Best Center

Who was the best centers to ever wore the LAKERS jersey? Pls give me your reasons?

my choice well it will.... you know who it is.
i cast my vote later.

too easy...

Wilt is the best player OF ALL TIME... who else could score 100 points in a game? Jordan hasn't even come close...

I'm not going to argue in a post where Hakeem Olajuwon isn't even in the poll

too easy...

Whoops Laker jersey. Wilt then.

Last edited by FanOfAll on Tue Aug 03, 2004 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not going to argue in a post where Hakeem Olajuwon isn't even in the poll

Good, you'll save yourself the embarressment.

Who was the best centers to ever wore the LAKERS jersey?

Wilt-Shaq-Kareem.

Quote:
Who was the best centers to ever wore the LAKERS jersey?

Wilt-Shaq-Kareem.

What about Mikan?...I know he wore a MPLS jersey, but he still was a Lakers player...

What about Mikan?...I know he wore a MPLS jersey, but he still was a Lakers player...

Yes, what about him?

Just answering the answer you started...Mikan deserves some consideration in that 3-man list...that's all I was saying...

What question?

He asked who the best Center in a Laker jersey was, I said Wilt. People might be curious as to who comes after Wilt on my list, thus I added Kareem & Shaq.

I didn't ask any question.

Nevermind; Wilt is my #1 Pick...I confuse people...I know it...

i like wilt...100points in a game, average 50 in 1 season, probably the 2nd best all time to jordan

Wilt Chamberlain
Respect

Wilt is the best player OF ALL TIME... who else could score 100 points in a game? Jordan hasn't even come close...

They played in two complete eras. No one could match up remotely against Wilt. In his era, he was considered a giant and no one could guard him so he would just post up and score.

They played in two complete eras. No one could match up remotely against Wilt. In his era, he was considered a giant and no one could guard him so he would just post up and score

That´s wrong buddy.
Those who say this need to get familiar with two players: Walter Dukes and Swede Halbrook. Dukes was the first 7'0" center. Dukes enjoyed a height advantage over his opponents and was supposed to dominate the league, much like George Mikan had. However, Dukes never averaged more than 14.1 PPG. Halbrook was bigger than Wilt. At 7'3", Halbrook should have overwhelmed Wilt and the rest of the league according to this logic. Instead, Halbrook only played 2 seasons and had career highs of 7.0 PPG and 6.3 RPG. Instead of dominating, he warmed the bench for 6'9" Johnny "Red" Kerr.

Why didn't these 2 dominate? Because there is more to greatness than size. Look at modern day examples: George Muresan and Shawn Bradley enjoy more size advantage than Wilt ever had, yet these 2 have never came close to even making an all-star game. Manute Bol, Chuck Nevitt, Mark Eaton, Randy Breuer are all over 7'2" and never were dominating scorers. Heck, none of them were dominating *anything*, except Eaton, who could play defense. The only *decent* offensive players over 7'2" in history are Rik Smits, who is a puny rebounder and shot blocker, and Ralph Sampson, who was solid in his early years, but never the kind of dominator that Wilt was. Sampson also, happens to be the only athletic player on the entire list.

Wilt was a superior athlete, possessing amazing jumping ability and unparalleled strength. No center since has had his abilities. For instance, Patrick Ewing is big and has size, but he lacks Wilt's strength and athleticism. Shaquille O'Neal is big and pretty athletic, but not as athletic as Wilt, and he lacks the strength (though he is strong!), jumping ability, and especially the fundamentals, of Wilt. Wilt was simply an awesome package of basketball in a 7'0" frame.

Make it in the NBA...not Lakers...at least put Lakers in the title!

I vote... Slava Medvedenko!

Wilt is the best player OF ALL TIME... who else could score 100 points in a game? Jordan hasn't even come close...

I would say that scoring 69 points comes fairly close, especially since Wilt had more field goal and free throw attempts.

That is perhaps the one thing that many people overlook when discussing Wilt's incredible scoring feats (and yes, they are great achievements) - he had the opportunity. No one else has attempted more than 60 shots in a single game. No other player has been allowed to shoot so freely. Michael Jordan once attempted 49 shots against the Magic in a game in which he scored 64 points, but that's still fewer than 50 (the least amount of two point field goals that a player would need to make to score 100 points).

The season he averaged 50.4 ppg, Wilt averaged nearly 40 shot attempts per contest. Now, obviously he must be a skilled offensive player. If he couldn't hit the backside of a barn with a bale of hay at two paces, it wouldn't matter how many shots he took because he wouldn't be able to capitalise upon the opportunities. But he was a great offensive player, one who got an opportunity to score a lot of points because he was given so many shots.

