Shaq in the 60s

[Sdot thadon]

It is said that Russell and Chamberlain were better players than all of the big men. Russell's rings and Wilt's records are the usual main points of that side of the argument. I'm not a big Shaq fan, but I don't really buy into the myth of the 60s. Did a bit of research and found out some interesting things:

Shaq vs. Wilt

I used for intended purposes the highest scoring season of their respective careers. (Can't hold blocks and steals against Wilt since they weren't tallied back then.)

Wilt 61-62
ppg: 50.4
rpg: 25.7
ast: 2.4
fg%: .506
fg att per game: 39.5

Shaq 99-00
ppg: 29.7
rpg: 13.6
ast: 3.8
fg%: .574
fg att per game: 21.1

Wilt attempted nearly twice as many fg per. In theory, with as many attempts as Wilt in a modern season Shaq puts up 50.8 per game.

Some say rebounding numbers were inflated in the 60s due to more possesions ie:faster pace. Here's proof depending on how you look at it.

Top 5 rebounders in 61-62 season (nearly 4 players with 20 rpg)
1. Wilt Chamberlain*-PHW 27.2
2. Bill Russell*-BOS 23.9
3. Bob Pettit*-STL 20.3
4. Elgin Baylor*-LAL 19.8
5. Bailey Howell*-DET 14.4

Top 5 rebounders in 99-00 season
1. Dikembe Mutombo-ATL 14.1
2. Shaquille O'Neal-LAL 13.6
3. Tim Duncan-SAS 12.4
4. Kevin Garnett-MIN 11.8
5. Chris Webber-SAC 10.5

By the way,in 61-62 there were 3 or 4 centers in the league that played starters minutes over 6'9.

And most of Wilt's other monster years consisted of similar conditions. This is just the tip of the iceberg though. So I think it's fair to say Shaq would be able to do things as well if not better than Wilt did in his day.


And just for kicks:

Bill Russell vs. Ben Wallace

In no way am I saying Big Ben is even close to Russell as an all around player, it's no comparison. I used these stats to prove a point.

Russell 61-62
ppg: 18.9
rpg: 23.6
ast: 4.5
fg%: .457 (Russell never shot 50% a season in his career)
fga: 16.6

Big Ben 02-03
ppg: 6.9
rpg: 15.4
ast: 1.6
fg%: .481
fga: 6.0

In theory, with the same number of attempts big ben puts up 17 a game.

Does this prove numbers from the 60s are inflated? Maybe, maybe not. Good food for thought for those who think Wilt and Russell were leaps and bounds better than Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson or whoever else comes to mind. Comments?

[Basileus777]

Shaq would need to lose a lot of weight to play in the 60s, but if he did it he could dominate. I don't know if he'd be Wilt or put up 50/25, but he'd still be unstoppable.

[Number34]

Shaq would need to lose a lot of weight to play in the 60s, but if he did it he could dominate. I don't know if he'd be Wilt or put up 50/25, but he'd still be unstoppable.

Why? Just for the aesthetics of him fitting in with the other centres?

[Basileus777]

-= original quote snipped =-



Why? Just for the aesthetics of him fitting in with the other centres?

The pace of the game. I don't think Shaq could keep up with the pace of the 60s without shedding some weight.

[Sdot thadon]

Good point. I think Shaq ran the floor ok for his size. He'd be virtually unguardable with the ball down low though.

[chrice]

Shaq from Orlando or Shaq from the Lakers would have dominated in the 60s. He's way too strong compared to the average athlete back then. Even with handchecking, he'd be able to back down most centers. On top of that, with the 5 second rule not in place, he'd get to the basket almost every time.

[shawngoat23]

I don't think he would. His talent would still make him very good, but the game was much different then. It didn't rely on feeding the ball in the post so much and it was a very fast-paced game, none of which work in Shaq's favor.

