Wilt vs Shaq

[migya]

It's an interesting conversation how Wilt is not the greatest ever, not that I think ranking is totally possible. He was the most dominant, probably on both ends.

Well its a team game so in that regard people question how well Wilt fit within a team concept.

He got to 76ers and they barely lost to the Celts once and then toppled them, with him being the major player and after having made a big adjustment. He took a backseat on the Lakers, which he should have probably been the main player, and they won also. No case for being bad for the team.

[migya]

I have Wilt at 7 and Shaq at 9. The main reason to rank Shaq higher imo is just his 00-02 playoff runs/titles. Wilt was a way more consistent force throughout his prime in terms of games/minutes and off/def impact though imo. Then even in the 71-73 years(age 34-36) he remained a very high impact player while Shaq became more like a legit role player after 06 though good in 09.

It's an interesting conversation how Wilt is not the greatest ever, not that I think ranking is totally possible. He was the most dominant, probably on both ends.

What makes you believe that Wilt was more dominant defensively than Russell?

There was little difference. Wilt blocked more shots according to Russell himself. Russell was more versatile only because he was one of the few ever o be more mobile and in ways more athletic than Wilt. Both were alltime rarities.

[70sFan]

He was relevant in a way that he could still provide something for the team, although I don't think he was positive for the Suns all things concerned.

I think Phoenix was in such a disastrous situation that year that it's hard to really evaluate. But with that level of health, he was at a similar level to his 06 self, just not getting quite as many touches. So if 06 counts, then I'm inclined to say 09 should as well, you know?

Health-wise he might have been, but overall he just wasn't on that level anymore. I don't view 2009 campaign as all-star worthy, so we may just disagree with how valuable he was on the court.

[70sFan]

If the team is mostly cool with it, and it has no visible on court impact, why does it matter?

You can ask the same question with Wilt.

[penbeast0]

It's an interesting conversation how Wilt is not the greatest ever, not that I think ranking is totally possible. He was the most dominant, probably on both ends.

What makes you believe that Wilt was more dominant defensively than Russell?

There was little difference. Wilt blocked more shots according to Russell himself. Russell was more versatile only because he was one of the few ever o be more mobile and in ways more athletic than Wilt. Both were alltime rarities.

There was quite a bit of difference. Russell created a defensive presence out onto the floor, defending like a Kevin Garnett in addition to being a world class shot blocker. Wilt blocked more shots, though probably with less impact since he like to swat them into the stands to intimidate opponents where Russell would soft block and try to guide shots to his own team. But Wilt was a more stationary inside presence, like a Mark Eaton. Still a very intimidating defender and one who could carry his team on that end but Russell had a whole separate level to his game that Wilt, even in his later years where he focused on defense, never developed. We had a poster here who called it horizontal defensive presence in addition to the vertical defensive presence, that ability to go out onto the floor and change plays away from the basket while still recovering to guard the opposing center and rim protect. You see some of it with Hakeem and DRob defensively but neither were the rebounding presence of Russell to quite as good at playing the angles.

[One_and_Done]

If the team is mostly cool with it, and it has no visible on court impact, why does it matter?

You can ask the same question with Wilt.

Well, there seemed to be fairly strong evidence that prime Shaq, when paired with even decent role players, would lead your team to a 60-ish win pace. Prime Wilt played for maybe two 60 win teams, and worse still he also played on teams who won 31 and 40 games. His first 50 win team was in his 7th year in the league, and while Wilt was obviously huge for the Sixers it’s also worth noting that they only dropped from 62 to 55 wins after he left. Wilt also had the huge advantage of playing in a weak league, vastly weaker than the league Shaq played in.

I don’t know if Wilt’s leadership/personality is the reason, and I’m not too fussed either way, but I don’t think you can say Wilt was producing the same on-court results Shaq was and therefore that the outcomes were equivalent.

[tsherkin]

Health-wise he might have been, but overall he just wasn't on that level anymore. I don't view 2009 campaign as all-star worthy, so we may just disagree with how valuable he was on the court.

