Where would Peak Shaq rank today?

[MacGill]

Best player.

Its second best peak ever after Jordan.

Why do you think so? He was an amazing offensive player, but he had more limitations than other all-time great offensive anchors and his defense is, well... sometimes acceptable (sometimes not).

I just struggle to see Shaq case for 2nd best peak ever. Would you like to comment that?

Shaq was the 2nd Team All Defense center three times: 2000, 2001 and 2003. The 1st team center was Mutombo in 2000 and Ben Wallace in 2001 and 2003, both all-time defensive players. Shaq was very good defensively in the early 2000s and elite in 2000 in particular.

Yup - and I wonder the offensive load each of those centers carried and how many signings for '6 fouls' they received. Imagine telling Shaq to limit scoring and truly only focus on rebounds and rim protection.

[70sFan]

Why do you think so? He was an amazing offensive player, but he had more limitations than other all-time great offensive anchors and his defense is, well... sometimes acceptable (sometimes not).

I just struggle to see Shaq case for 2nd best peak ever. Would you like to comment that?

Shaq was the 2nd Team All Defense center three times: 2000, 2001 and 2003. The 1st team center was Mutombo in 2000 and Ben Wallace in 2001 and 2003, both all-time defensive players. Shaq was very good defensively in the early 2000s and elite in 2000 in particular.

Yup - and I wonder the offensive load each of those centers carried and how many signings for '6 fouls' they received. Imagine telling Shaq to limit scoring and truly only focus on rebounds and rim protection.

It's not about offensive load - Shaq had horrible fundamentals, poor timing, bad footwork and physical limitations. It's basically saying that any big center can be legit DPOY with just a proper focus.

[MacGill]

Peak Shaq is player very specific to the Deadball Era. Don't think Peak Shaq is a transferable player, carrying 350-360lbs. When someone says Peak Shaq they must mean the build of 1992-1993 Orlando Shaq.

Shaq likely would be in the mix for the best player in the league, maybe. Don't really think it's a given that he's the best because his Defensive motor and effort was always questionable especially in P&R Action and in today's NBA all teams run is high volume and variation of P&R Action.

Also Offensively would Shaq have the same relative impact? One thing that made Shaq so notably dominant and impactful was the fact that he played in a depreciated era of offensive basketball. It's easy to see his offensive impact in era where the league average in TS% was consistently hovering around 51% or 52%.

In an NBA that's now hyper efficient with All-Time Peak efficiency of 58% TS, where there's premium emphasis on shooting ability; can someone like Shaq really have the same relative scoring value that he had at his peak/prime?

Shaq couldn't shoot 3 pointers, couldn't shoot with consistent effectiveness outside 8FT from the basket and was a bad Free Throw shooter to the point where it chipped away at some value in his overall scoring efficiency.

Jump Shooting Bigs of '90s and '00s like Olajuwon, Robinson, Garnett, Ewing, Rasheed have more of transferable scoring game than someone like Shaq.

In 2023, do you think Shaq could have TS% of 63%-65% and maintain the same All-Time elite scoring volume while still being a 45%-60% FT shooter?

Shaq only weighed that much towards the end of his Lakers tenure ie past his peak. If Shaq played in the present era I don't see him getting much above his Magic weight low 300s. He was about 320-330 in his MVP season.

He admittedly tried to bulk up when he got to the Lakers as he wanted to get a physical as possible which made some sense for the era and then just lost control of his diet following that.

Yup - it's all situational! Earlier B-ball didn't have as much technology to put into the game where as now Sport Science disects almost every aspects of it. Genetics are genetics. Same as KD could never look like Giannis if he wanted too, it was easier for Shaq to put on weight and size versus KAJ, for example. Some give far too much credit to 'appearance' and not enough to understanding that not all genetics are created equal.

I'd luv to personally see some posters here put on 30-40lbs and watch them get back down to their earlier weight after having to remain that size for over a decade. It's very easy to type an opinion about it though

[MacGill]

People keep talking about Shaq’s weight but ignore how fat Jokic and Embiid have been at times.

Embiid was more mobile than Lakers Shaq.

Was he though? Than 98-2001 Shaq?

He shoots 3's though....

[MacGill]

I never said he can't be ranked that high, only that I find it quite strange so many people put such a flawed player that high. Don't get me wrong, I am very high on his offense regadless of his weaknesses but they still exist and he doesn't shorten the gap defensively like other bigs do.

