2019-2020 Official NBA Thread

[Quin]

1 hour ago, Boogua said:

The game would have to adapt to LA Shaq, not vice versa. The Warriors lineup of death wouldn't be able to see the court much against LA Shaq. That's the difference. He would make a team like the Warriors have to play a guy like Bogut and a big backup 30+ minutes per game.

This is what I'm trying to figure out. Who the hell guards Shaq?

Shaq is feasting and if Draymond or Durant tries to legitimately defend him, they're fouling out.

[bmags]

6 minutes ago, Quin said:

This is what I'm trying to figure out. Who the hell guards Shaq?

Shaq is feasting and if Draymond or Durant tries to legitimately defend him, they're fouling out.

Rodman would defend shaq and did fine. He’d get points. And the warriors would shoot them off the court.

[Boogua]

1 hour ago, bmags said:

Rodman would defend shaq and did fine. He’d get points. And the warriors would shoot them off the court.

Who is Rodman on the Warriors? A freakishly strong PF that would hide the deficiencies on the glass and is one of the best defenders ever?

[Jack Parkman]

1 hour ago, Boogua said:

Who is Rodman on the Warriors? A freakishly strong PF that would hide the deficiencies on the glass and is one of the best defenders ever?

He's gonna argue Draymond Green. 

[Jack Parkman]

4 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

Can you show me in the numbers where Orlando Shaq was definitely better than LA Shaq, because I just looked at his reference page and it really looks to me like he had pretty much all of his best seasons averages in LA

Defensively, Orlando Shaq was better. 

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html

Better rebounder and more blocks as a member of the Magic than as a Laker. 

During his early Laker years, maybe...But then he got fat and couldn't move as well. So he became a physical bully. Olajuwon was 250 lbs, Mutumbo was 245 and Shaq was pushing 340. No contest. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[bmags]

7 hours ago, Boogua said:

Who is Rodman on the Warriors? A freakishly strong PF that would hide the deficiencies on the glass and is one of the best defenders ever?

96-98 Rodman was good but not at the level of Detroit Pistons Rodman. Draymond is actually very good (despite bizarre board sentiment) and handled his role of defending up on positions very well.

Again there is a reason the NBA is shooting a bunch of threes now. It just gets down to basic math. The Lakers shot worse from 2pt% than the GSW, and shot worse from the FTA than the GSW.

Shaq would eat...but like that's fine. Their volume and percentage of threes make up for it. 

The 2000 Lakers playing like the 2000 Lakers would not be able to win 7 games against the GSW even Shaq is averaging 40/15.

[bmags]

5 hours ago, Tony said:

Shaq was asked about this pretty recently, and I agree with this answer:

 

Now granted, I think a lot of the players in the NBA are in better shape and take better care of themselves than they did even in 2000, but as many have mentioned, Shaq was just such a freak on the court, you got your ass beat over four quarters. I think the way you would beat a prime Shaq in 2020 is with speed and quickness, just trying to beat him to the rim before he can get there, but the big men of the NBA today just wouldn't be able to match up with him

Well, this loses an advantage when the opposing team isn't relying on the guy guarding shaq to "shoot jumpers" in the 4th quarter.

[Kyyle23]

6 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

Defensively, Orlando Shaq was better. 

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html

Better rebounder and more blocks as a member of the Magic than as a Laker. 

During his early Laker years, maybe...But then he got fat and couldn't move as well. So he became a physical bully. Olajuwon was 250 lbs, Mutumbo was 245 and Shaq was pushing 340. No contest. 

Yea those numbers are negligible and your memory of Shaq is spotty at best.  The guy was always a bully, he was always bigger than everyone else.

[Jack Parkman]

2 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

Yea those numbers are negligible and your memory of Shaq is spotty at best.  The guy was always a bully, he was always bigger than everyone else.

Of course he was always a bully. But that Orlando dude was a cyborg. It was like you built the perfect NBA center in a lab. Orlando Shaq could move, and that's the huge difference. I was an NBA junkie as a kid, When Shaq was in his prime I was in High School, and he had always been my favorite player(That's not to say I didn't like Jordan too....I  just wanted to be different)

If we're being honest, the Miami/LeBron thing got me to back off a bit and the Durant thing took me from hardcore to casual. 

