RealGM Top 100 List #4

[RayBan-Sematra]

Would O'Neal willingly reduce his volume scoring role? Maybe. But it isn't always a given, and it's something to think about especially when he enjoyed his entire prime as the volume focal point of a team. (And, as those quotes show, he definitely cared about being the man.)

Wilt's FGA average over his first 4 years in Philly was 19.
Shaq usually didn't average more then 19 attempts a game and had multiple years in his Prime where he averaged less then that.

An older Shaq also did show a willingness to lower his attempts for the good of the team.
He only took 14 FGA in the 2004 playoffs when Malone & Payton joined the team and he also didn't mind taking a smaller role in Miami.
Even in Orlando he was fine with limited attempts.

I think Shaq was generally easier to deal with then some think.
The friction he had with Kobe I think caused him to act in a poorer then usual manner at times.

Anyway Shaq was never a selfish player on the court and did a great job keeping his teammates involved even when he was volume scoring.
Yes he wanted to get his touches over the course of a game and he wanted to be consistently involved in the offense but he wasn't a guy who needed to score everytime down the court.
I don't see him needing to score less then 25-30ppg in the 60's.
I think he would likely get his on extremely high efficiency while also making sure his supporting players got a proper amount of touches. He wouldn't be hard to fit into any type of offense.

The only role I question him wanting is the defensive specialist role but he might be willing to take that role or at the very least an altered version of it (where he might be allowed to create alittle more then Wilt did).

[ceiling raiser]

The same thing happened to Wilt when he was traded to the Lakers (they certainly didn't get equal value back for Wilt). The lakers got worse that year with Wilt. How often do stars who get traded in their primes make a team worse? Usually the teams get better (KG, Moses, Oscar, etc. ). Shaq was traded for 2 all-star caliber players and he was able to improve the Heat by 6 SRS points.

1) During the regular season, perhaps. But from the numbers I posted earlier in this thread, the 69 Lakers were terrific defensively in the playoffs.

2) I think it's fair to say Wade's emergence as a superstar (though he didn't fully take control of the team until the playoffs) has to account for some of the improvement, wouldn't you say?

[ceiling raiser]

You know if you're going to keep parroting this same point without bothering to address what I wrote about the 1963 season earlier I think it's best I stop addressing this argument...

Kg won 33 games with an awful roster. Kobe won 42 games with an awful roster. T-Mac was around .500 with an awful roster. Same with Wade. Why was Wilt's team at his peak winning 31 games while he had a HOF in his prime (Rodgers) who led the NBA in assists (60's equivalent of Rajon Rondo)? Show me a superstar that won 31 games at their peak?

Read some of the posts with regards to the dearth of spacing. It's very tough to run a low post isolation-heavy offense when you don't have shooters to spread the floor.

In general though, I'm not a big fan of Wilt pre-63-64.

[ardee]

You know if you're going to keep parroting this same point without bothering to address what I wrote about the 1963 season earlier I think it's best I stop addressing this argument...

Kg won 33 games with an awful roster. Kobe won 42 games with an awful roster. T-Mac was around .500 with an awful roster. Same with Wade. Why was Wilt's team at his peak winning 31 games while he had a HOF in his prime (Rodgers) who led the NBA in assists (60's equivalent of Rajon Rondo)? Show me a superstar that won 31 games at their peak?

Rodgers was a BS HOF. He couldn't shoot, terrible defender, and we all know APG is a hilarious stat. 60s equivalent of Rajon Rondo is an insane overexaggeration. More like a worse shooting Kendall Marshall.

Wilt's team was worse than any of the others. Arizin was gone. Gola missed 60 games. It was basically just Wilt. No shooting, no defense, the whole team was him. 31 games is a miracle with that roster. Put Shaq on a team where the starting line-up is something like Marshall-Bogans-Wesley Johnson-Randolph-Shaq and see if he's as successful as you think Wilt should have been.

And '63 was nowhere near his peak, I don't know why you keep saying that

Wilt is getting voted in, get over it.

[Owly]

The difference in this chart is that Wilt was traded, and the team supposedly received equal value. Virtually everyone else was either injured or a free agent. In those cases it is an ADD, not an EVEN situation.

If you are injured, there is a good chance your team doesn't have an adequate short term replacement.

If you are a free agent, then you are being added to the team with no replacement.
To be fair, they didn't get anything like fair value. They wanted rid of Wilt's salary and got money and a couple of bodies.