I'm a bit confused by this because isn't this the exact type of argument that gets brought up against Russell all the time? "Russell can't be the best because despite his great defense, he's not a good offensive player so the sum of the parts can never be enough". Even in picking 1962 as his peak it looks like you're trying to counteract this by picking a season where he was arguably at his best offensively despite having better defensive (and arguably overall) seasons in 64 and 65.

Similarly 2016 Curry probably has the best regular season performance of all-time and he's pretty limitted too. His main skill of 3 point shooting gets exponentially less valuable the further back you go, only recently became an above average defender for his position but at 6'3 his impact on that end will never be that big (clearly less than peak Shaq imo), Curry wouldn't be that great of a primary playmaker either.

My point is why does it matter what players can't do when what they can do is more than enough within their era?

Bang on, my man! I like your style.

Here is my pet peeve when it comes to comparing across eras, especially when we go far enough back where we almost have to take 'someone's word for it' as there is hardly any footage. And note, this is no slight against the earlier eras. I have Russell in my Top 10.

Imagine having full video footage of Russell/Wilt & KAJ. Out of the 3 we have the most available with the Captain! And yet, with that, many don't have KAJ as the GOAT, some like me don't have him top 5, but the point is, of the three, he is by far the most complete 2-way center of the group. Yet, now this is where simply statistical will override 'what we can actually see being performed'.

I could poke endless holes in the earlier eras if the full video footage was released, but this is also how many are able to criticise more modern players because they have access to it. Outside of normal 'highlight reel' footage, there is video of Wilt/Russell walking up the court, turning over the ball, missing easy open shots etc. and we call this being 'human'!

We are dealing with all pro-athletes here, period. If Russell was asked to score 30PPG a night, do we doubt that he couldn't do it?
Wilt led the league in assists because he was asked too. Hell, Mike James once averaged over 20ppg on my Raptors because he was the only person who could do it at that time but he certainly wasn't close to that caliber of player on an even decent team.

So why does everyone expect Shaq to be how the perception of a center was to be when today we have centers taking 3 pointers, hardly playing down low, and trying to be a more a point forward than an actual mis-match?

Russell/Wilt/KAJ all had weaknesses as well. No one can hide Shaq's weaknesses because we all got to watch, and can go back to watch him actually play which is more than we can say for almost all of the other 3 mentioned. That is why it is a team game and the organization builds around these weaknesses, hopefully!

Shaq is arguably the greatest mismatch that the league has ever seen who just wanted to crush you night in and night out. That wouldn't change regardless of where you send him if would only affect what he would do as his career at that time progressed versus what other team adjustments did. That's it!

[MacGill]

Shaq was the 2nd Team All Defense center three times: 2000, 2001 and 2003. The 1st team center was Mutombo in 2000 and Ben Wallace in 2001 and 2003, both all-time defensive players. Shaq was very good defensively in the early 2000s and elite in 2000 in particular.

Yup - and I wonder the offensive load each of those centers carried and how many signings for '6 fouls' they received. Imagine telling Shaq to limit scoring and truly only focus on rebounds and rim protection.

It's not about offensive load - Shaq had horrible fundamentals, poor timing, bad footwork and physical limitations. It's basically saying that any big center can be legit DPOY with just a proper focus.

This is the most disingenuous post I have read here in a long, long time! You clearly shouldn't be providing opinion on actual physical attributes outside of providing statistical insights to support your arguments. Yeah, clearly even while at LSU, nba players were already preparing for this limited, uncoordinated player!

Kindly refrain from responding to me if you can't take your blinders off.

respectfully........

[70sFan]

Yup - and I wonder the offensive load each of those centers carried and how many signings for '6 fouls' they received. Imagine telling Shaq to limit scoring and truly only focus on rebounds and rim protection.

It's not about offensive load - Shaq had horrible fundamentals, poor timing, bad footwork and physical limitations. It's basically saying that any big center can be legit DPOY with just a proper focus.

This is the most disingenuous post I have read here in a long, long time! You clearly shouldn't be providing opinion on actual physical attributes outside of providing statistical insights to support your arguments. Yeah, clearly even while at LSU, nba players were already preparing for this limited, uncoordinated player!

Kindly refrain from responding to me if you can't take your blinders off.

respectfully........

I hope you won't be mad at me for respectfully ignoring your advice...

Shaq had physical limitations. He was massive, which makes him very limited in space and slow footed. Shaq had bad defensive fundamentals, he often mistimed his block attempts and made unreasonable fouls. I can provide a lot of examples on the tape if you wish.

It didn't make him bad defensive player, he was that talented - but I don't see him ever approaching top tier defenders.

