Wilt vs Shaq at their peaks

[Jeff-Koon]

Listen. I like Wilt and have watched many old games of him from start to finish.
He is a really unique athlete and had some nice moves.
Definitely one of the best players ever and I probably wouldn't take that many guys over him.

However... between him and Shaq I'd probably pick Shaq and not because he is one of my favorite players.
In my honest opinion I think Shaq was a better athlete and a more skilled basketball player.

Shaq was a better playoff and finals performer and tended to play his best in big games and in big moments when the pressure was on.
He had the type of personality where he was always out to kill his opponents and he was really mentally strong.
You couldn't f*** with Shaq or try and get in his head... it just never happened.
He was the type to do that to others.

Wilt seems like the opposite.
He didn't play his best ball under pressure or in big moments/games.
He was a much better regular season performer (maybe the best ever).

Opposing players could get in his head and effect his play. He let others at time dictate his play.
He was too concerned with his numbers, his public image and being "liked" rather then just going out and dominating the best way he could.

The only aspect of the game I think Wilt had over Shaq is rebounding.
Defensively they peaked at a similar level but Shaq was more consistent as a defender over his Young/Prime years.

Offensively Shaq had much better footwork in the post, a wider variety of moves/counters and had better physical tools for a post player.
He was just a flat out superior scorer and a much better passer over his entire career.

The only part of Wilt's game that I think is overrated is his offensive ability.
I never criticize his rebounding or defense but I do think people overrate his offensive skill and ability.

The last thing is I think Wilt had a very difficult personality to manage.
He was like a mix of Kobe and Old Shaq.
Very big ego and he thought of himself as bigger then the game.
He was a text-book non-conformist.

Shaq didn't exactly have the easiest personality to manage but if you paid him the max and treated him kindly it was pretty certain you could keep him around.
He left ORL and LAL because he felt that the organization had made him the 2nd priority to another player (Penny/Kobe) and because they refused to pay him the max.

So if I treat Shaq nice, pay him the max and make sure he knows he is my guy and the #1 priotiy I am pretty sure he'll stick around and let me build around.

Wilt seems like a much harder personality to tame/work with.

I dunno I just like Shaq the player better and I think his personality is superior to Wilts in terms of oncourt play and managing him as a GM.

To each their own though.
I am sure their are countless people who would agree with your view.

In the end these are just opinions.
I can't say for certain who would be better in todays league or who would bring my franchise the most success but if I was given the choice I'd take the big doctor.

[MacGill]

Bump for Ardee

[GreenHat]

here is the final point: you give any team the option of picking any player in NBA history, and that is, any team from any point in NBA history, and Wilt would always be picked over Shaq, 95-99 times out of a 100. That tells you the difference right there. End of story.

here is the final point: you give any team the option of picking any player in NBA history, and that is, any team from any point in NBA history, and Shaq would always be picked over Wilt, 95-99 times out of a 100. That tells you the difference right there. End of story.

Do you see how easy it is to just make a definitive statement without any evidence? Its meaningless

[QuantMisleads]

here is the final point: you give any team the option of picking any player in NBA history, and that is, any team from any point in NBA history, and Wilt would always be picked over Shaq, 95-99 times out of a 100. That tells you the difference right there. End of story.

here is the final point: you give any team the option of picking any player in NBA history, and that is, any team from any point in NBA history, and Shaq would always be picked over Wilt, 95-99 times out of a 100. That tells you the difference right there. End of story.

Do you see how easy it is to just make a definitive statement without any evidence? Its meaningless

nah, it's not meaningless, plus you're dead wrong, nobody would believe your statement for even a second

[The Infamous1]

I didn't realize shaq was that good with HCA.

Does anyone have other all time greats records with HCA? I know bird and Duncan were god awful

[Dipper 13]

The main difference obviously is that Shaq was never asked to reduce his scoring volume and take on that type of role so we cannot accurately say how he'd do in comparison.

