APBRmetrics

[Doc319]

I wrote several articles for Basketball Digest looking at great rivalries such as Larry Bird-Julius Erving, Walt Frazier-Earl Monroe and Indiana Pacers-Kentucky Colonels. Last month I wrote a "Classic Confrontation" article for ProBasketballNews.com about the Dave DeBusschere-Gus Johnson rivalry. My most recent offering in this genre looks at a "Classic Confrontation" that never took place on the court but has fascinated people for years: what would happen if Wilt Chamberlain in his prime played against Shaquille O'Neal in his prime? Dolph Schayes, Dr. Jack Ramsay, Oscar Robertson, Spencer Haywood and Warren Jabali share their thoughts on this hypothetical clash of the titans:

http://www.probasketballnews.com/friedman_0522.html

--David Friedman
http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/

[davis21wylie2121]

Great stuff, Doc. It's a tough call either way, made worse when Spencer Haywood also added Kareem into the mix. I think the Wilt vs. Shaq debate is similar to the biggest bone of contention in baseball right now -- Barry or the Babe? If he's lurking, I wonder what Justin's opinion is, since he has some equivalent stats...

[schtevie]

The observations of the witnesses were interesting, but I find fault with the statistical comparisons however. At the very least, it is essential when comparing stats that the pace of the game is factored out. Otherwise it is truly apples and oranges. After that basic correction, you can then begin making refinements. Of course, it could go without saying that making this correction would dramatically shift the comparison in Shaq's favor.

It seems to me that if this group can have one impact on the journalistic world when it comes to these kinds of exercises it should be that.

[Pinot]

Personally I believe the style in which the refs call the game would be most determinant to the outcome. If Shaq would be allowed to essentially charge on nearly every offensive play as he was allowed to for so long, (they seem to have tightened the clamps on him lately) Wilt would have little chance. However, if the game were predicated on actual basketball skill, I being Chamberlain would prevail.

Good read thanks

[alphamale]

I've had the pleasure of seeing video footage of Wilt's games and I've come away convinced that he and Russell are the best centres ever.

Wilt's quickness, finesse, ball handling and abiltity to run the floor, as well as his 4 foot vertical leap makes it hard for shaq to have a chance.

Wilt was strong too, he can bench press 500 pounds.

He had Shaq's power game, but he also had finesse and quickness game of a Hakeem Olajuwon.

He also had better defense and passing ability. He led the league in total assists and would probably have won DPOY in the 72 and 73 seasons if that award was around back then.

As for Kareem, I think he lags behind in rebounding and lateral quickness, but other than that, he can do everything that Wilt could do.

If I were to draft a single player in history however, I'd opt for Bill Russell. He's the guy that comes the closest to turning any team into a contender. Sure he had great teammates, but they couldn't win a title without him. He got injured in the 58 finals and the Celtics lost.

[schtevie]

I don't generally find questions like "who is better, Shaq or Wilt" very interesting, if only because for me the much more interesting and directly related question is the one that is always unasked, which is "what are the identifiable changes in the NBA game that have occured over time that allow such questions to be answered intelligently".

More or less restating my bottom line of the last post, if adjustments are made for the pace of the game, and for the fact that players back then missed like crazy, what this would show unequivocally is that Shaq was a much better scorer (in terms of efficiency) and that Wilt was very likely a better rebounder and assister. I say "very likely" only allowing for the belief that his relative athletic superiority (did he really have a four foot vertical?) were he playing today, would not be as great, and to the extent that "net" athleticism gains rebounds, his comparable totals are inflated. And as to Shaq being a "much better" scorer, today's NBA defenses are unquestionably much more organized and involved, to the extent that this yields better defense (is there another plausible inference) putting the Wilt of yesteryear in today's league would lower his efficiency further.

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of the article for me is the evidence that implicitly argues for how much worse the offensive game of NBA basketball was back in Wilt's day. By this I refer to the case for Wilt's shot-blocking prowess. Now getting 25 blocks is seemingly a super-human accomplishment, and it is a testament to his athleticism and ability. But the real question it evokes is "what kind of offense would allow for a shot selection where a team gets faced 25 times by a single guy?" It is unimaginable in this era that that could occur.

And by inference, it is my belief that so much of the first-hand testimony elevating Wilt suffers from this lack of proper perspective. Yes, no question, he was great, but the context for his performances, compared to today, most certainly wasn't.

