PDA

View Full Version : Wilt Chamberlain



MadVillainZay
10-05-2012, 11:02 PM
I've always wanted to ask this question. How well do you guys think Wilt Chamberlain would've played in today's league and what would've been his stats?

LakersMaster24
10-05-2012, 11:18 PM
He would still get like 25PPG and 13RPG easy.

PurpleJesus
10-05-2012, 11:29 PM
way too hard to know. I have asked this question about many players past, including Wilt, and have decided to just appreciate their dominance during the time they played.

UPRock
10-05-2012, 11:30 PM
^I agree, best center in the game today.

b@llhog24
10-05-2012, 11:32 PM
30 14 and 5.

Edit: Depends on his supporting cast.

b@llhog24
10-05-2012, 11:33 PM
^I agree, best center in the game today.

I'd hope that goes without saying.

amos1er
10-05-2012, 11:42 PM
I've always wanted to ask this question. How well do you guys think Wilt Chamberlain would've played in today's league and what would've been his stats?

I've often wondered this myself. I would say 27-30 ppg and 12-14 rpg at least, if we are talking about a prime Wilt. He would be the best center in the league for sure. Probly not as good defensively as Dwight, but his offense would more than make up for it.

Let me ask this question...who would be the better player in todays league...a prime Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, or Wilt? Also rank them in order. Here is mine...

1. Shaq
2. Kareem
3. Wilt
4. Hakeem

PurpleJesus
10-05-2012, 11:53 PM
I've often wondered this myself. I would say 27-30 ppg and 12-14 rpg at least, if we are talking about a prime Wilt. He would be the best center in the league for sure. Probly not as good defensively as Dwight, but his offense would more than make up for it.

Let me ask this question...who would be the better player in todays league...a prime Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, or Wilt? Also rank them in order. Here is mine...

1. Shaq
2. Kareem
3. Wilt
4. Hakeem

Wait, you are saying Wilt could average 30 points and 14 rebounds in todays NBA, but he would only be the 3rd best center?

Lakers4life08
10-05-2012, 11:55 PM
From what i wached on Youtube,he was shooting jumpers all the time,crazy becouse allways was thinking he was all about power and height

sixer04fan
10-06-2012, 12:01 AM
I've often wondered this myself. I would say 27-30 ppg and 12-14 rpg at least, if we are talking about a prime Wilt. He would be the best center in the league for sure. Probly not as good defensively as Dwight, but his offense would more than make up for it.

Let me ask this question...who would be the better player in todays league...a prime Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, or Wilt? Also rank them in order. Here is mine...

1. Shaq
2. Kareem
3. Wilt
4. Hakeem

Wait, you are saying Wilt could average 30 points and 14 rebounds in todays NBA, but he would only be the 3rd best center?

Haha. This

amos1er
10-06-2012, 12:10 AM
Wait, you are saying Wilt could average 30 points and 14 rebounds in todays NBA, but he would only be the 3rd best center?

No, I was comparing him to the other greats who also do not play in the league anymore. Figured I didn't have to be so specific to get my point across. :rolleyes:

Raps18-19 Champ
10-06-2012, 12:14 AM
He'd probably have stats similar to Kevin Love.

MetroMan
10-06-2012, 12:42 AM
He'd probably have stats similar to Kevin Love.

kevin love has shaq numbers but gets no love. :confused:

Wes_Craven
10-06-2012, 01:27 AM
I've often wondered this myself. I would say 27-30 ppg and 12-14 rpg at least, if we are talking about a prime Wilt. He would be the best center in the league for sure. Probly not as good defensively as Dwight, but his offense would more than make up for it.



Get the F outta here, Wilt was a beast defensively as well.

PurpleJesus
10-06-2012, 01:34 AM
No, I was comparing him to the other greats who also do not play in the league anymore. Figured I didn't have to be so specific to get my point across. :rolleyes:

So, out of curiosity...Shaq, and Kareem, who you have in front of Wilt...what would they average in todays game? Shaw is not too far from todays game, and didnt get 30 and 14...why is he ahead of Wilt?

JNA17
10-06-2012, 01:42 AM
He would be the best center in the game still.

There was an interesting article about Wilt's physique and how freaking ripped he was. I don't think I'm quite accurate but I recall hearing that Wilt could bench 500 pounds or something like that and was a great track runner to boot. In other words, you thought Lebron was a gifted athlete? Oh boy...

And add the fact that he would be getting to the free throw line a gazillion times in today's NBA and was pretty good there to boot.

Bill Russell on the other hand...just a good defensive power forward, nothing more.

asandhu23
10-06-2012, 01:54 AM
He would be the best center in the game still.

There was an interesting article about Wilt's physique and how freaking ripped he was. I don't think I'm quite accurate but I recall hearing that Wilt could bench 500 pounds or something like that and was a great track runner to boot. In other words, you thought Lebron was a gifted athlete? Oh boy...

And add the fact that he would be getting to the free throw line a gazillion times in today's NBA and was pretty good there to boot.

Bill Russell on the other hand...just a good defensive power forward, nothing more.

Had records at Kansas which have been beaten since.


and he was terrible at free throws. his one weakness. opponents knew that and used to try to foul as much as they could.

naps
10-06-2012, 02:58 AM
Best center in the league easily. His numbers wouldn't take a big hit; My guess is his rebounding would be little less like 16 per game but he would still average 30 points a game. And he was a monstrous defender as well. Many people underrate his defense because of the kind of offensive force he was.

Just because he was an once in a lifetime physical specimen doesn't mean his game was based on all power. The guy would shoot over ANYONE's head EASILY. He had every single move a big-man can possibly have. Just a clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak) for the doubters.

LeonFSU
10-06-2012, 03:12 AM
If you put Shaq, Hakeem, Russell, Wilt, and Kareem in the same era in each player's prime, it would be pretty easy to see that Shaq would absolutely dominate them all. Shaq and Wilt would put up similar numbers, but Shaq would be the better defender, and in head-to-head, Wilt wouldn't stand much of a chance.

5ass
10-06-2012, 03:36 AM
Would he be the best player in the nba or second best?

amos1er
10-06-2012, 03:47 AM
So, out of curiosity...Shaq, and Kareem, who you have in front of Wilt...what would they average in todays game? Shaw is not too far from todays game, and didnt get 30 and 14...why is he ahead of Wilt?

I didn't say 30 and 14, I said 27-30 and 12-14. Obviously a prime Kareem and Shaq could average those numbers or better in todays game as well. However what really sets them apart IMO is match ups. Their performances against the top rated players, teams and defenses is what would determine who the best would be.

Shaq was just too damn dominant for anyone to contain and therefore I believe would perform the best against the best of the best. Kareem, Wilt or any other center wouldn't have a prayer at defending him. They might be able to put up similar stats throughout the regular season due to the overall mediocre competition, but in the playoffs or Head to head he would just destroy them. Kareem's skyhook was near unguardable and thats why I believe he would do better against the top tier teams than would Wilt.

Are you kidding me???

Shaq didn't get those kind of numbers???


In his rookie year he was 23 and 14

In 94 he was 29 and 13
In 95 he was 29 and 11
In 98 he was 28 and 11
In 00 he was 30 and 14
In 01 he was 29 and 13
In 02 he was 27 and 11
In 03 he was 28 and 11

I don't even want to get into his playoff and finals numbers during his prime...:facepalm:

amos1er
10-06-2012, 03:48 AM
If you put Shaq, Hakeem, Russell, Wilt, and Kareem in the same era in each player's prime, it would be pretty easy to see that Shaq would absolutely dominate them all. Shaq and Wilt would put up similar numbers, but Shaq would be the better defender, and in head-to-head, Wilt wouldn't stand much of a chance.

Exactly...not one of the four you mentioned would have a prayer at stopping a prime Shaq.

amos1er
10-06-2012, 04:13 AM
Get the F outta here, Wilt was a beast defensively as well.

Howard won DPOY 3 times in a row in the modern era. I know that they didn't have that award back then, but do you really think that Wilt would have won it 3 times, let alone 3 in a row?

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 09:34 AM
Wilt offensively was a bit overrated.

I have examined his footwork and ball handling ability / ball control from his high scoring years and tbh I was not very impressed.