Shaq has never played on a team nearly as good as the '67 Sixers, with so many excellent scorers. What Coach Hannum did was implement the triangle offense, as Phil Jackson did in 1999. Even Shaq was told prior to the season that his scoring average could drop.




June 22, 1999

Winter and Jackson point to past NBA clubs as evidence that a dominant center can flourish in the triple post. The Lakers used a variation of this offense in the early '70s with Wilt Chamberlain, and Philadelphia coach Alex Hannum featured Wilt in a similar vein when the Sixers won the 1967 championship. Winter says Milwaukee coach Larry Costello also implemented parts of the triple post with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to help the Bucks win the championship in 1971.

"The one thing Shaq should be prepared for is, it could cut down on his scoring," Winter says. "On the other hand he'll have plenty of opportunities."



"Wilt Chamberlain thrived in this offense back in his time because it takes full advantage of a big man's skills. Having a center in the triangle offense is really the ultimate aspect of our game, because he fills the apex of the triangle."

-Phil Jackson, Oct 1999

[ardee]

Sorry Ardee, I missed this. The thread took a negative turn and I must have overlooked this.

Wilt may have stopped scoring at his previous volume, but he was still the offensive anchor of the team.

Sure I can agree with that statement. However, I think for this thread then other's need to take this into account. Peak Shaq was the #1 offensive option, scorer, defensive anchor on that 2000 Laker squad. Using your statement, we have to remember that it then changes the comparison, right. We simply can't then say, well we all know Wilt could volume score and give credit for that in 67 because that wasn't his role, right?

Another part of the problem I have in this comparison is that we really do not have a ton of footage so we rely on newsaper articles on Wilt's performance, and now it is regarding a 7'1 facilitator/distributor removed from the system where he made his name as most dominant of his era. It is just very hard to fathom or even grade because I have no doubt about his defence/rebounding but I do question his effectiveness here. And by that, was it really Wilt or could you have ran the same offense through another player with the same success? Again, I do not take away from what he did statistically or the fact that it led to team success here.

Take a player like Steve Nash. He's never been the top scorer of his team, but can you ever legitimately say that it was Amare or Gortat that were the 'offensive anchors' and not Steve himself?

No, of course I wouldn't, but now imagine asking Nash not to pass or look for his teammates as much but the team impact increased because of this. Even if Nash was now getting many more rebounds would you still be as high on him?

And leave that example aside, Wilt was STILL the leading scorer of the team. I've heard people say (not you, of course, but others) he was the 5th option on the Sixers, and I find myself questioning if they've actually ever watched the film!

Ok, so first, if you have more footage for me especially around this year, I would really like to watch it. Here is my problem though. I think you would agree that Wilt's role vastly changed from years prior, agree? I'll be honest and try to give you the best analogy I can. When I think of Wilt and the footage I have seen from an offensive standpoint regarding assists, I think of how many view John Stockton and how he complied all of his assists. Many say he didn't take the shots he should have but also question the value of the assist he was producing.

So was it a Magic assist or Stockton assist as you state he was still the offensive anchor?

You're dead wrong when you say he just made the pass in a similar way Shaq did.

Shaq's passing was mainly when they dumped the ball in to him, and he passed in case of a double team.

I think I may not have explained this well enough. Let me try again, I mean that Shaq was a great passer as well and I have not seen Wilt do anything for a skill pass perspective that I do not think Shaq could have done himself. To confirm, I have seen both make very difficult, accurate and at times flashy passes.

The main difference obviously is that Shaq was never asked to reduce his scoring volume and take on that type of role so we cannot accurately say how he'd do in comparison.

Wilt's shot creation was on a completely different level. Wilt's passing was with the same intent a Nash or a Paul or any point guard passes: to create for a team-mate as he normally would!

I would need to see proof here. I have seen Wilt make great passes and very simple passes. The way he handled the ball in the post, one arm extended straight up etc, makes me believe while he could certainly pass he would mostly take what his teammates opened up for him. Nash/Paul, really open things up especially by dribble penetration and this is something I have not seen from Wilt.

