Russell, Kareem and...Shaq?

[SWC75]

Shaquille O'Neal rates himself the #3 center of all time, ahead of Wilt Chamberlain, who he rates as #4, then Olajuwon, Robinson, and Ewing.

Shaq ranks himself as the third best center of all time

Shaq never saw the day he was better than Wilt. He might top the next groups but that's it.

 

[MikeSU02]

Shaquille O'Neal rates himself the #3 center of all time, ahead of Wilt Chamberlain, who he rates as #4, then Olajuwon, Robinson, and Ewing.

Shaq ranks himself as the third best center of all time

Shaq never saw the day he was better than Wilt. He might top the next groups but that's it.

He ranked them by titles.

 

[skurey]

I'll take him 2 behind Kareem.

 

[orangenauburn]

I never saw wilt, but Shaq was so dominant, they invented hack a Shaq to slow him down.

Now off the court Wilt was number one by a mile

Also Wilt wouldn't average 22 boards a game in Shaq's era. Shaq faced Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Dikembe, Mourning, Cartwright, Divac, Sabonis, etc almost nightly.

 

[MCC]

A defensible stack rank, in my opinion:

1. Kareem - inarguably a top tier scorer, excellent defender and rebounder, very good passer, solid FT shooter, clutch during endgames, tremendous longevity, won at every level. Faced Wilt, Thurmond, Walton, Sampson + Olajuwon, and won Finals MVP by owning Boston's vaunted frontcourt in the 1985 championship series at the age of (I think) 38. Flawless resume.

2. Shaq - excellent footwork and surprisingly mobile given his mass, good defender when fully engaged, capable passer, dominated multiple Finals series. Awful FT shooter. Played against a fairly robust set of opposing centers. Could've had an even better resume if he'd kept himself in shape.

3. Wilt - tremendous scorer but offensive repertoire was limited (footwork and pivot play not nearly as sophisticated as Shaq, for example), very good passer, excellent defender. Awful FT shooter (in the 38% range some seasons, and playoffs). Numbers inflated by insane mpg (averaged 48.5 one year), the league's general FG% incompetence in the 60s, and high pace of game: far more rebounds to go around, and so on. Failed to dominate Finals, and playoff scoring stats not nearly as gaudy as regular season. His Finals scoring numbers are particularly puzzling at roughly 19ppg and 38% from the line. Limited to 11.7 and 11.6ppg respectively in the 1969 and 1973 Finals (both losses). Faced robust competition at center (Reed, Thurmond, Lucas, etc.) but many would be considered undersized compared to today;s game. All this said, Wilt was likely the greatest athlete out of all the top centers (excelled in track, volleyball, etc.) - but the game simply wasn't as sophisticated back then, and skill sets fall far short of modern players.

4. Olajuwon - incredible footwork and agility, dazzling post moves, very polished offensive game, arguably the greatest shot blocker if one adjusts for evolution of the league from the 60s to the 90s, solid FT shooter. Excelled in Finals series. Faced and fared very well against Shaq; pretty much owned Ewing.

5. Russell - the consummate teammate and winner; perhaps the greatest defender of all time. Very limited offensively. Terrific rebounder, very good passer. Awful FT shooter (but still better than Wilt). Playoff stats better than regular season. Excelled in Finals series. Stats inflated due to mpg (mid-40's most seasons), pace of game... all the same factors the affect Chamberlain's numbers. Given the evolution of the game, one might consider ranking Russell on the list of PFs, either #1 or #2 behind Duncan. Won at every level. Faced and fared well against Wilt; remainder of competition at center solid but undersized by today's standards. Skill level just not as sophisticated / polished. Similar to Wilt, tremendous athlete. Would've been a terror at PF today.

 

[SWC75]

A defensible stack rank, in my opinion:

1. Kareem - inarguably a top tier scorer, excellent defender and rebounder, very good passer, solid FT shooter, clutch during endgames, tremendous longevity, won at every level. Faced Wilt, Thurmond, Walton, Sampson + Olajuwon, and won Finals MVP by owning Boston's vaunted frontcourt in the 1985 championship series at the age of (I think) 38. Flawless resume.

