RealGM

Replace rookie Shaq with rookie Wilt in 93, he goes to Lakers in 97 and Heat in 05, does Chamberlain have a better career than Shaq and how does his career play out? With the far less strict rules compared to the 60s, where he couldn't bump and use his strengths and physicality much, Wilt could really be more dominant. Would this make him the clear GOAT?

Well, you immediately remove the rebounding records and the 100-point game, the 50 ppg season, the 48+ mpg season and stuff like that. Those things wouldn't happen in the 90s and 00s. I think we a little bit overstate how much Shaq did all that physical bumping and the like, and understate how physical Wilt was anyway, even under restriction. Like, he had no trouble actually getting to the basket, so it's not likely to have changed TOO much about his career offensive production.

Might extend his career, though, instead of racking up all those minutes in the shorter number of seasons he did play.

He'd be amazing, of course. Perennial MVP candidate. Maybe a DPOY candidate in a motivated year. Killer on the glass, it's just that Russell's records from the 60s would eclipse his volume.

Might title in 95, because Hakeem would have a bear of a time with him, but Shaq shot like 60% from the floor and was killing it against Olajuwon and the rest of the non-Penny Magic basically sucked (shout-out, Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott for winning that title for Houston!), which probably doesn't help Wilt any. And in 96, it would have been a dogfight with the Bulls, so that's another possible year.

LA, I don't see him doing anything before 2000. Shaq was a beast and Wilt didn't have any more range or FT shooting ability or what have you. Maybe on availability they seed a little higher. I doubt they get swept by Utah that one season.

Quite possible they still three-peat 00-02. I wonder if Wilt would beef with Kobe, since he very much took care of himself and played defense? I think Kobe and the trade still take them out of it 2004. I think 03 might have been a Lakers title, though.

05 was Shaq's 13th season, and he was 32. Keeping in mind that Shaq hit the league at 20 and Wilt at 23.

By 32, Wilt was out of his major volume-scoring phase and was playing with LA, posting like 16/17/3.5 PER36.

Probably fills a very similar role to Shaq. Miami enjoys his superior availability and defense. Don't know if it's enough to get them through Detroit, though, so I suspect the Pistons go on to lose to the Spurs as they did in reality.

They certainly title in 2006. Wade was too injured after that, but I'm sure they make at least a better accounting of themselves in 07 against Chicago, or perhaps even seed higher and what-not, just on health.

I think he does better in 08 with the Suns after the trade. Better defender, healthier, etc. Already not needing to volume score because he was in that "defense and rebounding" kind of mentality already. Probably LOVES playing with Nash. Shaq was an All-Star for the last time in 09 and I don't see any reason Wilt wouldn't have been in his place. That's Age-36 season, which was Wilt's last in reality.

Shaq then played 2 more, so it's hard to project what was going on. No knee injury from 1970/Age 33 is probably a big deal. No heavy-minutes load gives him more legs and less mileage. So he could extend out a bit. He probably helps the Lebron Cavs more than Shaq did and then rounds it out and calls it a career after going to Boston.


3-6 titles, probably multiple MVPs. Not quite as insane with the crazy stats and stuff... but like... just picture 19 years of Wilt rocking like 27/15/4 with good to great defense and like 75+ GP every year. Even if he's coasting here and there, he was a better defender than Shaq.

I don't think he was any stronger than Shaq in a basketball sense, and I don't think he'd be any specifically more dominant on O. At his largest, Wilt weighed about what Shaq did as a rookie, after all. Dude was strong, teams would struggle with him badly regardless, but it's not like he'd come crush 40 ppg in that league.

But he was definitely a more consistent rebounder and defender and he was very much into physical fitness and availability, which would make a large difference. I think in the end, he'd probably have a more favorable view due to more titles and longevity. I think it would improve his reputation and general standing, especially for having played against guys like Hakeem, D-Rob, Zo, Deke, etc. It'd be way harder for the current crowd to poo poo his career for having beat up on short guys and plumbers (not that this was accurate anyway, given like, Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, Kareem and so forth) because it's much more recent.

And he might have mussed up MJ's mythos by stealing a title or two from him in the mid/late 90s, which would be very interesting for all-time stuff.

In terms of individual accolades and stats, I see his stats being pretty similar to Shaq’s to be honest. Maybe a bit higher due to being able to play more minutes. He probably ends up with more MVPs than Shaq did, even if just by virtue of not taking himself out of the running by missing a lot of games in many seasons.

In terms of team results, I think the results would probably be pretty similar overall to what Shaq did, but of course probably not with wins at the exact same times.

If we don’t give Wilt any extra years to his career from playing in a more modern era, then the comparison by year would be this:

1993: Wilt 1960
1994: Wilt 1961
1995: Wilt 1962
1996: Wilt 1963
1997: Wilt 1964
1998: Wilt 1965
1999: Wilt 1966
2000: Wilt 1967
2001: Wilt 1968
2002: Wilt 1969
2003: Wilt 1970
2004: Wilt 1971
2005: Wilt 1972
2006: Wilt 1973

I think Wilt might well win a title in those years in Orlando. Shaq came in really NBA-ready, but Wilt was older when he came into the league and was therefore even better. And those Magic teams were extremely talented, especially in 1995 and 1996. I don’t think they beat the 1996 Bulls with Wilt, but there’s definitely a good chance they win the title in 1995 (even 22-year-old Shaq maybe could’ve won it if he and the team had had a different mentality about the Finals). In 1994, the Magic weren’t as talented, because Penny was a rookie and they didn’t have Horace, but 1994 was a weak year for the league in terms of top-end teams, so there’s an off chance that 1961 Wilt could’ve gotten them a title, though I doubt it.