Maybe I've not put this succintly. Imagine KG playing point-forward when he didn't have Casssell, and amplify that. The ball went into Wilt on EVERY possession, and he could choose to create for his team-mates (which led to 3 others averaging 18+ ppg), or he could score at record efficiency.

I'll be honest, I have 2 problems with this statement: 1) What I have watched of Wilt he wasn't a good enough dribbler for his size to do what KG does. 2) Of the footage I have watched, Wilt passed and a good amount of time a jump shot was made. Again, my premise is could you have replaced Wilt with Russell and achieved the same result here? Was the strategy to save energy for Wilt defensively where he'd make a greater impact?

Look, MacGill, you're a good guy, a good poster, and I respect your opinion on Shaq. Great player, and I'm thankful for what he did as a Laker fan.

Right back at you!

But Wilt in '67 had no flaws in his game. Dipper has posted about his scoring exploits in '67 itself. He didn't miss a shot for games in a row. There was a 60/40 game. 35 straight field goals. He could STILL score as well as his earlier days, and now he added pretty much everything else.

Ok, so let me put it to you this way.

If Wilt in 67 had no flaws in his game then what does that say about Wilt up and until this point in time then especially when we rank him all-time?

You don't take the greatest scorer the league had seen at the time and change that if nothing is wrong, right? But you then can't take what he did in 67 and say that if he had the right coaches at the time he could have replicated that performance before 67, especially when he had opportunity in LA. (btw I am not saying you said this, just in general). It is like you have to rank 2 different Wilt's altogether in a sense whereas with Shaq, it's pretty straight forward, outside of how you think he may or may not have meshed with other wings etc, what impact he provided and what you were getting with him.

Basically, Wilt in '67 was a point guard who averaged 25 rebounds a game, ran the best offense of the era, anchored the defense, and scored at 68% FG. And that's not hyperbole.

This year was incredible for him plain and simple. And to put it straight forward, defensively is not where I am going to declare the winner because both at peak were elite in this regard. It is offensively to me, where I rank peak Shaq ahead of Wilt. Wilt, wasn't a pg though, he did not bring up the ball on every play (he was a 7'1 center, of course not) and did not go up against the ball pressure a pg would see. He faced, what he saw most of his career and was comfortable in dealing with double teams etc.

Could Wilt make the right pass out of the double team, for sure. Yet so could Shaq and just as effectively. In fact, Shaq with Kobe played a ton of inside outside ball. Wilt's scoring load decreased and other's on his team picked up the slack, if you will. You know scoring in the nba is pretty easy and you know what the point differential between best/worse offense is. Data was provided that when Wilt left teams or wasn't playing, the offense did not drop or falloff very much so then now I am to believe he was providing Steve Nash impact on the court? Sorry, I need to see that then.

My thought is by reducing his offensive load the team could play much better team ball and get everyone involved. Sure, Wilt had big games and his team needing it at times but it doesn't detract from the fact that teams couldn't win with him to play as a high scoring center, which is what he was born to be, not a 7'1 pg. Hey, he did it and the team won but how Magic could not have been Wilt defensively, Wilt wasn't Magic running the sixer offense. And when out there and he got the ball, like throughout his career, no one could really match him so it is no surprise he'd be able to get the ball into the hands of one of his teammates, to me.

My final thought is this: If you could clone 2 Wilt's and Shaq's and left them to play as they did offensively & defensively at peak and then asked another teammate on their teams to step in defensively, both would fail to recreate the impact.

If you now asked them to recreate what both players did offensively, my opinion is LA has the much larger falloff.

Looking forward to your response

Great post

Imma get to it in a bit, got terminals going on right now and I want to do justice to this debate, which is turning into a RealGM HOF one.

[JordansBulls]

Use the top 5 seasons between them overall how would you rank them?

