If Rodman Is The Standard By Which All Players Are Rated Rebounds Wise..l

[fmw32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

I calculated Russell's rebound stats for the modern era a couple days ago... Per 36 minutes he averaged approximately 14.8 rebounds (in 1965). 15.9 Andre Drummond 15.7 DeAndre Jordan 15.2 Hassan Whiteside 13.6 Omer Asik 13.4 DeMarcus Cousins 12.9 Tyson Chandler 12.9 Rudy Gobert This is only adjusting for pace and not adjusting for the vast discrepancy in FG% that effectively padded Russell's totals. Regardless, it's not exactly a shock that the biggest, longest, strongest, most athletic rebounders of today's competitive era would be better glass eaters. Russell/Wilt will surely get 99s via reputation but realistically 90-95 would ultimately be more accurate (at least when compared to modern contemporaries). Most 50s/60s era players would deserve rebound ratings in the 40-50s, which is why they were so dominant. Adjusting Wilt's 50 PPG season for Pace Wilt 1962: 50.4 PTS, 25.7 REB, 2.4 AST (48.5 MPG) Per 36 Mins: 37.4 PTS, 19.0 REB, 1.8 AST Today (per 36): 26.6 PTS, 13.6 REB, 1.3 AST (that is some top-tier ball-hogging) Russell 1964: 15.0 PTS, 24.7 REB, 4.7 AST (44.6 MPG) Per 36 Mins: 12.1 PTS, 20.0 REB, 3.8 AST Today (per 36): 9.1 PTS, 15.0 REB, 2.9 AST Russell was Ben Wallace / Joakim Noah (poor offense, elite defender, ultimate team player, winner). Wilt was DeMarcus Cousins (talented but a selfish enigmatic loser who needs a change in scenery).

Only Wilt is capable of scoring 100 points and being a centerpiece to a championship team

Sent from my Z970 using Tapatalk

[fmw32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

I calculated Russell's rebound stats for the modern era a couple days ago... Per 36 minutes he averaged approximately 14.8 rebounds (in 1965). 15.9 Andre Drummond 15.7 DeAndre Jordan 15.2 Hassan Whiteside 13.6 Omer Asik 13.4 DeMarcus Cousins 12.9 Tyson Chandler 12.9 Rudy Gobert This is only adjusting for pace and not adjusting for the vast discrepancy in FG% that effectively padded Russell's totals. Regardless, it's not exactly a shock that the biggest, longest, strongest, most athletic rebounders of today's competitive era would be better glass eaters. Russell/Wilt will surely get 99s via reputation but realistically 90-95 would ultimately be more accurate (at least when compared to modern contemporaries). Most 50s/60s era players would deserve rebound ratings in the 40-50s, which is why they were so dominant. Adjusting Wilt's 50 PPG season for Pace Wilt 1962: 50.4 PTS, 25.7 REB, 2.4 AST (48.5 MPG) Per 36 Mins: 37.4 PTS, 19.0 REB, 1.8 AST Today (per 36): 26.6 PTS, 13.6 REB, 1.3 AST (that is some top-tier ball-hogging) Russell 1964: 15.0 PTS, 24.7 REB, 4.7 AST (44.6 MPG) Per 36 Mins: 12.1 PTS, 20.0 REB, 3.8 AST Today (per 36): 9.1 PTS, 15.0 REB, 2.9 AST Russell was Ben Wallace / Joakim Noah (poor offense, elite defender, ultimate team player, winner). Wilt was DeMarcus Cousins (talented but a selfish enigmatic loser who needs a change in scenery).

Wow that's impressive how the hell did you come up with that?