Once you get to the early LA years (which I’ll define as 1997, 1998, and 1999), I think people really underestimate how good Shaq’s supporting cast was. Kobe was not Kobe yet, but Eddie Jones was an underrated player that was an all-NBA-third-team level guy IMO. They lost Eddie Jones in 1999, but Kobe himself was already very good at that point (and did actually make all-NBA third team that year). So they basically always had an all-NBA-third-team guard in those years. Meanwhile, the role players on those teams were good. You had guys like Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Nick Van Exel, Elden Campbell, Glen Rice, and Jerome Kersey. Not all of them in any one year, but most of them at any given time. And that’s not even mentioning that young Kobe was part of that supporting cast in 1997 and 1998. In other words, those teams were Shaq + all-NBA-third-team guard + genuinely good set of role players. It’s possible Wilt could’ve gotten a title in these years. 1997 would’ve been a really tough lift due to the Bulls (not to mention the Jazz being genuinely great too), so probably is out. But 1998 and to a lesser extent 1999 are possible. The 1998 Jazz and 1998 Bulls were both really good, but probably not as good as they’d both been the year before. Do I think Wilt would’ve gotten a title in any of these years? Probably not, but it’s possible, with 1998 being the best shot.

The years Shaq won a three-peat (2000-2002) correspond with 1967-1969 Wilt. These were very good years for Wilt, so I don’t see him being a particular downgrade from Shaq in those years. The Lakers were kind of lucky to three-peat (Blazers and Kings series were very close, and even the Pacers Finals was close), so Wilt wouldn’t be guaranteed to three-peat. But there’s a good chance of it.

After the three-peat years, the 2003 season would be a good opportunity to add a title, since the 2003 Spurs definitely weren’t unbeatable. However, I doubt Wilt does it, since he barely played in the corresponding 1970 season, and had only just come back from injury for the playoffs. Wilt had declined a bit by 1971, just like Shaq had in 2004, so the result there is probably similar, though I think it’s possible Wilt’s superior defense allows them to turn that Pistons series. But I just don’t know that Kobe could carry the scoring load enough against that Pistons defense.

That leaves Wilt with the 2005 and 2006 Heat years. IMO Wilt in 1972 and 1973 was better than Shaq was in those years, so I think there’s probably more of a chance that he gets titles both years than that he fails to get one.

Overall, my estimate is something similar to Shaq, because while I think there’s a good chance Wilt gets a title in Orlando, some chance he gets two titles in Miami, and an outside chance he nabs a title in 1997-1999, he’s also really not guaranteed to three-peat in 2000-2002.

lessthanjake wrote:In terms of individual accolades and stats, I see his stats being pretty similar to Shaq’s to be honest. Maybe a bit higher due to being able to play more minutes. He probably ends up with more MVPs than Shaq did, even if just by virtue of not taking himself out of the running by missing a lot of games in many seasons.

In terms of team results, I think the results would probably be pretty similar overall to what Shaq did, but of course probably not with wins at the exact same times.

If we don’t give Wilt any extra years to his career from playing in a more modern era, then the comparison by year would be this:

1993: Wilt 1960
1994: Wilt 1961
1995: Wilt 1962
1996: Wilt 1963
1997: Wilt 1964
1998: Wilt 1965
1999: Wilt 1966
2000: Wilt 1967
2001: Wilt 1968
2002: Wilt 1969
2003: Wilt 1970
2004: Wilt 1971
2005: Wilt 1972
2006: Wilt 1973

I think Wilt might well win a title in those years in Orlando. Shaq came in really NBA-ready, but Wilt was older when he came into the league and was therefore even better. And those Magic teams were extremely talented, especially in 1995 and 1996. I don’t think they beat the 1996 Bulls with Wilt, but there’s definitely a good chance they win the title in 1995 (even 22-year-old Shaq maybe could’ve won it if he and the team had had a different mentality about the Finals). In 1994, the Magic weren’t as talented, because Penny was a rookie and they didn’t have Horace, but 1994 was a weak year for the league in terms of top-end teams, so there’s an off chance that 1961 Wilt could’ve gotten them a title, though I doubt it.

Once you get to the early LA years (which I’ll define as 1997, 1998, and 1999), I think people really underestimate how good Shaq’s supporting cast was. Kobe was not Kobe yet, but Eddie Jones was an underrated player that was an all-NBA-third-team level guy IMO. They lost Eddie Jones in 1999, but Kobe himself was already very good at that point (and did actually make all-NBA third team that year). So they basically always had an all-NBA-third-team guard in those years. Meanwhile, the role players on those teams were good. You had guys like Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Nick Van Exel, Elden Campbell, Glen Rice, and Jerome Kersey. Not all of them in any one year, but most of them at any given time. And that’s not even mentioning that young Kobe was part of that supporting cast in 1997 and 1998. In other words, those teams were Shaq + all-NBA-third-team guard + genuinely good set of role players. It’s possible Wilt could’ve gotten a title in these years. 1997 would’ve been a really tough lift due to the Bulls (not to mention the Jazz being genuinely great too), so probably is out. But 1998 and to a lesser extent 1999 are possible. The 1998 Jazz and 1998 Bulls were both really good, but probably not as good as they’d both been the year before. Do I think Wilt would’ve gotten a title in any of these years? Probably not, but it’s possible, with 1998 being the best shot.

