comparison - Wilt VS SHAQ

[nbacardDOTnet]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/VS/Comparision%20n%20Similarity/SHAQ/n%20Stilt/5eff28e8.gif

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/VS/Comparision%20n%20Similarity/SHAQ/n%20Stilt/dd3d3a2c.gif

[Semi]

great thread

[Round Mound]

Wilt

-Better Rebounder
-Better Shot Blocker
-Better Rim Protector
-Beter Off Man Defender
-Could Guard Pick and Rolls
-Faster in the Open Floor Without the Ball
-Stronger Upper Body

Shaq

-Better Pure Scorer
-Better Ball Handler
-Better Finisher While On The Dribble
-Stronger Lower Torso

Something like that

[tommyhtc]

Wilt

-Better Rebounder
-Better Shot Blocker
-Better Rim Protector
-Beter Off Man Defender
-Could Guard Pick and Rolls
-Faster in the Open Floor Without the Ball
-Stronger Upper Body

Shaq

-Better Pure Scorer
-Better Ball Handler
-Better Finisher While On The Dribble
-Stronger Lower Torso

Something like that
I haven't watched much Wilt, but For Shaq, I'm sure he is:
- a Heavier player
Quite obvious, Wilt was up to 300 at best,, Shaq entered the league at 300, and may have gone up to 360-80? in his 2001-3 laker run.

- More explosive
The way that Shaq backs players down with amazing power and thrust is unmatched. I have never seen anyone physically punish defenders to his extent

- Better post moves
Wilt was known for shooting fadeaways, and from the availible footages I've seen him traveling when doing spin moves, and laid in the ball awkwardly. Shaq was underrated in that aspect.

[Psileas]

I haven't watched much Wilt, but For Shaq, I'm sure he is:
- a Heavier player
Quite obvious, Wilt was up to 300 at best,, Shaq entered the league at 300, and may have gone up to 360-80? in his 2001-3 laker run.

- More explosive
The way that Shaq backs players down with amazing power and thrust is unmatched. I have never seen anyone physically punish defenders to his extent

- Better post moves
Wilt was known for shooting fadeaways, and from the availible footages I've seen him traveling when doing spin moves, and laid in the ball awkwardly. Shaq was underrated in that aspect.

Since you have only watched little Wilt, as you admit, the only thing you should be sure about should be the first.
Explosiveness is an underrated aspect of Wilt, because of him refraining from using it offensively, but a guy whose exploits in athletics are known (and he didn't suffer from major injuries when young) can't be "for sure" less explosive. At times, he showed it on the hardwood as well, in instances like the ending of the 1957 NCAA Final's OT, when he blocked the jump shot of a guy who was like 8 feet away.
Post moves? Wilt didn't travel nearly as often as you make it sound, at least not more often than Shaq commited offensive fouls when doing the same thing. I remember a lot of individual plays of Wilt in the internet and the only case I clearly remember him travelling when making a turnaround move was from the 1964 Finals, when he hit a very hard fade-away, but faked the shot before taking it and made an additional step.
I don't see what's awkward in Wilt's laying the ball in, especially if we're comparing him to Shaq, not Hakeem.

[Math2]

Shaq is stronger in this new era of lifting weights, and I can't see Wilt exceling. I dout he would even be at Javale McGee's level. Still, he is more historically signifigant (if u wanna defend him)

[Round Mound]

I haven't watched much Wilt, but For Shaq, I'm sure he is:
- a Heavier player
Quite obvious, Wilt was up to 300 at best,, Shaq entered the league at 300, and may have gone up to 360-80? in his 2001-3 laker run.

- More explosive
The way that Shaq backs players down with amazing power and thrust is unmatched. I have never seen anyone physically punish defenders to his extent

- Better post moves
Wilt was known for shooting fadeaways, and from the availible footages I've seen him traveling when doing spin moves, and laid in the ball awkwardly. Shaq was underrated in that aspect.

Wilt is the inventor of the fadeway and bank shot. :facepalm

Shaq was a better ballhandler and his weight plus athletic capacity makes him hard to stop with those spin moves: Black Tornados

Precusor of Charles Barkley`s Spins: The Master of the Post Spin Move.

[Batz]

Shaq is stronger in this new era of lifting weights, and I can't see Wilt exceling. I dout he would even be at Javale McGee's level. Still, he is more historically signifigant (if u wanna defend him)
:facepalm

[Round Mound]

Shaq is stronger in this new era of lifting weights, and I can't see Wilt exceling. I dout he would even be at Javale McGee's level. Still, he is more historically signifigant (if u wanna defend him)

Shaq is heavier not stronger.

Wilt had the strongest upper body in NBA History

Totally destroyed Artis Gilmore: whom Robert Parish called the strongest player along Shaq he ever faced.

Wilt played nice his whole career, he could have broken arms in every dunk but that was not his game.

Wilt is the Greatest Player Ever in the History of Basketball.

[Psileas]

Shaq is stronger in this new era of lifting weights, and I can't see Wilt exceling. I dout he would even be at Javale McGee's level. Still, he is more historically signifigant (if u wanna defend him)

An impressive number of ISH posters (mostly young ones) thinks that free throw shooting is by far the most important aspect of the game.

[Math2]

An impressive number of ISH posters (mostly young ones) thinks that free throw shooting is by far the most important aspect of the game.

no.....

[Math2]

Shaq is heavier not stronger.

Wilt had the strongest upper body in NBA History

Totally destroyed Artis Gilmore: whom Robert Parish called the strongest player along Shaq he ever faced.

Wilt played nice his whole career, he could have broken arms in every dunk but that was not his game.

Wilt is the Greatest Player Ever in the History of Basketball.

he played in an era in which he could easily excel. and he didn't help his team win as much as shaq

[Math2]

:facepalm

he could get shut down by the majority of centers

[Psileas]

no.....

Trust me, that's the only thing he was better than Wilt (and not by a huge margin), and it doesn't matter if we're talking about 60's Wilt or Wilt growing up in the 2000's (except that a 2000 Wilt might have stuck to a better free throw shooting technique). Honestly, do we have to bring up every 3 days the post by kblaze about generation gaps to show why Wilt would not be struggling in today's league or the stories from 80's players about Wilt at 50 holding his own against actual NBA players of the era?

[Simple Jack]

Since you have only watched little Wilt, as you admit, the only thing you should be sure about should be the first.
Explosiveness is an underrated aspect of Wilt, because of him refraining from using it offensively, but a guy whose exploits in athletics are known (and he didn't suffer from major injuries when young) can't be "for sure" less explosive. At times, he showed it on the hardwood as well, in instances like the ending of the 1957 NCAA Final's OT, when he blocked the jump shot of a guy who was like 8 feet away.
Post moves? Wilt didn't travel nearly as often as you make it sound, at least not more often than Shaq commited offensive fouls when doing the same thing. I remember a lot of individual plays of Wilt in the internet and the only case I clearly remember him travelling when making a turnaround move was from the 1964 Finals, when he hit a very hard fade-away, but faked the shot before taking it and made an additional step.
I don't see what's awkward in Wilt's laying the ball in, especially if we're comparing him to Shaq, not Hakeem.

You can't give credit for something a player possesses but doesn't show (in reference to Wilt being as explosive, by OCCASIONALLY showing his explosiveness). That's like saying "so and so is just as good of a defender because when he actually tries he locks his man down".

[Psileas]

You can't give credit for something a player possesses but doesn't show (in reference to Wilt being as explosive, by OCCASIONALLY showing his explosiveness). That's like saying "so and so is just as good of a defender because when he actually tries he locks his man down".

Not a good analogy, since the one I'm refering to is a physical gift which you either have or you don't. What if you are a naturally very strong person but work as a teacher and don't go to the gym? Does this negate your ability? You can't be explosive "only when you try". You can be explosive when you have it.

[Micku]

Can someone post Wilt running in the open floor?

David Robinson was really fast too. Look at him running the fast break and owns Jordan with a dunk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKVqpXl3M18

[Psileas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paex9-VxPbA

[MasterDurant24]

I haven't watched much Wilt, but For Shaq, I'm sure he is:
- a Heavier player
Quite obvious, Wilt was up to 300 at best,, Shaq entered the league at 300, and may have gone up to 360-80? in his 2001-3 laker run.

- More explosive
The way that Shaq backs players down with amazing power and thrust is unmatched. I have never seen anyone physically punish defenders to his extent

- Better post moves
Wilt was known for shooting fadeaways, and from the availible footages I've seen him traveling when doing spin moves, and laid in the ball awkwardly. Shaq was underrated in that aspect.

Wilt is considered one of the strongest, fastest, most athletic athletes ever born. But skill-wise, Wilt's a way better defensive player, a way better rebounder, a better passer, and clearly a better offensive player. And there wasn't too many better defensive centers than Willis Reed(played both forward and center), Nate Thurmond, and Bill Russell either. (or Kareem later in his career) There damn sure isn't too many better rebounders than Reed, Thurmond, Russell, Lucas, Pettit, Walt Bellamy, Elgin Baylor, Gus Johnson, Bill Bridges, Clyde Lee, Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes, and Lew Alcindor. So he was putting up enormous numbers on all those guys, who were some of the best at what they did.

[Simple Jack]

Not a good analogy, since the one I'm refering to is a physical gift which you either have or you don't. What if you are a naturally very strong person but work as a teacher and don't go to the gym? Does this negate your ability? You can't be explosive "only when you try". You can be explosive when you have it.

You are making a comparison, not a statement of fact. Following along with the previous example I used, it's enough to say "so and so is capable of good defense" just like "wilt is capable of being explosive". That's a statement of fact. The issue here is whether he was as explosive as Shaq and that's where my analogy comes in.

[Psileas]

You must show it for it to be relevant. Keep in mind you are making a comparison between 2 players.

That's like the people saying Carmello is better offensively than LeBron (last year). I don't care if a guy can shoot with his eyes closed from anywhere on the court, if he doesn't show it on the court its irrelevant. Shaq's game was built on his explosiveness; Wilt's wasn't. To insist that Wilt is just as explosive because he SOMETIMES decided to show it, is reaching.

You get to my point. Shaq might be better at showing explosiveness/playing with more explosiveness, but wasn't necessarily more explosive. It's not as if Wilt didn't use it at all and it's not as if Shaq used his full jumping ability/speed/strength all the time, like in plays similar to the one vs Robinson in the '96 ASG.

[Bush4Ever]

Relative to the era, Wilt was better in virtually all of the big man aspects of basketball.

That said, Shaq's 2000-2002 run looms large. He won twice as many titles, and three times as many as the lead dog. Then again, he never really had a Russellesqe player to be his foil, or a team like the Celtics to go against.

[Psileas]

You are making a comparison, not a statement of fact. Following along with the previous example I used, it's enough to say "so and so is capable of good defense" just like "wilt is capable of being explosive". That's a statement of fact. The issue here is whether he was as explosive as Shaq and that's where my analogy comes in.

For me, "Wilt is capable of being explosive" is a flawed statement. It would sound better to say "Wilt is capable of playing explosively/using his explosiveness" (which means that sometimes he doesn't play so).

[ILLsmak]

All things considered, Shaq is the best C in NBA history. Maybe not the most talented player at that position, maybe he didn't have the most range, but in terms of doing exactly what a center should do, I'd like to hear an argument for someone else.

-Smak

[Bush4Ever]

All things considered, Shaq is the best C in NBA history. Maybe not the most talented player at that position, maybe he didn't have the most range, but in terms of doing exactly what a center should do, I'd like to hear an argument for someone else.

-Smak

Relative to the era:

Wilt was a better defensive player
Wilt was a better rebounder
Wilt was a more dominant scorer with respect to volume and efficiency (again, relative to the era).

What are Shaq's advantages?

[ILLsmak]

Relative to the era:

Wilt was a better defensive player
Wilt was a better rebounder
Wilt was a more dominant scorer with respect to volume and efficiency (again, relative to the era).

What are Shaq's advantages?

As someone said, if Wilt was so good at D how come he never fouled out?

How do you know that Wilt would outrebound Shaq? He'd have to be getting around Shaq because he certainly couldn't fight for position against Shaq.

Have you seen some of the rebounds Shaq has gotten in his prime? He is a monster rebounder. People are too worried about numbers. He just didn't chase every rebound... if someone else could get it, he let them.

Wilt was probably a better scorer, but he also shot a relatively low percentage for a center.

What are Shaq's advantages? Physicality, bball IQ, intimidation plus I would contend that even if Wilt is a better rebounder and scorer it's not by as much as you might think, especially if you imagine going up against a good C.

And as for defense, Shaq is an outstanding defender. The only player I can think of that ever played well against him was Hakeem, but his percentages still took a pretty big hit... even though he had good games.

Nobody is taking prime Shaq down low and scoring on him consistently.

In basketball, you want your C to control the paint on both ends. Wilt, in my opinion, does not do that better than Shaq.

Edit: Not to mention Shaq understands the offense so you can throw him the ball down there and he will make the right decision of when to shoot and when to pass.

-Smak

[Bush4Ever]

As someone said, if Wilt was so good at D how come he never fouled out?

Fouling out is your criterion for good defense?

Sure, he probably coasted on many nights to avoid fouls, but some estimates count Wilt's blocks per game close to the 8-10 range (although there is probably hyperbole in play here). Suffice it to say, I doubt anyone blocked more shots than Wilt other than Russell, and a doubt more than a small handful of players challenged more shots than Wilt.


How do you know that Wilt would outrebound Shaq? He'd have to be getting around Shaq because he certainly couldn't fight for position against Shaq.

I said relative to the era.

Wilt finished 1st or 2nd in rebounding 13 straight years.
Shaq has placed 1st or 2nd in rebounding 3 times in his career.


Have you seen some of the rebounds Shaq has gotten in his prime? He is a monster rebounder. People are too worried about numbers. He just didn't chase every rebound... if someone else could get it, he let them.

Shaq was a great rebounder. But Wilt was the absolute best. Again, we are talking relative to the era in which the players played.



Wilt was probably a better scorer, but he also shot a relatively low percentage for a center.

Not true. Wilt finished in the top 3 in FG percentage every single year of his career, except for his rookie season (Shaq has a similar pattern of efficiency, but Wilt scored more points in volume, relatively speaking)


What are Shaq's advantages? Physicality, bball IQ, intimidation plus I would contend that even if Wilt is a better rebounder and scorer it's not by as much as you might think, especially if you imagine going up against a good C.

I think we might be getting our signals crossed. The only way I think one can make cross era comparisons is by judging how players performed relative to their peers.

By the way, you might be interested in this story (http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/steve_aschburner/01/08/athletes/index.html).




And as for defense, Shaq is an outstanding defender. The only player I can think of that ever played well against him was Hakeem, but his percentages still took a pretty big hit... even though he had good games.

Nobody is taking prime Shaq down low and scoring on him consistently.


Shaq for the most part has been a "good" defender. But in terms of team defense, defending the pick and roll, challenging shots, etc...he has been far from outstanding, save for the year 2000, when he made a special effort to be a great defender (and he was in 2000).

Individual man defense is obviously important, but for big men, team defense is even more important and influential in impacting team success. Shaq (and this is by his own admission), did not push himself to great heights with respect to team defense.

[Psileas]

As someone said, if Wilt was so good at D how come he never fouled out?

Wilt had an extremely low foul ratio, so, going by this, he should actually be one of the worst defenders. But he wasn't. Watch him play. He simply knew how to stay away from fouling trouble as well as anyone. Let's not forget that Jordan, after his first few seasons, hardly ever fouled out, yet he's recognised as an all-time great defender. You want centers? Bill Russell had 9 seasons at less than 3.0 fouls, including 4 seasons below 2.5. Nate Thurmond, as physical as anyone, had 7 of his high-minutes seasons at less than 3.0 fouls. On the other hand, certain guys like Darryl Dawkins were simply fouling machines, without ever being considered elite defenders.



How do you know that Wilt would outrebound Shaq? He'd have to be getting around Shaq because he certainly couldn't fight for position against Shaq.

Have you seen some of the rebounds Shaq has gotten in his prime? He is a monster rebounder. People are too worried about numbers. He just didn't chase every rebound... if someone else could get it, he let them.

We don't know what would happen, but Shaq's positioning wasn't always the best. If it was, Shaq should have been the perennial rebounding leader. A guy like Hakeem, let alone Rodman, would have no job outrebounding him.



What are Shaq's advantages? Physicality, bball IQ, intimidation plus I would contend that even if Wilt is a better rebounder and scorer it's not by as much as you might think, especially if you imagine going up against a good C.

I would also contend that Shaq's advantages aren't that big, either, especially basketball IQ and intimidation.



And as for defense, Shaq is an outstanding defender. The only player I can think of that ever played well against him was Hakeem, but his percentages still took a pretty big hit... even though he had good games.

Nobody is taking prime Shaq down low and scoring on him consistently.

Such was the case for Wilt, as well. The guy who gave him the biggest difficulties offensively was prime (or close to prime, at worst) Kareem, but a lot of his high scoring nights were coming at mediocre percentages (in the mold of scoring like 38 points, but on 16-36 FG's).

[ILLsmak]

Nah... that era means nothing to the new era. Everything changed since then. It's best to try to use common sense to imagine.

Shaq is like a tank. He dominates the paint in a way very few have. And the ones that have in a similar way were not as talented as he was.

Shaq is not a poor pick and roll defender, either, he just doesn't show. I've said this a million times. Every time Shaq shows there is nobody to help. It's really a conflict of what you should do... I personally am alright with him not showing. If he shows he is A. Leaving the paint... and B. Setting himself up to get a cheap Chauncey Billups foul.

Lastly, if you want to say Wilt coasted on defense, I will say Shaq didn't play for real until he got into the Playoffs and Finals. Shaq has had some of the most dominating Finals performances... as a C without much range, so that meant there were 2 or 3 people guarding him.

But all the statistics aside, my point was this: If all of the all-time great Cs were there and you had first pick for your team, why would you pick anyone other than Shaq? I can't imagine it. Like I said, Shaq is the prototype for what a C should be in basketball.

-Smak

[Bush4Ever]

Nah... that era means nothing to the new era. Everything changed since then. It's best to try to use common sense to imagine.


Imagine what?

You are trying to make a fine tuned analysis, when 100s of variables have changed that you would have to adjust for to make an informed decision. That's a fool's errand.


But all the statistics aside, my point was this: If all of the all-time great Cs were there and you had first pick for your team, why would you pick anyone other than Shaq? I can't imagine it. Like I said, Shaq is the prototype for what a C should be in basketball.
-Smak

Why?

A center's main responsibilities are

1. Defense
2. Rebounding
3. Scoring Volume
4. Scoring Efficiency

Wilt is better on the first 3. They are equal on the 4th.

[Fatal9]

Shaq, way more efficient scorer, especially in the playoffs. Played against more size and better team defenses. His TRB% isn't as good, but he was actually competing against way more athletic PFs and guards for rebounds. Much better playoff performer individually. Twice as many rings. Wilt's crazy high statistical seasons (40+ ppg ones) came with a narrower lane, the league was also 68-70% white in the early 60s (lot of the 50s players crossed over to the early 60s), and there were only 3-4 other rotation players (ie. players playing 20+ mpg) over 6'9 in most of the years in the early 60s. It's unthinkable how dominant Shaq would be in a setting like that.

BTW, pick and roll defense also seems to be Wilt's weakness. Here's a commentator mentioning it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyYlq28YLWI&#t=8m05s.

[Bush4Ever]

Shaq, way more efficient scorer, especially in the playoffs. Played against more size and better team defenses. His TRB% isn't as good, but he was actually competing against way more athletic PFs and guards for rebounds. Much better playoff performer individually. Twice as many rings. Wilt's crazy high statistical seasons (40+ ppg ones) came with a narrower lane, the league was also 68-70% white in the early 60s (lot of the 50s players crossed over to the early 60s), and there were only 3-4 other rotation players (ie. players playing 20+ mpg) over 6'9 in most of the years in the early 60s. It's unthinkable how dominant Shaq would be in a setting like that.
BTW, pick and roll defense also seems to be Wilt's weakness. Here's a commentator mentioning it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyYlq28YLWI&#t=8m05s.

Do we get to take away all the modern advantages afforded to Shaq while we place him back in the 60s? You can't cut it both ways, giving Shaq all the advantages of the modern era AND the 60s.

You can this type of analysis (adjusting for era), but I think such an analysis is placing WAAAAY too much trust in your (or anyone's) analytical abilities, given how many variables are involved and the degree of adjustment that is required for a fair analysis.

That's why it makes more sense to evaluate players relative to their particular era. And in that sense, Wilt has the edge.

EDIT: With respect to P&R defense, saying that it is an individual weakness in two players does not equate to the P&R defense of those two players being equal.

[ILLsmak]

Imagine what?

You are trying to make a fine tuned analysis, when 100s of variables have changed that you would have to adjust for to make an informed decision. That's a fool's errand.



Why?

A center's main responsibilities are

1. Defense
2. Rebounding
3. Scoring Volume
4. Scoring Efficiency

Wilt is better on the first 3. They are equal on the 4th.

In terms of comparison, I think it's even more unbelievable to cross compare eras and use their peers as a point of reference. We're talking about all-time not about in relationship to their peers.

It's like a car in 1960 might have been the fastest ever by a large margin, but is it better than a car that is "just" considerably fast today? It would be ahead of its time, maybe, and that's great, but we're talking about putting the two head-to-head not measuring their accomplishments.

I'd contend that Shaq had more impact on a team's ability to defend, rebound, and score efficiently. There are plenty of modern stats you can look at. You will see that Shaq's teams were almost always near the top of FG% and also offensive rebounding %. That means they missed the least and when they did got plenty of rebounds.

As for defense, same idea. Shaq has had a profound influence on PIP scoring and PIP differential. Also opponent FG%.

But those are just stats. You can't really measure it by that.

Anyway, if you want to say that Wilt was further above his peers, you may be right. But he didn't get wins, for whatever reason. But yea I've had this argument before, and I'll stop. Just wanted to drop in and give my 2c...



-Smak

[8BeastlyXOIAD]

INB4 This thread gets attacked by ShaqAttack

[magnax1]

Scoring-Both are about even. Though Wilt was very much a finesse scorer, even when he did start scoring closer to the basket in his later days.
Passing-Both great passers. Shaq was probably the best passer out of double teams I've ever seen. I haven't really seen enough of Wilt to say in this category, but I think I can safely say Wilt was better considering he had insane assists #s in his later years.
Rebounding-Wilt no doubt. He's one of the four best rebounders ever.
Defense-Once again, Wilt no doubt.
Athleticism-Pretty close. Two of the best athletes ever. Shaq was stronger, but Wilt was faster and quicker, and could probably leaper a little higher

[Bush4Ever]

In terms of comparison, I think it's even more unbelievable to cross compare eras and use their peers as a point of reference. We're talking about all-time not about in relationship to their peers.

It's like a car in 1960 might have been the fastest ever by a large margin, but is it better than a car that is "just" considerably fast today? It would be ahead of its time, maybe, and that's great, but we're talking about putting the two head-to-head not measuring their accomplishments.

Anyway, if you want to say that Wilt was further above his peers, you may be right. But he didn't get wins, for whatever reason. But yea I've had this argument before, and I'll stop. Just wanted to drop in and give my 2c...



-Smak

The issue is that there are numerous advantages afford to the modern athlete that were not available in Wilt's time. You can't discount the starting point and built-in advantage when comparing across era. If you want to argue that if you made a time-machine and dropped a 2000 Shaq back into the 60s, that he would do better than Wilt, I wouldn't argue. But I would argue that type of analysis is simply unfair.

Would you contend that a typical D1 college baseball player is better than Babe Ruth?

Or a typical high school sprinter is better than Jesse Owens? They have faster times after all (some of them).

By the way, I actually don't feel as strongly about this argument as it might seem. Shaq has very real arguments in this debate. Sometimes I like to take the opposing postion for one reason or the other. Relative to his peers, I think Wilt was better. In absolute terms, Shaq was better.

[Psileas]

Do we get to take away all the modern advantages afforded to Shaq while we place him back in the 60s? You can't cut it both ways, giving Shaq all the advantages of the modern era AND the 60s.

You can this type of analysis (adjusting for era), but I think such an analysis is placing WAAAAY too much trust in your (or anyone's) analytical abilities, given how many variables are involved and the degree of adjustment that is required for a fair analysis.

That's why it makes more sense to evaluate players relative to their particular era. And in that sense, Wilt has the edge.

EDIT: With respect to P&R defense, saying that it is an individual weakness in two players does not equate to the P&R defense of those two players being equal.

Also, on the point made about early 60's league being 70% white, this includes the various 1-10 mpg scrubs of the league, the vast majority of which were white. How about Wilt's opponents' starting big men in 1962?

Boston - Russell (black)
Syracuse - Kerr (white)
N.Y - Jordon (white)
Chicago - Bellamy (black)
L.A - Krebs was white, Felix was black and they shared their minutes
Cincinnati - Embry (black)
S.L - Lovelette (white)
Detroit - Dukes (black)

That's 50% of his opponents being black, and still only one being able to kind of check him.

[Fatal9]

I also can't imagine a healthy prime Shaq leading a team to only 31 wins like Wilt did in '63 (especially with two other all-stars). Or being on the worst team in the league like in '65 (11-27 record before team decided to trade him).


Do we get to take away all the modern advantages afforded to Shaq while we place him back in the 60s? You can't cut it both ways, giving Shaq all the advantages of the modern era AND the 60s.
It's not as much about placing Shaq exactly as he is back then. I think Shaq size and athleticism would be a bit different. It's more because of the advantage guys like Wilt and Russell had in their competition. They had an advantage no players enjoy today, which is they played in a majority white league (which was at times undersized, especially when it came to PF's, backup Cs and so on), with most players lacking the athleticism to cover the floor and defend like today. For example, is Wilt and Russell's impact on defense going to be the same as it was back then when a) the game is very perimeter oriented (lot more shots taken outside of 15+ feet) and b) players are more athletic and skilled in that they can avoid big men on their way to the hoop. It's an inherent advantage they had because of their competition and it helped their dominance even more. Shaq enjoyed the modern era advantages when it came to certain things, but so did everyone else who is in the league today. Give Wilt whatever modern day training you feel he needs, he still has to play against players who are more athletic, skilled, against better team defenses (can't use as many dribbles to get in to his moves like he seemed to do) and more size in the post.