2. Shaq - excellent footwork and surprisingly mobile given his mass, good defender when fully engaged, capable passer, dominated multiple Finals series. Awful FT shooter. Played against a fairly robust set of opposing centers. Could've had an even better resume if he'd kept himself in shape.

3. Wilt - tremendous scorer but offensive repertoire was limited (footwork and pivot play not nearly as sophisticated as Shaq, for example), very good passer, excellent defender. Awful FT shooter (in the 38% range some seasons, and playoffs). Numbers inflated by insane mpg (averaged 48.5 one year), the league's general FG% incompetence in the 60s, and high pace of game: far more rebounds to go around, and so on. Failed to dominate Finals, and playoff scoring stats not nearly as gaudy as regular season. His Finals scoring numbers are particularly puzzling at roughly 19ppg and 38% from the line. Limited to 11.7 and 11.6ppg respectively in the 1969 and 1973 Finals (both losses). Faced robust competition at center (Reed, Thurmond, Lucas, etc.) but many would be considered undersized compared to today;s game. All this said, Wilt was likely the greatest athlete out of all the top centers (excelled in track, volleyball, etc.) - but the game simply wasn't as sophisticated back then, and skill sets fall far short of modern players.

4. Olajuwon - incredible footwork and agility, dazzling post moves, very polished offensive game, arguably the greatest shot blocker if one adjusts for evolution of the league from the 60s to the 90s, solid FT shooter. Excelled in Finals series. Faced and fared very well against Shaq; pretty much owned Ewing.

5. Russell - the consummate teammate and winner; perhaps the greatest defender of all time. Very limited offensively. Terrific rebounder, very good passer. Awful FT shooter (but still better than Wilt). Playoff stats better than regular season. Excelled in Finals series. Stats inflated due to mpg (mid-40's most seasons), pace of game... all the same factors the affect Chamberlain's numbers. Given the evolution of the game, one might consider ranking Russell on the list of PFs, either #1 or #2 behind Duncan. Won at every level. Faced and fared well against Wilt; remainder of competition at center solid but undersized by today's standards. Skill level just not as sophisticated / polished. Similar to Wilt, tremendous athlete. Would've been a terror at PF today.

Wilt would be a greater player today but wouldn't have the same numbers because of the difference in eras. he was much more mobile than Shaq and a better jump shooter. He was a guy who, with a running start could dunk from the foul line and tired to do that as an alternative to his free throw shooting but they outlawed it. he'd have to use more of his athletic ability and skills in this era and would thus be regarded as a more spectacular player. 6-11 270 Bob Lanier said that Wilt moved him around "like a teacup". He didn't score late in his career because he was trying to emulate Russell and it worked because it got him a couple of championships. Sharing the ball is just a better way to win and Wilt actually led the league in assists one year. He wouldn't be a 50/25 man as he was in his prime, (50 points, 25 rebounds). But he would be at least a 30/15 guy and a dazzling one at that.

 

[MCC]

Wilt would be a greater player today but wouldn't have the same numbers because of the difference in eras. he was much more mobile than Shaq and a better jump shooter. He was a guy who, with a running start could dunk from the foul line and tired to do that as an alternative to his free throw shooting but they outlawed it. he'd have to use more of his athletic ability and skills in this era and would thus be regarded as a more spectacular player. 6-11 270 Bob Lanier said that Wilt moved him around "like a teacup". He didn't score late in his career because he was trying to emulate Russell and it worked because it got him a couple of championships. Sharing the ball is just a better way to win and Wilt actually led the league in assists one year. He wouldn't be a 50/25 man as he was in his prime, (50 points, 25 rebounds). But he would be at least a 30/15 guy and a dazzling one at that.

I concur Wilt was more mobile than Shaq, but maintain (significant) advantage Shaq WRT footwork, general offensive polish, and overarching skill set: the game just wasn't as sophisticated. While impressive that Lanier felt less than rooted, we're not talking about offensive linemen here (you'd think Russell - at 6'10, 220ish - would've been wiped out in their individual matchups). Wilt's obviously a much better athlete than Shaq (I too heard tell of his FT line dunking exploits), but the gap in skill (due to evolution of the game) is just too great.

