Shaq or Wilt

I didn't know Bill Russell was a small white guy. Willis Reed? Nate Thurmond? Wes Unseld? Hall of Famers.

you're right, but wilt didnt play against those guys every night. is it safe to assume that usually the teams with the big men capable of defending wilt made the playoffs? have you seen wilts playoff averages? they are down every year compared to his regular season stats. they are still considerable, they are still dominant, but its no coincidence that when faced with "big black guys" he's brought a little down to earth. (now, take into consideration i havent watched every wilt playoff game, though i have watched tape of him, so if im wrong in concluding this please clarify.) this is not normal for great players, usually they step up to the competition and their averages rise or at least they mantain them during the playoffs, that wilts fell is no coincidence and i think is telling.

but like i said i still consider wilt above shaq, i just think your either estimating him a little too high or shaq too low. were he to play today id say hed average around 27-30 ppg, 13 rpg, 4-5 apg, 2-3 bpg.

Looking at Shaq's position, who did he face during his reign? Rick Smits, Vlade Divac, and Arvydas Sabonis -- skilled players but by no means hall of famers.

Also, keep in mind that there were twelve teams in the NBA. There were still 82 games per season so Wilt had to go up against guys like Reed, Thurmond, Unseld, and Russell most nights.

Yes, Wilt's averages fell but like you said, they were still ridiculous. There were by no means any 50 point performances but there was still absolute dominance, even against one of the greatest defenders of all time in Bill Russell, whom he faced countless times.

Wilt i think is a lil better than Shaq. He rebounded more, and i think Shaq never made 100 points in a game.

Looking at Shaq's position, who did he face during his reign? Rick Smits, Vlade Divac, and Arvydas Sabonis -- skilled players but by no means hall of famers.

Also, keep in mind that there were twelve teams in the NBA. There were still 82 games per season so Wilt had to go up against guys like Reed, Thurmond, Unseld, and Russell most nights.

Yes, Wilt's averages fell but like you said, they were still ridiculous. There were by no means any 50 point performances but there was still absolute dominance, even against one of the greatest defenders of all time in Bill Russell, whom he faced countless times.

Did you purposely leave out players like David Robinson, Hakeen Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo, Kevin Willis (and that's not counting the PFs he played against like Duncan and Barkley)??

I'd take Wilt over Shaq, and Wilt would put up great numbers in today's because of the type of game being played today and his abilities. He'd probably be the best center in the game today if you only judge from the center position I doubt any center today would be better than Wilt including Shaq, and that's if Wilt was the same age Shaq is now. Wilt rebounds better, just as dangerous on the offensive end of the floor and probably is a much better shot blocker. Shaq has been on the decline since 2002. Also in their prime I'd still take Wilt but you can't go too wrong with the 2000 Shaq or the 2001 NBA playoffs Shaq either.

Did you purposely leave out players like David Robinson, Hakeen Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo, Kevin Willis (and that's not counting the PFs he played against like Duncan and Barkley)??

You mean the guys that were either on their last legs or out of the league when Shaq was in his prime?

Yeah, Hakeem beat up on a third year Shaq, but 2000 Shaq? Forgettaboutit.

From 1998 to 2002, Shaq was the best player in the league, injuries and the ascension of Duncan and Garnett are the only reason he probably didn't continue his absolute dominance the last three years.

As to the historical discussion of Wilt and Shaq...a few things to consider.

Playoff performance: the average player drops by 10-15%, considering Wilt had to go against the best defensive player of all time more often than anyone, I would assume this would be an even higher percentage drop.

I'll quote some people infinately smarter than I am:

The slowed down by Russel myth. Ok, here we go. Wilt and Russell squared off 142 times. Wilt averaged 28.7 points and 28.7 rebounds in those games. Russell averaged 23.7 rebounds and 14.5 points against Wilt (Russell's career average was 22.5 and Wilt's was 22.9, so it sure looks like Russell wasn't controlling the boards in those games!) Bye Bye slowed down myth. Wilt had a 62 point game on January 14, 1962, in Boston and had 6 other games of 50 points against Russell. The most Russell ever scored against Wilt was 37, and he had only two other 30-point games. Wilt grabbed an NBA-record 55 rebounds against Russell on November 24, 1960, and had six other games of at least 40 rebounds against Russell. When the Sixers beat the Celtics in the 1967 playoffs, Wilt averaged 22 points, 32 rebounds, and 10 assists -- a triple double-- against Russell! In the clinching game 5, he had 29 points, 36 rebounds, and 13 assists

1) Wilt and Russell squared off 142 times. Wilt averaged 28.7 points ( and 28.7 rebounds in those games. Russell averaged 23.7 rebounds and 14.5 points against Wilt.

