2003 Shaq vs Current Embiid

[1993Playoffs]

Probably the last Prime year of Shaq. Is Embiid better right now?

[dygaction]

Why not let him finish the season before comparing to a FMVP?

[No-more-rings]

Probably go Shaq. Numbers wise he seems to have sustained most his peak offensive abilities, and was still a positive at defense according to DRAPM.

[No-more-rings]

Why not let him finish the season before comparing to a FMVP?

Shaq averaged 27/15/4, with a 30.6 PER and 8.4 BPM in the playoffs. I doubt waiting for the playoffs is going to help Embiid’s case here.

[JordansBulls]

Pulling for Embiid for MVP but I'd rather have Shaq. I mean imagine 2003 Shaq now.

[Dutchball97]

Looking at the regular season only I'm leaning towards Embiid but he'll need to have a strong post-season run to have a better overall season as well.

[feyki]

Historical perspective, Shaq significantly, with his huge defensive gap. For this era, probably around equal. Both would have(one has right now) +6/7 SRS impact a game in the 2022.

[70sFan]

Historical perspective, Shaq significantly, with his huge defensive gap. For this era, probably around equal. Both would have(one has right now) +6/7 SRS impact a game in the 2022.

2003 Shaq better defensively than Embiid? That's questionable take, to say the least.

[feyki]

Historical perspective, Shaq significantly, with his huge defensive gap. For this era, probably around equal. Both would have(one has right now) +6/7 SRS impact a game in the 2022.

2003 Shaq better defensively than Embiid? That's questionable take, to say the least.

Did you forget I proved Shaq's defensive impact by tracking Spurs-Lakers series in the playoffs?

[70sFan]

Historical perspective, Shaq significantly, with his huge defensive gap. For this era, probably around equal. Both would have(one has right now) +6/7 SRS impact a game in the 2022.

2003 Shaq better defensively than Embiid? That's questionable take, to say the least.

Did you forget I proved Shaq's defensive impact by tracking Spurs-Lakers series in the playoffs?

I remember you posting DFG% for him from Spurs series, a series in which Spurs posted 110.1 ORtg which is +5.4, the highest in the whole playoffs. It's not a "proof" of Shaq's defensive impact at all.

[feyki]

2003 Shaq better defensively than Embiid? That's questionable take, to say the least.

Did you forget I proved Shaq's defensive impact by tracking Spurs-Lakers series in the playoffs?

I remember you posting DFG% for him from Spurs series, a series in which Spurs posted 110.1 ORtg which is +5.4, the highest in the whole playoffs. It's not a "proof" of Shaq's defensive impact at all.

Spurs inside 10ft against the LA in the Playoffs - %55,6,
Spurs inside 10ft in the season - %55,0,,
Spurs outside of 20ft against the LA in the Playoffs - %49,3,
Spurs outside of 20ft in the season - %36,6
. There's no need an extra proof when I tracked the Shaq's shot defence data in that series, but still wanted to make it pure water clear.

[70sFan]

Did you forget I proved Shaq's defensive impact by tracking Spurs-Lakers series in the playoffs?

I remember you posting DFG% for him from Spurs series, a series in which Spurs posted 110.1 ORtg which is +5.4, the highest in the whole playoffs. It's not a "proof" of Shaq's defensive impact at all.

Spurs inside 10ft against the LA in the Playoffs - %55,6,
Spurs inside 10ft in the season - %55,0,,
Spurs outside of 20ft against the LA in the Playoffs - %49,3,
Spurs outside of 20ft in the season - %36,6
. There's no need an extra proof when I tracked the Shaq's shot defence data in that series, but still wanted to make it pure water clear.

Source?

I fail to understand what's your point here. Lakers allowed Spurs the same FG% inside the paint while being significantly worse to defend them outside the paint (which was also one of Shaq's faults, as he was terrible P&R defender). If anything, you gave an evidence that Shaq wasn't good at containing Spurs inside, despite Lakers giving Spurs more space on perimeter.