Sent from my Z970 using Tapatalk

[BlessingSpore72]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

I calculated Russell's rebound stats for the modern era a couple days ago... Per 36 minutes he averaged approximately 14.8 rebounds (in 1965). 15.9 Andre Drummond 15.7 DeAndre Jordan 15.2 Hassan Whiteside 13.6 Omer Asik 13.4 DeMarcus Cousins 12.9 Tyson Chandler 12.9 Rudy Gobert This is only adjusting for pace and not adjusting for the vast discrepancy in FG% that effectively padded Russell's totals. Regardless, it's not exactly a shock that the biggest, longest, strongest, most athletic rebounders of today's competitive era would be better glass eaters. Russell/Wilt will surely get 99s via reputation but realistically 90-95 would ultimately be more accurate (at least when compared to modern contemporaries). Most 50s/60s era players would deserve rebound ratings in the 40-50s, which is why they were so dominant. Adjusting Wilt's 50 PPG season for Pace Wilt 1962: 50.4 PTS, 25.7 REB, 2.4 AST (48.5 MPG) Per 36 Mins: 37.4 PTS, 19.0 REB, 1.8 AST Today (per 36): 26.6 PTS, 13.6 REB, 1.3 AST (that is some top-tier ball-hogging) Russell 1964: 15.0 PTS, 24.7 REB, 4.7 AST (44.6 MPG) Per 36 Mins: 12.1 PTS, 20.0 REB, 3.8 AST Today (per 36): 9.1 PTS, 15.0 REB, 2.9 AST Russell was Ben Wallace / Joakim Noah (poor offense, elite defender, ultimate team player, winner). Wilt was DeMarcus Cousins (talented but a selfish enigmatic loser who needs a change in scenery).

Did you actually compare Wilt and Cousins?? Yes Wilt's #s were inflated because of the era, but Cousins are inflated because he is on a crap team. And Wilt won Championships, he just went up against one of the greatest dynasties in pro sports, in a lot of finals. Wilt is the greatest center of all time in any era. Cousins is a bum

[QNo]

There's a big methodological problem with the kind of statistical analysis that shows that Rodman is the greatest rebounder of all time, MJ a better scorer than Wilt, etc. Mathematical adjustments don't necessarily normalize players in the proper way. In the article Wilt Chamberlain: The numbers don't lie David Friedman makes 3 arguments against the often-heard claim that MJ's 37.1PPG in the 86-7 season are superiour to Wilt's 50.4 in the 61-2 season.

1) You cannot accurately adjust for the relative competition they were facing. Wilt played in a much smaller league, so in a sense he faced much tougher competition on a nightly basis, but MJ played in a time where the sport and everything surrounding it was more advanced:

2) "Regardless of whether or not 37.1 ppg scored at a slower pace is mathematically equivalent to 50.4 ppg scored at a faster pace, human beings are not machines; making extra field goals and extra free throws over the course of an 80 or 82 game season requires a tremendous expenditure of energy and increases the likelihood of fatigue and/or injury. In other words, the fact that Jordan scored 37.1 ppg at a slower pace tells us nothing about his capability to score 50.4 ppg at a faster pace, even without factoring in possible differences in competition level and definite differences in diet, nutrition, scheduling and travel arrangements."

3) Nobody has ever come close to posting the kind of numbers Wilt posted, numbers that were extreme outliers compared to both his peers and the rest of the league history (and, arguably, sports history.)

How do we apply these points to the Rodman case? 1) is the point that makes any comparison across eras so difficult to do and is valid in any such debate. 2) is also very interesting. It's by no means obvious that Rodman could grab 30 boards a game in Russell's and Wilt's time, even if the numbers say that he could if we adjust for pace, FG%, etc. 3) doesn't really apply if we look at a stat like ORB%, since Rodman is only very slightly better than the next best offensive rebounder, Jayson Williams. He's clearly not the kind of outlier in terms of offensive rebounding that Wilt was overall.

Last but not least, I'm generally suspicious of per36 stats, but even more so when we try to compare all-time great feats. Why should Wilt be penalized for being able to average over 48 minutes a game in 61-2, thereby taking away some of his edge over a guy like Boogie? He did this in a faster era, too, a fact his critics love to bring up in other contexts but conveniently forget for comparisons like this.

And as much as I usually respect your posts and opinions, Rashidi, comparing Wilt and Russell to Boogie and Noah is nothing short of blasphemy. Those statements don't even come close to passing any kind of eye-test, as anybody who's watched a reasonable amount of film on those guys would agree.

