What would Shaq and Hakeem average in the 60's?

[JordansBulls]

What would the two best centers (Shaq and Hakeem) in the last 20 years average had they played in the 60's instead of the 90's and 00's?

This includes the following:

PPG, RPG, APG, FG%, MPG

Thoughts!!!!!!!!!

[B-Scott]

1999/2000 Shaq

40 points 15 rebounds 4 assist on 65% shooting


1994/1995 Akeem

40 points 12 rebounds 5 assist on 60% shooting

[MagicFan3]

Shaq would have gone for 100+ multiple times.

[JordansBulls]

1999/2000 Shaq

40 points 15 rebounds 4 assist on 65% shooting


1994/1995 Akeem

40 points 12 rebounds 5 assist on 60% shooting

I just don't see Shaq and Akeem or the Hakeem as he is known later would average only 12-15 rpg. I think at least 18-22 rpg.

[TrueLAfan]

You can do some simple adjustments to get a general idea...before you get into more serious questions.

the best way to do it to adjust and compare Shaq's best years to Wilt's best years. If you adjust Shaq's scoring in his best seven seasons (1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002) to reflect the scoring in each of Wilt's first seasons, and use Shaq's rebound rate to figure how he'd rebound, you can get a good, though a bit rough, estimate. (If you don't like math, you might want to turn away form the screen for a minute.) For example, in 1960, the average team scored 115.3 ppg and got 64.7 rpg. Shaq averaged 29.3 ppg in a league that averaged 101.5 ppg and had a rebound rate of 18.7. So, to get his scoring and rebounding in 1960, you would make do the following computation

115.3/101.5 * 29.3 = 33.28 ppg
39.8/48.3*(2*64.7)*.187 = 19.94 rpg

Okay, math haters, you can come back in.

There were more assists given in the past...but they were given on a significantly smaller percentage of possessions. Although there's a good case to say that modern assist numbers should be adjusted down for 60s era play, I'm going to give Shaq the benefit of the doubt and leave all assist totals as is. So, by season using Shaq's seven best seasons in chronological order compared to each of Wilt's first seven seasons, the comparison looks like this:

Wilt 1960: 37.6 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 2.3 apg
Shaq 1994: 33.3 ppg, 19.9 rpg, 2.4 apg

Wilt 1961: 38.4 ppg, 27.2 rpg, 1.9 apg
Shaq 1995: 34.1 ppg, 17.7 rpg, 2.7 apg

Wilt 1962: 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, 2.4 apg
Shaq 1998: 35.2 ppg, 16.6 rpg, 2.4 apg

Wilt 1963: 44.8 ppg, 24.3 rpg, 3.4 apg
Shaq 1999: 33.1 ppg, 15.1 rpg, 2.3 apg

Wilt 1964: 36.9 ppg, 22.3 rpg, 5.0 apg
Shaq 2000: 33.8 ppg, 17.5 rpg, 3.8 apg

Wilt 1965: 34.7 ppg, 22.9 rpg, 3.4 apg
Shaq 2001: 33.5 ppg, 17.6 rpg, 3.7 apg

Wilt 1966: 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, 5.2 apg
Shaq 2002: 32.9 ppg, 14.4 rpg, 3.0 apg

A few things that need to be addressed here.

Wilt played more. But the biggest part of that was because he was able to play more. Yes, Wilt played more minutes than anyone and was a freakish athlete. But--there are plenty of terrific athletes in the NBA now (and there plenty in the 60s too). Over 40 mpg, playing time most often dictated by foul issues. Players don't get taken out of games because they are tired; they get taken out because they are in foul trouble. Wilt Chamberlain is one of the lowest fouling Cs in history. In those seven years, Wilt averaged a foul every 24.6 minutes. That means--almost never getting pulled with two fouls in the first quarter, or three fouls in the second quarter. Pretty much never picking up your fourth foul early in the second half, or having to sit for a while because you picked up your fifth foul. That's the real secret of why Wilt played so much...because he could. Shaq, on the other hand, fouls. He picked up a foul every 11.6 minutes. That means bench time. It's not just that Shaq wasn't physically able to play 45+ minutes a game--fouls kept him from effectively every getting a chance to do it.

