Wilt's 100 vs. Kobe's 81. Discuss

[moonman818]

I dunno if it's been brought up... But wilt's team intentionally fouled during portions of that game to stop the clock and get Wilt's points up...

Add that to the fact there's no video evidence... and the NBA is far more competitive in the modern era.

81 > 100

 

[mister friendly]

Originally Posted by 123ska909red02

See? If you're going to factor in that 'this league is different than that league', then you also have to factor in that 'this level of competition is different than that level of competition', and 'this era is different than that era', and a bunch of other '_____ is different than _____' factors.

No, it's not just about simple math.

Its about simple math between 2 performances in the NBA(The highest level of mens competition both players couldve played against at the time.

 

[jsindaa]

Since we want to take the simple math route, the probability of making a layup is higher than a jumpshot thus the ease of Wilt scoring 100 is higher than Kobe scoring 81. Simple math.

 

[Pathos]

Originally Posted by Mister Friendly

Originally Posted by 123ska909red02

See? If you're going to factor in that 'this league is different than that league', then you also have to factor in that 'this level of competition is different than that level of competition', and 'this era is different than that era', and a bunch of other '_____ is different than _____' factors.

No, it's not just about simple math.

Its about simple math between 2 performances in the NBA(The highest level of mens competition both players couldve played against at the time.

wait, are saying the highest level of mens competition (basketball) in 1962 is equivalent to the highest level of mens competition (basketball) in 2006?

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by Janitor

Originally Posted by Deuce King

This @**% has gone on long enough, as the saying goes enough is enough and too much stinks.  Since when has 81 of anything ever been better than 100 of the same thing.............it hasn't before and now's not the time to begin that trend now.  $100>$81, 100 kilos>81 kilos, 100 pairs of concords>81 pairs of concords, getting 100% on a test>getting 81% on a test, 100 clear face masks>81 clear face masks, so on and so forth. 

Are we talkin OG Concords or retros?

Because of the different varibles (NBA eras in particular), this is one of those "chicken-or-the-egg" questions that could be argued forever and neither side would be 100% right or wrong.
All I know is, as a Raptors fan, watching the entire game from start to finish I wanted to puke my guts out. I swear, once the Raps went up big in the 3rd Q, our tv guy Chuck Swirsky basically called the ball game in Toronto's favour...which was when Kobe completely went off.
Now a great, GREAT feat regardless of whose side you're watching this from, but how many times did you see a double team on him?!?!? Terrible, terrible coaching (unless I missed something. I try to avoid watching anything related to that game whenever I can).

Doesn't matter if we're talking about OG Concords or retros, 100 of something held in high regard>81 of the same thing held in high regard, period.  Kobe loyalists are truly getting out of hand these days by trying to discredit simple facts.  Wilt scored 100 points, doesn't matter what era it was in, Wilt did it in the NBA, Kobe scored 81 in the NBA.  Once again, 100>81.  You dudes trying to discredit Wilt scoring 100 points would almost be like somebody right now saying Deron Wiliams scoring 57>Kobe scoring 81 because Deron did it in the Twitter era where Deron could become a trending topic during the game and tweet to his fans during the game.  It's that kind of reaching that Kobe fanatics are going for right now. 

 

[mister friendly]

Originally Posted by RetroSan

Originally Posted by Mister Friendly

Originally Posted by 123ska909red02

See? If you're going to factor in that 'this league is different than that league', then you also have to factor in that 'this level of competition is different than that level of competition', and 'this era is different than that era', and a bunch of other '_____ is different than _____' factors.

No, it's not just about simple math.

Its about simple math between 2 performances in the NBA(The highest level of mens competition both players couldve played against at the time.

wait, are saying the highest level of mens competition (basketball) in 1962 is equivalent to the highest level of mens competition (basketball) in 2006?

  
If you wanna go that argument, you can say anything Lebron or Kobe does curently trumps anything Magic or Jordan did in 1980s or 1990s because after under your logic, players continually get better( with training techniques, advanced scouting etc)

Where does it stop? Whens the cutoff?

 

[Pathos]

Originally Posted by Mister Friendly

Originally Posted by RetroSan

Originally Posted by Mister Friendly






Its about simple math between 2 performances in the NBA(The highest level of mens competition both players couldve played against at the time.

wait, are saying the highest level of mens competition (basketball) in 1962 is equivalent to the highest level of mens competition (basketball) in 2006?