The bigger issue with '65 is if it's just team record whilst Wilt was on the roster or whether it factors in games when he was on court. Because the Warriors were 1-6 in games he missed, scoring 680 points, conceding 748, a net loss of 68 points, or -9.714285714 per game, 4 home games, 3 road games. That team wasn't great healthy, but it seems like they weren't healthy at the start of the year. So based on an admittedly tiny sample, you might suggest theres still signs of a signifcant Wilt impact.

Regarding a percieved lack of impact on arrival at the 76ers, Ardee has has already covered injuries, notably to Greer, which reversed an upward trend on Wilt's arrival (Greer, injured around 23rd Feb, played through 6 of the last 14 games), Costello (injured around 28th Feb), missed all of the last twelve games (note here Greer and Costello are the floor spacers required for an optimal use of Wilt's talents), and Chet Walker missed one game (his only absence of the season) during that spell too.

If these factors are accounted for, that's fine. If not it shows the danger of with/without numbers without context (especially if Wilt's own injury absences weren't factored in).


Given Shaq's play/numbers versus the prior generation of centers (Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing) in the mid-nineties, I don't see a big problem for him in terms of theorising on what he might do against great bigs in his prime. I guess you can factor it into perhaps slightly inflated playoff numbers.

[spoiler]

The difference in this chart is that Wilt was traded, and the team supposedly received equal value. Virtually everyone else was either injured or a free agent. In those cases it is an ADD, not an EVEN situation.

If you are injured, there is a good chance your team doesn't have an adequate short term replacement.

If you are a free agent, then you are being added to the team with no replacement.

The same thing happened to Wilt when he was traded to the Lakers (they certainly didn't get equal value back for Wilt). The lakers got worse that year with Wilt. How often do stars who get traded in their primes make a team worse? Usually the teams get better (KG, Moses, Oscar, etc. ). Shaq was traded for 2 all-star caliber players and he was able to improve the Heat by 6 SRS points.

'69 has been covered ad nauseum. You don't get to call players all-star calibre if they don't make any all-star teams. But if you wanted to claim Odom was semi-close to all-star level you'd look at how they played in the year in question. And Butler had been awful on Miami in '04. Getting rid of 2000+ minutes of 10.7 PER, .050 WS/48 level production would have been a good thing even if no one had come in. And don't pretend not to notice Wade's improvement as though that wasn't a huge driver of their improvement. Shaq is legitimately in the discussion here. I may well vote for him next. Stop making poor (partial) arguments for him that force people to argue against him.

Also your "quote" includes swathes of things that weren't me.

[ceiling raiser]

You know if you're going to keep parroting this same point without bothering to address what I wrote about the 1963 season earlier I think it's best I stop addressing this argument...

Kg won 33 games with an awful roster. Kobe won 42 games with an awful roster. T-Mac was around .500 with an awful roster. Same with Wade. Why was Wilt's team at his peak winning 31 games while he had a HOF in his prime (Rodgers) who led the NBA in assists (60's equivalent of Rajon Rondo)? Show me a superstar that won 31 games at their peak?

Rodgers was a BS HOF. He couldn't shoot, terrible defender, and we all know APG is a hilarious stat. 60s equivalent of Rajon Rondo is an insane overexaggeration. More like a worse shooting Kendall Marshall.

Wilt's team was worse than any of the others. Arizin was gone. Gola missed 60 games. It was basically just Wilt. No shooting, no defense, the whole team was him. 31 games is a miracle with that roster. Put Shaq on a team where the starting line-up is something like Marshall-Bogans-Wesley Johnson-Randolph-Shaq and see if he's as successful as you think Wilt should have been.

And '63 was nowhere near his peak, I don't know why you keep saying that

Wilt is getting voted in, get over it.

I do think Rodgers is a legitimate player. Not the best player to slot alongside Wilt as a supporting star since he couldn't shoot, but by all accounts a terrific passer and ball-handler, and I don't think he was bad defensively. I have no problem with him making the HOF.

[tsherkin]

Wilt's FGA average over his first 4 years in Philly was 19.
Shaq usually didn't average more then 19 attempts a game and had multiple years in his Prime where he averaged less then that.

An older Shaq also did show a willingness to lower his attempts for the good of the team.
He only took 14 FGA in the 2004 playoffs when Malone & Payton joined the team and he also didn't mind taking a smaller role in Miami.

Mmmm...

Shaq averaged 24 FGA100, though, which is relevant because you've neglected to adjust for pace between eras decades apart and noticeably different in that respect. He averaged 22.5 - 23.2 FGA100 in his first three seasons with the Heat (15.2 - 15.9 FGA36 in his own era), and was already 32 when he joined them, so he couldn't stay on the court as long as he used to, couldn't run like he used to, etc. He also evidenced some decline on the offensive boards in 06 and 07. Further, he was also injured, and that hampered him further. Shaq routinely complained about not getting the ball throughout his career, so this isn't really a strong argument. It happened, but he complained about it, even in Phoenix.

