RealGM Top 100 #4

[TMACFORMVP]

Finally able to get internet access, and before I make my vote, I'd like to say the discussion in this thread has been awesome. The #4 spot has an argument between four players IMO, Wilt, Magic, Bird, and Shaq. I think Duncan is on the outside looking in, similarly with Hakeem. I can be persuaded into thinking they'd have an argument with Wilt and Shaq, but I'm not entirely convinced that Duncan had as dominant a peak as the previously mentioned - while the others have greater resumes with similar bodies of work when compared to Hakeem. I do believe however what makes this debate so much more interesting are the cases each player has over the other, especially the active players. Again, some of the arguments in this thread have been awesome, likely any of those guys mentioned having a case from 4-9.

I think those in this thread have done a very good job of going past the "two more rings" argument for Magic over Bird, but ultimately, I think everything comes back to the same line of thinking. Bird has the slightly better peak (and I mean, slightly), while Magic has a bit more longevity, and rings. There could be a reverse sort argument that Magic wasn't the man for all of his championships (at the very least, one of them), which would lessen the ultimate impact, but it's hard to argue with the emotional leadership Magic provided even in his rookie season.

I have Magic over Bird, and I've always nearly had the impression they were "preference" sort pick, but I've come around more on the idea that Magic does have a decently comfortable edge over Bird from a career respective. From what I was trying to say previously was perhaps that their peaks were real close, and Magic isn't as far behind as people made it out to be.

One thing I can't get over with Wilt was mindset. I completely understand the argument against the "What If" scenarios, or "He should have" arguments, but when it comes to Wilt, you can't come away without a sense of disappointment when looking at his career. When he put his mind to it, he was the best at whatever he set to achieve on the basketball floor. Unfortunately, I don't think winning was the #1 category for him. He was a terrific passer, but at only one point of his career. He was a terrific defender, but only all time caliber good the latter part of his career. He was a high volume scorer, but a flawed one that's efficiency often gets underlooked because of raw FG%. When he put it all together, he produced the season he did in 67', which is arguably the GOAT individual season of all time.

The other seasons were in short; disappointment. There wasn't enough a difference with his late Sixer and Laker teams for him to have come away with only two championships. I read somewhere about the Lakers having an opportunity to acquire Wilt in 65. Reportedly, it would have been for near peanuts, and the team took a poll, asking the players whether they were in favor of adding Wilt to the team. It was an overwhelming unanimous decision to NOT add him to the team, apparently only two players voted in favor of adding Wilt. I believe they even asked Wilt about this at a later time, and he pointed at West and Baylor being guys at the prime or their career not wanting to share egos (implying that West and Baylor were among those that voted against Wilt). If true, that's pretty darn telling, and something I wouldn't even think be a question when we're talking about a Magic or Bird.

Re: Shaq v. Wilt. They both have similar weaknesses (lack of 100% motor, FT shooting), but it should be understood as ronnymac has so many times stated, that they're completely different players. I'm not completely sure who the better player is, but I think there lies a huge difference in their offensive outputs. Chamberlain was a more active defender, particularly when he changed his game to do so, but Shaq has had outlier defensive seasons as well, while being an overall more offensive source IMO. They're similar in accolades, Wilt with the MVP's, and Shaq with the two additional rings. I'd probably have Wilt slightly above (but it's really a flip flop sort thing; something I think is so interesting this time around because of the case many people can make after the top 3), just because, at some point we do have to look at Wilt being good in so many facets of the game as a good thing as well - while also acknowledging that he has arguably the greatest peak the game has ever seen.

In an argument with Wilt versus Magic, can we really say over the course of their primes, that Wilt was that much more dominant to off-set the effect Magic has had on the game, and in terms of winning championships? Can we even say that Wilt was more dominant? He wasn't a better teammate, he didn't make his teammates better, he wasn't a better offensive player, and for similar reasons we voted Russell in over Wilt - leadership, championship level qualities, etc, Magic has similarly over Wilt as well. Magic is arguably the greatest guard rebounder of all time, the undoubtedly best play-maker to have played the game, similarly having the argument as the best offensive player of all time. His defense gets a bit too much criticism, as others have pointed out, he was rather good, and a menace in the passing lanes. The mismatches he created, his all round game, especially post 86 was just devastating, and put it all together far more, with much greater success than Wilt did.

