Is Shaq dominant as Wilt? A man

[alexandreben]

http://espn.go.com/media/pg2/2001/0622/photo/a_shaq_sp.jpg V.S. http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/retired_chamberlain.jpg

Is Shaq dominant as Wilt? Is Shaq's dominance overrated?

First of all, I love Shaq, am a big fan of Shaq and I still consider he's the most dominate center in the league today even as 37 years old... I started to watched NBA since 80's, Shaq's the most amazing freak athletic center I've ever seen since the 80's, had he controled his weight under 330 lbs and been diligent as Karl Malone, he could've been into the top 3 center of all time(or even top 2).

By watching his games during the Lakers' three-peat period, people automatically kept saying that Shaq's the most dominate player and he would've outplayed or even killed any players like Wilt, Russell, Hakeem, KAJ, etc. especially if the they met during Shaq's three-peat period.

Shaq's dominance could've been overrated, the possible arguments could be these:

1. Rule changes & league's assistance;
The Illegal Defense rule prohibit double-team the non-ball players, the "no-charge" area, etc., with league and referee’s help, all those rules helped Shaq dominate the game.. we all remember in 2001 finals Shaq threw his elbows to Mutombo and got away with it, by the way, Mutombo was two weeks away from his 35 years birthday...

2. Less quantity of matchups with great centers in the 90's;
- In the 90's Shaq battled with HOF/great centers like Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Robert Parish, along with Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo.

- The downside is the quantity of their matchups was sooo limited, e.g. Shaq battled with his toughest opponent Olajuwon only 2 times per season when he was still in Orlando, look at the historical great centers like KAJ, Thurmond, Reed, Chamberlain, Russell, etc., those top HOF centers battled each other 10 times per season.

- In the early 90’s, a 21 years old Shaq dominated weak centers e.g. the 26 years old 7’4” good shooting center Rik Smits:

Player Date GS MP FG-FGA FG% ORB/TRB BLK PTS
Shaq 27/11/1992 W 1gs 30min 7-10 70% 3/11rbs 4blk 21pts
Smits 27/11/1992 L 1gs 16min 4-11 36% 1/2rbs 1blk 10pts

Shaq 09/01/1993 L 1gs 44min 11-20 55% 5/20rbs 8blk 30pts
Smits 09/01/1993 W 1gs 20min 2-6 33% 0/2rbs 2blk 5pts

Shaq 10/03/1993 W 1gs 44mp 8-16 50% 1/11rbs 2blk 26pts
Smits 10/03/1993 L 1gs 36min 8-14 57% 2/7rbs 2blk 16pts

Shaq 02/04/1993 L 1gs 38min 10-17 59% 7/19rbs 1blk 28pts
Smits 02/04/1993 W 1gs 32min 7-17 41% 1/6rbs 0blk 21pts

Shaq 09/11/1993 W 1gs 36min 14-19 74% 4/9rbs 4blk 37pts
Smits 09/11/1993 L 1gs 32min 6-15 40% 1/8rbs 0blk 20pts
--------------------------------------

However, the dominance looked less impressive when against a HOF center Robert Parish even he’s 39-40 years old.

Shaquille O'Neal vs. Robert Parish
Despite being dunked in face, a 40 years old Robert Parish battled almost even with a 21 years old young and strong Shaq, check out their first 5 matchups:

Player Date GS MP FG-FGA FG% ORB/TRB BLK PTS
Shaquille O'Neal 08/12/1992 L 1gs 44min 10-19 53% 4/15rbs 4blk 26pts
Robert Parish 08/12/1992 W 1gs 27min 7-11 64% 4/10rbs 3blk 17pts

Shaquille O'Neal 15/01/1993 W 1gs 40min 7-15 47% 1/12rbs 4blk 22pts
Robert Parish 15/01/1993 L 1gs 29min 8-15 53% 3/11rbs 2blk 19pts

Shaquille O'Neal 29/01/1993 L 1gs 40min 10-13 77% 3/13rbs 2blk 26pts
Robert Parish 29/01/1993 W 1gs 27min 9-16 56% 6/10rbs 1blk 18pts

Shaquille O'Neal 18/04/1993 W 1gs 42min 8-20 40% 5/21rbs 1blk 20pts
Robert Parish 18/04/1993 L 1gs 29min 6-12 50% 0/2rbs 0blk 14pts

Shaquille O'Neal 21/04/1993 L 1gs 34min 7-14 50% 1/10rbs 2blk 20pts
Robert Parish 21/04/1993 W 1gs 19min 6-10 60% 2/12rbs 1blk 15pts
----------------------------------------

http://thenincompoop.com/shaq.jpg http://www.islandfuse.com/ShineImages/Halloffame/patrick.gif
Here's their total 26 times matchups stats(did I mention Wilt battled with Russell 142 times?:lol ):
Shaq: 28.7pts / 12.0rbs / 3.1blk
Ewing:21.4pts / 10.8rbs / 2.0blk

Shaq(21 yrs old) v.s. Ewing(31 yrs old) first five matchups:
Player Date MP FG FGA FG% ORB/TRB BLK PTS
Ewing 21/11/1992 W 35min 7-16 44% 0/9rbs 3blk 15pts
Shaq 21/11/1992 L 44min 7-18 39% 3/17rbs 3blk 18pts

Ewing 08/01/1993 L 39min 9-27 33% 1/12rbs 1blk 21pts
Shaq 08/01/1993 W 34min 10-17 59% 1/13rbs 5blk 22pts

Ewing 14/02/1993 L 43min 14-29 48% 2/14rbs 4blk 34pts
Shaq 14/02/1993 W 47min 8-25 32% 9/19rbs 9blk 21pts

Ewing 08/03/1993 W 45min 17-35 49% 4/17rbs 1blk 37pts
Shaq 08/03/1993 L 35min 8-23 35% 3/9rbs 2blk 23pts

Ewing 04/01/1994 W 41min 9-18 50% 5/19rbs 3blk 26pts
Shaq 04/01/1994 L 36min 11-16 69% 2/5rbs 1blk 26pts

We can see that before Ewing got severely old(with injury knees btw), they battled equal reguarding to their pts and rebounds, Shaq is much more dominant in the paint while Ewing is a much better shooter and defender, Shaq was a terrible 40% field gold on the line by the way... we never had the opportunity to see a 27 years old peak Ewing battled with Shaq.

---------------------------------------------------------
http://thenincompoop.com/shaq.jpg http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo95/bleedlakerspng/NBA/Hakeem_Olajuwon.gif
How about Hakeem, the best center in the 90's, I watched most of their matchups including regular seasons(there're not many matchups anyway), and including their matchups Shaq's early years in Lakers, I must say Hakeem is better than Shaq.

In the mid-90’s, Shaq killed a over-hill Ewing, but the 33-34 years old over-hill Hakeem played equal with Shaq and outplayed him in the Finals, even Shaq admitted, although Shaq’s stats look better but Hakeem had better defense and some clutch performances than Shaq, I’d called they played equal, Hakeem slightly better. Everyone talks about Anderson missed four free-throws in game 1, but Shaq made a crucial mistake passing at the very last minute just like Bill Russell did, but no one bailed him out like Rondo and Jones bailed out Russell.

There's still a lot of resources including full footage of all games and here's some highlights of game 1:
1st Half: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hRoMOAirnU
2nd Half: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd1D-u8oAfo

[alexandreben]

continue...

3. Weak opponents in 00's;
Shaq was absolutely un-stoppable in the 00's, but the ugly truth is those HOF centers in the 90's got severely older, the number of other quality centers was quite limited...

Hakeem was 37-39 years old during the so called Lakers “Three-Peat” p

[hateraid]

Shaq dominated those hall of fame centers in his first three years in the league while they were in their prime. The Magic didn't. Shaq was the most physically imposing center at that time period.

[Calabis]

Bill Russell 6'9
Nate Thurmond 6'11
Willis Reed 6'9
Wes Unseld 6'7
Red Kerr 6'9
Zelmo Beaty 6'9
Walt Bellamy 6'11

Yeah nice list Wilt dominated a small forward, 4 power forwards......wow....please quit trying to build up this 60's era, acting like stars of the 80's-2000's can't touch these guys. Put Shaq back in that era and he puts up Wilt numbers period. Now please stop with this foolishness.

[alexandreben]

Bill Russell 6'9
Nate Thurmond 6'11
Willis Reed 6'9
Wes Unseld 6'7
Red Kerr 6'9
Zelmo Beaty 6'9
Walt Bellamy 6'11

Yeah nice list Wilt dominated a small forward, 4 power forwards......wow....please quit trying to build up this 60's era, acting like stars of the 80's-2000's can't touch these guys. Put Shaq back in that era and he puts up Wilt numbers period. Now please stop with this foolishness.
you call Unseld a small forward?! :lol :roll:

[alexandreben]

Shaq dominated those hall of fame centers in his first three years in the league while they were in their prime. The Magic didn't. Shaq was the most physically imposing center at that time period.
I wouldn't use the word "dominate" regarding to those HOF centers, you can put that on some centers like Rik Smiths in my thread.

Hakeem definitely was the best center in 90's, not Shaq.

[Calabis]

you call Unseld a small forward?! :lol :roll:
His height man!!!!...dude is 6'7 trying to guard a 7'1 Wilt...now please be quiet

[alexandreben]

His height man!!!!...dude is 6'7 trying to guard a 7'1 Wilt...now please be quiet
You konw..the 6'6" Ben Wallace got more rebound than 7'1" Shaq...

Unseld got more rebound when matchup with 7'2" KAJ...

I'd put money on it you know nothing about Unseld since you called him a small forward...

[ShaqAttack3234]

:oldlol: what is with this competition crap again?

Shaq vs Alonzo Mourning

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=mournal01

And why include only 2 seasons in the Shaq vs Ewing comparison? You include Shaq's rookie year which is far away from his typical offensive seasons, yet don't include Ewing's '95 season which was virtually the same as the previous 2? And even the following 2 seasons, Ewing's production didn't drop much at all.

And IMO, Shaq was more dominant than Wilt. Look at his 2000 and 2001 playoff runs. 30+ ppg, 15+ rpg, high shooting percentage and back to back championships.

And why bring up that Mutombo was 35 in the 2001 finals? He was still the defensive player of the year for the 4th time, an all-star for the 7th time(he'd make his 8th all-star team the following season) and the league-leading rebounder for the 2nd straight season. All Shaq did was average 33/16/5/3 on 57% shooting.

Look at how much Shaq was doubled and tripled in the 2000 finals thanks to being on a 2-star team with not many scoring threats and one of the stars(Kobe) basically missing 2 games and only having 1 good game. Who cares who was technically the opposing center? It's not like he was played 1 on 1, or even close. Constant double/triple teams. He averaged an astounding 38/17/3 on 61% shooting. And no, these aren't the inflated stats of Wilt's era with a million rebounds available, nor did he have the luxuary of being able to take 40 shots per game.

Shaq also wasn't playing 48 mpg and getting plenty of opportunities to pad his stats with the game already decided.

Look at the footage of their offensive games. Shaq had superior footwork, better moves, IMO, he was probably stronger and at the veyr least, used his strength more, same with his explosive athleticism. Shaq was definitely more dominant offensively, IMO. Later in his career, I'd give Wilt the nod defensively, but Shaq's playoff dominance sets him apart.

[alexandreben]

:oldlol: what is with this competition crap again?

Shaq vs Alonzo Mourning

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=mournal01

And why include only 2 seasons in the Shaq vs Ewing comparison? You include Shaq's rookie year which is far away from his typical offensive seasons, yet don't include Ewing's '95 season which was virtually the same as the previous 2? And even the following 2 seasons, Ewing's production didn't drop much at all.
I've put all their matchups in my original thread including their first 5 matchups:
Here's their total 26 times matchups stats(did I mention Wilt battled with Russell 142 times? :lol )
Shaq: 28.7pts / 12.0rbs / 3.1blk
Ewing:21.4pts / 10.8rbs / 2.0blk



And IMO, Shaq was more dominant than Wilt. Look at his 2000 and 2001 playoff runs. 30+ ppg, 15+ rpg, high shooting percentage and back to back championships.
Your arguments are just because his performance in the 00' and 01' (Rik Smiths & a 35 years old Mutombo)? Look at his opponents... the main idea of this thread is "a player's greatness is measured by his opponents":roll:



And why bring up that Mutombo was 35 in the 2001 finals? He was still the defensive player of the year for the 4th time, an all-star for the 7th time(he'd make his 8th all-star team the following season) and the league-leading rebounder for the 2nd straight season. All Shaq did was average 33/16/5/3 on 57% shooting.
Indeed the 35 years old Mutombo was the DPOY, indeed Dwight Howard is the DPOY too, indeed Dennis Rodman got a tons of rebounds, etc.. the main idea is "in what competition that they won those accolades", especially the DPOY that Howard get...



Look at how much Shaq was doubled and tripled in the 2000 finals thanks to being on a 2-star team with not many scoring threats and one of the stars(Kobe) basically missing 2 games and only having 1 good game. Who cares who was technically the opposing center? It's not like he was played 1 on 1, or even close. Constant double/triple teams. He averaged an astounding 38/17/3 on 61% shooting. And no, these aren't the inflated stats of Wilt's era with a million rebounds available, nor did he have the luxuary of being able to take 40 shots per game.
It's very important that who the opposing center, just look at Dwight Howard, in what kind of competition he played in 00's... what if he played in 80's or 90's?...we all know the answer, hence, the quality of the opposing centers are quite important...

Again, pace issue is for guards who made fast breaks, you can say the old school guards' stats are inflated, but not centers.



Shaq also wasn't playing 48 mpg and getting plenty of opportunities to pad his stats with the game already decided.
I doubt he could play 48 min... due to his 380 lbs weight, he only played averaged 70 games, in his domination saison, he only played 67 games for three years in a row, consistantly injuries won't allow him to play 48 min.



Look at the footage of their offensive games. Shaq had superior footwork, better moves, IMO, he was probably stronger and at the veyr least, used his strength more, same with his explosive athleticism. Shaq was definitely more dominant offensively, IMO. Later in his career, I'd give Wilt the nod defensively, but Shaq's playoff dominance sets him apart.
Talking about athleticism and strength, Wilt Chamberlain is second to no one...

[GOBB]

Dale Davis was that dude. How can a team not want Dale Davis?

Anyway did Wilt use his elbows to clear opponents out (without knocking out thier teeth I might add)?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Your arguments are just because his performance in the 00' and 01' (Rik Smiths & a 35 years old Mutombo)? Look at his opponents... the main idea of this thread is "a player's greatness is measured by his opponents":roll:

Game 1 of the 2000 finals

Check out the post position Shaq gets on Dale Davis and how helpless the 6'10", 260 pound Davis looks, Shaq dunks on Smits and Davis with ease despite getting fouled. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=0m18s

Great move and Shaq finishes vs the triple team. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=0m44s

Once again, they try to triple team him, but it doesn't work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m00s

Another triple team in the paint, but a great ball fake and fadeaway to beat the triple team. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m06s

Another double team attempt, but Indiana is helpless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m31s

Again, Shaq vs 3 defenders in the paint. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m53s

All 5 defenders are in the lane, but a great move by Shaq and a strong finish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=2m12s

Not to mention that Shaq played in the slowest pace era with arguably the toughest defenses. And you can see that prime Shaq was arguably double teamed more than any other player.

And throughout that series, Smits guarded Shaq the least out of the 3 big men they put on him. Shaq toyed with Dale Davis who was an all-star that season.


Indeed the 35 years old Mutombo was the DPOY, indeed Dwight Howard is the DPOY too, indeed Dennis Rodman got a tons of rebounds, etc.. the main idea is "in what competition that they won those accolades", especially the DPOY that Howard get...

Mutombo had won his 4th DPOY, he won 3 of those in the 90's and made most of his 8 all-star teams in the 90's, he was not a product of a weak era, he was one of the greatest defensive players of all time.


It's very important that who the opposing center, just look at Dwight Howard, in what kind of competition he played in 00's... what if he played in 80's or 90's?...we all know the answer, hence, the quality of the opposing centers are quite important...

As a 20 year old rookie, Shaq averaged 23/14 with 3.5 bpg in the era of Olajuwon, Robinson, Mourning and Mutombo. The following year, 29/13/3 on 60% shooting and the next year? 29/11/3 on 58% shooting and a finals appearance and he played Olajuwon much better than a prime David Robinson had or Ewing had the previous year in the finals. Shaq was dominating in his early years in Orlando and he wasn't even as complete of a player as he'd become. When Phil Jackson took over as coach, Shaq started playing better defense, became a better rebounder, a better passer and smarter.

And in Shaq's best season(2000). Centers were not nearly as weak as later in the decade. Mourning and Mutombo were still in their prime. You had the twin towers of Duncan and Robinson and for those that say Robinson was washed up, remember that he was the Spurs leading scorer in the second half of the season and in 8 games without Duncan, the Spurs were 5-3 and Robinson averaged 21/9, plus he was still an excellent defensive player. Most teams atleast had a solid 7 footer with good size and either a skilled post game or shot blocking/rebounding skills. The centers 10 years ago were far better on average than today.

And the competition argument is more relevant with Howard because we've seen him struggle more vs legit centers, while we saw Shaq from 1992-2000 dominating.


Again, pace issue is for guards who made fast breaks, you can say the old school guards' stats are inflated, but not centers.

Not true, far more rebounds available and shot attempts. Picture a center getting 40 shot attempts in todays game, hell any player, even 30 shots per game.


I doubt he could play 48 min... due to his 380 lbs weight, he only played averaged 70 games, in his domination saison, he only played 67 games for three years in a row, consistantly injuries won't allow him to play 48 min.

Shaq averaged 45.5 mpg in the 2000 finals, 43.5 mpg in the playoffs that year and 40 mpg in the 2000 season. No big man averaged more than 40 mpg that season, the only other big man to match the 40 mpg in the regular season was Kevin Garnett. The following season, he averaged 39.5 mpg in the regular season, 42.3 mpg in the playoffs and 45 mpg in the finals.

Maybe not 48 mpg, but based on trends in Wilt's era, Shaq would be playing a lot more minutes than he did in his era if he played in the 60's.


Talking about athleticism and strength, Wilt Chamberlain is second to no one...

Based on legends and stories, yes. But based on the footage I've seen, Shaq had the best combination of the two. And as far as strength, if Wilt was really as strong, it's irrelevant because by his own admission he didn't use his strength to consistently overpower opponents.

I can't judge until seeing more footage, but I will admit that 1967 Wilt was arguably the greatest single season player, but you could make that same argument for 2000 Shaq, and Shaq came closer to matching his best season the following year. And Shaq had more truly dominant playoff runs. Wilt was generally considered a disappointment in the playoffs and from the newspaper articles and stats I've collected, I can see why.

[Soundwave]

Shaq is the greatest power player in NBA history.

And yes, even above Wilt.

Wilt said on watching Shaq that he'd never seen anyone that ruthless around the rim, trying to dunk on everyone, ripping the rim off, etc.

Said that even he was more of a finesse player compared to Shaq.

No one in NBA history has dominated from such a pure physical/"power game" POV ever.

[alexandreben]

Game 1 of the 2000 finals

Check out the post position Shaq gets on Dale Davis and how helpless the 6'10", 260 pound Davis looks, Shaq dunks on Smits and Davis with ease despite getting fouled. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=0m18s

Great move and Shaq finishes vs the triple team. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=0m44s

Once again, they try to triple team him, but it doesn't work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m00s

Another triple team in the paint, but a great ball fake and fadeaway to beat the triple team. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m06s

Another double team attempt, but Indiana is helpless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m31s

Again, Shaq vs 3 defenders in the paint. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m53s

All 5 defenders are in the lane, but a great move by Shaq and a strong finish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=2m12s

Not to mention that Shaq played in the slowest pace era with arguably the toughest defenses. And you can see that prime Shaq was arguably double teamed more than any other player.

And throughout that series, Smits guarded Shaq the least out of the 3 big men they put on him. Shaq toyed with Dale Davis who was an all-star that season.



Mutombo had won his 4th DPOY, he won 3 of those in the 90's and made most of his 8 all-star teams in the 90's, he was not a product of a weak era, he was one of the greatest defensive players of all time.



As a 20 year old rookie, Shaq averaged 23/14 with 3.5 bpg in the era of Olajuwon, Robinson, Mourning and Mutombo. The following year, 29/13/3 on 60% shooting and the next year? 29/11/3 on 58% shooting and a finals appearance and he played Olajuwon much better than a prime David Robinson had or Ewing had the previous year in the finals. Shaq was dominating in his early years in Orlando and he wasn't even as complete of a player as he'd become. When Phil Jackson took over as coach, Shaq started playing better defense, became a better rebounder, a better passer and smarter.

And in Shaq's best season(2000). Centers were not nearly as weak as later in the decade. Mourning and Mutombo were still in their prime. You had the twin towers of Duncan and Robinson and for those that say Robinson was washed up, remember that he was the Spurs leading scorer in the second half of the season and in 8 games without Duncan, the Spurs were 5-3 and Robinson averaged 21/9, plus he was still an excellent defensive player. Most teams atleast had a solid 7 footer with good size and either a skilled post game or shot blocking/rebounding skills. The centers 10 years ago were far better on average than today.

And the competition argument is more relevant with Howard because we've seen him struggle more vs legit centers, while we saw Shaq from 1992-2000 dominating.



Not true, far more rebounds available and shot attempts. Picture a center getting 40 shot attempts in todays game, hell any player, even 30 shots per game.



Shaq averaged 45.5 mpg in the 2000 finals, 43.5 mpg in the playoffs that year and 40 mpg in the 2000 season. No big man averaged more than 40 mpg that season, the only other big man to match the 40 mpg in the regular season was Kevin Garnett. The following season, he averaged 39.5 mpg in the regular season, 42.3 mpg in the playoffs and 45 mpg in the finals.

Maybe not 48 mpg, but based on trends in Wilt's era, Shaq would be playing a lot more minutes than he did in his era if he played in the 60's.



Based on legends and stories, yes. But based on the footage I've seen, Shaq had the best combination of the two. And as far as strength, if Wilt was really as strong, it's irrelevant because by his own admission he didn't use his strength to consistently overpower opponents.

I can't judge until seeing more footage, but I will admit that 1967 Wilt was arguably the greatest single season player, but you could make that same argument for 2000 Shaq, and Shaq came closer to matching his best season the following year. And Shaq had more truly dominant playoff runs. Wilt was generally considered a disappointment in the playoffs and from the newspaper articles and stats I've collected, I can see why.

Playing 45 min a few times in the finals is one thing(Shaq), playing 45 min in the entire career is a whole lot of different thing(Wilt);

If Shaq was not that lazy, he could've control his weight and played better...

Shaq had the pleasure to play against HOF centers Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing and he put up good performance even their peak p

[ShaqAttack3234]

[QUOTE=alexandreben]Playing 45 min a few times in the finals is one thing(Shaq), playing 45 min in the entire career is a whole lot of different thing(Wilt);

If Shaq was not that lazy, he could've control his weight and played better...

Shaq had the pleasure to play against HOF centers Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing and he put up good performance even their peak p

[Psileas]

His height man!!!!...dude is 6'7 trying to guard a 7'1 Wilt...now please be quiet

You just described the Pistons' "SF", named Ben Wallace.

[Calabis]

You konw..the 6'6" Ben Wallace got more rebound than 7'1" Shaq...

Unseld got more rebound when matchup with 7'2" KAJ...

I'd put money on it you know nothing about Unseld since you called him a small forward...

Actually Wes would be a power forward, I called his height small forward, quit trying to look like a basketball guru, you never seen that era, except highlights....ben wallace??? You mean the guy Shaq was shooting 65% against in the finals?? Also who cares about rebounds, he couldn't defend KAJ nor would he be able to defend Shaq

[alexandreben]

Star players played more minutes in Wilt's era. Tiny Archibald played 46 mpg one season, Oscar, Nate Thurmond and Russell were around 44-45 mpg some seasons, Baylor topped out at 44.4 mpg.

Really, I don't see the argument for Wilt facing greater competition than Shaq. I mean Shaq throughout his career has seen Olajuwon, Duncan, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo, Yao and Dwight Howard(end of his career). Wilt saw Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Kareem and Unseld.

They each faced two top 10 players, but I think after that, guys like Ewing, Robinson and Mourning were more formidable than Bellamy, Reed and Unseld.
Even in the modern league, LeBron played 42.5 mpg two seasons and didn't look tired at all, the guy is anything anti-stamina... era doesn't matter if a player has that kind of stamina;

Made no mistake, Hakeem was the best center in 90's, Shaq's dominance began at the late 99', Wilt's dominance starts when he entered the league till the day he retired.

[Calabis]

You just described the Pistons' "SF", named Ben Wallace.

LOL Ben Wallace is 6'9 he's a power forward playing center and he never stopped Shaq

[TheCorporation]

Shaq is a beast. Subscribed for later.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Even in the modern league, LeBron played 42.5 mpg two seasons and didn't look tired at all, the guy is anything anti-stamina... era doesn't matter if a player has that kind of stamina;


Yes and Lebron is a perimeter player, much smaller than Wilt and he was his team's entire offense. Wilt was playing 45+ mpg on stacked teams like the '67 Sixers. Plus 42.5 mpg is hardly comparable to 48. Jordan, like Shaq topped out at about 40. Robinson, Olajuwon and Kobe all topped out at about 41. I don't even think Ewing ever reached 40 mpg either.

Era does matter, unless you want to claim that stars had significantly better stamina in the 60's than 00's which would make zero sense with all of the trainers, modern training techniques, better conditions ect..


Made no mistake, Hakeem was the best center in 90's, Shaq's dominance began at the late 99'

Hakeem was the best center for most of the 90's, but you could easily argue that Shaq was better by '96 and Shaq was hands down the best center by '97 or '98. And just because he wasn't the best right away doesn't mean he wasn't dominant. Shaq was dominant even as a rookie.


Wilt's dominance starts when he entered the league till the day he retired.

Except in many big playoff games. And you seem to suggest that dominance means the best when suggesting that Shaq wasn't dominant in the 90's because Olajuwon was the best center of the decade, yet you say Wilt was dominant for his entire career, however Kareem was clearly the best center in Wilt's last 4 seasons. And Russell was in the argument for much of Wilt's career as well.

Yes and Lebron is a perimeter player, much smaller than Wilt and he was his team's entire offense. Wilt was playing 45+ mpg on stacked teams like the '67 Sixers. Plus 42.5 mpg is hardly comparable to 48. Jordan, like Shaq topped out at about 40. Robinson, Olajuwon and Kobe all topped out at about 41. I don't even think Ewing ever reached 40 mpg either.

[HighFlyer23]

conclusion:

shaq > wilt

[KissMySwag]

Bill Russell 6'9
Nate Thurmond 6'11
Willis Reed 6'9
Wes Unseld 6'7
Red Kerr 6'9
Zelmo Beaty 6'9
Walt Bellamy 6'11

Yeah nice list Wilt dominated a small forward, 4 power forwards......wow....please quit trying to build up this 60's era, acting like stars of the 80's-2000's can't touch these guys. Put Shaq back in that era and he puts up Wilt numbers period. Now please stop with this foolishness.
Stopped reading there. I lied I barely skimmed over the original post.

[Shep]

Hakeem was the best center for most of the 90's
that would be robinson

[alexandreben]

Yes and Lebron is a perimeter player, much smaller than Wilt and he was his team's entire offense. Wilt was playing 45+ mpg on stacked teams like the '67 Sixers. Plus 42.5 mpg is hardly comparable to 48. Jordan, like Shaq topped out at about 40. Robinson, Olajuwon and Kobe all topped out at about 41. I don't even think Ewing ever reached 40 mpg either.

Era does matter, unless you want to claim that stars had significantly better stamina in the 60's than 00's which would make zero sense with all of the trainers, modern training techniques, better conditions ect..



Hakeem was the best center for most of the 90's, but you could easily argue that Shaq was better by '96 and Shaq was hands down the best center by '97 or '98. And just because he wasn't the best right away doesn't mean he wasn't dominant. Shaq was dominant even as a rookie.



Except in many big playoff games. And you seem to suggest that dominance means the best when suggesting that Shaq wasn't dominant in the 90's because Olajuwon was the best center of the decade, yet you say Wilt was dominant for his entire career, however Kareem was clearly the best center in Wilt's last 4 seasons. And Russell was in the argument for much of Wilt's career as well.

Yes and Lebron is a perimeter player, much smaller than Wilt and he was his team's entire offense. Wilt was playing 45+ mpg on stacked teams like the '67 Sixers. Plus 42.5 mpg is hardly comparable to 48. Jordan, like Shaq topped out at about 40. Robinson, Olajuwon and Kobe all topped out at about 41. I don't even think Ewing ever reached 40 mpg either.

I definitely won't say that Shaq dominated the 90's, that will be a lie if I said that, Hakeem was the best center back then, Shaq's dominance began in the late 99' which I think most of the people agree with, unless you say Shaq dominated the 90'......

I watched almost all of the matchups between Shaq and Hakeem in the 90's, including 96', I really don't think that Shaq was better than Hakeem or dominated Hakeem, not for a second, like I said before, they played equal in offense and Hakeem was better defender of course. And remember that was a 36-37 years old Hakeem...

The OP is mainly regarding to "A man's greatness can be measured by his enemies", hence, let's focus on Shaq's opposing centers and Wilt's.

Shaq's opponents were quite weak during his domination period, unless you can proove that Shaq started dominate the whole 90's centers, or proove that Wilt's opposing centers were nothing but as weak as Shaq's opponents, otherwise, I don't think the result will end up in favor in Shaq

[Psileas]

LOL Ben Wallace is 6'9 he's a power forward playing center and he never stopped Shaq

1. Ben Wallace is not 6'9. He's listed so, with shoes on. He admitted himself being closer to 6'7:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nba&id=2437567

2. At least, Wallace still won multiple DPOY awards playing as a center. Unseld wouldn't, even if the award existed.

3. Unseld was overall so much bigger than a SF that it doesn't make any sense listing him as such. It's as bad as listing Barkley as a SG.

4. Unseld never stopped Wilt, either.

[MakeHistory78]

conclusion:

shaq > wilt
Well I heard some people consider Wilt the greatest player ever but I've never heard anyone consider Shaq the GOAT.
Imo Wilt is the 2nd greatest player ever behind the master MJ and Shaq between 6-8 ever.

[MasterDurant24]

Bill Russell 6'9
Nate Thurmond 6'11
Willis Reed 6'9
Wes Unseld 6'7
Red Kerr 6'9
Zelmo Beaty 6'9
Walt Bellamy 6'11

Yeah nice list Wilt dominated a small forward, 4 power forwards......wow....please quit trying to build up this 60's era, acting like stars of the 80's-2000's can't touch these guys. Put Shaq back in that era and he puts up Wilt numbers period. Now please stop with this foolishness.
You're just going by height...

[ShaqAttack3234]

I definitely won't say that Shaq dominated the 90's, that will be a lie if I said that, Hakeem was the best center back then, Shaq's dominance began in the late 99' which I think most of the people agree with, unless you say Shaq dominated the 90'......

I watched almost all of the matchups between Shaq and Hakeem in the 90's, including 96', I really don't think that Shaq was better than Hakeem or dominated Hakeem, not for a second, like I said before, they played equal in offense and Hakeem was better defender of course. And remember that was a 36-37 years old Hakeem...

The OP is mainly regarding to "A man's greatness can be measured by his enemies", hence, let's focus on Shaq's opposing centers and Wilt's.

Shaq's opponents were quite weak during his domination period, unless you can proove that Shaq started dominate the whole 90's centers, or proove that Wilt's opposing centers were nothing but as weak as Shaq's opponents, otherwise, I don't think the result will end up in favor in Shaq

Shaq definitely dominated during the 90's, he wasn't the best, but he dominated. Two 60 win seasons, a finals appearance, three conference finals appearances, a 2nd place MVP finish, a scoring title(would have had 2 if not for Robinson's stat padding). When you averaged 29/13/3 on 60% shooting, that means you're dominant.

As far as head to head? Shaq dominated Alonzo Mourning throughout the 90's. Shaq started really dominating Ewing in the 94-95 season as well.

As far as Wilt vs Russell? I don't think he dominated Russell. From the recaps I've seen, Russell outplayed him in the '62 EDF, Russell shut him down in games 6 and 7 the '68 EDF to come back from a 3-1 lead and win the series and Russell shut him down in the '69 finals.

[alexandreben]

Shaq definitely dominated during the 90's, he wasn't the best, but he dominated. Two 60 win seasons, a finals appearance, three conference finals appearances, a 2nd place MVP finish, a scoring title(would have had 2 if not for Robinson's stat padding). When you averaged 29/13/3 on 60% shooting, that means you're dominant.