I personally agree with a theory which says that over time it's not so much that the best players are getting much better or worse, it's that the average player is getting much better. This is a big reason why you see huge statistical dominance by players in the early history of a sport (and it was even more pronounced in bball because of the statistical inflation due to the pace).

[Fatal9]

Also, on the point made about early 60's league being 70% white, this includes the various 1-10 mpg scrubs of the league
No, I specifically only included players who played more than 10 mpg. In which case 59/90 players in the league in the '62 season were white (66%). The 68-70% guess is with the scrubs added to it.

[Fatal9]

Honestly, do we have to bring up every 3 days the post by kblaze about generation gaps
kblaze's generation gap posts are flawed because they rely on usually taking the most skilled players (like a Kareem for example) who had tremendous longevity, and using their career as a chain to connect everything together. It ignores that certain players have skills that they can refine over time or have a skill set that is timeless (for example, no one is still blocking Kareem's hook consistently, Parish's turnaround is still money in the 90s as it is in the 70s). It ignores the evolution that happens on a year by year basis in the league (via drafted players). I can use the same method to say most of the 50s players like a Mikan would be great today (Mikan retired a season before Russell entered the league who faced Wilt who faced Kareem who faced Hakeem who would be the best C in the league today...do you not see the flaws in this argument?). Even connecting something to the 80s isn't a sure bet that they'd be just as dominant today. There were tons of players in the 80s (white forwards like a Kelly Tripucka) who I simply don't see putting up 25+ ppg (hell or even cracking a starting spot). Certain players games are hurt more by time than others. I happen to think Wilt is one of them (only when it came to his scoring though), same with Russell (defensive dominance reduced in today's league).

[Psileas]

kblaze's generation gap posts are flawed because they rely on usually taking the most skilled players (like a Kareem for example) who had tremendous longevity, and using their career as a chain to connect everything together. It ignores that certain players have skills that they can refine over time or have a skill set that is timeless (for example, no one is still blocking Kareem's hook consistently, Parish's turnaround is still money in the 90s as it is in the 70s). It ignores the evolution that happens on a year by year basis in the league (via drafted players). I can use the same method to say most of the 50s players like a Mikan would be great today (Mikan retired a season before Russell entered the league who faced Wilt who faced Kareem who faced Hakeem who would be the best C in the league today...do you not see the flaws in this argument?). Even connecting something to the 80s isn't a sure bet that they'd be just as dominant today. There were tons of players in the 80s (white forwards like a Kelly Tripucka) who I simply don't see putting up 25+ ppg (hell or even cracking a starting spot). Certain players games are hurt more by time than others. I happen to think Wilt is one of them (only when it came to his scoring though), same with Russell (defensive dominance reduced in today's league).

I believe that Wilt belongs to the same category with the "timeless" players. He proved he could dominate in completely different leagues, with his age, late injuries and reduced mobility being the reasons he didn't dominate in the scoring department in the 70's. Some of his moves back then were not highly efficient for a center, but it's not hard to see they are unblockable by any era's standards. If Hakeem's fadeaways were, Wilt's, with an even higher release point, would sure as hell be. About finger-rolls or soft layups, no, I don't think Wilt would use them much today. Wilt today would still be considered an elite athlete, but not as unseen a spectacle as in his day, so he wouldn't be considered a "freak who needs to prove he has finesse moves". He might still play a bit like mature Hakeem/Robinson, but no way would his egoism not drive him to brutalize opponents quite often. Especially if he came after Shaq and he was the one being compared to him.
Russell? Today's era is more defense oriented, so his defensive advantage wouldn't be as huge. His offense wouldn't struggle much more, though. He'd still score a lot of his points from follows/follow dunks/alley-oops, draw some fouls, take a few short shots here and there and there's no reason to believe he'd be a worse passer, either (a sector in which he improved his productivity towards the end of his career).

[FKAri]

Shaq's body control, mobility, and handle was better than Wilt's. I would favor Wilt in most other aspects.

Hard to compare their scoring since one could argue Shaq lived in a time with established post moves which allow one to better exploit phyiscally weaker or slower post defenders. Same can be said about most basketball "skills" in general.

[PHILA]

I can use the same method to say most of the 50s players like a Mikan would be great today (Mikan retired a season before Russell entered the league who faced Wilt who faced Kareem who faced Hakeem who would be the best C in the league today...do you not see the flaws in this argument?)
Mikan proved he couldn't compete in the shot clock era.


His TRB% isn't as good, but he was actually competing against way more athletic PFs and guards for rebounds.
What is the significance of this? Shaq was not close to Wilt as a rebounder.


It's unthinkable how dominant Shaq would be in a setting like that.
We know how brutal Coach Hannum's training camps were. Imagine Alex's reaction to Wilt reporting at a plump 400 lbs. He'd probably send him home. Shaq would have to drop a few lbs just to keep up with the blistering pace.

To quote a post from Chicago76:

Not really touting diet...just one thing among many, but throw out diet, fine. If by thrive you mean: get called for fouls lowering his shoulder into players, get held more than he ever did due to the "Chamberlain rules", need to keep his cool when one set of rules are used for him offensively vs. the players guarding him, need to adjust to the defensive rules imposed upon him, be forced to become a better outlet passer to initiate that era's offense, probably not get the same percentage of team shots as guards are gunning on the first available shot as you mentioned, need to play more minutes, have some trouble getting down the court (even young Shaq) to get into rebounding position when gunned shots do go up, have to adjust to a new style of play and mentality among teammates and coaches, probably suffer more foot problems with more running with worse shoes on worse floors, and psychologically adjust to it all...all from the get go or even over the course of a season, then yeah, he would totally thrive right out of the time machine http://forums.realgm.com/boards/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif .

I'm not saying he wouldn't be an elite player. But to duplicate his value from 99/00 (perhaps his best season) in a 120 pace environment back then, he would have to: increase his minutes to 44 a night, score 42 a game, get 23 boards, and dish out 7 assists that actually get recorded...while trying to get down the court fast enough to even sniff the ball before someone put up a shot... or at least be fast enough to get the rebound or an assist...while trying to figure out how to distribute with guys hanging all over him more than ever...while trying to stay healthy all year...while trying to figure out the style of the game and his teammates...while trying not to get called for stupid reach fouls defensively when his legs get heavy from all that running...while living without a lot of the creature comforts he has today (crappy travel, more pervasive racism, lack of entourage, and missing out on other good stuff).

These are two different games. I don't get why some people here are so quick to say that one is better, tougher, etc than the other. They're just different. Modern Shaq is more valuable in his era than the 1960s just like 1960s Russell is less valuable today than when he played. Nothing controversial here.

[Simple Jack]

For me, "Wilt is capable of being explosive" is a flawed statement. It would sound better to say "Wilt is capable of playing explosively/using his explosiveness" (which means that sometimes he doesn't play so).

I see what you're saying. Fair enough.

[PHILA]

I also can't imagine a healthy prime Shaq leading a team to only 31 wins like Wilt did in '63 (especially with two other all-stars).
SI Preview on the '62-63 Warriors, who lost their HC and top 2 players after Wilt.



SAN FRANCISCO WARRIORS

New town, but no help for Wilt

When a ball club is assured of 50 points in every game from one man it is bound to win more than a few. The Warriors, newly moved to the West, have such a fellow in Wilt Chamberlain, but they don't have much else. Wilt probably will improve on his 50-point average this year and still get his 25 rebounds, presuming he finds he can get along with Bob Feerick as well as he seemed to with Frank McGuire last year and doesn't go into a case of the Stilt sulks. Feerick, meanwhile, has not only had to abandon the tight defensive game he taught his college teams at Santa Clara, but finds himself coaching a squad that was plunged into a tough exhibition schedule with hardly so much as a single practice session. The exhibition games did two things. They proved what nobody guessed about Rookie Hubie White from Villanova—that he just won't do, so Guy Rodgers, Al Attics and Tom Gola are the backcourt once again and not one of them has an acceptable outside shot, and they showed that Wayne Hightower, now in the NBA after a year of barnstorming in Spain, will need some time to become a suitable starting forward. Meanwhile, second year man youngster on the squad and its strongest corner man—broke his wrist and will be sidelined about a month. Consequently, even more than last year, the Warriors area one-man team. Wilt will win some, but he can't beat LA alone.

[ShaqAttack3234]

As far as the Shaq vs Wilt thing.

I really don't see Wilt as a better scorer. As Fatal mentioned, the truly astronomical scoring seasons came with a narrower lane and also the team defense is key as Fatal also mentioned. And that 50 ppg season, came with the Warriors averaging an estimated 129.7 possessions per 48 minutes(basketball-reference). And, playing in 20, 30, 40, 50 point blowouts ect. is not happening today. It's not accepted in today's game for a superstar to do that consistently just as it was apparently considered disrespectful in Wilt's era for guys to do flashy moves and for most to dunk.

As far as Abe's point about minutes. I really don't see prime Shaq struggling too much with that. Look at 2000, if you exclude the 15+ point blowouts, the last game of the season when he didn't play as much with nothing to play for and the game he was ejected for the fight with Barkley, he averaged almost 43 mpg. In the playoffs, he averaged 43.5 mpg so he could play a lot, but it's very rare for stars now to play any more minutes than Shaq did on a regular season team as dominant as the 2000 Lakers.

As far as scoring, I also give Shaq the edge because that was when Shaq had his most team success, when he was scoring the most. Wilt's team success only came when he cut down on his scoring and never won a title as the leading scorer in the playoffs.

I'll give Wilt rebounding and shot blocking, passing depends on which phase of their careers. But Shaq to me was the better scorer, more clutch and in general had more of the killer instinct. One of Wilt's biggest flaws by his own admission was not using his strength advantage as much as he should have. Wilt said he always wanted to prove to people that he was more than just a big guy while Shaq embraced being a power player and a 7 footer and used his size and strength to his advantage throughout his career.

Also, in terms of fouls, I don't believe Wilt would have gone his career without fouling out in the modern era. Perimeter players weren't blowing by guys back then due to a difference in athleticism and ball handling skills and they weren't(or atleast regularly) trying to dunk on big men. That also makes this almost pointless to compare using numbers.

Like I said, I'll definitely give Wilt rebounding(though Shaq was elite in this area as well), and defense depends on the aspect of their careers. Wilt wasn't known as a defensive player early, but became known as one of the best later. I'm sure he always had an impact defensively for the same reason Shaq did even from a young age which was being a presence in the paint and a shot blocker. But from what I've read on Wilt, it was later when he became known for his defense, and for Shaq, it was the 1999-2000 when Phil took over(though this was short-lived).

Scoring to me is quite clear when you really compare their footwork, moves and how unstoppable they looked in the post. Shaq was a lot more fluid in the post and a lot more physical. And his scoring numbers were consistent in the playoffs during his prime.

[PHILA]

As far as Abe's point about minutes. I really don't see prime Shaq struggling too much with that. Look at 2000, if you exclude the 15+ point blowouts, the last game of the season when he didn't play as much with nothing to play for and the game he was ejected for the fight with Barkley, he averaged almost 43 mpg. In the playoffs, he averaged 43.5 mpg so he could play a lot, but it's very rare for stars now to play any more minutes than Shaq did on a regular season team as dominant as the 2000 Lakers.
Wasn't necessarily the mpg, but rather the pace. Taking just as much a physical beating + more cheap shots while running the rock hard wood floor over concrete at the blistering pace of the era in size 22 Chuck Taylors is going to take a toll on a 325 lb center.



Scoring to me is quite clear when you really compare their footwork, moves and how unstoppable they looked in the post. Shaq was a lot more fluid in the post and a lot more physical. And his scoring numbers were consistent in the playoffs during his prime.
How about as a facilitator from the pivot? This is truly a masterful job by Wilt below faking Russell out of position so subtly.

(1:08 mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDHDg5pPrOc



Or Mel Counts:

(0:22 mark)

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



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.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5


This difference in pivot moves can be attributed to the respective eras. If Shaq (a man whom Coach Newell stated was the best offensive pivotman he had seen, ahead of KAJ too) played back then chances are he wouldn't develop as many moves as he did. But he'd undoubtedly be required to step up his rebounding & defense consistently as well as lose some weight. The game was different with no 3 pt. line, meaning much more active ball & player movement using high/low splits to cut off the bigman.


Some examples of such beautiful play can be seen below.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kocq3D4zd-U#t=5m32s

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




http://i55.tinypic.com/2afwq6t.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2vtxytu.jpg

[Soundwave]

Wilt's actual style of play would be more like David Robinson (prime). Half power, half finesse.

No one in NBA history has really played like Shaq IMO. Even Wilt has said he didn't try to rip the rim down on every possession, that wasn't his game.

Shaq is almost a 100% power player.

Dwight Howard is more like Shaq than Wilt was, but he's considerably smaller (6'11, probably more like 6'10).

[Round Mound]

he played in an era in which he could easily excel. and he didn't help his team win as much as shaq

The 60s had fewer teams so the level of per team was higher.

Wilt did not have great teams till he finally play with the Sixers and he had to face the Cetlics whom had 8 HOFs ALL IN THEIR FREAKING PRIME.

[G.O.A.T]

While I can certainly see the angle some of you are taking in terms of the scoring, I don't think Shaq is anywhere near the scorer Wilt was.

For those who cite the era and the smaller lane prior to 1964, instead of using your opinions on how different rules aided him and allowed him to put up those astronomical numbers, just compare him to his peers who played under the same rules. Wilt led the league in scoring and often by great and wide margins for the first seven years of his career (including twice after the lane was widened) something Shaq never came close to.

For those who cite his decreased scoring numbers from 1967 on, beer in mind that the greatest factor to those decreased averages was a conscious effort by Wilt, not a change in the style of play or the quality of players in the league.

In 1967 he averaged 24 points on nearly 70% shooting, no one has really even come close to that since.

Artis Gilmore shot a few percentage points lower while averaging 18 a game in the early 80's.

Dwight Howard has averaged 18 and 21 on 61 and 59% shooting the past two seasons...

as for Shaq his closest call is the closest of all. The Diesel shot 60% while scoring 29 points per game in 1994. Five more points a game on 8% worse shooting.

Consider however this as well. Gilmore accomplished his feat in a league that shot 49%, Howard in a 46% shooting modern NBA and Shaq in a 47% shooting era. Wilt's 1966-67 season took place in an NBA that shot just 44%; which at the time was a record.

Remember too that by 1967 you had an NBA with just 10 teams, 70% of the starters being black and no ABA to water down the competition.

[Round Mound]

Wilt's actual style of play would be more like David Robinson (prime). Half power, half finesse.

No one in NBA history has really played like Shaq IMO. Even Wilt has said he didn't try to rip the rim down on every possession, that wasn't his game.

Shaq is almost a 100% power player.

Dwight Howard is more like Shaq than Wilt was, but he's considerably smaller (6'11, probably more like 6'10).


Don`t ever compare Robinson to Wilt

Wilt was like a 7`1 Karl Malone with the Best Shot Blocking Timing in NBA History (after Russel) under the rim was protector ala Mark Eaton.

Wilt is the Greatest Rebounder in NBA History
Wilt is the Greatest Rim Protector in NBA History

Wilt invented the fadeway. If not he would have just bullied his way and hurt people.

Wilt has no comparisson at the Center Spot

Wilt

Kareem

Shaq or Hakeem

Healthy Sabonis

[Round Mound]

Shaq was a better scorer and ball handler thats it

After than Wilt owned every single center in NBA History and he did it trying not to hurt people.

[G.O.A.T]

The 60s had fewer teams so the level of per team was higher.

Wilt did not have great teams till he finally play with the Sixers and he had to face the Cetlics whom had 8 HOFs ALL IN THEIR FREAKING PRIME.

The Celtics never had eight HOFers in their prime...usually two or three. Also remember that five HOFers (Lovellete, KC, Ramsey, Howell, Embry) who played with Russell never even made an all-star team while they played with him. That's in a league where almost half the leagues starters made the all-star team. So be careful how you use that stat, it's among the most misunderstood on this forum.

By the time Wilt got to the Sixers the Celtics were down to Russell and Sam Jones in their prime. Everyone else was past, way past or not their yet. (Hondo was real close, but by the time he hit his prime, Jones was fading)

Wilt's teammates with the Warriors were very good from 1960-1962 also, they were only six or seven deep though as compared by the eight to nine players used confidently by Boston. The biggest difference of course though, was Russell.

[JMT]

Having seen both play for a good chunk of their respective careers, there's no real comparison. Always been a Shaq fan, but he didn't have half the skill set Wilt did.

Shaq is the most physically dominant player of the last 25 years. But he's not close to Wilt's equal as a player. Didn't shoot, rebound, handle the ball or pass (and Shaq is a VERY underrated passer) as well as Wilt. Passing is the only category that's close.

As athletes, Shaq didn't run or jump as well, except for possibly the first 4-5 years of his career. Never maintained the level of fitness he should after that.

Shaq's a Top 5 all time center. Wilt's the best that ever played the position.

[Round Mound]

The Celtics never had eight HOFers in their prime...usually two or three. Also remember that five HOFers (Lovellete, KC, Ramsey, Howell, Embry) who played with Russell never even made an all-star team while they played with him. That's in a league where almost half the leagues starters made the all-star team. So be careful how you use that stat, it's among the most misunderstood on this forum.

By the time Wilt got to the Sixers the Celtics were down to Russell and Sam Jones in their prime. Everyone else was past, way past or not their yet. (Hondo was real close, but by the time he hit his prime, Jones was fading)

Wilt's teammates with the Warriors were very good from 1960-1962 also, they were only six or seven deep though as compared by the eight to nine players used confidently by Boston. The biggest difference of course though, was Russell.

Yes they did.

They had the Best Fast Break Team of the 60s, Best Passing Team, Best Shooting Team

Russel had a 44% FG. Don`t make it so it appears that Russell was a Great Offensive Player, He wasn`t

He was Great Defender and Rebounder, thats it

Wilt was Good at Everything

[G.O.A.T]

Yes they did.

They had the Best Fast Break Team of the 60s, Best Passing Team, Best Shooting Team

Russel had a 44% FG. Don`t make it so it appears that Russell was a Great Offensive Player, He wasn`t

He was Great Defender and Rebounder, thats it

Wilt was Good at Everything

C'mon do you really think I don't know what actually happened pertaining to the 60's CELTICS?

The Celtics were actually one of the worst shooting teams of the 60's, at least among the leagues winning teams. In '63 and '64 they were last in the league in FG% and won the title. In '65 second to last in shooting and NBA Champions. '66 second to last, '62 '68 and '69 below the league average. In 1961, they shot under 40% worst of any team all decade...and won the title. And in case you were wondering, Russell shot over the team average every year.

Russell was a very good offensive player according to all of his teammates and his peers who have weighed in. I'll go ahead and take there word over yours.

If he is not a very good offensive player why was he the leading postseason scorer on multiple NBA Champions and why is the all-time leader in assists per game from the center position in the postseason and second in the regular season?

In terms of pure skill Wilt was probably better at everything physical in basketball. However Russell was still an elite athlete and understood the game better than anyone else in his era.

Wilt was not a good teammate and Russell was the best teammate ever and that's what's most important.

[SoCalMike]

It is very interesting to read some of the opinions and revisionist concepts as people try to map two players careers from two different eras.

The one thing I will say, seeing a LOT of film on Wilt as well as enjoying the Shaq Lakers, is that Wilt would have run and worked Shaq ragged. Wilt was an athlete that was in incredible shape, and we all can easily argue that Shaq has never been committed to fitness for extended periods in his career. He just has too many other interests and has never been committed to his craft like he could have...



:pimp:

[G.O.A.T]

Yes they did.


Very compelling argument, but please point to the season in which their were eight HOF players in their prime on the Celtic roster.

[SoCalMike]

Oh and by the way, they both had (shaq still playing obviously) incredible careers in the league and I do wish we could have seen them do battle against each other with each in their primes... it would have been a wonderful thing to see!



:pimp:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Wasn't necessarily the mpg, but rather the pace. Taking just as much a physical beating + more cheap shots while running the rock hard wood floor over concrete at the blistering pace of the era in size 22 Chuck Taylors is going to take a toll on a 325 lb center.

Well, Shaq certainly took a beating when he got close to the basket and teams would do anything they could to prevent him from getting an easy basket and making him hit 2 free throws. They certainly didn't foul him lightly when that happened, otherwise the result was the basket and the foul.


How about as a facilitator from the pivot? This is truly a masterful job by Wilt below faking Russell out of position so subtly.

Both were great passers


While I can certainly see the angle some of you are taking in terms of the scoring, I don't think Shaq is anywhere near the scorer Wilt was.

For those who cite the era and the smaller lane prior to 1964, instead of using your opinions on how different rules aided him and allowed him to put up those astronomical numbers, just compare him to his peers who played under the same rules. Wilt led the league in scoring and often by great and wide margins for the first seven years of his career (including twice after the lane was widened) something Shaq never came close to.

For those who cite his decreased scoring numbers from 1967 on, beer in mind that the greatest factor to those decreased averages was a conscious effort by Wilt, not a change in the style of play or the quality of players in the league.

In 1967 he averaged 24 points on nearly 70% shooting, no one has really even come close to that since.

Artis Gilmore shot a few percentage points lower while averaging 18 a game in the early 80's.

Dwight Howard has averaged 18 and 21 on 61 and 59% shooting the past two seasons...

as for Shaq his closest call is the closest of all. The Diesel shot 60% while scoring 29 points per game in 1994. Five more points a game on 8% worse shooting.

Consider however this as well. Gilmore accomplished his feat in a league that shot 49%, Howard in a 46% shooting modern NBA and Shaq in a 47% shooting era. Wilt's 1966-67 season took place in an NBA that shot just 44%; which at the time was a record.

Remember too that by 1967 you had an NBA with just 10 teams, 70% of the starters being black and no ABA to water down the competition.

I like to compare their playoff scoring, despite the era differences(and I feel there was a pretty significant advantage in terms of putting up numbers in the 60's than the 90's and early 00's). Shaq has averaged 2 more ppg throughout his playoff career on significantly better efficiency.

There's no doubt that Wilt had a phenomenal '67 season, but the scoring isn't what impresses me that much about it, more his overall game.

And we never saw what kind of efficiency prime Shaq could have limiting his shots like that and picking his spots, much less in an era with a lot more shots.

And being out there when the game is out of hand can certainly make it easier for the league's most dominant player to put up numbers. For example, in '94, Shaq had 53/18 and left a game with about 9 minutes left in the 4th, if he just stayed in to see how many points he could score then he could've really put some incredible numbers that game. Or, on his birthday game in 2000, he did stay in to get 60 points, but if he stays in the last 3 or so minutes with the intent of adding more numbers, then who knows what that 61/23 game turns into. Or if you look at game 1 of the finals when he left with his team up 15 with 3 minutes or so to go(it was a 6 point game entering the quarter), he had 43/19, that could've been a 50/20 game had he gone for it.

So, numbers really aren't how I like to compare players whose primes were 30-40 years apart. And also, we know that Wilt was very much into individual numbers, I didn't get that impression as much with Shaq. Even without factoring in the improved defenses(and to me '98-'04 was the toughest defensive era and most difficult to put up numbers), his teams are still getting 35-40 fewer possessions to work with, he's not blatantly out looking to get his numbers on a consistent basis(stat-padded a little in a few of his great statistical games, but nothing consistently or nothing that bad) and of course stars also playing fewer minutes in Shaq's era and you just don't see the premier stars on the court in blowouts in the 4th quarter usually.

Also, what always impressed me about Shaq's scoring is, it led to his greatest team success. Along with Jordan and Kareem, he's one of only 3 players to win a scoring title and a championship in the same season. Then if you look at his '95 finals appearance, he also won the scoring title, finished 3rd in scoring when he won his '01 title and finished 2nd in scoring when he won his '02 title.

And no, Round Mound, Wilt didn't "own" all centers because he didn't "own" Russell. Regardless of which side you're on in that debate, Wilt was obviously not just destroying Russell whenever they played.

[G.O.A.T]

I like to compare their playoff scoring, despite the era differences(and I feel there was a pretty significant advantage in terms of putting up numbers in the 60's than the 90's and early 00's). Shaq has averaged 2 more ppg throughout his playoff career on significantly better efficiency.

The problem with playoff scoring alone is that Shaq played much of his playoff games against significantly worse teams and starting centers. Wilt played Russell in almost 40% of his playoff games during the 60's. Imagine if Shaq faced the Spurs half the time and never played a Finals against the 20th best center in the NBA (2002)


There's no doubt that Wilt had a phenomenal '67 season, but the scoring isn't what impresses me that much about it, more his overall game.

And we never saw what kind of efficiency prime Shaq could have limiting his shots like that and picking his spots, much less in an era with a lot more shots.

I was just making the point that Wilt's scoring drop was by choice, not because the rules or competition changed.


And being out there when the game is out of hand can certainly make it easier for the league's most dominant player to put up numbers. For example, in '94, Shaq had 53/18 and left a game with about 9 minutes left in the 4th, if he just stayed in to see how many points he could score then he could've really put some incredible numbers that game. Or, on his birthday game in 2000, he did stay in to get 60 points, but if he stays in the last 3 or so minutes with the intent of adding more numbers, then who knows what that 61/23 game turns into. Or if you look at game 1 of the finals when he left with his team up 15 with 3 minutes or so to go(it was a 6 point game entering the quarter), he had 43/19, that could've been a 50/20 game had he gone for it.

What about the negative effects? The added fatigue and wear on your body. Opposing coaches putting in back-up centers to take cheap shots at Wilt. Players today don't play all 48 minutes not because they can't, but because none are in good enough shape to do so without their level of play eventually dropping. You can't punish Wilt for being able to do something no one else then or now could do.

I see and understand your point and statistically it holds up, but it's the problem I have with hypotheticals. To many uncertain variable that you'll never get people to agree on.