RE: scoring less to emulate Russell: the data show that it didn't really work out well, given the Finals losses in 1969 and 1973, where (per my first post) he averaged 11.7 and 11.6ppg respectively. Again, his Finals stats - and playoff ppg across the board - really pale in comparison to RS numbers. This really gives me pause; the truly 'great' ones shine brightest in the post-season and especially the Finals.

Now, if we craft a hypothetical that involves hitting a 'reset' button such that Wilt is born the same year as Shaq... I suspect Wilt leapfrogs Shaq in the stack rank - assuming no major dropoff in Finals performance.

While I'm not Shaq's biggest fan (his lackadaisical approach to conditioning particularly irks me) I think it's very difficult to build a compelling case that superstars from the 60s are truly better players than modern stars - simply because the skill sets are vastly superior now, and you're talking players that are several inches taller at each position (although at 7'1" it's not an issue with Wilt). A bridge too far so to speak, absent the hypothetical 'restart' button I mentioned above.

 

[SWC75]

I concur Wilt was more mobile than Shaq, but maintain (significant) advantage Shaq WRT footwork, general offensive polish, and overarching skill set: the game just wasn't as sophisticated. While impressive that Lanier felt less than rooted, we're not talking about offensive linemen here (you'd think Russell - at 6'10, 220ish - would've been wiped out in their individual matchups). Wilt's obviously a much better athlete than Shaq (I too heard tell of his FT line dunking exploits), but the gap in skill (due to evolution of the game) is just too great.

RE: scoring less to emulate Russell: the data show that it didn't really work out well, given the Finals losses in 1969 and 1973, where (per my first post) he averaged 11.7 and 11.6ppg respectively. Again, his Finals stats - and playoff ppg across the board - really pale in comparison to RS numbers. This really gives me pause; the truly 'great' ones shine brightest in the post-season and especially the Finals.

Now, if we craft a hypothetical that involves hitting a 'reset' button such that Wilt is born the same year as Shaq... I suspect Wilt leapfrogs Shaq in the stack rank - assuming no major dropoff in Finals performance.

While I'm not Shaq's biggest fan (his lackadaisical approach to conditioning particularly irks me) I think it's very difficult to build a compelling case that superstars from the 60s are truly better players than modern stars - simply because the skill sets are vastly superior now, and you're talking players that are several inches taller at each position (although at 7'1" it's not an issue with Wilt). A bridge too far so to speak, absent the hypothetical 'restart' button I mentioned above.

I think Wilt showed a pretty good skill set in that clip. And the 76ers went 68-13 with him emulating Russell, whose team they beat in 5 games and the Lakers went 69-13 and won 33 in a row and they also won the finals over the Knicks, also in 5. If he's emulating Russell you aren't going to judge him by points scored. And as the clip said, when the writer suggested he couldn't score any more, he'd throw down 50 on somebody and shut them up. You can blame he and those teams for not sustaining it the next year but both those teams won 60+ games.

 

[Knicks411]

I think Wilt more than any player from the 60's would translate to the modern game. The guy was a freak athlete. I think he and Shaq are pretty good comps, to be honest.

 

[MikeSU02]

I think Wilt more than any player from the 60's would translate to the modern game. The guy was a freak athlete. I think he and Shaq are pretty good comps, to be honest.

The only thing that held Wilt back from being the best ever were the non-physical things and the teams he was on (how much you blame him for that, up for debate).

I wish I got to see him live because he was such an amazing athlete that definitely would have been awesome now.

 

[Knicks411]

The only thing that held Wilt back from being the best ever were the non-physical things and the teams he was on (how much you blame him for that, up for debate).

I wish I got to see him live because he was such an amazing athlete that definitely would have been awesome now.

I have no basis for saying any of this, I was born more than a decade after he retired, but...

it seems to me early in his career he was obsessed with getting his numbers. The late 60's early 70's Wilt, the guy who lead the league in assists (of course, that was to prove he could do it; again, playing for stats, just different ones), if he was closer to that player earlier in his career, he may have won another title or two. (Granted the Celtics were a dynasty)

To me, there's no good reason that Wilt shouldn't have been the greatest player of all time. But he wasn't, for whatever reason.