As far as head to head? Shaq dominated Alonzo Mourning throughout the 90's. Shaq started really dominating Ewing in the 94-95 season as well.

As far as Wilt vs Russell? I don't think he dominated Russell. From the recaps I've seen, Russell outplayed him in the '62 EDF, Russell shut him down in games 6 and 7 the '68 EDF to come back from a 3-1 lead and win the series and Russell shut him down in the '69 finals.
:lol :lol :lol

Hakeem owns Shaq back in the 90's before he got too old...

[alexandreben]

seeing the words shaq difinitely dominates 90's i really couldn't help laughing.. literally...:roll:

[ShaqAttack3234]

:lol :lol :lol

Hakeem owns Shaq back in the 90's before he got too old...

:roll: So your definition of dominant means the best, yet you claim Wilt dominated from '70-'73 as well? So you're claiming Wilt was better than Kareem from '70-'73? :roll:

[jlauber]

Shaq definitely dominated during the 90's, he wasn't the best, but he dominated. Two 60 win seasons, a finals appearance, three conference finals appearances, a 2nd place MVP finish, a scoring title(would have had 2 if not for Robinson's stat padding). When you averaged 29/13/3 on 60% shooting, that means you're dominant.

As far as head to head? Shaq dominated Alonzo Mourning throughout the 90's. Shaq started really dominating Ewing in the 94-95 season as well.

As far as Wilt vs Russell? I don't think he dominated Russell. From the recaps I've seen, Russell outplayed him in the '62 EDF, Russell shut him down in games 6 and 7 the '68 EDF to come back from a 3-1 lead and win the series and Russell shut him down in the '69 finals.

I am so sick of these uneducated posters making comments like Russell "shut him down."

Over the course of 142 games, Russell probably outplayed Wilt in maybe one-third. In fact, George Kisida who covered the NBA, and particularly Philadelphia during the Russell-Wilt era, made the comment that "Wilt outplayed Russell in one-third of their games. Russell outplayed Wilt in one-third of their games. And Wilt DOMINATED Russell in one-third of their games.

And when I make the comment that Russell outplayed Wilt in one-third, the statistical difference was marginal. Don't get me wrong. Russell had games in which he held Chamberlain to some poor shooting percentages. That should be a shock to absolutely no one, however. Russell was considered the premier defensive center of his era, and perhaps of all-time (although, IMHO, Wilt, at his peak, was his equal.)

However, over the course of their 142 H2H games, Wilt had some 40 games in which he just CRUSHED Russell, including MANY in the post-season. And in the rest of those 100+ games, Wilt held a statistical edge in the vast majority of them.

Yes, you can find SINGLE post-season games, here-or-there, in which Russell played well against Wilt, but you can also find MANY games in which Wilt just buried Russell.

ShaqAttack points out games in the '62 ECF's. First of all, Russell's Celtics had SIX HOFers that season, to Wilt's three. You can argue against a couple of Russell's HOFers, but one of Wilt's, Tom Gola, has NO business being in the HOF. Look up his numbers. They were not even ordinary. Wilt's other HOF teammate, Paul Arizin, was in his last season, and was awful in the post-season (he shot .375 from the field.) So, for Wilt to CARRY that team, against Russell and his other five HOF teammates, to a game seven, two-point loss, was a miracle unto itself.

In any case, in those last two games of that series, Russell had games of 19-22, and 19-22. Meanwhile, Wilt was at 32-21 and 22-22. Clearly, while those were not great games by Chamberlain's standards, he was not significantly outplayed. And, of course ShaqAttack doesn't mention game two of that series, when Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20. For the series, Wilt outscored Russell per game, 34-23, and outrebounded him 27 rpg to 26 rpg.

Nor does he mention Wilt putting up a 50-35 game against Russell in the 59-60 playoffs. Nor does he mention that in Wilt's 62-63 season, he outscored Russell 38.1 to 14.5 ppg over the course of their nine H2H games. Nor does he mention that in the 63-64 Finals, Wilt averaged 29 ppg to Russell's 11 ppg, and he outrebounded Russell, in that series, 27 rpg to 25 rpg. Not only that, but Wilt shot .550 from the field against Russell. I don't have Russell's FG% in that series, but in his 10 post-season games, Russell shot .356, and half of them were against Wilt.

Nor does ShaqAttack mention that Wilt took a 40-40 Philly team up against the 62-18 Celtics in the '64-65 ECF's, and to a game seven, ONE-POINT loss. In that seventh game, Wilt scored eight of the 76ers last 10 points, including a dunk over Russell with five seconds left. And, if Havlicek had not stolen the last inbounds pass, Philadelphia might have posted the greatest upset in NBA post-season history. In that last game, Wilt outscored Russell, 30-15, outshot Russell 12-15 to 7-16, and outrebounded him, 32-29. For the series, Wilt outscored Russell 30 ppg to 15 ppg, and outrebounded him by a 31 rpg to 25 rpg margin. Furthermore, he held Russell to .451 shooting in that series. In the Finals, against the Lakers, Russell averaged 18 ppg on .702 shooting.

ShaqAttack doesn't bring up Wilt outscoring Russell in the '66 ECF's, 28 ppg to 14 ppg. Nor does he mention that Wilt outrebounded Russell in that series, 30 rpg to 25 rpg. Nor does he mention the fact that while Russell averaged 14 ppg against Wilt, Russell went on to average 23.6 ppg against the Lakers in the Finals.

He brings up Wilt's 76ers losing the '67-68 ECF's, after leading 3-1. He says that Russell outplayed Wilt in the last two games. Game six, perhaps. That was probably Chamberlain's worst post-season game of his career. However, in game seven, Wilt, despite not shooting at all in the second half, outscored Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded him, 34-26. Nor does ShaqAttack bring up the fact that the Sixers were without HOFer Billy Cunningham the entire series, AND, Luke Jackson went down with an injury in game five of that series. OH, and BTW, Wilt outscored Russell, in that series, 22 ppg to 14 ppg, and outrebounded him, per game, 25 rpg to 23 rpg.

As for Russell shutting Wilt down in the '69 Finals...it was not so much Russell, as it was Van Breda Kolf, who preferred Baylor taking the shots (and who, BTW, had THREE straight horrible games in the middle of that series.) Wilt took less than 10 FGAs in the playoffs that season. STILL, he outscored Russell, 12-9 per game, and outrebounded him, 25-21 per game. In game seven, despite missing the last five minutes of a two-point loss (thanks again to the brilliance of Van Breda Kolf), Wilt outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21.

AND, how about the 66-67 ECF's? Wilt led the 76ers to a 4-1 obliteration of Russell's Celtics. In that series, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 22-10. He outrebounded Russell, per game, by a staggering 32-23 margin. He outassisted Russell, per game, 10-6. And he outshot Russell from the floor by an overwhelming .556 to .358 margin. In the clinching game five, Wilt outscored Russell, 29-4; outshot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5; outassisted Russell, 13-7; and outrebounded him, 36-21.

As for those 40 games in which Wilt CRUSHED Russell? Here they are:

For reference, the first number of the pair next to each player's name is points in that particular game, while the second is rebounds. An example would be the first one, with Wilt scoring 45 points, and grabbing 35 rebounds (45-35), while Russell's numbers were 15 points, with 13 rebounds (15-13.)


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39

[ShaqAttack3234]

As far as Wilt vs Russell?

Wilt averaged 20.5 ppg in the '69 regular season, but Russell held him to just 11.7 ppg in the finals. I'd call that shutting him down. And in game 6 with a chance to clinch, Wilt had just 8 points and Russell actually outscored him.

In '68, Wilt had atleast as much talent as Russell(and don't give me Cunningham's injury as an excuse because they went up 3-1 without him) and Russell's team came back and won. He held him to 20 points on 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line in game 6 while Wilt's teammate Hal Greer went off for 40 on 15/24 from the field and 10/13 from the line so the teammate excuse doesn't work. Then in game 7, Wilt had just 14 points on 4/9 from the field and 6/15 from the line. And that was in Wilt's second best season and Russell's second to last season.

In the '66 EDF, Russell shut down Wilt through the first 4 games to the tune of 23.5 ppg on 48.5% shooting to put the Sixers in a 3-1 hole. Wilt had a big game with 46/34 on 19/34 from the field and 8/25 from the line, but it was too little, too late as usual with Wilt vs Russell. Once again, Wilt's numbers for the series fell well short of his season averages(33.5 ppg on 54% shooting)

Here are some recaps of Philly's 4 losses in '62 vs Boston.

Game 1- Wilt had 33 points, but just 12 in the first half when the game was decided and Boston won 117-89. Even a recap pointed out that Wilt got most of his numbers after the game was decided.

Game 3- Wilt had 35 points and Russell played well above his usual standard with 31, but even that doesn't tell the whole story. In the first half, Ruissell outscored Wilt 21-13 and outrebounded him 14-11 to give Boston a 21 point halftime lead.

Game 5- Wilt had 30 points and Russell again played well above his usual standard with 29, and in the first half, Wilt was just 4-13 from the field and had only 11 points while Russell outrebounded him 11-9 in the first half to give Boston a 72-49 halftime lead.

Game 7- Wilt scored just 22 points while Russell matched his season average of 19.

I'll give Wilt credit for what was probably an amazing game 2, but there's 4 games where Russell probably outplayed Wilt or atleast matched him.

So no, Wilt did NOT dominate Russell. I'm not saying Russell constantly shut him down, but he certainly did at times and in some very big moments. Wilt dominated Russell in '67 and he probably outplayed him in a couple of other series, but Russell played very well vs Wilt.

[jlauber]

As far as Wilt vs Russell?

Wilt averaged 20.5 ppg in the '69 regular season, but Russell held him to just 11.7 ppg in the finals. I'd call that shutting him down. And in game 6 with a chance to clinch, Wilt had just 8 points and Russell actually outscored him.

In '68, Wilt had atleast as much talent as Russell(and don't give me Cunningham's injury as an excuse because they went up 3-1 without him) and Russell's team came back and won. He held him to 20 points on 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line in game 6 while Wilt's teammate Hal Greer went off for 40 on 15/24 from the field and 10/13 from the line so the teammate excuse doesn't work. Then in game 7, Wilt had just 14 points on 4/9 from the field and 6/15 from the line. And that was in Wilt's second best season and Russell's second to last season.

In the '66 EDF, Russell shut down Wilt through the first 4 games to the tune of 23.5 ppg on 48.5% shooting to put the Sixers in a 3-1 hole. Wilt had a big game with 46/34 on 19/34 from the field and 8/25 from the line, but it was too little, too late as usual with Wilt vs Russell. Once again, Wilt's numbers for the series fell well short of his season averages(33.5 ppg on 54% shooting)

Here are some recaps of Philly's 4 losses in '62 vs Boston.

Game 1- Wilt had 33 points, but just 12 in the first half when the game was decided and Boston won 117-89. Even a recap pointed out that Wilt got most of his numbers after the game was decided.

Game 3- Wilt had 35 points and Russell played well above his usual standard with 31, but even that doesn't tell the whole story. In the first half, Ruissell outscored Wilt 21-13 and outrebounded him 14-11 to give Boston a 21 point halftime lead.

Game 5- Wilt had 30 points and Russell again played well above his usual standard with 29, and in the first half, Wilt was just 4-13 from the field and had only 11 points while Russell outrebounded him 11-9 in the first half to give Boston a 72-49 halftime lead.

Game 7- Wilt scored just 22 points while Russell matched his season average of 19.

I'll give Wilt credit for what was probably an amazing game 2, but there's 4 games where Russell probably outplayed Wilt or atleast matched him.

So no, Wilt did NOT dominate Russell. I'm not saying Russell constantly shut him down, but he certainly did at times and in some very big moments. Wilt dominated Russell in '67 and he probably outplayed him in a couple of other series, but Russell played very well vs Wilt.

Yep...Wilt nearly AVERAGED a 30-30 game EVERY time he faced Russell in their 142 H2H games (28.7 pp and 28.7...and was WELL over 30+ ppg in his first six seasons against him)...while holding Russell to 14.5 ppg and 23.7 rpg...all the while probably outshooting him by nearly 100 points...and you can come up with this nonsense that Russell "shut him down."

Did Russell LIMIT Wilt somewhat? Of course he...and his teammates...did. That should be a surprise to no one. Russell is arguably the greatest defensive player of all-time. But, "shut him down?" That is like saying that Ben Wallace "shut down" Shaq.

Of course, Russell was just one of TWELVE HOF centers that Wilt faced in his career (Lovelette, Kerr, Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Unseld, Lanier, Hayes, Cowens, Thurmond, Kareem, and Russell.)

[AirJordan23]

Shaq in the 90s was dominant. There's no other way to put it and I'm not close to a Shaq fan. Top 2 center in the 90s. Shaq only had trouble against Ewing in the first couple of years. Ewing usually guarded him straight up since the Riley Knicks didn't like to double centers that much. I remember several games where Shaq just dominated Ewing with several jumphooks, short turnaround jumpers, baseline spins, dropsteps and baby hooks. But, Ewing played him straight up and did the best he could. And Ewing didn't have much problem scoring on Shaq till his knees gave up on him circa 1997. Shaq was never a guy who fell for fakes and stood his ground well. Ewing was more of a turnaround fadeaway jumpshooter in the 90s. Could face up and hit the J as well. Plus, he took those gigantic steps when rolling into the lane to try and get and 1s. But, part of the reason Shaq had trouble guarding Ewing was cause he bulked up in the '96 season. That kinda brought his stamina down but helped his power game. But, he did outplay Ewing from 1994 and on. Like expected.

Also, Hakeem didn't dominate Shaq despite whatever Shaq said. Shaq considers Hakeem the best center ever, called him the best player in the world in early 1995 and has mad respect for him. Hakeem actually had trouble guarding Shaq and required a lot of help (not talkin finals but throughout the decade). But, Hakeem was pretty quick, had great anticipation and instinct. And would often force him into turnovers, offensive fouls etc. That's why you would notice Hakeem usually posted high steals/blocks against Shaq while Shaq's turnovers were usually 3+. But, straight up. He couldn't guard Shaq. As for Shaq guarding Hakeem. Dream had trouble getting that deep position on him so it was a matter of how wet his J was. Shaq was quick and strong enough to guard Hakeem plus he had Nick Anderson and Ho Grant next to him who were pretty good help defenders and did a good job executing rotating traps. Whenever you doubled Dream on the left baseline, he was deadly. Either turning around for a J, find a spot up shooter or a cutter. Also, Shaq actually had a gamewinning putback dunk over Dream in 1996 iirc. But, I wouldn't say Shaq outplayed him. 1997 and later on yes but not pre-1997.

DRob had a lot of trouble guarding Shaq. And Shaq didn't exactly like him. Part of the reason was the Spurs usually got the better of Orlando and DRob was one of the guys who played part in the Shaq freeze out in the 1994 ASG. You look at the game logs, you don't see Shaq ever having an inefficient night against DRob. Robinson was a soft individual, never a shutdown defender. Great shot blocker, help defender, team defender etc but he wasn't the guy you were scared to go up against. Shaq embarassed DRob several times. Look up the black tornado he had on him. Several times he would just bully his way into a jumphook. iirc Shaq didn't guard DRob, though. Shaq guarded Rodman since Dennis was only used as an offensive rebounder on offense. Grant had the job of checking DRob since DRob's face up game was too much for O'Neal. Grant was also quick enough for DRob. Anyhow, Shaq didn't struggle against him whatsoever and was a better player for like half of the decade.

Shaq and Zo was never much of a contest. As tenacious and explosive Zo was, he didn't have the strength to contain him. And he would often let his anger get the better of him. But, it should be noted that Zo considers Hakeem greater than Shaq and also considers Hakeem the toughest player he's gone against for whatever reason. Mutombo and Shaq isn't even a contest. Look no further than the 2001 finals. Overall, Shaq was great throughout the 90s. He was the next big thing and had mad hype. I would say he was the best center in the league after '97. Was probably better than Dream in 1997 but he missed too many games to be in contention. Made Orlando, LA a contender, had a devestating impact in the L and caught everyone's attention. Can't ignore that.

[jlauber]

:roll: So your definition of dominant means the best, yet you claim Wilt dominated from '70-'73 as well? So you're claiming Wilt was better than Kareem from '70-'73? :roll:

Well, if you are going by MVP balloting...yes, Kareem was better. Of course, that means that Shaq was the best player in the league for ONE season in his career, too, right?

In the 69-70 post-season, Kareem's 56-26 Bucks were blown out by the Knicks, 4-1. Meanwhile, Wilt, on one leg, took a 46-36 Laker team to a game seven loss against that same Knick team. AND, had the officials not handed the Knicks game five...and LA would have won in six.

Wilt battled Kareem to a statistical draw in the 70-71 WCF's...but without West and an over-the-hill Baylor (and Erickson)....they were beaten by Kareem's Bucks, 4-1.

In the 71-72 WCF's, despite Kareem averaging 33 ppg against Wilt, the OVERWHELMING consensus was that Wilt thoroughly outplayed the 11 year younger (and in his PRIME) Kareem. In the last four games of that 4-2 Laker win, Wilt held Kareem to .414 shooting, and was blocking five of his skyhooks per game. In the clinching game six win, Wilt took over the game in the 4th quarter, and almost single-handedly won the game by himself.

In the 72-73 Kareem shot .428 against Thurmond, en route to taking his 60-22 Bucks down in flames against the 47-35 Warriors....losing in six games. Meanwhile, Wilt crushed Thurmond in the WCF's, and led LA to a 4-1 series romp over that same Warrior team...including a 126-70 game in Oakland that I had the pleasure of attending.

So, while Kareem garned the votes...Chamberlain was far more successful.

[alexandreben]

:roll: So your definition of dominant means the best, yet you claim Wilt dominated from '70-'73 as well? So you're claiming Wilt was better than Kareem from '70-'73? :roll:
An appropriate definition of dominance for a center, IMO, should be like this:

1. The best center in the league, if not, at least top 3;

2. In the H2H games, outplay those HOF centers by a comfortable margin;

3. For a center, have to dominate the follwoing categories as many as possible:
3.1. Scoring;
3.2. Rebounding;
3.3. Shot blocking;
3.4. One-on-one defense;
3.5. Help-defense;


Shaq qualifies NO.1, he was the top2 center back in the 90's,

but in 2nd category, he didn't outplay other HOF centers(before they're too old) by a large margin, look at Ewing and Shaq's H2H stats, i didn't see a domination of Shaq(this is the total matchups, including the old twilight Ewing):
Shaq: 28.7pts / 12.0rbs / 3.1blk
Ewing:21.4pts / 10.8rbs / 2.0blk

plus, Ewing got that knee problems and severely old, before that, they played just equal, Ewing couldn't do anything about Shaq dunking in the paint, vice versa, Shaq couldn't do anything about Ewing's turnaround jumping, Shaq has only 1 more rbs and blk during thire matchup, but Ewing is a better defender and shooter, Shaq slightly better than Ewing, and that was a over-hill Ewing, he was not the same Ewing back in the his peak season in 90'

in NO.3, Shaq might won the scoring and rebounding, but lost in shot blocking and defense, again, that's not a domination.

to sumup, i really dont think Shaq dominated the 90's, however, Wilt.. we know the answer...

[alexandreben]

Well, if you are going by MVP balloting...

there're two votings... KAJ won the voting from journerlists, but Wilt won the voting from players.

[jlauber]

there're two votings... KAJ won the voting from journerlists, but Wilt won the voting from players.

I have always found it interesting that Bill Russell won the MVP award in the 61-62 season. He averaged 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shot .457 from the field. That was Wilt's MONUMENTAL season...a panel of ESPN "experts" listed it as the single greatest individual season in professional sport's history ( 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, and .506 from the field...in a league shot .426.)

Russell led Boston to the best record that year, and no question, he played brilliantly. BUT, Wilt took what was a last-place roster when he joined, and single handedly carried them to a 49-31 record (Boston was at 60-20 BTW.) The post-season doesn't count in the voting, but Chamberlain took that rag-tag team to a game seven, two-point loss against Russell and his FIVE other HOF teammates.

Ok, so if winning means that much...how about this...

Kareem leads the Bucks to a 66-16 record in 70-71, dominates the league, and wins the MVP award (en route to a title.)

However, in the 71-72 season, his Bucks go 63-19. He does lead the league in scoring, at 34.8 ppg. Meanwhile, Wilt leads the Lakers, who had gone 48-34 the year before...to a 69-13 record (and an eventual championship.) He leads the league in rebounding, by a wide margin. He leads the league in FG%, by a wide margin. And, he is voted first-team all-defense (and would easily have won DPOY had they had the award.)

So, who won the MVP award in that 71-72 season? Kareem. And Wilt finished THIRD!

Makes no sense to me either.

[alexandreben]

I am so sick of these uneducated posters making comments like Russell "shut him down."

Over the course of 142 games, Russell probably outplayed Wilt in maybe one-third. In fact, George Kisida who covered the NBA, and particularly Philadelphia during the Russell-Wilt era, made the comment that "Wilt outplayed Russell in one-third of their games. Russell outplayed Wilt in one-third of their games. And Wilt DOMINATED Russell in one-third of their games.

And when I make the comment that Russell outplayed Wilt in one-third, the statistical difference was marginal. Don't get me wrong. Russell had games in which he held Chamberlain to some poor shooting percentages. That should be a shock to absolutely no one, however. Russell was considered the premier defensive center of his era, and perhaps of all-time (although, IMHO, Wilt, at his peak, was his equal.)

However, over the course of their 142 H2H games, Wilt had some 40 games in which he just CRUSHED Russell, including MANY in the post-season. And in the rest of those 100+ games, Wilt held a statistical edge in the vast majority of them.

Yes, you can find SINGLE post-season games, here-or-there, in which Russell played well against Wilt, but you can also find MANY games in which Wilt just buried Russell.

ShaqAttack points out games in the '62 ECF's. First of all, Russell's Celtics had SIX HOFers that season, to Wilt's three. You can argue against a couple of Russell's HOFers, but one of Wilt's, Tom Gola, has NO business being in the HOF. Look up his numbers. They were not even ordinary. Wilt's other HOF teammate, Paul Arizin, was in his last season, and was awful in the post-season (he shot .375 from the field.) So, for Wilt to CARRY that team, against Russell and his other five HOF teammates, to a game seven, two-point loss, was a miracle unto itself.

In any case, in those last two games of that series, Russell had games of 19-22, and 19-22. Meanwhile, Wilt was at 32-21 and 22-22. Clearly, while those were not great games by Chamberlain's standards, he was not significantly outplayed. And, of course ShaqAttack doesn't mention game two of that series, when Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20. For the series, Wilt outscored Russell per game, 34-23, and outrebounded him 27 rpg to 26 rpg.

Nor does he mention Wilt putting up a 50-35 game against Russell in the 59-60 playoffs. Nor does he mention that in Wilt's 62-63 season, he outscored Russell 38.1 to 14.5 ppg over the course of their nine H2H games. Nor does he mention that in the 63-64 Finals, Wilt averaged 29 ppg to Russell's 11 ppg, and he outrebounded Russell, in that series, 27 rpg to 25 rpg. Not only that, but Wilt shot .550 from the field against Russell. I don't have Russell's FG% in that series, but in his 10 post-season games, Russell shot .356, and half of them were against Wilt.

Nor does ShaqAttack mention that Wilt took a 40-40 Philly team up against the 62-18 Celtics in the '64-65 ECF's, and to a game seven, ONE-POINT loss. In that seventh game, Wilt scored eight of the 76ers last 10 points, including a dunk over Russell with five seconds left. And, if Havlicek had not stolen the last inbounds pass, Philadelphia might have posted the greatest upset in NBA post-season history. In that last game, Wilt outscored Russell, 30-15, outshot Russell 12-15 to 7-16, and outrebounded him, 32-29. For the series, Wilt outscored Russell 30 ppg to 15 ppg, and outrebounded him by a 31 rpg to 25 rpg margin. Furthermore, he held Russell to .451 shooting in that series. In the Finals, against the Lakers, Russell averaged 18 ppg on .702 shooting.

ShaqAttack doesn't bring up Wilt outscoring Russell in the '66 ECF's, 28 ppg to 14 ppg. Nor does he mention that Wilt outrebounded Russell in that series, 30 rpg to 25 rpg. Nor does he mention the fact that while Russell averaged 14 ppg against Wilt, Russell went on to average 23.6 ppg against the Lakers in the Finals.

He brings up Wilt's 76ers losing the '67-68 ECF's, after leading 3-1. He says that Russell outplayed Wilt in the last two games. Game six, perhaps. That was probably Chamberlain's worst post-season game of his career. However, in game seven, Wilt, despite not shooting at all in the second half, outscored Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded him, 34-26. Nor does ShaqAttack bring up the fact that the Sixers were without HOFer Billy Cunningham the entire series, AND, Luke Jackson went down with an injury in game five of that series. OH, and BTW, Wilt outscored Russell, in that series, 22 ppg to 14 ppg, and outrebounded him, per game, 25 rpg to 23 rpg.

As for Russell shutting Wilt down in the '69 Finals...it was not so much Russell, as it was Van Breda Kolf, who preferred Baylor taking the shots (and who, BTW, had THREE straight horrible games in the middle of that series.) Wilt took less than 10 FGAs in the playoffs that season. STILL, he outscored Russell, 12-9 per game, and outrebounded him, 25-21 per game. In game seven, despite missing the last five minutes of a two-point loss (thanks again to the brilliance of Van Breda Kolf), Wilt outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21.

AND, how about the 66-67 ECF's? Wilt led the 76ers to a 4-1 obliteration of Russell's Celtics. In that series, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 22-10. He outrebounded Russell, per game, by a staggering 32-23 margin. He outassisted Russell, per game, 10-6. And he outshot Russell from the floor by an overwhelming .556 to .358 margin. In the clinching game five, Wilt outscored Russell, 29-4; outshot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5; outassisted Russell, 13-7; and outrebounded him, 36-21.

As for those 40 games in which Wilt CRUSHED Russell? Here they are:

For reference, the first number of the pair next to each player's name is points in that particular game, while the second is rebounds. An example would be the first one, with Wilt scoring 45 points, and grabbing 35 rebounds (45-35), while Russell's numbers were 15 points, with 13 rebounds (15-13.)


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39….Russell 20-24
Wilt 53-29 Russell 22-32
Wilt 42-29 Russell 19-30
Wilt 50-35 Russell 22-27
Wilt 34-55….Russell 18-19
Wilt 39-30 Russell 6-19
Wilt 44-35 Russell 20-21
Wilt 34-38 Russell 17-20
Wilt..52-30….Russell 21-31
Wilt 41-28 Russell 11-24
Wilt 62-28 Russell 23-29
Wilt 38-31 Russell 11-18
Wilt 42-37 Russell 9-20
Wilt 45-27 Russell 12-26
Wilt 43-32 Russell 8-30
Wilt 32-27 Russell 11-16
Wilt 50-17….Russell 23-21
Wilt 35-32….Russell 16-28
Wilt 32-25 Russell…9-24
Wilt 31-30 Russell 12-22
Wilt 37-32 Russell 16-24
Wilt 27-34 Russell..12-17
Wilt 27-43 Russell 13-26
Wilt 30-39 Russell 12-16
Wilt 31-40….Russell 11-17
Wilt 37-42 Russell 14-25
Wilt 29-26 Russell 3-27
Wilt 27-36….Russell 13-20
Wilt 27-32 Russell 6-22
Wilt 32-30 Russell 8-20
Wilt 46-34 Russell 18-31
Wilt 20-41….Russell 10-29
Wilt 29-36 Russell 4-21
Wilt 31-27 Russell 3-8
Wilt 35-19 Russell 5-16
Wilt 12-42 Russell 11-18

Over the course of their 142 H2H games, Wilt outscored Russell in 132 of them. He also held a 92-42-8 margin in rebounding in those games. He had FIVE games of 50+ (including a 62 point game on 27-45 shooting.) He had 24 games of 40+ points. Meanwhile, Russell had THREE games of 30+ points against Wilt (with a high of 37)...and Wilt outscored him in all three. Wilt also held a 7-1 edge in 40+ rebound games, including a regular season record of 55...and a post-season record of 41. And Chamberlain held a 23-4 edge in 35+ rebound games. Furthermore, Wilt probably shot well over 50% from the field against Russell, in their career, while Russell probably struggled to shoot much over 40% against Chamberlain.

So, please,... no more nonsense about Russell "shutting him down." Do some research before you post crap like that.
:applause: :bowdown:
I bolded some highlights which looks like an "extremely comfortable margin" to me...

Btw, in the G7 of the 62' ECF was the 19th H2H game between Wilt and Russell and Shaq vs Hakeem total only 20 games, PHI down by 3 pts in the final moment Wilt played a 2+1 to tie the score at 107, in the final 2 seconds Sam just saved the Celtics... after the game, Red Auerbach said: "This was the toughest seven game series we've ever played. It was harder physically and took a lot out of us. We almost blew this game."

[jlauber]

Russell is deservedly a top-5 G.O.A.T of all-time. His impact went well beyond stats. Still, it speaks VOLUMES about the true greatness of Chamberlain, that he held such an overwhelming statistical edge over Russell in their 142 H2h battles.

Here again, Russell always seemed to do whatever it took to win...but the fact was, Russell had far superior supporting casts for nearly every season they went H2H. And, in the 66-67 season, when Wilt's cast was Russell's equal...and were HEALTHY...that they just CRUSHED Boston that year.

Furthermore, as I have shown many times...Wilt came within an EYE-LASH of winning 4-5 more rings.

It was certainly NOT a case of Russell dominating Wilt, and his team's blowing out Chamberlain's. Wilt HAD to put up HUGE games to give his team's a chance for the majority of their careers. Yes, Wilt had SOME disappointing games against Russell...BUT, my god, Russell has been regarded by many, as the greatest player ever. Clearly, Wilt played BRILLIANTLY against him for the vast majority of their H2H career...and deserves CREDIT, not blame, for his play.

[824]

Wilt would've just been another very good center, I love people that live in the past. It's called progression, welcome to life. And Shaq > Wilt.

[alexandreben]

In the 71-72 WCF's, despite Kareem averaging 33 ppg against Wilt, the OVERWHELMING consensus was that Wilt thoroughly outplayed the 11 year younger (and in his PRIME) Kareem. In the last four games of that 4-2 Laker win, Wilt held Kareem to .414 shooting, and was blocking five of his skyhooks per game. In the clinching game six win, Wilt took over the game in the 4th quarter, and almost single-handedly won the game by himself.

In the 72-73 Kareem shot .428 against Thurmond, en route to taking his 60-22 Bucks down in flames against the 47-35 Warriors....losing in six games. Meanwhile, Wilt crushed Thurmond in the WCF's, and led LA to a 4-1 series romp over that same Warrior team...including a 126-70 game in Oakland that I had the pleasure of attending.

Jlauber, do you happen to have that footage?

Reed never got a 30+ pts game on Thurmond...and he was very proud of that, Reed is a HOF center for God sake...you can't find any that level of center in 90's or 00's...

[jlauber]

Wilt would've just been another very good center, I love people that live in the past. It's called progression, welcome to life. And Shaq > Wilt.

Of course you right. MJ played his last meaningful game some 12 years ago. Take MJ, even in his prime, and he would just be a 20 ppg scorer in TODAY's NBA.

Same with Barry Sanders. Does anyone really believe that Sanders, at his peak, would be anything but a third-down back in TODAY's NFL?

Reggie Jackson's HR in the 1971 All-Star game? It would be a pop-up to 2nd base in TODAY's game.

Bo Jackson and his 4.12 40. No way he would run that fast if he played in TODAY's NFL. Same with Darrell Green, who was probably in the top-5 in speed at age 40. Bob Hayes? At his peak, he wouldn't even outrun an offensive linemen today.

Nolan Ryan, and his 101 MPH (or probably as much as 105 MPH)? In his PRIME, he would look like Tim Wakefield in today's MLB.

Chamberlain? A world-class athlete that reportedly was benching 500+ lbs back in the 60's? There have been "experts" that claim he would be a "poor-man's Samuel Dalembert" in TODAY's NBA.

Sure.

[jlauber]

Jlauber, do you happen to have that footage?

Reed never got a 30+ pts game on Thurmond...and he was very proud of that, Reed is a HOF center for God sake...you can't find any that level of center in 90's or 00's...

I WISH there were footage available. I actually watched that game on TV that day.

Here is a recount though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"In the post-season, the Lakers defeated the Chicago Bulls in a sweep,[85] then went on to face the Milwaukee Bucks of young superstar center and regular-season MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar again. The matchup between Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar was hailed by LIFE magazine as the greatest matchup in all of sports. Chamberlain would help lead the Lakers past Jabbar and the Bucks in 6 games.[85] [B]Particularly, Chamberlain was lauded for his final Game 6 performance, which the Lakers won 106

[jlauber]

Wilt would've just been another very good center, I love people that live in the past. It's called progression, welcome to life. And Shaq > Wilt.