My memory isn't foggy about it. If you want to challenge my memory of Orlando Shaq, that's valid because I was pretty young there but I remember Laker Shaq damn well, and I used to watch every nationally televised Laker game back then. 

Sometimes facts are facts....and I tend to be more on the side of bmags here. There's no doubting the game has changed in the last decade. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[illinilaw08]

4 hours ago, bmags said:

96-98 Rodman was good but not at the level of Detroit Pistons Rodman. Draymond is actually very good (despite bizarre board sentiment) and handled his role of defending up on positions very well.

Again there is a reason the NBA is shooting a bunch of threes now. It just gets down to basic math. The Lakers shot worse from 2pt% than the GSW, and shot worse from the FTA than the GSW.

Shaq would eat...but like that's fine. Their volume and percentage of threes make up for it. 

The 2000 Lakers playing like the 2000 Lakers would not be able to win 7 games against the GSW even Shaq is averaging 40/15.

If 2000 Shaq was in the NBA today, wouldn't a team just build around him the same way the Bucks built around Giannis?  The modern NBA wants shots at the rim and 3s.  Shaq would get what he wanted at the rim, and if he's surrounded by shooters, the Warriors volume advantage isn't 12 to 4.  If you teleported the 2000 Lakers here, sure, I'd agree with you that the 2018 Warriors run them off the floor.  But I don't think that's responsive to Jack's premise that you can't win with a dominant center because teams only shoot 3s.

Shaq might struggle more defensively now because he wouldn't be able to switch, and teams would scheme to put him in pick and rolls.  Lakers would have to scheme defensively with Shaq the way the Nuggets do with Jokic.  That's the biggest issue IMO - would the Warriors have to adapt to Shaq (ie, forcing them to play a more traditional big defensively) or would Shaq have to adapt to the Warriors?

[bmags]

Just now, illinilaw08 said:

If 2000 Shaq was in the NBA today, wouldn't a team just build around him the same way the Bucks built around Giannis?  The modern NBA wants shots at the rim and 3s.  Shaq would get what he wanted at the rim, and if he's surrounded by shooters, the Warriors volume advantage isn't 12 to 4.  If you teleported the 2000 Lakers here, sure, I'd agree with you that the 2018 Warriors run them off the floor.  But I don't think that's responsive to Jack's premise that you can't win with a dominant center because teams only shoot 3s.

Shaq might struggle more defensively now because he wouldn't be able to switch, and teams would scheme to put him in pick and rolls.  Lakers would have to scheme defensively with Shaq the way the Nuggets do with Jokic.  That's the biggest issue IMO - would the Warriors have to adapt to Shaq (ie, forcing them to play a more traditional big defensively) or would Shaq have to adapt to the Warriors?

Yes, and the 2009/10 orlando magic.

And yes, Giannis is much better fit now due to his adaptability on defense which again keeps being the thing we have to point out.

But I'd keep in mind the one thing you are doing with the post is modernizing shaq to today's game. And my point keeps being that if the 2000 lakers played like the 2000 lakers they aren't winning a championship in modern nba.

Shaq in today's game likely wouldn't bulk up to his late laker years. He'd be doing pick and rolls and rim running more. He wouldn't be doing so many post-ups. He'd likely be a bit better playmaker. He'd likely shoot a lot less but be at much higher fg%. 

And yeah, like jokic, really good. I do think jokic will win a championship on a team that he's the #2 with a good wing (a la pau gasol). Hard to see denver winning it all unless mpj progresses.

 

[Kyyle23]

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

Of course he was always a bully. But that Orlando dude was a cyborg. It was like you built the perfect NBA center in a lab. Orlando Shaq could move, and that's the huge difference. I was an NBA junkie as a kid, When Shaq was in his prime I was in High School, and he had always been my favorite player(That's not to say I didn't like Jordan too....I  just wanted to be different)

If we're being honest, the Miami/LeBron thing got me to back off a bit and the Durant thing took me from hardcore to casual. 

My memory isn't foggy about it. If you want to challenge my memory of Orlando Shaq, that's valid because I was pretty young there but I remember Laker Shaq damn well, and I used to watch every nationally televised Laker game back then. 

