Shaquille O'Neal is the greatest center of all time - (The Top 5)

[Kews1]

In my eyes

1. O'Neal
2. Jabbar
3. Hakeem
4. Russell
5. Wilt

In a draft of all time greats Shaq would be my first pick every time, ahead of Jordan. I consider Jordan to be the better player individually but in my view he cant single-handedly destroy a team in the way Shaq can dominate. At peak, If both players had a team of equal scrubs Shaq would take them further than MJ or any other players could. Thats just how good Shaq was with the size and skill package he had. If you consider Duncan a center then i would put him at #3 ahead of Hakeem.

What say you?

[K]

Wilt Chamberlain would limit Shaq's scoring but I can't see Shaq limiting Wilt Chamberlain's scoring nearly as much.

Hence, my pick is Wilt Chamberlain.

[Kews1]

[QUOTE=K

[iamgine]

Put them in the same era and Wilt would make Shaq his bitch

[Kews1]

Put them in the same era and Wilt would make Shaq his bitch

not a chance, Shaq is both more skillful and more powerful, all that mountain lion shit is fairy-tales.

[K]

Put them in the same era and Shaq would make Wilt his bitch

The opposite would happen. Wilt Chamberlain was already a beast back then. I don't even want to know what kind of beast he'd have been with more modern nutrition and training methods. Shaq would score less than 25 pgg below 50% against him. He'd demasculate Shaq into some Austrian choir boy who got their balls chopped off when they were little a couple of centuries ago.

[ABfor3]

All evidence from the past eras goes to show that the level of talent was not up to par with the later eras of big men. Quite frankly, imo if you put the Shaqs, Ewings, Robinsons, Olajuwons in the 50s or 60s they would dominate the league just as Wilt or Russell did. That's no disrespect to Wilt and Russell, I think they would be at the top of the league in todays game but probably not as dominant as they were back then.

[G-Funk]

Russell ahead of Wilt? bias

[Kews1]

Russell ahead of Wilt? bias

These guys went head to head all the time and Bill clearly came out on top

[Rubio2Gasol]

There are some things to take into account ; all in all given the legalization of zone and the popularity of pick and roll - I could see myself taking quite a few guys ahead of Shaq.

[iamgine]

not a chance, Shaq is both more skillful and more powerful, all that mountain lion shit is fairy-tales.
Not a chance, Wilt is both more skillful and more powerful.

[K]

Not a chance, Wilt is both more skillful and more powerful.

This x 100

[Kews1]

Not a chance, Wilt is both more skillful and more powerful.

Not this x 1000

[Marchesk]

These guys went head to head all the time and Bill clearly came out on top

They were playing 1 on 1? :facepalm

[Marchesk]

In my eyes
1. O'Neal
2. Jabbar
3. Hakeem
4. Russell
5. Wilt


Where do you put a healthy peak Walton?

[Marchesk]

All evidence from the past eras goes to show that the level of talent was not up to par with the later eras of big men. .

Wilt, Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Petite, and Jabbar not good enough for you?


Quite frankly, imo if you put the Shaqs, Ewings, Robinsons, Olajuwons in the 50s or 60s they would dominate the league just as Wilt or Russell did. That's no disrespect to Wilt and Russell, I think they would be at the top of the league in todays game but probably not as dominant as they were back then.

Okay, but would they win as much as Russell or put up the numbers Wilt did? Hard to know, there's a lot of variables. But I'll say this, Wilt was a superior rebounder to any of those guys, and he and Russell were superior shot blockers. Russell was probably the superior teammate and defensive player. We're talking Ben Wallace defensive presence and had the impact of a Magic or Bird on the Celtics from the center position.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't take Shaq #1 overall. I'd have to see Wilt live first to decide that.

[Kews1]

They were playing 1 on 1? :facepalm

same time, same position, as good as any 1 v 1 all time great match up which actually took place to use as comparison

[Kews1]

Where do you put a healthy peak Walton?

Not in the top 5

[Marchesk]

same time, same position, as good as any 1 v 1 all time great match up which actually took place to use as comparison

I'm sure jlauber of cavaliersftw can provide some stats on who came out ahead in that matchup. :confusedshrug:

[Kews1]

I'm sure jlauber of cavaliersftw can provide some stats on who came out ahead in that matchup. :confusedshrug:

jlauber :oldlol:

the kennethgriffin of wilt stans

[joeyjoejoe]

Shaq at his peak would be unstoppable in the 60's I could see him averaging 50 and 30 on 70percent

[Marchesk]

Shaq at his peak would be unstoppable in the 60's I could see him averaging 50 and 30 on 70percent

Would he be allowed to do this:

http://youtu.be/FJ3FXLyNFew?t=28s

[Inactive]

These guys went head to head all the time and Bill clearly came out on topThe Celtics came out on top, but Wilt dominated Bill individually.

[LAZERUSS]

These guys went head to head all the time and Bill clearly came out on top

Hmmm...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdEpOeFRwY29NRTUtWVlFWVJ5TkFDY 3c#gid=0

In 143 career h2h's, Chamberlain outscored Russell in 132 of them, and outrebounded him by a 92-43-8 margin. Oh, and he outshot Russell from the field by a .500 to .400 margin in those 143 games.

And here are some 40 of those 143 games...


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


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




Yep...Russell CLEARLY came out on top alright...

[deja vu]

For all his physical gifts, he only won 1 MVP and 3 titles as the main man. Just like Wilt, he is a bit of an underachiever. So no, Shaq is not the GOAT center. When it comes to peak dominance, he has one of the best.

[AirFederer]

It's close between the top 4, shaq, kab, wilt and russ. Shaq humiliated more of his opponents through dunks but is he the goat C? Wilt was to a point a numbers man, Russ the opposite. Tough call, I call a four way draw :)

[Kews1]

Hmmm...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdEpOeFRwY29NRTUtWVlFWVJ5TkFDY 3c#gid=0

In 143 career h2h's, Chamberlain outscored Russell in 132 of them, and outrebounded him by a 92-43-8 margin. Oh, and he outshot Russell from the field by a .500 to .400 margin in those 143 games.

And here are some 40 of those 143 games...



Yep...Russell CLEARLY came out on top alright...

Well you can feel free to place Wilt ahead of Bill on your own list, but Bill was an infinitely more intelligent and precise basketball player than Wilt. Wilts numbers are second too none, but in terms of the caliber of player i unreservedly place Russell ahead of Wilt without doubt.

[PickernRoller]

OP makes a thread to get some debate on the Top 5 Centers of all time.

OP then goes on a rampage to force his opinion and "choice" down people's throats. Doing so while ignoring every opinion contrary to his.

So let me guess, that makes OP a P___G___T

[ABfor3]

Wilt, Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Petite, and Jabbar not good enough for you?
Like I said, no disrespect to any players from the past, they're all great players.





Okay, but would they win as much as Russell or put up the numbers Wilt did? Hard to know, there's a lot of variables. But I'll say this, Wilt was a superior rebounder to any of those guys, and he and Russell were superior shot blockers. Russell was probably the superior teammate and defensive player. We're talking Ben Wallace defensive presence and had the impact of a Magic or Bird on the Celtics from the center position.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't take Shaq #1 overall. I'd have to see Wilt live first to decide that.
I'm sure its very much easier to block a shot of a guy who only knows how shoot the ball up a couple of ways compared to the aerial supremacy that we witness in today's game ala Lebron, Rose, Westbrook, Wall (all freakish athletes who can maneuver around the basket any way they want) Basketball was just beginning in their days to become a popular sport, meaning not many people were that good or took advanced training like today's athletes. Im not meaning to disrespect the greats but the scrubs back then were actual scrubs compared to today's scrubs are all way better than the average person.

[crisoner]

1. Kareem
2. Wilt
3. Russel
4. Shaq
5. Hakeem

That's it right there everybody move along.

[PickernRoller]

1. Kareem
2. Russel
3. Hakeem
4. Shaq
5. Wilt

That's it right there everybody move along.

Fixed. Now we can move along.

[crisoner]

Fixed. Now we can move along.
Did you read up on Wilt and Russel's numbers against each other? Russel just had the better teams.

[Straight_Ballin]

Did someone seriously suggest that Wilt was stronger than Shaq?

Only on ISH. :lol

[LAZERUSS]

Did someone seriously suggest that Wilt was stronger than Shaq?

Only on ISH. :lol

There are numerous accounts of Chamberlain benching 400-500+ lbs. SI ran an article in 1964 in which Wilt was easily benching 400 lbs.