Exactly...that is why Kareem, as the oldest player in the league in the 85-86 season, could post three games of 35, 42, and 46 against Hakeem. The same Kareem, who in his PRIME, was reduced to shooting 46% against Wilt in their career H2H games (and .434 over the last ten games), or the same Kareem that NEVER shot over 50% against Thurmond in their post-season series (.486, .405, and .428.) Oh, and BTW, both Wilt and Nate were well-past THEIR primes at the time.

There are those that believe that Hakeem was better than Shaq. What does that tell you?

Wilt> Kareem> Hakeem> Shaq

And don't forget...Wilt was not nearly in HIS prime when he faced Kareem.

[alexandreben]

Here are some recaps of Philly's 4 losses in '62 vs Boston.

Game 1- Wilt had 33 points, but just 12 in the first half when the game was decided and Boston won 117-89. Even a recap pointed out that Wilt got most of his numbers after the game was decided.

Game 3- Wilt had 35 points and Russell played well above his usual standard with 31, but even that doesn't tell the whole story. In the first half, Ruissell outscored Wilt 21-13 and outrebounded him 14-11 to give Boston a 21 point halftime lead.

Game 5- Wilt had 30 points and Russell again played well above his usual standard with 29, and in the first half, Wilt was just 4-13 from the field and had only 11 points while Russell outrebounded him 11-9 in the first half to give Boston a 72-49 halftime lead.

Game 7- Wilt scored just 22 points while Russell matched his season average of 19.

I'll give Wilt credit for what was probably an amazing game 2, but there's 4 games where Russell probably outplayed Wilt or atleast matched him.

So no, Wilt did NOT dominate Russell. I'm not saying Russell constantly shut him down, but he certainly did at times and in some very big moments. Wilt dominated Russell in '67 and he probably outplayed him in a couple of other series, but Russell played very well vs Wilt.
I guess for some reasons, you didn't want to put up the FULL information, just put up their "first half" stats in favor of Russell...

62' ECF:
G1: PHI got cold shooting... 12 out of 46 from the field in the first half and Paul Arizin got zero pts in the first 15 mins, Wilt got the highest score of the game as 33pts;

G2: Wilt got the highest score 42pts v.s. Russell's 9pts......

G3: you only put up the first half stats that favors in Russell... :roll: the truth is Wilt outscored Russell 22-10 in the second half! Wilt still finished as the highest scorer of the game, and once again, he outscored Russell by 35-31; (you need to stop put up misinformation here..)

G4: Wilt put up a big game again, shooting 15 out of 29 from the field scored the highest score in the game: 41pts and 34rbs against Russell's 31 pts

G5: Wilt still outscored Russell 30-29;

G6: Will continued to be the highest scorer, he finished 32 pts;

G7: Wilt still outscored Russell finished with 22pts and 21rbs, Russell got 19pts and 22rbs;

I've put up a FULL information of the 62' ECF, as we can see, the "Russell shut down Wilt" is really misleading...

[alexandreben]

I have always found it interesting that Bill Russell won the MVP award in the 61-62 season. He averaged 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shot .457 from the field. That was Wilt's MONUMENTAL season...a panel of ESPN "experts" listed it as the single greatest individual season in professional sport's history ( 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, and .506 from the field...in a league shot .426.)

according to the newspaper, Wilt won a MVP in 62' before G4 of the ECF, so, I guess it's non-official one, maybe it's the "player voting" instead of the official journerlist voting...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Ug8wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TREEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4280,764188&dq=wilt+chamberlain+boston+celtics&hl=en

PHILADELPHIA March 31, Wilt Chamberlain received a trophy as the most valuable player in the NBA Saturday and then went out and proved it as he scored 41 ponts in leading the Warriors to a 110-106 victory over the Boston Celtics to deadlock the Eastern final playoffs at two games apiece.

[dev4life]

Shaq was a great Center but I feel Wilt is the most dominant center to play the game. Wilt was an athlete and from what I understand was the only center to lead the league in assists. He averaged 50 points a game for a season a feat that no one would ever break.

Shaq was virtually unguardable in his prime because of his size and strength. He owned the low-post but as the post mentioned a few rule changes made it little more beneficial for Shaq to oppose his will on the game.

This was great write-up especially the stats of the individual matchups with the great centers.

[alexandreben]

[QUOTE=jlauber]I WISH there were footage available. I actually watched that game on TV that day.

Here is a recount though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"In the post-season, the Lakers defeated the Chicago Bulls in a sweep,[85] then went on to face the Milwaukee Bucks of young superstar center and regular-season MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar again. The matchup between Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar was hailed by LIFE magazine as the greatest matchup in all of sports. Chamberlain would help lead the Lakers past Jabbar and the Bucks in 6 games.[85] [B]Particularly, Chamberlain was lauded for his final Game 6 performance, which the Lakers won 106

[ShaqAttack3234]

JLauber, regarding the Russell shut down Wilt stuff, I didn't say he constantly shut him down. I said in the 1969 finals, Wilt averaged 11.7 ppg, 8.8 below his season average and he had just 8 in game 6 with a chance to clinch. Once again games 6 and 7 in '68 as well. First 4 games of '66 and he definitely limited him in '62. Wilt had big games in game 2 and 4, but other than that struggled and didn't play anywhere near his usual level.

It seems he dominated him in '67, and I've maintained that may be the greatest single season peak ever, it also seems he played well vs Russell in '65 and maybe '64 as well.

I'm talking strictly playoffs. I respect Wilt for coming back from the injury in '70 and having a good finals, playing hard in '71 despite his best teammates being injured, playing the Bill Russell role to perfection in '72. But I can't agree that Wilt in his mid 30s was as good as Kareem was on the Bucks. They both won 1 championship during that span and beat other once, but Kareem's individual play was better. I'm not holding this against Wilt as Kareem was in his prime and Wilt was not. You can bring up injuries to Wilt's team in '71, but what about Oscar's injury in '72? Or the fact that it was such a close 6 game series that the Bucks outscored the Lakers despite Wilt clearly playing with more talent?

And no, I wasn't using MVP voting as one of my arguments.


I guess for some reasons, you didn't want to put up the FULL information, just put up their "first half" stats in favor of Russell...

62' ECF:
G1: PHI got cold shooting... 12 out of 46 from the field in the first half and Paul Arizin got zero pts in the first 15 mins, Wilt got the highest score of the game as 33pts;

G2: Wilt got the highest score 42pts v.s. Russell's 9pts......

G3: you only put up the first half stats that favors in Russell... :roll: the truth is Wilt outscored Russell 22-10 in the second half! Wilt still finished as the highest scorer of the game, and once again, he outscored Russell by 35-31; (you need to stop put up misinformation here..)

G4: Wilt put up a big game again, shooting 15 out of 29 from the field scored the highest score in the game: 41pts and 34rbs against Russell's 31 pts

G5: Wilt still outscored Russell 30-29;

G6: Will continued to be the highest scorer, he finished 32 pts;

G7: Wilt still outscored Russell finished with 22pts and 21rbs, Russell got 19pts and 22rbs;

I've put up a FULL information of the 62' ECF, as we can see, the "Russell shut down Wilt" is really misleading...


I did put up the full stats in the losses, but I emphasized the first half in 3 of them because the games were blowouts at halftime and even newspaper articles pointed out how Wilt got some of his stats after the game was decided, in other words, stat-padding.

Russell held Wilt 16.8 ppg below his season average in the series and most likely on less than 50% shooting.

And Russell's offense was more of a bonus, the fact that he basically matched Wilt's scoring in 4 games shows how much he stepped up and how much Wilt's production fell because Wilt averaged 31.5 more ppg than Russell during the regular season.

Not to mention assists, Russell averaged 5 during the playoffs and Wilt averaged 3, so Russell likely beat him in that category during the series and back then, Russell was regarded as the superior defensive player with the intangibles.

I didn't put up any "misinformation" everything I posted was documented in newspapers, I posted the final stats I could find, but also emphasized the first half in those 3 games because the game was already slipping away from Philly thanks to Russell outplaying Chamberlain in those first halves.

By the way, where did you get the extra stats for game 4 and 7. Can you post a link. I believe that they're probably accurate, but I collect stats from those match ups and I'd like to verify the information.

[alexandreben]

JLauber, regarding the Russell shut down Wilt stuff, I didn't say he constantly shut him down. I said in the 1969 finals, Wilt averaged 11.7 ppg, 8.8 below his season average and he had just 8 in game 6 with a chance to clinch. Once again games 6 and 7 in '68 as well. First 4 games of '66 and he definitely limited him in '62. Wilt had big games in game 2 and 4, but other than that struggled and didn't play anywhere near his usual level.

It seems he dominated him in '67, and I've maintained that may be the greatest single season peak ever, it also seems he played well vs Russell in '65 and maybe '64 as well.

I'm talking strictly playoffs. I respect Wilt for coming back from the injury in '70 and having a good finals, playing hard in '71 despite his best teammates being injured, playing the Bill Russell role to perfection in '72. But I can't agree that Wilt in his mid 30s was as good as Kareem was on the Bucks. They both won 1 championship during that span and beat other once, but Kareem's individual play was better. I'm not holding this against Wilt as Kareem was in his prime and Wilt was not. You can bring up injuries to Wilt's team in '71, but what about Oscar's injury in '72? Or the fact that it was such a close 6 game series that the Bucks outscored the Lakers despite Wilt clearly playing with more talent?

And no, I wasn't using MVP voting as one of my arguments.




I did put up the full stats in the losses, but I emphasized the first half in 3 of them because the games were blowouts at halftime and even newspaper articles pointed out how Wilt got some of his stats after the game was decided, in other words, stat-padding.

Russell held Wilt 16.8 ppg below his season average in the series and most likely on less than 50% shooting.

And Russell's offense was more of a bonus, the fact that he basically matched Wilt's scoring in 4 games shows how much he stepped up and how much Wilt's production fell because Wilt averaged 31.5 more ppg than Russell during the regular season.

Not to mention assists, Russell averaged 5 during the playoffs and Wilt averaged 3, so Russell likely beat him in that category during the series and back then, Russell was regarded as the superior defensive player with the intangibles.

I didn't put up any "misinformation" everything I posted was documented in newspapers, I posted the final stats I could find, but also emphasized the first half in those 3 games because the game was already slipping away from Philly thanks to Russell outplaying Chamberlain in those first halves.

By the way, where did you get the extra stats for game 4 and 7. Can you post a link. I believe that they're probably accurate, but I collect stats from those match ups and I'd like to verify the information.
it's interesting to see how ShaqAttack turned the OP, which's Shaq's domination during a weak period, into a "Chamberlain-Russell" debate...:roll:

I remembered Jordan had a lot of lost games that has been decided in the first half or before 4th qtr, but he still played in the 2nd half or the 4th qtr, so, using your standard, anyone who continued to play the game even after it was so called "decided" is "stat-padding"?:roll: then, Jordan is stat-padding too :lol

I think you probably might look into puting up FULL information, and highlight whatever you want to focus on instead of half information.

Talking about passing, when Wilt had quality talented players and a good coach(62' was a rookie coach) like 67', look at how many assists he put up? 8.6 assists per game! i remember he got even 9 assists per game in the playoffs...

there're a lot of sources on net, e.g. G4:http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Ug8wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TREEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4280,764188&dq=wilt+chamberlain+boston+celtics&hl=en

G7: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=H44bAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XlEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3725,1959589&dq=wilt+chamberl

or http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6-EfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TNkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3337,3910114&dq=wilt+chamberlain+boston+celtics&hl=en

just use google news, i'm sure you'll find a lot of them

[jlauber]

ShaqAttack,

Your last post was very reasonable. And that is all I ask in these discussions.

It just bothers me that posters go out of their way to find flaws in Wilt's career. Did he have disappointments? Of course he did. He played over 1000 regular season games, and another 160 post-season games.

But too often, I am reading too much of his "failures", and not enough of the totality of his career. I agree that he had some poor games at critical times, too. Game six of the '69 Finals (of course, had Egan been able to hold onto the ball in game four, and the series would never have gone to seven, or even six games.) Game seven of the '62 ECF's...although, once again, Wilt was not outplayed (incidently, I read somewhere where he shot 7-14 from the field in that last game.) Game seven of the '68 ECF's (here again, though, he still managed to outscore and outrebound Russell)...and had Cunningham and Jackson not been injured, and it would probably have been a duplication of the '67 ECF's.

I have always credited Shaq with perhaps the most dominating three finals in NBA history. IMHO, Shaq was the best player in the NBA from about '98 to '04. And he certainly was a great player outside of most of those seasons (with really only the last couple of years being taken out.) BUT, he had HIS share of failures, too. His teams were swept six times. AND, aside from Motumbo in '01, and Olajuwon in '95, he never faced a quality center in his Finals. And, even Robinson held him down considerably in the post-seasons from '98 thru '01. So, while Wilt gets ripped for scoring less against Russell, Shaq certainly played much worse against Robinson.

Same with Kareem. I read so many posters here proclaiming him ahead of Wilt. I have long maintained that had Magic not joined Kareem, that Abdul-Jabbar would have retired with ONE ring.

And for those that claim that Kareem was the best player on those Laker teams...take a look at the MVP voting. In their ten years together in the league, Magic outvoted Kareem in EIGHT of them (the last eight BTW.) From their third season on, it was MAGIC's team. Furthermore, Magic immediately led an average Laker team, that Kareem had carried for four seasons, to a title. And with Kareem sitting on the couch, it was Magic playing one of the greatest games in post-season history. The Lakers were not much more than average until Magic came along...and they became a dynasty after he arrived. Even after Kareem retired, Magic led LA to records of 63-19 and 58-24 in his last two seasons. AND, then after Magic retired, the Lakers flopped to a 43-39 record. The evidence is overwhelming...MAGIC made those Laker teams.

In fact, as I have shown...Kareem's TEAM success was actually very disappointing until Magic arrived. For all of Abdul-Jabbar's individual greatness...he only had one ring, and only two Finals, in his first 10 seasons. He flopped in big games, too. And all of this occurred in a very weak era in NBA history. Take a look at the champions of the '70's. After Wilt retired (and he carried LA to four Finals in his last five seasons BTW)...you had teams like the '74 Celtics, the '75 Warriors, the '76 Celtics (who beat a 40-42 team in the Finals BTW), the '77 Blazers, the '78 Bullets, and the '79 Sonics as champions. Virtually none of those teams were GREAT teams. Some were downright ordinary.

So, while I will agree that Chamberlain had his "failures", he had no more than any of the other great players (save for maybe Russell, Magic, and MJ.) And, as I have shown many times, Wilt was probably the best player on the floor in the vast majority of those games.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'll just disagree with the statement that only Magic, Russell and Jordan had fewer failures.

My criteria of a failure is a series where you played noticeably below your standard and your team lost. By that criteria, Wilt's failures to me were '61, '62, '66, '68 and '69.

For Shaq? I'd count '94, '97 and '99 as his failures.

Now there are also different levels of failures. For example I take into consideration how winnable the series was and how it was lost. And I don't really penalize players as much when their teams are banged up or they are, or they're not near their prime.

For Kareem, I'd cite '73, maybe '72 would be a minor failure, I suppose you could argue '83 as well

I actually think it's a shame '68 turned out how it did. Had WPhilly finished off that series, they could have been a dynasty and really, I'd view Wilt's career a lot differently.

[jlauber]

I'll just disagree with the statement that only Magic, Russell and Jordan had fewer failures.

My criteria of a failure is a series where you played noticeably below your standard and your team lost. By that criteria, Wilt's failures to me were '61, '62, '66, '68 and '69.

For Shaq? I'd count '94, '97 and '99 as his failures.

Now there are also different levels of failures. For example I take into consideration how winnable the series was and how it was lost. And I don't really penalize players as much when their teams are banged up or they are, or they're not near their prime.

For Kareem, I'd cite '73, maybe '72 would be a minor failure, I suppose you could argue '83 as well


I actually think it's a shame '68 turned out how it did. Had WPhilly finished off that series, they could have been a dynasty and really, I'd view Wilt's career a lot differently.

I agree with you about the '68 76ers. While many in the media hailed the trade that sent Wilt to the Lakers, I was personally devastated. That 76er team had DOMINATED the NBA for two straight years, and Boston was on their last legs. And while the Sixers were not a deep team, their top-six players were considerably better than what Wilt had in LA in '68-69. To be honest, that Laker team of '69 was very over-rated. They had West, in his brilliant prime, an over-the-hill Baylor (who really showed it in the post-season), a shackled Wilt (by his incompetent coach), and virtually nothing else.

Still, to Wilt's credit, he went to four Finals in his five years there...and the one season that he did not, LA was crippled with injuries to West, Baylor, and then Erickson.

IMHO, Chamberlain's '69-70 season was a testament to his greatness...although the average fan only remembers Reed stumbling out for a game seven, and scoring four points, with three rebounds. Wilt came back from a horrible knee injury, way before expected, and despite his limited lateral mobility, he still took a 46-36 Laker team to a game seven against the '69-70 Knicks...a heavily-favored team with FOUR HOFers, a splendid Cazzie Russell, and a very deep bench. And had the officials not handed game five to NY, Wilt's game six might have ranked among the greatest playoff games of all-time. True, Reed missed that game, but Wilt still poured in 45 points, on 20-27 shooting, with 27 rebounds...in a 135-113 shellacking of the Knicks. That was just another example of what Wilt could have done in the post-season, had he faced ordinary centers in the post-season, instead of HOFers in almost every series. As it was, Wilt battled the MVP Reed to a standstill in the first four games...basically on one leg. In the last three games, in which Reed was injured, Chamberlain dominated the series. One can only wonder what Wilt would have done at 100%.

Furthermore, had Chamberlain's teams been able to muster a few more points in their ECF's against Russell's Celtics...one can only wonder what kind of Finals performances he would have put up. For example, in the 61-62 season, had Wilt's teammates been able to score three more points in that game seven loss to the Celtics, Chamberlain would have faced an LA team in the Finals, that he absolutely torched during the regular season. Give Russell credit for his 30-40 game seven against the Lakers...BUT, Wilt had crushed LA with a 78-43 game earlier in the season. In fact, Wilt had THREE 60+ point games against Los Angeles that year, and he averaged 51.5 ppg during the regular season against them.

Instead, Chamberlain routinely faced a far superior Celtic team, and later, teams like the Knicks, who were just as loaded with HOFers as Russell's Celtics, or Milwaukee, with a prime Kareem, or Nate Thurmond, who was probably the best defensive center of the late 60's.

As far as his "failures" go...I just don't see anything negative about his '61 playoffs (he averaged 37-23 in that series loss...albeit on .469 shooting...BUT, ina league that shot .410!) Same with his '62 ECF's. His numbers were down, to be sure, but he was facing Russell, and a loaded Celtic team (SIX HOFers.) He still managed a 33-26 series, and more importantly, his badly over-matched Warrior team lost a game seven, by TWO-POINTS.

I also believe he played well enough in the '66 ECF's. Even before his game five, in which he erupted for a 46-34 game...he was clearly the ONLY Philly player that was playing reasonably well. He averaged 24 ppg on .480 shooting before exploding in game five. But, he also held Russell to 14 ppg...the same Russell who would average nearly 24 ppg in the Finals. And, of course, he outrebounded him, as well.

I'll give you '68. I have mentioned that series before, ...Philly was without Cunningham the entire series, and then Luke Jackson went down in game five. Not only that, but Wilt's teammates shot blanks in the game seven loss (collectively, they shot 33%...in a four point loss.) Still, that series, and particularly that game seven were highly suspicious. Although I have never read anything by Wilt that would suggest a conspiracy theory, I have found it very puzzling. First of all, Wilt had a falling out with Sixer ownership. The previous owner had died, and according to Wilt, he had verbally promised Wilt a part of the team. The new Sixer ownership flat refused to accept it. So, MY theory is either that the new Sixer ownership went behind Wilt's back, and told them NOT to feed the ball to Wilt...in an attempt to win the series without him. Or, Wilt deliberately decided not to shoot in the second half of that game seven to prove that Philly could not win without Chamberlain. In any case, it was highly suspicious that Wilt only TOUCHED the ball SEVEN times in the second half, and only TWICE in the 4th quarter. Even author Robert Cherry commented that somethinh was not right about that game seven.

As for the '69 Finals...IMHO it was Van Breda Kolf's fault that Chamberlain only shot 10 FGAs in the post-season. He was against the Wilt trade from day one...and even went as far as to ask Wilt to play a high-post. Not only that, but he even BENCHED Wilt during the course of regular season games. And, of course, we all know what he did to Wilt in the last five minutes of a game seven, two-point loss.

Anyway Shaq...I always appreciate your take on these subjects. I may not agree with it, but I give you credit for backing up your opinions.

And yes, I will always say that Shaq, at his PEAK, was among the very best whoever played. In fact, IMHO, he has become very under-rated by many posters here. My only problem with Shaq, was that while he became a much better rebounder in the post-season, he was still not as dominant as he should have been. Clearly, he COULD have led the NBA in rebounding had he put his mind to it. His domination of Motumbo on the glass in '01 confirms that point. However, Shaq, much like Kareem, did not put in the effort to be a great rebounder. He had the tools, to be sure, but for whatever reason, he did not put forth the effort.

[The_Yearning]

I bet Shaqattack and Jlauber are the same person.

[Calabis]

1. Ben Wallace is not 6'9. He's listed so, with shoes on. He admitted himself being closer to 6'7:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nba&id=2437567

2. At least, Wallace still won multiple DPOY awards playing as a center. Unseld wouldn't, even if the award existed.

3. Unseld was overall so much bigger than a SF that it doesn't make any sense listing him as such. It's as bad as listing Barkley as a SG.

4. Unseld never stopped Wilt, either.

1. Let me know when they play without shoes......

2. So you making my point that Unseld was not this great defender....

3. He had the height of a small forward, I didn't list him as such, his body would make him a smaller PF than Boozer, Webber, Malone and other PF's Shaq has faced....Shaq in 60's avg's same crap as Wilt

[jlauber]

1. Let me know when they play without shoes......

2. So you making my point that Unseld was not this great defender....

3. He had the height of a small forward, I didn't list him as such, his body would make him a smaller PF than Boozer, Webber, Malone and other PF's Shaq has faced....Shaq in 60's avg's same crap as Wilt

I don't think that there is any question that Shaq would have put up some huge numbers in the 60's...provided the league would allow him to abuse his opposing centers. That is not a knock on Shaq...he also had exceptional footwork, but the NBA instituted multiple rules in a futile attempt to curtail Wilt's dominance. You can be sure that he would have been called for many more offensive fouls in the 60's. Same with those that claim that Jordan would have gone wild in the 60's. Had he been allowed to travel and palm the ball, yes, he would have scored 40 ppg. But those were strict rules violations in the 60's.

Regarding the supposed height edge of the current NBA...the average starting center in 1960 was 6-10. The average starting center in 1970 was 6-11. And the average starting center in 2010 was slightly above 7-0...or about a two-inch difference.

Not only that, but give me the list of all of the 7-3+ centers who have led the NBA in rebounding. That's right...there never has been one. In fact, the majority of 7-3+ centers have been notoriously POOR rebounders. Ok, how about 7-2 centers? Kareem won ONE rebounding title, Motumbo won TWO, and Gilmore led the ABA three times (although he would not have led the NBA in any of those seasons.) Furthemore, take Wilt and his ELEVEN rebounding titles out of the equation, and also remove Olajuwon, who was nowhere near 7-0, and how many seven-footers have led the NBA in rebounding? Kareem with one, and Motumbo with two. That is IT.

Great rebounders? Bill Russell at 6-9 (actually 6-10)...Moses at 6-10, Rodman at 6-8, Olajuwon at probably around 6-10, Truck Robinson at 6-7, Charles Barkley at 6-6 (actually probably around 6-4), and Ben Wallace at 6-9 (or his REALO height of 6-7.)

Wilt outrebounded Kareem. He even dominated Gilmore in a brief encounter in the '72 NBA-ABA All-Star game. He crushed players like 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle (who was actually a very good "rebound rate" center...but whom Chamberlain KILLED H2H.) Wilt dominated the likes of 7-3 Swede Holbrook, 7-0 Mel Counts, 7-0 Henry Finkel, and 7-0 Walter Dukes.

The fact was, Wilt outrebounded EVERYBODY...and most by HUGE margins. And while Rodman was nothing more than ordinary in the post-season, Chamberlain was an absolute monster. Yes, Russell had a higher post-season average, BUT, Wilt outrebounded Russell in EVERY post-season series. He even had post-seasons in which he BURIED Russell. He dominated the likes of Thurmond, Lucas, and even a prime Kareem.

I have no doubt that Wilt would be the best rebounder in today's game, as well. He was a better athlete than even Dwight Howard, as well as being bigger, taller, faster, and stronger. And he was certainly more skilled than Howard, too. If Howard is the best the game has to offer today, then Chamberlain would be best in the game today. The question would be, just how dominant?

[Calabis]

I don't think that there is any question that Shaq would have put up some huge numbers in the 60's...provided the league would allow him to abuse his opposing centers. That is not a knock on Shaq...he also had exceptional footwork, but the NBA instituted multiple rules in a futile attempt to curtail Wilt's dominance. You can be sure that he would have been called for many more offensive fouls in the 60's. Same with those that claim that Jordan would have gone wild in the 60's. Had he been allowed to travel and palm the ball, yes, he would have scored 40 ppg. But those were strict rules violations in the 60's.

Regarding the supposed height edge of the current NBA...the average starting center in 1960 was 6-10. The average starting center in 1970 was 6-11. And the average starting center in 2010 was slightly above 7-0...or about a two-inch difference.

Not only that, but give me the list of all of the 7-3+ centers who have led the NBA in rebounding. That's right...there never has been one. In fact, the majority of 7-3+ centers have been notoriously POOR rebounders. Ok, how about 7-2 centers? Kareem won ONE rebounding title, Motumbo won TWO, and Gilmore led the ABA three times (although he would not have led the NBA in any of those seasons.) Furthemore, take Wilt and his ELEVEN rebounding titles out of the equation, and also remove Olajuwon, who was nowhere near 7-0, and how many seven-footers have led the NBA in rebounding? Kareem with one, and Motumbo with two. That is IT.

Great rebounders? Bill Russell at 6-9 (actually 6-10)...Moses at 6-10, Rodman at 6-8, Olajuwon at probably around 6-10, Truck Robinson at 6-7, Charles Barkley at 6-6 (actually probably around 6-4), and Ben Wallace at 6-9 (or his REALO height of 6-7.)

Wilt outrebounded Kareem. He even dominated Gilmore in a brief encounter in the '72 NBA-ABA All-Star game. He crushed players like 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle (who was actually a very good "rebound rate" center...but whom Chamberlain KILLED H2H.) Wilt dominated the likes of 7-3 Swede Holbrook, 7-0 Mel Counts, 7-0 Henry Finkel, and 7-0 Walter Dukes.

The fact was, Wilt outrebounded EVERYBODY...and most by HUGE margins. And while Rodman was nothing more than ordinary in the post-season, Chamberlain was an absolute monster. Yes, Russell had a higher post-season average, BUT, Wilt outrebounded Russell in EVERY post-season series. He even had post-seasons in which he BURIED Russell. He dominated the likes of Thurmond, Lucas, and even a prime Kareem.

I have no doubt that Wilt would be the best rebounder in today's game, as well. He was a better athlete than even Dwight Howard, as well as being bigger, taller, faster, and stronger. And he was certainly more skilled than Howard, too. If Howard is the best the game has to offer today, then Chamberlain would be best in the game today. The question would be, just how dominant?

I'm not arguing that Wilt and Bill would suck, they would still be great today(Wilt would be kicking ass and Bill would be a hybrid Rodman/Garnett minus the offense), but they would never put up the numbers they did(avg 22 rebs a season, avg 50 a game), so I don't know why the OP keeps bringing up a era and comparing it to current generation stars.....I can see going back to the 80's but going back to the 60's and comparing numbers is ridiculous.

[jlauber]

I'm not arguing that Wilt and Bill would suck, they would still be great today(Wilt would be kicking ass and Bill would be a hybrid Rodman/Garnett minus the offense), but they would never put up the numbers they did(avg 22 rebs a season, avg 50 a game), so I don't know why the OP keeps bringing up a era and comparing it to current generation stars.....I can see going back to the 80's but going back to the 60's and comparing numbers is ridiculous.

Because there is this PERCEPTION that the basketball players of the 60's (and early 70's) were white, slow, wimpy, small, uncoordinated, and unskilled set-shot shooting nerds.

Are today's players better? Of course they are. BUT, not to the extent that we just ignore what West, Oscar, Russell, Baylor, Bellamy, Thurmond, Reed, Lanier, Hayes, Barry, Dr. J, Cowens, Havlicek, Lucas, and so many other GREAT players accomplished.

I have mentioned it before, but Kareem, as great as he was in the 70's, struggled against both Wilt and Thurmond in the post-season. He was even outrebounded by Unseld, and outplayed by Cowens in a game seven. YET, he poured in games of 35, 42, and 46 against Hakeem...as the oldest player in the league, in the 85-86 season.

Kareem is the bridge. Before Wilt's injury in 1969, he faced Abdul Jabbar one time. In that game, he outscored Kareem, 25-23; he outrebounded Kareem, 25-20; he out-assisted Kareem, 5-2; he outblocked Kareem, 3-2; and he outshot Kareem from the field, 9-14 to 9-21. Granted Kareem was a rookie, but Wilt was also past his prime. In any case, Wilt, with a surgically repaired knee, and 11 years older, still battled Kareem to a statistical draw in the '71 WCF's...and despite being heavily outscored in the '72 WCF's, Wilt was generally regarded as the superior player on the floor...particularly in games three thru six. Even in his last season, Wilt outshot Kareem from the floor, .637 to .450.

If Kareem were able to score at will against Olajuwon, in the twilight of his career, but struggled mightily against Thurmond and Wilt, in his PRIME...and when both of them were well past their's...well, that sheds a little more light on just how great the GREATS of the 60's really were.

[FindingTim]

Prime Shaq is the only player I've ever seen who could instantly turn the worst team in the league into a legitimate title contender.

The guy is the most dominant offensive force the game has ever seen.

based on the Chamberlain footage I've seen, Wilt isn't even CLOSE to being on Shaq's level. Wilt said it himself, "I was more of a finesse player"

[jlauber]

Prime Shaq is the only player I've ever seen who could instantly turn the worst team in the league into a legitimate title contender.

The guy is the most dominant offensive force the game has ever seen.

based on the Chamberlain footage I've seen, Wilt isn't even CLOSE to being on Shaq's level. Wilt said it himself, "I was more of a finesse player"

I'll agree that Chamberlain was not as physical as Shaq...although he most certainly could have been. BUT, to say that Chamberlain was NOT CLOSE to Shaq's level is truly absurd. Chamberlain won SEVEN scoring titles (and averaged 40 ppg in those seven seasons COMBINED BTW.) He won ELEVEN rebounding titles. He was voted first-team all-defense in his last two seasons, and most certainly would have won more had they had the award before 1969. He even led the league in assists. And while Shaq won ten FG%, it came in 18 seasons. Wilt won nine, but in only 14 seasons. And Wilt won two of them in last two seasons...so who knows how many more he could have won? Furthermore, Wilt's top-three FG% seasons blow Shaq's best seasons away.

Shaq, in his prime, was truly a great player. But, I just don't see how anyone can say that he was significantly better than Wilt. And Chamberlain dominated his peers, including 12 HOF centers, far more than Shaq dominated his. "The Record Book does not lie."

[Shaolinswords]

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/16/128660498159844805.jpg

[PHILA]

Several quotes on the matter from various sources.


[I]
Wilt's got massive upper body strength to go with huge wingspan. Players with a low C of gravity--Wayne Embry, Zelmo Beaty, Wes Unseld--were the type of player that gave Wilt the most trouble when he was younger. As Wilt got older, he packed weight on below the belt. When he was rehabbing his torn knee ligament(s) in 1970, he realized that he had lost some of his quickness and speed. But he compensated for it by adding lower body muscle--lots of sand volleyball and combination strength/stretching exercises that people thought were crazy at the time. Now, we'd say he increased core strength. In the 3-4 years before his knee injury Wilt played at around 265-280. Afterwards, he was 290-315. All the extra weight was lower body muscle.

