Who'd rather build your franchise on: Shaquille O'Neal or Wilt Chamberlain?

[PTB Fan]

Your team has the 1st draft choice and you need a great center. Who's your choice between the two?

[JMT]

Touch choice...but only because Wilt's been dead for a while.

[Sarcastic]

Wilt is better than Shaq, so I don't really see how this is debatable.

[Rooster]

Shaq with 4 rings anyday.

[32Dayz]

I personally would take Shaq.

Shaq is much better 0ffensively and always had the will to absolutely destroy his opponents in his Young and Prime years.
He is the single most Dominant 0ffensive force in the history of the league.
From 93-02 the only way you could legitimately stop him was to double and triple team him or foul him.
Even from 03-06 he was a similar force albeit slightly less Dominant.

Shaq is a better Playoff performer and Finals performer and led his teams to far more success.



#1.
Jordan : Post Season - PER
Peak : 32
Top 5 : 30.16
Top 7 : 29.61
Top 10 : 28.89
Top 13 : 28.6

------------------------------------------------------------

#2.
Shaq : Post Season - PER
Peak : 31
Top 5 : 30
Top 7 : 29.56
Top 10 : 28.52
Top 13 : 26.55

------------------------------------------------------------

#3.
Wilt Chamberlain : Post Season - PER
Peak : 31.3
Top 5 : 28.36
Top 7 : 27.59
Top 10 : 25.46
Top 13 : 22.8


Over 10 and 13 years the difference in Production and Impact really becomes to huge to ignore.
Wilt was great in his first 5 to 7 years but after that he tails off alot compared to Shaq and Jordan.

Wilt is great though and he is Right after Shaq and Jabbar on my ATCList.

[Duncan21formvp]

Shaq. Wilt had to change his game and be traded in order to win.

[Rnbizzle]

I'm sorry but these kinda topics are so useless.. I know it's because of the lockout and all but is there really nothing better to discuss right now?

[miamiandorlando]

shaq

[jlip]

Regul8r's Wilt vs. Shaq post from Real GM (http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=0#p15319747)
Hope he doesn't mind me reposting it.

[DaPerceive]

Wilt is better than Shaq, so I don't really see how this is debatable.
What is the argument that Wilt is better and should be ahead of Shaq? Cause I don't see it.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

People who disregard postseason play are the only ones who think it isn't close.

[Sarcastic]

What is the argument that Wilt is better and should be ahead of Shaq? Cause I don't see it.

Better scorer, better rebounder, better passer, better defender, better blocker.

[Rooster]

Better scorer, better rebounder, better passer, better defender, better blocker.

In the 60s, that does not say a lot.

[HylianNightmare]

shaq, that overall career was stupendous

[DaPerceive]

Better scorer, better rebounder, better passer, better defender, better blocker.
I'll agree with you that Wilt was the better talent, but that doesn't mean he was the better player and should be ranked above him. I certainly don't think he should be ranked above Shaq in any all-time list. Shaq is just the completely superior post-season performer. For the regular season I would take Wilt, there is nobody I would take over Wilt in the regular season, but for the playoffs I am taking Shaq over Wilt 100 times out of 100.

[ShaqAttack3234]

It's closer if we're just talking about each player in their respective eras, but I'm still taking Shaq. I think that their track records suggest that he elevates teams more(can't see Shaq leading a team to a 31-49 record in his prime when healthy no matter what or an 11-33 record in another prime season before being traded), I trust him much more in the playoffs and I think he was considerabloy more effective for his teams as a big scorer(the role each player spent most of their primes in).

Wilt's '67 season deserves a ton of respect, but the big disappointments that followed the next 2 years when his teams were favored leads me to question his ability in the playoffs.

It should be noted that Wilt faced the most successful sports dynasty, but comparing the teams they won with, Wilt easily had more talent around him, even relative to his era. For example, the 3peat Lakers were a .500 team when Shaq was out, while Wilt's 2 championship teams were 50+ win teams without him. Even when Shaq won as the second best player on his team in 2006, the Heat were 10-13 without him, and that was with a very good center to fill in as Alonzo averaged 12/9/4 as a starter.

The biggest advantage I see for Wilt is durability, but if we're factoring in eras, then as I said, I see Shaq's advantage as greater due to his superior footwork, much greater use of his strength and the defenses he faced. Granted, footage is limited, but I've heard numerous times that double teaming was used far less frequently in Wilt's era. Here is a comparison between the '67 EDF and the '00 WCF and you can see Wilt being guarded with single coverage and Shaq being constantly doubled/tripled.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=209939

You can find quite players/coaches who saw, played with/against or coached/coached against both players and you'll see them give varying opinions on who was better. So those that think it's not a debate(and likely haven't seen Wilt play like myself and 99% of the posters here) should keep in mind that many who've seen both have argued for each player.

[Sarcastic]

In the 60s, that does not say a lot.

You have to measure players against the era they played in, and not try to use the elusive time machine.

BTW, Wilt played against quite a few Hall of Famers in his career. Maybe more than Shaq did, at least at the center position.

[DaPerceive]

A problem with Wilt is that people usually blindly ranked him in the top 3-5 without doing much researching or knowing anything about him. They just rank him there because of his stats and accomplishments but they don't take into context the stats and accomplishments. Wilt is an all-time great and a top 10 player of all-time, nobody denies that. People need to realize the difference between being ranked 4th all-time and being ranked 8th all-time is actually not a big difference.

[ThaRegul8r]

Regul8r's Wilt vs. Shaq post from Real GM (http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=0#p15319747)
Hope he doesn't mind me reposting it.

No, I don't mind, as I'd actually referenced it the other day. I'd actually thought it would have been pushed into message board oblivion by now. Last time I'd checked, that was like four pages away from the end.

[Vienceslav]

In time when we take a step back and really see Shaq

[Mr Know It All]

Shaq. Wilt had to change his game and be traded in order to win.

Wilt won a championship with the 6ers:hammerhead:

I would take Wilt personally. The guy could have won many more championships were it not for him having to having the juggernaut that was the 60s Celtics for several years.

Shaq was the most dominant player of the modern era, but he was also lazy and a team cancer. His new book made me dislike him intensely after reading about him slacking in practice, scolding Bryant for being a recluse and focusing on his game, and had the nerve to criticize Pat Reilly for trying to make people work hard. The guy is a joke, a freak of nature no doubt, but otherwise a completely detestable human being.

[DevilsAssassin]

Wilt Chamberlain in this era = Hilton Armstrong

[WillyJakk]

It's close and I just won't disrespect those "OG's" accomplishments cause they had to play who the League ALLOWED them to play during a very openly racist time in our nation.

W/ that said you pick:

http://www.sojones.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/shaq.jpg

[D.J.]

Shaq. Wilt had to change his game and be traded in order to win.


Shaq didn't win a title with his original team either.

[ThaRegul8r]

Shaq. Wilt had to change his game and be traded in order to win.

Shaq didn't win a title with his original team either.

Oops.

[DaPerceive]

Shaq didn't win a title with his original team either.
He didn't have to change his game though which was what he was talking about.