Wilt his scoring average is 30,1 PPG. Against Russel he scores 28, 7 PPG. The fg% is about the same. So if you give Russell 100% credit than the greatest defensive player ever caused Wilt to score 1,4 ppg less. Chamberlain still scored 14, 2 ppg more than Russell. On the other hand Russell his career rebounding average is 22,5. Chamberlain his career average is 22,9. Russell is plus 0,8, Chamberlain is plus 6,8. So Chamberlain destroyed Russell on the boards. I can see why somebody should say that Russell was outplayed bij Chamberlain, but the opposite point can not be made. The more talented Celtic teams beat the Chamberlain teams almost every time, that is true.

2) Chamberlain attempted 26,1 shots per play off game in the first stage(score as much as possible) of his career, he scored 50, 5 % of his fg's. Chamberlain attempted 31, 4 shots in the regular season of the first stage of his career. He scored his fg at 51 %. So the reason that he scored less is for the biggest part that he attempted less (26,1 shots versus 31,4 shots) and not that his fg% was lower ( 50, 5 versus 51) Those are the facts. So no myth, but the way it was. We can also remark that he took 26, 3 rpg in the playoffs and 24,8 rpg in the regular season (both for the first stage of his career)

I see that 2 times Wilt is higher in the play-offs than in the regular season and the other times a bit lower. I'm talking of the first part of his career. But if you look at the difference with your numbers for the first part of his career (with ft) the difference is not big 51, 3 % in the season and 50, 3 % in the play-offs. That is a difference of 1 %. Very normal. If you look to fg% the difference is even smaller: 5O, 5 fg vs 51 fg. A small difference of 0, 5. Perfectly normal. This can not explain the difference in ppg in the play-offs and ppg in the regular season. Don't forget that this difference is caused for the biggest % in the seasons when he scored a lot; the first part of his career. It is not caused when he was a non scorer for the lakers for example. The difference is caused almost entirely in the seasons when he scored 50 or 40 ppg in the season and a lot less in the play-offs. The difference is almost entirely caused in the first part (score as much as possible) of his career.

I'm trying to answer the following question: What is the main reason that Wilt scored less in the play-offs than in the regular season in the first part of his career?

= In the first stage of his career Chamberlain his ppg went down in the play-offs because he took fewer fga than in the season. We are not talking a bit less but a lot less. I showed you that with numbers. 26,1 shots versus 31,4 shots. He took less fga (5, 3 per game). That's a very big difference, so it's normal he scored less. The fg % stayed virtually the same: 50,5 Fg vs 51 % or 51, 3 versus 50, 3. 5, 3 fga less: that is huge and the main reason he scored less. It's perfectly normal that his fg % is a little bit lower, and this is not the main reason for scoring less. 5, 3 fga less, that's the main reason.

Long, repetative, but certainly gets closer to an explanation for statistical drops than simply "he didn't bring it in the playoffs."

were he to play today id say hed average around 27-30 ppg, 13 rpg, 4-5 apg, 2-3 bpg.

I kick the blocks higher to 3.5-4 blocks a game. If there was one thing Wilt loved to do defensively it was block shots, he was a dominant defender because of his size (like Shaq) but he regularly expended actual extra effort to block shots.

Shaq's best year was 29.7-13.6-3.8. His rebound rate that year was 18.3, Wilt's are likely around 19.5-20 (based on his final three seasons). So Wilt's rebounding would probably be around 14.5 rpg. Depending on which Wilt you get (early scoring machine Wilt, middle do everything Wilt, or defensive Wilt) he could match or top Shaq's usage rate which would alter his scoring rate.

That said, he'd lead all centers in scoring, rebounds, assists and blocks. He'd also probably shoot better than the lot of them. Easily making him the best center in the league would it not?

Wilt was the number one (eight times) or number two PER for 10 straight years. Shaq was number one five straight times, number two three times, number three three times, having a ten year span as one of the top three. (For note, Jordan had seven straight years as number one, and also ten "straight" years as number one or number two...I'm ignoring his 1995 stint)

one thing, 1998 Jordan was still the best with Karl Malone a close second
1999 Duncan was the best, regardless of who got the MVP and he destroy Shaq who tried to guard him in the final game of the Laker's playoff sweep by the Spurs
2000, Shaq was clearly the best player all year long
2001 who knows but in the playoffs Shaq was the man
2002 Tim reclaimed his MVP title and though it was disputed in the end he was better than Shaq
Shaq years were 2000-2001 though he won the title in 2002, I'll give him that year too. but prior to 2000, no way he's the best, best center yeah but best player nall. I can't agree with that.

Statistics etc. are all useless and pointless... Unless you can build a time machine and take Wilt in his prime and Shaq in his prime, then don't even bother to compare the two...

Bill Russell was like 6'9" tall or something... Wilt had a huge height advantage over that guy no matter how good of a defender he was. The fact is that it doesn't prove anything...

The only fact that is true and the only thing that should be considered here is the fact that the guys who play this lovely game are getting bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic and more skillful as the time goes by... This is a fact! The average height, weight and verticals are probably a lot higher than they were in the sixties...

The guys are better and thus the competition is tougher today than it was when Wilt was playing... Thus Shaq's dominance of todays game is the point that probably edges this one for SHAQ... This is nothing to discredit Wilt or other older legends, but it is a fact.

