Enes Kanter works out for the Jazz

[ema]

Which floor NUMBERICA play on? His backyard (Looking at you NUMBERICA)? Or are you saying any of the other players than Wilt wasn't professional?

I am not belittling Shaq or Jordan. I think they dominated their era but not in the same fashion as Wilt.

It is to emphasize the awful competition that Wilt had not to imply NUMBERICA literally. I don't know what's hard to understand that the quality of the dominance(quality of anything actually) would may be more important than the quantifiable aspects such as stats.

So much for his domination by the way, the only TWO rings he won, one in a ten-team league and the other with a stacked Lakers team. Thank goodness that Jordans, Shaqs and Lebrons can't dominate in the same fashion as Wilt.

 

[Sexual Favors]

I don't want to go back and read the whole thread. Did Kanter's Enes wilt?

If not, why is everyone talking about Chamberlain in a Kanter thread?

 

[Hekate]

It is to emphasize the awful competition that Wilt had not to imply NUMBERICA literally. I don't know what's hard to understand that the quality of the dominance(quality of anything actually) would may be more important than the quantifiable aspects such as stats.

So much for his domination by the way, the only TWO rings he won, one in a ten-team league and the other with a stacked Lakers team. Thank goodness that Jordans, Shaqs and Lebrons can't dominate in the same fashion as Wilt.

Wilt was never a true winner. I don't think he ever cared for rings. Rings bring up another topic and as a Jazz fan I can't bring myself to value them much.

I don't think I told what I think in detail. Shaq and Jordan dominated their era, Lebron is dominating this era but the fact that they didn't do it as well as Wilt is pretty apparent. I am not talking about the quality of the dominance but the dominance. We can't really make Wilt play in 90's and we can't really know how much he would dominate the leauge so we should just compare the dominance as we can't get to any plausible conclusion from arguing over quality.

It may be meaningless to you that Wilt dominated against lesser opponents but still he dominated and it is all that matters.

By the way I agree that Wilt had weaker teams to play against.

 

[ema]

Wilt was never a true winner. I don't think he ever cared for rings. Rings bring up another topic and as a Jazz fan I can't bring myself to value them much.

I don't think I told what I think in detail. Shaq and Jordan dominated their era, Lebron is dominating this era but the fact that they didn't do it as well as Wilt is pretty apparent. I am not talking about the quality of the dominance but the dominance. We can't really make Wilt play in 90's and we can't really know how much he would dominate the leauge so we should just compare the dominance as we can't get to any plausible conclusion from arguing over quality.

It may be meaningless to you that Wilt dominated against lesser opponents but still he dominated and it is all that matters.

By the way I agree that Wilt had weaker teams to play against.

You are stupid and clearly an idiot and don't know jack about basketball yet you are.... JK

Ok, sir, then you and I have simply different opinions about "being dominant", "dominating", "domination" or "dominance" notions. I care about the quality of the dominance, I care about the competition and I care about the results of the domination so I consider those things if I am going to call Wilt the most dominant ever.

You have your own perception on the other hand about those notions and with that being the case we have no choice but to agree to disagree. You are right and I am right.

Thanks for the argument. You're a cool dude.

 

[fishonjazz]

You are stupid and clearly an idiot and don't know jack about basketball yet you are.... JK

Ok, sir, then you and I have simply different opinions about "being dominant", "dominating", "domination" or "dominance" notions. I care about the quality of the dominance, I care about the competition and I care about the results of the domination so I consider those things if I am going to call Wilt the most dominant ever.

You have your own perception on the other hand about those notions and with that being the case we have no choice but to agree to disagree. You are right and I am right.

Thanks for the argument. You're a cool dude.