Sometimes facts are facts....and I tend to be more on the side of bmags here. There's no doubting the game has changed in the last decade. 

Bmags is talking about how shaq would work in the modern game, you are saying that Lakers shaq was fat and out of shape and considerably worse than Orlando Shaq.  These aren't the same things, nor are they "facts are facts"

[illinilaw08]

18 minutes ago, bmags said:

Yes, and the 2009/10 orlando magic.

And yes, Giannis is much better fit now due to his adaptability on defense which again keeps being the thing we have to point out.

But I'd keep in mind the one thing you are doing with the post is modernizing shaq to today's game. And my point keeps being that if the 2000 lakers played like the 2000 lakers they aren't winning a championship in modern nba.

Shaq in today's game likely wouldn't bulk up to his late laker years. He'd be doing pick and rolls and rim running more. He wouldn't be doing so many post-ups. He'd likely be a bit better playmaker. He'd likely shoot a lot less but be at much higher fg%. 

And yeah, like jokic, really good. I do think jokic will win a championship on a team that he's the #2 with a good wing (a la pau gasol). Hard to see denver winning it all unless mpj progresses.

 

I'm not modernizing Shaq to today's game - I'm modernizing his teammates to today's game.  Embiid averaged 18 attempts per game last year, and the Sixers were a Kawhi buzzer beater away from the Finals.  I don't see why Shaq shooting 58% on 20 attempts/game (Shaq only averaged more than 20 attempts/game twice in his career) with a Kyrie type second guy (because you obviously can't win without a second guy), and the role players shooting 35% from 3 isn't a workable outcome offensively. 

But leaving that aside if Shaq modernized to today's game is shooting at a "much higher fg%"... is he shooting 68% from the floor on 15 shots/game)? How incredible is that guy?

As far as the Nuggets go, I think you are underselling Jokic some.  He's the best passing big the league has ever seen.  His playoff numbers last year were great.  He needs a second guy to be an All-NBA type to take some of the scoring load off of him (Murray making a leap is the most likely route, but MPJ could get there as well).  Without that second guy, the Nuggets are the DRose Bulls at the moment.  But Jokic can absolutely be the best guy on a team that wins the title.     

[bmags]

2 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

I'm not modernizing Shaq to today's game - I'm modernizing his teammates to today's game.  Embiid averaged 18 attempts per game last year, and the Sixers were a Kawhi buzzer beater away from the Finals.  I don't see why Shaq shooting 58% on 20 attempts/game (Shaq only averaged more than 20 attempts/game twice in his career) with a Kyrie type second guy (because you obviously can't win without a second guy), and the role players shooting 35% from 3 isn't a workable outcome offensively. 

But leaving that aside if Shaq modernized to today's game is shooting at a "much higher fg%"... is he shooting 68% from the floor on 15 shots/game)? How incredible is that guy?

As far as the Nuggets go, I think you are underselling Jokic some.  He's the best passing big the league has ever seen.  His playoff numbers last year were great.  He needs a second guy to be an All-NBA type to take some of the scoring load off of him (Murray making a leap is the most likely route, but MPJ could get there as well).  Without that second guy, the Nuggets are the DRose Bulls at the moment.  But Jokic can absolutely be the best guy on a team that wins the title.     

I honestly don't understand your guys argument.

Everyone in here is basically trying to get people to say that shaq in today's game would break the nba and be the best player in the nba. It's just not true. He'd be very good! He'd probably be 1st team all nba. Shaq was a dominant player in one of the weakest eras in nba history.

Joel Embiid attempts 4 three pointers a game. Shaq's career average of 3 PA is 0.0.

Only 40% of Embiid's shots are from within 10 feet.

Jokic had 50% of his shots from within 10 feet, averages 3PA per game.

It's just not the same game anymore, and shaq isn't going to just to be fed in the post to back down his opponent. 

This is the equivalent of people that think that a team gets a big offensive line and runs the ball will dominate the smaller defenses in the nfl. It's a different game now for a reason, the best backs of yore would likely catch a lot more, and none would play the exact same as they did before. But passing is a better way to get points.

 

[illinilaw08]

36 minutes ago, bmags said:

I honestly don't understand your guys argument.