So, numbers really aren't how I like to compare players whose primes were 30-40 years apart. And also, we know that Wilt was very much into individual numbers, I didn't get that impression as much with Shaq. Even without factoring in the improved defenses(and to me '98-'04 was the toughest defensive era and most difficult to put up numbers), his teams are still getting 35-40 fewer possessions to work with, he's not blatantly out looking to get his numbers on a consistent basis(stat-padded a little in a few of his great statistical games, but nothing consistently or nothing that bad) and of course stars also playing fewer minutes in Shaq's era and you just don't see the premier stars on the court in blowouts in the 4th quarter usually.

Agreed, but again, were going into "what-ifs"...I'm not using the numbers so much as his level of play relative to his competition. Wilt was clearly the greatest scorer of his era, the same can not be said for Shaq with the same amount of certainty.


Also, what always impressed me about Shaq's scoring is, it led to his greatest team success. Along with Jordan and Kareem, he's one of only 3 players to win a scoring title and a championship in the same season. Then if you look at his '95 finals appearance, he also won the scoring title, finished 3rd in scoring when he won his '01 title and finished 2nd in scoring when he won his '02 title.

This I agree with 100%. Shaq, Kareem and Jordan scored in large totals because their teams needed them to. Wilt scored because he could and wanted to (and usually his coaches wanted him to) Once Alex Hannum got him to focus on defense and playing an offensive game that involved expending less energy he became a more consistent winner.

[Round Mound]

The problem with playoff scoring alone is that Shaq played much of his playoff games against significantly worse teams and starting centers. Wilt played Russell in almost 40% of his playoff games during the 60's. Imagine if Shaq faced the Spurs half the time and never played a Finals against the 20th best center in the NBA (2002)



I was just making the point that Wilt's scoring drop was by choice, not because the rules or competition changed.



What about the negative effects? The added fatigue and wear on your body. Opposing coaches putting in back-up centers to take cheap shots at Wilt. Players today don't play all 48 minutes not because they can't, but because none are in good enough shape to do so without their level of play eventually dropping. You can't punish Wilt for being able to do something no one else then or now could do.

I see and understand your point and statistically it holds up, but it's the problem I have with hypotheticals. To many uncertain variable that you'll never get people to agree on.



Agreed, but again, were going into "what-ifs"...I'm not using the numbers so much as his level of play relative to his competition. Wilt was clearly the greatest scorer of his era, the same can not be said for Shaq with the same amount of certainty.



This I agree with 100%. Shaq, Kareem and Jordan scored in large totals because their teams needed them to. Wilt scored because he could and wanted to (and usually his coaches wanted him to) Once Alex Hannum got him to focus on defense and playing an offensive game that involved expending less energy he became a more consistent winner.

:applause:

[ShaqAttack3234]

The problem with playoff scoring alone is that Shaq played much of his playoff games against significantly worse teams and starting centers. Wilt played Russell in almost 40% of his playoff games during the 60's. Imagine if Shaq faced the Spurs half the time and never played a Finals against the 20th best center in the NBA (2002)

But he also faced better team defenses, and in 2 of his finals series from the 3peat came against top 5 defenses(the number 5 ranked 76ers in '01 and the number 1 ranked Nets in '02), he also had 27/11 on 64% shooting against the Pistons historically great defense in '04, and that was when he had already dropped off from his prime and a young Shaq put up 28/12/6 on 60% shooting vs Hakeem and the Rockets.

I think Shaq was going to get those numbers in the finals, or close to it, he seemed to raise his game, perhaps seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, though it didn't work out in '95 and '04. I mean if you look at the 2000 finals, regardless of Dale Davis being overmatched at 6'10", 260, he was still a tough, physical player who made the all-star team that year, and he still would have been a big player for Wilt's era. Not to mention that with Kobe struggling and essentially missing 2 games and the Lakers not having a legit 3rd option, Shaq faced extra defensive attention and just seemed to disregard the double teams, and Wilt has only topped that 38 ppg scoring average in one playoff series in his career, which was when Wilt had 38.6 ppg in a playoff series vs the Hawks in '64. Also, Shaq's 38 ppg in the 2000 finals were accompanied by almost 17 rpg and 3 bpg on 61% shooting.

You put the 2001 DPOY on Shaq in the finals along with a great defensive team and the first 2 games, 44/20/5 and a near quadruple double(28/20/9/8), and averages of 33/16/5/3 on 57% shooting shooting.

I don't think it was ever a matter of Shaq just facing a "good" or even great center. I think it was a matter of team that either had a defensive strategy that could slow down Shaq and the personnel to execute it such as the Spurs and Blazers.

I mean, look at Sabonis circa 2000. Shaq had just put up 29-30 ppg on him in the '97 and '98 playoffs, and that version of Shaq in '97 and '98 wasn't as good as the 2000 version, and the '97 and '98 version of Sabonis was better than the 2000 version.

But if you watched the Blazers defensive strategy vs Shaq in 2000, it was much better and they were a much better defensive team than the '97 and '98 Blazers which to me makes a bigger difference than the 1 on 1 matchup vs a guy like Shaq who gets doubled so much as well.

And Sabonis was able to help contain Shaq in the 2000 WCF due to one thing. He was big enough(7'3", 300+ pounds) so that Shaq couldn't just get great post position before the catch. He had to start his move out farther and this is when you saw the double/triple teams come, when he put the ball on the floor. And when they couldn't come with the double/triple before he got a good shot, or if Shaq got through the double/triple team, the strategy was hack him. Now, this strategy depends a lot on how well his teammates are playing, and the Lakers weren't shooting great in that series, so the strategy was able to continue.

To me, that's a dominant scorer, when you have to put that kind of strategy in to even hope to contain a player(and though 26/12/4 on 54% shooting were by far Shaq's worst averages of his 2000 playoff run, they still won the series and those numbers are still good).

I've posted Shaq's career stats vs Alonzo Mourning before, and he absolutely crushed him, 30+ ppg for his career, good efficiency, great stats across the board and Zo was a great defender. So I'll always believe that when it came to Shaq, the team defense and the opposing center's size mattered a lot more than if he was one of the better defenders in the league.


I was just making the point that Wilt's scoring drop was by choice, not because the rules or competition changed.

Well, I agree that he stopped leading the league in scoring by choice, but I think his scoring would have dropped anyway due to the league improving and a narrower lane did make it easier to get close without worrying as much about 3 second violations, which IMO, more affected the volume of shots he could put up as than efficiency.


What about the negative effects? The added fatigue and wear on your body. Opposing coaches putting in back-up centers to take cheap shots at Wilt. Players today don't play all 48 minutes not because they can't, but because none are in good enough shape to do so without their level of play eventually dropping. You can't punish Wilt for being able to do something no one else then or now could do.

I find playing all 48 minutes a game for a season extremely pointless(when many games are decided long before that), and I don't know if players could do it or not, I'm sure some could atleast I'm sure quite a few could play the 44-46 mpg a good amount of stars played back then because I have a hard time believing with all of the advances in training and nutrition that players stamina has regressed in the past 40+ years.

And I don't view stats that were put up after the game was long out of reach to be impressive. So, there will always be a problem for me in terms of comparing stats across eras, so I try not to base most of my argument on them.


I see and understand your point and statistically it holds up, but it's the problem I have with hypotheticals. To many uncertain variable that you'll never get people to agree on.

Agreed.
Well, as long as you see where I'm coming from. After reading a lot about Wilt, I think stats were a lot more important to him than Shaq.

[PistonsFan#21]

Is there seriously people arguing here that Wilt had a stronger upper body than Shaq? :wtf:

[PHILA]

This I agree with 100%. Shaq, Kareem and Jordan scored in large totals because their teams needed them to. Wilt scored because he could and wanted to (and usually his coaches wanted him to) Once Alex Hannum got him to focus on defense and playing an offensive game that involved expending less energy he became a more consistent winner.http://i51.tinypic.com/qporw9.png

[Pointguard]

As far as scoring, I also give Shaq the edge because that was when Shaq had his most team success, when he was scoring the most. Wilt's team success only came when he cut down on his scoring and never won a title as the leading scorer in the playoffs.

On the endurance thing Wilt was unbelievable. Shaq was a phenomena himself but I don

[Psileas]

Shaq faced extra defensive attention and just seemed to disregard the double teams, and Wilt has only topped that 38 ppg scoring average in one playoff series in his career, which was when Wilt had 38.6 ppg in a playoff series vs the Hawks in '64. Also, Shaq's 38 ppg in the 2000 finals were accompanied by almost 17 rpg and 3 bpg on 61% shooting.

Wilt has 2 series at 38+ ppg, the other being the 1960 series vs Syracuse. He also has 2 37 ppg series, both against Syracuse.

[ShaqAttack3234]

[QUOTE=Pointguard]On the endurance thing Wilt was unbelievable. Shaq was a phenomena himself but I don

[Pointguard]

I find playing all 48 minutes a game for a season extremely pointless(when many games are decided long before that), and I don't know if players could do it or not, I'm sure some could atleast I'm sure quite a few could play the 44-46 mpg a good amount of stars played back then because I have a hard time believing with all of the advances in training and nutrition that players stamina has regressed in the past 40+ years.


I think in general Wilt had either an oversized heart or great lung capacity. Its not an issue of training or just great endurance. The heart has to pump extra hard for guys with long limbs and he was doing 50 mile marathons at 50. Wilt's activity level back then when it had to be hard to get a good nights sleep as beds weren't custom made or over-sized for him. Airplane inconveniences, a high diet of women, and 7 years of over 40 ppg and 23 + boards a game and a low guesstimate of 4 blocks per game.

That, I don't think has anything to do with stamina training and what you believe. It was no more different than Shaq being bigger than other people. Just a natural gift.

[Pointguard]

Though you could also argue that a slower, more physical game where you have to work for everything in the half court with the defenses of Shaq's era was very tiring. Hell, look at how slow the '94 finals were, yet Hakeem who was in great shape was visibly fatigued at times in the series.
Attrition. Do you rejuvenate when in constant motion or when you slow down.



This is absolute crap. He had Kobe from 2000-2002, though Kobe in 2000 wasn't yet an MVP-caliber player or a legit franchise player, already the top SG, IMO, but not historically great yet. And how about the so-called 3rd options on those Laker teams? Among the worst "3rd options" I can think of on championship teams. Even in 2001 and 2002 when Kobe stepped up and was a legit top 5 player, you had no real 3rd option. Fisher got hot in the 2001 playoffs, but he played off of the stars, and Fisher shot a terrible 36% in the 2002 playoffs.

If its crap you name me another player that has had more years with top 5 players than Shaq? That's all I ask. Kobe was a great defender back then and a highly ranked 2 guard at the very least those years. When you compare Shaq to Duncan its absolutely stunning in regards to Shaq's years with a stellar player.



Was it really his biggest asset? I don't believe so, I don't think it's a coincidence that his greatest team success came when he focused more on passing, defense and rebounding which to me were his greatest assets in terms of leading a team to championships, which is all that matters in terms of your assets.
What was Wilt's biggest assets then??? The other two greats of his era had a standing reach on him. What are you suggesting?



:rolleyes:
Are you suggesting a league that did everything to slow Wilt down would allow for him to play bowling pins with everybody else. I was amazed to see that they allowed Shaq to get away with the trample game on Mourning. Barkley came into the league as a bully and they stopped him when he did it. When Barkley adjusted they said you can't back down a player for more than 5 seconds. Wilt might have tried the power game but the reffing convinced him otherwise.



Wilt never had near the footwork Shaq did in any of the footage I've seen of him, nor did he have a move that seemed as much of a high percentage shot as Shaq's jump hook.

If Wilt could've used the power game more, than he should have. That's his problem that he didn't, and it was actually one of his regrets. Tom Heinsohn said that he always felt Wilt was doing them a favor when he'd settle for fadeaways.

Aside from having better post moves, I think the fact that Shaq was ruthless and used his physical advantages as much as any player I've seen was an advantage over Wilt. You don't have an argument from me there. But I mean com'on? Was Wilt supposed to have covered every dynamic of the game??? LOL, he was so far ahead of his time he didn't want to seem like he was abusive. But Shaq wasn't so ruthless that he could set any type of record much less a hundred of them and have them sit around for fifty years so Shaq could look at them and dare not touch them. Shaq's foot movement is tight but this isn't dancing with the stars. It wasn't like Shaq was using it to get rebounds. Shaq never separated himself from the pack despite his size and agility being about the same advantage as Wilt's.

Wilt was indeed a gentleman but its not like he was apologizing for his career numbers looking so much better than Shaq's best year. Wilt's best year can be broken in half and be competitive to Shaq's good years. With Wilt's touch being so distant to the next guy's touch, every time he touches the ball its a go to move. What was Wilt to do? That Scrub, didn't he know he should have been averaging 60ppg. You make it sound like he would be on KG's list of guys I have to punk next list. LOL.

[Micku]

What was Wilt's biggest assets then??? The other two greats of his era had a standing reach on him. What are you suggesting?


Like he said earlier, only 3 players lead the league in scoring and won the championship. That was Kareem, Jordan, and Shaq. While Wilt strength was a great asset, I'm guessing he didn't use it as much as Shaq. When Wilt brought his scoring down to play more team ball, that's when they won.

As he said earlier, while Wilt was extremely strong, he didn't unitize it as much as Shaq:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW17rCSeWLo#t=04m20s

In this video, Wilt admitted that he didn't necessary use his strength as much as he should and Shaq did. I think what ShaqAttack is saying is that Shaq utilize his strength more, and kept that as his aspect when they won the championship. Wilt didn't necessary do that as much as Shaq I'm guessing, and did it on other things which may contributed more in winning. But I do think that his strength, size and athletic ability is a major strength to his basketball ability.


You don't have an argument from me there. But I mean com'on? Was Wilt supposed to have covered every dynamic of the game??? LOL, he was so far ahead of his time he didn't want to seem like he was abusive. But Shaq wasn't so ruthless that he could set any type of record much less a hundred of them and have them sit around for fifty years so Shaq could look at them and dare not touch them. Shaq's foot movement is tight but this isn't dancing with the stars. It wasn't like Shaq was using it to get rebounds. Shaq never separated himself from the pack despite his size and agility being about the same advantage as Wilt's.

I don't know. Didn't the league set rules just to stop Shaq? Wouldn't that be consider as separate from the pack as well as high level of play?

[az00m]

How do you know that Wilt would outrebound Shaq? He'd have to be getting around Shaq because he certainly couldn't fight for position against Shaq.


-Smak

Rodman out rebounded Shaq being 7 inches shorter than him. I'm sure wilt can do the same.

[G.O.A.T]

Here's a thought...what if these guys switched eras?

Would they both actually be more dominant?

Think about it.

Shaq's crucial flaw was his lack of conditioning later in his career. Would playing in an era where players often smoked during halftime and pregame and only about 20% didn't have offseason jobs have helped him be even more dominant?

Wilt's crucial flaw was his lack of a killer instinct. Would playing in a more competitive and deveolped NBA have brought that out in him more than the one he played in where he was essentially a freak or modern marvel in most folks eyes?

Any thoughts?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Attrition. Do you rejuvenate when in constant motion or when you slow down.

How about having to work harder for your points?


If its crap you name me another player that has had more years with top 5 players than Shaq? That's all I ask. Kobe was a great defender back then and a highly ranked 2 guard at the very least those years. When you compare Shaq to Duncan its absolutely stunning in regards to Shaq's years with a stellar player.

So, one other player makes an entire cast? Having a better 2nd option doesn't mean he had better teams around him. You know, that same Laker team was 13-13 without him from 2000-2002, and the 2003 Lakers were 5-10 without him. Yeah, no other players have been so blessed. :rolleyes:

What was Wilt's biggest assets then??? The other two greats of his era had a standing reach on him. What are you suggesting?

Prime Shaq didn't go to a team like Wilt did in '69 that had just been in the finals(he did this year in Boston, but at 38/39, not near his prime like Wilt who was coming off 3 straight MVPs). A team that had 2 elite players like Baylor and West.

Or how about a team like the '67 and '68 Sixers? They won 55 games despite Luke Jackson missing most of the season AFTER Wilt left.

Wilt had more help than Shaq when he won his titles, and many years that he didn't.


Are you suggesting a league that did everything to slow Wilt down would allow for him to play bowling pins with everybody else. I was amazed to see that they allowed Shaq to get away with the trample game on Mourning. Barkley came into the league as a bully and they stopped him when he did it. When Barkley adjusted they said you can't back down a player for more than 5 seconds. Wilt might have tried the power game but the reffing convinced him otherwise.

Idiots like you ***** about Shaq being physical yet fail to mention that defenders were very physical with him. Why is it that for Shaq's entire careers commentators have said he's the toughest player to officiate? Because when he's physical with someone it's a lot more noticeable because of how strong he was, and when others are physical with him, it's not as noticeable for that same reason.

And in an era where Shaq's size, strength and athletic advantages would be that much bigger, would he even need to be as physical as he was?

The fact that you're acting like Shaq got such favorable treatment from refs is ridiculous. Did you know that last season, Kevin Durant got to the line at a higher rate per FGA than 2000 Shaq(and on a similar sample of FGA)?

Many believe the zone defense and defensive 3 second rules were put in because of Shaq.


You don't have an argument from me there. But I mean com'on? Was Wilt supposed to have covered every dynamic of the game??? LOL, he was so far ahead of his time he didn't want to seem like he was abusive. But Shaq wasn't so ruthless that he could set any type of record much less a hundred of them and have them sit around for fifty years so Shaq could look at them and dare not touch them. Shaq's foot movement is tight but this isn't dancing with the stars. It wasn't like Shaq was using it to get rebounds. Shaq never separated himself from the pack despite his size and agility being about the same advantage as Wilt's.

First of all, not every played for records like Wilt.

Second of all, forget the arguments about defense in different eras, even Wilt playing at a similar pace to 90's and 00's players, much less similar minutes, I can't say for sure, but I'd bet every amount of money I have that the majority of those records wouldn't have been set by Wilt.


Wilt was indeed a gentleman but its not like he was apologizing for his career numbers looking so much better than Shaq's best year. Wilt's best year can be broken in half and be competitive to Shaq's good years. With Wilt's touch being so distant to the next guy's touch, every time he touches the ball its a go to move. What was Wilt to do? That Scrub, didn't he know he should have been averaging 60ppg. You make it sound like he would be on KG's list of guys I have to punk next list. LOL.

:oldlol: at this trash. I don't know why you're going on about Wilt's stats vs Shaq's when the advantages he had in putting up numbers is so astronomical that there's no way Shaq could've put up Wilt's numbers in the 90's and 00's, even if he was 40 times the player Wilt was, he wouldn't be putting up 50/26 in the 90's/00's, and neither would Wilt.

[PHILA]

Though you could also argue that a slower, more physical game where you have to work for everything in the half court with the defenses of Shaq's era was very tiring. Hell, look at how slow the '94 finals were, yet Hakeem who was in great shape was visibly fatigued at times in the series.


http://i55.tinypic.com/2mq9lyw.png
http://i55.tinypic.com/98ghmd.png


http://i54.tinypic.com/2wof2x2.png
http://i53.tinypic.com/2efmcy9.png
http://i51.tinypic.com/2qd0v3a.jpg



Prime Shaq didn't go to a team like Wilt did in '69 that had just been in the finals(he did this year in Boston, but at 38/39, not near his prime like Wilt who was coming off 3 straight MVPs). A team that had 2 elite players like Baylor and West.
Would love to have seen Butch try this with Shaq.

[I]"If the big dog don't get fed, the house won't get guarded

[Pointguard]

How about having to work harder for your points?
How about not? Why would he be working harder for his points? If he is sprinting down the court he is going to have the same advantage he had in the 60’s. Amare Stoudamire has it easier than any other center in the league and if he was healthy like he was when younger he would score as much as Shaq ever did in a season. And Amare isn’t the scorer, leaper, athelete Wilt was.



So, one other player makes an entire cast? Having a better 2nd option doesn't mean he had better teams around him. You know, that same Laker team was 13-13 without him from 2000-2002, and the 2003 Lakers were 5-10 without him. Yeah, no other players have been so blessed. :rolleyes:

Yeah, an opponents game plan can be wiped out if the 2nd or 3rd best player in the game gets hot. When Kobe got hot, he was probably the best player in the game even back then. So your game plan on option 1 has a serious contingent. Shaq was near unstoppable at that time. But Kobe could be the same. What gives?

Nobody in the history of the sport has played with three of the games top three players ((Kobe, Wade, Lebron) and Penny was top 5) Shaq has spent 14 years with a top 10 talent and at least 10 with a top 5 talent. Like I said, name me another player with this reality? I have no problem saying Wilt didn’t win the way a dominant guy should have. But at least he had the games best winner and defender to contend with.



Idiots like you ***** about Shaq being physical yet fail to mention that defenders were very physical with him. Why is it that for Shaq's entire careers commentators have said he's the toughest player to officiate? Because when he's physical with someone it's a lot more noticeable because of how strong he was, and when others are physical with him, it's not as noticeable for that same reason.

Once again, my point is that Shaq was protected and allowed to be aggressive. They allowed him to shoulder into other players and knock them down. It was the reverse with Wilt. The idiot Lovelett probably wasn’t even suspended for knocking Wilt’s teeth up in the roof of his mouth that caused Wilt pain the rest of his life. Heinsohn said the intention was to brutalize Wilt. Half of the fouls on him were hard fouls. And when Wilt had advantages, like his jumping ability, or posting ability the rules changed to take away those advantages. He wasn’t protected. Are you serious in bringing up roughness??? Idiot.


The fact that you're acting like Shaq got such favorable treatment from refs is ridiculous. Did you know that last season, Kevin Durant got to the line at a higher rate per FGA than 2000 Shaq(and on a similar sample of FGA)? Putting Shaq or Wilt on the line wasn’t doing them a favor. The advantage would be in the freedom they would get by barrelling other players over. Being allowed to walk. Basically survive without much skill. Haha.


First of all, not every played for records like Wilt.

Second of all, forget the arguments about defense in different eras, even Wilt playing at a similar pace to 90's and 00's players, much less similar minutes, I can't say for sure, but I'd bet every amount of money I have that the majority of those records wouldn't have been set by Wilt.
Probably true, but they are still his records years later no matter how you decorate it or strip it. In the end he set an unsurpassed standard and separated himself from the pack unlike any other. If you don’t distinguish yourself – there is no need to talk about you. Wilt was ahead of his time. People dream about his folkloric numbers. They have a life of its own.

He did everything there is in basketball. He has the complete experience. When you set the standard at a high level that is useful forever. When you win that’s good for the competitive reality at that moment but that’s it. It serves no other function. Unless you do it like Russell did and set the standard for winning, then that is good within itself. All else is secondary.



:oldlol: at this trash. I don't know why you're going on about Wilt's stats vs Shaq's when the advantages he had in putting up numbers is so astronomical that there's no way Shaq could've put up Wilt's numbers in the 90's and 00's, even if he was 40 times the player Wilt was, he wouldn't be putting up 50/26 in the 90's/00's, and neither would Wilt.
Forget the stats. Did Shaq distinguish himself? I definitely think he was dominant and a top 7 player of all time. I suppose our grandchildren won’t think much of him. Particurally if Kobe vaults him in the top ten cause things really could get hazy then (if Kobe wins one more he will look like the much better player to the next generations). Plus Shaq's championship number isn’t that high. I think Wall, Lebron and that pogo stick in LA all have shots to be in the top 10 as well if health and good situations fall their way, but that's for another discussion.

[jlauber]

Ok, where to start...


I really don't see Wilt as a better scorer. As Fatal mentioned, the truly astronomical scoring seasons came with a narrower lane and also the team defense is key as Fatal also mentioned. And that 50 ppg season, came with the Warriors averaging an estimated 129.7 possessions per 48 minutes(basketball-reference). And, playing in 20, 30, 40, 50 point blowouts ect. is not happening today. It's not accepted in today's game for a superstar to do that consistently just as it was apparently considered disrespectful in Wilt's era for guys to do flashy moves and for most to dunk.



Ok, how about his 62-63 season, then, when he averaged 44.8 ppg and shot a then-record .528 from the field? His TEAM, probably the WORST in NBA HISTORY, went 31-49. HOWEVER, they were involved in only SEVEN 20+ margin games in those 80, and in fact, they went 5-2 in those games. They lost 35 games by single digits, and their total differential was only -2.1. Furthermore, while Chamberlain was setting a record for FG%, his TEAMMATES, again, the WORST in NBA history, shot a collective .412 from the field. Fatal continues to bring up Wilt's "all-star" teammates...Meschery, and Rodgers. Meschery was a ONE-time all-star who had the best season of his career...16 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and shot .425 from the field. And granted, Rodgers was a great passer...BUT, he may very well have been the worst shooter in NBA history. His career FG% was .378, and most of those seasons were in the 60's. He NEVER shot 40%, and in his worst season, he shot .347 in a league that shot .446...or nearly 100 points less than the league average.

In any case, in that 62-63 season, which I believe to be the greatest statistical season in NBA history, Wilt LED the NBA in 15 of the 22 statistical categories...and in several he led by HUGE margins. He won the scoring title by 10.8 ppg (Baylor was at 34.0 ppg)...which is second all-time to his 61-62 season, when he won by an eye-popping +18.8 ppg.

Continuing...Wilt's Warriors faced Russell and the vaunted Celtics nine times that season. SIX of those games were close, and none were 20+ point blowouts. Wilt outrebounded Russell, as he always did, AND, he outscored him, per game, 38 ppg to 14 ppg.

All of which seems to blow up this RIDICULOUS theory that Wilt was a "stats-padder." Of course, I have mentioned Fatal's idol, Kareem...who may very well have had the greatest "stats-padding" season in NBA history in his 71-72 season. Kareem led the NBA in scoring that season, at 34.8 ppg, shooting .574, while playing a career high 44 mpg...on a team that went 63-19, and had a +11.1 point differential. Furthermore, when Kareem played on the 75-76 Lakers, with the likes of HOFer Gail Goodrich and his 20 ppg average, as well as Cazzie Russell and Lucius Allen, that Laker team went 40-42. Did Kareem elevate his game when his team needed him to? He played 41 mpg, scored 27.7 ppg, and shot .529.