Meanwhile, I have seen Shaq credited with a bench of 450, BUT, just last year, on national television, he couldn't budge the bar at all from his chest, at 405 lbs. From what I saw, I believe that he was probably capable of no more than 350. Granted, that was last year, and not a prime Shaq, but there was an eye-witness account and subsequent interview with Chamberlain by that eye-witness, in which he claims he witnessed a 59 year old Chamberlain benching 465 lbs...and Wilt laughingly said that he probably could have done more. And it is worth mentioning that Chamberlain was often considered one of the strongest athletes in the world back in the 60's and 70's.

Just google "Wilt's strength"...the internet is plastered with accounts of his incredible strength and power. Robert Cherry interviewed a relatively well-known weight-lifter by the name of Fluke Fluker, who was 6-5 and 250 lbs, and who was known to have benched 500 lbs. Fluker claims that Wilt was the strongest person that he ever worked out with, and that Wilt could curl 110 lb dumb-bells, "like you or I would pick up a telephone." And here again, Wilt was in his 50's at the time.

Of course, how about this interview with Arnold Schwartzenegger...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzIu7o5NH1k

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, how about this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU43dTuMuig

[Psileas]

In my eyes

1. O'Neal
2. Jabbar
3. Hakeem
4. Russell
5. Wilt

In a draft of all time greats Shaq would be my first pick every time, ahead of Jordan. I consider Jordan to be the better player individually but in my view he cant single-handedly destroy a team in the way Shaq can dominate. At peak, If both players had a team of equal scrubs Shaq would take them further than MJ or any other players could. Thats just how good Shaq was with the size and skill package he had. If you consider Duncan a center then i would put him at #3 ahead of Hakeem.

What say you?

Me says your title wasn't the OP's main point.

BTW, who's the greatest center/player isn't necessarily the same with who we'd pick in an all-time draft, in an unknown era, for an unknown team. As a matter of fact, I know of lots of people who claim that Jordan is the GOAT but that they would pick someone else in their Draft's #1.

Career-wise, among centers, Russell has to be on top, with Wilt being his most serious opponent due to his unprecedented dominance. Kareem and Shaq won somewhat more (yes, Kareem's role in some of his teams title runs only warrants the "somewhat" title), but dominated somewhat less. Hakeem had the least accomplishments among them, so he goes 5th.
Talent-wise ("draft"), you can make a case for anyone, including Hakeem. BTW, I don't know how Russell's talents would be translated in more recent leagues, but I'd still expect him to have the biggest will to win.*

*Isn't it funny how the "will to win" stuff is something which is usually supposed not to really pertain to big men, unless they have some "small man" traits (like Hakeem's agility)?

[Straight_Ballin]

There are numerous accounts of Chamberlain benching 400-500+ lbs. SI ran an article in 1964 in which Wilt was easily benching 400 lbs.

Meanwhile, I have seen Shaq credited with a bench of 450, BUT, just last year, on national television, he couldn't budge the bar at all from his chest, at 405 lbs. From what I saw, I believe that he was probably capable of no more than 350. Granted, that was last year, and not a prime Shaq, but there was an eye-witness account and subsequent interview with Chamberlain by that eye-witness, in which he claims he witnessed a 59 year old Chamberlain benching 465 lbs...and Wilt laughingly said that he probably could have done more. And it is worth mentioning that Chamberlain was often considered one of the strongest athletes in the world back in the 60's and 70's.

Just google "Wilt's strength"...the internet is plastered with accounts of his incredible strength and power. Robert Cherry interviewed a relatively well-known weight-lifter by the name of Fluke Fluker, who was 6-5 and 250 lbs, and who was known to have benched 500 lbs. Fluker claims that Wilt was the strongest person that he ever worked out with, and that Wilt could curl 110 lb dumb-bells, "like you or I would pick up a telephone." And here again, Wilt was in his 50's at the time.

Of course, how about this interview with Arnold Schwartzenegger...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzIu7o5NH1k

I'm not disputing that wilt was strong, but if you think 450 is the most that Shaq ever benched at peak strength, then you are mistaken.

[Mr Exlax]

Hmmm...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdEpOeFRwY29NRTUtWVlFWVJ5TkFDY 3c#gid=0

In 143 career h2h's, Chamberlain outscored Russell in 132 of them, and outrebounded him by a 92-43-8 margin. Oh, and he outshot Russell from the field by a .500 to .400 margin in those 143 games.

And here are some 40 of those 143 games...



Yep...Russell CLEARLY came out on top alright...


I needed this! I know I had seen it before. I can never understand how/why people place Russell ahead of Wilt. I'm guessing they never seen anything like this before.

[TheTenth]

Career-wise, among centers, Russell has to be on top, with Wilt being his most serious opponent due to his unprecedented dominance. Kareem and Shaq won somewhat more (yes, Kareem's role in some of his teams title runs only warrants the "somewhat" title), but dominated somewhat less. Hakeem had the least accomplishments among them, so he goes 5th.
Talent-wise ("draft"), you can make a case for anyone, including Hakeem. BTW, I don't know how Russell's talents would be translated in more recent leagues, but I'd still expect him to have the biggest will to win.*

No one has to be on top. I'd take Wilt's and Shaq's careers over Russell's in a heart beat. That's still only my opinion though. There is no set order, no guidelines one has to stick to in their order.


I'm not disputing that wilt was strong, but if you think 450 is the most that Shaq ever benched at peak strength, then you are mistaken.
Do you have a source? I've always thought it might have been a low number for Shaq.

[SwayDizzle]

prime Shaq would rape Wilt

[Marchesk]

prime Shaq would rape Wilt

Like how he "raped" Ben Wallace?

Playoffs 22 games:
Shaq: 21.9 ppg 9.3 rbg 0.4 spg 1.7 bpg 3.5 to
Wallace: 8.1 ppg 10.6 rbg 1.6 spg 1.2 bpg 0.9 to

When Wallace is a career 7.2 ppg and Wilt was 30.1. Wallace was 6-9 240 and Wilt was 7-1 275.

Okay.

[PickernRoller]

Did you read up on Wilt and Russel's numbers against each other? Russel just had the better teams.

It's a very subjective thing and little can people recall from back then. I won't put my life on the line for the rankings :lol ...just hard to put down 11. At least in the leadership department Russel showed he was miles ahead aka making those around you better - by leading them.

[Lakers2877]

These guys went head to head all the time and Bill clearly came out on top
Wilt averaged 29pts 29rbs in some 160 games vs Russell

Russell averaged 15pts 22rbs vs wilt head to head

Russell played on the better teams though

[mehyaM24]

Like how he "raped" Ben Wallace?

Playoffs 22 games:
Shaq: 21.9 ppg 9.3 rbg 0.4 spg 1.7 bpg 3.5 to
Wallace: 8.1 ppg 10.6 rbg 1.6 spg 1.2 bpg 0.9 to

When Wallace is a career 7.2 ppg and Wilt was 30.1. Wallace was 6-9 240 and Wilt was 7-1 275.

Okay.

.....shaq held hakeem,ewing and mourning under 45% shooting in their careers....what a great defender. do you remember the game that got the heat to the finals?.... game 6 vs pistons....ECF shaq 12-14 fgs.....vs DPOY ben wallace. wade 6-15 fgs wade played like shit and was carried into the finals....look it up

and how about the 2004 finals....?

kobe 113 pts,70 misses

shaq- 133 pts,31 misses....25/11 on 59% shooting....although "fat,out of shape and past his prime"...damn...what does that say about kobes game?...

[juju151111]

Shaq was the better playoff performance. Shaq>>>Wilt

[Marchesk]

and how about the 2004 finals....?

kobe 113 pts,70 misses

shaq- 133 pts,31 misses....25/11 on 59% shooting....although "fat,out of shape and past his prime"...damn...what does that say about kobes game?...

What does Kobe have to do with anything? This is Wilt vs Shaq.

[caliman]

Like how he "raped" Ben Wallace?

Playoffs 22 games:
Shaq: 21.9 ppg 9.3 rbg 0.4 spg 1.7 bpg 3.5 to
Wallace: 8.1 ppg 10.6 rbg 1.6 spg 1.2 bpg 0.9 to

When Wallace is a career 7.2 ppg and Wilt was 30.1. Wallace was 6-9 240 and Wilt was 7-1 275.

Okay.


Most of those games came after Shaq was out of his prime, with only the 2004 Finals being the tail end of it. And even in that diminished state Shaq ate Wallace alive with 27 and 11 on 60% shooting.

[Horde of Temujin]

I would take Hakeem. The man was incredible, he could hit free throws, had an array of post moves, great mid to long range shot (beautiful fade away), he was capable of guarding both the perimeter and post.

He had a beautiful game.