And here's the thing...I still don't think he was ever as strong as Shaq in lower body strength. Or ever could be. Shaq's weight and strength was/is low. He would have really given the young (pre-1965 or so) Wilt problems. And even when he was fat (which was often) Shaq had good quickness, even if he had a lot less explosiveness. It would have been great to see both the 1966-1969 Wilt and the post injury Wilt go up against the peak version of Shaq. 1966-69 Wilt had good lower body strength and elite/unique quickness and agility for a guy of that size. 1970 and later Wilt was almost--but not quite--as strong as Shaq down low, and was about the same level in agility and quickness. But Wilt always had an advantage in upper body strength and explosiveness. So, different types of strength.

As to the smarts/skills/etc., you have to go with Wilt. It's a no-brainer. Put it this way. In 1961, Wilt's coach told him, "I want you to score like no other center--or player--has done before." So Wilt scored more than any player in history, and his team set a franchise record for wins and missed out on the finals because of a controversial call in Game 7 of the conference finals (thank you, Mendy Rudolph!). Five years later, Wilt's coach told him, "I want you to do what no C has done before--become the focal point of the offense, and be a premier passer; a point center." So Wilt was a top 3 assist man in the league, and the team set a league record for victories and won a title. Five years after that, Wilt's coach told him, on a high octane running team, "Only take high percentage shots, make sharp outlet passes, and be the best defensive player in the league." Wilt did all that, the team set a league record for victories and won a title. And in all of the years, and years in between, Wilt led the league in rebounding and minutes played virtually every season.

I don't know of any other great player who has been asked to change his game so completely for his team. I do know that Wilt did it, and it was always successful. That says something about his broad skillset, basketball IQ, and ability to do what is necessary...you didn't need to build a team around Wilt. Wilt was multi-skilled enough to build his skillset around the team and coaching plan. Other great players may have been able to do this...but Wilt was the only one who definitively did, and was a top 3-5 player every time.




Hall of Famer Dolph Schayes earned selection to the NBA

[PHILA]

Ramsay notes that Chamberlain was ahead of his time with his emphasis on strength training. Was Chamberlain stronger than Shaq in terms of basketball, not necessarily bench press strength, but in terms of holding his position, backing somebody down, using the strength in a basketball sense? Ramsay said, "I think probably Shaq (is stronger), because of his body mass. He is so wide and thick--and very quick footed, has great command of his feet. You'll see every so often, some of his spin moves--they're lightning quick. I don't think Wilt had that. Wilt was more methodical, worked the ball and the finger roll, back into the basket. It's hard to say how it would've come out, but it would've been a great matchup."

I asked Ramsay point blank who he would take between 'young Wilt' or 'young Shaq' if he were building a team around one guy rather than trying to fit him in with the personnel on a given team. Ramsay says, "Very difficult. I really think that Shaq is more of a team player. Wilt was a stats collector. He would decide before the season in what stats he wanted to lead the league. He led the league in assists one year." [I]

What about Wilt

[PHILA]

Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg against Russell in 143 games. He put 22 ppg, 32 rpg, and 10 apg on Russ in the '67 ECFs. He put 62 on Russell once and scored 50+ 6 other times against Russell and his Celtics. During the season in which he averaged 50+ ppg, he scored 50+ on Russell 4 times. He had his 55-rebound game against Russell (though, perhaps fittingly, the Celtics won).

Wilt averaged 30.0 PPG and 28.2 RPG in 94 regular season matchups against Russell (who posted 14.2 PPG and 22.9 RPG).

In 49 postseason matchups, Wilt managed 25.7 PPG and 28.0 RPG versus Russell's 14.9 PPG and 24.7 RPG.

Opposing Centers

The big names against whom Wilt played a lot were:

Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Spencer Haywood (during the last 3 years of his career, Spencer's 3 best years), he got 80 games of Bob McAdoo as a rookie and a dose of healthy Bob Lanier (Lanier's first three seasons, all 80+ games played).

Bells was at least 6'11, 250 and was drafted only two years after Wilt. Forget about Walter Dukes, worry about the 31+ ppg Bells dropped as a rookie. Yes, he was really only dominant for his first five years, but he was still an important and significant player thereafter.

And yeah, Kareem was a player during the last 4 years of Wilt's career (though Wilt only played 12 regular season games in Kareem's rookie year). Still, that includes Kareem's 3 best scoring seasons and two of his three best rebounding seasons.

Oh yes, and Cowens was there for the last 3 years of Wilt's career as well.

Wilt had competition and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Yes, some of it didn't enter into the league until later in his career but you'll notice that while he didn't score as much as he did as a younger guy, his efficiency skyrocketed, his rebounding wasn't affected and he became a deadly passer while retaining his reputation for outstanding defense.

The inclusion of competition (much of it with significant size, such as Kareem, Lanier, etc) did NOTHING to affect his ability to impact the game at an elite level.

So arguing that Wilt's competition were all 6'7 white guys is not only wrong, but pointless.

For the sake of argument, let's break it down by year:

59-60 Bill Russell, Dolph Schayes, Red Kerr, Charlie Tyra, Willie Nauls, Ray Felix, Clyde Lovelette, Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon
60-61
61-62 Walt Bellamy,
62-63
63-64 Nate Thurmond*
64-65 Willis Reed
65-66
66-67 Reggie Harding, Joe Strawler, Walt Wesley, Leroy Ellis, Mel Counts, Darrall Imhoff
67-68
68-69 Wes Unseld
69-70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
70-71 Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier
71-72
72-73
72-73

* Thurmond and Wilt played together for their first two years, so I guess 65-66 is when they really became "competitors."

There were certainly shorter guys in the NBA in his earliest days but then, he also played Bill Russell and the others more often because the league was smaller.

So here, we've covered the standard argument.

But let's take this a little further, let's look at the average height of your generally NBA starting center in 1995, 2000 and 2008.

1995:

The entire Atlantic division had someone at least 7'0 tall starting more games at the 5 than any other player, including Shaq, Ewing, Montross, Willis, Benoit Benjamin, Shawn Bradley and Gheorge Muresan.

And Shaq, a physically imposing presence, still managed 29.3 ppg on 58.3% shooting over 20.2 FGA/g because the defense, despite the increase in height over previous eras, was insignificant. Shawn Bradley was a rag, Muresan couldn't move, Benoit Benjamin wasn't special and even good players like Ewing couldn't touch him. Shaq at this stage of his career was still under 315 pounds. Montross and Willis weren't really significant barriers either.

Wilt wasn't as heavy as Shaq but was ridiculously strong and considerably more skilled; there was nothing in the Atlantic division that would have been any more difficult than what he dealt with in his own career and plenty less than some of the other guys Wilt faced later in his career when he'd bulked up and slowed down a bit.

There were 3 legit 7-footers starting in the Central division and that's only if you count the 32 starts that Alton Lister had for the Bucks (that was more than anyone else at that spot and even if you don't ignore Vin Baker, who was only 6'11). They were Rik Smits and Will Perdue. I dare you to say anything about either. The division included Alonzo Mourning, of course, who didn't suck, but you're still not discussing anything that Wilt hadn't seen before in terms of defensive package and such.

In the Mid-West, you're talking about 34 starts out of Felton Spencer, David Robinson and Dikembe Mutombo as the seven-footers. You had a tiny guy (Lorenzo Williams, IIRC, about 6'9), some guys near the right height (including Olajuwon, of whom Wilt spoke highly).

The Pacific division was even worse; the only legit 7-footer was Divac and, like the Central division, there wasn't a soul with a prayer of guarding Wilt.

So, in '95, there were 27 teams in the league and of those teams, there were a fairly pedestrian 4 7-footers who could have really done anything against Wilt and only three of those were also offensive threats (Mutombo basically taking the Thurmond role, only less offense and more defense). There were two other guys (Mourning and Olajuwon) who looked similar in terms of height differential to Wilt's competition of the time.

Now, notice something...

What I'm saying about Wilt applies also to Shaquille O'neal, who was the same height as Wilt and, at the time, as heavy as Wilt was at his peak (and, for the 95-96 season and on, at least 15 pounds heavier than even that... the weight differential grew with time, of course).

So anyone who wants to make the argument that height is at ALL meaningful to what Wilt achieved needs to wonder how much Shaq padded his stats against teams that started, say.... Bo Outlaw or Tony Massenburg on any given night. Or Lorenzo Williams. Or BUCK Williams. Or AC Green. Or any random stiff who was just tall, of which there were PLENTY in the league at that time.

Let's put to bed height as a valid argument, hey?

When Wilt hit the league, he had competition. In his earliest years, his league was only 8 teams large and the proportion of competition represented that. There were perhaps 2 guys in the league who gave him a lot of trouble, so about a quarter of the teams in the league threw someone at him 12 times that gave him some trouble (Russell and Bells, mostly).

In the NBA of 1995, there were 5 guys of that type, 6 if you generously include Mutombo.

5 guys would be 17% of the league; 6 guys would be 20% of the league.

The proportion of significant competition had actually DECLINED by this period, suggesting that the exploits of players such as Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq, Mourning, Ewing, etc were all inflated by a lower proportion of competition despite a significant peak in centers... a peak not unlike what Wilt would experience during his own career.

Now we fast forward to 2000, with two MORE teams in the league.

The significant players to consider are Mourning, what remained of Ewing (he was a 15/10 player at this point), Theo Ratliff (who posed no offensive threat), Shaq, David Robinson (steeply into his decline), Tim Duncan, and then Arvydas Sabonis (but he was old, injured and couldn't guard Shaq either). So really, scratch Sabonis, because Wilt was even MORE mobile. You could try to put 'Sheed on him but that wouldn't have worked either.

So again, you're talking about Mourning, Ewing, Shaq, Duncan instead of Robinson and that's it. In a 29-team league, that's down to 4 guys, representing just under 14% representation of significant competition. If you feel especially frisky, you can add Kevin Garnett to the list to bring it up to 17% or so. Garnett was a long, rangy defender but he would have gotten badly outpowered by Wilt, especially at that stage of his career because he hadn't finished filling out/bulking up yet. Webber never defended anyone and Karl Malone didn't have a prayer for guarding Wilt any more than did the strong 6'9 players of Wilt's own era. The PFs of the time didn't really stand a chance.

Flash forward to 2008 and 30 teams.

The only guys who would be of any significant offensive threat to him would be Yao Ming, Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudemire and Tim Duncan. Actually, you can probably look at Al Jefferson and Andrew Bynum, as well as Chris Kaman.

But Amare certainly doesn't stand a chance at defending Wilt; remember, this is a guy who gets ruined by Rasheed Wallace, he's not actually a competent defender 4 out of 5 nights. Kaman doesn't stand a chance either and his offense would be problematic against someone with the sort of size and mobility possessed by Wilt. And Bynum... is unproven as a primary option, heavily reliant on the triangle action and playing off Kobe. How he'd react to someone larger, stronger and a lot more athletic than he would be interesting.

So sticking with that first list, the guys that posed some notable threat to Wilt make a list 4 long, 6 if you're generous. That means you're looking at about 13-20% as your proportion for competitive players.

And that's AGAIN lower than what Wilt had even in the early portions of his career and that includes me ignoring good players who were under 6'10 or who aren't commonly discussed and thus have no reputation amongst younger posters.

Ultimately, height is nothing more than the argument of the petulant who refuse to accept that Wilt was a dominant player and would remain so today. Even at the peak of the center in modern times, proportional competition did not match the days of old and there were some absolutely spectacular centers during Wilt's career and against whom Wilt did not falter.

[PHILA]

* * * *

Now, something else people don't like to talk about; what about Jordan's average height advantage?

Or did we forget that Jordan was projected as a small forward coming out of North Carolina and prefer to ignore that he generally enjoyed a noticeable height advantage against his competition as well?

Between 84-85 and 97-98, just how many large guards were there? Remember, small forwards generally don't count because he had the aid of Scottie Pippen for the bulk of his career in Chicago.

I'm not going to treat this in further depth because I'm lazy, but when the big names of the mid/late 80s and the 90s come up at the 2-guard, of whom do you think?

The top scorers from the guard position during Jordan's Chicago career (84-85 through 97-98) and who played at least 600 games in this time-frame:

Michael Jordan 31.5
Mitch Richmond 23.1
Clyde Drexler 21.5
Magic Johnson 20.4
Reggie Miller 19.7
Jeff Malone 19.7
Tim Hardaway 19.6
Isiah Thomas 18.8
Reggie Theus 18.5
Rolando Blackman 18.0
Kevin Johnson 18.0

Then it drops off into players like Dale Ellis, hersey Hawkins, Joe Dumars, Gary Payton, Ricky Pierce, Kendall Gill, etc, etc.

If you look at guys who played 300+ games, you get Latrell Sprewell and Penny Hardaway.

Obviously, Payton's average in that timeframe is a bit skewed by the low-scoring days of the earliest portions of his career, so we should adjust to remember that he was a 20-24 ppg All-Star, a DPOY, center of a team dynamic with Kemp, blah blah. But he was also 2 inches shorter than Jordan.

Now, let's take out the PGs. Bye, bye Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway and Isiah Thomas (all of whom were at most 6'2). That leaves Magic (whom Jordan faced at most twice a year except in 90-91), Richmond (who was 6'5), Reggie (who was a skinny punk who couldn't D up on MJ), Jeff Malone (6'4), Reggie Theus (6'7) and Rolando Blackman (6'6).

Now, how many of those guys were truly dynamic scorers and/or really good defenders?

Cooper was gone by the time the 90s started and Alvin Robertson was never a very good scorer. Payton's there, Theus was a dynamic offensive talent (if problematic in various ways), Drexler was extremely versatile but who else, you know? The talent pool at the 2 was a lot less diverse for Jordan than was the center pool for Chamberlain.

Iverson didn't get drafted until 1996, Kobe and McGrady weren't anything special until after Jordan retired, Magic was gone after 90-91, Drexler and Payton were out West...

So where was the nightly competition for Jordan?

Jordan was outstanding, don't get me wrong. He very much deserves to be mentioned in the top 5 and in the GOAT argument, I just want to make it abundantly clear that arguing height and competition (especially in Jordan vs. Wilt) is irrational and supports neither side because it is a patently ridiculous oversimplification of the facts.

* * * * *

Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is big over small.

Wilt was a nasty volume scorer but Jordan was better at the line.

Jordan was a great defender but a great big defender (like Wilt) will ALWAYS be more valuable than a wing defender of comparable talent. Wilt's rebounding is something that Jordan could never match and Wilt has the most prolific passing years of any center in NBA history. He was a master at both low- and high-post passing (though specific high-post guys like Walton, Russell and Kareem enter the discussion if you focus on the motion offense and such). Wilt routinely took over games offensively, dominated in other ways in which Jordan could not, etc, etc.

I think in any case made for Jordan, you have to somehow overcome the overwhelming potency of Wilt's ability to play lots of minutes in almost every game of the season for about as long as Jordan played for the Bulls.

Remember, in his 14 years, Wilt played in 1,045 of 1,148 games. He played 80+ games 9 times and averaged 45.8 mpg in the regular season, averaging over 47 mpg in 160 playoff games as well. He kept his defensive and rebounding efficacy as he grew older and even overcame a fairly significant knee injury when he was 33. It limited him to 12 regular season games but he played in 17 playoff games that year and then played in 82 games for each of his final three years. Durability despite heavy minutes logged is something to consider, especially given the impact he was able to exert in that timeframe in terms of rebounding and defense.

DrawF? He was immensely effective at putting pressure on opposition frontcourts, too; Jordan drew fouls at 0.356 FTA/FGA, which is pretty good for a wing... and pretty terrible for a big, something like an Al Jefferson or a Zach Randolph. Wilt drew at about 0.50 FTA/FGA. So you're talking about a guy who's got the ability (partially because of the nature of his game) to draw loads of fouls, moreso than Jordan. And while MJ was obviously a vastly superior free throw shooter and would have scored more points per game off of those FTAs, Wilt had the Shaq effect, where he could sabotage a team's gameplan by putting their entire frontcourt into foul trouble, limiting their effectiveness for the rest of the game or outright removing them from the game more frequently than could Jordan manage himself.

More to the point, it's infinitely easier to build a contender around a dominant big guy... it's the path you see taken with a lot of championship teams.

FWIW, check out some of the biggest names in NBA centers:

Bill Russell 11 titles
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 6 titles
Wilt 2 titles, Finals appearances with Philadelphia, Los Angeles and San Francisco
Hakeem 2 titles
Shaq 4 titles, Finals appearances with Orlando, Los Angeles and Miami

Wilt consistently led his team to contention and failed primarily when he ran into the superior Boston squads built around Bill Russell. The point remains, however, that he took three different teams to the Finals, teams built different ways with him filling different roles. Jordan, however, is an outlier in basketball. He had a very specific team built around him, a very difficult one to replicate in later eras (while the ability of a big man to remain the centerpiece has remained uch less difficult to emulate).

So in terms of his ability to translate across eras, you definitely have to penalize Jordan. In the 60s, Jordan might have been Jerry West, perennially turned away in the Finals by the Celtics. In the 90s/00s, Wilt might have been Shaq, enjoying a three-peat and maybe more on account of his superior defense and rebounding.

It's all speculative but if you're talking about who's the greatest, there are many angles to consider. Wilt has Jordan's number for statistical dominance but could not benefit from the sort of defensive recognition he deserved because All-Defensive squads didn't exist until late in his career (though he was All-Defensive First Team in his final season).

Despite radically altering his game mid-career, Wilt still held a comparable hold on the league in terms of scoring titles and has records Jordan never approached there, and as a rebounder... and he did things outside of his position better than did Jordan; such as Wilt leading the league in total assists one year while coming in 2nd in APG. He was top 10 in total assists 3 times over a four-year span (4th, skip a year, 7th and 3rd before finally leading the league to get his third consecutive top-10 finish).

Even if you ignore the entertaining Wilt lore that floats around, there is but one arena in which Jordan exhibits superiority to Wilt (well, two, since he has one more MVP but that's hardly a big deal since Wilt has 4 and is one of a select few to win three in a row): championships.

And since Wilt has two championships and won them in different ways, on different teams and faced competition earlier in his career the likes of into which Jordan never ran, I think it's hardly fair to draw upon that as a factor of any value.

But even if you penalize Wilt for that, I think he still comes out ahead on account of the fact that you go big over small. Jordan may be the guy who generally bucks that trend but Wilt is the guy who brings it back.

[Fatal9]

You would think Wilt fans wouldn't want to discuss competition...

In all of Wilt's super high scoring seasons '60-'63, there was a severe lack of size in the league. Lets look at the rotation players year by year in those seasons. By "rotation player" I mean, anyone getting over 20 minutes/game.

In 1960, the entire league had only ONE rotation player over 6'9. That was a 50s stiff named Walter Dukes whose career quickly ended in the early 60s (as a center he shot 36%).

In 1961, we move to TWO rotation players in the league over 6'9. One of them being Dukes and the other 6'10 Phil Jordon. If we count playoffs, then you can add Halbrook here.

In 1962, Wilt's famous 50 ppg season, there were only THREE rotation players in the entire league over 6'9. Phil Jordon, Walter Dukes and Walt Bellamy. Bellamy also seemed to take full advantage of the undersized league, and as a 22 year old rookie, went on to have a 32/19 season. He would never approach those numbers again after the mid 60s, despite being fully healthy. Tells you something about the early 60s league doesn't it?

In 1963, we had some 6'10 guys added, but only ONE rotation player in the entire league was over 6'10. And that was 6'11 Bellamy. And only THREE rotation players in the entire league over 6'9.

From '60-'65, the only rotation player over 6'9 Wilt faced in the playoffs was Swede Halbrook, the scrub I mentioned earlier. Apparently, it did have an affect on him though, he faced a combo of 6'9 Kerr and Halbrook in '61 and ended up shooting only .469 while getting swept to a sub .500 team while having HCA.

We really going to compare this to Shaq's competition? :oldlol:

[jlauber]

You would think Wilt fans wouldn't want to discuss competition...

In all of Wilt's super high scoring seasons '60-'63, there was a severe lack of size in the league. Lets look at the rotation players year by year in those seasons. By "rotation player" I mean, anyone getting over 20 minutes/game.

In 1960, the entire league had only ONE rotation player over 6'9. That was a 50s stiff named Walter Dukes whose career quickly ended in the early 60s (as a center he shot 36%).

In 1961, we move to TWO rotation players in the league over 6'9. One of them being Dukes and the other 6'10 Phil Jordon. If we count playoffs, then you can add Halbrook here.

In 1962, Wilt's famous 50 ppg season, there were only THREE rotation players in the entire league over 6'9. Phil Jordon, Walter Dukes and Walt Bellamy. Bellamy also seemed to take full advantage of the undersized league, and as a 22 year old rookie, went on to have a 32/19 season. He would never approach those numbers again after the mid 60s, despite being fully healthy. Tells you something about the early 60s league doesn't it?

In 1963, we had some 6'10 guys added, but only ONE rotation player in the entire league was over 6'10. And that was 6'11 Bellamy. And only THREE rotation players in the entire league over 6'9.

From '60-'65, the only rotation player over 6'9 Wilt faced in the playoffs was Swede Halbrook, the scrub I mentioned earlier. Apparently, it did have an affect on him though, he faced a combo of 6'9 Kerr and Halbrook in '61 and ended up shooting only .469 while getting swept to a sub .500 team while having HCA.

We really going to compare this to Shaq's competition? :oldlol:

Here we go again. Let's see, Wilt faced Lovelette, Kerr, Russell, and Bellamy in the '62 season...all in the HOF. AND, he faced them about 10 games each...or about HALF of the season.

In the 64-65 and 65-66 seasons, Wilt faced Reed, Bellamy, Russell, Thurmond, all in the HOF, as well as Beatty, a player who was an all-star. AND, he faced them about 10 games EACH, or about HALF of the season was played against HOF centers.

Julizaver posted some of the numbers, but from what I recall, Wilt had games of 58 and 52 against Reed, as well as several in the 40's. Wilt had FIVE 50+ point games against Russell, including a 62 point game on 27-45 shooting. Chamberlain had TWO 60+ point games against Bellamy. He had a 45 point game against Thurmond (as well as several 30+ point games...and he only faced Thurmond in a relatively small amount of games in his "scoring" seasons.)

Later in Wilt's career, he was still outplaying the likes of Unseld, Cowens, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Hayes, Lanier, and Kareem.

We will never know what a PRIME Chamberlain was capable of, but in his 66-67 season, in a season in which he dramatically cut back his scoring, he averaged 24 ppg, on .683 shooting, and led the league in rebounding by a wide margin, at 24.2 rpg. He finished third in assists with 7.8 apg. This, in a league of Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, and Reed...as well as Beatty, and decent journeymen like Imhoff, Counts, and Dierking. In that season he also had three perfect games of 15-15, 16-16, and 18-18 (in game in which he scored 43 points.) His high game was 58 points, on 26-34 shooting.

In the 67-68 season, Chamberlain had the FOUR highest games of the season...52, 53, 53, and 68...despite once again concentrating on passing, rebounding, and defense.

In his last season before his injury, '68-69, he had games of 60 (immediately after SI ran an article claiming that he could no longer score), and followed it several days later with a 66 point game on 29-35 shooting. He even took the time to pump in 35 points against Russell, despite dramatically cutting back his offense (as well as outrebounding him one game that season, 42-18.)

But, go ahead...go out of your way to discredit Chamberlain. It is obviously your agenda here. Minimize Wilt, and his overwhelming domination of the Record Book, and brag up Kareem, and all of his flaws, and lack of statistical titles.

[jlauber]

In 1962, Wilt's famous 50 ppg season, there were only THREE rotation players in the entire league over 6'9. Phil Jordon, Walter Dukes and Walt Bellamy. Bellamy also seemed to take full advantage of the undersized league, and as a 22 year old rookie, went on to have a 32/19 season. He would never approach those numbers again after the mid 60s, despite being fully healthy. Tells you something about the early 60s league doesn't it?



Let's see. The Knicks with Darrell Imhoff at 6-10 and Phil Jordan at 6-10. Syracuse with HOFer Red Kerr at 6-9, and Swede Holbrook at 7-3. The Lakers started 6-8 Jim Krebs, but brought 6-11 Ray Felix off the bench. The Royals started 6-8 250 lb Wayne Embry. The Pistons had 7-0 Walter Dukes. The Hawks had 6-9 HOFer Clyde Lovelette. Chicago had 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy. And, of course, Boston had 6-10 HOFer Bill Russell.

So Wilt was facing HOF centers, on a nightly basis, in about HALF of the season.

If you want to argue height...put Wilt into the 80's against the likes of 7-4 statue Mark Eaton...and he would have had a field day. Oh wait...Wilt DID dominate Eaton, and it DID happen in a summer league game in the 80's...when Wilt was in his mid-40's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Qw1-ssViw

[PHILA]

If you want to argue height...put Wilt into the 80's against the likes of 7-4 statue Mark Eaton...and he would have had a field day. Oh wait...Wilt DID dominate Eaton, and it DID happen in a summer league game in the 80's...when Wilt was in his mid-40's.

http://i29.tinypic.com/14o0r2v.jpg

[jlauber]

http://i29.tinypic.com/14o0r2v.jpg

Or this...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

""When challenged, Wilt could do almost anything he wanted. In 1961 a new star named Walt Bellamy came into the league. Bellamy was 6-foot-10, and was scoring 30 points a game. First time they played against each other, they met at half court. Bellamy said, 'Hello, Mr. Chamberlain. I'm Walter Bellamy.' Chamberlain reached for Bellamy's hand and said, 'Hello, Walter. You won't get a shot off in the first half.' Wilt then blocked Bellamy's first nine shots. At the start of the second half Wilt said to Bellamy, 'Okay, Walter. Now you can play.'" [1]

Of all his memories of Wilt Chamberlain, the one that stood out for Larry Brown happened long after Chamberlain's professional career had ended. On a summer day in the early 1980s, when Brown was coaching at UCLA, Chamberlain showed up at Pauley Pavilion to take part in one of the high-octane pickup games that the arena constantly attracted. "Magic Johnson used to run the games," Brown recalled Tuesday after hearing that Chamberlain, his friend, had died at 63, "and he called a couple of chintzy fouls and a goaltending on Wilt. "So Wilt said: 'There will be no more layups in this gym,' and he blocked every shot after that. That's the truth, I saw it. He didn't let one [of Johnson's] shots get to the rim." Chamberlain would have been in his mid-40s at the time, and he remained in top physical shape until recently[1]"

[7_cody]

Those guys were great.

But I guess not everyone believes in evolution.

[Andrei89]

So much text for nothing

Here is what prooves Wilt Chamberlain was overrfkingrated.

50 ppg as a center. Get that sh1t out of here.


In the 90's he wouldn't have dropped 25 ppg.

100 points as a Center? get out of here mayn tnx

[jlauber]

So much text for nothing

Here is what prooves Wilt Chamberlain was overrfkingrated.

50 ppg as a center. Get that sh1t out of here.


In the 90's he wouldn't have dropped 25 ppg.

100 points as a Center? get out of here mayn tnx

Yep...scoring 50 ppg over the course of a full season, or scoring 100 points in one game, was commonplace back in Wilt's era.

[jlauber]

So much text for nothing

Here is what prooves Wilt Chamberlain was overrfkingrated.

50 ppg as a center. Get that sh1t out of here.


In the 90's he wouldn't have dropped 25 ppg.

100 points as a Center? get out of here mayn tnx

This is what proves that Shaq was over-rated.

30 ppg as a center. Get that crap outta here.

In the 60's he would be lucky to score 15 ppg.


I can play that ridiculous game too.

[Andrei89]

30 ppg as a center is not that big a dela especially if he is as dominant as Shaq.

Back in the 60's shaq would average 60 ppg on 75% shooting not to meniton like 25 rpg

Wilt overrated

/thread

[jlauber]

30 ppg as a center is not that big a dela especially if he is as dominant as Shaq.

Back in the 60's shaq would average 60 ppg on 75% shooting not to meniton like 25 rpg

Wilt overrated

/thread

Hard to argue with that conclusive proof.

I would have thought Shaq would have averaged about 30-35 rpg, too.

[Shep]

shaq would not last in 60's, would go home crying when crowd throw's coins into his eyes. shaq injure toe and out a year. shaq with no mcdonalds at every corner would be anorexic, probably only grow to 6-3, and no make the league.

i win

ha ha ha ha ha

yes

[Andrei89]

shaq would not last in 60's, would go home crying when crowd throw's coins into his eyes. shaq injure toe and out a year. shaq with no mcdonalds at every corner would be anorexic, probably only grow to 6-3, and no make the league.

i win

ha ha ha ha ha

yes


Yeh good joke

Except for the fact that mcdonalds made shaq grow

[Shep]

Yeh good joke

Except for the fact that mcdonalds made shaq grow
lulzwut

[Simple Jack]

I definitely won't say that Shaq dominated the 90's, that will be a lie if I said that, Hakeem was the best center back then, Shaq's dominance began in the late 99' which I think most of the people agree with, unless you say Shaq dominated the 90'......

I watched almost all of the matchups between Shaq and Hakeem in the 90's, including 96', I really don't think that Shaq was better than Hakeem or dominated Hakeem, not for a second, like I said before, they played equal in offense and Hakeem was better defender of course. And remember that was a 36-37 years old Hakeem...

The OP is mainly regarding to "A man's greatness can be measured by his enemies", hence, let's focus on Shaq's opposing centers and Wilt's.

Shaq's opponents were quite weak during his domination period, unless you can proove that Shaq started dominate the whole 90's centers, or proove that Wilt's opposing centers were nothing but as weak as Shaq's opponents, otherwise, I don't think the result will end up in favor in Shaq

Stupid OP. Genghis Khan obliterated nearly everyone and had very few great enemies. Same with Alexander the Great.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I have no doubt that Wilt would be the best rebounder in today's game, as well. He was a better athlete than even Dwight Howard, as well as being bigger, taller, faster, and stronger. And he was certainly more skilled than Howard, too. If Howard is the best the game has to offer today, then Chamberlain would be best in the game today. The question would be, just how dominant?

I agree that Wilt would be better than Howard, BUT absolutely no way in hell could I see Wilt jumping as high, much less higher. Howard proved to have a minimum 38.5" vertical in the 2007 dunk contest because his standing reaching is 9'3.5" and he touched 12'6". Howard is really only 6'9" barefoot, 4 inches shorter than Chamberlain yet I've seen footage of Howard hitting his head on the rim, but I've never seen Wilt's head at rim level.

As far as Shaq vs Wilt's numbers in the 60's, more than just competition, I think Wilt's numbers would be greatly brought down by the much slower pace of the game and the fact that no way in hell is he playing 48 mpg in the 90's/00's. People ignore that when he averaged 50 ppg, he averaged 40 shot attempts and 17 free throw attempts. No way in hell does he come anywhere near that in the modern game.

I could see Wilt still consistently in the 15-16 rpg range even in a slow paced game playing 40 mpg, but as far as scoring? To be honest, that aspect of Wilt's game never really impressed me as much when looking at shot attempts and his moves. I think that what was really impressive about Wilt was his rebounding and later in his career, his passing and defense.

[alexandreben]

[QUOTE=PHILA][I]Warren Jabali was an ABA All-Star as Wilt

[alexandreben]

And here's the thing...I still don't think he was ever as strong as Shaq in lower body strength. Or ever could be. Shaq's weight and strength was/is low. He would have really given the young (pre-1965 or so) Wilt problems. And even when he was fat (which was often) Shaq had good quickness, even if he had a lot less explosiveness. It would have been great to see both the 1966-1969 Wilt and the post injury Wilt go up against the peak version of Shaq. 1966-69 Wilt had good lower body strength and elite/unique quickness and agility for a guy of that size. 1970 and later Wilt was almost--but not quite--as strong as Shaq down low, and was about the same level in agility and quickness. But Wilt always had an advantage in upper body strength and explosiveness. So, different types of strength.
lower body strength v.s. upper body strength

Take Yao Ming for example, he had great lower body strength, strong legs and a 310lbs to go with;

but his upper body is really tiny... Yao Ming can press bench up to 300 pounds, compare with Shaq's 465lbs bench press or Wilt's 500+lbs is really hilarious;

hence the question, how important the weight is, and which kind of strength is more important for a center regarding to scoring, rebounding, shot blocking and defense.

IMO, weight is really not the issue for battling in the paint, so does height, take Moses Malone for example, he is only 6'9"-6'10" and only 210lbs, he is a rebounding monser, and he murdered KAJ in the finals...

Base on Shaq and Yao's matchup, IMO, the upper body strength is more important, so, in the paint battling, Chamberlain's superior upper body strength can easily "push away" Shaq base on his bench press records, his clean and jerk records.