While we are on the subject of Kareem...that was his ONLY rebound title (in 20 seasons.) Why is that important? Because Fatal likes to bring up that Wilt faced small centers in his career (more on that later.) Of course Wilt nearly won the rebound titles EVERY season he played, and over the likes of 6-11 Thurmond, 6-10 Russell, and 6-11 Bellamy. Meanwhile, when Kareem won his ONLY rebound title (and long after Wilt retired), he barely edged out a WHITE center, 6-9 Dave Cowens. The next two best rebounders were 6-7 Wes Unseld and 6-7 Paul Silas.


Speaking of Fatal...


Shaq, way more efficient scorer, especially in the playoffs. Played against more size and better team defenses. His TRB% isn't as good, but he was actually competing against way more athletic PFs and guards for rebounds. Much better playoff performer individually. Twice as many rings. Wilt's crazy high statistical seasons (40+ ppg ones) came with a narrower lane, the league was also 68-70% white in the early 60s (lot of the 50s players crossed over to the early 60s), and there were only 3-4 other rotation players (ie. players playing 20+ mpg) over 6'9 in most of the years in the early 60s. It's unthinkable how dominant Shaq would be in a setting like that.



Ok, the NBA widened the lane before the start of the 64-65 season. Over the first half of the season, and with the woeful Warriors (who Wilt had taken to the Finals the year before BTW), Wilt averaged 39 ppg...which was actually a higher rate than his 63-64 season of 36.9 ppg. He was traded mid-season to the Sixers, another bottom-feeding team. And as bad as they were, they were considerably better than that horrible Warrior team. Wilt cut back his scoring with Philly, and finsihed the year at 34.7 ppg. So, using that bench-mark...the widening of the lane reduced Wilt's scoring by TWO ppg (which was actually not true at BTW.) AND, in his very next season, Wilt averaged 33.5 ppg on a then record .540 FG%. OBVIOUSLY the widening of the lane had NO effect on Wilt's scoring.

Now, how would Shaq have fared in the 60's? Well, based on this footage, he would have fouled out within five minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3FXLyNFew

Offensive fouls!!!!!

Shaq would have needed to develop some kind of range to have been able to dominate back then. Wilt had excellent range up to 15 ft. as evidenced by this fact...

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html


[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."

--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70


More evidence of Chamberlain's range and variety of post moves and shots...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6k539HSbXM


As for efficiency...as G.O.A.T pointed out (and as I have MANY times), Wilt outshot the LEAGUE AVERAGE be HUGE margins. In his 65-66 season, he averaged 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting, in a league that shot .433. However, he was absolutely sensational in his 66-67 season. True, his scoring dropped to "only" 24.1 ppg (on 14.2 FGAs per game), but he shot a staggering .683 from the field. He won the FG% title by a still-record margin of .162 (over Bellamy's .521 second place finish), and his .244 margin over the league average (.441) is the second highest all-time, behind his 72-73 mark of .271 (.727 to the league average of .456.) He is the only player in NBA history to better the league average by over 200 points BTW...and he did it twice (and nearly 300 points in 72-73...his LAST NBA season.)

Furthermore, Wilt cut-back his shooting after the 65-66 season for the rest of his career. HOWEVER, from his 66-67 season thru his 68-69 season, he STILL put up the HIGH games in the NBA each season (as he did in EVERY season in the decade of the sixties.) In fact, in his 66-67 season, he averaged 14.2 FGA, in 67-68 he averaged 16.8 FGA, and in 68-69, he averaged 13.6 FGA. YET, he had SEVEN 50+ point games in those three years, and THREE 60+ point games. He had nearly as many 50+ point games in those three years, when he hardly shot the ball, as Kareem had in his entire 20 year career (eight.) His three 60+ point games those seasons were also THREE more than Kareem had in his entire career.

As a sidenote, Wilt has 109 of the 128 30-30 games in NBA history. Kareem has ONE, and Shaq has ZERO. In fact, Wilt had TWO in his 71-72 season alone, in a year in which "stats-padding" Kareem had ZERO.

And, the reality was, Wilt COULD have scored MUCH more in those years had he so chose. In his 66-67 season, he had a 58 point game on 26-34 shooting, as well as a 42 point game on 18-18 shooting. He also had games of 16-16 and 15-15 that season, and in fact, made 35 straight FGAs, which is another record that will probably never be challenged. In his 67-68 season, he had games of 52, 53, 53, and 68. And in his 68-69 season, he had games of 60 and 66 (on a staggering 29-35 shooting.)


As for Fatal's statement of the size of NBA players...how about this eye-witness account by none other than Kiki Vandewege?

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

Chamberlain overpowered the 7-4 Mark Eaton...AND he was in his mid-40's at the time.

Furthermore, while players like Bird, Jordan, and Kareem were fortunate enough to play in the defenseless 80's (there were seasons in which the entire LEAGUE shot nearly 50%), how about this eye-witness account by none other than Larry Brown?

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


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]

To be continued...

[Pointguard]

Here's a thought...what if these guys switched eras?

Would they both actually be more dominant?

Think about it.

Shaq's crucial flaw was his lack of conditioning later in his career. Would playing in an era where players often smoked during halftime and pregame and only about 20% didn't have offseason jobs have helped him be even more dominant?

Wilt's crucial flaw was his lack of a killer instinct. Would playing in a more competitive and deveolped NBA have brought that out in him more than the one he played in where he was essentially a freak or modern marvel in most folks eyes?

Any thoughts?

Wilt's lack of Killer instinct probably would go undetected these days. What center has it now? Wilt was competitive and didn't like to be outplayed, he just lacked the resolve to crush. I think he would be determined to distinguish himself and would be somewhat more protected by the refs. Wilt's activity level would be very interesting. We know he has versatility because he effectively had two different careers.

Shaq would have to adjust to the refs and changing his game due to rules made to slow him down. Change is not always an easy thing to do or something you can count on a player knowing how to do. Shaq seems to be sensitive so you wonder if he gets the Goliath complex. The hard fouls will make the Oakley/Brad Miller foul look like patty cake. Nor was the food as fattening back then.

[PHILA]

Wilt was competitive and didn't like to be outplayed, he just lacked the resolve to crush. I think he would be determined to distinguish himself and would be somewhat more protected by the refs. Wilt's activity level would be very interesting. We know he has versatility because he effectively had two different careers. This plus the fact that he was measured against the ultimate killer Bill Russell hurt his reputation.

[jlauber]

Regarding size, Kareem apparently struggled against Artis Gilmore, as Red Kerr alluded to at the ten minute mark of this video...

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

And that in 1980, and close to Kareem's physical prime (although his statistical prime was in the early 70's.)

How about Wilt against Gilmore?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1R6UI738MI&NR=1

In those limited minutes, Wilt, in the twi-light of his career abused Gilmore.


Back to the size issue...

Shaq has played in the NBA for 18 seasons (going on 19.) He NEVER won a rebound title, and in fact, he was far behind 6-8 Dennis Rodman in several seasons. In fact, Rodman won SIX rebounding titles during Shaq's career. On top of that, 6-7 Ben Wallace won TWO. And, I'm sorry, but 6-10 Bill Russell was a much better ATHLETE than Rodman (Russell was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper), and Wilt outrebounded Russell, H2H in 142 games, by a whopping 28.7 rpg to 23.7 rpg margin. Wilt also won EIGHT rebound titles in his ten seasons playing with Russell.


Shaqattack...


And no, Round Mound, Wilt didn't "own" all centers because he didn't "own" Russell. Regardless of which side you're on in that debate, Wilt was obviously not just destroying Russell whenever they played.


Hmmmm...

Wilt AVERAGED 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg against Russell in their 142 H2H games...or nearly a 30-30 game EVERY time the two stepped on the court. Granted, Russell probably played Wilt better than anyone else, but in any case, Wilt more than held his own against Russell (and his TEAMMATES, who used to SWARM Wilt)...

http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html


In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."


Speaking of the Wilt-Russell matchup...how about these 40 games...

[QUOTE]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

[Pointguard]

This plus the fact that he was measured against the ultimate killer Bill Russell hurt his reputation.

Yes, who is going to look good in that scenario?

[jlauber]

Wilt was a better scorer, especially in his "scoring" seasons, and a much more efficient shooter in his "efficient" seasons. He had more range, and more moves. He could start his offense from further out, as well.

Those that point out Wilt's post-season scoring almost always fail to mention that in his "scoring" seasons, he averaged 33 ppg in the post-season. Furthermore, his TEAM was so horrible in his monumental 62-63 season, that they did not make the playoffs. He averaged 44.8 ppg that season, and 38 ppg against Russell. One can only wonder what numbers he might have put up in that post-season. He also had FOUR 50+ point games in his post-seasons. AND, he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of his post-season games (and Russell in 49 of his 160.) Here again, based on Shaq's numbers against Robinson in the post-season, HIS numbers dropped considerably as well. Had he faced a center the quality of Robinson for two-thirds of his post-season play, I suspect that his numbers would have been much lower.

Speaking of post-seasons, how about Wilt's 69-70 Finals, when, just four months removed from major knee surgery, Chamberlain put up a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 Finals?

Also, when Wilt faced a non-HOF center in the post-season, he generally CRUSHED them. He averaged 37 and 38 ppg against Kerr (an all-star center BTW) in two of them. He also averaged 38.6 ppg against Beaty (and al;l-star BTW) in the 63-64 playoffs. Against Dierking in the '67 playoffs, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg, and shot .612 from the field. In the first two games of that series against Dierking, he scored 41 points on 19-30 shooting, and 37 points on 16-24 shooting.

Not only that, but Wilt's REBOUNDING went UP. Wilt averaged 22.9 rpg during his regular season career, and 24.5 rpg in the playoffs. So, while players like Rodman dropped dramatically in the post-season (from 13.8 to 9.9), Wilt POUNDED his opposing centers. He outrebounded EVERY opposing center in his 29 post-season series, and in many, he crushed them. This against the likes of Russell, Thurmond, Kareem, Reed, Lucas, and Bellamy. He had post-season seroes against Russell in which he averaged a 30-30 game, andhe had THREE series against him in which he averaged 30+ rebounds per game. In the 66-67 ECF's, he outrebouned Russell, per game, by a staggering 32-23 margin.

Ok, how about defense? Well, it is not almost universally acknowledged that Wilt was probably the greatest shot-blocker in NBA history. Harvey Pollack even believes that Wilt had SEASONS of over 10 bpg. Pollack also had Wilt with 24 blocks in one game, and a poster here pointed out that Wilt had a recorded 23 blocks in a game in 1969. Furthermore, Wilt was voted first team all-defense in his LAST two season, and had the award existed before the 68-69 season, he might have won a couple more.

Everyone here knows about Wilt's offense, but how about his defense? He faced Kareem in 28 H2H games, and held him to .464 shooting...or nearly 100 points less than his career average of .559. In the 71-72 WCF's, Wilt held Kareem to .457 shooting, but even more importantly, he held him to .414 shooting over the course of that last four pivotal games. And, in Wilt's final season, in 72-72, he faced Kareem in six regular season games, and outshot him .637 to .450.

I have already pointed out Wilt's defense on Russell. In the documented games, series, or seasons between the two, Chamberlain held Russell WAY below his normal season average. Russell shot a career high .467 in his 59-60 season. Against Wilt he shot .398. In the 66-67 regular season, Russell shot .454. Against Wilt in the '66-67 ECF's Russell shot .358.

Wilt also held Nate Thurmond to less than 40% in ALL three post-season H2H series, including .343 in the '66-67 Finals. Meanwhile, Wilt shot over 50% in all three of those series against Thurmond, including .560 in the '67 Finals.

And, against Bellamy in the '68 playoffs, Wilt held Bellamy to .421 shooting. Bellamy had shot .541 during the regular season.


Passing? Chamberlain is the ONLY center to LEAD the NBA in assists. He also finsihed THIRD in another season. In his 65-66 season, when he LED the league in scoring at 33.5 ppg, he also handed out 5.2 apg. In the '66-67 playoffs he averaged 9.2 apg. In fact, against Russell in the '67 ECF's, Wilt AVERAGED a triple double... 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, and 10.0 pag..all while shooting .556 from the field.


Finally, Wilt was the ONLY player who put up those huge numbers. He currently holds some 130+ NBA records. In many cases he holds the next best mark, as well. AND, many of those records will never be approached, much less broken. He not only had two 40+ ppg seasons (50.4 and 44.8), he AVERAGED nearly 40 ppg over the course of his first SEVEN seasons...COMBINED. He has SIX of the ten 70+ point games in NBA history. He has 32 of the 62 60+ point games in NBA history (Kobe and MJ are next with FIVE.) He had 118 50+ point games (MJ is next at 39.) He has 55 of the 61 40-30 games in NBA history. He has 109 of the 128 30-30 games. He has the two highest FG% seasons in NBA history, and three of the top-5. He has the SEVEN highest mpg seasons in NBA history, and AVERAGED 45.2 mpg over the course of his CAREER. Not only that, but he AVERAGED 47.2 mpg over the course of his 160 post-season games! He is FIFTH all-time in triple double games, and had blocked shots been an official stat during his career, he would probably be the all-time leader (and certainly the all-time leader in quad doubles.) Not only that, but he has the ONLY 20-20-20 game in NBA history (22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists.) I could go on-and-on, but once again...ONLY Wilt has those records.

So there you have it. You can make your own determination, but hopefully that gives you a better idea on just how dominant Wilt was.

[ShaqAttack3234]

How about not? Why would he be working harder for his points? If he is sprinting down the court he is going to have the same advantage he had in the 60’s. Amare Stoudamire has it easier than any other center in the league and if he was healthy like he was when younger he would score as much as Shaq ever did in a season. And Amare isn’t the scorer, leaper, athelete Wilt was.

:facepalm Amare has never been the force Shaq or Wilt were, but as a leaper? You can compare him to just about any big man whose played basketball.

And no, you still don't seem to get it. A so called fast paced team in this era is nothing compared to the pace that guys in the 60's played at.

Again, using basketball reference's estimate that Wilt's '62 Warriors had a pace factor of 129.7. Here are the Amare/Nash Suns pace factors, not including the year Amare played 3 games.

2005- 95.9
2007- 95.6
2008- 96.7
2009- 96
2010- 95.3

And where does this stuff about Amare scoring as much as Shaq ever did come from? He's averaged over 25 ppg twice and his career high is 26 ppg. Shaq topped that every season from '94-'03 and that '98-'04 stretch was tougher defensively.


Yeah, an opponents game plan can be wiped out if the 2nd or 3rd best player in the game gets hot. When Kobe got hot, he was probably the best player in the game even back then. So your game plan on option 1 has a serious contingent. Shaq was near unstoppable at that time. But Kobe could be the same. What gives?

Kobe wasn't going on ridiculous scoring binges in 2000. He had eight 30 point games in the entire 2000 regular season. Very good player back then regardless.

And also, here's something that I found interesting. During the 3peat, the Lakers were 25-6 in games that Shaq played and Kobe missed and excluding the game where Shaq was ejected after 15 minutes for fighting with Barkley, here are his numbers from those games.

31.7 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.8 apg, 2.9 bpg, 59.5 FG%, 38.7 mpg

Better than his usual numbers and 30 games is a significant sample size. Kobe was obviously essential to LA winning a championship, but he had no impact on Shaq's individual numbers, if anything, Shaq was better when he got more touches.

The fact is, you take Shaq away from those 2000-2002 teams and they're lucky to play .500 basketball, you add him and they're championship teams.

We already know what some of Wilt's teams did without him such as the '68 Lakers who were almost as good as the '69 team with Wilt. Or the '69 Sixers who only dropped from 62 to 55 wins despite Luke Jackson also being injured.

I'm not even listing names this time because there's always the argument that you had to have a stacked team to win back then, but what that shows you is that even compared to their eras, Wilt had more talented teams than Shaq.


Nobody in the history of the sport has played with three of the games top three players ((Kobe, Wade, Lebron) and Penny was top 5) Shaq has spent 14 years with a top 10 talent and at least 10 with a top 5 talent. Like I said, name me another player with this reality? I have no problem saying Wilt didn’t win the way a dominant guy should have. But at least he had the games best winner and defender to contend with.

No, he didn't have atleast 10 seasons with top 5 talent. He had Kobe from 2001-2004, so 4 seasons there, Wade in 2006 and then Lebron in 2010. But :oldlol: at even using Lebron against Shaq. Why are we even comparing what Shaq did as a 38 year old role player in his 18th season against Wilt who retired before that age? Penny is debatable, but even if you considered him top 5 in 1995 and 1996, which is a stretch, that's still 8 years with top 5 talent, not 10. But more likely, 6, and Shaq as an all-star caliber player with top 5 talent? 5 years.

And if you actually look into the losses in '95, '96, '03 and '04, it's tough to see what Shaq could've done to win those series, especially '96.

And again, give me Wilt's '67-'73 casts that are winning 50-55 games without him. One of which, got to the finals the year before he arrived and got him while keeping their 2 best players.

And you keep bringing up these top players Shaq played with, well, when did he have two top players on a team like Wilt did in '69? You compare the quality of their 3rd best players in championship seasons(even relative to the league at the time) and it's laughable, Wilt from top to bottom had stacked teams, Shaq didn't when he won titles, he had a great player alongside him, though again, in 2000, Kobe wasn't yet at that franchise player level.

When Shaq did have stacked teams in some of those years in the 90's, they were full of chokers who crumbled in the playoffs.


Once again, my point is that Shaq was protected and allowed to be aggressive. They allowed him to shoulder into other players and knock them down. It was the reverse with Wilt. The idiot Lovelett probably wasn’t even suspended for knocking Wilt’s teeth up in the roof of his mouth that caused Wilt pain the rest of his life. Heinsohn said the intention was to brutalize Wilt. Half of the fouls on him were hard fouls. And when Wilt had advantages, like his jumping ability, or posting ability the rules changed to take away those advantages. He wasn’t protected. Are you serious in bringing up roughness??? Idiot. Putting Shaq or Wilt on the line wasn’t doing them a favor. The advantage would be in the freedom they would get by barrelling other players over. Being allowed to walk. Basically survive without much skill. Haha.

So, if there's contact and Shaq misses the shot then it's not helping him to go to the line where on average he'll tack on an extra point, last I checked, 1>0. Or, if he completes a dunk on someone and there's contact, but they don't call a foul. He's already made the two, it doesn't help to have an opportunity for 1 more?

As it is, I don't complain about the officiating because I think it evened out with Shaq, he got away with offensive fouls, but defenders got away with fouling him, too.


Probably true, but they are still his records years later no matter how you decorate it or strip it. In the end he set an unsurpassed standard and separated himself from the pack unlike any other. If you don’t distinguish yourself – there is no need to talk about you. Wilt was ahead of his time. People dream about his folkloric numbers. They have a life of its own.

The numbers don't blow me away any more than any other top 10 player's, all were in different situations and many in different eras.


Forget the stats. Did Shaq distinguish himself? I definitely think he was dominant and a top 7 player of all time. I suppose our grandchildren won’t think much of him. Particurally if Kobe vaults him in the top ten cause things really could get hazy then (if Kobe wins one more he will look like the much better player to the next generations). Plus Shaq's championship number isn’t that high. I think Wall, Lebron and that pogo stick in LA all have shots to be in the top 10 as well if health and good situations fall their way, but that's for another discussion.

Did Shaq distinguish himself?


"I've never seen a better player in my life," 76ers coach Larry Brown said.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/01playoffs/finals/2001-06-15-shaq-mvp.htm

Oh, and :oldlol: at Blake Griffin or John Wall ever being top 10 players. They can be great, but it's obvious that they won't be in the top 10. Lebron could be, though.


The hard fouls will make the Oakley/Brad Miller foul look like patty cake.

I've seen just about every clip of 60's game footage that's on youtube, I have yet to see anything to suggest this is correct.


ShaqAttack also likes to point out Wilt's 68-69 Finals against Russell, in which he averaged 11.7 ppg. First of all, that was FAR from the norm. And secondly, it was Wilt's COACH who shackled Chamberlain in that series. Anyway, how about Shaq's struggles against Robinson in the playoffs from '98 to '01...when he averaged 23 ppp, 12 rpg, and shot .486? HIS numbers dropped siognificantly against Robinson. Or how about Shaq's struggles against Ostertag in the 96-97 playoffs, when he averaged 23 ppg on .492 shooting? My god, Ostertag?????

Uh, that's 2 series in that span from '98-'01. One is from '99 when he struggled and the other is from '01 when he played well.

1999- 23 ppg, 13 rpg, 1.8 apg, 49.3 FG%, 39 mpg
2001- 27 ppg, 13 rpg, 2.5 apg, 54.1 FG%, 39 mpg

So, you're numbers are actually incorrect if you average the 2 series(big surprise there).

Why not bring up Shaq's numbers against Utah in '98? A team that also had Ostertag. 32 ppg on 56% shooting.

And :oldlol: at a simple minded person like you still acting like it was Shaq vs Ostertag 1 on 1.


OR, how about Shaq's CAREER numbers against none other than Eddie Curry

JLauber, I've done this many times, so why do you keep posting those numbers without mentioning key details.

1st game- Curry played 6 minutes, so Curry had very little to do with Shaq's night.

2nd game- Shaq's first game of the 2002-2003 season after returning from surgery. He came off the bench, but yeah, you don't mention that....

4th game- Shaq played 25 minutes and left the game with an injury

8th game- Shaq played 2 mintues.

The fact that Shaq averaged 26.8 mpg should tell you something about those numbers.

[jlauber]

We already know what some of Wilt's teams did without him such as the '68 Lakers who were almost as good as the '69 team with Wilt. Or the '69 Sixers who only dropped from 62 to 55 wins despite Luke Jackson also being injured.



Hmmm...

Wilt's 67-68 Sixers ran away with the best record in the league at 62-20. They lost to the Celtics, in a game seven, by FOUR points, and all without HOFer Cunningham the ENTIRE series, with Jackson and Wali Jones injured in game five, and with Wilt battling an assortment of injuries, and NOTICEABLY limping from game three thru game seven. AND, the Sixers went 68-13 the year before and blew away their opponents in the post-season en route to a title.

Wilt was "traded" to LA before the '68-69 season for THREE players, TWO of whom, all-star Archie Clark and journeyman center Darrell Imhoff, averaged 29.2 ppg and 15.1 rpg. ALSO, the Lakers lost HOFer Gail Goodrich to the expansion draft, and his 13.8 ppg and 2.6 rpg. SO, Wilt essentially replaced 42 ppg and 17.7 rpg.

The Sixers dropped to 55-27, and were wiped out by the Celtics, 4-1 in the first round of the playoffs. Meanwhile, Wilt led LA to their best ever (at the time) record in Los Angeles, at 55-27, which was better than their 52-30 the season before. BTW, the Lakers lost to Boston in the Finals the year before, 4-2. Despite an incompetent coach, and Jerry West missing 20 games, the Lakers had their best ever record, and then lost a game seven to Boston, by two points. AND, had Johnny Egan not lost the ball in game four, LA would have won that series 4-1.

Furthermore...the Lakers would go to the NBA Finals in FOUR of Wilt's FIVE seasons (and the WCF's in 70-71 withOUT BOTH Baylor and West.) They would go on to win their first ever title in 71-72 (withOUT a retired Baylor BTW), and on a team that went 69-13 with 33 straight wins. Meanwhile, Wilt's former Sixer team declined year-after-year, and by Wilt's last season, they had fallen all the way down to a 9-73 record. They had gone from a team in 66-67, that had forged the best record of al-time (broken by Wilt's 71-72 Lakers, and later Jordan's 95-96 Bulls) to the worst record of all-time.

[G.O.A.T]

Hmmm...

Wilt's 67-68 Sixers ran away with the best record in the league at 62-20. They lost to the Celtics, in a game seven, by FOUR points, and all without HOFer Cunningham the ENTIRE series, with Jackson and Wali Jones injured in game five, and with Wilt battling an assortment of injuries, and NOTICEABLY limping from game three thru game seven. AND, the Sixers went 68-13 the year before and blew away their opponents in the post-season en route to a title.


Did the Celtics have any injuries during that series?

(The answer is yes)

Had they avoided those injuries, would they have won in four or five over the 76ers in your opinion?

[PHILA]

Sanders injured his back in Game 5, which should have been the final game of the series.

Recap of Game 5:

Toledo Blade - Apr 16, 1968

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=yOxOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pwEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5477,2030244&dq

[G.O.A.T]

In addition Siegfried had a back injury and was very ill and on IV prior to the series he was out of the starting lineup to start the series.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dRJEAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s7AMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3327,688814&dq=larry+siegfried&hl=en

Also Russell had what was reported as a jammed finger at the time which later was actually a broken hand according to one of his autobiographies.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=WhsrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9J8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6585,1498708&dq=larry+siegfried+injured&hl=en

The point is how consistently omitted this portion of the story is each time Jlauber recounts it.

[Pointguard]

:facepalm Amare has never been the force Shaq or Wilt were, but as a leaper? You can compare him to just about any big man whose played basketball.
Again, using basketball reference's estimate that Wilt's '62 Warriors had a pace factor of 129.7. Here are the Amare/Nash Suns pace factors, not including the year Amare played 3 games.

2009- 96
2010- 95.3

And where does this stuff about Amare scoring as much as Shaq ever did come from? He's averaged over 25 ppg twice and his career high is 26 ppg. Shaq topped that every season from '94-'03 and that '98-'04 stretch was tougher defensively.
In haste I wrote leap but I meant to say strength. Regardless, Amare is a quick leaper not a high leaper... He doesn't get high like Blake does. THE POINT IS that Amare gets easy points. Amare averaged 26 ppg without having a decent shooting touch and working a basic get close to the rim offense. After the surgery he developed a touch but Phoenix had other options and for a couple of years he didn't have the explosion. With a touch, post and a running game he could attain 30ppg rather easily. BY COMPARISON, Wilt had a shooters touch, he could employ a power game and a much more developed post game and he could engage in a much faster game than Stoudamire as you showed above. Wilt seemingly would get 30ppg the easy way and then some the harder way. The starting center would foul out in exhaustion and then Chamberlain has the same fodder he had in his day. With only an exception here and there in regards to strength, athleticism, power, speed, creativity, activity Chamberlain still would have a multitude of outright advantages.



