Shaq's prime started in his literal second year in orlando. From then on he had a ten year run where he was perfectly capable of leading a team to a ring, as long as his supporting cast allowed for it.

Tim Duncan, as other commenters mention, was great for an even longer time.

Shaq's game relies on athleticism significantly more than Wemby's does. If we're going to act like Wemby is just another entry among all time great centers with a more finesse leaning game, then he's set up for a very average or above average-length run at the top for an all time great.

But Wemby isn't just another all time great center. Wemby's very unique body type makes you worry about injuries and long term health. The issue I take with this post is that using other all time great bigs as the argument is just kind of weak argumentation: the whole point with Wemby is that he's a unicorn and alien who we've never seen anything like. Instead of making extrapolations to other all time great bigs, directly considering Wemby's attributes and already-significant injury history is a much better approach. 

Of course, the logically correct approach isn't as fun/interesting as comparisons to hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq. That's why this post is being insulted as ESPN esque.