As to the smarts/skills/etc., you have to go with Wilt. It's a no-brainer. Put it this way. In 1961, Wilt's coach told him, "I want you to score like no other center--or player--has done before." So Wilt scored more than any player in history, and his team set a franchise record for wins and missed out on the finals because of a controversial call in Game 7 of the conference finals (thank you, Mendy Rudolph!). Five years later, Wilt's coach told him, "I want you to do what no C has done before--become the focal point of the offense, and be a premier passer; a point center." So Wilt was a top 3 assist man in the league, and the team set a league record for victories and won a title. Five years after that, Wilt's coach told him, on a high octane running team, "Only take high percentage shots, make sharp outlet passes, and be the best defensive player in the league." Wilt did all that, the team set a league record for victories and won a title. And in all of the years, and years in between, Wilt led the league in rebounding and minutes played virtually every season.

Wilt is a much more complete player than Shaq with no doubt...

[jlauber]

I agree that Wilt would be better than Howard, BUT absolutely no way in hell could I see Wilt jumping as high, much less higher. Howard proved to have a minimum 38.5" vertical in the 2007 dunk contest because his standing reaching is 9'3.5" and he touched 12'6". Howard is really only 6'9" barefoot, 4 inches shorter than Chamberlain yet I've seen footage of Howard hitting his head on the rim, but I've never seen Wilt's head at rim level.

As far as Shaq vs Wilt's numbers in the 60's, more than just competition, I think Wilt's numbers would be greatly brought down by the much slower pace of the game and the fact that no way in hell is he playing 48 mpg in the 90's/00's. People ignore that when he averaged 50 ppg, he averaged 40 shot attempts and 17 free throw attempts. No way in hell does he come anywhere near that in the modern game.

I could see Wilt still consistently in the 15-16 rpg range even in a slow paced game playing 40 mpg, but as far as scoring? To be honest, that aspect of Wilt's game never really impressed me as much when looking at shot attempts and his moves. I think that what was really impressive about Wilt was his rebounding and later in his career, his passing and defense.

Unfortunately, we have very little footage of Wilt's career. However, there have been eye-witness accounts of Wilt touching the top of the backboard. (There was even a, so far unverified post, that Jon McGlocklin claimed it was a well-known fact that both Russell, a WORLD CLASS high jumper, and Wilt were able to to accomplish that feat.) And, while Russell was an outstanding leaper, he did not have the physical height or length to match Chamberlain in terms of reaching an apex in height. Of course, it has also been mentioned many times that Wilt dunked on a 12 ft rim, and withOUT the benefit of a lob pass. And I don't believe that Howard ever dunked on a 12 ft rim, either. Furthermore, it seems to be more than just a coincidence that the NBA outlawed the dunking of FTs, at about the same time that Wilt was said to have also accomplished that feat.

As far as Wilt's athletcism...Wilt won a high-jump championship, basically with a part-time effort, AND with very poor technique. He was also a competitive long jumper, triple jumper, 440, 880, and was even a member of KU's 4x100 team. Not only that, but during a tryout with the Chiefs, no less than Hank Stram proclaimed that Wilt would be an all-pro at perhaps as many as three positions. He even stunned Stram by outracing the Chief's fastest running back in a foot-race. And before anyone scoff's at those comments, it was Stram who had 6-9 Buck Buchanon anchoring his defensive line.

Of course, it was also well-known that Chamberlain had TWO LEGITIMATE offers to fight Muhammed Ali for the world boxing title. Both fell thru, in part because Ali had lost his title by suspension , and then by losing to Frazier. In any case, no less than Cus D'Amato felt that he could train Wilt to beat Ali. AND, during a famous interview with the two, Howard Cosell proclaimed Wilt as probably the strongest man in the world at the time. Abe Lincoln has also posted comments by Jim Brown who, himself, declared that he would rather fight Ali than Chamberlain.

After Wilt retired, he became an exceptional volleyball player. While there have been sources claiming that he was a world-class volleyball player, it has been disputed here by a fellow volleyball expert. But, in any case, I don't think that there is any question that had Wilt trained for volleyball earlier in his career, that he would have become a truly great one.

Chamberlain was also recruited to participate in the decathalon, and there were "experts" that felt he would have been an Olympic standout had he dedicated himself to that event.

Furthermore, I have previously posted none other than Larry Brown witnessing Wilt, in his 40's, dominate a summer league game involving Magic Johnson, among others. AND, Kiki van de Wege witnessed Wilt, in his late 40's, back down a helpless 7-4 Mark Eaton and throw down a vicious dunk on him. Not only that, but NBA teams LEGITIMATELY pursued Wilt even into his 50's! Given the fact that in Wilt's final NBA season, at age 36, he led the league in rebounding (and averaged 22.5 rpg in the post-season BTW), was voted first-team all-defense, and set a FG% mark of .727 that will probably never be broken...well, one has to wonder how many more quality years Chamberlain had left. He certainly kept himselfin great shape, and there was an eye-witness account of Chamberlain bench-pressing 465 lbs at age 59!

As far as his offensive skills...Chamberlain has been ridiculed here for "only" shooting about .525 in his "scoring" seasons...which, BTW occured in an era of .410 to .440 league averages. Of course, that FG% would be the equal of Olajuwon and Robinson, in their BEST seasons, in leagues in which the average approached nearly 50% league-wide shooting. Why was Wilt's early seasons so "low"? Because, as the great Red Holzman said, Wilt came into the league with a solid outside shooting game. I have posted the footage that is out there. Wilt was hitting 15 ft. jump shots, 15 ft. bank shots that would put Duncan's to shame, even a sweeping hook shot. AND, while Wilt cut back his range from the middle of his career until the end, he still consistently hit the fade-away bank shot. Of course, when he concentrated on his inside post game, he became virtually unstoppable. His '66-67 season is so far ahead of anyone else's best season (including his own '61-'62 season...which was proclaimed by an ESPN panel of experts as the greatest single individual season in professional sports HISTORY...or better than his '62-63 season, which has the highest PER rating in NBA HISTORY), that I have long maintained that he could easily have averaged 40 ppg on 60% shooting that season.

He gets ripped for competition, but he faced TWELVE HOF centers in his career...and in many of those seasons, he was facing them up to 10 times each, per season. I have estimated that during the course of his career, he played against a HOF center in about one-third of the time...and perhaps as much nearly 50% in some seasons. AND, in the post-season, he faced a HOF 70% of the time (112 of 160 post-season games.) And I also find it amusing that some bring up the height of his competitors (which was about 6-10 in '62 and 6-11 in '72)...and yet we find that players like Duncan (6-11), Wallace (6-7), Olajuwon (6-10), Ewing (no way he was 7-0 given the photos I have seen standing next to Wilt), and even Howard (6-9) are generally SHORTER than their advertised height. And, if anything, the players of the 60's under-estimated their height (Wilt HAD to be taller than 7-1, Kareem HAD to be taller than 7-2, Walton HAD to be taller than 6-11, and Russell WAS taller than 6-9.)

What would Wilt average in today's NBA? We could of course use mathmatical comparisons, which would give Chamberlain about a 37 ppg average after reducing his FGAs and FTAs to 2010 levels. But, even then, you would have to adjust his FG%, which would have gone up considerably by 2010 standards...so now he approaches 39 ppg. Those that argue that TODAY's NBA is a "perimeter-based" game, need to research the 60's and 70's. The VAST majority of 30 ppg scorers were "perimeter" players. West and Oscar had numerous 30 ppg seasons. Barry led the league one year in the 60's, and averaged over 30 in another in the mid-70's. Aside from one year by Bellamy, and three by Kareem's, the bulk of 30 ppg seasons were accomplished from the outside...including 6-11 Bob McAdoo.

Would Wilt play 48 mpg in today's game. Probably not. But given the fact that he holds the top-seven seasons, ALL-TIME. And given the fact that he routinely led the league by 2-3 MPG in almost all of those. And given the fact that he averaged over 43 mpg in his LOWEST seasons, and late in his career. And given the fact that he averaged an astonishing 47.2 mpg in his 160 post-season games. And given the fact that even in the 00's, the top players have hit 43 mpg. Well, Wilt most certainly would be averaging closer to 45 mpg.

Reducing his available rebounds from say his '61 or '67 seasons, down to 2010 levels, he would be at about 17-19 rpg. Of course he averaged 48 and 45 mpg in those two seasons. Ok, 17 rpg seems reasonable...EXCEPT, that instead of facing a top rebounding player nearly every game, as he did throughout his career, he would facing the clods that permeat today's NBA. And let's face reality...6-8 Rodman dominated the WORST rebounding big men in NBA history. If Rodman (who was just ordinary in the post-season BTW...while Chamberlain elevated his already incredible regular season numbers to just astonishing levels)...could average nearly 19 rpg in a season...well, it is a safe bet that Chamberlain would have bested that, as well.

Obviously Wilt would not average 50 ppg or 27 rpg in today's NBA. But, he would also not be a Garnett-type, 25-12 player either. Furthermore, given the fact that he was outshooting his nearest competition by as much as .162 in league's that shot .440..., or that he outshot his league average by as much as .271 (yes .271 better than the league average) one has to wonder just how much higher his already impressive FG% numbers would be today, as well.

[Soundwave]

I think Wilt's game actually was probably more akin to a David Robinson.

In term's of a strength/speed/agility, that's what I think. Some power, some finesse, roughly a 50/50 mix.

People who assume Wilt played like Shaq I think have it wrong. *No one* has ever really played like Shaq (total power player). Even Wilt has admitted that he would shy away from dunking and overpowering players too much because he wanted to show more finesse.

Shaq, love him or hate him, I think is completely unique. There's no one in NBA history quite like him.

[alexandreben]

Wilt averaged 30.0 PPG and 28.2 RPG in 94 regular season matchups against Russell (who posted 14.2 PPG and 22.9 RPG).

In 49 postseason matchups, Wilt managed 25.7 PPG and 28.0 RPG versus Russell's 14.9 PPG and 24.7 RPG.

Opposing Centers

The big names against whom Wilt played a lot were:

Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Spencer Haywood (during the last 3 years of his career, Spencer's 3 best years), he got 80 games of Bob McAdoo as a rookie and a dose of healthy Bob Lanier (Lanier's first three seasons, all 80+ games played).

Bells was at least 6'11, 250 and was drafted only two years after Wilt. Forget about Walter Dukes, worry about the 31+ ppg Bells dropped as a rookie. Yes, he was really only dominant for his first five years, but he was still an important and significant player thereafter.

And yeah, Kareem was a player during the last 4 years of Wilt's career (though Wilt only played 12 regular season games in Kareem's rookie year). Still, that includes Kareem's 3 best scoring seasons and two of his three best rebounding seasons.

Oh yes, and Cowens was there for the last 3 years of Wilt's career as well.

Wilt had competition and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Yes, some of it didn't enter into the league until later in his career but you'll notice that while he didn't score as much as he did as a younger guy, his efficiency skyrocketed, his rebounding wasn't affected and he became a deadly passer while retaining his reputation for outstanding defense.

The inclusion of competition (much of it with significant size, such as Kareem, Lanier, etc) did NOTHING to affect his ability to impact the game at an elite level.

So arguing that Wilt's competition were all 6'7 white guys is not only wrong, but pointless.

For the sake of argument, let's break it down by year:

59-60 Bill Russell, Dolph Schayes, Red Kerr, Charlie Tyra, Willie Nauls, Ray Felix, Clyde Lovelette, Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon
60-61
61-62 Walt Bellamy,
62-63
63-64 Nate Thurmond*
64-65 Willis Reed
65-66
66-67 Reggie Harding, Joe Strawler, Walt Wesley, Leroy Ellis, Mel Counts, Darrall Imhoff
67-68
68-69 Wes Unseld
69-70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
70-71 Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier
71-72
72-73
72-73

* Thurmond and Wilt played together for their first two years, so I guess 65-66 is when they really became "competitors."

There were certainly shorter guys in the NBA in his earliest days but then, he also played Bill Russell and the others more often because the league was smaller.

So here, we've covered the standard argument.

But let's take this a little further, let's look at the average height of your generally NBA starting center in 1995, 2000 and 2008.

1995:

The entire Atlantic division had someone at least 7'0 tall starting more games at the 5 than any other player, including Shaq, Ewing, Montross, Willis, Benoit Benjamin, Shawn Bradley and Gheorge Muresan.

And Shaq, a physically imposing presence, still managed 29.3 ppg on 58.3% shooting over 20.2 FGA/g because the defense, despite the increase in height over previous eras, was insignificant. Shawn Bradley was a rag, Muresan couldn't move, Benoit Benjamin wasn't special and even good players like Ewing couldn't touch him. Shaq at this stage of his career was still under 315 pounds. Montross and Willis weren't really significant barriers either.

Wilt wasn't as heavy as Shaq but was ridiculously strong and considerably more skilled; there was nothing in the Atlantic division that would have been any more difficult than what he dealt with in his own career and plenty less than some of the other guys Wilt faced later in his career when he'd bulked up and slowed down a bit.

There were 3 legit 7-footers starting in the Central division and that's only if you count the 32 starts that Alton Lister had for the Bucks (that was more than anyone else at that spot and even if you don't ignore Vin Baker, who was only 6'11). They were Rik Smits and Will Perdue. I dare you to say anything about either. The division included Alonzo Mourning, of course, who didn't suck, but you're still not discussing anything that Wilt hadn't seen before in terms of defensive package and such.

In the Mid-West, you're talking about 34 starts out of Felton Spencer, David Robinson and Dikembe Mutombo as the seven-footers. You had a tiny guy (Lorenzo Williams, IIRC, about 6'9), some guys near the right height (including Olajuwon, of whom Wilt spoke highly).

The Pacific division was even worse; the only legit 7-footer was Divac and, like the Central division, there wasn't a soul with a prayer of guarding Wilt.

So, in '95, there were 27 teams in the league and of those teams, there were a fairly pedestrian 4 7-footers who could have really done anything against Wilt and only three of those were also offensive threats (Mutombo basically taking the Thurmond role, only less offense and more defense). There were two other guys (Mourning and Olajuwon) who looked similar in terms of height differential to Wilt's competition of the time.

Now, notice something...

What I'm saying about Wilt applies also to Shaquille O'neal, who was the same height as Wilt and, at the time, as heavy as Wilt was at his peak (and, for the 95-96 season and on, at least 15 pounds heavier than even that... the weight differential grew with time, of course).

So anyone who wants to make the argument that height is at ALL meaningful to what Wilt achieved needs to wonder how much Shaq padded his stats against teams that started, say.... Bo Outlaw or Tony Massenburg on any given night. Or Lorenzo Williams. Or BUCK Williams. Or AC Green. Or any random stiff who was just tall, of which there were PLENTY in the league at that time.

Let's put to bed height as a valid argument, hey?

When Wilt hit the league, he had competition. In his earliest years, his league was only 8 teams large and the proportion of competition represented that. There were perhaps 2 guys in the league who gave him a lot of trouble, so about a quarter of the teams in the league threw someone at him 12 times that gave him some trouble (Russell and Bells, mostly).

In the NBA of 1995, there were 5 guys of that type, 6 if you generously include Mutombo.

5 guys would be 17% of the league; 6 guys would be 20% of the league.

The proportion of significant competition had actually DECLINED by this period, suggesting that the exploits of players such as Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq, Mourning, Ewing, etc were all inflated by a lower proportion of competition despite a significant peak in centers... a peak not unlike what Wilt would experience during his own career.

Now we fast forward to 2000, with two MORE teams in the league.

The significant players to consider are Mourning, what remained of Ewing (he was a 15/10 player at this point), Theo Ratliff (who posed no offensive threat), Shaq, David Robinson (steeply into his decline), Tim Duncan, and then Arvydas Sabonis (but he was old, injured and couldn't guard Shaq either). So really, scratch Sabonis, because Wilt was even MORE mobile. You could try to put 'Sheed on him but that wouldn't have worked either.

So again, you're talking about Mourning, Ewing, Shaq, Duncan instead of Robinson and that's it. In a 29-team league, that's down to 4 guys, representing just under 14% representation of significant competition. If you feel especially frisky, you can add Kevin Garnett to the list to bring it up to 17% or so. Garnett was a long, rangy defender but he would have gotten badly outpowered by Wilt, especially at that stage of his career because he hadn't finished filling out/bulking up yet. Webber never defended anyone and Karl Malone didn't have a prayer for guarding Wilt any more than did the strong 6'9 players of Wilt's own era. The PFs of the time didn't really stand a chance.


This just made my point, Wilt battled with high level HOF centers with very decent quantities matchups and outplayed them by a very comfortable margin;

Shaq battled with less quality HOF centers with much less quantities matchups, he didn't dominate the 90's centers and he wasn't even the best center in 90's, what's worse is what Shaq dominate was just a bunch of low quality centers during his domination in the 00's;

Even a 6'6(7)' Ben Wallace or a 6'5' Sir Charles can get more rebound than Shaq, not to mention 6'7' Dennis Rodman... Shaq never won any rebounding title, and his shot blocking is nothing to compare with Wilt...

[alexandreben]

I agree that Wilt would be better than Howard, BUT absolutely no way in hell could I see Wilt jumping as high, much less higher. Howard proved to have a minimum 38.5" vertical in the 2007 dunk contest because his standing reaching is 9'3.5" and he touched 12'6". Howard is really only 6'9" barefoot, 4 inches shorter than Chamberlain yet I've seen footage of Howard hitting his head on the rim, but I've never seen Wilt's head at rim level.

As far as Shaq vs Wilt's numbers in the 60's, more than just competition, I think Wilt's numbers would be greatly brought down by the much slower pace of the game and the fact that no way in hell is he playing 48 mpg in the 90's/00's. People ignore that when he averaged 50 ppg, he averaged 40 shot attempts and 17 free throw attempts. No way in hell does he come anywhere near that in the modern game.

I could see Wilt still consistently in the 15-16 rpg range even in a slow paced game playing 40 mpg, but as far as scoring? To be honest, that aspect of Wilt's game never really impressed me as much when looking at shot attempts and his moves. I think that what was really impressive about Wilt was his rebounding and later in his career, his passing and defense.
If Shaq played in 60's, under much much worse conditioning, with less nutrition, low level of medication, and wearing a pair of "Converse" shoes... battling with so many HOFers with huge quantity matchups...I can't imagine how many years can he last... or how many games can he play per season...

The fact is he only played 67 games per season in his 00's domination period, he averaged only 65 games per season in his career, even in Orlando a young strong Shaq only played 75 games per season, and the Lakers Shaq only played 64 games per season... talk about minutes... it's really hilarious:lol

[cotdt]

Wow... you history dorks sure like to write a lot.

[PHILA]

I agree that Wilt would be better than Howard
This is so obvious it goes without saying. But will you still believe so by the year's end? I shall not be looking forward to said new "research".



To be honest, that aspect of Wilt's game never really impressed me as much when looking at shot attempts and his moves.
How many guys today can explode like this over a 7 footer at the 0:23 mark, in old school chucks at the age of 31? Not to neglect his knee tendinitis, big toe inflammation, and annual shin splints.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8



Or ward off multiple defenders with several show the ball fake passes as effectively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDHDg5pPrOc (1:09 mark)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48...ick-kaml_sport (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5_nba-vault-the-1967-sixers-rick-kaml_sport) (Two fake passes at 4:30 mark followed by a power move to the basket, drawing 4 defenders and finding an open Billy C.)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTRjFYwF_RQ#t=2m55s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kocq3D4zd-U#t=4m44s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycO_MYuF89k#t=7m08s

[alexandreben]

Take a look at Wilt stand still and jump reverse dunk on KAJ, how many center can do this today??!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lysfZ_fo9k8&feature=related#t=1m50s

[alwaysunny]

If Shaq played in 60's, under much much worse conditioning, with less nutrition, low level of medication, and wearing a pair of "Converse" shoes... battling with so many HOFers with huge quantity matchups...I can't imagine how many years can he last... or how many games can he play per season...

And this is why I hate era comparisons. What's the point of arguing if you're going to bring this up?

[alwaysunny]

Take a look at Wilt stand still and jump reverse dunk on KAJ, how many center can do this today??!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lysfZ_fo9k8&feature=related#t=1m50s

Howard, Bynum, Oden, Noah, Dalembert, Jefferson, Biedrins, Nene, Chandler..

You want me to name PFs too?

[Simple Jack]

This is so obvious it goes without saying. But will you still believe so by the year's end? I shall not be looking forward to said new "research".


How many guys today can explode like this over a 7 footer at the 0:23 mark, in old school chucks at the age of 31? Not to neglect his knee tendinitis, big toe inflammation, and annual shin splints.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8



Or ward off multiple defenders with several show the ball fake passes as effectively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDHDg5pPrOc (1:09 mark)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48...ick-kaml_sport (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5_nba-vault-the-1967-sixers-rick-kaml_sport) (Two fake passes at 4:30 mark followed by a power move to the basket, drawing 4 defenders and finding an open Billy C.)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTRjFYwF_RQ#t=2m55s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kocq3D4zd-U#t=4m44s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycO_MYuF89k#t=7m08s


That's supposed to be impressive?

[jlauber]

That's supposed to be impressive?

No. Nothing Wilt did was impressive.

[alexandreben]

Howard, Bynum, Oden, Noah, Dalembert, Jefferson, Biedrins, Nene, Chandler..

You want me to name PFs too?
on whom? name a HOF center please, on Shaq?:roll: no way

[Simple Jack]

No. Nothing Wilt did was impressive.

:lol

Seriously. What part of that was impressive? I'm assuming he made that post and looked for video that would support his notion that Wilt can do some amazing things (I've seen them), but that video wasn't one of them. It wasn't impressive at all actually.

[alexandreben]

And this is why I hate era comparisons. What's the point of arguing if you're going to bring this up?
ShaqAttack3234 brought it up, and saying Wilt can't play that kind of minutes, so I use this on Shaq... the fact is, even with modern equipments and condition, Shaq only 65 games per season, and that's on a 35 mpg basis, talking about Wilt's minutes compares with Shaq is really ridiculous...

[alwaysunny]

on whom? name a HOF center please, on Shaq?:roll: no way

You know damn right that wasn't what you meant initially..once you realized Wilt didn't need to jump any higher than 20 inches on that play.

[alexandreben]

You know damn right that wasn't what you meant initially..once you realized Wilt didn't need to jump any higher than 20 inches on that play.
once again.."A man

[alwaysunny]

[QUOTE=alexandreben]once again.."A man

[Simple Jack]

[QUOTE=alexandreben]once again.."A man

[jlauber]

:lol

Seriously. What part of that was impressive? I'm assuming he made that post and looked for video that would support his notion that Wilt can do some amazing things (I've seen them), but that video wasn't one of them. It wasn't impressive at all actually.

Are the AVERAGE athlete's of today, better than those of the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's? No doubt. There are really two main questions, though. One, how much better are they today, on average, than 10-20-30-40 and even 50 years ago? And, secondly, just how great were the great players of those eras?

I hate to keep bringing these points up, but I will for the benefit of those who have not read them.

Ted Williams. If there has ever been a "bridge" in baseball, it was Williams. He played in a career that spanned four decades. Against 1941 pitching, he hit .406. Against 1957 pitching, at age 38, he hit .388. He came along just after Lou Gehrig had his last great season. And, in 1956, a young man by the name of Mantle was hitting 52 HRs...many of them of tape-measure variety. In fact, Mantle probably hit more 500+ ft. HRs in than anyone else in MLB history...and even more remarkably, he did it from BOTH sides of the plate. In 1955 Willie Mays hit 51 HRs. In 1965 Willie Mays hit 52 HRs. George Foster came along in the late 60's, and would hit 52 HRs in 1977. George Brett played in the 70's, and hit .390 in the 80's.

Nolan Ryan. The man came into the league just after Sandy Koufax, and his 98 MPH fastball (that he had to slow down to control) retired. Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH in 1974, in the 8th inning of a game in which he had thrown 162 pitches, and by a SLOW GUN (yes...there is a link that suggests that Ryan might very well have thrown over 105 MPH.) Ryna pitched for 27 years, and on his very last pitch, he was clocked at 98 MPH...on an injured arm. In between there guys like JR Richard, who reportedly hit 100 MPH.

OK...so what you ask? Barry Bonds LONGEST HR, and aided by PEDS, was measured at 490 ft. So, guys like Mantle, McCovey, Frank Howard, Willie Stargell, and Reggie Jackson were all hitting HRs further than what an artificially-enhanced Bonds was. My god, can you imagine what a healthy, non-alcohol enduced Mantle, living in this decade would have been capable of?

And yes, there are a number of pitchers today throwing over 100 MPH. But we are talking about maybe 103-104 MPH, on FAST GUNS. Is that a dramatic difference over what Koufax and McDowell were throwing in the 60's? If you want a truly interesting story regarding speed, google the name of Steve Dalkowski. He was pitching in the 50's and 60's...and there are those that believe no one else has ever thrown harder.

How about the NFL? Yes, the average players are bigger (much bigger BTW), and probably faster. BUT, I can produce a list of NFL players who were faster in their era, than ANY of them in TODAY's. Bo Jackson, at 225 lbs. was clocked at a 4.12 40. Deion Sanders ran a 4.18. OJ Simpson was a track star in the 60s' who was part of a world-record holding 4x100 relay team. Hershel Walker played in the 80's, and ran a 10.1 100 meters. Darrell Green came into the league in the early 80's. There are some links which claimed a 4.09 40. Not sure how accurate that was, but, he won FOUR "NFL Fastest Man" competitions...and was involved in them at age 40...when he ran a 4.35. However, THE fastest NFL player, EVER? He played some 45 years ago, and his name was Bob Hayes. He STILL has the fastest recorded 100 meters by a LEGITIMATE NFL player, at 10.0. He is a HOFer, and, BTW, he averaged 42 yards-per-play on his 76 career TDs.

The NBA? Take a look at the small footage that exists of 6-6 Gus Johnson, who reportedly smashed three backboards, and was among the highest leapers of all-time. There is more footage available of Dr. J, Dr. K, David Thompson, and Connie Hawkins...all of whom were playing in the 70's. There have been some "panel of experts" that rank Dr. J's dunks as the greatest ever. Basketball "skills"? Go to YouTube and search Pete Maravich. He was a true magician who played in the 60s' thru the 80's. I marvel at Dirk Nowitzki...but he was not the first "big man" with long range. 6-11 Bob McAdoo was hitting shots from all over the floor in the 70's...and scoring over 30 ppg on over 50% to boot. And very few fans here would know that Jerry Lucas was among the greatest "long range" shooters ever. They probably marvel at his two 20-20 seasons, but the term "Lucas Layup" was coined for his 25+ ft range...of which I witnessed first hand in a pre-game warmup in the early 70's. Bill Russell was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper...at one point he was ranked 7th in the WORLD! He cleared 6'-9" in one event.

Kareem is another "bridge." He played from the late 60's into the late 80's. He was truly a great player, but perhaps one of the most remarkable stories about Kareem, was that, as the oldest player in the league, in 85-86, he hung three straight games of 35, 42, and 46 on Olajuwon. This was the same Kareem that could not shoot over 50% against Thurmond in three straight post-seasons (.486, .405, and .428)...and that was Kareem in his statistical prime. AND, by most general accounts, Kareem was outplayed by Chamberlain in the '72 WCF's, in what was Kareem's greatest statistical season. Wilt outrebounded him, and held him to .457 shooting (including .414 over the last four games of that series), and included were some 15 blocks of the "unblockable" "sky-hook." And, in one game before Wilt was injured in 1969, Chamberlain thoroughly outplayed Kareem. Both Thurmond and Wilt were well past their primes, and one can only wonder what a PRIME Chamberlain would have done against Kareem?

All of which brings me to Wilt. He was a high-jump champ. He participated in the long-jump, the triple jump, the 4x100, the 440, the 880, and in the shot put. He ran marathons. He tried out for the Chiefs, and outraced their fastest running back. Hank Stram proclaimed that he could have been an all-pro in perhaps as many as three positions. He was an outstanding volleyball player. There were some that believed he would have been a world-class decathalete. He had TWO legitimate offers to fight Ali for the title. He was considered among the strongest ATHLETES in the world back in the 60's and 70's. The internet is plastered with bench presses of up to 550 lbs, and there was an eye-witness account of Chamberlain benching 465 lbs at age 59. No less than Larry Brown witnessed Wilt, in his mid-40's, dominate a summer league game that included Magic Johnson. And Kiki Van de Wege was stunned when Wilt backed down a helpless Mark Eaton, and slammed home a vicious dunk...and Chamberlain was in his late 40's at the time. Not only that, but there were NBA teams that LEGITIMATELY pursued Wilt into his 50's!

So...while TODAY's athletes are better...just how much better are they? And, take the greats of the 60's and 70's, and give them all the benefits of modern technology, medicine, nutrition, training, coaching, and equipment...and just how great would they be in TODAY's era?

[Simple Jack]

Are the AVERAGE athlete's of today, better than those of the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's? No doubt. There are really two main questions, though. One, how much better are they today, on average, than 10-20-30-40 and even 50 years ago? And, secondly, just how great were the great players of those eras?

I hate to keep bringing these points up, but I will for the benefit of those who have not read them.

Ted Williams. If there has ever been a "bridge" in baseball, it was Williams. He played in a career that spanned four decades. Against 1941 pitching, he hit .406. Against 1957 pitching, at age 38, he hit .388. He came along just after Lou Gehrig had his last great season. And, in 1956, a young man by the name of Mantle was hitting 52 HRs...many of them of tape-measure variety. In fact, Mantle probably hit more 500+ ft. HRs in than anyone else in MLB history...and even more remarkably, he did it from BOTH sides of the plate. In 1955 Willie Mays hit 51 HRs. In 1965 Willie Mays hit 52 HRs. George Foster came along in the late 60's, and would hit 52 HRs in 1977. George Brett played in the 70's, and hit .390 in the 80's.

Nolan Ryan. The man came into the league just after Sandy Koufax, and his 98 MPH fastball (that he had to slow down to control) retired. Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH in 1974, in the 8th inning of a game in which he had thrown 162 pitches, and by a SLOW GUN (yes...there is a link that suggests that Ryan might very well have thrown over 105 MPH.) Ryna pitched for 27 years, and on his very last pitch, he was clocked at 98 MPH...on an injured arm. In between there guys like JR Richard, who reportedly hit 100 MPH.

OK...so what you ask? Barry Bonds LONGEST HR, and aided by PEDS, was measured at 490 ft. So, guys like Mantle, McCovey, Frank Howard, Willie Stargell, and Reggie Jackson were all hitting HRs further than what an artificially-enhanced Bonds was. My god, can you imagine what a healthy, non-alcohol enduced Mantle, living in this decade would have been capable of?

And yes, there are a number of pitchers today throwing over 100 MPH. But we are talking about maybe 103-104 MPH, on FAST GUNS. Is that a dramatic difference over what Koufax and McDowell were throwing in the 60's? If you want a truly interesting story regarding speed, google the name of Steve Dalkowski. He was pitching in the 50's and 60's...and there are those that believe no one else has ever thrown harder.

How about the NFL? Yes, the average players are bigger (much bigger BTW), and probably faster. BUT, I can produce a list of NFL players who were faster in their era, than ANY of them in TODAY's. Bo Jackson, at 225 lbs. was clocked at a 4.12 40. Deion Sanders ran a 4.18. OJ Simpson was a track star in the 60s' who was part of a world-record holding 4x100 relay team. Hershel Walker played in the 80's, and ran a 10.1 100 meters. Darrell Green came into the league in the early 80's. There are some links which claimed a 4.09 40. Not sure how accurate that was, but, he won FOUR "NFL Fastest Man" competitions...and was involved in them at age 40...when he ran a 4.35. However, THE fastest NFL player, EVER? He played some 45 years ago, and his name was Bob Hayes. He STILL has the fastest recorded 100 meters by a LEGITIMATE NFL player, at 10.0. He is a HOFer, and, BTW, he averaged 42 yards-per-play on his 76 career TDs.

The NBA? Take a look at the small footage that exists of 6-6 Gus Johnson, who reportedly smashed three backboards, and was among the highest leapers of all-time. There is more footage available of Dr. J, Dr. K, David Thompson, and Connie Hawkins...all of whom were playing in the 70's. There have been some "panel of experts" that rank Dr. J's dunks as the greatest ever. Basketball "skills"? Go to YouTube and search Pete Maravich. He was a true magician who played in the 60s' thru the 80's. I marvel at Dirk Nowitzki...but he was not the first "big man" with long range. 6-11 Bob McAdoo was hitting shots from all over the floor in the 70's...and scoring over 30 ppg on over 50% to boot. And very few fans here would know that Jerry Lucas was among the greatest "long range" shooters ever. They probably marvel at his two 20-20 seasons, but the term "Lucas Layup" was coined for his 25+ ft range...of which I witnessed first hand in a pre-game warmup in the early 70's. Bill Russell was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper...at one point he was ranked 7th in the WORLD! He cleared 6'-9" in one event.

Kareem is another "bridge." He played from the late 60's into the late 80's. He was truly a great player, but perhaps one of the most remarkable stories about Kareem, was that, as the oldest player in the league, in 85-86, he hung three straight games of 35, 42, and 46 on Olajuwon. This was the same Kareem that could not shoot over 50% against Thurmond in three straight post-seasons (.486, .405, and .428)...and that was Kareem in his statistical prime. AND, by most general accounts, Kareem was outplayed by Chamberlain in the '72 WCF's, in what was Kareem's greatest statistical season. Wilt outrebounded him, and held him to .457 shooting (including .414 over the last four games of that series), and included were some 15 blocks of the "unblockable" "sky-hook." And, in one game before Wilt was injured in 1969, Chamberlain thoroughly outplayed Kareem. Both Thurmond and Wilt were well past their primes, and one can only wonder what a PRIME Chamberlain would have done against Kareem?

All of which brings me to Wilt. He was a high-jump champ. He participated in the long-jump, the triple jump, the 4x100, the 440, the 880, and in the shot put. He ran marathons. He tried out for the Chiefs, and outraced their fastest running back. Hank Stram proclaimed that he could have been an all-pro in perhaps as many as three positions. He was an outstanding volleyball player. There were some that believed he would have been a world-class decathalete. He had TWO legitimate offers to fight Ali for the title. He was considered among the strongest ATHLETES in the world back in the 60's and 70's. The internet is plastered with bench presses of up to 550 lbs, and there was an eye-witness account of Chamberlain benching 465 lbs at age 59. No less than Larry Brown witnessed Wilt, in his mid-40's, dominate a summer league game that included Magic Johnson. And Kiki Van de Wege was stunned when Wilt backed down a helpless Mark Eaton, and slammed home a vicious dunk...and Chamberlain was in his late 40's at the time. Not only that, but there were NBA teams that LEGITIMATELY pursued Wilt into his 50's!

So...while TODAY's athletes are better...just how much better are they? And, take the greats of the 60's and 70's, and give them all the benefits of modern technology, medicine, nutrition, training, coaching, and equipment...and just how great would they be in TODAY's era?


Did you really just write all of that based on me saying that single play by Wilt wasn't impressive? I would assume someone who assess my statement itself, which was that THAT SINGLE PLAY BY WILT wasn't impressive, despite the posters intentions, rather than going off on a man-love tangent and expressing your love once again for Wilt.

[alwaysunny]

Are the AVERAGE athlete's of today, better than those of the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's? No doubt.

This is all we need to know. In fact it's not even the athleticism. It's the SKILL SET that today's athletes are superior over. This is why the big men from the past era are perhaps able to compete in today's game, because they are naturally less skill-oriented than the guards. Now Wilt is an exception because he was so ahead of time in terms of BOTH athleticism and skill level, but the guards? They have absolutely no chance.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Now we fast forward to 2000, with two MORE teams in the league.

The significant players to consider are Mourning, what remained of Ewing (he was a 15/10 player at this point), Theo Ratliff (who posed no offensive threat), Shaq, David Robinson (steeply into his decline), Tim Duncan, and then Arvydas Sabonis (but he was old, injured and couldn't guard Shaq either). So really, scratch Sabonis, because Wilt was even MORE mobile. You could try to put 'Sheed on him but that wouldn't have worked either.

How far had Robinson really declined by 2000? The Spurs system under Popovich wasn't one that usually resulted in players having big numbers, but Robinson was still very mobile for a 7 footer, still had an excellent face up game with his mid-range jumper, he was excellent passer from the high post and one of the league's premier defenders and shot blockers.

He averaged 17.8 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.3 bpg and 1.2 spg on 51.2% shooting in 32 mpg.

In 8 games without Duncan, he led the Spurs to a 5-3 record and here were his numbers.

21.8 ppg, 8.8 rpg, 2.4 bpg, 1.3 spg, 53.6 FG%

Robinson was also the Spurs leading scorer in the 2nd half of the season with 20.9 ppg.

And you forgot Dikembe Mutombo, one of the greatest defensive players in NBA history.


I have long maintained that he could easily have averaged 40 ppg on 60% shooting that season.


I really don't see it, he averaged 33.5 ppg on 54% shooting the year before and 24.3 ppg on 59.5% shooting the year after. So even in '66 What made '67 Wilt so different as a scorer?


If Shaq played in 60's, under much much worse conditioning, with less nutrition, low level of medication, and wearing a pair of "Converse" shoes... battling with so many HOFers with huge quantity matchups...I can't imagine how many years can he last... or how many games can he play per season...

The fact is he only played 67 games per season in his 00's domination period, he averaged only 65 games per season in his career, even in Orlando a young strong Shaq only played 75 games per season, and the Lakers Shaq only played 64 games per season... talk about minutes... it's really hilarious:lol

"Only" 75 games? What the hell are you talking about? That's not bad at all. And you included the lockout year in your average for Lakers Shaq. He played 49 out of 50 games in the '99 lockout year. Excluding the lockout year he averaged 66 games with the Lakers, but 35 mpg? Shaq was typically in the 37-40 mpg range until he joined the Heat.

As far as "so many quality centers"? Who do you really think would have had success guarding Shaq back then? Maybe Lakers era Wilt or possibly Nate Thurmond. Honestly, at 6'9", 240, Russell just wasn't big enough.

[Yung D-Will]

In before thread becomes Shaqattack and Fatal 9 vs jlauber and Phila


Or am I too late :oldlol:

[Soundwave]

I think actually the reason why Shaq was so unique and different is because his step-dad taught him not to apologize for being bigger than everyone else when he was a kid.

His step-dad according to Shaq told him to screw trying to shoot jumpers like a smaller player. Go to the rim and tear that mofo right off the hinges.

That was where Shaq's attitude came from.

Most people who are really tall tend to be basically "gentle giants". They apologize for their size, probably because as kids they stick out like a sore thumb and want to just fit in. A lot of big men on the basketball court want to show they have a finesse game.

I remember Wilt saying that. He wanted to show he was a finesse player.

Shaq had none of that. I think that's what makes him so unique.

I've never seen in any pro sport one player so much more physically dominant that he made other large players look like little children.

[LosBulls]

Are the AVERAGE athlete's of today, better than those of the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's? No doubt. There are really two main questions, though. One, how much better are they today, on average, than 10-20-30-40 and even 50 years ago? And, secondly, just how great were the great players of those eras?

I hate to keep bringing these points up, but I will for the benefit of those who have not read them.

Ted Williams. If there has ever been a "bridge" in baseball, it was Williams. He played in a career that spanned four decades. Against 1941 pitching, he hit .406. Against 1957 pitching, at age 38, he hit .388. He came along just after Lou Gehrig had his last great season. And, in 1956, a young man by the name of Mantle was hitting 52 HRs...many of them of tape-measure variety. In fact, Mantle probably hit more 500+ ft. HRs in than anyone else in MLB history...and even more remarkably, he did it from BOTH sides of the plate. In 1955 Willie Mays hit 51 HRs. In 1965 Willie Mays hit 52 HRs. George Foster came along in the late 60's, and would hit 52 HRs in 1977. George Brett played in the 70's, and hit .390 in the 80's.

Nolan Ryan. The man came into the league just after Sandy Koufax, and his 98 MPH fastball (that he had to slow down to control) retired. Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH in 1974, in the 8th inning of a game in which he had thrown 162 pitches, and by a SLOW GUN (yes...there is a link that suggests that Ryan might very well have thrown over 105 MPH.) Ryna pitched for 27 years, and on his very last pitch, he was clocked at 98 MPH...on an injured arm. In between there guys like JR Richard, who reportedly hit 100 MPH.

OK...so what you ask? Barry Bonds LONGEST HR, and aided by PEDS, was measured at 490 ft. So, guys like Mantle, McCovey, Frank Howard, Willie Stargell, and Reggie Jackson were all hitting HRs further than what an artificially-enhanced Bonds was. My god, can you imagine what a healthy, non-alcohol enduced Mantle, living in this decade would have been capable of?

And yes, there are a number of pitchers today throwing over 100 MPH. But we are talking about maybe 103-104 MPH, on FAST GUNS. Is that a dramatic difference over what Koufax and McDowell were throwing in the 60's? If you want a truly interesting story regarding speed, google the name of Steve Dalkowski. He was pitching in the 50's and 60's...and there are those that believe no one else has ever thrown harder.

How about the NFL? Yes, the average players are bigger (much bigger BTW), and probably faster. BUT, I can produce a list of NFL players who were faster in their era, than ANY of them in TODAY's. Bo Jackson, at 225 lbs. was clocked at a 4.12 40. Deion Sanders ran a 4.18. OJ Simpson was a track star in the 60s' who was part of a world-record holding 4x100 relay team. Hershel Walker played in the 80's, and ran a 10.1 100 meters. Darrell Green came into the league in the early 80's. There are some links which claimed a 4.09 40. Not sure how accurate that was, but, he won FOUR "NFL Fastest Man" competitions...and was involved in them at age 40...when he ran a 4.35. However, THE fastest NFL player, EVER? He played some 45 years ago, and his name was Bob Hayes. He STILL has the fastest recorded 100 meters by a LEGITIMATE NFL player, at 10.0. He is a HOFer, and, BTW, he averaged 42 yards-per-play on his 76 career TDs.

The NBA? Take a look at the small footage that exists of 6-6 Gus Johnson, who reportedly smashed three backboards, and was among the highest leapers of all-time. There is more footage available of Dr. J, Dr. K, David Thompson, and Connie Hawkins...all of whom were playing in the 70's. There have been some "panel of experts" that rank Dr. J's dunks as the greatest ever. Basketball "skills"? Go to YouTube and search Pete Maravich. He was a true magician who played in the 60s' thru the 80's. I marvel at Dirk Nowitzki...but he was not the first "big man" with long range. 6-11 Bob McAdoo was hitting shots from all over the floor in the 70's...and scoring over 30 ppg on over 50% to boot. And very few fans here would know that Jerry Lucas was among the greatest "long range" shooters ever. They probably marvel at his two 20-20 seasons, but the term "Lucas Layup" was coined for his 25+ ft range...of which I witnessed first hand in a pre-game warmup in the early 70's. Bill Russell was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper...at one point he was ranked 7th in the WORLD! He cleared 6'-9" in one event.

Kareem is another "bridge." He played from the late 60's into the late 80's. He was truly a great player, but perhaps one of the most remarkable stories about Kareem, was that, as the oldest player in the league, in 85-86, he hung three straight games of 35, 42, and 46 on Olajuwon. This was the same Kareem that could not shoot over 50% against Thurmond in three straight post-seasons (.486, .405, and .428)...and that was Kareem in his statistical prime. AND, by most general accounts, Kareem was outplayed by Chamberlain in the '72 WCF's, in what was Kareem's greatest statistical season. Wilt outrebounded him, and held him to .457 shooting (including .414 over the last four games of that series), and included were some 15 blocks of the "unblockable" "sky-hook." And, in one game before Wilt was injured in 1969, Chamberlain thoroughly outplayed Kareem. Both Thurmond and Wilt were well past their primes, and one can only wonder what a PRIME Chamberlain would have done against Kareem?

All of which brings me to Wilt. He was a high-jump champ. He participated in the long-jump, the triple jump, the 4x100, the 440, the 880, and in the shot put. He ran marathons. He tried out for the Chiefs, and outraced their fastest running back. Hank Stram proclaimed that he could have been an all-pro in perhaps as many as three positions. He was an outstanding volleyball player. There were some that believed he would have been a world-class decathalete. He had TWO legitimate offers to fight Ali for the title. He was considered among the strongest ATHLETES in the world back in the 60's and 70's. The internet is plastered with bench presses of up to 550 lbs, and there was an eye-witness account of Chamberlain benching 465 lbs at age 59. No less than Larry Brown witnessed Wilt, in his mid-40's, dominate a summer league game that included Magic Johnson. And Kiki Van de Wege was stunned when Wilt backed down a helpless Mark Eaton, and slammed home a vicious dunk...and Chamberlain was in his late 40's at the time. Not only that, but there were NBA teams that LEGITIMATELY pursued Wilt into his 50's!

So...while TODAY's athletes are better...just how much better are they? And, take the greats of the 60's and 70's, and give them all the benefits of modern technology, medicine, nutrition, training, coaching, and equipment...and just how great would they be in TODAY's era?



http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/10/6/128993668464616824.jpg

[jlauber]

How far had Robinson really declined by 2000? The Spurs system under Popovich wasn't one that usually resulted in players having big numbers, but Robinson was still very mobile for a 7 footer, still had an excellent face up game with his mid-range jumper, he was excellent passer from the high post and one of the league's premier defenders and shot blockers.

He averaged 17.8 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.3 bpg and 1.2 spg on 51.2% shooting in 32 mpg.

In 8 games without Duncan, he led the Spurs to a 5-3 record and here were his numbers.

21.8 ppg, 8.8 rpg, 2.4 bpg, 1.3 spg, 53.6 FG%

Robinson was also the Spurs leading scorer in the 2nd half of the season with 20.9 ppg.

And you forgot Dikembe Mutombo, one of the greatest defensive players in NBA history.



I really don't see it, he averaged 33.5 ppg on 54% shooting the year before and 24.3 ppg on 59.5% shooting the year after. So even in '66 What made '67 Wilt so different as a scorer?



"Only" 75 games? What the hell are you talking about? That's not bad at all. And you included the lockout year in your average for Lakers Shaq. He played 49 out of 50 games in the '99 lockout year. Excluding the lockout year he averaged 66 games with the Lakers, but 35 mpg? Shaq was typically in the 37-40 mpg range until he joined the Heat.

As far as "so many quality centers"? Who do you really think would have had success guarding Shaq back then? Maybe Lakers era Wilt or possibly Nate Thurmond. Honestly, at 6'9", 240, Russell just wasn't big enough.

I agree with you. There would have been very few centers that could have contained Shaq in the 60's and 70's (Chamberlain's era.) Having said that, though, I watched LA blow out the Warriors, 162-99 in the '72 season. In that game, I witnessed a remarkable event. The Lakers came down on about 4-5 successive possessions, and Chamberlain simply over-powered Thurmond, without the ball, and caught lob passes at way above the rim, and dunked them all. I believe he only scored about 10-12 points in that game...but he showcased what COULD have been. He made a muscular Thurmond look helpless.

My point being that, had Chamberlain chosen to just use his massive strength and leaping ability to full advantage, there is simply no ceiling as to how many points he could have scored. I have also posted footage of an incident, (in that same season BTW), in which Abdul-Jabbar sucker-punched Happy Hairston. On their next possession, an enraged Chamberlain blew right thru a helpless Kareem for an easy score. In the NBA-ABA All-Star game after that season, Chamberlain overpowered Gilmore for a dunk (as well as outjumping him on the center jump, and blocking 2-3 of his shots at the rim.)

And, Shaq would have faced what Chamberlain faced, as well. TEAMS swarming him. And, you're right...I don't think they would have stopped Shaq, either. Still, there is no way that the NBA of Wilt's era would have allowed Shaq to brutalize the NBA. I have shown footage of Shaq just knocking Motumbo's teeth out while plowing right thru him. He would have fouled out in the 60's with those moves (much like MJ would have been repeatedly called for traveling and palming.)

And the bottom line...just as the NBA created RULES in an attempt to curtail Chamberlain's domination...they would have done the same to Shaq. They would not have allowed him to make a mockery of the game.

Don't get me wrong. I have mentioned it a few times before, but really only Shaq and Wilt were capable of powering their way into the lane, WITHOUT the ball, and repeatedly catching passes at point-blank range for easy dunks. Shaq routinely scored 5-10 times a game with that strategy...and I have always maintained that Jackson should have resorted to that much more often.


Regarding Wilt's 66-67 season. It was SO far ahead of all of his other seasons (even his 61-62 and 62-63 seasons, which are statistically the greatest in NBA history)...that it stands unto itself. You mentioned his 65-66 season, in which he scored 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting. However, it must also be mentioned that his FG% was on a steady rise by that point. Just continuing at that normal pace, and he would probably have been around .550- .560 in 66-67. And, in the 67-68 season, he averaged 24.3 ppg on .595 shooting. However, his 66-67 season was sandwiched between the two...and much like every great player, he had a season which rose well above his others. He TOYED with the league in 66-67. Interesting, too, that his shooting percentage INCREASED the more he shot. Most of his games were around 10-12 FGAs...but when he exploded for more, his FG% numbers were staggering. He had a 58 point game on 26-34 shooting, as well as three perfect games of 15-15, 16-16, and 18-18 (in game in which he scored 43 points BTW.) He had a string of 35 straight made FGAs, which will probably never be challenged, as well. He was capable of scoring much more, even against Russell (24 career games over 40+ points), or Thurmond, whom he had abused in their relatively few encounters in his "scoring" seasons. He shot .556 against Russell in the post-season, and .560 against Thurmond (while holding them to .358 and .343 respectively.) Furthermore, in the first round of the playoffs, against journeyman Connie Dierking, he averaged 28 ppg, 26 rpg, 11 apg, and shot .612 from the field. While he cut back his scoring that season (and post-season), he still would erupt for a HUGE game...and against Dierking, he had a 43 point game (on 19-30 shooting), and a 37 point game, on 16-24 shooting.) His 67-68 season would have been great by any standards (24.3 ppg on .595 shooting), but it PALES in comparison to his 66-67 season (24.1 ppg on .683 shooting.) In any case, IMHO, he may very well have been capable of a 40 ppg .600 season that year.

THAT was the Wilt that I would have wanted to see, and being asked to carry a team offensively. IMHO, he would have blown away his 50 ppg on .509, or 44.8 ppg on .528 seasons.

[PHILA]

He made a muscular Thurmond look helpless.

He wanted no part of contesting that dunk straight up. (0:39 mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcRpTMOGGHc

[Simple Jack]

He wanted no part of contesting that dunk straight up. (0:39 mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcRpTMOGGHc
:lol

[PHILA]

Perhaps he was in foul trouble?

[ShaqAttack3234]

And, Shaq would have faced what Chamberlain faced, as well. TEAMS swarming him. And, you're right...I don't think they would have stopped Shaq, either. Still, there is no way that the NBA of Wilt's era would have allowed Shaq to brutalize the NBA. I have shown footage of Shaq just knocking Motumbo's teeth out while plowing right thru him. He would have fouled out in the 60's with those moves (much like MJ would have been repeatedly called for traveling and palming.)

Regardless, had Wilt used his strength, Russell wouldn't have been able to guard him, that was one of Wilt's biggest weaknesses according to the man himself as well as his peers, the fact that he wanted to prove he was skilled. But with Shaq, that was never his mindset.

And not just strength, but lets be honest, no big man in the 60's had seen footwork as advanced as Shaq's.

Shaq was swarmed as well, I've posted game 1 of the 2000 finals numerous times, it shows Shaq beating double and triple teams with ease.


And the bottom line...just as the NBA created RULES in an attempt to curtail Chamberlain's domination...they would have done the same to Shaq. They would not have allowed him to make a mockery of the game.

The NBA actually did, most people believe that the zone defense rules and the defensive 3 second violations put in prior to the 2001-2002 season were put in to slow Shaq down.


Regarding Wilt's 66-67 season. It was SO far ahead of all of his other seasons (even his 61-62 and 62-63 seasons, which are statistically the greatest in NBA history)...that it stands unto itself. You mentioned his 65-66 season, in which he scored 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting. However, it must also be mentioned that his FG% was on a steady rise by that point.

Well, Wilt was taking fewer shots every year so that's likely what caused his rise in FG%, IMO. Just like when he got up to 65% in '72 and 73% in '73, but he was taking much fewer shots than his prime.


THAT was the Wilt that I would have wanted to see, and being asked to carry a team offensively. IMHO, he would have blown away his 50 ppg on .509, or 44.8 ppg on .528 seasons.

I actually think Wilt was more comfortable in a role where his passing and defense was emphasized more and he didn't have to carry a team with his scoring. That resulted in easily the two best teams of his career and two of the best of all time. In the '67 playoffs, a prime Wilt was just tied for 2nd on the team in scoring at 21.7 ppg, 5 behind Hal Greer and 5th in scoring in the finals, but that resulted in his finest season and also arguably the best single season by any player of all time.

[jlauber]

Regardless, had Wilt used his strength, Russell wouldn't have been able to guard him, that was one of Wilt's biggest weaknesses according to the man himself as well as his peers, the fact that he wanted to prove he was skilled. But with Shaq, that was never his mindset.

And not just strength, but lets be honest, no big man in the 60's had seen footwork as advanced as Shaq's.

Shaq was swarmed as well, I've posted game 1 of the 2000 finals numerous times, it shows Shaq beating double and triple teams with ease.



The NBA actually did, most people believe that the zone defense rules and the defensive 3 second violations put in prior to the 2001-2002 season were put in to slow Shaq down.



Well, Wilt was taking fewer shots every year so that's likely what caused his rise in FG%, IMO. Just like when he got up to 65% in '72 and 73% in '73, but he was taking much fewer shots than his prime.



I actually think Wilt was more comfortable in a role where his passing and defense was emphasized more and he didn't have to carry a team with his scoring. That resulted in easily the two best teams of his career and two of the best of all time. In the '67 playoffs, a prime Wilt was just tied for 2nd on the team in scoring at 21.7 ppg, 5 behind Hal Greer and 5th in scoring in the finals, but that resulted in his finest season and also arguably the best single season by any player of all time.

You don't have to convince me of Shaq's dominance. I wish Chamberlain had played more like Shaq. IMHO, he probably would have easily won 6-8 more rings, and the record book would have been completely thrown out.

Once again, as great a coach as Phil Jackson has been, IMHO, he under-utilized Shaq. Instead of passing the ball to Shaq outside of the key, I would have had Shaq bull his way into the lane, WITHOUT the ball, and catch passes at point-blank range...which, in fact, they did do, about 5-10 times a game. Had Jackson used that strategy more often, say in 2004, and I really think he would have won one or two more rings with Shaq and Kobe.

[amfirst]

Shaq was physically dominant, but he had a lot of weaknesses, which doesn't make him greater than some centers from the past. If u force him to shoot the once hand fade or the running hook away for the rim or if u have enough bodies to foul him when he is near the rim, he becomes useless. Also, blitzing him when the puts the ball on the ground, he normally loses it if u do it right like the Pistons.

[alexandreben]

How far had Robinson really declined by 2000? The Spurs system under Popovich wasn't one that usually resulted in players having big numbers, but Robinson was still very mobile for a 7 footer, still had an excellent face up game with his mid-range jumper, he was excellent passer from the high post and one of the league's premier defenders and shot blockers.

He averaged 17.8 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.3 bpg and 1.2 spg on 51.2% shooting in 32 mpg.

In 8 games without Duncan, he led the Spurs to a 5-3 record and here were his numbers.

21.8 ppg, 8.8 rpg, 2.4 bpg, 1.3 spg, 53.6 FG%

Robinson was also the Spurs leading scorer in the 2nd half of the season with 20.9 ppg.

And you forgot Dikembe Mutombo, one of the greatest defensive players in NBA history.



I really don't see it, he averaged 33.5 ppg on 54% shooting the year before and 24.3 ppg on 59.5% shooting the year after. So even in '66 What made '67 Wilt so different as a scorer?



"Only" 75 games? What the hell are you talking about? That's not bad at all. And you included the lockout year in your average for Lakers Shaq. He played 49 out of 50 games in the '99 lockout year. Excluding the lockout year he averaged 66 games with the Lakers, but 35 mpg? Shaq was typically in the 37-40 mpg range until he joined the Heat.

As far as "so many quality centers"? Who do you really think would have had success guarding Shaq back then? Maybe Lakers era Wilt or possibly Nate Thurmond. Honestly, at 6'9", 240, Russell just wasn't big enough.
Put it to the context, Robinson is that type of player that needs speed, which he didn't have at 35 years old... Here's Robinson's stats during Shaq's domination p

[Fatal9]

Just to expose the hypocrisy of this clown jlauber, he says Wilt "dominated" Russell with his scoring. We have his entire shooting logs from the famous 50 ppg season:

11/3/61: 28 pts, 12-31 FG (38.7%)
11/11/61: 41 pts, 17-40 FG (42.5%)
11/23/61: 31 pts, 12-34 FG (35.3%)
12/13/61: 52 pts, 22-43 FG (51.2%)
12/30/61: 41 pts, 17-34 FG (50%)
1/14/62: 62 pts, 27-45 FG (60%) (Boston was up 31 points going into the fourth quarter, Wilt scores 21 of the points in the fourth quarter, Russell had fouled out and didn't even play last 5 minutes LOL)
2/9/62: 48 pts, 15-32 FG (46.9%)
2/10/62: 38 pts, 16-33 FG (48.5%)
2/24/62: 26 pts, 11-24 FG (45.8%)
3/7/62: 30 pts, 13-38 FG (34.2%)

Average: 39.7 ppg on 45.7% (and whatever horrible percentage he shot from the FT line)

In the playoffs, Wilt shot just .467, one series was against Nationals, the other against the Celtics. And game by game recaps already make it clear, that Wilt was stat padding at the end of blowouts, so looks like he wasn't efficient against Russell in the playoffs either. Averaged 33.57 ppg on 45-46%, and in the game 7 had a season low 22 points (Russell had 19).

However, now lets compare Kareem in 1972 when he was apparently getting "dominated" by Wilt, even though KAJ averaged 40.2 ppg vs. Wilt in their five regular season matchups on 50+% shooting. Keep in mind this is at a time when the only thing Wilt was committed to was defense and rebounding, and also a young Kareem whose offensive arsenal and strength was not as great as it would be in the late 70s (though he took more shots early in his career, he had less range, and hadn't added the turnaround to his game. his shooting problems against even Thurmond were gone after he put on 15 pounds in the '73 summer). And in the playoffs he averaged 33.7 ppg on 46% (to Wilt's 10.8 ppg on 45%). This is while sufferring from severe tendinitis when the series happened. You can see here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seEEUwdWapQ&#t=8m30s), that he plays with his left leg (the "skyhook leg") wrapped because of this, and you can noticeably see how he gets NO lift on his skyhook. I think Kareem should have shot better, even if his point guard was injured throughout the series, even if he shot better than the opposing center and team, but this guy brings out the excuse brigade for Wilt's entire career, while the same can be done for anyone. Would Wilt even have 2 rings if Kareem's "#2" wasn't injured and he didn't have to take 35+ shots every night? Because you know, if the argument was the other way around, we'd never hear the end of it from this guy, it would another addition to Wilt's "almost rings".

But anyways, in one case we have Kareem averaging MORE points on BETTER efficiency than Wilt did in his best scoring season against Russell, but the only conclusion this biased clown comes to is that Russell was getting dominated by Wilt that season, while Wilt was not against Kareem (in fact Kareem was the one getting dominated according to his posts). It almost disgusts me a bit that I have to waste time and reply to this hypocrite.

To be honest, Wilt and Kareem's playoff scoring cannot be compared. Look at Wilt's only 30+ ppg playoff runs and compare them with Kareem's:

Wilt's 30+ ppg playoff runs:

33.2 ppg on 50 FG% and 45% FT
37 ppg on 47% and 55%
35 ppg on 45% and 64%
34.7 ppg on 54% and 48%

Kareem's 30+ ppg playoff runs:

35.2 ppg on 57 FG%, 73% FT
32.2 ppg on 56%, 74%
34.6 ppg on 61%, 73%
31.9 ppg on 57%, 79%

^ these are percentages Wilt wasn't touching even when he was averaging less than 20 ppg and taking like 10 shots a game and living off finishing dunks. There's a reason Wilt never won a title while leading the league in scoring, or averaging 30+ ppg or even 25+ ppg, he simply wasn't efficient enough to do it and get his team the win. You had a center who not only was one of the worst FT shooters of all time, but not very efficient from the field in many of his scoring years. His TS% in many of these playoff scoring years is comparable to that of Allen Iverson. I respect Wilt for his incredible all around ability, to be able to rebound, pass and play defense. But he is a very very overrated scorer, especially come playoff time. Simply cannot be compared to Jordan or Kareem in that regard.

[alexandreben]

You don't have to convince me of Shaq's dominance. I wish Chamberlain had played more like Shaq. IMHO, he probably would have easily won 6-8 more rings, and the record book would have been completely thrown out.

Once again, as great a coach as Phil Jackson has been, IMHO, he under-utilized Shaq. Instead of passing the ball to Shaq outside of the key, I would have had Shaq bull his way into the lane, WITHOUT the ball, and catch passes at point-blank range...which, in fact, they did do, about 5-10 times a game. Had Jackson used that strategy more often, say in 2004, and I really think he would have won one or two more rings with Shaq and Kobe.
A typical Lakers game, Shaq had around 20 FGA, and how many times he touches the ball? double it, 40... 60% of Lakers half-court offense was through Shaq;

A typical PHI game, 1967 ECF G4 second half, I count it by myself, within PHI's 49 pocessions, Wilt touches the ball 19 times, but only had 7 FGA, within the 7 FGA, 2 of them were offensive rebound 2nd chance offense; double it, you have a pretty clear idea that Wilt touches the ball about 40 times(same as Shaq) and only about 15 FGA less than Shaq.

[jlauber]

Just to expose the hypocrisy of this clown jlauber, he says Wilt "dominated" Russell with his scoring. We have his entire shooting logs from the famous 50 ppg season:

11/3/61: 28 pts, 12-31 FG (38.7%)
11/11/61: 41 pts, 17-40 FG (42.5%)
11/23/61: 31 pts, 12-34 FG (35.3%)
12/13/61: 52 pts, 22-43 FG (51.2%)
12/30/61: 41 pts, 17-34 FG (50%)
1/14/62: 62 pts, 27-45 FG (60%) (Boston was up 31 points going into the fourth quarter, Wilt scores 21 of the points in the fourth quarter, Russell had fouled out and didn't even play last 5 minutes LOL)
2/9/62: 48 pts, 15-32 FG (46.9%)
2/10/62: 38 pts, 16-33 FG (48.5%)
2/24/62: 26 pts, 11-24 FG (45.8%)
3/7/62: 30 pts, 13-38 FG (34.2%)

Average: 39.7 ppg on 45.7% (and whatever horrible percentage he shot from the FT line)

In the playoffs, Wilt shot just .467, one series was against Nationals, the other against the Celtics. And game by game recaps already make it clear, that Wilt was stat padding at the end of blowouts, so looks like he wasn't efficient against Russell in the playoffs either. Averaged 33.57 ppg on 45-46%, and in the game 7 had a season low 22 points (Russell had 19).

However, now lets compare Kareem in 1972 when he was apparently getting "dominated" by Wilt, even though KAJ averaged 40.2 ppg vs. Wilt in their five regular season matchups on 50+% shooting. Keep in mind this is at a time when the only thing Wilt was committed to was defense and rebounding. And in the playoffs he averaged 33.7 ppg on 46% (to Wilt's 10.8 ppg on 45%). This is while sufferring from severe tendinitis when the series happened. You can see here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seEEUwdWapQ&#t=8m30s), that he plays with his left leg (the "skyhook leg") wrapped because of this, and you can noticeably see how he gets NO lift on his skyhook. I think Kareem should have shot better, even if his point guard was injured throughout the series, even if he shot better than the opposing center and team, but this guy brings out the excuse brigade for Wilt's entire career, while the same can be done for anyone. Would Wilt even have 2 rings if Kareem's "#2" wasn't injured and he didn't have to take 35+ shots every night? Because you know, if the argument was the other way around, we'd never hear the end of it from this guy, it would another addition to Wilt's "almost rings".

But anyways, in one case we have Kareem averaging MORE points on BETTER efficiency than Wilt did in his best scoring season against Russell, but the only conclusion this biased clown comes to is that Russell was getting dominated by Wilt that season, while Wilt was not against Kareem (in fact Kareem was the one getting dominated according to his posts). It almost disgusts me a bit that I have to waste time and reply to this hypocrite.

To be honest, Wilt and Kareem's playoff scoring cannot be compared. Look at Wilt's only 30+ ppg playoff runs and compare them with Kareem's:

Wilt's 30+ ppg playoff runs:

33.2 ppg on 50 FG% and 45% FT
37 ppg on 47% and 55%
35 ppg on 45% and 64%
34.7 ppg on 54% and 48%

Kareem's 30+ ppg playoff runs:

35.2 ppg on 57 FG%, 73% FT
32.2 ppg on 56%, 74%
34.6 ppg on 61%, 73%
31.9 ppg on 57%, 79%

^ these are percentages Wilt wasn't touching even when he was averaging less than 20 ppg and taking like 10 shots a game and living off finishing dunks. There's a reason Wilt never won a title while leading the league in scoring, or averaging 30+ ppg, he simply wasn't efficient enough to do it and get his team the win. You had a center who not only was one of the worst FT shooters of all time, but not very efficient from the field in many of his scoring years. His TS% in many of these playoff scoring years is comparable to that of Allen Iverson. I respect Wilt for his incredible all around ability, to be able to rebound, pass and play defense. But he is a very very overrated scorer, especially come playoff time. Simply cannot be compared to Jordan or Kareem in that regard.