It's funny to think how much you can learn, or change your mind on a subject in a matter of months. If you asked me this question a year ago, I don't how much I would have considered the argument of Wilt versus Magic, but looking at it now, what's the argument the other way? I've got Magic over Wilt, and I've probably got Bird over Wilt as well.

As for my nomination. I'm in a similar boat as Baller, in that I believe LeBron and Wade, peak wise to be better players than West or Oscar, but for an overall prime, they potentially make up that gap with their extended primes. And, when assessing who is left to nominate, LeBron is there, as well as D-Rob, Garnett, West, and Oscar, I look at it as the last two being the most revered, with LeBron having the best peak, DRob similarly in that same line of thinking, while Garnett has the best of everything, including impact, being the best player on a championship team, and being an all rounded player. I'm not completely sold on KG either, but I like him a little more than I do West.

Vote: Magic Johnson
Nominate: Kevin Garnett

[Snakebites]

Vote: Wilt Chamberlain
Nominate: Jerry West

I realize the long standing trend is to pick winning over individual dominance, but if Wilt falls further than 4th I think that is simply taking the trend way too far. Wilt was a unique talent and his individual contributions as a player surpass anyone else in NBA history not named Michael Jordan.

I can't justify his place any lower than 4th all time, nor should anyone else. Penbeast asks us, simply put, to evaluate "how great they were at playing the game of basketball?" By any measure I simply don't see how Wilt is any lower than here.

As for West, I'm surprised he hasn't been nominated yet. I can understand the position others are taking against him, but I simply don't share that view. Lebron and Wade haven't had the length of peak yet, and DRob and KG simply aren't guys who rise to the occasion like Jerry West did.

[Fencer reregistered]

By the way, I think SOME team switches speak badly of a guy, while some don't.

Shaq, Wilt, and Kareem all forcing their way to the Lakers? Fine; people want some control over where they work. Wilt in particular gets a pass because it was a lifestyle choice in a time of strong racism, and Shaq gets a full pass because he was a FA and didn't force a trade at all.

Wilt being dumped from the Warriors, or Shaq being dumped from the Lakers, Heat, and Suns? Red flag or worse.

[Baller 24]

and DRob and KG simply aren't guys who rise to the occasion like Jerry West did.

What occasion are we talking about here? KG was the best player on his championship team, Robinson's impact was very significant in '99, especially defensively, compared to that of West and his piss-poor championship run, where you can argue that he wasn't even the third best player in the playoffs for the '72 Lakers. Aside from that, all I see from West are playoff short-comings.

[lorak]

(Yes, game recaps suggest many times in which Russ held him down in the first half and Wilt scored in blowouts in the 2nd.)

Which games?
BTW, game never is over at the half time.

Here for example is the '62 series...

Game 1:



Warriors lost by 28, Wilt winds up top scorer after scoring most of his points when "the issue was no longer in doubt".

Game 3:


Celtics led by 28 after three quarters (109-81). Russell outplays Wilt when the game was a contest but then Wilt catches up/exceeds Russell's stats when it was "too late to matter". Again, Wilt winds up top scorer due to the points he scored after the game was a blowout.

Game 5:

"Russell scored 29 points to Chamberlain's 30. Bill blanketed Wilt so well that the NBA scoring king had only four of 13 field goal tries, 11 points and was out-rebounded 11-9 by his tormentor in the crucial first half. Russell also contributed numerous blocked shots and assists to the decision."- http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9z ... 76,2892610

Celtics led by 23 at the half and yet again most of Wilt's points end up coming after the Celtics had already blown out the Warriors while playing poorly in the first half, so he got the top scoring honors over Russell again.

Yes, the game is never over by half time but if a majority of your points are coming after you're already down 25+ points, when the outcome is basically decided and the opposing team eases up, that's not a good trend. Playing 48 minutes in games like this and using those garbage minutes to actually pad your stats (while not playing well when the game was actually on the line), then sorry I'm going to respect your stats a lot less.

