Interesting article comparing the two, with quotes from some of Wilt's contemporaries: http://www.probasketballnews.com/friedman_0522.html
Good article and it's ironic because my dad was talking about Wilt vs. Shaq a couple of weeks ago....I never got a chance to see Wilt play, so my opinion probably doesn't mean much, but my dad (who watched him play) says that it's Wilt without a doubt.....he said that Wilt not only had a post up game, but he could also face you up and score (similar to Hakeem, who I think is better than Shaq also).....my personal opinion of Shaq is that he's a great player, but when he dominated there were no other premiere centers in the league at the time....that's why I put Kareem, Wilt, Hakeem >>> Shaq.
I'd put Kareem early in his career, Hakeem, Bill Russell, then Wilt just because of his attitude followed by shaq
I really wish I had a chance to see Kareem, Wilt, Malone, and Russell play, so I could add more to the convo.
I'd take wilt over any center even shaq, the stuff you read about him is crazy. not just the numbers but his athleticism did you know they banned dunking from the free-throw line for your foul shots because of him? Wilt reminds me of a seven-foot tall lebron james in terms of athleticism.
The eras are too different. Shaq went up against better competition than Wilt did. Can anyone honestly say Wilt would average 50/24 in the 90's?
^^ i totally agree, and if wilt was soooo great which his stats were why couldn't he beat Bill. He was obsessed with himself. He used to argue with the stat guys at haftime of almost every game that he had more points boards etc.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Bobcats:</div><div class="quote_post">The eras are too different. Shaq went up against better competition than Wilt did. Can anyone honestly say Wilt would average 50/24 in the 90's?</div> No he couldn't but 35 and 15 defenetly, that would still make him the best center in the league. Wilt did have good competition bill rusell, nate thurmond, a young kareem. As for shaq he got lucky by the time he was in his prime all the great centers were either retired or old i.e ewing, hakeem, robinson. During the laker dynasty years who was he facing? vlade divac and sabonis? As for why he couldn't beat rusell his teams sucked compared to bill's, its still a team game.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Brasco:</div><div class="quote_post">No he couldn't but 35 and 15 defenetly, that would still make him the best center in the league.</div> 35 and 15? Even if he was playing with Kobe or Wade? You could argue that Shaq actually benefits from always getting to play with an elite guard, but you could also argue that it has hurts his stats.
Justin Kubatko, who runs basketball-reference.com, calculated "equivalent statistics" (the concept is described here) for Chamberlain and some other centers recently. It doesn't necessarily tell you what he'd average if he played today (the game is played very differently now, after all), but the idea is still interesting. Basically, it looks at their numbers in various statistical categories relative to players in their era, and adjusts for that to figure out what his stats would be "equivalent" to in 2006. The details are described in the link above. Here are his results, looking at the top 10 seasons of four all time great centers: <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/><font color=""Navy"">PlayerGMPFG%FT%RebAstPFPts</font><br/>Russell76742.548.8%54.2%15.23.82.013.2<br/>Wilt80546.756.7%52.2%15.84.11.329.8<br/>Kareem79340.956.5%69.0%11.53.72.728.0<br/>Shaq74137.459.0%53.2%11.32.53.428.3<br/></div> Blocks and steals are ommitted since they weren't recorded for Wilt and Russell. It's probable that they would have had been leading in blocks by a wide margin, even after the adjustment.
How many people averaged crazy numbers like Wilt in his era? I don't think there was any, so you have to understand he must have been pretty special. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post">You could argue that Shaq actually benefits from always getting to play with an elite guard, but you could also argue that it has hurts his stats.</div> How does it hurt his stats? Sure he doesn't get as many points, but he gets the ball in better scoring places more. Even if Shaq played with a bad gaurd, I doubt he would average 35+ points a game. All the other stastical categories would stay the same.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Laker_fan:</div><div class="quote_post">How does it hurt his stats? Sure he doesn't get as many points.</div> I think you just answered your own quetion. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post"> Basically, it looks at their numbers in various statistical categories relative to players in their era, and adjusts for that to figure out what his stats would be "equivalent" to in 2006. </div> By "relative to players in their era" do you mean that it looks on their percentiles? So If a player was in the 95 percentile in scoring during their era, does that mean that it would assume that they would be in the 95 percentile today? If so, I strongly disagree with that stat. It leaves no room for the possibility of a player to revolutionize the game, or conversely be completely hindered by the modern day style of play (which you already mentioned, so I'm agreeing with you here).
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post"> By "relative to players in their era" do you mean that it looks on their percentiles? So If a player was in the 95 percentile in scoring during their era, does that mean that it would assume that they would be in the 95 percentile today? If so, I strongly disagree with that stat.</div> Sort of. The method is a bit smarter than that. For a given stat (say, points per minute scored), it uses the number of standard deviations from the league average. Again, the details are here. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">It leaves no room for the possibility of a player to revolutionize the game, or conversely be completely hindered by the modern day style of play (which you already mentioned, so I'm agreeing with you here).</div> Like it says in the link, it's not meant to rigorously predict what the player would be getting if he played today, but rather what his stats are "equivalent to". It's a subtle but important distinction. Basically, the idea is if you want to compare stats of players in different eras, you should at least adjust them by using the equivalent stats method. There's still other differences that should be taken into account in the final evaluation, as you point out.
plus wilt was sooooo much bigger than anyone around that was good. and he didn't perform against bill, he pretty much gave up whenever he played him. The guy had no passion for the game. He wanted to be considered the best ever, so he worked on his stats. And where is mikan in this discussion the guy won 5 championships in 6 years, and the one year mpls didn't win mikan was hurt. This guy had the nba change rules for him. The rim was moved to 12 feet! they made the lane wider (i think, or skinnier, whichever hurt him?) They banned dunking because of him. This guy was totally ambedexrious, he was the first and maybe had the most polished post game ever.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Bobcats:</div><div class="quote_post">The eras are too different. Shaq went up against better competition than Wilt did. Can anyone honestly say Wilt would average 50/24 in the 90's?</div> Shaq has 0 competition!!!!!!!!!!!! In the 90s when he had some competition he wasn't the best center. Olajuwon was. He kicked Shaq's ass. Wilt kicked everyones ass including Russell. He even got 55 rebounds against Russell!
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting NBA MAN:</div><div class="quote_post">Shaq has 0 competition!!!!!!!!!!!! In the 90s when he had some competition he wasn't the best center. Olajuwon was. He kicked Shaq's ass. Wilt kicked everyones ass including Russell. He even got 55 rebounds against Russell!</div> Wilt had to go against Russell, that's it. Shaq had to go up against Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson etc. Their was way more quality at the C position in the 90's, then in the 60's.
^^ Don't forget Zo IN HIS PRIME when he was even more of a beast and was a threat offensively as well. I think Shaq is the best center ever. He played against more talent and changed the way defenses attack him.
