Wilt vs Shaq

[One_and_Done]

It's impossible to prove a negative, so obviously we can't prove Shaq couldn't ever play for a 31 win team... but he never did, and the evidence that he was hugely impactful is significant.

You criticise Shaq for playing on only good teams, but I already showed that isn't true. Firstly as a rookie Shaq joined a 21 win team, and improved them by 20 wins. The team around him as a rookie was not good. Then from 00-04, in games Shaq played and Kobe did not, the Lakers played at a 60+ win pace. Over the same period Kobe, in games without Shaq, led the Lakers to a sub-500 record. So again, Shaq is evidently carrying a team of role players to great heights.

Then in all the other samples I cited Shaq appears to be having a strong effect on winning.

For Wilt, if we look selectively at the sample, you could make an argument he is having a big impact on winning... except we then see years where that very much was not the case, like his 31 win season, or 1965 which you now want a Mulligan on (which if we grant it, means Wilt has 1 less prime season, in a comparison with a guy who already has notably more longevity than him.

In the case of Shaq the signal is very clear. Big jump when he plays, big drop when he doesn't, teams fall off alot when he leaves. With Wilt it looks like other stuff is going on, because aside from the 2 bad seasons I cited you then have the Sixers only getting slightly worse without him, or the Lakers seeming to not be succeeding or failing based on his presence. The signal is all over the place, and if Wilt really has an impact comparable to Shaq it should be there pretty consistently, like it is for guys like Duncan, Lebron, etc. It should especially be there because of the shockingly weak league Wilt played in compared to Shaq.

[70sFan]

I never criticised Shaq for playing good teams, I am just stating a fact. His teams consistently played way above 50% without him is a good indicatorof how good they were. It doesn't take anything from Shaq, who was extremely impactful player.

About the other examples - you just wanted to leave rookie year off the sample I provided but now you want to include it because it suits your narrative. Please decide what you want.

I don't have the time to calculate all the games with and without either Kobe or Shaq (or both), but just looking at the ON/OFF numbers it's clear that Shaq was significantly more impactful than Kobe (which I think we all agree on) but Shaq didn't lead them to 60+ wins pace without Kobe. Not only ON/OFF numbers disagree, but considering overall record during that time it would mean that the Lakers played significantly better without Kobe, which isn't true.

One thing we agree on is that Shaq's impact signals are more consistent. At the same time though, Shaq's postseason resume is more questionable in my opinion, despite 2 more rings. His 1995-99 period in particular is very tough to explain, he was basically swept every year during that period, against not ATG teams (outside of the 1996 Bulls of course). Wilt faced a few one sided beatdowns, but not as consistently and his teams usually put up far better fight in a losing effort.

[One_and_Done]

I think the record in games Shaq missed, with context applied, is more useful than plus minus that I don't trust at all.

As for rookie Shaq, it can be true that rookie Shaq had a huge impact, but still wasn't in his prime. Those 2 statements are not mutually exclusive.

Now the new argument is about Shaq's postseason, as though Wilt didn't repeatedly fail in a borderline amateur league.

[70sFan]

Wilt didn't play in an amateur league, you are factually wrong and I don't care about your fantasies.

[One_and_Done]

Wilt didn't play in an amateur league, you are factually wrong and I don't care about your fantasies.

Many/most guys needed to work a 2nd job in the 60s according to some. The definition of professional is thst you get paid enough to live off that job. Wilt certainly did, but I'm not sure if that was true of the average player.

Either way, it was a nascent league of horrible quality compared to when Shaq played.

[70sFan]

Wilt didn't play in an amateur league, you are factually wrong and I don't care about your fantasies.

Many/most guys needed to work a 2nd job in the 60s according to some. The definition of professional is thst you get paid enough to live off that job. Wilt certainly did, but I'm not sure if that was true of the average player.

Either way, it was a nascent league of horrible quality compared to when Shaq played.

Players worked during off-season, not when they played. You keep using this argument, but it's been shown many times that the NBA salaries gave you way more than the average income back then. You don't need to earn millions to be a professional sportsman.

[Top10alltime]

Wilt is better only because Shaq is overrated by casuals. Sure. Shaq has an argument. But I realize now Shaq isn't even good at defense outside of rim protection (and just good, not great post defense). And even in his peak season, 00, he was arguably not top 3 DPOY (Drob, KG, and Mourning is all better).

Shaq is still a great (not elite, never elite) defender, but when you have the fact that Wilt, who is sub-GOAT defensively (top 5-8 all-time), that's a massive defensive gap (light years apart).

Shaq still has an argument, because his offense is strong enough to be interchangeable with Kareem, but there is another side to basketball. Shaq, at his best (2000) wasn't even elite defender . That's a good enough argument to push him out of top 20, and leaves him below Wilt.

[One_and_Done]

Shaq dominated the 90s-00s more than Wilt dominated his own bygone era. That's your answer right there.

[migya]

Chamberlain dominated more than Shaq did and the numbers show that. He performed well against the often called greatest defender ever, Russell.

[theonlyclutch]

Chamberlain dominated more than Shaq did and the numbers show that. He performed well against the often called greatest defender ever, Russell.

And yet in a league with significantly less teams, Wilt's teams have, on average, been less successful than Shaq's.

[70sFan]

Chamberlain dominated more than Shaq did and the numbers show that. He performed well against the often called greatest defender ever, Russell.

And yet in a league with significantly less teams, Wilt's teams have, on average, been less successful than Shaq's.

By what criteria?

[migya]

Chamberlain dominated more than Shaq did and the numbers show that. He performed well against the often called greatest defender ever, Russell.

And yet in a league with significantly less teams, Wilt's teams have, on average, been less successful than Shaq's.

That's obviously quality of talent on those teams. Shaq "always" jad another star guard on his teams after 93-94. AHardaway, Kobe and Wade at their peaks were mvp caliber. Even Jones and Van excel, before Kobe rose to star level, were among the best at their position. When Wilt had talent around him, particularly 76ers and Lakers, he won and got close to winning it all more. Shaq could have easily won just in 01, things went his way.

[theonlyclutch]

Chamberlain dominated more than Shaq did and the numbers show that. He performed well against the often called greatest defender ever, Russell.

And yet in a league with significantly less teams, Wilt's teams have, on average, been less successful than Shaq's.

That's obviously quality of talent on those teams. Shaq "always" jad another star guard on his teams after 93-94. AHardaway, Kobe and Wade at their peaks were mvp caliber. Even Jones and Van excel, before Kobe rose to star level, were among the best at their position.

As opposed to Wilt who started his career with Paul Arizin (all-star literally every season of his career), ended his career playing with Jerry West + Gail Goodrich, and had perennial all-star Hal Greer in the middle. But sure let's focus on the 2.5 season stretch he wasn't playing with one of the above three combinations, poor guy!

When Wilt had talent around him, particularly 76ers and Lakers, he won and got close to winning it all more. Shaq could have easily won just in 01, things went his way.

Wilt got traded to a team that made the finals the year before (in exchange for two role-players and a Nick Van Axel-type All-star), in the context of the 60s this was darn close to 'KD to warriors' type beat, Shaq never had things go his way like that during his prime. And then to lose in the finals again while his co-star played so good he was voted Finals MVP on a losing team? The closest Shaq came to this type of 'miss' was in ORL in '95, and that was as a third-year player on a young team (where old teams generally win more) against a team lead by possibly the greatest playoff riser ever at his arguable best.