  
If you wanna go that argument, you can say anything Lebron or Kobe does curently trumps anything Magic or Jordan did in 1980s or 1990s because after under your logic, players continually get better( with training techniques, advanced scouting etc)

Where does it stop? Whens the cutoff?

i think that we can conclude that the era between the 80s and the 90s is probably the pinnacle of basketball to date (ex: Dream Team)

but you can't POSSIBLY think that the level of competition in the 60s was equal to if not better than it was in the 00s  

 

[Jordan8]

Wait Lisa scored 101 in a half?

And a center who has to work to score scoring 100 in any era >>>> A guard who has the ball in his hands the majority of the game scoring 20 a quarter

 

[noblekane]

Originally Posted by ricky409

yall outta yall damb minds...

kobe could go back in time and score 81...

wilt would not HAVE A CHANCE at scoring 100... or 81... or 60 in todays game...

lettuce be cereal here...

qft i dont think people actually ever seen footage of how dudes played back then. they only dribbled with one hand. they never dunked. they played defense like they were guarding someone who had aids and was bleeding from every part of their body. 
seems the only people saying wilt are just saying it to hate on kobe bryant. 

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by NobleKane

Originally Posted by ricky409

yall outta yall damb minds...

kobe could go back in time and score 81...

wilt would not HAVE A CHANCE at scoring 100... or 81... or 60 in todays game...

lettuce be cereal here...

qft i dont think people actually ever seen footage of how dudes played back then. they only dribbled with one hand. they never dunked. they played defense like they were guarding someone who had aids and was bleeding from every part of their body. 
seems the only people saying wilt are just saying it to hate on kobe bryant. 

   
especially back then you could dunk your free throws thats the only reason he went 28-32.

 

[darthska]

cartune:

---

Wait Lisa scored 101 in a half?

Yessir.

Other team had 24, and they never came out after halftime.

 

[Pathos]

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/35060192
In what world has 81 ever been better than 100? Maybe when you're talking about temperature, but not much after that. 

But here's a time that 81 was greater than 100: Kobe Bryant's epic scoring night matched against Wilt Chamberlain's all-time point barrage. 

Never would I imply that what Chamberlain did 50 years ago wasn't impressive. Scoring 100 points in a game isn't just impressive. It's drinking-a-gallon-of-milk impressive. It's something that's darn near impossible to do and takes a special, near superhuman individual to pull it off. 

Still, Kobe's 81 was better. 

Why? You could almost make a strong case that Chamberlain's hundred should include an asterisk. First, and this is unfair to Chamberlain, but none of us saw it happen. We don't know what it looked like, what it felt like, how that game went. There's no footage of it at all, only a little audio of him scoring the hundredth point. 

Actually, it might be a good thing we never saw it. Because from accounts of how it went down, the Warriors spent almost the entire fourth quarter fouling to get the ball back and force-feeding Chamberlain the ball. New York coach Eddie Donovan said, "The game was a farce. They would foul us and we would foul them." Chamberlain's shot attempts by quarter: 14, 12, 16, 21. You think in a blowout in today's game that a team would keeping feeding their star like that? 

Plus, the pace of the game in 1962 was far faster than was Kobe was playing with in 2006. Chamberlain had more possessions in the up-and-down game. There were 316 combined points in that game. It would take today'sLakers almost a month to score that many. (I kid, I kid.)

Then you have to consider that Chamberlain's points came easier. He was a post player that could be fed the ball and overwhelm his opponents. Kobe is a perimeter player that had to handle it and score by creating his own either off the dribble or with a jumper. Chamberlain overpowered smaller teams and smaller players. At times, it was like a college guy playing against middle school kids. Truly a man among boys. Chamberlain could just have his way. 

It's no coincidence that when you browse the top point totals in a game, Wilt's name litters the list. It was a long time coming that he'd finally top the century mark. He scored at will because there was only one other player in the game -- Bill Russell -- that could really stop him. The guy that played most of the night against him -- Darrall Imhoff -- stood no chance. Not to discredit the talent pool in the 60s, but Chamberlain wasn't exactly facing elite big men every night. 