Yeah, I suspect we do. I think use case is a little more influential in that context than anything. Remember that Phoenix wasn't running him with a stretch four or a SF who could hit the three much, so their half-court spacing for him wasn't ideal running alongside Stoudemire and when Hill was on the floor. Nash was great, but Shaq wasn't a high-end pick-and-roll player, so that didn't benefit him nearly as much as some others. So I think the context was a little less than ideal, which harmed things, as it had when he faced similar situations as a younger, more able player. He was a 21/10 PER36 guy who led the league in FG%. Certainly had his defensive issues, and of course he was only playing 30 mpg, so his value was throttled in that regard as well.

So yes, I opine that he was about as useful as his 06 self, but I can certainly appreciate that he had his limitations and the idea that not everyone might agree with my assessment, heh.

[BusywithBball]

I think I side with Wilt now. Tremendous defender which may not be understood well by all.

[70sFan]

Well, there seemed to be fairly strong evidence that prime Shaq, when paired with even decent role players, would lead your team to a 60-ish win pace. Prime Wilt played for maybe two 60 win teams, and worse still he also played on teams who won 31 and 40 games. His first 50 win team was in his 7th year in the league, and while Wilt was obviously huge for the Sixers it’s also worth noting that they only dropped from 62 to 55 wins after he left. Wilt also had the huge advantage of playing in a weak league, vastly weaker than the league Shaq played in.

I don’t know if Wilt’s leadership/personality is the reason, and I’m not too fussed either way, but I don’t think you can say Wilt was producing the same on-court results Shaq was and therefore that the outcomes were equivalent.

So, just to be clear that I hope you just didn't know that, but the teams played less than 82 games in the first 8 seasons of Wilt's career. You discounted his rookie year when the Warriors literally won 49 out of 75 games, which is 54 wins pace. That's better than Shaq, who waited 3 seasons for a better RS record. Of course, that's not the end - 1962 Philly won 49 out of 80 games, very likely they'd reach 50 mark with 82 games season. In 1964, they won 48 games out of 80, so it's doable again.

As far as the same on-court results, here is how Wilt and Shaq stacks up in their first 14 seasons (as we both agree that Shaq was done after 2006):

1. Win pace

1960-73 Wilt teams: 715-413, 52 wins pace
1993-06 Shaq teams: 754-362, 55 wins pace

2. Win pace in games played

1960-73 Wilt teams: 672-373, 53 wins pace
1993-06 Shaq teams: 657-284, 57 wins pace

2. Win pace in games missed

1960-73 Wilt teams: 71-91, 36 wins pace
1993-06 Shaq teams: 97-78, 46 wins pace

So overall, Shaq's teams were better with him by 4 wins, but when both were out, Shaq teams played at 10 wins better pace. I mean, you can nitpick either way but it's very clear that both produced similar level on-court impact on their teams.

About Shaq playing with roleplayers - Shaq's teams were 57-33 without him in 1993-98 period (before Kobe became a superstar), which is a 54 wins pace. Shaq never really played with bad teams outside of his rookie season.

[One_and_Done]

Well, there seemed to be fairly strong evidence that prime Shaq, when paired with even decent role players, would lead your team to a 60-ish win pace. Prime Wilt played for maybe two 60 win teams, and worse still he also played on teams who won 31 and 40 games. His first 50 win team was in his 7th year in the league, and while Wilt was obviously huge for the Sixers it’s also worth noting that they only dropped from 62 to 55 wins after he left. Wilt also had the huge advantage of playing in a weak league, vastly weaker than the league Shaq played in.

I don’t know if Wilt’s leadership/personality is the reason, and I’m not too fussed either way, but I don’t think you can say Wilt was producing the same on-court results Shaq was and therefore that the outcomes were equivalent.

So, just to be clear that I hope you just didn't know that, but the teams played less than 82 games in the first 8 seasons of Wilt's career. You discounted his rookie year when the Warriors literally won 49 out of 75 games, which is 54 wins pace. That's better than Shaq, who waited 3 seasons for a better RS record. Of course, that's not the end - 1962 Philly won 49 out of 80 games, very likely they'd reach 50 mark with 82 games season. In 1964, they won 48 games out of 80, so it's doable again.