It's not to say Wilt couldn't play well with the game on the line, he had a couple of truly great games in that series where he significantly outplayed Russell, but it shows how much the box score/averages can be manipulated if you're stat conscious enough and get heavy minutes in games like this. It's also scary to think how much more of a dropoff we might have seen in the playoffs from Wilt if he wasn't doing this. There's three cases in seven games where Russell outplayed him when it mattered, but Wilt got his stats in garbage time to come out on top statistically. A player doing this in a playoff series today would lose a lot of credibility. LeBron/Kobe for example take couple of shots during blowouts and instantly get accused of statpadding, this is that and then some. Also, aren't there stories of Russell sometimes purposely letting Wilt score at the end of blowouts so Wilt comes out thinking he actually played well? I actually considered that to be nonsense until I looked deeper into these games.

Thx fatal, your contribution is great.

BTW, where Wilt rank on your all time list?

[ElGee]

Vote: Wilt Chamberlain
Nominate: Jerry West

I realize the long standing trend is to pick winning over individual dominance, but if Wilt falls further than 4th I think that is simply taking the trend way too far. Wilt was a unique talent and his individual contributions as a player surpass anyone else in NBA history not named Michael Jordan.

I can't justify his place any lower than 4th all time, nor should anyone else. Penbeast asks us, simply put, to evaluate "how great they were at playing the game of basketball?" By any measure I simply don't see how Wilt is any lower than here.

As for West, I'm surprised he hasn't been nominated yet. I can understand the position others are taking against him, but I simply don't share that view. Lebron and Wade haven't had the length of peak yet, and DRob and KG simply aren't guys who rise to the occasion like Jerry West did.

I have to ask, with all due respect, if you've read the threads?

The discussion about Wilt has almost never mentioned 2 championships or team rosters. And it's been noted that Jerry West's "length of peak" is actually lacking in raw number of years, due to development in his first few years and injuries in his later years (not to mention decline in his final few years). West is VERY much like Wade in having around 5-6 full-blown seasons of bringing it.

EDIT: Not asking as a stickler, but merely because I literally just mentioned it seems the Wilt voters are dropping in, voting, and leaving without rebutting the arguments against him (which is the meat of the project to me.)

[Snakebites]

^I'll be entirely honest, I haven't been following the threads religiously. With Wilt, I guess I was just going by what historically has been the knock on Wilt with respect to the other all time great candidates, both on Realgm and elsewhere.

So the basis for my arguments aren't particularly relevant to the discussion with respect to Wilt aren't particularly relevant, but I still believe he shouldn't be any lower than 4th.

We're penalyzing based on injuries? Doing so is the only thing that makes Wade's peak comparable to West's, and I'm not inclined to do that, at least not to the extent it would require to make them comparable.

[ElGee]

^^^I take injuries into account. There's no rule that says you do. The peak/longevity question has no rule either. My general working criteria is how much a guy gives his team toward winning championships over the course of his career. But I think we all agree Wilt's got one of the best peaks ever.

[Snakebites]

^Wilt's three year peak in Philadelphia (Sixers) was historic, arguably the best peak in NBA history.

And I can understand the knock on his track record with the Warriors in terms of mindset, efficiency, etc., and to an extent identify with it, but even there he was a dominant and undeniable force.

I think those criticisms place him below the likes of Kareem and Russel (for me, in that order), but I don't think they take him any further than that.

And while West certainly had injury issues during a large part of his peak, he still played at an extremely high level even when his game counts were in the 50s and 60s, so I think that limits how much injuries should damage his legacy.

[ThaRegul8r]

Despite my lingering affection for Wilt, I have to say the many great arguments for Magic seem to have swayed me. I'm more than a little embarrassed to admit that, despite him being my favorite player, I never could have made cases that strong. Frankly, I wasn't even considering it.

No reason to be embarrassed. That's the great part of this project. I myself participated because, while I have talked about players extensively in the decades since the advent of the World Wide Web allowed discussion with people beyond one's geographical region, I have never made a Top 10 list or ranked all the great players all-time relatively to each other. In this project, you will have people consider certain aspects that other people have not. I will have considered certain aspects other people have not. You will have considered certain aspects other people have not. Etc. So we all come together, pool our knowledge, get our thoughts out there, and thus be able to make an informed decision considering all the multiple points of view that various posters bring to the discussion. Which is, why, as others have said—and as was the case for the Retro Player of the Year Project, the discussion is the most important part of this project. It should never be an embarrassment to learn something one didn't know before. Hopefully, we all learn from this project. It'll make us better and more knowledgeable basketball fans.

[ElGee]

^Wilt's three year peak in Philadelphia (Sixers) was historic, arguably the best peak in NBA history.

