Replace Shaq with Wilt on the 96 lakers

[jongib369]

Shaq was 24 at the time so it would be Wilts 2nd Season...What's the eventual outcome? This is all a big what if but would it be a better "1 - 2 punch" Than Shaq/Kobe? More Rings or less? How would Wilt/Kobe's game work together?

Wilt 1962 - 42 points 24 rebounds 1 assist on .739 shooting percentage!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cyBo7RhkJk&feature=plcp



Best Wilt highlight on the WEB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzzxVE34k&feature=plcp


"Greatest offensive force"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak


Crazy block...How high could he get when he was young!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhXzPvmCfVI&feature=g-user-u




http://25.media.tumblr.com/CbfLqxdmenisofwiGCAjNkPio1_500.jpg


http://toolbox.studiobanks.com/content/arhenetwork.com/highlights/287.jpg

http://www.achievement.org/achievers/rus0/large/rus0-013.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5vNAFmAtX8w/TLAT5tGM-II/AAAAAAAABek/4YhA7yc8Vrc/s1600/wilt-chamberlain%283%29.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0811/nba.best.individual.seasons/images/new.chamberlain.cut.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5vNAFmAtX8w/TLAT5PSDeTI/AAAAAAAABeU/u52a0VtJk_s/s1600/wilt-chamberlain(2).jpg


http://www.nytstore.com/assets/images/extralarge/NSAP1533_EXTR.jpg

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/Class%20of%201992/Shaq_Attaq_The_Real_Shaquille_Oneal.jpg

Make it happen Kazaam!

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/kazaam_a_7302.jpg

[Rubio2Gasol]

This is the type of stuff you will never know or even be able to estimate.

Wilt just played in a completely different era.

[SyRyanYang]

Why you keep posting same YouTube links in every thread? It gets annoying when I opened one that I've watched like ten times

[ILLsmak]

Less. I think Wilt would have clashed more with Kobe. Wilt was truly arrogant. I believe Shaq just felt the big man should get touches in the triangle.

-Smak

[senelcoolidge]

If Del Harris asked Wilt to be the number 1 option he could probably put up about 30ppg 16-18rpg 3-4 apg 4-5 bpg. He'd also be the defensive player of the year. Stockton and Malone were on a roll that season, so I'm not sure if this laker team could beat them. Than again Wilt was hard to defend. Extremely skilled and athletic. He could virtually score at will. He was also a defensive juggernaut.

[KOBE143]

You're replacing Shaq with Poor Man's Javale Mcgee at best.. :facepalm

I think 5 feet weak nonathletic center were already phase out during that time.. So theres no more players for Wilt to dominate.. :lol

[Rubio2Gasol]

Wilt defensive Player of the year?

In a league with Hakeem , Mutumbo, Robinson , Zo and Rodman?

:roll:

[jongib369]

Why you keep posting same YouTube links in every thread? It gets annoying when I opened one that I've watched like ten times
Not to many great Wilt highlights out there...I post them as references not as anything new

[senelcoolidge]

Wilt defensive Player of the year?

In a league with Hakeem , Mutumbo, Robinson , Zo and Rodman?

:roll:

That's pretty good competition, that's why his numbers would be about 30ppg 16-18 rpg 3-4 apg 4-5 bpg. Weaker competition and his numbers would be higher.

[jongib369]

Wilt defensive Player of the year?

In a league with Hakeem , Mutumbo, Robinson , Zo and Rodman?

:roll:
and you think he couldn't possible be a better defender than Hakeem, mutumbo or Robinson?


:roll: :roll: :roll: :facepalm :oldlol: :bang head: :roll: :lol :hammerhead:

(mostly just playing these are all what ifs...but anyone who can hold Kareem to the type of FG% he did can easily be considered possibly better defenders than they were...not to knock Hakeem, but although hey may not of been the defender he eventually became...Im sure it wouldn't of made all the difference in the world when an old kareem was able to light him up with an excellent fg%)

[ILLsmak]

Not to many great Wilt highlights out there...I post them as references not as anything new

lol, for all of the people who haven't seen footage of Wilt or don't know who he is?

-Smak

[jongib369]

That's pretty good competition, that's why his numbers would be about 30ppg 16-18 rpg 3-4 apg 4-5 bpg. Weaker competition and his numbers would be higher.
Yeah but the only thing about that is he would be facing these centers WAAAAY less often then he did his HOF competition in his day....What HOFer did Shaq, Robinson or Ewing face 143 times? Ewing and Robinson went at it less than 30 or possibly 20 times....

[jongib369]

lol, for all of the people who haven't seen footage of Wilt or don't know who he is?

-Smak
I've seen A LOT of Wilt footage, but those are just the highlights that I think showcase him the best...I could have posted the defense video I made also but I didn't...Idk if you were dissing me or what lmao

[Overdrive]

They might win in the 90s with Jones, Van Exel and Bryant, but I think they'd split up earlier, since Kobe's drive to be the man what be more oppressed by Wilt.