The years Shaq won a three-peat (2000-2002) correspond with 1967-1969 Wilt. These were very good years for Wilt, so I don’t see him being a particular downgrade from Shaq in those years. The Lakers were kind of lucky to three-peat (Blazers and Kings series were very close, and even the Pacers Finals was close), so Wilt wouldn’t be guaranteed to three-peat. But there’s a good chance of it.

After the three-peat years, the 2003 season would be a good opportunity to add a title, since the 2003 Spurs definitely weren’t unbeatable. However, I doubt Wilt does it, since he barely played in the corresponding 1970 season, and had only just come back from injury for the playoffs. Wilt had declined a bit by 1971, just like Shaq had in 2004, so the result there is probably similar, though I think it’s possible Wilt’s superior defense allows them to turn that Pistons series. But I just don’t know that Kobe could carry the scoring load enough against that Pistons defense.

That leaves Wilt with the 2005 and 2006 Heat years. IMO Wilt in 1972 and 1973 was better than Shaq was in those years, so I think there’s probably more of a chance that he gets titles both years than that he fails to get one.

Overall, my estimate is something similar to Shaq, because while I think there’s a good chance Wilt gets a title in Orlando, some chance he gets two titles in Miami, and an outside chance he nabs a title in 1997-1999, he’s also really not guaranteed to three-peat in 2000-2002.

Good analysis. I think Wilt had more physically and mentally than Shaq, skill also. He wasn't in the environment in the 60s to show and use all his skills and abilities. The 90s looks perfect for him. He runs the floor better than Shaq, is faster, quicker and fitter. Is a better defender and pretty clearly better scorer and passer, with more diverse skills. I think he is stronger, though not as heavy, his strength was legendary and even after his 30s, as Arnie the terminator and conan said, he was the strongest person he'd ever seen. Likely he'd score more than Jordan most years. He'd be consistently a dpoy candidate and likely to rebound more than Rodman even. Just a total package. Allowed to bump anything like Shaq did, it's hard to see anyone competing with him. Think he wins in 1995 and Orlando would've been much better even in 94. Think he adds much more in 96 and the Bulls struggle to contain him. You're right about those mid to late 90s Lakers having alot of talent and being underrated. They had every position covered well and with Wilt's great passing and defense, think they win in at least 98 and 99, can't see Robinson and Duncan, as good as they were, handling him and the allroundness of those Lakers.

Think three mvps at least and six titles is reasonable to imagine.

migya wrote:Good analysis. I think Wilt had more physically and mentally than Shaq, skill also.

Mmmm. Did he?

Shaq came into the league at Wilt's Laker weight, with quickness probably somewhere between early Wilt and Laker Wilt. I don't think there's a version of Wilt more imposing than that, or three-peat Shaq, to be honest. Strictly speaking of physical tools. Like, sure, you could maybe argue about Wilt's vertical (though we didn't see that a ton in his actual play, because max vert usage isn't THAT common) and certainly about his stamina, but not about functional strength or speed.

Is a better defender and pretty clearly better scorer and passer,

Better defender, yes. Better passer? Not based on any footage I've ever seen. Volume of possessions run to a guy with intent to create passing isn't the same as passing ability. He didn't exhibit crazy vision, and he was a 3.5 AST36 guy most of his career, so as with a lot of what he did, it's exaggerated by the insane minutes of the era (of which he was a paragon example).

As a scorer... again, I don't think so. 23.6 PTS36 in his career, at that insane pace (which was like 30+ possessions per game faster than in Shaq's day, maybe more). Not really much more range, certainly no better at the line. Shot similarly in lower volumes on similar shot types.

with more diverse skills.

Bit of the Carmelo Anthony argument here. Versatility isn't valuable in and of itself, only if it contributes to the broader whole.

I think he is stronger, though not as heavy, his strength was legendary and even after his 30s, as Arnie the terminator and conan said, he was the strongest person he'd ever seen.

On the bench, surely. In-game functional strength? Hard to envision. A lot of Shaq's power came from his base, which was demonstrably superior to Wilt, and upper body strength means only so much past a given threshold.

Likely he'd score more than Jordan most years. He'd be consistently a dpoy candidate and likely to rebound more than Rodman even.

Unlikely to rebound more than Rodman. League average FG% in Wilt's day was like 43.3% and there were considerably fewer long rebounds. It was around 2% higher than that WITH 3pt shooting in 2000, which represented like 15-17% of total shots. And again, we're talking about around two dozen fewer possessions per game; more, in some seasons.

Wilt was a 22.9 rpg player in his own career, but a 45.8 mpg player, so he was an 18.0 REB36 guy. Between likely lower minutes and 3pt shooting, it's unlikely he'd be smashing 18+ rpg in the 90s and 2000s at that pace.

Better than Shaq? Certainly; Diesel underperformed on the boards, but Wilt's rebounding wouldn't be the same in later eras, for what I feel are reasonably obvious factors.

Allowed to bump anything like Shaq did, it's hard to see anyone competing with him.

Much overstated if you watch both Shaq and Wilt play. People act like Shaq just dipped his shoulder on everyone on every possession, and he really didn't.

Think three mvps at least and six titles is reasonable to imagine.

But here, we're back on track together, this is fairly similar to what I projected, give or take teammate performance.

tsherkin wrote:

migya wrote:Good analysis. I think Wilt had more physically and mentally than Shaq, skill also.