When comparing Wilt to the Top 5 GOAT Centers in terms of skill as an overall post scorer I have him at #4 behind Hakeem, Shaq and Kareem.

Yes he put up big numbers but what about efficiency?

Wilt had 6 high scoring years in the playoffs.
In 3 of those 6 years he shot below 50% from the field.
In 1/6 years he shot just above 50%

Then he had 2 years where he was pretty decent with his efficiency (53% and 54%) but compared to any average year by Shaq that is pitiful.

His average PPG over those two (good) seasons was 32ppg
Put him in a much slow paced era and adjust his minutes from 48 to 38-42 since coaches generally don't allow their star players to play full games anymore and his volume would go way down probably to around 25ppg I am assuming.

JasonJohnHorn
10-06-2012, 11:10 AM
People always say it hard to tell, there were more possessions and such back then quicker game, but the thing for me that is telling, it looking at Kareem's career. He went back from the 70's through to the 80's. Even as a 33 year old, which by today's standards is old, and was considered even older then, he was still posting 26 points and 10 rebounds a game. At 33! In his prime, he was posting 34 and 16. Kareem is that intergenerational connector. He played against Wilt and he played against Hakeem. Look at Kareem's per36 numbers. at 37 years old he was still averaging 23 points and 8 boards a game. That is impressive. and that is against guys like Hakeem and Ewing. When he was a young man like Ewing and Hakeeem, he was still being out rebounded by Wilt. A 36 year old Wilt was leading the league in rebounds while Kareem was in his youth and prime. So if a 37 year old Kareem, playing against the likes of Hakeem and Ewing, can pull off 23/8, imagine what Wilt would have been doing?

First thing about Wilt is this: He could play 48 minutes a game. And he could rebound like a motherfawker. And he could score. If Wilt was playing today, he would easily be the best center in the league and would be tearing down no less than 15 boards a night. And scoring... if Bryant can score 35 a game, then so can Wilt. I don't expect any team would rely on him to score that much and most coaches would let the offence be that dependant on one player, so he likely would be scoring around 30 unless he was on a lottery team, but he COULD score better than 35 a game if he was given the minutes and the shots.

Wilt would be almost as dominant today as he was in his prime. I mean, at 36 years old he was STILL leading the league in rebounds against Kareem! That's just crazy!

No less than 30/15.

whitemamba33
10-06-2012, 11:12 AM
My problem with Wilt is that he only won 2 rings.

And as much fun as it is to imagine how Wilt would do in today's game, I have more fun imagining Shaq in the 50's-70's.

xxplayerxx23
10-06-2012, 11:13 AM
30-34 and 15-17 bounds. Look at his rebounding numbers towards the end of his career. How is Wilt not ranked the number 1 center?

xxplayerxx23
10-06-2012, 11:15 AM
People underestmaite how good Wilt was, the guy was an animal. You can say all you want but even towards the end he was a beast on the boards.

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 11:18 AM
30-34 and 15-17 bounds. Look at his rebounding numbers towards the end of his career. How is Wilt not ranked the number 1 center?
Wilt was a great rebounder (arguably the best ever) but as a scorer he is overrated.

His volume would obviously suffer being in a slower paced era and he wouldn't play 48mpg either which would further reduce his volume.

He also only twice scored around 30ppg with good efficiency.

Defensive schemes are far more advanced in this era and he'd face way more double/triple teams which were less common back then.

I just don't see Wilt being a 30ppg scorer in this era without his efficiency being really bad..

xxplayerxx23
10-06-2012, 11:20 AM
Wilt was a great rebounder (arguably the best ever) but as a scorer he is overrated.

His volume would obviously suffer being in a slower paced era and he wouldn't play 48mpg either which would further reduce his volume.

He also only twice scored around 30ppg with good efficiency.

Defensive schemes are also far more advanced in this era and he'd face way more double/triple teams which were less common back then.

Wilt was still a dominate scorer, I agree it might be a little overrated as in I won't see him scoring 50 like he used to all the time. I just think that with the lack of great centers now he would get to 30 easy.

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 11:22 AM
Wilt was still a dominate scorer, I agree it might be a little overrated as in I won't see him scoring 50 like he used to all the time. I just think that with the lack of great centers now he would get to 30 easy.
Yeah I guess so.

I mean based on what he did in his era its hard for me to imagine him being that dominant offensively now but then again Dwight is a 20ppg / efficient scorer and Wilt definitely appears significantly more skilled then Dwight and a more unique athlete.

It is hard to say really.

torocan
10-06-2012, 11:25 AM
Wilt was a great rebounder (arguably the best ever) but as a scorer he is overrated.

His volume would obviously suffer being in a slower paced era and he wouldn't play 48mpg either which would further reduce his volume.

He also only twice scored around 30ppg with good efficiency.

Defensive schemes are far more advanced in this era and he'd face way more double/triple teams which were less common back then.

I just don't see Wilt being a 30ppg scorer in this era without his efficiency being really bad..

Yes and No.

We have to remember that while team defensive schemes weren't nearly as advanced, a number of defenses in use at the time are completely illegal today.

Additionally, the level of contact was different. Wilt had to score WHILE taking contact that would be considered no brain fouls in today's game. Elbows, people hanging onto his arms, and that's aside from multiple people goal tending (goal tending rules were different).

During his rookie season, despite putting up crazy numbers he almost quit due to the amount of physical abuse he was taking from double and triple teams.

It really is hard to compare the impact of defense from era to era given the evolution of the game.

xxplayerxx23
10-06-2012, 11:27 AM
Yeah I guess so.

I mean based on what he did in his era its hard for me to imagine him being that dominant offensively now but then again Dwight is a 20ppg / efficient scorer and Wilt definitely appears significantly more skilled then Dwight and a more unique athlete.

It is hard to say really.

Well I can agree but I think he would be at the foul line a lot, and I think he would get better inside position then Dwight does. I don't Know I just think he would get to 30 for sure.

JasonJohnHorn
10-06-2012, 11:35 AM
Defensive schemes are far more advanced in this era and he'd face way more double/triple teams which were less common back then.

I don't think Wilt would care if he got double or triple teamed. You got to remember this is a guy who averaged 4.4 assists a game on his career, and one season averaged over 8 assists, which most starting PGs don't even do. This guy faced double teams all the time when he played. He knew how to move the rock and get it to a capable scorer.

whitemamba33
10-06-2012, 11:35 AM
People always say it hard to tell, there were more possessions and such back then quicker game, but the thing for me that is telling, it looking at Kareem's career. He went back from the 70's through to the 80's. Even as a 33 year old, which by today's standards is old, and was considered even older then, he was still posting 26 points and 10 rebounds a game. At 33! In his prime, he was posting 34 and 16. Kareem is that intergenerational connector. He played against Wilt and he played against Hakeem. Look at Kareem's per36 numbers. at 37 years old he was still averaging 23 points and 8 boards a game. That is impressive. and that is against guys like Hakeem and Ewing. When he was a young man like Ewing and Hakeeem, he was still being out rebounded by Wilt. A 36 year old Wilt was leading the league in rebounds while Kareem was in his youth and prime. So if a 37 year old Kareem, playing against the likes of Hakeem and Ewing, can pull off 23/8, imagine what Wilt would have been doing?

First thing about Wilt is this: He could play 48 minutes a game. And he could rebound like a motherfawker. And he could score. If Wilt was playing today, he would easily be the best center in the league and would be tearing down no less than 15 boards a night. And scoring... if Bryant can score 35 a game, then so can Wilt. I don't expect any team would rely on him to score that much and most coaches would let the offence be that dependant on one player, so he likely would be scoring around 30 unless he was on a lottery team, but he COULD score better than 35 a game if he was given the minutes and the shots.

Wilt would be almost as dominant today as he was in his prime. I mean, at 36 years old he was STILL leading the league in rebounds against Kareem! That's just crazy!

No less than 30/15.

I either disagree with most of what you said (ex: If Kobe can do it, so can Wilt) or I don't think it would have been unreasonable for players in today's game to do the same in Wilt's generation (ex: playing 48 minutes).

But I'm originally from Windsor, so we got to look out for each other lol.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 11:38 AM
Give Wilt the benefit of modern coaching, medicine, sport utilities and travel and hes even better than he was in the 60's.




