Where does Shaq rank all time for centers?

[Destino]

First lets consider size:

- Kareem: 7-2, 225

- Shaq: 7-1, 325 (wow!)

- Wilt 7-1, 275

- Hakeem 7-0, 255

- Russel: 6-9, 215

Russel right off the bat is undersized for a center. He was great no doubt about it but we are picking the best of the best right? When all of them are talented as hell measurables matter. Shaq wins the overall size battle with KAJ being the tallest.

Were they efficient? FG% and points per 36 minutes career.

- Shaq 58.2% 24.6p

- Kareem 55.9% 24.1p

- Wilt 54% 23.6p

- Hakeem 51.2% 21.9p

- Russel 44% 12.8p

Shaq is the most efficient and most prolific scorer of the best centers. Kareem is right behind him.

Now could you hack them at the end of the game to limit their scoring in crunch time? Let's look at FT% career

- Kareem 72.1%

- Hakeem 71.2%

- Shaq 58.2%

- Russel 56.1%

- Wilt 51.1%

Other than scoring more than anything else out of your center you need REBOUNDING! Per 36minutes over their career:

- Russel 19.1

- Wilt 18

- Shaq and Hakeem 11.2

- Kareem 10.9

It all depends on what you value the most out of you center. I think great offense with good rebounding is better then great rebounding with good offense, personally. As such Shaq is amongst by top two centers ever based on stats coming in behind Kareem because you can't over look longevity, unguardable sky hook, and FT% advantage. I also don't think either could guard the other effectively. Shaq couldn't deal with KAJ range and KAJ couldn't deal with Shaq's size.

[PeterMP]

I've never understood the love for Russell.

If you look at win shares, his best season puts him at 37th.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_season.html

And for his career he is at 16.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career.html

I don't see how you can even start to argue that he doesn't belong behind Kareem and Wilt.

[Predicto]

My criticism about Wilt is not so much his lack of passing as his inability to understand basketball. His assist numbers are inflated because he had two seasons where he inexplicably decided to average 10 assists per game. There is no reason on earth why the most dominant offensive center in basketball should average 10 assists per game. But Wilt made the conscious decision to lead the league in assists - and goddamnit - that's what he was going to do.

The one thing I learned from Bill Simmons' book that was really fascinating was that Wilt never fouled out of a game. And he knew this and made an effort not to foul out. That meant that when he got one foul away from fouling out' date=' he pretty much stopped playing defense.

Frank Deford wrote about Wilt's 20,000 woman claim as just another example of his weird fascination with numbers.

It just seems like Wilt would be an awful guy to have to play 82 games with. His teammates had to be constantly thinking, "Is this the night he decides to get 50 rebounds and just stands under the opponent's basket the whole game?"[/quote']

Bill Simmons' book was biased, as you would expect it to be. He is a lifelong Celtics fan and makes no effort to be objective. He writes from a fan's perspective - a Boston Fan's perspective.

I think a lot of the complaints about Wilt are overstated. People didn't like him because they thought the game was too easy for him (sorta like Shaq). He must not be trying hard. Meanwhile, they wax nostalgic about Bill Russell, ignoring the fact that Russell's Celtics teams were way more talented from top to bottom than any other team in the NBA, and Auerbach was a much better coach.

[DieselPwr44]

We often hear how when there is expansion in a sport, it dilutes the talent level of said sport.

Take for instance today's NBA. There are players currently starting in today's league that would be bench players on those 80's teams.

With that said, wouldn't that mean the NBA of Russell's and Wilt's time had a higher concentration of talent then today's league?

Red Auerbach never had a losing record in the NBA and had coached the Celtics for six years and had never won a Championship until Russell arrived in '57. To say he was "just a cog" in the machine is just a bunch of bunk.

I guess he was just a cog in the machine on two NCAA Championship teams and in the Olympics too?

Get outta here..............

[Predicto]

First lets consider size:

- Kareem: 7-2, 225

- Shaq: 7-1, 325 (wow!)

- Wilt 7-1, 275

- Hakeem 7-0, 255

- Russel: 6-9, 215

Russel right off the bat is undersized for a center. .

How many times do I have to say this. Russell was the tallest player in the NBA when he arrived, and was still one of the tallest when he retired.

