Who has more size relative to their positions, Karl Malone or Shaq?

[NeilsCeltics]

Who has more size relative to their positions, Karl Malone or Shaquille O'Neal?

[D.Brasco]

Physical size of course Shaq.

Malone had pretty typical at least for the 90's PF size. 6'9" and while he was very muscular he didn't use his strength the same way Shaq did.

In terms of the greatest physical positional outliers in NBA history I'd put Shaq there with Magic Johnson, Wilt Chamberlain, LeBron James and maybe Oscar Robertson for his era.

Honorable mentions to Yao Ming, Duncan and Nowtizki.

-edit-guys like Barkley and Unseld on the reverse side.

[Jiminy Glick]

Shaq had more weight on his opponents. Say if he was like 310-320 in Orlando. I think he was 300 as a rookie and then when he was on the Lakers what what was he like 330? Then when it comes to height and wingspan he had a 7' 7" wing span and was about 7 ft.

[ronnymac2]

Shaq was a **** monster. Way bigger musculoskeletal structure than the average NBA center. Basketball players aren't usually that big because human beings that big don't normally retain that level of cardio, durability, and coordination at that size. Shaq was just scary in terms of being an athletic specimen who was stronger and bigger than his peers.

Malone was super impressive though, no doubt. Tremendous work ethic. Dude obviously did more than just lift weights. He did straight-up strong man exercises, lifting 150-pound logs and **** for fun in the off-season. I'll take Shaq in regards to the OP's question, but Malone was a beast as well.

[Dr Positivity]

Definitely Shaq as he had much greater height advantage for his position while still being a monster

[magicmerl]

I think this comparison would be better if it was comparing Shaq to LeBron.

Because as impressive as he is, Malone isn't in this conversation.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I really don't see how Malone can be in this comparison.