He'd still be good, but there is absolutely no way he dominates like Wilt on the offensive end. He'd be even worse on the defensive end because the game in the 60s didn't emphasize penetration and post as much, which means the one thing he's really good at--clogging the paint--is devalued.

[Reks]

He'd be good. But not Wilt good. I'd like see that offensive showdown.
Bill Russel vs Shaq would be sick.

[Sdot thadon]

Who would stop Shaq though? Wilt was the heaviest in the league at 275 and out weighed the next biggest guy by 35-40 lbs. Shaq weighed 25 more than Wilt in his good days. You would have players smaller than Lebron guarding a prime Shaq every night. ouch.

[wigglestrue]

Who would stop Shaq though? Wilt was the heaviest in the league at 275 and out weighed the next biggest guy by 35-40 lbs. Shaq weighed 25 more than Wilt in his good days. You would have players smaller than Lebron guarding a prime Shaq every night. ouch.

[NO-KG-AI]

Who would stop Shaq though? Wilt was the heaviest in the league at 275 and out weighed the next biggest guy by 35-40 lbs. Shaq weighed 25 more than Wilt in his good days. You would have players smaller than Lebron guarding a prime Shaq every night. ouch.

LOL

Anyway, Shaq would definitely benefit from being able to stay in the lane. I think he would have a better shooting percentage than Wilt and similar offensive production, because Shaq was never shy about being called a brute or unskilled or whatever. Wilt wanted to prove he could overpower and out skill you sometimes, Shaq wanted to be your daddy.

[ronnymac2]

^^^^^^ yea that statement is not true. you got russell, nasty nate, wilt, bellamy, and others who were very physically imposing at center. It's not that they are less capable of guarding shaq then people today. But to me, all of them would be as helpless as the people who did guard shaq.

All these things about the pace killing shaq is ridiculous. Shaq is one of the best running centers of his generation, at least on the offensive end. To me, he'd thrive at that 60's pace. In orlando and in his prime in la, he constantly ran down the court, set up quickly, pinned his man, got the ball, and bam; he's actually more dangerous on the run because its harder for a defense to collapse on him and he can get better position. I don't think his weight would be a problem, at least not until late in his career.

I don't think he'd be as good a rebounder as wilt or russell though. Maybe if he really tried he could. And i think he'd be close. But i say they still get more rebounds; and i'm a shaq fan lol. He'd be an excellent passing center though, as he is now. I think he gets more assists than nowadays. He'd be a bill russell type passer in the halfcourt, except in the low post instead of the high post. Scoring wise, i think he'd average what wilt did, would shoot maybe a bit higher percentage simply because he likes shooting higher percentage shots than wilt did, and would suck at free throws, just as wilt and russell did. lol

As for shaq vs. wilt, head-to head, well idk. I can only say itd probably be like shaq vs. hakeem. They wouldn't stop each other really. Their both just too dam good to be stopped.

shaq vs. russell would be interesting. i dunno, i dont think russell has a chance at stopping shaq one on one, just like he couldnt to wilt. But i can still see russell's teams beating shaq's teams. lol

and i forgot about defense. lol like rebounding, shaq wouldn't be what russell was. and wouldn't be what wilt was late in his career. But he'd still be heralded today as a great shotblocker and good defender. Shawngoat made a good point about shaq's ability to clog the lane becoming not as important. However, to me, that lack of penetration also means not as much pick-n-roll, his weakness on d.

So yes, i do believe he'd dominate just fine in the 60's. I'm not saying that because of the 60's; i'm saying it because shaq was that good. just like i think wilt and russell would be dominant today. Russel and wilt wouldn't get those same numbers like they did, obviously, but they'd be dominant.

[ronnymac2]

btw, my first paragraph was directed at the statement about lil guys smaller than lebron guarding at center, not u no-kg-ai. lol

[tkb]

Early career Shaq (the Orlando version) would have no problems what so ever dominating in the 60s. Shaq was a tremendous athlete early in his career, and he could get up and down the court as well as just about any big man.