As far as the same on-court results, here is how Wilt and Shaq stacks up in their first 14 seasons (as we both agree that Shaq was done after 2006):

1. Win pace

1960-73 Wilt teams: 715-413, 52 wins pace
1993-06 Shaq teams: 754-362, 55 wins pace

2. Win pace in games played

1960-73 Wilt teams: 672-373, 53 wins pace
1993-06 Shaq teams: 657-284, 57 wins pace

2. Win pace in games missed

1960-73 Wilt teams: 71-91, 36 wins pace
1993-06 Shaq teams: 97-78, 46 wins pace

So overall, Shaq's teams were better with him by 4 wins, but when both were out, Shaq teams played at 10 wins better pace. I mean, you can nitpick either way but it's very clear that both produced similar level on-court impact on their teams.

About Shaq playing with roleplayers - Shaq's teams were 57-33 without him in 1993-98 period (before Kobe became a superstar), which is a 54 wins pace. Shaq never really played with bad teams outside of his rookie season.

I think that’s an extremely misleading way to characterise their teams win records, which ignores the context. For instance, you have rookie Shaq in that sample (who actually improved his garbage team by 20 wins), and late career Wilt who I assume you don’t think was in his prime. I have certainly not heard people suggest 70s Wilt was still in his prime before. Then you include 2006 Shaq, who was kinda in his prime still, but it was definitely the most qualified and worst prime Shaq season if it was. Honestly, he was better as a rookie than in 06.

I think a more accurate assessment would be to look at how they each did in their prime years, and that won’t favour Wilt because he was on historically stacked teams for that era with the Lakers. Was Wilt even the Lakers best player from 69 to 73 (aged 32-36)? I would have thought most would have West as their best player. Well, during those 5 years the Lakers won 55, 46, 48, 69, and 60. It’s significant that the 2 best seasons came at a time when Wilt was at his worst, and that they are dragging up his career win total average.

I think it’s also notable that when Wilt only played 12 games in 1970 the Lakers were 7-5 with him, and 39-31 without him. It looks like his impact was very minimal. In contrast you can look at the Lakers with Shaq and without Kobe from 00-04, and they play like a 60+ win team with Shaq and no Kobe, but are a sub-500 team with Kobe and without Shaq. Then you look further at the context. Shaq was always the best player on his team until 06, and you can see lots of samples that show his substantial lift. For instance, the 96 Magic were 40-14 with Shaq, and only 20-8 without him. The 97 Lakers were 38-13 with Shaq, but only 18-13 without him. The 98 Lakers were 46-14 with him, but only 15-7 without him. I could go on. Then you see Wilt playing on a 31 win team in 1963, despite playing all 80 games, or splitting time in 1965 between a 17 win team and a 40 win team. You see things like the 1969 Sixers only dropping from 62 wins to 55 wins after Wilt left (in contrast to the Lakers falling off a cliff without Shaq. Shaq in 2005 was the last legitimate year of full-time prime Shaq, and the Heat won 59 that year. The next year with Shaq’s drop off they fell to 52 wins, then 44, then 15, then 43. Obviously Wade was hurt in the 15 win season, but the clear drop off was largely due on the absence of a prime Shaq. The Magic dropped from 60 wins to 45 after he left.

After you look at that context, I think it’s tough to see the 2 players as having similar impacts. If Wilt had the impact of prime Shaq he wouldn’t be on 2 sub-500 teams in his prime. Then you factor in the weaker era and this is Shaq by a mile.

[70sFan]

I think that’s an extremely misleading way to characterise their teams win records, which ignores the context. For instance, you have rookie Shaq in that sample (who actually improved his garbage team by 20 wins),

Yes, I also have rookie Wilt in that sample (who improved his garbage team by 17 wins).

and late career Wilt who I assume you don’t think was in his prime. I have certainly not heard people suggest 70s Wilt was still in his prime before.