People always say it hard to tell, there were more possessions and such back then quicker game, but the thing for me that is telling, it looking at Kareem's career. He went back from the 70's through to the 80's. Even as a 33 year old, which by today's standards is old, and was considered even older then, he was still posting 26 points and 10 rebounds a game. At 33! In his prime, he was posting 34 and 16. Kareem is that intergenerational connector. He played against Wilt and he played against Hakeem. Look at Kareem's per36 numbers. at 37 years old he was still averaging 23 points and 8 boards a game. That is impressive. and that is against guys like Hakeem and Ewing. When he was a young man like Ewing and Hakeeem, he was still being out rebounded by Wilt. A 36 year old Wilt was leading the league in rebounds while Kareem was in his youth and prime. So if a 37 year old Kareem, playing against the likes of Hakeem and Ewing, can pull off 23/8, imagine what Wilt would have been doing?

First thing about Wilt is this: He could play 48 minutes a game. And he could rebound like a motherfawker. And he could score. If Wilt was playing today, he would easily be the best center in the league and would be tearing down no less than 15 boards a night. And scoring... if Bryant can score 35 a game, then so can Wilt. I don't expect any team would rely on him to score that much and most coaches would let the offence be that dependant on one player, so he likely would be scoring around 30 unless he was on a lottery team, but he COULD score better than 35 a game if he was given the minutes and the shots.

Wilt would be almost as dominant today as he was in his prime. I mean, at 36 years old he was STILL leading the league in rebounds against Kareem! That's just crazy!

No less than 30/15.

Bingo, Kareem is the generational bridge that gaps alot of era's together and proves many old timers can make the jump. Wilt would have had fun in the 3pt era with less physicality, but the advancing defenses and athletes would mitigated that. Overall Im a believer in the games best not really changing much, except when it comes to defenders.

If an old Wilt had less trouble than a prime Kareem against the same competition, then it only makes sense that Wilt would be able to handle the jump much better.

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 11:42 AM
Did Wilt really prove himself offensively in the new era though...?

Wasn't he usually a low volume / inefficient scorer VS Kareem?

I have no doubt his rebounding and defense would be great no matter what era he was in I am just not quite as sold on how good his offense would be.

Kareem may have played in a different era then Hakeem / Shaq but his scoring efficiency was still consistently top notch comparing to anyone from any era.
You can't say the same for Wilt.

Bramaca
10-06-2012, 11:47 AM
Not as many rebounds available as there used to be, big men don't play close to as many minutes as they used to (so he would be around 36-38mpg max), coaches prefer to use the 'higher efficiency' outside shot so big men are not used as much as a scoring option, better help from wing players due to size and athleticism, and he would still be a crap ft shooter.

In his prime I would say rebounds in the 13-15 per game range and points in the 22-24 per game range.

xxplayerxx23
10-06-2012, 11:50 AM
Bull ****, easily would average 15-19 a game. and He would score at least 30 a game. Nobody now would stop him and he would live at the line.

Bramaca
10-06-2012, 11:50 AM
Bingo, Kareem is the generational bridge that gaps alot of era's together and proves many old timers can make the jump. Wilt would have had fun in the 3pt era with less physicality, but the advancing defenses and athletes would mitigated that. Overall Im a believer in the games best not really changing much, except when it comes to defenders.

If an old Wilt had less trouble than a prime Kareem against the same competition, then it only makes sense that Wilt would be able to handle the jump much better.

The problem with that is that centers are used a lot differently now then they were during the 80's and 90's.

JasonJohnHorn
10-06-2012, 12:09 PM
I either disagree with most of what you said (ex: If Kobe can do it, so can Wilt) or I don't think it would have been unreasonable for players in today's game to do the same in Wilt's generation (ex: playing 48 minutes).

But I'm originally from Windsor, so we got to look out for each other lol.



lol

I used Kobe as an example because he actually did average 35 points a game. But let's be honest, the Lakers had nobody outisde of Odom that season to help put points up on the board, so Phil Jackson gave Kobe free reign to score as much as he wanted because the Lakers actually NEEDED him to in order to compete. If guys like Durant, Kobe, Wade and James had been stuck on Charlotte last season, they would have been scoring 35 points a game becasue there was nobody else to score. To put up that many points a game you have to be a very good player in a very bad situation. There is no way Wilt would score 50 a game today because no coach in his right mind would run that much of the offence through one player. But if Wilt had been on that Lakers roster instead of Kobe, Wilt would have been posting 35 a game. I beleive that.

As for hte 48 minutes a game thing, that is key. I remember Shaq was talking about a conversation he had with Phil Jackson and Jackson asked Shaq: What was the most impresssive thing Wilt Chamberlain ever did? And Shaq said: He average 50 points a game for an entire season. And Jackson said: No, he average 48.5 minutes a game. It was a challenge, Shaq said, for him to play more minutes. Jackson played Shaq over 40 minutes a game for a couple weeks at that point, trying to improve Shaq's conditioning and keep him on the floor longer, but Shaq conceded and admitted that he couldn't do what Wilt had done. Today's game has fewer possessions. The game is slower, but still, we don't see very many players staying on the court for 40+ minutes a game, because for most players, it tires them out and impacts their on court production. The fact that Wilt could, at a time when the game was a marathon, play 48.5 minutes a game, illustrated that he was extremely dominant in a way that most players are not. He could play every minutes of every game, even overtime games (which is where that extra .5 comes from since there are only 48 minutes in the game). I don't believe most players in the NBA could keep up with the pace of the game in the 60's and 70's and play the number of minutes that guys like Wilt did. But I do believe that guys like Wilt COULD come into the league today and stay on the court for 40+ minutes a game with no problem, and that is something very special to be able to do.

JasonJohnHorn
10-06-2012, 12:17 PM
Yes he put up big numbers but what about efficiency?

His efficiency? Yes, he was horrible frm the free throw line, but so was Shaq. That said, Wilt shot, on his career, .540 from the field, one season he actually shot .727, which is pretty much as efficient as you can get from the floor. And int he post season he shot .522 from the floor. How is that not efficient?
Take a look at this:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/fg_pct_season.html

You will notice that Wilt has three of the ten highest single season FG%! And not only does he have three in the top ten, but he has the two very highest on the list!

His career FG% may not be in the top ten, but unlike Shaq, who sits at number one, Wilt did something called "shooting the ball outside of the key", something Shaq never tried to do.


Wilt not efficient? :facepalm:

Gram
10-06-2012, 12:23 PM
Wilt Chamberlain.

b@llhog24
10-06-2012, 12:40 PM
He would be the best center in the game still.

There was an interesting article about Wilt's physique and how freaking ripped he was. I don't think I'm quite accurate but I recall hearing that Wilt could bench 500 pounds or something like that and was a great track runner to boot. In other words, you thought Lebron was a gifted athlete? Oh boy...

And add the fact that he would be getting to the free throw line a gazillion times in today's NBA and was pretty good there to boot.

Bill Russell on the other hand...just a good defensive power forward, nothing more.

Huh?


I didn't say 30 and 14, I said 27-30 and 12-14. Obviously a prime Kareem and Shaq could average those numbers or better in todays game as well. However what really sets them apart IMO is match ups. Their performances against the top rated players, teams and defenses is what would determine who the best would be.

Shaq was just too damn dominant for anyone to contain and therefore I believe would perform the best against the best of the best. Kareem, Wilt or any other center wouldn't have a prayer at defending him. They might be able to put up similar stats throughout the regular season due to the overall mediocre competition, but in the playoffs or Head to head he would just destroy them. Kareem's skyhook was near unguardable and thats why I believe he would do better against the top tier teams than would Wilt.

Are you kidding me???

Shaq didn't get those kind of numbers???


In his rookie year he was 23 and 14

In 94 he was 29 and 13
In 95 he was 29 and 11
In 98 he was 28 and 11
In 00 he was 30 and 14
In 01 he was 29 and 13
In 02 he was 27 and 11
In 03 he was 28 and 11

I don't even want to get into his playoff and finals numbers during his prime...:facepalm:

So Wilt can't stop Shaq, yet Shaq can stop Wilt?


Wilt was a great rebounder (arguably the best ever) but as a scorer he is overrated.

I doubt it.


His volume would obviously suffer being in a slower paced era and he wouldn't play 48mpg either which would further reduce his volume.


He also only twice scored around 30ppg with good efficiency.