[senelcoolidge]

I'd take Chamberlain. Just as big and strong. Both very athletic and agile for their sizes. But Wilt was more refined and skilled. A better rebounder, passer, and defender. Shaq was unstoppable 5 feet from the hoop, but Wilt could shot jumpers 15 feet out. Great post moves around the basket.

[DaPerceive]

I'd take Chamberlain. Just as big and strong. Both very athletic and agile for their sizes. But Wilt was more refined and skilled. A better rebounder, passer, and defender. Shaq was unstoppable 5 feet from the hoop, but Wilt could shot jumpers 15 feet out. Great post moves around the basket.
I don't think anybody questions who was the more talented player of the two. As a matter of fact I don't think anybody questions that Wilt was the most talented player to play the game. However, a lot of people including myself have always questioned Wilt's mentality, which is something that nobody ever has and nobody ever will question Shaq about.

[32Dayz]

I've watched both Shaq and Wilt (albeit only older footage of Wilt mostly) and I think Shaq was a far better athlete.
In his younger years Shaq was probably similar to young wilt only he was bigger stronger and a bit more explosive.

Dont forget how quick young Shaq was and how high he could jump. Shaq set the record in his rookie season in the combine by touching the backboard at 12feet,7 inches which is still a record held today.

In the playoffs its clear he produced at a higher level then Wilt did and as the years went by Wilt declined far quicker then Shaq did and the difference in Production/Impact between the two after 7-8 years really becomes quite large.

I think its clear who was/is the better player between the two.

No disrespect to Wilt who is my 3rd Center all time on my GOAT Centers list after Jabbar and Oneal.

[ILLsmak]

Wilt is better than Shaq, so I don't really see how this is debatable.

no he wasn't. lol.

It depends on what era. If they were gonna call it like they used to call Shaq and let him be physical then Shaq is probably the most dominating player in NBA history. But if the refs were gonna be hos like they did near the end of Shaq's career then Wilt is much better.

That's one thing that keeps me from arguing Shaq's spot as the greatest Center ever because I know anyone can say, "Well, if they hit him with 2 quick BS fouls."

-Smak

[alwaysunny]

Whenever I'm asked who I'd take between 2 comparable players from different eras, I would always take the one from modern era. With Shaq, you know exactly what you're getting from him: 23-11 career stats, 30-13 in prime who led to 3-peat. But with Wilt, as good as I think he is and likely be just as good, it's mostly speculation. He may average 40-15, or just be a mediocre player. You never really know, so you're basically taking a big gamble on your franchise player. Why would you take the risk when you have a player who has proven to dominate in the recent decade?

[Carbine]

It's interesting to me that most, if not all people have Wilt ahead of Shaq on All-Time lists, but when push comes to shove regarding both of them, I can't decide which one is greater historically or in their primes relative to era.

I think I'd actually have an easier time arguing Shaq over Wilt than the other way around.

[BlackJoker23]

like comparing kobe to hal queer. celtics shaq>prime wilt who took a quilt on top of him and disappeared in crunch time

[Duncan21formvp]

Shaq didn't win a title with his original team either.
You are correct, but he did lead them to the finals and he also did go to a franchise that didn't have an established star.

[JMT]

Shaq. Wilt had to change his game and be traded in order to win.

You do know Wilt won in Philly, right?

[Duncan21formvp]

You do know Wilt won in Philly, right?
With the Sixers not the Warriors. He was drafted by the Philly Warriors who moved to San Fran and then he was later traded to the Sixers. So yeah same city but different franchise. It's like saying a player was drafted by the Clippers and left and then went back and played for the Lakers. Same city but the organizations were different.

[Lebron23]

Give me Shaquille O'Neal. Just a better playoffs and Finals performer than Wilt.

[L.Kizzle]

Give me Shaquille O'Neal. Just a better playoffs and Finals performer than Wilt.
The best center Shaq played in his title run(s) was a slightly past prime Mutombo. That would be the equivalent of Wilt best comp being Walt Bellamy.

[Pointguard]

Give me Shaquille O'Neal. Just a better playoffs and Finals performer than Wilt.

Just curious if you have Wade and Dirk as being better than Lebron? No to and fro, just a simple question.

[Pointguard]

I wonder how they would call it? Wilt got reverse star treatment in his day. Calls and rules went against him in his day. You could punch people in the face in his day. And most never seen him in scoring dominant days when his speed and quickness was at its best.

I would put Wilt on those high pace Pheonix teams with Nash, Bell, Amare, Barbosa, Joe Johnson and Shawn Marion (ok too many stars so Amare would be sacrificed). I think they would run teams to death and could be a good defensive team as well. They could play the half court as well (their main weakness at the time) with Bell, Joe and Marion great defensively and good shooters. Most centers would be huffing and puffing by the end of the first quarter. And Wilt would overpower them in the second half. It is one time when I believe that Pheonix style would work.

With the slowed down team I would put him on the Detroit Pistons team... .

[Sarcastic]

Just curious if you have Wade and Dirk as being better than Lebron? No to and fro, just a simple question.

Of course he does. You heard him. Playoffs and Finals is what matters most.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The best center Shaq played in his title run(s) was a slightly past prime Mutombo. That would be the equivalent of Wilt best comp being Walt Bellamy.

And I'd rather go up against more single coverage like Wilt faced than have 2 defenders ready to help out and double/triple consistently like Shaq faced, as well as longer, more athletic help defenders and vastly superior defensive schemes.

[JellyBean]

Wilt. Shaq is too wishy-washy for me. Wilt came to play. He would probably get lazy towards the end but at least I know that he would come into the season in shape and ready to play. Shaq, you never know with him.

[Sarcastic]

And I'd rather go up against more single coverage like Wilt faced than have 2 defenders ready to help out and double/triple consistently like Shaq faced, as well as longer, more athletic help defenders and vastly superior defensive schemes.

Should we take away from Babe Ruth's accomplishments because he did not face black opponents, and never saw a split finger fastball?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Should we take away from Babe Ruth's accomplishments because he did not face black opponents, and never saw a split finger fastball?

What does this have to do with my post? I was responding to the post implying that the other team's center being more acclaimed automatically makes it a tougher match up when that ignores huge factors, or to simplify it, NBA basketball isn't a 1 on 1 game. At least not when it came to guarding Shaq, Hakeem, Barkley ect.

Nevermind the fact that the other post was diminishing Shaq's playoff success with that point. So why exactly do you take exception to my post?

And if we're talking about accomplishments, well, then you might want to look at what those accomplishments really were, they're largely statistical and were accomplished by a player who often seemed to focus more on stats than winning titles.

Of course that's forgetting the flaws with directly comparing stats 35-40 years apart.

[Sarcastic]

What does this have to do with my post? I was responding to the post implying that the other team's center being more acclaimed automatically makes it a tougher match up when that ignores huge factors, or to simplify it, NBA basketball isn't a 1 on 1 game. At least not when it came to guarding Shaq, Hakeem, Barkley ect.

