I beg to differ Wilt would not beat athletically head and shoulders above today's competition. Wilt was naturally like a more athletic, more gracefull, Shaq, or a much stronger and more fluid version of David Robinson, and both of those guys did pretty well by being athletic mismataches for the rest of the league. I don't think this works for you. Like I said Asafa Powell has the 100 meter world record. Do you think he really is a greater sprinter than Carl Lewis or Jesse Owens? I think your argument works against you, if even in a sport where advancement has been more graduate it is unfair to compare a 30s era trained Owens to a 2000+ trained Powell, or even a late 80s/early 90s Lewis to a 2000+ trained Powell, you would make even more corrections for basketball.
The 'double the rings' argument doesn't really work considering the rosters the two players had and when you consider that of the two players only one won a ring without another all star. Shaq has double the rings Wilt had but I don't see anyone putting him first. Hell, Will Purdue has as many rings as Shaq and more than double Wilt's total. I said Dream has to come in above Shaq because one was a liability in close games and one wasn't. If your main criteria is 'total impact' you still have the same problem when putting Shaq above Hakeem. It's not like Shaq's scoring was above Dream's in the playoffs, it wasn't. Add in the steals and blocks and the only thing you have is duration of peak for Shaq I guess. I don't see how that outweighs the inability to be on the floor in close games, presumably when you are needed the MOST if you are a top 3 all time center. Neither Wilt nor Shaq were so good that their teams got huge leads before the end of games. In fact I would argue that despite having great teammates one of the reasons Wilt didn't have more rings is precisely because he was a liability at the end of close games. If you have a championship caliber squad it is unlikely that you are blowing teams out (your scenario) because of one player. OTOH you need your best player to step up when playing stiff competition. If that player is a liability in crunch time then I really don't see how you rank him above a player that is an asset the whole game, especially in crunch time.
1995 wasn't even his biggest slight. in 1989, hakeem became the first player to ever have 200 blocks and 200 steals in the same season. did he win DPOY? of course not. in fact, he didn't even make either defensive team. but i can understand, hakeem only led the league in rebounding that year also so you have to hold that against him. eaton made first team with 3.8 bpg (hakeem 3.4) but with only .5 spg (hakeem 2.6!) and 10.3 rpg (hakeem 13.5). ewing made it with 3.5 bpg (basically tied with kakeem) and 1.5 spg (no where close to hakeem) and an even worse 9.3 rpg. what the F were they thinking on that? then in 1990 he averages 4.6 blocks per game (no one has matched it since) and 2.1 steals (and no one has ever matched the 550 blocks and steals) and, again, leads the damn league in rebounding (by 2 per game) and doesn't get it again. dennis friggin' rodman of all people wins DPOY with .7 bpg, .6 spg, and a meager (by his standards) 9.7 rpg. someone leading in blocks and rebounds is practically a sinch for DPOY and hakeem does it by a large margin and loses it to a nice one on one defender at the pf position who couldn't hope to have the same impact as hakeem. was hakeem sleeping with the voters wives or something? while chamberlain hitting those awkward looking fadeaways actually gave me a little more respect for his offensive game (though not using his body and letting russell block him twice and doing all those little flip shots seemed inefficient), that video gave me even less respect than i had for defense back then. essentially every post player in that video lightly extended their arm towards wilt almost the way you do when you're just trying to keep contact with your man when you're looking at the ball and you're not applying any actual pressure to them, they gave him absolutely no resistance to getting closer to the basket, and really didn't jump as he shot. even russell was doing this and basically just watched wilt get within 3 feet of the basket then turn and a flip a few times on there. one of them he was fronting and just watched the ball go over his head and then wilt layed it in. nowadays you get the arm bar treatment and, if you're shaq or yao, probably a double arm bar that they don't call. watching that doesn't make me feel russell was light years ahead of his time on defensive strategy as much as it once again seems to reinforce that he and wilt were just physically way ahead of everyone in a way that players today can't be (as Ronny pointed out). and i think Desert Scar mentioned Tiger Woods when mentioning relative to era comparisons. yes, in an absolute sense people will always get better (though in golf a lot of it is just the equipment) but in a relative sense leagues almost always get deeper, more developed, and limit separation. when people talk about Tiger vs Jack it's often pointed out that Tiger faces a deeper field and thus should get even more credit.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, but do think you underestimate training and nutrition. Wilt's weight IMO would have been around Shaq's ideal weight (315-300), Wilt without the weight training was 275. Russell would have been somewhere between the size of Ben Wallace and Hakeem. Further, I don't see Wilt or Kareem having any trouble scoring in the era you admit their are plenty of bigmen. Both Shaq and DR hit about 30PPG seasons, and both Wilt and Kareem IMO are naturally better scorers. Remember Kareem, no Wilt as a pure athlete and not nearly as strong, put up like 37 & 18 & 5 + probably 3-4 blocks, in the early 70s when as you say most of the "curve" has already taken place. I see Yao being completely outquicked by Wilt or Kareem and they shoot right over Ben Wallace. I don't know who else to throw at them out of today's game. Again Shaq and DR almost getting 30PPG within the last decade and being pretty much unstoppable 1 on 1 does not bode well for today's players versus a Kareem or Wilt.