That goes without saying, but if you factor in all the amenities players are afforded today that Wilt didn't have (medicine, training facilities, nutrition) I'll say he stays pretty much the same. Also wouldn't playing less than 48 mins IMPROVE his efficiency?


Defensive schemes are far more advanced in this era and he'd face way more double/triple teams which were less common back then.

So Andrew Bynum can adapt to double/triple teams yet Wilt cannot? :confused:


I just don't see Wilt being a 30ppg scorer in this era without his efficiency being really bad..

Like I said it depends on his supporting cast and whatever system he's in. If you plugged him on the current Bobcats team then he'd probably go Kobe mode and drop 32-34 easily.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 12:41 PM
The problem with that is that centers are used a lot differently now then they were during the 80's and 90's.
Thats because they are alot different. This takes me back to the generational bridge thing, so let me put it this way, you wouldn't question if Shaq could play today would you? Obviously not since he just finished his HOF career right. Well for that reason we wouldn't ask if Dream could play today either because we KNOW he and Shaq competed against one another and both held their own. You do this for Dream and you find that an OLD Kareem was able to drop knowledge on Prime Hakeem so you obviously wouldn't question Kareems ability... so on and so forth...

Bramaca
10-06-2012, 12:51 PM
Thats because they are alot different. This takes me back to the generational bridge thing, so let me put it this way, you wouldn't question if Shaq could play today would you? Obviously not since he just finished his HOF career right. Well for that reason we wouldn't ask if Dream could play today either because we KNOW he and Shaq competed against one another and both held their own. You do this for Dream and you find that an OLD Kareem was able to drop knowledge on Prime Hakeem so you obviously wouldn't question Kareems ability... so on and so forth...

I don't question whether Shaq could play in todays game. He obviously could. I question whether he would get the same stats because I don't think he would get the same amount of touches.

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 12:53 PM
His career FG% may not be in the top ten, but unlike Shaq, who sits at number one, Wilt did something called "shooting the ball outside of the key", something Shaq never tried to do.


Wilt not efficient? :facepalm:
Shaq's range and accuracy on his jump-hook which he had developed almost completely by 95 was probably just as good if not superior to the range, accuracy and fluidity that Wilt had on his ranged shots.

Believe it or not but Wilt was not a very good scorer far away from the basket.
He got most of his buckets by using his length and strength.

He (Shaq) was able to use his j-hook accurately out to 8-12 feet.

Also why are you focusing on the regular season?

As I pointed out earlier.

In 3 of Wilt's 6 high scoring playoff seasons he shot below 50% from the field!
In another one he shot just above 50%.
In the other two he shot around 53 / 54% but he was scoring at a much slower pace then Shaq when considering pace/mpg and not on significantly higher volume.

Also Wilt in the late 60's (his Prime) was a 38-40% FT shooter which is far worse then Shaq who was a 46 - 53 - 65% shooter during his Prime years and who generally stayed around 50% or better.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 01:06 PM
Did Wilt really prove himself offensively in the new era though...?

Wasn't he usually a low volume / inefficient scorer VS Kareem?
I wouldn't doubt it but I dont really care much about their matchups when Wilt was near retirement, towards the end of his career he had many single digit games vs Kareem (including an 0-0 night). By that point his role, injuries and age had taken much of the zest out of his game. But there was a brief window when we saw a not so far removed from his prime Wilt vs Kareem. Sadly that lasted 1 game before Wilt was lost for the season, their very first game Wilt dominated Kareem. But that is to be expected so we wont put much stock in that but what happened when Wilt came back from injury is what does it for me.

At the age of 34 Wilt played Kareem to a statistical draw in 1971.


--------------------------------------------------------------------


Regular Season Matchup:

G.1
- Chamberlain 28 pts, 23 rebs, 3 as, 10 blocks, 7-20 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 13 rebs, 0 as, 2 blocks, 13-32 FG/FGA W

G.2
- Chamberlain 25 pts, 14 rebs, 3 as, 2 blocks, 11-23 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 16 rebs, 0 as, 4 blocks, 17-33 FG/FGA W

G.3
- Chamberlain 14 pts, 14 rebs, 3 as, 6 blocks, 7-10 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 27 pts, 10 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA L

G.4
- Chamberlain 25 pts, 11 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 21 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 13-30 FG/FGA W

G.5
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 13 rebs, 5 as, 8 blocks, 7-15 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 15 pts, 6 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-21 FG/FGA W


Playoffs:

G.1
- Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 32 pts, 22 rebs, 1 as, 1 blocks, 14-30 FG/FGA W

G.2
- Chamberlain 26 pts, 22 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA - L
-Abdul-Jabbar 22 pts, 10 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W

G.3
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 24 rebs, 3 as, 3 blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 19 rebs, 6 as, 0 blocks, 8-16 FG/FGA L

G4
- Chamberlain 15 pts, 16 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-14 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 14-20 FG/FGA W

G5
- Chamberlain 23 pts, 12 rebs, 4 as, 6 blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 15 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 7-23 FG/FGA W

--------------------------------------------------------------

Thats pretty good for a gimpy center nearing retirement against the games most productive force. Imagine what prime Wilt would have done to him.


But I wasn't so much talking just about their matchup but how they fared against similar post defenders. Like Nate Thurmond for example, both admitted he gave him the most fits 1 on 1, but Thurmond never dominated Wilt defensively the way he did Kareem.




I have no doubt his rebounding and defense would be great no matter what era he was in I am just not quite as sold on how good his offense would be.
Its funny because those are 2 areas I have less faith in but both are areas I wouldn't question.
2 schools of thought on this, usually when people transplant stats the efficiency increases the league has seen over the years would mean that Wilt would be more efficient in more efficient eras, I dont know how I feel about that but I'm willing to say not much would change.

Sure his tallies would look alot different but his impact on the game wouldn't. In fact you could argue the lessened possessions would make him even more dominant when you consider the evidence that suggests slower pace squads make more of a concentrated effort to feed the star player.


Kareem may have played in a different era then Hakeem / Shaq but his scoring efficiency was still consistently top notch comparing to anyone from any era.
You can't say the same for Wilt.
I dont know about that but I will admit its possible his scoring was overrated somewhat but I have mixed feelings on the analysis.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 01:09 PM
I don't question whether Shaq could play in todays game. He obviously could. I question whether he would get the same stats because I don't think he would get the same amount of touches.

Wait your actually questioning if Shaq would be the same player today?

abe_froman
10-06-2012, 01:09 PM
he would languish on the bench ,even though he was incredibly athletic by 1960's standards(why he could still find his way to an nba roster)...he falls well short of today with its more advanced knowledge and training.and please no one say over 20 ppg,its one thing to destroy a 6'7 out of shape(by today's standards) chain smoking center(yes it was acceptable for athletes to smoke cigarettes),its quite another to drop 30+ on the likes of a bynum,chandler,howard,ect.

he's an all time great in historical context,but it's just the world he's from and the modern day are completely different worlds

bagwell368
10-06-2012, 01:11 PM
I've always wanted to ask this question. How well do you guys think Wilt Chamberlain would've played in today's league and what would've been his stats?

Let's go to the late 80's into the 90's when the amount of very good or better Centers stood at its maximum. 18/13 and his shooting percentages would suck.

Don't forget when Wilt played the pace was much quicker accounting for 5-7 PPG drop to this Hakeem era. His rebounds are down for not only the pace delta, but the much better shooting percentages in the Hakeem era.

Today? Not that much different. One of Wilt's competitors was HOF Jerry Lucas, who twice averaged over 20 rebounds. Get some tape, the guy would have trouble making a D1 team today and this was mid 60's not late 50's.

bagwell368
10-06-2012, 01:14 PM
As for Alcindor v Wilt - and what the prime Wilt would have done to him. What about the prime Jabbar? He would have held his own much better then the young Alcindor.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 01:15 PM
Also wouldn't playing less than 48 mins IMPROVE his efficiency?


Thats a damn good question, generally yes, the optimal playing time seems to be in the 30-35 range, enough time to get a rhythm and not enough to kill legs. That said, not every player is the same, Wilt used to say he didn't like to sit down because it would hurt his flow but in today's NBA he wouldn't have a choice. Im sure he would still get +40MPG because even in his day no one else was getting as much run as him but as legendary as his stamina was, I have to think this era would be more physically demanding. Im a believer that running up and down the court in a free flowing offense is alot easier on your body than a slow, grind it out offense.