[mehyaM24]

shaq, out of his prime, owned wallace....nuff said.


What does Kobe have to do with anything? This is Wilt vs Shaq.

wilt is overrated.

kareem= 29.7 ppg in 11 playoff games vs wilt

wilt==== 15.9 ppg in 11 playoff games vs kareem....what domination!!!!....:lol

[Scholar]

I'd go with Wilt over Shaq. Shaq was huge, but he wasn't too much bigger than Wilt.
Wilt was already faster than most guards, leaped higher than practically everyone and was so strong that he almost boxed Muhammad Ali. Imagine that beastly man playing in the modern sports era with advanced nutrition and medicine.

[mehyaM24]

1. Kareem
2. Wilt
3. Russel
4. Shaq
5. Hakeem

That's it right there everybody move along.

please...kareem is overrated.....and lazy on the court......in 158 playoff games as a teammate of magic Johnson,MAGIC had more rebounds than kareem

shaq was better than all of them...check the footage on youtube..

"shaqs gangsta move on michael jordan"
"shaq crossover and dunk"
"shaq bigtime coast to coast dunk"
"shaq scores 61st point and alley oops it to kobe"

thats some of shaqs handles,footwork,quickness....*and an alley-oop pass from beyond the 3-pt line....and there is plenty more where that came from....shaq is the best center that ever lived.

[LAZERUSS]

I'm not disputing that wilt was strong, but if you think 450 is the most that Shaq ever benched at peak strength, then you are mistaken.

Well, I can't even recall where I read the 450 number. BUT, having watched a near 400 lb Shaq unable to budge 405 (not an inch), and only 10 years, or so, from a peak 350 lb Shaq, I seriously doubt that he came anywhere near 450.

Meanwhile, there is simply no end to the accounts of Chamberlain's strength and even bench. But if SI had him at 400 in '64, and long before he reached his maximum strength, I suspect that 450-500 would have been reasonable. Especially for a 300+ lb Chamberlain later in his career.

And there is footage and photos of Wilt, even into his 50's, in which he was massive, and with very little fat.

In terms of pure strength, I have no doubt that Wilt was stronger.

[waseem780]

Best Center is Hakeem
Most Dominant Center is Shaq

[Marchesk]

kareem= 29.7 ppg in 11 playoff games vs wilt

wilt==== 15.9 ppg in 11 playoff games vs kareem....what domination!!!!....:lol

Wilt wasn't the primary scorer at that point in his career. Check his regular season averages. He was asked to rebound, play defense and facilitate first and foremost.

[ILLsmak]

I'd go with Wilt over Shaq. Shaq was huge, but he wasn't too much bigger than Wilt.
Wilt was already faster than most guards, leaped higher than practically everyone and was so strong that he almost boxed Muhammad Ali. Imagine that beastly man playing in the modern sports era with advanced nutrition and medicine.

I dunno, tho...

What made Shaq so good was his relentless power. He didn't have endurance like run up the court endurance, but he had bruising endurance. I don't think anyone in the history of the NBA could bang with Shaq. They would begin to get worn down and frustrated.

Wilt and Bill said they'd make Shaq run up and down the court as much as possible, but give him a decent PF (like Ho Grant) and he wouldn't have to rush. Take what happens because on the other end you'd run a grind it out offense with Shaq giving them elbows for 18 seconds then dunking on them.

Not saying I think Shaq is the best center, but I think he'd house Wilt. Kareem, however, may fare better. Prime Hakeem, who knows.

But nobody is gonna out-bang Shaq... not because Shaq is the strongest player to ever play in the NBA (altho he's probably close) but simply because that was his game. He loved contact and took a lot of it. Sooner or later, Wilt would fold.

That's why that handshake by surprise video is funny because if, after that handshake, they went in the post, Shaq would demoralize him.

-Smak

[Marchesk]

Most of those games came after Shaq was out of his prime, with only the 2004 Finals being the tail end of it. And even in that diminished state Shaq ate Wallace alive with 27 and 11 on 60% shooting.

27 and 11 is good, but he's being guarded by a 6'9 240 pound dude, and people are saying that Shaq would rape Wilt at 7'1 270 minimum? What do you consider "rape" to be? You think Shaq would push Wilt around like he did Mutumbo? Highly doubt it.

I've no doubt that Shaq would get his, but Wilt would outrebound, block more shots, and get his points too.

[ILLsmak]

Well, I can't even recall where I read the 450 number. BUT, having watched a near 400 lb Shaq unable to budge 405 (not an inch), and only 10 years, or so, from a peak 350 lb Shaq, I seriously doubt that he came anywhere near 450.

Meanwhile, there is simply no end to the accounts of Chamberlain's strength and even bench. But if SI had him at 400 in '64, and long before he reached his maximum strength, I suspect that 450-500 would have been reasonable. Especially for a 300+ lb Chamberlain later in his career.

And there is footage and photos of Wilt, even into his 50's, in which he was massive, and with very little fat.

In terms of pure strength, I have no doubt that Wilt was stronger.

Ben Wallace could hit 500, supposedly. The "core" of Shaq is so much larger than guys like Wilt/Wallace, plus lower body strength.

What is "pure strength?" You realize that's not measured with weights. It would be the force a person could generate with their body.

-Smak

[Marchesk]

Wilt and Bill said they'd make Shaq run up and down the court as much as possible, but give him a decent PF (like Ho Grant) and he wouldn't have to rush. Take what happens because on the other end you'd run a grind it out offense with Shaq giving them elbows for 18 seconds then dunking on them.

Maybe. Russell would run Shaq into the ground though, if it was a faster paced game.


Not saying I think Shaq is the best center, but I think he'd house Wilt. Kareem, however, may fare better. Prime Hakeem, who knows.

Wilt's a superior physical specimen to Kareem. I don't know why Kareem would fare better with Shaq banging on him. Maybe he'd fare better offensively with his sky hook? But I don't see why Wilt wouldn't be able to score on Shaq as well. It's not like O'Neal was considered a defender along the lines of Mutombo or Wallace.

[crisoner]

I would take Hakeem. The man was incredible, he could hit free throws, had an array of post moves, great mid to long range shot (beautiful fade away), he was capable of guarding both the perimeter and post.

He had a beautiful game.

The man won two titles because Jordan was out of the picture.
So nope not the top center.

It's Kareem.

Look at Kareem's resume you can argue Kareem is the greatest basketball player of all time at all levels. High School...College...and Pros.

[mehyaM24]

Wilt wasn't the primary scorer at that point in his career. Check his regular season averages. He was asked to rebound, play defense and facilitate first and foremost.

that's a convenient excuse....:lol


the TRUTH is wilt= WILTED in the playoffs...its a fact. he averaged 50.4 ppg in the '62 reg.season....yet ELGIN BAYLOR had more ppg in the '62 playoffs....

but let me guess,he was asked to facilitate?...lmaoo

wilt= 21.0 ppg and 0-4 in game 7's vs celtics; sam jones= 27.8 ppg and 4-0 in game 7's vs wilt

was wilt playing for the celtics??!?! :roll:

...guy can score 100 pts vs a bad team in a meaningless reg.season game,but cant outscore sam jones in any of the 4 game 7's vs celtics....

hell, even russ joined in on the fun. had 15/29/9 vs wilt in game 7 in 65 vs wilt...celtics win 110-109...

wilt is a joke

[Marchesk]

Ben Wallace could hit 500, supposedly. The "core" of Shaq is so much larger than guys like Wilt/Wallace, plus lower body strength.

My point is that Shaq did not rape Ben Wallace. Of course he got his. But it's not like he was dropping 35 and 15 on Wallace. Or Rodman for that matter.

Are we saying Wallace was physically superior to Wilt? Or just a better defender? That's likely the case.

Now Rodman was a superior physical specimen (in general). He was very strong and his athleticism is underrated.

Anyway, both Wallace and Rodman outrebounded Shaq. Wilt would too.

[KyleKong]

Shaq is #2 GOAT Center behind Jabbar and #5 GOAT in general.

[LAZERUSS]

shaq, out of his prime, owned wallace....nuff said.



wilt is overrated.

kareem= 29.7 ppg in 11 playoff games vs wilt

wilt==== 15.9 ppg in 11 playoff games vs kareem....what domination!!!!....:lol

You mean a 34-35 year old Wilt, who was well past his prime.

The same Chamberlain, who in the '71 season, and covering ten h2h games (five in the regular season, and five in the post-season) was battling a peak KAJ to a statistical standstill?

In their 10 h2h's that season...

KAJ 26 ppg, 15.6 rpg, and .461 shooting.