Nevermind the fact that the other post was diminishing Shaq's playoff success with that point. So why exactly do you take exception to my post?

And if we're talking about accomplishments, well, then you might want to look at what those accomplishments really were, they're largely statistical and were accomplished by a player who often seemed to focus more on stats than winning titles.

Of course that's forgetting the flaws with directly comparing stats 35-40 years apart.

How did you infer that I take exception to your post? I merely am asking a question.

You want to take away from what Wilt did because he played against simpler defenses, and the competition was supposedly weaker.

So if we are to do take away from past players in basketball, is it also fair to take away from what baseball players did in the early 1900s for similar reasons? (no black players, and simpler pitches)

[jlauber]

What kind of defenses did Wilt face in his NBA career?

http://biography.jrank.org/pages/233...lain-Wilt.html


Quote:
Several of the rules of college basketball had to be changed as a result of Chamberlain's talents, which simply dwarfed those of previous players. Opposing players double-and triple-teamed him and played a slowed-down game rather than attempt to confront Chamberlain's offensive skills head-on. These techniques helped the University of North Carolina defeat Kansas 54-53 in triple overtime in the 1957 championship game.

Such tactics also frustrated the rapidly developing Chamberlain, who startled the basketball world by turning professional rather than returning to Kansas for his senior year. NBA rules forbade him from joining the league until the year in which he would have graduated from college, so Chamberlain played for the razzle-dazzle touring professional team the Harlem Globetrotters during the 1958-59 season. He joined the Philadelphia Warriors in 1959, having already collected a large bonus for signing.

Individual Triumphs in NBA
Chamberlain was an NBA star from the beginning, leading the league in scoring and rebounding, and taking home honors not only for Rookie of the Year but also for Most Valuable Player. Frustrated by defensive tactics similar to those he had faced in college, and by what he considered biased officiating, he threatened to leave the league and return to the Globetrotters in 1960. But he did not follow through on his threat, and soon learned to outmaneuver his tormentors through sheer size, speed, and skill.






http://www.nba.com/home/history/lege...ain/index.html


Quote:
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."





http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...940232,00.html


Quote:
He stood there, just to the right of the basket, a placid. 7-ft. 1 1/16-in, giant watching impassively as his teammates maneuvered the ball in backcourt. The New York Knickerbockers tried to box him in; they clutched at his jersey, leaned against his chest, stepped on his toes. Then Wilt Chamberlain came alive. With the aplomb of a cop palming an apple, he reached out one massive hand and plucked the basketball out of the air. Spinning violently, he ripped clear of the elbowing surge, took a step toward the basket and jumped. For an instant, he seemed suspended in midair, his head on a level with the 10-ft.-high basket. Slowly, gently, the ball dribbled off his fingertips, through the net, and the San Francisco Warriors went on to a 142-134 victory. New York Coach Ed Donovan sadly shook his head. "He's phenomenal." he sighed. "How does anyone stop Wilt Chamberlain?"





http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...940232,00.html


Quote:
Most basketball stars have one great talent: Russell's is defense, Elgin Baylor's is shooting, Bob Cousy's is setting up plays and passing. Chamberlain does almost everything, better than anyone else. He is the pros' fiercest rebounder, and his shooting repertory includes such inimitable specialties as the "Dipper Dunk" (in which he simply stretches up and lays the ball in the basket), the "Stuff Shot" (in which he jumps up and rams the ball through the net from above), and the "Fadeaway Jump"—a delicate, marvelously coordinated push shot from 15 ft. away that defensive men literally cannot block without fouling.





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


Quote:
[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




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


Quote:
"I would talk to Wilt about all the players pounding on him. Sometimes, he said he didn't notice it--he was so strong. But I also believe that there were two sets of rules. By that, I mean because Wilt was so strong, the officials let the man guarding him get away with more--almost trying to equalize the game. I also believe that Wilt just took it because he didn't want to get thrown out, and because ithad always been like that with him. But I'd watch it and I'd get mad. It takes me a while to get my temper going, but when it does--look out. I'd see what the other players were doing to Wilt and what the officials were allowing, and I'd get more upset than if it were happening to me. So I jumped in there. It wasn't that Wilt couldn't defend himself. If he ever got really hot, he'd kill people, so he let things pass. But I didn't have to worry about that. I was strong for my size, but I was not about to do anything like the kind of damage would."
--Al Attles, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 242




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


Quote:
"People lose sight of the fact that Wilt was a 440 champion, a guy with great coordination. He also was so strong that the double-teaming defenses used today wouldn't bother him."
--Wayne Embry (GM for the Cleveland Cavaliers), Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 327




Continued...

[jlauber]

Continuing...

http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-...mmy-4000-words


Quote:
At 7’ 2” tall and weighing at least 250 pounds, Wilt may have been the strongest man in the league as a rookie. Despite his size, Wilt’s introduction to physical aggression in the NBA was far worse than what confronted Bill Russell. Wilt was grabbed, held, jostled and manhandled worse than any player in the short history of the league.

It went beyond rookie hazing: it was a deliberate attempt to stop the taller, stronger player by frustration and intimidation. Wilt was constantly double- and triple-teamed, hacked and whacked and smacked as opponents tried to knock the ball out of his hands. The tactics were all the more effective because of Wilt’s notoriously poor foul shooting. Even the referees contributed to the harassment, letting opposing players get away with often egregious fouls, but calling Wilt for the slightest infraction.

Wilt’s coach and teammates encouraged Chamberlain to fight back, but unwisely the Big Dipper declined. A week after his first game against Bill Russell and the Celtics, Philadelphia played the St. Louis Hawks. The Hawks center, Clyde Lovellette, was one of the dirtiest players in the league, almost as tall as Wilt, and much thicker. At one point in the game, as Wilt and Clyde ran past each other, Clyde hit Wilt in the jaw with a vicious elbow that drove two of Wilt’s lower front teeth up and into the roof of his mouth. Wilt shook it off and continued playing.

Because Philadelphia was scheduled to travel immediately after the game, Wilt did not even have time to see a doctor. His whole face swelled, an infection set in, yet the following night Wilt played the entire game wearing a large mask on his face. He played the next night, as well, despite a swollen mouth and an aching head, and being unable to eat solid food.

In that third game in as many nights, Wilt again was hit in the mouth, and, was finally examined by a doctor. The infection in his mouth was so severe he had blood poisoning and was rushed to the hospital for emergency dental surgery. He lost four teeth and missed three games.

As soon as he returned, the rough play and hard fouling continued. Midway through the season, in a game against St. Louis, Wilt got so angry at Bob Pettit’s pushing and shoving that he elbowed Pettit in the face, knocking him out of the game. Unlike Bill’s knockout of Ray Felix, it wasn’t enough. It didn’t change the way Wilt was treated because, for every team but the Celtics, the only way to slow him down was to foul him.

The Celtics didn’t have to double- or triple-team Wilt because of Bill Russell’s defense. Bill’s strategy was to deny the entry pass; if Wilt did get the ball down low, Bill stayed between him and the basket, tried to take away the lane; if Wilt got the shot off, Bill would block it if he could and always made certain to box Wilt out. Bill played Wilt clean, didn’t hack or whack, did nothing to antagonize the big man.

