RealGM

I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for saying this, since it's pretty much unanimously accepted that Shaq is one of the most dominant, if not the most dominant, player in history. How do you think he would do in modern rules?

There's no doubt that there are more charges taken in today's game than any time in the past (I don't know where I'd get access to those kinds of numbers). I feel like a lot of that has to do with the way it's called, in that the defensive player is given the call moreso than in the past, and as a result, players are willing to "sacrifice their bodies" for the win. One also has to consider the flop factor. I'm not referring to the cases where players completely fake contact, but rather how much more "selling" is done these days. When a player gets hit, they make sure that the refs see it by exaggerating the contact, whether dramatically or not.

Shaq's dominance came from a combination of his strength, size and footwork. I feel like he'd get in foul trouble quite a bit in the modern NBA from charges alone. He wouldn't be able to "bulldoze" his way through defenders, not only because of how he plays, but moreso due to how defenders guard him.

Everyone always talks about how soft the NBA is in today's game... why do you think that is? It's naiive to think the sole reason is the players, they're playing the way the refs and league dictate the game. It's a lot less physical. I'm not suggesting that he would not be incredible, what I am suggesting, however, is that the way the game is called in today's game would make him that much less dominant.

even though shaq only stopped playing a few years ago... i think this is why it is too hard to compare players from different eras

I don't know if offensive fouls are called any differently than they were in Shaq's prime. One thing that has changed since Shaq's Finals MVPs are the rules against zone defenses. That might have more of an impact.

He would be even more dominant since the reffing has gotten even worse, and more preferential towards stars.

Case2012 wrote:the reffing has gotten even worse, and more preferential towards stars.

I don't believe that to be the case at all.

I do think Shaq would be just as dominant or perhaps moreso though. While flopping has been around basically forever it started getting popular as a way to defend Shaq which lead to the issues we saw the past couple yrs with flopping and now the refs working back against them. So bc of that alot of the "offensive" fouls called on Shaq would now not be called as the refs realized they were "flops." Also, the games spacing has improved alot over the past 5 years bc of the increase in 3's which would only give Shaq even more room down low to use, less physical interior defense means Shaq gets even more dunks.

Players adjust, that's one thing that people seem to forget a lot. If something doesn't work, players adjust and do,something else, Shaq didn't only have on effective method of scoring the basketball.

Shaq from 05-06 until he retired averaged 4.6 fouls/36 minutes, so older, fatter Shaq was already foul prone anyways, but did you look at his numbers on 82 games, doesn't seem like it was due to a higher percentage of offensive fouls. Guy can't guard the pick and roll and a lot of offenses have a lot of pick and roll in them, and teams will attack him that way like they always do.

He should be fine, still ca get position, when he was you're he ran the floor well too and was agile and didn't just bully people.

In his prime he averaged double digits FTAs a game consistently, even if you factor in hack a Shaq, that's an insane rate. He can back down any defender in the post and score against double teams. Its hard to argue he cannot translate those skills to any era.

15 FTA/game would be within reach...

i don't see how he could possibly be as dominant. i think he gets in foul trouble lot more often. people would just fall down, so much so that even if refs didnt call all of them it'd still be enough to get him in trouble by 4th quarter. yeah flopping was around when he was in prime but it wasn't like it is now. vlade stood out because he was the only one doing it consistently against him. most centers back then, big or small, would take the punishment because that's just how the low post game was.

and by flopping i'm including "selling" contact.

on the flip side he might have actually developed a decent hook shot, kept himself lighter, and may have had several more productive, if not as dominant, years.

Depends on how many offensive fouls the refs called on him. He was not allowed to bulldoze as often as he got older.

He'd be considered a superstar, so they probably won't call it too much. That combined with the lack of true centers in the league would make him the #1 most valuable asset in the league by significant margin.

Shaq's most foul-prone years were his rookie season and every year from 2004 onwards. Now, obviously from 2004 until retirement marked the decline of his body and his overall impact as a player, but it also coincided with refs becoming a lot more whistle happy on big men challenging drives to the basket. He averaged only 3.3 fouls per 36 in 2002-03 and 2003-4. That leaped to 3.8 fp36 in 2004-5 and then 4.6 in 2005-06, and it stayed above 4 every season onwards. I'm of the belief that changes in the way games were refereed played as much a part in his increased foul proneness as age.

I think a Shaq playing in the modern era would be every bit as capable a scorer when given the opportunity because double-teaming him and generally crowding him rarely had much effect. Feed him the ball, get results. However, I think he would become a little more limited by virtue of the refereeing changes and more regular foul trouble. Another factor might be the increased reliance of the league on three point shooters. He would obviously still be a main option on offense, but I don't see it as outlandish that a coach would want to see him kicking it out for high-percentage threes as much as taking on the defense himself.