Wilt 22 ppg, 17.6 rpg, and on .470 shooting.

Now, what would a prime Chamberlain, circa 64-67 have done against KAJ?

[crisoner]

Kareem's resume GOAT Bigman

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0528/nba_jabbarhooks_800.jpg


6

[Marchesk]

I want to know in what sense people consider Shaq superior to Wilt? Is it just physical domination of the opponent?

Because it's not rebounding, shot blocking, or overall scoring.

[mehyaM24]

kareem= a pansy......in 158 playoff games as magics teammate,magic outrebounded kareem.....kareem was a lazy bum unless he got the ball and was trying to score. truth!!

[LAZERUSS]

that's a convenient excuse....:lol


the TRUTH is wilt= WILTED in the playoffs...its a fact. he averaged 50.4 ppg in the '62 reg.season....yet ELGIN BAYLOR had more ppg in the '62 playoffs....

but let me guess,he was asked to facilitate?...lmaoo

wilt= 21.0 ppg and 0-4 in game 7's vs celtics; sam jones= 27.8 ppg and 4-0 in game 7's vs wilt

was wilt playing for the celtics??!?! :roll:

...guy can score 100 pts vs a bad team in a meaningless reg.season game,but cant outscore sam jones in any of the 4 game 7's vs celtics....

hell, even russ joined in on the fun. had 15/29/9 vs wilt in game 7 in 65 vs wilt...celtics win 110-109...

wilt is a joke

The Chamberlain who outscored Sam Jones in their '60, '62, '64, '65, '66, and '67 playoff series?

And while Russell was putting up that game seven of 15-29, and on 7-16 shooting, Chamberlain was hanging a 30-32 game, on 12-15 shooting against him.

Of course, if you want the FACTS about Wilt "wilting" in the playoffs, here you go...


The idiotic Bill Simmons claims that Wilt "shrunk" in the post-season, particularly in BIG games.

Had he actually done any real research into Wilt's post-season career, he would have found that Wilt averaged 27.0 ppg in his 35 "must-win" and/or clinching games. Meanwhile, his starting opposing centers averaged 14.5 ppg in those 35 games. He also outscored his opposing starting center in 29 of those 35 games, including a 19-0 edge in his first 19 games of those 35. Furthermore, in his 13 games which came in his "scoring" seasons (from 59-60 thru 65-66), Chamberlain averaged 37.3 ppg in those "do-or-die" or clinching games. And there were MANY games in which he just CRUSHED his opposing centers in those games (e.g. he outscored Kerr in one them, 53-7.)

Wilt had THREE of his four 50+ point post-season games, in these "elimination games", including two in "at the limit" games, and another against Russell in a "must-win" game. He also had games of 46-34 and 45-27 (and only 4 months removed from major knee surgery) in these types of games. In addition he had games of 39 and 38 in clinching wins.

In the known 19 games in which we have both Wilt's, and his starting opposing center's rebounding numbers, Chamberlain outrebounded them in 15 of them, and by an average margin of 26.1 rpg to 18.9 rpg. And, had we had all 35 of the totals, it would have been by a considerably larger margin. A conservative estimate would put Wilt with at least a 30-5 overall edge in those 35 games. He also had games, even against the likes of Russell, and in "must-win" situations, where he just MURDERED his opposing centers (e.g. he had one clinching game, against Russell, in which he outrebounded him by a 36-21 margin.)

And finally, in the known FG% games in which we have, Chamberlain not only shot an eye-popping .582 in those "do-or-die" games, but he held his opposing centers to a combined .413 FG%. BTW, he played against Kareem in two "clinching" games, and held Abdul-Jabbar to a combined 23-60 (.383 shooting). while Wilt himself, shot 18-33, or .545 in those two games.

The bottom line, in the known games of the 35 that Wilt played in that involved a "must-win" or clincher, Wilt averaged 27 ppg, 26.1 rpg, and shot .582 (and the 27 ppg figure was known for all 35 of those games.)

And once again, Chamberlain played in 11 games which went to the series limit (nine game seven's, one game five of a best-of-five series, and one game three of a best-of-three series), and all he did was average 29.9 ppg (outscoring his opposing center by a 29.9 ppg to 9.8 ppg margin in the process), with 26.7 rpg, and on .581 shooting. Or he was an eye-lash away from averaging a 30-27 game, and on nearly .600 shooting, in those 11 "at the limit" games.

Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain's TEAMs went 24-11 in those 35 games, too.

That was the same player that Simmons basically labeled a "loser", and a "choker", and who "shrunk" in his BIG games.


A strong case coule be made that, aside from MJ, Chamberlain was the most "clutch" player in NBA post-season history.

[Marchesk]

that's a convenient excuse....:lol


the TRUTH is wilt= WILTED in the playoffs...its a fact. he averaged 50.4 ppg in the '62 reg.season....yet ELGIN BAYLOR had more ppg in the '62 playoffs....

but let me guess,he was asked to facilitate?...lmaoo

wilt= 21.0 ppg and 0-4 in game 7's vs celtics; sam jones= 27.8 ppg and 4-0 in game 7's vs wilt

was wilt playing for the celtics??!?! :roll:

...guy can score 100 pts vs a bad team in a meaningless reg.season game,but cant outscore sam jones in any of the 4 game 7's vs celtics....

hell, even russ joined in on the fun. had 15/29/9 vs wilt in game 7 in 65 vs wilt...celtics win 110-109...

wilt is a joke

How many times did Shaq's teams get swept in the playoffs?

[SilkkTheShocker]

Shaq getting swept 6 times in the playoffs seems to always get swept over. Not to mention he is arguably the biggest front runner in NBA history.

[mehyaM24]

How many times did Shaq's teams get swept in the playoffs?

how many more championships does shaq have than wilt? u can call me bill Russell......cause u got swatted lmaooooo

[TheTenth]

that's a convenient excuse....:lol


the TRUTH is wilt= WILTED in the playoffs...its a fact. he averaged 50.4 ppg in the '62 reg.season....yet ELGIN BAYLOR had more ppg in the '62 playoffs....
Again, playoff stats are a product of competition. In the 62 playoffs, his coach asked him to score less. He definitely wouldn't have reached 50 PPG in the playoffs (he played the two centers he dominated least) but he might have been a higher scorer if his coach ran the same the game plan in the regular season.



wilt= 21.0 ppg and 0-4 in game 7's vs celtics; sam jones= 27.8 ppg and 4-0 in game 7's vs wilt
Wilt played 2 of those game 7's when he had a different role. He played 4 game 7's (62, 65, 67, 68.) Cherry picking at it's finest.


...guy can score 100 pts vs a bad team in a meaningless reg.season game,but cant outscore sam jones in any of the 4 game 7's vs celtics....
Agreed, the 100 point game is overrated but this comparison is faulty.


hell, even russ joined in on the fun. had 15/29/9 vs wilt in game 7 in 65 vs wilt...celtics win 110-109...

wilt is a joke
Interesting you pointed out the game 7 in 65 which Wilt absolutely dominated Russell.


How many times did Shaq's teams get swept in the playoffs?
I know you may be arguing using the same faulty logic as other people are to point out their faults, but team success is not a sign of individual success.

[mehyaM24]

The Chamberlain who outscored Sam Jones in their '60, '62, '64, '65, '66, and '67 playoff series?

And while Russell was putting up that game seven of 15-29, and on 7-16 shooting, Chamberlain was hanging a 30-32 game, on 12-15 shooting against him.

Of course, if you want the FACTS about Wilt "wilting" in the playoffs, here you go...



A strong case coule be made that, aside from MJ, Chamberlain was the most "clutch" player in NBA post-season history.

..wilt= choker....thats a fact

wilt= 0-5 vs russell in potential series and championship winning games..

sixers up 3-1 on celtics in 68 playoffs...then lost games 5,6,and 7...5 and 7 AT HOME...:roll:

lakers up 3-2 on celtics in 69 finals..then lost games 6 and 7..7 AT HOME...lololol

wilt= 50.4 ppg in 62 reg.season...22 pts in game 7 vs celtics when it mattered most....sam jones with 28...lmaoo

willis reed= 31.8 ppg in wilts eye in the '70 finals before tearing his thigh muscle

i can go on and on...but u get the picture.

[TheTenth]

I want to know in what sense people consider Shaq superior to Wilt? Is it just physical domination of the opponent?

Because it's not rebounding, shot blocking, or overall scoring.
Shaq was a much more efficient scorer in his "scoring years."
He came somewhat close to Wilt's Points Per 36 (if adjusted) of 62, 63, and first half of 65 but on a good deal higher FG%.

