last 2 seasons. His PPG were way down though.
I think the same thing would have happened to Jordan vs wilt or russell as happened when he attempted dunks on shaq or Hakeem.
Human beings/athletes have not changed over the last 50-100 years. the only difference is that of training techniques and nutrition/supplements.
Wilt was a fantastic player. he would be fantastic if he played today as well. no doubt the best center in the league if he were to have been born in 1996 and was playing now. He would not be a superman. He wouldnt average 50 he wouldnt average 27 rebounds a game either. how do I know? because no one in the modern era is doing anything remotely close to that. not even close.
No one in his time was close either.
I'm not saying he would average 50, on the right team, he might average more.
I can't think of another player in NBA history who had his combination of height, physique and athleticism.
Maybe David Robinson? LeBron is gifted, but I think Wilt was better.
Wilt didn't really face many athletic 7 footers when he put up 50 a game in 1961. The league was filled with those guys by 1990. It isn't about evolution or anything like that as that is a different topic, but there is no doubt the league had more athletic seven footers in 1990 than they did in 1961. 1961 had a few seven footers but they didn't play a lot of minutes and most were just there for their height(not their ability).
In 1990 you had to go against a 7 foot body every night all night(plus six ten help from power forwards). As such, putting up 50 a game from the center position in 1990 would most likely not happen(unless it was done to the detriment of winning with a guy taking many ill advised shots).
Wilt's stats are mostly unattainable in later eras. For instance, averaging 27 rebounds a game would not be happening in later era's, not just because there were more taller and wider players, but because there weren't as many missed shots to garner. For instance, in 1960 in the NBA there were 73 rebounds per game. In 1997 there were only 46 rebounds available per game.
This isn't a knock on 1961 or saying players were better in 1990. It is just a fact that seven footers logged more minutes per game in 1990 than 1961 and height in basketball is of obvious importance.
That doesn't mean that Wilt cannot still be the greatest center ever. It just means his 50 a game in 1961 might look more like 34 a game in 1990(which would still be the best), and still doesn't preclude him from being dubbed the best center ever.
Aside from that, the one thing that really hurts Wilt is his inability to shoot free throws. That detriment comes into play at the end of games when fouling becomes a strategy. If your best player is 'taken out of the game' at the end of a tight game because you don't want the ball in his hands because his inability to shoot free throws, then that is a big knock. As opposed to someone like Jordan and Lebron where you always wanted the ball in their hands at the end of the game for their ability to score on their own(and not be a liability).
I admit the guy had problems at the free throw line, no denying that.
Since he's still the leading rebounder of all time and #7 in points scored, I'll simply repeat what I originally said "I'm surprised he gets so little mention as a GOAT in basketball".
I am also just sick to death of people in all the sports discussions saying guys would not be as good now as then and vice versa, these guys dominated against the best competition that was put up against them. That's all they could do.
Look at the players with more lifetime points than Chamberlain, some of them never led the league in one statistical category. Jordan dominated in points per game, but Malone and Nowitzki never led in anything. Jabbar was really great too, but I saw both of them play in the late 1960's and Wilt was the superior defender.
I don't argue strongly that Jordan wasn't the GOAT, but Wilt has an awfully good case to be made.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I admit the guy had problems at the free throw line, no denying that.
Since he's still the leading rebounder of all time and #7 in points scored, I'll simply repeat what I originally said "I'm surprised he gets so little mention as a GOAT in basketball".
I am also just sick to death of people in all the sports discussions saying guys would not be as good now as then and vice versa, these guys dominated against the best competition that was put up against them. That's all they could do.
Look at the players with more lifetime points than Chamberlain, some of them never led the league in one statistical category. Jordan dominated in points per game, but Malone and Nowitzki never led in anything. Jabbar was really great too, but I saw both of them play in the late 1960's and Wilt was the superior defender.
I don't argue strongly that Jordan wasn't the GOAT, but Wilt has an awfully good case to be made.
With competition so tight for the title of GOAT, the free throw problem alone can be enough to put him behind others.
Wilt had some incredible individual season but again, the context has to be taken into account. Wilt's early stats are mostly unattainable in later eras. For instance, averaging 27 rebounds a game would not be happening in later era's, not just because there were more taller and wider players, but because there weren't as many missed shots to garner. For instance, in 1960 in the NBA there were 73 rebounds per game. In 1997 there were only 46 rebounds available per game.
Same with the 50 point season. Forgetting for a moment the sheer number of big bodies that would make it impossible for him to do in the 1990's(unless it was done by shooting every time to the detriment of winning). If there are less offensive possessions per game, he simply does not get to shoot that many times to come close. Again, unless he shot nearly every shot for his team and they wouldn't win then.