Mmmm. Did he?

Shaq came into the league at Wilt's Laker weight, with quickness probably somewhere between early Wilt and Laker Wilt. I don't think there's a version of Wilt more imposing than that, or three-peat Shaq, to be honest. Strictly speaking of physical tools. Like, sure, you could maybe argue about Wilt's vertical (though we didn't see that a ton in his actual play, because max vert usage isn't THAT common) and certainly about his stamina, but not about functional strength or speed.

Shaq was big as a rookie even but he was quite a lug, particularly on offense, with little diverse scoring ability, rather raw. Wilt was, as said by many throughout the eras, players and observers, an amazing athlete, just had everything physically. He was into track and field because he was so athletically gifted. Watch the few footage on him, he ran the court very well, better than the guards. Shaq ran well but got fatigued. He was a half court player and that took to his strength of being the heaviest and strongest guy is the 90s and 00s, but Wilt ran well. Wilt was more mobile but again, the restrictive rules of the 60s didn't allow to exploit that much.

tsherkin wrote:

Is a better defender and pretty clearly better scorer and passer,

Better defender, yes. Better passer? Not based on any footage I've ever seen. Volume of possessions run to a guy with intent to create passing isn't the same as passing ability. He didn't exhibit crazy vision, and he was a 3.5 AST36 guy most of his career, so as with a lot of what he did, it's exaggerated by the insane minutes of the era (of which he was a paragon example).

As a scorer... again, I don't think so. 23.6 PTS36 in his career, at that insane pace (which was like 30+ possessions per game faster than in Shaq's day, maybe more). Not really much more range, certainly no better at the line. Shot similarly in lower volumes on similar shot types.

The offense was run through Shaq throughout his career, so he got many touches and chances to pass. He was good, particularly by the end of the 90s but Wilt adapted to be the playmaker on the champion 76ers. He had good vision and passed from different angles and positions. He is the better passer. As a scorer it is objective and one has to look at the context. Wilt got the ball and took it himself alot in his Warriors years. He scored a ton andreally had to carry the load, more than Shaq did in those years at least. It's about environment and Wilt's era was so different and again, rules restricted him alot, that was done on purpose too. Shaq scored well but as I said, he was allowed to barge unlike noone else and that took took to his size and was an unfair advantage.

tsherkin wrote:

with more diverse skills.

Bit of the Carmelo Anthony argument here. Versatility isn't valuable in and of itself, only if it contributes to the broader whole.

Olajuwon's versatility is no doubt a clear example of how that is valuable. Wilt scored on various types of layups but mostly one handed shots. He had a hook shot also and was definitely more skilled than Shaq, who took to his strength, and smartly so, and scored close to the basket.

tsherkin wrote:

I think he is stronger, though not as heavy, his strength was legendary and even after his 30s, as Arnie the terminator and conan said, he was the strongest person he'd ever seen.

On the bench, surely. In-game functional strength? Hard to envision. A lot of Shaq's power came from his base, which was demonstrably superior to Wilt, and upper body strength means only so much past a given threshold.

Wilt constantly pinned many 7fters and scored with positioning. Shaq was a master of that but Chamberlain was super strong and used his weight so well, as the rules allowed him, which wasn't much.

tsherkin wrote:

Likely he'd score more than Jordan most years. He'd be consistently a dpoy candidate and likely to rebound more than Rodman even.

Unlikely to rebound more than Rodman. League average FG% in Wilt's day was like 43.3% and there were considerably fewer long rebounds. It was around 2% higher than that WITH 3pt shooting in 2000, which represented like 15-17% of total shots. And again, we're talking about around two dozen fewer possessions per game; more, in some seasons.

Wilt was a 22.9 rpg player in his own career, but a 45.8 mpg player, so he was an 18.0 REB36 guy. Between likely lower minutes and 3pt shooting, it's unlikely he'd be smashing 18+ rpg in the 90s and 2000s at that pace.

Better than Shaq? Certainly; Diesel underperformed on the boards, but Wilt's rebounding wouldn't be the same in later eras, for what I feel are reasonably obvious factors.

Plausible certainly, the 60s was large in volume and in comparison sure, Wilt wouldn't rebound at such absurd levels but he was the best rebounder going against some elite bigs. He was a great rebounder and had physical abilities that were clearly superior to Rodman and Mutombo, in various ways.

tsherkin wrote:

Allowed to bump anything like Shaq did, it's hard to see anyone competing with him.

Much overstated if you watch both Shaq and Wilt play. People act like Shaq just dipped his shoulder on everyone on every possession, and he really didn't.

I watched Shaq from the start of his career and the obvious thing seen is that he bumped through guys and he was far bigger and heavier. It didn't take much skill doing that, it was physical prowess and Wilt had that too, just more than that.

tsherkin wrote:

Think three mvps at least and six titles is reasonable to imagine.

But here, we're back on track together, this is fairly similar to what I projected, give or take teammate performance.

I think it is reasonable to think he'd rival Jordan and likely outdo him. He wouldn't be as restricted and would have more space to operate.

migya wrote:Shaq was big as a rookie even but he was quite a lug, particularly on offense, with little diverse scoring ability, rather raw. Wilt was, as said by many throughout the eras, players and observers, an amazing athlete, just had everything physically. He was into track and field because he was so athletically gifted. Watch the few footage on him, he ran the court very well, better than the guards. Shaq ran well but got fatigued. He was a half court player and that took to his strength of being the heaviest and strongest guy is the 90s and 00s, but Wilt ran well. Wilt was more mobile but again, the restrictive rules of the 60s didn't allow to exploit that much.

