Using the per 100 possessions isn't a great method. It literally penalizes the OG rebounders, because they had more than 100 possessions in games at that time. (Which is why their 20+ rpg averages are below that, per 100.) And even with the rapid up and down the floor running style of their era, they were still able to play insane minutes and remain effective. The per 100 method boosts up the newer rebounders who did not play anywhere near the same minutes (and often came off the bench), as if they could sustain their energy and production when much more fatigued. Also, coming off the bench, they might be playing against the other team's bench players, or with their own bench players, who are less competitive on the boards. Yes, it is the way Andre Drummond can justify his claim to be the best rebounder. But he never had a season averaging even 34 minutes (and only three seasons in the 33s range). So could he be that proportionally effective in games that actually had 100 possessions? Surely, no, he could not. But this per 100 possessions makes it seem as if he would.
Yeah I agree because you can see how the list gets flooded with modern players when adjusting. It’s just two completely different eras and it’s hard to compare the two but I think Drummond at least can make the claim of being the best rebounder in the modern era
@dylanbettenhausen8934 the per 100 allows eras to be compared. Are we to just think the guys from the 60s were THAT much better? 😆. It doesn't even make sense.
@@thefamily5357 There weren't many 30 ppg scorers in the '60s, despite all those players enjoying the advantage of the higher pace. It's about four guys doing it multiple times (Wilt, Elgin, West and Oscar), and about four more who only did it one season (Walt Bellamy, Rick Barry, Bob Petit, Jack Tyman). Averaging over 40 minutes a game was harder then, because of the pace. Fewer tv timeouts, no coaches challenges to stop the game, etc., meant it was up and down the court with fewer pauses in the action. Phil Jackson challenged Shaq to play 48 minutes a game in '99-'00 to match what Wilt did, when Shaq was still younger and lighter. He couldn't do it because it was exhausting, and he only played 48 or more minutes 15x in his career. So the notion that someone playing far lower minutes could average that same production, simply multiplying it out, doesn't take their stamina into account. It's a lot easier to be effective in shorter time spans than to continue that same production if they were playing 40+ minutes of a far higher paced game. Without considering some of these lower minute guys came off the bench, and played less against starters than other bench players. The OGs per 100 possessions numbers are typically LESS than their actual career averages. Which they actually accomplished, by having incredible stamina even with terrible shoes, no scientific recovery methods, much less rest (considering they had to pile into buses and take red-eye commercial flights packed into normal seats, etc.).
@@dylanbettenhausen8934 Agreed. It's interesting to see him above Dennis Rodman, who many claim was the best of all time (adjusting him up by the per 100 stat). Rodman benefited with about 50% more added to his per game stat, because he averaged 31.7 minutes. Of course, Drummond averaged 27.2 minutes, and got an even bigger boost by the adjustment. Does that really make him better than Rodman? Because he couldn't stay in the games as long? Clearly, there are no rebounds for a player on the bench. I think there are problems with this analysis.
DENNIS RODMAN im finna with this conversation
Wilt Chamberlain. Physical tools above all else.
He may have the best numbers but what I do know is that Rodman's were at key moments
Not Drummonds fault his teammates weren’t IT, MJ or Scottie lol
My guy Dreeeeee
Rodman
But he still got dunked on by James Johnson 😂. He banged on him.
HASSAN WHITESIDE IS THE GOAT
Using the per 100 possessions isn't a great method.
It literally penalizes the OG rebounders, because they had more than 100 possessions in games at that time. (Which is why their 20+ rpg averages are below that, per 100.) And even with the rapid up and down the floor running style of their era, they were still able to play insane minutes and remain effective.
The per 100 method boosts up the newer rebounders who did not play anywhere near the same minutes (and often came off the bench), as if they could sustain their energy and production when much more fatigued. Also, coming off the bench, they might be playing against the other team's bench players, or with their own bench players, who are less competitive on the boards.
Yes, it is the way Andre Drummond can justify his claim to be the best rebounder. But he never had a season averaging even 34 minutes (and only three seasons in the 33s range). So could he be that proportionally effective in games that actually had 100 possessions? Surely, no, he could not. But this per 100 possessions makes it seem as if he would.
Yeah I agree because you can see how the list gets flooded with modern players when adjusting. It’s just two completely different eras and it’s hard to compare the two but I think Drummond at least can make the claim of being the best rebounder in the modern era
There era also inflated all of the older guys numbers
@dylanbettenhausen8934 the per 100 allows eras to be compared. Are we to just think the guys from the 60s were THAT much better? 😆. It doesn't even make sense.
@@thefamily5357 There weren't many 30 ppg scorers in the '60s, despite all those players enjoying the advantage of the higher pace. It's about four guys doing it multiple times (Wilt, Elgin, West and Oscar), and about four more who only did it one season (Walt Bellamy, Rick Barry, Bob Petit, Jack Tyman).
Averaging over 40 minutes a game was harder then, because of the pace. Fewer tv timeouts, no coaches challenges to stop the game, etc., meant it was up and down the court with fewer pauses in the action.
Phil Jackson challenged Shaq to play 48 minutes a game in '99-'00 to match what Wilt did, when Shaq was still younger and lighter. He couldn't do it because it was exhausting, and he only played 48 or more minutes 15x in his career.
So the notion that someone playing far lower minutes could average that same production, simply multiplying it out, doesn't take their stamina into account. It's a lot easier to be effective in shorter time spans than to continue that same production if they were playing 40+ minutes of a far higher paced game. Without considering some of these lower minute guys came off the bench, and played less against starters than other bench players.
The OGs per 100 possessions numbers are typically LESS than their actual career averages. Which they actually accomplished, by having incredible stamina even with terrible shoes, no scientific recovery methods, much less rest (considering they had to pile into buses and take red-eye commercial flights packed into normal seats, etc.).
@@dylanbettenhausen8934 Agreed. It's interesting to see him above Dennis Rodman, who many claim was the best of all time (adjusting him up by the per 100 stat).
Rodman benefited with about 50% more added to his per game stat, because he averaged 31.7 minutes. Of course, Drummond averaged 27.2 minutes, and got an even bigger boost by the adjustment.
Does that really make him better than Rodman? Because he couldn't stay in the games as long? Clearly, there are no rebounds for a player on the bench. I think there are problems with this analysis.
Kai Cenat
Wilt dummy