I'm not saying they have trouble scoring at all, but Wilt averaging 50-25 in 2006 is just not going to happen no matter how many weights he lifts or power bars he eats. 30 plus I think would be easily attainable. However, they would have to drastically alter their game. That little flip shot Wilt could do over ground-bound 6-8 Syracuse Nats centers gets swatted away by modern centers, and or Andre Kirilenko/Robert Horry/etc. flying in from the weak side. (which is why I'm guessing it disappeared as he got older). it's not so much an individual match upa gainst Yao or Wallace as not being the tallest, strongest, best athlete on the court by a wide margin every time he steps on the court, and having to fight through much tougher defense every single possession.
Sam, We frequently argue, but you are making an absolutely brilliant argument in this thread. Well done ! DD
HayesStreet, you could be right but a lot of these things are further speculative. I return to the way I evaulate their records in terms of statistical domination, team success and individual awards/recognition among peers. When you weight them all clearly your Will Perdue's fall out. Further, Shaq has 4 rings, 3 when he clearly was the best player and his teams/the finals MVP--clearly his overwhelming strengths throughout the game more than made up for any weaknesses at the end of it. Weighing statistical domination it is: -1 Wilt is the best by a mile -2 followed by a solid #2 in Kareem -3a/3b Shaq and Hakeem fighting for the next spots, -5 Russell Team success -1 Russell leads solidly -2 than Kareem as a solid #2 -3 than Shaq as a solid #3 -4a/4b Hakeem and Wilt tied for last among the big 5 considering pro and college team accomplishments Individual awards (MVPs, playoff MVPs, all-stars, other recogn) -1 Kareem -2 Russell -3 Wilt -4a/4b Hakeem & Shaq Now I could add a more speculative category called being a "go to guy" in the clutch or being well rounded, or something else more subjective. But I have to take a ton of liberties with this to put Hakeem ahead of Shaq, let alone Wilt or Kareem. Russell is the x-factor and hardest to judge, but in the end he, Kareem or Wilt deserves the title of best center to ever play, and this guy is also the best basketball player to ever play. I honestly believe Hakeem might be able to edge out ANY opponent in their peaks. I don’t take contention with someone else who believes this as well, or that Hakeem is greater, but for me I can’t say that. IMO relying on a more objective analysis that foremost is based on their individual and team accomplishments I cannot say Hakeem deserves the title as the best ever, or that I can make a good case he should be considered the greater player than Shaq. Robinson, definitely yes, Karl Malone, definitely yes, Moses Malone, yes, Duncan definitely yes, anything other bigman since Kareem, yes, but greater than Shaq, I can't say that without reservations.
Not even a race IMHO. Hakeem "The Dream" is hands down the best center to ever play the game. His stats show it, his agility shows it, nobody at that position has ever had the footwork that he showed, and he was the only guy that Jordan admitted to having a fear of playing against....heck MJ even picked him as his center for his dream team
I agree 50-25 is not attainable. But Kareem put up 37 & 18 in the 70s. Shaq put up 30-13. Even the outclassed David Robinson put up 30-11 (and 3+ blocks) and hit 60 points in a game. Also remember the 6'9 Ben Wallace hit 15RPG in the last few years, and the 6'8" Rodman hit 18RPG well in the modern era. So yes 50-25 is not attainable, but it is reasomably plausible Wilt could hit in the mid to high 30s in points, mid to high teens in rebounds, 4+ assists and 3+ blocks. While this is speculative, and could be an overestimate or understimate, what is not debatable is the amazing spread between his total statistical lines (considering PPG, RPG, others stats) and other great, great, players of his era (Russell, Baylor, Robertson) was just remarkable, and has not been rivaled since including Kareem 72 one (next most distinguished lines of those not by Wilt) and Jordan's 37PPG season. Remember Kobe hit close to 36PPG just last year, Iverson 33PPG and the less than truly special Arenas hit 29+PPG (34PPG in the playoffs) correct. That is not a ringing endorsement that it is so much harder to score now.