Please, before you call someone blind because of a strong disagreement, at least listen the arguments and give a chance to elaborate.

[OhayoKD]

I never said he can't be ranked that high, only that I find it quite strange so many people put such a flawed player that high. Don't get me wrong, I am very high on his offense regadless of his weaknesses but they still exist and he doesn't shorten the gap defensively like other bigs do.

I'm a bit confused by this because isn't this the exact type of argument that gets brought up against Russell all the time? "Russell can't be the best because despite his great defense, he's not a good offensive player so the sum of the parts can never be enough".

Okay, but Shaq doesn't win the "what does his influence look like if we add everything together" conversation. Russell is beating the best teams of the era for a ring as a retiree player-coach with a team that wins 35 games with the same roster(and the second best player improving signifcantly to offset role-player decline)

Whether you go from a team perspective or an individual perspective, Shaq does not look like a goat-worthy peak without theoretical justifications.

Russell gets a pass from "not good offense" because he looks absurdly valuable with all those limitations presumably built in. Shaq does not. And shaq does not replicate the already not mindblowing peak stuff

[colts18]

I have tracked very closely Shaq defensive tendencies in his best defensive seasons (2000 and 2001) for a sample of almost 50 games. No, Shaq was never an elite defender. He got some accolades with his popularity, but it doesn't make him elite defender.

If you disagree with me, please elaborate without mentioning accolades argument.

It's absurd to say that Shaq was not an elite defender in 2000. He was one of the 3 best defensive players in the league that season. I already made Shaq's case in the past for 2000 based on his Man Defense and Rim Protection.

Defense:
Shaq’s 2000 season was his best defensive performance ever. The Lakers finished #1 in Defensive Rating (-5.9 relative to league average according to B-R), 1st in FG% allowed, 3P% allowed. Shaq led the league in Defensive Win Shares. Shaq’s man defense was a huge part of that. According to Hoopsstats.com, the Lakers in 2000 allowed 14.0 PPG, 40.7 FG% to opposing center. They had the best PPG against Centers, FG% against centers, and finished with the 2nd fewest FTA/game allowed to Centers.

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fa ... 10/pts/1-1
Top TS% defense:
Lakers: .455 TS% (.453 in the games Shaq played)
Spurs: .486 TS%
Heat: .490 TS%
The League average center was .526 TS% so the Lakers were -7.1 TS% relative to League average and they beat the Robinson/Duncan Spurs by 3.1 TS% for 1st place. An impressive feat.

Here are some more facts from Hoopsstats.com. Here are the best opposing Center PPG and FG% defense since hoopsstats started collecting the stat (from 1998-2013)

Top opponent Center PPG defense from 98-13:
06 Heat: 12.8 PPG (Shaq)
04 Lakers: 12.9 PPG (Shaq)
06 Jazz: 12.9 PPG

Top opponent Center FG% defense from 98-13:
00 Lakers: 40.7 FG% (Shaq)
99 Spurs: 41.1 FG% (Duncan/Robinson)
99 Hawks: 41.9 FG% (Mutombo)
Shaq’s teams finished #1 in 00 and 05, #2 in 01, 02 and #3 in 98 and 06.

Here is a comparison between Shaq and Alonzo Mourning, the 2000 DPOY, for that season:
Teams On Court Defensive Rating:
Shaq 95.3 pts allowed per 100 possessions with Shaq on the court
Mourning: 97.7 points per 100 allowed

These are the stats of all Centers in the league that played 24 minutes in a game vs Shaq/Mourning in 2000. Numbers are Per 36:

vs. Shaq: 12.46 PPG, 42.5 FG%, .462 TS% 1.48 AST-1.68 TOV

vs. Mourning: 12.53 PPG, 45.4 FG%, .512 TS%, 1.23 AST-1.83 TOV

vs. league average: 13.97 PPG, 50.2 FG%, .547 TS%, 1.50 AST-2.02 TOV

*League average does not include Shaq

Dropoff: Shaq-League Avg: -1.21 PPG, -7.7 FG%, -8.5 TS%, -0.2 AST, -0.34 TOV


vs Shaq: 10% 20+ points, 25% 15+ points, 48% <10 points

vs. Mourning: 14% 20+ Points, 20% 15+ points, 44% <10 points

League average: 13.9% 20+ Points, 32.1% 15+ points, 38.2% <10 points

Here is what Shaq did vs. the top 5 non-Shaq scorers at Center that year:
vs. Shaq (parenthesis is their regular season average):

Mourning: 27 PPG, 44.2 FG%, .513 TS%(21.7 PPG, 55.1 FG%, .596 TS%)