And Hakeem was not 7 foot. I'm guessing more like 6 10.

[ABQCOWBOY]

We often hear how when there is expansion in a sport, it dilutes the talent level of said sport.

Take for instance today's NBA. There are players currently starting in today's league that would be bench players on those 80's teams.

With that said, wouldn't that mean the NBA of Russell's and Wilt's time had a higher concentration of talent then today's league?

Red Auerbach never had a losing record in the NBA and had coached the Celtics for six years and had never won a Championship until Russell arrived in '57. To say he was "just a cog" in the machine is just a bunch of bunk.

I guess he was just a cog in the machine on two NCAA Championship teams and in the Olympics too?

Get outta here..............

No. In Russell's days, the game was about shooting but it was not nearly as athletic as it would become in the 70s and 80s. You didn't have guys taking it to the hole like you do now. There were a lot of players who were probably better pure shooters but were not nearly as athletic in the way they played. To me, the 80s were the best of both worlds. You still had guys who could shoot the ball well but you also had a level of athleticism that allowed for exciting play. JMO

[Predicto]

We often hear how when there is expansion in a sport, it dilutes the talent level of said sport.

Take for instance today's NBA. There are players currently starting in today's league that would be bench players on those 80's teams.

With that said, wouldn't that mean the NBA of Russell's and Wilt's time had a higher concentration of talent then today's league?

No, because basketball was a relatively new sport. Kids played baseball and football, not basketball. Those early NBA teams were not talented at all.

Heck, in the mid-70s, Mike Riordan was a slow, talentless 6 fooot 3 starting forward for the Bullets.

The NBA talent level has gone through the roof.

Red Auerbach never had a losing record in the NBA and had coached the Celtics for six years and had never won a Championship until Russell arrived in '57. To say he was "just a cog" in the machine is just a bunch of bunk.

I guess he was just a cog in the machine on two NCAA Championship teams and in the Olympics too?

Get outta here..............

I didn't say he sucked. I said he wasn't the best of all time. Those Celtics teams were stacked.

And if you want to talk college, Kareem blows Russell out of the water there too. And so does Wilt. Teams tripleteamed Wilt for his entire college career.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Bill Simmons' book was biased, as you would expect it to be. He is a lifelong Celtics fan and makes no effort to be objective. He writes from a fan's perspective - a Boston Fan's perspective.

I agree with that. I just liked that anecdote, because I never heard it before.

I think a lot of the complaints about Wilt are overstated. People didn't like him because they thought the game was too easy for him (sorta like Shaq). He must not be trying hard. Meanwhile, they wax nostalgic about Bill Russell, ignoring the fact that Russell's Celtics teams were way more talented from top to bottom than any other team in the NBA, and Auerbach was a much better coach.

It's easy to pick on Wilt. But you have to agree that he had some absurd ideas about basketball.

Seriously, what is your opinion on that assists title?

[Destino]

How many times do I have to say this. Russell was the tallest player in the NBA when he arrived, and was still one of the tallest when he retired.

And Hakeem was not 7 foot. I'm guessing more like 6 10.

I never said he wasn't. But when asked to pick players today I compare them to each other not to their time period. Perhaps you look at the question differently.

[deejaydana]

Given Russel's weight I'm not sure he'd even play Center if he was playing in today's league. he would be moved to forward and not play center, he'd never have a chance of guarding big guys in the paint. It's not a knock on him it's just where the game has evolved to at this point. Like other leagues, everybody at every position has gotten bigger.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

We often hear how when there is expansion in a sport, it dilutes the talent level of said sport.

Take for instance today's NBA. There are players currently starting in today's league that would be bench players on those 80's teams.

With that said, wouldn't that mean the NBA of Russell's and Wilt's time had a higher concentration of talent then today's league?

No, the talent level in the NBA in the 60s was rather pathetic. Russell and Wilt were "modern" players playing in a pre-modern league. Have you ever seen picture of Don Nelson in a uniform? And he was a star.

I think that at some point, historians will look at the NBA in the 60s as something like the "deadball era" in baseball. It was a different game.

[PeterMP]

We often hear how when there is expansion in a sport, it dilutes the talent level of said sport.