How many 6'8" shooting guards were there in the league in the sixties? How many 7' forwards were there in the league in the sixties? Not nearly as many as there are today... If any...

It is impossible to compare the two unless you can match them up in real life...

Statistics etc. are all useless and pointless... Unless you can build a time machine and take Wilt in his prime and Shaq in his prime, then don't even bother to compare the two...

Yet we are comparing the two. It is possible. You just need to be knowledgeable on both players. Otherwise, don't bother.

Bill Russell was like 6'9" tall or something... Wilt had a huge height advantage over that guy no matter how good of a defender he was. The fact is that it doesn't prove anything...

The best job ever done on Shaquille O'Neal was by Dennis Rodman, who's height < Russel's.

The only fact that is true and the only thing that should be considered here is the fact that the guys who play this lovely game are getting bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic and more skillful as the time goes by... This is a fact! The average height, weight and verticals are probably a lot higher than they were in the sixties...

The guys are better and thus the competition is tougher today than it was when Wilt was playing... Thus Shaq's dominance of todays game is the point that probably edges this one for SHAQ... This is nothing to discredit Wilt or other older legends, but it is a fact.

Your lack of knowledge on Wilt Chamberlain takes away all your credibility.

The guy was ahead of his time. He was as athletic as KG and almost as strong as Shaq. Fact. Don't believe me, check out pictures of him doing the high jump or playing volleyball. Look back at the picture of him with the dumbell. Then, he was the most athletic player in sports. Now, he'd be one of the most athletic players in basketball, the most athletic big man. Then, he was far and away the strongest player in the NBA. Now, he'd easily be up there with Shaq. Don't discredit him before doing your research.

He was more skilled than Shaq. His array of post moves along with a decent mid-range shot from 10-15 feet gave him the ability to dominate. I'm not saying that Shaq's skilless, but his repetoire doesn't come close to that of Hakeem or Chamberlain.

And don't state things as facts when they're only your opinions.

It is impossible to compare the two unless you can match them up in real life...

Stop trying to piss on the fire when you've had nothing to drink. This is speculation. We can all admit that. You clearly are not knowledgeable enough to make a consistent argument. It takes knowledge and an open-mind to take part in this. What separates those with and those without? Those without vote for Shaq.

I disagree simply because from your own statement the athletics part of the game may have improved but certainly not the smarts of those gifted with these incredible abilities. Players played a smarter game than they do now or have in some years. Very few players use their brains as opposed to their physical gifts compared to those of yester-year. There are plenty of retor game that come on T V now a days to verify that as a fact. The average team today would lose to those guys simply because they played a smarter team game. Practically everybody could make a wide open shot as opposed to those who play today who either hesistate or just can't make the shot consistently. Certain stats may not matter but Rebounds say alot, especially offensive rebounding for a big man. You can discredit some stats but some are good to have record of. Today's atheletes have training advantages over past players but I'd take a majority of those guys oer some of today's players because had higher b-bal I.Q's and we've seen how the younger more athletics teams lose over and over again in today's game to the more experienced, older and smarter well coached teams and it's been like that for years now even in the Jordan era.

Playoff performance: the average player drops by 10-15%, considering Wilt had to go against the best defensive player of all time more often than anyone, I would assume this would be an even higher percentage drop.

but im not talking about the average players playoff performance. i hope we all agree that wilt is not an average player.

jordans playoff averages rise, duncans playoff averages rise, hakeems averages rise, russells averages either mantain or rise, birds averages mantain, west's averages rise, shaqs averages rise, magics averages either mantain or rise slightly, kareems averages mantain or rise slightly. the list goes on and on. does medvedenko's averages dip? yes. but wilt is no medvedenko.

anyhow, i digress, the reason i think wilts numbers are so bloated during the regular season (aside from his dominance) is the simple fact that the game was more high paced during his day. you can argue that defense has evolved, but regardless if that is true or not (it is) the game was still high paced. the way the phoenix suns play today would not be out of place. in fact, they would be one of the lower scoring teams. in 65 the average team scored 110 ppgs on 42 fg%. in 66 it was 115 ppgs on 43 fg%. in 67 117 ppgs on 44 fg%.

in 2000 the average team scored 94 ppgs on 45 fg%.

in 65 the average team hoisted 7987 shots per season which ballooned to 8350 in 67. in 2000 the average team hoisted 6732 per season. in 67 the lowest number even attempted was 8004 by st louis. in 2000 the max was 7288 by sac.

i think wilts rebounding and scoring numbers are self explanatory.

that said, wilt was responsible for 40% of his teams points scored in 62 (arguably his best, though i prefer the assist season) and 34% of his teams rebounding. in comparison, in 2000, shaq was responsible for 28% of his teams scoring and 28% of his teams rebounding. but, also take into consideration wilt averaged 48.5 minutes per game in 62, and the team attempted a little over 8900(!!!) shots that year compared to the 2000 lakers 6836.

also take into consideration:

During his career, his dominance precipitated many rules changes. These rules changed included widening the lane, instituting offensive goaltending and revising rules governing inbounding the ball and shooting free throws (Chamberlain would leap with the ball from behind the foul line to deposit the ball in the basket).

which would adversely effect shaq (or at least his numbers) in the coming years.

on the other hand, i do think wilt would dominate in todays game considering he was 7 and between 250 and 300 lbs, not to mention in good condition and healthy (as proven by the amount of games he didnt miss during his career, excluding 1970, lowest amount played was 72, the rest he was able to stick it out for the most part at least 80 per). i think benji's right to bump his blocking numbers, so i revise my predicted averages to 27-30 ppgs, 14-15 rpgs, 3-5 apgs, 3-4 bpgs as such. he'd still get his against kareem and shaq and hakeem, but his numbers would go down just because its smarter to share the ball with a player like him on the floor demanding automatic doubles/triples.

Statistics etc. are all useless and pointless...

...unless they work in your favor. just kidding, i know what you mean, but like you said, unless you build a time machine that and tape are all we have.

Last edited by magius on Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wasnt shaq kinda skinny at first? i remember seeign a picture or sumtin.

He was never skinny.

Also about Russell's dominance on Shaq in terms of shot blocking, that has nothing to do with who goe after blocks more, it's has to do with Wilt being longer, more athletic, and quicker than Shaq on rotations. Wilt was what? 7'1, quick and fast for his size, had a pretty good vertical, and had a mad long wingspan. Shaq is 7'0 tall, when not fat had a 34 inch vertical, has a good wingspan, but not great, and is not nearly as quick when his weight is up.

Statistics etc. are all useless and pointless... Unless you can build a time machine and take Wilt in his prime and Shaq in his prime, then don't even bother to compare the two...

Yet we are comparing the two. It is possible. You just need to be knowledgeable on both players. Otherwise, don't bother.

Bill Russell was like 6'9" tall or something... Wilt had a huge height advantage over that guy no matter how good of a defender he was. The fact is that it doesn't prove anything...

The best job ever done on Shaquille O'Neal was by Dennis Rodman, who's height < Russel's.

The only fact that is true and the only thing that should be considered here is the fact that the guys who play this lovely game are getting bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic and more skillful as the time goes by... This is a fact! The average height, weight and verticals are probably a lot higher than they were in the sixties...

The guys are better and thus the competition is tougher today than it was when Wilt was playing... Thus Shaq's dominance of todays game is the point that probably edges this one for SHAQ... This is nothing to discredit Wilt or other older legends, but it is a fact.

Your lack of knowledge on Wilt Chamberlain takes away all your credibility.

The guy was ahead of his time. He was as athletic as KG and almost as strong as Shaq. Fact. Don't believe me, check out pictures of him doing the high jump or playing volleyball. Look back at the picture of him with the dumbell. Then, he was the most athletic player in sports. Now, he'd be one of the most athletic players in basketball, the most athletic big man. Then, he was far and away the strongest player in the NBA. Now, he'd easily be up there with Shaq. Don't discredit him before doing your research.

He was more skilled than Shaq. His array of post moves along with a decent mid-range shot from 10-15 feet gave him the ability to dominate. I'm not saying that Shaq's skilless, but his repetoire doesn't come close to that of Hakeem or Chamberlain.

And don't state things as facts when they're only your opinions.

It is impossible to compare the two unless you can match them up in real life...

Stop trying to piss on the fire when you've had nothing to drink. This is speculation. We can all admit that. You clearly are not knowledgeable enough to make a consistent argument. It takes knowledge and an open-mind to take part in this. What separates those with and those without? Those without vote for Shaq.

Man you are a pussy... You are saying that the players haven't gotten any bigger, faster or more skilled in like 40 years??? If you disregard this from the facts than you lose each and every cent of credibility you had left...

The fact is the players are bigger and the game is faster. This is an absolute truth... I am well aware of the fact that Wilt was an absolute monster and he was an absolutely dominant force in the game and was probably one of the biggest dominators the game has ever seen. He crushed a blocking mans shoulder while doing a dunk... That's power.

But you cannot even compare players from 1990 to the players today... The fact is that the rules have changed so many times since Wilt was playing that it's hard to tell how well he would do with the current rule book...

If you can say that Wilt was a far better player than Shaq, you have to prove it... How can you prove it? Numbers don't mean anything...

For instance, at the moment many consider Duncan to be the best player in the league... His numbers aren't anything too spectacular. KG has better... Also there are many 20/10 players in the league. Numbers have to be considered as a product of the entire team... Shaq has always played with a good and scoring guard and thus his numbers have never reached their apex... Kobe had to have his share as did the rest of the team.

Wilt especially in those monster seasons was the only man to go to in the scoring end and rightfully so... He was as you said way ahead of his time, but comparing him to todays athletes... It's a guessing game...

And you call me a moron for saying that you can't really compare the two... HOW THE HELL CAN YOU???

The game is faster? I don't know about that, back in the day no one truly played defense, the idea was to score as much as possible, that's also why you have players averaging 20 RPG because their were that many rebounds available when your team is taking 100 shots and only hitting 41%.