"A lug" isn't accurate. Shaq moved well off-ball and had good footwork, as well as countermoves in either direction, plus the ability to operate on either block. It's very popular to bag on him because he had no range and blew at the line, but there was proficiency in his game which people often ignore. People not named Pete Newell, though...

Pete Newell, renowned tutor of basketball big men, issued a challenge. “Just watch Shaquille play three games in a row,” Newell said. “I don’t care who they are playing, you would see a large number of different foot skills creating a shot. There is such a tendency to say all he does is dunk the […]

From here.

It's inaccurate to call him a big lug. He had spins, he had drop-steps, he showed a lefty hook and even a fallaway in his Orlando days.

What actually happened is that as he got larger, he focused more on a simpler game as the league slowed down. Get deep position, turn and hook, or spin and dunk. That's not the same thing you're describing.

Also, it's full BS that the rules of the 60s didn't let him exploit mobility when Walt Bellamy existed as a face-up big at like 6'11 or whatever.

The offense was run through Shaq throughout his career, so he got many touches and chances to pass. He was good, particularly by the end of the 90s but Wilt adapted to be the playmaker on the champion 76ers. He had good vision and passed from different angles and positions. He is the better passer. As a scorer it is objective and one has to look at the context. Wilt got the ball and took it himself alot in his Warriors years. He scored a ton andreally had to carry the load, more than Shaq did in those years at least. It's about environment and Wilt's era was so different and again, rules restricted him alot, that was done on purpose too. Shaq scored well but as I said, he was allowed to barge unlike noone else and that took took to his size and was an unfair advantage.

The nature of the 60s game was different than the later game, and minutes inflated his APG average, which overstates his passing ability. I've watched a fair amount of Wilt; he wasn't doing anything Shaq couldn't, which was my point. He caught the ball, and then threw it back out to the perimeter for a shot. Sometimes, he hit a cutter. It's not like he was doing wraparound bounce passes all the time (which, on occasion, Shaq did actually throw). I bet he could, I don't propose Shaq was a much BETTER passer, but like, there's no footage out there I've seen of Wilt doing ANYTHING I've never seen from Shaq as a passer.

Olajuwon's versatility is no doubt a clear example of how that is valuable.

Not really. That was his game, but the root difference between the two was that he was smaller and a better shooter... and more willing to let fly the middie. When they matched up, Shaq put up 28 on almost 61% TS. Olajuwon posted 32.8 ppg... on 51.4% TS, because he was shooting like 4% worse from the floor than he had in the regular season against the Magic. It's sort of like Kobe versus Orlando in 2009; lots of points, but none of it would have mattered without Mario Elie, Sam Cassell and Kenny Smith crushing it as roleplayers, or efficient production from Drexler, or 18/10 from Robert Horry while he crushed it from the outside.

Versatility matters only so much.

Wilt scored on various types of layups but mostly one handed shots. He had a hook shot also and was definitely more skilled than Shaq, who took to his strength, and smartly so, and scored close to the basket.

I mean, not really. He shot a lot while playing at a faster tempo. He was efficient relative to his inefficient era, for sure, but his post footwork wasn't any better than Shaq's, he wasn't any better at the foul line, didn't really have any more range, etc. "More skilled" implied he was doing a lot of things that Shaq didn't or couldn't as a scorer, which isn't really what was happening.

The classic Wilt move is to catch in traffic, drop a very low dribble, bring the ball all the way up and toss up a finger roll over his shoulder. This isn't materially different than Shaq drop-stepping into a jump hook, and wasn't significantly different inefficacy. Lot of passes ahead in transition, and offensive rebounds. They ran the same hi-lo with Wilt when he had a deep seal that they did with Shaq.

It's ALSO worth remembering that the lane was much narrower until 65, when what Wilt was doing forced them to widen it. Shaq played with that wider lane his whole career. They'd have had to do the same were he playing in the 60s. Those 4 extra feet do matter.

So no, I don't really buy any sort of "Wilt was a lot more skilled" argument about scoring relative to Shaq just because he sometimes shot a turn around from the bottom tip of the circle (where Shaq hit jump hooks, anyway). The AESTHETIC of their games was a little different, but not really the skill profile.

Wilt constantly pinned many 7fters and scored with positioning. Shaq was a master of that but Chamberlain was super strong and used his weight so well, as the rules allowed him, which wasn't much.

Yes, good positioning is how you do that. Adrian Dantley did it to guys 5" taller than him all the time, so this isn't a real rebuttal.

Plausible certainly, the 60s was large in volume and in comparison sure, Wilt wouldn't rebound at such absurd levels but he was the best rebounder going against some elite bigs. He was a great rebounder and had physical abilities that were clearly superior to Rodman and Mutombo, in various ways.

He was taller and faster, but Rodman had literally no other responsibilities and often ignored perimeter D to go chase rebounds. Wilt would no doubt be the most dominant rebounder of the era, but I'd bet late Rodman would still surpass him in raw volume average because he was literally out there just chasing the ball and ignoring everything else.

I would envision Wilt as like a 15+ rpg player pretty consistently, though.

I watched Shaq from the start of his career and the obvious thing seen is that he bumped through guys and he was far bigger and heavier. It didn't take much skill doing that, it was physical prowess and Wilt had that too, just more than that.