(mostly just playing these are all what ifs...but anyone who can hold Kareem to the type of FG% he did can easily be considered possibly better defenders they were...not to knock Hakeem, but although hey may not of been the defender he eventually became...Im sure it wouldn't of made all the difference in the world when an old kareem was able to light him up with an excellent fg%)

This will cause 5 pages of Jlauber vs millwad, again.

[jongib369]

They might win in the 90s with Jones, Van Exel and Bryant, but I think they'd split up earlier, since Kobe's drive to be the man what be more oppressed by Wilt.



This will cause 5 pages of Jlauber vs millwad, again.
I know I've got my popcorn ready

http://cache.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Popcorn-11-Eddie-Griffin.gif

[ILLsmak]

I've seen A LOT of Wilt footage, but those are just the highlights that I think showcase him the best...I could have posted the defense video I made also but I didn't...Idk if you were dissing me or what lmao

Nah, I was more referencing that anyone who has valuable insight to offer on this "argument" would know about Wilt and what his skill set/athleticism was.

-Smak

[jongib369]

Nah, I was more referencing that anyone who has valuable insight to offer on this "argument" would know about Wilt and what his skill set/athleticism was.

-Smak
Yeah, you can't put in a real case for or against him unless you've put away your time bias and looked at him and the rest of the league at that time objectively. I'm only 21, and it was just 3 or 4 years ago I got warmed up to the fact that those old dudes COULD in-fact ball with players today....One thing that just made SO much sense was the dribbling rules from back then...Back then you could only dribble with your Palm facing down hitting the top of the ball...So all these fancy dribbles you see today would be called as palming/carrying...

You may have seen this but compare the 2 with that Rule in mind...you don't have to watch the whole thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ee2Ag5GeMQ

and then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CzwUXpaxXA

a little knowledge of a rule like that changes EVERYTHING

[senelcoolidge]

Yeah, you can't put in a real case for or against him unless you've put away your time bias and looked at him and the rest of the league at that time objectively. I'm only 21, and it was just 3 or 4 years ago I got warmed up to the fact that those old dudes COULD in-fact ball with players today....One thing that just made SO much sense was the dribbling rules from back then...Back then you could only dribble with your Palm facing down hitting the top of the ball...So all these fancy dribbles you see today would be called as palming/carrying...

You may have seen this but compare the 2 with that Rule in mind...you don't have to watch the whole thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ee2Ag5GeMQ

and then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CzwUXpaxXA

a little knowledge of a rule like that changes EVERYTHING

Great example showing Oscar and Iverson. What a difference. Had Iverson played in the 60's he would be called for traveling constantly. He would have to conform to the way players dribbled in the 60's. Likewise Oscar (never being fancy or a show off) would have had more freedom with his dribbling. Perhaps being more creative. More assists as well. Assists were counted differently in those days. It was a direct pass and shoot or make of the basket..no steps. Today assists are counted with a continuation of steps (more leeway).

Wilt would have adjusted his game to an era. He had the tools and gifts to dominate in any era thus far. The 90's had heck of a bunch of good centers. Wilt would have given these guys fits.

[DatAsh]

Wilt defensive Player of the year?

In a league with Hakeem , Mutumbo, Robinson , Zo and Rodman?

:roll:

It's silly to think that he wouldn't be in the conversation. The only one of those guys I'd personally rate above him defensively is Olajuwon, and even then only by the smallest of margins. 67 Wilt is probably the best defensive season by anyone not named Russell.

[lilgodfather1]

Someone should page Jlauber and tell him to come and defend Wilt's honour.

[ShaqAttack3234]

They might win in the 90s with Jones, Van Exel and Bryant, but I think they'd split up earlier, since Kobe's drive to be the man what be more oppressed by Wilt.

It wasn't a question of talent with those late 90's Laker teams, but they just weren't mature enough. The '97 team probably doesn't beat a 69-13 Bulls team or a 64-18 Jazz team regardless. Not mature enough and Kobe was not a factor yet.

The '98 Lakers had the most talent in the league and the most talent Shaq played with as an elite player other than perhaps the mid 90's Magic. Certainly Shaq's most talented team in his prime.

But they crumbled in the playoffs, they didn't listen to their coach, and just weren't as good or disciplined as teams like Utah and Chicago.

Part of that can be blamed on Shaq, whose leadership and desire to win was questioned in the 90's, and Shaq was disappointing in the '97 playoff loss to Utah.

But to be honest, I trust Shaq more in the playoffs than Wilt, and in '98, Shaq showed a lot of competitiveness and heart. Shaq was dominant throughout the '98 playoffs. His Seattle series was one of the best all around performances I've seen. But what showed more heart was when he was getting zero support vs Utah and despite one of his best games in a must-win situation down 2-0 with 39/15, they lost and he still came back and played until the end in game 4.