DRob: 13.3PPG, 42.1 FG%, .462 TS% (17.8 PPG, 51.2 FG%, .568 TS%) (had 15 Points on 54.5 FG% in the game Shaq missed)

Ewing: 13 PPG, 32.4 FG%, .343 TS% (15 PPG, 46.6 FG%, .516 TS%)

Smits: 8 PPG, 47.1 FG%, .471 TS% (12.9 PPG, 48.4 FG%, .518 TS%), 10 PPG 46.6 FG% in finals vs. Shaq

Campbell: 7 PPG, 28.6 FG%, .308 TS% (12.7 PPG, 44.6 FG%, .500 TS%)

Average dropoff is -2.2 PPG, -10.3 FG%, -12.0 TS%. That is a significant dropoff.

Playoffs (regular season averages in parenthesis):
Divac: 11.2 PPG, 35.7 FG%, 423 TS% (12.3 PPG, 50.3 FG%, .552 TS%)
Longley: 5.2 PPG, 37.1 FG%, .330 TS% (6.3 PPG, 44.6 FG%, .512 TS%)
Sabonis: 8.3 PPG, 38.2 FG%, 22.2 3P%, .471 TS% (11.8 PPG, 50.5 FG%, 36.8 3P%, .568 TS%)
Smits: 10 PPG, 46.6 FG%, .495 TS% (12.9 PPG, 48.4 FG%, .518 TS%)
Average dropoff: 2.2 PPG, -9.3 FG%, -10.8 TS%

Shaq was elite on man defense again in the playoffs.

Here is a breakdown on the Lakers defense in the paint
With Shaq on court: 33.5 Points in the paint allowed per 48 minutes
Shaq off the court: 38.8 Points allowed per 48
5.3 points per 48 minute difference. Teams shot 148 more mid range shots with Shaq on the court than against any other player in the league.

viewtopic.php?t=1236093

[No-more-rings]

Shaq’s teams were still significantly better on defense with him on the court in the 2000 and 2001 playoffs, just in case anyone wants to blame the Lakers’ defensive problems in 2000 mostly on him. Ironically they were better on offense without him in 2001. Small samples like that are of course noisy, but is there clear evidence Shaq is behind the 2000 Lakers’ defensive issues? Did he all of a sudden stop playing defense or something? Not likely.

[70sFan]

I have tracked very closely Shaq defensive tendencies in his best defensive seasons (2000 and 2001) for a sample of almost 50 games. No, Shaq was never an elite defender. He got some accolades with his popularity, but it doesn't make him elite defender.

If you disagree with me, please elaborate without mentioning accolades argument.

It's absurd to say that Shaq was not an elite defender in 2000. He was one of the 3 best defensive players in the league that season. I already made Shaq's case in the past for 2000 based on his Man Defense and Rim Protection.

Defense:
Shaq’s 2000 season was his best defensive performance ever. The Lakers finished #1 in Defensive Rating (-5.9 relative to league average according to B-R), 1st in FG% allowed, 3P% allowed. Shaq led the league in Defensive Win Shares. Shaq’s man defense was a huge part of that. According to Hoopsstats.com, the Lakers in 2000 allowed 14.0 PPG, 40.7 FG% to opposing center. They had the best PPG against Centers, FG% against centers, and finished with the 2nd fewest FTA/game allowed to Centers.

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fa ... 10/pts/1-1
Top TS% defense:
Lakers: .455 TS% (.453 in the games Shaq played)
Spurs: .486 TS%
Heat: .490 TS%
The League average center was .526 TS% so the Lakers were -7.1 TS% relative to League average and they beat the Robinson/Duncan Spurs by 3.1 TS% for 1st place. An impressive feat.

Here are some more facts from Hoopsstats.com. Here are the best opposing Center PPG and FG% defense since hoopsstats started collecting the stat (from 1998-2013)

Top opponent Center PPG defense from 98-13:
06 Heat: 12.8 PPG (Shaq)
04 Lakers: 12.9 PPG (Shaq)
06 Jazz: 12.9 PPG

Top opponent Center FG% defense from 98-13:
00 Lakers: 40.7 FG% (Shaq)
99 Spurs: 41.1 FG% (Duncan/Robinson)
99 Hawks: 41.9 FG% (Mutombo)
Shaq’s teams finished #1 in 00 and 05, #2 in 01, 02 and #3 in 98 and 06.