So it isn't a matter of being better then or now, it is looking at the circumstances that allowed for extremely strange seasons of 50 points per game or 27 rebounds per game, and then people using those statistical achievements as points of order why he was so dominant compared to a later player who played in a league where it was not possible to do that(not possible for Wilt to do it either).
Lebron led in Player Efficiency rarting several times. That is of more value than another player like Rodman leading the league in rebounds several times.
Does anybody really believe that Lebron could not have simply shot six more times a game in order to lead the league in scoring instead of passing those times. Lebron had the ball in his hands to make that determination. So you knock a couple assists off his totals and add five more points and more scoring titles(as is being asked). How does that make him better?
Player efficiency rating gives him credit for those assists ,and again, those could easily have been points, as it was no problem for Lebron to create good shot attempts. But he was a facilitator as well as a scorer. That is an elite among the elite for an NBA player. Add his rebound ability. He is right there with Jordan.
I chose Ruth for the poll, but similar thing with Wilt.
Could Ruth hit 50 HR playing today? With modern training and teaching, yes I think he can.
Could Ruth out homer every team in the league today like he did back then to make his legend grow so much? No chance in hell. Why? He would need to hit over 300 HR this year to do that.
So if Babe Ruth played in 2023 (call him BR23), hit 52 HR and won the mvp there would be people saying “he isn’t as good as original Babe Ruth because original Ruth our homered every team in the league and BR23 couldn’t do that so he isn’t as good".
BR23 would be just as good as original Babe Ruth but his stats would look different and he would lose a few more HR titles and lose the ridiculous dominant season because there were more skilled people trained to do that same thing as compared to when the original Ruth played, making it IMPOSSIBLE to replicate that feat in 2023.
That isn't a determination that players were better or worse in an era, but rather looking at the logical context of how seasons like that occurred and how they are impossible to replicate in leagues with far different circumstances.
I chose Ruth because overall baseball stats are a little easier to identify toward an individual and i think being a GOAT is a little more than just your stats. It is an aura of incredibleness, awe, and success(even if teammates helped unfairly with the success or not).
Jordan had that same X factor as Ruth, which is why I still put Jordan a hair above Lebron
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
I chose Ruth for the poll, but similar thing with Wilt.
Could Ruth hit 50 HR playing today? With modern training and teaching, yes I think he can.
Could Ruth out homer every team in the league today like he did back then to make his legend grow so much? No chance in hell. Why? He would need to hit over 300 HR this year to do that.
So if Babe Ruth played in 2023 (call him BR23), hit 52 HR and won the mvp there would be people saying “he isn’t as good as original Babe Ruth because original Ruth our homered every team in the league and BR23 couldn’t do that so he isn’t as good".
BR23 would be just as good as original Babe Ruth but his stats would look different and he would lose a few more HR titles and lose the ridiculous dominant season because there were more skilled people trained to do that same thing as compared to when the original Ruth played, making it IMPOSSIBLE to replicate that feat in 2023.
That isn't a determination that players were better or worse in an era, but rather looking at the logical context of how seasons like that occurred and how they are impossible to replicate in leagues with far different circumstances.
I chose Ruth because overall baseball stats are a little easier to identify toward an individual and i think being a GOAT is a little more than just your stats. It is an aura of incredibleness, awe, and success(even if teammates helped unfairly with the success or not).
Jordan had that same X factor as Ruth, which is why I still put Jordan a hair above Lebron
This, everyone, this.
Exactly correct. I was apparently unable to get this out through the keyboard, but this is exactly how I feel about the matter. Babe would be just as great today as he was in 1920, but those playing around him are better trained so he would not be hitting 300 homers per season. same with wilt etc.
There is no doubt in my mind that Jordan would average 50 if he were born in 1936 and playing in 1961. but he wouldnt average 50 today.
Comments
Wilt suffers from the "Nobody likes Goliath" mindset.
^Never fouling out is another unreal accomplishment.
I had to think about it, averaging 40 points a game for 6 1/2 years!
The #2 guy did it for 1/2 of 1 season!
Wilt certainly had his faults, no doubt about it.
At times he likely took his athletic superiority for granted, and became lazy in some aspects. So it's been said.
I think Wilt gets knocked down a few pegs because of the level of competition he faced.
Truthfully, I dont know many people who think Wilt would have averaged 25-26 rebounds in todays game. not to mention the 50ppg average. It was a different league. I am sure he would still be great if he played today, but his numbers would not be what they were in the 1960s, just like if Ruth played today he would not be out homering entire teams.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I'm sure Wilt was fun to watch.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
What do you think would have happened to Jordan the second time he tried one of his dunks against Wilt or Russell? I can hear the 🚑 coming.