[LAZERUSS]

Shaq was a much more efficient scorer in his "scoring years."
He came somewhat close to Wilt's Points Per 36 (if adjusted) of 62, 63, and first half of 65 but on a good deal higher FG%.

Are you also adjusting the eFG%'s of their eras?

For instance, in Shaq's 99-00 season, he shot .574 in a league that had an eFG% of .478.

Just using Wilt's '63 season, in which he shot .528, in a league that shot .441, his FG% would have been around an adjusted .572 in '00.

And Wilt's '66 season, in which he shot .540 in a league that shot .433, would have been an adjusted .596 in '00.

And you can't compare Per/36, because Wilt was playing nearly every minute of every game, while Shaq, at his peak, was at 40 mpg. Clearly, either Shaq's efficiencies would have declined with more mpg, or Chamberlain's would have increased with less.

[TheTenth]

Are you also adjusting the eFG%'s of their eras?

For instance, in Shaq's 99-00 season, he shot .574 in a league that had an eFG% of .478.

Just using Wilt's '63 season, in which he shot .528, in a league that shot .441, his FG% would have been around an adjusted .572.

And Wilt's '66 season, in which he shot .540 in a league that shot .433, would have been an adjusted .596 in '00.

And you can't compare Per/36, because Wilt was playing nearly every minute of every game, while Shaq, at his peak, was at 40 mpg. Clearly, either Shaq's efficiencies would have declined with more mpg, or Chamberlain's would have increased with less.
Only raw FG%.
The per36 argument is always a factor, and one should keep it in mind, but using both with the same base years:

PP36/FG%/Name/Year
31.33 .549 Wilt 62
29.77 .549 Wilt 65 (Warriors)
29.55 .609 Shaq 99
29.24 .553 Wilt 63
29.21 .600 Shaq 98
28.26 .601 Shaq 02

As you can see Wilt had a better points/36 average but his FG% was less probably due to his tendency to shoot the fade away rather than the dunk which Shaq preferred. Like I've said before, I believe Wilt is the better player because of his superior rebounding and defense, but I don't want to blow things out of proportion or show bias towards Wilt.

[ShaqAttack3234]

[QUOTE=K

[TheTenth]

If both were in their high scoring days, I don't see Wilt limiting Shaq's scoring much, if at all. If it was Wilt in his later years when he was bigger and focused on defense more, then it wouldn't surprise me if Shaq had a tougher time scoring than usual.

Wilt was limiting his opposition's PPG/FG% even in his scoring years.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt was limiting his opposition's PPG/FG% even in his scoring years.

I think Wilt's defense in his scoring years is severely under-rated.

In the known 10, of their 11 regular season h2h's in Wilt's rookie season (59-60), he held Russell to a .398 FG%, in a year in which Russell posted his career high FG% of .467. As a sidenote, Chamberlain shot .461 against the league that year, and .465 against Russell (and if you remove his very first game against Russell, in which he shot 12-38, he shot nearly 50% the rest of their known h2h's.)

Wilt faced Johnny Kerr in the '60 playoffs, nd held him to a .294 FG%, in a season in which Kerr shot .392.

In the '62 playoffs, Chamberlain again held Kerr way below his regular seaon FG% (.376 in a season in which Kerr shot .443.)

In the '62 EDF's, Chamberlain held Russell, in a year in which Russell shot .457 against the entire NBA, to .399 shooting.

In the '64 Finals, Wilt held Russell, who had averaged 15.0 ppg on .433 shooting in the regular season, to 11.2 ppg and .386 shooting.

Interesting too, was the Wilt-Russell h2h in the '65 EDF's. Russell shot .447 against Wilt (who shot .555 against Russ), but, in the '65 Finals, and against the Lakers, Russell set a Finals record of a .702 FG%.

In the '67 EDF's, Chamberlain held Russell, who had averaged 13.3 ppg on .454 shooting, to 10.2 ppg on .358 shooting.

In the '67 Finals, Chamberlain held Thurmond, and in his greatest season, and who had averaged 18.7 ppg on .437 shooting in the regular season, to 14.3 ppg on .343 shooting (while Wilt himself averaged 17.5 ppg on .560 shooting.)

In the '68 playoffs, Chamberlain held Bellamy, who had shot .541 against the NBA in the regular season, to .421 shooting in their six game series. Meanwhile Chamberlain averaged 25 ppg on .584 shooting against Bellamy.

Of course, later in his career, Chamberlain was dramatically reducing Kareem's efficiency, as well. In the 70-71 season, KAJ shot .577 against the league. In the WCF's, and against Wilt, he shot .481.

And in the '72 WCF's, Chamberlain held KAJ, who had shot .574 against the league, to a .457 FG%, which included holding Kareem to .414 shooting over the last four games of that series.

And, in his 29 post-season series, I could only find two opposing centers who shot better than .500 against Wilt. One was Zelmo Beaty in the '64 WDF's, when he shot .521 while scoring 14.3 ppg (meanwhile, Wilt averaged 38.6 ppg on .559 shooting against him.) Then in the '72 Finals, Jerry Lucas averaged 20 ppg on an even .500 FG%. However, in the firts half of game one of the '72 Finals, Lucas shot 9-11. For the remaninder of the series, he shot a combined 37-81, or .457.

[TheTenth]

I think Wilt's defense in his scoring years is severely under-rated.

In the known 10, of their 11 regular season h2h's in Wilt's rookie season (59-60), he held Russell to a .398 FG%, in a year in which Russell posted his career high FG% of .467. As a sidenote, Chamberlain shot .461 against the league that year, and .465 against Russell (and if you remove his very first game against Russell, in which he shot 12-38, he shot nearly 50% the rest of their known h2h's.)

Wait, I thought Wilt's FG% vs. Russell in 1960 was incomplete! Where are you getting this .465 number from?

[LAZERUSS]

Wait, I thought Wilt's FG% vs. Russell in 1960 was incomplete! Where are you getting this .465 number from?

Actually, it came from a newpaper article that Celts1984 posted a while back. It covered their first ten h2h meetings that season (going into the 11th), and those were their numbers at that point.

I don't know if I still have that link, but maybe someone else does.

[LosScandalous]

I got Shaq as the best peak center of all time followed by Wilt.

2001 the league legalized zone D because there was no effective way of double teaming superman.

1957 the NCAA proposes that you cannot dunk your free throw attempts anymore because Wilt was doing it as a freshman.


If you're a primary reason a rule gets changed because you are so unstopable, you a truly a monster among men. :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Wilt was limiting his opposition's PPG/FG% even in his scoring years.

Not always, for example, Russell's scoring average rose to from 19 ppg during the '62 regular season to 22 ppg in the EDF, and could have been higher had a few games not been blowouts by halftime.

Either way, Wilt didn't face a center who could dominate a game offensively at a similar level to prime Shaq until Kareem came along when Wilt was no longer scoring nearly as much. To Wilt's credit, he apparently played Kareem even in the '71 WCF and made it tough on Kareem in '72.

But I don't believe any opposing center whose looking to score 30 himself is going to stop Shaq from getting his 30 or so. The reason being that guarding Shaq was a full-time job. You're going to have to be willing to get physical, which risks fouls, or in some cases, take fouls intentionally because he'll inevitably get deep position a number of times. If your team is asking you to score 25-30 ppg you can't risk being in foul trouble as much.

This is exactly why in many of the great center match ups of the 90s, whether it was Hakeem vs Ewing, Robinson vs Ewing, Hakeem vs Robinson, Shaq vs Hakeem ect. they didn't always guard each other. In fact, those players matched up with opposing PFs for a good chunk of many of those games. And in the end, each of these star centers usually got around their usual scoring and rebounding numbers more often than not.

People like to glamorize these superstar match ups and envision both players trying to drop 40 and still guarding their opponents hard throughout the game in 1 on 1 coverage, but that's simply not how it happened.

To really try to limit one of these players offense, you usually need a player who focuses their energy on their defensive assignment first and foremost and a player who matches up well with the superstar and has the help defensively to pull it off.

[TheTenth]

Not always, for example, Russell's scoring average rose to from 19 ppg during the '62 regular season to 22 ppg, and could have been higher had a few games not been blowouts by halftime.
Yes, but he was held to much less efficiency. Besides, the blowouts are negligent. Russell played 47.7 MPG. Also his FT% rose, so unless you want to blame Wilt's "poor free throw defense," it's not something to run off with.