In game 4, Shaq had 11 straight points at one point down the stretch and about 19 total in the 4th, iirc to finish with 38 points.

here's what I'm referring to about the Lakers completely choking in the playoffs. Here's their stats vs Utah.

Shaq- 31.8 ppg, 56 FG%
Jones- 15 ppg, 41 FG%
Kobe- 10 ppg, 37 FG%
Fox- 9.8 ppg, 41 FG%
Van Exel- 9 ppg, 24 FG%
Fisher- 5.5 ppg, 35 FG%
Horry- 4.5 ppg, 36 FG%

No player has a chance to beat a 62 win team when every key player fails to shoot even 40%, or at best, 2 of them just top that at 41%(Fox and Jones).

Van Exel's 24% is an embarrassment as was him talking about vacation plans in the timeouts. That's why it wasn't a bad move to trade Nick away for nothing.

But to be honest, trading Eddie Jones and Elden Campbell in their primes away for a past his prime Glen Rice post-elbow surgery was a bad move. Jones was a choker, but he was a much better player after the trade than Rice, and much more of an all around player. Campbell also didn't fit with Shaq, but they could have gotten more in return for a big man with his talent.

[ThunderStruk022]

You know what's almost as annoying as stans? 20 and 30 something year old posters that never saw guys like Wilt play, but think it's cool to go against the grain, and cram players from the 50s, 60s, and 70s down our throats every chance they get.

[joeyjoejoe]

They still get destroyed by utah, lets not pretend like its a huge improvement shaqs no scrub, championship teams need more pieces then one just look at 2011 mavs ppl say they only had dirk but that team was loaded with all the right pieces and even stevenson was big in the playoffs

[Deuce Bigalow]

That's pretty good competition, that's why his numbers would be about 30ppg 16-18 rpg 3-4 apg 4-5 bpg. Weaker competition and his numbers would be higher.
No No No. You did not just type that...

[jongib369]

You know what's almost as annoying as stans? 20 and 30 something year old posters that never saw guys like Wilt play, but think it's cool to go against the grain, and cram players from the 50s, 60s, and 70s down our throats every chance they get.
That could be said...But I'd say people who have probably never been able to watch any amount of footage objectively and put rules into consideration of an era with an obvious and pathetic time bias who go around shitting on others opinions is just as annoying if not more so...That's almost like saying Atheist's are just denying god to go against the grain and be cool....Looking at facts and being able to say "you know what? Sometimes the majority opinion IS borderline retarded" isn't done just to be cool.

(Just playing around and giving back what you gave...this shit is all what ifs and its just my opinion that he would be the best center all around in ANY era he played in...whether it be the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s or 00's)

[jongib369]

You're replacing Shaq with Poor Man's Javale Mcgee at best.. :facepalm

I think 5 feet weak nonathletic center were already phase out during that time.. So theres no more players for Wilt to dominate.. :lol
Take this into consideration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzbLYYnAsFI&t=0m27s

[jongib369]

No No No. You did not just type that...
Just to say how many quality centers are in the league right now compared to the past? Would any of these centers today give Kareem ANY problem what so ever??? Besides the obvious 2....who Kareem would face 2 or 4 times a year only...Why wouldn't wilt tear apart the league today?

Not that this says anything buuuut



Shaquille O'Neal vs. Patrick Ewing

26 Games

Shaquille O'Neal vs. Alonzo Mourning

16 Games

Shaquille O'Neal vs. David Robinson

23 Games

Shaquille O'Neal vs. Dikembe Mutombo

24 Games

Shaquille O'Neal vs. Ben Wallace

23 Games

Shaquille O'Neal vs. Arvydas Sabonis

21 Games

Shaquille O'Neal vs. Yao Ming

13 Games

Shaquille O'Neal vs. Hakeem Olajuwon

20 Games




Total Games =166


Bill Russell VS Wilt


143 games

Wilt VS Kareem (only 4 years)

28 Games

Total games 171

[clipps]

Wilt beasted Kareem who beasted Hakeem who beasted Shaq who beasted Dwight who beasts the league today so yes. Wilt would demolish this era. /thread

[iamgine]

Wilt beasted Kareem who beasted Hakeem who beasted Shaq who beasted Dwight who beasts the league today so yes. Wilt would demolish this era. /thread
It doesn't work that way.

[clipps]

It doesn't work that way.
B-b-but it happened that way

[jongib369]

B-b-but it happened that way
LOL! honestly what is there to deny about that link? Did 70s kareem suck balls but become the goat center in the 80s? Did Hakeem mcgee it up in the 80s but turned into a god in the 90s...the link WORKS people who deny it are a fool IMO...Im sorry if thats offensive to those who disagree I just see now logical way around it

[millwad]

and you think he couldn't possible be a better defender than Hakeem, mutumbo or Robinson?