He wasn't, but he was still MVP-level player during that period, just like the late Shaq years sampled here.

Then you include 2006 Shaq, who was kinda in his prime still, but it was definitely the most qualified and worst prime Shaq season if it was. Honestly, he was better as a rookie than in 06.

You can exclude 2006 from the sample, it wouldn't change anything.

I think a more accurate assessment would be to look at how they each did in their prime years, and that won’t favour Wilt because he was on historically stacked teams for that era with the Lakers. Was Wilt even the Lakers best player from 69 to 73 (aged 32-36)? I would have thought most would have West as their best player. Well, during those 5 years the Lakers won 55, 46, 48, 69, and 60. It’s significant that the 2 best seasons came at a time when Wilt was at his worst, and that they are dragging up his career win total average.

Wilt was at his best in the last 2 years as a Laker, it was the reason why the Lakers were so dominant during that time. It's actually quite the opposite - Jerry West was at his worst during the most successful years and Baylor wasn't even there. I don't think you understand what you are talking about.

I think it’s also notable that when Wilt only played 12 games in 1970 the Lakers were 7-5 with him, and 39-31 without him. It looks like his impact was very minimal. In contrast you can look at the Lakers with Shaq and without Kobe from 00-04, and they play like a 60+ win team with Shaq and no Kobe, but are a sub-500 team with Kobe and without Shaq. Then you look further at the context. Shaq was always the best player on his team until 06, and you can see lots of samples that show his substantial lift. For instance, the 96 Magic were 40-14 with Shaq, and only 20-8 without him. The 97 Lakers were 38-13 with Shaq, but only 18-13 without him. The 98 Lakers were 46-14 with him, but only 15-7 without him. I could go on. Then you see Wilt playing on a 31 win team in 1963, despite playing all 80 games, or splitting time in 1965 between a 17 win team and a 40 win team. You see things like the 1969 Sixers only dropping from 62 wins to 55 wins after Wilt left (in contrast to the Lakers falling off a cliff without Shaq. Shaq in 2005 was the last legitimate year of full-time prime Shaq, and the Heat won 59 that year. The next year with Shaq’s drop off they fell to 52 wins, then 44, then 15, then 43. Obviously Wade was hurt in the 15 win season, but the clear drop off was largely due on the absence of a prime Shaq. The Magic dropped from 60 wins to 45 after he left.

After you look at that context, I think it’s tough to see the 2 players as having similar impacts. If Wilt had the impact of prime Shaq he wouldn’t be on 2 sub-500 teams in his prime. Then you factor in the weaker era and this is Shaq by a mile.

So the context now is ignoring every sample that favours Wilt and act that 1996-98 sample is good for Shaq? I wonder why you excluded Wilt's rookie lift (17 wins), why you left 1973-74 Lakers change from 60 to 47 wins, why you didn't look how the Sixers went from sub-50% team to the best RS stretch of the decade after Wilt's trade, or why you strongly focus on 1965 when Wilt had health issues and considered retirement (and played with a team that played at 10 wins pace without him). You want to exclude years that shows undeniably Wilt's impact because you believe that Jerry West was better than him in 1972-73 (nobody would agree with you here), you use 1996-97 change for Shaq even though the reason why they had such a mediocre record is because Penny missed 23 games during that season - they played at 53 wins pace with him.

This is not context, this is cherrypicking at its worst. It's certainly not "context" when you say Wilt didn't play on 50 wins team in a year he won 49 out of 75 games. My data are just data, what you did was misleading. You didn't even address that, now I wonder if it was a mistake from your part or you did that on purpose.

Every player can play on sub-50% teams, it has nothing to do with the impact. Garnett was a RS impact monster, but he played on plenty of them. Shaq didn't play on sub-50% teams because he had a luxury to play on teams that would play at ~50 wins pace without him when he missed 20 games per season. His teams were stacked throughout his prime and even significant periods of unavailability didn't hurt them. Wilt also played on some stacked teams, but Warriors years were rough.