The game in which Wilt scored 100, his teammates were constantly feeding him the ball in an effort to give him the record. That doesn't happen these days. As much as there is still a spirit of individuality in basketball, more so than most team sports, such individual goals usually aren't the focus of a game.

I would suggest that a lot of players would be able to score 100 points if given 63 shots and 32 free throws. MJ shot 27/49 against the Magic (his career high for field goals made and attempted) and once made 26/27 free throws in a game against the Nets in 1987. He's made 20 plus free throws missing only a couple of attempts a few times in his career.

Would it therefore be a stretch to suggest that MJ could have equalled Wilt's 36/63 field goals and 28/32 free throws given the opportunity? I honestly don't think so. That would be an additional 9 field goals (out of 14 attemps) and 2 free throws (out of five attempts) upon marks that he's already set.

The other significant statistic is Wilt's career playoff scoring average, which is 22.5 ppg - nearly 8 ppg lower than his career regular season scoring average of 30.1 ppg. Most of Wilt's best scoring feats came in the regular season, whereas Michael Jordan always seemed to turn it up a notch in the postseason.

There has to be a reason for Wilt's playoff scoring average being significantly lower. To me, it suggests he either:
a) Choked
b) Was consistently shut down by postseason opponents

Either way, that doesn't really sound like a player who is "unstoppable" or particularly clutch. Most of the great players' numbers are higher in the playoffs. To be fair, Wilt's boards are up in his career playoff averages, but his assists and points per game are down (as noted earlier, his scoring average drops by almost 8 ppg). His numbers and his dominance suggest a player who should have won much more than he did.

He did not win the scoring title and the NBA championship in the same season as MJ did six times. His championships came after he significantly reduced his scoring. His teams were foiled several times in the playoffs and Finals.

MJ also had to sacrifice his points for the better of the team, but he also averaged more than 30 points in four of the championship years and was able to be the league's top scorer as well as the leader of the championship team. His career playoff scoring average is 3 points higher than his regular season average.

Why didn't these 2 dominate? Because there is more to greatness than size. Look at modern day examples: George Muresan and Shawn Bradley enjoy more size advantage than Wilt ever had, yet these 2 have never came close to even making an all-star game.

(I haven't bothered quoting the rest of your post because there's no need to quote everything you have said, but the points you made are valid and the basic idea is summed up in the part that I've quoted)

You're right - size advantage alone does not equal dominance. But few players could match Wilt in size which combined with his skill, gave him a great advantage. His size is not the sole reason for his dominance, but given that he was a 7 foot centre when 6'5" was a good height for a power forward, he did have a great natural advantage.

It's also worth noting that there were very few double teams and no offensive goaltending. Just as there are factors that might make it easier for today's players, players like Wilt had certain advantages due to the nature of the game and its player during their era too.

Ultimately, it's a matter of opinion and we can all make arguments for and against a player being the best we've ever seen. But I do think that players from the 80s and 90s really aren't given enough credit, whereas any criticisms or contributing factors to some of the feats of the earlier players are almost always immediately dismissed.

Oh, and as far as the poll is concerned, my vote goes to Kareem as his Laker teams were, on the whole, much more successful.

Sorry I didn't read it all, Andrew but this line stuck out for me:

But he was a great offensive player, one who got an opportunity to score a lot of points because he was given so many shots.

Did he score a lot because he was given so many shots, or did he get so many shots because he was such a skilled offensive player?

I did word that sentence rather poorly. Please allow me to rephrase and elaborate: He was certainly a skilled offensive player, without question, and he was able to capitalise on the opportunities that he was given. But he had opportunities that other great scorers never got, such as the ability to take 63 field goal attempts.

His ability to score in bunches is certainly reason to give him so many shots, but as I said I think other players could match or at least come very close to his feats given the same opportunities. The nature of the game is another factor. Fewer total shots equals fewer shots per player. Wilt's skills, his natural advantage and the nature of the game certainly led to him being given the opportunity to attempt so many shots, but other players could very well have had the same success.

The point I was trying to make is that while he was a skilled offensive player who made the most of the opportunities he was given to score so many points, people seem to forget that other great offensive players do not receive the same opportunities.

So in answer to the question you put forward, I would say that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Obviously, he scored a lot of points because he was given a lot of shot attempts, attempts which he commanded due to his offensive prowess. But other players, Michael Jordan being the most obvious example, could very well match that effort given the same opportunity, an opportunity that he probably would have commanded had he played in Wilt's era.