One thing we also have to note is that players will adjust. Wilt would adjust to the more defensive oriented teams, to the players etc and put up 29-30+ points, 14-15 rebounds, 4 assists, and 4 blocks, just like Shaq would adjust to the faster pace and average 30+ points, 18-20+ rebounds, 4 assists, and 4 blocks in the 60's.

With player heights, back in the day guys were measured bare feet as opposed to with shoes like it is now, so you'd have to add about an inch to all of their heights.

Wilt right now would be taller than Shaq, more athletic, more skilled [has range offensively, better passer, more moves], and the second strongest C in the league. Those are not tools for failure, and he's no Kwame Brown.

As I said before, Wilt was a power house, but I don't think he could match O'Neal in power... Wilt was extremely mobile and strong for a center in the day, but Shaq is just all power... He is the measuring pole at the moment in strength and no one even comes close.

As strong as Wilt and Bill Russell were, I don't think they could have stopped Shaq under the hoop either... As can no one alive today.

He is just that strong...

Shaq would have hard time guarding Wilt too, he was that versatile and had some mid-range game, so it would be tough say who would be better. Still I voted for Shaq and I stand by my vote...

I don't know about that, back in the day no one truly played defense

Well, I don't know about that. The Celtics won with defense for many years as their offense was pretty bad sometimes.

The pace of the game was much faster in the 60s as someone else pointed out. Teams took 104.4 fga per game in 66-67, 30 years later they took 79.3. Offensive Efficiency was much lower during the 60s, however one should note that the future jumps in OE correspond quite well with the jumps in three point attempts.

Statistics etc. are all useless and pointless

And you complain when people call you stupid...

What is a statistic? A numerical measure of something.

Shaq seventeen times during a game grabs a rebound. A stat to represent this is the 17 rebounds he has on the boxscore.

Statistics are are nothing short of FACTS. You can argue about the meaning and value of Shaq's 17 rebounds (you can even argue 17 rebounds is worse than 2 rebounds if you wish) but you cannot argue that Shaq really got 8 or 35 rebounds, because it didn't happen. He got 17.

One's eyes can be decieved, one's desires and hopes can replace reality in their evaluation. Who didn't think Olowokandi was a rising star when he took those right handed hooks his first few years? I think Darko is the greatest thing since the printing press so I could be prone to not see his errors while watching him play. As a wise Russian once said about a case of ignoring statistics in favor of ones tainted opinions: "Denying that is almost as stupid as saying that Team A should have gotten the win despite scoring less points than Team B, because it looked better in the game or because it had better players. "

Saying statistics are pointless ignores the fact that they're a record of results that have occured. Great players put up great stats, and terrible players put up terrible stats. If stats are useless and pointless, then let's say Shaq is a great free throw shooter, so what if the stats say he shoots 45% from the line, I say he's a great free throw shooter and you can't prove otherwise!

Do you believe in looking at wins and losses? Those are stats. They're useless and pointless. Why even say the Rockets are 4-11? Those are just pointless stats. The Spurs won four games to the Pistons three in the Finals last season? Psch, who cares? That's a pointless stat. The Celtics have 16 championships? Psch. Again, a pointless stat. The Bobcats have zero. Who cares, it's all just pointless stats. Forget about discussing how tall players are, how much they weigh, even what jersey number they wear. After all, those are all stats.

You may not like stats because they're hard to understand or go against the CW. But that doesn't make them useless and pointless.

I don't know about that, back in the day no one truly played defense

Well, I don't know about that. The Celtics won with defense for many years as their offense was pretty bad sometimes.

The pace of the game was much faster in the 60s as someone else pointed out. Teams took 104.4 fga per game in 66-67, 30 years later they took 79.3. Offensive Efficiency was much lower during the 60s, however one should note that the future jumps in OE correspond quite well with the jumps in three point attempts.

Statistics etc. are all useless and pointless

And you complain when people call you stupid...

What is a statistic? A numerical measure of something.

Shaq seventeen times during a game grabs a rebound. A stat to represent this is the 17 rebounds he has on the boxscore.

Statistics are are nothing short of FACTS. You can argue about the meaning and value of Shaq's 17 rebounds (you can even argue 17 rebounds is worse than 2 rebounds if you wish) but you cannot argue that Shaq really got 8 or 35 rebounds, because it didn't happen. He got 17.

One's eyes can be decieved, one's desires and hopes can replace reality in their evaluation. Who didn't think Olowokandi was a rising star when he took those right handed hooks his first few years? I think Darko is the greatest thing since the printing press so I could be prone to not see his errors while watching him play. As a wise Russian once said about a case of ignoring statistics in favor of ones tainted opinions: "Denying that is almost as stupid as saying that Team A should have gotten the win despite scoring less points than Team B, because it looked better in the game or because it had better players. "

Saying statistics are pointless ignores the fact that they're a record of results that have occured. Great players put up great stats, and terrible players put up terrible stats. If stats are useless and pointless, then let's say Shaq is a great free throw shooter, so what if the stats say he shoots 45% from the line, I say he's a great free throw shooter and you can't prove otherwise!

