colts18 wrote:Rule of thumb: If its about Wilt and its positive, its more likely than not exaggerated.
edit: not true, do your own research please if you're going to bother to post.
Moderators: PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, penbeast0, trex_8063
colts18 wrote:Rule of thumb: If its about Wilt and its positive, its more likely than not exaggerated.
NO-KG-AI wrote:Most people seem to not know the difference between weight room strength, and functional strength/leverage and how much size makes a difference in usage of that.
QuantMisleads wrote:There is a history with MacGill, which is why I approached him the way I did. He is completely worthless and biased towards Shaq in every thread, unjustifiably so I might add. He doesn't really have any arguments than to say Shaq elbowed people in the face and was hence superior. Plus, nobody said "it wouldn't be close". However, when it came to talking about their respective defenses and rebounding, Wilt was far superior to Shaq, and THAT isn't close. l.
Some people exaggerate things, but I do not exaggerate Wilt's accomplishments. It's just that everything Wilt did was hyperbole if you compare it to other people, and it's not my fault you don't want to believe it.
There's a difference between BULLYING someone and beating someone. Wilt would BEAT Shaq in his 1962-1964 seasons, he wouldn't BULLY him because Wilt never bullied.
many of us are realistic in understanding that Wilt was a once in a generation player. if you don't want to believe I honestly don't care, but don't come in here telling me I'm wrong or others are wrong when you have nothing to base your argument on, and let me emphasize NOTHING.
QuantMisleads wrote:NO-KG-AI wrote:Most people seem to not know the difference between weight room strength, and functional strength/leverage and how much size makes a difference in usage of that.
OK, so what are you trying to say RE Wilt/Shaq? What's your opinion there?
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"
Wilt never displayed close to the explosiveness Shaq showed when making some of his spin moves and dunks and in other situations.
Physically Wilt in the early-mid 60's was around the 250-280lbs.
Wilt was never heavier then 250-280 until the very (very) late 60's and early 70's.
He was as good a defensive anchor as Shaq, that is, when both of them chose to focus on that. In Shaq's case, that would be the 2000 regular season, in Wilt's case, that would be 1968. His scoring efficiency was right up there with Shaq's when he scored volume wise like in '66, and when he became a facilitator it skyrocketed to something unlike anything seen in NBA history.
I feel Wilt was clearly the better rebounder. It's not close, only Russell approaches him even if you adjust for minutes and pace.
The main thing is Wilt was able to play a full-time facilitator role to great effect, something no center in history has ever done so well. It's one thing to say Shaq, Walton and Russell threw outlet passes and made plays out of the high post (Walton/Russell)/drew double teams and helped shooters get easy shots (Shaq). But Wilt was literally the full-time point guard. He even brought the ball up at times. Watch some of the highlights. Even if he didn't bring it up, it went in to him on every possession, and then he created shots for his team-mates.
See, when Wilt went nuclear, he was literally EVERYWHERE. Take his game one of the Eastern Conference Finals. He dominated the boards against Bill Russell, with 32 boards. Scored efficiently against the same GOAT defensive center, 24 points on 9/13 from the field. Even Russell couldn't cover him alone, which led to a variety of easy shots for his team-mates. Greer scored 39 and Wali scored 24 because of the lanes Wilt was opening up. Then, on top of that, he blocked 12 shots and shut down the lane, holding the Celtics to 41% shooting.
That's just a one game example, I know.
But it shows how Wilt basically had a hand in every aspect of the success the Sixers had.
Shaq was certainly a better volume scorer at that point, but Wilt was a better rebounder, facilitator and their defense is about equal, I'd say.
ardee wrote:ShaqAttack3234 wrote:
The only defender Wilt faced during the '67 run who I think could have had a chance of containing Shaq(with the right team defense, of course) was Nate Thurmond, who I think may very well have been the greatest individual post defender ever. But Thurmond himself said that he didn't think he could guard guys like Shaq and Yao. I'm not sure if he's being modest, but it does suggest what I've been saying, which is that match ups make the fight. And there's no greater example of that than Shaq.
You think Russell couldn't guard Shaq?
Woodsanity wrote:Shaq. Better playoff performer and longer prime. Unlike Wilt his scoring production didn't drop drastically over the course of his career. Shaq also played in a stronger era. The average athleticism of the league in Wilt's day was a lot lower. There were a few good centers besides Russell but defense is not only 1 on 1 defense but team defense as well. Wilt had incredible size and athleticism. Players back then usually only had one. A lot of people had size but were unathletic and didn't have other physical tools. Russell was athletic but was much shorter than Wilt.
Brenice wrote:The thing is, it may be more valid that there are more athletes in today's game, and the league is longer, Wilt would still be pearless in those areas. More athletic, longer, heavier and stronger, than the dominant athletes of all-time NBA. Wilt was the real NBA SUPERMAN, not Shaq or Dwight, and not Jordan or LeBron either. Nobody ever in the NBA had or has the physical gifts of Wilt.
Now people want to say the competition is better today. OK. What happens when you play with better competition? Wilt may not score 100, average 50 and 25 or whatever his records are, but would still dominate. Better competition usually makes you a better player.
The fact is, Shaq could only beat you one way. That way was dominant, no doubt. But, Wilt could DOMINATE in a variety of ways.
Now, let's see Shaq play in canvas sneakers. Lets see Shaq play against more physical, tougher, hungrier players.