Still the main point of your post is valid, there are some advantages for Wilt to be playing today, like far greater spacing for one (Thank you 3pt line)

Bramaca
10-06-2012, 01:20 PM
Wait your actually questioning if Shaq would be the same player today?

Not questioning whether he would be the same player, questioning whether he would be used the same way.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 01:21 PM
As for Alcindor v Wilt - and what the prime Wilt would have done to him. What about the prime Jabbar? He would have held his own much better then the young Alcindor.
I doubt it, young Alcindor was still the games most productive force while Wilt was slowing down rapidly. Compared to where they were in their careers, young KAJ was much closer to his prime than Wilt was, yet they were so comparable that the Milwaukee crowd lauded his efforts.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 01:22 PM
Not questioning whether he would be the same player, questioning whether he would be used the same way.

But thats the same thing, why wouldn't he be used the same way? Any team with Shaq on it will optimize his talents, why wouldn't you? He was the games most dominant force at one point so to play him differently would be absurd.

JordansBulls
10-06-2012, 01:52 PM
He'd probably have stats similar to Kevin Love.

:rolleyes:

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 01:53 PM
I dont know about that but I will admit its possible his scoring was overrated somewhat but I have mixed feelings on the analysis.
I tend to feel that era doesn't have much of an effect on transcendent offensive players.
I mean... look at what Oscar and West did in the 60's.
Both had excellent efficiency by any era's standards despite playing in a less efficient era.

Wilt had by far the slowest rate of scoring between lets say him, Kareem and Shaq and he also had by far the worst offensive efficiency and consistency when comparing their high scoring playoff years.

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 01:57 PM
As for Alcindor v Wilt - and what the prime Wilt would have done to him. What about the prime Jabbar? He would have held his own much better then the young Alcindor.

I'd also add that using h2h matchups is far from a perfect way to judge players.

Shaq performed much better against Hakeem in the 90's then he did against Robinson and yet Hakeem >>> Robinson as a player.

Hangtime
10-06-2012, 02:04 PM
If you put Shaq, Hakeem, Russell, Wilt, and Kareem in the same era in each player's prime, it would be pretty easy to see that Shaq would absolutely dominate them all. Shaq and Wilt would put up similar numbers, but Shaq would be the better defender, and in head-to-head, Wilt wouldn't stand much of a chance.

Whoa.....You think those guys would have trouble scoring on Shaq? Those guys in their absolute primes? Since when did Shaq become such a shut down defender in and out of the paint?

IndyRealist
10-06-2012, 02:18 PM
People also forget that Wilt played almost every minute of every game. Shaq never had that kind of cardio. When you HAVE to sit your starter and put a bench player in, Wilt would annihilate him.

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 02:29 PM
Whoa.....You think those guys would have trouble scoring on Shaq? Those guys in their absolute primes? Since when did Shaq become such a shut down defender in and out of the paint?
Shaq was an elite m2m defender.

He consistently held Hakeem to below 50% shooting when they went h2h and I have an article from awhile back that showed how Shaq consistently held opposing C's way below their normal %'s.

When he actually put forth 100% effort he was probably one of the most capable m2m defenders I have ever seen.
He defended some offensive possessions by Hakeem in ways no other athlete could sans maybe Russell or Robinson.

Shaq did best defensively against C's who relied on size/length to score and he would definitely be the best possible defender on Wilt.

He would deny him position near the baskket and force him to rely on contested ranged shots which would lead to poor overall accuracy by the Dipper.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 03:12 PM
I tend to feel that era doesn't have much of an effect on transcendent offensive players.
I mean... look at what Oscar and West did in the 60's.
Both had excellent efficiency by any era's standards despite playing in a less efficient era.
Not sure what your getting at here, what did they do because I have Wilt as a more productive force offensively.



Wilt had by far the slowest rate of scoring between lets say him, Kareem and Shaq and he also had by far the worst offensive efficiency and consistency when comparing their high scoring playoff years.

Can you cite specific seasons/numbers? I think your being to harsh on Wilt and not crediting him for the sheer amount of playing time/possessions he was involved in.

b@llhog24
10-06-2012, 03:33 PM
he would languish on the bench ,even though he was incredibly athletic by 1960's standards(why he could still find his way to an nba roster)...he falls well short of today with its more advanced knowledge and training.and please no one say over 20 ppg,its one thing to destroy a 6'7 out of shape(by today's standards) chain smoking center(yes it was acceptable for athletes to smoke cigarettes),its quite another to drop 30+ on the likes of a bynum,chandler,howard,ect.

he's an all time great in historical context,but it's just the world he's from and the modern day are completely different worlds

:facepalm:


Thats a damn good question, generally yes, the optimal playing time seems to be in the 30-35 range, enough time to get a rhythm and not enough to kill legs. That said, not every player is the same, Wilt used to say he didn't like to sit down because it would hurt his flow but in today's NBA he wouldn't have a choice. Im sure he would still get +40MPG because even in his day no one else was getting as much run as him but as legendary as his stamina was, I have to think this era would be more physically demanding. Im a believer that running up and down the court in a free flowing offense is alot easier on your body than a slow, grind it out offense.

Still the main point of your post is valid, there are some advantages for Wilt to be playing today, like far greater spacing for one (Thank you 3pt line)

Agree. I think that the dip from playing 48 to 40, the introduction of the 3 point line which allows Wilt more space to operate with, the way assists were awarded then and just having more talent around him would only help to increase his efficiency levels.

E.O.21
10-06-2012, 03:45 PM
22 and 10 at best

abe_froman
10-06-2012, 03:50 PM
:facepalm:

do you have something to say? what part of the what you bolded isnt true(yes,the facepalm response.the classic go to when you have no legit counter argument to present.)

JasonJohnHorn
10-06-2012, 05:07 PM
I think the more interesting questio would be: How would Shaq fair in the 60's? I know a lot of people would think he'd be even more domiant than he was when he played, but the game was so much quicker then and Shaq would not be able to play 40+ minutes a game, let alone 48+ minutes a game. I think had Shaq played in Wilt's era, Wilt would have still been posting better numbers than Shaq.

b@llhog24
10-06-2012, 05:11 PM
do you have something to say? what part of the what you bolded isnt true(yes,the facepalm response.the classic go to when you have no legit counter argument to present.)

The fact that you think that one of the games greatest athletes was only athletic by 1960s standards.

Raph12
10-06-2012, 05:17 PM
He'd be the better scoring version of Dwight Howard (less dominant on defense but still a great defensive anchor).

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 05:21 PM
He'd be the better scoring version of Dwight Howard (less dominant on defense but still a great defensive anchor).

I think Dwight is overrated defensively.
He is an amazing help defender but I'd take both Shaq and Wilt over him for post defense and m2m defense.

IndyRealist
10-06-2012, 05:22 PM
do you have something to say? what part of the what you bolded isnt true(yes,the facepalm response.the classic go to when you have no legit counter argument to present.)

You know the guy was 7'2", 300lbs of solid muscle and had Rodman-level cardio, right?

amos1er
10-06-2012, 05:23 PM
I think the more interesting questio would be: How would Shaq fair in the 60's? I know a lot of people would think he'd be even more domiant than he was when he played, but the game was so much quicker then and Shaq would not be able to play 40+ minutes a game, let alone 48+ minutes a game. I think had Shaq played in Wilt's era, Wilt would have still been posting better numbers than Shaq.

I agree that Wilt had better cardio as he was a track star before the NBA. He easily had the best stamina of all the elite centers in NBA history. That said, I disagree that he would put up better numbers than Shaq in the 60's. Shaq wouldn't need much cardio to contend against the average center who only stood about 6'8 230 lbs. Shaq would be able to catch the ball right next to the basket with ease and go up for easy dunks play after play after play. Don't need much stamina for that. In addition, no one in the league would be able to get enough position on him to out rebound him. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that a prime Shaq could have put up better stats in the 60's. Lets not also forget that prime Shaq 00-03 had a good amount of stamina. Not quite what Wilts was, but enough to get by against a bunch of 6'8 white guys who only weighed about 230 lbs at most.

abe_froman
10-06-2012, 05:23 PM
The fact that you think that one of the games greatest athletes was only athletic by 1960s standards.

because he was.athletes today have access to more advanced training techniques and equipment that werent available back then,the knowledge on diet is better,ect. compare records from than and now,watch video of him and watch a game today.by every objective measurable standard there is a difference.that you think there has been no difference in what is athletic over the ages is facepalm worthy .my god,the evidence is there,its not hard to find

did you know he was considered a world class track and field star in college? do you know where those times would rank him today?...i bet you dont.yes,in his time he was a freak,but to the freaks of today? because they have access and knowledge that didnt exist yet

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 05:33 PM
Shaq definitely had good stamina.