Here is a comparison between Shaq and Alonzo Mourning, the 2000 DPOY, for that season:
Teams On Court Defensive Rating:
Shaq 95.3 pts allowed per 100 possessions with Shaq on the court
Mourning: 97.7 points per 100 allowed

These are the stats of all Centers in the league that played 24 minutes in a game vs Shaq/Mourning in 2000. Numbers are Per 36:

vs. Shaq: 12.46 PPG, 42.5 FG%, .462 TS% 1.48 AST-1.68 TOV

vs. Mourning: 12.53 PPG, 45.4 FG%, .512 TS%, 1.23 AST-1.83 TOV

vs. league average: 13.97 PPG, 50.2 FG%, .547 TS%, 1.50 AST-2.02 TOV

*League average does not include Shaq

Dropoff: Shaq-League Avg: -1.21 PPG, -7.7 FG%, -8.5 TS%, -0.2 AST, -0.34 TOV


vs Shaq: 10% 20+ points, 25% 15+ points, 48% <10 points

vs. Mourning: 14% 20+ Points, 20% 15+ points, 44% <10 points

League average: 13.9% 20+ Points, 32.1% 15+ points, 38.2% <10 points

Here is what Shaq did vs. the top 5 non-Shaq scorers at Center that year:
vs. Shaq (parenthesis is their regular season average):

Mourning: 27 PPG, 44.2 FG%, .513 TS%(21.7 PPG, 55.1 FG%, .596 TS%)

DRob: 13.3PPG, 42.1 FG%, .462 TS% (17.8 PPG, 51.2 FG%, .568 TS%) (had 15 Points on 54.5 FG% in the game Shaq missed)

Ewing: 13 PPG, 32.4 FG%, .343 TS% (15 PPG, 46.6 FG%, .516 TS%)

Smits: 8 PPG, 47.1 FG%, .471 TS% (12.9 PPG, 48.4 FG%, .518 TS%), 10 PPG 46.6 FG% in finals vs. Shaq

Campbell: 7 PPG, 28.6 FG%, .308 TS% (12.7 PPG, 44.6 FG%, .500 TS%)

Average dropoff is -2.2 PPG, -10.3 FG%, -12.0 TS%. That is a significant dropoff.

Playoffs (regular season averages in parenthesis):
Divac: 11.2 PPG, 35.7 FG%, 423 TS% (12.3 PPG, 50.3 FG%, .552 TS%)
Longley: 5.2 PPG, 37.1 FG%, .330 TS% (6.3 PPG, 44.6 FG%, .512 TS%)
Sabonis: 8.3 PPG, 38.2 FG%, 22.2 3P%, .471 TS% (11.8 PPG, 50.5 FG%, 36.8 3P%, .568 TS%)
Smits: 10 PPG, 46.6 FG%, .495 TS% (12.9 PPG, 48.4 FG%, .518 TS%)
Average dropoff: 2.2 PPG, -9.3 FG%, -10.8 TS%

Shaq was elite on man defense again in the playoffs.

Here is a breakdown on the Lakers defense in the paint
With Shaq on court: 33.5 Points in the paint allowed per 48 minutes
Shaq off the court: 38.8 Points allowed per 48
5.3 points per 48 minute difference. Teams shot 148 more mid range shots with Shaq on the court than against any other player in the league.

viewtopic.php?t=1236093

I know nothing about this source, but these numbers don't line up with NBA.com stats:

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent-shooting?Season=1999-00&dir=A&sort=Less%20Than%205%20ft.%20FG%20PCT

If you take a look on Lakers opponents shooting profile, it looks quite odd. Lakers were 8th in opp. FG% in the paint, which is good of course but not top tier. On contrary, Lakers seems to look like absolutely elite at defending jumpshots. They were the best in opp. FG% both from midrange and three point line. Although some of it certainly was the fact that Shaq was a solid rim protector (allowing his teammates to be more agressive on perimeter), giving Shaq all the credit for that doesn't sound reasonable to me. Like, you can't convince me after watching over 30 2000 Lakers games that Shaq was the reason for their best 3P shooting defense...

About rim protection - it's true that Shaq was a solid rim protector. Lakers finished 3rd in opp. FGA and 8th in FG% in the paint that season, which definitely puts them among the best in the league. Unfortunately, it didn't translate to the playoffs, coming from 57.5% on 22.9 FGA to 59.6% on 23.6 FGA (and keep in mind that defensive environment became way better in the playoffs). Part of that is because Shaq was intimidating, but fairly limited rim protector. He could make you rethink it twice with his sheer size, but you can also take him away from actions relatively easily - as he had low motor and rarely got advanced reads right.