[tsherkin]

Every player can play on sub-50% teams, it has nothing to do with the impact. Garnett was a RS impact monster, but he played on plenty of them. Shaq didn't play on sub-50% teams because he had a luxury to play on teams that would play at ~50 wins pace without him when he missed 20 games per season. His teams were stacked throughout his prime and even significant periods of unavailability didn't hurt them. Wilt also played on some stacked teams, but Warriors years were rough.

Attaching onto and supporting this, Jordan was sub-.500 in his rookie year. They won 30 the year after, but that was his broken foot year. Then in 87, they won 40, still below .500. And he's the guy who has been most regularly touted as the GOAT for the past 30, 35 years.

[70sFan]

Every player can play on sub-50% teams, it has nothing to do with the impact. Garnett was a RS impact monster, but he played on plenty of them. Shaq didn't play on sub-50% teams because he had a luxury to play on teams that would play at ~50 wins pace without him when he missed 20 games per season. His teams were stacked throughout his prime and even significant periods of unavailability didn't hurt them. Wilt also played on some stacked teams, but Warriors years were rough.

Attaching onto and supporting this, Jordan was sub-.500 in his rookie year. They won 30 the year after, but that was his broken foot year. Then in 87, they won 40, still below .500. And he's the guy who has been most regularly touted as the GOAT for the past 30, 35 years.

There are more examples - Kareem in 1975 and 1976, Hakeem barely managed 42 wins in 1990, James in 2019, Oscar in late 1960s, Bryant in 2005, Durant last year... and the list can go on. The idea that you are not impactful just because you miss the playoffs has been debunked over a decade ago here and it hurts some people keep repeating that.

[tsherkin]

There are more examples - Kareem in 1975 and 1976, Hakeem barely managed 42 wins in 1990, James in 2019, Oscar in late 1960s, Bryant in 2005, Durant last year... and the list can go on. The idea that you are not impactful just because you miss the playoffs has been debunked over a decade ago here and it hurts some people keep repeating that.

Yeah, it's really quite frustrating. Individual impact is very strong in basketball, but it isn't omnipotent. And then you factor in things like health (for player and teammates both), and that stuff can overcome individual brilliance. And it's been years now that we've known that individual volume scoring goes only so far, even when it's quite efficient. We saw it with Wilt, we saw it with Jordan, we saw it with Dantley... we saw the inefficient/average version with guys like Baylor, Nique, AI, etc. There is a finite amount of impact that can produce. Now, obviously, as their passing improved, as their teammates improved, la la la, right? But there are limitations to what one guy can do, even when that guy is a great, hyper-efficient volume scorer. So missing the playoffs, even winning less than 41 games, it's all quite possible.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh, we disagree.

I don’t agree that a top 10 player should ever be on a 31 win team, or even a sub-500 win team. Like, it might theoretically be possible if the guys around him were hot garbage (see KG below), but then I look at guys like Duncan, Lebron, Shaq, etc, and it’s hard to even verbalise how bad those players would need to be.

As expected, examples like Jordan were cited, but I don’t think the examples are very good, and if anything they prove my point. Jordan was on sub-500 teams early in his career because he played selfishly and was gunning for shots. It’s very well documented that later in his career he needed to learn to trust his team more, and play within the team system. I also find referencing his 30 win season to be disingenuous. Jordan only played 18 games that year, and started in only 7. Other than that, his team’s worst performances are 38 wins (his rookie year, so not a good example), and a 40 win season in 87. That 40 win season definitely falls under the “Jordan wasn’t playing the right way”, and you can’t be a top 10 player when you’re not playing the right way, something Jordan himself admitted about how he used to play.