The 04 playoffs were also less of a choice and more of an issue of the guards doing their thing. He couldn't really control that, and often grumped about it (and in his defense, he should have, given the results).

Even in Orlando he was fine with limited attempts.

That's... inaccurate, given that he took 19.1 - 20.2 FGA/g in his last three seasons with the Magic and his only season under 19.1 with them was his rookie season.

I support Shaq in general, but yeah, that's definitely not an accurate assessment of Shaq's approach to the game. He was all about his own offense, and he was indeed a team offensive player, but he wanted the ball running through him so that he had the option to shoot or pass, and he liked to have loads and loads of possessions, even in the years you're indicating while forgetting the various mitigating factors on his attempts.

[MisterWestside]

This isn't Wilt's fault, I know this....but with him almost everything is based on what he could have been if he played today (not saying these are your arguments) when there are more than enough questions about his impact made in his time. There is nothing wrong with players being better than previous greats, I love it and we are watching it with LBJ right now. With Wilt versus Shaq, how do you soften, decrease Shaq's game to the level Wilt played at and account for these differences? You just have much more of a sample of Shaq's dominance from video, competition and size of player faced. That'smy honest thoughts here.

All fair points. But notice how Russell received no such scrutiny about his game, despite never playing in the modern era. Some posters just assume that everything would translate nice and neatly so he'd dominate this era just like dominated his era. And you can't do that. He'd be better than KG and Mutombo (both of whom played in the modern era) combined? Nice. Show me.


Gotta keep it consistent. You either give all of these old-timers a fair shake and think about how they'd perform in a vastly different context, or you knock them all for what they did in antiquated era of NBA history.

[RayBan-Sematra]

1968: The same Sixers (with Wilt winning season MVP) go 62-20 and lose to the 54-28 Celtics in 7 games after being up 3-1. In Game 7 Wilt did not attempt a field goal in the 2nd half

Do you know how bad the injury situation was? EVERYONE was injured. Billy C wasn't even playing. Wilt had a calf problem. Yet he still played well and the team collapsed around him in the final 3 games. If you watch what footage is available of game 7, they weren't even getting the ball to Wilt. This loss was on Hannum.

I don't mind you pointing out the injury issues that team was dealing with or the poor play of certain teammates however I don't see how that excuses Wilt's poor play down the stretch of that series.

In G6 he shot 6-21 from the field and 8-22 from the line. That is just horrible.
In G7 he shot 4-9 from the field and 6-15 from the line.

Had he not shot so terribly from the field or even just from the line it is likely that the Sixers win that series.
Wilt deserves plenty of blame for his poor individual play.

[ceiling raiser]

This isn't Wilt's fault, I know this....but with him almost everything is based on what he could have been if he played today (not saying these are your arguments) when there are more than enough questions about his impact made in his time. There is nothing wrong with players being better than previous greats, I love it and we are watching it with LBJ right now. With Wilt versus Shaq, how do you soften, decrease Shaq's game to the level Wilt played at and account for these differences? You just have much more of a sample of Shaq's dominance from video, competition and size of player faced. That'smy honest thoughts here.

All fair points. But notice how Russell received no such scrutiny about his game, despite never playing in the modern era. Some posters just assume that everything would translate nice and neatly so he could dominate this era just like dominated his era. And you can't do that. He'd be better than KG and Mutombo (both of whom played in the modern era) combined? Nice. Show me.


Gotta keep it consistent. You either give all of these old-timers a fair shake or you knock them all for what they did in antiquated era of NAbA history.

I know we disagree on the bolded, and while I respect your opinion a ton, that's a big part of my evaluation in this project. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about each player, and get an idea about how they'd play today. It's obviously all speculation, but I do think we can make educated guesses about to what extent each guy would translate. Obviously they're still guesses, but the guessing is the main reason why I'm participating in this project, and find discussion on this board to be as fun and interesting as it is.

[Doctor MJ]

Oh jeez. Okay. If this isn't acceptable I apologize. I don't know what page my recount vote is on, it's murder finding things on my phone.

Recount vote Shaq

So bottom line, remember when I kept saying Jordan and Karrem were good choices even while
I advocated for Russell? I don't think that about Wilt here. Not close.

He just wasn't anywhere near as effective in average as Shaq or really any of the other guys being bandied about and it feels like people largely find ways to ignore this.