No one can know how one of today's players would have done in the "old days", or how an "old timer" would do today either.
Wilt wasn't just the only tall guy, he was the only tall, strong, talented, skilled and smart guy. He didn't just dominate, he obliterated, at both ends of the court.
There were a lot less teams then as well. We could go on and on about the different eras and what makes them easier and harder, it won't prove anything.
As I've said on many occasions, it's impossible to find an overall GOAT in any team sport. But to not at least mention Wilt as the GOAT center baffles me.
He averaged 44 minutes a game for his last 5 years with the Lakers, so he wasn't that lazy.
I saw a little of him play towards the end of his career and yes, he was often the last player up the court on offense. He then led the league in shooting percentage AND rebounding in each of his last 2 seasons. His PPG were way down though.
There's another myth about Wilt regarding his height being so much taller than the rest. Well i did a study on this, and I think I posted it on here years ago, I'm forgetting the exact figures, but yes Wilt was around an inch and a half taller than the average center back then.
Yes, that's an advantage, but not to the point whereby he could have achieved the greatness he did solely because of that.
Another myth was that he played in the "stone age" or something. Wilt retired in 1974 and played against greats such as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. So anyone who wants to consider that Kareem also played in the stone age, well then more power to ya.
Depends when one was born.
He does and I believe Lebron gets treated unfairly here. If it were a baseball player with those longevity records then he would most likely the the majority GOAT.
His personality rubs many people the wrong way and if that is part of the GOAT criteria then so be it. But he really is as good as Jordan.
Hs is more of a well rounded type of player offensively.
LeBron is going to end up fourth all time in PPG though, so his longevity stats are not 'compiler' types of stats.
Imagine if Pete Rose was the all time leader in hits as we know, BUT, he also maintained a lifetime .339 batting average through all those games. That would be similar to Lebron's scoring average.
Well rounded, but only very very rarely was he ever the best at anything. Can we really say someone was the Greatest if they were only the "Greatest" against their own peers in statistical categories 2 times in a 20 year period? Black ink has to count for something.
Rose vs. Cobb. Rose had more hits, no one would say he was better.
ruth vs Aaron. similarly, Aaron had more HR, no one would say he was better than Ruth
Lebrons career line looks similar to karl malones to me. malone rebounded a little better, lebron passed a little better
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
They would say Rose is better if he had the most hits and still hit .339. Heck, guys make the HOF for longevity stats in baseball.
Lebron runs an offense much more than Malone did.
I think the same thing would have happened to Jordan vs wilt or russell as happened when he attempted dunks on shaq or Hakeem.
Human beings/athletes have not changed over the last 50-100 years. the only difference is that of training techniques and nutrition/supplements.
Wilt was a fantastic player. he would be fantastic if he played today as well. no doubt the best center in the league if he were to have been born in 1996 and was playing now. He would not be a superman. He wouldnt average 50 he wouldnt average 27 rebounds a game either. how do I know? because no one in the modern era is doing anything remotely close to that. not even close.
It would be like a pitcher throwing 125mph. Dont get me wrong though, he would be great today.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
For example, Lebron has led the league in the advanced stats several times that take into account the assists, rebounds, FG% etc..
Six times Lebron led in PER (player efficiency rating)
9 times in value over replacement
Basketball stats not as valid as baseball, but leading in something like PER is better than someone like Stockton who led in assists every year but that was the majority of his game.
What do you call a player who has great career statistics and rarely if ever leads his league in any statistical category?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Depends on the category, how high they are consistently, etc..
Lebron is going to be fourth all time in PPG and first in points scored. Points are the currency of the game and that combination is ultra impreissive.
Would be similar to a guy being first all time in RBI/Runs scored and also fourth all time in those categories in per at bat ratios.
Or if Koufax had a lifetime 2.76 ERA but it was over 5,000 IP instead of 2,200.
To say his points scored is merely a longevity record is not accurate. If he was averaging 20 points a game and played forever, that would be a point, but not at over 27 PPG as that is rarified air itself.
Add his impressive assist and rebound totals. There is no denying that is other worldly great.
Geotagged Twitter data has baked in age bias.
What kind of competition do you think Jordan was going up against?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rI8sVPzGiHc
No one in his time was close either.
I'm not saying he would average 50, on the right team, he might average more.
I can't think of another player in NBA history who had his combination of height, physique and athleticism.
Maybe David Robinson? LeBron is gifted, but I think Wilt was better.