 

[MikeSU02]

I have no basis for saying any of this, I was born more than a decade after he retired, but...

it seems to me early in his career he was obsessed with getting his numbers. The late 60's early 70's Wilt, the guy who lead the league in assists (of course, that was to prove he could do it; again, playing for stats, just different ones), if he was closer to that player earlier in his career, he may have won another title or two. (Granted the Celtics were a dynasty)

To me, there's no good reason that Wilt shouldn't have been the greatest player of all time. But he wasn't, for whatever reason.

Kind of like Shaq (even though I don't think Shaq ever was the top end athlete Wilt was)... I think he really enjoyed basketball, but he also enjoyed rapping, acting, etc. If he had MJ's drive, who knows how many more titles he has.

 

[SWC75]

In the beginning, basketball was a team sport because no individuals played it well enough to focus strategy on them. Then, when players got good enough to specialize in the sport, teams would try to get star players and feed the ball to them. If you ahd a star and the other team didn't. you won because your star would out-score the guy assigned to him by more than the other players could make up for. If both teams had a star, they'd be on the marquee, not the teams and it would be a battle of which star could out-perform the other. That was the state of the NBA when Wilt came on the scene and he was the biggest star. So he and his team concentrate don maximizing his numbers.

But Boston had Bill Russell, a great player who was not a great scorer. he was a defensive and rebounding star. So Red Auerbach focused the team's strategy on using their defense to get the ball and then beating the other team down the court with the fast break. they hit the open man, whoever it was and everybody scored 15-20 points a game. They ran every team in the NBA off the court, a defensive oriented team who scored more than any team ever has. The result was 11 championships in 13 years.

Without the Celtics, Wilt would have been the centerpiece of a dynasty of his won and would probably have won as many or more titles than Shaq or Mikan or Kareem. His teams would always finish second to the Celtics, typically with the second best record in the league and lose to them in the playoffs. Finally, he ceded the scoring title to the Rick Barrys of the world and started playing more like Russell and they beat Russell and the Celtics. he moved to LA to be part of a superstar triumvirate with West and Baylor but that couldn't beat the Celtics style so they revamped the team to play like the Celtics and they topped even the champion Sixers records for winning.

 

[MCC]

In the beginning, basketball was a team sport because no individuals played it well enough to focus strategy on them. Then, when players got good enough to specialize in the sport, teams would try to get star players and feed the ball to them. If you ahd a star and the other team didn't. you won because your star would out-score the guy assigned to him by more than the other players could make up for. If both teams had a star, they'd be on the marquee, not the teams and it would be a battle of which star could out-perform the other. That was the state of the NBA when Wilt came on the scene and he was the biggest star. So he and his team concentrate don maximizing his numbers.

But Boston had Bill Russell, a great player who was not a great scorer. he was a defensive and rebounding star. So Red Auerbach focused the team's strategy on using their defense to get the ball and then beating the other team down the court with the fast break. they hit the open man, whoever it was and everybody scored 15-20 points a game. They ran every team in the NBA off the court, a defensive oriented team who scored more than any team ever has. The result was 11 championships in 13 years.

Without the Celtics, Wilt would have been the centerpiece of a dynasty of his won and would probably have won as many or more titles than Shaq or Mikan or Kareem. His teams would always finish second to the Celtics, typically with the second best record in the league and lose to them in the playoffs. Finally, he ceded the scoring title to the Rick Barrys of the world and started playing more like Russell and they beat Russell and the Celtics. he moved to LA to be part of a superstar triumvirate with West and Baylor but that couldn't beat the Celtics style so they revamped the team to play like the Celtics and they topped even the champion Sixers records for winning.

This reads well as an opinion piece, but frankly not much fact / data / compelling logic here to support the subtle pro-Wilt thesis you're holding fast to.

1. I'd argue that Mikan was sufficiently dominant to build a strategy around, and the Minn. Lakers won multiple titles as a result. Players like Arizin, Pettit, et al. were also fairly dominant. The 1960s Lakers had Baylor, West, Hazzard, Goodrich... who of course faced (and lost to) the Celtics in the Finals several times. Not sure your historical observation accurately describes the state of the NBA at the time, as it appears the star v. star dynamic wasn't truly the core philosophy of the better teams.