This.
Quality of competition should matter..... like numberica said, I could dominate an infant way more than wilt dominated the nba of his era....... therefore I am more dominant than wilt

 

[addictionary]

Don't give the same example over and over again. Wilt was a Globetrotter and he had many advantages that made him sit on the throne of what that age had best to offer(No decade's best class is you and an infant). It determines the age's level. At that level, Wilt's emergence was crazy. Of course you can't put a guy like him in 2014 season. The game obviously evolved like crazy. You can't compare two players from completely different ages and say look this guy Jordan is way more talented and his game is dominating. Yeah our minds are good enough to imagine if those two figures matched up Jordan would look amazing. But Jordan wasn't born in Wilt's time. If he did, he wouldn't have the skills he has we know.

 

[fishonjazz]

Don't give the same example over and over again. Wilt was a Globetrotter and he had many advantages that made him sit on the throne of what that age had best to offer(No decade's best class is you and an infant). It determines the age's level. At that level, Wilt's emergence was crazy. Of course you can't put a guy like him in 2014 season. The game obviously evolved like crazy. You can't compare two players from completely different ages and say look this guy Jordan is way more talented and his game is dominating. Yeah our minds are good enough to imagine if those two figures matched up Jordan would look amazing. But Jordan wasn't born in Wilt's time. If he did, he wouldn't have the skills he has we know.

Take me at 20 years old and I probably could have played in wilts era, and got dominated by him.... which is kinda my point.

I bet if he played against hakeem, shaq, robinson, ewing, parish, kareem, walton etc, he doesn't average 50 and 30 or whatever.

You have to look at why someone dominated.... was it because of steroids (bonds), was it because there were no black players (babe ruth), was it because of his size relative to his competition (wilt)..... or was it strictly based off talent, work ethic, and skill (jordan)

 

[fishonjazz]

I think I would understand what you are saying addictionary.

Wilt is not the BEST player of all time neccessarily, but he was the most dominant.
And I agree with you, but who cares?
Any body with his size and athleticism would have been the most dominant player of all time if they played in that era

 

[ema]

Don't give the same example over and over again. Wilt was a Globetrotter and he had many advantages that made him sit on the throne of what that age had best to offer(No decade's best class is you and an infant). It determines the age's level. At that level, Wilt's emergence was crazy. Of course you can't put a guy like him in 2014 season. The game obviously evolved like crazy. You can't compare two players from completely different ages and say look this guy Jordan is way more talented and his game is dominating. Yeah our minds are good enough to imagine if those two figures matched up Jordan would look amazing. But Jordan wasn't born in Wilt's time. If he did, he wouldn't have the skills he has we know.

No one is actually comparing different eras, it's all to imply the weak competiton. And I agree that Wilt had no control over his opponents' competency but why think one-way then? What's the fault of Jordan for having better opponents?

I think I would understand what you are saying addictionary.

Wilt is not the BEST player of all time neccessarily, but he was the most dominant.
And I agree with you, but who cares?
Any body with his size and athleticism would have been the most dominant player of all time if they played in that era

No fish, no need to empty the word of dominant. Because, I'm not saying for the people in this thread but, generally when people say Wilt was the most dominant, they MEAN it. I hate it.

 

[addictionary]

Guys, I totally agree with you on the low class opponents of Wilt compared to latter stars' opponents. I mean it's ****ing obvious we don't need to argue about that. And I do not think neither Wilt or someone else is the most dominant ever. There is no such thing for me. What I'm saying is, let's say, you've gone fishing and you have some chance of catching a shark and a trout. What are your chances of catching a shark if you're fishing on a lake? And if you fish a shark in that lake, isn't it something else compared to a man fishing on an ocean?

 

[ema]

Guys, I totally agree with you on the low class opponents of Wilt compared to latter stars' opponents. I mean it's ****ing obvious we don't need to argue about that. And I do not think neither Wilt or someone else is the most dominant ever. There is no such thing for me. What I'm saying is, let's say, you've gone fishing and you have some chance of catching a shark and a trout. What are your chances of catching a shark if you're fishing on a lake? And if you fish a shark in that lake, isn't it something else compared to a man fishing on an ocean?

