Who'd rather build your franchise on: Shaquille O'Neal or Wilt Chamberlain?

[Whoah10115]

Shaq had a lot of talent and he was great in the open court. He was also a great passer and a smarter player than I sometimes give him credit for.




But Wilt used his skill much more than Shaq did. Shaq got away with way too much. Wilt is also the better defender. Yea, he's also the better rebounder, but that's hard to rate.



As a scorer, it's a lot closer than anyone would argue. And I don't care what anyone tells me, it's a lot closer than that. But overall offense, being able to move the ball around, and the passing game...I take Wilt. But really, the defense is so much in Wilt's favor. That's what makes this an easy choice.

[CavaliersFTW]

I'd rather build around Wilt if I had the option of one or the other in their own era (assuming equal talent on the team arrived on, though the Celtics were a more stable and formidable dynasty/rival than the Spurs so if we're assuming all other teams stay exactly the same then I'd have to think it over more). Right now? I don't know. There's a temptation to take Shaq because we know what he can do in the modern era (this is not a Wilt dis, I'd imagine he'd be very good indeed, I'm just saying we don't have to guess at all with Shaq). But once you get into the time travel stuff you start asking whether Wilt gets modern training facilities etc.

Anyway they're the two most dominant bigs ever (maybe early 70s Kareem is up there).

http://youtu.be/YVDzzxVE34k?t=1m20s

eye test

[bdreason]

Amazing how the greatest player of all-time only managed 1 title as the main man.

[CavaliersFTW]

Amazing how the greatest player of all-time only managed 1 title as the main man.

Main man at what? Scoring?

He was the "main man" for both titles, whether you stare at a ppg statsheet or not. You also dumb enough to consider Bill Russell to not be "the man" for his titles too!? U funny man!

I don't expect you to understand how a non-scorer is still the teams anchor and best player, it isn't something that the NBA has today, I'm hazy on mid/late 70's players but based on 80's-present rosters Russell and Chamberlain might have been the last two to be the definitive team leader and best player with such a reduced scoring role. Like it or not, '72 Title Wilt = FMVP. Guess he aint the main man tho cuz scoring is the only way to be the greatest player on the team rite?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Wilt has never led a championship team in scoring
Shaq has 3 times, along with rebounding and blocking.

Shaq also has double the rings, and didn't play in a weak era of 6'6"-6'8" centers

Shaq, and it's not even close.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Shaquille O'Neal easily.

Comparing the old-timers to Modern Players now is a joke. Better athletes in ALL SPORTS, better training regiments, better supplements, better medicine, better technology, etc, it's a non-comparison. Teleport Shaq back in time with Wilt, Russell, Big O, and he would f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]cking MURDER all those guys and their teams. It's called being realistic.

[Whoah10115]

Main man at what? Scoring?

He was the "main man" for both titles, whether you stare at a ppg statsheet or not. You also dumb enough to consider Bill Russell to not be "the man" for his titles too!? U funny man!

I don't expect you to understand how a non-scorer is still the teams anchor and best player, it isn't something that the NBA has today, I'm hazy on mid/late 70's players but based on 80's-present rosters Russell and Chamberlain might have been the last two to be the definitive team leader and best player with such a reduced scoring role. Like it or not, '72 Title Wilt = FMVP. Guess he aint the main man tho cuz scoring is the only way to be the greatest player on the team rite?

I think you're jumping to a conclusion on what he thinks is or isn't the man.