1960 Russell played better vs. Wilt
1962 no difference
1964 played worse
1965 no difference
1967 played much worse
1968 no difference
1969 played worse


Either way, Wilt didn't face a center who could dominate a game offensively at a similar level to prime Shaq until Kareem came along when Wilt was no longer scoring nearly as much. To Wilt's credit, he apparently played Kareem even in the '71 WCF and made it tough on Kareem in '72.
Agreed


But I don't believe any opposing center whose looking to score 30 himself is going to stop Shaq from getting his 30 or so. The reason being that guarding Shaq was a full-time job. You're going to have to be willing to get physical, which risks fouls, or in some cases, take fouls intentionally because he'll inevitably get deep position a number of times. If your team is asking you to score 25-30 ppg you can't risk being in foul trouble as much.
On the flip side, the same is for Wilt. Which affects Shaq.


This is exactly why in many of the great center match ups of the 90s, whether it was Hakeem vs Ewing, Robinson vs Ewing, Hakeem vs Robinson, Shaq vs Hakeem ect. they didn't always guard each other. In fact, those players matched up with opposing PFs for a good chunk of many of those games. And in the end, each of these star centers usually got around their usual scoring and rebounding numbers more often than not.
Wilt had an unusual ability to not rack up fouls, which would allow him to match up more with Shaq. Of course there would be some help for him.


People like to glamorize these superstar match ups and envision both players trying to drop 40 and still guarding their opponents hard throughout the game in 1 on 1 coverage, but that's simply not how it happened.
Maybe not in the 90s since a caliber player of Wilt wasn't around, but if Wilt played against Shaq it could be a marquee match-up to watch. You are affirming the consequent, which is a fallacy.


To really try to limit one of these players offense, you usually need a player who focuses their energy on their defensive assignment first and foremost and a player who matches up well with the superstar and has the help defensively to pull it off.
You are thinking too traditionally. Just because that strategy works for A, it does not mean that B is limited to strategy A.

[Marchesk]

You notice he said PRIME Shaq?

Fine, prime Shaq vs prime Wilt. Shaq "rapes" Wilt to the tune of?

Now what do Wilt's numbers look like? Is Shaq just bullying Wilt on offense?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yes, but he was held to much less efficiency. Besides, the blowouts are negligent. Russell played 47.7 MPG.

1960 Russell played better vs. Wilt
1962 no difference
1964 played worse
1965 no difference
1967 played much worse
1968 no difference
1969 played worse

Pretty sure Russell's efficiency was better vs Wilt, especially considering his improved free throw shooting in the playoffs. Star players usually see their minutes go up in the playoffs so this is a non-factor to me.

The blowouts are absolutely essential to evaluating the performances in this series. Because there were a few games where the majority of Russell's points came earlier when the Celtics were taking control of the game and it seems that he didn't bother to pad his stats when Boston had big leads.

All of the information I have access to about the '62 EDF points to Russell raising his game that series.


On the flip side, the same is for Wilt. Which affects Shaq.

That's true, though Wilt's offensive game is still somewhat of an unknown to me compared to Shaq's with such little actual game footage from Wilt's prime, particularly his scoring years.

Either way, I made no claims as to whether Shaq could stop/slow down Wilt offensively.


Wilt had an unusual ability to not rack up fouls, which would allow him to match up more with Shaq. Of course there would be some help for him.

Well, there wasn't an opposing center in his time who racked up fouls remotely like Shaq.


Maybe not in the 90s since a caliber player of Wilt wasn't around, but if Wilt played against Shaq it could be a marquee match-up to watch. You are affirming the consequent, which is a fallacy.

More likely, each player would still try to focus on their roles for their teams, which was to score first and foremost. I'm sure both had enough pride to not roll over, but most likely, neither would really jeopardize their ability to produce for their teams offensively.


You are thinking too traditionally. Just because that strategy works for A, it does not mean that B is limited to strategy A.

In most instances, this is the case with superstar offensive players, truly dominant ones. As I said, having followed Shaq's career closely, particularly his prime years, I see older defensive-minded Sixers/Lakers Wilt having a much better chance at limiting Shaq's offensive output, particularly with Wilt's added bulk. Of course, prime Wilt has a much better chance of playing Shaq even or outplaying him overall. A good advantage young Wilt could potentially have vs Shaq is trying to tire him out running the floor and outhustling him on the boards. It's no guarantee it works out like that, but that's certainly a possibility.


Fine, prime Shaq vs prime Wilt. Shaq "rapes" Wilt to the tune of?

Now what do Wilt's numbers look like? Is Shaq just bullying Wilt on offense?

That's not the point. I have no idea what type of numbers Shaq puts up or what happens in this hypothetical match up. My only issue was advertising 2004-2006 32-34 year old Shaq was prime Shaq.

[ILLsmak]

My point is that Shaq did not rape Ben Wallace. Of course he got his. But it's not like he was dropping 35 and 15 on Wallace. Or Rodman for that matter.

Are we saying Wallace was physically superior to Wilt? Or just a better defender? That's likely the case.

Now Rodman was a superior physical specimen (in general). He was very strong and his athleticism is underrated.

Anyway, both Wallace and Rodman outrebounded Shaq. Wilt would too.

He did kind of rape him. Plus that team had a lot of help coming his way. Considering that Ben Wallace was a DPOY, the level Shaq was able to play against him was pretty much rape.

The main idea, however, was that benching 500 pounds doesn't mean as much as you think. Hell I read Earl Boykins can hit 315 or some shit.

I'm sure Wilt could outrebound Shaq in terms of numbers, but in terms of controlling the area, Shaq is a better rebounder. Why are we even talking about rebounding?

Wilt is more of an athlete, ok, but he's not a monster like Shaq. My point was that physically, Wilt could not deal with prime Shaq on the block. He would be demoralized. I don't think Wilt has the mental strength to deal with someone who was bigger than him. I think he would give up.

-Smak

[Kews1]

OP makes a thread to get some debate on the Top 5 Centers of all time.

OP then goes on a rampage to force his opinion and "choice" down people's throats. Doing so while ignoring every opinion contrary to his.

So let me guess, that makes OP a P___G___T

Hardly, i respect everybody elses opinion but im pretty firm on the belief that Shaq at his best is undoubtedly the best center there has ever been, and most likely will be. Shaq is a more unique player than a Michael Jordan or Lebron James type, one which is unlikely to ever be replicated or matched in terms of brute dominance and natural ability. There was nothing that could be done to consistently stop Shaq. Its pretty much consensus that prime Shaq was the greatest and most unstoppable form of a player ever seen in the NBA which pretty much lends itself to being the greatest center does it not? Jordan only pips him, as do some others, for being the best player because of the other skills they posses that Shaq does not. In terms of career you can argue the other centers above, but in terms of ability and who is the best ever center Shaq IMO clearly reigns above the competition.

[Horde of Temujin]

The man won two titles because Jordan was out of the picture.
So nope not the top center.

It's Kareem.

Look at Kareem's resume you can argue Kareem is the greatest basketball player of all time at all levels. High School...College...and Pros.

Hard to match up to Kareem's resume, it can be argued that Hakeem never had the help that Kareem. I guess for me it comes down to what i see on the court from that standpoint Hakeem had the best and most aesthetically pleasing game.

[Fresh Kid]

I agree. He's number 4 above hakeem

[TheTenth]

Pretty sure Russell's efficiency was better vs Wilt, especially considering his improved free throw shooting in the playoffs. Star players usually see their minutes go up in the playoffs so this is a non-factor to me.
I'll address the bold in order.

1. No it wasn't, I have the stats.
2. Wilt can't play free throw defense. Maybe Scottie Pippen did once, but Russell wasn't a mailman who couldn't deliver on Sundays.
3. MPG and FG% have no correlation. Unless you find a study that finds other wise, "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat."


The blowouts are absolutely essential to evaluating the performances in this series. Because there were a few games where the majority of Russell's points came earlier when the Celtics were taking control of the game and it seems that he didn't bother to pad his stats when Boston had big leads.
They weren't such blowouts that Russell saw a decrease in MPG. Russell in fact played nearly every minute of every game. If stat padding were an issue, it would be with Russell being in longer than he had to. Regardless when points were scored does not matter. The games weren't so far off that a comeback wasn't out of the question.


All of the information I have access to about the '62 EDF points to Russell raising his game that series.
Yes, Russell raised his defensive play immensely, but his offensive production was not. We are not talking about Russell's overall play, just his offensive play.


That's true, though Wilt's offensive game is still somewhat of an unknown to me compared to Shaq's with such little actual game footage from Wilt's prime, particularly his scoring years.

Either way, I made no claims as to whether Shaq could stop/slow down Wilt offensively.
I make no claims other than each "Wilt" would have a good chance of guarding Shaq well; and that there isn't a limit to a type of "Wilt" that could.