That line is enough for me.

But I don't understand what you want from us then. Should we be sorry for Wilt because of he hadn't a decent competition?

PS. I don't like fishing.

 

[addictionary]

That line is enough for me.

But I don't understand what you want from us then. Should we be sorry for Wilt because of he hadn't a decent competition?

PS. I don't like fishing.

It's not feeling sorry for him. It's considering the conditions of the talentwise environment they are in while comparing them to others. Did they have Tim Grover and his equipment and his knowledge back then? No. What if we put the baby Hakeem in that time and let him got raised and become a basketball player in that context. Would he become the same Hakeem we know today? I don't think so.

 

[ema]

It's not feeling sorry for him. It's considering the conditions of the talentwise environment they are in while comparing them to others. Did they have Tim Grover and his equipment and his knowledge back then? No. What if we put the baby Hakeem in that time and let him got raised and become a basketball player in that context. Would he become the same Hakeem we know today? I don't think so.

What happened to don't put different guys into different eras principle? Though I've never done that before in this thread, I'd say Hakeem might also have been even better than Wilt, who knows? Right? Wasn't it also your point before?

I agree on considering the talentwise environment but it's the same reason that I can't praise his dominance. Really, I know it's not his fault and certainly not mine for that matter but it's the fact.

The real problem is, if there is any injustice while talking about Wilt and his career, it's really to the latter stars of the game, not to Wilt. Almost all of the praise for Wilt is based on his ridiculous stats. But Jordan also had really really jaw-dropping stats and he actually did that in another level of opposition, not even close.

Anyway, a 6-9ish Bill Russel for instance had seasons with 24+ rebounds per game and actually prevailed over Wilt for two seasons in rebounding race. Now you tell me, if we are to play hypothetical scenarios and games, what would the giant Shaq do in that kind of competition, even though he wouldn't have the modern basketball aids in that time?

 

[addictionary]

What happened to don't put different guys into different eras principle? Though I've never done that before in this thread, I'd say Hakeem might also have been even better than Wilt, who knows? Right? Wasn't it also your point before?

I agree on considering the talentwise environment but it's the same reason that I can't praise his dominance. Really, I know it's not his fault and certainly not mine for that matter but it's the fact.

The real problem is, if there is any injustice while talking about Wilt and his career, it's really to the latter stars of the game, not to Wilt. Almost all of the praise for Wilt is based on his ridiculous stats. But Jordan also had really really jaw-dropping stats and he actually did that in another level of opposition, not even close.

Anyway, a 6-9ish Bill Russel for instance had seasons with 24+ rebounds per game and actually prevailed over Wilt for two seasons in rebounding race. Now you tell me, if we are to play hypothetical scenarios and games, what would the giant Shaq do in that kind of competition, even though he wouldn't have the modern basketball aids in that time?

He would kill it.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Why no props for Russell?

He won a championship in 11 of his 13 years in the league. One of those years Russell got injured in the playoffs and that is why they lost, the other he was made the head coach as well as player when Red Aurbach retired.

His team often was the team to knock Chamberlain's out of the playoffs.

(1958-1959)Lakers head coach John Kundla praised Russell, stating, "We don't fear the Celtics without Bill Russell. Take him out and we can beat them ... He's the guy who whipped us psychologically."

(said West as a teammate of Chamberlain)-Hall-of-Fame Lakers guard Jerry West stated, "If I had a choice of any basketball player in the league, my No.1 choice has to be Bill Russell. Bill Russell never ceases to amaze me."

He beat Chamberlain in the Finals 2 out of the 3 times they met in the finals instead of somewhere else, where he beat him every time.

Chamberlain won 2 Championships, but only one of them where he had to go through Russell. He also lost to the Knicks twice in the finals.

Russell averaged 22.5 rebounds per game during his career, while Chamberlain averaged 22.9.
Both averaged 4.3 and 4.4 assists per game.