[jaypo]

Quant- without rehashing the same stuff over and over again, I'm pretty sure I have you pegged! But one thing gets me- you keep referencing Shaq in game 7 of the 00 WCF as the "reason they almost failed". However, every sportswriter (for example, google Sports Illustrated's article about that game) recognized that it was Shaq that fuelled that victory. Thru the 1st 5 games, Shaq LEAD that team in spite of his teammates. In game 7, after battling an historic frontcourt defense, he was limited to taking only 9 shots! The reason was that he was constantly doubled and tripled before he had the ball in his hands. So it wasn't that he was playing badly. He wasn't getting any shots! And he would up shooting 6/9 and hitting most of his free throws including the ones in the clutch. He only had I think 16 points for the game, but 9 of them were in the 4th. And they came as they were facing a 15 point deficit. He was hitting his shots, and he was finding open shots for player like Horry and DFish. Meanwhile, Shaq was hitting his free throws near the end while Kobe was clanking his.

So tell me again how Shaq was the reason they almost failed? Hell, the knock on him from people like you was that "he was unreliable in the 4th, so he needed a closer. The 1st 3 quarters weren't as important as the 4th". However, in this game, he was held in check for 3, and then came thru in the "most important point" of the game, the 4th. So why, again was he almost the REASON for an historic failure?

[QuantMisleads]

because he's the superstar and superstars, particularly ones you're going to rate over all time greats, need to have some redeeming quality about them where they performed in the clutch. But no, instead Shaq and LA almost lost 4 games in a row, and by all accounts should have lost that game 7 had portland not broken down for no apparent reason whatsoever. This is, let me remind you, the same season that some of you want to call a GOAT season, where his 67-15 team with HCA should have lost, and where his contribution was not at the scale that it was in the regular season.

remember I'm only using the same sort of logic that you and many others like to use when it's convenient for you. When it becomes inconvenient as in the case of Shaq, you balk as if "how could anyone even say that".

[jaypo]

Actually, the logic I'm using is the same logic people like you use all the time to do 2 things- dump on Shaq and prop up Kobe. They always say that Kobe was the "4th quarter savior" because Shaq was such a liability in the 4th. So when I bring up "well, was the 27 ppg and 14 rpg in the 1st 3 quarters meaningless?", I get "well, the 4th is more important". So in this very example, Shaq was "held in check" (meaning he didn't get many shots) for 3 quarters. In the 4th, he scored 9 points including some phenomenal dunks AND clutch free throws. Conversely, Kobe was missing his clutch free throws. And your statement about that game is that "Shaq should be penalized because they ALMOST lost, and he was the reason?" Well, he was the reason they DIDN'T lose! He came thru in the clutch in that game. Just to give you some perspective, let's break the series down.

Game 1- Shaq puts up 41, 11and 5 blocks on 56% negating the Blazers' entire frontcourt. Kobe scores 11 and 3. They win. Game 2- Shaq scores 23, 12, 4assists on 56.3 from the field. Kobe- 12 and 2. They lose. Nobody else scores over 8 points. Game 3- Shaq scores 26, 12 on 59%. Kobe scores 25 and 7. Horry puts up 12. They win. Game 4- Shaq scores 25 and 11 (subpar47%), Kobe shoots 33%, Harper and Horry post double digit points. They win. Game 5- Shaq puts up 31, 21 on 60% from the field. Kobe shoots 30.8%. They lose. Game 6- Shaq scores a subpar 17 and 11 on 41%, they lose. Game 7, well, Shaq with 18 and 9 and 5 assists on 55.6%. They win.

Now, let's summarize. In the LOSSES, Shaq put up 23.67 ppg and 14.67 ppg. He rarely had a teammate (besides Kobe) posting double digit points. Kobe has games of 33% from the field and 30.8 from the field. Yet, it's Shaq that "almost cost them the series"?