I mean, no. If you think he just bumped through guys and that "it didn't take much skill doing that," you weren't watching with unbiased eyes at all. He got away with it sometimes, but that certainly wasn't the mainstay of his game.

I think it is reasonable to think he'd rival Jordan and likely outdo him. He wouldn't be as restricted and would have more space to operate.

Honestly, I don't think he'd have a lot more space. In TODAY'S game, sure, but Shaq didn't have Horry for most of his career, so the spacing with someone like Ho Grant or Samaki Walker or Udonis Haslem wouldn't be a lot different. And you know what I think about these "restrictions," particularly relative to how play went in the 90s. That's just nostalgia speaking.

But Wilt would have been amazing, and in an era with a bunch of other bigs crushing it, I don't think he'd have had the same insecurities about being the big guy, for sure. He would have thrived in that era, for sure.

I think the diversity of shot attempts helps in terms of playoff resiliency, though Wilt isn't a great example of that historically. Hakeem is; he wasn't that impressive an offensive engine in the regular season but as everyone else fell off offensively against playoff defenses, he didn't. Of course, Wilt played a significant percentage of his playoff against Russell, the defensive (and possibly overall) GOAT. Curious if anyone wants to look at how much Wilt's playoff scoring kept up against everyone else as a Warrior where he was expected to be this monster scoring machine.

I always saw Wilt, physically speaking, as a mix of Robinson and Shaq.

penbeast0 wrote:I think the diversity of shot attempts helps in terms of playoff resiliency,

It CAN, for sure. Depends on the proficiency with those shots.

Hakeem generally looked pretty similar in the RS and the PS because there wasn't a huge change in his shot diet. He generally gamed for fadeaways and contested shots, so when he was getting those in the playoffs, his FG% looked pretty similar, right?

But Shaq didn't have a ton of problems in the playoffs either, so it's sort of moot. If you're good enough in either direction, you get it done. And again, Shaq didn't really lack diversity, he lacked an aesthetic which made it simpler to discern said diversity. People usually suck at watching how post possessions unfold, because they're ball-watching before that and like dribblers and jump shooters.

though Wilt isn't a great example of that historically. Hakeem is; he wasn't that impressive an offensive engine in the regular season but as everyone else fell off offensively against playoff defenses, he didn't.

TBF, he wasn't a stunning offensive engine IN the playoffs. His D was more impressive. And he did a sort of 'well SOMEONE has to create shots' routine in the playoffs a fair bit with his reasonably tepid squads. Hakeem was, of course, a very good scorer (particularly at his peak), but he also wasn't as good as Shaq in that regard, nor was he as good a passer.

Actually, his shot volume generally decreased considerably in the playoffs with the Warriors. He would get doubled or tripled early and the teams would try to take advantage by going to that guy (like Tom Meschery averaging 20 ppg one year) where neither team did as much adjusting from their bread and butter offenses and defenses in the regular season.

penbeast0 wrote:Actually, his shot volume generally decreased considerably in the playoffs with the Warriors. He would get doubled or tripled early and the teams would try to take advantage by going to that guy (like Tom Meschery averaging 20 ppg one year) where neither team did as much adjusting from their bread and butter offenses and defenses in the regular season.

If that's a reply to my last paragraph, I was talking about Hakeem.

This thread kind of made me realize how good Shaq’s teams were throughout his career.

I wrote a lot above about how those 1997-1999 Lakers were a good supporting cast—which basically had an all-NBA third team guard + really good role players. Those teams actually played 54 games without Shaq, and went 33-21 (a 50-win pace). And they’d won 53 games the year before he joined. That said, there were a lot of roster changes between 1996 and 1997 besides just Shaq joining (they lost Divac, Ceballos, Peeler, old Sedale Threatt, and 32 games of old Magic, but added Shaq, Horry, Kobe, Jerome Kersey, young Derek Fisher, and old Byron Scott), and then the roster kept changing as the years went by. So the 53 wins in 1996 is not all that meaningful either way IMO, but I guess some might find that interesting, and it is true that the 1996 Lakers did have three starters in common with the 1997 Lakers (Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, and Elden Campbell).

The Orlando Magic team was even better though. Penny Hardaway’s injuries ended up making him kind of a footnote historically, but in those years with Shaq, he was genuinely a great player. Was all-NBA first team in 1995 and 1996, and 3rd in MVP voting in 1996. The all-NBA first team in 1995 might’ve oversold him a little bit that year, but he was at least a top 10 player that year, and even higher in 1996. Meanwhile, you had Horace Grant, who was a great complementary piece and was still in his prime. This really wasn’t any worse than Jordan having had Pippen/Grant. And then the supporting cast beyond that actually had some genuinely good role players. Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott in particular were definitely solidly positive role players. The pickings were a bit slim beyond that, but Brian Shaw would later be a rotation player on the Lakers three-peat team and was a solid contributor. This made for a great team overall.