And I can understand the knock on his track record with the Warriors in terms of mindset, efficiency, etc., and to an extent identify with it, but even there he was a dominant and undeniable force.

I think those criticisms place him below the likes of Kareem and Russel (for me, in that order), but I don't think they take him any further than that.

And while West certainly had injury issues during a large part of his peak, he still played at an extremely high level even when his game counts were in the 50s and 60s, so I think that limits how much injuries should damage his legacy.

Well, 1967 is an issue for me, just like 07 with Wade. And I really think you have to re-examine 71-73 if you think those are elite seasons. Which pretty much leaves a comparable stretch of years from 64 or 65 to 1970.

As for Wilt, I think you have to take a look at the rest of this thread and the links provided to the Braess Paradox/Chamberlain Theory articles. I've yet to see anyone really refute those points actually...it's not some vanilla case of Wilt being awesome for years consistently and not quite having the right support/luck.

[penbeast0]

Pace normalized he doesn't even have one of the top scoring seasons ever. ,

Sorry not to be involved more or making long posts but am in Boston on a seminar this week and can't monopolize the hotel's one computer . . . but really ElGee, can you back this up with the actual pace normalized scoring stats?

[colts18]

I don't get why anyone would have Bird ahead of Shaq. Literally makes no sense.

More seasons: 19-13
More prime seasons: 15-12
Better Prime: Shaq was 30-15 for 3 straight playoffs
Longer Peak: 12 years-10 years
All-star games: 15-12
All-NBA teams: 15-10 (Shaq had harder competition)
Better Peak: Shaq 2000-2002>Bird 84-86
Better PER and WS
More rings: 4 to 3
Better defender
-Shaq had 5 straight PER titles, and 10 FG% titles
Playoffs:
-Shaq's Pts, rebs, asts went up
-Bird's numbers declined in the playoffs
This is what Shaq did in the playoffs from 98-03:
31-10-3
27-12-2
31-15-3
30-15-3
29-13-3
27-15-4


If you just put up Shaq's first 13 seasons vs. Bird, it's no comparison.

Shaq averaged 26-12-3, 3 blks, 58 FG%, Better PER, better WS. In the playoffs he averaged 27-13-3.

I don't think anyone in history can compare to Shaq's 98-03 6 year prime other than MJ and Kareem.

[ElGee]

Pace normalized he doesn't even have one of the top scoring seasons ever. ,

Sorry not to be involved more or making long posts but am in Boston on a seminar this week and can't monopolize the hotel's one computer . . . but really ElGee, can you back this up with the actual pace normalized scoring stats?

http://www.backpicks.com/2011/01/28/top ... a-history/

[Dr Positivity]

. West is VERY much like Wade in having around 5-6 full-blown seasons of bringing it.

Not quite like Wade. Wade has 5 healthy prime playoff runs + his rookie season. West has 8-10 depending on how you feel about 72 and 73 (I'd call 72 his prime, he finished 2nd in MVP) + his rookie season. That is a substantial difference when discussing kicks at the title can. West essentially has Wade's 5 full, total prime years and rookie season and aborted years (67, 71/07, 08) and then 63, 68, 69, 72, 73 where Wade has nothing - all extremely valuable years despite 50-60 G seasons or older age. I'd call those 75-80% value years. I suspect Wade passes West overall eventually but right now to make up for those 5 75% seasons he'd have to had been substantially more valuable in the 5-6 he's had and I'm not seeing that

Also I would suspect that like Shaq, having another star and playoff cushion let them get away with giving West 50-60 G seasons since they knew being healthy for the playoffs was what mattered anyways

[JordansBulls]

Despite my lingering affection for Wilt, I have to say the many great arguments for Magic seem to have swayed me. I'm more than a little embarrassed to admit that, despite him being my favorite player, I never could have made cases that strong. Frankly, I wasn't even considering it.

No reason to be embarrassed. That's the great part of this project. I myself participated because, while I have talked about players extensively in the decades since the advent of the World Wide Web allowed discussion with people beyond one's geographical region, I have never made a Top 10 list or ranked all the great players all-time relatively to each other. In this project, you will have people consider certain aspects that other people have not. I will have considered certain aspects other people have not. You will have considered certain aspects other people have not. Etc. So we all come together, pool our knowledge, get our thoughts out there, and thus be able to make an informed decision considering all the multiple points of view that various posters bring to the discussion. Which is, why, as others have said—and as was the case for the Retro Player of the Year Project, the discussion is the most important part of this project. It should never be an embarrassment to learn something one didn't know before. Hopefully, we all learn from this project. It'll make us better and more knowledgeable basketball fans.