That assignment was given to Tommy Heinsohn. When Wilt got the ball in the low post, Tommy was detailed to stop him - punch the ball, grab his arms, and, if nothing else worked, tackle the giant. Tommy’s courage was legendary, as he proved repeatedly over the course of his career, but putting him up against Wilt seemed a horrendous mismatch. Tommy was a full head shorter and fifty pounds lighter and wasn’t the only one who considered Wilt the strongest man in the world, once calling him “King Kong in sneakers”.




http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-...mmy-4000-words


Quote:
Wilt was lucky he didn’t break any bones in his hand, but his knuckle joints were severely bruised and, by halftime, his hand was badly swollen. He continued playing but had trouble handling the ball. It was a sloppily played game by both teams and the Warriors pulled out the win.

Wilt took the floor for Game Three with his hand wrapped in a bandage. It was so swollen and sore he could hardly move his fingers. He played poorly. At one point, he pulled down a rebound, turned to look up court, and Tommy was there. Tommy punched at the ball, missed, and hit Wilt hard on the injured hand. Wilt danced around in serious pain. Tommy was called for the foul.

Wilt stood at the foul line and sent a murderous glare Tommy’s way. Tommy didn’t grab a photographer’s stool for protection. He didn’t even run out of the stadium the way he did when Red chased him over the exploding cigar. Tommy stood his ground, or, in this case, parquet, and fearlessly stared back. In their glaring contest, Wilt turned away first.

By the time his coach, Neil Johnston, removed him in the third quarter of Game Three, Wilt had only scored twelve points, his hand was practically useless, and the Celtics were running away with the game. The hand bothered him again in Game Four, which the Celtics took for a 3-1 series lead.

In Game Five in the sold-out Garden, Wilt shrugged off the swollen hand and turned in the kind of performance that Bill Russell had feared: he scored fifty points and led his team to an easy 128-107 win. The result shocked the Celtics and gave the momentum back to Philadelphia.




http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-...mmy-4000-words


Quote:
K.C. Jones, arguably the savviest team player in the history of the game, was also a rookie that year and had a front row seat for Bill and Wilt's encounters. "Bill didn't do it all. We just used TEAM. That's a word that's thrown out all over the place, but the total personification of team is what we used. We used everybody's ability, and everybody had a role out there that was natural for them. Whoever was guarding the ball had four guys back there helping his ass out. The whole is bigger than the sum of the parts; we wrote that without knowing the phrase. We knew how good we were. And we knew how to use one another because we knew one another. The most important part of it was the understanding that we had of each teammate - what this guy likes and what that guy doesn't like and who can't play defense and who shoots the ball well. We used all that. If a guy couldn't play defense, we were there, picking him up. Let each guy do what he does best."

Years later, Wilt proved that he never quite understood what K.C. was saying. "What people don't realize," he opined, "is that it was never Wilt versus Russell. I never got, or needed, any help guarding Russell. But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up."

[The_Yearning]

Shaq. Wilt would be too weak in today's league. Tyson Chandler probably could push this dude around.

[ShaqAttack3234]

How did you infer that I take exception to your post? I merely am asking a question.

You want to take away from what Wilt did because he played against simpler defenses, and the competition was supposedly weaker.

So if we are to do take away from past players in basketball, is it also fair to take away from what baseball players did in the early 1900s for similar reasons? (no black players, and simpler pitches)

I made the point in response to those that just look at the opposing center. I didn't diminish Wilt in the post you quoted, merely stated I viewed what Shaq faced as more difficult once the subject of competition came up.

And I do feel that Wilt's statistical accomplishments in context are far less impressive than you do(not just because of pace, defensive schemes ect.), but that's an entirely separate issue and irrelevant to the post you quoted of mine.

And as for baseball(which is a sport where performance can be more accurately evaluated with statistics), era is a factor such as bigger ballparks making it tougher to hit home runs earlier, but it also being more common to hit .400 or close to it. But again, that's completely off topic.

[JGXEN]

Jlauber old geezer, please answer whether you would choose Wilt or Shaq instead of posting a bunch of crap which majority of us wouldn't give two hoots about. Anyway that article is just irrelevant, just sayin'.

[32Dayz]

For those saying Shaq didnt face good defenders.

Shaq faced Tim Duncan and David Robinson over multiple years.
Shaq Dominated 4X DPOY's Mutombo and B.Wallace.
Abused Hakeem in the 95 Finals (although his team was outplayed) to the tune of 29Points/6Assists on 60% Shooting.
I doubt Wilt ever faced a post defense as good as 00 Portland with Sabonis/Wallace/Pippen.
Not to mention Shaq was the most heavily defended player ever in his Prime with constant double and often triple teams.

The only series where he really had an unfair advantage was in 02 vs the Nets but hey Tim Duncan abused the exact same team in the Finals in 03 and they would still be throwing 2-3 defenders at Shaq and he'd just Dunk over all of them. :lol

[Deuce Bigalow]

Shaq - better playoff performer, and arguably the GOAT finals performer

[jlauber]

Shaq - better playoff performer, and arguably the GOAT finals performer

I have long maintained that Shaq's "three-peat" Finals were probably the greatest ever. Having said that, though, his competition in those Finals was pretty weak. Mutombo was the only quality center, and Shaq just physically abused him. However, Mutombo did score 16 ppg on .600 shooting against Shaq.

As for Wilt...in his first EIGHT post-seasons, six of which came in his "scoring" prime, all he did was AVERAGE 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg (yes, 4.8 apg), and shoot .518 from the floor (in leagues that shot about .435 on average.)

Give me the list of players who had even ONE post-season of 29-27-5-.520?

[JMT]

I have long maintained that Shaq's "three-peat" Finals were probably the greatest ever. Having said that, though, his competition in those Finals was pretty weak. Mutombo was the only quality center, and Shaq just physically abused him. However, Mutombo did score 16 ppg on .600 shooting against Shaq.

As for Wilt...in his first EIGHT post-seasons, six of which came in his "scoring" prime, all he did was AVERAGE 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg (yes, 4.8 apg), and shoot .518 from the floor (in leagues that shot about .435 on average.)

Give me the list of players who had even ONE post-season of 29-27-5-.520?


I admire your persistence, but it's a losing battle. The majority of posters arguing with you didn't even see Shaq's entire career, and they want to critique Wilt's.

[PTB Fan]

I have long maintained that Shaq's "three-peat" Finals were probably the greatest ever. Having said that, though, his competition in those Finals was pretty weak. Mutombo was the only quality center, and Shaq just physically abused him. However, Mutombo did score 16 ppg on .600 shooting against Shaq.

As for Wilt...in his first EIGHT post-seasons, six of which came in his "scoring" prime, all he did was AVERAGE 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg (yes, 4.8 apg), and shoot .518 from the floor (in leagues that shot about .435 on average.)

Give me the list of players who had even ONE post-season of 29-27-5-.520?

