SwagKingKong
All Star
How the fukk do you build an argument around a stupid stat like "adjusted for pace"? You can't just adjust for pace in a formula without accounting for minutes played and fatigue. You can't just talk about possessions per game because the rules changed, defenses changed and a whole bunch of other factors that a formula can't account for.
Obviously, it's not supposed to be used as the only argument in comparing players. It was a counter argument to the whole "he averaged 50 and 25 boards" thing..
You would obviously have to factor in all of the other things as well. But I've never seen a serious conversation in comparing Wilt to modern day players and not adjusting his numbers for pace, it's idiotic not to. I'm not saying those numbers are his absolute ceiling, because of things like fatigue etc. but it gives us a good indication of how "dominant" or maybe "not so dominant" his numbers actually were. His raw numbers are inflated, it's as simple as that.