[ThaRegul8r]

A coach can program Wilt to be whatever type of C he wants, and Wilt will be at or near the top of the league. That's insane. That shows what type of talent Wilt had.

Like I said before, however, there is a catch. After you've programmed him, he rarely deviates from that role for the time period. He doesn't shift gears well.

He's the lead soldier out in the field, and he's damn near unstoppable, catching two grenades with one hand at the same time and flinging them 100 yards into the enemy territory. The original orders for Team Stilt only called for the team to make it a certain distance. Now, however, high command needs Team Stilt to move in further, but communication was cut off during the firefight. The instinctive soldier- the Russell, the Hakeem, the Shaq- would see what high command sees, and would march further and continue on. Wilt is satisfied with the great work he has done already. He wasn't ordered to shift gears- to change plans mid-battle in order to provide what his overall side needed at the right time (the playoffs)- so he peels his helmet off and rubs an apple on his sleeve.

That's what I mean by programming him correctly. If you program him correctly based on the team you have around him, you might get a GOAT team with Wilt as the foundation. If he isn't programmed correctly based on the team around him, you're probably going to underachieve in the playoffs a little bit.

Regarding "programming," that's why Jerry West said, “Wilt is bigger and more talented [than Russell], but I do not think he is as dedicated or as flexible.” Phil Taylor of Sports Illustrated said Wilt “was probably the most versatile basketball player we’ve ever seen.” Only, as, you said, once Wilt was locked in for a certain mode, that was it. He wouldn't alternate from that and provide what the game situation needed at that time. You have to react to the situation and what your team needs to win at that particular time.

Just talking about here, Re: Shaq's respective strengths in certain areas over Wilt. I've considered the Shaq's playoff performance, his monstrous finals numbers, his changing the fortunes of three different franchises, which is definitely a plus, as I value stepping up when the team needs it, and is used by Shaq supporters over Wilt, yet the lack of attention to rebounding and defense still gets to me, as, as I said, I value that highly in a big man, as that's the one thing you can't get from anyone else. Also, the fact that he kept missing games (from '02 to '04 he wasn't playing any more games than Bill Walton did in his relatively "healthiest" season. Walton gets docked for being injured, what about Shaq?), the work ethic problems, his burning bridges when he left teams, etc., etc. And the fact that above all, I want a player to do what needs to do done in order for his team to win. "Getting injured on company team and healing on company time" does not help a team win. Neither does threatening not to play defense if you don't get the ball enough to your liking. Neither does not playing the level of defense that you demonstrated you are capable of playing. Neither does showing up out of shape. There are just too many detriments for me, which I can't reconcile. For others, the pluses supersede the (many) minuses, but those minuses stick out for me, and no one has addressed them to my satisfaction. Yet he did win four titles. But then, so did Tim Duncan, who has none of the minuses I've outlined for Shaq, and consistently played the defense Shaq did not, leading the second-greatest defensive dynasty in the history of the league, and was not blessed with superstar guards the caliber of a Hardaway, a Bryant or a Wade. So I don't know that I can put Shaq ahead of Duncan when I consider the full picture, though for some, the peak with be enough. But I definitely can't put Shaq #4.

Yet Wilt has his flaws as well, as others have outlined. I think I'll put both aside to grapple with later. Then I consider Magic. Highest assist-per-game average ever. Fourth all-time in rebounds per game for guards, but has the highest rebound rate, and qualifies as an "impact" rebounder. .5 from 20 points per game, with the third-highest FG% among guards and the eighth-highest TS% of any player in NBA history. Ran the second-greatest offensive dynasty in NBA history. Greatest offensive player in NBA history. Led the Lakers to nine NBA Finals appearances and five NBA titles. Only Bill Russell led his team to more Finals appearances than Magic did. Beat his biggest rival, Bird, as well as J and Isiah. People like playing with Magic because he gets them the ball and makes it easier for them to score. Has been clutch. As I said, the detriments would be the '81 and '84 postseasons, and some other things early career, which would absolutely prohibit him from ever being considered over Russell (who is off the board), but are those enough to outweigh the debits on the other candidates' ledgers, when you consider that once the book was closed, he “was second only to Bill Russell as a winning force in NBA history” (Miami Herald, Nov 8, 1991)?