Shaq was arguably the greatest performer in Finals history. His only weak Finals was in 06, wheres the others were off the charts.

[Sarcastic]

Shaq was arguably the greatest performer in Finals history. His only weak Finals was in 06, wheres the others were off the charts.

How can he be the GOAT Finals performer when he lost 2 of them, and 1 of them was a clean sweep?

Also 3 of his 4 wins were against 3 of the weakest Finals teams ever. Not one of them even won 60 games, and the centers they had were at best mediocre.

[D.J.]

Also 3 of his 4 wins were against 3 of the weakest Finals teams ever. Not one of them even won 60 games, and the centers they had were at best mediocre.


2 of the 3 titles during the Lakers 3-peat were with less than 60 wins.

[PTB Fan]

How can he be the GOAT Finals performer when he lost 2 of them, and 1 of them was a clean sweep?

Also 3 of his 4 wins were against 3 of the weakest Finals teams ever. Not one of them even won 60 games, and the centers they had were at best mediocre.

Won 3 titles in a row while being Finals MVP as well. In 96, he played really well.

Only in 06... he didn't play up really well.

[Sarcastic]

Won 3 titles in a row while being Finals MVP as well. In 96, he played really well.

Only in 06... he didn't play up really well.

I'll take 11-0 over 4-2 every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

I'll even take Jordan's 6-0 too.

I am sorry, beating up on the Eastern Conference in the early 2000s is not much of an accomplishment to me. The Blazers, Spurs, and Kings would have each won the Finals as well.

[Sarcastic]

2 of the 3 titles during the Lakers 3-peat were with less than 60 wins.

So what? The teams they faced in the WCF were all better than the teams they faced in the Finals.

[D.J.]

So what? The teams they faced in the WCF were all better than the teams they faced in the Finals.


So what? You can't bash the East for not having a 60 game winner represent the conference while the Lakers won 2 of their 3 titles with fewer than 60 games themselves. It's a double standard.

[Pointguard]

And I'd rather go up against more single coverage like Wilt faced than have 2 defenders ready to help out and double/triple consistently like Shaq faced, as well as longer, more athletic help defenders and vastly superior defensive schemes.

A natural scorer will adjust. Take a camcorder and play against your scrubby friends. Then, take the camcorder and watch yourself play against the much better friends or solid competition. The thing that will amaze you is that your friends were just as close to blocking your shot as the real comp was: of course this is providing you have a game. The mind only goes as much as it needs to go. And will slack off if it is constantly superior to competition. Its human nature to do so. Wilt, probably moreso than anybody in any other team sport pushed the separation from the pack to its extent.

Wilt was a natural scorer. He would be resourceful and found a way. When Wilt bulked up he played differently. He still averaged 44ppg because he's a natural scorer. There are some players that have natural creativity and Wilt had it. The subconscious mind would make it work. Dantley didn't have Barkley's attributes (same height, less weight, less speed, less quickness, less handle, less leaping ability, less explosion, less athletic, less strength, less range) but Dantley was definitely a superior scorer in their primes. Why? Because he was more creative, more resourceful and mentally intuned. Dantley was a natural. Wilt was a natural with great talents and skills to go along with it.

Wilt would have adjusted. He went thru more adjustments than any other star ever. Rules made for him, coaches wanting him to set-up others, be defense oriented, be scoring oriented, refs changing up and having separate rules for him, etc. He was so far ahead of his time people don't catch a whole lot about him.

[Sarcastic]

So what? You can't bash the East for not having a 60 game winner represent the conference while the Lakers won 2 of their 3 titles with fewer than 60 games themselves. It's a double standard.

They beat 60 and high 50s game winners in the West, which is better than beating up low 50 game winners from the East.

Pacers, Nets, and Sixers are 3 of the top 10 worst Finals teams ever.

[D.J.]

They beat 60 and high 50s game winners in the West, which is better than beating up low 50 game winners from the East.

Pacers, Nets, and Sixers are 3 of the top 10 worst Finals teams ever.


The Pacers took them to 6 and were a few bounces away from sending it 7.

The Sixers were the only team in '01 to beat them in the playoffs.

The Nets were competitive in 3 of the 4 games. They held 4th quarter leads in games 3 and 4.


Let's not act like these teams were complete utter sh*t.

[CarolinaBlue704]

I would take Wilt. Offensively they were both practically unstoppable. But Wilt, especially the 2nd half of his career, was a truly dominate defender. Something that Shaq never was. People forget when Wilt was well past his prime he defended Kareem better than anyone else ever did.

[PTB Fan]

I'll take 11-0 over 4-2 every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

I'll even take Jordan's 6-0 too.

I am sorry, beating up on the Eastern Conference in the early 2000s is not much of an accomplishment to me. The Blazers, Spurs, and Kings would have each won the Finals as well.

I said "arguably" greatest performer in Finals history, not greatest champion of all time.

[ShaqAttack3234]

How can he be the GOAT Finals performer when he lost 2 of them, and 1 of them was a clean sweep?

Also 3 of his 4 wins were against 3 of the weakest Finals teams ever. Not one of them even won 60 games, and the centers they had were at best mediocre.

The 2000 Pacers were not even one of the 5 weakest finals teams in the post-Jordan era. And considering he came as close to winning that series by himself as you can with even Kobe not playing that well outside of game 4, and Shaq being the entire focus of the Pacer defense and putting up 38/17/3, 61 FG% with 11.5 ppg in the 4th quarters. That's easily in the discussion for greatest finals ever. And without such a great series, do the Lakers even win that series? It went 6 with game 1 being a close game entering the 4th before Shaq took over with 12 points and several assists to stretch the lead to 15 with 3 minutes left and end with 43/19/4/3, game 2 being close in the 4th(17 points by Shaq in the quarter and 40/24/4/3 for the game), game 4 being decided in OT(Shaq fouled out, but do they even get to OT without his 14 pioint 4th quarter and 36/21 game?) and the Pacers led entering the 4th in game 6, iirc and it was a tie game/close game late, but Shaq again scored in double figures in the quarter and ended with 41/12/4.

And even if you're looking at head to head competition, Dale Davis was the primary match up against Shaq, and not a star, but not a scrub. He was a double double guy that season, a good physical defender and one of the best rebounders in the league. He actually made the all-star team that season(not that I agree he was deserving).

The 2001 Sixers had Mutombo as the DPOY who averaged 14/14/3 in the playoffs and was one of the best shot blockers/post defenders ever. The Sixers also had a top 5 defensive team and Philly played LA tougher than any of the Western Conference teams did. That's certainly a tough team/center to put up 33/16/5/3, 57 FG% against and start off the series with 44/20/5 followed by 28/20/9/8.

The 2002 Nets centers were overmatched and a really weak team. The series wasn't that competitive, but they were the best defensive team and averaging 36/12/4, 60 FG% in any finals is impressive.

Those were extremely impressive performances. I'd rank Jordan ahead of him, but Shaq is a top 3 finals performer ever, imo.