[Real2KInsider]

Quote: Originally Posted by fmw32

Only Wilt is capable of scoring 100 points and being a centerpiece to a championship team

Is that why his team went 31-49 in 1963?

Quote: Originally Posted by BlessingSpore72

Did you actually compare Wilt and Cousins?? Yes Wilt's #s were inflated because of the era, but Cousins are inflated because he is on a crap team.

Wilt's numbers were inflated specifically because his team averaged 131 possessions (league average 126), whereas the average modern team averages 94.

Quote:

And Wilt won Championships, he just went up against one of the greatest dynasties in pro sports

Wilt did not win his first championship until 1967 (seven years and TWO teams in), and it is not a coincidence he had to TRIPLE his assist rate (in other words, change his game substantially) in order to get it done. He NEVER won a title in his stat-padding hog days (and with a 26-1 PTS-AST ratio it is hardly a surprise why).

By doing so, Wilt's FG% shot up an unheard of 143 points (54.0% to 68.3%, at a time where the league average was 44.1%) once he actually started passing the ball. Despite Wilt's gaudy, game-breaking stats, he not named MVP from 1961-1966. It doesn't take much advanced thought based on what we know about NBA basketball in the year 2015 to figure out why. He stopped playing selfish and dumb.

This doesn't even take into account that Wilt was A GARBAGE FREE THROW SHOOTER and that his high volume of possessions hurt his team in this regard. DMC meanwhile hit 78% of his FTs last season (the league average was 72.7% in 1962); naturally I'm sure the rims are a foot wider than they were 60 years ago.

Quote:

in a lot of finals.

In an 8-9 team league, which is why context is ever so important (not that a team accomplishment directly relates to an individual's greatness, but "Championship Wilt" and "Young Wilt" are two distinctly different people and players, as will be the future Cousins once he gets it together).

Quote:

Wilt is the greatest center of all time in any era. Cousins is a bum

Wilt was the most dominant relative to the rest of his competition.
That does not mean centers have gotten worse over the last 60 years.

The point was Cousins' early career struggles/path are not dissimilar from Wilt (though he has also shown to be a MUCH more willing passer than Wilt was back then, which says a lot)

Here's the Inverse of those numbers

DeMarcus Cousins
Today (Per 36): 25.4 PTS, 13.4 REB, 3.8 AST
1962 (Per 36): 34.9 PTS, 18.4 REB, 5.2 AST
DMC 1962: 46.5 PTS, 24.8 REB, 7.0 AST (48.5 MPG)
Wilt 1962: 50.4 PTS, 25.7 REB, 2.4 AST (48.5 MPG)

I prefer not to stick my head in the sand and spout unresearched tropes like "so-and-so is the greatest no-matter what" when addressed with a topic of debate, particularly when we have the tools at our disposal with which to do so.

[fmw32]

I wasn't debating I was just wondering how you do all that math ?

Sent from my Z970 using Tapatalk

[vtcrb]

Question for all of you, Do you watch games OR look at stats, when comparing players? Just interested in how everyone gets their Point of View for the Ratings.

For me personally a couple things I keep in mind when comparing are:

1. Teammates- Meaning the Better the Teammates, the bigger hit some stats take. In Modern Basketball Kevin Love is a Prime Example.

2. Competition- Who they play on a Nightly Basis

3. Coach- What type of Offense and Coaching Style the Coach has. For instance if a Coach went to Golden State and was a "Feed the Post" type of Coach, it would have a great effect on the team.

So many things factor into things if you go solely off of Stats, which is why for ME, watching games is better for Evaluation. But everyone has their own method.

[eko718]

Quote: Originally Posted by TarHeelPhenom

...then where does Big Moses stand? There are some who would argue that he is the greatest rebounder that has ever played this game. RIP big fella!

In what season? The Moses Malone that was in 2K15 and likely will be in 2K16 was near the end of his career and would be rated according to his performance that season.