ardee wrote:Notanoob wrote:
Shaq and Wilt are practically the same player..
Disagree here.
They may be similar athletically but stylistically and how they impact the game... no.
Wilt was much more durable, a better shooter, more consistent on defense, better rebounder, and better at running the offense from the high post ala Walton/KG.
Shaq was better in the low post, arguably better at passing out of double teams, and less durable.
Especially after Wilt got coached by Hannum he was very different from Shaq.
It's perfectly reasonable to have Duncan between Wilt and Shaq, considering both their durability and defensive edge over Shaq.
To you it is, sure....but not to what the criticisms of Shaq have been in comparison to Duncan. Wilt's rebounding wouldn't tip the scale here. Look, what you and everyone else aren't being honest in here is that no one has watched hardly any footage of the man.
For all you know, Wilt could have grabbed 10 boards a game without even having to move his feet but you take his stats and paint this picture around what the newspaper clippings want you to believe. *I pray for the day full footage is released btw*. This is the same (only opposite) as O'Neal except while we have footage of him being not in tip top shape and more accessiblity of his off court antic's, you paint the picture that he was much less durable and like this more of his prime career then not.
And why does it sell? Because Shaq stayed in the league well past his prime (his choice anyway) and that's the last fresh memory of him. But if posters would research Shaq in the same fashion as Wilt, instead of just listening to recycled opinion, they would see that like Wilt, being that big had it's advantages and disadvantages.
Duncan was more mobile than Wilt or Shaq and if I need to post the video of Wilt walking/slow jogging up the court I will. However, when at the time, no one writes about the short comings as much, because of the growth of the sport you're hard pressed to find the information you're looking for but lots has been presented.
Whatever hurt Shaq, hurt Wilt and if you don't think the same, then I don't know what to say. Wilt wasn't moving his 320 pound a$$ around the court like a track star and there is video footage of Russell outhustling him down the court on a pure sprint, dunking the ball. SO Wilt doesn't get to have all the size and strength to completely match (or dominate like some think) O'Neal yet have none of the weakneses. Otherwise you wouldn't have the most intelligent posters on this board (which isn't me btw) questioning things. They would provide a Duncan or KG or Hakeem type story, but they don't. This doesn't strike anyone else as strange then?
I prefer to rely less on what if's and speculation and more on what really happened. If you switched Wilt and Shaq's placements in time, I would be questioning Shaq the same way but if you're going to say nothing wrong with Shaq between Wilt and Duncan but are just sooooo convinced he shouldn't be ahead of Wilt with your anti-Shaq reasoning. Then yes, there is a problem. Even moving forward with the fact the you don't even have Shaq 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, ot 9th. You think Kobe had a better career than Shaq, so for all your values on Wilt, which are similar to Shaq, again you'll use the longevity/durability card. Which brings me then back to Wilt who has less longevity than Kobe and the cycle repeats itself.
I even kept an open mind with Wilt and didn't even start formulating arguments until really the run-off but you're lying to yourself if you think that there is such separation here. And it only gets worse when you see who else you hold above Shaq.
). Here is how they did in their series vs Detroit:
