Shaquille O'Neal vs. Wilt Chamberlain: if there's anyone who will supplant the Stilt as basketball's most dominant player ever, it's Shaq - One-on-One - Statistical Data Included

Basketball Digest, Jan, 2002 by Reggie Theus

SAY WHAT YOU WANT ABOUT Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's longevity or Bill Russell's rings, but let's get one thing straight: No one's put up gaudier numbers than Wilt Chamberlain. I could spend this entire article breaking those numbers down for you: Of the top 23 single-game scoring outputs in NBA history, Wilt owns 15, including his all-time NBA record 100 (making a record 36-of-63 field goals and a record 28-of-32 free throws); he owns three of the top six single-game rebounding efforts, including his all-time NBA record 55 (vs. Russell);[Pi]also recorded the only triple double-double in NBA history, on February 2, 1968, going for 22 points, 25 boards, and 21 assists.

What does Shaq bring to the table vs. Wilt? More than you might think. First off, he's got a more varied set of skills. He already owns as many rings as Wilt, and he should finish his career with more.

Wilt's stats are overwhelming. But what's fishy is how he could have been so dominant statistically, yet win only two titles. Was the NBA weaker back then? If not, there's no excuse for Chamberlain not having won more. His stats are awesome--but how tainted are they?

In a strict numbers sense, there's no way O'Neal--or any player in the history of the NBA--can measure up to Chamberlain. But what we have here is a battle of stats vs. skills.

Scoring (Shaq 15, Wilt 15)

Both these players can score; in fact, heading into this season the difference is negligible (Wilt's 30.1 ppg vs. Shaq's 27.7). Wilt led the NBA in scoring in his first seven seasons, never averaging less than 33.5 ppg and putting up an NBA-record 50.4 ppg in 1961-62. O'Neal has no problem shouldering the load as a scorer, either.

But both players had to learn to share the ball: Chamberlain with Hall-of-Famers like Paul Arzin with the Philadelphia Warriors, Hal Greer (76ers), and Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Gail Goodrich (Los Angeles Lakers), and O'Neal with Penny Hardaway on the Orlando Magic and now in L.A. with Kobe Bryant).

Shaq is a better ball-handler than Wilt ever was, and boasts a sweet signature spin move in going for a lob. Shaq also boasts a baseline jumper out to 10 feet. Wilt was pretty restricted to a finger roll and fall-away bank shot.

There's never been a man as large as Shaq who has been as light on his feet. Mix that with his quickness and strength--and mean streak--and you've got a force no one can reckon with.

Field-Goal Shooting (Wilt 10, Shaq 10)

Wilt led the NBA in field-goal shooting a record nine times. Who's second? Shaq, with five seasons atop the league. And O'Neal has a better career shooting percentage than Wilt (.577 to .540).

But here's something that really impresses me about Chamberlain: as his career wore on and the teams he was playing on got better and better, he got smarter. He took smarter shots. Look at his last season, with the record-breaking 1972-73 Lakers. Teamed with great scorers like West and Goodrich, Wilt averaged only 13.2 ppg, playing more of a role being the centerpiece. But he shot an amazing .727 from the floor. That's the best mark ever recorded in the NBA.

Shaq is brilliant at using contact to his advantage. Despite Wilt's reputation as a "giant" back in the 1960s, Shaq is the same height (both 7'1") and outweighs his average opponent by a greater margin than Wilt did (a 70-pound advantage vs. Wilt's 47). O'Neal knows just how to back his defender down--sometimes underneath the rim--for easy scores. Shaq is also more athletic, with more nimbleness and offensive moves than Wilt ever had. Both players' primary weapons are slam dunks, but compare Shaq's effective secondary move, a five-foot baby hook, to Wilt's finger roll. Wilt was known to drive coaches and teammates crazy by opting for finesse rather than power, Shaq makes no such mistakes.

Free-Throw Shooting (Shaq 1, Wilt 1)

It's tempting simply to skip this section. Yes, Shaq's .531 career mark is better than Wilt's .511. But I'll give Chamberlain some credit for being willing to experiment with different approaches: He shot underhanded, he shot from the right and left sides of the free-throw line, he even shot his throws near the top of the key.

Shaq's free-throw shots are painfully bad, with the kind of spin that makes you duck on the blocks. But rarely has Shaq's inability to make charity shots cost his team a win. Throws will always be a problem for Shaq, just as they were for Wilt.

People think free throws are psychological, but that's not always true. A big man's hands are so large the bail feels like a volleyball in their hands. A stationary shot is all touch, and big men don't have that touch; it's not second nature for them. A stationary shot from 15 feet is not part of their natural game, which leads to struggles from the stripe.

Defense (Wilt 19, Shaq 18)

Both of these centers have been unfairly overshadowed on defense. Because Russell was such a weak offensive player, people automatically assume he was a better defender than Chamberlain. The numbers don't support that, though.

Shaq has always played second-fiddle defensively to rivals like Dikembe Mutombo or Hakeem Olajuwon. That's not fair. The effort and intensity hasn't always been consistent, and he might look less the part of an agile, lithe defender as Mutombo, but O'Neal is in there mixing it up with the best of them.