So Gretzky at almost 3000 points in his career has almost no votes makes zero sens. None of the other 3 dominated their sport like Wayne did hockey. No one is even close to Wayne look at how many records he holds it is insane. Ruth sure but Aaron beat his HR record. Jordan OK but Lebron has nearly 40 000 points. I agree with Brady best in the NFL at his position but could be bested at some point. No one will ever ever pass Gretzky in points and many other records not in out lives and most likely not in a 1000 years or more. Some day someone will hit 800 HR. Gretzky is the most dominant of all the 4 players mentioned no questions asked the stats and records speak for themselves and they will stand the test of time unlike the other 3.
I know baseball is #1 in the USA but come on Babe Ruth was the best at baseball and I am not even sure he was compared to Ty Cobb and a few others.
To be the best your stats and records must stand the test of time only Gretzky in this list will do so. Even 500 years from now no one will pass most of his records. It is simply impossible. Someone would have to have 150 points for 20 years forget it a player will be lucky to have a few 150 point seasons in his entire career and that will be the best of the best of that era just like McDavid now.
Ruth will always remain the biggest name in baseball but he is not the greatest of all. To many have now passed him in many areas of the game.
Its surprising to me that Ruth is still considered the best in his sport by some people, when he played in a era with alot less competition.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
There were some great players and pitchers. Ruth is baseball always will be. But he is not the greatest of the great of all sports.
Ruth stats hold up. Hes still the all time leader in many stats including elite post season stats. Wayne was great but Ruth being a pitcher and hitter would be like if Wayne played goalie and passed it to himself to go score. The two way aspect sets him apart from others
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I'm not sure he always will be. I think over time, Bonds will overtake Ruth as the GOAT. Ruth had no African American competition.
My vote for Greatest of the great of all sports would be Novak Djokovic. He is breaking all the records in his sport and he's still in his prime.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I get what you mean thing is Gretzky is so far ahead of the rest it is insane. I have no issue with any of the 4 players in this topic. They are all top notch and iconic. But I am thinking 100 years from now or more Gretzky will still what people will see at the top of most records in his sport. Because of this he will never be forgotten or pushed in the back round. I know the other 3 may still be talked about but I believe long long long term Gretzky will still stand tall.
Bonds = steroids that will always be in history books. Ruth will always be viewed as baseball his name is just to big and people will never let it fall.
Same with Jordan and Lebron saw both play Jordan was better. But long long term Because Lebron will hit 40 000 points he will be maybe the top scorer in the NBA forever and because of that future generations will look at his name over Jordan. They will never have seen both play.
There are no asterisks in the history books for players who used. Look at Aaron and Mantle.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I know what you mean but Bonds has his name in the black that will never change.
Wayne certainly wont ever be forgotten and is the best ever in the NHL, but in terms of long long term Ruths have a better chance of holding up. Its been almost 100 years since hes played and Othani is the only player thats comparable to him and Ruth is still ahead of him by miles. Theres a stronger chance that with the NHL becoming more offensive that eventually we see his points challenged or broken than we see a two way baseball player match Ruth. Even elite two way players in college get told by MLB teams to pick one or the other in the minors and baseball is just completely against letting players do both. With the DH in both leagues now no pitcher will have the chance to be converted to a hitter anymore for being too good at hitting while pitching like what happened to Ruth. Ruth would have even won a CY Young award as a pitcher if that award was around at the time. Othani only gets to do both because he spent years in Japan doing both which that alone basically means even if he never got hurt would really be a long shot to match Ruths career numbers.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Wilt didn't really face many athletic 7 footers when he put up 50 a game in 1961. The league was filled with those guys by 1990. It isn't about evolution or anything like that as that is a different topic, but there is no doubt the league had more athletic seven footers in 1990 than they did in 1961. 1961 had a few seven footers but they didn't play a lot of minutes and most were just there for their height(not their ability).
In 1990 you had to go against a 7 foot body every night all night(plus six ten help from power forwards). As such, putting up 50 a game from the center position in 1990 would most likely not happen(unless it was done to the detriment of winning with a guy taking many ill advised shots).
Wilt's stats are mostly unattainable in later eras. For instance, averaging 27 rebounds a game would not be happening in later era's, not just because there were more taller and wider players, but because there weren't as many missed shots to garner. For instance, in 1960 in the NBA there were 73 rebounds per game. In 1997 there were only 46 rebounds available per game.
This isn't a knock on 1961 or saying players were better in 1990. It is just a fact that seven footers logged more minutes per game in 1990 than 1961 and height in basketball is of obvious importance.