Do you believe in looking at wins and losses? Those are stats. They're useless and pointless. Why even say the Rockets are 4-11? Those are just pointless stats. The Spurs won four games to the Pistons three in the Finals last season? Psch, who cares? That's a pointless stat. The Celtics have 16 championships? Psch. Again, a pointless stat. The Bobcats have zero. Who cares, it's all just pointless stats. Forget about discussing how tall players are, how much they weigh, even what jersey number they wear. After all, those are all stats.

You may not like stats because they're hard to understand or go against the CW. But that doesn't make them useless and pointless.

Okay, now you are a wack job... You just refuted yourself by giving number etc. You just did your self in... You claim stats are everything, then there is no one better than Wilt... Period. But you also say that the shot amounts have gone from 105 to 80 during that time, so the scoring is lower and there are less missed shots and less shots put up, and thus not the same amount of statistics to mark down...

I didn't say statistics are totally useless, I just said that COMPARING SHAQ AND WILT ACCORDING STATISTICS IS UTTERLY AND TOTALLY USELESS AND THE GUYS HAVE PLAYED TWO ALMOST TOTALLY DIFFERENT GAMES IN THEIR DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Twisted Evil Dumb-ass...

Like I was talking about stats in general! When the hell did this become "are stats useful"-thread??? No one told me... Keep me in the loop and I can respond accordingly. I thought this thread was about Wilt Chamberlain and Shaquile O'Neal!

Read the title of the thread first and then come bitch to me moron...

I agree with Metsis. There is no way of knowing who is better. Each had a different game and their stats vary accordingly. I have no idea what Wilt's teammates were like but I know that Shaq has played with people that really like to score (eg. Kobe) so I don't think you can compare ppg. We really don't know what people are capable of playing against others until we actually see it (eg. Diaw againt Yao, who would've thought he could dominate Yao?) Stats really don't mean anything when comparing players from different eras, and to some extent the same era. I think that is what Metsis is saying. You can't tell unless you have seen the two play in the same era.

well if you both feel that way, maybe you shouldnt be posting here. after all it is a player comparison thread, if you dont think its plausible to do so well then really you're just wasting your time here, aren't you? on the other hand, there are those of us who think it is possible to compare the two - even if for nothing else but amusement and peace of mind. stats are a means to defining what we watch, i see no wrong in using both hand in hand. the reason he (and i) mentioned the difference in shot attempts is an attempt to justify the differential in stats of the eras. is it not logical that the more shots attempted per era the more points a team scores, hence the more points the superstar of that team scores? if you have a brain that means that if wilt were playing in todays era there is no way he would score 50 per or average 20 rpg because there arent as many shots to score on, or rebounds to grab from said shots.

the reason we have stats is so that we can attempt to examine things with as little bias as possible. do they always work? no, not if you use the general stats, but there is a stat for everything and likewise everything is a stat. and even if we used all the possible stats, yes, its still possible to be wrong.... but let me ask you this, if we didnt use stats and we just asked people what they thought, where would we get? kobe bryant would be the greatest player to ever play basketball, and nate robinson the second coming of god. the only answer anybody would ever have is: "uh... just because, are you blind? watch the game, stupid. duh.". its not possible to have an opinion of any substance without something of substance to back it... in otherwords a fact, or a known truth.... a stat. if the only basis of your arguments are 'feel' and 'instinct' then save us the embarassment of watching you embarass yourself.

Well you can compare T-Mac, Kobe, Vinsanity and others stars of today with each other and their stats with each other... As they all are playing now and sometimes go head to head so we can actually tell when someone bests someone today...

Stats aren't a good comparing method overall... Do you think LeBron is worse than he was last season? His stats are down (I'm not sure how much, but I assume)... The kid is more likely better than last year, but his stats are still down... How can this be? The team around him is way more superior than it was last season and thus he doesn't have to do everything like his first two years in the league... So the kid is actually better and his stats are down from last season.

Stats reflect the team as well as they reflect the individual... Do you think Kobe would be averaging 30+ points, if he had better players around him? Or 25 shot attempts? Hell no... But since he is the only weapon on offense (in his mind) he takes the shots and gets the points... But look at Vince Carter for example... He has Kidd and Jefferson... And Krstic pulls some nice games every now and then. He could score more if he pushed it, but it would be bad for the team... There are only so many jumpers you can take in a game.

Have you never heard of the "beware of the guy from a bad team with good stats" warning! Even if he was scoring 25 a game in a bad team doesn't mean that he will score 25 in a good team... That's a sure thing. They look good on paper, but their teams look just awful.

This is a team game... No matter how you put it... And the team affects everything and anything to do with single players... All the players have roles and they do their jobs to the best of their abilities. No matter what the stats show... Sprewell has got some games left in the tank and do you see him playing anywhere? He looks very good on paper...