Shaq With Modern Centers: More Dominant.

I think he would be less dominant. A center without any range past the paint and inability to hit free throws, simply cannot score in the high 20's on a nightly basis in today's game. Physicality was his weapon and in today's game you can't get away with too much of that. And now teams have more ways to take a big man out the game... eg. playing a stretch 5 to pull him out the paint

Cruel_Ruin wrote:I don't know if offensive fouls are called any differently than they were in Shaq's prime. One thing that has changed since Shaq's Finals MVPs are the rules against zone defenses. That might have more of an impact.

Wouldn't have mattered. Shaq was just as dominant in college, where teams were allow to play full zone.

MOre dominant.

Instead of having to go up against Robinson, Hakeem, Ewing, Zoe, he would be up against McGee, Bosh, D12, etc.

He would go off for 60/40 and then he would be arrested for manslaughter after he snaps Bosh into 3 pieces.

Southward1 wrote:15 FTA/game would be within reach...

So that's what 5 extra points, not bad. XD

bbalnation wrote:I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for saying this, since it's pretty much unanimously accepted that Shaq is one of the most dominant, if not the most dominant, player in history. How do you think he would do in modern rules?

There's no doubt that there are more charges taken in today's game than any time in the past (I don't know where I'd get access to those kinds of numbers). I feel like a lot of that has to do with the way it's called, in that the defensive player is given the call moreso than in the past, and as a result, players are willing to "sacrifice their bodies" for the win. One also has to consider the flop factor. I'm not referring to the cases where players completely fake contact, but rather how much more "selling" is done these days. When a player gets hit, they make sure that the refs see it by exaggerating the contact, whether dramatically or not.

Shaq's dominance came from a combination of his strength, size and footwork. I feel like he'd get in foul trouble quite a bit in the modern NBA from charges alone. He wouldn't be able to "bulldoze" his way through defenders, not only because of how he plays, but moreso due to how defenders guard him.

Everyone always talks about how soft the NBA is in today's game... why do you think that is? It's naiive to think the sole reason is the players, they're playing the way the refs and league dictate the game. It's a lot less physical. I'm not suggesting that he would not be incredible, what I am suggesting, however, is that the way the game is called in today's game would make him that much less dominant.

Its how you view the game I think. If you view it through the game through a individual level and assign eras based on the players within it, then it would seem like shaq would be even more dominant due to the lack of quality of centres in the NBA, relative of course to his time. If you view it through a broader scope and look at it through a schematic way then you would look at the rules changes and why they may have impacted the quality of centres in the NBA today, if you believe there is a true lack of talent in the centre position. Also, if using this broader schematic approach, you would look at how the position-less movement within the nba you could maybe say that a true centre would be impacted differently then he would have been 10 years ago.

I myself look at not with a individualistic approach to looking at the game but a more schematic approach. I think the elimination of the illegal defence (plus making hand-checking illegal) and the increase of the strong-side defence, having 3 guys on the strong side with 2 guys on the weak (still maintaining man defence but with a less focus on individual/man defence), would greatly impact Shaq's ability to score at the same rate. You could clog his space more effectively and keep him more contained, it's one reason why we don't have as many dominant post players in the past, but shaq would still be far away the best and most dominant centre in the game. He would still be just as dominant because of his underrated passing skills and ability to change shots at the other end.

In today's NBA the post game hasn't been completely eliminated but has evolved into being more of outlet or a starting position for a team's offence. You throw the ball inside not just for the purpose of trying to score but to get the defence moving towards the ball and then kick it out to a cutter or shooter. This is hard for many modern big man because defences are just too fast and too long for many of these bigs to get off good passes but a guy like Shaq would thrive within in this system. This would impact his scoring but he would make up for it with his passing and ability to just get the defence scrambling.

On the other end, his defence would become even more important and it would all have to do with his unique blend of speed, strength, quickness, and explosiveness. Like a big and stronger version of Dwight Howard (not as agile or laterally quick) and Shaq would have thrived with the packing the paint style of defence. This of course would mean having a focused and driven shaq but his defensive potential would be even more profound than in his era.

TL;DR His scoring would drop but this era would bring out his great passing and his defensive potential.

Space would be more spread out due to the danger of the 3 ball and he'd be working against inferior big man

Is it possible for shaq to be more dominant in today's nba than in the past?

Hed still be a superstar getting superstar calls

Still get his 30 and 10 constantly in each game no matter what.