[Warspite]

It is said that Russell and Chamberlain were better players than all of the big men. Russell's rings and Wilt's records are the usual main points of that side of the argument. I'm not a big Shaq fan, but I don't really buy into the myth of the 60s. Did a bit of research and found out some interesting things:

Shaq vs. Wilt

I used for intended purposes the highest scoring season of their respective careers. (Can't hold blocks and steals against Wilt since they weren't tallied back then.)

Wilt 61-62
ppg: 50.4
rpg: 25.7
ast: 2.4
fg%: .506
fg att per game: 39.5

Shaq 99-00
ppg: 29.7
rpg: 13.6
ast: 3.8
fg%: .574
fg att per game: 21.1

Wilt attempted nearly twice as many fg per. In theory, with as many attempts as Wilt in a modern season Shaq puts up 50.8 per game.

Some say rebounding numbers were inflated in the 60s due to more possesions ie:faster pace. Here's proof depending on how you look at it.

Top 5 rebounders in 61-62 season (nearly 4 players with 20 rpg)
1. Wilt Chamberlain*-PHW 27.2
2. Bill Russell*-BOS 23.9
3. Bob Pettit*-STL 20.3
4. Elgin Baylor*-LAL 19.8
5. Bailey Howell*-DET 14.4

Top 5 rebounders in 99-00 season
1. Dikembe Mutombo-ATL 14.1
2. Shaquille O'Neal-LAL 13.6
3. Tim Duncan-SAS 12.4
4. Kevin Garnett-MIN 11.8
5. Chris Webber-SAC 10.5

By the way,in 61-62 there were 3 or 4 centers in the league that played starters minutes over 6'9.

And most of Wilt's other monster years consisted of similar conditions. This is just the tip of the iceberg though. So I think it's fair to say Shaq would be able to do things as well if not better than Wilt did in his day.


And just for kicks:

Bill Russell vs. Ben Wallace

In no way am I saying Big Ben is even close to Russell as an all around player, it's no comparison. I used these stats to prove a point.

Russell 61-62
ppg: 18.9
rpg: 23.6
ast: 4.5
fg%: .457 (Russell never shot 50% a season in his career)
fga: 16.6

Big Ben 02-03
ppg: 6.9
rpg: 15.4
ast: 1.6
fg%: .481
fga: 6.0

In theory, with the same number of attempts big ben puts up 17 a game.

Does this prove numbers from the 60s are inflated? Maybe, maybe not. Good food for thought for those who think Wilt and Russell were leaps and bounds better than Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson or whoever else comes to mind. Comments?

1. You need to do research on heights and weights. It appears your grossly ignorant on this subject (like many modern fans)

2. You need to do research on pace of the game.

3. You need to do research on the quality of Centers in the NBA which was a 8 team and then 10 team league. If the NBA has 6 HoF Cs and only has 8 teams then the avg quality of Center is much greater than the NBA that has 28-30 teams (unless you believe theres 26 HoF Centers playing today)

4. You need to do research on 1960s medicine and see what injuries/cures a 350lb player might have playing at a pace faster than any team has played outside of Magics Showtime and Westphal/Moes Nuggets in the last 30+ yrs.

5. You need to research the coaches/GMs of the 60s and look at what they required of there bigmen and what teams would take a chance on a player who is 100lbs overweight (in there mind not our)

6. You need to research how many games Shaq would miss each yr if he played the exact # of mins but played at the avg C pace of over 40 mins per game (which he has almost never done)? If Shaq played 10 more mins a game at a pace much faster w/o modern medicine wouldnt it be safe to say he would miss many more games a yr?

7. You need to research 1960s travel and its effects on 7 ft men. Replacing private jets with communter trains and lux coach busses with cabs.

8. You need to research the nutional info of the 60s and its players workout/nutrition and compare it to Shaq who has his own Dietition and workout gurus who have worked round the clock to contain his weight to about a 10lb per yr avg increase.