No matter how you shake it, Wilt was a demonstrably better rebounder. 1964 was one of Wilt's worst rebounding year's--a rebound rate of 19.5. (He has one worse year; his career rate is almost 20.4.) For the most part, Wilt grabbed 10% more rebounds during his court time than Shaq. Shaq's best rebound rate in the seven years listed is 18.7; 5% under Wilt's worst year.

Wilt scored more...and shooting more is not going to help Shaq. One of the biggest mistakes casual basketball observers make is to assume that if a player shoots more, their efficiency will be equal. Doesn't work like that. Primary offensive weapons get more defensive coverage. If you're taking 25% of your team's total shots, you're going to get blanketed. There's a difference going from 15 to 20 shots per game, and there's a difference going from 20 to 25 shots per game. I'd love to talk about how much harder it gets after that when you're taking 30 or 35 shots a game...except nobody in history has been able to do it except Wilt. I often see people say, "Well, if _____ played in the sixties, they'd average 40 or 50 points a game too"...ignoring the fact that, outside of Wilt Chamberlain, there were a total of three times when a player averaged over 32 ppg in the 60s. It's incredibly difficult to put up that many shots in a game and maintain a high level of efficiency. I don't see Shaq or Hakeem or anyone scoring 40 a game.

The 60s, on the whole, had a higher level of competition at C. Once Walt Bellamy enetered the league (1962), the league effectively had 3 top level centers (Wilt, Russell, Bellamy) out of 8. That means that those guys went up against each other 20 times a year...more often than Shaq had to face a top level C. But the depth continued after that. Guys like Johnny Kerr and Wayne Embry and Zelmo Beaty had several top notch seasons between 1960 and 1966. Nate Thurmond came into his own. Although the C position didn't have quite the depth it had in the late 60s through the late 70s--which was the best era for Cs in history--there was still more quality depth than there was in the late 90s, when most of Shaq's dominant seasons occurred.

You can do the same thing for Hakeem's numbers...keeping in mind that Hakeem often played in a higher scoring period than Shaq, so that his scoring will be a little lower (but some of his rebounding years will be a little higher too.) At any rate, you can make a pretty fair estimate that Shaq in the 60s would put up something like

34-35 ppg, 18 rpg, 3.5 apg

in a top year, and Hakeem would be right about the same level.

[thebottomline]

I'd have to agree that the estimate of around 35 and 18 is plausible. Wilt and Russell were the only players who averaged 20+ boards a game year in and year out during the 60s... Shaq was top 5 in rpg only a few times in his career so it's unlikely he'd average 20, while Hakeem might have done so a few times in his peak years.

Unless Shaq shaped up, it could actually be argued that Hakeem would be better suited for the pace of the 60s and could therefore average more points. But Shaq would probably still lead the league in FG% most years given his consistent efficiency.

[Jemini80]

Hakeem would have better numbers than Shaq.


I bet you if Shaq played in the 60s he would foul out of EVERY game he played. The crap he pulls now wouldn't be allowed back then (hooking the arm and that stuff). He would get an offense foul on every possession, it would be like watching Eddy Curry play now.

[prekazi]

Both would average better than Russell and Wilt, that's for sure. They're 3 or 4 levels above them. 60's basketball is ancient you can't compare it.

[Jemini80]

Both would average better than Russell and Wilt, that's for sure. They're 3 or 4 levels above them. 60's basketball is ancient you can't compare it.

just wondering, how old are you?

[Myth_Breaker]

Both would average better than Russell and Wilt, that's for sure. They're 3 or 4 levels above them. 60's basketball is ancient you can't compare it.

What an excellent reasoning! Impressive basketball wisdom! Perfect reading comprehension demonstrated on the example of True's post!

One thing for sure: I would never want to become your teacher, even for million bucks.

[writerman]

Hakeem would have better numbers than Shaq.