So what? The teams they faced in the WCF were all better than the teams they faced in the Finals.

Yet as I pointed out the Pacer series was in no way a guarantee, especially given Kobe's injury. Phil Jackson called Indiana a more talented team as far as their main rotation guys(top 8-9 players) and they did have more depth/balance than the Lakers and were the best offensive team in the league. LA was the favorite, but primarily because of Shaq.

And again, the Philly series was more competitive than any other series LA played in 2001.

[KingBeasley08]

Shaq easily

[Kobe 4 The Win]

You can't go wrong with either of these guys but I'd rather have The Shaq Diesel. You know what you are gonna get from him. Wilt's performance in this era is an unknown quantity. Shaq in his prime couldn't really be guarded by any big man in history. He'd be the greatest center in history by far if his work ethic was on the Jordan/Kobe level.

[JMT]

You can't go wrong with either of these guys but I'd rather have The Shaq Diesel. You know what you are gonna get from him. Wilt's performance in this era is an unknown quantity. Shaq in his prime couldn't really be guarded by any big man in history. He'd be the greatest center in history by far if his work ethic was on the Jordan/Kobe level.

So Shaq, who racked up his numbers in the weakest era of big men in history and who didn't have an elite work ethis, is a known...but Wilt, who dominated nearly his entire career at a level that Shaq never approached and who played nightly against legitimate bigs when they ruled the game, is an unknown?

[305Baller]

I never saw 'The Stilt' play.

:cry:

[Kobe 4 The Win]

So Shaq, who racked up his numbers in the weakest era of big men in history and who didn't have an elite work ethis, is a known...but Wilt, who dominated nearly his entire career at a level that Shaq never approached and who played nightly against legitimate bigs when they ruled the game, is an unknown?

Oh yeah, because Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mutombo, Alonzo, Duncan, Yao, were weak.

Idiot

[305Baller]

Oh yeah, because Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mutombo, Alonzo, Duncan, Yao, were weak.

Idiot

:roll:

[Pointguard]

I'll agree with you that Wilt was the better talent, but that doesn't mean he was the better player and should be ranked above him. I certainly don't think he should be ranked above Shaq in any all-time list. Shaq is just the completely superior post-season performer. For the regular season I would take Wilt, there is nobody I would take over Wilt in the regular season, but for the playoffs I am taking Shaq over Wilt 100 times out of 100.

Wilt lacks only in scoring career wise ppg in the playoffs in comparison with Shaq and that's by 2 ppg. When Wilt was in his scoring years he is definitely a higher scorer than Shaq's best years... in the playoffs.

Wilt's scoring peak of four years is a whopping plus 5ppg in the playoffs and its considerably bigger if we do three years. About the same if we do five.

Wilt has twice as many rebounds per game in the playoffs.

Wilt's more than likely blocked twice as many shots per game in the playoffs.

Wilt played better defense.

Maybe they were equal in passing.

There is no completely in there whatsoever.

[DaPerceive]

Wilt lacks only in scoring career wise ppg in the playoffs in comparison with Shaq and that's by 2 ppg. When Wilt was in his scoring years he is definitely a higher scorer than Shaq's best years... in the playoffs.

Wilt's scoring peak of four years is a whopping plus 5ppg in the playoffs and its considerably bigger if we do three years. About the same if we do five.

Wilt has twice as many rebounds per game in the playoffs.

Wilt's more than likely blocked twice as many shots per game in the playoffs.

Wilt played better defense.

Maybe they were equal in passing.

There is no completely in there whatsoever.
Too bad I never argued he was more productive. It's not even accurate seeing that Wilt's pace was a lot faster so Wilt's numbers should be higher if anything. Shaq has a higher PER for his career in the post-season than Wilt does so that should say something.

I'll take the player with 3 finals MVPs over the player with one, thanks.

[Pointguard]

Another thing being overlooked here is that the refs could have totally taken Shaq out of his element if they wanted to. Things that were fouls before Shaq were changed for Shaq. The refs went after Wilt with walk calls and allowing guys to ride him. Calling the game differently for him against other players. Shaq walked a lot. Shaq had a bulldozing technique that they wouldn't let Wilt do. Shaq was allowed to use his will to pummel over players. Wilt with today's liberties would be at another level.

[D-Wade316]

Too bad I never argued he was more productive. It's not even accurate seeing that Wilt's pace was a lot faster so Wilt's numbers should be higher if anything. Shaq has a higher PER for his career in the post-season than Wilt does so that should say something.

I'll take the player with 3 finals MVPs over the player with one, thanks.
IMO, PER doesn't do justice to players who played in the 60s. Dominating a game back then was far more difficult than as of now. The reason why is because of physical fatigue. No one can consistently put elite numbers without feeling physical exhaustion. It isn't just about simple mathematics, and pace adjustments.

[305Baller]

Another thing being overlooked here is that the refs could have totally taken Shaq out of his element if they wanted to. Things that were fouls before Shaq were changed for Shaq. The refs went after Wilt with walk calls and allowing guys to ride him. Calling the game differently for him against other players. Shaq walked a lot. Shaq had a bulldozing technique that they wouldn't let Wilt do. Shaq was allowed to use his will to pummel over players. Wilt with today's liberties would be at another level.

so your'e saying Shaq is a manufactured superstar? yes i think you are.

[Pointguard]

Too bad I never argued he was more productive. It's not even accurate seeing that Wilt's pace was a lot faster so Wilt's numbers should be higher if anything. Shaq has a higher PER for his career in the post-season than Wilt does so that should say something.

I'll take the player with 3 finals MVPs over the player with one, thanks.
No YOU said PERFORMANCE and you said completely. You didn't say anything about finals or finals MVP's. I addressed what you said. Defense had nothing to do with pace. Rebounding twice as much when the game wasn't played twice as fast kind of ruins your pace argument. Shaq didn't go after blocks and rebounds. Chauncy Billups, playing without an allstar on his team, got a finals MVP playing opposite prime Kobe and Shaq so I ain't with that argument either.

[Pointguard]

so your'e saying Shaq is a manufactured superstar? yes i think you are.
:lol

[Collie]

I'd take Shaq. Lesser baggage, and that's saying a LOT with Shaq.

[jlip]

I think it's important to understand the difference between how greatness was/is determined in Wilt's era and in Shaq's era. Wilt had 35+ppg playoff runs early in his career, but they did not result in titles nor a reputation for being the best player in the game. In his era, especially for centers, the "Russell model" was the template for greatness. By this I mean, being the ultimate team player who sacrificed individual stats (i.e. scoring) for the sake of bettering the team. As a center you were supposed to dominate defensively, rebound, facilitate from the pivot, and score when called upon. That's why most people consider his '67 season his best, even better than '62. It's also the reason why he won Finals MVP in '72 despite being only the 3rd leading scorer on his own team in that Finals. I can't fathom a player in the modern era winning a Finals MVP while being third on his team in scoring.