:roll: :roll: :roll: :facepalm :oldlol: :bang head: :roll: :lol :hammerhead:

(mostly just playing these are all what ifs...but anyone who can hold Kareem to the type of FG% he did can easily be considered possibly better defenders than they were...not to knock Hakeem, but although hey may not of been the defender he eventually became...Im sure it wouldn't of made all the difference in the world when an old kareem was able to light him up with an excellent fg%)

You seem intelligent, do you always judge a certain player's defense based on him playing defense in his rookie and second season as a pro?

You seem semi-retarded, so prime defensive Wilt getting his ass busted by Kareem in '72 when Kareem averaged 40 points per game on 50% shooting on Wilt during the regular season is not relevant but Olajuwon as a rookie and a 2nd year pro is really relevant. :facepalm

[Overdrive]

LOL! honestly what is there to deny about that link? Did 70s kareem suck balls but become the goat center in the 80s? Did Hakeem mcgee it up in the 80s but turned into a god in the 90s...the link WORKS people who deny it are a fool IMO...Im sorry if thats offensive to those who disagree I just see now logical way around it

you know rock, scissor, paper?

If Wilt is the rock, Kareem the scissor, Hakeem might be the paper. We'll never know. There relation could be linear Wilt > Kareem > Hakeem or circular Wilt > Kareem > Hakeem > Wilt > Kareem >...



It wasn't a question of talent with those late 90's Laker teams, but they just weren't mature enough. The '97 team probably doesn't beat a 69-13 Bulls team or a 64-18 Jazz team regardless. Not mature enough and Kobe was not a factor yet.

Wilt would be the main factor. Shaq was the leader, put up great games, but he wasn't mature himself. He said that he stopped caring about big games and stats before his MVP-Season and then started winning. I think those loses against Utah in '97 and '98 got to him. I think he figured that he might never have as much talent on his roster again and they ****ed up for childish reasons.

He was quite mad when Eddie Jones was traded, although he was the one who demanted a shooter to pair alongside him.

I think Wilt might have been less demanding and having a more "goin' to work" attitude.



The '98 Lakers had the most talent in the league and the most talent Shaq played with as an elite player other than perhaps the mid 90's Magic. Certainly Shaq's most talented team in his prime.

But they crumbled in the playoffs, they didn't listen to their coach, and just weren't as good or disciplined as teams like Utah and Chicago.

Del Harris always seemed to be disrespected, he wasn't a bad coach, but I think he was a weak mentor for that young team.



Part of that can be blamed on Shaq, whose leadership and desire to win was questioned in the 90's, and Shaq was disappointing in the '97 playoff loss to Utah.

But to be honest, I trust Shaq more in the playoffs than Wilt, and in '98, Shaq showed a lot of competitiveness and heart. Shaq was dominant throughout the '98 playoffs. His Seattle series was one of the best all around performances I've seen. But what showed more heart was when he was getting zero support vs Utah and despite one of his best games in a must-win situation down 2-0 with 39/15, they lost and he still came back and played until the end in game 4.

In game 4, Shaq had 11 straight points at one point down the stretch and about 19 total in the 4th, iirc to finish with 38 points.

I had alot of discussions with a classmate both those years. He was a huge Utah fan and pointed out that Shaq's biggest problem is that he was trying to get his first, or as he famously put it later during the 3-peat. He eats first.

He's always been a leadership character, but before and to a lesser extend during the 3-peat he wasn't a good role model for his teammates.




here's what I'm referring to about the Lakers completely choking in the playoffs. Here's their stats vs Utah.

Shaq- 31.8 ppg, 56 FG%
Jones- 15 ppg, 41 FG%
Kobe- 10 ppg, 37 FG%
Fox- 9.8 ppg, 41 FG%
Van Exel- 9 ppg, 24 FG%
Fisher- 5.5 ppg, 35 FG%
Horry- 4.5 ppg, 36 FG%

No player has a chance to beat a 62 win team when every key player fails to shoot even 40%, or at best, 2 of them just top that at 41%(Fox and Jones).

Van Exel's 24% is an embarrassment as was him talking about vacation plans in the timeouts. That's why it wasn't a bad move to trade Nick away for nothing.

I remember that, but we don't know he this would've turned out with Wilt instead of Shaq. Don't get me wrong Shaq is my favourite player, but he was a prankster and very unfocused during those first Lakers years. I even have the feeling he was more determined in Orlando. Your topguy should tell guys discussing vacation during timeouts to shut up or leave the court.



But to be honest, trading Eddie Jones and Elden Campbell in their primes away for a past his prime Glen Rice post-elbow surgery was a bad move. Jones was a choker, but he was a much better player after the trade than Rice, and much more of an all around player. Campbell also didn't fit with Shaq, but they could have gotten more in return for a big man with his talent.