So I use my logic, and you say it's incorrect. I use YOUR logic, and it's still incorrect. Oh. That's right. It's because it actually shows the fact that Shaq was NOT the reason for any "failures". Even in the losses, he still outproduced his teammates as well as the other team's entire starting frontline.

Another thing that you won't like is this- the fact that legends are forged by great feats performed thru adversity. The fact that for 3 quarters, Shaq was denied the ball by a 7'4 320lb monster, an all time great team defender like Sheed, and the best perimeter defender ever in Pipp. Yet, in the 4th, facing elimination, a 15 point deficit, and poor play from his supporting cast in 6 of 7 games, he scored 9 points on ridiculous efficiency, hit clutch free throws, and dished out 5 dimes. While your hero was missing his clutch free throws. But SHAQ was the reason they ALMOST lost, right?

[QuantMisleads]

Actually Wilt always made free throws in the clutch. Consistently, in fact he did it in many, many elimination games, even when they lost. The only season where maybe his free throw shooting led to their demise (maybe) was in 1966 against Boston in game 5.

You still didn't get it. Someone in his GOAT season is supposed to have a GOAT performance in the playoffs, not a regular sort of statline for a superstar and definitely not in game 7. Actually, it shouldn't have even gotten to game 7, and everyone knows that they shouldn't have won in game 7.

[jaypo]

That's all fine and dandy, but the fact is that Shaq has historically stepped up his game in the playoffs while Wilt had the rep. of dropping off from his RS numbers.

Your logic= Shaq SHOULD have lost a game that they won, so Shaq=bad. (Even though he got almost NO help from anyone not named Kobe Bryant and even from Kobe, it was inconsistent)
Truth- Shaq came thru in the clutch in the most important game of his life to that date, and they won a title because of it. Had it not been for Shaq, the series would have been over in 4 in favor of Portland!

And you're using the same logic I'm using to prop up Wilt- you say that because he hit clutch FT's, EVEN THOUGH THEY LOST, this is still more impressive than a game where Shaq hit his FT's and WON, but SHOULD HAVE lost??? That's laughable logic.

A regular statline. Okay. Let's examine. He shot 55.6% from the field. He had 18 rebounds, 9 boards, and 5 assists. And he hit his clutch FT's and lead a 4th quarter comeback including 9 of those 18 in the 4th. But that's less impressive than someone scoring a bunch of points in a loss?? What you're failing to realize is that the Blazers that year were supposed to win. They had a historical defense and a huge mismatch at PF for the Lakers. They had a huge center, and although he was over the hill, he was still as talented as anyone else not named Shaq. And they had this guy that you may have heard of. Scottie Pippen. He was pretty good too!! And they threw bodies after bodies at Shaq just to foul him. Yet over the course of the series, he STILL put up 25.86, 12.43 on 53.56%. Do you blame him for the loss in game 5 when he scored 31 on 60% from the field and pulled down 21 boards? It couldn't have possibly been that his sidekick shot 30.8% from the field that game, right?

Your logic- Shaq should put up ridiculous numbers to win, or it is bad.
Truth- even when Shaq put up ridiculous numbers, if his supporting cast sucked, it cost them games!

In game 7, he did what was needed to WIN. The number isn't what matters. It's the manner in which those numbers are produced. He came thru in the clutch, and it produced a win. Plain and simple. And your logic includes "they shouldn't have won"- well, it's even more impressive that they DID win, and Shaq defied logic!!!

[TheXFactor]

As previously stated.

Shaq hasn't never even led the league in rebounding, block shots or ever won a defensive player of the year award.

Wilt truley dominated in his era. He had led the league in rebounding, scoring, and even had the most assists in a season at one time .. Clearly Wilt and Russell would had won their share of blocks per year if recorded and along with DPOY.

[thizznation]

Shaq was the better scoring option, Wilt has Shaq beat comfortably in all other aspects of the game. I'm going with Wilt.

[ardee]

Use the top 5 seasons between them overall how would you rank them?

