Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bds beta 6/6/85; site pucc-i
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!pucc-j!pucc-i!afb
From: afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis)
Newsgroups: net.sport.hoops
Subject: Re: MVP (best alltime)
Message-ID: <1339@pucc-i>
Date: Tue, 4-Mar-86 09:25:02 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-i.1339
Posted: Tue Mar  4 09:25:02 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Mar-86 05:37:09 EST
References: <127@drutx.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 47
Summary: Good point, but...

In article <127@drutx.UUCP>, wed@drutx.UUCP (DeibertWE) writes:
> Concerning possible MVP picks, Pete Williamson writes:
> 
> > My second vote would be for the NBA's best alltime player: Kareem.
> 
> I don't mean to pick on Pete because I've read the same sort of statement
> in many different articles in the past.  And, of course, the best all time
> player is a matter of opinion.  But wasn't it Bill Russell who led his
> team (as a player) to 11 championships in 13 years?  Wasn't it Wilt
> Chamberlain who scored 100 points in a single game and AVERAGED OVER
> 50 POINTS A GAME for an entire season?  I agree that Kareem should
> be considered amongst the best but I don't think he was a bit better
> than those mentioned above.
> 
> William D.
> 
> ps - Not very often does anybody score 50 points in a game anymore.
>      Wilt AVERAGED 50 a game for a season.  I find that phenomenal
>      even today.

     Wilt and Russell were men amongst boys.  Besides these two, there just
weren't very many good centers in the league, with the exception of an 
occasional Nate Thurmond (whom Wilt in his autobiography said gave him more
trouble than Russell).  This fact does nothing to undercut Wilt's remarkable
50 ppg year, but remember that the top scorers of those days were all scoring
more than the top scorers are today.  I thought Maravich scored in the mid to
high 30's in the early 70's, and Elgin Baylor was scoring around 40 ppg while
Wilt was dominating the league.

     As far as Russell is concerned, I don't think he was on Wilt or Kareem's
level as an individual.  The Celtics had some of the best players of their
time, as well as (admittedly) the best coach in NBA history.  The fact that
they won 11 out of 13 championships (which would be quite impossible today)
shows that the rest of the league was not nearly up to today's standards.
Russell would be a great rebounder and defensive player in any era, but he
wasn't a good offensive player then, and he wouldn't be able to score as well
as that now.

     Think about this, though:  If some opposing center managed to "hold"
Wilt to say, 30 pt. and 17 rebounds, Wilt would have needed *70* pt. and 
*33* rebounds the next night out to maintain the averages he attained in
1961-62.

     I think that, even weighing in the quality of competition factor, my
choice for greatest player of all time has got to be Wilt, by a nose.

Michael Lewis @ Purdue University