It is probably partly because of the lack of success Wilt's teams had despite his amazing numbers earlier in his career that the game has changed. Feeding a player for 40 shot attempts per game doesn't seem to yield a championship.

Who was the best centers to ever wore the LAKERS jersey? Pls give me your reasons?

I would say that scoring 69 points comes fairly close, especially since Wilt had more field goal and free throw attempts.

That is perhaps the one thing that many people overlook when discussing Wilt's incredible scoring feats (and yes, they are great achievements) - he had the opportunity. No one else has attempted more than 60 shots in a single game. No other player has been allowed to shoot so freely. Michael Jordan once attempted 49 shots against the Magic in a game in which he scored 64 points, but that's still fewer than 50 (the least amount of two point field goals that a player would need to make to score 100 points).

The season he averaged 50.4 ppg, Wilt averaged nearly 40 shot attempts per contest. Now, obviously he must be a skilled offensive player. If he couldn't hit the backside of a barn with a bale of hay at two paces, it wouldn't matter how many shots he took because he wouldn't be able to capitalise upon the opportunities. But he was a great offensive player, one who got an opportunity to score a lot of points because he was given so many shots.

The game in which Wilt scored 100, his teammates were constantly feeding him the ball in an effort to give him the record. That doesn't happen these days. As much as there is still a spirit of individuality in basketball, more so than most team sports, such individual goals usually aren't the focus of a game.

I would suggest that a lot of players would be able to score 100 points if given 63 shots and 32 free throws. MJ shot 27/49 against the Magic (his career high for field goals made and attempted) and once made 26/27 free throws in a game against the Nets in 1987. He's made 20 plus free throws missing only a couple of attempts a few times in his career.

Would it therefore be a stretch to suggest that MJ could have equalled Wilt's 36/63 field goals and 28/32 free throws given the opportunity? I honestly don't think so. That would be an additional 9 field goals (out of 14 attemps) and 2 free throws (out of five attempts) upon marks that he's already set.

The other significant statistic is Wilt's career playoff scoring average, which is 22.5 ppg - nearly 8 ppg lower than his career regular season scoring average of 30.1 ppg. Most of Wilt's best scoring feats came in the regular season, whereas Michael Jordan always seemed to turn it up a notch in the postseason.

There has to be a reason for Wilt's playoff scoring average being significantly lower. To me, it suggests he either:
a) Choked
b) Was consistently shut down by postseason opponents

Either way, that doesn't really sound like a player who is "unstoppable" or particularly clutch. Most of the great players' numbers are higher in the playoffs. To be fair, Wilt's boards are up in his career playoff averages, but his assists and points per game are down (as noted earlier, his scoring average drops by almost 8 ppg). His numbers and his dominance suggest a player who should have won much more than he did.

He did not win the scoring title and the NBA championship in the same season as MJ did six times. His championships came after he significantly reduced his scoring. His teams were foiled several times in the playoffs and Finals.

MJ also had to sacrifice his points for the better of the team, but he also averaged more than 30 points in four of the championship years and was able to be the league's top scorer as well as the leader of the championship team. His career playoff scoring average is 3 points higher than his regular season average.

Ah, so MJ was playing his natural position after he'd snuck into the STAPLES Center and put on a Lakers jersey, I see how it is

Ah, so MJ was playing his natural position after he'd snuck into the STAPLES Center and put on a Lakers jersey, I see how it is

Sorry but i dont understand... i speak no good engerish....

U saying MJ is Wilt? whoa man- ur confusing me!

Shaq is the best center in Laker's history... definately... can't list my reasons cause I don't like him too much...but u know wat i mean...right?

Ah, so MJ was playing his natural position after he'd snuck into the STAPLES Center and put on a Lakers jersey, I see how it is

I did go somewhat off the topic there. However, since the Michael Jordan/Wilt Chamberlain discussion resurfaced, I thought I'd add my two cents.

As far as the topic at hand is concerned, I choose Kareem because his tenure with the Lakers was more successful. It yielded six titles in eight trips to the Finals, while Wilt's Lakers won one title in four appearances in the Finals. Kareem also spent many more years with the Lakers. Even though Wilt concluded his career as a Laker, his best performances came as a member of the San Francisco/Philadelphia Warriors.

However, since the Michael Jordan/Wilt Chamberlain discussion resurfaced, I thought I'd add my two cents.

Wat the hell Andrew...that was like whole frikken dollars!

Shaq is the best center in Laker's history... definately... can't list my reasons cause I don't like him too much...but u know wat i mean...right?

I wish I did.