Everyone in here is basically trying to get people to say that shaq in today's game would break the nba and be the best player in the nba. It's just not true. He'd be very good! He'd probably be 1st team all nba. Shaq was a dominant player in one of the weakest eras in nba history.

Joel Embiid attempts 4 three pointers a game. Shaq's career average of 3 PA is 0.0.

Only 40% of Embiid's shots are from within 10 feet.

Jokic had 50% of his shots from within 10 feet, averages 3PA per game.

It's just not the same game anymore, and shaq isn't going to just to be fed in the post to back down his opponent. 

This is the equivalent of people that think that a team gets a big offensive line and runs the ball will dominate the smaller defenses in the nfl. It's a different game now for a reason, the best backs of yore would likely catch a lot more, and none would play the exact same as they did before. But passing is a better way to get points.

 

I don't think we're that far apart.  Shaq would be a great player in today's NBA.  We agree on that.  

The idea I initially responded to was this "Shaq would eat...but like that's fine. Their volume and percentage of threes make up for it."  That idea seems to be - you can't win a title with a star who doesn't make 3s.  And I just don't think that's true.  Yes, you can't win a title with a team who doesn't make 3s - that I agree with.  

But in the modern NBA, teams wants shots at the rim and 3s.  Shaq would be great in today's NBA - without adapting his game - at getting shots at the rim.  There's no reason to think his FG% would slump - he's probably still shooting at least 58% from the floor on volume.  If you surrounded 2000 Shaq with a host of shooters (granted, Shaq would have to be a better passer), and a second scorer, why can't that team win a title?  It wouldn't beat the Curry/Klay/Durant Warriors who might be the greatest team of all-time - sure.  But why isn't that team in the conversation for the 2019 title?  

 

[bmags]

12 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

I don't think we're that far apart.  Shaq would be a great player in today's NBA.  We agree on that.  

The idea I initially responded to was this "Shaq would eat...but like that's fine. Their volume and percentage of threes make up for it."  That idea seems to be - you can't win a title with a star who doesn't make 3s.  And I just don't think that's true.  Yes, you can't win a title with a team who doesn't make 3s - that I agree with.  

But in the modern NBA, teams wants shots at the rim and 3s.  Shaq would be great in today's NBA - without adapting his game - at getting shots at the rim.  There's no reason to think his FG% would slump - he's probably still shooting at least 58% from the floor on volume.  If you surrounded 2000 Shaq with a host of shooters (granted, Shaq would have to be a better passer), and a second scorer, why can't that team win a title?  It wouldn't beat the Curry/Klay/Durant Warriors who might be the greatest team of all-time - sure.  But why isn't that team in the conversation for the 2019 title?  

 

I mean yeah he has to be a better passer. You are saying if you make shaq a jokic level playmaker is he the best player in the nba and I think that is probably true though I'd probably still take Kawhi.

That's the hard part about imagining him as the best player on the team again, when the ball used to go to him it never left, and teams would feel fine giving a guy a 50% shot at a 2pointer over and over.

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, bmags said:

I mean yeah he has to be a better passer. You are saying if you make shaq a jokic level playmaker is he the best player in the nba and I think that is probably true though I'd probably still take Kawhi.

That's the hard part about imagining him as the best player on the team again, when the ball used to go to him it never left, and teams would feel fine giving a guy a 50% shot at a 2pointer over and over.

I really think in 2020 NBA Shaq would see a lot less defensive collapses so as to prevent the kick out three point game.  I think his shooting percentage would go up a significant amount.

[illinilaw08]

30 minutes ago, bmags said:

I mean yeah he has to be a better passer. You are saying if you make shaq a jokic level playmaker is he the best player in the nba and I think that is probably true though I'd probably still take Kawhi.

That's the hard part about imagining him as the best player on the team again, when the ball used to go to him it never left, and teams would feel fine giving a guy a 50% shot at a 2pointer over and over.

Did I say Shaq had to become the best passing big in NBA history?

Edit: Also, calling Shaq a 50% shooter from 2 misstates the facts as well.  He's shooting almost 60% from 2 in 2000 - not 50%.  Also, if teams were comfortable giving up efficient looks at the rim in 2020, there would be no drive and kick game.

Second edit: In 2000, Shaq averaged almost 4 assists a game (I was surprised to see that number).  That's hardly a guy who wouldn't pass.