You are also wrong - there is a need of extra proof other than shot defense data. Shot defense data isn't even a fraction of total impact you can have. It doesn't include good off-ball rotations, switches, help defense, intimidation and deflections. You can force offensive player to pass out in the last seconds and it wouldn't be captured by your data.

Your way of approaching defense is way too simplistic. It's like saying that someone is great offensive player because he has high FG%. To make your claim more credible, you'd have to prove that Lakers defense was horrible in spite of Shaq's excellent series. I still haven't tracked this series (hope to do that within next 2 months), but for now I see no evidence of Shaq being great defensively in that series.

[feyki]

I remember you posting DFG% for him from Spurs series, a series in which Spurs posted 110.1 ORtg which is +5.4, the highest in the whole playoffs. It's not a "proof" of Shaq's defensive impact at all.

Spurs inside 10ft against the LA in the Playoffs - %55,6,
Spurs inside 10ft in the season - %55,0,,
Spurs outside of 20ft against the LA in the Playoffs - %49,3,
Spurs outside of 20ft in the season - %36,6
. There's no need an extra proof when I tracked the Shaq's shot defence data in that series, but still wanted to make it pure water clear.

Source?

I fail to understand what's your point here. Lakers allowed Spurs the same FG% inside the paint while being significantly worse to defend them outside the paint (which was also one of Shaq's faults, as he was terrible P&R defender). If anything, you gave an evidence that Shaq wasn't good at containing Spurs inside, despite Lakers giving Spurs more space on perimeter.

You are also wrong - there is a need of extra proof other than shot defense data. Shot defense data isn't even a fraction of total impact you can have. It doesn't include good off-ball rotations, switches, help defense, intimidation and deflections. You can force offensive player to pass out in the last seconds and it wouldn't be captured by your data.

Your way of approaching defense is way too simplistic. It's like saying that someone is great offensive player because he has high FG%. To make your claim more credible, you'd have to prove that Lakers defense was horrible in spite of Shaq's excellent series. I still haven't tracked this series (hope to do that within next 2 months), but for now I see no evidence of Shaq being great defensively in that series.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/shooting/?Season=2002-03&SeasonType=Regular%20Season,
https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent-shooting/?Season=2002-03&SeasonType=Playoffs&sort=Less%20Than%208%20ft.%20FG%20PCT&dir=1&LastNGames=6.

You actually well did understand that Shaq held Spurs below than their average inside the 10ft and LA's perimeter defence was horrible. Neither Duncan nor Shaq defended more than 1-2 shots outside the 20ft's. It's like saying Mutombo trash defensive player, because he was one of the worst on the on ball/perimeter defence.

Shaq also was at ATG level on defensive rebounding. Lakers outplayed the Spurs in rebounds at the series.

Great shot defence and defensive rebounding, of course put him in the dpoy level for that series.

There's no other thing than shot defence,ball defence and rebound defence as the consquent.

[70sFan]

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/shooting/?Season=2002-03&SeasonType=Regular%20Season,
https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent-shooting/?Season=2002-03&SeasonType=Playoffs&sort=Less%20Than%208%20ft.%20FG%20PCT&dir=1&LastNGames=6.

You actually well did understand that Shaq held Spurs below than their average inside the 10ft and LA's perimeter defence was horrible.

Thanks for the source. This data shows that Lakers did a poor job at the rim against the Spurs:

Inside 5 feet:

RS: 59.8% on 29.0 FGA
WCSF: 63.4% on 26.8 FGA

5-9 feet:

RS: 42.0% on 9.5 FGA
WCSF: 38.5% 13.5 FGA

Overall:

RS: 55.4 FG% on 38.5 FGA
WCSF: 55.0 FG% on 40.3 FGA

They didn't do well job on defense against them inside. They allowed the same efficiency on increased volume, all while being horrible on perimeter. I don't know what you are looking at, but it doesn't prove your point.

Neither Duncan nor Shaq defended more than 1-2 shots outside the 20ft's. It's like saying Mutombo trash defensive player, because he was one of the worst on the on ball/perimeter defence.

You're using logical fallacy here. You use only shot defense and then conclude that's the only way to impact defense, so Duncan and Shaq had roughly similar impact on perimeter. It's not true though, you can have a lot of impact on perimeter without contesting a lot of shots.

Shaq also was at ATG level on defensive rebounding. Lakers outplayed the Spurs in rebounds at the series.

Great shot defence and defensive rebounding, of course put him in the dpoy level for that series.

Shaq had good rebounding series, but not ATG one in terms of defensive rebounds.

There's no other thing than shot defence,ball defence and rebound defence as the consquent.

You are so much wrong on this. How about off-ball movement, rotations, P&R defense, defense on passing lanes...?

[feyki]

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/shooting/?Season=2002-03&SeasonType=Regular%20Season,
https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent-shooting/?Season=2002-03&SeasonType=Playoffs&sort=Less%20Than%208%20ft.%20FG%20PCT&dir=1&LastNGames=6.

You actually well did understand that Shaq held Spurs below than their average inside the 10ft and LA's perimeter defence was horrible.

Thanks for the source. This data shows that Lakers did a poor job at the rim against the Spurs:

Inside 5 feet:

RS: 59.8% on 29.0 FGA
WCSF: 63.4% on 26.8 FGA

5-9 feet:

RS: 42.0% on 9.5 FGA
WCSF: 38.5% 13.5 FGA

Overall:

RS: 55.4 FG% on 38.5 FGA
WCSF: 55.0 FG% on 40.3 FGA

They didn't do well job on defense against them inside. They allowed the same efficiency on increased volume, all while being horrible on perimeter. I don't know what you are looking at, but it doesn't prove your point.

Neither Duncan nor Shaq defended more than 1-2 shots outside the 20ft's. It's like saying Mutombo trash defensive player, because he was one of the worst on the on ball/perimeter defence.

You're using logical fallacy here. You use only shot defense and then conclude that's the only way to impact defense, so Duncan and Shaq had roughly similar impact on perimeter. It's not true though, you can have a lot of impact on perimeter without contesting a lot of shots.

Shaq also was at ATG level on defensive rebounding. Lakers outplayed the Spurs in rebounds at the series.

Great shot defence and defensive rebounding, of course put him in the dpoy level for that series.

Shaq had good rebounding series, but not ATG one in terms of defensive rebounds.

There's no other thing than shot defence,ball defence and rebound defence as the consquent.

You are so much wrong on this. How about off-ball movement, rotations, P&R defense, defense on passing lanes...?

Pardon, how it should well while keep opponent %0,5 worse shooting percentage than their season standart?

Lakers stopped 1 more shot than Spurs' season line in the paint, it's %2 better defensive statement relative to opponent where's Shaq's liability. On the other side, they completely destroyed from the outside, from 20-30ft 3,4 shots a game Spurs missed more in the RS to LA Series , which was not the main job of Shaq.

I didn't say Shaq and Duncan were similar on the perimeter defence. I'd think Duncan was better in outside shot defence and forcing opponent to turnovers than Shaq. However, Duncan's shot defence was not difference maker on the 20/30ft range, which is the point.

As the consequence, those actions part of any shot,ball or rebound defences.

[70sFan]

Pardon, how it should well while keep opponent %0,5 worse shooting percentage than their season standart?

Are you aware that 0.5% difference is literally one shot made across 6 games? It's much lesser difference than the noise created by small sample of size. No, it's not a good job when you take into account upped volume and horrible perimeter defense.

Lakers stopped 1 more shot than Spurs' season line in the paint, it's %2 better defensive statement relative to opponent where's Shaq's liability. On the other side, they completely destroyed from the outside, from 20-30ft 3,4 shots a game Spurs missed more in the RS to LA Series , which was not the main job of Shaq.

I seriously don't understand what you're talking about. Spurs averaged basically identical FG% inside 10 feet (and better at the rim) against LAL as in RS, while upping his volume to 2 more shots per game. All despite being horrible outside the paint.

Shaq didn't make Spurs struggle inside and he hurt Lakers defense outside. I just don't see any evidence of Shaq's DPOY level of dominance, which is how you described it.

I didn't say Shaq and Duncan were similar on the perimeter defence. I'd think Duncan was better in outside shot defence and forcing opponent to turnovers than Shaq. However, Duncan's shot defence was not difference maker on the 20/30ft range, which is the point.

Perimeter defense isn't only about shot defense...

[feyki]

Pardon, how it should well while keep opponent %0,5 worse shooting percentage than their season standart?

Are you aware that 0.5% difference is literally one shot made across 6 games? It's much lesser difference than the noise created by small sample of size. No, it's not a good job when you take into account upped volume and horrible perimeter defense.

Lakers stopped 1 more shot than Spurs' season line in the paint, it's %2 better defensive statement relative to opponent where's Shaq's liability. On the other side, they completely destroyed from the outside, from 20-30ft 3,4 shots a game Spurs missed more in the RS to LA Series , which was not the main job of Shaq.

I seriously don't understand what you're talking about. Spurs averaged basically identical FG% inside 10 feet (and better at the rim) against LAL as in RS, while upping his volume to 2 more shots per game. All despite being horrible outside the paint.

Shaq didn't make Spurs struggle inside and he hurt Lakers defense outside. I just don't see any evidence of Shaq's DPOY level of dominance, which is how you described it.

I didn't say Shaq and Duncan were similar on the perimeter defence. I'd think Duncan was better in outside shot defence and forcing opponent to turnovers than Shaq. However, Duncan's shot defence was not difference maker on the 20/30ft range, which is the point.

Perimeter defense isn't only about shot defense...

Your math went off, again. That's why you didn't understand it. It's not 1 stopped shot all along the six games, it's 1 more stopped shots more than RS PER GAME.

Basically you're claiming Shaq was not much good defensively because of LA were horrible from the outside and better than average inside the paint. Does that arguement have any rationality behind of? I want to extend inside 10ft defence of the teams that they faced Spurs in that Playoffs:
9th best defence(+1,3) Mavericks - 40,0 DFGA, %54,5 DFG,
1th best defence(+5,5) Nets - 36,7 DFGA, %51 DFG
. Lakers stopped half less shots than Mavs, Mavs stopped 4 less shots than Nets inside the paint, against the Spurs that Playoffs. In a basic plane, with their defensive SRS', Lakers were around the +1 defensive SRS team inside the paint against the Spurs.

I also said ball defence which is about the opponent turnovers.

[70sFan]

Your math went off, again. That's why you didn't understand it. It's not 1 stopped shot all along the six games, it's 1 more stopped shots more than RS PER GAME.

My math is 100% fine. I simply said that the difference between RS efficiency and WCSF efficiency is one shot made across 6 games. It's 0.17 shot made per game, again - much lesser difference than a noise created by small sample of size.

Basically you're claiming Shaq was not much good defensively because of LA were horrible from the outside and better than average inside the paint. Does that arguement have any rationality behind of?

They weren't better than average though - they allowed more shots on identical efficiency. You don't understand that less than 0.5% is meaningless difference?

I want to extend inside 10ft defence of the teams that they faced Spurs in that Playoffs:
9th best defence(+1,3) Mavericks - 40,0 DFGA, %54,5 DFG,
1th best defence(+5,5) Nets - 36,7 DFGA, %51 DFG
. Lakers stopped half less shots than Mavs, Mavs stopped 4 less shots than Nets inside the paint, against the Spurs that Playoffs. In a basic plane, with their defensive SRS', Lakers were around the +1 defensive SRS team inside the paint against the Spurs.

So Lakers did the worst job at defending Spurs in the paint. Thanks for proving my point.

I also said ball defence which is about the opponent turnovers.

Fine, but you still miss a lot of nuances in defensive evaluation if you strictly focus on creating turnovers and defending shots.

[TokeBulls]

Pulling for Embiid for MVP but I'd rather have Shaq. I mean imagine 2003 Shaq now.

Wow JB, I remember you from wayyy back at the PSD forums. Wasn't sure if you were the same guy, but after seeing "HCA" in your profile, it must be, LOL.