Let's see Shaq play in an era wear players didn't whine like babies when touched. Shaq's whole game is based around him being the strongest. Fine. Shaq is a bully, nothing more. Let's see Shaq get hit back by someone nearly as big as he. Wilt didn't want to hurt opponents. He could beat them without beating them up.
Bringing it back to actual basketball, I just feel there was only really one way you could use Shaq. Dump it in to him in the low post and let him go to work. If the game plan ever changes so he's not getting touches, you know what happens. His defensive commitment will suffer. "If the big dog ain't me, then the house won't get guarded – period."
I'm not being insulting or disrespectful. He actually said those words. So, if for some reason you go through a stretch where you have to run the offense through someone else, how would you like it if your center decides not to help on defense or box out for rebounds?
He was as good a defensive anchor as Shaq, that is, when both of them chose to focus on that. In Shaq's case, that would be the 2000 regular season, in Wilt's case, that would be 1968. His scoring efficiency was right up there with Shaq's when he scored volume wise like in '66, and when he became a facilitator it skyrocketed to something unlike anything seen in NBA history.
I feel Wilt was clearly the better rebounder. It's not close, only Russell approaches him even if you adjust for minutes and pace.
The main thing is Wilt was able to play a full-time facilitator role to great effect, something no center in history has ever done so well. It's one thing to say Shaq, Walton and Russell threw outlet passes and made plays out of the high post (Walton/Russell)/drew double teams and helped shooters get easy shots (Shaq). But Wilt was literally the full-time point guard. He even brought the ball up at times. Watch some of the highlights. Even if he didn't bring it up, it went in to him on every possession, and then he created shots for his team-mates.
Shaq was certainly a better volume scorer at that point, but Wilt was a better rebounder, facilitator and their defense is about equal, I'd say.
MacGill wrote:
Even when Wilt wasn't the focal point of the offense, he was still the focal point of the team and I believe never had another teammate who could potentially rival his greatness.
Wilt gets pg credit yet mostly just made the pass and by that I mean safe pass. Sure Wilt was flashy and a very good passing big but we've seen that from Shaq as well, right?
Wilt was basically removed from his role of offensive anchor to facilitator and to me if that did need led to team success it would have further hurt his legacy.
I've seen TRB%'s for Wilt's 67 season and they are just about 20% which is equal to what Shaq did in 2000.
Dipper 13 wrote:I've seen TRB%'s for Wilt's 67 season and they are just about 20% which is equal to what Shaq did in 2000.
The stat you have referenced is "an estimate of the percentage of available rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor." With far less possessions and the presumably fewer minutes he would play in this era, Wilt would enjoy the perceived advantage of an inflated TRB%. The same for assists percentage.
Jeff-Koon wrote:Wilt was not a point guard or his teams offensive anchor.
He was used on offense as a facilitator which involved many simple handoffs to talented offensive players and some short passes to midrange shooters and occasionally a pass to inside cutters.
Shaq had better court vision then Wilt and much better court awareness.
He was able to recreate Wilt's 67 passing numbers in multiple years while being a scorer/offensive anchor.
Wilt was focused on getting assists that year.
Over a career Shaq as a passer destroys Wilt... its not even close.
Shaq had 8 years with a 14%+ AST%
Wilt did the same in 4 years.
Shaq had a 20+ AST% 2 years.
Wilt did it once and he was actively trying to procure assists and didn't need to score the way Shaq did.
Shaq had 15 years with a 10%+ AST%
Wilt had 8 years.
So again... trying to pretend that Wilt was like Steve Nash and better then Shaq as a passer is beyond ridiculous.
The numbers and video simply prove you incorrect.
Adjusted for pace/mpg he was not creating for others at a superior rate to say 96 Shaq who was also his teams primary scorer and offensive anchor.
Wilt did not dribble the ball up the court or play point foward like KG did at some points nor did he have near the skill to perform such actions.
Again this description of Wilt you are posting about is fantasy... he was not that player nor did he play those roles.
Adjusted for pace and mpg Wilt would be a 9-13ppg / 5apg type player.
His role and contributions offensively simply weren't anywhere near what Shaq did for his teams in his Prime.
Wilt's main contributions were his defense and rebounding and although he did obviously play an important role in the offense it was just not nearly as significant as you paint it out to be.
Not saying Wilt wasn't an amazing player but your entire post was revisionist history and extreme hyperbole.
Where I'll leave this point though is that reading arguments from poster's like ElGee, Doctor MJ, I have been convinced around the impact from both players. And case in point is that Shaq's offense impacted the game and his team much higher then what Wilt's did.
Not to derail here, but I think that the team strategies of the 50s-60s NBA weren't conducive for great offenses with super-high usage players as they were later on in the late 80s-00s (I estimated Wilt at 30+ usg for much of his prime, and his other legendary contemporaries never hit 28 or above). It was also unique to see that high-usage from the C position.
Jeff-Koon wrote:Dipper 13 wrote:I've seen TRB%'s for Wilt's 67 season and they are just about 20% which is equal to what Shaq did in 2000.
The stat you have referenced is "an estimate of the percentage of available rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor." With far less possessions and the presumably fewer minutes he would play in this era, Wilt would enjoy the perceived advantage of an inflated TRB%. The same for assists percentage.
That seems like more of an assumption that a concrete fact.
While I understand and don't find what you're saying here completely illogical I don't agree.
A players AST% generally stays the same even when adjusting for minutes played.
The rebounding argument holds slightly more weight to me but even then I don't think the differences would be overly significant even if his TRB% did improve.
There are other factors you have to consider when looking at rebounding in difference era's.