In 1995 and 1996, Shaq missed 31 games, and the Magic went 22-9. Which is just above a 58-win pace! After Shaq left, the Magic won 45 games in the 1997 season, but Penny missed a lot of games, and they went 38-21 in the games Penny played, which is a 53-win pace. Overall, from 1995-1997, in 90 games without Shaq but with Penny, the Magic went 60-30, which was a 55-win pace. So that Orlando Magic team without Shaq did as well as the 1994 Bulls, except without adding Kukoc, Kerr, and Longley/Wennington to the equation. The Magic added Seikaly, who was a pretty negative player IMO (and RAPM thinks he was awful), so not at all comparable to adding Kukoc or Kerr. Of course, Shaq isn’t Jordan and virtually no one would argue he is as good, so I am not really criticizing Shaq for not achieving the same success. But just wanted to note that by all accounts Shaq’s supporting cast in 1995 and 1996 was probably better than the first-three-peat Bulls supporting cast. If we look at the roster, the #2 and #3 look obviously comparable, but the Magic look a bit better beyond that, and if we look at how they did without the stars, they did similarly but the Bulls had added significant positive pieces while the Magic did not. To be clear, I’m not looking to really discuss Jordan. My point is more just that it seems clear to me that that Magic supporting cast was absolutely enough to win a title with. It’s definitely possible that 1961 and 1962 Wilt could’ve won a title with them.

Wilt and Shaq were very close as athletes and personalities. Wilt had better work ethic though by far. And Wilt had a nice fadeaway that he would rarely take in modern NBA or even '93. He's no Dirk but its one skill he had Shaq didn't. Wilt was a bit leaner but still as strong of a core and better stamina. The main thing that held Wilt back was coaching. Not an issue in modern NBA with 10 coaches on the bench. Wilt would stay productive into his later career though and not be a bit player at the end. And Wilt could clearly have played longer but it would be an unfair comparison if we were allowed to predict Wilt suddenly playing 20-30 seasons even though he could have surpassed Shaq's 19 easily but only played 13. Wilt was 1st team all defense and lead the league in rebounds in his last season.

So are we assuming Wilt plays Shaq's 19 now? If so the rings could be very different. Wilt and Shaq are close on offense, but I think Wilt wins out on defense mainly due to stamina and a bit more reach/bounce. Wilt could have potentially been the difference in 1995-1998, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2010. Now Wilt ain't getting all those, especially the 90's ones those are real tough. The later ones are more winnable. I think its feasible he gets 2 or 3 more rings. Wilts later years are simply more productive than Shaq's even if we are projecting out. By 2007 he was pretty much giving up as many points as he was putting up. Early Shaq was a beast defensively...later on not so much. Not true for Wilt. And he was an elite athlete pretty much into his 50's. We've all heard the stories about him schooling Magic with the UCLA freshmen in his 40's.

Would it change Wilt's GOAT standing? I think he'd go from the bottom of the GOAT tier (top 8) to top 3. Just on rings and extra seasons, if we are assuming 19. If only 13, probably about the same...maybe jumps a spot or two

The big question marks are:

1. Wilt coachable by Brian Hill.
2. Wilt leadership (making shooters better in Orlando)
3. Wilts relationship with Kobe.


tsherkin and I have and will always (respectfully) disagree with Wilts mpg. Wilts baseline is always going to be 13-17% more mins than his peers. At 90s pace I think the mins are going to be on the high end. 90s pace slowed down because the stars were getting older and they didn't want to reduce mpg. I believe Wilt playing 44-46mpg is pretty realistic. Telling me Wilt couldn't play that many mins is like telling me Secretariat couldn't run that fast again.

Outliers are goanna outlier

Warspite wrote:tsherkin and I have and will always (respectfully) disagree with Wilts mpg. Wilts baseline is always going to be 13-17% more mins than his peers. At 90s pace I think the mins are going to be on the high end. 90s pace slowed down because the stars were getting older and they didn't want to reduce mpg. I believe Wilt playing 44-46mpg is pretty realistic. Telling me Wilt couldn't play that many mins is like telling me Secretariat couldn't run that fast again.

Outliers are goanna outlier

And of course, I'm inclined to disagree.. a little. 40-42, I could believe. 44, maybe, cuz Wilt, but still seems unlikely for more than a couple seasons. It would erode his defensive value. He jogged up the court in a very Shaq-like fashion quite a lot of the time he was playing those extreme minutes, which is worth considering when examining his overall value. I don't think he'd be getting away with quite as limited effort as he did in the 60s as far as jogging box to box and hoping it worked out. More halfcourt sets, more bumping and grinding on the interior. And his competition at position was better.

In the 60s, he didn't face a lot of stiff competition from scoring centers. He had Bells, that's about it until Elvin Hayes hit the league while Wilt was already slowing down a bit. And by the time Kareem hit the league, Wilt was a roleplayer on offense for the Lakers. Now, in the 60s, TONS of guys were playing north of 42 mpg. In the entire decade of the 90s, there were 4 seasons of 42+ mpg over 40+GP, across 3 players (Anthony Mason, Glen Rice and Latrell Sprewell).

That's era-related, strategy, not just the guys in the 60s being greyhounds.

It's not quite as much that Wilt COULDN'T do it, I mean a team would probably tolerate him chugging a long and being lazy in transition defense. They certainly did with Shaq.

It's more so that I don't think the coaches would keep him in for that long, in the same way that we haven't seen a season of 39+ mpg since 2012.

Remember, Lebron had 4 straight seasons of 40+ mpg and a pair over 42 mpg. It's not that these guys can't do it. More so, it's that coaches realize the pressure that puts on the body, the injuries it makes more likely, the longevity it reduces, etc.

lessthanjake wrote:This thread kind of made me realize how good Shaq’s teams were throughout his career.