Chamberlain did average double the points at 30 to Russell's 15, and he also shot a much better percentage than Russell.

While Chamberlain is impressive, Russell won... period.

 

[addictionary]

What happened to don't put different guys into different eras principle? Though I've never done that before in this thread, I'd say Hakeem might also have been even better than Wilt, who knows? Right? Wasn't it also your point before?

I agree on considering the talentwise environment but it's the same reason that I can't praise his dominance. Really, I know it's not his fault and certainly not mine for that matter but it's the fact.

The real problem is, if there is any injustice while talking about Wilt and his career, it's really to the latter stars of the game, not to Wilt. Almost all of the praise for Wilt is based on his ridiculous stats. But Jordan also had really really jaw-dropping stats and he actually did that in another level of opposition, not even close.

Anyway, a 6-9ish Bill Russel for instance had seasons with 24+ rebounds per game and actually prevailed over Wilt for two seasons in rebounding race. Now you tell me, if we are to play hypothetical scenarios and games, what would the giant Shaq do in that kind of competition, even though he wouldn't have the modern basketball aids in that time?

Nothing happened man I'm trying to make a point here I'm not comparing Hakeem and Wilt. I'm trying to point out the importance of the context effect that you and I both share as I know now.

 

[ema]

Why no props for Russell?

He won a championship in 11 of his 13 years in the league. One of those years Russell got injured in the playoffs and that is why they lost, the other he was made the head coach as well as player when Red Aurbach retired.

His team often was the team to knock Chamberlain's out of the playoffs.




He beat Chamberlain in the Finals 2 out of the 3 times they met in the finals instead of somewhere else, where he beat him every time.

Chamberlain won 2 Championships, but only one of them where he had to go through Russell. He also lost to the Knicks twice in the finals.

Russell averaged 22.5 rebounds per game during his career, while Chamberlain averaged 22.9.
Both averaged 4.3 and 4.4 assists per game.

Chamberlain did average double the points at 30 to Russell's 15, and he also shot a much better percentage than Russell.

While Chamberlain is impressive, Russell won... period.

His scoring stats don't amaze people.

 

[MVP]

Why no props for Russell?

He won a championship in 11 of his 13 years in the league. One of those years Russell got injured in the playoffs and that is why they lost, the other he was made the head coach as well as player when Red Aurbach retired.

His team often was the team to knock Chamberlain's out of the playoffs.

He beat Chamberlain in the Finals 2 out of the 3 times they met in the finals instead of somewhere else, where he beat him every time.

Chamberlain won 2 Championships, but only one of them where he had to go through Russell. He also lost to the Knicks twice in the finals.

Russell averaged 22.5 rebounds per game during his career, while Chamberlain averaged 22.9.
Both averaged 4.3 and 4.4 assists per game.

Chamberlain did average double the points at 30 to Russell's 15, and he also shot a much better percentage than Russell.

While Chamberlain is impressive, Russell won... period.

Great points but we need to keep in mind their respective teams and coaching. Russel had much, much better teammates and coach. Switch their teams and Wilt would have way more then 2 rings and Russell way less then his 9 IMHO.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Great points but we need to keep in mind their respective teams and coaching. Russel had much, much better teammates and coach. Switch their teams and Wilt would have way more then 2 rings and Russell way less then his 9 IMHO.

Not quite bro. Chamberlain was on some pretty good teams, and in some of those series he lost his team was actually favored to beat the Celtics. Contrary to popular belief Chamberlain did not play with crappy players or a crappy team.

Do these names sound familiar? Hal Greer, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich?

 

[LogGrad98]

Not quite bro. Chamberlain was on some pretty good teams, and in some of those series he lost his team was actually favored to beat the Celtics. Contrary to popular belief Chamberlain did not play with crappy players or a crappy team.

Do these names sound familiar? Hal Greer, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich?

Amateurs, obviously. No more than Jr. High Schoolers from the 90's at best.