After much considered thought, as of right now, my vote is for Magic.

[Dipper 13]

Re: Wilt scoring in '67. I said he was the 5th option when the lineup was on the floor, by which I meant, his FGA/minute was lower than the other starters. He led the team in scoring simply because he played so much and shot so efficiently, but the fact remains that if he was less likely to shoot than the other starters, the offense ran best when no one was trying to get Wilt the ball so that he could shoot. This is not a reasonable way to play a player who is truly gifted at getting his shot without compromising the rest of the offense, yet it was the right way to use Wilt.

They still played off him, no? Maybe if the Sixers had a bit less talent rather than 3 capable 20+ point scorers besides Wilt (even 4 if you consider how great Wali played after Costello's injury), this "volume scoring" discussion wouldn't be. What exactly changed from Schayes to Hannum with the Sixers? I would think he sharply cut down on his fadeaway shots as he shot 68% from the floor. But averaging only two less FT attempts despite his FGA being cut back by 11, and the NBA barring off ball intentional fouls? Were those wasted shots? Bail outs? Without a number of the actual old Sixers & Warriors games to view (which I know exist somewhere), "The Price of Anarchy" & "Can Good Players Shoot Too Much?" may be impossible to dispute. I will still maintain that a peaked Chamberlain around 66-68 was one of the top two peaks in league history along with Russell around 63-65.

While the Warriors defense improved a great deal with Thurmond & the "new Wilt", I now wonder what exactly it is Hannum changed in their offensive approach in '63-'64, where the RPOY Ortg estimates tell us the Warriors offense was better during the 31 win season '62-'63 than it was in '63-'64.


"For us to win," said Hannum, "Wilt has to play like Bill Russell at one end of the court and like Wilt Chamberlain at the other end of the court."


1963

ORtg

Code: Select all

LEAGUE AVG.       96.0
5.  San Francisco 95.4


1964

ORtg

Code: Select all

LEAGUE AVG.       94.5
7.  San Francisco 93.0


"Finally, the whole Braess Paradox/Chamberlain theory that Doc and I have been linking to is paramount in describing how a guy can score so much and be way less effective than someone like magic Johnson on offense. You want to say "but he scored 50 ppg - that needs no explanation."

But I wonder.

I wonder if maybe, just maybe, high volume individual scoring (even at high efficiency) is not quite as valuable as we'd intuitively think it is. Doc MJ's blog entry on Wilt Chamberlain isn't exactly light reading, but perhaps there is truth in it. To a point, yeah, it's great to have a consistent scoring source. But when we look at these great individual scoring savants, it rarely results in the kind of impact we'd think it would.

He may have been the "5th option" in '67 but that may be another way of saying he was the bail out guy when the Sixers needed a key basket they dump it down to him.


Season of the 76ers: the story of Wilt Chamberlain and the 1967 NBA champions - Wayne Lynch




The way some here make it sound you would think he was a brainless robot. Surely the robot wins more than two championships. But to be honest this is an excellent basketball discussion board with many bright minds. At least here Wilt doesn't draw Bynum comparisons.

[Dipper 13]

B. Four-point loss in Game 7, 1968, when his teammates and Hannum inexplicably refuse to get him the ball (nine touches in the second half, two in the fourth quarter). Cunningham and Jackson, two of their six best players, are injured.

Make it Game 5. That is where the series should have concluded. Embry's ability to keep Wilt off the offensive boards, clearing Russell (the GOAT defensive rebounder) to get the rebound and outlet to start the break was basically the reason the Sixers didn't close Boston out in 5, despite an injured Wilt (partial tear of calf muscle in his right leg, a strain in his right thigh, partial tear of right knee tendon, and an injured right toe) coming out strong with a 31/30/7 effort. To quote Russell during the series, "A lesser man wouldn't be out there".

While it is noted that Russell switched himself onto Chet to cool him off, it appears he killed two birds with one stone. Of course the Sixers exceptionally poor shooting (below 25% FG in the 4th) when it counted along with Billy C's glaring absence didn't hurt either. Just how much did they rely on Wilt's offensive rebounds to provide a 2nd chance?