I hated the Eddie Jones trade. I think he thrived in Charlotte and might have even stepped up his game in LA and won there.

[millwad]

Wilt wouldn't have anywhere close to the stats he was putting in '62, if he would have played in '96.

I'll tell you why..

To start with, in '62 there were only 8 NBA teams.
Below I'll list the teams Wilt faced and their player's who were 6'9 and taller.

Boston Celtics:
Bill Russell (6'9)

Syracuse Nationals:
Red Kerr (6'9)
Swede Halbrook (7'3)

New York Knicks:
Darrall Imhoff (6'10)
Phil Jordon (6'10)
Kenny Sears (6'9)

St Louis Hawks:
Larry Foust (6'9)
Clyde Lovellette (6'9)
Bob Pettit (6'9)

Los Angeles Lakers:
Ray Felix (6'11)

Detroit Pistons:
Walter Dukes (7'0)

Cincinnati Royals:
Phil Jordon (6'10)
Hub Reed (6'9)


In '96 he would have to face guys like Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning, Smits, Divac, Kemp, Malone, Webber, Baker, Radja, Gugliotta, Howard etc..

Most of the guys I listed from the '62 season are pure scrubs, the only guys over 7'0 was Dukes who averaged 9.4 points (40% shooting) and 10.4 rebounds and Swede Halbrook who averaged 6.3 points (36% shooting) and 6.6 rebounds..

[Raz]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5vNAFmAtX8w/TLAT5tGM-II/AAAAAAAABek/4YhA7yc8Vrc/s1600/wilt-chamberlain%283%29.jpg


I feel that by posting pics like this, you won't be deterring the naysayers.

[Raz]

In '96 he would have to face guys like Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning, Smits, Divac, Kemp, Malone, Webber, Baker, Radja, Gugliotta, Howard etc..



LOL - those guys are supposed to stop Wilt? Kemp, Malone, Webber, Baker, Radja, Googs, and Howard would not be put on him, because he would ruin each of them. You need a center to guard a beast like Wilt.

[JMT]

Pretty simple. Wilt was a better player than Shaq, so the team would likely improve.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Wilt would be the main factor. Shaq was the leader, put up great games, but he wasn't mature himself. He said that he stopped caring about big games and stats before his MVP-Season and then started winning. I think those loses against Utah in '97 and '98 got to him. I think he figured that he might never have as much talent on his roster again and they ****ed up for childish reasons.

Honestly, I don't think Shaq ever cared much about stats or played for them. He could have always put up much better numbers than he did. In '94, '98 and '99, he had opportunities to go for the scoring title on the last games of the season and didn't try each time.


He was quite mad when Eddie Jones was traded, although he was the one who demanted a shooter to pair alongside him.

Well, they did need a shooter and while Rice had a solid 3 point shooting season, it certainly didn't stand out in 2000 when he made 1.1 per game and shot 36.7% as well as a poor 43 FG%. Ironically, Eddie Jones had a much better 3 point shooting season that year making 1.8 per game at 37.5%.

Even with Rice, shooting was a major weakness for the 2000 Lakers with the 5th worst 3P% in the league at 32.9%. Glen was their only legitimate 3 point shooter so they could have used more. It was probably a combination of the elbow surgery and not fitting into the triangle that made Glen a pretty ordinary 3 point shooter that year.


I think Wilt might have been less demanding and having a more "goin' to work" attitude.

While Shaq's leadership attracted criticism in the 90's, so did Wilt's in the 60's. In the '66 playoffs vs Boston, he skipped practices during the series and the team held practices much later than they preferred to accommodate Wilt who insisted on living in New York and commuting as well as sleeping late. He also wrote a very controversial article for Sports Illustrated a year earlier I believe which some considered a distraction during the playoffs. And he criticized coach Dolph Schayes as well.

Now I'm not pointing these things out as a case for Shaq being superior to Wilt, quite the contrary, just pointing out that there's reason to believe that many of the same problems that existed with Shaq would also exist with Wilt.

I see many parallels in that regard. In fact, it seemed to take a special coach for both of them to truly achieve their potential. It was Alex Hannum and his no-nonsense attitude that challenged Wilt and earned his respect in '67 when he took his game to another level and "figured it out". Similarly, it was Phil providing a similar thing for Shaq bringing championship credentials Shaq had no choice but to respect and asking more from Shaq. Like Wilt in '67, Shaq took his game to another level in '00 and also "figured it out".


Del Harris always seemed to be disrespected, he wasn't a bad coach, but I think he was a weak mentor for that young team.

Yeah, it just wasn't a good fit.


I had alot of discussions with a classmate both those years. He was a huge Utah fan and pointed out that Shaq's biggest problem is that he was trying to get his first, or as he famously put it later during the 3-peat. He eats first.