1. '67 Wilt
2. '00 Shaq
3. '01 Shaq
4. '64 Wilt
5. '62 Wilt/'02 Shaq

[Gregoire]

Use the top 5 seasons between them overall how would you rank them?

1. '67 Wilt
2. '00 Shaq
3. '01 Shaq
4. '64 Wilt
5. '62 Wilt/'02 Shaq

My ranks:
1. Shaq 00
2. Wilt 67
3. Wilt 64
4. Shaq 01
5. Wilt 62

[ardee]

Sorry Ardee, I missed this. The thread took a negative turn and I must have overlooked this.

Wilt may have stopped scoring at his previous volume, but he was still the offensive anchor of the team.

Sure I can agree with that statement. However, I think for this thread then other's need to take this into account. Peak Shaq was the #1 offensive option, scorer, defensive anchor on that 2000 Laker squad. Using your statement, we have to remember that it then changes the comparison, right. We simply can't then say, well we all know Wilt could volume score and give credit for that in 67 because that wasn't his role, right?

Another part of the problem I have in this comparison is that we really do not have a ton of footage so we rely on newsaper articles on Wilt's performance, and now it is regarding a 7'1 facilitator/distributor removed from the system where he made his name as most dominant of his era. It is just very hard to fathom or even grade because I have no doubt about his defence/rebounding but I do question his effectiveness here. And by that, was it really Wilt or could you have ran the same offense through another player with the same success? Again, I do not take away from what he did statistically or the fact that it led to team success here.

Take a player like Steve Nash. He's never been the top scorer of his team, but can you ever legitimately say that it was Amare or Gortat that were the 'offensive anchors' and not Steve himself?

No, of course I wouldn't, but now imagine asking Nash not to pass or look for his teammates as much but the team impact increased because of this. Even if Nash was now getting many more rebounds would you still be as high on him?

Ok, so I think I've understood your point here.

Using the Nash analogy, you're saying that when Wilt stopped scoring, his team benefited. I agree with that statement with no qualms. In some years, like '63 in particular, when he wasn't as efficient as he normally was, his excessive shot-taking was creating a problem for his team.

I agree with that. Now that that's out of the way, so what?

Wilt DIDN'T volume score as much in '67 as in his earlier years, but how does that have a baring on his impact as a lower volume-ungodly efficient scorer, league-best rebounder, playmaker, and a top 2 shot-blocker.

And leave that example aside, Wilt was STILL the leading scorer of the team. I've heard people say (not you, of course, but others) he was the 5th option on the Sixers, and I find myself questioning if they've actually ever watched the film!

Ok, so first, if you have more footage for me especially around this year, I would really like to watch it. Here is my problem though. I think you would agree that Wilt's role vastly changed from years prior, agree? I'll be honest and try to give you the best analogy I can. When I think of Wilt and the footage I have seen from an offensive standpoint regarding assists, I think of how many view John Stockton and how he complied all of his assists. Many say he didn't take the shots he should have but also question the value of the assist he was producing.

So was it a Magic assist or Stockton assist as you state he was still the offensive anchor?

Yes, that, I certainly agree with. But as I mentioned before, if his previous role wasn't making GOAT level impact, why does that work against the idea that his new role DOES?

A lot of the footage I've seen are from various articles with youtube videos I can't seem to find anymore.

However, his playmaking skills were very unique. Either he used to post up and draw defenders, then finding Hal Greer for a jumper or Cunningham or Jones a lane to slash, or, more commonly, he relied on backdoor cuts to get his assists. Backdoor cuts, as you know, are a vital component of the triangle offense, an offense being run far ahead of its time, and Wilt was the center of it all.

You're dead wrong when you say he just made the pass in a similar way Shaq did.

Shaq's passing was mainly when they dumped the ball in to him, and he passed in case of a double team.