Kobe, T-Mac etc. are good comparisons and you can actually make those arguments, but comparing Kobe and say Dominique Wilkins... Well it's a guessing game.

Don't get me wrong, it's okay to compare players... I just don't like to see fifteenhundreth comparison of Shaq and Wilt on the boards...

They were/are very good and probably the best big men of their time... Can't we just leave it to that???

Stats aren't a good comparing method overall... Do you think LeBron is worse than he was last season? His stats are down (I'm not sure how much, but I assume)... The kid is more likely better than last year, but his stats are still down... How can this be? The team around him is way more superior than it was last season and thus he doesn't have to do everything like his first two years in the league... So the kid is actually better and his stats are down from last season.

how do you know the team around him is superior? i can boastfully proclaim that the team around kobe is superior, but still sucks, therefore he sucks, but that has no stake as is. we can understand a players individual worth almost as much from stats as we can from tape. how do we know daman jones is a good three point shooter, because we say he is? no because he shot a good percentage, same with marshall. we know a team is good as a whole because of stats - what do you think the win and loss row is? fantasy? its a stat. its a winning percentage. like i said, you go wrong when you just use the general stats (ppg, rpg, apg), but when you take into consideration the other stats (off/def efficiency, +/1, yes team performance, team pace aka team attempts per, etc. etc..) you have a much more broad argument.

can we watch a game and figure out kobe is shooting way too much? yes. but you can look at his field goal attempts per game as well, and figure the same thing. put that hand in hand with his teams record and you come to the same conclusion you just did..... only faster.

This is a team game... No matter how you put it... And the team affects everything and anything to do with single players... All the players have roles and they do their jobs to the best of their abilities. No matter what the stats show... Sprewell has got some games left in the tank and do you see him playing anywhere? He looks very good on paper...

this is a team game dominated by individuals more so than most other sports. thats why, like i said, you take into consideration the individuals (if he is a superstar) team success when evaluating him individually and you can hardly go wrong. team success is as much a stat as any.

Don't get me wrong, it's okay to compare players... I just don't like to see fifteenhundreth comparison of Shaq and Wilt on the boards...

They were/are very good and probably the best big men of their time... Can't we just leave it to that???

fine and yes

Stats aren't a good comparing method overall... Do you think LeBron is worse than he was last season? His stats are down (I'm not sure how much, but I assume)... The kid is more likely better than last year, but his stats are still down... How can this be? The team around him is way more superior than it was last season and thus he doesn't have to do everything like his first two years in the league... So the kid is actually better and his stats are down from last season.

how do you know the team around him is superior? i can boastfully proclaim that the team around kobe is superior, but still sucks, therefore he sucks, but that has no stake as is. we can understand a players individual worth almost as much from stats as we can from tape. how do we know daman jones is a good three point shooter, because we say he is? no because he shot a good percentage, same with marshall. we know a team is good as a whole because of stats - what do you think the win and loss row is? fantasy? its a stat. its a winning percentage. like i said, you go wrong when you just use the general stats (ppg, rpg, apg), but when you take into consideration the other stats (off/def efficiency, +/1, yes team performance, team pace aka team attempts per, etc. etc..) you have a much more broad argument.

can we watch a game and figure out kobe is shooting way too much? yes. but you can look at his field goal attempts per game as well, and figure the same thing. put that hand in hand with his teams record and you come to the same conclusion you just did..... only faster.

This is a team game... No matter how you put it... And the team affects everything and anything to do with single players... All the players have roles and they do their jobs to the best of their abilities. No matter what the stats show... Sprewell has got some games left in the tank and do you see him playing anywhere? He looks very good on paper...

this is a team game dominated by individuals more so than most other sports. thats why, like i said, you take into consideration the individuals (if he is a superstar) team success when evaluating him individually and you can hardly go wrong. team success is as much a stat as any.

Don't get me wrong, it's okay to compare players... I just don't like to see fifteenhundreth comparison of Shaq and Wilt on the boards...

They were/are very good and probably the best big men of their time... Can't we just leave it to that???

fine and yes

You really don't know... You really can't tell what is good and what is not. I personally have to rely much on the stats, but I do also know that there is so much more to this thing than the stats! Stats do tell some sort of a story, but it is hardly the truth... T-wolves are a great example. The team dropped from contender to pretender status on paper and it is a whole lot better with Cassell and Spree replaced by other less skilled and experienced players... Adding by subtracting method. Which sometimes has to be done. It's like you have one person that does an absolutely awesome job at the work place, but disrupts the work of others by some amount... Are you willing to rid your company of that awesome job to get better performance from people working around him? This is a tough conundrum...

How can I tell that the Cavs are better... When you have NO three point shooters on your team and you add a couple that can shoot the three, the team is bound to get better... For example, if you have a company and a great design team, but a poor production side of things, can it manufacture a good product? So you need to get better production to match the great designing... Or if you have a killer product, but no merchandising schemes, you are bound to fail... It's like that.