It was generally something mentioned upon frequently back in the day how Shaq would wear out opposing C's by the 4th Q and then turn on his after burners.

Shaq was a truly once in a lifetime athlete and he was in good shape through most of his young and prime years.
Go look up youtube video of 98 Shaq.
Dude was shredded and pure muscle.

Not sure if he could play 48mpg but he could handle 38-42 with consistent effort throughout in any era.

amos1er
10-06-2012, 05:38 PM
because he was.athletes today have access to more advanced training techniques and equipment that werent available back then,the knowledge on diet is better,ect. compare records from than and now,watch video of him and watch a game today.by every objective measureable standard there is a difference.that you think there has been no difference in what is athletic over the ages is facepalm worthy .my god,the evidence is there,its not hard to find

Wilt was more athletic than Shaq despite the better more advanced training techniques you are referring to. That said, Shaq dominated against a much better field of competitors. Would Wilt been able to dominate the way that Shaq did in the early 2000's? Doubtful...he just didn't have the raw physical build that Shaq did. Shaq could squat, dead lift, and bench press Wilt out of the gym. Never will you see someone as big and strong as Shaq with the combination of athleticism. One could argue that Wilt was more athletic and had better stamina, but Shaq was more massive and much stronger in addition to having far a much better combination of sheer mass, strength, and athleticism. This would have translated into a more dominant Shaq in the 60's.

amos1er
10-06-2012, 05:41 PM
Shaq definitely had good stamina.

It was generally something mentioned upon frequently back in the day how Shaq would wear out opposing C's by the 4th Q and then turn on his after burners.

Shaq was a truly once in a lifetime athlete and he was in good shape through most of his young and prime years.
Go look up youtube video of 98 Shaq.
Dude was shredded and pure muscle.

Not sure if he could play 48mpg but he could handle 38-42 with consistent effort throughout in any era.

No one is saying that Shaq had bad stamina, he just didn't have quite as good stamina as Wilt who was a track star before being in the NBA.

The extra stamina that Wilt possessed wouldn't have been enough to overcome Shaq's advantage in size, girth, and strength, in combination with athleticism.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 05:54 PM
The extra stamina that Wilt possessed wouldn't have been enough to overcome Shaq's advantage in size, girth, and strength, in combination with athleticism.

Strength is debatable and athletically, no one compares to Wilt.

JasonJohnHorn
10-06-2012, 05:58 PM
but enough to get by against a bunch of 6'8 white guys who only weighed about 230 lbs at most.

:facepalm:


I didn't say Shaq wouldn't put up better numbers than he did when he played, only that Wilt would still be posting higher numbers than Shaq because he would be able to play the entire game, where as Shaq would likely be tapped out between 36-40 minutes a game.

And "a bunch of 6'8 whites guys"? Seriously?

amos1er
10-06-2012, 05:59 PM
Strength is debatable and athletically, no one compares to Wilt.

I didn't say that Shaq had better athleticism...I said Shaq had a better combination of size, strength, girth, mass, and athleticism.

I give Wilt the edge in raw stamina and athleticism for sure.

Shaq would be able to squat, dead lift, Wilt out of the gym. Bench press is debatable, but IMO Shaq would take that too.

b@llhog24
10-06-2012, 06:00 PM
because he was.athletes today have access to more advanced training techniques and equipment that werent available back then,the knowledge on diet is better,ect. compare records from than and now,watch video of him and watch a game today.by every objective measurable standard there is a difference.that you think there has been no difference in what is athletic over the ages is facepalm worthy .my god,the evidence is there,its not hard to find

did you know he was considered a world class track and field star in college? do you know where those times would rank him today?...i bet you dont.yes,in his time he was a freak,but to the freaks of today? because they have access and knowledge that didnt exist yet

Lol I'm not comparing him to Usain Bolt. I'm comparing him to today's great athletes (Dwight, LBJ, Rose, Griffin) he is a comparable athlete by virtue of stamina alone than those guys without the advances in training, equipment, modern medicine. Add that to his 48 inch vertical, and all the other stuff towards the bottom of your post and you have a great athlete. It's like saying Dr J was only athletic by 70's standard when his athleticism is fairly transcendent.

amos1er
10-06-2012, 06:05 PM
:facepalm:


I didn't say Shaq wouldn't put up better numbers than he did when he played, only that Wilt would still be posting higher numbers than Shaq because he would be able to play the entire game, where as Shaq would likely be tapped out between 36-40 minutes a game.

And "a bunch of 6'8 whites guys"? Seriously?

Shaq was easily able to play 40+ minutes in his prime.

Yes, a bunch of 6'8 white guys...look at the average NBA roster in 1962 and tell me I'm wrong. You also forgot about them weighing only 230 lbs at most. Oh and how many of them were able to dunk. Lets compare the average vertical of a 1962 player and compare it to the average 2012 player. You mention comparing Shaq and Wilts athletic ability, how about comparing the athleticism of their respective competition in 1962 and 2012 by comparing the average NBA athlete in those two years. That should be good for a laugh.

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 06:19 PM
Strength is debatable and athletically, no one compares to Wilt.

I personally disagree with the bolded.
In terms of speed/hops I consider Shaq/Wilt to be about a wash.
Maybe you could give a small edge to Wilt in those areas before he bulked up but nothing significant.

I give Shaq a significant to huge edge in categories like.

-Body coordination - noticeable edge but not huge
-Quickness/Explosiveness - huge edge
-Strength/Power - huge edge

Overall I would definitely consider Young and Prime Shaq the greatest athlete by far to ever play the C position.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 06:20 PM
I didn't say that Shaq had better athleticism...I said Shaq had a better combination of size, strength, girth, mass, and athleticism.
I know, to which I responded strength was debatable and that athletically no one compares to Wilt.


I give Wilt the edge in raw stamina and athleticism for sure.

Shaq would be able to squat, dead lift, Wilt out of the gym. Bench press is debatable.

What makes you think this? The highest Ive remember Shaq pressing was 450, 100lbs less than Wilts highest.

amos1er
10-06-2012, 06:25 PM
I know, to which I responded strength was debatable and that athletically no one compares to Wilt.


What makes you think this? The highest Ive remember Shaq pressing was 450, 100lbs less than Wilts highest.

Do we know if that was Shaq's max or was he reping it? Pretty sure that when Shaq said 450 lbs, he was no longer in his prime. I would imagine a prime Shaq could bench at least 550 + max. Either way, benching is not as important as squatting and dead lifting as far as being able to dominate in the post.

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 06:26 PM
I know, to which I responded strength was debatable and that athletically no one compares to Wilt.


What makes you think this? The highest Ive remember Shaq pressing was 450, 100lbs less than Wilts highest.

Strength really isn't debatable especially if we are talking about the type of strength actually usable on a basketball court.

There is no accurate record of how much Wilt could press during his playing years and how much a player can press means pretty much nothing in terms of basketball strength.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 06:31 PM
I personally disagree with the bolded.
In terms of speed/hops I consider Shaq/Wilt to be about a wash.
LOL no way, Wilt used to do free throw line dunks before they outlawed them. He was a WORLD CLASS athlete, guys who saw both play like Chick Hearn and Sonny Hill would agree that he was the stronger player. Wilts track numbers are damn good for someone who treated it as a hobby.



Maybe you could give a small edge to Wilt in those areas before he bulked up but nothing significant.
Hill used to joke that Wilt would be able to beat Shaq end to end while running backwards. Wilt had an incredible verticle leap, even more impressive was the fact that he sustained most of it even after a debilitating knee injury.


I give Shaq a significant to huge edge in categories like.