The fact is, you take Shaq away from those 2000-2002 teams and they're lucky to play .500 basketball, you add him and they're championship teams.

Let me make this clear that I don't doubt Shaq's greatness. I think those three years Shaq is probably as dominant as you can get in today's game. But career-wise, he's had it good in regards to playing with greats, especially when you consider that Duncan is as accomplished with far less on his side. Three contemporaries ended up being more impressive in wins and right there in personal accolades. Shaq could have pushed it but didn't. I think he could have been in better shape and could have dominated in more years.


We already know what some of Wilt's teams did without him such as the '68 Lakers who were almost as good as the '69 team with Wilt. Or the '69 Sixers who only dropped from 62 to 55 wins despite Luke Jackson also being injured.

I'm not even listing names this time because there's always the argument that you had to have a stacked team to win back then, but what that shows you is that even compared to their eras, Wilt had more talented teams than Shaq. Things happen and unless you are there at the time you don't really know what happened. I know that Shaq and the second best player in the league Kobe were both healthy and lost to a starless, experience-less Detroit team. If you are there at the time, you see how things can fall apart... that it wasn't Shaq's fault. So I don't go back and pretend that the story is obvious or make judgments I know nothing about. If Shaq or Wilt never won I probably would engage but it seems pointless.


No, he didn't have atleast 10 seasons with top 5 talent. He had Kobe from 2001-2004, so 4 seasons there, Wade in 2006 and then Lebron in 2010. But :oldlol: at even using Lebron against Shaq. Why are we even comparing what Shaq did as a 38 year old role player in his 18th season against Wilt who retired before that age? Penny is debatable, but even if you considered him top 5 in 1995 and 1996, which is a stretch, that's still 8 years with top 5 talent, not 10. But more likely, 6, and Shaq as an all-star caliber player with top 5 talent? 5 years. In an ultra diluted league that is imploding because of its expansion, this doesn't happen in the current era once or twice with anybody else. You are the games most dominant player and you got luxuries nobody else gets and yet you don't distinguish yourself. Duncan spots him six years and the race is a tie at four. To me that's plus 4 for Duncan and negative two for Shaq. The same can be said of Wilt and Russell. Shaq and Wilt were not Russell and Duncan in regards to wins. Dominant is not always more effective or necessarily practical in regards to winning it all. If you talk wins its Russell, Jordan, Kareem and Magic. If you talk otherwise its Wilt. The rest is just specifics.



And you keep bringing up these top players Shaq played with, well, when did he have two top players on a team like Wilt did in '69? You compare the quality of their 3rd best players in championship seasons(even relative to the league at the time) and it's laughable, Wilt from top to bottom had stacked teams, Shaq didn't when he won titles, he had a great player alongside him, though again, in 2000, Kobe wasn't yet at that franchise player level.

When Shaq did have stacked teams in some of those years in the 90's, they were full of chokers who crumbled in the playoffs. We know that because we seen that. Shandon Anderson was a strange cookie. But Chamberlain's cohorts put up some embarrassing shooting percentages as well.


So, if there's contact and Shaq misses the shot then it's not helping him to go to the line where on average he'll tack on an extra point, last I checked, 1>0. Or, if he completes a dunk on someone and there's contact, but they don't call a foul. He's already made the two, it doesn't help to have an opportunity for 1 more?

As it is, I don't complain about the officiating because I think it evened out with Shaq, he got away with offensive fouls, but defenders got away with fouling him, too.

Neither one of them got the fouls they should have gotten. I never said they shouldn't call fouls either. I think the other aspect of the game was of bigger magnitude - how they were reffed when they had the ball and tried to do the Patrick Ewing hop or dropped a cave man shoulder. Again... the rule was to hinder the ease in which Wilt operated. Create rules against his domination. If Wilt was doing a football charge on folks with his shoulder it gets taken away at the next referees convention. Shaq was allowed to execute physical damage as long as he had the ball. But then Wilt's numbers would be like 55ppg and guys that intentioned to brutalize him wouldn't be safe.


The numbers don't blow me away any more than any other top 10 player's, all were in different situations and many in different eras.

But they do to most people and definitely to players. Like I said in other post... . the industry standards and max production are known to all who play the game and all seeking some type of measure. They are known much better than who won and when. Those who separate themselves from the pack are also known. The other things don't mean much to the next generation.


Did Shaq distinguish himself?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/01playoffs/finals/2001-06-15-shaq-mvp.htm
I'm sure more people will know about that article than Wilts 100 points. That's a given, huh.



Oh, and :oldlol: at Blake Griffin or John Wall ever being top 10 players. They can be great, but it's obvious that they won't be in the top 10. Lebron could be, though.
Blake Griffin's doesn't really know how to play NBA ball yet and he's looking like prime Malone with Dominique's legs and Duncan's touch. He knows how to pass out of the double already. There is usually one week, in a superstars rookie season, where he plays close to what he will in his prime. Case closed. If he levels off now and wins two he's top 10 in my book.

Wall might be too fast to coach. Otherwise he's not containable. The fastest controlled player ever to play the game. But in three months you will be agreeing with me.

[Pointguard]

I've seen just about every clip of 60's game footage that's on youtube, I have yet to see anything to suggest this is correct.

LOL you quote Tommy Heinsohn but then when I quote him you want the video tape. LOL. Very curious as to why you think there are tapes are so spotted from this era? Did you think Wilt was trying to bite Lovelette when his lifelong injury happened. You doubt this as well? Honestly I know you know better... .

[ShaqAttack3234]

With a touch, post and a running game he could attain 30ppg rather easily. BY COMPARISON, Wilt had a shooters touch, he could employ a power game and a much more developed post game and he could engage in a much faster game than Stoudamire as you showed above. Wilt seemingly would get 30ppg the easy way and then some the harder way. The starting center would foul out in exhaustion and then Chamberlain has the same fodder he had in his day. With only an exception here and there in regards to strength, athleticism, power, speed, creativity, activity,

It's not like Stoudemire didn't have any shooting ability before his injury, he improved as a shooter. And who says Wilt had a better shooting touch thantoudemire pre-injury? Amare was still a much better free throw shooter. You see the highlights of the fadeaway bank shots, but you don't see how many missed.

Amare didn't lose enough athletically that he would've gone from averaging 25.2 ppg in '09 to 30 in '09 with his pre-injury athleticism. He was actually assisted on more baskets in '08 than he was in '05.

Even with Nash, his post-injury skills and pre-injury athleticism, Amare isn't getting 30 ppg from '98-'04. And those 30 wouldn't as impressive as Shaq's 30 if he scored in the same way he did from '05-'10, which is being set up a lot.

You seem to be under the impression that Wilt's team would automatically employ a running system and just outrun every team and he'd just be scoring at will, well, sorry, but it doesn't work that way. David Robinson was the fastest center I've ever seen, but his teams didn't play at particularly fast paces, and look at Dwight Howard, he consistently beats the opposing center down court and gets great position under the basket, but his teammates don't always find him.

There's a limit to how fast of a pace a team will play at today. The Warriors completely disregarded defense and ran at every possible opportunity and they barely had a pace factor of 100. Don't forget that your team can't always control the tempo either, particularly if you're playing a slow paced team, and a better team who will often figure out ways to play at their tempo rather than the opponents.


Let me make this clear that I don't doubt Shaq's greatness. I think those three years Shaq is probably as dominant as you can get in today's game. But career-wise, he's had it good in regards to playing with greats, especially when you consider that Duncan is as accomplished with far less on his side.

Look at Robinson in '99 when Duncan won a title, he was still a top 10 player and as much of a key to the Spurs dominant defense(which is what set them apart) as Duncan was.

1st round vs Minnesota (Spurs won 3-1)
Avery Johnson- 19.5 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 6.3 apg, 1 spg, 2.3 TO, 59.3 FG%, 73.7 FT%
Tim Duncan- 18.8 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 3.3 apg, 3 bpg, 1.8 TO, 46 FG%, 77.3 FT%
David Robinson- 14.8 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3 apg, 2 bpg, 2 spg, 1.8 TO, 50 FG%, 65.4 FT%
Sean Elliott- 12 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 2 apg, 1.3 TO, 43.6 FG%, 50 3P% (4/8), 83.3 FT%

Semi-finals vs the Lakers (Spurs won 4-0)
Tim Duncan- 29 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 3.3 apg, 2 bpg, 1 spg, 4.5 TO, 51.3 FG%, 80.9 FT%
Sean Elliott- 13.5 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 4 apg, 1.5 TO, 44.4 FG%, 40 3P% (4/10), 76 FT%
David Robinson- 13.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.8 apg, 1 bpg, 1.5 spg, 2 TO, 50 FG%, 73.1 FT%
Jaren Jackson- 12.3 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 0.5 apg, 51.4 FG%, 43.5 3P% (10/23), 60 FT%
Avery Johnson- 10.8 ppg, 3 rpg, 8.8 apg, 2.3 spg, 3.3 TO, 43.6 FG%, 61.5 FT%

Conference Finals vs Portland (Spurs won 4-0)
David Robinson- 17.5 ppg, 9 rpg, 3 apg, 3.3 bpg, 2.3 spg, 4.3 TO, 53.3 FG%, 84.6 FT%
Tim Duncan- 16.5 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 2.5 apg, 3.5 bpg, 2.5 TO, 52.1 FG%, 56.7 FT%
Sean Elliott- 15 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 1.5 apg, 1 TO, 58.3 FG%, 47.4 3P% (9/19), 81.8 FT%
Avery Johnson- 12 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 7.5 apg, 1 spg, 2 TO, 40.7 FG%, 80 FT%

Finals vs New York (Spurs won 4-1)
Tim Duncan- 27.4 ppg, 14 rpg, 2.4 apg, 2.2 bpg, 1 spg, 3.4 TO, 53.7 FG%, 79.5 FT%
David Robinson- 16.6 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 2.4 apg, 3 bpg, 1 spg, 1.6 TO, 42.4 FG%, 68.8 FT%
Mario Elie- 11.6 ppg, 4 rpg, 2.6 apg, 1.2 spg, 1.6 TO, 44.7 FG%, 30.8 3P%, 87 FT%
Avery Johnson- 9.2 ppg, 2.6 rpg 7.2 apg, 4 TO, 50 FG%, 60 FT%

That Spurs championship was a team effort and Duncan got as much help as Shaq, again the Spurs were just a different team. They put in more of a defense first mindset and got good production out of several players while the 3peat Lakers didn't have as strong of a defense, but had a better 1-2 punch, though they were more of a 2 star team.

I've already covered the '03 team, here's a link. There, I show that a variety of different guys would step up in the wins.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=198915&page=6

Compare the 2003 Spurs cast to Shaq's 2000 Lakers cast.

2003 Spurs
Duncan was the leading scorer in 14 of the Spurs 24 playoff games in 2003.
He was the 3rd leading scorer twice, the 5th leading scorer twice and tied for 2nd/3rd one more time.
In 16 of the Spurs 24 playoff games, Duncan had atleast one teammate score 20+
In 2 of those games, Duncan had two teammates score 20+

2000 Lakers
Shaq was the Lakers leading scorer in 17 of the Lakers 23 playoff games, he was never less than the second leading scorer
He had a teammate score 20+ in 14 of the Lakers 23 playoff games
He had two teammates score 20+ in just one game

Not to mention, that Shaq faced stronger teams in the 2000 run with the exception of the WCSF

1st round- 2000 Kings>2003 Suns
WCSF- 2003 Lakers>2000 Suns
WCF- 2000 Blazers>2003 Mavs(without Dirk for the last 3 games)
Finals- 2000 Pacers>2003 Nets(Lakers didn't have Kobe for almost all of game 2 and game 3).

Look at what Ginobili did in the 2005 playoffs, he put up 21/6/4 on 51% shooting(65 TS% and 2005 Parker was better than any 3rd option on Shaq's title teams.

Both teams had good role players, Shaq had the better 2nd option and Tim had the better 3rd option.

And if Duncan is some how ahead of Shaq in wins because one more of his rings came as the man, then Shaq is still ahead of Kobe 3-2.


Things happen and unless you are there at the time you don't really know what happened. I know that Shaq and the second best player in the league Kobe were both healthy

Kobe wasn't the second best player in the league in 2004, he was behind KG, Duncan and Shaq.


Neither one of them got the fouls they should have gotten. I never said they shouldn't call fouls either. I think the other aspect of the game was of bigger magnitude - how they were reffed when they had the ball and tried to do the Patrick Ewing hop or dropped a cave man shoulder. Again... the rule was to hinder the ease in which Wilt operated. Create rules against his domination. If Wilt was doing a football charge on folks with his shoulder it gets taken away at the next referees convention. Shaq was allowed to execute physical damage as long as he had the ball. But then Wilt's numbers would be like 55ppg and guys that intentioned to brutalize him wouldn't be safe.

Wilt wasn't willing to consistently overpower players so there's really no point in speculating about Wilt consistently overpowering players like Shaq. Wilt has admitted that he always tried to show people that he was more than a big guy, that he was skilled too.


I'm sure more people will know about that article than Wilts 100 points. That's a given, huh.

I really don't care what most people know about, or who will be remembered more. And who is to say Wilt will be remembered more as less and less people are around who saw him?

The 100 point game is just 1 regular season game, it's impressive, but the fact is, a lot of those points came when the game was already a blowout and he took 63 FGA and 32 FTA to get them.


Blake Griffin's doesn't really know how to play NBA ball yet and he's looking like prime Malone with Dominique's legs and Duncan's touch. He knows how to pass out of the double already. There is usually one week, in a superstars rookie season, where he plays close to what he will in his prime. Case closed. If he levels off now and wins two he's top 10 in my book.

Well, then you won't have an accurate top 10. Griffin averages half a block per game which is pathetic with his athleticism, and it already shows that he won't have the defensive impact that any of the top 10 big man did.

He's a liability at the line like Shaq and Wilt, yet he doesn't have Shaq's size, strength or as far as I can see, potential as a post player.


Wall might be too fast to coach. Otherwise he's not containable. The fastest controlled player ever to play the game. But in three months you will be agreeing with me.

No I will not, Wall may be a great player one day, even a hall of famer, but he won't sniff the top 10.

Neither Griffin or Wall will be as good as Dwight Howard, much less any of the top 10 players of all time. I will guarantee it.


LOL you quote Tommy Heinsohn but then when I quote him you want the video tape. LOL. Very curious as to why you think there are tapes are so spotted from this era? Did you think Wilt was trying to bite Lovelette when his lifelong injury happened. You doubt this as well? Honestly I know you know better... .

Until I see some footage of this so-called much more physical game, I won't believe it. In the 60's footage, I see Wilt being able to dribble longer without the double coming and keeping the ball lower without being stripped and I see no defense vs the entry pass or pass out to the shooter.

[ILLsmak]

Man, Shaq, you know this shit is a lost cause...

It's one of those things where you want to speak your mind and prove people wrong but then the reality is they just want to say the same shit over and over again.

Not insulting anyone's intelligence here, but I'm just saying that we all know the arguments for both sides of this. Or should by now. Someone needs to put this thread to rest and make people stop bringing up this same topic.

-Smak

[alexandreben]

Here's a thought...what if these guys switched eras?

Would they both actually be more dominant?

Think about it.

Shaq's crucial flaw was his lack of conditioning later in his career. Would playing in an era where players often smoked during halftime and pregame and only about 20% didn't have offseason jobs have helped him be even more dominant?

Wilt's crucial flaw was his lack of a killer instinct. Would playing in a more competitive and deveolped NBA have brought that out in him more than the one he played in where he was essentially a freak or modern marvel in most folks eyes?

Any thoughts?
This is a good post, let me put it this way:

Shaq's crucial flaw was his laziness and lack of conditioning in his career, I remember his played minutes even with 18 seasons was only NO.94 or something in the B-R ranking list, he played 18 seasons, yup that's a lot, but his play minutes which looks otherwise;

Think about OFFENSIVE fouls, Shaq has the most offensive fouls in the last 20 years from 1990-91 to 2009-10, which's 588 offensive fouls, even the rules change like non-charging area and hand-checking in favor of Shaq, even he got away with his elbows offensive fouls with referees' help, he still crowned the king of offensive fouls in the last 20 years, had he switch to Wilt's era, he would've been another version of Darryl Dawkins, no doubt to me;


Had Wilt played in today's game, like Jerry West said he would dominate the scoring rebounding and shot blocking, but I doubt he could've been reach what he accomplished back in the 60's, here's why: "it needs great oppenents to bring the best or the greatest out of yourself." look at today's league, Wilt simply don't have oppents, he probably would've lost interest in basketball, well, he tried quit his career many time back in the 60's, I wouldn't be suprised if he quit the ball and do something else otherwise, plus, I doubt Wilt can be as tough as he used to be back in the 60's both mentally and physically...

[ShaqAttack3234]

Think about OFFENSIVE fouls, Shaq has the most offensive fouls in the last 20 years from 1990-91 to 2009-10, which's 588 offensive fouls, even the rules change like non-charging area and hand-checking in favor of Shaq, even he got away with his elbows offensive fouls with referees' help, he still crowned the king of offensive fouls in the last 20 years, had he switch to Wilt's era, he would've been another version of Darryl Dawkins, no doubt to me;

You continue to establish yourself as the absolute dumbest poster on this board, bar none.

First of all, for the millionth time, rules weren't changed to benefit Shaq, the zone defense rules and defensive 3 second rules many thought were put in to curtial Shaq's dominance.

Hand-checking

You're the first person I've heard claim this benefitted Shaq.

Hand-checking rule change for the '94-'95 season


Hand-checking eliminated from the end line in the backcourt to the opposite foul line

I don't remember Shaq taking the ball up the court from the backcourt, or handling the ball much outside the foul line. Shaq almost always caught the ball when he was already past the foul line.

Hand-checking rule change from the '97-'98 season.


A defender will not be permitted to use his forearm to impede the progress of an offensive player who is facing the basket in the frontcourt.

Last I checked, Shaq was never a face up player.

Hand-checking rule changes from '99-'00

[QUOTE]In the backcourt, there is no contact with hands and forearms by defenders. In the frontcourt, there is no contact with hands and forearms by defenders except below the free throw line extended in which case the defender may only use his forearm. In the post, neither the offensive player nor the defender is allowed to dislodge or displace a player who has legally obtained a position. Defender may not use his forearm, shoulder, hip or hand to reroute or hold-up an offensive player going from point A to point B or one who is attempting to come around a legal screen set by another offensive player. Slowing or impeding the progress of the screener by grabbing, clutching, holding

[jlauber]

Uh, that's 2 series in that span from '98-'01. One is from '99 when he struggled and the other is from '01 when he played well.

1999- 23 ppg, 13 rpg, 1.8 apg, 49.3 FG%, 39 mpg
2001- 27 ppg, 13 rpg, 2.5 apg, 54.1 FG%, 39 mpg

So, you're numbers are actually incorrect if you average the 2 series(big surprise there).



It was a typo. I meant from the 98-99 playoff series thru the 01-02 series. Against Robinson (and the Spurs...just as it was Wilt vs. Russell AND the Celtics.)

In the 01-02 series:

Shaq averaged 21.4 ppg, 8.7 rpg, and shot .447.

Cumultively, Shaq averaged 23.8 ppg, 12.7 rpg, and shot .492 in those three series.

My main point being, that when Shaq faced a quality HOF center (who was well past his prime BTW), in the playoffs, HIS numbers dropped significantly. So, while Chamberlain's scoring dropped in the post-season, he CONSTANTLY faced HOF centers AND HOF-laden teams. He faced HOF centers in nearly two-thirds of his post-season games, and he also faced All-Star centers like Beaty, Kerr, and Embry on top of that.

Furthermore, you have brought up Chamberlain's 11.7 ppg average against Russell in the '69 Finals, on several occassions. BUT, Wilt NEVER averaged less than 20 ppg against Russell in his SEVEN other series. He also had THREE post-season series against Russell (and the Celtics) in which he averaged over 30 ppg, and 29 in another, and 28 in still another. He also NEVER averaged less than 20 rpg against Russell (in fact, without looking up the numbers, it was probably never less than 22)...and he had TWO of over 30...including one series in which he averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg for a seven game series.


Quote:
OR, how about Shaq's CAREER numbers against none other than Eddie Curry


JLauber, I've done this many times, so why do you keep posting those numbers without mentioning key details.

1st game- Curry played 6 minutes, so Curry had very little to do with Shaq's night.

2nd game- Shaq's first game of the 2002-2003 season after returning from surgery. He came off the bench, but yeah, you don't mention that....

4th game- Shaq played 25 minutes and left the game with an injury

8th game- Shaq played 2 mintues.

The fact that Shaq averaged 26.8 mpg should tell you something about those numbers.

Curry averaged 23.5 mpg. Here again, my point is that Shaq didn't always dominate his opponents, even the clods like Curry and Ostertag.

Having said that, I have ALWAYS regarded Shaq as one of the greatest players ever. I have also ALWAYS maintained that his "three-peat" Finals were perhaps the greatest ever played (although, his opposing centers in two of them were mediocre.

But, virtually no one could say that he was a great rebounder, which was a huge disappointment. Here was a man that was 7-1 and 325+ lbs, and amazingly athletic for his size,...and yet, he NEVER won a rebounding title, and even more remarkable, for instance, was his 98-99 season, at near his physical peak, when he came in EIGHTH, and only averaged 10.7 rpg.

And in 18+ seasons, his blocked shot numbers were also unimpressive. 2nd once, third twice, and 4th once.

Meanwhile, Wilt not only nearly won rebounding titles EVERY season he played (11 times in 14 seasons, and had he not been injured in the 69-70 season, he would have won it that year, too), he won titles by as much as +4.8 rpg. Even more impressively, he outrebounded the great Russell, in their 142 H2H meetings, by FIVE per game. As for blocked shots...the overwhelming evidence suggests that Wilt was the greatest shot-blocker of all-time.

[jlauber]

Did the Celtics have any injuries during that series?

(The answer is yes)

Had they avoided those injuries, would they have won in four or five over the 76ers in your opinion?

Let's get real here...

The '67-68 Sixers, without HOFer Cunningham for the ENTIRE series, still went up 3-1 against Boston. Then, in game five, Jackson and Jones went down, as well (and although they played the next games, they were awful.) And, of course, Wilt was NOTICEABLY hobbling from game three thru the end of the seven game series, ...and a four point loss in that game seven.

As for the Celtics in the 66-67 series agaist Philly. They were down 3-0, not up 3-1. In fact, it took a HORRIBLE game four by the Sixers, which resulted in a FOUR point loss in Boston, for the Celtics to avoid a sweep.

As for Siegfried...not sure how much his injury impacted his play. He averaged 14.1 ppg on .447 during the regular season, on 25.9 mpg,...and 12.3 ppg on .373 shooting and playing 28.9 mpg, while playing in all nine games. Also, there was simply no comprison between Siegfried and Cunningham.

Russell's hand injury probably impacted his play somewhat, but more than Wilt's THREE leg injuries in '68? My god, Wilt played with one broken hand, and the other sprained, in the clinching game five of the '72 Finals, and all he did was score 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 10 blocks.

The bottom line, though, was that Philly overwhelmed Boston in the '67 ECF's...while the Celtics had to overcome a 3-1 deficit against an injury-ravaged Sixer team in the '68 ECF's...and were barely able to eke out a four point win in that game seven.

[nycelt84]

Jlauber- the only poster who can make enough rationalizations and excuses to make an injury look like a win.

[alexandreben]

You continue to establish yourself as the absolute dumbest poster on this board, bar none.

First of all, for the millionth time, rules weren't changed to benefit Shaq, the zone defense rules and defensive 3 second rules many thought were put in to curtial Shaq's dominance.

Hand-checking

You're the first person I've heard claim this benefitted Shaq.

Hand-checking rule change for the '94-'95 season



I don't remember Shaq taking the ball up the court from the backcourt, or handling the ball much outside the foul line. Shaq almost always caught the ball when he was already past the foul line.

Hand-checking rule change from the '97-'98 season.



Last I checked, Shaq was never a face up player.

Hand-checking rule changes from '99-'00



You could still use your forearm on a player from a player past the free throw line, so no real effect on Shaq.

And you know what? Through of these rule changes, Shaq's numbers were consistent.

And the no charge area? That has a lot more to do with perimeter players attacking the basket and a player sliding over to the take a charge. Of course, you'd have to have an IQ over 80 to know this and you'd have to actually watch basketball instead of jacking off to Wilt pictures.

I'm pretty aware of rules change in NBA history, and I've never said that the league changed rules just to benifit Shaq and Shaq alone, a lot of players got benifit from the rules change since 82', and Shaq is definitely one of them, just like the non-charging area, Shaq did got benifit from it not just other players.

Since you give no credit to Wilt's words about the hand-checking
Can you imagine me in the paint with only one guy on me and he can't put his hands on me and nobody's beside me? , I think Shaq's words can back that up, and I m pretty sure Shaq did said something like "you cant put your hands on me in NBA" when he played fifa in the 90's, I'll search that quote out when I have time.

[ShaqAttack3234]

It was a typo. I meant from the 98-99 playoff series thru the 01-02 series. Against Robinson (and the Spurs...just as it was Wilt vs. Russell AND the Celtics.)

In the 01-02 series:

Shaq averaged 21.4 ppg, 8.7 rpg, and shot .447.

Cumultively, Shaq averaged 23.8 ppg, 12.7 rpg, and shot .492 in those three series.

No, he averaged 12.2 rpg in that series, not to mention the fact that he was injured and Robinson barely played in that series, so that has very little to do with Shaq vs Robinson. Robinson played a lot more in the '03 series, why not post Shaq's numbers in that series?