Take for instance today's NBA. There are players currently starting in today's league that would be bench players on those 80's teams.

With that said, wouldn't that mean the NBA of Russell's and Wilt's time had a higher concentration of talent then today's league?

Red Auerbach never had a losing record in the NBA and had coached the Celtics for six years and had never won a Championship until Russell arrived in '57. To say he was "just a cog" in the machine is just a bunch of bunk.

I guess he was just a cog in the machine on two NCAA Championship teams and in the Olympics too?

Get outta here..............

Nobody is saying he isn't an all time great. The question is he 5 or 1 (or somewhere in the middle).

Also as the pay has gone up for players and the population of the US and the world (especially for basketball) has gone up, I don't see any reason to believe that the talent has really gotten dilluted.

When you look at it as a percent of population, has the number of people playing in the NBA changed significantly. I doubt it.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Nobody is saying he isn't an all time great. The question is he 5 or 1.

Also as the pay has gone up for players and the population of the US and the world (especially for basketball) has gone up, I don't see any reason to believe that the talent has really gotten dilluted.

When you look at it as a percent of population, has the number of people playing in the NBA changed significantly. I doubt it.

None of that matters so much as the fact that people play basketball now a hell of a lot more than they did in the 40s and 50s. Basketball is a very new sport and the NBA is a very new league.

If you want to get into the history, for a siginificant period of time, basketball was considered a "Jewish" sport - which basically meant it was played in a few NE cities by short white dudes.

I would say that until the early 60s, it was probable that The Harlem Globetrotters had better talent than the typical NBA all star team. People on this thread are thinking that the NBA in the mid 60s was the equivalent of the NFL or MLB. It was really the equivalent of something like MLS, I would argue.

[Predicto]

I agree with that. I just liked that anecdote' date=' because I never heard it before.

It's easy to pick on Wilt. But you have to agree that he had some absurd ideas about basketball.

Seriously, what is your opinion on that assists title?[/quote']

My opinion is that the new Sixers coach, Alex Hannum, told him to do it. In 1967, Hannum moved Wilt from the low post to the high post and made him a distributor, and his assists went through the roof (7.8 a game), and he was voted the MVP of the league, and the team won the championship and is considered the greatest NBA team of all time. Hard to argue with that.

The next year, Wilt did the exact same thing. He won the NBA assist title that year, but his assists only went up from 7.8 to 8.6 per game. He also scored 24 points and had 24 rebounds a game. The Sixers won 62 games and the Eastern Division, but lost in the Eastern Finals.

In other words, it is my opinion that Bill Simmons is speaking out of his azz as a sportsfan, not as an objective observer :whoknows:

[PeterMP]

None of that matters so much as the fact that people play basketball now a hell of a lot more than they did in the 40s and 50s. Basketball is a very new sport and the NBA is a very new league.

If you want to get into the history' date=' for a siginificant period of time, basketball was considered a "Jewish" sport - which basically meant it was played in a few NE cities by short white dudes.

I would say that until the early 60s, it was probable that The Harlem Globetrotters had better talent than the typical NBA all star team. People on this thread are thinking that the NBA in the mid 60s was the equivalent of the NFL or MLB. It was really the equivalent of something like MLS, I would argue.[/quote']

I'd guess the expansion of interest was some what related to the pay the players received.

[KDawg]

Take away his Height and 300+ poind weight, and how does he rank purely talent-wise ??

Not very good.

Take away your user name and posts and you're not even here...

[MattFancy]

Take away his Height and 300+ poind weight, and how does he rank purely talent-wise ??

Not very good.

Mick that makes no sense lol.

[HailGreen28]

Shaq ranks no higher than fourth, all-time.

[JMS]

It all depends on what you value the most out of you center. I think great offense with good rebounding is better then great rebounding with good offense, personally. As such Shaq is amongst by top two centers ever based on stats coming in behind Kareem because you can't over look longevity, unguardable sky hook, and FT% advantage. I also don't think either could guard the other effectively. Shaq couldn't deal with KAJ range and KAJ couldn't deal with Shaq's size.