-Body coordination - noticeable edge but not huge
-Quickness/Explosiveness - huge edge
-Strength/Power - huge edge

Overall I would definitely consider Young and Prime Shaq the greatest athlete by far to ever play the C position.

Wilt was quicker, faster, stronger (upper body for sure), and a greater leaper. The man played through broken hands and came back from that knee injury in time to play in the Finals. The man was getting calls to come back to the NBA at age 50 for **** sake.

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 06:32 PM
Some quotes from a Wilt/Shaq thread.


Most people seem to not know the difference between weight room strength, and functional strength/leverage and how much size makes a difference in usage of that.

Shaq is virtually immovable on the block. Wilt probably can benchpress more, or throw a discus or something further, but as far as using his body to gain deep position, or backing down in the post, Shaq is going to win, unless it's the very thinnest form of Shaq(the 290 or so LSU version) vs. the biggest Wilt ever was.

Basketball isn't weightlifting and the weight distribution of a player has really no correlation to what one can bench press. If a concrete basketball weighed 75 pounds most could move it easily because of the compact shape. Now trying to move a 75 pound 6x6 countertop poses a much bigger problem and it has nothing to do with how strong you are its that it's more ackward, both like Shaq and Wilt were.

My heaviest bench press when I was 27 (so 10 years ago) was 385 pounds for 2 reps. While I could say for my size that I was strong, I still got overmatched in the post by players weaker than me on the press. And much of that is simply you can't guard in basketball like pressing weight or focus all of the power needed to make that press at a given moment. Most people need to psyche themselves up big time for that sort of lift. Just having a strong base creates problems even when the person is lighter in weight.

Weightlifting certainly helps a players performance but it's hardly the reason to say someone is stronger then the other. Overall strength is more than weightlifting, especially the bench press.

When Shaq entered the league, he hit some player (on the Nets?) exploding up to the hoop with his arm and gave him a bunch of stitches, to which said player reacted by saying "Shaq is so strong he shouldn't be allowed in the league." Who knows what his bench is and who cares? (Let's not even mention bench is determined by range of motion, or how far the weight is moved on different frames, or that it can be affected by like 15-20% in a day just with technique adjustment.)

Chronz
10-06-2012, 06:33 PM
Strength really isn't debatable especially if we are talking about the type of strength actually usable on a basketball court.

There is no accurate record of how much Wilt could press during his playing years and how much a player can press means pretty much nothing in terms of basketball strength.

No accurate record? There are countless eye witnesses, he was benching more than Shaq at age 59.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 06:37 PM
Do we know if that was Shaq's max or was he reping it? Pretty sure that when Shaq said 450 lbs, he was no longer in his prime. I would imagine a prime Shaq could bench at least 550 + max. Either way, benching is not as important as squatting and dead lifting as far as being able to dominate in the post.

Fairly certain Shaq said it was his max. Wilt was beating it 1 year away from being 60. Whats Shaq's wingspan BTW? I think I remember him having the longest standing reach for awhile, and holding the recorded record for highest jump.

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 06:37 PM
LOL no way, Wilt used to do free throw line dunks before they outlawed them. He was a WORLD CLASS athlete, guys who saw both play like Chick Hearn and Sonny Hill would agree that he was the stronger player. Wilts track numbers are damn good for someone who treated it as a hobby.

Hill used to joke that Wilt would be able to beat Shaq end to end while running backwards. Wilt had an incredible verticle leap, even more impressive was the fact that he sustained most of it even after a debilitating knee injury.


Wilt was quicker, faster, stronger (upper body for sure), and a greater leaper. The man played through broken hands and came back from that knee injury in time to play in the Finals. The man was getting calls to come back to the NBA at age 50 for **** sake.

#1.
There are lots of guys from Wilt's age who say Shaq was the better athlete etc...
Also Shaq wasn't a world class athlete?

#2.
Good for Hill but I have compared on video the running speed of Wilt/Shaq from end to end and there is literally no difference and I have used countless examples.
I can't see a good argument for saying Wilt was significantly faster then O'neal based on my own personal comparisons.

I have also compared their vertical's and there again is no significant difference.
Wilt probably peaked around 38-42 inches while Young/Prime Shaq was around 36-40 inches.

Impressive how he played through injury's but that doesn't mean he was the better athlete.

#3.
Shaq was much quicker and much more explosive as an athlete.
O'neal had cat like quickness on some of his spin moves and when he went for dunks and he had much quicker feet.

Wilt simply never displayed that level of quickness/explosiveness.

Shaq had a bigger barrel chest then Wilt did and noticeably bigger arms.
Maybe 70's Wilt wasn't far apart in terms of upper body size/strength but I'd still give the edge to Shaq and Shaq had a much larger base/core and legs.

Lets just agree to disagree we obviously don't see eye to eye on this one.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 06:40 PM
Some quotes from a Wilt/Shaq thread.

Yea he would be better at establishing deep position thats for sure. Wilt is still the far better leaper and without a doubt quicker/faster/durable

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 06:43 PM
No accurate record? There are countless eye witnesses, he was benching more than Shaq at age 59.
Countless eye witnesses?
How old was he when he benched with Arnie?

Old story's can be twisted or exaggerated and while its easy to just take them at face value that is just something to keep in mind.

Also Wilt got heavily into weight lifting after he retired so it is far from agiven that he could bench the 500 or so back in his playing days certainly not before he bulked up in the very late 60's / early 70's.

Even if he could how much a player can press doesn't mean he is stronger on the court.

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 06:47 PM
Yea he would be better at establishing deep position thats for sure. Wilt is still the far better leaper and without a doubt quicker/faster/durable
Far better leaper?
Watching video of Young Wilt I certainly never saw him leap more then maybe 40-42 inches at the most.

Shaq when he entered the league effortlessly showed a 36 inch vertical and touched the backboard at 12 feet 5 inches which is still the current recorded record for that.
I have personally judged Shaq to have been in the 36-40 inch area during his most athletic years which is basically awash with what Wilt was capable of.

I think "far better" is an exaggeration even though I agree he had better hops.

I urge you to compare the end to end speed of ORL and LAL Shaq
(before he got too big) to Young / Mid 60's Wilt and tell me that you still think Wilt was much faster.
Really they were quite comparable.

Shaq was one of the quickest most explosive players I have ever seen regardless of position.
I really never saw Wilt as an explosive athlete (not in comparison to Shaq anyway) but I guess we all have our own perceptions of players.
I just don't see it even though I certainly do respect your opinion. :)

Chronz
10-06-2012, 07:06 PM
#1.
There are lots of guys from Wilt's age who say Shaq was the better athlete etc...
Also Shaq wasn't a world class athlete?
Touche but I meant olympic caliber athlete. Like would Shaq's 100 yd dash, shotput, longjump and high jump scores compare favorably with Olympic athletes?




#2.
Good for Hill but I have compared on video the running speed of Wilt/Shaq from end to end and there is literally no difference and I have used countless examples.
I can't see a good argument for saying Wilt was significantly faster then O'neal based on my own personal comparisons.
LOL what? Look Hill is probably biased but you have it twisted, there is no evidence that Shaq was as fast/quick as Wilt, we do have Wilt's track and field numbers, what do we have recorded for Shaq?





I have also compared their vertical's and there again is no significant difference.
Wilt probably peaked around 38-42 inches while Young/Prime Shaq was around 36-40 inches.
Wilt said his vert was 48", could be exaggerating but the man was allegedly dunking on 12ft rims, with his 9"6 standing reach thats requires a minimum of 42 inches. Ill see if I can find anything that proves he jumped higher than that but try to do the same for Shaq.


Impressive how he played through injury's but that doesn't mean he was the better athlete.
It shows how quickly his body is able to recover and his threshold for pain. Thats a pretty important quality for an athlete in my book, but prolly not the one your concerning yourself with here.


#3.
Shaq was much quicker and much more explosive as an athlete.
O'neal had cat like quickness on some of his spin moves and when he went for dunks and he had much quicker feet.

Wilt simply never displayed that level of quickness/explosiveness.

Shaq had a bigger barrel chest then Wilt did and noticeably bigger arms.
Maybe 70's Wilt wasn't far apart in terms of upper body size/strength but I'd still give the edge to Shaq and Shaq had a much larger base/core and legs.