My main point being, that when Shaq faced a quality HOF center (who was well past his prime BTW), in the playoffs, HIS numbers dropped significantly. So, while Chamberlain's scoring dropped in the post-season, he CONSTANTLY faced HOF centers AND HOF-laden teams. He faced HOF centers in nearly two-thirds of his post-season games, and he also faced All-Star centers like Beaty, Kerr, and Embry on top of that.

Shaq's numbers didn't drop when facing Olajuwon in '95 and '99 or Mutombo in '01.


Curry averaged 23.5 mpg. Here again, my point is that Shaq didn't always dominate his opponents, even the clods like Curry and Ostertag.

If he had gone 1 on 1 vs them, he would've and relative to their output he did, and the Curry comparison isn't even prime Shaq and as I mentioned several of the games skew the numbers.


But, virtually no one could say that he was a great rebounder, which was a huge disappointment. Here was a man that was 7-1 and 325+ lbs, and amazingly athletic for his size,...and yet, he NEVER won a rebounding title, and even more remarkable, for instance, was his 98-99 season, at near his physical peak, when he came in EIGHTH, and only averaged 10.7 rpg.

Yes, he was a great rebounder, back to back with championship runs with over 15 rpg while carrying a scoring load that consisted of over 30 ppg. He was top 2, top 3 and 5 several times in rebounding.

He was a 12-14 rpg player through much of his prime, better than Ewing, Robinson and Duncan and about even with Garnett. Also, Olajuwon only put up slightly better rebounding numbers when playing on a team with a considerably faster pace in the late 80's/early 90's


And in 18+ seasons, his blocked shot numbers were also unimpressive. 2nd once, third twice, and 4th once.

So being among the league leaders is unimpressive? :oldlol:


I'm pretty aware of rules change in NBA history, and I've never said that the league changed rules just to benifit Shaq and Shaq alone, a lot of players got benifit from the rules change since 82', and Shaq is definitely one of them, just like the non-charging area, Shaq did got benifit from it not just other players.

No, idiot, you're literally the first person I've heard say that rules were changed to favor Shaq, in fact most people say the exact opposite regarding the '01/'02 rule changes.

[jlauber]

No, he averaged 12.2 rpg in that series, not to mention the fact that he was injured and Robinson barely played in that series, so that has very little to do with Shaq vs Robinson. Robinson played a lot more in the '03 series, why not post Shaq's numbers in that series?



Shaq's numbers didn't drop when facing Olajuwon in '95 and '99 or Mutombo in '01.



If he had gone 1 on 1 vs them, he would've and relative to their output he did, and the Curry comparison isn't even prime Shaq and as I mentioned several of the games skew the numbers.



Yes, he was a great rebounder, back to back with championship runs with over 15 rpg while carrying a scoring load that consisted of over 30 ppg. He was top 2, top 3 and 5 several times in rebounding.

He was a 12-14 rpg player through much of his prime, better than Ewing, Robinson and Duncan and about even with Garnett. Also, Olajuwon only put up slightly better rebounding numbers when playing on a team with a considerably faster pace in the late 80's/early 90's



So being among the league leaders is unimpressive? :oldlol:



No, idiot, you're literally the first person I've heard say that rules were changed to favor Shaq, in fact most people say the exact opposite regarding the '01/'02 rule changes.

So, Shaq played even worse against San Antonio withOUT an over-the-hill Robinson, then.

Here again, the DOUBLE-STANDARD. Wilt's numbers drop from historic down to "just" sensational, and he is supposedly outplayed...even though his teammates were badly outmanned, and played horribly...AND, Wilt STILL gets them to a game seven, two point loss.

Yet, no mention of Shaq averaging way below his scoring and shooting numbers in '02, as well as having Ostertag, another mediocre center, holding him to 23-12-.490 numbers in another series.

Chamberlain just crushed his opposing centers...but, if his numbers dropped...well, he was labeled a "choker", a "loser", or a "failure.". He faced the Celtic Dynasty EIGHT times in his 14 post-seasons, as well as teams like the HOF-laden Knicks in '70 and '73, and the vaunted Bucks of '71 and '72. He was facing the equivalent of the Spurs of '99 to '02 in nearly every post-season. He faced HOFers Russell 49 times, Thurmond 17 times, Kareem 11 times, Reed 17 times, Lucas 18 times, and Bellamy six times in 160 post-season games. On top of that, he faced All-Stars like Beaty, Embry, and Kerr multiple games. There were very few games when he wasn't battling a top tier center in the playoffs. And STILL he either outplayed, or downright buried those guysin every post-season series...and often with weak supporting casts.


As for rebounding...once again, Shaq, in 18+ seasons...ZERO rebounding titles. And to brag up 15 rpg in TWO post-seasons is pretty pathetic, as well. My god, Chamberlain had several post seasons of over 25, with a high of 30 (and several series of over 30.) . No matter what ridiculous excuses are made for era, Wilt dominated his peers FAR more on the glass than Shaq did his.

And you honestly believe that Shaq being AMONG the league leaders in blocked shots eight times, in 18 seasons, with a high of third, is elite? Chamberlain was swatting more of Kareem's sky-hooks per game, than Shaq averaged in his best seasons. Two seasons of over three, with a high of 3.5...and six of less than two.

Furthermore, in terms of statistical titles and records, there is simply no comparison. And, please, none of this "era" crap. Wilt not only faced far more HOF centers, he faced them far more often. He was battling Russell in 10+ regular season games for nearly half of his career...and then usually another 6-7 games in the post-season.

Nor do I want to read about the "under-sized" centers Chamberlain faced. Most all of them were far more skilled than the centers of the 80's, 90's, and 00's. And, the GREAT centers of Wilt's era were just as tall as those of Shaq's era. Russell was 6-10 and a world-class athlete. Thurmond was 6-11 with a higher standing reach than Wilt. Bellamy was 6-11. Lanier was 6-11. Kareem was 7-2. Wilt even pounded 7-2 Gilmore in their limited meeting...AND, overpowered 7-4 Eaton in an eye-witness account in the 80's...and in his mid-40's. Meanwhile, the GREATs of Shaq's era were Robinson at 7-1, Ewing at a debatable 7-0, and Olajuwon at 6-10. My god, one of the best defensive centers of the Shaq era was 6-7 Ben Wallace, who also won two rebounding titles. And the best rebounder of the Shaq era? 6-8 Dennis Rodman. BTW, the 60's had 6-8 Jerry Lucas, who was as fierce a rebounder as Rodman, and a far more skilled offensive player (he had 25 ft. range.) And Bob McAdoo was as good an offensive player as any big man in the game today.

Wilt was by far the game's greatest rebounder. And, for those that would argue Rodman...what were his numbers in the post-season? He couldn't even get 10 rpg in his post-season career, while Wilt never averaged less than 20 in the post-season, and had seasons of over 30. Chamberlain not only led the league nearly every season, and not only won rebounding titles by huge margins...he was leading the league in his LAST season...AND, he averaged 22 rpg in his FINAL post-season. And once again, he CRUSHED his opposing centers in the post-season. Wilt played in 29 post-season series...and was NEVER outrebounded in any of them. He outrebounded Thurmond in all of them, and in one by over six per game. He outrebounded Kareem in their two post-season series...and he was well past his prime, and playing on a surgically repaired knee. And he not only outrebounded Russell in EVERY series (the second greatest rebounder in NBA history), he had series in which he murdered him (a 32 to 23 margin in '67 as just one example.) Meanwhile, Shaq was outrebounded soundly by 6-7 Ben Wallace in the '04 Finals for cryingoutloud (and in one game, by a 22-8 margin.)

Scoring? Wilt won SEVEN scoring titles..and two of them by staggering margins of 18.8 and 10.8. He not only averaged 50 and 45 ppg in two seasons...he averaged 40 ppg over the course of his first seven seasons...combined! And, while he dramatically cut back his shooting in the last half of his career, virtually everyone conceded that he could have scored much more (at least in his pre-injury seasons from '67 thru '69.) And, had he played like Shaq (which the league would never have allowed) he would have been unstoppable...even in his post-injury seasons ('70 thru '73.)

Shaq does hold a slight edge in career FG% titles (10-9), BUT, Shaq also has played in 4+ more seasons. Furthermore, Wilt not only won the FG% title in his last two seasons,...he set a record of .727 in his LAST season. It certainly seems plausible that, had Wilt continued to play a few more seasons, that he would have won some more FG% titles. And not only did Chamberlain win those FG% awards...he obliterated the record books, his nearest competition, and the entire leagues, by huge margins. He outshot his nearest competitor in his '67 season, by an eye-popping .162 margin (as well as outshooting the entire league by a .244 margin.) And his .727 mark in '73 blew away the league average by an astonishing .271 differential. As great as Shaq was...he never came close to those margins.

And, while Shaq has been a very good passer...Wilt was by far-and-away, the best passing center in NBA history. He LED the league one year, and came in third in another. He had a post-season of 9.2 apg (and two post-season series that year of 11 and 10 apg.) He had 21 assists in one regular season game (and also scored 22 points with 25 rebounds in that same game), and 19 in a playoff game. He even averaged 5.2 apg in a year in which he led the NBA in scoring at 33.5 ppg.

Wilt not only was the game's greatest shot-blocker, he was probably the second greatest defensive center in NBA history (and at his peak, perhaps the greatest.) He was first-team all defense in his LAST two years, and had the award existed before '79, he probably would have won it another couple of times. Shaq was a good defensive center, but was never acknowledged as the best of his era.

[alexandreben]

No, idiot, you're literally the first person I've heard say that rules were changed to favor Shaq, in fact most people say the exact opposite regarding the '01/'02 rule changes.
look at the rules change like "no-double non-ball player" and the "non-charging area" and say these were not favor in Shaq, continue to believe your babyis not ugly, idiot!

[ShaqAttack3234]

So, Shaq played even worse against San Antonio withOUT an over-the-hill Robinson, then.

Not really, he had a big clutch performance after returning from an injury in game 1 when he played excellent defense on Duncan in the 4th and scored 13 points in that quarter(5/6 at the line in the quarter). And throughout the series, he played very good defense on Duncan

Shaq was playing with a finger injury, a wrist injury, a big toe injury and 2 ankle injuries. A fact that the commentators pointed out quite frequently.

Here again, the DOUBLE-STANDARD. Wilt's numbers drop from historic down to "just" sensational, and he is supposedly outplayed...even though his teammates were badly outmanned, and played horribly...AND, Wilt STILL gets them to a game seven, two point loss.


Yet, no mention of Shaq averaging way below his scoring and shooting numbers in '02, as well as having Ostertag, another mediocre center, holding him to 23-12-.490 numbers in another series.

The Lakers won the '02 series and Shaq and :oldlol: at Ostertag holding him to 23/12 on 49% shooting, Utah held him to those numbers.



As for rebounding...once again, Shaq, in 18+ seasons...ZERO rebounding titles. And to brag up 15 rpg in TWO post-seasons is pretty pathetic, as well. My god, Chamberlain had several post seasons of over 25, with a high of 30 (and several series of over 30.) . No matter what ridiculous excuses are made for era, Wilt dominated his peers FAR more on the glass than Shaq did his.

When have I ever claimed Shaq was as good of a rebounder as Wilt?

And no, it's not pathetic to be impressed with those numbers.

2000 playoffs- Averaged 15.4 rpg while also scoring 30.7 ppg in a 23 game playoff run on a team with a pace factor of 90.2 in the playoffs
2001 playoffs- 15.4 rpg while averaging 30.4 ppg in a 16 game playoff run on a team with a pace factor of 92 in the playoffs.
2002 playoffs- 12.6 rpg while averaging 28.5 ppg in a 19 game playoff run on a team with a pace factor of 91.5 in the playoffs
2003 playoffs- 14.8 rpg while averaging 27 ppg in a 12 game playoff run on a team with a pace factor of 92.8 in the playoffs




And you honestly believe that Shaq being AMONG the league leaders in blocked shots eight times, in 18 seasons, with a high of third, is elite? Chamberlain was swatting more of Kareem's sky-hooks per game, than Shaq averaged in his best seasons. Two seasons of over three, with a high of 3.5...

Yes, being among the league leaders in blocks eight times makes you elite in that category.


and six of less than two.

And how many minutes was he playing in those seasons, what stage of his career did those seasons occur in? Aside from the lockout year(the worst year of his prime), all of those seasons were easily past his prime.


Furthermore, in terms of statistical titles and records, there is simply no comparison. And, please, none of this "era" crap. Wilt not only faced far more HOF centers, he faced them far more often. He was battling Russell in 10+ regular season games for nearly half of his career...and then usually another 6-7 games in the post-season.

:oldlol: at these hall of fame centers. If you put guys like Red Kerr on Shaq then it's tough to imagine even modern day quality double teams being effective, much less the weak ones in the 60's.

Lets see what Wilt does in a slow, defensive-minded era with more size and athleticism.

Oh, and I guarantee he's blocking less shots with some 30-40 fewer possessions and much more athleticism in the league, plus, perimeter players with much better ball handling skills who could blow by their man easier and attack the big man, which puts the big men at a much greater risk for foul trouble. How often did you see perimeter players try to dunk on big men back then? How often did you see perimeter players blowing by their man with crossovers? Exactly.


Scoring? Wilt won SEVEN scoring titles..and two of them by staggering margins of 18.8 and 10.8. He not only averaged 50 and 45 ppg in two seasons...he averaged 40 ppg over the course of his first seven seasons...combined! And, while he dramatically cut back his shooting in the last half of his career, virtually everyone conceded that he could have scored much more (at least in his pre-injury seasons from '67 thru '69.) And, had he played like Shaq (which the league would never have allowed) he would have been unstoppable...even in his post-injury seasons ('70 thru '73.)

Yeah, and how many titles did he win when he was winning scoring titles. Oh yeah, he made the finals a grand total of 1 times in those years, had a 31-49 season where he missed the playoffs, saw his scoring cut back by shocking margins in the playoffs(and his efficiency too) and he was saved from another playoff-less season when he was traded from the Warriors who were 11-33 at the time of the trade....yep, 11-33. :roll:


Wilt was by far-and-away, the best passing center in NBA history.

:rolleyes: You sure Walton, Kareem, Sabonis, Divac ect. don't have something to say about that? :oldlol: at Wilt being "by far" the best. There have been many great passing centers. Now, I know you find Wilt and all of his numbers sexually arousing, but can you please try to remain objective.

Oh, and it's too bad Wilt waited to use his passing talents until 1964.


He even averaged 5.2 apg in a year in which he led the NBA in scoring at 33.5 ppg.

Centers assists were a lot higher back then, look around at some of the other centers, even great passing big men in the 90's and 00's couldn't match some lesser passer's assist numbers.


Wilt not only was the game's greatest shot-blocker, he was probably the second greatest defensive center in NBA history (and at his peak, perhaps the greatest.) He was first-team all defense in his LAST two years, and had the award existed before '79, he probably would have won it another couple of times. Shaq was a good defensive center, but was never acknowledged as the best of his era.

Probably the game's second greatest defensive center? I don't think so considering he wasn't even known as a defensive player early in his career. He was credited with improving that aspect of his game later.


look at the rules change like "no-double non-ball player" and the "non-charging area" and say these were not favor in Shaq, continue to believe your babyis not ugly, idiot!

Destroyed this trash, oh, and the illegal defense rule changes were put in at the height of Shaq's career or as you call them "the no-double the non-ball player" rules were eliminated.

You must have been dropped on your head a lot, either that or your parents were 1st cousins, or my guess, both.

[PHILA]

He even averaged 5.2 apg in a year in which he led the NBA in scoring at 33.5 ppg.Centers assists were a lot higher back then, look around at some of the other centers, even great passing big men in the 90's and 00's couldn't match some lesser passer's assist numbers.In '66 he had a higher percentage of his team's total assists (.217) than Shaq or Kareem ever had. Closest was Kareem in '76 (.213), which happens to be his top assists per game season with 5.4. In '67 it was .294 for Wilt. This can tell us not only who the top playmaker was in the pivot, but also how they were used in the offense as well as defensive attention received + floor spacing. With a 3 pt. line in 2000 + another top playmaker in Kobe one might wonder how many "hockey assists" Shaq had. As noted earlier, the Sixers were much more active off the ball when Wilt had the ball.


This is truly a masterful job by Wilt below faking Russell out of position so subtly.

(1:08 mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDHDg5pPrOc



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.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5

[PHILA]

Another variable is games played, notably Bill Walton who never managed to play 70 games in any regular season outside of '86.

[alexandreben]

Destroyed this trash, oh, and the illegal defense rule changes were put in at the height of Shaq's career or as you call them "the no-double the non-ball player" rules were eliminated.

You must have been dropped on your head a lot, either that or your parents were 1st cousins, or my guess, both.
dont change the subject, i didnt say a single word of the rule change after 00's, i m only talkin abt the those two rules"no-double the non-ball player" and "non-charging area" which clearly were in favor of Shaq, admit it that your baby is ugly!! :banana: :roll:

purify your brain before you talk abt someone else's parents! you continue to prove that you're one of the lowest educated person on this board...

[alexandreben]

to add one more different between Wilt and Shaq:
Wilt played clean while Shaq played dirty.

Shaq always used his elbows to clear out defenders and get away with it, had he played in Wilt's era, those clearly the offensive fouls, I wonder would he get more minutes than Darryl Dawkins?
Shaq Elbow Clearouts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCOOVLTCtII&feature=player_embedded

[Pointguard]

It's not like Stoudemire didn't have any shooting ability before his injury, he improved as a shooter. And who says Wilt had a better shooting touch thantoudemire pre-injury? Amare was still a much better free throw shooter. You see the highlights of the fadeaway bank shots, but you don't see how many missed.

Amare didn't lose enough athletically that he would've gone from averaging 25.2 ppg in '09 to 30 in '09 with his pre-injury athleticism. He was actually assisted on more baskets in '08 than he was in '05.

Even with Nash, his post-injury skills and pre-injury athleticism, Amare isn't getting 30 ppg from '98-'04. And those 30 wouldn't as impressive as Shaq's 30 if he scored in the same way he did from '05-'10, which is being set up a lot.
While Wilt went away from the Tim Duncan shot it was still decent in his later years. I saw a lot more footage of Wilt than what's on Youtube now but I guess that doesn't serve you any. Trust me on this tho, very few people can do a finger roll and its because of the touch it requires. George Gervin could do it, but not with a defender on him.

On Amare when he came back from the injury he developed a game outside of his dunk fest. Before that it was based on the speed game. In the half court he wasn't effective until post injury. He unquestionably lost explosiveness after the injury - he didn't loose ahtletism. Now, with the Knicks he's knocking down 3's and blocking shots. In NY we never seen points come so easy for a player.


You seem to be under the impression that Wilt's team would automatically employ a running system and just outrun every team and he'd just be scoring at will, well, sorry, but it doesn't work that way. David Robinson was the fastest center I've ever seen, but his teams didn't play at particularly fast paces, and look at Dwight Howard, he consistently beats the opposing center down court and gets great position under the basket, but his teammates don't always find him.
That's what I was talking about a few post back. Coaching was not up to Wilt's resources, talents and abilities back then and its' questionable if they are up to it now. It seems like coaching can work well up to a player averaging 33ppg and then it gets problematic. In Orlando, Shaq was told to run up the court to beat opposing centers down the court tho. Then when they face Houston and that gets nullified because Hakeem was like Russell. In the playoffs easier baskets do get nullified some which explains Wilts numbers dipping during the playoffs. Wilt was versatile and could resort to other playing styles but teams would have to adjust to not getting easy baskets. His teams went thru less scoring adjustments for easy points in the years he won.


There's a limit to how fast of a pace a team will play at today. The Warriors completely disregarded defense and ran at every possible opportunity and they barely had a pace factor of 100. Don't forget that your team can't always control the tempo either, particularly if you're playing a slow paced team, and a better team who will often figure out ways to play at their tempo rather than the opponents.

Teams try to impose their will on the faster paced teams. They can do that on some point guards but not all. This is why Magic is in my top 5 all time. He got you easy baskets and dictated pace regardless (This is why I am also so high on John Wall). This is why Kidd is held in high esteem. Nash has a bit more of a problem with it but he's pretty close. If Wilt is with Magic Johnson in the 80's 90's 00's Wilt's numbers would likely be the standard at center like they are now. No way he is at 30ppg and 14 rebounds. Wilt would be above that.

Duncan was the leading scorer in 14 of the Spurs 24 playoff games in 2003.
He was the 3rd leading scorer twice, the 5th leading scorer twice and tied for 2nd/3rd one more time.
In 16 of the Spurs 24 playoff games, Duncan had atleast one teammate score 20+
In 2 of those games, Duncan had two teammates score 20+

2000 Lakers
Shaq was the Lakers leading scorer in 17 of the Lakers 23 playoff games, he was never less than the second leading scorer
He had a teammate score 20+ in 14 of the Lakers 23 playoff games
He had two teammates score 20+ in just one game

Look at what Ginobili did in the 2005 playoffs, he put up 21/6/4 on 51% shooting(65 TS% and 2005 Parker was better than any 3rd option on Shaq's title teams.

Both teams had good role players, Shaq had the better 2nd option and Tim had the better 3rd option.

And if Duncan is some how ahead of Shaq in wins because one more of his rings came as the man, then Shaq is still ahead of Kobe 3-2.

To Tim's credit guys could step up because he allows the space for them to step up. He carries them thru the year and leads in the playoffs. Shaq made things unpleasant wherever he went. Kobe is probably twice as good as Gin but Shaq gets in the way.


Wilt wasn't willing to consistently overpower players so there's really no point in speculating about Wilt consistently overpowering players like Shaq. Wilt has admitted that he always tried to show people that he was more than a big guy, that he was skilled too. Seriously, did Wilt need to? Wilt rebounded like nobody else because he used his power. He didn't use it to barrel over players like Shaq did, but when guys flexed on Wilt, Wilt flexed back. When Gus dunked on him and figured he would overpower him the next time - Gus comes out with his arm dislocated - you think that happened because Gus overpowered Wilt. Or when KC Jones, Paul Silas and Bob Lanier say Wilt picked them up like they were kids or toys it wasn't like Wilt was walking around on some powerless trip now. Coaches did not choose to utilize that aspect of his greatness.

I really don't care what most people know about, or who will be remembered more. And who is to say Wilt will be remembered more as less and less people are around who saw him? Its human to measure and to look at human accomplishment and high achievement. You yourself are intoxicated with numbers!!! Have I lost my dang mind? Or do you look for the most insignificant values and quote them in every other post but think the most profound numbers in basketball will cease in favor of mundane Shaq accomplishments? Basketball fans still talk about Babe Ruth and he's long gone yet more people know how many HRs he hit over his life and in a season than know who won in 2000 in basketball.


The 100 point game is just 1 regular season game, it's impressive, but the fact is, a lot of those points came when the game was already a blowout and he took 63 FGA and 32 FTA to get them.
So his 6 seasons before his prime when he average 40 and 25 rebounds were an act of random luck too. For six years he averaged what would be among the best individual games from Shaq!


Until I see some footage of this so-called much more physical game, I won't believe it. In the 60's footage, I see Wilt being able to dribble longer without the double coming and keeping the ball lower without being stripped and I see no defense vs the entry pass or pass out to the shooter.
Your preference of what to believe and what are important numbers are quite amusing... .

[PHILA]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=140102

[jlauber]

Not really, he had a big clutch performance after returning from an injury in game 1 when he played excellent defense on Duncan in the 4th and scored 13 points in that quarter(5/6 at the line in the quarter). And throughout the series, he played very good defense on Duncan

Shaq was playing with a finger injury, a wrist injury, a big toe injury and 2 ankle injuries. A fact that the commentators pointed out quite frequently

LOL!!!!

YOU were criticizing Chamberlain for his poor game six in the '68 ECF's awhile back. Here was Wilt with an assortment of injuries, and noticeably hobbled. As Russell himself said, "A lessor man would not have played"...which, of course means, that NO ONE else would have. My god, Kareem gets an ankle injury and misses the most pivotable game of the season. Or when Kareem breaks his wrist, he misses chunks of the season. Meanwhile Wilt not only PLAYS with one fractured wrist, and the other badly sprained...he DOMINATES the game.

Of course, that just proves my DOUBLE-STANDARD theory. When Shaq has a toe injury, he can be excused. When Chamberlain has major injuries, and his performance suffers...well, he was a "choker." BTW, he STILL dominated the glass despite them..unlike ANY other center in NBA history.


The Lakers won the '02 series and Shaq and at Ostertag holding him to 23/12 on 49% shooting, Utah held him to those numbers.



Oh...so Shaq was the ONLY great player to face double-teams??? Wilt was probably the first player in COLLEGE AND the NBA that not only faced double-teams...he faced SWARMING defenses that brutalized him. I will agree that it took a team effort to slow down Shaq....BUT, Wilt faced as much, or moreso, and STILL put up astronomical numbers. Wilt's FT attempts tell enough of the story. Wilt, playing in 14 seasons, took more attempts than Shaq, in his 18+ seasons. AND, the officials certainly did not call nearly all of the fouls committed on him, either.


I won't comment further on their rebounding, blocked shots, passing, or defense. Only a complete idiot would claim Shaq as anywhere near as accomplished as Wilt in any of those areas. Wilt was leading the league in those categories, and setting records in several. AND, his DEFENSE was probably the best at the position, from the MID-60's thru the remainder of his career. All anyone needs to do is to look at what his opposing centers shot against him. In many cases it was 100 points, or more, below their normal FG%...and that includes Kareem.


And how many minutes was he playing in those seasons, what stage of his career did those seasons occur in? Aside from the lockout year(the worst year of his prime), all of those seasons were easily past his prime.



Granted Shaq has played longer than Chamberlain did. BUT, what a difference in the term, "past their prime." Wilt, at way past his prime, and on a surgically repaired knee, routinely led the NBA in rebounding and FG effiicency, and was voted first-team defense (and had there been a DPOY, he would probably have been a unanimous winner in the 71-72 season.) Shaq was a shell at age 35. Wilt was the Finals MVP.


at these hall of fame centers. If you put guys like Red Kerr on Shaq then it's tough to imagine even modern day quality double teams being effective, much less the weak ones in the 60's.