Conversely, Shaq played in the post MJ era where greatness was/is heavily conflated with dominant scoring. All "great" players, irrespective of position (other than pgs) are considered "the man" if they can be their team's leading scorer. To an extent, in the modern era, greatness is viewed as not simply dominating your opponent, but also dominating your own teammates. As opposed to "lifting" your teammates, you're supposed to be "carrying" your teammates now.

[305Baller]

"To an extent, in the modern era, greatness is viewed as not simply dominating your opponent, but also dominating your own teammates. As opposed to "lifting" your teammates, you're supposed to be "carrying" your teammates now."

And that is why I have stopped playing street basketball full court games.

[jlauber]

Oh yeah, because Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mutombo, Alonzo, Duncan, Yao, were weak.

Idiot

And a BUNCH of scrubs, as well. There were 27 to 30 teams in the league in Shaq's career. And he only faced the quality centers a few games each season, too.

And some posters here bring up this fallacy that Shaq was a better post-season performer. How many times did he face Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mutombo, Alonzo, Duncan, and Yao in the playoffs. (And keep in mind that Robinson and Duncan were on the same team in a couple of those series)?

Wilt faced a HOF starting center in 99 of his 160 post-season games. How many starting HOFers did Shaq face in his 216 playoff games?



I'll agree with you that Wilt was the better talent, but that doesn't mean he was the better player and should be ranked above him. I certainly don't think he should be ranked above Shaq in any all-time list. Shaq is just the completely superior post-season performer. For the regular season I would take Wilt, there is nobody I would take over Wilt in the regular season, but for the playoffs I am taking Shaq over Wilt 100 times out of 100.


Pointguard already covered this, but...

First of all, I agree that Shaq was truly a dominant post-season player. His defense was somewhat under-rated, as was his rebounding. He held Duncan to extremely poor 4th quarters in their several H2H battles. He also usually outrebounded his opposing centers, although there were some series in which he did not. For example, he outrebounded Mutombo in their one H2H Finals. But 6-7 Ben Wallace outrebounded him in their one H2H (to Shaq's credit, he had a HUGE offensive series against him, though.)

But, in any case, how can anyone say that Shaq was a COMPLETELY better post-season player? He holds a SLIGHT edge in scoring per game, 24.3 ppg to 22.5 ppg. And he holds a solid .563 to .522 margin in FG%. However, to be fair to Chamberlain, Wilt only played in six post-seasons in his "scoring" seasons (and his horrible team was so bad in 62-63, that he didn't get an opportunity to play in the playoffs,... in a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting.) AND, Wilt played in leagues that generally shot considerably worse than those that Shaq played in.

The "scoring" Wilt averaged 32 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .510 (in leagues that averaged about .430 shooting), in those six straight post-seasons...COMBINED. Furthermore, Wilt's numbers were dramatically impacted in those "scoring" playoffs by the fact that he faced Russell in 30 of those 52 games.

I realize it is pure speculation, but think about this...had Wilt's teammates somehow been able to score three more points in game seven of the '62 ECF's, and Wilt would have faced the Lakers in the Finals. So what you ask? Russell had a huge seven game series against the Lakers that year, including a 30-40 game seven. Now, Wilt faced the Lakers in eight regular season games that season, and averaged 51.5 ppg against them. Furthermore, Wilt had three games of 60 points against them, including a 78-43 game. I have long maintained that had Wilt been fortunate enough to make the Finals that season, that he would have probably set the Finals scoring records.

And, as ShaqAttack posted a while back, in Wilt's first eight post-seasons, (covering his first nine seasons), Chamberlain averaged 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and on .518 shooting (in leagues that shot between .410 to .446.) Here again, how can anyone say that Wilt "declined" in his post-season play, when the man was averaging 29-27-5-.520 in his first straight eight post-seasons...COMBINED? Once again, give me ONE other player, in NBA post-season HISTORY, who had even ONE 29-27-5-.520 post-season!

Wilt also had FOUR post-season games of 50+ points, with a 56-35 game five in a best-of-five series; a 53-22 game; a 50 point game on 22-32 shooting; and a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting) in a "must win" game five of the '60 ECF's, and against Russell.

Chamberlain had FOUR post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg (on .543 shooting in a league that shot .426), 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. He also had SEVERAL 30+ ppg playoff series, including FOUR against Russell (and in one of those, he had a seven game series of 30 ppg and 31 rpg.) He also had a monster 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg, .559 series against Zelmo Beaty, who was a five-time all-star in his career. And in one of the few times he faced a non-all star, Connie Dierking, in the '67 playoffs, he hung a 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .612 series on him. A PRIME Chamberlain just CRUSHED the few non-HOFers that he faced.

Wilt's post-season scoring numbers dropped considerably after the 67-68 season, but they also went down in the regular season, as well. But even after he shredded his knee early in the 69-70 season, he STILL hung a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 FG% seven game series against the 60-22 Knicks in the Finals that year.

And there are very few that acknowledge Wilt's great DEFENSE in the post-season, either. He held Russell to .420 shooting in the '62 ECF's, and .358 shooting in the '67 ECF's. And, he probably held Russell down to around 40% shooting, or less, in a couple of other series, as well.

He faced Thurmond in three playoff series, and not only badly outrebounded him in all of them, he outshot Nate by margins of .500 to .398; .550 to .392; and .560 to .343. You will probably not find one other series in Thurmond's post-season career, in which he allowed over 49% shooting, and here was Wilt easily shooting way over that. Kareem could only shoot .486, .428, and .405 against Thurmond in their three H2H playoff series.

Chamberlain held multiple all-star Red Kerr to .376 and even .296 shooting in two of their three H2H series, and while I don't have their H2H FG%'s in the other series, Kerr shot .341 in that post-season (which included a series against Russell.)

And in the 67-68 regular season, 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy shot .541. However, against Wilt in the playoffs that season, he could only manage a .421 FG%.

Of course, a 34 and 35 year old Wilt, playing on a surgically repaired knee, held Kareem, who shot .577 and .574 in the '71 and '72 regular seasons, to .481 and .457 (including .414 over the course of the last four games of that series) shooting in the WCF's in those two years.

In terms of rebounding, there has never been anyone as dominant as Wilt was in post-season play. He played in 29 post-season series, and was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of them. And he MURDERED his opposing centers in the majority of them. He had one post-season series against Thurmond in which he battered him by a 23.6 rpg to 17.2 rpg margin (and that was in Wilt's LAST post-season BTW), and another in which he pounded Russell by a 32.0 rpg to 23.0 rpg margin.


Then there was the "balanced" Wilt...a Chamberlain who had two straight post-seasons of 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, .579 shooting (in a league that shot .441); and 23.7 ppg, 24.7 rpg, 6.5 apg, and .534 shooting. Included in that '67 post-season, were TWO triple-double series (that 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg series against the Royals, and a 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg series against Russell.) All while significantly reducing the numbers of players like Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell.


Once again, I appreciate Shaq's post-season dominance, particularly in his "three-peat", as well as his huge post-seasons against Hakeem (28 ppg on .595 shooting is just unfathomable, all while outrebounding, outpassing, and outblocking him.) But to claim that he was COMPLETELY SUPERIOR to Wilt's post-season career is absurd.