I think I may not have explained this well enough. Let me try again, I mean that Shaq was a great passer as well and I have not seen Wilt do anything for a skill pass perspective that I do not think Shaq could have done himself. To confirm, I have seen both make very difficult, accurate and at times flashy passes.

The main difference obviously is that Shaq was never asked to reduce his scoring volume and take on that type of role so we cannot accurately say how he'd do in comparison.

That's what makes the debate interesting, wouldn't you say? If we were comparing '62 Wilt to '00 Shaq, I'd clearly give it to Shaq.

But that's not the case. We're comparing two very different types of player, so we have to rely on opinion here. Personally I think Shaq is a great passer. 3.8 apg for a center in that kind of era is nothing to scoff at. I think his outlet passing gets a little overrated, but his opening of lanes for team-mates is great.

But I don't think Shaq could have the offense run through him in the high post like one could with Wilt, meaning, I don't think Shaq could play the role Wilt in '67 did. For two reasons:

1. If he was playing the high post, he'd need a jump shot to score, like Wilt did.

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

Look at that shooting. Perfect form, it was a beautiful fadeaway that reminds me of Dirk. That jumper, which many have used against him, saying he should have been banging inside instead, enabled him to score while still playing in the high post and setting up team-mates. Shaq didn't have the range to play there, and hence I don't think he'd be capable of being a Walton/Russell/Wilt type of high post hub.

2. He just wouldn't agree to reduce his scoring volume. Now, don't take this in the wrong way, I'm not trying to be disrespectful. But you and I both know that Shaq was a tremendously gifted scorer, and would never agree to cut down on his volume. That was what sewed the seeds of the problems with Kobe (who was also equally at fault, of course).

So, in conclusion, Shaq was definitely a good passer, but I don't think he could play the role Wilt did, for the reasons I've stated above.

Wilt's shot creation was on a completely different level. Wilt's passing was with the same intent a Nash or a Paul or any point guard passes: to create for a team-mate as he normally would!

I would need to see proof here. I have seen Wilt make great passes and very simple passes. The way he handled the ball in the post, one arm extended straight up etc, makes me believe while he could certainly pass he would mostly take what his teammates opened up for him. Nash/Paul, really open things up especially by dribble penetration and this is something I have not seen from Wilt.

Maybe I've not put this succintly. Imagine KG playing point-forward when he didn't have Casssell, and amplify that. The ball went into Wilt on EVERY possession, and he could choose to create for his team-mates (which led to 3 others averaging 18+ ppg), or he could score at record efficiency.

I'll be honest, I have 2 problems with this statement: 1) What I have watched of Wilt he wasn't a good enough dribbler for his size to do what KG does. 2) Of the footage I have watched, Wilt passed and a good amount of time a jump shot was made. Again, my premise is could you have replaced Wilt with Russell and achieved the same result here? Was the strategy to save energy for Wilt defensively where he'd make a greater impact?

No, I don't think you could replace Wilt with Russell and achieve such a good offense (for the times). Why?

1. Wilt still scored. Not the 30 pts/75 possessions of his previous years, but he still almost qualified as a volume scorer (25 ppg seems to be the cutoff), and we know that he had the most efficient year ever, bettered only by HIMSELF 5 years later.

Russell, even in his low-post days prior to Cousy's retirement, never cracked .500 from the field or bettered 18.9 ppg.

2. When he moved to the high post, Russell's efficiency plummeted further as did his scoring. He was a good passer, no doubt, but those Celtic offenses were still among the worst in the league. Of course, that doesn't take away from his defensive impact, but your statement was that Russell would have run as good an offense as Wilt did, and I disagree, because he had comparable team-mates (Hondo-Jones-Tommy-Sanders), when he was in the low post offensive hub role, and neither did the team offense do anywhere near as well, nor did his individual numbers indicate he could've matched Wilt's offensive impact that year.

Look, MacGill, you're a good guy, a good poster, and I respect your opinion on Shaq. Great player, and I'm thankful for what he did as a Laker fan.