[MacGill]

I know I do not have the ability to vote but I hope you do not mind that I shed some of my own perspective around #4, where if I had a vote it would definitely go to 'Magic'.

I am most interested in #5 as I feel this will mainly come down to Shaq/Wilt/Bird/Duncan for the most part and I just wanted to give some reasoning for Shaq at #5 for consideration to others only.

This thread his really opened my eyes on Wilt, especially articles and quotes which defer from the norm of his usual 'superhuman' feats I have been accustomed to read here but more so around players not wanting him and empty points if you will + teams being better when he wasn't at his most dominate scoring self. I have much respect for Wilt and the others mentioned but I think I can say now that Shaq has moved ahead of Wilt, if not by much by one or two slots.

To me, Wilt was a Shaq (body type) in his era but played more like a (finesse type of game if you will) with that body than what we witnessed from Shaq. Don't get me wrong, he absolutely dominated, and I truly do not mean any disrespect with the above, but Shaq's style to me is one of the few that you could place in any era, with no modern medicine or training, and the same result as we witnessed would happen. Hell even 50 years from now I am sure this could be true.

In every thing I have read/watched rarely did I see Wilt do what Shaq did and this is more on the offensive end of course with a killer instint. When Shaq first came into the league, one could say just from a physical stand point, it was the second coming of Wilt. Where I credit Shaq is that from day one he used his tremendous size to the best of his ability and where it made his opponents the weakest. He did not care if it was pretty nor what people thought and had that Alpha Dog attitude you would want from the most dominate player in the league.

For a man his size & weight he was very athletic, had nice post moves and always stated he wanted to be a winner. The seperation for him over Wilt to me are as follows, above what has already been posted:

1) Unlike Wilt, Shaq for most of his prime career had to share the ball with dominant wing players so the offence never went through him as maybe as much as it should have. What history should have taught us was that Wilt playing like Shaq probably would have led him to more titles and evening the playing field more so against Russell (although I have no actual proof of this, more just my theory). Shaq played 162 more games than Wilt, however he took 1351 less FG's than Wilt. I think Shaq knew this as well and why he also made it an issue (although he didn't always have to go public with it)

2) Hack-a-Shaq - I have read posts where people seem to just brush this fact off but need to revisit the frequency and how hard some of the many intention fouls on Shaq were. As much as people want to say modern this or that, from a pure physic's standpoint, Shaq played in a league where players were stronger/weighed more because of this and pound for pound because of the way he played took on more of a physicality toll on his body. (not to be confused with endurance of running up and down the court)

3) I will concede that Wilt was the better rebounder/defender but it is not like Shaq was subpar here. He also played a different game then Wilt and weighed probably about 50 pounds more than Wilt in prime however 13 seasons of 20/10 cannot just be swept under the rug. His size and strength also caused many players to not even want to go the rim and sometimes settle for the outside jumper.

4) His raised his game in the post season when to all athletes, not us judging, it mattered the most. There is a reason why we have the saying 'the regular season is out the window'. He was also the main force behind a 3-peat which gets a big nod from me in doing.

5) And most of all, we have Shaq's entire career on film. No newspaper clippings needed, no first hand statements from ex players, coaches. I can only imagine what Shaq's legend will be 30 years from now even given we have it all documented. Not to put the credibility of journalists on the line here but really, he was one of the main focal points to transend the sport and fill the arena's. I do not believe everything written, as some of it doesn't translate well to the film I have watched of him.

6) Let's give the man credit for his own longevity - Bill Walton in the 2000's finals was asked about 5 years ahead and he responded 'What kind of league would it be with Shaq long gone by then'. Critique him for injuries but he managed one of the longest careers in the books.

If I had one wish it would have been to have Shaq played with an All-Star PG (like Magic or Nash) instead of a Penny/Kobe so we could have seen him utilized more to his full potential. As much as I enjoyed his 3-peat with Kobe, I am sure he could have bettered his result in his more prime years with a PG combination.

Basically between Wilt & Shaq we could stay here allday going back and forth on what each did as a detractor but the increase in production in playoff play combined with his physical domination of the game (how I believe Wilt should have done it) + his 4 titles to me puts him over Wilt. All the rebounds & defence never was the difference factor when it came to Wilt winning, and where it did put him in contention to what all these athletes play for and matters most, he and his team came up short more often than they won.