Shaq's game never seemed selfish to me on the court honestly. Even in Orlando, he was learning to pass out of double teams quite well by his second year, but more in his 3rd year which was a key to their offense. And we saw Shaq pass extremely well out of double teams in the '98 series vs Seattle.

But there was a problem that relates to this in '98. Utah guarded him 1 on 1 much more. Shaq did what he was supposed to do vs single coverage and that's score at a great rate, but it turned out to be a brilliant strategy as it did prevent the Laker supporting cast from getting the shots they were used to. However, shit like 9 ppg on 24 FG% from Van Exel is unacceptable.

Despite the loss to Utah, Shaq's play was praised by almost everyone including Laker teammates as well as Utah and sportswriters. Shaq's series vs Utah was not up to his standards and I blame him for that, but I can't do the same for the '98 series.


He's always been a leadership character, but before and to a lesser extend during the 3-peat he wasn't a good role model for his teammates.

No arguments here, I can remember a time when some questioned whether Shaq was focused and mature enough to win a championship. While I don't think he was incapable of winning a championship back then, I do think much of the criticism was fair.


I remember that, but we don't know he this would've turned out with Wilt instead of Shaq. Don't get me wrong Shaq is my favourite player, but he was a prankster and very unfocused during those first Lakers years. I even have the feeling he was more determined in Orlando. Your topguy should tell guys discussing vacation during timeouts to shut up or leave the court.

I will agree that we don't know how Shaq's teammates would have played with Wilt. There's a potential for the same as I pointed out above, and reason to suspect it since some of the biggest Wilt fans have agreed that Wilt's distractions probably had a negative influence on the team in the '66 series vs Boston. But it's also no guarantee that the same thing occurs.

But I'll have to disagree with a lot of this. Shaq seemed completely focused in the '98 playoffs to me. He kept playing hard until the very end in the Utah series, and was very upset after the loss. He admitted to crying, and was also furious. I believe he took losing quite seriously. Jerry West has mentioned that Shaq was a very unpleasant person to be around when the Lakers weren't winning championships.

As far as Van Exel, well all I remember him saying was "1-2-3 Cancun!" in the timeout so it's not like there was an active discussion for Shaq to end. Just a real unprofessional attitude that did anger Shaq since Shaq did claim a few years later that he got Van Exel fired, though I also remember hearing on numerous occasions that it was Van Exel's feud with Del Harris.


I hated the Eddie Jones trade. I think he thrived in Charlotte and might have even stepped up his game in LA and won there.

Even though it was a bad trade, they did still win 3 in a row, so it's tough to expect much more.

But they certainly could have gotten more for players like Jones, Campbell and Van Exel. Had they kept them throughout the '99 season, assuming they didn't win, they would have been in position to get Pippen who Phil really wanted in 2000 and remained effective long enough to potentially help them as late as 2003 when they finally lost. And it's possible they could have gotten a legit power forward who fit in and potentially a 3 point shooter.

Doesn't mean much since it's not exactly a huge "what if" given the Lakers success, but always fun to speculate. I think it would have been cool to have seen Pippen on the 2000 Lakers, but it's good that didn't happen. We would have missed out on the amazing Laker/Blazer rivalry that season.

[jongib369]

You seem intelligent, do you always judge a certain player's defense based on him playing defense in his rookie and second season as a pro?

You seem semi-retarded, so prime defensive Wilt getting his ass busted by Kareem in '72 when Kareem averaged 40 points per game on 50% shooting on Wilt during the regular season is not relevant but Olajuwon as a rookie and a 2nd year pro is really relevant. :facepalm


http://uk.bloggif.com/output/0/2/02e9279c61b0e290883ea92f70783235.gif?1346548903

[Deuce Bigalow]

Pretty simple. Wilt was a better player than Shaq, so the team would likely improve.
How would you know this?
I know you've seen Wilt play, but I'm asking how do you know that Wilt could do half of what Shaq did in this era?
Wilt did his thing in the 60s, using what you know on what he did in the 60s doesn't tell you what he'll do today. You just know that he played good in the 60s. And even in the 60s he didn't dominate in the playoffs like Shaq did, even though Wilt played against smaller players.

In my opinion judging from some video of Wilt and video from Shaq, and their stats in the Playoffs/Finals, I don't think Wilt would be in Shaq's level.

Wilt - '69 finals
Game 4: 8 points on 8 shots, 2-11 FT in a 1 point loss
Game 6: 8 points, 1-5 FG, 6-10 FT in a 9 point loss...From wiki:
This game was also one of Chamberlain's lesser games: with Russell hounding him, the multiple scoring champion scored only 8 points, provoking criticism that he had choked when it counted most.
Game 7: 4-13 FT in a 2 point loss

That is supposed to be the guy that's even close to Shaq?