Of course, we don't have the shooting logs from the their '60 playoff series, when Chamberlain averaged 30 ppg against Russell, despite a badly injured wrist, including a monster 50-35 game in game five. We do know that he shot .496 in that post-season, in a league that shot .410.

We also don't have the shooting percenatges of Russel and Wilt's H2H play in the 62-63 season, but Chamberlain outscored Russell, 38-14 per game that season in nine H2H games. For the season, Chamberlain shot .528, to Russell's .432.

We DO know that in the 63-64 Finals, Wilt outscored Russell, 29-11 per game, outrebounded him, per game, 27-25, and we KNOW that Chamberlain shot over .550 in that series (how? Because Chamberlain shot .521 against Beaty the series before...and .543 for the entire playoffs.) We don't know what Russell shot, but he shot .356 in his 10 post-season games, half of which were against Wilt.

In the 64-65 ECF's, Wilt averaged a 30-31 series against Russell's 15-26. We don't know exactly what Wilt shot in that series, but he shot .530 on the playoffs. Meanwhile, Russell averaged 15 ppg against Wilt, on .451 shooting...and then went on to average 18 ppg on .702 shooting against the Lakers.

In the 65-66 ECF's Wilt averaged 28 ppg, to Russell's 14, and he outrebounded Russell, per game, 30-25. We do know that Wilt shot .509 against Russell. While we don't know what Russell shot against Wilt, he shot .475 in the post-season, which included a 23.6 ppg average against the Lakers in the Finals.

Of course, in the 66-67 ECF's...Chamberlain CRUSHED Russell in EVERY category. He outscored Russell, per game, 22-10; he outrebounded Russell, per game, by a staggering 32-23 margin; he outassisted Russell, per game, 10-6; and he outshot Russell by a .556- .358 margin. In the clinching game five win, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 29-4, ousthot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5, outassisted Russell, 13-7, and outrebounded him, 36-21.

Regarding the Kareem matchup. Kareem shot .457 in the WCF's...and only .414 in the last four games. Wilt outrebounded him, and blocked some 15 skyhooks in that series (while blocking over 7 shots per game.) Time Magazine hailed that series as a clear-cut win for Wilt.

Meanwhile, Kareem had post-seasons of .437 (in a league that shot .455), .428 (in a league that shot .456), and .462 (in a league that shot .486.)

I have posted the MANY post-season failures that Kareem had in his career. Take Magic away, and Kareem retires with ONE ring.

[Fatal9]

Take Magic away, and Kareem retires with ONE ring.
Take Jerry West or Hal Greer away and Wilt retires with nothing :confusedshrug:

Take Pippen away and Jordan retires with nothing :confusedshrug:

Magic without Kareem couldn't even get past Tom Chamber's Suns and won 0 rings :confusedshrug:

If Kareem's second best teammate doesn't get injured in '72, '74 and '77, he retires with 9 rings :confusedshrug:

If Wilt doesn't lead choke after choke while having the better team, he retires with 6 rings :confusedshrug:

[jlauber]

There's a reason Wilt never won a title while leading the league in scoring, or averaging 30+ ppg or even 25+ ppg, he simply wasn't efficient enough to do it and get his team the win. You had a center who not only was one of the worst FT shooters of all time, but not very efficient from the field in many of his scoring years.

Talk about nonsense. YOU are the idiot who blames WILT for his losing record in the 62-63 season. Let's recap shall we? Wilt led the league in scoring, by a wide margin, at 44.8 ppg. He led the league in rebounding at 24.6 rpg. He set a then-FG% mark of .528 (in a league that shot .441.) He also led the league in Win-Shares at 20.9 (on a team that won 31 games...and incidently their average differential was onlt 2 ppg BTW.) AND, he set a PER record of 31.8 which is the highest in NBA HISTORY. How about his pathetic teammates? they collectively shot .412 from the field...which would have been well below the last place mark of .427.

AND, you blamed WILT for his team losing to Boston in the 65-66 ECF's. All Wilt did in that series was average 28 ppg, on .509 shooting, along with 30 rpg. How about Wilt's teammates? Greer shot .325. Jackson shot .429. Jones shot .325. Walker shot .375. And Cunningham shot .161. Yep, you were right...that was WILT's fault.

As far as Wilt's "inefficient" scoring seasons...like 50.4 on .506 shooting in a league that .426. Or 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting in a league that shot .441. Or 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting in a league that shot .433. Meanwhile, how about Kareem having seasons in the 70's of .539, .529, .518, and .513? Or that Kareem only shot .464 against Wilt in their 28 H2H battles. Or that Wilt held Kareem to .434 shooting in their last 10 games. Or that Wilt outshot Kareem from the field in their finals season, over six games, .637 to .450. Or that in their only matchup before Wilt sustained his knee injury, that Chamberlain outscored Kareem, 25-23; he outrebounded Kareem, 25-20; he outassisted Kareem, 5-2; he outblocked Kareem, 3-2; and he outshot Kareem, 9-14 to 9-21. Yes, Kareem was a rookie, but Wilt was past his peak, too.

And you talk about EMPTY stats...how about Kareem's 50 point game against Wilt? He took 40 shots. Chamberlain CRUSHED him on the glass, 25-8. AND, Wilt's team blew out the Bucks, 123-107.

Do you really want me to repost the Milwaukee press's write-up of the '72 ECF's series again. Or Time Magazine's version of that H2H matchup?

Or that MAGIC out-voted Kareem in the MVP balloting in EIGHT of their 10 seasons together? Or that Kareem's TEAM success was far worse than Wilt's until MAGIC made the Lakers into a championship team. Or that even AFTER Kareem retired, the Lakers IMPROVED? Or that after MAGIC retired, LA plummetted to a 43-39 record?



Please take your anti-Wilt agenda to another forum...it is certainly laughed at here.

[RoseCity07]

What we are seeing with Shaq now just shows how much better Sabonis was when he was at this same stage.

[Psileas]

There's a reason Wilt never won a title while leading the league in scoring, or averaging 30+ ppg or even 25+ ppg, he simply wasn't efficient enough to do it and get his team the win. You had a center who not only was one of the worst FT shooters of all time, but not very efficient from the field in many of his scoring years. His TS% in many of these playoff scoring years is comparable to that of Allen Iverson. I respect Wilt for his incredible all around ability, to be able to rebound, pass and play defense. But he is a very very overrated scorer, especially come playoff time. Simply cannot be compared to Jordan or Kareem in that regard.

High scoring seasons' TS%:

1960: 16th
1961: 6th (highest Celtic was Sam Jones, being 17th)
1962: 4th (highest Celtic was Sam Jones, being 13th)
1963: 5th (highest Celtic was Sam Jones, being 17th)
1964: 7th (hey, where are the Celtics?)
1965: 13th ("only" a little better than Bob Pettit and Sam Jones)
1966: 4th

Playoffs

1960: 9th
1961: DNQ
1962: Probably 11th, was 0.2% worse than #10
1964: 6th
1965: 3rd
1966: Below #10

Needless to say that the FG% rankings were even higher (led the league in FG% and scoring altogether 4 times) and that the vast majority of the players who ranked above him did not even come close to his attempts and to the defensive pressure that he handled, so, even with FT's included, his actual ranking as an efficient scorer is certainly higher than it shows, except if you also want to argue that Stockton was a more effective scorer than Jordan, as the cold TS% figures show.

[ShaqAttack3234]

[QUOTE=alexandreben]Put it to the context, Robinson is that type of player that needs speed, which he didn't have at 35 years old... Here's Robinson's stats during Shaq's domination p

[jlauber]

High scoring seasons' TS%:

1960: 16th
1961: 6th (highest Celtic was Sam Jones, being 17th)
1962: 4th (highest Celtic was Sam Jones, being 13th)
1963: 5th (highest Celtic was Sam Jones, being 17th)
1964: 7th (hey, where are the Celtics?)
1965: 13th ("only" a little better than Bob Pettit and Sam Jones)
1966: 4th

Playoffs

1960: 9th
1961: DNQ
1962: Probably 11th, was 0.2% worse than #10
1964: 6th
1965: 3rd
1966: Below #10

Needless to say that the FG% rankings were even higher (led the league in FG% and scoring altogether 4 times) and that the vast majority of the players who ranked above him did not even come close to his attempts and to the defensive pressure that he handled, so, even with FT's included, his actual ranking as an efficient scorer is certainly higher than it shows, except if you also want to argue that Stockton was a more effective scorer than Jordan, as the cold TS% figures show.

The problem with TS% is that the stat punishes poorer FT shooters, but it does not take into several variables. One, Wilt played in an era of single FTAs, 2-for-1's, and 3-for-2's. So, there were occassions when Wilt might have gone 1-3, which would equate to 50%, or 2-3, which would equal 100%, even though statistically it was actually 33% and 67% respectively. Even more importantly, how many and-1's did Chamberlain have in his career? I have mentioned it before, but Shaq had a playoff game in which he went 18-39. I won't take the time to look up some other players in that game, but let's say Reggie Miller went 4-4. Now, you tell me who had more impact? How many more FTs did Shaq give his team because of early penalty situations? And how many opposing players were sitting on the bench because of foul trouble...or...playing matador defense to avoid picking up another foul?

Of course, Fatal9 has consistently avoided mentioning LEAGUE AVERAGE in these "efficiency" discussions. Nor has he acknowledged just how poorly Wilt's teammates shot in many of those playoff series. Wilt gets ripped because he shot .469 and .467 in the '61 and '62 post-seasons, BUT, BOTH seasons were well above the league average. In 1960-61 the NBA averaged .415 and in '61-62 it was at .426. Not only that, but Wilt's best teammate, Paul Arizin, shot .328 in the '61 playoffs and .375 in the '62 playoffs.

Fatal9 points out Wilt's regular season games against Russell in the 61-62 season...which has Wilt with a .457 percentage. Ok, well we don't know what Russell shot against Wilt, but the odds are pretty good that he was much lower (in the documented games between the two, Russell shot much worse.) And, as always, Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, just as he did in EVERY seasonal and post-season series. But, back to that .457, which was probably as BAD as Wilt shot against Russell. It was STILL considerably higher than the LEAGUE AVERAGE, which was at .426.

Furthermore, we have SEASONS in which Wilt shot over 50% against Russell (.549 in the 66-67 season, and .556 in the post-season that year, while Russell shot ,358 against him in that post-season.) And there is no telling how many more regular season series in which he might have shot above 50%. We also KNOW that Wilt had a 29-27 .550 Finals against Russell in the '63-64 Finals (to Russell's 11-25 and probably somewhere around .350.) In the '65-66 playoffs, Wilt shot .509, while scoring 28 ppg (and grabbing 30 rpg.) We don't know exactly what Wilt shot against Russell in the '64-65 ECF's, but he did shoot .530 in his 11 post-season games, of which seven were against Russell. Incidently, he alsp posted a 30-31 SERIES against Russell. AND, in the only game of that series that I could find FG%, game seven, Wilt outshot Russell, 12-15 to 7-16. As a sidenote, Russell averaged 15 ppg against Wilt in that series, on .451 shooting...and then averaged 18 ppg on .702 shooting against the Lakers.

IMHO, there is a good chance that Wilt probably shot over 50% in his 142 career H2H games against Russell, and if not, it would have been very close. Meanwhile, and once again, IMHO, I suspect that Russell probably did not shoot much better than 40% against Wilt in those 142 games. There is even a documented game in 1965 in which Wilt held Russell to 0-14 from the field.

Fatal9 also fails to bring up Kareem's relatively "inefficient" seasons in the 70's...in which Kareem shot .539, .529, .518, and .513. And NONE of them were CLOSE to the scoring numbers that Chamberlain put up in his "scoring" seasons. FURTHERMORE, Kareem had two outstanding regular seasons in 71-72 (34.8 ppg on .574 shooting), and 72-73 (30.0 ppg on .554 shooting.) How about HIS post-season's? In the 71-72 playoffs, against Thurmond and Wilt, he shot a combined .437. In the '72-73 post-season, against Thurmond, he shot .428. He also shot .462 in the 80-81 post-season, against Malone. In all THREE of those post-seasons, he shot well BELOW the LEAGUE AVERAGE.

And, of course, Fatal9 does not bring up Wilt's extraordinary '66-67 season (among others) in which Wilt avearged 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting (and 21.7 ppg on .579 in the post-season...in which he DOMINATED his opposing centers in EVERY facet of the game, some by HUGE margins.) In that '67 season, Wilt outdistanced his nearest competitor, Walt Bellamy, by a record differential of .162 (.683 to .521.) Not only that, but Wilt outshot the league by an eye-popping .242 margin (.683 to .441.) Later, in 72-73, Wilt outshot his nearest competitor by a .157 margin (.727 to .570), and outshot the league by a record margin of .271 (.727 to .456.)

Kareem played 20 years, and won TWO scoring titles, ONE rebounding title, and ONE FG% title. Chamberlain played 14 seasons, and won SEVEN scoring titles (and most certainly could have won more), ELEVEN rebound titles, and NINE FG% titles. On top of that, Wilt also led the league in assists one year. And while Kareem won a few blocked shot titles, there is no doubt that Wilt led the NBA in blocked shots for most of his career.

And while Fatal eagerly posted Wilt's FG% games against Russell in that one season, the fact was, Kareem shot .464 against Wilt in their 28 H2H games. Not only that, but in their last ten games, four of which were in the '72 WCF's (and in which Kareem shot a miserable .414), Wilt held Kareem to .434 shooting.

Here they are:

15-37
14-33
13-33
16-37

17-32
11-30
17-36
14-24
10-27
12-31

Only TWO games over 50%, and one of them just barely. The fact was, Wilt "figured Kareem out", plain-and-simple, from their early playoff games in the '72 WCF's to the end of his career. AND, all of that occurred when Wilt was well-past his prime (and when Kareem was in his statistical prime.) I have mentioned it before, but in their one H2H game in before Wilt suffered his knee injury, Wilt outscored Kareem, 25-23; outrebounded him, 25-20; outassisted him, 5-2; outblocked him, 3-2; and outshot him, 9-14 to 9-21. And Wilt was no longer in his "scoring" prime, and was a couple of years removed from his actual dominating prime.

Even in the 70-71 playoffs, and just one year removed from major knee surgery, Wilt battled Kareem to a statisical draw. Kareem slightly outscored Wilt in that series, per game, 25-22. But Wilt outshot Kareem from the floor, .489 to .481. And he outrebounded Kareem, per game, 18.8 to 17.2.

And while Kareem heavily outscored Wilt in the '72 WCF's, I have posted the several articles, including one from the Milwaukee Post, which claimed that Chamberlain easily outplayed Kareem in that series. He outrebounded him, and more importantly, he INTIMIDATED Kareem into just AWFUL shooting, particularly in the last four pivotal games. In the clinching game six, Chamberlain took over the game in the 4th period, and led LA back from a 10 point deficit to a win. Once again, Time Magazine called it a DECISIVE win for Wilt, over an 11 year younger Kareem.

I have already posted the many other "failures" in Kareem's career, particularly the pre-MAGIC era, in which he only carried two teams to Finals, in the weakest era of the NBA, and only one title (in a year in which Wilt was without West and Baylor in the post-season.) And, it as obvious that MAGIC carried those Laker teams in Kareem's last ten seasons.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I have posted the MANY post-season failures that Kareem had in his career. Take Magic away, and Kareem retires with ONE ring.

This is a ridiculous criticism and you know it. You can't say "take away this teammate and he retires with one ring". Take away Hal Greer and the same is true for Wilt, or take away Jerry West and the same is true.



Or that MAGIC out-voted Kareem in the MVP balloting in EIGHT of their 10 seasons together? Or that Kareem's TEAM success was far worse than Wilt's until MAGIC made the Lakers into a championship team. Or that even AFTER Kareem retired, the Lakers IMPROVED? Or that after MAGIC retired, LA plummetted to a 43-39 record?

Kareem was 42 when he retired. Can that really be used against him?

Kareem's team success was not far worse than Wilt's before Magic. He had a championship, 2 finals appearances and three 60 win seasons in 10 seasons.

In his Wilt's first 10 seasons, he had 1 championship as well, 3 finals appearances and two 60 win seasons.

And lets be honest, Wilt played with much more talent on the '67 Sixers than Kareem did on the '71 Bucks.

He had a phenomenal playoff run in '74 averaging 32/16/5. The only other 2 double digit scorers for Milwaukee in the playoffs, Bob Dandridge and Oscar Robertson combined for exactly 1 more ppg than Kareem had by himself. The Bucks were missing Lucius Allen who had averaged 18/4/5 on 50% shooting in the regular season, yet Kareem took them to game 7 of the finals thanks to a game-winning sky hook when Milwaukee had been trailing by 1 in the second OT of game 6.

In 1977, what more could you expect? Kareem averaged 35/18/4 on 61% shooting, his second best teammate in the playoffs was Cazzie Russell who averaged 16/4/2 on 41% shooting, other than that, Earl Tatum averaged 14/5/2 on 50% shooting and Don Ford averaged 10/5/3 on 43% shooting.

You can see who had to do the heavy lifting in the playoffs, that was not a championship-caliber cast.

[jlauber]

This is a ridiculous criticism and you know it. You can't say "take away this teammate and he retires with one ring". Take away Hal Greer and the same is true for Wilt, or take away Jerry West and the same is true.



Kareem was 42 when he retired. Can that really be used against him?

Kareem's team success was not far worse than Wilt's before Magic. He had a championship, 2 finals appearances and three 60 win seasons in 10 seasons.

In his Wilt's first 10 seasons, he had 1 championship as well, 3 finals appearances and two 60 win seasons.

And lets be honest, Wilt played with much more talent on the '67 Sixers than Kareem did on the '71 Bucks.

He had a phenomenal playoff run in '74 averaging 32/16/5. The only other 2 double digit scorers for Milwaukee in the playoffs, Bob Dandridge and Oscar Robertson combined for exactly 1 more ppg than Kareem had by himself. The Bucks were missing Lucius Allen who had averaged 18/4/5 on 50% shooting in the regular season, yet Kareem took them to game 7 of the finals thanks to a game-winning sky hook when Milwaukee had been trailing by 1 in the second OT of game 6.

In 1977, what more could you expect? Kareem averaged 35/18/4 on 61% shooting, his second best teammate in the playoffs was Cazzie Russell who averaged 16/4/2 on 41% shooting, other than that, Earl Tatum averaged 14/5/2 on 50% shooting and Don Ford averaged 10/5/3 on 43% shooting.

You can see who had to do the heavy lifting in the playoffs, that was not a championship-caliber cast.

You will NEVER convince me that Kareem was more important to the Laker Dynasty of the 80's, than Magic. Before Magic arrived, the Lakers had been slightly better than ordinary for the four years that Kareem was there. Their playoffs were comprised of sweeps and early exits, too.

Magic outvoted Kareem in MVP balloting, in EIGHT of their ten seasons together, including the last eight in a row. So Magic was already considered the more valuable player by their third season (and BTW, if Kareem had not taken so many votes away from Magic, Magic would probably have won a couple more MVPs.) So, in their FIVE titles, Magic was the recognized leader in FOUR of them. And if you give Kareem credit for the '85 Finals, then you have to credit Magic with the '80 Finals.

The numbers are overwhelming. BEFORE Magic...ordinary. WITH Magic...an immediate title, an averaged of 59 wins per year (even after Kareem), FIVE titles, EIGHT Finals (and another after Kareem.) Kareem retired and the Lakers IMPROVED from a 57-25 record to a 63-19 record. And the following season (and basically Magic's last) they went 58-24 and another trip to the Finals. Then, AFTER Magic, back to the ordinary team they were BEFORE him (43-39.) I am also convinced that while Kareem would have won ZERO titles in the 80's withOUT Magic, that Magic would have led the 86-87 and 87-88 Lakers to titles.

As far as comparing their careers...Wilt faced the greatest Dynasty in NBA history in EIGHT post-seasons in his first TEN seasons. He then faced the '70 Knicks, a team that many consider among the greatest ever, and then the '71 Bucks, who have also been considered among the greatest ever. Measnwhile, Kareem's teams failed to win titles, aside from '71 (and when Wilt was without West, Baylor, and then Erickson) in the weakest era of teams in NBA history. The '74 Celtics, the '75 Warriors (48-34), the '76 Celtics (who beat a 40-42 team in six games in the Finals), the '77 Blazers (49-33...and who swept Kareem's 53-29 Lakers), the '78 Bullets, and the '79 Sonics. NONE of those teams would be considered great...and some were hardly even very good.

And I always find it amusing that Wilt gets ripped for his 30-30 post-seasons, and in which his teammates contributed practically nothing in the vast majority of those seasons, and yet, Kareem fans find every EXCUSE for HIM when he played well in the post-season, but HIS teams lost.

[ShaqAttack3234]

You will NEVER convince me that Kareem was more important to the Laker Dynasty of the 80's, than Magic. Before Magic arrived, the Lakers had been slightly better than ordinary for the four years that Kareem was there. Their playoffs were comprised of sweeps and early exits, too.

I don't understand this. The Lakers were an average at best team with 34, 45 and 42 wins and just 2 playoff series(both losses) in the 3 years post-Shaq, pre-Gasol, yet with Gasol they win 2 championships and make the finals every year. Does that mean he was more important than Kobe? Of course not.

What that really means is when you add another all-star player a team will take the next level. Take Kareem away from those early 80's Laker teams and do you really think they're going to be contending for titles.


Magic outvoted Kareem in MVP balloting, in EIGHT of their ten seasons together, including the last eight in a row. So Magic was already considered the more valuable player by their third season (and BTW, if Kareem had not taken so many votes away from Magic, Magic would probably have won a couple more MVPs.) So, in their FIVE titles, Magic was the recognized leader in FOUR of them. And if you give Kareem credit for the '85 Finals, then you have to credit Magic with the '80 Finals.

Well, Bill Simmons who seems to be a Kareem hater and Magic fan ranked Kareem as the best player on the first 3 title teams.

And no, Magic and Kareem in 1985 is not a comparable situation to 1980. Magic had that one phenomenal game in game 6(Jamaal Wilkes also had 37/10 in the game). Prior to that Kareem had easily been the dominant player in the league and the finals.

In 1985, Kareem was a deserving finals MVP, I've seen the whole series. I have to watch more games, but I'll accept 1.A and 1.B for those 2 in that run. Kareem was still the Lakers first scoring option, the guy who drew the most double teams, had a much bigger defensive impact than Magic and he was basically their halfcourt offense and go to guy down the stretch.

As far as 1982? Well, Kareem was still an elite defensive presence and shot blocker, in fact, better in that regard than he was in '85. Magic surprisingly averaged more rebounds, but Kareem was once again without question LA's best scorer. Magic relied more on transition opportunities in that run because he hadn't yet started to really add his mid-range jumper or post game. If you really want to push for 1.A and 1.B in that run, I won't waste time going back and forth, but Kareem was no sidekick until the '87 run.

But just like Magic was the clear number 1 guy in '87, Kareem was in '80 as well. People overlook his legendary game 5 performance when he came back from an injury and had 14 points in the 4th quarter to finish with 40 points, 15 rebounds and 5 blocks on 16/24 from the field and 8/9 from the line.

And Pat Riley came to Magic before the 1986-1987 season and told him that it was time for him to carry a bigger load and take over the team because Kareem couldn't do it anymore which suggests that Pat Riley did not consider Kareem a number 2 guy on those '82 and '85 championship teams.

[jlauber]

I don't understand this. The Lakers were an average at best team with 34, 45 and 42 wins and just 2 playoff series(both losses) in the 3 years post-Shaq, pre-Gasol, yet with Gasol they win 2 championships and make the finals every year. Does that mean he was more important than Kobe? Of course not.

What that really means is when you add another all-star player a team will take the next level. Take Kareem away from those early 80's Laker teams and do you really think they're going to be contending for titles.



Well, Bill Simmons who seems to be a Kareem hater and Magic fan ranked Kareem as the best player on the first 3 title teams.

And no, Magic and Kareem in 1985 is not a comparable situation to 1980. Magic had that one phenomenal game in game 6(Jamaal Wilkes also had 37/10 in the game). Prior to that Kareem had easily been the dominant player in the league and the finals.

In 1985, Kareem was a deserving finals MVP, I've seen the whole series. I have to watch more games, but I'll accept 1.A and 1.B for those 2 in that run. Kareem was still the Lakers first scoring option, the guy who drew the most double teams, had a much bigger defensive impact than Magic and he was basically their halfcourt offense and go to guy down the stretch.

As far as 1982? Well, Kareem was still an elite defensive presence and shot blocker, in fact, better in that regard than he was in '85. Magic surprisingly averaged more rebounds, but Kareem was once again without question LA's best scorer. Magic relied more on transition opportunities in that run because he hadn't yet started to really add his mid-range jumper or post game. If you really want to push for 1.A and 1.B in that run, I won't waste time going back and forth, but Kareem was no sidekick until the '87 run.

But just like Magic was the clear number 1 guy in '87, Kareem was in '80 as well. People overlook his legendary game 5 performance when he came back from an injury and had 14 points in the 4th quarter to finish with 40 points, 15 rebounds and 5 blocks on 16/24 from the field and 8/9 from the line.

And Pat Riley came to Magic before the 1986-1987 season and told him that it was time for him to carry a bigger load and take over the team because Kareem couldn't do it anymore which suggests that Pat Riley did not consider Kareem a number 2 guy on those '82 and '85 championship teams.

I never said that Kareem was not an important component of those title teams in the 80's. IMHO, he was not the MAIN man. Perhaps 1980 (and yes, maybe 81, when Magic missed half the season...but LA did not win a title that year.) Even in '80 Magic's post-season numbers were very good, and of course, his game six is legendary. In the '82 post-season, Magic was already the better player, and would be the rest of their careers together. I will give Kareem a lot of credit in '85, though. He was written off after game one...and then dominated the Celtics the rest of the series. Still, it was already Magic's team by that time. And the fact was, Magic made EVERYONE better.

Wilt was the MAIN man in every post-season, except perhaps in '69, when he was poorly used by Van Breda Kolf...and the Lakers did not win a title, either (although, once again, ONE play probably prevented a 4-1 series romp.) West was AWFUL in the '72 post-season, and Wilt CARRIED that Laker team to a title...despite being well past his prime. And Wilt outplayed every opposing center in his career. Kareem simply cannot make that claim.

I still rank Kareem in MY top-five...but after serious research, he has dropped to 5th (behind Russell, MJ, Magic, and Wilt.) And, individually, he doesn't come CLOSE to the dominance of Chamberlain (or even Shaq in his peak years.)

[alexandreben]

Nice job ignorning my point, moron.

What was Shaq's "domination period" with the Lakers? 2000-2003? He averaged 72 games those seasons. Or if you want to include the 90's, you can't include the lockout year because the season was only 50 games, Shaq playing 49 games that year can't be held against him. You claim to know the history of the game yet don't remember the lockout?

Or if we go with 2000-2004 which was the real years of the Shaq/Kobe duo, interesting that Shaq gets ripped for not being durable when he averaged 71 games and Kobe averaged 72 games, just 1 more per season.

Robinson posted very impressive block and steal numbers in 2000, particularly for 32 mpg and once again, look at his stats in the 8 games without Duncan when the Spurs were 5-3 or the fact that he led the Spurs in scoring in the second half. Put Robinson on his own team and he's still a 20+ ppg scorer. Even so, an efficient 18/10 guy who is a very good passer and an elite defensive player is no slouch.
I happen to remember the lockout and I believe I won't call people moron just because one disagree with my idea..

Lockout is fair to everyone, everyone played less games not just Shaq, or shall we not count the year that Wilt missed almost the entire season? but, to make you feel better, let me post a number that take out the lockout:

the Lakers Shaq played only 66 games per season(excluded the lockout year)...

In fact, look at Shaq's r

[ShaqAttack3234]

[QUOTE=alexandreben]I happen to remember the lockout and I believe I won't call people moron just because one disagree with my idea..

Lockout is fair to everyone, everyone played less games not just Shaq, or shall we not count the year that Wilt missed almost the entire season? but, to make you feel better, let me post a number that take out the lockout:

the Lakers Shaq played only 66 games per season(excluded the lockout year)...

In fact, look at Shaq's r

[alexandreben]

Yes, Wilt was more durable than Shaq throughout their careers. But Shaq in 2000 and 2001 was very durable for a man his size. 40 mpg and 79 games in the 2000 regular season and 43.5 mpg in the playoffs and the next year 39.5 mpg and 74 games and 42.3 mpg in the playoffs. That's excellent for a center, and you won't find big men of that era playing noticeably more minutes than that. Shaq was basically playing the entire games in the 2000 finals. He left game 1 with about 3 minutes left after dominating the 4th quarter stretching the lead from 6 to 17 and the game was officially out of hand. Had Shaq stayed in to play in the garbage minutes like another center who shall remain nameless, his 43/19 game would have probably become a 50/20 game and that was at a very slow pace.

He left game 5 when the game had gotten out of hand in the 4th. In game 4, he fouled out early in OT, but had played 47 minutes. Other than that, he played 46 minutes in game 2 and had a 16 point 4th quarter, played 47 minutes in game 3 and 47 minutes in game 6 to close out the series.

That may have been the greatest finals series ever. He carried them with Kobe injured and out for most of game 2 and all of game 3 and ineffective for the series outside of game 4, plus Rice was doing nothing. Shaq responded by averaging 38/17/3 on 61% shooting. 2000 Shaq may have been the greatest single season version of a player ever, of course 1967 Wilt, 1990/1991 Jordan and prime Kareem also have a damn good argument.

Wilt was a freak of nature in terms of durability, much like Karl Malone, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Dwight Howard, but lets not act like Shaq at his peak wasn't playing big minutes.

Shaq was injury prone, but lets not act like he was Yao Ming. Hell, Allen Iverson with the 76ers from 2000-2006 averaged a similar amount of games at 68 per season.

Yes, Robinson had lost a lot of his explosiveness by 2000, but he was still one of the more skilled and mobile 7 footers in the league
IMO, Shaq did play some great games in 2000, but like I said earlier, playing some games with 45 mpg in the finals or playoffs is one thing, playing 45 mpg for the entire career is bloodyhell a totally different level story... it's no comparisson at all, it's not quite wise to compare Shaq and Wilt for the minutes play and consistancy, and so does the comment that Wilt can't play 45 min in modern basketball, the comment is hilarious..

Wilt's stamina is just ridiculously amazing, Bill Russell played 42 mpg, he is the guy that run the 880 yards close to Wilt, he didn't even practice, drinking caf

[ShaqAttack3234]

IMO, Shaq did play some great games in 2000, but like I said earlier, playing some games with 45 mpg in the finals or playoffs is one thing, playing 45 mpg for the entire career is bloodyhell a totally different level story... it's no comparisson at all, it's not quite wise to compare Shaq and Wilt for the minutes play and consistancy, and so does the comment that Wilt can't play 45 min in modern basketball, the comment is hilarious..

I'm not saying Wilt couldn't play 45 mpg in modern basketball, I'm saying he wouldn't. Star players played more minutes back in Wilt's era(60's/early 70's).

[alexandreben]

I'm not saying Wilt couldn't play 45 mpg in modern basketball, I'm saying he wouldn't. Star players played more minutes back in Wilt's era(60's/early 70's).
Old schools play more pure basketball, modern players play more commercial basketball;

I remember Baylor averaged 40+ mpg, Jerry West played around 40 mpg too, Oscar was the best guard at that time, I think he pushed to 45 mpg, Russell and Wilt played the most minutes, LeBron played 42 mpg, so does AI, one of the reasons definitely is their stamina, Wilt and Russell and Oscar simply just have better stamina, Kobe simply couldn't play that kind of minutes like LeBron does due to his limited stamina, not to mention the "injury queen" Shaq... If Wilt's stamina shows he can play the game with 45min, I don't see any reason that the team would prohibite him from doing so.

besides stamina, the other reason is, super star players are the biggest assets to the team, Russell and Wilt earned 2.5 times of salary that Jerry West made, of course they have to play more minutes, and don't forget the contract is signed year by year.. I remember Pat Riley once even made fun of Shaq by asking him play half of the season and took only 10mil$...:roll:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Old schools play more pure basketball, modern players play more commercial basketball;

I remember Baylor averaged 40+ mpg, Jerry West played around 40 mpg too, Oscar was the best guard at that time, I think he pushed to 45 mpg, Russell and Wilt played the most minutes, LeBron played 42 mpg, so does AI, one of the reasons definitely is their stamina, Wilt and Russell and Oscar simply just have better stamina, Kobe simply couldn't play that kind of minutes like LeBron does due to his limited stamina, not to mention the "injury queen" Shaq... If Wilt's stamina shows he can play the game with 45min, I don't see any reason that the team would prohibite him from doing so.

besides stamina, the other reason is, super star players are the biggest assets to the team, Russell and Wilt earned 2.5 times of salary that Jerry West made, of course they have to play more minutes, and don't forget the contract is signed year by year.. I remember Pat Riley once even made fun of Shaq by asking him play half of the season and took only 10mil$...:roll:

Because it's unnecessary to play 45+ mpg, so much money is invested in stars that teams take precautions to avoid injuries so stars usually get a rest around the end of the first quarter/start of the second and often the end of the 3rd/start of the 4th and they seldom play in blowouts in the 4th.