You actually bring up very solid point regarding Shaq's man defense. That's definitely his strength and here is where I'd see his highest value. We do know that man defense has his ceilling in value though, you usually don't become the best defender in the league strictly because of his man defense.

All in all, I didn't want to call Shaq bad defender but he's not elite. He's a player with some very important strengths and weaknesses, depending on matchup he could either be key factor on defense or be exploited.

[70sFan]

Shaq’s teams were still significantly better on defense with him on the court in the 2000 and 2001 playoffs, just in case anyone wants to blame the Lakers’ defensive problems in 2000 mostly on him. Ironically they were better on offense without him in 2001. Small samples like that are of course noisy, but is there clear evidence Shaq is behind the 2000 Lakers’ defensive issues? Did he all of a sudden stop playing defense or something? Not likely.

Pay attention how many minutes Shaq played in the playoffs. Such sample is almost meaningless.

No, Shaq didn't stop playing defense. Teams started to game plan against him, which made Shaq weaknesses become way more problematic.

[No-more-rings]

Shaq’s teams were still significantly better on defense with him on the court in the 2000 and 2001 playoffs, just in case anyone wants to blame the Lakers’ defensive problems in 2000 mostly on him. Ironically they were better on offense without him in 2001. Small samples like that are of course noisy, but is there clear evidence Shaq is behind the 2000 Lakers’ defensive issues? Did he all of a sudden stop playing defense or something? Not likely.

Pay attention how many minutes Shaq played in the playoffs. Such sample is almost meaningless.

No, Shaq didn't stop playing defense. Teams started to game plan against him, which made Shaq weaknesses become way more problematic.

Then how do you explain a similar core being extremely dominant on defense the very next season?

See you can’t have it both ways, where you blame Shaq when their defense drops, then give no credit when they are dominant.

But this isn’t surprising. You’ve been increasingly anti-Shaq over the past couple years and are constantly looking for evidence to tear him down, regardless if it’s really rational or consistent.

But you won’t dare pick at your boy Kareem’s flaws, no we can’t do that.

[70sFan]

Then how do you explain a similar core being extremely dominant on defense the very next season?

See you can’t have it both ways, where you blame Shaq when their defense drops, then give no credit when they are dominant.

Good point about 2001 Lakers postseason defense, but you are wrong if you think that I ignore it. I just look at the bigger picture and if you look at Shaq's entire prime (1994-03), his teams consistently underperformed defensively in the playoffs. They had this one oustanding run in 2001, but considering the fact that Shaq never even came close to replicate it, we should really consider if that show us anything valuable about Shaq's defense.

Mind you that I think Shaq played some of his best defense ever in that postseason run. I think one performance from 2001 finals is the best defensive performance I have ever seen from Shaq - though it should be noted that it was very faborable matchup to him.

In the end, I just don't think such a small sample can negate every other signal we have from his career.

But this isn’t surprising. You’ve been increasingly anti-Shaq over the past couple years and are constantly looking for evidence to tear him down, regardless if it’s really rational or consistent.

I changed some of my views about Shaq because I started watching his games closer. I disagree I became "anti-Shaq" though, I am higher than ever on his off-ball play and offensive rebounding. I view him as absolutely elite offensive player in historical sense and I often defend him against unnecessary criticism about time-machine argument.

If you think my stance is irrational or inconsistent, please let me know what do you have in mind in details. Maybe I miss something and I'm here to learn new things.

But you won’t dare pick at your boy Kareem’s flaws, no we can’t do that.

That's very unnecessary. You should know that Kareem isn't even my favorite player.

Either way, I am fine with Kareem criticism, as long as it is reasonable. Again, if you think I don't use the same criteria for Kareem and Shaq then provide some evidences. Maybe I am missing something, but I need more details.

[Gooner]

Peak Shaq would change the way the game is played today because he would expose all this small ball swtiching BS.

[bigboi]

Shaq would either be number 1 or 2. There’s literally 0 way to stop him

[OhayoKD]

Shaq’s teams were still significantly better on defense with him on the court in the 2000 and 2001 playoffs, just in case anyone wants to blame the Lakers’ defensive problems in 2000 mostly on him. Ironically they were better on offense without him in 2001. Small samples like that are of course noisy, but is there clear evidence Shaq is behind the 2000 Lakers’ defensive issues? Did he all of a sudden stop playing defense or something? Not likely.