Edited May 7, 2020 by illinilaw08

[Balta1701]

35 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Did I say Shaq had to become the best passing big in NBA history?

Edit: Also, calling Shaq a 50% shooter from 2 misstates the facts as well.  He's shooting almost 60% from 2 in 2000 - not 50%.  Also, if teams were comfortable giving up efficient looks at the rim in 2020, there would be no drive and kick game.

Second edit: In 2000, Shaq averaged almost 4 assists a game (I was surprised to see that number).  That's hardly a guy who wouldn't pass.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the work of Phil Jackson and Tex Winter.

[Jack Parkman]

3 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

Bmags is talking about how shaq would work in the modern game, you are saying that Lakers shaq was fat and out of shape and considerably worse than Orlando Shaq.  These aren't the same things, nor are they "facts are facts"

I agree that he would have had to stay at the weight/mobility that he was in Orlando to stick, and that he couldn't let himself get fat. That's always been my point. 310 lb Shaq=beast in the modern NBA 340 lb Shaq=wouldn't happen. By 2001 even though he was still dominant, Shaq was already pushing 340. 

I've never said that Shaq wouldn't have a place in today's NBA...my argument is and always has been that he couldn't let himself get fat and still be great like he did. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Jack Parkman]

On 4/29/2020 at 3:05 PM, Jack Parkman said:

Let's put it this way: It's questionable if Shaq or Ewing would have a place in today's NBA. Kukoc there isn't even a question about. 

If Shaq and Ewing would have a place in today's NBA, they probably wouldn't be getting huge minutes. And when I talk about Shaq, I mean LA Shaq not Orlando Shaq. Orlando Shaq would have a place, it's questionable about LA Shaq. 

This is coming from one of the biggest Shaq fans as a kid. I liked him as much as I liked Jordan. 

This was my initial post. I said "questionable" and never definitely not. I was relying on those with more knowledge than myself over the last half decade or so. 

I don't know how 340 lb Shaq and Ewing would fit in today's league, and that was the question. It was never about that they couldn't hang, it was always about how they'd fit. If Shaq never bulked up or did targeted strength training and remained around 315-320 and it was all muscle, he'd still be the freak he was in Orlando and an absolute beast in the modern NBA. 

The question was more about how the league has gone toward speed and jump shooting. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Balta1701]

16 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

This was my initial post. I said "questionable" and never definitely not. I was relying on those with more knowledge than myself over the last half decade or so. 

I don't know how 340 lb Shaq and Ewing would fit in today's league, and that was the question. It was never about that they couldn't hang, it was always about how they'd fit. If Shaq never bulked up or did targeted strength training and remained around 315-320 and it was all muscle, he'd still be the freak he was in Orlando and an absolute beast in the modern NBA. 

The question was more about how the league has gone toward speed and jump shooting. 

Ewing's playing weight was something like 255, and he had a better in-between shooting game than Shaq. I could see Ewing being a guy who would benefit from the current league, especially if he didn't have Pippen occasionally annihilating him. 

[bmags]

36 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Did I say Shaq had to become the best passing big in NBA history?

Edit: Also, calling Shaq a 50% shooter from 2 misstates the facts as well.  He's shooting almost 60% from 2 in 2000 - not 50%.  Also, if teams were comfortable giving up efficient looks at the rim in 2020, there would be no drive and kick game.

Second edit: In 2000, Shaq averaged almost 4 assists a game (I was surprised to see that number).  That's hardly a guy who wouldn't pass.

Yeah...it's true teams don't want to give up free layups...and I didn't say they wouldn't guard shaq.

If you guys want to argue shaq is a good passer, be my guest. He'd be a great player now. When Shaq was the best player in the nba it was an exceptionally weak time of the league. If you want to talk about where are all the great big men, you had shaq going up against 33 year old dikembe mutombo and 34 year old david robinson. Fat patrick ewing, 37 year old olajuwon.

In 2000 when shaq was 1st team all nba (30-13-4), second team was dikembe mutombo (11 pts, 14 reb) and 3rd team was David Robinson with 18 and 10.

Let's check out Shaq's big obstacles that year.