Lets just agree to disagree we obviously don't see eye to eye on this one.
Do as you wish but could you provide some testimonials or since its Shaq, some video evidence. Like do you have any footage of Shaq trying free throw line dunks? Wilt used to do them without needing much of a running start.

Chronz
10-06-2012, 07:13 PM
Countless eye witnesses?
How old was he when he benched with Arnie?
Arnie is among the many believers, but what are you trying to get at by mentioning his age. Wilt was benching more than Shaq when he was in his 60's.


Old story's can be twisted or exaggerated and while its easy to just take them at face value that is just something to keep in mind.
Yea but when they get rehashed and retold by VARIOUS credible sources, its hard not to believe. Like when he was invited to the Chiefs training camp, he beat their fastest running back in the 40 yd dash. Their coach was so impressed he claimed Wilt could have been an All-Pro player at 3 different positions.


Also Wilt got heavily into weight lifting after he retired so it is far from agiven that he could bench the 500 or so back in his playing days certainly not before he bulked up in the very late 60's / early 70's.
True, Ill try to find more testimony


Even if he could how much a player can press doesn't mean he is stronger on the court.

You keep saying this but its still an aspect that was being argued, Im just correcting it. However much of an impact it has depends on the rest of the players body type.

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 07:31 PM
Like do you have any footage of Shaq trying free throw line dunks? Wilt used to do them without needing much of a running start.
Do you have video of Wilt doing FT Line Dunks?

I don't think I have any of Shaq doing that but just off the top of my head these dunks were the closest thing I could think of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i40V439S8ZQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy-0RWbbzd8

My evidence for Shaq running like Wilt is my eyes.
I have had this conversation regarding their speed with many other people so I've gone back and compared the footage of them running on breaks and in other situations and I really didn't think Wilt ran the floor faster then O'neal did.

Just because Shaq never ran track and field doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't have excelled at it the way Wilt did.

xxplayerxx23
10-06-2012, 07:34 PM
What a shock he missed the FT :p

Andrew32
10-06-2012, 07:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewBnHq04CRg&feature=related

The first 20-25 seconds of this video show some nice examples of Shaq running the floor and how good his body coordination was.
It also display some of his quickness.

5ass
10-06-2012, 07:38 PM
you guys do understand that no matter how good he is in the post, Wilt will struggle to score efficiently since guys are just going to foul him and make him shoot FTs. Plus he didnt exactly have the best shot selection. In todays NBA his ts% would drop significantly.

xxplayerxx23
10-06-2012, 07:39 PM
Im :confused: Do you really think Shaq was better then Wilt?

b@llhog24
10-06-2012, 08:11 PM
you guys do understand that no matter how good he is in the post, Wilt will struggle to score efficiently since guys are just going to foul him and make him shoot FTs. Plus he didnt exactly have the best shot selection. In todays NBA his ts% would drop significantly.

1) You're not giving Wilt the benefit of modern day coaching
2) Wilt's TS in most years wasn't nothing to rave about, so basically you're expecting it to be mediocre?
3) TS has no bearings on pace, so with the reduction in pace, minutes, shot attempts and inclusion of the 3-point line Wilts should be alright.

bagwell368
10-06-2012, 09:25 PM
I doubt it, young Alcindor was still the games most productive force while Wilt was slowing down rapidly. Compared to where they were in their careers, young KAJ was much closer to his prime than Wilt was, yet they were so comparable that the Milwaukee crowd lauded his efforts.

Alcindor in his early years was physically weak, good prey for a strong guy like Wilt.

He got stronger and smarter. Jabbars biggest issue besides getting beat on by players like Moses is that he didn't get to play against that many great centers. It would have elevated his game almost for sure.

bagwell368
10-06-2012, 09:30 PM
I agree that Wilt had better cardio as he was a track star before the NBA. He easily had the best stamina of all the elite centers in NBA history.

Wilt was running down guys like Jerry Lucas, Willis Reed, and Wes Unseld. Hakeem is actually the best athlete of the great Centers.

As for Shaq - sure he would have put up better stats in the 60's.

Scalabrine could have done big damage back in 1956 too.

amos1er
10-06-2012, 10:35 PM
Fairly certain Shaq said it was his max. Wilt was beating it 1 year away from being 60. Whats Shaq's wingspan BTW? I think I remember him having the longest standing reach for awhile, and holding the recorded record for highest jump.

Shaq: 7'1 without shoes, 303 lbs rookie year, 325-365 from beginning to end of prime, vert 36 inches rookie year and estimated to be 36-38 during his prime, Wingspan 7'7, standing reach 9'5

Wilt: 7'1 without shoes, 240 lbs, rookie year, 265-300 from beginning to end prime, vert was estimated to be about 40 inches max during his prime but there is no exact measurement and no way to know for sure, wingspan 7'8, standing reach 9'6

Shaq's vert is insane for his weight and height. at 7'1 303 lbs he had a 36 inch vert. Let me put this in perspective for you...Wade has a vert of 35 inches, Carmelo, 33.5 inches, Kobe Bryant 38 inch vert.

I said it once and I'll say it again, Shaq easily has the best combination of size and athleticism in the history of the NBA. Find me a legit 7'1 303 lbs guy who has a vert of 36 inches...

Chronz
10-07-2012, 08:52 PM
I said it once and I'll say it again, Shaq easily has the best combination of size and athleticism in the history of the NBA. Find me a legit 7'1 303 lbs guy who has a vert of 36 inches...
And I will still disagree, Wilt was stronger, faster, quicker, more durable with superior stamina and is a better leaper. Shaq has him in girth and the momentum that comes with carrying that big body. Guess we value different things in an athlete.

Chronz
10-08-2012, 12:58 AM
Shaq: 7'1 without shoes, 303 lbs rookie year, 325-365 from beginning to end of prime, vert 36 inches rookie year and estimated to be 36-38 during his prime, Wingspan 7'7, standing reach 9'5

Wilt: 7'1 without shoes, 240 lbs, rookie year, 265-300 from beginning to end prime, vert was estimated to be about 40 inches max during his prime but there is no exact measurement and no way to know for sure, wingspan 7'8, standing reach 9'6



I didnt trust some of these figures so I rummaged through some of my Wilt books and a fair bit of googling to find some claims of Wilt weighing 320 around the very end of his career. And I dont buy the 40 inch max vert, we have exact measures that confirm he had to atleast get 42 inches off the ground to dunk on the experimental rims he was slamming on. And Shaq jumped 35 not 36 inches at the combine thing, Shaq had 12.2% body fat that year too. Ill try to find Wilts

Other specs on Wilt

Hand Length: 9.5"
Hand Spread: 11.5"
Bench Press: 500 lbs
Deadlift: 625 lbs
Clean & Jerk: 435 lbs
Shoulder Press: 400 lbs
40 yard dash: 4.6 seconds (Barefoot & wearing a suit/tie)
440 yard dash: 49.0 seconds
880 yard dash: 1:58.3
High Jump: 6-6.75
Broad Jump: 22 feet
Shot Put: 53 feet, 4 inches
Triple Jump: 46 feet 2.5 inch





-----------------------------------------


You guys have to keep in mind Wilt was prepping his body for a high tempo league, he would come to camp at like 310-315 at some point and shed the pounds carrying his insane load.

Hawkeye15
10-08-2012, 01:05 AM
great point Chronz. Wilt lost a pretty good amount of weight during the season.

Chronz
10-08-2012, 01:13 AM
great point Chronz. Wilt lost a pretty good amount of weight during the season.

Ron Artest used to come to camp at 280 in his younger days and trim down to about 240 come playoff time. Its why he had a tendency of trying slim down in season with the Lakers of late. Hes taking a different approach this season tho.

Hawkeye15
10-08-2012, 01:14 AM
Ron Artest used to come to camp at 280 in his younger days and trim down to about 240 come playoff time. Its why he had a tendency of trying slim down in season with the Lakers of late. Hes taking a different approach this season tho.

There are a nice amount of players who do that. Get stronger physically, also knowing that they will be playing a huge amount of minutes and their bodies tend to cut weight with all that playing time and not being able to consume enough calories or weight train as much.

Bruno
10-08-2012, 01:20 AM
Prime Wilt could have put up between 29-35 ppg in today era, with a TS% from .53-.555, with 12-14 boards and great defense. if i had to say