That's not everyone I know. Maybe most people simply don't believe the analysis I and others have done on Wilt's impact. For those folks, just try to keep an open mind in the future.

But yeah this urge find reasons why a guy being much less effective than 99.9 percent of people shouldn't actually matter here is pretty astounding to me, particularly given how much of it is due to him getting in his own way with alternating bouts of jealousy, laziness, and plain old insecurity.

None of this is to say I don't rank Wilt still pretty high on my GOAT list still, but these issues are enough that in any given generation there are probably 2 or 3 guys I have to give the nod to over him.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[MacGill]

This isn't Wilt's fault, I know this....but with him almost everything is based on what he could have been if he played today (not saying these are your arguments) when there are more than enough questions about his impact made in his time. There is nothing wrong with players being better than previous greats, I love it and we are watching it with LBJ right now. With Wilt versus Shaq, how do you soften, decrease Shaq's game to the level Wilt played at and account for these differences? You just have much more of a sample of Shaq's dominance from video, competition and size of player faced. That'smy honest thoughts here.

All fair points. But notice how Russell received no such scrutiny about his game, despite never playing in the modern era. Some posters just assume that everything would translate nice and neatly so he could dominate this era just like dominated his era. And you can't do that. He'd be better than KG and Mutombo (both of whom played in the modern era) combined? Nice. Show me.


Gotta keep it consistent. You either give all of these old-timers a fair shake or you knock them all for what they did in antiquated era of NAbA history.

Well for me I did keep it consistent, well as much as I could.

Eye test - footage test. We've discussed the concerns I have had with Wilt's fundementals offensively. This wasn't a problem for Russell as many of his points were made off putbacks. He wasn't made out to be an offensive superstar. With Wilt, what I watched was great for the time in effectiveness but overall very basic execution to where others want us to believe he was capable of being as an O anchor. Again my assessemnt.

Russell Defense - Understanding the he and Wilt both anchored defenses, and we take offense away from Russell, it isn't so hard to believe that he played defense like 67 Wilt and on from the start. His teams defense impact also shows this and he never deferred from this style of play. He has so much consistency.

Modern comparison - Well if Wilt was the pioneer Shaq and Russell more the pioneer Hakeem/KG, does the above make sense to me?

It isn't perfect, but I feel comfortable with that take. Russell doesn't leave you with what if's....because you knew what he brought game in and out. Also, I could care less if he'd be as effective today because neither he or Wilt could replicate their defensive presence today like they did. Game is too different.

[lorak]

Kg won 33 games with an awful roster. Kobe won 42 games with an awful roster. T-Mac was around .500 with an awful roster. Same with Wade. Why was Wilt's team at his peak winning 31 games while he had a HOF in his prime (Rodgers) who led the NBA in assists (60's equivalent of Rajon Rondo)? Show me a superstar that won 31 games at their peak?

Really winning 31 games during 80 games season is so different than winning 32 out of 76 (2007 KG) or 31 out of 76 games (2006 KG)?

[RayBan-Sematra]

Mmmm...

Shaq averaged 24 FGA100, though, which is relevant because you've neglected to adjust for pace between eras decades apart and noticeably different in that respect.

Not super familiar with this FGA100 stat but if Wilt was averaging 19 attempts while playing close to 48mpg I don't think Shaq would necessarily demand a higher number of attempts even if he was playing 7-10mpg less.
I understand your point though.

That's... inaccurate, given that he took 19.1 - 20.2 FGA/g in his last three seasons with the Magic and his only season under 19.1 with them was his rookie season.

Well he only took 16 attempts in the 95 playoffs.
He took 18 attempts in the 96 playoffs but he also had a very high AST%.

but he wanted the ball running through him so that he had the option to shoot or pass, and he liked to have loads and loads of possessions.

Yeah I agree with this.
However I think he was generally satiated if he got a certain number of touches and was consistently involved in the offense (and what team wouldn't want Prime Shaq consistently involved in the offense?).
Even late 60's Wilt was still heavily involved in the offense even when he wasn't volume scoring as much.

[colts18]

Really winning 31 games during 80 games season is so different than winning 32 out of 76 (2007 KG) or 31 out of 76 games (2006 KG)?

KG had an all-time bad roster in 2007. KG didn't have a HOF who was a 4 time all-star and finished 8 straight years in the top 2 of assists. 2007 wasn't KG's statistical peak either. Plus even if KG's situation is comparable, that's not a good thing because KG isn't on the caliber of being argued for #4 of all-time.

[tsherkin]

Not super familiar with this FGA100 stat but if Wilt was averaging 19 attempts while playing close to 48mpg I don't think Shaq would necessarily demand a higher number of attempts even if he was playing 7-10mpg less.
I understand your point though.