Nobody will ever match what Chamberlain did though. Like DiMaggio's hit streak or Favre's consecutive games streak, it's one of those unbreakable records. The reason mainly is because nobody would have the gall to do what the Warriors did to get him there. Playing out the game in a blowout, blatantly running up the score, fouling to get the ball back -- can you imagine what would happen if someone did that today? 

Say LeBron was going off and had 75 points after three quarters. The Heat are up 30. Erik Spoelstra leaves LeBron out there to pound the opponent, all while Dwyane Wade and Shane Battier take fouls so LeBron gets more shots. There would be week long panels devoted to ripping the team that did it. I think the Hall of Fame might have to make room for a new exhibit honoring the most explosive media backlash in professional sport history. 

Kobe's 81 had everything going for it. It was a close game and Bryant just completely took over. The Lakers were down 71-53 and Kobe brought them back. He wasn't ever intentionally fouled, and he team didn't do much of anything other than give him the ball and get out of the wya. He played until the end, checking out with just a few seconds remaining. And despite playing a darn near perfect game with all the factors lining up, Kobe was still 19 points short. Consider this: After Kobe, the next highest total is 78 by Chamberlain, then 73 by David Thompson and Chamberlain. Even the greatest ever, Michael Jordan, topped out at 69. There's just no chance of anyone ever sniffing 100 points in a game again.

Still, Kobe's 81 was better. 

The Mamba took 17 fewer shots, 12 fewer free throws, didn't have his team fouling to get him the ball, had fewer possessions and still only came up 19 short of Wilt. He scored 55 points after halftime. That's only 14 short of Jordan's career-high. Forget what math and maybe common sense tells you. Eight-one is greater than 100. 

Kobe's 81 points required the most skill 
and for the 3 point argument, shooting the ball 25 feet away and going 7-13 isn't exactly easy

 

[mister friendly]

Originally Posted by RetroSan

Originally Posted by Mister Friendly

Originally Posted by RetroSan

wait, are saying the highest level of mens competition (basketball) in 1962 is equivalent to the highest level of mens competition (basketball) in 2006?

  
If you wanna go that argument, you can say anything Lebron or Kobe does curently trumps anything Magic or Jordan did in 1980s or 1990s because after under your logic, players continually get better( with training techniques, advanced scouting etc)

Where does it stop? Whens the cutoff?

i think that we can conclude that the era between the 80s and the 90s is probably the pinnacle of basketball to date (ex: Dream Team)

but you can't POSSIBLY think that the level of competition in the 60s was equal to if not better than it was in the 00s  

Why is the Dream Team era the pinnacle of Basketball?

How about this era? I could say we have bigger,faster, stronger and longer athletes then ever before.....I mean who compares to Lebron in the size, speed and skill standpoint from the Dream Team era? What 6-11 Dream Team era player had the same skills as Kevin Durant does now?

I cant think of any....So I guess this era must be the best era of Basketball...right?

 

[wcghost]

i'm probably one of the biggest Kobe haters on this forum, yet his 81 > Wilt's 100.

You are a damn fool if you think Wilt can score 100 in today's game. On the other hand, do you think Kobe is incapable of scoring 81 in the 60's?? LOL.

 

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by Janitor

Originally Posted by Deuce King

This @**% has gone on long enough, as the saying goes enough is enough and too much stinks.  Since when has 81 of anything ever been better than 100 of the same thing.............it hasn't before and now's not the time to begin that trend now.  $100>$81, 100 kilos>81 kilos, 100 pairs of concords>81 pairs of concords, getting 100% on a test>getting 81% on a test, 100 clear face masks>81 clear face masks, so on and so forth. 

Are we talkin OG Concords or retros?

Because of the different varibles (NBA eras in particular), this is one of those "chicken-or-the-egg" questions that could be argued forever and neither side would be 100% right or wrong.
All I know is, as a Raptors fan, watching the entire game from start to finish I wanted to puke my guts out. I swear, once the Raps went up big in the 3rd Q, our tv guy Chuck Swirsky basically called the ball game in Toronto's favour...which was when Kobe completely went off.
Now a great, GREAT feat regardless of whose side you're watching this from, but how many times did you see a double team on him?!?!? Terrible, terrible coaching (unless I missed something. I try to avoid watching anything related to that game whenever I can).