I think you're shading it a little high and not taking into account pacing issues and extra minutes enough when you're forecasting Chamberlain's possible numbers. I think using efficiency is the best. Chamberlain's statistical heydey from 62-64, PER wise (which is a very good equalizer, IMO) is the highest recorded for any big man. (32.8, 31.8, 31.6). O'neal's PER in his own heyday (99-01) is the closest to Wilt's (30.6, 30.6, 30.2). Accordingly, I'm reading that to mean that Wilt puts up aggregate numbers taht are slightly different than Shaq, provided they play the same amount of minutes, as they have roughly the same Effeciency/productivity when they're on the floor I'd say that tranlates to about 32 points, 14 rebounds, 4-5 assits for wilt in the modern era at his peak - just using rough guesses. (I think durvasa could weigh in better on this) For the record, nobody else (Russell, Hakeem, Jabbar) came close to having a peak PER near that level, though Jabbar just barely missed it a few times. - BTW, I don't think taking Rodman & Wallace (rebounding specialists, effectively) as proof that Wilt would be able to hit the high teens in rebounding is a good idea. Paying less attention to offense and more to rebounding, among great players, can increase your rebounding numbers. Look at Rodman's points/rebounds for proof of this, also look at Barkley 1997 when he went from the prime low post threat in Phx to a second fiddle in Hou. I don't doubt Wilt could grab 18 rpg today, but not without a reduced offensive role. Edit: one more thing to mention when we're talking about "sidekicks" - often deployed against Shaq: Wilt's only "solo" title, the 67 76'rs, was accomplished with an HOF guard in Hal Greer providing the perimeter threat, along with another HOF player in Billy Cunningham (by all accounts, a Pippen-Rodman hybrid type player). His later titles with the lakers were as part of an ensemble of stars like West and Goodrich. Aside from Hakeem in 1994, I think the only guy who can argue that he dragged his team to a title alone is the 1971 Lew Alcindor/Jabbar. Oscar Robertson was there but was a shadow of his former self and not really the player he was. Bob Dandridge was a very good player but not really a great player, IMO. Though I guess I'd take an old oscar robertson and dandridge over Maxwell and Otis Thorpe, most likely.
I would put Hakeem at 3 behind Wilt and Kareem, with Russel coming in after that. There has been a lot of talk about their rebounding, and scoring, and even some talk about their blocks. That is as it should be when talking about centers. What gives Hakeem the edge in any tie, is that the guy is also a steal leader. For center to accomplish that in addition to all the other things Hakeem did is amazing. When you put steals and blocks together(not to mention other altered shots which all of these centers did) his defense was simply amazing.
If Hakeem had been drafted or traded to a big market like NY or LA we wouldn't even be debating this. I think it comes down to Wilt and Hakeem. Wilt's ungodly stats are impossible to argue against, and from what I've read he is the only player in history that has the physical tools and raw athleticism to best Olajuwon.
Duncan totally carried the Spurs in 03 (24-17-5-5), for instance the next highest scorer was Parker at 14 followed by SJack at 10 and the next highest rebounder was 4.5. Duncan also carried the 99 team, but is was a lot better than the comp and DR was still no less than a top 10 center when healthy. They really didn't need Duncan at his best. Also, though not a bigman, Wade really did drag Miami to a title. he scored 34 while Shaq was just under Walker in the #3 spot at 13.7PPG. The finals was a 1 man show for Miami, a D-Wade's show. I think a lot of 1-man teams get through now that wouldn't get through many years ago, the talent is much more dispersed, you don't have 3-4-5 all-star type players on 1 team.
Per Franchiseblade: "I would put Hakeem at 3 behind Wilt and Kareem, with Russel coming in after that." I agree FranchiseBlade Hakeem had much tougher competition than Wilt did. If Dream had had talent around him like Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell -he would have had more rings and been held in higher regard. Drea did what few others have- he rose to the occasiion in the playoffs-his game rose to a higher level of play. Few players in history have done this.