Well, there wasn't an opposing center in his time who racked up fouls remotely like Shaq.
I'm not sure, I would have to look it up, although I assume your thesis is valid. But let's remember that both Wilt and Shaq are players that are incredibly rare. I'd imagine they have a high z score, if their worth could be quantified exactly.


More likely, each player would still try to focus on their roles for their teams, which was to score first and foremost. I'm sure both had enough pride to not roll over, but most likely, neither would really jeopardize their ability to produce for their teams offensively.
I'm not sure. It's all circumstantial. Wilt gave up some of his scoring in the 62 playoffs because of his coach's want and I think Shaq would likely do the same.


In most instances, this is the case with superstar offensive players, truly dominant ones. As I said, having followed Shaq's career closely, particularly his prime years, I see older defensive-minded Sixers/Lakers Wilt having a much better chance at limiting Shaq's offensive output, particularly with Wilt's added bulk. Of course, prime Wilt has a much better chance of playing Shaq even or outplaying him overall. A good advantage young Wilt could potentially have vs Shaq is trying to tire him out running the floor and outhustling him on the boards. It's no guarantee it works out like that, but that's certainly a possibility.
You see something, but this holds little weight. I could "see" Mugsy Bogues having the best chance of guarding Shaq, but that is neither here nor there and believing in ideas such as this leaves me more susceptible to my own confirmation bias. Please don't take this as an insult; we both have debated with each other before and I respect your opinion in human terms (I would be biased to believe you and would hold your opinion in great weight outside of a debate) but I really try to take viewing things in a scientific/algorithmic approach. I try to remove myself/you from the debate and look at the ideas themselves as best I can. Never take anything I say in these arguments as an "ad hominem attack."

[secund2nun]

Peak Shaq is the GOAT player.

[secund2nun]

Shaq at his peak would be unstoppable in the 60's I could see him averaging 50 and 30 on 70percent

+1

Truth

[Linspired]

There are numerous accounts of Chamberlain benching 400-500+ lbs. SI ran an article in 1964 in which Wilt was easily benching 400 lbs.

Meanwhile, I have seen Shaq credited with a bench of 450, BUT, just last year, on national television, he couldn't budge the bar at all from his chest, at 405 lbs. From what I saw, I believe that he was probably capable of no more than 350. Granted, that was last year, and not a prime Shaq, but there was an eye-witness account and subsequent interview with Chamberlain by that eye-witness, in which he claims he witnessed a 59 year old Chamberlain benching 465 lbs...and Wilt laughingly said that he probably could have done more. And it is worth mentioning that Chamberlain was often considered one of the strongest athletes in the world back in the 60's and 70's.

Just google "Wilt's strength"...the internet is plastered with accounts of his incredible strength and power. Robert Cherry interviewed a relatively well-known weight-lifter by the name of Fluke Fluker, who was 6-5 and 250 lbs, and who was known to have benched 500 lbs. Fluker claims that Wilt was the strongest person that he ever worked out with, and that Wilt could curl 110 lb dumb-bells, "like you or I would pick up a telephone." And here again, Wilt was in his 50's at the time.

Of course, how about this interview with Arnold Schwartzenegger...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzIu7o5NH1k


Bench press =\= functional strength.

Any decent body builders will out bench both wilt and Shaquille, but it doesn't mean they are stronger than those two giants.

From my eye test, Shaquille was quicker, faster, and stronger. But wilt had far better stamina.

[ShaqAttack3234]

1. No it wasn't, I have the stats.

So what was his FG% for the entire series? I'm pretty sure I remember it being as high or slightly higher than his regular season, though I don't have the stats right now so I can't say for sure.


2. Wilt can't play free throw defense. Maybe Scottie Pippen did once, but Russell wasn't a mailman who couldn't deliver on Sundays.

I didn't say Russell shooting free throws better had anything to do with Wilt. I was just bringing that up for Russell's efficiency.


3. MPG and FG% have no correlation. Unless you find a study that finds other wise, "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat."

When did I say MPG and FG% do?


They weren't such blowouts that Russell saw a decrease in MPG. Russell in fact played nearly every minute of every game. If stat padding were an issue, it would be with Russell being in longer than he had to. Regardless when points were scored does not matter. The games weren't so far off that a comeback wasn't out of the question.

As you know the top stars played more minutes back then.


Yes, Russell raised his defensive play immensely, but his offensive production was not. We are not talking about Russell's overall play, just his offensive play.

I don't think that's true, he raised his scoring average 3 ppg from the regular season even with several blowouts where most of his points came early(which I'll continue to believe is a factor in putting his numbers into the proper context)


I make no claims other than each "Wilt" would have a good chance of guarding Shaq well; and that there isn't a limit to a type of "Wilt" that could.

I believe the version of Wilt that had more bulk would stand a better chance for obvious reasons. And that also happens to be the version of Wilt that wasn't asked to score as much and was asked to focus more on defense which is an important factor when discussing this hypothetical match up.


I'm not sure. It's all circumstantial. Wilt gave up some of his scoring in the 62 playoffs because of his coach's want and I think Shaq would likely do the same.

Well, Wilt was still in a high-scoring role even if he did cut down. He did change roles at times during his career when his coach requested it, though complained at other times. And he is the same guy who said asking him to pass was like asking Babe Ruth to bunt. So it'd probably depend on what mood Wilt was in, and how much he respected the coach who asked him. In fact, in those ways, he seemed to be similar to Shaq. Of course, this would also depend on if he had the right personnel on his team to focus on defense more at the expense of some of his offense.

As for Shaq? I don't know, he was never asked to cut down on scoring in his prime. As for defense, he was notorious for not giving consistent effort at that end throughout his career and of course believed "the big dog should be fed."


You see something, but this holds little weight. I could "see" Mugsy Bogues having the best chance of guarding Shaq, but that is neither here nor there and believing in ideas such as this leaves me more susceptible to my own confirmation bias.

What I see holds most of the weight for me. That analogy doesn't work because every rational person knows a 5'3" guy doesn't have a chance of guarding a 7 footer.


Please don't take this as an insult; we both have debated with each other before and I respect your opinion in human terms (I would be biased to believe you and would hold your opinion in great weight outside of a debate) but I really try to take viewing things in a scientific/algorithmic approach. I try to remove myself/you from the debate and look at the ideas themselves as best I can. Never take anything I say in these arguments as an "ad hominem attack."

:cheers: I get where you're coming from. The difference between us is that I don't view sports as really scientific. I believe they're highly subjective and can only argue from how I interpret the game, or how I've seen things. Of course, in this recent debate, we're largely talking about a hypothetical match up which makes it more subjective.

[Legends66NBA7]

I'm starting to understand the 2 different terms of "best" and "greatest". I think what one was best at is due to more individual/peak dominance vs who is great with more of an outstanding career.

One can argue O'Neal as the best center ever, but not the greatest. The greatest center IMO is Bill Russell followed by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

[juju151111]

I'm starting to understand the 2 different terms of "best" and "greatest". I think what one was best at is due to more individual/peak dominance vs who is great with more of an outstanding career.

One can argue O'Neal as the best center ever, but not the greatest. The greatest center IMO is Bill Russell followed by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
Bill Russell is Ben Wallace with slightly better offense. Lets stop the BS. Shaq and Russell playing in the same era Shaq comes out on top every time.

[Legends66NBA7]

Bill Russell is Ben Wallace with slightly better offense. Lets stop the BS. Shaq and Russell playing in the same era Shaq comes out on top every time.

Yeah, my post went over your head. :oldlol:

And if anything, Bill Russell is Tim Duncan.

[k0kakw0rld]

No center (Player) could ever accomplish what Wilt did in his era. 50+ppg 20+RPG GOAT in a single season. (100 points) I don't care how weak his competition was. THIS IS INSANE. This niqqa was a freaaaaaaaaak (no homo)

I can never see Shaq, Bill Russell, Kareem dominate like that niqqa did.

No way shaq could guard him, he couldn't even guard Tim Duncan :lol you talking about Wilt. People are crazy it's unbelievable.

[TheTenth]

So what was his FG% for the entire series? I'm pretty sure I remember it being as high or slightly higher than his regular season, though I don't have the stats right now so I can't say for sure.
.457 regular season; .399 vs. Wilt in 62 postseason; I have gamelogs of both Russell and Wilt from which I conduct research on.

Of course I adjust everything to more recent times for modern day comparisons/better understanding since I too never saw either of them.

Converted:
.496 regular season average; .448 vs. Wilt. I convert playoffs and regular season to the same base year because in economics as well as sports teams, short run averages can be inflated or deflated from the mean because of external circumstances (playoff game changes/increased pressure) but cannot be maintained for a whole season (the long run.)


