Wilt vs Shaq at their peaks

[QuantMisleads]

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.

[QuantMisleads]

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?

[Jeff-Koon]

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.

#1.
I have never seen Mac in that light.
He seems like a pretty nice and reasonable guy to me but I can't speak on how you perceive him obviously.
I will say that we all have our own opinions.
No reason to hate a guy just because he has a different opinion to yours or stands his ground when it comes to his own views.
Anyway the Mods told us to not talk about posters so lets drop that.

#2.
How have you really backed up your opinions though.
If you want to claim Wilt was a certain weight can you provide some pictures or video evidence to show us and not just an old quote... I am not saying I can't just believe you for your word but that would be helpful in the future to get others to believe your arguments.

#3.
Why would 64 Wilt beat Shaq?

Shaq had much, much better footwork in the post.
Shaq had much better ball handling ability and ball control which is extremely useful when your posting up and making offensive moves in the post.
Shaq was far more comfortable playing with his back to the basket while young Wilt seemed awkward and uncomfortable dribbling the ball at times while posting up especially in his early years.
Shaq was also much better at leveraging his weight and was not top heavy like Wilt.
Shaq had a wider variety of moves in the post, fakes and other counters.

Physically Wilt in the early-mid 60's was around the 250-280lbs.

Shaq who was around 320-325 at his Peak and as we've all agreed on had a much thicker base and legs would not have any problem posting up Wilt and getting position for easy baskets.

Not only was Shaq just a much larger man in this comparison he also had that Charles Barkley type natural strength which few players have and I don't think Wilt really displayed that type of strength.

I actually think 70's Wilt would do better at guarding and going h2h with Peak Shaq alhough at the same time I think older Wilt would have a harder time scoring on O'neal because of him being more reliant on using his size to score and not being very accurate outside of the paint anymore.

#5.
You say Wilt was more explosive/quick then Shaq.
I have seen video.
Wilt never displayed close to the explosiveness Shaq showed when making some of his spin moves and dunks and in other situations.
That cat like Quickness Shaq had... Wilt just never displayed it.

While Wilt was comparable and arguably even greater in terms of speed and hops Shaq was far more explosiveness and had much greater quickness.
Shaq also was significantly stronger and more powerful.
Shaq also had better body coordination. He looked like a guard in a C's body during his Young / Prime years.
Watch the first 25-30 seconds of this video.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewBnHq04CRg&feature=related[/youtube]

[NO-KG-AI]

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?

I think Shaq is virtually immovable on the block. Wilt probably can benchpress more, or throw a discus or something further, but as far as using his body to gain deep position, or backing down in the post, Shaq is going to win, unless it's the very thinnest form of Shaq(the 290 or so LSU version) vs. the biggest Wilt ever was.

[Dipper 13]

Wilt never displayed close to the explosiveness Shaq showed when making some of his spin moves and dunks and in other situations.

Oh yes he did. There were three video clips on Youtube from '65, '68, & '72 (which have since been deleted) showing the same quick baseline spin & dunk that Shaq so often used. Except Wilt never carried the ball as he spun, nor did he pin the defender back with his elbow. He just went straight up to the rim. In this era he would not restrain himself.


Mar 6, 1969

Physically Wilt in the early-mid 60's was around the 250-280lbs.

From another forum, Wilt as a rookie was 258 lbs. According to Wayne Embry, Wilt was physically pushed around as a rookie.

http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=257270

Wilt Chamberlain

Billed Information:

NCAA: 7-0
Philadelphia Warriors: 7-1 1/16, 250
Basketball Reference: 7-1, 275
NBA (All teams after the Warriors): 7-1, 275

Actual Measurements:

Height: 7-1.06 (6-11.5 age 17, 7-1.06 age 23)
Wingspan: 7-8
Standing Reach: 9-6
Hand Length: 9.5"
Hand Spread: 11.5"
Playing Weight:
258 - rookie
265 - 3rd season
292 - 5th season
275 - mid career
285 - mid-late career
300 - late career
320 - maximum (training camp of 5th season)


The inside game: race, power, and politics in the NBA - Wayne Embry




From the same forum, two scaled pics comparing Wilt in the mid 80's to Shaq as well as Dwight Howard. While it is true that Wilt was in the weight room bulking up well after his playing days, I find it hard to believe he ever weighed significantly more than 320 lbs in his life. Maybe one of his autobiographies disputes this.

Wilt was never heavier then 250-280 until the very (very) late 60's and early 70's.

By retirement he was roughly 315 lbs, which is the same weight he reported to Warriors camp at in '63. To me Wilt's strength & power was more graceful and effortless than Shaq, who loved to emphatically pound defenders. It appears that '00 Shaq (340 lbs) had a 20-25 lb advantage over '64 Wilt (315-320 lbs). In this era with a far slower pace, he would likely maintain and play at 310+ lbs from his 4th year onward. Remember he did report to camp 315, while another source from that time has him at 320 lbs. After the first week or two he was down to 292.