[JMT]

How would you know this?
I know you've seen Wilt play, but I'm asking how do you know that Wilt could do half of what Shaq did in this era?


It's a speculative thread, just as is the entire board. The OP asks for opinions.

I'm not interested in the cherry picked stats, PER, weirdly extrapolated numbers based on pace/era/etc that are considered basketball knowledge here. I understand that's all most have to fall back on. In my case, I trust my eyes.

As one who saw both play, a lot, I feel strongly that Wilt was the better basketball player.

[millwad]

LOL - those guys are supposed to stop Wilt? Kemp, Malone, Webber, Baker, Radja, Googs, and Howard would not be put on him, because he would ruin each of them. You need a center to guard a beast like Wilt.

That was not my point, my point was that people only stare on Wilt's stats and then they go, "Oh, just look at his stats, he must be GOAT" without having any understanding of the circumstances.

Wilt faced great competition later on in his career but his statistical prime was before that. And not only that, it's beyond stupid to only look at his stats, it's a fact that the players shot with worse FG% which led to more available rebounds, and the pace was much faster as well which led to more FGA.

So no, I don't think that guys like Malone, Baker and Webber would stop him but I pointed out that the '96 season had much more talented big guys..

[PHILA]

He also wrote a very controversial article for Sports Illustrated a year earlier I believe which some considered a distraction during the playoffs.

He didn't write the article, instead they sent a writer with him for a few weeks to interview & tape record him. They also lied to him regarding when the article was to be released.



Wilt: Just Like Any Other 7-Foot Black Millionaire who Lives Next Door - Wilt Chamberlain (1973)

Before the fifth game, Sports Illustrated published the first article in a two-part series I'd done for them several weeks earlier with Bob Ottum, one of their staff writers. Bob had promised me that the series wouldn't be published until July — well after the NBA season was over. When it came out in the middle of the playoffs, I was really pissed; as we'd expected, the stories created quite a furor, and I'm not sure the 76ers ever got back in stride during the playoffs. Bob called me to apologize for the timing — and for the title his editors put on the series, "My Life in a Bush League." I hadn't approved the title, and I didn't like it. Neither did my teammates or my coach or most of the other players in the league — or the NBA office itself. I got fined for what they published. What got me so mad about that was that I'd always assiduously avoided criticizing other players and coaches in the NBA, even when guys like Bob Cousy and Neil Johnston and Dolph Schayes were putting the rap on me, and sportswriters were practically begging me to answer back. Those guys didn't have any legitimate gripes against me. They were just jealous because I was breaking their records and getting all the attention and making more money than they were. But none of them got fined. Then, when I said some things about the league that needed to be said, I got fined. If you compared the NBA in 1965 with the NFL and the two baseball leagues, you'd see that the Sports Illustrated title probably wasn't so far off, after all.





Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Apr 10, 1965 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=B5scAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wmUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1364,2529262)

http://i.imgur.com/aNtg7.png

[Overdrive]

Honestly, I don't think Shaq ever cared much about stats or played for them. He could have always put up much better numbers than he did. In '94, '98 and '99, he had opportunities to go for the scoring title on the last games of the season and didn't try each time.

He didn't care about seasonal stats, but he stated that it was important for him to post up good numbers in games, I'll try to find the quotes tomorrow.
Ironically when he said he doesn't care about that anymore he put up his MVP season and arguably his best numbers.



Well, they did need a shooter and while Rice had a solid 3 point shooting season, it certainly didn't stand out in 2000 when he made 1.1 per game and shot 36.7% as well as a poor 43 FG%. Ironically, Eddie Jones had a much better 3 point shooting season that year making 1.8 per game at 37.5%.

Eddie Jones had the green light in Charlotte, though. That's why I always wonder what would've happened. From an Eddie Jones fan perspective it sucks that he got traded before the threepeat and then was part of the '05 and '07 Heat team, but not the '06. Regarding the shooter, Glen Rice was a first option on bad teams his whole career. I think he lost alot confidence. He was the proven player and became the third fiddle. The surgery did the rest to him and his career.



Even with Rice, shooting was a major weakness for the 2000 Lakers with the 5th worst 3P% in the league at 32.9%. Glen was their only legitimate 3 point shooter so they could have used more. It was probably a combination of the elbow surgery and not fitting into the triangle that made Glen a pretty ordinary 3 point shooter that year.

While Shaq's leadership attracted criticism in the 90's, so did Wilt's in the 60's. In the '66 playoffs vs Boston, he skipped practices during the series and the team held practices much later than they preferred to accommodate Wilt who insisted on living in New York and commuting as well as sleeping late. He also wrote a very controversial article for Sports Illustrated a year earlier I believe which some considered a distraction during the playoffs. And he criticized coach Dolph Schayes as well.