I didn't say Russell shooting free throws better had anything to do with Wilt. I was just bringing that up for Russell's efficiency.
Yes, but I thought the quality we are debating is Wilt's defensive ability in this case? In which case I thought it would be irrelevant to point out FT%.


When did I say MPG and FG% do?
I thought that was the point you were making with MPG, my apologies.


As you know the top stars played more minutes back then.
Yes, but this was an increase in minutes for Russell.


I don't think that's true, he raised his scoring average 3 ppg from the regular season even with several blowouts where most of his points came early(which I'll continue to believe is a factor in putting his numbers into the proper context)
I am just not sure that much worth can be put to it with such a high MPG. I understand he may have scored more in the first half, but it isn't just because "he decided to," it could be due to many different factors. The same goes for Wilt and his last minute scoring outputs in many games, I am not so sure they were because of some clutch gene.


I believe the version of Wilt that had more bulk would stand a better chance for obvious reasons. And that also happens to be the version of Wilt that wasn't asked to score as much and was asked to focus more on defense which is an important factor when discussing this hypothetical match up.
Which I understand; but there are pros and cons to every different "Wilt." I am not so sure one could rest on one being the best without listing the pros and cons to each.


Well, Wilt was still in a high-scoring role even if he did cut down. He did change roles at times during his career when his coach requested it, though complained at other times. And he is the same guy who said asking him to pass was like asking Babe Ruth to bunt. So it'd probably depend on what mood Wilt was in, and how much he respected the coach who asked him. In fact, in those ways, he seemed to be similar to Shaq. Of course, this would also depend on if he had the right personnel on his team to focus on defense more at the expense of some of his offense.
Yeah they both seemed egotistical.


As for Shaq? I don't know, he was never asked to cut down on scoring in his prime. As for defense, he was notorious for not giving consistent effort at that end throughout his career and of course believed "the big dog should be fed."
I wonder how malleable his game could have been/had the potential to be. That's one thing that impressed me about Wilt's game. Do you have any insight to this?


What I see holds most of the weight for me. That analogy doesn't work because every rational person knows a 5'3" guy doesn't have a chance of guarding a 7 footer.
I have a habit of using ineffective hyperbole, but do you understand the point I am trying to make?


:cheers: I get where you're coming from. The difference between us is that I don't view sports as really scientific. I believe they're highly subjective and can only argue from how I interpret the game, or how I've seen things. Of course, in this recent debate, we're largely talking about a hypothetical match up which makes it more subjective.
I agree; sports aren't a hard science and one must fill in the blanks when necessary, it's just that I try to make things as scientific and testable as possible. I also felt that you should know that I am not trying to troll or hate, as it seems many on this forum do.

[StocktonFan]

[QUOTE=K

[ShaqAttack3234]

.457 regular season; .399 vs. Wilt in 62 postseason; I have gamelogs of both Russell and Wilt from which I conduct research on.

My mistake, you're right, he did shoot 39.9% in the '62 EDF. I was confusing it with his overall 45.8% for the playoffs. I didn't realize the disparity was so great between his % in the EDF and the finals when he shot 54.3%.


Yes, but I thought the quality we are debating is Wilt's defensive ability in this case? In which case I thought it would be irrelevant to point out FT%.

yeah, it is irrelevant to Wilt. That was just a side note from me commenting on Russell's performance.


Yes, but this was an increase in minutes for Russell.

Yes, but this is almost always the case for star players in the playoffs. A 2 mpg increase is something I don't even consider.


I am just not sure that much worth can be put to it with such a high MPG. I understand he may have scored more in the first half, but it isn't just because "he decided to," it could be due to many different factors. The same goes for Wilt and his last minute scoring outputs in many games, I am not so sure they were because of some clutch gene.

Well, it's something I can't ignore. If Russell is scoring big early while the Celtics establish a big lead they never give back, I'm not going to penalize him for not continuing to add to his numbers at the same rate when it wasn't needed. You may disagree, but that's how I view it.


Which I understand; but there are pros and cons to every different "Wilt." I am not so sure one could rest on one being the best without listing the pros and cons to each.

Younger Wilt had more athleticism, and probably more stamina, but less bulk, more responsibility offensively and was by various accounts less committed to defense than he was later.

I don't see his athleticism being such a major advantage in defending Shaq since the players who often did the best job were less athletic than Shaq, but had bulk that could take away some of Shaq's biggest advantage and Wilt was still athletic late in his career. Stamina could come into play, but stamina was never an issue for Wilt even late in his career. Either way, I see the extra bulk and commitment to defense as more valuable as far as guarding Shaq.


I wonder how malleable his game could have been/had the potential to be. That's one thing that impressed me about Wilt's game. Do you have any insight to this?

The 2000 season is a good example of this and at both ends. He was asked to do quite a bit more than in past years and his role changed to some degree.

I'll start with offensive. Obviously, scoring was pretty much a constant with Shaq until he declined, but this was his first year in the triangle, and a lot of players have had trouble learning the system and adjusting to it. Phil wanted Shaq to be more of a playmaker in the post, and while I'm not a big fan of judging passing by assists, especially for big men, this is somewhat reflected in his 3.8 apg that season, which were a career-high and led all centers. He regularly found cutters, particularly Ron Harper, not surprising since Harper had played in the offense for half a decade in Chicago, and sometimes you even saw Shaq in the weak side high post for the two man game with Kobe. The ball still usually went through Shaq in the low post of course with the sideline triangle which is a very effective way to feed the post, imo. But instead of just dumping it in to the post and having Shaq make his move, Phil wanted him to make a quick move and pass out if his shot wasn't there, either to re-post, find the open man or go to another option in the offense. Because of things like this, Phil actually expected Shaq's scoring to go down. Instead, he ended up with a career-high 29.7 ppg which led the league, and he raised that to 30.7 ppg in the playoffs. Considering this, it makes his scoring more impressive that he did it within a difficult, team-oriented offense and in a role his scoring was expected to go down in. In fact, Phil stated that at one point, Shaq was passing so well that he had toyed with the idea of using him as a "point center." I'll have to find the quote, but I'm guessing he meant with more of the offense running through him in the high post.

He was also asked to do a lot more defensively and on the boards. Areas most felt he wasn't dominating to the extent he could have in the late 90s. Rebounding ended up at 13.6, his highest since his rookie year, and up to 15.4 in the postseason. His defense may be the best example of what you're asking for, though. The Lakers defensive strategy was to sag and overplay to funnel their man into Shaq in the paint. The Lakers ended up with the best defensive rating in the league, 1st in opponents FG% and 2nd in opponents FG% in the paint. While the Lakers had a number of good defenders in Kobe, Ron Harper, Robert Horry and Brian Shaw, much of the credit belongs to Shaq for being the key to their defensive strategy and the anchor.

Even Shaq's biggest weakness, screen/roll defense was improved this year. Granted, he still wasn't Garnett or Olajuwon in this regard, but that's besides the point.

And here's an example of Shaq's ability as a post defender when he focused on an individual match up. In this game from the 2000 season, Tim Duncan shot just 2/14 when he was guarded by Shaq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdyTkOc5lYQ

Actually, a decent example surprisingly is 2008 when he went to Phoenix. He was asked to be a defender and rebounder, and even at 36, he averaged 10.6 rpg in fewer than 29 mpg and a TRB% of 20.8% in 28 games with the Suns. Granted, he wasn't effective overall as a defender with his loss of mobility and the Suns up-tempo style, though he did still show the ability to be an effective post defender. There were 2 regular season games after the trade where he really limited Tim Duncan's offense. And when he was a role player in his final years, we saw Shaq do a great job in limiting Dwight Howard.

So at various points when he was asked to, he was able to be a playmaker in the post, adjust to different offenses, a defensive anchor, a tough post defender and a dominant rebounder while being the dominant scorer was the constant.


I have a habit of using ineffective hyperbole, but do you understand the point I am trying to make?

Yes.


I agree; sports aren't a hard science and one must fill in the blanks when necessary, it's just that I try to make things as scientific and testable as possible. I also felt that you should know that I am not trying to troll or hate, as it seems many on this forum do.

I never got the impression you were trying to troll. You're posts have come across as thoughtful and intelligent to me.

[LAZERUSS]

BTW,

I am a huge fan of Shaq. I happen to think he is somewhat under-rated. And it just irritates me when the uninformed claim that Shaq had a short peak, or even a short career. The man played for 19 seasons, was a top-10 player in perhaps 15 of them; a top-5 five player in perhaps 10 of them; and the best player in the league in perhaps as many as five of them.