Round 1: Sacramento

31 Y.O. Vlade Divac.  He'd go onto make the allstar game next year on his devastating 12-8-3 line.

Round 2: Phoenix

Luc Longley ... causing Cliff Robinson to play up and he was actually pretty good as a power forward. But Shaq was going against Longley for 20 minutes a game.

Round 3: Portland Jailblazers

35 Year Old Arvydas Sabonis...rough! Shaq had to go through the gauntlet!

Finals: Indiana Pacers

It's the finals, probably going to be a tough matchup...

Zoops it's 33 Year Old Rik Smits and Dale Davis...

In the time of bad big men (2019) we have

jokic was first team (20-10-7), Embiid 2nd team (23-12-3), Gobert 3rd team (16-13-2-2)

Ah, but then Shaq also played 40 minutes per game.

We will uncharitably give the per 36 minute stats for the trash modern big men:

Jokic (22-11-8)

Embiid (29-15-4)

Gobert (16-14)

Shaq (27-12-3) (99-00)

So in Shaq's best year he's a slightly worse Joel Embiid.

 You aren't taking him over Kareem. Taking wilt next. Pretty sure I'd take Duncan even though he's a PF next. Hakeem had less impressive scoring stats and rebounds but when he went toe to toe against the greats of his time he ended david robinson and then outplayed a very good shaq (probably the best shaq?) in the finals, sweeping them.

Since we pick and choose stats, moses malone had a better single year in his career than shaq had, in 82.

You are drafting an alltime nba team. You taking shaq in any team building exercise? That's why I don't believe this revisionism here.

Very good. Weak, terrible time in nba history. Joel Embiid is apparently better.

 

[Jack Parkman]

19 minutes ago, bmags said:

Yeah...it's true teams don't want to give up free layups...and I didn't say they wouldn't guard shaq.

If you guys want to argue shaq is a good passer, be my guest. He'd be a great player now. When Shaq was the best player in the nba it was an exceptionally weak time of the league. If you want to talk about where are all the great big men, you had shaq going up against 33 year old dikembe mutombo and 34 year old david robinson. Fat patrick ewing, 37 year old olajuwon.

In 2000 when shaq was 1st team all nba (30-13-4), second team was dikembe mutombo (11 pts, 14 reb) and 3rd team was David Robinson with 18 and 10.

Let's check out Shaq's big obstacles that year.

Round 1: Sacramento

31 Y.O. Vlade Divac.  He'd go onto make the allstar game next year on his devastating 12-8-3 line.

Round 2: Phoenix

Luc Longley ... causing Cliff Robinson to play up and he was actually pretty good as a power forward. But Shaq was going against Longley for 20 minutes a game.

Round 3: Portland Jailblazers

35 Year Old Arvydas Sabonis...rough! Shaq had to go through the gauntlet!

Finals: Indiana Pacers

It's the finals, probably going to be a tough matchup...

Zoops it's 33 Year Old Rik Smits and Dale Davis...

In the time of bad big men (2019) we have

jokic was first team (20-10-7), Embiid 2nd team (23-12-3), Gobert 3rd team (16-13-2-2)

Ah, but then Shaq also played 40 minutes per game.

We will uncharitably give the per 36 minute stats for the trash modern big men:

Jokic (22-11-8)

Embiid (29-15-4)

Gobert (16-14)

Shaq (27-12-3) (99-00)

So in Shaq's best year he's a slightly worse Joel Embiid.

 You aren't taking him over Kareem. Taking wilt next. Pretty sure I'd take Duncan even though he's a PF next. Hakeem had less impressive scoring stats and rebounds but when he went toe to toe against the greats of his time he ended david robinson and then outplayed a very good shaq (probably the best shaq?) in the finals, sweeping them.

Since we pick and choose stats, moses malone had a better single year in his career than shaq had, in 82.

You are drafting an alltime nba team. You taking shaq in any team building exercise? That's why I don't believe this revisionism here.

Very good. Weak, terrible time in nba history. Joel Embiid is apparently better.

 

Wilt is kinda like Wayne Gretzky in that his stats are outrageous because of the era he played in. It really can't be compared to anything afterward. 

[bmags]

5 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Wilt is kinda like Wayne Gretzky in that his stats are outrageous because of the era he played in. It really can't be compared to anything afterward. 

...that doesn't mean is wasn't one of the best.