The optimal basketball team would have some great inside players and inside defenders. Some slashers to slash to the hoop. Three point shooters to spread the floor and point guards to dribble and pass the ball. Unfortunately you can only have 5 guys on the court at any time... And it's even more rare to find all these pieces for the prices allowed under the salary cap. Super-stars are players that excel in many of these fields and thus are very important players.

There are only so many guys that can be considered stars in each category that there is not enough to go around... And so there are teams that have holes in their lineups and their first priority is to pluck those holes and when they are plucked, the team will be better...

Stats aren't a good comparing method overall... Do you think LeBron is worse than he was last season? His stats are down (I'm not sure how much, but I assume)... The kid is more likely better than last year, but his stats are still down...

No, they aren't. He's rebounding, assisting and stealing less but his shooting has been so much better he's overall producing more points.

How can you compare players other than statistics? I mean you can't represent and prove their abilities without statistics.

Now to your overreaction:

Okay, now you are a wack job... You just refuted yourself by giving number etc. You just did your self in... You claim stats are everything, then there is no one better than Wilt... Period. But you also say that the shot amounts have gone from 105 to 80 during that time, so the scoring is lower and there are less missed shots and less shots put up, and thus not the same amount of statistics to mark down...

I wasn't arguing anything about Wilt. As you would've seen if you actually read my post. Instead of rushing to call people names. Yes, I know there are less shot attempts and overall possessions, which is why I pace adjust all my stats, like I did earlier with Wilt's per game numbers.

I didn't say statistics are totally useless, I just said that COMPARING SHAQ AND WILT ACCORDING STATISTICS IS UTTERLY AND TOTALLY USELESS AND THE GUYS HAVE PLAYED TWO ALMOST TOTALLY DIFFERENT GAMES IN THEIR DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Twisted Evil Dumb-ass...

Great, calling names. Did you not say "Statistics etc. are all useless and pointless" and "Numbers don't mean anything..." You certainly didn't specify you were only talking about Shaq and Wilt because you started ambling on about Duncan and Garnett. You gave the impression you believe stats to be meaningless.

I thought this thread was about Wilt Chamberlain and Shaquile O'Neal!

Read the title of the thread first and then come bitch to me moron...

Such a foul mouth. Does your mother have soap in the house? You say you want to talk about Wilt and Shaq but when a group of facts don't conform to your worldview you start calling them useless and pointless and insulting others. You want to throw out any facts that don't mesh with how you perceive things. You create excuses and as you throw out things eventually you've thrown out any facts except the ones you accept, which always confirm your view of things.

Do you think Kobe would be averaging 30+ points, if he had better players around him? Or 25 shot attempts? Hell no... But since he is the only weapon on offense (in his mind) he takes the shots and gets the points...

He's still having his worst season in years statistically.

Have you never heard of the "beware of the guy from a bad team with good stats" warning! Even if he was scoring 25 a game in a bad team doesn't mean that he will score 25 in a good team... That's a sure thing. They look good on paper, but their teams look just awful.

Just as a question, what players on bad teams have had good stats, and then not had good stats when they joined a better team? I mean once you dump out age effects and injuries?

No matter what the stats show... Sprewell has got some games left in the tank and do you see him playing anywhere? He looks very good on paper...

What paper is that? One written by Amr? The guy has barely been average for years.

You really can't tell what is good and what is not. I personally have to rely much on the stats, but I do also know that there is so much more to this thing than the stats! Stats do tell some sort of a story, but it is hardly the truth... T-wolves are a great example. The team dropped from contender to pretender status on paper and it is a whole lot better with Cassell and Spree replaced by other less skilled and experienced players... Adding by subtracting method.

Well replacing Spree with almost anyone would've been a upgrade since he was terrible last season. Hudson, Carter, Madsen, Olowokandi, and Frahm are all having better seasons than they did last year. The reason the team is playing better is because their competition has been even worse. KG and Wally are both having worse seasons which does not bode well for their long term record. Maybe once more than 13% of the season is over they will continue to be a 54 win team, but I wouldn't bet money on it. (They're winning with defense, ranked 5th, and since they don't have many players who scream out "stopper" it raises questions about their longevity...)

How can I tell that the Cavs are better... When you have NO three point shooters on your team and you add a couple that can shoot the three, the team is bound to get better...

Well, replacing the second worst backcourt in the league with Larry Hughes and Damon Jones and then adding a top ten power forward in Donyell Marshall to the bench would be a good indicator. Though they'd be nowhere if not for that all-star calibur forward Drew Gooden. Of course us wack job stathead twisted evil dumbass morons were projecting a 50 win season months ago because of the backcourt upgrade. (One that reminds us of the one Denver pulled a couple seasons back that Carmelo Anthony got all the credit for.)

There are only so many guys that can be considered stars in each category that there is not enough to go around... And so there are teams that have holes in their lineups and their first priority is to pluck those holes and when they are plucked, the team will be better..

This is why we have stats, so we can see who the good players are, quantify and qualify what they're good at...

Wilt Better than Shaq in 2 ways

1) He IS better than Shaq

2) Shaq is paid 10million actually..(The other ten million is the payment for his donuts.)