I wrote a lot above about how those 1997-1999 Lakers were a good supporting cast—which basically had an all-NBA third team guard + really good role players. Those teams actually played 54 games without Shaq, and went 33-21 (a 50-win pace). And they’d won 53 games the year before he joined. That said, there were a lot of roster changes between 1996 and 1997 besides just Shaq joining (they lost Divac, Ceballos, Peeler, old Sedale Threatt, and 32 games of old Magic, but added Shaq, Horry, Kobe, Jerome Kersey, young Derek Fisher, and old Byron Scott), and then the roster kept changing as the years went by. So the 53 wins in 1996 is not all that meaningful either way IMO, but I guess some might find that interesting, and it is true that the 1996 Lakers did have three starters in common with the 1997 Lakers (Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, and Elden Campbell).

The Orlando Magic team was even better though. Penny Hardaway’s injuries ended up making him kind of a footnote historically, but in those years with Shaq, he was genuinely a great player. Was all-NBA first team in 1995 and 1996, and 3rd in MVP voting in 1996. The all-NBA first team in 1995 might’ve oversold him a little bit that year, but he was at least a top 10 player that year, and even higher in 1996. Meanwhile, you had Horace Grant, who was a great complementary piece and was still in his prime. This really wasn’t any worse than Jordan having had Pippen/Grant. And then the supporting cast beyond that actually had some genuinely good role players. Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott in particular were definitely solidly positive role players. The pickings were a bit slim beyond that, but Brian Shaw would later be a rotation player on the Lakers three-peat team and was a solid contributor. This made for a great team overall.

In 1995 and 1996, Shaq missed 31 games, and the Magic went 22-9. Which is just above a 58-win pace! After Shaq left, the Magic won 45 games in the 1997 season, but Penny missed a lot of games, and they went 38-21 in the games Penny played, which is a 53-win pace. Overall, from 1995-1997, in 90 games without Shaq but with Penny, the Magic went 60-30, which was a 55-win pace. So that Orlando Magic team without Shaq did as well as the 1994 Bulls, except without adding Kukoc, Kerr, and Longley/Wennington to the equation. The Magic added Seikaly, who was a pretty negative player IMO (and RAPM thinks he was awful), so not all comparable to adding Kukoc or Kerr. Of course, Shaq isn’t Jordan and virtually no one would argue he is as good, so I am not really criticizing Shaq for not achieving the same success. But just wanted to note that by all accounts Shaq’s supporting cast in 1995 and 1996 was probably better than the first-three-peat Bulls supporting cast. If we look at the roster, the #2 and #3 look obviously comparable, but the Magic look a bit better beyond that, and if we look at how they did without the stars, they did similarly but the Bulls had added significant positive pieces while the Magic did not. To be clear, I’m not looking to really discuss Jordan. My point is more just that it seems clear to me that that Magic supporting cast was absolutely enough to win a title with. It’s definitely possible that 1961 and 1962 Wilt could’ve won a title with them.

Shaq had talented teams for most of his career, as you pointed out. Olajuwon and Robinson didn't have anywhere near as good supporting casts and I think that made a big difference to their alltime career perceptions.

I think with the same teams Wilt dominates the 90s and first half of the 00s. He had strengths in what Shaq had as weaknesses, mainly defense and work ethic.

migya wrote:Shaq had talented teams for most of his career, as you pointed out. Olajuwon and Robinson didn't have anywhere near as good supporting casts and I think that made a big difference to their alltime career perceptions.

Absolutely.

You don't really do the "dynastic run" thing without dynastic talent, after all.

I don't think there's much question that he three-peats 00-02. I'm dicey on what he'd do with Orlando because their coach was a muppet and their roleplayers weren't amazing, but especially with Horry opening up the interior for him in LA? Different story, much as it was with Shaq. The real question there is what would become of them as a result of the same issues with bench depth and Kobe wanting to assert himself which became issues IRL... and then how well that would be matched off by Wilt's difference in dedication to rebounding and availability.

Wilt was a different type of cover than Shaq. They were both bigger than their peers, but I think people make them out to be more similar than they were due to that alone.

Shaq was much more physical. He did have good touch around the basket and a hook shoot, but he got to his spots with force. He was much harder to deal with in the half court than Wilt ever thought about being.

Early career Wilt was far more finesse than people realize, but he could also get up and down the court very easily. You don't shoot 30+ times a game if you can't run. That could be a big difference. Where Penny would often wait for Shaq to get back before initiating their offense, Wilt would allow them to up the pace a bit. They'd still use him down low, but I'm seeing a superior version of Barkley and KJ where the half court is good but running is always an option. Beating Jordan? Probably not. I could see him winning the same four rings that Shaq did though.

tsherkin wrote:

migya wrote:Shaq had talented teams for most of his career, as you pointed out. Olajuwon and Robinson didn't have anywhere near as good supporting casts and I think that made a big difference to their alltime career perceptions.

Absolutely.

You don't really do the "dynastic run" thing without dynastic talent, after all.

I don't think there's much question that he three-peats 00-02. I'm dicey on what he'd do with Orlando because their coach was a muppet and their roleplayers weren't amazing, but especially with Horry opening up the interior for him in LA? Different story, much as it was with Shaq. The real question there is what would become of them as a result of the same issues with bench depth and Kobe wanting to assert himself which became issues IRL... and then how well that would be matched off by Wilt's difference in dedication to rebounding and availability.

Yea, Orlando's coach wasn't great obviously but they performed well anyway. The Lakers pre Jackson coaching them were still loaded and Shaq's lack of effort and physical discipline was what counted most to their results. Wilt in his place is making that team much better and it's hard not seeing them beat Utah and making the finals, as well as Jordan being able to beat them.