Meriden Journal - Sep 6, 1963





Orlando Sentinel - Oct 31, 1999

He is bigger than ever now, a solid 340 pounds (at least 10 pounds heavier than last season) and has a Hungry Man appetite that demands immediate satisfaction.



Los Angeles Times - Oct 7, 1999

Whatever Coach Phil Jackson's requested weight for Shaquille O'Neal was, the center did not meet it--probably didn't even come close--when the Lakers were weighed after the morning practice Wednesday at UC Santa Barbara.

"The more I lift weights, the higher the number's going to be," O'Neal said. "I'm not really concerned about numbers. . . . I'll bust any big man's butt no matter what I weigh."

"I'm not unhappy about it," Jackson said. "He's shown he's in condition out there on the floor. That's the major goal, the guy's in condition so he can get up and down the court."

O'Neal, who has added muscle on his shoulders, said he came in at 340 pounds.

[Woodsanity]

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.

[ardee]

Ok, so the conversation has spiraled a bit since I was last here.

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?

As for Wilt, in '67 he was basically the definition of versatility. I posted my thoughts about how many different things he did in another thread, here it is:

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.

[ShaqAttack3234]

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?

Not a knock against Russell, but absolutely not. He's just not big enough, the 220 pound figure is inaccurate for mid 60's Russell, 240-250 is more like it, but Shaq was 340 in 2000, he'd be giving up 90-100 pounds and 4 inches. Shaq used his power all game long. What could Russell really do to stop Shaq from getting deep position, shooting those baby hooks or dunking the ball?

I'm not saying this to diminish Russell's defensive ability. All things considered, I think he's the greatest defensive player in the history of the game, but I stand by my statement that a lesser defensive player with much more size would have a better chance.

As for the topic, it's tough to argue with someone who chooses either. Yes, I'm probably biased and will lean towards 2000 Shaq, but Wilt was magnificent in 1967. His all around game was remarkable, I've looked into this team a lot and have great admiration for Wilt and a team that has to be in the discussion for greatest ever. Just wish we could get some full games of the '67 Sixers, that would be the ultimate. Particularly Wilt's game 1 vs Boston in the EDF.

[Brenice]

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.

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.

[Jeff-Koon]

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.

Wilt did not have any significant edge in length over Shaq so thats a wash.
He was not heavier or stronger then Shaq.

More athletic?
Maybe he could jump slightly higher and run slightly faster?

However when you factor in body courdination, quickness/explosivness and strength/power I think Shaq clearly seperates himself from Wilt athletically even though both are amoung the best athletes to ever play the game.

Shaq could only beat you in one way?
What does that mean?
And why do you think he was a bully?

Shaq had one of the most beautiful basic post games of all times.
He had amazing court awareness, footwork, ball control / handles and touch around the basket.
He had a variety of spin moves and counters in the post which required tons of finesse and skill not to mention he was excellent at using fakes.

I definitly consider Shaq to be a much more skilled post scorer then Wilt was and obviously more effective.
Even away from the basket was Wilts little bank shots really more fluid/accurate then Shaq's jumphook which he used frequently out to 8-12 feet?

Shaq was certainly a power player but he was also one of the most skilled centers ever.
The people who call him a bully or dont recognize his skill tend to be biased against him (not pointing fingers).

[MacGill]

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."

Nice of you to finally join back in the conversation

The first point I want to make is that Shaq was an offensive center first and foremost. Many of the great centers he had played against in the 90's, were more defensive minded first, who ended up having to become 2 way players but it's obvious Shaq's mold was more of Wilt/KAJ from a scoring perspective. And if it ain't broke, why fix it, right'? I mean, Shaq posted the 2nd highest FG% ever in the history of the game during his career and when you see he took approximately 10,000 more FGA attempts then Gilmore, I think he had a point 3-peat Shaq averaged .575% over this period but there seems to me to be one fundemental difference in this comparison and that was the build-up of teammates.

To your point Re: Guard the house - He said it and no one can deny it but I think it is important to take into the account what was happening during that time. I am not going to place blame, say who was wrong or right as I don't want this to become the focal point of the conversation but essentially you had another Alpha Dog player ready/wanting to take over the team and Shaq was not ready to give it up. It was immature for sure on how he handled it but it also appears the entire organization was at fault for allowing this to escalate to what it did.

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. 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. From what I have read, heard, watched, I don't believe there was much difference between Wilt's & Shaq's confidence/maturity level's so the only difference I can say is that Wilt never had to go through what Shaq did but I'd doubt he be welcoming if he had another player wanting the offense/defense to go through them as the #1 while he was still going strong.

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?

LOL, I blame MJ

The problem here and part of the reason why to me I believe that both players would have been better off to have played in each other's era. I have posted my clips where the commentary is 'Why are they not going to O'Neal' 'He sends it out, wy is he not getting the ball back'? Shaq would have excelled more in Wilt's era because the game went through the middle. You also didn't have every guard from 6'4-6'8 trying to become the next MJ taking away from Shaq. It never made sense to me that you have arguably the biggest mismatch in the history of the game (Wilt included) yet he was never fed like Wilt was. You didn't have teams feeding Shaq like they did to Wilt and because of that I wonder if Shaq was ever fully satisfied?