I suppose it's fair to dismiss people's accounts/recollections(though you don't have an issue referencing your own), but if the team dropping isn't enough, how about an across the board decline/plateau in shaq's graulars(paired with a decline in overall team performance):

Notably, Shaq's creation, volume, and efficiency all drop to varying degrees to go along with a dramatic drop in team defense. Yet, somehow, the Lakers offense improves significantly bridging the gap, despite shaq's own "Production" seemingly dropping both in terms of volume and efficiency. Hmm. What could be happening here. Well for one, the lakers got hot from 3.

They shot 32% in the regular season, shot 30% and 31% in rounds one and two, and then proceeded to shoot 36% and 38% from deep. The Lakers highest-volume shooter, Rick Fox, sow his 3p% skyrocket by 14 points.

And then there's the matter of Kobe Bryant. First, per-possession Kobe elevates his creation(both in terms of volume and effiency) to offset a marginal scoring drop:

But this is all "per-possession". Remember, Kobe only played 31 MPG in the regular season. He played 39 in the postseason. With Kobe elevating per possession, that minutes increase is a massive boost. Pair that with a 3 mpg increase for Shaq and the lakers getting hot from 3 and everything comes together for an offensive spike to turn a big postseason drop into a small one. Fair to give shaq some credit for playing those heavy minutes but I don't think we can say Shaq was the primary cause for the offense spiking. On the other hand...

About rim protection - it's true that Shaq was a solid rim protector. Lakers finished 3rd in opp. FGA and 8th in FG% in the paint that season, which definitely puts them among the best in the league. Unfortunately, it didn't translate to the playoffs, coming from 57.5% on 22.9 FGA to 59.6% on 23.6 FGA (and keep in mind that defensive environment became way better in the playoffs). Part of that is because Shaq was intimidating, but fairly limited rim protector. He could make you rethink it twice with his sheer size, but you can also take him away from actions relatively easily - as he had low motor and rarely got advanced reads right.
.

...considering it was specifically, at the rim, where the Lakers fell off, it's probably fair to think Shaq was the main culprit for the defense dropping which overall would make Shaq a post-season faller, ontop of a regular season that doesn't really have an emperical case(box or otherwise) for best of the decade, let alone...

As someone who has 2000 Shaq as 2nd best peak as well I think this comes down almost entirely to approach. Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like you're more interested in what he could do, while my approach (and presumably Gregoire's) looks at what he did. The good old best "player" vs best "season" debate.

I guess you could say my playoff-dropper comment is unfair based on his on/off spiking, but Shaq's on/off mark is beat multiple times by both Duncan and KG within 5 years of 2000 and if on/off is your approach, then the regular season is thoroughly unremarkable.

You say we should focus on his era-relative impact and then say he "looks great" by "all" the stats we have, but none of these stats have him within range for best of 2000-2010, let alone "GOAT-calibre", regular season or playoffs.

Lineup-adjusted impact? Not close
Raw impact? Not close
Box-Aggregation? close but his best mark is still behind not one, but two seasons from the same player in the same decade(and then Giannis/Curry/Lebron again later on)
Score val/play val? Not close

By Box-aggregates he's not even top 3 even with an advantage there(complete data/offense skew) relative to Kareem. If you go by one year, he isn't top 5. Wilt is basically not included there.

Lineup-adjustment has him miles off Lebron and competing with duncan for 3rd. A raw approach just increases the gap.

All-together you take a not goat calibre-base(at least by any emperical approach), playoff decline(in an era with two of the best playoff risers), and a concerning lack of replication...

Shaq’s teams were still significantly better on defense
Then how do you explain a similar core being extremely dominant on defense the very next season?

[/quote]
The Lakers were not "extremely dominant" on defense the next season. In the RS they were one of the worst defenses in the league. If we extend our sample, the lakers are thoroughly unimpressive defensively and don't show notable improvement when Shaq is on the court.

Your argument for shaq being super impactful entirely relies on cherrypicking the 2001 postseason and the 2000 regular season while pretending the 2001 regular season and 2000 postseason(where the lakers were bad defensively!) doesn't matter. Over extended samples, Shaq grades out as nuetral, and in his supposed outlier peak, shaq's rim protection stops being nearly as effective in the postseason as the great rs defense you keep brining up becomes outright bad.

When we do this with Jordan, you always can go back to stuff like "consistency", playoff-elevation, or his box-stuff. But with Shaq? I have no clue what the argument here is supposed to be.