Doesn't matter if we're talking about OG Concords or retros, 100 of something held in high regard>81 of the same thing held in high regard, period.  Kobe loyalists are truly getting out of hand these days by trying to discredit simple facts.  Wilt scored 100 points, doesn't matter what era it was in, Wilt did it in the NBA, Kobe scored 81 in the NBA.  Once again, 100>81.  You dudes trying to discredit Wilt scoring 100 points would almost be like somebody right now saying Deron Wiliams scoring 57>Kobe scoring 81 because Deron did it in the Twitter era where Deron could become a trending topic during the game and tweet to his fans during the game.  It's that kind of reaching that Kobe fanatics are going for right now. 

While I was being facetious for the most part, that Concords examples does kind of illustrate my point: how many NTers would take 100 pairs of 2011 Concords vs 81 pairs of OG Concords? Not as clean-cut an answer as you'd think.

And I hope you weren't referring to me as one of those Kobe fanatics, if you read the rest of my post it's pretty clear I'm far from one. The point is that things aren't as conclusive as "scoring 100 points in the NBA is automatically > scoring 81 points in the NBA", as you've made it your argument to completely disregard all other factors.

 

[lebronh8er]

I hate to say it since it was clearly less points, but the style of the game and scoring all together changed since Wilt's 100. Kobe's 81 is a bigger accomplishment I feel, overall level of competition and pace of the game is completely different. Both are huge milestones that will probably never be seen again, but I have to side with Kobe here. 

 

[moonman818]

Originally Posted by Lebronh8er

I hate to say it since it was clearly less points, but the style of the game and scoring all together changed since Wilt's 100. Kobe's 81 is a bigger accomplishment I feel, overall level of competition and pace of the game is completely different. Both are huge milestones that will probably never be seen again, but I have to side with Kobe here. 

@ at your sn

 

[dmxfury]

I can only judge someone against the era they were in. Both impressive but I'd still give Wilt the nod. But either choice is a great one really, incredible feats

 

[goldmember]

at these Kobe haters saying 100>81.. 100 is more than 81... SURE ...but did you actually saw how Wilt did it??

Twitter era? @@+$ outta here with that %*%%

 

[mister friendly]

Originally Posted by Goldmember

at these Kobe haters saying 100>81.. 100 is more than 81... SURE ...but did you actually saw how Wilt did it??

Twitter era? @@+$ outta here with that %*%%

Im a Kobe lover but seriously 19 points is quite a big difference. Scoring 19 PPG a game would put you roughly 10th in scoring  this season in the NBA.

 

[night marcher01]

Originally Posted by Mister Friendly

Originally Posted by Goldmember

at these Kobe haters saying 100>81.. 100 is more than 81... SURE ...but did you actually saw how Wilt did it??

Twitter era? @@+$ outta here with that %*%%

Im a Kobe lover but seriously 19 points is quite a big difference. Scoring 19 PPG a game would put you roughly 10th in scoring  this season in the NBA.

What the hell does this even mean? Like what does averaging season points have to do with the amount of points scored in ONE game?

 

[mister friendly]

Originally Posted by Night Marcher01

Originally Posted by Mister Friendly

Originally Posted by Goldmember

at these Kobe haters saying 100>81.. 100 is more than 81... SURE ...but did you actually saw how Wilt did it??

Twitter era? @@+$ outta here with that %*%%

Im a Kobe lover but seriously 19 points is quite a big difference. Scoring 19 PPG a game would put you roughly 10th in scoring  this season in the NBA.

What the hell does this even mean? Like what does averaging season points have to do with the amount of points scored in ONE game?

Its means 19 points in a game is quite an accomplishment for much of the league, therefore Wilt scoring 19 more points than Kobe is quite a difference.

 

[dmxfury]

So if someone 'prefers' Wilt's accomplishment they are a 'Kobe hater'? Huh?

 

[noblekane]

Originally Posted by dmxfury

So if someone 'chooses' Wilts accomplishment they are a 'Kobe hater'? That's rational

majority of them are. pretty sure ive seen most in that laker kobe haters unite thread 

 

[dmxfury]

Ha I rarely go in those, I honestly didn't realize that many still disliked Kobe, he's a freaking 'grizzled vet' at this point and a heck of a player