Re: Defense - Wilt would be the better defender to me in a day to day basis and I will not try to argue this point. He certainly had great shot blocking instincts, was a very quick leaper and showed great endurance and I commend Wilt in this aspect. I feel like in most comparisons to Shaq it becomes is Shaq O with his D greater than other players D with there O? But I will question point out a few things few things:

- 13 straight years of 20/10 his peak year just under 30/14.

But there is also a difference here that I never truly seen Wilt face that Shaq had to endure. Players making him work on both sides of the court and elite finishing. Early Wilt could camp under the rim and again in a lot of the video I have watched, it was a lot of single coverage and pull up from 10-15 feet. I credit Wilt because he obviously created that intimidation but this also led to a ton of easy boards, shot blocks. Also where by position you had so many players by position who could all play above the rim. I just never seen this in any clips about Wilt and this includes 67.

Another point is many poster's only think of 3-peat Shaq and up (titles, right ) but they forget that by 02 he was already 10 years in the league. I think Wilt only played 13 years total? And Shaq gave 14 years of fantastic production alone. Orlando Shaq was great defensively and up till the 3rd title Shaq gradually degressed defensively, like Wilt did offensively. The by position was much stronger defensively and with the 3 point shot traditional defensive schemes changed but 2000, he was dialed in on both sides like never before.

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.

Hard to say to me. He never faced the more atheletic at the rim finishers Shaq had to face or the 3 point shot. My honest opinion is in today's game Wilt would be better defensively than offensively. Wilt would be the better shot blocker and I do give him credit where I believe he would be a better rebounding than O'Neal based on body type but again he'd be worked much harder in today's game than in his era, right? Even small guys like Wade/Kobe would be a threat to block his shot or dunk over him.

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.

This is the problem I have with this statement. 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?
I believe it was Dipper13 who posted all the 67 Sixer video and what I noticed was the ball mostly got dumped into Wilt once they passed half court, he made the pass and a shot was made. I didn't see too many cutting lane steals, real pressure not to allow the ball into Wilt or even a full court press. It reminds me of the article when Wilt critized Rodman for being a specialist but to me it appeared he did the same thing, no?

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.

Wilt was amazing, no doubt, and for the record I am very open to countered arguments presented but I just haven't seen anything yet to really convince me of otherwise. 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 have read coaches getting blame but then you read how someone like Russell was able to make in game adjustments. I have read articles and watched on Wilt's 100 special how Wilt was the focal point of growing the sport and then read how his team's basically force fed him on every play. It just seems to me he was put in a great position from the start and this takes nothing away from how great of an athlete Wilt was. I have also read how he wasn't really passionate for basketball so while he did remarkable things throughout his career, I reserve my questions in comparison to O'Neal.

When I think of Wilt in today's era, I have always said David Robinson is who he would closely resemble which is no insult but takes into account much of Wilt never faced during his own time. I just don't see Wilt holding down the offense/defense to the level peak Shaq did without, like in 67 you remove aspects of his game.

[Jeff-Koon]

Adjusted for Pace and MPG 67 Wilt is looking more like a 8-13ppg / 4.7apg type offensive player in this era with excellent rebounding / defense.

Peak wise Wilt was not a better defender then Shaq or a better rebounder.
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 fact is offensively he was not playing such a major role or being this full time PG.

AST%
1996 Shaq = 23.6% / 4.6apg
1967 Wilt = 23.9% / 9apg

Basically what I am trying to say is that while their defensive and rebounding contributions were similar Shaq's contributions on the offensive end were far more significant then Wilt's were.
Shaq's team relied far more heavily on him offensively.

It's like 10ppg / 4.7apg VS 30ppg / 3.1apg

[ardee]

Ok, so I've quoted instances what I think was the issue with your argument.

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.

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

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?

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Jeff-Koon]

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.

[Dipper 13]

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]

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.

[ardee]

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.

Christ, you can't have a debate with this guy. No wonder most other posters just ignore him. Hopefully he'll get waived enough times and just take a hint and stay off RealGM.

MacGill, looking forward to seeing your thoughts.

[MisterWestside]

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.

Allow me to interject here, if you don't mind. I posted this in another thread:

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.

From what we see in the NBA in the late 80s-00s where players "carry" their offenses more (especially from the C position) and strategies/long-distance shooting skills evolve to fit around those stars, I think Wilt would've been a high impact offensive player in the modern era.

[QuantMisleads]

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.

His point was that you can't interpret anything by looking at TRB% or assist% from one era to another. If anything using stats like this is done through intellectual dishonesty, and not any real sort of analysis.

[QuantMisleads]

btw, let me just say that I find it very, very amusing that someone has the audacity to say Shaq was more consistent/better than Wilt was throughout his own career, where in reality Shaq was great for only a couple of years and very good in other years, whereas Wilt was great from 1959-1964, from 1966-1968, and from the 1970 playoffs until his retirement. He did poorly in the 1965 regular season because of a heart condition, and he did poorly in 1969 because of the bad situation he was in in LA, and his poor play was partly of his own doing and partly his idiotic coach.