The other examples are pre-peak Hakeem, who I see as a meaningfully worse player compared to 93-96 Hakeem (who genuinely was a top 10 peak player), Kobe (who I don’t think was even a top 20 player), Oscar (who I don’t think would be an all-star today), 36 year old Durant (not a good example since he’s past his prime, and also since the Suns were 33-29 with him), and bizarrely an older Lebron in 2019 (who was injured, and the team was over 500 with him as well). The Kareem example doesn’t work well either. In 1975 Kareem missed a bunch of games and had also demanded a trade and checked out. It’s the one year I didn’t vote for Kareem in the RPOY project, because he wasn’t putting forth his usual effort. 1976 is a better example, but Kareem really did have a pretty bad team around him, and I ding Kareem a little for his sub-par LA seasons where he was finding himself.

I think the closest example you can find is probably KG, who is a borderline top 10 player probably, but he really did have putrid support in 06 and 07, as evidenced by their 2-10 record in the games he missed. The league was also much tough in 06 and 07 compared to the 60s.

If you’re an actual top 10 type player, in your prime, your team really shouldn’t be sub-500. Wilt was on a 31 win team in his prime, and in 1965 his teams were 28-45 when he played. We also saw other indicators that did not suggest his impact was at the level of top 10 type guys, such as the Sixers only dropping from 62 to 55 wins after he left, and the Lakers doing well even without him as I cited above.

Of course, another big argument is the terrible era Wilt played in. In that era, he should have been even more able to carry a team, because of the low quality of players overall. That he couldn’t do that consistently is damning.

Some of the other points you raise don’t hold up well either. You attribute the 13 win drop off of the 74 Lakers to Wilt retiring… but West missed most of the season too and fell off performance wise, which was probably more relevant when looking at the team’s fortunes in previous years.

[70sFan]

I am not going to respond to all of that, I just want to touch the last point you raised to show how cherrypicked your arguments are.

1974 Lakers were 16-15 with West playing and 31-20 without him, but you attribute the fall to his absence. At the same time, you say that 1997 Magic went so much worse because of Shaq trade, but you don't look at the missed time from Penny and the fact that they played at 53 wins pace with him.

Feel free to do whatever you want, but that is not an honest discussion.

[One_and_Done]

I am not going to respond to all of that, I just want to touch the last point you raised to show how cherrypicked your arguments are.

1974 Lakers were 16-15 with West playing and 31-20 without him, but you attribute the fall to his absence. At the same time, you say that 1997 Magic went so much worse because of Shaq trade, but you don't look at the missed time from Penny and the fact that they played at 53 wins pace with him.

Feel free to do whatever you want, but that is not an honest discussion.

West in 1974 was an injury riddled shadow of his former self. There was a reason he retired immediately afterwards. I didn't expect to be defending Jerry West in this thread, but you can't possibly use his final season in the NBA to properly evaluate his impact.

The 97 Magic were much worse because Shaq left. Of course, Penny was also an awesome player so it's not a big shock he was able to lead them to good results without him. Both things can be true. I'm not seeing the contradiction here.

I'm not basing Shaq's impact on just one sample, I'm looking at the cumulative evidence, which is why I cited a bunch of examples earlier. Where is prime Shaq's 31 win season? Where is the year prime Shaq's teams went 28-45 in games he played. Those low end results don't exist for him, but they do for Wilt.

On both the high end and low end the signal for Shaq is consistent and loud. In the case of Wilt we can kind of see it here, if we ignore these seasons, and squint hard at these other seasons, etc, but the evidence is far more dubious.

[70sFan]

Shaq teams played consistently at 2nd round team pace (~46 wins) without him, of course his teams don't play at 31 wins pace with him - because they were so good they would have made the playoffs without him. I don't understand what is so tough to understand that team situation can be so significantly different.

1965 Warriors without Wilt played at 13 wins pace, Shaq teams without him played at 46 wins pace. We don't see Shaq on losing teams, because he basically never played on bad teams. What is so hard to understand?

I can also point out that Shaq never anchored teams as good as the best Wilt teams, does it mean that Shaq is a worse ceiling raiser?

[One_and_Done]

Shaq teams played consistently at 2nd round team pace (~46 wins) without him, of course his teams don't play at 31 wins pace with him - because they were so good they would have made the playoffs without him. I don't understand what is so tough to understand that team situation can be so significantly different.