Russell being bad on offense doesn't matter to many of us because russell, given health, always won, even when he was a retiree player-coach facing superteams with seemingly limited help. It's not a "ooh, but his skillset was so versatile!" argument. Shaq has nothing besides arbitrary eye-based weightings(that dunk outweighs that blowby coz er...i say so?) putting his complete package at the top. Shaq's 2000 being a goat-lvl peak only works if you hype his skill-set and dismiss all relevant data disparities as noise. Reality doesn't help shaq here. I really don't see what anyone here is hoping to acheive making an impassioned defense against unfair hypotheticals while defending the guy whose rep is massively bolstered by guess-work/hypotheticals

[FlyingScotsman]

On his game he would be the best in the league no doubt, at worst he’s in the conversation.

[tsherkin]

Shaq is an interesting one to think of.

Peak Shaq, so we're talking Shaq of 2000, 2001. 320, 330 pounds, as folks have already mentioned. He'd lost some of the mobility he enjoyed in his Orlando form and increased his strength. Never a real stunner laterally, he was still pretty good sprinting block to block. The league was slower then compared to now, as we know, so it would be interesting to see how his stamina held up with more cardio involved in his play, and if he was minutes-managed. He was a 40 and 39.5 mpg player in those regular seasons, and that's not really how things are down anymore. We've only seen two seasons of 40+ GP and 38+ mpg since 2015, and none from 2017 forward, so we can safely lean more towards 34-36 mpg.

I think everyone has sort of highlighted that he'd struggle on D in this era. He struggled when Detroit went after him with a lot of PnR action in 2004 and even a few years younger, he wasn't magically a lot better in space away from the rim. That was never his strength. The question becomes how well he could give it back to the opposition on the other side of the equation and would that be enough to outweigh what he gives up defensively.

In his own time, Shaq was relatively quite efficient. That erodes today to the point where his actual TS% from 2000 and 2001 would be below league average. Spacing would be better for him today, of course. Rick Fox, Robert Horry and Derek Fisher were considered particularly good spacing at the time. Or in 2000, Glen Rice, Ron Harper and AC Green (and obviously Kobe), with Horry and Fisher coming off the bench. It'd be very, very different today. We see how Embiid and Jokic, among several others, are able to get post touches today. Shaq would as well. I don't think we'd see a 22 FGA/g season from him, but he'd be able to get 15-18 FGA/g from 10 feet and in, I'd think, particularly if he hit the O-boards and moved without the ball as well as he was capable of doing. He might see a small bump in raw FG%, his draw rate would still be excellent... and he'd still be leaving tons of points on the board with his weak FT shooting, ultimately undercutting his upper bound of efficiency and thus his relative value as a volume scorer. He passed well, certainly once Phil put him in a system which made that more of an emphasis, and we'd likely see that forward into today's game as well. But that FT shooting is a major issue. The lack of range is an issue; not even from 3pt shooting, though. Embiid takes 3.0 3PA/g, Jokic takes 2.2 3PA/g this year. They don't need to take those shots, it just opens up more opportunities for them. Embiid, however, takes about 37% of his shots from 10+ feet, Jokic about 12%. Embiid really leverages his better perimeter jump shot quite regularly to create his shooting volume, and of course picks up his points at the line. Jokic actually doesn't shoot all that much away from the paint, but of course he's the best passing center I've ever seen, plus he has a demonstrably dangerous perimeter J beneath the arc, and above. So he has established himself as a threat there who needs to be managed. Shaq can't really replicate any of that, so he's got to lean on what he can do. He was a good offensive rebounder in his time, he ran well in transition, he moved well inside and around the post without the ball. He played well off of dribble penetration from his lead wing and he iso'd well on the block. Right on, that's pretty good stuff, particularly coupled to the foul pressure he exerted. With good perimeter shooting support, he can certainly make you pay for doubling on him, particularly if the team does well with quick reversal on the kick-out.

But it's hard to envision him retaining the same sort of value he had in that 99-02 block. The temptation to look at how nasty he was in his own era and translate that forward is strong but there are some limitations about his game and the present game environment which make it less likely that he'd be quite as valuable in today's game. I think he'd still be really good, but I don't think he'd be a 27 ppg guy. I saw the Zion comparison earlier, but Zion is 6'6 and more mobile than Shaq was, which does change how things work. PEAK Shaq wasn't as mobile as Orlando Shaq. He was still very nimble for his size and of course at 7'1, he only has to go so far before he can just ram it into your face anyway, so he'd still be dominant in close, but there is also a lot of earlier-clock stuff now. Lots of those pull-up 3s, lots of quick action. Emphasis on high screens to initiate sets for perimeter guys and what have you, and he's best deployed on the left block waiting for an entry pass or otherwise slipping around the paint, which generates only so many opportunities. Still dangerous, but I not "most dangerous offensive player in the league" kind of dangerous, I'd think.