PDA

View Full Version : the NBA used to play more than 48 minutes a game?



black1605
02-10-2010, 02:19 AM
so i randomly decided to look at Wilt Chamberlain averaged 48.5 minutes a game in the 1961-1962 season, the only season where he exceeded 48 minutes.

i have been watching the NBA my whole life, how long were games back in the day? has it always been divided into quarters?

Mauersota
02-10-2010, 02:20 AM
so i randomly decided to look at Wilt Chamberlain averaged 48.5 minutes a game in the 1961-1962 season, the only season where he exceeded 48 minutes.

i have been watching the NBA my whole life, how long were games back in the day? has it always been divided into quarters?

Overtime.

black1605
02-10-2010, 02:21 AM
he played 80 games that year, that would have to be a lot of overtime

RocketsRule
02-10-2010, 02:23 AM
Most likely, he usually always played the whole game and the few overtimes he had boosted his minutes.

I could be totally wrong though :shrug:

ManRam
02-10-2010, 02:24 AM
Add eight 5 minute overtimes and you get an average of 48.5 if he played every minute of every game. So it was probably overtime.

Pippenfan
02-10-2010, 02:40 AM
But it is what Chamberlain accomplished in 1961-62 that likely will never be surpassed. That's when he averaged 48.5 minutes (the Warriors played 10 overtime periods and he played all but eight of 3,890 minutes that season) and 50.4 points, becoming the only player to crack the 4,000-point barrier (he had 4,029).


http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00014133.html

tredigs
02-10-2010, 02:46 AM
Not to be a hater, but the deeper you dig on Wilt Chamberlain, the less impressive he was. Still completely dominant and a game changer, but in this league he isn't TOUCHING 50 a game. And the fact that he would just let opponents score once he got into foul trouble so that he would never foul out (his most prized statistic), is just pathetic.

If people think Randolph was a stat whore, HAHHAHA at what they would think of Wilt.

Raph12
02-10-2010, 03:02 AM
But it is what Chamberlain accomplished in 1961-62 that likely will never be surpassed. That's when he averaged 48.5 minutes (the Warriors played 10 overtime periods and he played all but eight of 3,890 minutes that season) and 50.4 points, becoming the only player to crack the 4,000-point barrier (he had 4,029).


http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00014133.html

He's done that twice.

As for the thread question, no they didn't play more minutes, it was the addition of the OT minutes that got him the extra 0.5 added onto his MPG.

It's like I said, the guys who were great legends in the 60s would just be pretty damn good in today's league.

_KB24_
02-10-2010, 03:10 AM
Damn, talk about a tank. 48.5 minutes, I don't even care if it was against little white guys ;)

Chronz
02-10-2010, 03:31 AM
Not to be a hater, but the deeper you dig on Wilt Chamberlain, the less impressive he was. Still completely dominant and a game changer, but in this league he isn't TOUCHING 50 a game. And the fact that he would just let opponents score once he got into foul trouble so that he would never foul out (his most prized statistic), is just pathetic.

If people think Randolph was a stat whore, HAHHAHA at what they would think of Wilt.

Take it easy tre, it was a different time then. He doesnt have to touch 50 a game to have the same productive worth. And people make too much of that claim, its not like he stopped playing defense, he just wouldnt challenge shots unless the game was in doubt. Hes won several games with his defense and 5 fouls to his name. Most of Wilts problems came early in his career, but even then it was a result of circumstance. His owners wanted him to look for his own, its what excited the crowds more than anything. Stats were basically how he proved his worth, and he was very conscious of them. Alot of great players are

ldc62
02-10-2010, 03:37 AM
Tough to look back at history and critique. Didn't Russel win when there were like 12 teams in the NBA? Can't compare present with the pass. That being said, guys from the past would just be avg. to good players at best. The play just seemed kinda stagnant, whereas now you got guys flying up and down the court. A guy like Yao could score 50 a game back then...

KnicksPain
02-10-2010, 04:28 AM
They didnt workout though compared to now kids are lifting and playing AAU as teens, coming out of high school lookin like Tyreke Evans. Not saying things would be equal but some of those past greats might have been ridiculous now growing up in the same circumstances. You never know so its not fair to say either way.

heathonater
02-10-2010, 06:33 AM
thats one stat no one will repeat today is playing 48.5 minutes. imagine how worn down kobe or lebron would be if they played literally every minute of each game.

wileyisTOFU
02-10-2010, 10:18 AM
Not to be a hater, but the deeper you dig on Wilt Chamberlain, the less impressive he was. Still completely dominant and a game changer, but in this league he isn't TOUCHING 50 a game. And the fact that he would just let opponents score once he got into foul trouble so that he would never foul out (his most prized statistic), is just pathetic.

If people think Randolph was a stat whore, HAHHAHA at what they would think of Wilt.

yeah that **** cracks me up, wanted to keep his "never fouled out" streak alive.