1965 Warriors without Wilt played at 13 wins pace, Shaq teams without him played at 46 wins pace. We don't see Shaq on losing teams, because he basically never played on bad teams. What is so hard to understand?

I can also point out that Shaq never anchored teams as good as the best Wilt teams, does it mean that Shaq is a worse ceiling raiser?

I think what you're missing here is the law of diminishing returns. Let's say Shaq is worth 20 wins. If you add him to a 62 win team it doesn't mean they'll go 82-0. That's for a number of reasons, including that wins get increasingly harder to get the higher the win total is. The improvement from a 20 win team to a 40 win team is exponentially easier than the improvement from a 40 win team to a 60 win team. Also just the grind of the RS, guys having random off nights, other teams having hot nights, back to backs, etc.

Shaq having all these teams play at a 60+ win pace when he's there is objectively much more impressive than those teams playing like 46 win teams without him (leaving aside whether those are the numbers we should be using).

I also find your arguments disingenuous as usual. You describe the Warriors in 65 as playing like a 13 win team without Wilt... ok, but dude, they only won 17 in total, so is that supposed to be complementary to Wilt? The Warriors were 11-33 when they traded Wilt, and he'd played 38 games for them at that point. They only played 10-28 with him, a 21 win pace. It is not a compliment to Wilt to say 'look, he turned them from a 13 win team into a 21 win team!'

Shaq also definitely anchored teams better than Wilt did, because Wilt's teams would have been vastly worse playing from 94 to 05. Shaq didn't have the luxury of playing in the horrible era that was the 60s.

[70sFan]

I think what you're missing here is the law of diminishing returns. Let's say Shaq is worth 20 wins. If you add him to a 62 win team it doesn't mean they'll go 82-0. That's for a number of reasons, including that wins get increasingly harder to get the higher the win total is. The improvement from a 20 win team to a 40 win team is exponentially easier than the improvement from a 40 win team to a 60 win team. Also just the grind of the RS, guys having random off nights, other teams having hot nights, back to backs, etc.

What are you talking about? Why do you change the topic of our conversation? My post was the response to your statement that Shaq never played on losing teams.

Please explain me how the law of diminishing results answer to the fact that Shaq consistently played on good teams that produced positive records without him, so we haven't seen him playing on bad ones.

Of course you can argue that Shaq lifts are more impressive all things concerned, but it's not the topic of our discussion. Diminishing results don't explain the fact that Shaq teams would have made the playoffs without him and Wilt's Warriors teams would have been horrible without him. The explaination is far easier - Shaq didn't play on bad teams, that's all.

Shaq having all these teams play at a 60+ win pace when he's there is objectively much more impressive than those teams playing like 46 win teams without him (leaving aside whether those are the numbers we should be using).

Who says otherwise? Nice strawman...

I also find your arguments disingenuous as usual. You describe the Warriors in 65 as playing like a 13 win team without Wilt... ok, but dude, they only won 17 in total, so is that supposed to be complementary to Wilt? The Warriors were 11-33 when they traded Wilt, and he'd played 38 games for them at that point. They only played 10-28 with him, a 21 win pace. It is not a compliment to Wilt to say 'look, he turned them from a 13 win team into a 21 win team!'

My point wasn't that Wilt had tremendous impact in 1964/65 RS - he didn't, he played with heart condition and had probably the worst RS of his career because of that. He missed a lot of games (which almost never happened in his prime), couldn't train consistently and considered retirement. That RS wasn't anywhere near close to average Shaq RS.

My point is different - we have seen the Warriors without him being the worst team in the league. We have seen them sucking even after the addition of rookie Rick Barry and the development of Nate Thurmond. These Warriors teams were absolutely horrible and we haven't seen prime Shaq playing on such horrible teams. You say that Shaq would never play on ~30 wins pace teams but we can't know that, because Shaq played on stacked rosters that consistently played at playoff level pace.

It doesn't make Shaq worse, but their team situations were much different and you don't take that into account.