Of course, there was also the matter of Wilt's REGULAR season numbers, as well. Just open up the RECORD BOOK, and you will find his name plastered all over it. He still holds some 130 records, and in many cases he holds the next mark(s), as well. No player in NBA history dominated their peers the way Wilt dominated his. And he faced players like Reed, Bellamy, Cowens, Hayes, Unseld, Lanier, Lovellette, Embry, McAdoo, Thurmond, Russell, and Kareem ...all in the HOF.

And a PRIME "scoring" Wilt was hanging 40-50-60 and even 70 point games on the likes of Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell. Even late in his career, in his 71-72 season, in five H2H games against 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier, he averaged 29 ppg, including a 31-32 game. And, in his LAST season, in SIX regular season H2H games against Kareem, he held Kareem to .450 shooting, while shooting .737 against Abdul-Jabbar, ...and in one of those games, he outscored Kareem, 24-21, while outshooting Kareem, 10-14 to 10-27.

[PTB Fan]

I think it's important to understand the difference between how greatness was/is determined in Wilt's era and in Shaq's era. Wilt had 35+ppg playoff runs early in his career, but they did not result in titles nor a reputation for being the best player in the game. In his era, especially for centers, the "Russell model" was the template for greatness. By this I mean, being the ultimate team player who sacrificed individual stats (i.e. scoring) for the sake of bettering the team. As a center you were supposed to dominate defensively, rebound, facilitate from the pivot, and score when called upon. That's why most people consider his '67 season his best, even better than '62. It's also the reason why he won Finals MVP in '72 despite being only the 3rd leading scorer on his own team in that Finals. I can't fathom a player in the modern era winning a Finals MVP while being third on his team in scoring.

Conversely, Shaq played in the post MJ era where greatness was/is heavily conflated with dominant scoring. All "great" players, irrespective of position (other than pgs) are considered "the man" if they can be their team's leading scorer. To an extent, in the modern era, greatness is viewed as not simply dominating your opponent, but also dominating your own teammates. As opposed to "lifting" your teammates, you're supposed to be "carrying" your teammates now.

Agreed.

[JMT]

Oh yeah, because Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mutombo, Alonzo, Duncan, Yao, were weak.



How many of those guys had a prime that matched with Shaq?

How many times per year did Shaq face those guys?

You list 6 centers and a PF out of 30 teams, which is about the level of quality of bigs today.

Chamberlain played in an 8 team league where every team had legitimate big, strong centers. Because of that, he played legit bigs night after night. The league was center dominated in that era as well, not perimeter dominated as it was throughout the last 20 years.

Shaq was a great player. Top half dozen centers of all time. He wasn't Wilt.

[JustinJDW]

This might sound really odd, but I just had a dream last night that I was in the NBA and I was guarding prime Shaq in a game. Guy was seriously unstoppable. Dunking on everyone. Never had a chance. :oldlol:

[Durant35]

Prime Shaquille O'Neal

Better Playoffs and Finals Performer than Wilt Chokeberlain.

[Owl]

I'd rather build around Wilt if I had the option of one or the other in their own era (assuming equal talent on the team arrived on, though the Celtics were a more stable and formidable dynasty/rival than the Spurs so if we're assuming all other teams stay exactly the same then I'd have to think it over more). Right now? I don't know. There's a temptation to take Shaq because we know what he can do in the modern era (this is not a Wilt dis, I'd imagine he'd be very good indeed, I'm just saying we don't have to guess at all with Shaq). But once you get into the time travel stuff you start asking whether Wilt gets modern training facilities etc.

Anyway they're the two most dominant bigs ever (maybe early 70s Kareem is up there). :bowdown:

[Whoah10115]

Shaq had a lot of talent and he was great in the open court. He was also a great passer and a smarter player than I sometimes give him credit for.




But Wilt used his skill much more than Shaq did. Shaq got away with way too much. Wilt is also the better defender. Yea, he's also the better rebounder, but that's hard to rate.



As a scorer, it's a lot closer than anyone would argue. And I don't care what anyone tells me, it's a lot closer than that. But overall offense, being able to move the ball around, and the passing game...I take Wilt. But really, the defense is so much in Wilt's favor. That's what makes this an easy choice.

[CavaliersFTW]

I'd rather build around Wilt if I had the option of one or the other in their own era (assuming equal talent on the team arrived on, though the Celtics were a more stable and formidable dynasty/rival than the Spurs so if we're assuming all other teams stay exactly the same then I'd have to think it over more). Right now? I don't know. There's a temptation to take Shaq because we know what he can do in the modern era (this is not a Wilt dis, I'd imagine he'd be very good indeed, I'm just saying we don't have to guess at all with Shaq). But once you get into the time travel stuff you start asking whether Wilt gets modern training facilities etc.

Anyway they're the two most dominant bigs ever (maybe early 70s Kareem is up there). :bowdown:
http://youtu.be/YVDzzxVE34k?t=1m20s

eye test

[bdreason]

Amazing how the greatest player of all-time only managed 1 title as the main man.

[CavaliersFTW]

Amazing how the greatest player of all-time only managed 1 title as the main man.
Main man at what? :confusedshrug: Scoring?

He was the "main man" for both titles, whether you stare at a ppg statsheet or not. You also dumb enough to consider Bill Russell to not be "the man" for his titles too!? :roll: U funny man!

I don't expect you to understand how a non-scorer is still the teams anchor and best player, it isn't something that the NBA has today, I'm hazy on mid/late 70's players but based on 80's-present rosters Russell and Chamberlain might have been the last two to be the definitive team leader and best player with such a reduced scoring role. Like it or not, '72 Title Wilt = FMVP. Guess he aint the main man tho cuz scoring is the only way to be the greatest player on the team rite? :biggums:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Wilt has never led a championship team in scoring
Shaq has 3 times, along with rebounding and blocking.

Shaq also has double the rings, and didn't play in a weak era of 6'6"-6'8" centers

Shaq, and it's not even close.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Shaquille O'Neal easily.

Comparing the old-timers to Modern Players now is a joke. Better athletes in ALL SPORTS, better training regiments, better supplements, better medicine, better technology, etc, it's a non-comparison. Teleport Shaq back in time with Wilt, Russell, Big O, and he would ****ing MURDER all those guys and their teams. It's called being realistic.

[Whoah10115]

Main man at what? :confusedshrug: Scoring?

He was the "main man" for both titles, whether you stare at a ppg statsheet or not. You also dumb enough to consider Bill Russell to not be "the man" for his titles too!? :roll: U funny man!

I don't expect you to understand how a non-scorer is still the teams anchor and best player, it isn't something that the NBA has today, I'm hazy on mid/late 70's players but based on 80's-present rosters Russell and Chamberlain might have been the last two to be the definitive team leader and best player with such a reduced scoring role. Like it or not, '72 Title Wilt = FMVP. Guess he aint the main man tho cuz scoring is the only way to be the greatest player on the team rite? :biggums:



I think you're jumping to a conclusion on what he thinks is or isn't the man.