Right back at you!

Enjoying this debate, we've had our differences in the past but it's great to have an intelligent and researched argument with someone so astute.

But Wilt in '67 had no flaws in his game. Dipper has posted about his scoring exploits in '67 itself. He didn't miss a shot for games in a row. There was a 60/40 game. 35 straight field goals. He could STILL score as well as his earlier days, and now he added pretty much everything else.

Ok, so let me put it to you this way.

If Wilt in 67 had no flaws in his game then what does that say about Wilt up and until this point in time then especially when we rank him all-time?

You don't take the greatest scorer the league had seen at the time and change that if nothing is wrong, right? But you then can't take what he did in 67 and say that if he had the right coaches at the time he could have replicated that performance before 67, especially when he had opportunity in LA. (btw I am not saying you said this, just in general). It is like you have to rank 2 different Wilt's altogether in a sense whereas with Shaq, it's pretty straight forward, outside of how you think he may or may not have meshed with other wings etc, what impact he provided and what you were getting with him.

You're coming back to that same point my friend. Agreed, his earlier volume scoring years had some issues, but that doesn't take away from the fact that when he realized what needed to be done, he did it to spectacular effect.

Certainly, we've seen different versions of Wilt. We've seen different versions of multiple players: Magic (the point-small-power-center of the early 80s, the Nash on steroids of '85, and the complete package in '87), Russell (the low post one during Cousy and the high post one post-Cousy), etc.

Basically it comes down to my thinking Shaq couldn't have filled Wilt's role, and whether or not Wilt could have filled Shaq's role given the right team-mates and coach. I feel he gets a bad rap for his volume scoring years that he doesn't deserve. penbeast0 put it really well in another thread:

In his early years, with a fairly weak team around him on the Warriors (Arizin and Gola were good but aging, Attles was a role player, Rodgers and most to all of his PFs bit) he consistently carried them over everyone but Boston where he was up against the GOAT winner, Bill Russell. When he was asked to change his game to be less dominant he did successfully. And, his record against everyone BUT Russell and the Celtics in playoff serieses is slightly superior to that of Michael Jordan (playoff series win % of over 80% except against Boston).

As for not being as efficient offensively as Shaq, he wasn't although he led or was 2nd in the league in efficiency pretty consistently in his highest scoring years despite being asked to carry a higher offensive load (people constantly talk about how it is difficult to scale efficiency up). As for Hakeem, Wilt, despite playing in a league where the average efficiency was appreciably lower, Hakeem's offensive efficiency for his career (ts%) was only .553, Wilt's was .540 which is higher relative to league, and for that matter Duncan's is virtually identical to Hakeem's at .551.

Both were incredible years, obviously. I just think Shaq couldn't have done some of the things Wilt did, while Wilt also couldn't do some of the things Shaq did, but probably could do so to a bigger extent then Shaq in vice verca.

[jaypo]

Ardee, I understand your point. And I agree that I don't think Shaq could have played some of the roles that Wilt played. But Shaq also understood that, and he played to his strengths. He always said "I'm a back to the basket center". And he perfected that aspect of his game. He never developed a 20 ft jumpshot just because someone said he couldn't. Instead, he perfected his 10 ft turnaround hookshot. And it lead to a 3 peat. I don't think with his body mechanics he could ever have been a high post player. He was too big. So in a sense, you're correct. But you never got a watered down version of Shaq. You always got a player that used his size, strength, and ability around the rim to produce. Not a player that "mixed it up" just because people said he couldn't. What he did was tell them "This is how I'll play, and I dare you to stop me!"

[ardee]

And people, for what its worth, here's some footage I found of early Wilt.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB43A-ODuLc[/youtube]

Obviously this was 10 years before his peak, but HOLY ***** look at that. His quickness, his skill, his strength. My friends, that was not a man among boys, that was a God among men

Go to 1:07. That's Derrick Rose quickness on Shaq's body.