You're looking at a season-specific number, of course, so obviously there will be variance, but the point is that Shaq took a lot of shots pretty much until he hit Cleveland if you look at his touches per possession, particularly when you account for pace. He shot more than Wilt at a similar age and that isn't likely to have changed.

Well he only took 16 attempts in the 95 playoffs.
He took 18 attempts in the 96 playoffs but he also had a very high AST%.

Right, but you're failing to account for the 12.4 FTA/g from 95. The actual number of possessions is considerably higher than the number of FGA. He was getting a ton of touches. And comparing the 18 FGA/g in the 96 playoffs to Wilt's 19 FGA/g is a mistake due to pace (and the general absence of seasons/postseasons where he actually averaged that volume). Shaq averaged 22.6 FGA100 in the 1995 playoffs, and a 17.4 FTA100, which isn't possible without the sort of possession volume with which he was generally comfortable, and we haven't even started factoring in turnovers as a further extension of his possession total.

This isn't necessarily a BAD thing, per se, but it would be disingenuous to say that he accepted lesser touches. He shot less in some seasons/postseasons, surely, but after accounting for pace and total possessions, it really doesn't happen that he intentionally accepted a lesser role without mitigating factors like age, health or guards not sharing the ball with him to the same extent as in previous seasons.

Yeah I agree with this.
However I think he was generally satiated if he got a certain number of touches and was consistently involved in the offense (and what team wouldn't want Prime Shaq consistently involved in the offense?).
Even late 60's Wilt was still heavily involved in the offense even when he wasn't volume scoring as much.

Yes, I agree that Shaq didn't demand ALL of the touches and he certainly developed into a fine post passer and everything, but he still wanted his possessions and in his era, that meant a large proportion of the possessions while he was on the floor. 03-04 was the first season since his second in which he averaged under 30.2% USG, and he was 31, playing with three other All-Star or former All-Star players. He was promptly at 30.5, 30.0 and 29.4% USG in his first three Miami seasons, right in line with his typical Lakers season.

[MacGill]

Kg won 33 games with an awful roster. Kobe won 42 games with an awful roster. T-Mac was around .500 with an awful roster. Same with Wade. Why was Wilt's team at his peak winning 31 games while he had a HOF in his prime (Rodgers) who led the NBA in assists (60's equivalent of Rajon Rondo)? Show me a superstar that won 31 games at their peak?

Really winning 31 games during 80 games season is so different than winning 32 out of 76 (2007 KG) or 31 out of 76 games (2006 KG)?

Are you voting here? Sorry, don't think I seen your name on the list. I may be worng.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Runoff Vote #4: Wilt

Really interesting choice here, since both Wilt/Shaq are so similar in their approach to the game. That said, here are some thoughts:

1) Durability and its effect on impact: Shaq has some great seasonal averages throughout his career, however, half the years it came with him missing close to a third of the season. When we talk about career value & longevity, this is a big factor. HCA is critical in the quest to a ring due to its correlation in series wins. So missing large chucks of games negatively impacts a team's positioning come playoff time. Shaq's work ethic was the primary cause which only adds to the penalty I give him for it. Conversely, Wilt played heavy minutes, and 90% of games nearly all prime years. That dynamic shifts the overall impact debate into Wilt's camp.

2) Rebounding: Wilt led the NBA in rebounding 11 times.....Shaq didn't do it even once. In overall dominance, Wilt was greater.

3) Defense: Wilt gets the edge for me in total career value. Shaq was great for a 2 year span(00/01), but really was a lazy defender for most of his prime years. Wilt was no Russell, but i rate him a bit better than Shaq on this end of the court.

[Basketballefan]

Time to move onto #5 now?

[MisterWestside]

I know we disagree on the bolded, and while I respect your opinion a ton, that's a big part of my evaluation in this project. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about each player, and get an idea about how they'd play today. It's obviously all speculation, but I do think we can make educated guesses about to what extent each guy would translate. Obviously they're still guesses, but the guessing is the main reason why I'm participating in this project, and find discussion on this board to be as fun and interesting as it is.

Well the former statement reflects my viewpoint. I think that Russell and Chamberlain would both be perennial MVP candidates as bigs. I think that Russell would still be an elite defender, but not +8-+10 on defense. I think that Chamberlain would have more impact in an offense and with players that are better tailored for the low-post. Would they be Garnett on defense or O'Neal on offense, respectively? Who knows; maybe, maybe not. But I can (and have made) an educated argument for both having success in today's league.