[antcole]

This debate is very important, and it is funny to see how it has turned into a quasi-greatest center ever debate; so I'm going to do my best to answer the questions. In my opinion the two greatest centers of all time were Wilt and Kareem and Shaq in my opinion is the third greatest center ever.

Also, like most of the cats on this board, I think that Wilt is better than Shaq because of his longevity and his slight edge in defense. Both were offensive monsters who were horrible at the free throw stripe. However, the Diesel is on par with Wilt when it comes to scoring. As we all know Wilt averaged 50 points for a season, yet we also must realize that Wilt hoisted an ungodly 40 field goals per game too. In the modern era I'm not sure if we'll ever see a player attempt 40 field goals a game, so we must adjust for the era.

I personally feel that an argument can easily be made that Kareem is better than both Shaq and Wilt. Kareem's peak, all around talent, and longevity is just tremendous. From 1970-1982 he was best player on the planet, and he remained one of the the two best centers in the game until 1986. Personally, I feel that Kareem is underrated. He's included on everybody's top ten list, however I've seen plenty of list (like Slam magazine's) where he is listed at number 7 or sometimes 8. If you can name me 6 or 7 players better than Kareem, I can name you 4 or 5 players better than Michael Jordan.

[bchaikin]

And by inference, it is my belief that so much of the first-hand testimony elevating Wilt suffers from this lack of proper perspective. Yes, no question, he was great, but the context for his performances, compared to today, most certainly wasn't....

i disagree - two things chamberlain did would be hard to normalize down. (1) he played 47 min/g for a decade straight while missing less than 2% of his teams' games, in a time when players did not bounce back from injuries as quickly as they do now (due to better medical conditions/recovery times today), meaning whenever he was hurt he still played and rarely sat, and (2) he was a primary force on both offense and defense for a long time but committed very very few fouls....

to this day he still has the lowest career fouls committed per minute rate (minimum 5000 total minutes), and while i don't know if he was as great a defender as russell was (this will be debated for eternity) he was still a great defender (he even got all-D team nominations at the ages of 35 and 36 when the likes of jabbar, thurmond, and cowens were around)....

from any context or perspective, that's still great...

[jkubatko]

[jkubatko]

Throwing Kareem, Mikan, and Russell into the mix:

[jkubatko]

Sorry, one more post about this. If I only use a player's top ten seasons in equivalent points, here are the per game equivalents:

[tmansback]

Wilt has the better numbers but he plays a ridiculous amount of minutes. In today's NBA I would question if he was allowed to play that many minutes.

[deepak_e]

And those fouls per game are just ridiculously low (both for him, and for Bill Russell).

I can't imagine them being active defensively and getting so few fouls in today's game.

[gabefarkas]

I'm surprised that even with the normalization Mikan's FG% is still so low by comparison...

[alphamale]

If Wilt were playing today he would lead the league in rebounds, blocks, minutes played and be among the top 5 or so in FG% and scoring.

Plus he would lead all centers in assists.

As for the minutes played arguement, it's not Wilt's fault that he had better stamina than everybody else.

The lack of fouls is more a case of Excellent defensive control rather than passive defense.

Although Wilt's numbers were to an extent inflated by the era, he also had several factors that worked against him due to his era.

1. Hack-a-Wilt, the difference between this and Hackashaq is that the defenders did not get called for what were blatant fouls. Wilt did not get superstar treatment from the refs, quite the opposite actually.

2. Back to back to back games in his day on a charter bus with crappy hotel rooms and inferior shoes. Yet he still played 48 minutes a game doing all the scoring blocking and rebounding. Even if Shaq did have that type of stamina he'd probably foul out at around the 44 minute mark or so. hehehe

3. The fact that there were only 8 teams meant that Wilt had to go up against an allstar or near allstar center every night.
(Russell, Wayne Embry, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Redd Kerr, Zelmo Beaty, Wes Unseld, Walt Bellamy, Ray Scott etc.....)
Since when did Shaq have to deal with all this talent????? He only started getting 1st team all nba consideration when David, Hakeem, and Patrick started getting social security hahaha.

As for the defenses are better than today arguement, from reading Bill RUssell's book, I really can't see that. I know for sure the Celtics defense was outstanding in both complexity and scope.

Also, Manute Bol averaged around 7 blocks per 40 minutes during his career. So Wilt and Russell's double figure block shot averages are a definte possibility.

From watching him on film he just looks more "impressive" than Shaq.

Finally, before you all think that I'm some Geezer who likes to defend "old timers" I'd make it known that I'm only in my mid twenties and grew up watching Shaq.