Pure speculation. I can also argue that the centers of the 60's were more skilled. Most all of them could shoot from 15+ ft., and were far better offensively than the majority of those that Shaq faced. Furthermore, give those players of the 60's all of the benefits that Shaq's era had, and they would all have been much stronger. And, I didn't see Shaq putting up 40+ point games on Robinson, Wallace, or Hakeem, either, like Wilt was on Russell, Thurmond and Bellamy. The fact was, Wilt was swarmed and STILL put up some 130+ records that remain today. And while we can only speculate on the "what-if's", we do KNOW that Chamberlain dominated his peers FAR more than Shaq did his. Furthermore, and "speculating", had Wilt been as fortunate to play against the weak centers that Shaq routinely faced in the post-season, he would probably own all of the post-season records as well. Instead, Chamberlain faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of his post-season play, and an all-star center in nearly the remainder of those games. There were very few "McCullough's or "Ostertag's" in the playoffs back in the 60's and 70's.


Yeah, and how many titles did he win when he was winning scoring titles. Oh yeah, he made the finals a grand total of 1 times in those years, had a 31-49 season where he missed the playoffs, saw his scoring cut back by shocking margins in the playoffs(and his efficiency too) and he was saved from another playoff-less season when he was traded from the Warriors who were 11-33 at the time of the trade....yep, 11-33

Of course, basketball is a TEAM game. Chamberlain's rosters on the '63-'65 Warriors were probably the worst in NBA history. AND, furthermore, Wilt nearly DIED from an illness he had before the start of the '64-65 season (which prompted the panicked Warrior's owner to trade him.) Four other points about those seasons. One, he DOMINATED not only the league, but Russell in those years, despite having probably the worst supporting cast in NBA history. My god, using win-shares, HE "won" 67% of his TEAM's games in the '62-63 season. And, unlike Kareem, he ELEVATED his play on poor teams. Secondly, Wilt took that same basic last place roster of '63, to the Finals in '64. Thirdly, while you point out Wilt's TEAM record of 11-33 when he was traded (it was actually 11-27 when he played BTW), they went 6-36 without him. And finally...a point that you and Fatal never seem to add to that 64-65 season. Wilt was traded to a bottom-feeding Sixer team. All he did was take that team, which finished 40-40, to a rout of the 48-32 Royals in the playoffs, and then to a game seven, one-point loss against the 62-18 Celtics. Find me one team in which Shaq or Kareem played on, with as poor a record, that over-achieved as much. Hell, those two played on SEVERAL highly favored teams that not only did not win in the post-season, they were either pounded by 4-1 margins, or SWEPT.

BTW, Shaq played on team's that were SWEPT SIX times in the post-season, and they should have been swept by the under-dog Pistons in '04 (only a miraculous Kobe shot avoided a sweep.) Granted, only a couple of those defeats were probably anywhere near Shaq's fault, but clearly, Wilt DOMINATED on his post-season TEAM's that lost. At least I will acknowledge that most were not Shaq's fault. NONE were Wilt's. And before you bring up the '69 Finals...it was NOT Chamberlain's fault that his COACH was an incompetent idiot (BTW, I won't take the time to look it up now, but PHILA had a great quote from Van Breda Kolf, along the lines that, yes,"Wilt could score everytime we passed him the ball...but it disrupted our offense.") Incidently, take a look at the footage of that game seven of the '69 Finals. Here again, I won't take the time to post the link now, but early in the period, the Lakers pass the ball into Wilt, and he scores easily. Amazingly, that was about the last time he touched the ball in the quarter. Once again, Van Breda COST the Lakers the title that season. Finally...Shaq's Heat went 8-25, in games he played, with him in one season, before he, too, was traded.


You sure Walton, Kareem, Sabonis, Divac ect. don't have something to say about that? at Wilt being "by far" the best. There have been many great passing centers. Now, I know you find Wilt and all of his numbers sexually arousing, but can you please try to remain objective.

Oh, and it's too bad Wilt waited to use his passing talents until 1964.



Wilt's BEST seasons BLOW AWAY those guys. As for his passing before the '64 season...

how about this fact...in his 62-63 season, in which he averaged 44.8 ppg and set a then record FG% mark of .528, he STILL averaged 3.4 apg. Two points...one, his teammates collectively shot .412, which just proves my point that the majority of them were worthless. And secondly, he made the mistake of passing the ball at all on that horrid team. BTW, how bad was that roster? Before the start of the very next season, the Warrior's new coach, Alex Hannum, had those players, sans Wilt, play against a squad of rookies and players who would not make an NBA roster...and they were beaten by them. Hannum commented that that roster had completely forgotten how to play the game. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain guided those mis-fits to the Finals that year, where they were beaten, 4-1, by a Celtic team with a 7-2 edge in HOFers, and a much deeper roster. All Wilt did was outrebound Russell, and outscored him 29-11. He may very have outshot him by a huge margin, as well.

continued...

[jlauber]

Centers assists were a lot higher back then, look around at some of the other centers, even great passing big men in the 90's and 00's couldn't match some lesser passer's assist numbers.


One, ...assists were much more difficult to get back then, and two, maybe that just proves how much more skilled those big guys were back then. In any case, Chamberlain blew away his peers in the assist department...something that Shaq never came close to achieving.


Probably the game's second greatest defensive center? I don't think so considering he wasn't even known as a defensive player early in his career. He was credited with improving that aspect of his game later.



Just because he wasn't acknowledged as a great defensive center early in his career, doesn't mean he wasn't. His huge offensive numbers overshadowed his defense.

How about 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

Chamberlain's INDIVDUAL defense was almost always solid. And, from the mid-60's on, he was probably the best defensive center in the league. So, for about 7-8 years, he was the premier defensive center in a league that had Russell, Thurmond, Reed, and Kareem. I won't take the time to repost some of his H2H games, series, and career matchups against Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, and Kareem...but in virtually every case, those players shot MUCH worse against Wilt, than they did against the rest of the league.

His TEAM defense was also outstanding from the mid-60's on, but particularly late in his career, when his coach, Bill Sharman, actually based his defensive philosophy on funneling opposing offenses into Wilt. His play in the 71-72 season may have been most dominating defense ever played...with only Russell, at his peak, as a possible exception.

And, finally, I won't take the time to post the TONS of links and eye-witness accounts of Chamberlain's extraordinary physical skills, power, speed, and leaping ability. But, let's just say that he was better at ALL of them than anyone in the game today. And, in terms of brute strength, he was certainly stronger than anyone today, and probably stronger than even a prime Shaq. Chamberlain was not only acknowledged as the strongest basketball of his generation, he was widely considered among the strongest ATHLETES in the WORLD at the time. One can only imagine what he would have accomplished with all of the benefits that Shaq's generation enjoyed.

The bottom line, though, was that Wilt dominated HIS peers, like no other player ever dominated their's.

[Round Mound]

Trust me, that's the only thing he was better than Wilt (and not by a huge margin), and it doesn't matter if we're talking about 60's Wilt or Wilt growing up in the 2000's (except that a 2000 Wilt might have stuck to a better free throw shooting technique). Honestly, do we have to bring up every 3 days the post by kblaze about generation gaps to show why Wilt would not be struggling in today's league or the stories from 80's players about Wilt at 50 holding his own against actual NBA players of the era?

Wilt was a better Rebounder, Post Shooter, Shot Blocker, Passer

Shaq an incredible dribbler for a dude that big, His Spin Moves obvioisly ala Charles Barkley. As fast as Wilt maybe in the open court but as great with ball to the basket.

But as far as a coplete center there has never been a better Pivot in the history of the NBA.

[ShaqAttack3234]

While Wilt went away from the Tim Duncan shot it was still decent in his later years. I saw a lot more footage of Wilt than what's on Youtube now but I guess that doesn't serve you any. Trust me on this tho, very few people can do a finger roll and its because of the touch it requires. George Gervin could do it, but not with a defender on him.

Why would anyone need to do a finger roll in the post? It's a dumb move when you could go up with a jump shoot or a short turnaround with don't expose the ball and seem to be easier shots.


To Tim's credit guys could step up because he allows the space for them to step up. He carries them thru the year and leads in the playoffs. Shaq made things unpleasant wherever he went. Kobe is probably twice as good as Gin but Shaq gets in the way.

This is a pathetic excuse. Shaq wasn't getting in anyone's way except opponents in 2000. That team is significantly worse if you replace Shaq with anyone else in the league at the time.


Seriously, did Wilt need to? Wilt rebounded like nobody else because he used his power. He didn't use it to barrel over players like Shaq did, but when guys flexed on Wilt, Wilt flexed back. When Gus dunked on him and figured he would overpower him the next time - Gus comes out with his arm dislocated - you think that happened because Gus overpowered Wilt. Or when KC Jones, Paul Silas and Bob Lanier say Wilt picked them up like they were kids or toys it wasn't like Wilt was walking around on some powerless trip now. Coaches did not choose to utilize that aspect of his greatness. Its human to measure and to look at human accomplishment and high achievement. You yourself are intoxicated with numbers!!! Have I lost my dang mind? Or do you look for the most insignificant values and quote them in every other post but think the most profound numbers in basketball will cease in favor of mundane Shaq accomplishments? Basketball fans still talk about Babe Ruth and he's long gone yet more people know how many HRs he hit over his life and in a season than know who won in 2000 in basketball.

Considering Wilt only won 2 rings, and was underwhelming in the playoffs, then yes, he should have overpowered people more.


So his 6 seasons before his prime when he average 40 and 25 rebounds were an act of random luck too. For six years he averaged what would be among the best individual games from Shaq!

With 40 more possessions per game, while often playing every minute in huge blowouts(I'm talking as much as 50 point blowouts), vs much weaker defenses while looking for his own numbers.

That's what I consider the context to be.



LOL!!!!

YOU were criticizing Chamberlain for his poor game six in the '68 ECF's awhile back. Here was Wilt with an assortment of injuries, and noticeably hobbled. As Russell himself said, "A lessor man would not have played"...which, of course means, that NO ONE else would have. My god, Kareem gets an ankle injury and misses the most pivotable game of the season. Or when Kareem breaks his wrist, he misses chunks of the season. Meanwhile Wilt not only PLAYS with one fractured wrist, and the other badly sprained...he DOMINATES the game.

Of course, that just proves my DOUBLE-STANDARD theory. When Shaq has a toe injury, he can be excused. When Chamberlain has major injuries, and his performance suffers...well, he was a "choker." BTW, he STILL dominated the glass despite them..unlike ANY other center in NBA history.

Do you not see the difference? Shaq won the series and ultimately won another title? Wilt blew a 3-1 lead, had a game where he shot 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line in one of the biggest games of his life. I don't criticize Wilt's performances when he did win, so you're really reaching here.


Oh...so Shaq was the ONLY great player to face double-teams??? Wilt was probably the first player in COLLEGE AND the NBA that not only faced double-teams...he faced SWARMING defenses that brutalized him. I will agree that it took a team effort to slow down Shaq....BUT, Wilt faced as much, or moreso, and STILL put up astronomical numbers. Wilt's FT attempts tell enough of the story. Wilt, playing in 14 seasons, took more attempts than Shaq, in his 18+ seasons. AND, the officials certainly did not call nearly all of the fouls committed on him, either.

Shaq faced a lot tighter double teams and more advanced defensive schemes, that's for sure.


Granted Shaq has played longer than Chamberlain did. BUT, what a difference in the term, "past their prime." Wilt, at way past his prime, and on a surgically repaired knee, routinely led the NBA in rebounding and FG effiicency, and was voted first-team defense (and had there been a DPOY, he would probably have been a unanimous winner in the 71-72 season.) Shaq was a shell at age 35. Wilt was the Finals MVP.

Shaq entered the league at a younger age than Wilt so you simply can't compare them at age 35 because Shaq was in his 16th season while Wilt was in his 13th season.


Pure speculation. I can also argue that the centers of the 60's were more skilled.

:oldlol: How many of them besides Wilt even had a post game?


There were very few "McCullough's or "Ostertag's" in the playoffs back in the 60's and 70's.

You're right, there were very few legit 7 footers with that much bulk.


Of course, basketball is a TEAM game. Chamberlain's rosters on the '63-'65 Warriors were probably the worst in NBA history. AND, furthermore, Wilt nearly DIED from an illness he had before the start of the '64-65 season (which prompted the panicked Warrior's owner to trade him.) Four other points about those seasons. One, he DOMINATED not only the league, but Russell in those years, despite having probably the worst supporting cast in NBA history. My god, using win-shares, HE "won" 67% of his TEAM's games in the '62-63 season. And, unlike Kareem, he ELEVATED his play on poor teams. Secondly, Wilt took that same basic last place roster of '63, to the Finals in '64. Thirdly, while you point out Wilt's TEAM record of 11-33 when he was traded (it was actually 11-27 when he played BTW), they went 6-36 without him. And finally...a point that you and Fatal never seem to add to that 64-65 season. Wilt was traded to a bottom-feeding Sixer team. All he did was take that team, which finished 40-40, to a rout of the 48-32 Royals in the playoffs, and then to a game seven, one-point loss against the 62-18 Celtics. Find me one team in which Shaq or Kareem played on, with as poor a record, that over-achieved as much. Hell, those two played on SEVERAL highly favored teams that not only did not win in the post-season, they were either pounded by 4-1 margins, or SWEPT.

The worst record one of Shaq's teams had in his first 15 years was his rookie team that was a recent expansion franchise that had gone 21-61 the year before, but 41-41 in Shaq's rookie year.

After that, Shaq never failed to win 50 games in any of the next 13 seasons which the exception of the lockout year when the season was only 50 games.

Put prime Shaq on any team and they aren't going 11-27 with him, or 31-50.

And that "bottom feeding" 76ers team was something like 20-19 at the time they acquired Wilt.


Finally...Shaq's Heat went 8-25, in games he played, with him in one season, before he, too, was traded.

This was a WAY past his prime Shaq in his 16th season, yet we don't have to look out of Wilt's prime to find something like this.


Wilt's BEST seasons BLOW AWAY those guys. As for his passing before the '64 season...

:oldlol: at you thinking a big man's passing ability can be measured in numbers.


One, ...assists were much more difficult to get back then, and two, maybe that just proves how much more skilled those big guys were back then. In any case, Chamberlain blew away his peers in the assist department...something that Shaq never came close to achieving.

No they weren't for big men. I've seen footage of Wilt just making easy passes out to wide open mid-range shooters, with of course no defense against the entry pass and no defense vs the pass back.

Wilt was actually a very skilled passer, but no, he wasn't "by far" the greatest, there were other great passing big men too.

And assists definitely weren't harder for big men back then with a lot more possessions and what I already mentioned. Russell didn't appear to be as skilled of a passer as Shaq or Duncan, yet he averaged more assists.

[alexandreben]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=140102

Adjust Russell's 2 best scoring seasons to 2009 and give him 40 mpg and they are.

1. 14.0 ppg, 52.3 FG%, 61.2 FT%
2. 13.4 ppg, 49.2 FG%, 59.5 FT%

Not even as good as Mutombo's 2 best scoring seasons

1.16.6 ppg, 49.3 FG%, 64.2 FT%
2.13.8 ppg, 51.0 FG%, 68.1 FT%


ShaqAttack is comparing Russell with Mutombo and Ben Wallace?:facepalm
for God's sake... i remembr GOAT posted a thread about Bill Russell's basketball philosohpy which's hell of a good one to respond to this one..

[ShaqAttack3234]

ShaqAttack is comparing Russell with Mutombo and Ben Wallace?:facepalm
for God's sake... i remembr GOAT posted a thread about Bill Russell's basketball philosohpy which's hell of a good one to respond to this one..

From that thread in the OP........


I'm certainly not suggesting that Mutombo is up there with Russell

And I did think Russell was overrated, but now I appreciate him more, though I still don't know where to rank him due to his offense. But he's in my top 10 and ahead of Wilt who I think is the most overrated top 10 player, though still top 10.

And you should be banned for staying stupid shit like Shaq would be Darryl Dawkins in Wilt's era.

[alexandreben]

everytime when someone posted something that Shaq has longer career than Wilt like 16th season or sth just make me laugh.. Shaq played 18th seasons which's 41485mins, how many min Wilt played? 47859mins!!

not even close..

[alexandreben]

You yourself are intoxicated with numbers!!!
speaking of numbers, i remember that David Robinson used to "outplayed" Shaq in stats for many years before he got hurt in 97', but it doesn't mean that Robinson was better than Shaq during those years...:facepalm

[alexandreben]

LOL!!!!

YOU were criticizing Chamberlain for his poor game six in the '68 ECF's awhile back. Here was Wilt with an assortment of injuries, and noticeably hobbled. As Russell himself said, "A lessor man would not have played"...

Of course, that just proves my DOUBLE-STANDARD theory. When Shaq has a toe injury, he can be excused. When Chamberlain has major injuries, and his performance suffers...well, he was a "choker."

LOL to the double-standard too!!!!!!

[ShaqAttack3234]

Wilt groupies can make all of the excuses they want, but these are facts.

Prime Wilt(Through the 1969 season before his knee injury)
Regular Season- 34.4 ppg, 24.3 rpg, 4.5 apg
Playoffs- 26.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, 4.4 apg

Wilt's scoring decreased by 23.3% from the regular season to the playoffs, he did up his rebounding, while assists were virtually identical, but that decrease in scoring is huge.

Prime Shaq(through the 2003 season)
Regular Season- 27.6 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 2.8 apg
Playoffs- 28.1 ppg, 12.9 rpg, 3.2 apg

Shaq meanwhile saw no such decrease, he improved in each category.

Now the second fact, Shaq has twice as many championships as Wilt.

Now the third fact, Shaq, did not playing on a losing team for his first 15 seasons, Wilt played on one in his prime, and if if you count Shaq with Miami before the trade in 2008, then you have to count the '65 Warriors too, so that's 2 in his prime, and technically, the '65 Sixers would have also been a below .500 team.....

This will be my last post in this thread because I don't feel like dealing with idiots right now.

And talking about double standards?

Unlike JLauber, I don't criticize Wilt when I felt he played well(around his usual level) and lost like the '64 and '65 playoffs.

I also don't criticize him when his production dropped and he won('67 finals)

And speaking of ignorance....

If JLauber had watched the 2002 WCSF, he'd know that Duncan also guarded Shaq a fair amount as well. And he'd also know that Duncan was criticized for his play in 4th quarters of that series, and guess who was guarding him?

Yet, he loves to point out when Wilt plays good defense vs a star big man('72 WCF), but fails to mention when Shaq does.

This is what this troll resorts to.

So I'll leave you with this, you tell me what you value more.

A player raising his game in the playoffs and consistently winning(Shaq), or a player who wins much less, declines in the playoffs and has the individual records that he set out for while playing in an era that makes it impossible for any player to match most of them(Wilt).

That same player(Wilt) also said that he often prefers losing.........

[jlauber]

Do you not see the difference? Shaq won the series and ultimately won another title? Wilt blew a 3-1 lead, had a game where he shot 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line in one of the biggest games of his life. I don't criticize Wilt's performances when he did win, so you're really reaching here.



Let's see...the series you are talking about was the Spurs series, in which Shaq performed WAY less than his regular season numbers, scoring 21.4 ppg on .447 shooting, while Kobe dominated the Spurs. AND, the Spurs had an over-the-hill Robinson and a 6-7 Malik Rose on him. Meanwhile, Wilt played one poor game in the '68 ECF's, and was playing injured in the last four games...against Russell, and HOFer and multiple all-starer Wayne Embry. Chamberlain also averaged 22.1 ppg in that series, and a whopping 25.1 rpg...including 30 rpg over the last three games. Both numbers were similar to his regular season stats.


The worst record one of Shaq's teams had in his first 15 years was his rookie team that was a recent expansion franchise that had gone 21-61 the year before, but 41-41 in Shaq's rookie year.

After that, Shaq never failed to win 50 games in any of the next 13 seasons which the exception of the lockout year when the season was only 50 games.

Put prime Shaq on any team and they aren't going 11-27 with him, or 31-50.

And that "bottom feeding" 76ers team was something like 20-19 at the time they acquired Wilt.



Shaq joined a team of Dennis Scott, Nick Anderson, and Scott Skiles...all WAY better than what Wilt had on his poor teams...and still only went 41-41. Furthermore, they added Penny Hardaway the very next season, and Horace Grant the NEXT season...all of which led to two consecutive sweeping losses in the post-season. Put Shaq, and his stats in comparsion to his peers on those horrible Warrior teams, and attempting to replace Chamberlain's overwhelming numbers, and the Warriors would have been worse.

Furthermore, Shaq, at age 35 had an 8-25 record with the Heat. Wilt at 35 won an NBA titles, and a Finals MVP on a team that went 69-13.

Not only that, but Shaq played on LOADED teams in the watered down 90's that were routinely ousted by 4-1 margins and sweeping losses.


This was a WAY past his prime Shaq in his 16th season, yet we don't have to look out of Wilt's prime to find something like this.



Nor did we EVER see a prime Shaq carrying horribly outmanned rosters to game seven defeats against HOF-laden Celtic-type teams, either. In fact, he was part of several humilating blowout defeats with SUPERIOR teams. Of course, when Shaq's teams were blown out, it was his teammate's fault. When Wilt's TEAM's were edged in the post-season, it was Wilt's fault...despite ALL of his teammates playing much worse than they did during the regular season in many of them.


at you thinking a big man's passing ability can be measured in numbers.



Of course I would expect that response from you, since it conclusively proves that Wilt WAS the NBA's greatest passing center, and by a large margin. And, had his teammates been able to shoot at all, early in his career, and he would have had even more assists. Once again, his only mistake early in his career was passing at all.


You're right, there were very few legit 7 footers with that much bulk.


Also very few teams, either. Chamberlain dominated 7-0 260 lb. Tom Boerwinkle, as well as 7-3 Swede Holbrook. Of course, HEIGHT and BULK have been proven to not be an overwhelming factor. If it were, then Shaq would have won 11 rebounding titles, or more, in his career, instead of ZERO. And, 6-8 Rodman and 6-7 Wallace would have hardly had any rebounds.

Wilt would have went up, over, around, and thru the many inept seven-footers that permeated the NBA in the 90's and 00's (and the 80's, as well.)

My god, he dominated 7-4 Eaton in a matchup in the 80's (and BTW, Eaton, who won two DPOY's, credited Wilt with instructing him.) He also pounded Gilmore in their limited time, and battled Kareem to statistical draws in scoring and shooting in the 70-71 playoffs (while outrebounding and outblocking him)...and in their lone battle before his injury in 1969, he pounded him. And, I still recall the game in which Kareem sucker-punched Hairston, and Chamberlain retaliated by overpowering him for an easy basket on the very next possession. Had he played like that his entire career, the NBA would have had to have enacted even more rules to curtail his dominance. Clearly, Wilt never faced anyone remotely close to his overwhelming strength, including Gilmore, and aside from Shaq, he wouldn't have faced any in the 90's or 00's either.

And, while Olajuwon was considered the best center of the 90's (although Sha matched him IMHO), an over-the-hill Kareem crushed him, 7-3 Sampson, and Ewing. And a way-past his prime (and on a surgically repaired knee) Wilt, by all accounts, outplayed a prime Kareem (and certainly held him WAY below his normal FG%.) One can only wonder what a PRIME Chamberlain would have done to Kareem. And if an over-the-hill Kareem could score 40 ppg on 70% shooting against the likes of Olajuwon and Sampson...what would have a PRIME Chamberlain reigned on them???? Furthermore, if a way-past his prime Kareem could pour in 40 points on Ewing, and hold him to 2-16 shooting...one has to wonder if Ewing would have ever scored a point against a prime Wilt.

[DatWasNashty]

Furthermore, if a way-past his prime Kareem could pour in 40 points on Ewing, and hold him to 2-16 shooting...one has to wonder if Ewing would have ever scored a point against a prime Wilt.
Holy shyt. Kill yourself right now.

[jlauber]

Wilt groupies can make all of the excuses they want, but these are facts.

Prime Wilt(Through the 1969 season before his knee injury)
Regular Season- 34.4 ppg, 24.3 rpg, 4.5 apg
Playoffs- 26.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, 4.4 apg

Wilt's scoring decreased by 23.3% from the regular season to the playoffs, he did up his rebounding, while assists were virtually identical, but that decrease in scoring is huge.

Prime Shaq(through the 2003 season)
Regular Season- 27.6 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 2.8 apg
Playoffs- 28.1 ppg, 12.9 rpg, 3.2 apg

Shaq meanwhile saw no such decrease, he improved in each category.

Now the second fact, Shaq has twice as many championships as Wilt.

Now the third fact, Shaq, did not playing on a losing team for his first 15 seasons, Wilt played on one in his prime, and if if you count Shaq with Miami before the trade in 2008, then you have to count the '65 Warriors too, so that's 2 in his prime, and technically, the '65 Sixers would have also been a below .500 team.....

This will be my last post in this thread because I don't feel like dealing with idiots right now.

So I'll leave you with this, you tell me what you value more.

A player raising his game in the playoffs and consistently winning(Shaq), or a player who wins much less, declines in the playoffs and has the individual records that he set out for while playing in an era that makes it impossible for any player to match most of them(Wilt).

That same player(Wilt) also said that he often prefers losing.........

I have already addressed these myths many times. Wilt's scoring dropped in the post-season for a variety of reasons. One, in his "scoring" seasons, from '60 to '66, he played in 52 of his 160 post-season games, or less than one-third. In those years, he averaged 33 ppg. Secondly, his team was so putrid in '62-63, that they didn't make the playoffs. Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg that season. Chamberlain also faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of his post-season games, and all-stars in most of the others. He also battled the Celtic Dynasty in EIGHT post-season series (some in the first round), as well as the HOF-laden Knicks in '70 (FOUR HOFers), and '73 (SIX HOFers), as well as the '70-71 Bucks without BOTH Baylor and West, and the 71-72 Bucks, whom he led to a solid 4-2 victory over. Finally, it was his COACH's who had Chamberlain cut back his scoring. The worst one, Van Breda Kolf, limited Chamberlain to less than 10 FGAs per game (on .545 shooting), while Baylor fired blanks at a .385 clip. Interesting too, that in the following season, Wilt's new COACH, Joe Mullaney, asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense, and he responded with a 32.2 ppg average in his first nine games. Unfortunately, that was when Chamberlain suffered that horrific knee injury...which did in fact, limit his offense in his last four seasons (although he still put up a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 Finals that year.)