2. Agree with your take on the Celtics. System prevails over individual (or two man) star power.

3. Projecting Wilt's title total sans Russell is purely hypothetical, and . The Knicks may have embodied the Celtician system (focus on defense, passing, pace) better than the Lakers once Wilt joined, and won 2 titles to the Lakers' 1 in the early 70s. In '63 his Warriors couldn't get past the Lakers, so removing the Celtics from the equation wouldn't have gifted him another ring. Russell et al. were removed from the equation from 1970 - 73, and Wilt's team only took home one title. If the Celtics hadn't been in the way of Wilt's PHI teams in '65, '66, and '68, could PHI have taken down the Lakers? I'd be hard pressed to make a case. In sum, the data doesn't indicate Wilt would've ended up with 5 - 6 rings absent Rusell's Celtics.

Hope this doesn't come across as overly contentious, but rather a set of counterpoints based on available facts / data / logic.

 

[SWC75]

This reads well as an opinion piece, but frankly not much fact / data / compelling logic here to support the subtle pro-Wilt thesis you're holding fast to.

1. I'd argue that Mikan was sufficiently dominant to build a strategy around, and the Minn. Lakers won multiple titles as a result. Players like Arizin, Pettit, et al. were also fairly dominant. The 1960s Lakers had Baylor, West, Hazzard, Goodrich... who of course faced (and lost to) the Celtics in the Finals several times. Not sure your historical observation accurately describes the state of the NBA at the time, as it appears the star v. star dynamic wasn't truly the core philosophy of the better teams.

2. Agree with your take on the Celtics. System prevails over individual (or two man) star power.

3. Projecting Wilt's title total sans Russell is purely hypothetical, and . The Knicks may have embodied the Celtician system (focus on defense, passing, pace) better than the Lakers once Wilt joined, and won 2 titles to the Lakers' 1 in the early 70s. In '63 his Warriors couldn't get past the Lakers, so removing the Celtics from the equation wouldn't have gifted him another ring. Russell et al. were removed from the equation from 1970 - 73, and Wilt's team only took home one title. If the Celtics hadn't been in the way of Wilt's PHI teams in '65, '66, and '68, could PHI have taken down the Lakers? I'd be hard pressed to make a case. In sum, the data doesn't indicate Wilt would've ended up with 5 - 6 rings absent Rusell's Celtics.

Hope this doesn't come across as overly contentious, but rather a set of counterpoints based on available facts / data / logic.

Wilt was certainly "sufficiently dominant to build a strategy around". he was clealry better than Mikan, Arziin or Pettit. Gail Goodrich didn't become a star until he went to Phoenix and then came back to the Lakers in the 70's. Similarly Hazzard became a star briefly with Seattle after he's been a reserve for the Lakers. The NBA , aside for the Celtics was certainly star oriented. The year Wilt scored 50 per game, Baylor scored 38 a game, Bellamy 32, Pettit 31, Robertson and West 31, Guerin 29.5, etc. The Celtic's leading scorer was Tommy Heinsohn at 22ppg. it was well known that the East was the dominant conference at the time and Wilt's Warrior and Sixer teams would have been favored over the western teams in most years. Of course, he was briefly in the west when the Warrior moved to San Francisco and it was the Warriors that met the Celtics in the finals. The Knicks did embody much fo what the Celtics did and it helped them win those two titles but they weren't 69-13 and they lost in five games to the Lakers that year. The Sixers had the best record in the league, including the Celtics in 1966-68. They would certainly have been favored over the Lakers each year.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Wilt: Led league in scoring and rebounding many times and also, when critics complained he didn't pass, led the league in assists.
I might rate Kareem ahead of him, but only Kareem.

 

[Knicks411]

Kind of like Shaq (even though I don't think Shaq ever was the top end athlete Wilt was)... I think he really enjoyed basketball, but he also enjoyed rapping, acting, etc. If he had MJ's drive, who knows how many more titles he has.

Yup, thats why I think Shaq and Wilt are such good comps. The most physically dominant players of their era, all time great careers, but still left you thinking they had more to give

 

[MikeSU02]

Shaquille O'Neal rates himself the #3 center of all time, ahead of Wilt Chamberlain, who he rates as #4, then Olajuwon, Robinson, and Ewing.

Shaq ranks himself as the third best center of all time

Shaq never saw the day he was better than Wilt. He might top the next groups but that's it.

SWC75 - thought you may find this thread on NBA Reddit interesting: