Where would 2000 Shaq rank today?

[Warspite]

Bigmen are smaller/weaker on defense.
There is more space to operate in the paint.
He only has to play defense vs 2 Cs all year.
Drive/cut and kick slashers are all a dime a dozen and easy to acquire.
Fewer double teams or more assist opportunities for better shooters.
Faster pace giving him more FGAs.
He is scoring about 30% of his teams points and the avg team scores 10 ppg more than the lakers in 2000.

All things point to him being more effective, more productive but I'm not 100% sure he is more successful. Im thinking maybe a 15% increase in scoring and rebounding today. The question is the fouls and the FTs. How quickly he can get his team into the bonus, opponents into foul trouble and how many FTs he creates for others goes a long way to determine Ws or Ls.

[MacGill]

I think some of the posters here need to go and listen to Richard Jefferson's explanation on how to contain a prime Shaq.

Watch on YouTube

[Mazter]

Bigmen are smaller/weaker on defense.
There is more space to operate in the paint.
He only has to play defense vs 2 Cs all year.
Drive/cut and kick slashers are all a dime a dozen and easy to acquire.
Fewer double teams or more assist opportunities for better shooters.
Faster pace giving him more FGAs.
He is scoring about 30% of his teams points and the avg team scores 10 ppg more than the lakers in 2000.

All things point to him being more effective, more productive but I'm not 100% sure he is more successful. Im thinking maybe a 15% increase in scoring and rebounding today. The question is the fouls and the FTs. How quickly he can get his team into the bonus, opponents into foul trouble and how many FTs he creates for others goes a long way to determine Ws or Ls.

Because Perkins, Cage, Smits to mention some were all so much bigger and/or stronger than the centers today
THere is more space when the ball is at perimeter, defenses collapse as soon as someone positions himself in the post
He will have to play defense on centers, forwards, guards in the paint and at the arc
Slashers (50% of the offense in the NBA) need space to operate, they don't need a short range center atrracting defenders in the post
Double teams will be where the danger is, whether it is at the perimeter, the elbow or the post, without illegal defense they are more freely to move around anyways.
Faster pace and higher intensity makes it more difficult to play high minutes, especially if you have an extra 50-60 pounds to carry around, less minutes is less FGA.
He actually scored 33.5% of his teams points inside the arc, and scoring inside the arc is down by 16 ppg

Furthermore I want to add, post play is is at an all time low at 4.6 post ups per game in 2025 from 15.6 in 2014. Teams were at a 49.2 TS% in 2014 to a more efficient 56.2 TS% today. Shaq would have a better shot 11 years ago. Today he would be more like a good second or third option on a contending team. Efficiency is the key, Shaq's efficiency does not translate well today's game

[Peregrine01]

Why so? If NBA players on average are shooting over 9% better at the rim, why wouldn't Shaq? Heck he could shoot like 12% better and get even more rim shots that he did back then with the higher pace of the game.

Because it's highly improbable to shoot 90% at the rim with any type of volume. The only way to get to those numbers is if he's dunking nearly everything but if he's doing that then he'll be immediately doubled and fronted such that it's very difficult to get that kind of volume. The second thing preventing that volume is that he'll get fouled and sent to the line. The third thing is that defenders will inevitably fall on their ass to rack up offensive fouls against him.

Problem is that modern teams don't have enough backup big guys to foul Shaq. There will be a lot of and-1's there too if you try small guys. What some on this thread are not grasping is that Shaq changed opponent roster construction. They needed to stock up and play unskilled big guys just to use fouls on Shaq.

Defenders also tried to draw charges back then. It's tougher than it sounds because 1) the defender will often be backed into the restricted area and 2) Shaq was surprisingly nimble for a man that size. He has the reputation as the guy who barreled over people but 90% of the time he simply spun around for a dunk or 2-foot hook and the defender stood there helplessly. And especially in his younger days, dude ran a lot on the break and got a bunch of fastbreak dunks.

If Shaq was so dominant that he was dunking 10 times a game, then you bet teams will start finding the big stiffs to play him. Alas, that's not likely cause Shaq is still a big who depends on others to get him the ball. Giannis who doesn't have the ball-handling limitations that Shaq has gets 10 FGA/game at the rim, most of which comes in transition. Shaq isn't likely to see anywhere near that volume.

As for offensive fouls, the flop-on-your-butt tactic wasn't a thing in Shaq's day (except for Vlade) but it's accepted practice now. Overwhelmed defenders will almost certainly use it against Shaq so he almost certainly won't be able to barrel over guys like he used to.

[D.Brasco]

People forget that Shaq's scoring repertoire wasn't purely about dunking. He actually dunked less than people remember, his real go to move in the post was his little jump hook.

[tsherkin]

People forget that Shaq's scoring repertoire wasn't purely about dunking. He actually dunked less than people remember, his real go to move in the post was his little jump hook.

I mean, we've gone over his numbers. A shade over 40% of his shots were in the RA. 236 of 956 FGM were dunks, which is roughly 1 in every 4 makes. He definitely did more than dunk, but he dunked A LOT.

What he also did was move very well without the ball. He cut well around penetration, he ran hard in transition, he hit the offensive boards well and he was fantastic about establishing deep position close to the basket. He also had quality footwork in isolation and a variety of basic but very effective counters. He was a high-quality post player, he just didn't have any range and was an incompetent boob at the foul line. But as far as post scoring, he was quite adept. Just not as agility-flash as someone like Olajuwon.

[D.Brasco]

People forget that Shaq's scoring repertoire wasn't purely about dunking. He actually dunked less than people remember, his real go to move in the post was his little jump hook.

I mean, we've gone over his numbers. A shade over 40% of his shots were in the RA. 236 of 956 FGM were dunks, which is roughly 1 in every 4 makes. He definitely did more than dunk, but he dunked A LOT.

What he also did was move very well without the ball. He cut well around penetration, he ran hard in transition, he hit the offensive boards well and he was fantastic about establishing deep position close to the basket. He also had quality footwork in isolation and a variety of basic but very effective counters. He was a high-quality post player, he just didn't have any range and was an incompetent boob at the foul line. But as far as post scoring, he was quite adept. Just not as agility-flash as someone like Olajuwon.

Yeah, the numbers back up that he of course dunked quite a bit but that he was a more well rounded scorer than he's often given credit for. Even during his prime playing years, I remember you'd hear criticisms that he was only so dominant due to his size and being able to dunk on people, significantly downplaying his actual skills.

[tsherkin]

Yeah, the numbers back up that he of course dunked quite a bit but that he was a more well rounded scorer than he's often given credit for.

That is very true, yes.

Even during his prime playing years, I remember you'd hear criticisms that he was only so dominant due to his size and being able to dunk on people, significantly downplaying his actual skills.

Pete Newell always defended his footwork and post skills, and his shooting percentages from 3-10 always bore that out as well. He never had anything to apologize for as far as using his physical gifts. People dramatically overplayed how often he dropped his shoulder and got away with a charge, and very much underplayed the value of his proficient off-ball action, no question. He was a complete post player. People could just never get past his lack of range, and frequently underplayed the utility of his passing as well. He specialized, knew what he was for and stuck to it.

[ronnymac2]

The growing naivete of this board of course shows through in a thread like this...

They changed rules in part due to Shaq's dominance, knowing his drawing power wouldn't take a hit at that point.

In a time where they thirst for big personalities and mega-draws, you don't think that if they had a specimen like Shaq, and he were - relatively speaking compared to 2000 Shaq - struggling in the current ruleset, that they wouldn't make some adjustments to the rules, or at the very least make a few officiating exceptions, for Shaq's benefit?

You get a guy like that, no matter the era, you push him and make sure he gets over. If he "struggled" enough, the rule changes would go the other way in his favor this time.

All that said, they likely wouldn't need to make any adjustments (save for regular superstar calls). The current era (AKA the post-LBJ's prime era) is ruled by big men (Jokic, Giannis, Embiid, AD). Heck, even during LBJ's prime, his greatest adversaries were big men and big teams. LeBron's reign was simply an anomaly, in part because he's the GOAT.

But smalls have never actually ruled the league. It's internet muppet fantasy land to think they ever did or ever will. From Mikan to Jokic, the biggest guy on the court is the best. Just because MJ and LBJ were really good and really popular doesn't change that fact.

On a subjective note, I've always thought about how exciting the 2000s superstars, particularly the bigs, would be in this Era of Superstar Optimization. The peripheral players of today are clearly more talented than at any other time in NBA history (yet are neutered by league environment and analytics, but that's another story). Imagine Shaq/Kobe surrounded by actual 3-point shooting and youth instead of the horrific shooting they had in 2000. Imagine Duncan playing with a team of Brunson/Hart/OG/Bridges. Let prime KG work with Butler, Herro, Lowry, and Bam. It'd be incredible to see.

[70sFan]

Yeah, the numbers back up that he of course dunked quite a bit but that he was a more well rounded scorer than he's often given credit for.

That is very true, yes.

Even during his prime playing years, I remember you'd hear criticisms that he was only so dominant due to his size and being able to dunk on people, significantly downplaying his actual skills.

Pete Newell always defended his footwork and post skills, and his shooting percentages from 3-10 always bore that out as well. He never had anything to apologize for as far as using his physical gifts. People dramatically overplayed how often he dropped his shoulder and got away with a charge, and very much underplayed the value of his proficient off-ball action, no question. He was a complete post player. People could just never get past his lack of range, and frequently underplayed the utility of his passing as well. He specialized, knew what he was for and stuck to it.

Yeah, Shaq's versatility as a post player is highly appreciated. For example, he's one of the very few volume scorer players I have tracked that doesn't have a clear tendency for one side in the post (Kareem is the other example, though Shaq is even more egalitarian in that regard). His hook shots are also quite efficient, I have him at 47 FG% on that shot on a sample that is over 220 attempts.

[tsherkin]

Imagine Shaq/Kobe surrounded by actual 3-point shooting and youth instead of the horrific shooting they had in 2000.

They'd probably look fairly similar to what they looked like in 2001 and 2002 when they had Fisher, Fox and Horry.

[tsherkin]

Yeah, Shaq's versatility as a post player is highly appreciated. For example, he's one of the very few volume scorer players I have tracked that doesn't have a clear tendency for one side in the post (Kareem is the other example, though Shaq is even more egalitarian in that regard). His hook shots are also quite efficient, I have him at 47 FG% on that shot on a sample that is over 220 attempts.

Even rude b-ref numbers have him over 43% from 3-10 feet, and of course that isn't specifically just on hook shots. He was particularly strong in the first 4 years we have tracking numbers for that, too, 44-45%, as high as 45.5%.

[70sFan]

Yeah, Shaq's versatility as a post player is highly appreciated. For example, he's one of the very few volume scorer players I have tracked that doesn't have a clear tendency for one side in the post (Kareem is the other example, though Shaq is even more egalitarian in that regard). His hook shots are also quite efficient, I have him at 47 FG% on that shot on a sample that is over 220 attempts.

Even rude b-ref numbers have him over 43% from 3-10 feet, and of course that isn't specifically just on hook shots. He was particularly strong in the first 4 years we have tracking numbers for that, too, 44-45%, as high as 45.5%.

Yeah, the lower efficiency shots from that range are fadeaway and turnaround one-handers he loves to use from the right shoulder. His hook shot was a serious weapon, though not as potent as Kareem's skyhook of course.

[penbeast0]

You wish.

Not as many milk men for Russell to jump over today.

Wilt was a milk man now?

20,000 pairs of breasts say yes.

[OdomFan]

These threads literally never make any sense. What team is 2000 Shaq playing on today? Who his teammates are and how well he does or doesnt get along with the coach all plays a major part in where he'd rank in any era.