9. You need to research the caloric consumption of childern during WWII. How Shaq or any kid can be 275lbs when there food was rationed and in very short supply during many of there improtant growing yrs is very dubious.

10. You need to do research on the brutality of the NBA of the 1960s and how the rules differances would effect Shaqs game.

In conclusion

Shaq born 30+ yrs earlier is going to be shorter, weigh less and have a skill set completely differant being coached by 1950s coaches instead of 1980s. He might be better or worse but he assuredly would be very differant.

Shaq instantly transported form 92 to 62 would struggle at 1st to adapt to the rules,conditions, style, coaches and pace.

Under the 1st scenario IMHO Walt Bellamys career would be a good template for Shaq. An awsome start with huge stats but tapering off with a much shorter prime.

Under the 2nd scenario IMHO Shaqs carreer looks like a healthier Walton with a 1,2 big seasons and then injuries followed by healthier stretch of play at a level lower than his big seasons.

[ThaRegul8r]

One problem with that. It actually requires research. That would require too much work.

[KyleCleric]

Shaq would also not be able to do a lot of his offensive moves that he relies on as they would be either than offensive foul or traveling.

[Sdot thadon]

@warspite: all that was taken into consideration, but most of it does not apply since the conversation isn't about Shaq being born 30 years ago. A few things did jump out at me though:

1. You need to do research on heights and weights. It appears your grossly ignorant on this subject (like many modern fans)

I did before even posting this topic:

These are just a handfull of 60s players who would have to guard Shaq. Shaq versus Wilt would be epic, but what about everyone else?

Walt Bellamy 6-11 225lbs.

Wayne Embry 6-8 240lbs.

Red Kerr 6-9 230lbs.

Phil Jordon 6-10 205lbs.

Walter Dukes 7-0 220lbs.

Jerry Lucas 6-8 230lbs.

Nate Thurmond 6-11 225lbs.

Bill Russell 6-9 215lbs.

against:
Shaq 7-1 300lbs.

oh yeah:
Lebron 6-8 240lbs

Safe bet that most of those guys would be lost guarding Shaq in his prime.

3. You need to do research on the quality of Centers in the NBA which was a 8 team and then 10 team league. If the NBA has 6 HoF Cs and only has 8 teams then the avg quality of Center is much greater than the NBA that has 28-30 teams (unless you believe theres 26 HoF Centers playing today)

You could take it that way....or you could also say that with only 8 or 10 teams in the league, you have a much higher probability of becoming a HOFer. Far less competition individually.

10. You need to do research on the brutality of the NBA of the 1960s and how the rules differances would effect Shaqs game.

Brutality? Shaq probably got called for the most offensive fouls ever.

[wigglestrue]

DUDE. PLAYERS BACK THEN WERE MEASURED BAREFOOT. PLAYERS TODAY ARE MEASURED IN SNEAKERS. THOSE HEIGHTS FOR THE 60'S PLAYERS ARE ABOUT 1.5 INCHES SHORTER THAN THEY'D BE LISTED TODAY. Also, weights were taken when a player entered the league and were rarely adjusted. [/CONGRATULATIONS WIGGLESTRUE YOU ARE A WINNER, YOU ARE THE 100,000TH PERSON TO POINT THIS FACT OUT TO SOMEBODY ON THE PC BOARD!] (Sucks when you have to point it out to the same person over and over, though. Read, dude.)

[Basileus777]

I think both sides are going too far here. Some are underestimating the 60s and its competition, and the counterpoints to that have already been said.

But I think some of your are also underestimating Shaq. Yeah, he would probably have to shed some weight, but Shaq wasn't always 320+. And lets not forget that Wilt gained weight as his career went on and was still able to play insane minutes in that high pace era. Young Shaq was able to run the floor just fine, and if Shaq had stayed at that weight he would have been fine in the 60s. Great players like Shaq could dominate in any era. Even if he was only playing 37 minutes a game, he would still be a beast.