[PHILA]

Because it's unnecessary to play 45+ mpg, so much money is invested in stars that teams take precautions to avoid injuries so stars usually get a rest around the end of the first quarter/start of the second and often the end of the 3rd/start of the 4th and they seldom play in blowouts in the 4th.


The Bulletin - Oct 25, 1991 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=s9Y9AAAAIBAJ&sjid=eoYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3371,5087351&dq)


"They couldn't afford me today."

[jlauber]

I read somewhere that one of the reasons that Wilt played so many minutes throughout his career, was that he had arthritic knees that would stiffen up on him if he sat. He preferred to play until he was no longer needed, instead of taking a couple of breaks during the game.

I agree that he would not play 48 mpg in the modern era, though. ShaqAttack has mentioned that Wilt even played 45 mpg in the 66-67 season, in which the Sixers just crushed the league. While that was one of his lowest amount of minutes in his career, it was somewhat puzzling why he would be playing even that many.

I can understand him playing nearly 48 mpg in the 62-63 season. His team, while only winning 31 games, was only outscored by 2.1 ppg during the season.

In any case, I don't think he should be criticized for repeatedly leading the league in minutes played. Furthermore, if he is going to get slapped for playing so many minutes, one can only wonder how much more efficient he might have been, had he "only" played 42-43 minutes a game...or say 40 mpg in today's game?

As for the assertions of "stats-padding"...yes, Wilt was aware of his stats and records. Still, he won some of his scoring, rebounding, and FG% titles by HUGE margins. Had he rested a few minutes of those games, he would still have run away with the individual titles in many of them.

Having said, though, there is no way a team would allow him to play anywhere near 48 mpg in today's game. The risk would have been too great to take a chance on wearing him down, and possibly contributing to an injury. The question would be, just what would he average? Given the fact that he routinely led the league, and by usually 2-3 mpg, I suspect that he would probably play around 43 mpg, at least in his prime years.

Incidently, I have always found it even more amazing that he averaged 47.2 mpg in his entire post-season career, which involved 160 games. And back then, it was not uncommon to play games on back-to-back days.

[PHILA]

"The first hour I coached Chamberlain, I asked him how much he wanted to play," McGuire told me 20 years ago. "He said -- and I'll never forget this -- 'If you take me out, I'm sitting next to you. I don't rebound. I don't score.' "

And so, McGuire never took Wilt out of a game. That was the year Chamberlain averaged 50.4 points. He averaged 25.7 rebounds. He took a staggering 3,159 shots that year, by far the most in NBA history. It is 800 more shots than any other player ever dared take in a season.

McGuire's gift -- people always said -- was his ability to inspire confidence in people. Dean Smith would talk about how he loved golfing with McGuire because those were the days he made 8-foot putts. Lots of people said stuff like that. And McGuire made Chamberlain feel limitless. It's not that Chamberlain ever lacked for confidence -- after all, there was a story in the Saturday Evening Post calling him the greatest basketball player who ever lived. And that came out before Chamberlain played his first college game. But something about that combination -- the brilliance of Wilt Chamberlain and the confidence of Frank McGuire -- led to something magical.

Chamberlain was on a scoring surge leading into the 100-point game. Well, that whole season was a scoring surge, but Chamberlain had been especially hot coming in. He had been held to just 26 points in a loss to the Celtics eight days before the 100-point night, and nobody was happy about it. "Feed Wilt," McGuire would remember telling his team, and the next night Chamberlain scored 67 points in a loss to the Knicks. Two days later, he scored 65 in a Philadelphia victory over St. Louis. And the night after that, he scored 61 as the Warriors beat the Chicago Packers.

That led to the night in Hershey on March 2, 1962. Chamberlain would often say that he started thinking it was a magical night when he made nine consecutive free throws -- Chamberlain was, of course, a notoriously bad free-throw shooter his entire career*. He made those nine free throws in a row, and it all felt right. He made 28-of-32 free throws that day, which was a big reason he was able to score 100. His teammates kept feeding him and feeding him. The crowd -- if you can call the 4,124 or so people in the stands that day a crowd -- rushed the court before the game even ended.

*Chamberlain shot 54 percent from the field in his career and just 51 percent from the free-throw line. Another of my favorite Chamberlain statistics is that his last two seasons, he shot 65 percent and 73 percent from the field. And from the line? He shot 42 and 51 percent. There really was never anyone like him.

It is one of those perfect things in sports that Chamberlain scored 100 points in a game. I mean that in the same way that I think it is perfect that Sandy Koufax threw a perfect game, that Babe Ruth hit the called-shot home run, that Jim Brown never missed a game for injury, that Jack Nicklaus won the Masters at 46, that Reggie Jackson hit the three home runs in a World Series. It is perfect because, in a single sentence, you can capture for children and people who were not there the essence of something large.

One hundred points. Two quotes come to mind. One is from McGuire, who was asked after that game if Chamberlain's one-man-game act actually hurt the team. "Wilt has been superhuman," McGuire said. "I hate to think where we'd be without him, with just a mere human being in his place."

The other is from Chamberlain himself. Someone asked him at Kansas that day he came back if this ranked as the best day in his life. Chamberlain smirked just a little bit -- the person asking clearly did not appreciate what a life Chamberlain had lived. But Wilt did not ignore the question. He simply said: "I've had a lot of great days. But this wasn't bad. It sure wasn't bad, my man."

[ShaqAttack3234]

I read somewhere that one of the reasons that Wilt played so many minutes throughout his career, was that he had arthritic knees that would stiffen up on him if he sat. He preferred to play until he was no longer needed, instead of taking a couple of breaks during the game.

I agree that he would not play 48 mpg in the modern era, though. ShaqAttack has mentioned that Wilt even played 45 mpg in the 66-67 season, in which the Sixers just crushed the league. While that was one of his lowest amount of minutes in his career, it was somewhat puzzling why he would be playing even that many.

I can understand him playing nearly 48 mpg in the 62-63 season. His team, while only winning 31 games, was only outscored by 2.1 ppg during the season.

In any case, I don't think he should be criticized for repeatedly leading the league in minutes played. Furthermore, if he is going to get slapped for playing so many minutes, one can only wonder how much more efficient he might have been, had he "only" played 42-43 minutes a game...or say 40 mpg in today's game?

As for the assertions of "stats-padding"...yes, Wilt was aware of his stats and records. Still, he won some of his scoring, rebounding, and FG% titles by HUGE margins. Had he rested a few minutes of those games, he would still have run away with the individual titles in many of them.

Having said, though, there is no way a team would allow him to play anywhere near 48 mpg in today's game. The risk would have been too great to take a chance on wearing him down, and possibly contributing to an injury. The question would be, just what would he average? Given the fact that he routinely led the league, and by usually 2-3 mpg, I suspect that he would probably play around 43 mpg, at least in his prime years.

Incidently, I have always found it even more amazing that he averaged 47.2 mpg in his entire post-season career, which involved 160 games. And back then, it was not uncommon to play games on back-to-back days.

Well, I think teams are even more cautious with 7 footers due to the injury plagued careers of many promising big men such as Bill Walton, Ralph Sampson, Brad Daugherty and Yao Ming. Hell, we're seeing it lately with Andrew Bynum and Greg Oden.

Shaq's 40 mpg in the 2000 season, 39.5 in the 2001 season and 39.8 in the 1994 season are very impressive for his size and position.

To put it in perspective, in 2000, he was tied for the league lead among big men in mpg with Kevin Garnett who had to carry his team and was very durable.

In 1994, he was edged out slightly among big men by Olajuwon who played 41 mpg, Karl Malone who played 40.6 mpg and David Robinson who played 40.5 mpg. All of whom were in excellent shape.

In 2001, Shareef Abdur Rahim edged him out slightly at 40 mpg. He was again tied with Kevin Garnett who had 39.5 mpg obviously.

I don't really compare big men's minutes with perimeter players for a variety reasons. One being that big men are more foul prone and the other being that 7 footers are freaks of nature and naturally someone like say, Allen Iverson who is a normal 6 foot man will be at less of a risk for a freak injury or getting worn out. That's why so many big men have leg injuries.

Another factor to consider as far as Wilt's minutes is fouls. In Wilt's era, perimeter players weren't attacking big men the same way and trying to dunk on them, in the 90's and 00's, hell even the 80's, this was common. In Wilt's era, that was considered disrespectful, but the more perimeter players attacking big men and the more chance for fouls.

Not only that, but ball handling is much more advanced now, I think there's been a bigger advance in the progression of perimeter player's than big men since the 60's and it's actually not all that close, IMO, which isn't to say that all perimeter players would be scrubs now. But one thing to consider is that players can get away with traveling and palming a lot more now which makes it easier to penetrate and attack the rim which once again, puts big men at a bigger risk of picking up fouls.

[jlauber]

Well, I think teams are even more cautious with 7 footers due to the injury plagued careers of many promising big men such as Bill Walton, Ralph Sampson, Brad Daugherty and Yao Ming. Hell, we're seeing it lately with Andrew Bynum and Greg Oden.

Shaq's 40 mpg in the 2000 season, 39.5 in the 2001 season and 39.8 in the 1994 season are very impressive for his size and position.

To put it in perspective, in 2000, he was tied for the league lead among big men in mpg with Kevin Garnett who had to carry his team and was very durable.

In 1994, he was edged out slightly among big men by Olajuwon who played 41 mpg, Karl Malone who played 40.6 mpg and David Robinson who played 40.5 mpg. All of whom were in excellent shape.

In 2001, Shareef Abdur Rahim edged him out slightly at 40 mpg. He was again tied with Kevin Garnett who had 39.5 mpg obviously.

I don't really compare big men's minutes with perimeter players for a variety reasons. One being that big men are more foul prone and the other being that 7 footers are freaks of nature and naturally someone like say, Allen Iverson who is a normal 6 foot man will be at less of a risk for a freak injury or getting worn out. That's why so many big men have leg injuries.

Another factor to consider as far as Wilt's minutes is fouls. In Wilt's era, perimeter players weren't attacking big men the same way and trying to dunk on them, in the 90's and 00's, hell even the 80's, this was common. In Wilt's era, that was considered disrespectful, but the more perimeter players attacking big men and the more chance for fouls.

Not only that, but ball handling is much more advanced now, I think there's been a bigger advance in the progression of perimeter player's than big men since the 60's and it's actually not all that close, IMO, which isn't to say that all perimeter players would be scrubs now. But one thing to consider is that players can get away with traveling and palming a lot more now which makes it easier to penetrate and attack the rim which once again, puts big men at a bigger risk of picking up fouls.

Good points. Wilt was a freak of nature (of course, so was/is Shaq)...and we will probably never see anything like him again. And no owner would allow a player to play even 45 mpg in today's era, unless it would be in the playoffs.

Regarding Shaq. Yes, he can be criticized somewhat for coming in out of shape in some of those years...but for a 325-350+ lb. man to average 40 mpg (and 42-43 in the post-season) was/is amazing. Not only that, but he was running the floor exceptionally well, at least in the early 00's.

[jlauber]

I think one of the more interesting discussions about Wilt would be this...

just how many quality years did he have left?

He never really retired, ...he was prevented from playing in the ABA in his first season as a coach...and he just never had the desire to return.

In his last season, at age 36, he led the NBA in rebounding, by two per game (and even more remarkably, he averaged 22.5 rpg in his 17 post-season games.) He was also voted first-team all-defense (the second year in a row BTW.) He most certainly would have led the league in blocked shots. AND, he set a FG% mark of .727 that will likely never be broken.

Clearly, his offense had been in the decline since his knee injury in 1969, but he was over 300 lbs by his last year, and was just a massive man. IMHO, had he decided to just overpower the league, he could still have been an offensive force.

I have posted the link before, but in any case, Larry Brown witnessed Chamberlain take over a summer league game that included Magic Johnson, in 1980...and Wilt would have been around 43-44 at the time. And a couple of years later, Kiki Van de Wege witnessed Chamberlain overpower 7-4 Mark Eaton in another summer league game.

Furthermore, Wilt kept himself in great shape. There are photos of him, in his 50's, in which he looked fantastic. He was running marathons even into his 60's, and there was an eye-witness account of him bench-pressing 465 lbs at age 59. Now, whether you choose to believe the actual numbers, or not, Phila has posted those photographs, and I honestly don't see anyone questioning his physical ability, even in his 50's. What we also know is that there were NBA teams that LEGITIMATELY pursued Wilt into his 40's, and even into his 50's!

In any case, we will never know...but once again...it would make for an interesting discussion.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Good points. Wilt was a freak of nature (of course, so was/is Shaq)...and we will probably never see anything like him again. And no owner would allow a player to play even 45 mpg in today's era, unless it would be in the playoffs.

Regarding Shaq. Yes, he can be criticized somewhat for coming in out of shape in some of those years...but for a 325-350+ lb. man to average 40 mpg (and 42-43 in the post-season) was/is amazing. Not only that, but he was running the floor exceptionally well, at least in the early 00's.

Yeah, in fact in the 2001 finals, Doug Collins often talked about how well Shaq used his speed to get post position on Mutombo in semi-fast break opportunities. Run to the front of the rim and get good position.

This is one of the ways Dwight Howard is most effective, he's an exceptionally athlete and no center can match his speed or athleticism, I think throughout a game he should do this even more. Just sprint down the court on any transition opportunity, he'll get his fair share of alley oops.

David Robinson in his younger years was a master at using his speed.

I was also disappointed to see his offensive rebounding fall off a little because he's one of the best rebounders of the last 20 years and that can account for several points per game.

Now Dwight will never be the offensive player Shaq was for a variety of reasons, and actually a mistake he makes is trying to overpower players he can't. Despite his physique and reputation, he has nowhere near the natural strength Shaq, Wilt or even Greg Oden and Kendrick Perkins do.

But there was no excuse for Howard dropping from 21 to 18 ppg when he should score a lot just on offensive rebounds, running the floor and alley oops. Part of the problem is, Jameer Nelson is a 5'10" score-first point guard.

Actually speaking of mpg, Howard is puzzling to me. He should definitely be playing 38-40 mpg every year. His career high is 37.8, he fell to 35.7 in 2009 and 34.7 this year. Part of that is the unnecessary fouls he picks up.

Howard dominates the weak centers or some average centers without the physical gifts, but Howard is an example of a guy who struggles vs elite competition and feasts on weaker centers or undersized players like Al Horford. I mean we've seen how he struggles vs Yao or even a 37/38 year old Shaq.

As far as how long could Wilt have played? I really wish he was allowed to play with San Diego that year in the ABA and if he could have come back with the Knicks in the mid 70's like was rumored.

[jlauber]

Yeah, in fact in the 2001 finals, Doug Collins often talked about how well Shaq used his speed to get post position on Mutombo in semi-fast break opportunities. Run to the front of the rim and get good position.

This is one of the ways Dwight Howard is most effective, he's an exceptionally athlete and no center can match his speed or athleticism, I think throughout a game he should do this even more. Just sprint down the court on any transition opportunity, he'll get his fair share of alley oops.

David Robinson in his younger years was a master at using his speed.

I was also disappointed to see his offensive rebounding fall off a little because he's one of the best rebounders of the last 20 years and that can account for several points per game.

Now Dwight will never be the offensive player Shaq was for a variety of reasons, and actually a mistake he makes is trying to overpower players he can't. Despite his physique and reputation, he has nowhere near the natural strength Shaq, Wilt or even Greg Oden and Kendrick Perkins do.

But there was no excuse for Howard dropping from 21 to 18 ppg when he should score a lot just on offensive rebounds, running the floor and alley oops. Part of the problem is, Jameer Nelson is a 5'10" score-first point guard.

Actually speaking of mpg, Howard is puzzling to me. He should definitely be playing 38-40 mpg every year. His career high is 37.8, he fell to 35.7 in 2009 and 34.7 this year. Part of that is the unnecessary fouls he picks up.

Howard dominates the weak centers or some average centers without the physical gifts, but Howard is an example of a guy who struggles vs elite competition and feasts on weaker centers or undersized players like Al Horford. I mean we've seen how he struggles vs Yao or even a 37/38 year old Shaq.

Well, the fact is, Howard is 6-11 (or as you have suggested, maybe even 6-9.) Yes, he is a great athlete, but he does not possess the sheer size or power of the truly awesome centers in NBA history. He is obviously bigger than Russell was, but having studied the footage of Russell, I have come to respec his offense much more. He was still not the high percentage shooter that Howard is, but I really believe that Russell could score more easily.

Having said that, though, you hit the nail-on-the-head with his PG. Give Howard a LEGITIMATE PG, and I think he will get better scoring opportunities. Once again, he does not possess the size or strength to just over-power some of the centers in the league, nor does he have the necessary offensive skill set to consistently score from over 10 ft. He may never be a true offensive scorer, but if I were coaching him (I should be so lucky)...I would have him concentrate on his strengths...his rebounding and defense. He is clearly the best in the league at both. And, I can live with 18-20 ppg on 60% shooting.

Get Howard a decent PG, and maybe a decent PF, and I think he would win some rings....even in the "Diva-Team" era.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Well, the fact is, Howard is 6-11 (or as you have suggested, maybe even 6-9.) Yes, he is a great athlete, but he does not possess the sheer size or power of the truly awesome centers in NBA history. He is obviously bigger than Russell was, but having studied the footage of Russell, I have come to respec his offense much more. He was still not the high percentage shooter that Howard is, but I really believe that Russell could score more easily.

Having said that, though, you hit the nail-on-the-head with his PG. Give Howard a LEGITIMATE PG, and I think he will get better scoring opportunities. Once again, he does not possess the size or strength to just over-power some of the centers in the league, nor does he have the necessary offensive skill set to consistently score from over 10 ft. He may never be a true offensive scorer, but if I were coaching him (I should be so lucky)...I would have him concentrate on his strengths...his rebounding and defense. He is clearly the best in the league at both. And, I can live with 18-20 ppg on 60% shooting.

Get Howard a decent PG, and maybe a decent PF, and I think he would win some rings....even in the "Diva-Team" era.

I was excited at the CP3 to Orlando rumors, but obviously more excited about the possibility of CP3 on the Knicks. Regardless, if Paul could make Tyson Chandler look that good, imagine what he'd do with Howard.

Regarding Russell and Howard's offense, well Russell was a better passer, that's for sure. But as scorers? I'd go with Howard without hesitation, more points on MUCH higher FG%. And the extremely fast pace in Russell's era did favor mobile big men because there were more transition dunks, more offensive rebounding opportunities.

From what I've seen of Russell, he didn't really have a great post game, ocassionally he had that hook, but as much as Howard gets slammed for his post game, I've seen him pull off some nice spin moves, use his left hand well and his running hook really is a pretty good shot. I see him make that shot with pretty good regularity and contrary to popular belief, he's not spoon fed his baskets. He is assisted on less of his baskets than prime Garnett and Amare, in fact, noticeably less, even in his 21 ppg 2009 season and 20 ppg/60 FG% playoff run that same season.

But these are the things that seperate Russell from Howard.

1.He stepped up vs the best competition at the time and a fellow top 10 player, Wilt Chamberlain. There's a reason why Wilt respected Russell, in the games available, you can see that he played very good post defense.

2.Intelligence, I couldn't imagine Russell picking up a lot of the dumb fouls Howard does.

3.Defense, this is Howard's strength, but unlike Howard, Russell is a great post defender. Howard's great defensive impact comes from shot blocking and contesting everything in the paint.

4.While Russell was a poor free throw shooter, in fact, worse than Howard in the regular season, he did step up his free throw shooting a bit in the playoffs and in his great 1962 season, shot 73% from the line and in another one of his greatest seasons(1960), he shot 71% from the line. Russell's free throw shooting didn't hurt the team from anything I've read, while Howard's free throw shooting was a big reason they didn't win game 4 of the 2009 finals. Granted, those free throws are exaggerated by a certain Yao-loving Dwight Howard hater, I mean does anyone slam Scottie Pippen as a choker for missing 2 free throws in game 4 of the '98 ECF that could have sealed the win yet allowed Reggie Miller to win the game on a 3? Or Duncan missing at the line in the 2003 playoffs and Marbury hitting a 3?

5.Impact on the game. Russell did change the NBA with his shot blocking. Name a great shot blocker before Russell? Or an athletic big man? Hell, an athletic NBA player?

But in the end, all fans who complain about the lack of centers should root for Howard rather than concentrating so much on his flaws. I was a bit of a Dwight Howard hater in the 2007-2008 season, but because of the lack of great centers, I've found myself rooting for him, I mean he has more positives than negatives

[Pointguard]

Howard has a wealth of natural advantages on other centers: he is either stronger, faster, quicker, more coordinated, more powerful, more athletic, more explosive than 80% of the centers he faces. And has at least four of those advantages on every center in the game. While he is still young his advantages aren't being used. And he hasn't really cultivated any of them in tandem. Its like he's the human oil spill as far as his natural resources being waisted.

[PHILA]

Another factor to consider as far as Wilt's minutes is fouls. In Wilt's era, perimeter players weren't attacking big men the same way and trying to dunk on them, in the 90's and 00's, hell even the 80's, this was common. In Wilt's era, that was considered disrespectful, but the more perimeter players attacking big men and the more chance for fouls.
More like it was disrespectful in the late 40's/50's. You drove against Russell, Chamberlain, or Thurmond chances are you would get rejected. Today the 3 pt. line is relied on far too much, and this being with ONE dominant shot blocking starting center in the league out of 30 teams, who happens to be restricted by the new 3 second rule as well. But then again, they way they call fouls these days also must be taken into consideration.



Not only that, but ball handling is much more advanced now, I think there's been a bigger advance in the progression of perimeter player's than big men since the 60's and it's actually not all that close, IMO, which isn't to say that all perimeter players would be scrubs now. But one thing to consider is that players can get away with traveling and palming a lot more now which makes it easier to penetrate and attack the rim which once again, puts big men at a bigger risk of picking up fouls.
Would have nice to mention that the palming modern era players get away with does indeed make their handle more visually appealing to the common fan on television. A good ball handler will be able to protect the ball under pressure rather than perform a Harlem Globetrotters highlight.

[PHILA]

Russell shut him down in games 6 and 7 the '68 EDF to come back from a 3-1 lead and win the series

Did Russell even guard even in those games?




Before we leave 1968 altogether, can we talk about game seven for a minute? In 1968 you limited your friend Wilt Chamberlain to two shot attempts in the entire second half of game seven.

That's not true at all. That was a coach's decision. There was a forward on their team named Chet Walker, and he was hurting us badly, okay? So I had my backup center, it was a guy named Wayne Embry. Now Embry had been in the league seven or eight years, and he played against Wilt all those years. So at half time I said to him, "Wayne, I'm going to try something. It's not new. I want you to guard Wilt. Okay? I have to take care of Chet Walker." And see, when I made that substitution everybody thought it was trying to stay out of foul trouble, something like that, which was to me the best part of that because I made adjustments that they didn't know what I was doing. So they couldn't make a counter adjustment. You see if you make an adjustment, and they know what you're doing, well they can just counter it. But I made an adjustment, they thought it was to get off of Wilt. They didn't know it was to get on Chet. Now Wilt had a game plan, but his game plan was counting on me trying to guard him. When we put Wayne on him, he guarded him a completely different way.




He was used to you guarding him.

Yes. To me, the pretty part of it was -- I hate to use the word beauty -- is that Wayne had enormous experience guarding him. So it wasn't like you took some guy out of the stands and put him on Wilt. Here's a guy who's been guarding him for years. That adjustment was for Chet Walker, it wasn't for Wilt.




Can you talk us through the last minute of the 1968 Eastern Finals?

It was a close game, but we were in charge. So they got to the place where they've got to foul us. So they fouled, and we make free throws and they go down, and they score and make three fouls. So they get down to 12 seconds to go. That's when the thing with Sam came up. It was going to that series. After we got down three to one...


I'm the coach, okay, and so I'm talking to my guys before the fifth game. And I says, "We're going to beat these guys, and this is how we're going to do it." And we had a rookie on the team who's now a judge in Boston, because he had an ailment, he had to retire, but he told me a few years ago, he said, "You know, I was in the locker room when you said that. That's the most disciplined situation I've ever been in my life, because I had to discipline myself from falling out on the floor laughing, when you said we're going to beat these guys." He says, "They're going to kill us!" And he says, "We haven't got a chance!" And he sat there and watched the whole thing happen. And he says that's one of the wonders of his life, because I said it with complete confidence. And then I said, like I said earlier, "We don't have to win three games in a row. We've just got to win one." You see, after we won two of them, the pressure completely shifts. The pressure is on them. You're up three to one, and how do you lose three straight?

So it was basically routine.

I think that that move that I made at half time was the most important move I made as a coach in that series, because it worked, and we got accomplished what we wanted to get accomplished without them knowing what we were trying to accomplish. See everybody still talks about the fact that Wilt only took two shots. They still almost won the game, right? And the key was that Chet Walker had been killing us. And I knew that I could guard him. And the reason I knew I could guard him is his moves were very deliberate. As part of my teaching myself, I learned -- we had six plays and nowadays they number those positions. One is point guard, two is shooting guard, three is a small forward, four is a power forward, five is a center. Well, I made a point to learn how to play all those positions on all six plays. Now not that I ever wanted to or hoped to play in those other positions, but in knowing those positions I know the problems that go with that position. So that if my teammate needed help I can help. And on defense I watched these guys, how they play defense, and I know how to guard almost any position. And I physically took over Chet.







From Wayne Embry's book:


http://i35.tinypic.com/11i35ug.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/vdmpop.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/2iarin5.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/opy54o.jpg
http://i38.tinypic.com/3448vub.jpg
http://i38.tinypic.com/2mmztzs.jpg
http://i34.tinypic.com/25z3uvl.jpg
http://i34.tinypic.com/20iv0x5.jpg
http://i34.tinypic.com/nbc9io.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/5kj434.jpg

[ThaRegul8r]

Did Russell even guard even in those games?

(snip)


You said "those games," plural, yet you talked about Game 7, singular. So is it those games (6 and 7) or Game 7? It's unclear since you began with plural and then shift to singular.

[PHILA]

It appears as though Embry defended Chamberlain for the 2nd half of Game 5 and most of Game 6 & 7 as Russell noted he had to contain Chet The Jet. Shows how versatile a defender he was from the C position throughout his collegiate and professional career.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2wn4vwx.jpg








Christian Science Monitor - ProQuest Archiver - Apr 18, 1968 (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=The+strategy+called+for+&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=4%2F17%2F1968&as_user_hdate=4%2F18%2F1968&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a)

'Even when 6ft. 9 in. Luke Jackson of the Philadelphia 76ers has a big scoring game, which is basically not his job, the superlatives invariably go to someone else.'
...

'The strategy called for Embry to guard Wilt alone until Chamberlain started backing into the pivot then Russell would sag on Jackson to come over and ...'

(All that is available from that article without paying $$)





The Spokesman-Review - Apr 17, 1968 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IAEzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cukDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3631,408464&dq=)

'Sam Jones' 37 points and a fine defensive job by Wayne Embry kept Boston alive in the National Basketball Association playoffs Monday with a 122-104 victory over the Philadelphia 76ers.

The Celtics trail 3-2 in the best-of-7 Eastern Division Finals with the sixth game in Boston Wednesday.

Embry came on in the 2nd half to do a great defensive job in keeping Wilt Chamberlain away from the basket.'

[jlauber]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"In Game 2, Philadelphia evened the series with 115

[HiphopRelated]

Even in the modern league, LeBron played 42.5 mpg two seasons and didn't look tired at all, the guy is anything anti-stamina... era doesn't matter if a player has that kind of stamina;

Made no mistake, Hakeem was the best center in 90's, Shaq's dominance began at the late 99', Wilt's dominance starts when he entered the league till the day he retired.
that is ridiculous

[jlauber]

that is ridiculous

Care to explain?

[jlauber]

Regarding Embry's defense on Wilt...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=50pointsinagame

I counted 14 games between Wilt's rookie season (59-60) thru the 63-64 season in which Chamberlain put up a 50+ point game on the Royals. Embry was basically the Royals starting center over the course of those five years. He did miss a TOTAL of 11 games over the course of those five years, but even if all 11 were against Wilt, which is unlikely, that means that Chamberlain still had three games of anywhere from 52 to 65 points against him (Wilt had three 60+ point games against Cincinnati in those five years.) And those are just Wilt's 50+ point games.

http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf

In Wilt's 61-62 season, a year on which Embry missed five games (I couldn't tell you which ones, though), Wilt had games of 43, 45, 57, 54, 53, 65, and 48 in seven games against the Royals. Here again, if ALL of Embry's five missed games were against Wilt (once again, highly unlikely), that means that Wilt had at least two games of between 43 to 65 points against him. And that was just for that one season.

In any case, there is simply no way that Embry could have magically held Chamberlain to ZERO points in the 2nd half of that game seven in the '68 ECF's, unless something else was going on.

[alexandreben]

It appears as though Embry defended Chamberlain for the 2nd half of Game 5 and most of Game 6 & 7 as Russell noted he had to contain Chet The Jet.
I'd give credits to Embry, who really guarded Wilt very well in those 3 games, however, I would give some real credits to Red Auerbach, who helped to find Embry's balls back..

here's what he praised Red about how he helped hime find confidence back:

When I joined the Celtics, Red knew that my confidence had been destroyed. He told me, "I want you to do what you do best when you are on the court and don't try to be something that you are not."
After every game, he came around and said something positive to each of us. He would find a way to compliment you whether you played five minutes or forty-five minutes. He made each of us fell as if we were important, as if we were all needed.
He never said a bad word about any of his players, regardless of ability. "You never know when you might need him," he would say.

If the idea of switching defense was really come from Russell(could it from Red?), then he really a genius, the switch defense reminds me the 90' playoffs, NYK down by 0-2, in the elimination game, coach switched defense, he made Ewing to defend McHale with his long arm, and made Oakley's muscle to defend Parish, and then NYK back 3-2 eliminated BOS, a very similar strategy to Embry muscled Wilt instead of Russell.

[jlauber]

I'd give credits to Embry, who really guarded Wilt very well in those 3 games, however, I would give some real credits to Red Auerbach, who helped to find Embry's balls back..

here's what he praised Red about how he helped hime find confidence back:

When I joined the Celtics, Red knew that my confidence had been destroyed. He told me, "I want you to do what you do best when you are on the court and don't try to be something that you are not."
After every game, he came around and said something positive to each of us. He would find a way to compliment you whether you played five minutes or forty-five minutes. He made each of us fell as if we were important, as if we were all needed.
He never said a bad word about any of his players, regardless of ability. "You never know when you might need him," he would say.

If the idea of switching defense was really come from Russell(could it from Red?), then he really a genius, the switch defense reminds me the 90' playoffs, NYK down by 0-2, in the elimination game, coach switched defense, he made Ewing to defend McHale with his long arm, and made Oakley's muscle to defend Parish, and then NYK back 3-2 eliminated BOS, a very similar strategy to Embry muscled Wilt instead of Russell.


Once again, I don't honestly believe that Embry, or Russell, did a great job on Wilt. For whatever reason, Chamberlain just did not get TOUCHES. And, one more time...take a look at just how dominant Wilt was against either Russell or Embry, in his "scoring" seasons. In fact, in his LAST game, of those "scoring" seasons (59-60 to 65-66) he put up a 46 point game on Russell. He would still have four more 30+ point games from 66-67 thru 68-69 against Russell, as well (including a 35 point game in the '68-69 season, after SI ran an article claiming that Wilt could no longer score.)

[alexandreben]

In any case, there is simply no way that Embry could have magically held Chamberlain to ZERO points in the 2nd half of that game seven in the '68 ECF's, unless something else was going on.
well.. didn't 76ers only fed Wilt 5 balls in the third Qtr and only 2 balls in the fourth Qtr when the normal feeding should be 15 balls per quarter?

i don't how they did it exactly(by throwing 3 or 4 players sandwiched Wilt and get away with it), it was leagal at that time, imagine Lakers' three-peat that Shaq only got 2 touches in the fourth quarter while Kobe, Fisher, Horry, Fox, Rice, etc only shot below 30%, how can Lakers win the game? it would be really crazy...