Now I'm not pointing these things out as a case for Shaq being superior to Wilt, quite the contrary, just pointing out that there's reason to believe that many of the same problems that existed with Shaq would also exist with Wilt.

I see many parallels in that regard. In fact, it seemed to take a special coach for both of them to truly achieve their potential. It was Alex Hannum and his no-nonsense attitude that challenged Wilt and earned his respect in '67 when he took his game to another level and "figured it out". Similarly, it was Phil providing a similar thing for Shaq bringing championship credentials Shaq had no choice but to respect and asking more from Shaq. Like Wilt in '67, Shaq took his game to another level in '00 and also "figured it out".

I think Wilt matured sooner in his career than Shaq did and he matured further - maybe getting a good coach sooner(good point). Although shaq was a good team leader on the court for the Lakers, he should have been above Kobe, but instead he started a fight with a kid compared to him. For me it seemed Wilt got to the point were he found out that you can't change some things as an pro athlete, but you can make the best out of it. Shaq always seemed to try to change the things he didn't like(firing coaches, demanding teammates to be traded). That's what I meant by going to work attitude.



Shaq's game never seemed selfish to me on the court honestly. Even in Orlando, he was learning to pass out of double teams quite well by his second year, but more in his 3rd year which was a key to their offense. And we saw Shaq pass extremely well out of double teams in the '98 series vs Seattle.

I didn't mean that Shaq was selfish, I meant that he wanted to be involved as much as possible. I think that's what he wanted to say. Actually Shaq is one of the smartest centers I have seen want it comes to assess the situation after receiving the ball. Only Sabonis was truely greater in that aspect of the centers I've seen live.



But there was a problem that relates to this in '98. Utah guarded him 1 on 1 much more. Shaq did what he was supposed to do vs single coverage and that's score at a great rate, but it turned out to be a brilliant strategy as it did prevent the Laker supporting cast from getting the shots they were used to. However, shit like 9 ppg on 24 FG% from Van Exel is unacceptable.

Despite the loss to Utah, Shaq's play was praised by almost everyone including Laker teammates as well as Utah and sportswriters. Shaq's series vs Utah was not up to his standards and I blame him for that, but I can't do the same for the '98 series.

What I never got was why those players dropped off that much in both those years. Utah was good, but I don't remember them being a team of lockdown defenders.

Shaq wasn't to blame in a sense that he played poorly, but I wonder what he told those guys in the locker room.



I will agree that we don't know how Shaq's teammates would have played with Wilt. There's a potential for the same as I pointed out above, and reason to suspect it since some of the biggest Wilt fans have agreed that Wilt's distractions probably had a negative influence on the team in the '66 series vs Boston. But it's also no guarantee that the same thing occurs.

But I'll have to disagree with a lot of this. Shaq seemed completely focused in the '98 playoffs to me. He kept playing hard until the very end in the Utah series, and was very upset after the loss. He admitted to crying, and was also furious. I believe he took losing quite seriously. Jerry West has mentioned that Shaq was a very unpleasant person to be around when the Lakers weren't winning championships.

Yes he was very focused on the court, but I remember claims in basketball magazines that he was very quiet off the court in terms of getting his teammates to play better. Maybe he was unpleasant, but it seemed that he didn't yet have the same drive that made him as vocal as later on in his career. He was talkative and even complaining in interniews, but he didn't seem to get how important his leadership was mentally for the team.

I think Phil Jackson gave him a lot of confidence to speak up in a motivational way to his teammates.



As far as Van Exel, well all I remember him saying was "1-2-3 Cancun!" in the timeout so it's not like there was an active discussion for Shaq to end. Just a real unprofessional attitude that did anger Shaq since Shaq did claim a few years later that he got Van Exel fired, though I also remember hearing on numerous occasions that it was Van Exel's feud with Del Harris.


It wouldn't surprise me either way. That Harris hated him was what "officially" was said back in the day though.



Even though it was a bad trade, they did still win 3 in a row, so it's tough to expect much more.

But they certainly could have gotten more for players like Jones, Campbell and Van Exel. Had they kept them throughout the '99 season, assuming they didn't win, they would have been in position to get Pippen who Phil really wanted in 2000 and remained effective long enough to potentially help them as late as 2003 when they finally lost. And it's possible they could have gotten a legit power forward who fit in and potentially a 3 point shooter.

Doesn't mean much since it's not exactly a huge "what if" given the Lakers success, but always fun to speculate. I think it would have been cool to have seen Pippen on the 2000 Lakers, but it's good that didn't happen. We would have missed out on the amazing Laker/Blazer rivalry that season.


Was more of my Eddie Jones homer perspective. I think they should've kept him, he still was developing abit. Rice was a bad fit and I didn't like the trade back then. Pippen would've been great, but I think they should've tried to get younger talent that would've filled their holes.