Once again, Wilt took PATHETIC rosters against HOF-laden Celtics teams (usually with SIX and as many as EIGHT)...and four game seven losses by a combined nine points. Shaq never played on such trashy teams, and he certainly never carried them as far. In fact, he played on superior teams that were crushed 4-1 and SWEPT in the post-season...all in an era of watered-down teams.

Furthermore, Wilt did not have the luxury of facing McCullough and Ostertag's in the post-season. In fact, if Wilt's teammates would have contributed a handful more points in those playoff losses to Russell's Celtics, one can only wonder how many post-season and Finals' scoring records that Chamberlain would own. As an example, Russell had that memorable game seven against the '62 Lakers, when he posted a 30-40 game. Had Wilt's Warriors scored three more points in game seven of the ECF's, Wilt would have FEASTED on that Laker squad. Why? Because in eight regular season games against LA that year, he averaged 51.5 ppg, including THREE games of 60+ points, and a staggering 78-43 game. Russell also enjoyed his finest offensive series against the Lakers in other playoff series, as well. In the '65 Finals, he averaged 18 ppg on an eye-popping .702 shooting. Against Wilt in the previous series, he averaged 15 ppg on .451 shooting, while Chamberlain threw up a 30-30 series against him in those seven games. Russell also averaged 23.6 ppg against LA in the '66 Finals. Against Wilt in the previous series? 14 ppg. Meanwhile, Chamberlain had a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 series against Russell. Had Wilt had those opportunties, and he most certainly would have averaged FAR more in the post-season.

Shaq enjoys a 4-2 edge in rings. However, Wilt, playing against far more powerful teams in HIS post-seasons, nearly won FIVE more, and very easily could have won as many as SEVEN more.

As far as Wilt preferring to be a "loser"...another ridiculous comment. Once again, I would have loved to know when, and in what context it was taken. Clearly, he was frustrated early in his career, by a lack of a supporting cast, and the fact that he narrowly lost to much more superior Celtic teams by narrow margins.

In any case, in his 14 seasons, he played on 13 playoff teams, 12 of which made it to the conference Finals or further. Six of them made it to the Finals. He played on Six conference champions during the regular season. He played on six 50+ win teams, and four 60+ win teams. He played on the team with the best record in the league four times. And he anchored two of the greatest championship teams of all-time (68-13 and 69-13 records), which obliterated their competition, and included a phenomenal 33 game winning streak in one. Yep...he was a "loser."

[jlauber]

And I did think Russell was overrated, but now I appreciate him more, though I still don't know where to rank him due to his offense. But he's in my top 10 and ahead of Wilt who I think is the most overrated top 10 player, though still top 10.

And you should be banned for staying stupid shit like Shaq would be Darryl Dawkins in Wilt's era.



Talk about being banned for stupid ***. :facepalm

[alexandreben]

And I did think Russell was overrated, but now I appreciate him more, though I still don't know where to rank him due to his offense. But he's in my top 10 and ahead of Wilt who I think is the most overrated top 10 player, though still top 10.

And you should be banned for staying stupid shit like Shaq would be Darryl Dawkins in Wilt's era.

May I ask your list of the most overrated top 10 players besides Russell and Wilt please?:lol:


I said Shaq would've been Darryl Dawkins based on the fact that Shaq crowned the king of the offensive fouls(588 offensive fouls) player in the last 20 years, and he did get away with many of his elbow attacks.

[Pointguard]

Why would anyone need to do a finger roll in the post? It's a dumb move when you could go up with a jump shoot or a short turnaround with don't expose the ball and seem to be easier shots.
The fingerroll is very practical if you do baby hooks, fadeaways or shots in which a players shoulder is between the ball and defensive player. If a player overplays the hook, the fingerroll extends the range of release to about five feet horizontally. The fingeroll is always at least two feet closer to the rim than your jumper would be like most up and unders are closer to the rim. But it only makes sense if you got the touch: George Gervin, George McGiness were doing it and Earl Monroe whom might have been the only one with little hands to pull it off.


This is a pathetic excuse. Shaq wasn't getting in anyone's way except opponents in 2000. That team is significantly worse if you replace Shaq with anyone else in the league at the time. Where do you see an excuse??? I'm not making excuses for Shaq... Shaq got traded because he was in the way. You are pretending you don't know this. BTW, I think Duncan wins it and if you put Shaq in Duncan's place they don't win in SA. Chemistry is a very fragile thing.



Considering Wilt only won 2 rings, and was underwhelming in the playoffs, then yes, he should have overpowered people more. What you fail to understand is that they wouldn't allow him to do it anyway. They didn't allow Barkley to do it only like five years before Shaq. They didn't allow Darell Dawkins, Lonnie Shelton or Artis Gilmore to do it - all of whom could have had a lot more food on the table if they were allowed to do it. Shelton tried it for three years. It was Shaq getting favorable calls. A Shaq special. When Wilt did such things the rule committee came back the next year with an antidote.


With 40 more possessions per game, while often playing every minute in huge blowouts(I'm talking as much as 50 point blowouts), vs much weaker defenses while looking for his own numbers.
Weren't that many blowouts. Padding might affect 4 or 5 points max a game on a team needing every win. The gist is what it is. If Wilt had great conditioning and can stay in a game that would break Shaq down its not Wilt's fault. News flash buddy: Records are what they are. You can make excuses or exclude or pretend - it is what it is. Shaq could not play a game that fast and never had the endurance. Therefore, on the account of his own limitations... he is excluded from the record books... Nobody is going to tell John Wall to slow down.

How would ShaQ and Kareem keep up with young Wilt's speed and activity level??? Wilt could play their game but they couldn't play Wilt's game. Wilt was faster, more active, had greater endurance, was more creative, same if not greater athletism, took on all responsibilities of the center. Shaq was clearly a number two to his contemporary Jordan. And then Shaq never separated himself from the pack.

Shaq, rarely lead in area's where he had a great advantages - rebounding and scoring? Guys six inches smaller and 100 lbs lighter always ahead of him. Yet his whole realm of reality was closer to the basket than any other contemporary - probably in the history of the game! Heck, KG was playing the point one year in the playoffs and out-rebounded him, and was right there with him in scoring - while Shaq was in his prime - THAT should not be!

Wilt played a faster game and took on all the responsibilities of center. The other guys didn't. The other guys didn't embrace everything and just let parts of the game go to the waste side. They were down to play certain roles that they liked and at their pace. Wilt worked more of it at a higher/faster pace. If his numbers look twice as good as theirs it because he took the game more serious and with more gusto. If WIlt had twenty more possessions that meant he played 30 more possessions with all of his energy than those two, who kind of dogged it.

[jlauber]

The fingerroll is very practical if you do baby hooks, fadeaways or shots in which a players shoulder is between the ball and defensive player. If a player overplays the hook, the fingerroll extends the range of release to about five feet horizontally. The fingeroll is always at least two feet closer to the rim than your jumper would be like most up and unders are closer to the rim. But it only makes sense if you got the touch: George Gervin, George McGiness were doing it and Earl Monroe whom might have been the only one with little hands to pull it off.
Where do you see an excuse??? I'm not making excuses for Shaq... Shaq got traded because he was in the way. You are pretending you don't know this. BTW, I think Duncan wins it and if you put Shaq in Duncan's place they don't win in SA. Chemistry is a very fragile thing.

What you fail to understand is that they wouldn't allow him to do it anyway. They didn't allow Barkley to do it only like five years before Shaq. They didn't allow Darell Dawkins, Lonnie Shelton or Artis Gilmore to do it - all of whom could have had a lot more food on the table if they were allowed to do it. Shelton tried it for three years. It was Shaq getting favorable calls. A Shaq special. When Wilt did such things the rule committee came back the next year with an antidote.
Weren't that many blowouts. Padding might affect 4 or 5 points max a game on a team needing every win. The gist is what it is. If Wilt had great conditioning and can stay in a game that would break Shaq down its not Wilt's fault. News flash buddy: Records are what they are. You can make excuses or exclude or pretend - it is what it is. Shaq could not play a game that fast and never had the endurance. Therefore, on the account of his own limitations... he is excluded from the record books... Nobody is going to tell John Wall to slow down.

How would ShaQ and Kareem keep up with young Wilt's speed and activity level??? Wilt could play their game but they couldn't play Wilt's game. Wilt was faster, more active, had greater endurance, was more creative, same if not greater athletism, took on all responsibilities of the center. Shaq was clearly a number two to his contemporary Jordan. And then Shaq never separated himself from the pack.

Shaq, rarely lead in area's where he had a great advantages - rebounding and scoring? Guys six inches smaller and 100 lbs lighter always ahead of him. Yet his whole realm of reality was closer to the basket than any other contemporary - probably in the history of the game! Heck, KG was playing the point one year in the playoffs and out-rebounded him, and was right there with him in scoring - while Shaq was in his prime - THAT should not be!

Wilt played a faster game and took on all the responsibilities of center. The other guys didn't. The other guys didn't embrace everything and just let parts of the game go to the waste side. They were down to play certain roles that they liked and at their pace. Wilt worked more of it at a higher/faster pace. If his numbers look twice as good as theirs it because he took the game more serious and with more gusto. If WIlt had twenty more possessions that meant he played 30 more possessions with all of his energy than those two, who kind of dogged it.

Another great post.

I have said it many times now, but for those that diminish Chamberlain's numbers...why only WILT??? Were all the rest of the players in the Wilt-era mediocre??? West, Baylor, Thurmond, Havlicek, Barry, Hawkins, Maravich, Gilmore, Lanier, Russell, Sam Jones, Lucas, Oscar, McAdoo, Frazier, Reed, Bellamy, Cowens, Unseld, Hayes, Dr. J, and even Kareem??? ALL of whom played DURING the Chamberlain era, and NONE of whom APPROACHED many of his 130 records.

And, many of them played well into the late 70's, and Kareem played well into the late 80's. In fact, Kareem was badly outplaying the likes of Hakeem, Sampson, and Ewing while approaching 40 years of age. And yet, he was outplayed, in his prime, by the likes of Thurmond and Wilt, both of whom were well past their primes.

Why did ONLY Chamberlain score 40+ ppg, TWICE in his career? Why was it ONLY Wilt who averaged 40 ppg over the course of SEVEN consecutive seasons? Why was it ONLY Chamberlain who led the NBA in rebounding ELEVEN times? Why was Wilt the ONLY center to lead the NBA in assists? Why was it ONLY Wilt with the 100 point game? Or SIX of the TOTAL of ten 70+ point games? Or 32 of the TOTAL of 62 60+ point games (including three from the '66-67 thru the '68-69 seasons, when he was taking an average of 15 FGAs per game?) Or 118 50+ point games (and MJ a distant second with 39)? Why was it ONLY Chamberlain with a 55 rebound game (against Russell no less)? Or 15 of the 28 40+ rebound games in NBA history? Or a playoff record of 41 rebounds (against Russell no less)? Why ONLY Wilt with a 27.2 rpg game season (and another at 27.0)? Why ONLY Chamberlain with a career 22.9 rpg mark? Why ONLY Chamberlain with a season mark of a .727 FG% (and the second best mark of .683...both achieved in league's that shot between .441 to .456)? Why was it ONLY Chamberlain with 35 straight made FGAs? Ot the three highest "perfect" games in NBA history at 15-15, 16-16, and 18-18? Or a 66 point game on 29-35 shooting, and near the end of his career when he had long since been a scoring power? Why was it ONLY Chamberlain with 55 of the TOTAL of 61 40-30 games in NBA history? Or 109 of the 128 30-30 games? Or an estimated 25 blocks in a game? Or a recorded game in 1969 with 23 blocks? Or estimated 10+ bpg seasons? Or a career 45.2 mpg? Or the seven highest mpg seasons in NBA history? Or an incredible 47.2 mpg average in his 160 post-season games? Why was it ONLY Chamberlain with 126 straight games of 25+ points? Or 65 straight games of 30+ point games? Or 14 straight games of 40+ point games (achieved TWICE, and he averaged 53 and 54 ppg in those two runs)? Or seven straight games of 50+ point games? Or averaging 70+ points per game over the course of five straight games (351 points in five straight games)? Why ONLY Chamberlain with the only 20-20-20 game in NBA history (22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists)? Or the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 shooting...all just four months removed from major knee surgery)?

Why it ONLY Chamberlain that currently holds 130+ NBA records?

Yep...it must have been those "crappy" players that he faced in his career...many of whom dominated the next generation of stars.

[Pointguard]

Another great post.

I have said it many times now, but for those that diminish Chamberlain's numbers...why only WILT??? Were all the rest of the players in the Wilt-era mediocre??? West, Baylor, Thurmond, Havlicek, Barry, Hawkins, Maravich, Gilmore, Lanier, Russell, Sam Jones, Lucas, Oscar, McAdoo, Frazier, Reed, Bellamy, Cowens, Unseld, Hayes, Dr. J, and even Kareem??? ALL of whom played DURING the Chamberlain era, and NONE of whom APPROACHED many of his 130 records.

And, many of them played well into the late 70's, and Kareem played well into the late 80's. In fact, Kareem was badly outplaying the likes of Hakeem, Sampson, and Ewing while approaching 40 years of age. And yet, he was outplayed, in his prime, by the likes of Thurmond and Wilt, both of whom were well past their primes.

Why did ONLY Chamberlain score 40+ ppg, TWICE in his career? Why was it ONLY Wilt who averaged 40 ppg over the course of SEVEN consecutive seasons? Why was it ONLY Chamberlain who led the NBA in rebounding ELEVEN times? Why was Wilt the ONLY center to lead the NBA in assists? Why was it ONLY Wilt with the 100 point game? Or SIX of the TOTAL of ten 70+ point games? Or 32 of the TOTAL of 62 60+ point games (including three from the '66-67 thru the '68-69 seasons, when he was taking an average of 15 FGAs per game?) Or 118 50+ point games (and MJ a distant second with 39)? Why was it ONLY Chamberlain with a 55 rebound game (against Russell no less)? Or 15 of the 28 40+ rebound games in NBA history? Or a playoff record of 41 rebounds (against Russell no less)? Why ONLY Wilt with a 27.2 rpg game season (and another at 27.0)? Why ONLY Chamberlain with a career 22.9 rpg mark? Why ONLY Chamberlain with a season mark of a .727 FG% (and the second best mark of .683...both achieved in league's that shot between .441 to .456)? Why was it ONLY Chamberlain with 35 straight made FGAs? Ot the three highest "perfect" games in NBA history at 15-15, 16-16, and 18-18? Or a 66 point game on 29-35 shooting, and near the end of his career when he had long since been a scoring power? Why was it ONLY Chamberlain with 55 of the TOTAL of 61 40-30 games in NBA history? Or 109 of the 128 30-30 games? Or an estimated 25 blocks in a game? Or a recorded game in 1969 with 23 blocks? Or estimated 10+ bpg seasons? Or a career 45.2 mpg? Or the seven highest mpg seasons in NBA history? Or an incredible 47.2 mpg average in his 160 post-season games? Why was it ONLY Chamberlain with 126 straight games of 25+ points? Or 65 straight games of 30+ point games? Or 14 straight games of 40+ point games (achieved TWICE, and he averaged 53 and 54 ppg in those two runs)? Or seven straight games of 50+ point games? Or averaging 70+ points per game over the course of five straight games (351 points in five straight games)? Why ONLY Chamberlain with the only 20-20-20 game in NBA history (22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists)? Or the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 shooting...all just four months removed from major knee surgery)?

Why it ONLY Chamberlain that currently holds 130+ NBA records?

Yep...it must have been those "crappy" players that he faced in his career...many of whom dominated the next generation of stars.
Yeah J, Maybe it wasn't about talent. Wilt who could have easily barrelled his way to 50ppg did it the hard way with dribble and skill. But to read stuff here some times they act like you didn't have to even practice shots then. Or that the ball was the size of a spalding and therefore went into the basket easy. That walking wasn't called and big men opponents were hoisting Wilt to the rim for easy access. Maybe the court was half the size and possessions where, therefore, quadrupled and created a scenario where a skillless Wilt could thrive in. The near distance of the baskets also allowed for Wilt to get the rebound, assist and shot in one semi-long continuous motion so triple doubles were done in relative ease! Ha J, you would swear it wasn't about pure basketball.

[PHILA]

:oldlol: at you thinking a big man's passing ability can be measured in numbers.

No they weren't for big men. I've seen footage of Wilt just making easy passes out to wide open mid-range shooters, with of course no defense against the entry pass and no defense vs the pass back.


Did you read this post? How do you think KAJ or Shaq's averages would look playing the facilitator role as Wilt did in '67?


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5171587&postcount=102




He even averaged 5.2 apg in a year in which he led the NBA in scoring at 33.5 ppg.Centers assists were a lot higher back then, look around at some of the other centers, even great passing big men in the 90's and 00's couldn't match some lesser passer's assist numbers.In '66 he had a higher percentage of his team's total assists (.217) than Shaq or Kareem ever had. Closest was Kareem in '76 (.213), which happens to be his top assists per game season with 5.4. In '67 it was .294 for Wilt. This can tell us not only who the top playmaker was in the pivot, but also how they were used in the offense as well as defensive attention received + floor spacing. With a 3 pt. line in 2000 + another top playmaker in Kobe one might wonder how many "hockey assists" Shaq had. As noted earlier, the Sixers were much more active off the ball when Wilt had the ball.


This is truly a masterful job by Wilt below faking Russell out of position so subtly.

(1:08 mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDHDg5pPrOc



Two fake passes at 4:30 mark followed by a power move to the basket, drawing 4 defenders and finding an open Billy C. We can also see the defensive players with their hands up denying the active cutters.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5

[G.O.A.T]

Shaq joined a team of Dennis Scott, Nick Anderson, and Scott Skiles...all WAY better than what Wilt had on his poor teams

Wilt had two hall-of-famers in their prime who won a title as the first and third best player just three years prior, the 1958 rookie of the year and a PG who was considered one of the best college players in the country and would go on to lead the NBA in assists multiple times. You are going to say that three guys who never even made an all-star team are better than that? STOP this please...you know it's not true and so does everyone else here who cares.

[jlauber]

Wilt had two hall-of-famers in their prime who won a title as the first and third best player just three years prior, the 1958 rookie of the year and a PG who was considered one of the best college players in the country and would go on to lead the NBA in assists multiple times. You are going to say that three guys who never even made an all-star team are better than that? STOP this please...you know it's not true and so does everyone else here who cares.

ShaqAttack was referring to the 62-63 Warriors...which did NOT have ONE HOFer (Gola, who had NO BUSINESS being in the HOF in the first place, was shipped away after 20 games, and Arizin had retired after the prior season.) And, while Rodgers led the league in assists, he was among the worst shooters in NBA HISTORY. Had he just passed the ball, instead of shooting at all, maybe the Warriors would not have lost 35 games by single digits. AND, while Wilt set a then-record .528 FG% mark...the remainder of his teammates colectively shot .412, which was WAY worse than the worst team in the league. Wilt's 62-63 roster was probably the WORST in NBA history. SIXTEEN different players, with SEVERAL who only played 1-2 seasons. How bad was that roster? When Hannum took over that PUTRID roster the very season, he was shocked when a team of rookies and players who would never make an NBA roster, BEAT them (sans Wilt, of course.)

And, no, Shaq, nor Russell, nor anyone else would have been able to eke 15 wins out of that group of mis-fits. Chamberlain single-handedly carried that team to 31 wins, and while Win Shares can be deceptive, it CLEARLY was not in that season. Chamberlain was credited with 20 wins (by far the most in the league), or 67% of his team's wins. And, amazingly, they had a -2.1 differential. Wilt came close to single-handedly winning many more games, as well. And, once again, he LED the NBA in 15 of the 22 statistical categories. NO OTHER player in NBA HISTORY even sniffed that feat.

And Shaq's roster in 92-93 looked like the '92 Dream Team compared to Chamberlain's '63 roster of clowns.

BTW, I hope you are still not claiming that Wilt's 61-62 roster was anywhere NEAR as talented as Russell's 61-62 Celtics...which edged Wilt's Warriors in a game seven by TWO points? A 6-3 edge in HOFers and once again, not only was Gola a horrible HOFer (I could probably name 50 players who are not in the HOF that are more deserving)...he was AWFUL in that post-season (as well as the 60-61 playoffs.) Player-for-player, the 61-62 Celtics were either more talented, or far more talented...with the exception being Wilt.

And, once again, the team that Chamberlain joined in his rookie season was a LAST-PLACE team. Arizin was their only true great player, but he was already declining by the time Wilt arrived, and within another two years, he retired. Gola was a CAREER 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .431 shooter, who shot .206 and .271 in his last two post-seasons with Wilt. Sorry to say, but if he is in the HOF, then 90% of those that ever played should be as well.

[PHILA]

Did you read this post? How do you think KAJ or Shaq's averages would look playing the facilitator role as Wilt did in '67?


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5171587&postcount=102


In '66 he had a higher percentage of his team's total assists (.217) than Shaq or Kareem ever had. Closest was Kareem in '76 (.213), which happens to be his top assists per game season with 5.4. In '67 it was .294 for Wilt. This can tell us not only who the top playmaker was in the pivot, but also how they were used in the offense as well as defensive attention received + floor spacing. With a 3 pt. line in 2000 + another top playmaker in Kobe one might wonder how many "hockey assists" Shaq had. As noted earlier, the Sixers were much more active off the ball when Wilt had the ball.


This is truly a masterful job by Wilt below faking Russell out of position so subtly.

(1:08 mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDHDg5pPrOc



Two fake passes at 4:30 mark followed by a power move to the basket, drawing 4 defenders and finding an open Billy C. We can also see the defensive players with their hands up denying the active cutters.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5

Some more excellent examples captured in photography. :applause:


http://i51.tinypic.com/2uqizuq.jpg

http://i56.tinypic.com/2qs9ifp.jpg




Everyone here knows about Wilt's offense, but how about his defense? He faced Kareem in 28 H2H games, and held him to .464 shooting...or nearly 100 points less than his career average of .559. In the 71-72 WCF's, Wilt held Kareem to .457 shooting, but even more importantly, he held him to .414 shooting over the course of that last four pivotal games. And, in Wilt's final season, in 72-72, he faced Kareem in six regular season games, and outshot him .637 to .450.
While KAJ did have big games against him when his mobility was all but gone, there is little doubt a younger, active Chamberlain with the Sixers would have given him even more difficulty in the paint.

http://i51.tinypic.com/29o1jcj.png

[PHILA]

http://assets.espn.go.com/nba/columns/lawrence/836066.html


So who'd win this encounter, the one Orlando senior VP Pat Williams calls "the ultimate fantasy matchup?" While we're at it, who would win encounters between Shaq and the other all-time greats? First of all, there are some who don't think Shaq belongs on the same court with the legendary centers of the game, even after sweeping both MVP Awards and winning his first championship last season.

"I like Shaq, but he's not in a league with guys like Wilt and (Bill) Russell," said Tom Heinsohn, the old Celtics forward and ex-head coach. "Shaq is this game's ultimate guy. But he's not a dominating guy at both ends of the floor. He doesn't sweep all the boards. Heck, those guys used to break up an entire defense by themselves. Look at the record book. Wilt averaged 50 points a game. Shaq, he's not playing against anybody his own size. So he's just knocking people over. Not only aren't there any centers anymore, there aren't that many power forwards, either."

Fair enough. It's a perimeter player's league now.

"At one time, there were 10 great centers in the league, seven feet or better," said Miami's Pat Riley, who played with Chamberlain and later coached another Hall of Famer, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. "Shaq is the only guy right now who is absolutely dominant, based on sheer force and talent."

"Wilt would have to shoot his fadeaway and he wouldn't get a lot of dunks on Shaq," said Williams, the ex-Sixer GM. "But Wilt could defend Shaq. That would be the 300-pound Wilt, rather than the skinny Wilt at 21. Wilt would block a lot of his shots. The two giants would go toe-to-toe. To me, they'd play each other to a standstill and others would have to win the game."

Williams seemed equally intrigued by a Russell-O'Neal matchup. On paper, Russell would seemed to be overwhelmed by Shaq's size. Shaq would enjoy more than a 100-pound advantage on Russell, the 11-time champion with the great Celtics teams of the '60's. But don't discount William Felton Russell's brilliance as tactician.

"Russell couldn't have muscled him or matched up size-wise," Williams said. "But he would get into his head. In this era of trash-talking, he would probably work on him more than he would have back when he was playing. Shaq would be afraid to let the ball go. He wouldn't know where Russell was coming from. He'd deflect his shot. Russell would have had to have been at the top of his mental game. But he would have relished the challenge."

"Shaq is not used to getting his shot off against people who have equal size and power," said the former Piston and Buck, who is now a special assistant to NBA commissioner David Stern. "Don't forget, Wilt played against guys who were much better defensively than Shaq, and who had a lot of versatility at the offensive end. Heck, Wilt used to put big numbers up against Russell, and he was the greatest defensive center who ever lived."

The greatest offensive center was one of Lanier's contemporaries, Abdul-Jabbar. The league's all-time leading scorer vs. O'Neal would have been a great matchup, just to see O'Neal try to defend the skyhook.

Some say that Abdul-Jabbar would have had to move his lethal move outside a few more feet, because Shaq would refuse to allow Abdul-Jabbar to station himself so close to the basket. But there's little question that Abdul-Jabbar would have been able to score.

"With all his talent and height, he'd give anybody who ever played a hard time," Lanier said. "It's like when you talk about Magic Johnson. When a guy is that talented and that big, he can play in any era. Kareem wasn't overly powerful defensively. But with his height and athleticism and length, he would affect Shaq's shots."