Nobody speaks of Wallace like that because they can't possibly fathom the idea that defense and rebounding, especially that combination, make a bigger difference than scoring. I mean, if Wallace wasn't the man on those Piston's teams than who was? Jerry Stackhouse? Richard Hamilton? Billups? Those players were the true role players, their role was scoring, but they won because of the defense and rebounding that Ben Wallace was responsible for. People love offense and that's why Billups got so much respect last season for MVP, more than Ben Wallace ever got which is ridiculous. That's not indisputable. What about Jordan? Rodman? Robinson? Deke? The thing about the Celtics and their talent is that they never really beat down anybody and if you believe the exaggerrations you would think that the Celtics could have won without Russell. I never compared him to Hakeem, I compared him to Russell and only in styles, and it's not arguable as to whether or not he was Detroit's best player, it was obvious, especially in their championship year. His shooting percentage fell later in his career but for a few years he was amongst the best field goal percentage players in the NBA, you can't even talk about his offense in terms of winning either, the man won all the time! Hakeem status? Yeah, I'm a Rockets fan too but Hakeem status in NBA history is right there with Moses Malone and Shaq, not Russell, Kareem, or Wilt. Blocks and steals weren't counted in Russell's career. You can make your points on voting, I won't argue them though, I'm not about to go through every single one of Hakeem's seasons and check who deserved or didn't deserve DPOY votes. That was not Hakeem's peak. His game was wild back then, it intimidated people but it wouldn't ever win championships until he found some control and started using his head more. Jordan had the same type of game in the beginning of his career but never thought the game until Phil Jackson showed him how. You hear quotes about players actually being scared of those two during those times in their career, but it was ALWAYS individually, later in their careers players were afraid of losing to them. First of all, he wouldn't rebound like Russell. You can't get much better than 11 out of 13 championships, losing one because of your injury and the other because you couldn't match one of the best teams in NBA history. Slowing down the fast break has nothing to do with running the floor; Hakeem would slow it down by needing touches in the half court and not dominating the boards like Russell. The Celtics didn't need offense; it's well known that before Russell got there the Celtics could score 120 and still lose by 20, they couldn't rebound or play defense. What do you mean Russell couldn't win like Hakeem? We're talking about a guy who missed winning the championship as many times as Hakeem missed the playoffs. You're also not taking into account the balance the Celtics had everyone had specific roles; giving to Hakeem and taking from the rest would have screwed up that delicate balance. Considering the fact that they could have lost most of their championships if just a couple of points go to the other team you could see that it was not a balance to mess with. The only player that could do what Russell did was Wilt, he's the only one that can rebound, defend, and pass like him. Hakeem will not go down as the best defensive player of his era; Jordan, Robinson, Mutombo, and Rodman are right there with him, even though they do not have Hakeem's defensive stats. Rick Barry carried his team to a championship... Moses Malone carried the Rockets to the finals but he didn't win a championship... Hakeem did in 94 and 95 for the most part... Wilt carried the Warriors but could never beat the Celtics with them... Nobody does it alone but those teams were weaker overall than most under their best players.
I'm just talking about big men. Duncan is probably the closest to doing it solo, you're right about that, though then we get into the "what is Duncan, PF or C?" argument, which may not be important at all. As for Wade, I love the guy, but he did have an all time great in Shaq putting up a 24.4 PER next to him (even though diminshed from his peak, that's enough to make him among the best in the league still) and Mourning putting up 19.4 PER when Shaq was out. That's a lot more help than Jordan usually got from his squadmates, e.g.
That's because individual defense really doesn't matter as much as individual offense in terms of impact on the game. A great offensive player, ceteris paribas will beat a great defensive player more often than not, by virtue of the simple fact that a man going forward can get to a spot more quickly than that same man going backwards. I don't feel like going back and tracking this statistically but I think you'll find it's true in terms of plus minus and all that. But looking at Wallace only, you'll find that his teams efficiency when he was on/off the court in 2004 is good but not that much different from Billups or Hamilton - it's also not as good as a Duncan, e.g. Rasheed Wallace was the real x-factor there, by giving them a credible frontcourt scoring threat, the Pistons were much, much better on offense - and became champions because of it. It should also be noted that Rosenbaum's winval rankings, which adjust the +/- numbers for quality of backups, opponents & teammates, don't even have Big Ben in the top 20 that year. Like I said, you can play as much defense in the world as you want and force a guy into a bad shot. But ultimately if he makes it, it doesn't matter, does it? Or even worse, what if you play great defense on your man and somebody else shoots, somebody who's a better player? On offense, you don't face those problems to the same extent.