Destino, I think that's a great analysis. I would just add one other thing. Non of your states really deal with defense and the NBA in Russel's day was predudiced in favor of offense.... The one state I would add would be the ability to dominate a game defensively like nobody before or after him. You are right Russel was undersized. But so what. He was fast, was an excellent jumper, and incredible defensive player. Arguable he was the most dominant center in the history of the game. He just didn't do it offensively so folks hold that against him.

[megared]

I'll put him behind Wilt, Russell, Kareem and Hakeem. So I say he's the 5th greatest center of all time. Remember, Hakeem beat him in the Finals.

This argument's ridiculous. The Magic got swept by the Rockets.

Shaq - 28 PPG 12.5 RPG 6.3 APG 0.3 SPG 2.5 BPG on 59.5% from the field

Hakeem - 32.3 PPG 11.5 RPG 5.8 APG 3.5 SPG 1.5 BPG on 48.3% from the field

It's funny to hear the argument that "Hakeem had no teammates". Let's look at Hakeem's teammates in the '95 Finals..

Game 1: Kenny Smith hit 7 3-pointers and had 23, as did Clyde Drexler (remember him?). Robert Horry had 19 points, 8 rebounds and 5 blocks.

Game 2: Sam Cassell had 31 off of the bench, Clyde goes for 23

Game 3, Drexler had 25 points and 13 rebounds, Robert Horry had 20 points and 9 rebounds, and Mario Elie had 17 points

Game 4: Horry had 21 points and 13 rebounds, Mario Elie had 22 points.

And Shaq had...Penny.

[JMS]

Bill Simmons' book was biased, as you would expect it to be. He is a lifelong Celtics fan and makes no effort to be objective. He writes from a fan's perspective - a Boston Fan's perspective.

Boston fans don't hate Wilt. Why should we we beat him 11 out of 12 years. We pretty much feel sorry for Wilt and his various dream teams all but one of which we smoked.

Besides that it's absolutely true. Wilt padded his stats... He regularly threw passes off the backboard to himself to pad his rebounds... Don't get me wrong the man was an incredible player. But he was certainly a defensive liability and he certainly had zones of interest in games.

I think a lot of the complaints about Wilt are overstated. People didn't like him because they thought the game was too easy for him (sorta like Shaq). He must not be trying hard. Meanwhile, they wax nostalgic about Bill Russell, ignoring the fact that Russell's Celtics teams were way more talented from top to bottom than any other team in the NBA, and Auerbach was a much better coach.

It's really hard to make that case with first the 76ers and then the Lakers takeing every allstar in the league not on the celtics and creating dream teams every year to defeat the Celts. I agree with you though Red was a great coach.. ( DC Native cough cough).... Russel was a hell of a coach too, he was a player coach for the last few seasons and still was winning championships.

[ABQCOWBOY]

It all depends on what you value the most out of you center. I think great offense with good rebounding is better then great rebounding with good offense, personally. As such Shaq is amongst by top two centers ever based on stats coming in behind Kareem because you can't over look longevity, unguardable sky hook, and FT% advantage. I also don't think either could guard the other effectively. Shaq couldn't deal with KAJ range and KAJ couldn't deal with Shaq's size.

The interesting thing about Shaq and Kareem is that none of the other Centers could defend them either. Heck, if you look at the greatest defensive Centers in the history of the game, lets say Mourning, Ewing, Garnett, Gilmore, Olajuwon and Russell, none of those players could match up with either Kareem or Shaq. They could match up with the other great Centers on the list and have degrees of success defending them IMO but these two were unique in that regard IMO. Nobody in the history of the league could match up well with either one of them, including each other.

[SkinFaninOKC]

I'd rank him 5th: Wilt, Russell, Kareem, The Dream, then Shaq. The Dream didn't have brute force but was a better all around player IMO.

[Sticksboi05]

Plaschke was shocked that Michael Smith put Olajuwon over Shaq. Apparently he forgot that the man was the best defensive center maybe ever other than Russell. I never got to see Hakeem in his prime like I did Shaw back when he was winning titles in L.A. but from what I saw of Hakeem in his twilight + looking at statistics and defensive awards, he was just a defensive force.

[shuler74]

If he did not let his body go probably be the best. His weight his first three years in orlando was the weight he needed to sustain.