I bet you if Shaq played in the 60s he would foul out of EVERY game he played. The crap he pulls now wouldn't be allowed back then (hooking the arm and that stuff). He would get an offense foul on every possession, it would be like watching Eddy Curry play now.

Everyone here on these boards knows IMO Shaq isn't fit to be Wilt's waterboy, but physically he would have gotten away with just as much if not more in the 60's. Play in the paint was often really brutal then. Things that would get flagrants today were regular fouls or not even whistled.

But the game in the 60's was much faster. There's no way Shaq would have been able to play at 340-350 then. He'd have had to drop a fair amount of weight to play that kind of game and be effective. Chances are he'd have played at his college weight of 280 or a bit more. IOW, he would have had nothing on Wilt once Wilt started pumping iron like he did fairly early in his career--and Wilt was by far the better all-around athlete of the two. Physically he'd still have been a load, but manageable by the other top Cs in the league.

[writerman]

Both would average better than Russell and Wilt, that's for sure. They're 3 or 4 levels above them. 60's basketball is ancient you can't compare it.

if posters could be banned for sheer mulish box-of-rocks ignorance, you'd be history...

[legacyinthemakin89c]

If you put Shaq in the 60's given the competition around him, I think he could average over 50 ppg. Shaq has the most dominating body then any of the players to ever play in that era, and given the tempo and everything that came with 60's basketball, I also think Shaq would have been in better shape, and therefore, able to play over 40 min a game.

But this goes back to me thinking that the only reason Wilt is up for consideration as the greatest ever is because of the era he played in.

[eyejayem]

In the 60s the out of shape Shaq would have been the rookie shaq at 280 and dominating. If he had someone who stayed on him or continually had something to prove,or even worked on his post game that showed potential other than over powering his first couple of years I would easily say he would have had the same impact he has had on the league currently. Still Russell would have more championships due to a better team but I see Shaq avg High 30s to low 40s ppg, 20 rebs, 4-5 ast,~3 blks
The only reason he doesnt avg more pts is the FT%. The more ast is due to double and triple teaming due to the size of Shaq and players not being nearly as big.

Hakeem would avg more pts , rebs,asts, and blks would be the same but I still see Shaq being the more dominate figure like he has been here.

[cjx]

My opinion

Olajuwon in the 1960s:

29 points & 13 boards per game

Shaq in the 1960s:

24 points & 14 boards per game

[penbeast0]

Couple of points . . . .

(a) Shaq could have played in the 60s with the body weight and conditioning level he has displayed in real time. Bellamy was wider bodied and less fit than Shaq over his career. Of course, Shaq would have had many of the problems Bells did . . . not getting back on fast breaks and defensive issues. And, Shaq might eat himself out of the league like Bellamy did since there weren't the conditioning coaches and offseason support that modern players have. However, since post play back then focused much more on low post positioning than it does in the 3 point shot era, I'd bet on Shaq being tremendously effective, maybe slightly more offensive than the comps listed though probably not higher rebound rates (always been a bit surprised at how Shaq doesn't dominate the boards like he does the low post scoring). However, I'd guess his career arc would be shorter as conditioning issues end his prime a bit quicker than in the modern era.

As for Hakeem, he wasn't the scorer Shaq was in the modern era and wouldn't be in the 60s either. He would fit the fast break defense better; but be more limited by the increased physical play and lack of conditioning coaching . . . . his offensive game particularly would probably be less effective than the numbers indicate though his defense would (as it did) make up the difference. Again, his discontent years would probably be marked by a lower emphasis on conditioning as he sulked and worked for African rights. He would probably be more controversial with the 60s civil rights era issues and would be very likely to quit playing to focus on Islam or African independence issues before the peak years of his career which happened very late compared to a typical HOF player. So, Hakeem would have less of a basketball impact but might have more of a Mohammed Ali type impact outside of sports . . . . assuming of course that anyone recruited an African native to teach them basketball which is unlikely (but that would defeat the whole excercise to assume he stayed in Africa as a tall soccer goalie).

[cwas2882]

-= original quote snipped =-



if posters could be banned for sheer mulish box-of-rocks ignorance, you'd be history...

Irony!