That doesn't mean that Wilt cannot still be the greatest center ever. It just means his 50 a game in 1961 might look more like 34 a game in 1990(which would still be the best), and still doesn't preclude him from being dubbed the best center ever.
Aside from that, the one thing that really hurts Wilt is his inability to shoot free throws. That detriment comes into play at the end of games when fouling becomes a strategy. If your best player is 'taken out of the game' at the end of a tight game because you don't want the ball in his hands because his inability to shoot free throws, then that is a big knock. As opposed to someone like Jordan and Lebron where you always wanted the ball in their hands at the end of the game for their ability to score on their own(and not be a liability).
I admit the guy had problems at the free throw line, no denying that.
Since he's still the leading rebounder of all time and #7 in points scored, I'll simply repeat what I originally said "I'm surprised he gets so little mention as a GOAT in basketball".
I am also just sick to death of people in all the sports discussions saying guys would not be as good now as then and vice versa, these guys dominated against the best competition that was put up against them. That's all they could do.
Look at the players with more lifetime points than Chamberlain, some of them never led the league in one statistical category. Jordan dominated in points per game, but Malone and Nowitzki never led in anything. Jabbar was really great too, but I saw both of them play in the late 1960's and Wilt was the superior defender.
I don't argue strongly that Jordan wasn't the GOAT, but Wilt has an awfully good case to be made.
With competition so tight for the title of GOAT, the free throw problem alone can be enough to put him behind others.
Wilt had some incredible individual season but again, the context has to be taken into account. Wilt's early stats are mostly unattainable in later eras. For instance, averaging 27 rebounds a game would not be happening in later era's, not just because there were more taller and wider players, but because there weren't as many missed shots to garner. For instance, in 1960 in the NBA there were 73 rebounds per game. In 1997 there were only 46 rebounds available per game.
Same with the 50 point season. Forgetting for a moment the sheer number of big bodies that would make it impossible for him to do in the 1990's(unless it was done by shooting every time to the detriment of winning). If there are less offensive possessions per game, he simply does not get to shoot that many times to come close. Again, unless he shot nearly every shot for his team and they wouldn't win then.
So it isn't a matter of being better then or now, it is looking at the circumstances that allowed for extremely strange seasons of 50 points per game or 27 rebounds per game, and then people using those statistical achievements as points of order why he was so dominant compared to a later player who played in a league where it was not possible to do that(not possible for Wilt to do it either).
Lebron led in Player Efficiency rarting several times. That is of more value than another player like Rodman leading the league in rebounds several times.
Does anybody really believe that Lebron could not have simply shot six more times a game in order to lead the league in scoring instead of passing those times. Lebron had the ball in his hands to make that determination. So you knock a couple assists off his totals and add five more points and more scoring titles(as is being asked). How does that make him better?
Player efficiency rating gives him credit for those assists ,and again, those could easily have been points, as it was no problem for Lebron to create good shot attempts. But he was a facilitator as well as a scorer. That is an elite among the elite for an NBA player. Add his rebound ability. He is right there with Jordan.
I chose Ruth for the poll, but similar thing with Wilt.
Could Ruth hit 50 HR playing today? With modern training and teaching, yes I think he can.
Could Ruth out homer every team in the league today like he did back then to make his legend grow so much? No chance in hell. Why? He would need to hit over 300 HR this year to do that.
So if Babe Ruth played in 2023 (call him BR23), hit 52 HR and won the mvp there would be people saying “he isn’t as good as original Babe Ruth because original Ruth our homered every team in the league and BR23 couldn’t do that so he isn’t as good".
BR23 would be just as good as original Babe Ruth but his stats would look different and he would lose a few more HR titles and lose the ridiculous dominant season because there were more skilled people trained to do that same thing as compared to when the original Ruth played, making it IMPOSSIBLE to replicate that feat in 2023.
That isn't a determination that players were better or worse in an era, but rather looking at the logical context of how seasons like that occurred and how they are impossible to replicate in leagues with far different circumstances.
I chose Ruth because overall baseball stats are a little easier to identify toward an individual and i think being a GOAT is a little more than just your stats. It is an aura of incredibleness, awe, and success(even if teammates helped unfairly with the success or not).
Jordan had that same X factor as Ruth, which is why I still put Jordan a hair above Lebron
This, everyone, this.
Exactly correct. I was apparently unable to get this out through the keyboard, but this is exactly how I feel about the matter. Babe would be just as great today as he was in 1920, but those playing around him are better trained so he would not be hitting 300 homers per season. same with wilt etc.
There is no doubt in my mind that Jordan would average 50 if he were born in 1936 and playing in 1961. but he wouldnt average 50 today.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.